21 grams

[phildonnia]

These arguments seem inevitably to degrade to matters of semantic definitions, and I see that this one has already done so. In any case, I am fascinated to see that Ian and Nigel agree on something, they each opine that souls do not have weight.

I just wanted to point out a fallacy that may be creeping in here, that weight (or mass) is a necessary condition for physical existence.

As a contradictory example, a blank floppy disk weighs the same as a floppy disk with a large document on it, and the physical existence of the document can be easily demonstrated.

And just to piss of Ian, I would put "consciousness", or "soul" in the same category of existence as the document on the flopy disk, if indeed they do exist.

 

[Nigel]

These arguments seem inevitably to degrade to matters of semantic definitions

I was getting to that point as well. Which is why I threatened to ignore Ian.

In any case, I am fascinated to see that Ian and Nigel agree on something

No! Don't insult me like that! I don't take the position that the soul even exists.

And just to piss of Ian

He seems to be easily pissed off.

 

[scribble]

I'm sure you're sick of the issue of evidence, because I've already seen you can't back up what you say.
Ian, I'm *this* close to ignoring you as I have oaf and Winston.

Get a little closer -- don't be shy!

(sniffs armpit)

 

[Nigel]

The only reason I'm being generous and giving him the benefit of the doubt is because I've only been posting since the beginning of April. But the month's not over yet.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm sick of addressing this issue regarding evidence. Reasons are more important.



Ladewig was agreeing with me, namely that if souls should exist, they would not have any weight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I read that Ladewig was agreeing with you. I never said s/he didn't.

Nevertheless, you give every indication that you fail to understand this.

Again, that's not the point. I was asking if they have weight (and Ladewig brought up the issue of weight) then what determines that weight? And if they don't have weight, then what are they?

Nigel, listen carefully, souls do not have a weight. Understand that having zero weight is still having a weight. Ya understand??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong, because I define them to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And what is this? Proof by blatant assertion?? Something is true simply because you say it is? My, what power you have.

Again Nigel, you comprehensively fail to understand. It's like me saying that a Unicorn has one horn, and someone who doesn't believe in Unicorns arguing they have 2 horns.

Understand this. It's up to me to say what I believe in!

If I believe in a soul, then it is up to me to define what a soul is.

It would be pretty silly you requiring me to defend *your* definition of a soul now isn't it??

Understand Nige??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sick of addressing this issue regarding evidence. Reasons are more important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure you're sick of the issue of evidence, because I've already seen you can't back up what you say.
Ian, I'm *this* close to ignoring you as I have oaf and Winston.

Sobs uncontrollably.

 

[Nigel]

Ian, I see a stalemate at best here. So here's what I'm going to do. I'll grant you that it is up to you to decide your beliefs. If you want to believe in the tooth fairy, that's fine with me. It's your fantasy, not mine. However, you have not shown any reason why you believe in the soul. Or explained what it is. You say having zero weight is still having a weight, but you haven't explained your position.

However, and this is important, because for people to understand each other and communicate, it's vital they mean the same things when they describe them. For instance, if you believe in a chair, is it still up to you to decide a flower pot is a chair, when everyone else believes it to be a flowerpot? Unicorns aside (because they're mythical, so it doesn't matter whether one argues if they have one horn or a thousand), what I tried to get at is what you say the soul is? You've said it's not physical, so it doesn't reside inside our bodies. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that. So that's what it isn't. Then what is it? Do souls become ghosts? Do they go to heaven? This goes back to my first post here, about supernatural laws. I'm trying to figure out how the paranormal, supernatural, whatever you'd like to call it, works, IF, and that's a big if, it even exists, which I don't think it does. I think that because of the decades of experiments and research has not shown it to work reliably and under controlled circumstances. In fact, I'll amend that to not figuring out how the paranormal works, because I don't believe it does, I'm more interested in understanding why people believe in it, which is a far different thing.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Still haven't put me on ignore yet?

what I tried to get at is what you say the soul is?

the self

 

[Nigel]

Still haven't put me on ignore yet?



the self

Not yet. But you're getting close.
You still haven't explained what the soul is. "The self"?? Needless to say, that doesn't tell me anything. Is it a quasi-religious Zen type of thing? If so, and that's your personal belief system, fine. I'm only asking for a straight answer. If you can't give me one, then yes, you're going on ignore. I don't like getting the runaround. Simple as that.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Not yet. But you're getting close.

What do you want me to do? Insult you? Nah not yet. I'll wait until you irritate me. I don't believe in being polite, so you may be quite sure I won't hold back.

You still haven't explained what the soul is. "The self"?? Needless to say, that doesn't tell me anything.

Needless to say?? Poor Nigel. He doesn't understand what a self is

 

[Yahweh]

Needless to say?? Poor Nigel. He doesn't understand what a self is

When you observe another's absense of knowledge, the most humane thing you can do for them is act as a teacher.

 

[TLN]

When you observe another's absense of knowledge, the most humane thing you can do for them is act as a teacher.

Right, which is exactly why Ian doesn't do that: he's an @sshole.

 

[Nigel]

What do you want me to do? Insult you? Nah not yet. I'll wait until you irritate me. I don't believe in being polite, so you may be quite sure I won't hold back.



Needless to say?? Poor Nigel. He doesn't understand what a self is

I understand quite well what a self is. I was asking for your definition. Since you seemed quite intent on defining things your way.

When you observe another's absense of knowledge, the most humane thing you can do for them is act as a teacher.

Sorry Yahweh, but you missed the point. The point was to get a straight answer from Ian, who seems reluctant to give one. As I posted earlier, "Is it a quasi-religious Zen type of thing? If so, and that's your personal belief system, fine. I'm only asking for a straight answer." I get back from Ian that I don't understand what a self is. That, to me, is avoiding the question. edit to add: Yahweh, upon reflection, you're right. I do have absence of knowledge, but in this case I have absence of knowledge of Ian's belief system. And who can be a better teacher of Ian's belief system than Ian himself?

Back to you, Ian. How do you define the self? Although I hesitate to put words in your mouth or ask leading questions, do you define "self" as consciousness? Mind? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

And I prefer neither to insult others nor be insulted. I don't mind disagreeing, or even agreeing to disagree, but I also prefer an answer to a question. As I said before, I'm trying to understand other people's belief systems.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Back to you, Ian. How do you define the self? Although I hesitate to put words in your mouth or ask leading questions, do you define "self" as consciousness? Mind? Both? Neither? Something else entirely?

And I prefer neither to insult others nor be insulted. I don't mind disagreeing, or even agreeing to disagree, but I also prefer an answer to a question. As I said before, I'm trying to understand other people's belief systems.

I've written on this extensively before. The self is neither equivalent to the mind nor consciousness. The self is what you are. That which remains the same whether you are 5 years old, or drunk, or your sober adult self. That which all your conscious experiences are an aspect of or belong to.

A bare experience is not the self. The self is the experiencer (experient). And clearly the mind changes radically at different moments of your life. But nevertheless you always remain the same self. You never become someone else, or someone else never becomes you.

 

[Anders]

Wrong, because I define them to do so.

Refute my hypothesis.

Wrong! It is not a hypothesis, simple because it is not falsifiable.

 

[Anders]

Understand this. It's up to me to say what I believe in!

If I believe in a soul, then it is up to me to define what a soul is.

How boring it is to read postmodern assertions, again, and again, and again.

 

[Nigel]

I've written on this extensively before. The self is neither equivalent to the mind nor consciousness. The self is what you are. That which remains the same whether you are 5 years old, or drunk, or your sober adult self. That which all your conscious experiences are an aspect of or belong to.

A bare experience is not the self. The self is the experiencer (experient). And clearly the mind changes radically at different moments of your life. But nevertheless you always remain the same self. You never become someone else, or someone else never becomes you.

Thank you. I don't agree that your definition can be considered the "soul", but I appreciate the fact that you have given me your definition of "self".

 

[Interesting Ian]

Thank you. I don't agree that your definition can be considered the "soul", but I appreciate the fact that you have given me your definition of "self".

Why? What else is required to be considered a soul?

 

[Nigel]

Why? What else is required to be considered a soul?

I typically think of the soul as a spirit, some sort of "essence" of a person. When I hear people talk about souls going to heaven, I don't think of people physically going - in spite of the issue of the rapture. I repeat I don't believe in the physicality of the soul by that definition. I do believe in the soul metaphorically or artistically, as in when I listen to Stevie Ray Vaughn, it's clear he poured his heart and soul into his playing. By that, he dedicated himself to being the best guitar player he could be. I don't accept the idea of the soul in religious or metaphysical terms.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I typically think of the soul as a spirit, some sort of "essence" of a person.

Yes, how does all this differ from the notion of a substantial self? The self is ones essence which might well survive the death of our bodies.

If the self survives our bodies, should it not be referred to as the soul? If not then why not?