addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Plato's Cave - The Orlando Philosophy Meetup Group Message Board › Is it possible for the conscience to transcend its accepted bounds?

Is it possible for the conscience to transcend its accepted bounds?

A former member
Post #: 222
Three pieces of information have been dominating my thoughts this morning. These are:

TITLE EDITED: 11 November 2014 (originally entitled 'Souls Transcend')
A former member
Post #: 224
Ben Forbes G.
Kissimmee, FL
Post #: 216
How does any of this suggest "souls" as at all likely?

If you haven't already, I suggest you check out the following blog post: WHY I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE SOUL


In particular:

"When you look at the history of the world, you see thousands -- tens of thousands, arguably hundreds of thousands or more -- of phenomena for which a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one. Why the sun rises and sets; what thunder and lightning are; how and why illness happens and spreads; why people look like their parents; how people got to be here in the first place… all these things, and thousands more, were once explained by gods or spirits or mystical energies. And now all of them have natural, physical explanations.

Natural explanations, I should point out, with mountains of solid, carefully collected, replicable evidence to support them.

Now, how many times in the history of the world has a natural explanation of a phenomenon been supplanted by a supernatural one?

As far as I am aware, exactly zero."

In fact, I challenge you to show me even one instance of supernatural trumping natural backed up by replicable evidence: carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence; internally consistent evidence; and large amounts of it, from many different sources.

Good luck with that... and stop trying to find "gods" or "souls" in the ever shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the universe that currently constitute mysteries (hint: the "supernatural" isn't there because it almost certainly doesn't exist, and eventually most of those gaps will probably be closed and those phenomena more accurately understood by NATURAL explanations). I wonder, where will your god or souls dwell then?
amanda m.
user 10486702
Orlando, FL
Post #: 23
You know it when someone doesn't have it. Linguistics reigns as usual here. If one is speaking about day to day identity then we are so much more than atoms and molecules. We have an insides. Now as for that then existing in the Christian sense that is probably what you are talking about.

Cults like Scientology depersonalize to the point that a human being has precious little "soul." So this is creepy without any theologians postulating what normal people can transcend according to doctrine. I have met someone who was almost as damaged by intense right wing fundamentalism.

Is it that there is a control that doesn't care of the fallout of depersonalization or is the subjugation of personality the point? Are they selling that you will have a soul forever at the price of destroying what you got in this life?
A former member
Post #: 231
    @Greta: Miracles are not a matter of phenomenon but of perception.

    @Amanda: Some will claim that you can have it all; this only emphasizes the importance of distinguishing false from true.

Ben Forbes G.
Kissimmee, FL
Post #: 220
That is epistemologically unacceptable to me Rami, though it seems you are content merely to see what you WANT to believe (OMNE IGNOTUM PRO MAGNIFICO), regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the case of miraculous religious claims throughout history, which have all been thoroughly debunked (to the extent that they are not completely unfalsifiable or otherwise inaccessible and pointless to consider). Moreover, most miraculous claims are, by definition, truth claims about events or phenomena in the observable physical universe, about which there is a FACT of the matter regardless of subjective perception, and they should be subject to reasonable and rigorous standards of evidence like any other such truth claims...

"Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
~Carl Sagan

I am curious Rami which miracles you believe in and WHY (i.e. based on what "evidence" -- or is your belief based on blind faith)? Moreover, if you accept testimony from ignorant Bronze and Iron Age peoples as "evidence" -- then what makes the miracles attributed to the legendary Jesus (for example) any better than those attributed to Muhammad (via Allah), Laozi, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), or Śri Sathya Sai Baba? The sharply incompatible and contradictory doctrines and dogmas these spiritual leaders have purportedly preached could not possibly all be true -- or, if by some bizarre twist of metaphysics they were all "true" in some absurd sense, then "God" must be a wicked trickster unworthy of worship... So please tell me why one should believe ANY of these conflicting / competing claims over any of the others?

See also the following:

The Cosmic Shell Game: The argument from religious confusion
One More Burning Bush: The argument from divine hiddenness

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

From David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A. Selby Bigge, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), pp. 114-16.

As to the multifarious fallacious dualistic doctrines believing in a transcendent or immaterial soul that are ascribed to (in some form or another) by almost all world religions, the following link is a pretty thorough demolition of these sorts of erroneous ontological philosophies, which includes thorough proof that we are merely soulless biomachines, for which our all too mortal death shall be a final end, barring perhaps some true "miracle" of technology that might someday secure our immortality:

A Ghost in the Machine?

Concurrently, the following is a nice summary of a healthy and atheistic attitude toward death:

Stardust: An atheist's view of death
A former member
Post #: 260
And here is the time traveler's response.
A former member
Post #: 261
user 11174629
Casselberry, FL
Post #: 103

Are our minds existing in both 3.1 [vector.time] space, as Alan puts it, and as a neutrino copy capable of leaving the body?
'The mind' is a way of describing the brain and its transformation from one state to the next. Mind/brain states exist in ordinary 3D space inside your skull. Statespace semantics (eg, activation vectors, phase space, partitions, etc) is a semantics used to fix mental states to brain states. All these are are configurations of neurons, their activation level, and the matrix of synaptic connections between them. There aren't 'mind particles' capable of being entangled. Nor are salient events happening at the tiny scale of neutrinos.
Everything else here is a non sequitor.
A former member
Post #: 264
Thank you Chris. I suppose what I mean by neutrinos is not really neutrinos at all, for I am no particle physicist. And perhaps what were detected as neutrinos arriving 60ns early, are not in exact fact neutrinos as neutrinos are known. Despite all human advancement there is still a lot of mystery left out there in the physical world. So what is it that I am trying to get at and why might I feel it important?

My intention was to better understand how it would be that instantaneous communication might occur. Then my ideal mind must of dreamed, "well if information could be transmitted without the limits of c then why not ourselves?
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy