Can Science Disprove the Soul?


 photo IntuitiveIntelligenceImage3_zps3df90fa7.jpg


In “Can a Machine have a Soul?” Bill Lauritzen claims to have disproved the soul.[1]He’s considering the issue of weather or not transferring human consciousness into a machine would give the machine a soul? His solution is to disprove that humans have souls then there’s no soul to worry about. In my view the soul is a symbol and it’s the spirit that lives on after death. So there’s no question of proving or disproving the soul since there is no question or proving or disproving symbols. For the sake of this issue I’ll use his terminology. He assumes the soul is the thing that lives. After all, he would make the same argument against the spirit. That argument is made by the bogus method of merely assume what he thinks human ancestors must have thought about after life and what they based it on. Basing it on something we know is false such as an literalized analogy between smoke is the afterlife of fire, and breath sustaining life, being like smoke, therefore like the smoke form the flame breath must live on as soul. That’s his conjecture. Of course he assume this is the only reason to think there might be a soul and thus he’s swept it out of the way with modern doubt! That really is his only answer. Rather he asserts that it was the attempt to explain oxygen. He’s using as breath in that sense. It’s really breath that he means.[2]
            To reinforce it all he goes through a mock play where two cavemen has things out and this is supposed to be actual proof. It’s nothing more than detailed speculation. His little play is nothing more than taking us through the steps on might go through to arrive at the conclusion of after life after having witnessed death: He sees the blood, he reasons from past experience, that when people lose a lot of this stuff they stop living. He sees the blood evaporate. He understands that it’s going from a liquid to gaseous state (would he understand that)? So he puts it all together and reasons. Of course it’s really a modern person “reasoning” his way to answers he already knows. Is that proof that this actually what happened? No it’s totally theoretical.  He even shows a series of pictures of a goat dying and rotting away to reinforce how one might come to the conclusion that there is some mysterious thing in the air that makes us life (like he would really know evaporation pus gas in the air).[3] “So early humans thought there were ghosts and spirits living in the air. They didn’t want a ghost angry with them, so they would kill and burn animals, so they would kill and burn animals, even humans in some cases, in other word they would make a sacrifice, to feed these ghosts and spirits. Sacrafice as the root word sacer, meaning sacred.”[4] I don’t think I’ve heard of sacrifice being a meal for ghosts. That’s a conjecture and perhaps not a good one. It really is a minor point.
            Then he goes on a long triad about how science discovered oxygen to show that science is so much better than religious thinking. Of course since he made the whole thing up and its’ conjecture and he’s stepping over a bunch of steps that took thousands of years it’s a rather meaningless point. Of course he totally ignores the fact that modern science was created by Christians and one of the chief discoverers of oxygen was Robert Boyle who was a devout Christian and who did science as form of Christian apologetics. I say one because the actual discover was a complex process involving several people. Joseph Priestly was anther of those and he actually discovered it but Boyle paved the way.[5] Both men were Christians. [6][7] It’s absurd to compare primitive thinking to modern and try to pass that off as proof that science is better than religion. We have modern thinkers who are both scientific and religious, and modern science owes a great debt to religious thinkers such as Newton and Boyle, and even Priestly. In fact part of his rendition of the discovery of oxygen includes a lot about Robert Boyle, he never does actually indicate that was a Christian, so it appears as a rebuke to religious thinking.
            He then takes a long detour though a discussion of thing that really could be just left out of the issue. These are matters of brain size vs the kind of diet we have its suitability for hunter gatherer society. It really has nothing to with the issues. He discusses alchemy and how the understanding of blood evaporation and smoke might contribute to correlations between the basic elements and alchemical knowledge. It’s not relevant but I surmise that he includes it to indicate how wonderfully predictive his theories are. He can predict the nature of alchemy with it, of course we already know how it turns out so it’s not as though he’s predicting the unknown. Realizing he has strayed from the topic he springs back to summarize the issue on the soul:
Getting back to the original question: can a machine have a soul? Of course, there may be some mysterious energy we know nothing about. However, if we apply Occam’s razor, I think we can see that we have a simple theory that covers all the facts: the “soul” and “spirit” are convenient terms invented by early humans who knew nothing about atomic theory. The “soul” and spirit probably do not exist except perhaps in this ordinary sense, “a person’s moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.”[8]
The reference to atomic theory pertains to the reality about atoms and molecules and a modern understanding of what happens with evaporation. He says we have a simple theory that covers the facts. The problem here is he doesn’t know the facts. He has not given us any facts. He has literally just concocted a speculative idea with no empirical proof to back it up. He’s merely assuming correlations are cause and that he’s exhausted the facts merely because he’s brought out a few facts that back his view. Since he doesn’t value religion he doesn’t even try to understand what really went into understanding the soul or the spirit. He offers just enough facts to explain it away and then claims he has the facts. Moreover, notice that he puts his theory in terms of probability, and not in terms empirical proof. It can’t be a real disproof if it’s just a probability. There are other aspects of the spirit that he had failed to come to terms with. Basically, he has made the assumption that all knowledge is scientific so therefore the soul was invented to explain scientific questions, the physical workings of the world. It’s more likely the soul was a means of explaining religious and spiritual truth not physical truth. We don’t’ know what al that entails.
            It’s probably related to the need to explain mystical experience, or the sense of the numinous. It’s bound to be related to spiritual needs, that would relate to the special sense that engenders concept such the Holy. First of all we know that those aspects of the sacred that issue forth in mystical experience, the sense of the numinous, are used to with complex psychological issues. 

Atheists and skeptics reduce everything they critique and then lose the phenomena in the reduction. Thus, they only see the explanatory aspects of ancient religion and never try to think beyond the simple assumption that people were doing this to explain things. This is the “Og no like noise in sky” Idea. Stupid primitive people without science try to explain simple things they don’t understand so they make up religion. That is all the skeptic can see. But those who are aware of the mystical consciousness can see more. I am sure the skeptics will argue that they are reading it in. All I can do is to assert that if the reader will read Maslow and if the reader is aware of Maslow’s acuity as a scholar, one will place a great deal of confidence in the notion that Maslow was discovering and not reading in. Maslow   interpreted everyday psychology as laced with the trace of the supernatural, because for him “supernatural” just meant a deeper level of consciousness about ordinary things. His views of human psychology were laced with Jungian notions of archetypes. He equated the archetypes with “supernatural.” In speaking of the relationship between men and women and their relation to the psychological archetypes, he finds that the same symbols are always used for the same meanings. This comes out in psychological studies across the board. He marks archetypical thinking, as B and D. B analysis has to do with the higher, ideal, abstract, D has to do with the earthy human aspects of our existence; the practical the earthy. These are roughly equivalent to St. Augustine’s terms: height and depth. An example of what he’s talking about is the male tendency to seek two of womanhood, the goddess and the witch (or well itwhat rhymes with “witch”). Maslow says that psychology tells us that we need a bit of both. A woman put on a pedestal and seen only as a goddess is unapproachable and cannot be pleased. A woman seen only as the ‘other’ can’t be respected and won’t make a good partner. Of course this goes vice versa for the way women view men: the “good guy” vs. “the outlaw,” the rebel, the “bad boy.” Materialists are going to find that this point is trivial and just a part of daily living, and that’s the point. The reason ancients have a tendency to sacralize these kinds of ordinary relationships is because they sense a connection between them and the transcendent. That is the sense of the numinous. The same symbols turn up again and again, according to Malow, in all kinds of psychological study. Psychologically there is a link between the use of certain symbols in mythology and religion, and the transcendent.
            He makes this connection himself. Iin speaking of the dichotomy of most religious life between the “mystical” or ‘inner.’ ‘Personal’ to the organizational (he doesn’t use the phrase but the “doctrinal”) “The profoundly and authentically religious person integrates these trends easily and automatically. The forms, rituals, ceremonials, and verbal formulae in which he was reared remain for him experientially rooted, symbolically meaningful, archetypal, unitive.”[9] He is revealing a link between the rituals of the primitives, mythology, and religious experience (especially “peak experience” or Mystical consciousness). That link is in the archetypes, the psychological symbols that ground us in a sense of what life is about and give us a connection with these concepts of height and depth, or the ideal and practical. In appendix I. “An example of B analysis,” He states:
This can also be seen operationally in terms of the Jungian archetypes which can be recovered in several ways. I have managed to get it in good introspectors simply by asking them directly to free associate to a particular symbol. The psychoanalytic literature, of course, has many such reports. Practically every deep case history will report such symbolic, archaic ways of viewing the woman, both in her good aspects and her bad aspects. (Both the Jungians and the Kleinians recognize the great and good mother and the witch mother as basic archetypes.) Another way of getting at this is in terms ofthrough the artificial dream that is suggested under hypnosis. It can also probably be investigated by spontaneous drawings, as the art therapists have pointed out. Still another possibility is the George Klein technique of two cards very rapidly succeeding each other so that symbolism can be studied. Any person who has been psychoanalyzed can fairly easily fall into such symbolic or metaphorical thinking in his dreams or free associations or fantasies or reveries.[10]
He is relating this to the mythological symbols of the grate mother, the goddess, the witch, the demon, and one might also think of Lilith or for men the Shy Father, vs. the demon the trickster. The link between mythological symbols and mystical consciousness is further born out by another psychologist, David Lukoff who made the link between the high incidence rate in the general population found by the Greely study and the use of archetypes. Lukoff framed schizophrenic delusions as private mythology.
 “This method derives from the discipline of comparative mythology but goes beyond to decipher the psychological truths embodied in the symbol-laden stories. Campbell’s (1949) study The Hero With a Thousand Faces is the premier example of this method. Lukoff (1985) treated the account of a psychotic episode as a symbol-laden personal myth and attempted to uncover themes that parallel the structure and content of classic mystical experiences.”[11]
Other studies, such as Buckley and Galanter (1979) have observed individuals in the midst of mystical experience when exposed to religious ceremonies.[12] Some might see this as undermining my own argument because skeptics do argue that religious experience is a form of mental illness. But there is a distinction between some mentally ill people having religious experiences and saying that mystical experience is mental illness. Many studies disprove this assertion (see chapter on “studies”). But as Lukoff shows, this does not mean that some mentally people can’t have mystical experiences.
Maslow talks about the psychological necessity of being able to maintain a transformative symbology. He is not merely saying that we should do this, but that this is what we do; it is universal and through many different techniques and psychological schools of thought he shows that this has been gleaned over and over again. What Jung called the Archetypes are universal symbols of transformation, which we understand in the unconscious[13] , and we must be able to hold them in proper relation to the mundane (the Sacred and the Profane) in order to enjoy healthy growth, or we stagnate and become pathological. It is crucial to human psychology to maintain this balance. Far from merely being stupid and not understanding science, striving to explain a pre-Newtonian world, the primitives understood this balance and held it better than we do. Religious belief is crucial to our psychological well being, and this fact, far more than the need forsocial order or the need for to explain thunder, explains the origins of religion.

As Maslow says:
“For practically all primitives, these matters that I have spoken about are seen in a more pious, sacred way, as Eliade has stressed, i.e., as rituals, ceremonies, and mysteries. The ceremony of puberty, which we make nothing of, is extremely important for most primitive cultures. When the girl menstruates for the first time and becomes a woman, it is truly a great event and a great ceremony; and it is truly, in the profound and naturalistic and human sense, a great religious moment in the life not only of the girl herself but also of the whole tribe. She steps into the realm of those who can carry on life and those who can produce life; so also for the boy’s puberty; so also for the ceremonies of death, of old age, of marriage, of the mysteries of women, the mysteries of men. I think that an examination of primitive or preliterate cultures would show that they often manage the unitive life better than we do, at least as far as relations between the sexes are concerned and also as between adults and children. They combine better than we do the B and the D, as Eliade has pointed out. He defined primitive cultures as different from industrial cultures because they have kept their sense of the sacred about the basic biological things of life.

“We must remember, after all, that all these happenings are, in truth, mysteries. Even though they happen a million times, they are still mysteries. If we lose our sense of the mysterious, or the numinous, if we lose our sense of awe, of humility, of being struck dumb, if we lose our sense of good fortune, then we have lost a very real and basic human capacity and are diminished thereby.”

“Now that may be taken as a frank admission of a naturalistic psychological origin, except that it involves a universal symbology, which is not explicable through merely naturalistic means. How is it that all humans come to hold these same archetypical symbols? The “primitives” viewed and understood a sense of transformation, which gave them integration into the universe. This is crucial for human development. They sensed a power in the numinous, that is the origin of religion.”[14]

Ceremonies and rituals about ordinary things such as puberty, sex, marriage, birth, death, these are attempts at mediating the Ultimate transforromative experiences that all religions take to the resolution of what they identify as the human problematic. Pre historic man says “I see a connection between my place in the universe, and this sense that I get when I reflect upon nature as a whole. I sense that I am one small part in a great unity, and I sense this in everything in life, falling in love, having children, death., I have a place in the universe in relation to whatever that is I sense beyond the stars…” The skeptic reduces this to “Og like girls, but girls make Og nervous.” So he makes rituals about sex and relationships to ward off the evil spirits that make him nervous. But it’s clear, while pre-historic man probably wasn’t an existentialist and perhaps wasn’t that sophisticated about it all, he did sense a connection between life and the numinous. Of course this doesn’t mean that the primitive humans had any special insight into relationships that we need to follow.  This is strong evidence that people have always had a sense of the numinous as far back as we know. This is an indication of some form of this sense because it clearly shows a connection between ordinary aspects of life and the transcendent. It also means that the typical skeptical explanation for the origin of religion is just losing the phenomena, taking out the real indications of a form of consciousness and reducing what they find to nothing more than a simplistic explanation for things.

While it is true that these experiences and their psycho-social uses have probably evolved over time, it is equally true that they were probably being put to the same uses all along because we can see the relationships between religious symbols, spiritual concepts, and psycho-social aspects. It makes more sense to think they were used in that way all along. the cocnept of the soul is just some simple idea of saying "what keeps me living?O it's some ghost in the machine" but rather why do I feel this strange sense of importance of life and the world when I stare at the stars all night? Then to explain mystical experience they come up with the realization that consciousness probably transcends the material world. From that it's easy to think it lives on after life. Then if the associate it with the wind in the trees and blood and breath and life, that's scientifically mistaken but it's not completely off track. It does at least link the feelings of mystical experience with the reality and meaning of the world and the after life.
Mystical experience is at the base of religion itself. "Mysticism is a manifestation of something which is at the root of all religions."[15] 

David Steindl-Rast,
The question we need to tackle is this: How does one get from mystic experience to an established religion? My one-word answer is: inevitably. What makes the process inevitable is that we do with our mystical experience what we do with every experience, that is, we try to understand it; we opt for or against it; we express our feelings with regard to it. Do this with your mystical experience and you have all the makings of a religion. This can be shown.

Moment by moment, as we experience this and that, our intellect keeps step; it interprets what we perceive. This is especially true when we have one of those deeply meaningful moments: our intellect swoops down upon that mystical experience and starts interpreting it. Religious doctrine begins at this point. There is no religion in the world that doesn't have its doctrine. And there is no religious doctrine that could not ultimately be traced back to its roots in mystical experience – that is, if one had time and patience enough, for those roots can be mighty long and entangled. Even if you said, "My private religion has no doctrine for I know that my deepest religious awareness cannot be put into words," that would be exactly what we are talking about: an intellectual interpretation of your experience. Your "doctrine" would be a piece of so-called negative (apophatic) theology, found in most religions.[16]


It makes sense that if every doctrine has it's roots in mystical experience that the doctrine of the soul does as well. Now it could easily be that the basic idea was invented by observing breath i the body and wind in the trees then backed up by these emotional experiences. That's ok it means there is no Casper the friendly Ghost-like entity in us waiting to get out. We do not need to hold to that view of the soul or the spirit. Spirit is mind, the word in Greek means mind, it's perfectly logical to understand consciousness as the aspect that lives on. A connection through mystical experience would be quite logical for the spirit. So the reality of consciousness as enduring connection with God and the infinite got mixed up with hoaky notions about wind in trees and evaporation and produced this idea of the ghost. That doesn't mean there is conscoiusness that survives death and unites us with God or not spirit that is reinvigorated when we give our lives to Christ.

This tendency to want to destroy ideas of religion through scinece is nothing more than the illusion of technique. This notion harkens back to a book form the 70's by William Barrett.[17]Perhaps because science is misunderstood by many as thriving upon proof, and it is seen as the umpire of reality because its ability to prove empirically, (apologies to Karl Popper) the illusion of technique is created in the minds of those who misunderstand science in this way. I will say more about this in the next chapter. It is not the scientists who create the illusion but the needs of science groupies who expect it to ground their metaphysical needs that create the illusion. The tendency to reduce all knowledge to one thing enables the illusion to work. The illusion works in the way that reductionism works. If some aspect of reality can’t be gotten at by our methods then we assume it doesn’t exist, because that means it’s not something we can control.
"The illusion of technique," the modern dream of a single method that would apply in all areas of human concern. Such hegemony encourages thinking in terms of a "will to power," seeing things as 'manipulanda', that which awaits reshaping by humans. Barrett contrasts this with the "will to prayer," an attitude which, inspired by Platonic 'eros', seeks, not control, but active engagement leading to personal transformation.[18]

Thus the only knowledge there is, is in our control. In other words, the facts always support our view. So naturally our manipulation of the world is absolute and produces all the knowledge there is. If there seems to be anything beyond that we can reduce it and lose the phenomena and we explain it away. Religious experience is reduced to brain function, brain function is reduced to chemistry, chemistry has no room in it for transcendent sprits and thus they don’t’ exist. The illusion is backed by the fact that we can always manipulate more and more stuff and thus demonstrate our view of the world works.





sources
  


[1] Bill Lauritzen, Abstract, “Can a Machine Have a Soul,” Journal of Personal Cyberconscienceness. Vol. 8, Iss 1 (2013) 30-39, 30-31.
[2] Ibid.31
[3] Ibid. 32-33.
[4] Ibid. 33
[5] Zbigniew SZYDŁO, “Who Discovered Oxygen?” Proceedings of ECOpole, Vol. 1, No. 1/2 (2007)
[6] Kevin de Berg, “The Enlightenment and Joseph Priestley’s Disenchantment with Science and Religion.” Christian Perspective on Science and Technology, ISCAST Online Journal, (2012) Vol. 8. http://www.iscast.org/journal/opinion/deBerg_K_2012-06_The_Enlightenment_&_Joseph_Priestley.pdf   accessed 4/7/14.
[7] Margaret Jacob, The Newtonians and The English Revolution 1689-1720IthacaNew YorkCornell University Press, 1976. Boyle’s Christianity and apologetics are discussed throughout  the work.
[8] Bill Lauritzen, Ibid. 38.
[9] Abraham H. Maslow  Religiooins, Values and Peak-Experiences, “preface” to the 1970 edition.
[10] Ibid, appendix I. “An Example of B Analysis.”
[11] David Lukoff “the Diagnosis of Mystical Experiences With Psychotic Features” Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, (1985) 17, (2) 155-81 in Lukoff and Lu, Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, (1988) 20, (2) 182.
[12] Ibid
[13] Abraham H. Maslow, Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences
Appendix I. An Example of B-Analysis


 [14]subconscious?
[15] Frank Crossfiled Haphold, Mysticism: A Study and Anthology. New York:Penguin Books, 1979, 16
[16.]David Steindl-Rast. "The Mystical Core of Organized Religion," ReVision, Summer 1989 12(1):11-14. Used by the Council on Spiritual Practices with permission. 1989
 on line: http://csp.org/experience/docs/steindl-mystical.html  
accessed 4/8/14.
Brother David Steindl-Rast, O.S.B., is a monk of Mount Savior Monastery in the Finger Lake Region of New York State and a member of the board of the Council on Spiritual Practices. He holds a Ph.D. from the Psychological Institute at the University of Vienna and has practiced Zen with Buddhist masters. He is author of Gratefulness, The Heart of Prayer and Music of Silence: A Sacred Journey Through the Hours of the Day. 
[17] William Barrett, The Illusion of Technique: a Search for Meaning in A Technological Civilization.
New York:Anchor books, 1979. 

[18] Raymond D. Boisvert, “The Will to Power and the Will To Prayer: William Barrett’s The Illusion of Technique 30 years Latter.” Journal of Speculative PhilosophyA Quarterly Journal of History, Criticism, and Imagination.” 22, (1), 24-32.

Comments

The Pixie said…
The article you reference can be found here, and is worth a read. The style is very accessible.
http://www.terasemjournals.org/PCJournal/PC0801/Papers/Lauritzen_APA.pdf

Joe: In “Can a Machine have a Soul?” Bill Lauritzen claims to have disproved the soul.

No he does not. He concludes:

Getting back to the original question: Can a machine have a soul? Of course, there may
be some mysterious energy that we know nothing about.
However if we apply Occam’s razor, I
think we can see that we have a simple theory that covers all the facts: the “soul” and “spirit” are
convenient terms invented by early humans who knew nothing about atomic theory. The “soul”
and “spirit” probably do not exist except perhaps in this ordinary sense: “a person's moral or
emotional nature or sense of identity11.”


Unfortunately you have a habit of pretending your opponents are claiming proof; I suppose that straw man is easier to defeat.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
The article you reference can be found here, and is worth a read. The style is very accessible.
http://www.terasemjournals.org/PCJournal/PC0801/Papers/Lauritzen_APA.pdf


Joe: In “Can a Machine have a Soul?” Bill Lauritzen claims to have disproved the soul.

No he does not. He concludes:

Getting back to the original question: Can a machine have a soul? Of course, there may
be some mysterious energy that we know nothing about. However if we apply Occam’s razor, I
think we can see that we have a simple theory that covers all the facts: the “soul” and “spirit” are
convenient terms invented by early humans who knew nothing about atomic theory. The “soul”
and “spirit” probably do not exist except perhaps in this ordinary sense: “a person's moral or
emotional nature or sense of identity 11.”

He thinks he;s disproved it. of course he's savvy enough not to couch his argumemt in times of "proof," but probability Still he thinks he has ample reason to dismiss it. I think he has nothing but BS. He hates concepts that he associates with the ancient world.

Unfortunately you have a habit of pretending your opponents are claiming proof; I suppose that straw man is easier to defeat.http://www.terasemjournals.org/PCJournal/PC0801/Papers/Lauritzen_APA.pdf


that's mt a straw man. He clearly thinks he's decisively done away with the soul.

I notice you have chosen only to defend him from claiming proof, you totally avoid defending the actual argument,


Joe Hinman said…
first line of the Clarice:

"The author demonstrates that there is probably no such thing as an immortal soul or spirit."

JBsptfn said…
I looked over that .pdf. It seems like this guy is a typical arrogant atheist who refers to religion and afterlife as a delusion (which goes back to what Joe said about Orwellian Atheism some years back).
Joe Hinman said…
yes I found that article to be pretentious and silly.
The Pixie said…
Joe: He thinks he;s disproved it. of course he's savvy enough not to couch his argumemt in times of "proof," but probability Still he thinks he has ample reason to dismiss it. I think he has nothing but BS. He hates concepts that he associates with the ancient world.

Like you are sure God exists, but you say you have rational warrant to avod having to defend your dubious claims?

Joe: that's mt a straw man. He clearly thinks he's decisively done away with the soul.

He clearly says "probably". You do not get to put words in his mouth. Doing so is the very definition of a straw man.

Joe: I notice you have chosen only to defend him from claiming proof, you totally avoid defending the actual argument,

To be honest, I struggled to find an argument to respond to.

I agree he is speculating wth his two cave men, but he offers a scenario that fits what we see, which is evidence that it is broadly right (not good evidence, but still evidence). Enough to claim "rational warrant"...

Joe in the OP: But those who are aware of the mystical consciousness can see more.

Or have deluded themselves that they can.

How do we tell the difference?

Joe in the OP: Maslow interpreted everyday psychology as laced with the trace of the supernatural, because for him “supernatural” just meant a deeper level of consciousness about ordinary things.

So what Maslow was talking about was not the supernatural as we are using the term, and so Maslow gives no support to your claims of the supernatural.

Reading your post I found no actual argument that the soul exists.
The Pixie said…
It there is a soul, why can we not detect it?

To be clear, what I mean by soul here is a some supernatural aspect of a person that exists beyond the physical, and that is intimately connected to a person's identity and thinking processes.

It necessarily follows that the soul can interact with the physical world. If the soul exists, then it can clearly be influenced by the physical world, as we react to what we see, hear, etc. Furthermore, it can itself clearly influence the physical world; just look at all mankind has done to see how the soul has changed the world.

If the soul is affected by and itself affects the physical world then it can potentially be detected by something outside the brain. Remember that the brain is just a certain arrangement of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. atoms. It is a physical structure. If one physical structure can interact with a soul, then we know that others potentially can too. If the soul exists, then it must be the case that it can be detected in some way.

But no one has ever managed to do so.

More damming, theologists are not even trying!

Everyone just accepts that souls cannot be detected. And if they cannot be detected then it follows that they do not exist.
im-skeptical said…
So what Maslow was talking about was not the supernatural as we are using the term, and so Maslow gives no support to your claims of the supernatural.
- I must agree. Joe has a tendency to find things in the works of scientists and atheists that might appear at first glance to support his thesis. That is, unless you actually understand what they are saying. Joe interprets these things in a way that was not intended by the author, and then uses them as an "authoritative" source of confirmation for his claims. I'm not sure Maslow ever even used the word 'supernatural' to describe peak experiences. He certainly didn't attribute them to any kind of transcendent power, as Joe does. They are entirely attributable to the human psyche.


“The great lesson from the true mystics is that the sacred is in the ordinary, that it is to be found in one’s daily life, in one’s neighbors, friends, and family, and in one’s backyard.” – Abraham Maslow

and just in case you missed it ...

“We need not take refuge in supernatural gods to explain our saints and sages and heroes and statesmen, as if to explain our disbelief that mere unaided human beings could be that good or wise.” – Abraham Maslow
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: He thinks he;s disproved it. of course he's savvy enough not to couch his argumemt in terms of "proof," but probability. Still he thinks he has ample reason to dismiss it. I think he has nothing but BS. He hates concepts that he associates with the ancient world.

Like you are sure God exists, but you say you have rational warrant to avod having to defend your dubious claims?

I defend my believes every time I task to you and I kicked your ass and you know I do, None of your attacks have stood,this one is not going either, because it's based distoring what i said I said I don;t need to prove because belief is warranted, prove and defend are different,


Joe: that's mt a straw man. He clearly thinks he's decisively done away with the soul.

He clearly says "probably". You do not get to put words in his mouth. Doing so is the very definition of a straw man.

Immaterial I beast the argument weather he said prove or probable is of no consequence it's wrong either way.

Joe: I notice you have chosen only to defend him from claiming proof, you totally avoid defending the actual argument,

To be honest, I struggled to find an argument to respond to.

I agree he is speculating wth his two cave men, but he offers a scenario that fits what we see, which is evidence that it is broadly right (not good evidence, but still evidence). Enough to claim "rational warrant"...

Joe in the OP: But those who are aware of the mystical consciousness can see more.

Or have deluded themselves that they can.

How do we tell the difference?

His argue mt depends entirely upon asserting that the concept of soul can only be based upon some naturalistic phenomena that needs explaining, he doens't even deal with mystical experience,so it's wrong from the outset,

Joe in the OP: Maslow interpreted everyday psychology as laced with the trace of the supernatural, because for him “supernatural” just meant a deeper level of consciousness about ordinary things.

So what Maslow was talking about was not the supernatural as we are using the term, and so Maslow gives no support to your claims of the supernatural.


wrong. He gives a good deal of support for it because he;s one of the major researchers of mystical experience, the quotes I use from him are in his book of mystic experience called peak experience. He doesn't comment it to the same ultimate causation in God that I do but doesn't make any difference because he .the experience is real.


Joe Hinman said…
Reading your post I found no actual argument that the soul exists.

go back to class. you make F. What is the soul?It's a symbol of life so symbols don;t need to be proven. Moreover the spirit is validated by mystic experience, validated does not mean proven we don't need to prove it, the reasons to believe it are valid and strong.


If there is a soul, why can we not detect it?

we do every time we think or perceive or wake up to some new level of consciousness,

To be clear, what I mean by soul here is a some supernatural aspect of a person that exists beyond the physical, and that is intimately connected to a person's identity and thinking processes.

yes and that is what I call the mind. Times rimes spirit

It necessarily follows that the soul can interact with the physical world. If the soul exists, then it can clearly be influenced by the physical world, as we react to what we see, hear, etc. Furthermore, it can itself clearly influence the physical world; just look at all mankind has done to see how the soul has changed the world.

every time we perceive the world or think. You think Christians have to believe in The ghost in the machine, I don't believe in that,

If the soul is affected by and itself affects the physical world then it can potentially be detected by something outside the brain. Remember that the brain is just a certain arrangement of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. atoms. It is a physical structure. If one physical structure can interact with a soul, then we know that others potentially can too. If the soul exists, then it must be the case that it can be detected in some way.

the soul is a symbol for the over all life of the person in relation to God,I have explained this many many times,the spirit is the bit that lives on after death and it is synonymous with the mind,

But no one has ever managed to do so.

More damming, theologists are not even trying!

Everyone just accepts that souls cannot be detected. And if they cannot be detected then it follows that they do not exist.

We have already discusssed mind and how it is not reducible to the brian.
The Pixie said…
Joe: I defend my believes every time I task to you and I kicked your ass and you know I do,

You sound delusional.

Joe: None of your attacks have stood,this one is not going either, because it's based distoring what i said I said I don;t need to prove because belief is warranted, prove and defend are different,

Every time you demand proof of your opponents, and every time you merely claim rational warrant for your own position. You frame the argument to give yourself a huge advantage, thus reinforcing your delusion that you win the arguments. You are fooling yourself that you have a good argument because you think you have refuted Lauritzen proof, and have shown why you have rational warrant for your belief.

The truth is that Lauritzen has not claimed to have proof, but you pretend he has to maintain your delusion.

The truth is that Lauritzen has given rational warrant for thinking there is no such thing as the soul.

Joe: wrong. He gives a good deal of support for it because he;s one of the major researchers of mystical experience, the quotes I use from him are in his book of mystic experience called peak experience. He doesn't comment it to the same ultimate causation in God that I do but doesn't make any difference because he .the experience is real.

None of which would make me think he believes in the supernatural at all. You do know Maslow was an atheist, right?

Joe: go back to class. you make F. What is the soul?It's a symbol of life so symbols don;t need to be proven. ...

Joe, you need to re-read the OP. For the sake of this issue we are using Lauritzen's terminology, so the soul we are discussing here is the supposed supernatural aspect of a person.

Joe: ... Moreover the spirit is validated by mystic experience, validated does not mean proven we don't need to prove it, the reasons to believe it are valid and strong.

No they are not.

Joe: yes and that is what I call the mind. Times rimes spirit

Just to make the discussion even more confused... Why say you will use the word "soul" in the OP, then declare that actually you will call it "spirit" later in the discussion. No, actually, you will call it "mind".

In stark contrast, please note that I made it very clear exactly what I meant by "soul" when presenting my argument.

Joe: We have already discusssed mind and how it is not reducible to the brian.

You have certainly asserted your opinion on it. I have not seen you address why this supposed supernatural aspect of a person - whatever you want to label it - cannot be detected outside the body.
Joe Hinman said…
Every time you demand proof of your opponents, and every time you merely claim rational warrant for your own position. You frame the argument to give yourself a huge advantage, thus reinforcing your delusion that you win the arguments. You are fooling yourself that you have a good argument because you think you have refuted Lauritzen proof, and have shown why you have rational warrant for your belief.


The truth is that Lauritzen has not claimed to have proof, but you pretend he has to maintain your delusion.


He has not warranted his disbelief in the soul because his method is so goofy.He;s just making things up that seem plausible to him but his standards are governed by slip shod rejection of everything but science,




The truth is that Lauritzen has given rational warrant for thinking there is no such thing as the soul.


I/ve given ample reason to doubt his methods,

Joe: wrong. He [Maslow] gives a good deal of support for it because he;s one of the major researchers of mystical experience, the quotes I use from him are in his book of mystic experience called peak experience. He doesn't comment it to the same ultimate causation in God that I do but doesn't make any difference because he .the experience is real.

None of which would make me think he believes in the supernatural at all. You do know Maslow was an atheist, right?

quote from Maslow:"Anyone who cannot perceive the sacred, the eternal, the symbolic, is simply blind to an aspect of reality, as I think I have amply demonstrated elsewhere (54), and in Appendix I, from Peak Experience" I don't need Maslow to prove that God actual does SN I do use him to prove that there is a valid experience and properly thought of as SN or Spiritial pat of the sacred those are categories that are important, I can interprt them differentlly because I am only using him to confim the experin ce,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: go back to class. you make F. What is the soul?It's a symbol of life so symbols don;t need to be proven. ...

Joe, you need to re-read the OP. For the sake of this issue we are using Lauritzen's terminology, so the soul we are discussing here is the supposed supernatural aspect of a person.

he still doesn't give us a reason to doubt it,

Joe: ... Moreover the spirit is validated by mystic experience, validated does not mean proven we don't need to prove it, the reasons to believe it are valid and strong.

No they are not.

yes they are and they proven scientifically with 200 peer reviewed studies, you have not gotten under any of them, remember a few weeks ago you got ass kciked agianst my studies,

part 1

part 2



Joe Hinman said…

Joe: yes and that is what I call the mind. Times rimes spirit

Just to make the discussion even more confused... Why say you will use the word "soul" in the OP, then declare that actually you will call it "spirit" later in the discussion. No, actually, you will call it "mind".

In stark contrast, please note that I made it very clear exactly what I meant by "soul" when presenting my argument.

sorry you are quite right It;s habit, i;ll use soul in the sense of the thing that lives on for the sake of this discussion,we could say what i call spirit here i will call soul
The Pixie said…
Joe: I/ve given ample reason to doubt his methods,

And we have given reason to doubt yours, but still you claim rational warrant. It is this uneven playing field that is characteristic of your arguments.

Joe: ... I don't need Maslow to prove that God actual does SN I do use him to prove that there is a valid experience and properly thought of as SN or Spiritial pat of the sacred those are categories that are important, I can interprt them differentlly because I am only using him to confim the experin ce,

We all agree they are valid experiences. Where we disagree is whether they come from God. I agree with Maslow that they do not.

Relevant to this discussion, I say there is no supernatural component to a person. You cite Maslow, but the truth is that Maslow agrees with my position, not yours.

Joe: yes they are and they proven scientifically with 200 peer reviewed studies, you have not gotten under any of them, remember a few weeks ago you got ass kciked agianst my studies,

No they really are not. All you have is evidence people have the experiences. You have no evidence of any supernatural aspect.

Furthermore, people could have these experience from God, and that still would not support your claim of a supernatural component to a person. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose a supernatural entity could cause these experiences in a person with no soul.
Joe Hinman said…

We all agree they [mystical experiences] are valid experiences. Where we disagree is whether they come from God. I agree with Maslow that they do not.

Maslow would have been against Lauritzen's attempt to cast doubt on the soul. He accepted the sacred as a true part of life, even though it wasn't connected to God it wasn;t just (for him) a trick or a mistake, it was a valid aspect aspect of reality



Relevant to this discussion, I say there is no supernatural component to a person. You cite Maslow, but the truth is that Maslow agrees with my position, not yours.

not really you are over simplifying his position,

Joe: yes they are and they proven scientifically with 200 peer reviewed studies, you have not gotten under any of them, remember a few weeks ago you got ass kciked agianst my studies,

No they really are not. All you have is evidence people have the experiences. You have no evidence of any supernatural aspect.


Not what? they are peer reviewed studies in academic journals, I just don't know why you peopel can't listen,Ip;e explained this to you over and over again,you just can't geit,

(1) the experience is the SN that's what SN is, that the original use of the word, Mystical Experience itself.

(2)Yes we still have an argument about what causes it but the "It" in that sentence is SN, so you have no basis for the phrase "there is no SN. Yes there is and you admit the phenomena you can't bring your self to say the word,

(3) I presented 8 tie breakers in the book each one of which proves that it can't be naturalistic,you read that article a week or so ago and you had no answer you still don't.


Furthermore, people could have these experience from God, and that still would not support your claim of a supernatural component to a person. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose a supernatural entity could cause these experiences in a person with no soul.


Lauritzen made the argument that he can demonstrate there is no soul,so it's his burden of proof, I don't have to prove there is one. But I have linked it to consciousness I think we know we have consciousness,
Anonymous said…
Joe: Maslow would have been against Lauritzen's attempt to cast doubt on the soul. He accepted the sacred as a true part of life, even though it wasn't connected to God it wasn;t just (for him) a trick or a mistake, it was a valid aspect aspect of reality

You are projecting your own beliefs on him. Maslow was an atheist, so it seems a pretty safe bet he rejected the supernatural - and none of the quotes you have posted suggest otherwise.

Joe: not really you are over simplifying his position,

Either the guy believed in the supernatural or not. I feel pretty confident saying the latter. That is all that is relevant.

Joe: Not what? they are peer reviewed studies in academic journals, I just don't know why you peopel can't listen,Ip;e explained this to you over and over again,you just can't geit,

And yet none of them implicate the supernatural.

Joe: (1) the experience is the SN that's what SN is, that the original use of the word, Mystical Experience itself.

No it is not. We know chemicals, such as magic mushrooms, have similar effects, and indeed mystics would take them to induce supposedly mysical experiences.

Joe: (2)Yes we still have an argument about what causes it but the "It" in that sentence is SN, so you have no basis for the phrase "there is no SN. Yes there is and you admit the phenomena you can't bring your self to say the word,

No it really isn't. People have these experiences, but there is no evidence they are supernatural.

Joe: (3) I presented 8 tie breakers in the book each one of which proves that it can't be naturalistic,you read that article a week or so ago and you had no answer you still don't.

That was it? They did not even seem worth addressing. Which do you think is the strongest? I will address that one on that thread.

Joe: Lauritzen made the argument that he can demonstrate there is no soul,so it's his burden of proof, I don't have to prove there is one. But I have linked it to consciousness I think we know we have consciousness,

All he says it there is probably no soul. That still means there might be, and you are not arguing that there definitely is, so we are all happy, right?
Joe Hinman said…
Pix
(1) If SN means a certain experience

(2)if that experience in to which SN refers is a real experince

(3)and you admired it is

(4)then by definition SN must be real.

that is logical you have no way out, you have to admit that or admit you don;t do logic,

I'll put up the tie breakers again by themselves next time we can go at them.
The Pixie said…
Then you have changed the definition behind my back. You have 200 references about mystical experiences. How many of them make it clear that they are supernatural? I am guessing none whatsoever.

Here is an interesting one - with nothing about the supernatural:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/true-believers/201604/how-have-mystical-experience
Joe Hinman said…
the same definition I've been talking about for years,I've posted on it here on this blog.

It's obvious that modern social science studies wouldn't know or care about an arcain big of Christian theology from the 6th century. the modern concept of SN comes from modern times.
Joe Hinman said…
I have post on my view of the SN many times here on the cadre blog, follow the link abve
The Pixie said…
It is the definition of mystical experiences I am talking about. You seem to imply that mystical experiences are supernatural by definition.

And I use "supernatural" in the modern, not archaic sense.
im-skeptical said…
And I use "supernatural" in the modern, not archaic sense.
- Joe uses the word 'supernatural' in an equivocal way. First. he uses it in a sense that equates to an elevated spirit, or elevated sense of awareness. He comes to this definition by misinterpreting old writings in Greek where they use related words, but they didn't use them in exactly the sense Joe wants to believe. Second, after establishing his false basis for using this word to relate to peak experiences, he then pushes the definition to into the realm of God-caused transformative experiences, as the basis of his "proof" that peak experiences are "warrant for belief" in God. It's a clever trick, but a logical analysis of his argument by any impartial philosopher would reveal the equivocation in his argument.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
It is the definition of mystical experiences I am talking about. You seem to imply that mystical experiences are supernatural by definition.

And I use "supernatural" in the modern, not archaic sense.

you have it backwards,I an not saying Mystical experience adhere's to the range of activities we call SN.I am saying the actual meaning of he term SN originally was used to refer to the experience we now cal mystical.
Joe Hinman said…
Skepie is becoming delusional he;s inventing things about what I think really amounts to lying,



Joe uses the word 'supernatural' in an equivocal way.

what is do think is based upon the works of following people, William Babcock, Ben Sailor, Emil Durkheim, Eugene R, Fairweather Maithius Joseh Scheeben. It's too much trouble for Douphus to learn who these-eopleare so he just asserting I made it all up


First. he uses it in a sense that equates to an elevated spirit, or elevated sense of awareness.

false

He comes to this definition by misinterpreting old writings in Greek where they use related words, but they didn't use them in exactly the sense Joe wants to believe. Second, after establishing his false basis for using this word to relate to peak experiences,


He doesn't read Greek he don't even know who they are so how does he know i got them wrong? Duoysious the Areiopagite. Show me passage I got wrong


he then pushes the definition to into the realm of God-caused transformative experiences, as the basis of his "proof" that peak experiences are "warrant for belief" in God. It's a clever trick, but a logical analysis of his argument by any impartial philosopher would reveal the equivocation in his argument.

Now he;s so delusional he;s ruing together various phrases I;ve used regardless of their meaning,

Duionysius AG spoke of the power of God to raise us to a higher level of consciousnesses (otherwise understood as mystical experience) calling it Supernatural.

why is that so hard?
Joe Hinman said…
Doufus doesn't do details
im-skeptical said…
Joe, you've discussed these things in enough detail that I have been able to see how you stitch it all together. If fact, it is the details of your arguments that reveal the logical flaws. I have written about some of this before, and every time I do, your only response is an ad hominem attack. I have yet to see you make any substantive response to the objections I raise.
Joe Hinman said…
you have never made an answer that shows the slightest comprehension, you do not know what I argue because you refuse to read the book In fact you wont eve read most of this post, you never do.

Take the simplistic argumet that the studies do not say it's SN. I know you think this is so devastating but you have never answered the arguments against it.There are several reasons why we should not expect the studies to say it's God or SN.There are reasons why it doesn't matter. There are reasons to think it is of God or SN.


(1) why we should not expect studies to say it is SN

a. Many of the studies are done by atheists or agnostics who don't even believe SN,that's not a reason to think the phenomena they study is not SN.

b. Some of the researchers do believe in God I have quoted them before,they are i the book. But they do not believe it is their place to say anything about God scientifically. I have quoted them too.

c.Science can do nothing to determine if it is SN. So it's pointless to demand that. I don't claim to prove God remember? it's reason to believe not poof.

(2) Tie breakers rule out naturalistic cause, I will deal with that on Monday
im-skeptical said…
you refuse to read the book
- Provide a copy, and I'll read every single word. But the fact is that you've already put a good chunk of it on your blog. You've made the essential arguments here. And I always read all of it. Your basis for claiming that I don't is the simple fact that I disagree.
Joe Hinman said…
no there are some important chapters that have not been put on the net at all. you ave not answered the stuff I did put on it. You have not answered my previous post,I disproved your argument about studies not saying it's SN
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
I disproved your argument about studies not saying it's SN
- Here we go with the equivocation. If we take the word 'supernatural' to mean something like what you call an "elevated level of consciousness", or what scientists would call a "peak experience", then it can properly be said that none of those studies disprove the existence of such a thing. Of course - the studies deal with a real phenomenon that we all acknowledge. But not one of those studies goes beyond that to conclude that there is anything going on that would be regarded as 'supernatural' in the sense of the word as it is used in our culture - the way it is understood by practically everybody these days - that involves things outside the realm of the natural world - things that are not observable by the senses and subject to the laws of physics. The former definition is merely a description of a natural phenomenon, with no implication of God, or any kind of non-natural aspect to it, other than the mental state itself. And if you stick with that definition, OK - those studies make no claims or findings beyond that. The latter definition is what we would associate with God, or immaterial souls, or what have you. And your 200 studies don't go there. But you act as if they do. You easily slip back and forth between two different definitions of 'supernatural', and base your whole argument on the conflation of those two very different things.
Joe Hinman said…
30/2018 09:04:00 AM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
I disproved your argument about studies not saying it's SN
- Here we go with the equivocation. If we take the word 'supernatural' to mean something like what you call an "elevated level of consciousness", or what scientists would call a "peak experience", then it can properly be said that none of those studies disprove the existence of such a thing. Of course - the studies deal with a real phenomenon that we all acknowledge. But not one of those studies goes beyond that to conclude that there is anything going on that would be regarded as 'supernatural' in the sense of the word as it is used in our culture - the way it is understood by practically everybody these days - that involves things outside the realm of the natural world - things that are not observable by the senses and subject to the laws of physics. The former definition is merely a description of a natural phenomenon, with no implication of God, or any kind of non-natural aspect to it, other than the mental state itself. And if you stick with that definition, OK - those studies make no claims or findings beyond that.


I just got thorough answer that,I said 1) why we should not expect studies to say it is SN (2)does;t matter because ti breakers will prove it;snot naturalistic,

The latter definition is what we would associate with God, or immaterial souls, or what have you. And your 200 studies don't go there.


the word SN refers to the experience it is the same experience, Since that;s what the word means you can't say it doesn't exist, , which has always been known. It doesn't matter if we differ or the origin, the fact is the thing SN really does exist regardless of what you think about it's origin.


But you act as if they do. You easily slip back and forth between two different definitions of 'supernatural', and base your whole argument on the conflation of those two very different things.

I have discussion mu view many times,I'm sorry you are too dense to follow a complex notion,
im-skeptical said…
I just got thorough answer that,I said 1) why we should not expect studies to say it is SN (2)does;t matter because ti breakers will prove it;snot naturalistic
- You speak of "tie breakers" as if it was a real thing. This isn't a school-boy's game, and there is no tie to be broken. The objective evidence is perfectly clear. Beyond that, you have only your own private interpretations of the objective evidence that make you believe there's more than natural reality involved. Your so-called "tie breakers" are simply unfounded assertions and illogical arguments that aren't supported by any objective evidence. And that's exactly why NONE of those 200 studies draw the same conclusions that you do. If your analysis was valid, the scientific community would come to the same conclusion. But they don't, and there's a VERY GOOD REASON for that.
Joe Hinman said…
- You speak of "tie breakers" as if it was a real thing. This isn't a school-boy's game, and there is no tie to be broken.

Here we go with your dip shit ignorance again, yes stupid tie breaker is thing in philosophy.

Imprint
https://myelms.umd.edu/courses/1181012/files/42958403/download?download...1
them in descending order of importance until a “tie-breaker” is found. If we are .... nate philosophical problems and serve as instructive models (Horwich,. 1982, 1993 ..... is defeated by some D. In both cases, when the defeater D is given, the.
Philosophical Issues, 19, Metaethics, 2009 ... - Wiley Online Library

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2009.00159.x/pdf
I'm not the first philosopher imprudent enough to articulate a skepticism about persons. ..... Thus, if the presence of a defeater cannot be confidently ruled out ...... might count as a perfectly rational “tie-breaker” in close cases: all things equal,.
Tiebreaker Rhymes - Rhymer.com

Joe Hinman said…
skep


The objective evidence is perfectly clear.

what evidence? you have none, not only have you never given any but you can't show me one study that says mystical experience is not of God! If the researchers feel they don't have the right to say it is by God they also don't feel they have the right to say it's not.


Your whole positioning on brain chemistry i bullshit,I disproved it on the problem of binding and no study says mystical experience is only caused by brain chemistry



Beyond that, you have only your own private interpretations of the objective evidence that make you believe there's more than natural reality involved.

I have of the major researchers especially Dr Hood, and the guy who did the Johns Hopkins serotonin study (Grifiths) and Dr Newberg, and philosophers such as John Hick.Again you are fantasizing about objective evidence. you have none,I posted the arithmetic that went over my arguments on brain chemistry two weeks ago you said nothing about it.


Your so-called "tie breakers" are simply unfounded assertions and illogical arguments that aren't supported by any objective evidence.


you don;t even know what they are. stop mouthing your mindless prattle you know nothing whatsoever about them. you don't know one single tie-breaker.


And that's exactly why NONE of those 200 studies draw the same conclusions that you do.


that is a truly idiotic statement,you can;t name a single study, you have knowledge the conclusions of any study.

you don;t know if they agree with me or not you ignorant little hag-ridden neophyte,




If your analysis was valid, the scientific community would come to the same conclusion. But they don't, and there's a VERY GOOD REASON for that.


If my analysis was invalid you would be able to make logical arguments against it,but you haven't, not one single time.All you have done is find minute statements to twist and harp on and use general statements that would e damaging if they were true (such no objective data)but you have no idea and no way of feeding out,

you lack any kind of intellectual sophistication ,you are undergrad a best, yu wouldn't wouldn't understand oneofmy studiesif you read one
im-skeptical said…
If my analysis was invalid you would be able to make logical arguments against it,but you haven't, not one single time.
- You're lying again, Joe. Aside from the many times I've made various comments and objections to your arguments and assertions in your own blog, I've made numerous posts in my own blog addressing the things you say. And instead of answering my objections, you invariably respond with ad hominem attacks. YOU never provide any cogent responses to MY arguments. All you ever do is attack me. If you are serious about having a higher level of discussion on this blog, then try answering me instead of attacking me, for a change.
im-skeptical said…
Here we go with your dip shit ignorance again, yes stupid tie breaker is thing in philosophy.

Imprint
https://myelms.umd.edu/courses/1181012/files/42958403/download?download...1


- Evidently, you didn't read this paper, Joe. It is not what you represent it to be. It does happen to use the term "tie-breaker", but not in any kind of philosophical sense. It is about an algorithmic process for decision-making (in the program LEX or EAM), where the tie-breaker is a data element makes the decision in cases where the weight of the other data factors is balanced. This is not a philosophical issue, but an algorithmic one, even if the topic matter of the paper is a philosophical issue.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
If my analysis was invalid you would be able to make logical arguments against it,but you haven't, not one single time.
- You're lying again, Joe.

persona; attack. you accuse someone of lying you better have a better reason than just "he disagrees with me," Skepie has been short on logical analysis and long on personal attack,for a long time now,look at his comments up this page


Aside from the many times I've made various comments and objections to your arguments and assertions in your own blog, I've made numerous posts in my own blog addressing the things you say.

Most of your comments are not even attempts at logic,they are just personal attacks. You rarely know what you are talking about.Most of the thins you say about philosophy are ignorant. For example never heard of a tie breaker. Or the two major divisions in ethics are not deontology and teleology but descriptive and prescriptive.

You lie about knowing anything about my studies, you do not know the first thing about them,so you assert no one else reads things either so you start asserting it about me,even though I footnote page numbers,you never foot anything you never quote anything,



And instead of answering my objections, you invariably respond with ad hominem attacks.

that is what you do Trump! you are just parroting back the criticisms I make of you but your are lying and I;m not,



YOU never provide any cogent responses to MY arguments.


every time I've held you to logical analysis you folded. what you are calling a logical criticism is just twisting words. Other than personal attack that's the main thing you do


All you ever do is attack me. If you are serious about having a higher level of discussion on this blog, then try answering me instead of attacking me, for a change.

I have offered to debate you in a structured atmosphere with neutral; judges and first one to insult loses by default. I have the 1x1 board set up on message boards, you wont go near it,
Joe Hinman said…
Evidently, you didn't read this paper, Joe. It is not what you represent it to be. It does happen to use the term "tie-breaker", but not in any kind of philosophical sense. It is about an algorithmic process for decision-making (in the program LEX or EAM), where the tie-breaker is a data element makes the decision in cases where the weight of the other data factors is balanced. This is not a philosophical issue, but an algorithmic one, even if the topic matter of the paper is a philosophical issue.

I used more than one source and that one still uses tie breaker off schoolyard,If that phrase is just school boy stuff as you claim why is a sophisticated mathematician using it in theoretical writing? Is he a school boy?

I used more than one source stupid,I've seen Plantinga talk about tie breakers I've discussed them with William Abraham Oxford trained philosopher , you are an idiot
Joe Hinman said…
here four examples that is clearly philosophy and actually deals with a God argument.

Philosophical Problems: An Introductory Text in Philosophy
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1770486062
Peter Alward - 2017 - ‎Philosophy
An Introductory Text in Philosophy Peter Alward ... As a result, the role of simplicity ought to be understood as a tie-breaker ... of religious experiences resists explanation in physical terms alone but can be explained by appeal to Omni-God.


here


Philosophical Conversations - Page 309 - Google Books Result
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1770482164
Robert M. Martin - 2005 - ‎Philosophy
Maybe you preferred the A-body because that's the one Alice used to have? Does ... counts too, enough to break a tie. sceptic: But what if there's no tie-breaker?

[that one speak of tie breakiers as something to actually look for and expect, look atthetitle]

here


Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0199688621
Rowan Cruft, ‎S. Matthew Liao, ‎Massimo Renzo - 2015 - ‎Law
desert but due to considerations of avoidability plus fairness, given scarce ... used by Nickel (153), we would use prior conduct as a tie-breaker regarding who ...

here

Philosophical Disquisitions: Justice-Related Objections to Effective ...
philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/.../justice-related-objections-to-effective.html
Jan 17, 2016 - In that post, I adopted a 'thick' definition of EA, which holds that one ought .... A third response would be to use priority as a tie-breaker in cases ...

[notice again he speaks as though tie breaker is a regular thing to use-this example is on constitutionalist ethics]

here
im-skeptical said…
Regarding personal attacks:

persona; attack. you accuse someone of lying you better have a better reason than just "he disagrees with me," Skepie has been short on logical analysis and long on personal attack,for a long time now,look at his comments up this page ...
- By all means, read the comments on this page, and any other page you choose. What you will see is the Joe invariably initiates ad hominem attacks in response to my comments. In this case, I said he was using equivocation in his argument, which is a legitimate way to rebut the logic of an argument, and it was done in a civil manner. Jut Joe's response was not civil. And that's the way it always goes between the two of us. Joe's way of responding to me definitely drags down the level of discourse. I will admit that I'm not perfect, but it's not me who starts these exchanges, and I NEVER stoop to the level that Joe does.

im-skeptical said…
Regarding the use of the term 'tie-breaker':

I used more than one source and that one still uses tie breaker off schoolyard,If that phrase is just school boy stuff as you claim why is a sophisticated mathematician using it in theoretical writing? Is he a school boy?

I used more than one source stupid,I've seen Plantinga talk about tie breakers I've discussed them with William Abraham Oxford trained philosopher , you are an idiot

- Congratulations, Joe. Your Googling has turned up several instances of the word being used in the arena of philosophy. A few comments on that: First, I agree that the term is used in the English language. And that is exactly what you have found - not that it has some particular philosophical meaning. In the examples you provide, it is used in the sense of something that would tip the scale when two alternatives have been assessed or measured and found to be equal. Which brings me to the second point: that's not what you mean by it. Your tie-breakers are just arguments. In other words, you don't accept the validity of the evidence and arguments on the other side, so you introduce "tie-breakers", which are just your own arguments. As I have tried to tell you many times, it's not a situation where there's a tie to be broken. So your use of the term is not consistent with all those examples you gave.
Joe Hinman said…
Regarding personal attacks:

persona; attack. you accuse someone of lying you better have a better reason than just "he disagrees with me," Skepie has been short on logical analysis and long on personal attack,for a long time now,look at his comments up this page ...
- By all means, read the comments on this page, and any other page you choose. What you will see is the Joe invariably initiates ad hominem attacks in response to my comments.

Over on metacrock's blog everyone wanted you banned. I was not the only one. y I asked everyone they all agreed. everyone sees how you are. I don't have to prove myself I don't have to to tow your line. you don't like the way we do it here,don't post here


In this case, I said he was using equivocation in his argument, which is a legitimate way to rebut the logic of an argument, and it was done in a civil manner.

Yes that is a valid criticism and I have a valid answer. you are twisting the issue because that's not why I got upset.I told you several times you are ignoring what I really said. making up your own. Baht is indicative of the way you do. You are not responsive you make up your own Verizon of facts. It may be because you don't read enough of my post to even know what i said.,

My issue was about your refusal to understate my reading of Harris then asserting i could not have read it merely because I see it different than you do.I even footed the pages to show I read it you can't even accept that which is extremity insulting. All of that is about your refusal to accept that I can know anything,



Jut Joe's response was not civil. And that's the way it always goes between the two of us.

duh

Joe's way of responding to me definitely drags down the level of discourse. I will admit that I'm not perfect, but it's not me who starts these exchanges, and I NEVER stoop to the level that Joe does.

he admits he;s not perfect wow! so honest what a fine human being,
Joe Hinman said…
Congratulations, Joe. Your Googling


of course I googled it I can;t document my private conversation with Abraham what;s wrong with google?


has turned up several instances of the word being used in the arena of philosophy.

Of course you lack the skill level in close reading to even understand what it means to say the authors speak of tie breakers as though they are an expected thing,

"counts too, enough to break a tie. sceptic: But what if there's no tie-breakers?"

"we would use prior conduct as a tie-breaker regarding who ..."

"A third response would be to use priority as a tie-breaker in cases ..."

each one of these speaks as though using tie breakers is a regular thing. something they would expect to see again



A few comments on that: First, I agree that the term is used in the English language. And that is exactly what you have found - not that it has some particular philosophical meaning.

I never said it had a participial philosophical meaning,I said it's "a thing" that means they use it. Five examples show they use it often. You said they don't use it. You said it was school boy,

I never said tie-breaker is a magic formula that means you automatically win I said its used. Regardless of how often it is used you have to confront the logic of my tie breakers.


In the examples you provide, it is used in the sense of something that would tip the scale when two alternatives have been assessed or measured and found to be equal.

that's pretty much what the word means,
Joe Hinman said…
Which brings me to the second point: that's not what you mean by it. Your tie-breakers are just arguments. In other words, you don't accept the validity of the evidence and arguments on the other side, so you introduce "tie-breakers", which are just your own arguments. As I have tried to tell you many times, it's not a situation where there's a tie to be broken. So your use of the term is not consistent with all those examples you gave.


that is illogical. You don't understand the meaning of a tie. Ties are not just only when evidence on both sides is equally good. They also happen when evidence on both sides is inconclusive. There are no little designer labels tagged on to the brain How else are we gong to get passed the impasse in proof but by analyzing the improbable nature of the effects? I could call it an impasse breaker but then you would say its not a thing in philosophy.

It breaks the tie between inconclusive evidence and makes naturalistic seem improbable



I'm closing this section because have a new post,
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
So what Maslow was talking about was not the supernatural as we are using the term, and so Maslow gives no support to your claims of the supernatural.

except in so far as he affirmed the phenomena Like he accepts the idea that mystical experience is real, and moreover he speaks to the issue of transcendence,m he does accept that there is a need to deal with the interchangeable aspects, he did not believe in God or in what you call SN, the highjack version.It's a matter of different solutions


Joe Hinman said…
- I must agree. Joe has a tendency to find things in the works of scientists and atheists that might appear at first glance to support his thesis. That is, unless you actually understand what they are saying. Joe interprets these things in a way that was not intended by the author, and then uses them as an "authoritative" source of confirmation for his claims.

That is wrong.?Joe interprets these things in a way that was not intended by the author," that is nonsense,I never said Maslow supports belief in God,I said up front since my use of him he is an atheist, I just got through telling Pixie "he doesn't use SN they way we do"



I'm not sure Maslow ever even used the word 'supernatural' to describe peak experiences. He certainly didn't attribute them to any kind of transcendent power, as Joe does. They are entirely attributable to the human psyche.

I never said he did attribute it to transcendent power


“The great lesson from the true mystics is that the sacred is in the ordinary, that it is to be found in one’s daily life, in one’s neighbors, friends, and family, and in one’s backyard.” – Abraham Maslow

and just in case you missed it ...

“We need not take refuge in supernatural gods to explain our saints and sages and heroes and statesmen, as if to explain our disbelief that mere unaided human beings could be that good or wise.” – Abraham Maslow

of course you are not honest enough to examine how I use his woks. Because you have to think in terms of us vs them. we are at war, religion is the enemy, so you can't understand the concepts,as long as you are trying to east the enemy and prove you are smarter than I am.

Maslow confirms the realty of the experience and that it's good for you He does have some transdencee value in that he saw clayey tahtm e overslmes fear of death,

when it comes to irritating it to a cause we have to disagree,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch