Yes, you are absolutely right. We are beginning to get into Philosophy. However, there are levels of philosophy that do depend on biology. I am a eliminativist rationalist monist myself.imortal wrote:
Is it? So, are animals self-aware? Do they have consciousness(es?)? Does our feeling of "self," of "me-ness," our soul, simply come from the electrochemical responses in our brain? Is it inevitable that we feel this way, or was it by chance?Drakef wrote:
As for a computer, on a general level we could apply a Turing Test for consciousness. It is a problem in philosophy, when we consider if an artificial intelligence is actually thinking.pierro wrote:
I would hope, therefore, that one can understand the implications...if there is no soul and we are just machines, then how is there conciousness? After all, is it really possible to make a computer concious?
The idea of a soul within religious terms is not exclusive for consciousness, or existence. It is bewildering to consider that only the idea of a soul could explain that. We are essentially the function of a body with a brain that acts almost as a computer, but the existence of thinking creates an exclusive domain for humans (or living beings, depending on your philosophical belief). We act as our brains dictate, by certain neural areas 'firing'. We do not have this 'soul' to guide us. Consciousness is granted by having a brain.
This is the point where you leave the "Biology" building and enter the "Philosophy" area of the campus.
Poll
Question About God
| God doesn't exist | 87% | 87% - 42 | ||||
| God exists, but just doesn't listen to people's prayers | 12% | 12% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 48 | ||||||
Not Pascal's Wager. Please.imortal wrote:
Yeah, but that is the problem with the whole 'afterlife,' thing. If you believe in an afterlife and are wrong, you will never know. If you are right, you reap the rewards. If you do not believe in an afterlife and are correct, then you never know. But if you are wrong, you suffer for it... for who knows how long?Turquoise wrote:
Good points, Drakef, and one of the more immediate concerns with the belief in souls is that, so far, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of it being possible for a consciousness to be able to exist without any physical components. This completely leaves out the possibility of an afterlife unless consciousness is somehow determined to be something capable of ethereal existence.
I think the concept of an afterlife determines how we act in our current one. It can be either a promise of better things to come or a threat of eternal suffering. So it could simply be a construct for ensuring acceptable behavior.
However, if your life is all you have and then you are done, what are your motivations for your actions?
Like it or not, the entire formulation of religion, whether God exists or not, is based on how to live with each other in a group, and placing the moral authority for those rules and mores on something greater than the individual in order to avoid a person violating them (as opposed to a "because I said so" form of authority, which allows rebellious people to ask 'well, what makes him so smart that I have to follow his rules?' people are less likely to doubt the laws if they are delivered from God.)
I was discussing religion there, not God. There is a difference.
There are so many faults with it, including the multitude of religions to choose from. I would dismiss it immediately.
I do not believe that an afterlife is a sufficient incentive for action, especially when the "acceptable behaviour" is so arguable. Our morals are derived from evolution, not some religious ideal. Our motivations are, if you excuse my "Imagine"-like explanation, is living for today. I enjoy every day as much as I can, because life is limited. That is a motivation, and human beings do not need a cop-out motivation such as an afterlife to incite us to certain behaviours. As humans, we are above that, and can act properly.
Well, this language is getting a bit technical and I've never understood this "can't prove a negative" concept, so I'll keep going.Turquoise wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but the burden of proof is on belief, not skepticism. If the burden was equal, then I could just say that Santa Claus exists, since you can't definitively prove he doesn't.DesertFox- wrote:
Well, I was certainly confused by all the negated statements here, but here is my gist:sergeriver wrote:
No, I'm saying the species DO exist, you just DON'T know they exist. Big difference. I'm not suggesting you go and find God, if that was what you were implying.
No one ought to make a claim as to the existence or nonexistence of a god, as the opposing side just has to say "prove it."
Agree?
The "belief" you are referring to is belief in a higher power, correct? I propose that the burden of proof is on the proposing the belief (general synonym for idea or whatever) that there is or is not. The one who says, "there is a god" ought to be able to support their argument, but since that is nigh on impossible, it is best to just not do it.