Reincarnation data & modelling

[SirPhilip]

Are you ever going to explain what in the honking heck you're talking about?

Maybe.

 

[SirPhilip]

So it's a theoretical construct that need not have any correspondence with reality.

Since nature is comprised of form, and form with function, I'd say the idea works well. In the sense of platonic solids, you have perfect order.

..in much the same way that a triangle as a planar solid can not be said to exist? Can you at least describe this form? Platonic solids are notorious for being well defined.

Does the whole have intrinsic meaning, or do the parts? Sort of like if you go through an auto-parts catalog and try to find a car. Someone might say the engine is really the car, but the engine is dependent on other subsystems and connections. When they work, we can call it a car. When they break down, we can still call it a car. When removed, we can no longer call it a car, just a body. In the same way as you could have a blueprint for a car, you could have a genetic blueprint of a rabbit. But unless you seriously modified the genetic code and threw whatever natural balance existed, the rabbit would still retain a degree of autonomy and independence. You could also enhance the rabbit, but like a supercar, it would still be just that, a car.

 

[Cuddles]

Does the whole have intrinsic meaning, or do the parts?

Both. A car is made of parts, yes, as is a human. I can point to every part of a car and say what it is, how it works, where it is connected to everything else and so on (or at least I could if I knew anything about cars). I can also do the same to a human (probably not legally). At no point is there a soul in either one. The analogy with a car is a very good one, since it is completely contradictory to your claim that we have a soul.

Also, define meaning.

 

[Jekyll]

Since nature is comprised of form, and form with function, I'd say the idea works well. In the sense of platonic solids, you have perfect order.

But nature isn't composed of platonic solids, there is no object that is a perfect triangle, cone or sphere, just some close approximations.

Does the whole have intrinsic meaning, or do the parts? Sort of like if you go through an auto-parts catalog and try to find a car. Someone might say the engine is really the car, but the engine is dependent on other subsystems and connections. When they work, we can call it a car. When they break down, we can still call it a car. When removed, we can no longer call it a car, just a body. In the same way as you could have a blueprint for a car, you could have a genetic blueprint of a rabbit. But unless you seriously modified the genetic code and threw whatever natural balance existed, the rabbit would still retain a degree of autonomy and independence. You could also enhance the rabbit, but like a supercar, it would still be just that, a car.

I can't tell exactly what you're talking about but I think you are confusing platonic solids (primitive shapes that are well defined by geometry) with platonic forms which are some kind of idealised essence of a class of objects. Either way the criticism still stands, there is no reason to think that platonic forms physically exist and your concept of 'soul' is nothing more than the tautological description "that which makes a human human".

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Too late! I've already found a very accurate model for reincarnation, and I've found someone to help you modify the model:

Hope this helps.

LLH

 

[SirPhilip]

But nature isn't composed of platonic solids, there is no object that is a perfect triangle, cone or sphere, just some close approximations.

Right. You have an condition of absolute disorder as well as an ideal order.

I can't tell exactly what you're talking about but I think you are confusing platonic solids (primitive shapes that are well defined by geometry) with platonic forms which are some kind of idealised essence of a class of objects. Either way the criticism still stands, there is no reason to think that platonic forms physically exist and your concept of 'soul' is nothing more than the tautological description "that which makes a human human".

Oh, I was simply using platonic solids as an analogy. My point was that body and 'soul' could only define each other, although both are distinct. People generally look at others as ghosts controlling a machine, with varying degrees of competency.

 

[SirPhilip]

Both. A car is made of parts, yes, as is a human. I can point to every part of a car and say what it is, how it works, where it is connected to everything else and so on (or at least I could if I knew anything about cars). I can also do the same to a human (probably not legally). At no point is there a soul in either one. The analogy with a car is a very good one, since it is completely contradictory to your claim that we have a soul. Also, define meaning.

Snuggles, you soulless misquoting naughty little nosy wosy pucker poo. What I ever so did point out was that 'soul' is interchangable with whole. In the case of living things anyway. I used the analogy of a platonic solid because it illustrates part, whole, and a third quality: meaningful order. Since meaning is self-defining. Bam! Soul.

 

[Jekyll]

Right. You have an condition of absolute disorder as well as an ideal order.

I'm not sure about this, if the real world was absolutely disordered there wouldn't be any correlation with platonic stuff and it wouldn't be very useful. I only see the 'ideal order' of the platonic world as an easy approximation that sweeps a lot of the unwanted details of the real world out the way.

Oh, I was simply using platonic solids as an analogy. My point was that body and 'soul' could only define each other, although both are distinct. People generally look at others as ghosts controlling a machine, with varying degrees of competency.

I disagree with this. It's possible to define the body in purely materialistic terms just using 'what you see is what you get'. Your body is 'just' the lump of meat sitting in front of the computer. In this framework the soul being what ever makes us human is just the intrinsic properties of the meat and not an independent entity needed to define the body. Looking at it in this way, the ghost in the machine is just the machine itself, however competent or incompetent it might be.

Looking at the world, I don't see anything to make me think that the soul is anything but a sometimes useful abstraction. Occasionally it is a useful device for considering peoples behaviour, but quite frequently(just look at Terri Schiavo) it's just a line drawn in the wrong place making it hard to see what is going on.

 

[Cuddles]

Snuggles, you soulless misquoting naughty little nosy wosy pucker poo.

What the hell are you talking about? Misquoting? Are you trying to claim I quoted something that wasn't exactly what you wrote as the first sentence of your post? I suggest you withdraw that accusation.

What I ever so did point out was that 'soul' is interchangable with whole. In the case of living things anyway. I used the analogy of a platonic solid because it illustrates part, whole, and a third quality: meaningful order. Since meaning is self-defining. Bam! Soul.

You pointed nothing out and still have not. What you have said is that something is made out of its parts. That is all. You then say that the whole has meaning, and therefore souls exist. Without defining what you mean by this your whole argument is simply gibberish. If you define meaning, I will then prove you wrong, but that is irrelevant until you come up with something coherent.

Edit : Jekyll sums it up in the above post.

 

[SirPhilip]

Lost In A Roman Wilderness Of Pain...

What the hell are you talking about? Misquoting? Are you trying to claim I quoted something that wasn't exactly what you wrote as the first sentence of your post? I suggest you withdraw that accusation.

Whacha' gonna do, snuggles, if I don't.

You pointed nothing out and still have not. What you have said is that something is made out of its parts. That is all.

I also said that, in the case of living things, we have a condition of a whole, which relates to function, which relates to idealism, which relates to purpose, which relates to more ambiguous things. When people refer to a "soul", they are talking about an ambiguous personal quality distinct, yet supported by the body. Humans don't aspire to be platonic, ideal forms with a fixed purpose (ok, fine, I'm lying).

You then say that the whole has meaning, and therefore souls exist.

Soul, being a (bad) placeword for what we call purpose, which stands apart from the body, which is form. Function arises out of form, which is formless.

Without defining what you mean by this your whole argument is simply gibberish. If you define meaning, I will then prove you wrong, but that is irrelevant until you come up with something coherent.

"Soul" is an ambiguity, so no, there wasn't an argument on my part. Just semantics. Meaning is a human interpretation of order. As meaning is not fundamentally defined, it is more of a consensus. Especially when you consider (meaningful) idealism.

 

[SirPhilip]

I disagree with this. It's possible to define the body in purely materialistic terms just using 'what you see is what you get'. Your body is 'just' the lump of meat sitting in front of the computer.

Living tissue is simply a form of matter which carries a self-ordering variable. It's the configuration it takes which establishes the degree of meaningful order. Hence the platonic analogy. There are other living things which have five senses, and even others which are hominids. So no, you can't define soul in unambiguous terms. You can however, identify it as a condition of meaningful order. I may be completely out of context here, because "soul" generally only relates to ethical constitution. Sentience then.

In this framework the soul being what ever makes us human is just the intrinsic properties of the meat and not an independent entity needed to define the body. Looking at it in this way, the ghost in the machine is just the machine itself, however competent or incompetent it might be.

Machine assumes only logic processing. Living things aren't simple switching systems any more than they are platonic solids. Even intelligent machines would require enviornmental cues to think, and this could not be identified as a form of introspection, which occupies the same ambiguous context the 'soul' does. Yet without it, there would be no reason or impetus to self-develop.

Looking at the world, I don't see anything to make me think that the soul is anything but a sometimes useful abstraction. Occasionally it is a useful device for considering peoples behaviour, but quite frequently(just look at Terri Schiavo) it's just a line drawn in the wrong place making it hard to see what is going on.

It's an abstraction, but a practical one, as it exists as a seperator from the function of parts, and the function of purpose.

 

[Jekyll]

Living tissue is simply a form of matter which carries a self-ordering variable. It's the configuration it takes which establishes the degree of meaningful order. Hence the platonic analogy. There are other living things which have five senses, and even others which are hominids. So no, you can't define soul in unambiguous terms. You can however, identify it as a condition of meaningful order. I may be completely out of context here, because "soul" generally only relates to ethical constitution. Sentience then.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'meaningful order' but that aside you seem to be agreeing with me that the soul sentience is just what the body does by nature of its meaningful order.

Machine assumes only logic processing. Living things aren't simple switching systems any more than they are platonic solids.

I would say they are complex switching devices, do you have reason to say they are something more?

Even intelligent machines would require enviornmental cues to think, and this could not be identified as a form of introspection, which occupies the same ambiguous context the 'soul' does. Yet without it, there would be no reason or impetus to self-develop.

This isn't true. Putting things in an evolutionary context not being eaten and finding something to eat are excellent reasons for self-development. We can go further than this and say that these are excellent reasons to develop introspection. When hunting an elephant is not a good time to be making mistakes.Second guessing yourself and double checking your estimates before the hunt is an excellent thing to do.
It doesn't seem too hard to imagine the development of an introspective thinking machine in some manor along these lines.

It's an abstraction, but a practical one, as it exists as a seperator from the function of parts, and the function of purpose.

Do you agree that it's just an abstraction or do you think it is an abstraction and something more?

The way I see it, is if it's just an abstraction it may be the wrong abstraction for some problems and guide you in the wrong direction.It's only if it points to something more than that, that you can say you'll always need to take it into consideration.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I also said that, in the case of living things, we have a condition of a whole, which relates to function, which relates to idealism, which relates to purpose, which relates to more ambiguous things. When people refer to a "soul", they are talking about an ambiguous personal quality distinct, yet supported by the body.

Posting gibberish does not serve to clarify preceding gibberish.

~~ Paul

 

[Foster Zygote]

...and if there is one god or many gods.

Anyone else notice that? T'ai appears to be ignoring the 'no gods' possibility.

 

[CFLarsen]

Anyone else notice that? T'ai appears to be ignoring the 'no gods' possibility.

It isn't a slip, that's for sure.

 

[SirPhilip]

Soul Kitchen..

I would say they are complex switching devices, do you have reason to say they are something more?

In the case of animals, not really. In the case of humans, the ability to control base instincts gives rise to varying degrees of free will. We can also willfully increase or hamper this. Sometimes even circumstances occur which cause it, as in the case of Stephen Hawking.

This isn't true. Putting things in an evolutionary context not being eaten and finding something to eat are excellent reasons for self-development.

That is mechanical though; animals are almost entirely, with few exceptions, driven by instinct. In fact, instinct is what opposes what one could consider free will. Humans, by contrast, have a degree of control that animals don't. It could be argued that intelligent introspection is simply a result of evolved social behavior, but this breaks down when intelligent life evolves to the point where the enviornment no longer is a survival hazard.

Do you agree that it's just an abstraction or do you think it is an abstraction and something more?

Both. It's a practical abstraction. Although I'm not going to attempt to argue whether we have a soul distinct from the body; just that, for whatever reason, we evolved this dualism as a part of ego development. Viewing yourself entirely as a mindless machine is oxymoronic; even though a wide range of common behaviors are deterministic, it is this ambiguous quality interacting with our instincts.

The way I see it, is if it's just an abstraction it may be the wrong abstraction for some problems and guide you in the wrong direction. It's only if it points to something more than that, that you can say you'll always need to take it into consideration.

Well, if you walked around all day thinking life was a pinball game and you were one of many pinballs, that wouldn't be correct either. So which absurdity is it: being a strangely self-aware pinball, or a self-suspicious soul.

 

[SirPhilip]

Posting gibberish does not serve to clarify preceding gibberish. ~~ Paul

We'll see about that.

 

[Tanstaafl]

In my past life I was a mold spore in 121,000 BC.

All I remember is the dinosaur foot coming down...

Does that help?

 

[Jekyll]

In the case of animals, not really. In the case of humans, the ability to control base instincts gives rise to varying degrees of free will. We can also willfully increase or hamper this. Sometimes even circumstances occur which cause it, as in the case of Stephen Hawking.

I don't see that there is anything more to free will than an ability to make mistakes and second guessing yourself. Perhaps you could provide an counter-example?

That is mechanical though; animals are almost entirely, with few exceptions, driven by instinct. In fact, instinct is what opposes what one could consider free will. Humans, by contrast, have a degree of control that animals don't. It could be argued that intelligent introspection is simply a result of evolved social behavior, but this breaks down when intelligent life evolves to the point where the enviornment no longer is a survival hazard.

OK there's a couple of false assumptions here: Firstly we don't need to show that stuff is useful now, just a gradual path of increasing usefulness to explain how it arrived, otherwise we wouldn't have appendixes.
Secondly, intelligence and introspection are now far more important skills than they have ever been. Sure a *insert-politically-correct-word-here* might be able to survive due to societies good graces but it will severely restrict their choice in mate and their ability to provide for their children.

Both. It's a practical abstraction. Although I'm not going to attempt to argue whether we have a soul distinct from the body; just that, for whatever reason, we evolved this dualism as a part of ego development. Viewing yourself entirely as a mindless machine is oxymoronic;

You can scratch the oxy part of the above sentence. No one actually thinks that. They just disagree about the meaning of the word mind.

even though a wide range of common behaviors are deterministic, it is this ambiguous quality interacting with our instincts.

Yup, and I'm arguing that this ambiguous quality is due to our tendency to make mistakes and our ability to second guess ourselves.

Well, if you walked around all day thinking life was a pinball game and you were one of many pinballs, that wouldn't be correct either. So which absurdity is it: being a strangely self-aware pinball, or a self-suspicious soul.

I don't know that the pinball analogy is incorrect. I can see it possibly being unhelpful in some cases, but not misleading. On the other hand while the idea of the soul is often a convenient shorthand, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." it can be incredibly misleading in others.

 

[Big Les]

Sorry SirPhilip, but your posts read like a rejected "Matrix" script. You're saying very little, of very little import, with many, many words.