In Defense of a Soul: A Distinction Between Matter, Life and Humanity

An Original Essay by Knot4Prophet




Atheists would have us believe that consciousness is an emergent property of matter - incidental, and advantageous to its continuing ability to organize matter (i.e. survive).

What evidence is there to suggest we should reasonably expect that consciousness is a spontaneous, emergent property of matter? Is it merely because they coexist, temporally, seemingly? Charles Darwin's theory of evolution based on natural selection is widely accepted by atheists and non-atheists alike. “Survival of the fittest.” Implicit in survival of all biological organisms is survival not of one, but of the entire groups, to the degree that they are dependent upon one another.

The difference between what is alive and what is not alive is not disputed. Anywhere there is a form that processes matter and strives to maintain its form, whilst processing other matter, is where we see life.

Life is always highly organized - though organization is a biased term, limited to patterns that are discernible and favourable in some way to a human - organized nonetheless, within our limited comprehension. Because we are limited by our perceptions does not disclude them from evaluations of the input we receive thru them - it merely brings them under suspicion. We need not waste much energy attempting to ponder the things of which we cannot conceive nor comprehend.

Everyone agrees there is more than a subtle difference between life and matter. Life, while being highly organized itself, also acts upon matter, processing it. Certainly chemical reactions occur constantly amongst matter, yet we still see a marked difference in the chemistry of life, versus the extremely dynamic and complex world of the chemistry of matter. One difference between life and non-life is the maintenance of a form.

One advantage/disadvantage of life-forms is that they must continually process their environment. This is something that sets life apart from non-life. It wants to survive (maintain its form).

A rock, seemingly does not “want” to survive. It makes no attempt to maintain its form, to process its environment, nor does it thwart efforts from without to change its form.

Does it seem natural, if matter includes life, that some of some of this matter should be attempting to maintain its form and mandatorily processing its environment? Darwin's theory does not explain why life exists, it explains how life exists.

Seriously, why should matter give a shit? The bulk of matter seen here on earth and throughout the universe does not seem to give a shit. It is not alive.

So if you agree there is a difference between what is alive, and what is not alive, and the difference ascertainable through our senses shows a propensity for life to want to maintain a form and process its environment, then that leaves no explanation, through evidence or reasoning, as to why life should exist at all. Considering the magnitude of matter in the universe, humanity seems inconsequential, were life only just matter. There is no reasonable or sensible answer as to why life should exist at all. Or is there?

Another element of biological life, beyond maintaining its own form, is the maintenance of other biology, in order that it maintains its continued existence. Not only does it attempt its own survival, but through attempting to succeed at survival, it must also work to maintain the continued survival of other biology, to the degree on which it is dependent on other biological organisms. So life maintains itself, collectively, by regenerating while processing its environment. Life, then, is highly organized, seeks to maintain its form for a period, and seeks to regenerate. Regenerating is how life stays alive. No life forms are static. They are discrete and dynamic.

So most of us can agree, then, that life is dissimilar from matter, in at least these four distinct and marked differences: highly organized, maintenance of form, processing of environment, regeneration of similar forms.

Life is represented and distinguished by those four attributes. There is no reasonable explanation as to why matter would want to do any two of these, let alone all of them at once. It serves no purpose. The chemical reactions taking place inside biological organisms are demonstrably visible, quantifiable, yet not explainable en masse, regarding the entire organism. How does one part of matter know the other part is even there? For a biological organism to be able to maintain its form, and if it were merely just matter, that matter would have to "know" what other matter is nearby in order to maintain a form. If this is so, why does not all matter attempt to maintain a form? To be able to process your environment while maintaining a form, would make it implicit that the matter would have to be aware of its environment, in order to make the proper "choices" of what to process in order to maintain its form.

Maintaining a form of disparate elements, dynamically interacting on a scale of magnitude in complexity well beyond any matter observable in the universe, would necessitate some understanding of the environment in which it is a part. It cannot maintain its form and process its environment if it doesn't know, in some sense, that its environment does exist. A blade of grass not only knows that there are other blades of grass, it works to maintain them and in so doing, itself as well; also, grass will maintain any other biological life-form that is beneficial to its own existence. So we now can, by deduction, add a further attribute to life - it understands its surroundings.

Now we have a rather complete, thought neither exhaustive nor conclusive, definition of life, with six attributes:

1. Life is highly organized, beyond anything seen in the vast quantities of matter.

2. Life forms attempt to maintain their form - size, shape and constitution, and those around them.

3. Life processes its environment, specifically modifying, organizing, consuming and excreting its environment.

4. Life regenerates itself. It unrelentingly reproduces its forms (phenotypes) through a cycle which always includes the "death" of old organisms and "birth" of new ones from the old.

5. It is aware of its environment and itself. To work to maintain itself necessitates that it "knows" it exists at all. It cannot work to maintain a form of which it is not aware.

6. Life has a will (purpose).

Of these six points defining "life" only two can be seen as axiomatic ( 2 and 4 ), two can be seen as deductive ( 5 and 6 ), and the other two merely indicational features (1 and 3), differing only by degree of magnitude from the rest of matter that is observable.

Intrinsically, of the requirements for life to be seen as existing, only the maintenance of form and regeneration of forms are necessary to differentiate life from matter.

Organization and processing of environment are both accomplished by non life - though not to the degree found in life, by several orders of magnitude. Science can explain organization with physics and chemistry. There are four known forces, measurable in the universe and these four forces explain much of the visible, measurable phenomena in the universe of nonliving matter. The four forces are well known to anyone with some basic physics education: gravitational force, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and magnetic force. These four forces explain almost all phenomena that are measurable. They explain the motion of the largest collections of matter down the tiniest fraction of matter. These forces render the interaction of matter with itself, predictable. Everything is a matter of course. One cause(s) leading to the next. And indeed the interaction of matter is extremely predictable, despite its variance in complexity. We know where Mars will be in relation to the sun, this time next year. We know that sodium hydroxide will mix with hydrochloric acid and produce salt water. We know the path that subatomic particles will traverse when blasted apart under an intense magnetic field. There is one thing that these four known forces, which explain most everything in nature that we can see or measure, cannot predict: life.

Life is inherently unpredictable. The interactions of the matter, specifically in maintaining and regenerating forms, are not only against the proposition that matter is predictable, but also astronomically remote in even ever happening, in any case. If matter wants to generate life, for some reason, it sure doesn't want to do it very often. The bulk of matter, observable to us, does not bother generating life. Stars and their interactions are commonplace. The chemistry of the universe is measurable and predictable, by and large. Life, here, is the only example we can see, amongst a staggeringly vast environment.

Life is distinguished from matter in that it maintains forms, and regenerates them continually in shape, size and constitution. Life, thus defined, has not been explained with chemistry. Life has also not been explained by Darwin or any other theory of evolution, including abiogenesis. There has been discovered no reason as to why life ought to exist, if indeed it is only and ultimately just matter. The tendency of matter is towards entropy - disorganization. Life is at cross purposes to this. Life is demonstrably anomalous, though it is composed of and restricted by the forces which govern matter. Life is continually organizing matter and maintaining a form which is organized itself, and organizes its environment. Life wants to live.

Most people do not negate that there are fundamental differences between what is alive and what is not alive. This can be reduced, axiomatically, to maintenance and regeneration of forms which are necessarily highly organized and complex, mandatorily process their environment, and by deduction, aware of themselves and their environment, to some degree.

Since maintenance of a form and even regeneration of a form are purely physical quantities, though not explained by the four known forces with which nature acts upon itself, it sets life apart from non-life in an identifiable way, though it is not terribly remarkable - maintaining a form seems neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to matter, nor to life.

What sets life truly apart, is what can be deduced from life's proclivities with forms: awareness. Biological organisms must be aware of their environment in order to maximize their own existence. If an organism wants to maintain itself and regenerate itself it must be aware, in some fashion, that it even exists. If life were not aware of itself it wouldn't know what to maintain nor regenerate. Crystals that "grow", though highly organized, are also patently predictable, and do not seek to maintain any form not explainable with the four known forces of nature. Life is totally unique.

One deduction that follows from the axiomatic definition of life is that life has awareness. Awareness is a necessary component for both the axioms used here to define life: maintenance of form and regeneration. For maintenance of form and regeneration to occur, some type of awareness of the organism is necessary.

Another deduction that follows from the axiomatic definition of life is that life has a will, specifically, to survive.

So then the most important and unique characteristics of life are awareness of itself and its surroundings, to some degree, and a will to maintain both itself and its surroundings, insofar as the surroundings enhance its own survival.

Why such awareness and will, as demonstrated by life, happens at all, is unexplained. Neither Newton, Faraday, Darwin nor Heisenberg can explain why life (awareness and will) exists, separate and distinct from the bulk of matter.

If life is defined by awareness/will, and it seems plausible at the very least that this is its true distinction from matter, what evidence is there to suggest that human awareness/will is fundamentally different from biological awareness of any other organism?

A plausible explanation could include that the higher complexity of humans compared to other organisms, as well as humans' ability to communicate with each other compared with the rest of the biological world, are the defining and most remarkable distinctions between humanity and the rest of biology. But these two features which describe humanity only vary by degree of magnitude with the rest of biology, they do not set us apart exclusively, in much the same way that organization and complexity are merely features of life, not explicitly differentiating it from matter.

So if we cannot rely on the higher organization of the matter of which humans consist, and if we can also not rely on the fact of humans' ability to communicate, to ultimately indicate the differentiation of ourselves from other biological organisms, then to what can we look for indication that there is any difference between humans and other life forms? Many atheists would say there is no difference, beyond degree of organization and communicational abilities, between humans and any other biological life-form.

There is a fundamental difference between humanity, and all other biological organisms. Apart from humanity, life is diverse, dynamic and most poignantly, efficient. Life is extremely efficient at living. Therein lays the fundamental difference between humanity and the rest of the biological world: efficiency. This is not to say that humans cannot be efficient - just the opposite. We can be efficient. Or inefficient. We are the only form of biology that seems to have the choice whether or not to be efficient at living.

What sets humanity apart from the rest of biology is that we sometimes act against our best interests as an organism, and as a group. This is not seen amongst the vast diversity observed in the rest of biology. Humans frequently work against, at cross purposes to, their own survival, both individually and collectively. The rest of life seems to have no choice but to follow its instinct for survival of itself, and of surrounding biology which it is dependent upon. Humans knowingly and often choose to work against survival.

The definition of life, earlier here, was distilled down to awareness. Awareness is necessary for biology to continue to exist. The fundamental difference between humanity and the rest of biology is that the bulk of biology, for similar forms, seems to demonstrate a collective awareness and single purpose which is to survive, whereas humanity has an individual awareness and, clearly, the choice of whether or not to work towards individual and collective survival.

Now then we have awareness distinguishing life from matter, and choice distinguishing humanity from biology. Why humans have the apparent ability to choose whether or not to further their own survival is not explained by science. If we can agree that life is extraordinarily different from matter, then we can also conclude that humanity is extraordinarily differentiable from biology, by the ability to choose against survival. Not just a will, but a free will.

Life is defined by awareness, and humanity is the only life with a free will. That matter should not only develop the awareness necessary to sustain itself, but also demonstrate a will, and in humans a free will, as "emergent properties", is baseless. Unnecessary. Unlikely. Preposterous.

A plausible explanation for the difference from humanity from biology and matter, with its ability to choose, is that someone is doing the choosing: the source of the free will. If the behaviour of humanity, defined by its free will, is differentiable from the rest of life by a source which is doing the choosing, it is not evident exactly what or where it resides, or if in fact it is even possible for it to be measured. We cannot measure with precision, any of the things which define us as humans separate from biology. We cannot measure "jealousy" precisely. Nor can we measure vindictiveness. Nor love, hate, contentedness etc. All of these are determined by the will, freely. Humanity has the ability to choose what state it is in, regardless of whether it realizes it. The effects of emotions can be felt in our bodies as endocrinic responses to stimuli, and by and large, we choose which stimuli to respond to, freely.

Humans are plainly not the most successful organisms, not if biomass, nor diversity is used as the criteria of success. Other species of life are more diverse, and contain more biomass, as a fraction of the totality of the earth's biomass, than is humanity.

Because humans are also biological organisms, they are limited by that biology. Some as yet unmeasured entity is at cause over the organism, acting freely, yet humans as organisms are also reacting biologically in simultaneity, and sometimes at cross purposes to the free will of the entity.

So humanity is a biological conundrum, a paradox, a unique and remarkable dilemma. Something is different that is generating a choice.

We feel we have choice.

We demonstrably have choice.

The entity's ability to choose for these organisms called humans is dependent upon the continued existence of the biosphere, and the entity is, seemingly, bound to it. Choice acts on the motion of the organism, and its internal state. To conclude that the entity making the choice exists, by extrapolation from the available evidence defining and differentiating humans from their environment, is not implausible, nor even unlikely. Because we cannot measure the entity directly does not mean that it does not exist.

Science itself leads from observation of effects to theories of causation. Science frequently attempts to model what it cannot directly observe, but has deduced through indirect observation. An example of this is the Bohr atom. Niels Bohr hypothesized that atoms exist, that they contain a nucleus with a concentrated mass, that the nucleus has positively charged protons and neutrally charged neutrons, and that they contain mostly empty space with a distant negatively charged electron. Experimental analysis bore this out, pun intended.

So, in conclusion, it is fully and purely scientific to study effects and posit causes, and model them. And scientifically, it is apparent that there must be some as yet unmeasured entity acting at cause over the biological organisms known as humanity, an entity which humans instinctively refer to as a "soul".

The counterintuitive fact that humans would want to not survive is, surprisingly, the primary indication that there is an operator acting upon the organism, making free choices, as best it can, limited by and constricted within both matter and life. This evidence of humanity acting at cross purposes to life, as evidence that humanity exists with its own purpose, separate from life in general, is analogous to life acting at cross purposes to matter, though composed from it.

Maintenance and regeneration of forms, leads one to accept awareness and will as distinguishing life from matter. Choice, by the individual human organism, leads one to accept that there is a soul, which is acting upon the organism.

Action at a distance is scientifically unsupportable. For one entity to exert a force on another there must be a chain of causation, linking them. Gravity has thus far defied any attempt to be so classified. We cannot measure, directly, the force of gravity, but we know it is there. There is no force carrying particle - the elusive graviton. If no force carrying particle exists for gravity, and science says it must, then we would have action at distance. Masses somehow "know" that other masses are there, in order for a force to be exerted on and from the other mass, without exchanging any information, via a force carrying particle. Scientists believe it is only a matter of time before this is resolved, and action at a distance is again laid to rest. So to reiterate and reinforce, because we cannot directly measure something, does not mean that it does not exist, and in fact, in some cases, its lack of existence would defy scientific principles.

Because the entity acting upon the human organism, the "soul", is not directly observable is no reason to conclude it does not exist.

Because this entity, this "soul" is at cause over an organism, frequently at cross purposes to this organism, against its survival, does not make it implausible to suggest that this soul, while connected to the organism, is harboured in it and emergent from the organism. Other organisms do not display such. The differences in complexity and organization cannot account for humans' ability to choose against survival. It indicates that the soul is selfish and discrete. It does what it wants, as best it can, even if it happens to want the organism that it is at cause over, to stop existing. The soul's existence is apparent. There is no measurable quantity as yet discovered which could detect the soul, nor prove just where it resides, if it resides in a physical place, at all. Free will itself is an abstraction, not measurable, yet most agree it "exists".

Matter is particles which exist in space. Life is matter with a purpose. Humanity is life with a purpose and choice.

Life can then be visualized as a rarefied form of matter, and a soul, as an agent of causation with a choice, utilizing life, and acting upon both itself, and its environment.

There is no clear, mapped correlation between the DNA (genotype) of an organism and its form (phenotype). DNA is more succinctly a set of instructions with numerous contingencies available depending upon the environment in which it finds itself. There can be much variance in a genotype, with very little comparable variance in the phenotype that that genotype produces. DNA does not explain behaviour, nor does it explain the simultaneous evolution of the multiple necessary components (organic structures) which must evolve together for eyesight to exist. DNA cannot fully explain how and especially cannot explain why an organism exists, and continues to want to exist. DNA contains instructions, though not fully understood, for how life is assembled, but there is information missing or as yet undetectable, which would indicate what its purpose is, in maintaining a phenotype (form).

In the same fashion, a soul, deduced above as existing, may not be fully correlated with the existence and propagation of the organism. This alone cannot rule out a connection between them, comparable to the way DNA is not ruled out as correlating to the organization of life. Just the opposite, in fact is true. DNA is considered to be highly correlative with the evolution of an organism, if not is determining it in totality. DNA was discovered, after hypothesizing it existed, by Francis Crick and James Watson, some fifty years ago. DNA does not fully explain life. DNA is not synonymous with life. One can extract DNA from most any living creature, or any creature that was living.

Free will separates humanity from biology and the rest of matter. The soul is considered to be the source of the free will, and it is not only likely, but also scientific, that a soul does in fact, exist. Of just what the soul consists is still undiscovered, though not necessarily, undiscoverable.

Even if consciousness, then, is an emergent property of life, with life being an emergent property of matter, there is still nothing to support the extension of this awareness, this consciousness, having the ability to choose between surviving or not surviving. Life does not need choice in order to be successful, biologically. Free will, specifically meaning freedom to choose to not survive, is exclusive to humanity, and commonly and frequently, works against survival. It cannot possibly be seen as emergent phenomena of life which maximizes its survival.

There are two possible alternatives to this theory:

1. Humanity exclusively and pervasively has evolved an emergent phenomena, free will, which counters its own survival, which also, is not exhibited anywhere else in biology.

2. There is no free will at all, and free will is just an apparency, despite it being testable, and despite it working against survival.

Emergent phenomena which counter survival seem highly unlikely. The notion that free will does not exist, is counterintuitive, and to most people, repugnant.

So if free will does exist, it’s doubtful that it is an emergent property of life, even if life is an emergent property of matter, which is also, statistically, unlikely. And if free will cannot be explained as an emergent property of life, then an agent at cause over the organism, is not only plausible, it is also likely.

_________________

Maude & Mando vs Knot4Prophet Re: Existence of a Soul

It was recently brought to my attention by Barrett that the above essay was being discussed in Pantele's chat room on WinMx. I copied and pasted the log here, as it forms some weak attempt at an argument against the aforementioned essay. Never one to shy away from argument, and since I was not present for the discussion about my essay, I have taken the time to add my own personal comments, here and there, sprinkled throughout the log. While it is a long read, it is enjoyable in that not only does it reaffirm the strength of my theory that a soul exists, but it is also an exposé of Maude's pretension, Mando's duplicity and both of their shared endeavours in illogic.



17:09:14 <BEAR> And the fact that sciences gives up reliable facts (not truths) about the world is axiomatic.
17:09:49 <Mando> science can not validate its essential axioms except by its own proofs...
17:10:16 <BEAR> If it's an axiom it needs no validation.
17:10:22 <BEAR> It just simply is.
17:10:24 <Mando> so its assumed
17:10:26 <Mando> same as God
17:10:28 <BEAR> No.
17:10:30 <BEAR> it is.
17:10:37 <BEAR> Such as gravity.
17:10:41 <BEAR> Axiom.
17:10:42 <Mando> so is God he declares "I am"
17:10:50 <BEAR> How did he do that?
17:11:05 <Mando> must he explain to exist?
17:11:15 <BEAR> Where did he do that?
17:11:19 <BEAR> When did he do that?
17:11:28 <Mando> if God's ways, which he says are not our ways, are known to us...then we'd be little gods too
17:11:39 <BEAR> Aren't we?
17:11:44 <BEAR> According to genesis?
17:11:48 <Mando> All I have is His word to go by...He says He started it all
17:11:49 <BEAR> Like "us"?
17:11:59 <BEAR> Why trust his word?
17:12:06 <Mando> why trust science
17:12:16 <BEAR> Cause it can be demonstrated
17:12:22 <Mando> God tells us that the sun will rise, etc in his word until the end of time
17:12:30 <BEAR> It's only a fact if it happens repeatedly in the same fashion
17:12:35 <BEAR> Observably
17:12:37 <BEAR> and testable
17:12:38 <Mando> science assumes it will happen tomorrow because of pattens and such
17:12:40 <BEAR> like gravity
17:12:41 <Mando> but it might not
17:12:48 <BEAR> I don't know that a pen I drop won't float
17:12:50 <BEAR> could happen
17:12:58 <BEAR> but life suggests otherwise
17:13:02 <Mando> so u have faith
17:13:06 <Mando> of regularity
17:13:19 <BEAR> I trust some things to happen continually if they're proven to be trust worthy
17:13:30 <Mando> God says he put the regularity in it... science just doesn't give him credit
17:13:37 <BEAR> Why should it?
17:13:43 <BEAR> Asumeing God won't change the outcomes
17:13:53 <BEAR> The laws in science exist regardless of the assumption of God
17:14:07 <Mando> science as a methodology doesn't ahve to show anything but observation and testing....but science as a philosophy is different
17:14:20 <Mando> eh, God made the laws we funcition under
17:14:43 <BEAR> Why trust that that statement is a fact?
17:14:48 <BEAR> When you have no data to support it?
17:15:05 <Mando> should science be able to prove God? by definition it can't
17:15:13 <Mando> it deals with material stuff
17:15:16 <Mando> not supernatural
17:15:20 <BEAR> Not asking it to prove anything.
17:15:24 <BEAR> Just reasonable doubt
17:15:27 <BEAR> that's all we can hope for
17:15:38 <Mando> doubt that is read into philosophically by a presuppositonal bias
17:15:43 <Mando> and that's fiine...

Everyone has a "presuppositional bias" you fucking moron, even you. Your "presuppositional bias" is believing that science, by definition, cannot prove a "god". God may well be uncovered by science, and that god may be limited in power, not omnipotent, not omniscient. It is a supposition to assume that god would be any of those things. Maybe there's a bunch of "gods" that all make universes in their spare time, for fun, to laugh at the absurdity of their own creation, in the way we might laugh at our own flatulence.


17:15:47 <BEAR> What is supernatural?
17:15:51 <Mando> just don't call it science
17:15:55 <Mando> its a bias

Since when did science claim to have no bias? Assessing and accounting for bias is among scientific endeavours, in fact. Your point is as vacant as your religion.


17:16:14 <BEAR> Reasonable doubt is based on evidence.
17:16:16 <Mando> something outside our laws of measurement
17:16:32 <BEAR> If there isn't enough evidence to support a reasonable doubt the theory is (or should) thrown away
17:16:34 <Mando> reasonable doubt is simply a hypothesis...and one untestable by science in respect to God
17:16:53 <BEAR> If it is outside our measurement how do we atest to it existence?
17:16:59 <BEAR> it's
17:17:06 <Mando> science can't
17:17:10 <BEAR> We can't
17:17:13 <BEAR> So why assume it>?
17:17:30 <Mando> but the supernatural being can create within our existence...which He says He did
17:18:07 <BEAR> how does he do this?
17:18:30 <Mando> don't know...its beyond our means no doubt to create a universe and make stuff from nothing
17:18:35 <Mando> but that is what He did
17:18:43 <BEAR> How do you know he did this
17:18:49 <BEAR> If it is beyond you
17:18:55 <BEAR> ?
17:19:00 <Mando> He says it in His Word to us
17:19:07 <BEAR> And you trust this word?
17:19:09 <Mando> yep
17:19:11 <BEAR> Why
17:19:40 <Mando> cause he touched my heart and changed me, as he said in his word...and also, I believe, it is the best answer for reality
17:19:49 <BEAR> How did he change you?
17:20:12 <Mando> He changed my heart of stone into one of flesh...u may need to read up on that...
17:20:29 <BEAR> It sounds like you're being symbolic here
17:20:29 <Mando> He allowed me to know him in a salvific way
17:20:39 <Mando> I am using phrases noted in the bible


An interesting point to be made about Mando's circular circumlocution: he is inferring, deducing, by reason, that God exists, without actually being able to directly experience Him. This is a valid chain of logic, internally, but rests on untenable premises (the Bible), thus eliminating any rationality from this position, the Christian position.

There may be a reason to believe that some type of god created all that we can detect, but that doesn't necessitate that he is in any way anything like the god described in the Bible or any book. The only way to deduce that a God exists, at this point, is by detecting the effects of that hypothetical god, and producing a restrictive model of what this god may or may not be.

In the same way that the compelling existence of subatomic particles was revealed by tracks left on sensory equipment in an acceleration chamber, a god, too, may leave compelling indication of its existence. Can you directly experience a positron? Surely not. Do you doubt it exist? I sure don't. There is enough evidence of a particle that behaves in the opposite manner of an electron for me to be convinced. Did we know about the positron 500 years ago? Of course not. Does that mean the positron didn't exist then? Ludicrous.

"The Large Electron-Positron Collider had four detectors, built around the four collision points within underground halls. Each was the size of a small house and was capable of registering the particles by their energy, momentum and charge, thus allowing physicists to infer the particle reaction that had happened and the elementary particles involved. By performing statistical analysis of this data, knowledge about elementary particle physics is gained. The four detectors of LEP were called Aleph, Delphi, Opal, and L3. They were built differently to allow for complementary experiments."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Elec ... n_Collider

Take particular notice how it says "thus allowing physicists to infer the... elemenatary particles involved" - they infer their existence. We'll see further down how "infer" is one of the words the dictionary uses to describe "deduction" so keep this in mind as we are moving along.

Incidentally, that matter is composed of distinct particles which combine together in various ways is an axiom of science, a "presupposition." Democritus was the first to propose such a notion, around 2400 years ago. In the past few hundred years, evidence has amassed to prove beyond any "reasonable doubt" that matter is in fact made up of particles. Anyone who doubts it would have to account for the volumes of evidence in favour, a herculean task.

Does this mean that we'll never be able to detect an entity that was capable of creating a universe? There is absolutely no reason to believe this whatsoever.


17:20:41 <BEAR> How did he change you?
17:20:46 SyDnEy 252_22153 (DSL 2410 files) has entered
17:20:51 <BEAR> Hey Syd
17:20:52 <SyDnEy> morning all
17:20:56 <Mando> He allowed me to see my sin before an almighty God and called me to Him
17:20:57 <SyDnEy> hey m8
17:21:05 <BEAR> How did he allow you to do this?
17:21:28 <Mando> its called regeneration... a change of being...supernatural thingee
17:21:36 <BEAR> How does that happen
17:22:07 <Mando> as I noted above...He opened my eyes....my ears....and has saved me through Christ..
17:22:14 Ashwing777_24877 (Unknown 0 files) has entered
17:22:21 <Modsangle> dri
17:22:21 <BEAR> How did he open your eye's and ear's and save you
17:22:25 <Ashwing> Uka
17:22:26 <BEAR> Hey 'schwing?
17:22:29 <BEAR> *!
17:22:39 <Ashwing> Bear!
17:22:45 <Mando> by His will and wishes...He wanted it to happen...and it did
17:23:02 <BEAR> How did he do it?
17:23:24 <Mando> dunno the mechanism...
17:23:26 <BEAR> Surely there was a moment or change?
17:23:33 <BEAR> Something you could point back to?
17:23:38 <Modsangle> dri: msn
17:23:47 <Mando> yes, I would agree with that...an understanding of a change
17:23:58 <BEAR> So tell me how it happened
17:24:41 <Mando> nothing spectacular...I just saw my place before God..and knew that I was a judged sinner, worthy of wrath, and thanks Him for the gift of salvation through Christ
17:25:04 <Mando> in my earlier years...I held doubt etc...now I don't
17:25:07 <BEAR> How did you realise this? Did you actually see it? Physicality or is this more symbolism
17:25:54 <Mando> see it....by my actions and thoughts...yes.....a change of heart is a change of attitude, perspective, a saved soul is intangible perhaps
17:26:07 <Modsangle> saved what?
17:26:09 <BEAR> A change of heart
17:26:17 <BEAR> So god had nothign to do with it
17:26:26 <Mando> God had everything to do with it
17:26:34 <BEAR> You haven't been able to tell me how yet
17:26:39 <Mando> none of it came from me except instilled in me by Him
17:26:51 <BEAR> How was this "instilled"?
17:26:53 <Mando> I do not know the supernatural way that God redeems a person
17:27:01 <BEAR> Then why assume it happened?
17:27:13 <Mando> because the me then and the me now is different
17:27:16 <Mando> I believe
17:27:17 <BEAR> Right
17:27:26 <BEAR> But why attribute that to god
17:27:29 <Modsangle> nabbo, what the merry fuck is a "soul", do explain
17:27:29 <BEAR> if you have no reason to?
17:27:56 <Mando> I have reason to... as His words describes what happened to me
17:28:01 <Ashwing> Me me me.
17:28:06 <Ashwing> I know what a soul is.
17:28:09 <Ashwing> Pick me.
17:28:16 <Mando> and in years ahead...more has been confirmed in His word that is true...
17:28:19 <Mando> go for it, Ash
17:28:24 <BEAR> Where does his word describe what happened to you?
17:28:50 <Mando> gee.. u can open a bible commentary...search for heart of stone...and see
17:28:52 <BEAR> how was it confrimed? Did you read it and then confirm it?
17:29:01 <Modsangle> yes dri but you dont need my reassurance of a lack of it
17:29:07 <Modsangle> nabbo does however
17:29:57 <Modsangle> so nabbo, whats a soul?
17:30:00 <BEAR> The soul is what makes us human, it is purely the will on a level of consciousness only we have.
17:30:12 <Modsangle> i was asking nabbo, not the moron
17:30:23 <Mando> how do u know that Bear?
17:30:25 <BEAR> I don't give a fuck who you're asking if I have the right answer, Maude : )
17:30:42 <Ashwing> Okay, a 'soul', is the seat of being, insomuch that it is the 'who' of what we are essentially.
17:30:49 <BEAR> Through researching the difference between nature and humans
17:30:54 <Ashwing> The 'spirit' is merely our life breath, what makes us alive.
17:30:57 <BEAR> @mando
17:31:19 <Mando> how do u know its not an alien mind link? a projection of their having fun with us?
17:31:30 <BEAR> Cause there is no evidence to support that
17:31:40 <BEAR> Just as there is no evidence to support God changed you at all.
17:31:42 <BEAR> you changed yourself
17:31:46 <Mando> so u don't really know...it just hasn't been revealed to u yet
17:32:03 <BEAR> Right, there is no reason to believe it.
17:32:17 <Mando> I am the evidence...untll u can prove otherwise...as well as millions who attest to what I have experienced
17:32:24 <BEAR> But there is a fundamental difference between humans and nature.
17:32:26 <BEAR> This I call the soul.
17:32:35 <Modsangle> lol
17:32:45 <BEAR> Mando when is the last time one human "changed" another?
17:32:49 <Modsangle> go play with nabbo then
17:32:55 <BEAR> Don't we all change ourselves?
17:33:31 <Mando> why do u believe in things that are not scientifically substantialed...such as a soul
17:33:43 <BEAR> It sure is scientifically substantiated.
17:33:49 <Modsangle> ...
17:33:51 <Mando> really now...
17:33:53 <BEAR> mhmm
17:34:11 <Mando> show me the measurng tool for a soul...replicate it for me too
17:34:35 <BEAR> The human being is the measurement and you can view your own actions as evidence.
17:34:39 <Mando> u assume a soul... I may assume some flickering of neurons
17:34:41 <Modsangle> nabbo do you believe that humans have an immortal soul?
17:34:58 <BEAR> See now immortal soul in the christian sense I wouldn't go that far.
17:35:16 <Mando> u believe in the supernatural then...kewl
17:35:16 <Modsangle> well you have to swallow it hook, line and sinker
17:35:24 <Modsangle> lol
17:35:52 <BEAR> I have a great article for you both if you want to read on it. It's not long.
17:36:10 <Mando> as long as its from a scientifc journal
17:36:20 <Mando> and details how to create a soul

Why must it be from a scientific journal, Mandupe? Do all your inspirations in Christ come from scientific journals? Would you expect to find rationality only in a scientfic journal, and never in religious literature? Interesting. Why must the article describe "how to create a soul" Mando? What's being discussed is whether the soul exists or not. How the soul was created is not really even significant, in comparison to the question of its existence, itself. To describe "how" a soul is created would necessitate that one already agreed that a soul in fact existed. This is the type of bait and switch straw man arguments employed by charlatans like Mando. Before he even knows the source or the content of the article in question, he has supplied numerous reasons to doubt its conclusions. Mando is a master of fallacy.

Bear does a fine job here of arguing the issues. No need for comment, his words speak for themselves.


17:37:11 <BEAR> Do I need to be a scientist to employ scientific method, mando?
17:37:35 <Modsangle> nabbo, do you think hipocrisy stems from stupidity or is it the other way around?

Perhaps Maudestrangle is trying to assess his own condition here, stupidity. **hypocrisy


17:37:37 <BEAR> A logician to be able to say A = B and B=C so A=C?
17:37:39 <Mando> I dunno...just asking for a scientific analysis of the soul...with replicability
17:37:45 <BEAR> http://forum.knot4prophet.com/viewtopic.php?t=28
17:37:49 <BEAR> >: )
17:37:58 <Mando> else its just a philosophical musing
17:38:11 <Mando> oh..its on knot's website...hmmm lol
17:38:30 <BEAR> I haven't been able to poke any holes in that article
17:38:33 <BEAR> and I've tried.
17:38:38 <Mando> good...
17:38:48 Ashwing777_24877 has left
17:38:55 <Mando> since u aren';t a scientist...that doesn't say much

Oh, so now no one but a scientist is worthy to produce a theory about a soul nor to poke holes in any scientific theory, Mandope? This discludes himself, and most everyone else, too. Does he really esteem scientists, though? If he did, he would doubt myriad biblical claims such as the Great Flood, the miracles of Jesus, the razing of Sodom and Gomorrah, the "young earth" detritus, etc, ad nauseum.

If you do not rely on the words of scientists, Mando, you cannot invoke them against anyone else as a standard from which to be measured. Another glaring flaw in your laughable attempt at logic.


17:40:00 <BEAR> Well you've got a degree or two under your belt as I recall
17:40:05 <BEAR> Why don't you give it a shot ; )
17:40:21 <BEAR> In fact I dare you to.
17:40:32 <Mando> my presuppositional bias would likely just snuff it out...the God thingee

Ahh, so you admit to a presuppositional bias of your own, but won't allow for a presuppostional bias of anyone else? How duplicitous. If science operated this way, we'd still be in the Dark Ages. Scientific "knowledge" is always open to redefinition. What we "know" evolves as we glean more information from the available evidence for a particular model of reality, of what "exists".


17:40:34 <Modsangle> how are 5 and 6 deductive?
17:40:45 <Mando> did knot write it?
17:40:50 <BEAR> Yep
17:41:01 <Mando> and he's a scientist, right
17:41:17 <Mando> or a phd in philosophy?
17:41:27 <Modsangle> i dont think hes either lol
17:41:27 <BEAR> Will and awareness are apparent, Maude.
17:41:34 <Modsangle> especially not philosophy lol
17:41:45 <BEAR> I dunno, Mand
17:41:59 <Mando> well, thanks bear...I will gander at it later
17:42:00 <BEAR> I think he's been an ungrad at a uni
17:42:05 <BEAR> can't say in what
17:42:38 <Mando> I don't think Einstein has a degree either...so maybe he's a genius too
17:42:40 <BEAR> Maude's actually trying : )
17:43:02 <Modsangle> you are unable to answer my question in a meaningful manner
17:43:32 <BEAR> = spell it out for me, pleaseBEAR
17:43:40 <BEAR> Even though I am NOT the author
17:43:45 <BEAR> I'll indulge you
17:43:59 <Modsangle> no, i merely want an explanation
17:44:32 <BEAR> Will and awareness are deductive because they are apparent. They need no support because they support themselves mearly by existing.
17:44:58 <Modsangle> now, what word should knot have used there?
17:45:19 <BEAR> I am hardly a lit. major
17:45:24 <BEAR> axiomw ould have worked
17:45:32 <BEAR> but deductive is just as well
17:45:48 Modsangle! stares blankly
17:46:36 <Mando> all of life is not highly organized...some is more complex than others...that rules out #1
17:47:00 <Mando> Life has a will...has no meaning...he's interjected a term and process
17:47:05 <BEAR> Take it up with him.. I already went a few rounds trying to tear his essay apart.
17:47:26 <Mando> Life is aware of itself...prove that at all levels of life
17:47:35 <BEAR> A rock is aware of itself?
17:47:49 <Mando> is a rock...life?
17:47:51 <BEAR> A tree is aware of itself?
17:47:52 <Modsangle> you cant because he really doesnt know what hes written and has a habit of using words he doesnt really understands because he lacks an education to understand them
17:48:12 <Modsangle> so any sort of analysis is meaningless
17:48:19 <Mando> he's simplified complex processes to build his case...
17:48:25 <Mando> I agree Mod

Both Mando and Maudestrangle now expose their lack of intellectual acuity, based on a personal bias against me. Perhaps because I have crushed both of them in arguments, on multiple occasions, they harbour some lingering bias against me that enables them to avoid even attempting to counter any of my argument. Mando can only repeat the same invalid nonsense about only respecting the opinion of a scientist, in this case, when we know he discards the bulk of scientific claims through his faith in Christianity's tenets.

At least Maudestrangle, likeBEARnotes, attempts to mount an argument, however feebly. Maudestrangle asks how 5 and 6, cited from the essay above, were determined to be arrived at "deductively." The essay itself describes how the different listed elements were arrived at. While Maudestrangle claims that I don't really understand the words I use because I lack an education in them, what he really means is that HE doesn't really understand the words I use because HE lacks an education in them. What are you taking in school again, Maudestrangle, computer shit, right? Exactly my point. You have no education in the words I use. I'll now demonstrate why.

The reason that 5 and 6, (awareness and will) from the essay, were said to be determined "deductively" rather than axiomatically, is because there is no direct measure of awareness or will. We cannot directly experience some phenomena, so we "deduce" their existence circumstantially, Maudestrangle. Do you not know what a "deduction" is, Mod? I'll fetch the defintion from a local lexicon, ok? So maybe you can learn something for a change.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

de·duce

–verb (used with object), -duced, -duc·ing.
1. to derive as a conclusion from something known or assumed; infer: From the evidence the detective deduced that the gardener had done it.
2. to trace the derivation of; trace the course of: to deduce one's lineage.
[Origin: 1520–30; < L dédūcere to lead down, derive, equiv. to dé- de- + dūcere to lead, bring]

—Related forms
de·duc·i·ble, adjective
de·duc·i·bil·i·ty, de·duc·i·ble·ness, noun
de·duc·i·bly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. conclude, reason, gather, determine.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


American Heritage Dictionary

de·duce

tr.v. de·duced, de·duc·ing, de·duc·es

1. To reach (a conclusion) by reasoning.
2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively: deduced from the laws of physics that the new airplane would fly.
3. To trace the origin or derivation of.



Online Etymology Dictionary

deduce

1410, from L. deducere "lead down, derive" (in M.L. "infer logically"), from de- "down" + ducere "to lead" (see duke). Originally literal, sense of "draw a conclusion from something already known" is first recorded 1529, from M.L.



Do you see, now, Mod, the actual meaning of the word deduction? Do you understand that when people "deduce" things, its based on observation of external, extant evidence which leads one to a conclusion. Etymologically, the word "deduce" literally means "to draw a conclusion (5 and 6) from something already known (1,2,3,4)"

The other items on the list of factors describing life, numbers 1 to 4, are all directly observable. Awareness is not directly observable, Maude. We "deduce" that it exists. A "will" is not directly observable, Maude, we deduce that it exists. A positron, too, Maude, is not directly observable. We deduce that this, too, exists. Do you yet have a clear understanding of what consists of deductions, Maudestrangle, as distinct from say... induction:

in·duc·tion

–noun
1. the act of inducing, bringing about, or causing: induction of the hypnotic state.
2. the act of inducting; introduction; initiation.
3. formal installation in an office, benefice, or the like.
4. Logic.
a. any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily.
b. the process of estimating the validity of observations of part of a class of facts as evidence for a proposition about the whole class.
c. a conclusion reached by this process.
5. Also called mathematical induction. Mathematics. a method of proving a given property true for a set of numbers by proving it true for 1 and then true for an arbitrary positive integer by assuming the property true for all previous positive integers and applying the principle of mathematical induction.


Notice the subtle difference there, Maudestrangle, between deduction and induction? See how it means applying to a whole class a conclusion based on observation of just a part of that class? Perhaps you can champion secretly to yourself, now, that you have in fact learned something. Let's take a look at another form of scientific investigation, also differentiable from deduction, called "empiricism":


Dictionary.com Unabridged

em·pir·i·cism

–noun
1. empirical method or practice.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Compare rationalism (def. 2).
3. undue reliance upon experience, as in medicine; quackery.
4. an empirical conclusion.
[Origin: 1650–60; empiric + -ism]

—Related forms
em·pir·i·cist, noun, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Notice it says compare with "rationalism." Let's do that, presently. Rationalism:

Dictionary.com Unabridged

ra·tion·al·ism

–noun
1. the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2. Philosophy.
a. the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.
b. (in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.
3. Theology. the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.


Now rationalism is stated as giving "reason" primacy in all matters of determination. Deductive reasoning, is reasoning from established phenomena to positing their causes based on the extant evidence with models of reality that explain the phenomena. This is how science works. So deductive reasoning, by definition claims "reason" as its basis. And rationalism also claims "reason" as its basis.

Thus, deductive reasoning is then an element of the set called rationalism. So too would be an element, induction and empiricism, of rationalism. So my reasoning, is plainly shown to be based on the extant physical, empirically processed matter, and deductive reasoning based on the existence of differentiable behaviour. In the case of my thesis, the differentiation was between first matter from life, then distinguishing humanity from life, along with the other four elements that describe life, as listed in the essay quoted here:

Now we have a rather complete, thought neither exhaustive nor conclusive, definition of life, with *six attributes:

1. Life is highly organized, beyond anything seen in the vast quantities of matter.

2. Life forms attempt to maintain their form - size, shape and constitution, and those around them.

3. Life processes its environment, specifically modifying, organizing, consuming and excreting its environment.

4. Life regenerates itself. It unrelentingly reproduces its forms (phenotypes) through a cycle which always includes the "death" of old organisms and "birth" of new ones from the old.

5. It is aware of its environment and itself. To work to maintain itself necessitates that it "knows" it exists at all. It cannot work to maintain a form of which it is not aware.

6. Life has a will (purpose).


(In the original essay, the first sentence incorrectly said "five attributes" which was because I had initially combined two of the six elements into one, but after further consideration had split that element into two, resulting in six, but I neglected to amend the opening statement.)

Notice here that the first four elements that describe life are directly measurable using empirical methods. Notice how the final two, "awareness" and "will", cannot be measured directly, Maudestrangle, but are deduced. Deduced from what? "Awareness" and "will" are deduced from the very existence of the first four measurable elements, in addition to observation of the behaviour of the entities themselves.

Would someone care to argue against awareness? Would someone care to argue that awareness does not distinguish life from matter? Would someone care to argue that the existence of awareness cannot be measured directly? Would someone argue, then, that awareness, which cannot be directly, empirically, would they yet contend that a conclusion that life has awareness could possibly not include deductive reasoning?

Deduction is the only way we are able to determine that we have "awareness" or "will." Deduction means reasoning based on the behaviour of the phenomena being observed. Deduction IS reason. Pure reason would be the opposite of pure empiricism.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

pure reason

–noun Kantianism.
reason based on a priori principles and providing a unifying ground for the perception of the phenomenal world.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


Notice it says for pure reason as a defining characteristic, that it is "a priori" knowledge. A priori:

Dictionary.com Unabridged

a pri·o·ri

–adjective
1. from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation. Compare a posteriori (def. 1).
2. existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait. Compare a posteriori (def. 2).
3. not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic: an a priori judgment.


Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


Notice here, Maudestrangle, that "pure reason" is "valid independently of observation" which makes it the polar opposite of "empiricism." The existence of this term "pure reason" as a distinguishment from the more common "reason" shows that there is a spectrum of reasoning, which contains different elements along the spectrum. In the "Reason Spectrum" we would find:



Reason Spectrum

Pure Reason --------------------Reason----------------------Pure Empiricism
.........................(Deduction, Induction, Empiricism).....................

independent of observation.....reason + empiricism......observationally dependent




Obviously this is just a visual aid incorporated to effect a productive juxtaposition of these elements, so that we can see why I listed "awareness" and "will" as arrived at deductively. They didn't get full axiomatic status as numbers two and four did (maintenance of forms and regeneration of forms) on the list of the components that describe life, from above, precisely because they cannot be measured empirically and can only be deduced to exist, which automatically makes them suspect to some degree, whereas axioms are more philosophically solid. A deductive axiom is not as compelling, nor equal in magnitude of veracity as an empirical axiom, such as "particles are the components of matter and exist" compared to, say, "the sun exists." (Adversus Solem Ne Loquitor!)

For this reason I demoted the two components used to differentiate life from matter that were arrived at deductively, tto a sub-axiomatic status, because their existence is less verifiable from their very nature in that they cannot be empirically measured, directly.

MaudeStrangle hasn't the faintest notion of the philosophical ramifications of such esoteric subject matter as ontological discussions of this calibre. In commonspeak, for his ilk to more easily digest, essentially he's trying to fell a tree (my thesis) with blade of grass (his flawed reasoning borne out of his personal vexation against me because I've made a fool of him in the past. Pseudointellectuals like MaudeStrangle aspyhxiate understanding itself, by descending into personal provocations, when presented with philosophical, scientifically reasoned arguments such as for the existence of a soul).



17:48:38 <BEAR> Well if you both feel this way i'd take it up with him.

I've saved them both the trouble, and took it up with them, instead.


17:48:46 <Modsangle> those words just sound nice dont they lol

They sounds nice? No fucking doubt. The one feeble attempt you make at contending the entire article was based on your own misunderstanding of logic, Maude, which is paradoxical considering your related education in computer science, which relies heavily on logic. Just goes to show that Maudestrangle and other people, just like Christians, can suspend their own logic, selectively, at will, because of emotional bias, because I hurt their feelings in the past. Lol. So they grasp, pseudointellectually, at philosophical straws, in an effort to avoid having to contend with my essay's conclusions, whatsoever. How shameful.


17:48:50 <BEAR> I think you're a member of the forum mando
17:48:54 <BEAR> so should be easy for you
17:49:04 <Mando> no need...its self-obvious...I don't a scientist would take the time to argue with him
17:49:10 <Mando> and I would simply tell him to repent
17:49:25 <BEAR> So you're saying you could correct him you just choose not to and would rather do it tome
17:49:30 <Mando> I guess when he's got down time at walmart he writes this stuff

Mando, the ostensible "psychologist", a consummate professional, who sits on his ass in Dave's room all day long, typing away, while at work, somehow finds the time to be prattling on about sinners and condemnation. Perhaps he views his own boring job as meaningless as a Walmart greeter, which is why he so easily employs it as a reference.


17:49:31 <BEAR> someone who is not the author
17:49:42 <Modsangle> yeah mando i bet its something like that
17:49:49 <BEAR> Nice personal attack there, guys
17:49:58 <Mando> just talking...not asking u to do anything...but sorry for spoiling your view of life and the soul
17:50:00 <BEAR> really adds strength to your case
17:50:02 <BEAR> haha
17:50:14 <BEAR> You haven't spoiled anything.
17:50:25 <Modsangle> i personally would be ashamed to put something like that online so it can be mocked

No doubt Maude has no balls to expose any theory of his for critical peer review. It's no surprise he speaks of how he would feel "ashamed" and worried that he would be "mocked" for presenting a philosophical argument - because he hasn't the wherewithal to do so.


17:50:28 <Mando> glad to hear that...knew u were smarter than to be a knotite
17:50:45 <BEAR> You would be, maude.
17:50:49 <Modsangle> in fact i shall post it to usenet, to alt.philosophy
17:50:53 <Modsangle> lol
17:51:02 <BEAR> I'd ask permission before doing that

Good suggestion, Barrett. All writings of mine on Knot4Prophet.com are visibly copyrighted. No one is permitted to copy, excerpt and certainly not post anything I've written on any other website. This is not because I am averse to exposure to peers for critical review. The essay is posted on a forum inviting debate against it, where anyone is free to do so. The essay has also been posted on other websites inviting discussion and contention. No quality argument has yet been made against this essay.


17:51:04 <Mando> oh do so...those guy probably need some levity at times
17:51:19 <Modsangle> permission? its online isnt it?
17:51:24 <Mando> be sure to put the knot website attached to it
17:51:26 <BEAR> Aye but it ain't yers.
17:51:29 <Modsangle> yes yes
17:51:44 <Mando> I don't see a copywrite ...

"copywrite"? I thought you claimed to be educated, Mando? **copyright. Psst, it's about the "right" to "copy" things, Mando.

17:52:06 <BEAR> His entire site is copywrite
17:52:07 <Mando> but no doubt....give Knot all the credit
17:52:30 <Modsangle> he wouldnt mind such exposure because its such a thought-out scholarly article, would he?
17:52:49 <Mando> and he probably gets kick backs from people hitting his site...
17:52:52 <BEAR> Oh I'm sure if you asked him he'd gfladly oblige
17:52:55 <Mando> so he will smile all the way to the bank


Mando made this charge of greed against me in the past, too. Perhaps Mando, if he himself had a site, would use it to generate money, and not interest in philosophy, as is my goal. It's readily apparent that there are no ads on my site, no calls for donations, no merchandising. The site does not generate any profit for me whatsoever. I supply it freely, as the central focus of the site is "freedom" I find it consistent to emulate that ideal throughout the entire concept of the site. Not only is the website about freedom, it's offered freely. Can you deduce the parallel, Maude? Lol.



17:52:58 <BEAR> I'm just saying you should ask first
17:53:11 <Modsangle> ooh or better yet
17:53:15 <Modsangle> just digg it
17:53:16 <Modsangle>
17:54:04 <Mando> this may have been the work of a smoke-induced activity...amazing...just a hypothesis though
17:54:27 <Modsangle> oh you mean he got stoned then wrote drivel?
17:54:28 <Mando> it reflects some misfiring in the brain cells.....so could be true
17:54:42 <BEAR> Brain cells fire?
17:54:45 <Modsangle> it would mean hes either always stoned or always writes exclusively drivel

Mando and Maudestrangle again express their illogic, their fallacious, emotionally induced biases. Mando now considers that I must have been smoking weed in order to deduce that there is a soul, scientifically, yet he deduces, admittedly unscientifically, that God exists. Perhaps he is projecting through his own lens now, in comparing someone who holds "beliefs" that would need the invocation of a chemical euphoria in order to justify the existence of those beliefs, such as Christianity. I can certainly understand his "bias" in that respect, since he readily admits that he discards the entirety of science for comfort in his selfish, irrational beliefs in Christianity.


17:54:52 <Mando> I have seen friends years ago....who spoke like he wrote
17:54:56 <Modsangle> so i think youre onto something
17:55:04 <Mando> it is testable
17:55:08 <Mando> so there may be truth there
17:55:16 <Mando> we have to give him something to smoke though
17:55:31 <Modsangle> ah that may explain the "vacation"
17:55:42 <Mando> oh, vacation...
17:55:47 <Mando> a legal one perhaps?
17:55:55 <Modsangle> nah
17:56:04 <BEAR> He just disappears of mx sometimes.
17:56:20 <Mando> rather mystical...but it adds to his image
17:56:32 <BEAR> He hits close
17:56:36 <BEAR> it's not mystical
17:57:40 <Modsangle>BEARshow me a deductive argument that reaches conclusions 5 and 6 in the aforementioned article

Now we have Mando talking about how I write, implying some specific style he's noticed. Mando refers to my image on WinMx as being "mystical." Lol. Where the fuck did you get this idea, Mando? Because someone takes a week or two off from WinMx now and then makes them mystical? I can't possibly imagine how. Maybe it's because you are intimidated by me that you exalt me to the status of mysticality, perhaps? Lol.

Again, Maude, in utter futility in light of the recent defintion and etymological argument, persists in savagely striking the rotting equine corpse that he pretends is an argument. 5 and 6 are based on reasoning from the behaviour of 1, 2, 3 and 4, Maude. 5 and 6, Awareness and Will, cannot be measured directly and so must have been deduced, in the same way that the existence of a positron is deduced, by analyzing the effects of its existence upon other phenomena.


17:57:58 <Mando>BEARis just teasing us....about the article... no doubt
17:58:50 <BEAR> Take it up with Knot, Maude
17:58:52 <BEAR> if you have the stones.
17:59:04 <Modsangle> oh i shall
17:59:10 <BEAR> Wonderful.

Any fucking time, Maudey.

17:59:21 <Modsangle> but first i'd like you to try
17:59:42 <Mando> if he hasn't been able to poke holes in it...should be easy forBEAR
18:00:13 <BEAR> I'll take a look here.
18:00:15 <Modsangle> what does "poke holes" mean?
18:00:19 <BEAR> Gotta open my browser again
18:00:33 <BEAR> it means i tried to find inconsistancies and errors
18:00:37 <Mando> it means thatBEARfinds ultimate truth in knot's writings
18:00:42 <Modsangle> lol
18:00:57 <Modsangle> you people are weird
18:01:24 <U2ME2U> Is it pick onBEARday or something like that?
18:02:25 <Mando> not sureBEARfeels picked on...
18:02:50 <Mando> little more like reversing the questions and letting him answer.....as he had his turn earlier
18:02:51 <U2ME2U> I just came in and it looks like your ganging up on him
18:03:11 <Modsangle> it merely *looks* like that, its called "conversation"
18:03:19 <U2ME2U> I see
18:03:22 <Mando> no negative vibes here
18:03:30 <U2ME2U> and that is a good thing
18:04:00 <BEAR> Life is working to maintain a form and that means it is aware it exits.
18:04:37 <Modsangle> hmm
18:04:39 <BEAR> A kat is trying to survive (maintain it's form) this is evidence it knows it survives
18:04:55 <Mando> how is that deducible? it infers a purpose, a knowledge of that purpose...at all levels of life doubt it self-awareness
18:05:18 <BEAR> It infers just simply knwoing.
18:05:20 <BEAR> *knowing
18:05:28 <Modsangle> i dont know what you just said
18:05:55 <Modsangle> but trust me , real philiosophy isnt about using hamfisted eloquence

Oh, so Maudestrangle, who doesn't even understand simple terms such as "deduction" is now an authority on what constitutes "real philosophy"? Lmfao!! What unmitigated sheer audacity! The rivers of pretension run deep in some people. I still don't understand why people bother being pretentious, when they must surely anticipate that sooner or later, someone who actually knows what the fuck they are talking about, will call them on their bullshit and expose them as for the philosophical, casuistic charlatans that they are. You should thank me for giving you another empirical example in a mounting pile of evidence attesting to why you should avoid pretension, Maude, for your own good -- unless you enjoy being made the fool of. Lol.

Notice too, that Maude calls it "hamfisted eloquence" which while being back-handed compliment, is a compliment nonetheless. What makes him refer to my writing as "eloquence"? Perhaps he deduced that based on his empirical evaluation of it, while factoring in his other observations of my poetic intellectual acuity.


18:06:06 <BEAR> And it's always pick onBEARday U2
18:06:20 <BEAR> lol@real philosophy
18:06:25 <BEAR> No true scotsman..
18:06:29 BEAR rolls eyes
18:06:33 <Modsangle> what is the evidence that the kat (i assume thats what you meant) is "trying"?
18:07:10 <BEAR> Procreation. and the fact that it WANTs to survive
18:07:12 <BEAR> (will)
18:07:24 <BEAR> Animals do not commit suicide.
18:07:39 <BEAR> Marked difference between humans and nature.
18:08:15 <Modsangle> i dont know how you can impute human emotions to animals
18:08:24 <Modsangle> but its fun isnt it?
18:08:51 <Modsangle> emotions, desires, needs
18:09:40 <Modsangle> how can you be certain an animal has either?

Never heard a cat cry? Does that not qualify as exhibition of emotion, in the same manner and for similar reasons that a human may cry? Of course it qualifies. Does an animal not desire food and sex and even play? Of course they do. Does an animal have "needs"? Of course, they need to eat in order to survive. Life "wants" to survive. Can we measure that "want" empirically? Nope, "want" cannot be directly quantified. It is arrived at deductively, through reasoning extended from on the emprical observation of phenomena.


18:13:28 <BEAR> Why doesn't it just stop eating?
18:13:36 <BEAR> Why doesn't it just admit when a predator has caught it?
18:13:41 <BEAR> Why does it continue to procreate?
18:13:45 <Modsangle> who says it doesnt?
18:14:02 <BEAR> Show me one case where an animal has willingly given up its existence in any manner
18:14:07 <Modsangle> beached whale
18:14:29 <BEAR> That's
18:14:31 <BEAR> A really
18:14:33 <BEAR> goode xample
18:15:00 <WaineMaine> noone know exactly why they beach themselves, it could be screwed up magnetic fields , confusion,
18:15:23 <BEAR> We can't say it is a lack of the will to survive
18:15:35 <WaineMaine> but it does seem to happen after storms when the water is cloudy
18:15:38 <Modsangle> but how can you define will separate of the act of surviving?
18:15:43 <BEAR> I can certainly say I've never heard of an animal trying to harm it's survival
18:16:07 <BEAR> Because I can will against my survival
18:16:13 <BEAR> all the time.
18:16:25 <Modsangle> you can, but can animals?
18:16:34 <BEAR> Exactly.
18:16:38 <BEAR> They don't.

Exactly, Barrett. This will, separate and distinct from the primal biological will to survive, is what distinguishes humanity from life in general, as outlined in the essay. Now whether any or all animals exhibit a will separate from the biological will to survive, is debateable. Ashwing and I have explored this aspect at some length, years ago, after discussing this essay. It's her opinion that at least some animals do have a soul (not that she necessarily defines a "soul" in concurrence with my definition).


18:17:06 tilt_my_kilt224_21342 (DSL 0 files) has entered
18:17:07 <Modsangle> so your argument fails because a beached whale cannot be said it still has will when it has beached and is dying

This is utter nonsense. It's an exceptional behaviour among the vast array of life that are known, for whales to beach themselves. Indeed, it's even exceptional for whales themselves to engage in such suicidal behaviour. If this behaviour were rampant then whales wouldnt have existed for thousands of years now. This argument is as invalid and vacuous as invoking Old Yeller, putting his life on the line to save a family member. Barrett effectively handles this:


18:17:10 <WaineMaine> i have heard plenty about animals putting themselves at risk to try to save the owners
18:17:49 <BEAR> Well It certainly needs more consideration.
18:17:50 <Modsangle> since you admitted that withing the animal world the will for survival and an act of survival cannot be separated
18:17:52 <WaineMaine> but even horses will not attack a phalanx of spears, they wont commit suicide to do the riders wishes

That's right, Waine, animals rarely engage in risky behaviour. If they commonly did, they wouldn't exist. Maude, here, has descended into pure irrationality, now. He's telling Barrett that Barrett allegedly admitted that the "will" for survival and an "act of" survival cannot be separated. BEAR did not claim anything of the sort and no one, in fact, attempted to distinguish the "will" for survival from an "act of" survival - they describe the same fucking thing. An "act of" survival is exhibited by its behaviour, arriving at a "will" for survival, deductively.

18:17:53 <BEAR> It's hardly failed.

Aye.


18:18:42 <WaineMaine> but a dog may attack a guy with a spear to protect his master if he thinks hes threatened
18:18:54 <BEAR> Master feeds me
18:18:58 <BEAR> Protect master.
18:19:10 <Modsangle> no,
18:19:12 <BEAR> Oh look new master feeds me
18:19:14 <WaineMaine> my dog has attacked bears, trying to protect me
18:19:16 <Modsangle> "my pack is threatened"
18:19:17 <BEAR> protect master
18:19:20 <Modsangle> "protect my pack"
18:19:27 <BEAR> Cause my pack = better chance of survival
18:20:01 <WaineMaine> but theres no doubt my dog shows happy, and sad , sometimes even estatic
18:20:28 <Modsangle> yes but is it just a show for you?
18:20:35 <WaineMaine> nope
18:20:40 <Modsangle> how can you be sure?
18:20:43 <WaineMaine> really happiness
18:20:48 <Modsangle> by "you" i mean humans
18:20:48 <WaineMaine> he told me
18:20:52 <Modsangle> lol
18:21:13 <Modsangle> i guess mammals tend to understand mammals on an instinctual level
18:21:39 <Modsangle> especially species who live in packs
18:21:44 <Modsangle> and hunt in packs
18:21:53 <Modsangle> such as orcas, humans and dogs
18:22:01 <WaineMaine> not many don't
18:22:17 <Modsangle> the notion of "pack" with humans being more fluid
18:22:37 <Modsangle> for instance we have a crude social structure here yet at disparate physical locations

Finally Maude says something that makes some sense, and is in no way in contention with any of my thesis. He says "i guess mammals tend to UNDERSTAND' mammals on an INSTINCTUAL level" (capitals added for emphasis). The definition of "understand" is as follows:


Dictionary.com Unabridged

un·der·stand

–verb (used with object)
1. to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend: to understand Spanish; I didn't understand your question.
2. to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of: to understand a trade.
3. to assign a meaning to; interpret: He understood her suggestion as a complaint.
4. to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of: He does not understand responsibility.
5. to regard as firmly communicated; take as agreed or settled: I understand that you will repay this loan in 30 days.
6. to learn or hear: I understand that you are going out of town.
7. to accept as true; believe: I understand that you are trying to be truthful, but you are wrong.
8. to construe in a particular way: You are to understand the phrase literally.
9. to supply mentally (something that is not expressed).
–verb (used without object)
10. to perceive what is meant; grasp the information conveyed: She told them about it in simple words, hoping they would understand.
11. to accept tolerantly or sympathetically: If you can't do it, I'll understand.
12. to have knowledge or background, as on a particular subject: He understands about boats.
13. to have a systematic interpretation or rationale, as in a field or area of knowledge: He can repeat every rule in the book, but he just doesn't understand.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME understanden, understonden, OE understondan; c. D onderstaan. See under-, stand]

—Synonyms 1. See know.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Notice in particular number 3, to "assign a meaning to; interpret."

How would a mammal "understand" another mammal? Would they employ their awarenss in this exercise of empathy? Do they attempt to "understand" other mammals of their own volition, ie using their own free will, free choice to choose whether or not to attempt to "understand" other mammals? Maude's conclusion, when analyzed, provides evidence for my own conclusion, here, because in order to for a mammal to "understand" another mammal, it must rely upon its own awareness to empathize, and it uses its own free will to decide whether to bother.

Maude actually employed deduction, even though he doesn't know what it is. Bravo. It shows that he isn't totally without credibility. Just mostly.

The argument effectively ended there in the chat room, and has been effectively ended here, evidentially. I have dismantled Mando's fallacious contention that he would only trust a scientific exposition about a soul, when we all know he dismisses the bulk of science's conclusions. I have also exposed Maudestrangles laughable, pitiful, dubious, specious, irrational attempts to form an ontological argument without even possessing the necessary tools of logic, or more sinisterially, choosing to discard these logical tools in order that he may take the opportunity to chastise his own pretensions, publicly.

Maude and Mando, there is no need to thank me for the free psychoanalysis of your tandem, tenuous, tenacious tenditousness. Mando's total avoidance of any argument, whether alleged to be scientifically based or not, is not only an affront to reason, but is an affront to Mando himself. I'd think that Mando, who believes in the existence of a soul already, would clamour to any alleged scientific theory concluding that a soul exists. It would do nothing but support his own conclusion that there is a soul, and be used as ammunition in his frequent arguments with atheists, such as Maudestrangle. But here, these two characters having a common foe in Knot4Prophet, made strange bedfellows in a misguided attempt to bring my character under suspicion and poetically brought their own characters under suspicion.

And I'd like to thank Mando and Maude for giving me the opportunity to use them as pawns in the exhibition of my theories. I respect their fortitude in even attempting to argue one of my calibre. I wouldn't go so far as to classify it as a valiant effort mostly because valiance implies an honourable character, something from which these two fellows have been deprived.

Well done to Barrett for maintaining the integrity of my argument in my absence and accurately and successfully representing and defending the logical tenets of my thesis.

_________________

I have not read the entire post, but I found this early on. It is presented as an unavoidable axiom, and I suspect that it is used as an assertion of substantial dualism. Any dualist consequence in the argument is bound to be the result of circular reasoning.

Regarding the statement, I propose that life is a pattern of order or activity in matter. The difference between the terms can then be rightly regarded as a difference of category, in which as far as we can tell "life" is a property we only observe in "matter". I believe the OP twists the obvious categorical distinction into a substantive ontological distinction. This repeats Descartes's body-mind distinction, with (I predict) identical or almost-identical consequences.

The way out of the trap is to regard "matter" as other than inert, but as an active background, of which humans can be directly aware of only a small part. Inertness becomes simply activity that is too slow or subtle to detect by human biological senses, over whatever periods humans can spare to observe them. We now know, through the physical sciences, that the perceived inertness of matter is an illusion of sorts, since there are active or latent (eg, particle decay) changes occurring in all matter, all the time. Organization can be seen as properties of all matter. The specific kind of organization we call "life" can be seen as simply organized activity that is over some threshold of classification. In support of this viewpoint, there continue to be very active discussions among biologists over how to define "life", showing that the criteria are far from clear in borderline cases (eg, viruses, prions).

A non-naive theist, then, can use this point of view to justify monism. Dealing with the apparent dualism in scripture and tradition, especially of the Judaically-derived religions, remains something of a problem. I propose that it can be dealt with by interpreting these as intended for the naive commonsense human point of view, which is dualist. I predict that interpretation of these scriptures and traditions with a sensitivity to the intended audience will show that parts of them are targeted at the errors in thought and judgment that naive dualists are likely to make.

Regarding your first statement



A-theism—Rejection of stories of Big Imaginary Friends—does not necessitate any sort of belief or theory concerning consciousness and matter at all. Nor does belief in a "soul" of any flavor necessitate belief in a Big Imaginary Friend—the mass of Buddhists who believe in a form of "consciousness" (functionally a "soul") that transmigrates from one life to another (in direct contradiction to what the man we call the Buddha actually taught) do not believe in a Big Imaginary Friend, for example.

bloody hell this is long