RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins?

RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Tomalya -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/9/2012 4:00:46 PM)
As a Twin myself, I do distinctly remembering sharing certain thoughts and thought processes with my counterpart, without effort, etc, etc....As we got older we sort of trained or conditioned ourselves not to interfere with each others thoughts.....normally we were very successful except in times of stress on one of us...the other could readily detect stress in the other, and responded..........though the word "Soul" is used, I believe its the same as saying the "Mind", when talking in logical or more scientific terms..........Emotionally, usually out of fear, or in Religious term. the word "Soul" is used ........Most of us would agree, the "Mind/Soul" does and do exist......we (most of us) have one, even if we don't see it, can't touch it, smell it, taste it or hear it, with our physical bodies.....we all are definitely affected by our thoughts,dreams, etc. etc....and they can have a serious physical effect on our bodies...So we must agree they do exist...the question is what is the nature of the Mind/Soul's existence.....it doesn't seem to be atoms, energy we can detect, it has no detectable mass, But it definitely exists....again we all know it, we have one and use it everyday of our existance..........So if it is something, can it be can it be brought into existence/conception..... and if so,... can it be split at conception.........Logically and emotionally, the answer seems to be "Yes"...if the Cosmic patterns stay the same, things breakup, reform over and over again.....Dead and undead things, support living things....one thingss can produce many things....they all grow and thrive...So, though, I may have started out as" half" of a Mind/Soul, I beleive, I'm a complete Mind/Soul,,,maybe warped a little but complete....Which indicates, the Mind/Soul can either stay the same and live or actually grows and live....feeding on whatever it feeds on...LOL, L&KS "T".

vincentML -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/9/2012 4:04:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML And, no thank you (generic) no magician is needed waving his wand from the firmament. You seem willing to misrepresent and ridicule anything that transgresses upon your dogmatic materialistism. Are there no depths to which you will not sink in this "friendly exchange of ideas"? K. OMG, sorry. I didn't know you were sensitive to the theist doctrine. If you need god then by all means bring him along. You had not mentioned god earlier in our exchanges so I am surprised by your taking afront. I will take greater care not to offend. But really, K, how do you complain? Your posts have been loaded with ridicule. Pot calling the kettle, etc. . Keeping it friendly. [:)]

Kirata -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/9/2012 4:09:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML logic and reason married to empirical research and peer review are pretty hard to beat... They have produced a pretty marvelous revolution in the West these last 500 years. Unfortunately, it bears keeping in mind that this ongoing revolution has been a consequence of the fact that earlier understandings produced by the method you describe proved to be either incomplete or wrong. What makes you think that our present state of understanding deserves such faith? K.

vincentML -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/9/2012 4:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML logic and reason married to empirical research and peer review are pretty hard to beat... They have produced a pretty marvelous revolution in the West these last 500 years. Unfortunately, it bears keeping in mind that this ongoing revolution has been a consequence of the fact that earlier understandings produced by the method you describe proved to be either incomplete or wrong. What makes you think that our present state of understanding deserves such faith? K. Always open to a change in paradigm [:)]

Kirata -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/9/2012 4:18:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML OMG, sorry. I didn't know you were sensitive to the theist doctrine. I am sensitive to you trotting it out in your responses to posts that have not posited theism, thus giving the impression to anyone reading your reply that you are responding to some claim that was made. May I assume from your apology that you'll quit pulling this shit? K.

Arturas -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/9/2012 4:26:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Monozygotic (i.e. identical) twins divide after conception. Either the soul must be divisible or it does not come into existance at conception but at some later stage. Indivisible soul at conception is demonstrably not possible, unless you insist that identical twins are of the devil. Science. It works, bitches. Souls do not come into existance at conception. Imagine! A sperm and an egg have the power to create not only a fetus but an everlasting spirit. That is wrong. Additionally, souls are eternal, "everlasting" to "everlasting", eternal before and after the physical baby's birth, they predate the fetus conception. Souls also have free will and there is no "rule" on when it must enter and take possession of it's new physical body. A soul enters the new human fetus when the soul desires. Should there be two before division it is okay as two souls will get along very well before and after division. - Arturas

tweakabelle -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/9/2012 8:03:09 PM)
quote: I am not arguing your point. I did not say it was the only methodology. I am waiting to see the alternative. Seriously. I told you earlier I would do my best to remain open, and I will. Within the Western tradition, the only approaches I know that are consistent with the position I've outlined go under the general heading of 'post-modernism'. That is, a series of perspectives that take as their foundational or departure point, the impossibility of Truth, and proceed from there. This entails serious limitations to the scope of the project, recognising from the outset that certain questions will be forever unanswerable, and then trying to make sense of as much as we can of the remainder. A basic epistemology can be found in Foucault's 'The Order of Things' and a theory of subjectivity can be found in de Lueze & Guatarri 'Anti-Odeipus' and 'A Thousand Plateaus', which together constitute the foundational texts of post-modernism (or more accurately as near to a foundation text as post-modernism has, as I understand it). Outside the western tradition, there are any number of alternative approaches. I can't suggest any in particular - it's a matter of trial and error I suppose, a process further complicated by the recognition that there might not be a single answer, there could be many answers. Yoga works to some extent for me. I'm not going to attempt to try to explain how or why (partially because I have no idea myself) or even suggest that it will work for you too. Be prepared to look in odd and unexpected places I guess I'm saying .... My intuition is that if there is an answer(s) to be found, language is not the most likely place in which they will be found. So I would suggest that you address the philosophy of language fairly radically, and examine the role that language itself plays in the construction of these issues, and in the framing of responses to these questions. Just as the limits of logic and reason impose constraints on the project, so do the limits of language. I personally don't think the project is worth undertaking unless one can freely admit at the outset that; "I don't know". If there are answer(s) to be found, that seems to me to be the first step. Oh and when you do discover the answer(s), could you please let me know? [:D] Please note that these are both dense, difficult, almost impenetrable texts (but well worth the effort IMHO). Unless one is fairly familiar with the structures of post-modernist thinking, I'd really think seriously about approaching them via a reader first. I'm not joking, IIRC there is one paragraph in Foucault's book that is about 3 pages long. I felt like awarding myself a prize after I struggled through it.

vincentML -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 5:22:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML OMG, sorry. I didn't know you were sensitive to the theist doctrine. I am sensitive to you trotting it out in your responses to posts that have not posited theism, thus giving the impression to anyone reading your reply that you are responding to some claim that was made. May I assume from your apology that you'll quit pulling this shit? K. Let's review: At #234, p 12 you said "My position is that your explanation proposes magic, and that there has to be a different one." I replied later in #236 "And, no thank you (generic) no magician is needed waving his wand from the firmament." To which you had a hissy fit in #239 "You seem willing to misrepresent and ridicule anything that transgresses upon your dogmatic materialistism. Are there no depths to which you will not sink in this "friendly exchange of ideas"?" Three things in my response to your taking offense: 1. I very specifically labeled the "you" I was addressing with "generic" in parantheses. I was not addressing Kirata. Your taking offense is mistaken. 2. This entire thread from the OP on begs the examination of theism. Again your taking offense is mistaken. 3. My position is the atheist position. I expressed it in like terms. You said I was positing "magic" and I said no "magician" was needed. So where is the fucking beef? Are you telling me I am not allowed to state my atheistic position or that I am permitted to state it only in terms suitable to you? Have you become the Grand Censor? By what right in the TOS? One becomes a censor of others' positions when he realizes his position is indefensible. One take umbrage and personal affront as a screen to hide his position is baseless. I do not need nor desire an apology, thank you. I do not take shit on these Boards personally. There is nothing you can say about my position that will give me offense. It is not so important to my life. I do request that you put away your Censor skull cap, however. Always fun exchanging points of view in a friendly manner. [:D]

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 6:19:51 AM)
Fast reply I want to remind everyone to think before they click on the "OK" button at the bottom of your text response. VideoAdminGamma

Kirata -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 12:27:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I personally don't think the project is worth undertaking unless one can freely admit at the outset that; "I don't know". Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? ~Rig Veda, Book 10, Hymn CXXIX K.

GotSteel -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 12:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Your claim manages to achieve being both correct and irrelevant. The something extra in music is not contained in the production technology - which is why some violins are fiddles and others are Stradivarius. Nor in the reproduction technology, which is why live music cannot be perfectly reproduced by any technology. Nor in the player, which is why some people can bash out a tune on a piano and others are Barenboims or Chopins. Or in the listener, which is why some people can be moved to rapture by a given piece of music and others totally unmoved. The something extra in music is in the totality of a given human's experience of the production of a given piece of music. The kind of two dimensional reductive thinking in your claim is exactly what I am opposing here - it could be terminally inadequate in considering matters such as those being currently discussed. Humans and the human experience are not reducible to a set of technical specifications. I think you're missing the point of my claim, clearly there's a difference between a human playing a violin and a computer playing an mp3. What I'm talking about is that if you were to try and figure out exactly how a computer plays a mp3 your intuition would come up with bad ideas on the subject.

Kirata -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 12:53:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel clearly there's a difference between a human playing a violin and a computer playing an mp3. What I'm talking about is that if you were to try and figure out exactly how a computer plays a mp3 your intuition would come up with bad ideas on the subject. If you accept that there is a fundamental difference between a human being and an inanimate system, then that works both ways. Trying to understand the human being on the basis of how inanimate systems work would also lead to some very bad ideas on the subject. K.

gigglecream -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 12:56:14 PM)
it's a dumb waste of time to try to argue rationally with people who believe invisible monsters in the sky control their lives. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Monozygotic (i.e. identical) twins divide after conception. Either the soul must be divisible or it does not come into existance at conception but at some later stage. Indivisible soul at conception is demonstrably not possible, unless you insist that identical twins are of the devil. Science. It works, bitches.

tweakabelle -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 3:37:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Your claim manages to achieve being both correct and irrelevant. The something extra in music is not contained in the production technology - which is why some violins are fiddles and others are Stradivarius. Nor in the reproduction technology, which is why live music cannot be perfectly reproduced by any technology. Nor in the player, which is why some people can bash out a tune on a piano and others are Barenboims or Chopins. Or in the listener, which is why some people can be moved to rapture by a given piece of music and others totally unmoved. The something extra in music is in the totality of a given human's experience of the production of a given piece of music. The kind of two dimensional reductive thinking in your claim is exactly what I am opposing here - it could be terminally inadequate in considering matters such as those being currently discussed. Humans and the human experience are not reducible to a set of technical specifications. I think you're missing the point of my claim, clearly there's a difference between a human playing a violin and a computer playing an mp3. What I'm talking about is that if you were to try and figure out exactly how a computer plays a mp3 your intuition would come up with bad ideas on the subject. Imagination is more important than knowledge... Albert Einstein

Kirata -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 4:39:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Imagination is more important than knowledge... Albert Einstein On knowledge and the need for certainty: Arousal of such a need (e.g. by uncertainty evoking events) is shown to induce a state of close mindedness in which individuals are (1) less able to empathize with others, (2) intolerant of diversity, (3) centered on their in-group, and (4) hostile to out-groups. Thus, a psychological, individual-level, mechanism of knowledge formation is shown to be relevant to major societal phenomena, and to play a potentially significant role in the shaping of politics and history in the world at large. Reference: Kruglanski, Arie W., Symposium on Extremism and the Psychology of Uncertainty K.

GotSteel -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 7:43:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Albert Einstein I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. That we aren't confined to analytical thinking is an incredible attribute unfortunately a predilection for magical thinking comes along with it.

tweakabelle -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 7:58:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Imagination is more important than knowledge... Albert Einstein On knowledge and the need for certainty: Arousal of such a need (e.g. by uncertainty evoking events) is shown to induce a state of close mindedness in which individuals are (1) less able to empathize with others, (2) intolerant of diversity, (3) centered on their in-group, and (4) hostile to out-groups. Thus, a psychological, individual-level, mechanism of knowledge formation is shown to be relevant to major societal phenomena, and to play a potentially significant role in the shaping of politics and history in the world at large. Reference: Kruglanski, Arie W., Symposium on Extremism and the Psychology of Uncertainty K. There is another aspect to knowledge and the needs and consequences of 'certainty' that is worthy of mention here. Knowledge is power, the two are more or less interchangeable in my scheme of thinking. The power to 'tame' uncertainty, the knowledge of how to manufacture 'certainty' carries will it enormous political prestige and power. Who is going to oppose something that is held to be 'true and certain'? Traditionally the power held by priestly castes derived from their claims to be able to interpret the world around them, to impose an order on the potential chaos of human existence. In today's world, that power has largely shifted from the priestly class to the scientific community. Science is the area we turn to when we need to establish the 'truth of the matter'. We tend to overlook, and scientists rarely remind us, that this particular area is an area that could well lie beyond the limits of proper (rigourous) scientific investigation. To me, this is another reason to be cautious about those who invoke the mantle of science to justify their claims in this area, or to insist that the scientific method is the only method to investigate or determine this issue.

tweakabelle -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 8:15:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Albert Einstein I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. is one That we aren't confined to analytical thinking is an incredible attribute unfortunately a predilection for magical thinking comes along with it. I agree with your claim above. It does seem to me to fall just the tiniest step short of actually asserting (alongside Einstein) that magical thinking is integral to scientific thinking. A nano-step short. There are many epistemologists and philosophers of science/knowledge who would make this (broader) assertion openly. Feyerabend (see quote below) is one notable contemporary philosopher who belongs to this school of thought.* So the broader claim actually has a lot more substance to it than might initially seem the case. * For Feyerabend's position in full see 'Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge' (1975)

PeonForHer -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 8:20:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Imagination is more important than knowledge... Albert Einstein “The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking…the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.” Albert Einstein Scientists, back in the day, didn't think it was part of their job to soil their hands with such matters as ethics, much less anything 'spiritual' (whatever that was). So far as I've seen, they still don't, much. On the other hand, those whose job it is to work out what spirit and ethics are don't usually like to mess up their lives with scientific stuff, either. Personally, I'm happiest if the two sides carry on kicking the crap out of each other. I think the rest of us tend to stay safest, that way.

Kirata -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/10/2012 10:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Traditionally the power held by priestly castes derived from their claims to be able to interpret the world around them, to impose an order on the potential chaos of human existence. In today's world, that power has largely shifted from the priestly class to the scientific community. Science is the area we turn to when we need to establish the 'truth of the matter'. We tend to overlook, and scientists rarely remind us, that this particular area is an area that could well lie beyond the limits of proper (rigourous) scientific investigation. It's actually worse than that, because the effects of this pernicious influence transcend the power dynamic. The people of medieval europe interpreted their reality in terms of the picture they had been given of it. The picture became real for them. And people today enjoy the same unfortunate result, namely, their contact with reality is rendered dysfunctional. Back in 1942, I think it was, a study was done in which two groups were recruited for an ESP experiment. One group was composed of hard skeptics, who disbelieved in such nonsense and were happy to participate in proving it was all "woo." The other group consisted of believers, who were happy to participate in the hope of bringing credence to their belief. I leave you to guess the results. K.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875