Soul as parasite

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by MetaKron, Aug 28, 2006.

  1. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    No evidence for what?

    EDIT: Before you unload some more shit, yes, you have no evidence. Move on.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Actually I do know, but that is besides the point. You obviously don't hence the confusion once you ask science to prove something it cannot prove thus science must be right.

    Pathetic. Go on, get your last word in.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Parasitism involves a predatory relationship with a host. Accordingly, those transactions would be detectable and thus evidence for such an invisible parasite. Which they aren't.[*]

    In contrast to parasitism, the relationship in epiphenomenalism concerns one category of events (physical or neural) either causing or evoking another class of events (mental), but the latter has no return influence upon the former (thus the public invisibility or lack of detection, despite existing). But a consequence of that one-way influence would be that the brain should have no knowledge of the epiphenomenal manifestations and feelings it references in its reports about the body's thoughts, somatic states, and perceptions (processing of external sensory information).

    - - - footnote - - -

    [*] Outside any dispensed propaganda, however, no exhaustive mapping and measurement accounting of all microscopic exchanges in the brain has been miraculously conducted to determine such one way or another. But methodological naturalism prods one to conform to its practical "as if" directives for scientific progress. Which is to say, it is expected that if such an ultimate inventory was possible, no inexplicable anomalies would show up in the audit.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,493
    Personally, I think this should be the crux of the point.

    This is you claiming you have actual knowledge that souls exist. But you say your knowledge and the means by which you came to it are beside the point. That strikes me as exceedingly strange.

    If you have definite knowledge that souls exist - as opposed to a mere unevidenced belief - then why would you not want to share the source of your knowledge with the world?
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,377
    I know the question rhetorical but perhaps
    • future big reveal via
    • book deal getting lots of
    • money
    That the book will be full of Woo Woo won't matter

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,493
    I'm tempted to make the point that to write a book one needs (a) a modicum of facility with language use, (b) the ability to string together more than a couple of lines of text at a stretch, and (c) the ability to concentrate on one thing long enough to be able to sustain an extended narrative of one kind or another.

    But on the other hand, they published The Secret, and Dan Brown made millions, so who am I to dispute your hypothesis?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page