FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly
the soul
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Atheism, Agnosticism, Spiritualism and Faithheadism
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:29 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Tvebak wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Mutley wrote:
The weirdest part about humans is that they can ask the question "why" as it pertains to cause or reason or purpose of something happening. This is the one clear separation between us and animals, as far as we know. It's not a matter of us being able to do it better as is the case with other intelligent things we do. It's a matter of animals not even beijng able to do it at all. Another bizarre element of humans is that they can judge themselves and observe themselves as if it were somebody else. Again, animals simply can't do this at all, as far as we can tell. So who is this observer/judge?


Hi Mutley

Well actually, in my opinon, it's a matter of us being able to do it "better" or as I would say it differently.


I don't even see where animals can do it differently. I see that animals can have emotions,  make decisions.... but they just don't do it in as complex a fashion as we do it. However, I don't see ANY ability for an animal to judge itself or observe it's actions as though it was observing someone else.


Well it's like other animals have some abillities we don't have aswell, as I said last. Some hear better, some see better and by that using some part of the brain in another complex way as we use our brain in that field. Just like that we use our brain in a more complex way at this specific field.


But we do hear and smell, they just do it better. But animals don't judge themselves nor observe themselves at all. It';s not like we do it better, they don't judge at all. This appears to be a uniquely human thing. I'll repeat. Not something that humans do better than animals, and vice versa that animals do certain things better than humans, this is something that animals don't do at all. They don't do it worse than us, they don't do it at all. This is the distinction that I have thus far been unsuccesslful in explaining. We hear things and animals hear things, but animals might have a better range of hearing, but we do at least hear. But animals don't practice self observation and judgement at all. They don't do it worse than us, they don't do it at all.

Tvebak wrote:

Quote:
Tvebak wrote:

Cause what is exactly better?


It's not a matter of us doing it better because animals don't seem to do it at all.


I don't agree. I think it's a matter of degree.


To what degree do animals observe themselves and judge themselves?

Tvebak wrote:

Quote:
Tvebak wrote:

You have other animals working out systems of using tools to get food or to make something. This is a process of learning why with a cause/reason/purpose etc.


I thought that I clearly said "why" as it pertains to "purpose", not how it pertains to figuring out a cause for something.


Alright and this is in the region of degree. The question of "why" pertaning to different elements, hence we are doing it differently, maybe better.


We are asking a completely unique question. Not why, as in "why does it work" as in "let's see if we can replicate our success", but rather "why" as in, "what is the larger purpose for it anyway". Not how and why it works, but it's reason for existence in the first place. As far as I can tell, animals do not ask why they exist in more primitive ways than we do, they don't even ask at all. This seems to be a very unique trait that is not automatically tied to intelligence, in terms of perception and problem solving. It's a much deeper and stranger question.

Tvebak wrote:

Quote:
Tvebak wrote:

On another acount, you can say another animal abillity of hearing (specific tones), seeing in specific light or something else distinguish them from other animals.


You've completel6y missed the point. There is a difference between asking why as to discover the cause, and asking why as to try and discover the purpose.


I don't think I missed, maybe I was not clear on what I mean. At least I thought the things you are talking about now was what I was giving some thoughts on.


You didn't mention purpose at all. You mentioned how something works, and understanding of this "how" tells us why it works, but it doesn't tell us the larger purpose of it, and that question appears to be uniquely human.

[quote="Tvebak"]
Quote:
[quote="Tvebak"]
But of course humans is different from other animals. Likewise are other animals different from other animals  (incl. humans). There's being invested great amount of time to study sociological behaviour in other animalgroups these years, of course mainly other animals which is close in relation to us humans. So we might get some new answers on the consciousness of our fellow-animals.

Cheers and peace


Tvebak wrote:
Quote:

Nobody, except for us, appears to even remotely ask the question "why" as it pertains to purpose. Not how it works, and therefore why it works, but what is the larger purpose that it is supposed to fill. This is a very unique question.

And again, I'll repeat that we are also able to observe and judge ourselves as if we were observing someone else. So who is the observer and who is the observed?


I agree that the specific "question" seems to be unique, but I will still argue that it in a matter of degree compared to other animals.


How can there be a degree in other animals when it appears as though this doesn't exist at all in other animals? Not to a lesser extent, but to zero extent.

Tvebak wrote:

As to your other question I have said that plenty of other animal-groups have the abillity of feeling empathy, ie. putting itself in anothers position.


Yes, but that wasn't what I cited as unique.

Tvebak wrote:

As to other aspect of socialogical behaviour, observing, I said that there's is being comprehended a vast amount of interest in researching how different animals behave. Especially of those close relation we have, different variantians of chimps, gorillas etc.

As to your question you are the observer and you are being observed. I don't think there's a huge philosophical question in horizont there, but maybe you could give us your thoughts.

Cheers


I did give you my thoughts, but you keep misunderstanding them. Here's where I get some of my ideas from. Maybe he says it better

http://users.bigpond.net.au/manisall/stripping.html
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

roshan wrote:

Yes, my views are very similar to Shankara. But Shankaracharya also accepts the idea of a pantheistic god (called saguna Brahman or Ishwar) alongside the monistic absolute reality (called nirguna Brahman).


Is human suffering or the "problem with evil" why you prefer a pantheistic explanation?
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:41 am    Post subject: Re: the soul Reply with quote

ibnishaq wrote:
what do you atheists think about the soul?


A figment of man's imagination designed to placate our feelings of aloneness in the face of death.

Quote:
why do we think and feel and see and have emotions?


That is how our brain functions.

Quote:
HOW were we created?


By evolutionary processes.

Quote:
who created the minerals to start the big bang?


There were no minerals to start the big bang, and nobody created them.

Quote:
and could science one day be able to control the way we think?


Maybe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tvebak
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 280


Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Mutley wrote:
The weirdest part about humans is that they can ask the question "why" as it pertains to cause or reason or purpose of something happening. This is the one clear separation between us and animals, as far as we know. It's not a matter of us being able to do it better as is the case with other intelligent things we do. It's a matter of animals not even beijng able to do it at all. Another bizarre element of humans is that they can judge themselves and observe themselves as if it were somebody else. Again, animals simply can't do this at all, as far as we can tell. So who is this observer/judge?


Hi Mutley

Well actually, in my opinon, it's a matter of us being able to do it "better" or as I would say it differently.


I don't even see where animals can do it differently. I see that animals can have emotions,  make decisions.... but they just don't do it in as complex a fashion as we do it. However, I don't see ANY ability for an animal to judge itself or observe it's actions as though it was observing someone else.


Well it's like other animals have some abillities we don't have aswell, as I said last. Some hear better, some see better and by that using some part of the brain in another complex way as we use our brain in that field. Just like that we use our brain in a more complex way at this specific field.


But we do hear and smell, they just do it better. But animals don't judge themselves nor observe themselves at all. It';s not like we do it better, they don't judge at all. This appears to be a uniquely human thing. I'll repeat. Not something that humans do better than animals, and vice versa that animals do certain things better than humans, this is something that animals don't do at all. They don't do it worse than us, they don't do it at all. This is the distinction that I have thus far been unsuccesslful in explaining. We hear things and animals hear things, but animals might have a better range of hearing, but we do at least hear. But animals don't practice self observation and judgement at all. They don't do it worse than us, they don't do it at all.


What I mean is that the biological/neurological process which makes us have these thoughts is more complex than in other animals, but all the other animals are not on the same "level" as eachother. It's a matter of degree of how complex the biological/neurological process is. So as to how we different animals concieve the environment and think about it there's a level of degree in how we do that. It's the same matter of degree as with the different levels of abillity to smell, see, hear etc. Some animals smells in a way that we don't do at all, some animal sees in a way that we don't do at all. It does not mean that we don't see or smell things. It don't mean there's nothing going on of processes in the brain, trying to concieve what we see or smell. We are evolutionary "underachiever" in this matter. But we differentiate from most other animals in other aspects. As for instans the complexity of thoughts, remembrance, which makes us think why as pertaining to purpose. It does not mean that other animals don't think; don't have questions. The complexity of the specific components of the brain which makes us have the abillity we have, seems to be a evolutionary "accomplish".

Quote:
Tvebak wrote:

Quote:
Tvebak wrote:

You have other animals working out systems of using tools to get food or to make something. This is a process of learning why with a cause/reason/purpose etc.


I thought that I clearly said "why" as it pertains to "purpose", not how it pertains to figuring out a cause for something.


Alright and this is in the region of degree. The question of "why" pertaning to different elements, hence we are doing it differently, maybe better.


We are asking a completely unique question. Not why, as in "why does it work" as in "let's see if we can replicate our success", but rather "why" as in, "what is the larger purpose for it anyway". Not how and why it works, but it's reason for existence in the first place. As far as I can tell, animals do not ask why they exist in more primitive ways than we do, they don't even ask at all. This seems to be a very unique trait that is not automatically tied to intelligence, in terms of perception and problem solving. It's a much deeper and stranger question.


It's seems to be a unique question yes, but I disagree that it should be "much deeper and stranger question". It's a more complex version of the "why"-question. In my opinion.

Quote:
Tvebak wrote:

Quote:
Tvebak wrote:

On another acount, you can say another animal abillity of hearing (specific tones), seeing in specific light or something else distinguish them from other animals.


You've completel6y missed the point. There is a difference between asking why as to discover the cause, and asking why as to try and discover the purpose.


I don't think I missed, maybe I was not clear on what I mean. At least I thought the things you are talking about now was what I was giving some thoughts on.


You didn't mention purpose at all. You mentioned how something works, and understanding of this "how" tells us why it works, but it doesn't tell us the larger purpose of it, and that question appears to be uniquely human.


I refer to what I've written above.


Quote:
Quote:
[quote="Tvebak"]
But of course humans is different from other animals. Likewise are other animals different from other animals  (incl. humans). There's being invested great amount of time to study sociological behaviour in other animalgroups these years, of course mainly other animals which is close in relation to us humans. So we might get some new answers on the consciousness of our fellow-animals.

Cheers and peace


Tvebak wrote:
Quote:

Nobody, except for us, appears to even remotely ask the question "why" as it pertains to purpose. Not how it works, and therefore why it works, but what is the larger purpose that it is supposed to fill. This is a very unique question.

And again, I'll repeat that we are also able to observe and judge ourselves as if we were observing someone else. So who is the observer and who is the observed?


I agree that the specific "question" seems to be unique, but I will still argue that it in a matter of degree compared to other animals.


How can there be a degree in other animals when it appears as though this doesn't exist at all in other animals? Not to a lesser extent, but to zero extent.


Again I refer to the above.

Quote:
Tvebak wrote:

As to other aspect of socialogical behaviour, observing, I said that there's is being comprehended a vast amount of interest in researching how different animals behave. Especially of those close relation we have, different variantians of chimps, gorillas etc.

As to your question you are the observer and you are being observed. I don't think there's a huge philosophical question in horizont there, but maybe you could give us your thoughts.

Cheers


I did give you my thoughts, but you keep misunderstanding them. Here's where I get some of my ideas from. Maybe he says it better

http://users.bigpond.net.au/manisall/stripping.html


He seems to conclude that there must be something special about the constructed "I". I say constructed becuase it's some a result of some thoughts he have done. I don't see there's something special. I agree that with his long discussion about the labels. It's an interesting philosophical debate, but to the matter of the "I" I have to reject his notion of dismissing the biological (that about dying cells, and hence they get substituted). Information can change "hands".

Cheers
_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tvebak wrote:

He seems to conclude that there must be something special about the constructed "I". I say constructed becuase it's some a result of some thoughts he have done. I don't see there's something special. I agree that with his long discussion about the labels. It's an interesting philosophical debate, but to the matter of the "I" I have to reject his notion of dismissing the biological (that about dying cells, and hence they get substituted). Information can change "hands".

Cheers


It's not just a matter of information changing hands, it's a matter of one thing, "the I", always existing as the same thing while the "me" is what constantly changes. You have the same title for Niagara Falls, but Niagara Falls is constantly changing. These are thoughts of the mystic, and they are something much different than scientific thought. But if you are trapped in scientific thought, you'll never see what it's really referring to. When he said that this concept of us observing ourselves, and judging ourselves has caused wonder to psychologists and philosophers, I think he was correct, that it is very odd and wonderous. And if you disagree with the psychologists and philosophers that see the wonder in it, then perhaps you are missing something.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tvebak
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 280


Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:

He seems to conclude that there must be something special about the constructed "I". I say constructed becuase it's some a result of some thoughts he have done. I don't see there's something special. I agree that with his long discussion about the labels. It's an interesting philosophical debate, but to the matter of the "I" I have to reject his notion of dismissing the biological (that about dying cells, and hence they get substituted). Information can change "hands".

Cheers


It's not just a matter of information changing hands, it's a matter of one thing, "the I", always existing as the same thing while the "me" is what constantly changes. You have the same title for Niagara Falls, but Niagara Falls is constantly changing. These are thoughts of the mystic, and they are something much different than scientific thought. But if you are trapped in scientific thought, you'll never see what it's really referring to. When he said that this concept of us observing ourselves, and judging ourselves has caused wonder to psychologists and philosophers, I think he was correct, that it is very odd and wonderous. And if you disagree with the psychologists and philosophers that see the wonder in it, then perhaps you are missing something.


Hmm I migth be missing something. But really to me it seems to be to be no more than an intellectual game of words. But enlighten me. What are the essential element of the "I"?
My take on what DeMellos understanding of the "I" is, that the "I" is somehow a state of "awareness". This is in my opinion no more than the electrochemical incidents in our brain. You can blame it on "trapped in scientific thought", but I see no need for any extra explanation.

Cheers.


_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Atheism, Agnosticism, Spiritualism and Faithheadism All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum