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

SoftBonds -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 7:40:11 AM)

Let it be known:
That Dog, spelled backwards, is God!
Let it be known:
That Cow spelled backwards is Woc!
Let it be known:
That Pterodactyl spelled backwards is difficult to pronounce!
(complements of the Principea Discordia)



MrBukani -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 8:03:05 AM)

Wanna know where the soul begins?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTJeT2i9QU
that's where it starts, simple and easy.[:D]



SoftBonds -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 8:04:21 AM)

See, if I was gonna post a video about when the soul begins, it would be a porno...
[>:)]



farglebargle -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 8:54:06 AM)

Here's a thought. "Souls" are the by-product of brains once they pass a certain level of complexity.

Hypothesis: Newborn brains lack the required capacity, therefore abortion is without ethical issue.



MrBukani -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 9:23:29 AM)

Its the same thingy with god. You cannot prove it exists or not, until you have defined exactly what it is.
Abortion is never without ethical issue. My ex had an abortion and I still think about it often. I am not against abortion. But I did kinda had to bury the could be soul of the unborn.
Wether the critter had a soul or not. It's a memory to me and part of my soul. It's a being within me. It is also a connection between us, that can never be erased and soforth it's kinda of a being on it's own.



SoftBonds -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 9:31:00 AM)

soul = electrical energy construct created by magnetic resonance of brain's electrical fields???



farglebargle -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 10:48:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
Abortion is never without ethical issue.


As a Jew, it's not a baby until the Mother feels a heartbeat.

Until that point -- ( pay close attention ) -- THERE IS NO ETHICAL ISSUE.

Now, I just extend, for argument's sake, my PROTECTED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS to their logical conclusion, until there's a soul, there's no ethical issue, and since we can't measure 'souls' without asking 'hey, do you *have* a soul?' and getting their response, then there's a pretty convenient test.

Anyone who can suggest a better test for a soul, let's hear your ideas!



SoftBonds -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 10:56:50 AM)

Well, perhaps a person or animal has a soul if someone claims it does?
Try telling a 10 year old that her dog or cat has no soul. For that matter, try telling a 30 year old pet owner that.
If pets have souls, then this leads to one of two options:
1. pets deserve the same rights as (at least) children, or
2. the soul has no bearing on law...



MrBukani -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 11:20:27 AM)

I don't know how you define ethical. But it seems you define it as, not wrong. Isn't a decision to have a baby an ethical issue? So is deciding not to have one. When you decide to fuck you take the chance of having a child. I believe almost any action we take is a decision between good and bad. Over the millenia we invented loads of new words to describe the reality of things and to discriminate between objects.
To find out what is really true we need to go back to basics. And not let language cloud our judgement.
We need to use words in their true meaning and even in their alterior added meanings to discern reality.

Simply said, what most people believe I think, is that the soul is what encompasses our complete spiritual being.
If this is an accurate description for the soul, then we can start to analyze where the soul begins, where it ends and what it entails.



vincentML -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 12:43:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
Abortion is never without ethical issue.


As a Jew, it's not a baby until the Mother feels a heartbeat.

Until that point -- ( pay close attention ) -- THERE IS NO ETHICAL ISSUE.

Now, I just extend, for argument's sake, my PROTECTED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS to their logical conclusion, until there's a soul, there's no ethical issue, and since we can't measure 'souls' without asking 'hey, do you *have* a soul?' and getting their response, then there's a pretty convenient test.

Anyone who can suggest a better test for a soul, let's hear your ideas!



Am I reading your meaning correctly? Without a soul there are no ethics? Is an athiest then deprived of ethical treatment? Is an athiest deemed to be incapable of ethical behavior? Or does an atheist have a soul whether he wants one or not?



vincentML -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 12:53:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

I don't know how you define ethical. But it seems you define it as, not wrong. Isn't a decision to have a baby an ethical issue? So is deciding not to have one. When you decide to fuck you take the chance of having a child. I believe almost any action we take is a decision between good and bad. Over the millenia we invented loads of new words to describe the reality of things and to discriminate between objects.
To find out what is really true we need to go back to basics. And not let language cloud our judgement.
We need to use words in their true meaning and even in their alterior added meanings to discern reality.

Simply said, what most people believe I think, is that the soul is what encompasses our complete spiritual being.
If this is an accurate description for the soul, then we can start to analyze where the soul begins, where it ends and what it entails.


Firstly, Mr B, thank you for the delightful Blues Brothers in #162 [:D]

Your suggestion we go back to language basics seems problematic to me. Who is to say what is basic? Isn't language a product of community? Of social intercourse? And doesn't language change with the changing values of emerging communities over time?

Your definition of soul as our complete spiritual being confuses me. Do I not invent my psyche from my happenstance as I go through life? Do I not therefore invent my spiritual being? Or am I a product of an invariant soul?



MrBukani -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 1:46:18 PM)

Basic... there are a lot of words that resemble good and bad, like beautifull and ugly. Although they mean very different things, the difference between them is simular. Words dont really change in origin. Words are hijacked for a number of reasons good and bad. Like discrimination has become a bad word, while in origin it just means makin a difference. Or prejudice because a lot of bad things come from it. But we use prejudice also on a daily basis to protect ourselves. Like not driving to the wrong side of town at night etc.

The soul to me is like karma. It is something you build up.

I am trying to use as little words I can to avoid confusion.



GotSteel -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 2:27:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
Simply said, what most people believe I think, is that the soul is what encompasses our complete spiritual being.
If this is an accurate description for the soul, then we can start to analyze where the soul begins, where it ends and what it entails.


Spiritual is such a fuzzy word that I don't see how any description using it can be referred to as accurate.



MrBukani -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 3:18:13 PM)

spirit>mind>soul
but the 15%spirits can make ya fuzzy yea.

edit

ok simple the spirit is like your spark your character you cant change
the soul is the sum of it all.
or am I off my mind?[&:]
rite?ritual is not far of spiritual...



Kirata -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 5:01:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Your extreme reductionism is ludicrous on its face.

I'm delighted to learn that you consider reductionism to be ludicrous. Unfortunately, you don't appear to know what it means.
    Reductionism is the view that all complex phenomena can be understood and explained by breaking them down into their basic physical components and processes.
Or to put it in your own words:

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

In my materialistic metaphysics the "something extra" is imagination/creativity, wonderous to contemplate, difficult to measure, but activities of the brain, part of the sum total of brain activity we call "mind."

Now there is no doubt that such an approach has proven extremely effective in furthering our understanding of the myriad phenomena to which its application is suited. But as we see you doing here, an unavoidable consequence of Materialism's central assumption is the dogmatic application of this reductive approach to ALL complex phenomena, including even life and consciousness itself.

And therein lies the problem. I'm perfectly willing to allow that a sufficiently complex system could appear to be alive. But to attribute life to it would be to fall for the illusion. When you break it down to its basic physical components and processes, it's just a bunch of quarks and electrons and their aggregates. No part of it is alive. We are just observing the activity of a complex system, that's all.

This presents a conundrum, if we are to trust our experience of ourselves as living conscious beings. What makes us different, or aren't we? One proposed solution has been a species of dualism, but that's not the only possibility. Another is that consciousness is somehow inherent in matter, such that increasingly complex biological systems give rise to increasingly complex organizations of consciousness and experience.

Too, there may be other possible explanations. About the only thing we can say with confidence is that the dogmatic Materialistic reductionism you're promoting doesn't offer one.

K.



GotSteel -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 6:04:00 PM)

The problem with that hypothesis being that as I pointed out earlier in the thread we have documented cases of head trauma causing personality changes. We also have personality changing drugs: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depression-drugs-alter-personality





MrBukani -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 6:22:18 PM)

personality changes doesnt mean you change the spark of the character.
character spark. How we electricly spark in our completely wired skullfuck. Some connection will always be a unique print of you and your past.
Character is not the same as personality, or is it?



farglebargle -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/3/2012 7:12:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

I don't know how you define ethical. But it seems you define it as, not wrong. Isn't a decision to have a baby an ethical issue?


It's not a baby. It's a blastocyst.



vincentML -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/4/2012 8:16:57 AM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

In my materialistic metaphysics the "something extra" is imagination/creativity, wonderous to contemplate, difficult to measure, but activities of the brain, part of the sum total of brain activity we call "mind."


I don't see how that statement qualifies as reductionist. I am not saying that mind is explained by specific constituent activities such as imagination and creativity. Perhaps, that is your inferrence. But your saying it doesn't make it so.

My preferred definition of reductionism as applied to the way you use it is: the oversimplification of something complex in a bogus attempt to explain away its essential identity, which I perceive is your game. Your position is pretty much like saying a car is made of nuts, bolts, n such; since nuts, bolts, n such cannot be used for transportation a car cannot be used for transportation. Hence, my contention that your approach is absurd.

You say no part of the complex system is alive; we are just observing the activity of it, but to attribute life to it would be to fall for an illusion. Weather systems and volcanic systems are complex and very active but we do not attribute life to them, and they are not illlusions. Clearly, we can distinguish between systems that are alive and those which are not, even though both are extremely complex and extremely active.

Nor is consciousness a necessary constituent of the generally accepted definition of living things. Trees are complex systems but so far we have no evidence of their consciousness, and yet they are accepted as living. They grow, reproduce, use energy, etc. I might also mention fungi and bacteria in passing. So, much of this debate rests upon one’s definition of Life.

Your second solution to your conundrum that consciousness may be somehow inherit in matter seems to be a contradiction to your premise that all matter is dead. So, I wonder how you reconcile the proposition that dead atoms have consciousness. If they have consciousness would they not in fact be alive?







vincentML -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/4/2012 8:36:21 AM)

quote:

The soul to me is like karma. It is something you build up.


Okay . . . let me see if I can sort my own thinking here.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition the soul enters the body at some point and leaves upon death. Consequently, soul is eternal, having pre-existed the body and surviving it, and soul is of a higher order than body. Soul is pure while body is corrupt. That doesn't say much for fucking and sucking, but I digress. I take it then that since you see soul as variant you are not standing in the J-C tradition.

I have two quesitons from your construct: 1. how do we build it up? . . . 2. What happens to it when the body dies?



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875