3981bb No.12913
Explain how the phenomenon of sentient life exists in relation to the first law of thermodynamics WITHOUT the existence of an extradimentional soul
Protip: you can't
d765be No.12920
>>12913
Where is the problem? These two things are unrelated.
3981bb No.12926
>>12920
Energy is neither created nor destroyed, so therefore our "lives" require a soul, because they could not be created or destroyed otherwise.
It must be on another plane of existence.
b06512 No.12931
>>12926
Bacteria has no soul (by chrisrian believe)and still lives.
Also:
Your system has to take in energy in order to survive. We call that eating. No soul needed.
e04eb5 No.12941
>Explain how the phenomenon of sentient life exists in relation to the first law of thermodynamics
Evolution. Simple self replicating molecules evolved to the point where they become complex single celled organisms, multicellular organisms, and so on. Eventually intelligence to a certain degree evolved.
>Energy is neither created nor destroyed, so therefore our "lives" require a soul, because they could not be created or destroyed otherwise.
It must be on another plane of existence.
Wrong. Life is a bunch of biological and chemical processes working in unison. Eventually those processes break down and the organism dies. There's no need for a soul for life to exist because throughout the whole process, the laws of physics aren't being broken.
Can you point to me a biological function that wouldn't work without the existence of a soul?
4c7e29 No.12947
>>12926
>our lives require a soul
[Citation needed]
834a54 No.12948
>>12926
Holy fuck, this has got to be the most retarded thing I've read all day. Energy is transferred. You fear that part of you is of something bigger and will be dispersed in that something bigger when you die so you make up a soul so that idea doesn't hurt your feelings. No, there's no evidence whatsoever that souls exist. I've explored this plenty when I was a Christian and researched all sides and now the idea of souls, gods, angels, demons, etc just reminds me that some people still haven't graduated theological or philosophical kindergarten yet.
3981bb No.12949
>>12931
The soul interacts with the body, is not part of it
Bacteria is non sentient
I am not a christian
>>12941
>Wrong. Life is a bunch of biological and chemical processes working in unison. Eventually those processes break down and the organism dies. There's no need for a soul for life to exist because throughout the whole process, the laws of physics aren't being broken.
>Can you point to me a biological function that wouldn't work without the existence of a soul?
Probably should have mentioned, for lack of a better word
How about dasein instead
>Evolution. Simple self replicating molecules evolved to the point where they become complex single celled organisms, multicellular organisms, and so on. Eventually intelligence to a certain degree evolved.
But if this phenomenon was simply a material chemical process then our conciousness would simply be an illusion, and i think therefore i am.
>>12948
>Holy fuck, this has got to be the most retarded thing I've read all day. Energy is transferred.
If 'dasein', the phenomenon of conciousness was transferred then it would not be ended by death. Therefore there is a soul (for lack of a better term) "moving on" to whatever afterlife (or reincarnation) there is.
>You fear that part of you is of something bigger and will be dispersed in that something bigger when you die so you make up a soul so that idea doesn't hurt your feelings.
I fear no such thing.
>No, there's no evidence whatsoever that souls exist.
No scientific evidence whatsoever. There is also no scientific evidence there is no soul, nor is it ever likely for scientific evidence on the matter either way. Thus it is purely in the realm of the metaphysical.
8d616b No.12951
>>12949
>But if this phenomenon was simply a material chemical process then our conciousness would simply be an illusion, and i think therefore i am.
Think about how much a pet cat can be trained to do, or to act on its own volition. You simply have a ton more neurons and are more highly evolved.
Even a computer can do sophisticated analysis like data mining for trends humans cannot observe, if you add enough "nodes" for computing, and program the right instructions. Supercomputers for example.
We might actually be illusions, but its more pragmatic to behave otherwise.
3981bb No.12952
>>12951
>Think about how much a pet cat can be trained to do, or to act on its own volition. You simply have a ton more neurons and are more highly evolved.
>Even a computer can do sophisticated analysis like data mining for trends humans cannot observe, if you add enough "nodes" for computing, and program the right instructions. Supercomputers for example.
>We might actually be illusions, but its more pragmatic to behave otherwise.
How can you think the thought that you do not exist without existing in order to think the thought?
8d616b No.12953
>>12952
>I think therefore I am - Descartes
"I" may not actually exist in the way I think I do. The "I" is not well defined as an entity, and the "therefore" still requires a leap of faith to prove that thinking proves existence. Just because we are used to the idea that thinking things must exist, does not mean that we could not be totally deceived. We could even be deceived about our ability to think.
"I" might exist, but only as a concept or a metaphysical possibility. Descarte still has not proven the evil genius cannot affect his mind, or there is not something even more powerful.
Philosophy is not my area of expertise, but the statement feels wrong to me, and I will try to explain why I think it is unsafe:
Does a computer that thinks it exists actually exist or is it programed to think so? If there was no one to observe it, how would it confirm that it was not a concept in a void of possibilities? Concepts do not exist in a physical (material) sense. If I write a dialog about a thinking character named Jim, that does not mean Jim "exists" as anything but a concept in my imagination. Does "Jim" exist on some plane if he recites "cogito ergo sum" in my internal dialog? Does he now have a soul?
I think Jim has unknowingly begged the question.
8d616b No.12954
>>12953
I apologize for the word salad. I meant to trim out the weaker arguments before I posted, since I only figured out how to express my real contention with Descartes's reasoning at the end.
e6fff0 No.12955
>>12949
>No scientific evidence whatsoever. There is also no scientific evidence there is no soul, nor is it ever likely for scientific evidence on the matter either way. Thus it is purely in the realm of the metaphysical.
Srly? You make a scientific claim in the OP but say you can't use science to disprove me. Make claims that mean anything.
3981bb No.12956
>>12953
>Just because we are used to the idea that thinking things must exist, does not mean that we could not be totally deceived.
How can you think without existing?
>Does a computer that thinks it exists actually exist or is it programed to think so? If there was no one to observe it, how would it confirm that it was not a concept in a void of possibilities? Concepts do not exist in a physical (material) sense. If I write a dialog about a thinking character named Jim, that does not mean Jim "exists" as anything but a concept in my imagination. Does "Jim" exist on some plane if he recites "cogito ergo sum" in my internal dialog? Does he now have a soul?
Ought implies can.
>>12955
>Srly? You make a scientific claim in the OP but say you can't use science to disprove me. Make claims that mean anything.
I maid a metaphysical claim based on a scientific law.
Are you contesting that law? Either way you're retarded and this was a sad 'argument'.
8d616b No.12957
>>12956
>How can you think without existing?
I explained it in the last paragraph. Moshi moshi? Am I speaking to statuefag?
>Ought implies can.
But "ought" does not prove "existence" is real.
cb6314 No.12961
Mostly through the energy and matter rearranging itself constantly, through networks and feedback loops.
Nature then picks whatever network is best suited for survival, and sentience has a massive advantage over other networks
8d616b No.12962
>>12957
>>How can you think without existing?
I have thought of another way to phrase my answer:
How can you know if you are actually thinking? Or that thought even exists, rather than being an illusion/concept? What if thought is an automatic process in a conception?
Even if I affirm "I think therefore I am", it doesn't prove I am part of a material universe, or that such a reality even exists. The expression is just an excuse to pretend you've found a rock-solid axiom, so you can put aside some extreme skepticism.
e6fff0 No.12964
>>12913
Souls are bullshit. Your mind is an result of your brain. That's why some people after a brain injury get new personality and their families doesn't know them anymore.
ccaf30 No.12978
>>12913
So from what >>12964 said, we can deduce that the energy the human body uses from eating and breathing also powers those parts that people choose to label as a soul.
3981bb No.12979
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>12957
>But "ought" does not prove "existence" is real.
If we were simply programmed, we would not think to do something, we would just do it. (also thought is by nature non-programmeable, as such a machine with sentience would have to be a mistake)
>>12962
>How can you know if you are actually thinking? Or that thought even exists, rather than being an illusion/concept? What if thought is an automatic process in a conception?
Because i'm not stupid enough to believe that, seriously i can't wrap my head around what you said, it makes no sense.
>Even if I affirm "I think therefore I am", it doesn't prove I am part of a material universe, or that such a reality even exists. The expression is just an excuse to pretend you've found a rock-solid axiom, so you can put aside some extreme skepticism.
Literally vid related
>>12964
>>12978
All this proves is that the areas allowing the soul to interact are damaged, thus interfering with the connection.
d765be No.12983
>>12979
>All this proves is that the areas allowing the soul to interact are damaged, thus interfering with the connection.
I don't think this will satisfy christians.
>Yes eternal souls are real but the people you love were actually misread by their brains. In heaven you will meet the real undistorted versions of them.
3981bb No.12984
>>12983
>I don't think this will satisfy christians.
Why should i care?
8d616b No.12986
>>12979
>If we were simply programmed, we would not think to do something, we would just do it. (also thought is by nature non-programmeable, as such a machine with sentience would have to be a mistake)
You are making assumptions like that the world operates the way it seems to, from your limited understanding. Descartes's position begings with extreme skepticism where nothing he saw could be trusted. My contention is he doesn't go further and think none of my thoughts cannot be trusted no matter what.
He ought to say there could be an evil genius clouding your mind, and your reality, and you are just a toy that was programmed to think it could think. A toy that never existed, just the cumulation of an idea in an author's mind. Ypu could be a character in a highly developed story. Like being a dream you would think you were thinking and sentient, when in fact you were not, and your thoughts were scripted. In the end logic still cannot be trueted with certainty, and you have nothing but your feelings to confirm you are sentient. On a larger scale, it might be possible to program a machine that believed itself sentient, only it turns out that machine was just a script in a story.
Descartes tried to take a jump and pretend that the sensory imputs you receive are make it more probable you physically exist. It still doesn't prove anything beyond a doubt. That's the extreme skepticism he dodged.
d765be No.12988
>>12984
I thought you ment christians will probably counter with your argument. I think they would shoot themselves in the foot with this explanation.
ccaf30 No.12989
Also, philosophical zombies are bullshit, the same kind of bullshit that seeps from the same leaky bovine anus as belief in the existence of the soul as separate from the body.
You mean to tell me that there might be people or things that display behaviors entirely indistinguishable from sentient behavior yet aren't actually "really" sentient for some unspecified bullshit reason? No, it just sounds like you're trying to be racist against robots or niggers or robot niggers or nigger robots.
e04eb5 No.12990
>>12949
>There is also no scientific evidence there is no soul
The fact that all of thought, feelings, decisions, etc are traced back to the brain and not by some spirit is evidence against the existence of souls. Whatever proposition souls make, a better demonstrable answer is made through natural means and thus the idea of souls can safely be thrown out.
You're yet to answer my question of what biological functions require a soul that can't be done through natural means because so far, literally everything involving the mind isn't one of them.
>But if this phenomenon was simply a material chemical process then our conciousness would simply be an illusion, and i think therefore i am.
You think therefor you am…a product of chemical and biological functions. I don't see why that makes you any less you as it would make me any less me. There's no exclusivity between thought being purely naturalistic and individuality any more than movement being purely naturalistic and being the best runner out of your friends.
>How can you think without existing?
We do though. We simply won't exist as we do now when we die because our bodies break down, whatever materials make up the brain will decompose, and consciousness will cease.
>I maid a metaphysical claim based on a scientific law.
You make it based on a faulty understanding of that scientific law or the subject you were discussing. The law is sound, your reasoning is not.
——–
Now again I ask, can you point out a biological function that needs a supernatural element (a soul) in order to function properly?
e04eb5 No.12991
>>12962
So reality is an illusion and the universe is something immaterial like a hologram.
Shit, we better buy some gold while we still can.
e212b7 No.12992
>>12913
The duality argument again? Didn't we finally move on from this like, three or four hundred years ago? The "soul" (I'm assuming you mean consciousness) is as much a part of the mind as software is of a computer. It's a structured event, not a substance, just like electricity is an event caused by the movement of electrons and not a substance.
We can see that the soul arises as an effect of the structure of the brain because we can fundamentally effect it by changing the structure and function of the connections within the brain. If I were to flip a few switches in your brain, I could make you an atheist just like me, instead of… whatever you are. As a matter of fact, we can see an example of this in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64
3981bb No.12995
>>12990
>>12992
>>12986
read niggers, with your eyes, moving left to right
e04eb5 No.13010
>>12995
>People aren't convinced by your argument and post counterpoints
>Y-y-you didn't read!
3981bb No.13011
>>13010
literally all those points are adressed in earlier posts
2f48c7 No.13013
>>12913
> first law of thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. The first law is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
Where you do get a soul from this?
e04eb5 No.13025
>>13011
And all of those addresses were countered.
2f48c7 No.13026
>>12926
Matter is also neither created or destroyed.. Your body is composed of atoms that were once part of something else,, and after you're body rots away those atoms will continue..
This is not immortality. It's recycling.
3981bb No.13029
>>13025
no they weren't
>>13026
Matter is highly compressed energy
3981bb No.13030
>>13025
no they weren't, not even one
>>13026
Matter is highly compressed energy
e04eb5 No.13031
>>13029
>They weren't because I said they weren't
>even though I just complained about people replying to points I've made in the past
ce62a4 No.13032
>Energy is neither created nor destroyed, so therefore our "lives" require a soul, because they could not be created or destroyed otherwise.
But our "lives" aren't energy.
d765be No.13036
>>13032
OP probably uses energy in the new-age sense and he thinks he can use the first law of thermodynamics on this bullshit.
3981bb No.13037
>>13031
>hurrr durrrr
>>13036
>>13032
If our sentient lives aren't energy then they simply are not a part of this universe
Everything that isn't vacuum is made of energy
e04eb5 No.13039
>>13037
>You're using greentext to point out contradictions in what I'm saying! STOP IT!!!!
d765be No.13040
>>13037
>If our sentient lives aren't energy then they simply are not a part of this universe
Everything that isn't vacuum is made of energy
Right, but when you die your brain and therefore your mind turns to shit. No energy is lost.
There is really no point in your question.
f60d95 No.13053
>>13037
A new life doesn't come from creation of energy but from changing the flow of energy. Energy comes into the human in the form of food, water and oxygen and leaves him as carbon dioxide and shit.
3981bb No.13088
>>13053
>>13040
sentience niggers, thought
>>13039
>durrr im so retarded durrr
e04eb5 No.13099
>>13088
>Still getting mad over greentext
Maybe if you replied with something better than "Read niggers" you'd get a real response, you silly billy.
aed7ea No.13101
>>13030
Matter is highly compressed energy?
And young men on acid realize they are the imagination of themselves?
Still doesn't mean an afterlife, immortality, or pixie dust of any kind.
The atoms and energy that make up you used to be part of something else and will be part of something else after you're gone forever.
Material cannot be created or destroyed. If I burn the Mona Lisa, it is not really destroyed it is transformed into ashes and gases.
Would you like to pay a Million or two dollars for some ashes and gases? I don't think so.
The Mona Lisa would be effectively destroyed and gone forever if I burned it.
In case, you still don't get it,, your personality and consciousness is the Mona Lisa in this analogy. A special combination of energy and matter that exists for a brief period of time and then is gone.
>>13030
3981bb No.13108
>>13101
I think therefore i am. This is therefore not an illusion.
>>13099
>hurr
86ae19 No.13118
>>12949
>There is also no scientific evidence there is no soul
the "soul" is a moving target. Every time science explains a feature that religious fucks from the past attributed to magic the religious fucks from the present beat around the bush and concentrate in the bullshit claims that science hasn't disproved or the good phenomena that hasn't been explained. Soul, god and many other religious dogmas are ill-defined nonsense that is kept for the sake of confirmation bias, not honest inquiry.
Science has shown that brains are responsible for feelings, sensation, thinking, intelligence and a bunch of other things; which is not surprising given the apparent importance, size, disproportionate energy consumtion and structural complexity that brains have in comparison to other parts, specially in our evolutionary lineage. So why is it exactly that you claim there's ==no scientific evidence there is no soul==?
Oh, I know the answer: you are using ignorance about the truth value of some claim to justify believing that such claim is true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You know what else science hasn't ever provided evidence to disprove?:
*fairies
*dragons
*the yeti
*every single god by posited by every single religion living or dead
*every single possible god or supernatural being that people hasn't conceived of yet
*every single metaphysical posture you may or may not agree with
Yet you obviously don't believe they are all true. It doesn't matter that they could be true because they could also be false. What matters is that science hasn't found evidence for them to think to be true. Be cognitively consistent and only adopt beliefs known to be true ;)
8ec8fb No.13120
>>13088
>sentience niggers, thought
what about it?
(actually that would be sapience)
86ae19 No.13121
>>13088
>sentience niggers, thought
scientists, psychologists, etc., settled decades ago on the theory that these things are computational processes (information processing) occurring in the brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_%28psychology%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
e04eb5 No.13128
>>13108
It may not be an illusion but that doesn't mean that it's the result of a soul. The mind is due to completely natural processes and so far there's no evidence that it's anything more.
>Still using greentext one word replies rather than defending your position
>>13120
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about half the time.
3981bb No.13134
>>13118
Thanks for ignoring what i said next, you couldn't build that strawman without doing so
>>13120
Read the thread
no, i mean sentience. Animals have souls.
>>13121
r e a d t h e t h r e a d
e
a
d
t
h
e
t
h
r
e
a
d
>>13128
If it isn't an illusion than how can it start or end if the phenomena is made of energy? We have established that it is real, and either
A. it starts and ends, in which case it isn't made of energy and thus is on another plane of existence
or B. it trancends death and meets the qualification for 'a soul'
e04eb5 No.13136
>>13134
We've already explained to you several times that it is still energy in a certain form. It is you who needs to read the thread.
aed7ea No.13138
>>13108
And when you stop thinking you stop being…
Thought is the result of biochemical electrical reactions inside your skull, when those stop the ride ends. No do overs.
aed7ea No.13139
>>13108
And when you stop thinking you stop being…
Thought is the result of biochemical electrical reactions inside your skull, when those stop the ride ends. No do overs.
762b32 No.13143
>>12913
there is no need for anything like that
sentience is a model your brain constructs from what it knows and sensory perceptions, because that's how it has evolved
d19921 No.13145
>>13134
I don't know what you expect.
Where goes the energy in your computer when you pull the plug?
Where goes the energy of a lightning when it's over?
Where goes the energy of a rolling ball when it stops?
Energy ability of a system to perform work.
Your brain needs very little energy to do it's work. This energy get "lost" to the environment. Maybe it warms the tissue for 0.01°C.
3981bb No.13164
>>13136
>>13145
To stupid to grasp what I'm saying. Well done.
>>13139
Then you agree that it is thus not energy and thus outside the universe
aed7ea No.13165
>>13164
>Then you agree that it is thus not energy and thus outside the universe
What? How are biochemical electric reactions not energy? How is the interior of the human skull outside of the universe?
Are you sure you are responding to the correct post?
8ec8fb No.13166
>>13164
Is the letter "T" part of the universe?
The letter "T" is not a physical object, I can create it (here: T) and destroy it (backspace, backspace…) without breaking any laws of thermodynamics. The existence of a particular letter "T" depends on the configuration of matter that resembles it's shape, just like existence of consciousness depends on the configuration of charges flowing through networks of neurons.
We could go by your definition and say that anything that can be created and destroyed isn't part of our universe if this definition proves useful, but I would rather say that not only energy is part of the universe but also all that is constructed from energy and built on it's motion since it's existence and form is still bound to laws of physics. It's just another level of abstraction.
Either way I don't see how it proves god exists or anything.
273a10 No.13168
>>13164
You moving the goal post back and forth.
You use "energy","soul"and "universe" like place holders that change their meaning like you want.
3981bb No.13169
>>13165
>stop being
>stop
>being
>>13166
>Is the letter "T" part of the universe?
The letter T is an abstraction.
>The letter "T" is not a physical object, I can create it (here: T) and destroy it (backspace, backspace…) without breaking any laws of thermodynamics. The existence of a particular letter "T" depends on the configuration of matter that resembles it's shape, just like existence of consciousness depends on the configuration of charges flowing through networks of neurons.
>We could go by your definition and say that anything that can be created and destroyed isn't part of our universe if this definition proves useful, but I would rather say that not only energy is part of the universe but also all that is constructed from energy and built on it's motion since it's existence and form is still bound to laws of physics. It's just another level of abstraction.
I thought that we already established sentient life exists, or again more accurately, 'dasein'.
>>13168
This is not even wrong
8ec8fb No.13170
>>13169
>The letter T is an abstraction.
So we're on the same page then
>I thought that we already established sentient life exists, or again more accurately, 'dasein'.
And I am not denying that.
aed7ea No.13175
>>13169
Stop being? Lots of living things stop being.
Ever swat a fly. It's dead, Jim.
The same basic biochemical processes that made that fly alive make you alive, and they end in pretty much the same way.
You can be crushed just like a fly. (although it take considerably more effort)
Or will the afterlife be buzzing with flies?
e04eb5 No.13176
>>13164
>To stupid to grasp what I'm saying. Well done.
Nothing of substance again. Lost already? All you've done is run around in circles and when everyone reaches start again, you accuse people of not reading the thread or know what they're talking about.
Thought, feelings, memories, etc are all due to biological processes that yes, use energy. Those processes are grounded in the real world. When you die, your brain ceases to function and you no longer feel, think, etc.
The energy that once was involved in powering your brain and allowing it to function is then converted to other forms.
I seriously doubt you even know what you're talking about or know what you want to say. Maybe you should brush up on rhetoric.
aed7ea No.13180
>>13176
He's too terrified of death to accept rational thought. That happens to a lot of people.
3981bb No.13291
>>13175
Flies lack souls
>>13180
>>13176
So then you forfeit the argument? You concede that i have disproven atheism?
>>13121
btw science is only useful to set the stage for the philosopher. On the heirarchy of knowledge, Philosophy > Science.
e04eb5 No.13300
>>13291
>So then you forfeit the argument? You concede that i have disproven atheism?
Read the post. Like actually read the post from left to right, son.
>btw science is only useful to set the stage for the philosopher. On the heirarchy of knowledge, Philosophy > Science.
You're either trolling or legit too stupid to waste time on.
aed7ea No.13301
>>13291
How do you know flies lack souls?
Just because you cannot detect the soul doesn't mean it does not exist.
Just because it is impossible by all human reasoning for that fly's limited consciousness to continue after it's nervous system and brain are destroyed to continue doesn't mean it doesn't.
Puny human knowledge is so limited compared to the mystic spirit world.
In fact.,, it's even more likely that fly has an immortal soul because it's consciousness is simpler than yours and therefore more likely to transfer into the spirit world intact.
3981bb No.13312
>>13300
You repeated points i refuted
>>13301
Insects lack sentience
aed7ea No.13318
>>13312
Define "sentience".
An insect know it's alive, and takes action to keep itself alive. It feels pain and attempts to avoid it, and it feels pleasure and attempts to obtain it. (put sugar down and watch the ants swarm)
That insect might not be as eloquent in it's justification of it's life as a human being, but it is still self-aware.
Why does it's existence end with it's body but yours go on forever?
633697 No.13319
Time to stop posting. OP has no point and can even pretend that has anything to say.Waste of time.
e04eb5 No.13326
>>13312
That's because you haven't actually refuted anything. You'e just brought things into a complete circle and that's ignoring the times you didn't even bother trying to refute a point other people have made but insisted they either don't read or don't understand things.
If sentience is the necessity for a soul then there's plenty of animals that would fit the bill. If it's only for humans, then at what point did we go from a soulless beast to a creature with a soul?
3981bb No.13328
>>13318
We only know what an insect knows feom what it does, and you describe the behavior that suggests they are drones
>>13319
Get rekt faggot
>>13326
When did i say animals lack souls?
e04eb5 No.13329
>>13328
If animals have souls, but not flies, then where does the distinction begin?
aed7ea No.13330
File: 1451452837433.jpg (216.09 KB, 884x1107, 884:1107, all-dogs-go-to-heaven-blu-….jpg)
>>13328
Do bad dogs go to hell?
I was told there are no bad dogs only bad owners.
3981bb No.13332
3981bb No.13333
e04eb5 No.13334
>>13333
>>13332
You failed to get quads the first time with a crappy fedora joke so you had to make a second post. What a loser.
3981bb No.13337
>>13334
ur just butthurt you lost the argument
e04eb5 No.13339
>>13337
Sure, son. Now go play with your toys.
bf66f5 No.13351
>>13134
>animals have souls
>>13291
>fies lack souls
>>13312
"you don't understand, you're stupid" is not refutation
I miss statuefag, at least he comprehended the posts he was replying to and acknowledged the points that were made.
ad23fc No.13355
Explain how the phenomenon of sentient life exists in relation to the first law of thermodynamics WITH the existence of an extradimentional soul
Protip: you can't
e04eb5 No.13356
>>13355
He's just going to claim that you didn't read the threat as an excuse to not have to justify his position but I appreciate your double dubs none the less.
aed7ea No.13361
>>13355
Explain what the fuck you're talking about and what it has to do with this:
first law of thermodynamics
The law which states that the total energy of a system and its surroundings remains constant.
Alternate Definition: The change in the energy of a system equals the heat flow in the system from the surroundings minus the work done by the system on the surroundings. Also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
(and didn't we start this thread here? Who cares? Round and Round we go with circular reasoning!)
aed7ea No.13365
>>13361
No seriously.. How do you get extradimentional anything from system in which the energy remains constant?
Do you even know what the first law of thermodynamics is or are you just trying to baffle us with bullshit here?
Personally, I don't much physics but when someone uses a word I don't know, I look it up.
3981bb No.13393
>>13351
Flies are non sentient, thus are not alive and lack souls.
You demonstrate projection and a lack of self awareness.
>>13355
That is a self answering question. The extradimensional soul solves the paradox
>>13365
Forgot everything you know for a moment and remember only that you are. Think of the act of experiencing being you are undergoing right now and always. Without a soul, this experience will end on death, creating a paradox. The energy within the brain may be transferred, but the experience of being will be destroyed, proving the phenomenon is not made up of energy, and thus not apart of this universe.
8ae592 No.13395
>>13393
>creating a paradox.
There is no paradox. Experience is just data and data can be lost when the medium is destroyed.
a2df7e No.13396
>>13393
>Flies are non sentient, thus are not alive and lack souls.
So you retract your statement about animals having souls or are you saying a fly is not an animal?
>The energy within the brain may be transferred, but the experience of being will be destroyed, proving the phenomenon is not made up of energy
It is made up of energy that is in a certain configuration. The configuration was lost as the energy changed form without disappearing.
Like the knot on your shoe disappears without the shoelace disappearing. When I destroy a chair, I still have all the wood it's made of.
aed7ea No.13398
>>13393
You're using a words that I don't think you know the meaning of.
1. Projection.
I can only assume you are talking about it in this way.
"Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life."
Is being sentient a negative quality & anon is denying his own self awareness and "projecting" it on to flies?
and a "Paradox" is a self contradictory statement. A thing that should not exist by it's own rules like "hot ice" .
How is my consciousness ending a paradox?
Just because I don't want it to happen doesn't mean it won't. (appeal to consequences fallacy)
How does imaging myself as energy and separate from the universe make it a reality? I can imagine all sorts of things but that does not make them real. Wishing does not make it so.
If you are going to use terms and words in a discussion, it's best to know what they mean.
And why haven't you given an explanation about how the law of the conservation of energy implies extradementional existence?
aed7ea No.13401
>>12913
O.P. reaches the afterlife only to be swarmed with blessed flies.
He cannot swat them because they are already dead.
e04eb5 No.13402
>>13393
>Flies are not sentient and thus are not alive
Flies are living things, bro. They have DNA, organs, etc. Humans and flies even share a pretty significant chunk of DNA which makes them excellent test subjects for certain medications and drugs.
>Think of the act of experiencing being you are undergoing right now and always. Without a soul, this experience will end on death,
Correct. That's how things work and what you're yet to demonstrate is incorrect. You've made lots of claims but no evidence to back it up.
>The energy within the brain may be transferred, but the experience of being will be destroyed, proving the phenomenon is not made up of energy,
It's still is made up of energy. There's no contradiction between the brain 'experiencing' something and that experience being the sum of bio-electric signals. You are totally ignorant of neuroscience.
>and thus not apart of this universe.
Experiences are still part of the universe. Everything we do experience is a part of the universe and more specifically the brain. It's why if you damage the part of your brain that controls vision, you can no loner see (when you die, does your soul magically get vision separate from the eyes as well?) or when you take hallucinogenics, those drugs affect your brain and thus you begin to experience things that aren't actually real. In your dreams, you can have vivid experiences that aren't real as well.
You're ignoring everything we now know about neuroscience and saying "No there must be a soul!" and then using your ignorance of things like the laws of thermodynamics and what is life as evidence.
aed7ea No.13412
>>13402
> then using your ignorance of things like the laws of thermodynamics and what is life as evidence.
He's not using his ignorance, he's assuming we're ignorant and trying to bull shit us.
He's like Deepok Chopra using quantum physics as an argument that prayer works.
Remember what you can make what people don't understand mean anything.
3981bb No.13415
>>13412
>>13402
>>13398
>>13395
*tips*
>>13396
Are you saying all animals are sentient?
*tips*
aed7ea No.13417
>>13415
Thanks. I make my living from *tips*
e04eb5 No.13422
>>13415
>I have no argument and I must use dead memes
aed7ea No.13426
>>13422
>I have no argument and I must use dead memes
Who has no argument now?
e04eb5 No.13428
8ec8fb No.13433
>>13415
I get it now. *tips* must be some sort of theist gesture that means admitting one's wrong! He was telling us that he agrees with us now this whole time and we didn't get it because of culture barrier. Fancy that.
aed7ea No.13438
>>13428
of course I have no argument, I was asking a question. My question is an actual inquiry and not a rhetorical device.
Now, please tell me who is claiming whose argument is invalid so that I may follow this discussion.
e04eb5 No.13442
>>13438
I wasn't talking about you. Open your eyes and actually read my post.
efa7b8 No.13456
Holy shit, /atheism/ got absolutely BTFO
8ec8fb No.13462
>>13456
>le *tip** x-D
>BTFO>>13456
aed7ea No.13463
>>13456
>>13462
Why not? Let's go a few more rounds. I really want to see O.P use some more words that he doesn't know the meaning of, and try to baffle us with bullshit by evoking science he doesn't understand.
Come on. O.P. dig deep.
You got more Woo-hoo and circular logic.
You haven't even tried to exploit the "Observer effect" from quantum physics yet.
Come on.. put'em up.
Hit me with your best shot.
aed7ea No.13464
>>13456
This is the power of faith people.
St. Augustine described it best. (see pic)
000000 No.13465
>>13393
>flies
>non sentient
Check your privilege and my five.
>>13463
The observer effect is for suckers. Claiming quantum matter directly influences brain processes is where it's at.
>>12953
Why the computer parallel? Just bring up Anton-Babinski.
4c3dbb No.13466
>>13464
This quote is unintentionally ironic and true. It basicly says bullshitting yourself works.
8d616b No.13467
>>13464
What a brainy quote.
7d8f27 No.13480
>>13477
At least use good memes please.