Does the soul or spirit exist?

by JanH 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TheOldHippie

  I just love it, when JanH and others so boldly state that "Now, we all know that ...", "Science has proven that ...", "As we all know ....", and then, when talking about those of another opinion as "crackpots", "lunatics" etc. How neutral, how detached, how solely devoted to sorting out the facts!

  It is so funny, in my eyes, to see how so many think that we today have the 100 % knowledge of all things. 100 years ago NO, 50 years ago NO, 15 years ago NO, but today YES. In 20 years, in 50 years, in 100 years ..... ? We laugh so heartily of what the lunatic crackpots in their utter stupidity and ignorance believed 100 years ago - and how do you think the people 100 years from now, when we are long time dead and gone, will talk about us?

  "When you have been dead and buried for 100,000,000 years - then a fraction of a second of Eternity has elapsed."
• 

  JamesG

  About Robdars (Robyn's) comment, She is trying to have fun for three lifetimes. (And I wasn't invited)

  I'm focused on having fun for the next three hours, anyone want to join me? My Bed is freshly made... lets lay out the monopoly board!!

  Ah shucks, monopoly took me six hours to play!!

  Any ideas on what I can do for three hours?

  Oh, and about the soul and spirit, it does exist. Visit a Popeyes chicken after Southern Baptist Church service.

  James
• 

  Bang

  We had a car.

  She was a beauty. On holi-days, after we restored her, more in line with our own image, we'd fill her up with new spirits and we'd see how she went. We were good to her and she only occasionly let us down - and we'd forgive her - after all, you know how cars are. I thought she was very forgiving of how we treated her. She had a good life - and to the earth she returned. We loved that car and we'll never forget her.

  Some of our soul rubbed of on her - she already had a strong spirit that the makers gave her.

  You see, no matter how she was built, we didn't just take her for granted - who can? We had a faith in her - but always in the knowledge that only God alone could really know all her workings.

  I suppose science could explain bits of it, but no science can explain how all the atomic bonds performed and what we picked up even on one outing - and if in a thousand years science is able to, I wonder how it will explain the internal condition of the atoms in relation to the whole, say during the time we drove over that particular stone. And when we can do that - what happens when we examine the space inside the atoms? Science is a never ending series of guestimations that follows well behind God, for always.

  B ang

  Edited by - Bang on 10 June 2002 8:45:10
• 

  plmkrzy

  JAN, Mind if I jump in here?
  
  
  The car thing,
  I think it makes perfect sense thats why I dont believe humans are or have spirits.
  
  If you wouldn't mind addressing just a couple of questions.
  This has always been interesting to think about. But...
  I wish science would explain clearly how and why the human mind exists as it does. I dont mean an explanation that just says, It evolved
  Just evolving as an explanation doesnt cut it.
  It doesnt explain forethought.
  It doesnt explain imagination.
  I also doesnt explain the humans need to understand why
  Science can almost explain all movement but how does movement generate cells inside an organ to form a thought about something that hasnt even happened yet?
  And collect memories?
  Or feel sad?
  Where does this come from? You can break down the basic ingredients of a human but how do you take those ingredients mix them up and make a human that works?

  plum
• 

  JanH

  plmkrzy,

  I wish science would explain clearly how and why the human mind exists as it does. I dont mean an explanation that just says, It evolved

  This is indeed a very good question. As of now, it is the biggest mystery science has of yet to uncover. We know a lot about how the brain works on a technical level. We know pretty well how it stores and processes information. We know how it controls the body and interacts with sense organs.

  As is often the case, we don't have a good answer partly because we don't have a good question. What is consciousness? We have defined ourselves as conscious beings. But it is not a well-defined term.

  It is closely related to the question of intelligence. For example, playing chess requires intelligence. Or does it? Before machines could play chess, many assumed that if we could teach one to play chess, we would have an intelligent machine. Today the best chess programs can play on grandmaster level. But they sure aren't intelligent, and they don't have a conscious mind. So, obviously, we didn't know what intelligence was. I suspect we still don't.

  Alan Turing, one of the founders of information science and one of those who laid the theoretical framework for computers, believed we were basically automata, ie. we were what is called turing machines. A practical test for intelligence is described in the so-called Turing Test. I like this explanation:

  "The real point of the TT is that if we had a pen-pal whom we had corresponded with for a lifetime, we would never need to have seen him to infer that he had a mind. So if a machine pen-pal could do the same thing, it would be arbitrary to deny it had a mind just because it was a machine. That's all there is to it! "

  We simply define consciousness as something that looks closely like our own mental processes. We don't really know how our own brain processes create what we perceive to be a mind. What are we looking for when we try to explain what consciousness is? We have already agreed we don't know. We suspect we will know what it is when we find it. I think this problem, too, will eventually be solved by science. And I am pretty convinced that those who believe in an immaterial soul component will then find another hole somewhere to put their little soul and their puny god.

  - Jan

  Edited by - JanH on 10 June 2002 9:25:42
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  Knowledge will not always take the place of simple observation. "What you are looking for is what is looking".
• 

  Kismet

  Jan:

  Your post was a very interesting thought provoking read.

  I do feel however your car analogy was flawed. Apples to oranges comparison. To compare the animate with the inanimate, the self aware versus a machine really isn't a fair comparison. I do see the point you were striving for but that analogy is not completely valid (but then again such is the case with many analogies.)

  Thanks for tackling this topic I have been enjoying the comments thusfar.

  Kismet
• 

  ashitaka

  And I am pretty convinced that those who believe in an immaterial soul component will then find another hole somewhere to put their little soul and their puny god.

  Jan,

  exactly. People will always find a way to believe what they want to, becuase they NEED it emotionally. Their hopes rest in it.

  ashi