Active Users:1125 Time:23/11/2024 04:59:12 AM
Carts and horses. Joel Send a noteboard - 18/09/2009 12:10:22 PM
It's an empty placeholder for an explanation. Science at least provides a partial explanation of the unknown by describing the boundaries of what we know. If you say the soul is whatever human qualities haven't yet been discovered by science, then the soul theory is falsified every time a scientific discovery about humanity is made.


I'm just saying a soul is an explanation, if an unprovable one (as things stand). Think of it less as a "scientific theory" and more of a "philosophic idea" :P


But what I'm saying is that it's not even an unprovable explanation, because it's not an explanation at all. Positing a spiritual soul is no more an explanation than positing a nonsense wordthing like uqweroiuejr. "The uqweroiuejr lies on a uqweroiuejr-like plane of existence and explains knowns X, Y, and Z, even if we can't prove it." Whether it's provable or not doesn't even matter, because we haven't yet said anything meaningful other than implying that we can't yet explain X, Y, and Z. As a philosophic idea, the soul is useful only as a placeholder, not as an explanation.

Note: I'm not necessarily trying to persuade you to agree with me. As a practical matter, it may be that some brains more efficiently by assuming the existence of spiritual substances. In fact, maybe on some subconscious level my brain does believe in spiritual substances and makes me the better off for it. I'm just trying to clarify why I don't bother believing in them on a conscious, rational level.

If we posit the uqweroiuejr and then try to establish it based on attributes we assign, that's a problem, but if we're positing a supernatural RESPONSE to phenomenon that defy ANY physical explanation--present or future--we're in a very different place. Not a testable place, of course; we need to be able to observe, measure and reproduce given events under given conditions to do that. We do, however, have evidence in the form of experiences that are distinct from the purely material, things that science can't explain not because of inadequate knowledge, but because that's not sciences job.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Do you think there's some kind of spiritual substance in the universe? - 14/09/2009 02:42:22 PM 823 Views
no, it is mostly hydrogen *NM* - 14/09/2009 02:43:47 PM 247 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 03:01:32 PM 225 Views
not a chance *NM* - 14/09/2009 03:23:02 PM 234 Views
yes (in as much that we could choose to define it that way) - 14/09/2009 03:31:40 PM 617 Views
On a gut level, I think all substance is teleologically tied to one or more kinds of consciousness. - 14/09/2009 04:03:31 PM 558 Views
aaah but who says we can percieve all there is to percieve in relation to our persons? - 14/09/2009 04:14:08 PM 520 Views
But merely positing a soul (as a spiritual substance) doesn't actually explain anything. - 14/09/2009 07:46:35 PM 496 Views
i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul" - 14/09/2009 07:50:27 PM 554 Views
Re: i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul" - 14/09/2009 08:05:41 PM 555 Views
Carts and horses. - 18/09/2009 12:10:22 PM 686 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 05:14:33 PM 227 Views
Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? - 14/09/2009 05:27:09 PM 554 Views
Re: Wouldn't spiritual and substance be mutually exclusive? - 14/09/2009 06:20:45 PM 531 Views
I think there is definitely a spiritual force that underlies the unity of all things - 14/09/2009 06:11:01 PM 567 Views
That sounds very like gnosticism in many ways. - 18/09/2009 12:17:51 PM 575 Views
No. *NM* - 14/09/2009 07:06:59 PM 222 Views
define "spiritual'. - 14/09/2009 07:36:18 PM 501 Views
Rum. - 14/09/2009 08:25:46 PM 558 Views
YES! *NM* - 16/09/2009 02:10:55 PM 255 Views
How are we not married? *NM* - 19/09/2009 04:10:13 AM 230 Views
Bigamy laws. *NM* - 19/09/2009 03:49:59 PM 212 Views
My Achilles heel! *NM* - 19/09/2009 07:30:06 PM 234 Views
Timing *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:51:37 PM 225 Views
My Achilles ankle! *NM* - 21/09/2009 08:14:42 PM 241 Views
Your Face. *NM* - 21/09/2009 08:21:44 PM 223 Views
My Achilles face! - 07/10/2009 09:40:36 PM 454 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 09:09:16 PM 214 Views
No *NM* - 14/09/2009 09:31:14 PM 229 Views
Yes, vodka. *NM* - 14/09/2009 10:02:19 PM 213 Views
Substance? - 14/09/2009 10:08:04 PM 518 Views
Yeah, boobs. - 15/09/2009 01:51:44 AM 503 Views
Not the way I'd put it, as jh notes, but unquestionably. - 15/09/2009 03:17:22 PM 544 Views
Look, don't put words in my mouth. - 15/09/2009 04:50:13 PM 573 Views
Sorry. - 15/09/2009 05:14:10 PM 503 Views
Re: Sorry. - 17/09/2009 09:20:58 PM 476 Views
People over-complicate this, it's a sort of animal abuse - 15/09/2009 09:03:01 PM 533 Views
Nicely put. *NM* - 17/09/2009 01:57:44 AM 207 Views
Very nicely put. *NM* - 17/09/2009 06:57:57 PM 211 Views
A sublte nuance most modern materialists miss. - 18/09/2009 12:21:33 PM 753 Views
I think there may be platonic forms defining purpose - 16/09/2009 06:27:36 AM 490 Views
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause. - 18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM 624 Views
One little correction - 20/09/2009 12:34:13 AM 630 Views
Nay. - 20/09/2009 07:04:47 AM 490 Views
Re: Nay. - 07/10/2009 11:55:28 AM 546 Views

Reply to Message