Materialist Manifesto. It is a fact that there is no soul.

[Mastardo]

Your thoughts/feelings feel a certain way in so much as they affect your judgments of them. Your judgments become your beliefs/perceptions that you thought/felt said thoughts/feelings. These beliefs/perceptions affect your other thoughts/feelings (and any related beliefs/perceptions), as well as your behaviors and speech. In general, beliefs/perceptions that you exist independently of your brain demonstrate very little, excepting the fact that you hold said beliefs/perceptions and had thoughts/feelings leading to said beliefs/perceptions.

Neurological research has continuously found physical explanations for psychological phenomena. Thoughts/feelings and beliefs/perceptions, according to computational theory, could be implemented by a silicon robot as well as a biological human. These robots would seem to have thoughts/feelings in the same way that other humans seem to have them.

There would be reasons to suppose that these robots do not feel and only seem to feel, but these reasons would only be ‘correct’ in quite subjective and/or illusive realms: an individual’s beliefs/perceptions, a mythological faith, a piece of propaganda, and other realms with assumptions about the mind. In these realms, mystical explanations of the mind are indeed often ‘correct’ while material explanations are 'incorrect'.

The 'self' is very useful folk concept dependent on the physical world that may or may not be correct or consistent. So are many other ideas in religion and morality.

Knowledge is by default a non-absolute folk concept with the following general properties. When an explanation can be shown to be non-causative due to a more demonstrable and correct explanation, the original explanation is generally deemed incorrect. Science has become a more correct explanation of the existence of the 'self' and of the universe itself, than the idea of a soul and a god. The concept of a soul and a god are both incorrect, unless we include faith and assumption in our concept of knowledge.

It is popular to claim that science is flawed, and that this purported fact means that there is a god ("intelligent designer") and there is a soul. This is just anthropic bias. Even if our scientific models of physics and evolution are quite flawed (they are not), we are still left with the problem of our existence and with no reason to suppose that there is a soul and that there is a god without assumption.

There is no god, there is no soul. Get over it bitches.

 

[CFZB]

Well There Goes The Rest Of My Week!

Great!

 

[WODIN]

Mastardo ,

You made an excellent argument for debate but kill it by demeaning your potential opponents. I doubt if anyone but you cares what you think and if you want to sell your points you have to do so with a bit of skill and not rancor. Unless you just want to be a shit throwing monkey then by all means. Ready-aim-fire.

 

[Mastardo]

Mastardo ,

You made an excellent argument for debate but kill by demeaning your potential opponents. So I doubt if anyone but you cares what you think and if you want to sell your points you have to do so with a bit of skill and not rancor. Unless you just want to be a shit throwing monkey then by all means. Ready-aim-fire.

I figured that if I didn't throw at least a small turd or two no one would throw anything back.

 

[jerseyart]

LOL @ the never ending cycle.

Each generation some high school kid figures he has not only solved every major question of human existence, but invented sex, love, and cool.


Good luck making it through the remainder of puberty Mastardo

 

[Mastardo]

LOL @ the never ending cycle.

Each generation some high school kid figures he has not only solved every major question of human existence, but invented sex, love, and cool.


Good luck making it through the remainder of puberty Mastardo

I'm not disappointed - I would have thought you would respond in such a way.

Catholic "explanations" is what you might have otherwise provided if you ego was stroked enough.

What my post represents is the synthesis of quite a lot of recent developments in western philosophy, engineering (I have done research in statistical AI) and science (but not religious canon). I am qualified to speak of these subjects.

 

[jerseyart]

I'm not disappointed - I would have thought you would respond in such a way.

Catholic "explanations" is what you might have otherwise provided if you ego was stroked enough.

What my post represents is the synthesis of quite a lot of recent developments in western philosophy, engineering (I have done research in statistical AI) and science (but not religious canon). I am qualified to speak of these subjects.

Blah blah blah

I researched girls in college. I am qualified to speak on that subject.

Seperately you attempt to build a case by proposing a mutual exclusivity which does not exist. If it eases your insecurity to imagine some point scored againt "religious ignorance" then go for it kid. Afterwards try to get laid, cause the kids I knew like you in college never did, which is why they were so miserable.

Other than that what is there to discuss. Did you really imagine the notion of chemical reactions in the human body would negate thousands of years of theological and philosophical debate, mst all of which was undertaken by men far more clever than you? You dont even know enough to comprehend how your copied and pasted supposotion is essentially irrelevant to the discussion.

But no worries, because next week you will read a different article from a different author and you will be back arguing an entirely different perspective with the same degree of certainty.

 

[*MissFit*]

I have a soul. It's deep..

 

[CFZB]

I have a soul. It's deep..

Ok now Im Turned On.

shit.

 

[Mastardo]

Blah blah blah

I researched girls in college. I am qualified to speak on that subject.

Seperately you attempt to build a case by proposing a mutual exclusivity which does not exist. If it eases your insecurity to imagine some point scored againt "religious ignorance" then go for it kid. Afterwards try to get laid, cause the kids I knew like you in college never did, which is why they were so miserable.

Other than that what is there to discuss. Did you really imagine the notion of chemical reactions in the human body would negate thousands of years of theological and philosophical debate, mst all of which was undertaken by men far more clever than you? You dont even know enough to comprehend how your copied and pasted supposotion is essentially irrelevant to the discussion.

But no worries, because next week you will read a different article from a different author and you will be back arguing an entirely different perspective with the same degree of certainty.

I have read quite a few authors regarding the mind-body problem. Probably half of the philosphers that ever existed are still at work. Are the current philosophers in general less clever than those of the past?

I never claimed that physical science negated "thousands of years of theological and philosophical debate". Current day philosophy based on current day scientific knowledge corrects and builds from the past. That is what I am presenting, in an admittedly obnoxious way.

You assumed my position was similar to an adolescent who, upon picking up a copy of Atlas Shrugged, proceeded to make assertion after assertion. Perhaps my approach was a bit off, but I figured it would at least get a conversation going.

I have read and continue to read books and research papers on philosophy, AI, science, and I continue to do so. I'm sure my ideas will change in the future, but not quickly as you so arrogantly asserted. This is true because what I have presented represents the current concensus of a great deal of people in the fields I have mentioned. I didn't just pull this stuff out of my ass.

I don't even know what you mean by "mutual exclusivity". Could you explain?