Israel’s Nuclear Advisory Panel Endorses Iran Deal

[tarheelbybirth]

The mind, body and soul make up the 3-part existence for all of us in the discussion here. The soul is eternal. The mind and body are not. So, does the soul think and remember? Sure.

I'm sorry that you need this to be explained or written-out like an algebra lesson. Or, that you need some source that you've already granted trust to authorize it. You don't trust me anyway, so, why would you even waste your time trying to get answers from me?

Why would you GIVE answers if it's everyone's individual journey? Your concept of a soul is completely yours and bears no relationship with my beliefs or anyone else's. Yet here you are talking like you KNOW that answer for everyone - your concept is correct. That's awfully arrogant of you...not that that's a new characteristic.

Let's see your little meme of a response.

 

[strummingram]

Why would you GIVE answers if it's everyone's individual journey? Your concept of a soul is completely yours and bears no relationship with my beliefs or anyone else's. Yet here you are talking like you KNOW that answer for everyone - your concept is correct. That's awfully arrogant of you...not that that's a new characteristic.

Let's see your little meme of a response.

Arrogance is not something I'm beyond exhibiting or displaying. Guilty as charged. I am absolutely prone to it. The difference between you and I is, I admit to it. I'm not superior. I don't claim or pretend to be. I'm no better or worse than anyone else. The word arrogance isn't a display of arrogance, however.

If I came off as though I know for everyone, as you claim, then I was wrong and certainly didn't mean to. I did try to suggest to WWJD that if he wanted to know what the soul was/is, then he should not ask me, but ask his own soul. I hope that helps to reduce the crime I committed in your eyes.

See, no meme!

 

[strummingram]

I feel like I'm attending one of those seances where skeptics are ordered to leave the room because their vibrations will frighten off the spirits.

And that's about as much belief as this poorly-supported notion of an immortal soul deserves. It's all slippery claims and no proof.

A seeing person could do a better job of describing and demonstrating vision than believers can so describing and demonstrating the existence of a soul. A failing compounded when you won't even try.

Or, you can continue to insist there isn't one.

Your choice.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Arrogance is not something I'm beyond exhibiting or displaying. Guilty as charged. I am absolutely prone to it. The difference between you and I is, I admit to it. I'm not superior. I don't claim or pretend to be. I'm no better or worse than anyone else. The word arrogance isn't a display of arrogance, however.

LOL Roll one, smoke one, eat one.

 

[naturalmwa]

If you really, REALLY, want to know... don't ask me. Don't ask anyone else. Ask your own soul. I mean that, literally. You will get an answer.

What a weak reply. So you really believe we have this thing you can't describe that has no knowable charictoristics that lives forever? When you asked your soul, what did it say? Is it a separate being? Are you possessed? Maybe it's a thetan.

 

[naturalmwa]

The mind, body and soul make up the 3-part existence for all of us in the discussion here. The soul is eternal. The mind and body are not. So, does the soul think and remember? Sure.

I'm sorry that you need this to be explained or written-out like an algebra lesson. Or, that you need some source that you've already granted trust to authorize it. You don't trust me anyway, so, why would you even waste your time trying to get answers from me?

To understand your ideas of course. You fascinate me.

 

[strummingram]

What a weak reply.

Sorry. You can stop asking me if you don't like my answers. You could spend more time asking your soul.

But, I will say that if a person embarks upon this with skepticism and a general motivation to "prove it wrong" then you're not going to gain anything but more skepticism. That's perfectly fine, but if other people have embarked on it with the open mind to want to understand and know it, then why is it necessary to claim they're wrong?

I can't show you my memory of riding the log flume at Busch Gardens in 4th grade, but it's there.

ETA: Yes, I do believe the Soul has very knowable characteristics. You actually are in touch with your soul 24/7. Call it your instinct, your intuition, your gut feeling, your inner monologue, whatever. I believe that is the eternal soul. I don't believe that is just the "mind" operating on biological functionality. But, if you want to believe it is, or if that makes more sense to you... that's fine.

 

[The Tradition]

Isn't it amazing how a thread about the Iran Nuke Deal turns into THIS?

 

[strummingram]

Going back to the earlier notion that because Adolf Hitler misunderstood, or misused the idea of soul, religion, genetics, tribalism, etc. and used it all to support his determination to implement the extermination of all people who are "Jewish", is proof that knowing one's soul is dangerous to humanity... that's absurd to me. Knowledge of and recognition of my soul does the exact opposite. I have a hard time stepping on a bug now! I've not been attacked by another human, or animal, yet... so, I'll deal with that when, and if, it occurs.

 

[strummingram]

Isn't it amazing how a thread about the Iran Nuke Deal turns into THIS?

That's my favorite part of these threads... hands down.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Or, you can continue to insist there isn't one.

Your choice.

It's in the category with round squares and turtles all the way down until someone can say anything more sensible about it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Sorry. You can stop asking me if you don't like my answers. You could spend more time asking your soul.

But, I will say that if a person embarks upon this with skepticism and a general motivation to "prove it wrong" then you're not going to gain anything but more skepticism. That's perfectly fine, but if other people have embarked on it with the open mind to want to understand and know it, then why is it necessary to claim they're wrong?

I can't show you my memory of riding the log flume at Busch Gardens in 4th grade, but it's there.

ETA: Yes, I do believe the Soul has very knowable characteristics. You actually are in touch with your soul 24/7. Call it your instinct, your intuition, your gut feeling, your inner monologue, whatever. I believe that is the eternal soul. I don't believe that is just the "mind" operating on biological functionality. But, if you want to believe it is, or if that makes more sense to you... that's fine.

I ask these questions for I variety of reasons that boil down to it interests me. You talk about it so i assume it does you too. Why else are we even here?

I find it odd that attitude should play a role in the realness of anything. A real thing should be evident no matter my mindset.

You can show me a memory. It's coded electrochemicaly in the brain. You could even cut it out and transfer the memory to me. Every function you attribute to a soul is also a function of the gray matter in your head. We know this because people who suffer brain damage lose the abilities you attribute to an immortal soul.

 

[naturalmwa]

Going back to the earlier notion that because Adolf Hitler misunderstood, or misused the idea of soul, religion, genetics, tribalism, etc. and used it all to support his determination to implement the extermination of all people who are "Jewish", is proof that knowing one's soul is dangerous to humanity... that's absurd to me. Knowledge of and recognition of my soul does the exact opposite. I have a hard time stepping on a bug now! I've not been attacked by another human, or animal, yet... so, I'll deal with that when, and if, it occurs.

There is no such thing as knowledge of the soul. It's all belief that can't be tested. And that belief that there is something after death cheapens this real life. It's a get out of jail free card. An eternal 2nd chance.

 

[strummingram]

There is no such thing as knowledge of the soul. It's all belief that can't be tested. And that belief that there is something after death cheapens this real life. It's a get out of jail free card. An eternal 2nd chance.

It doesn't do that for me. But, you can keep assuming.

 

[strummingram]

You can show me a memory. It's coded electrochemicaly in the brain. You could even cut it out and transfer the memory to me.

Really?

 

[naturalmwa]

Really?

Yep. Science is pretty cool. wgen we get to the stage where we can download your brain to a computer, do you think we will download the soul?

 

[strummingram]

Yep. Science is pretty cool. wgen we get to the stage where we can download your brain to a computer, do you think we will download the soul?

I do... you don't.

ETA:

I can only find where they THINK they will be able to do what you propose.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Or, you can continue to insist there isn't one.

Your choice.

Isn't one WHAT? That's the problem.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Yep. Science is pretty cool. wgen we get to the stage where we can download your brain to a computer, do you think we will download the soul?

I do... you don't.

If we had a Beam Me Up, Scotty device would the soul also be beamed up?

If not, what is the "thing" that gets reconstructed at the other end? And where does the soul go?

If so, what is it and how does it get there?

Note that you could ask the same question about mind and the answer gets pretty interesting. If mind is merely an epiphenomenon of neural activity and you accurately reconstruct the functioning neural network of a person, you would expect to see the same mental activity or mind. BUT, and here's the tricky part, if you were the one being reconstructed, would you be there? Or would you be dead, while the thing that's there is merely a copy who thinks he is you?

Now if you were arguing that last point and saying that the "youness" of the original is missing from the copy (which has its own youness), and you were calling the original youness the "soul" you might get me and natural on board. BUT, that youness is not immortal, and does not exist independently of the body/mind.

 

[naturalmwa]

If we had a Beam Me Up, Scotty device would the soul also be beamed up?

If not, what is the "thing" that gets reconstructed at the other end? And where does the soul go?

If so, what is it and how does it get there?

Note that you could ask the same question about mind and the answer gets pretty interesting. If mind is merely an epiphenomenon of neural activity and you accurately reconstruct the functioning neural network of a person, you would expect to see the same mental activity or mind. BUT, and here's the tricky part, if you were the one being reconstructed, would you be there? Or would you be dead, while the thing that's there is merely a copy who thinks he is you?

Now if you were arguing that last point and saying that the "youness" of the original is missing from the copy (which has its own youness), and you were calling the original youness the "soul" you might get me and natural on board. BUT, that youness is not immortal, and does not exist independently of the body/mind.

I saw an episode of some sci fi show many years ago that posited at some point in the future we developed a transporter like device. This device worked differently then the Star Trek. It would scan a body and transmit that body scan to the location where some sort of 3D like body printer would reconstruct the person. The original person at the original location was then killed to "balance the equation".

 

[strummingram]

If we had a Beam Me Up, Scotty device would the soul also be beamed up?

If not, what is the "thing" that gets reconstructed at the other end? And where does the soul go?

If so, what is it and how does it get there?

Note that you could ask the same question about mind and the answer gets pretty interesting. If mind is merely an epiphenomenon of neural activity and you accurately reconstruct the functioning neural network of a person, you would expect to see the same mental activity or mind. BUT, and here's the tricky part, if you were the one being reconstructed, would you be there? Or would you be dead, while the thing that's there is merely a copy who thinks he is you?

Now if you were arguing that last point and saying that the "youness" of the original is missing from the copy (which has its own youness), and you were calling the original youness the "soul" you might get me and natural on board. BUT, that youness is not immortal, and does not exist independently of the body/mind.

I'm not here to get you, or natural, or anyone else, "on board." I don't even want you to take my word, or my understanding, or explanation for it. That isn't how you come to realize it anyway.

You're already on-board, believe it or not. You just haven't realized it yet. You will. We all will, and we all do. You can't avoid the realization. You're guaranteed to make it. It's win-win-win.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm not here to get you, or natural, or anyone else, "on board." I don't even want you to take my word, or my understanding, or explanation for it. That isn't how you come to realize it anyway.

You're already on-board, believe it or not. You just haven't realized it yet. You will. We all will, and we all do. You can't avoid the realization. You're guaranteed to make it.

How would you know? You can't even define the "it".

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I saw an episode of some sci fi show many years ago that posited at some point in the future we developed a transporter like device. This device worked differently then the Star Trek. It would scan a body and transmit that body scan to the location where some sort of 3D like body printer would reconstruct the person. The original person at the original location was then killed to "balance the equation".

That's how I always picture the ST version working. More or less. Except that they "disassemble and quantify" the original first and transmit the data. Which is why a transporter glitch at the other end can end up with a person being lost, or trapped in cyberspace, or even duplicated.

Which raises yet another interesting question. Suppose you are beamed to a different location and because of some glitch you are recreated twice.

Each person will insist (and completely believe) he is you. If there is such a thing as a soul, would both of you share the same soul? When each of "you" has different experiences and becomes a different "you" would the soul divide? Still be shared? Would one of you lose his soul? Would a new one be created somehow?

In a somewhat less sci-fi sense, how about clones. Would clones have their own soul, share a soul, or have no soul?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm not here to get you, or natural, or anyone else, "on board." I don't even want you to take my word, or my understanding, or explanation for it. That isn't how you come to realize it anyway.

You're already on-board, believe it or not. You just haven't realized it yet. You will. We all will, and we all do. You can't avoid the realization. You're guaranteed to make it. It's win-win-win.

So . . . not even going to try to have some fun with the questions?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

BTW, I've always wondered if some part of the general religious objection to cloning isn't because it would raise - and might even answer - some questions about the soul. If cloned humans are clearly different and no tech reason for that can be found, that would certainly be an argument in favor of those who think that clones wouldn't have a soul - and that what's different is that the soul is missing. OTOH, if clones are perfectly normal, would that convince believers that they, too, have souls - or would clones be considered evil or vehicles for demons to enter the world.

I'm frankly surprised that we haven't had any good movies or TV that deal with this directly. Some have brushed against it with interesting results, but I can't think of any devoted to it.

 

[naturalmwa]

That's how I always picture the ST version working. More or less. Except that they "disassemble and quantify" the original first and transmit the data. Which is why a transporter glitch at the other end can end up with a person being lost, or trapped in cyberspace, or even duplicated.

Which raises yet another interesting question. Suppose you are beamed to a different location and because of some glitch you are recreated twice.

Each person will insist (and completely believe) he is you. If there is such a thing as a soul, would both of you share the same soul? When each of "you" has different experiences and becomes a different "you" would the soul divide? Still be shared? Would one of you lose his soul? Would a new one be created somehow?

In a somewhat less sci-fi sense, how about clones. Would clones have their own soul, share a soul, or have no soul?

Lets get nerdy. My understanding of the Trek transporter was that it disassembled your body and beamed that specific material to the new location where it reassembled. So the stuff that makes up you would be the same molecules at the end.

But there were episodes where a pattern was retained in the teleporter buffers. SOmetimes they used this loophole to great effect to get out of jams. The problem I always had is why didn't they use it a lot more to get out of more? Fore example, they could always teleport onto the Borg cubes with ease. The Borg would even leave them alone. So why not transport a bunch of insulation foam onto the ship and just fill every crevice with the stuff and leave the borg trapped in their ships unable to do anything? Or hide in the transporter buffer when their ship gets invaded?

One thing is fore sure, religion will have a lot to say about research into that technology, just like it does with genetics now.

 

[naturalmwa]

So . . . not even going to try to have some fun with the questions?

He's not here for fun.

 

[strummingram]

So . . . not even going to try to have some fun with the questions?

I've already tried. I have to conserve energy.

 

[naturalmwa]

BTW, I've always wondered if some part of the general religious objection to cloning isn't because it would raise - and might even answer - some questions about the soul. If cloned humans are clearly different and no tech reason for that can be found, that would certainly be an argument in favor of those who think that clones wouldn't have a soul - and that what's different is that the soul is missing. OTOH, if clones are perfectly normal, would that convince believers that they, too, have souls - or would clones be considered evil or vehicles for demons to enter the world.

I'm frankly surprised that we haven't had any good movies or TV that deal with this directly. Some have brushed against it with interesting results, but I can't think of any devoted to it.

There was a recent take on the Frankenstein myth that was sort of about this. I, Frankenstein. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1418377/ The devil-like bad guy was trying to make an army of reanimated soulless corpses for the souls of his demon warriors to inhabit. Frankenstein was of course the original soulless corpse and fights the demons to remain unique and in the plot may discover he has a soul of his own.