/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2352403
>>2352403
Explanation is a tad sloppy, but I see what you are going for.

Good argument

>>2352403
Cool.

>>2352403
WIN

You're confusing being *conscious* on control and possession of a limb with *having* control, although possibly unconsciously.

What this does prove is that the brain is necessary for consciousness. What you need is a proof that the brain is sufficient.

>>2352419
Dunno, I'm pretty sure this would throw a pretty good monkey wrench in the idea of human souls which begin at conception, a big sticking point of the catholic church.

>>2352403
This seems to apply to many religious defs. of soul (ex like christainity)

>>2352403
GOOD copypasta is GOOD

>>2352428
How does that solve the necessary/sufficient problem?

Brain damage studies show that the brain is necessary for the physical manifestation of consciousness. But until we can do faithful simulations of the physical brain, we can't show that it is sufficient.

The mistakes you are making include the use of a very loose definition for the soul that you most probably invented your self, as well as assuming "uniqueness" means there are limited numbers, when, particularly in this case, "uniqueness" is used to describe odd things, weird, different, not easy to understand.

The soul is "unique" not because it's the only soul, but because a "soul" is intricate and for the most part we have no way of knowing anything for sure with it. You arbitrarily applied meanings to words that don't apply to everyone else, that makes what you said an opinion and not fact.

tl;dr you don't have scientific proof of no soul, you have babbysfirstphilosphythought.jpg

>>2352403
>A brain can be split in such a way, as to allow for a two seperate consciousness to arise.
You could have argued this more cleanly using multiple personality disorders.

>>2352442
Uhh, I think that if we can teach that separate-brain hand sign language, and start talking to it, I think we just showed that one brain holds two souls, which would be really bad for Catholocism and any other religion which puts special emphasis on human procreation as creating souls.

>>2352453
>You could have argued this more cleanly using multiple personality disorders.
I don't think so. I like the hand better. It's a demonstration that splitting the brain can result in two entirely separate personalities. You could kill one without killing the other, where with multiple personality disorders, you can't kill one without killing the rest.

Luke 4

33 And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
35 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt him not.

Oh not this stupid debunked bullshit samefagging "win" declaration thread again!

1) FACTS, and DEFINITIONS
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_dick_syndrome

A dick can be split in such a way, as to allow for a two seperate cocks to arise. They are both hard, they both have semen, and they both have all the qualities folks would attribute to a "penis or dick".

The dick is defined as this "grand unique thing", as described by religion. Something unique to everyone. While, the actually defintions of a dick may vary, the property of uniqueness, is key, and is the only attribute we need for this exercise.

2) PROOF, by contradiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

Assume the dick exists:
Then, the dick is not unique (See 1)

But the dick was defined as unique,
Hence, the dick doesn't exist

>>2352463
Nope.avi. Sorry bro, but I'm OP and I haven't posted in this thread since I posted it.

>>2352468
Yes, the form of the OP's argument is bullshit. He is on to something though. Catholocism says that the human soul enters the body at conception. It's one of their big tenants. If you can show that the observable aspects of personality and soul can be split it two separate individuals by splitting the brain just right, that wouldn't be so good for their dogma.

>>2352452
>Can't follow basic logic

>doesn't understand mathematical defintions

This is a thought experiment. You assume "A", if "A" leads to contradictions, then "A" wrong. Hence any theory that incorporates "A" would be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

Uniquness is used in a mathematical context to mean there exist a surjective function between the set of all souls and the set of all brains.

It's called basic mathematics bro, maybe you will be able to learn it one day.

>>2352455
But you can't. Guaranteed. The consciousness is cleanly bound to ONE side of the body.

I'll play Christian's advocate and propose a view that counter's OP's argument:

The soul is a real organization that manifests consciousness, but it not composed of matter we are familiar with. Consciousness can be expressed in "normal" matter by associating a human soul with an appropriate body (brain). The brain is responsible for handling many unconscious behaviors, for processing input and passing the end results to the soul (consciousness), and for expressing conscious will of the soul by taking actions. Most human actions, especially ones without much conscious effort, have been offloaded to the brain, without much action of the soul required.

Then, what happens when a brain is split in OP's case? The soul is detached from one half of the brain. That half retains all its unconscious ability, and is still passed sensory information and gives motor control output, but only to one side, or a limited portion of one side, of the body. The consciousness (soul) is dismayed by the lack of control, which it still enjoys with the connected half of the brain. The other half of the brain is, indeed, alien to the consciousness (soul).

This theory could be invalidated, as has been pointed out, but showing that the disconnected brain has consciousness, and not merely automatic unconscious actions.

Also, there are other views that would still work, even if THIS is shown to be wrong. You could say that the brain CAN have "conscious" thought, but so can the soul, and the soul is (ideally) dominant over the brain to which it is attached.

>>2352468
>>2352452
>>2352459
>>2352463

If you don't know enough math to follow OP argument it is dumbed down alittle for you here >>2352485

>>2352496
>This theory could be invalidated, as has been pointed out, but showing that the disconnected brain has consciousness, and not merely automatic unconscious actions.
Indeed. I think you'd have to show that in order to be compelling.

>Also, there are other views that would still work, even if THIS is shown to be wrong. You could say that the brain CAN have "conscious" thought, but so can the soul, and the soul is (ideally) dominant over the brain to which it is attached.
That would be special pleading. I'm not saying that some wouldn't do it, but I think that it would be especially compelling to some.

>>2352500
No.
Proof by contradiction is showing that a given set axioms are self-defeating (contradictory). Not that they are in conflict with presented evidence, external to that system of axioms.

You don't know shit about logic, and neither does OP. Even if he's stumbling towards an interesting argument.

>>2352453

Could have argued it even more easily by using twins (does the sould split in half?), an example with which many more people are more immediately familiar.

>>2352512
Only a problem if you say the "soul" is both indivisible and attached at fertilization (prior to the zygote division that gives identical twins).

>>2352479
only is personality=soul, which it doesn't
OP's argument is a strawman; it only applies to his ridiculous interpretation of the term "soul"

>>2352512
Still near enough to conception that they could weasel their way out of it.

Here, on the other hand, you have a single person which has apparently had a single soul for many years of its life. It's had a job, been married, had kids of its own. Suddenly, by performing physical surgery, we can make the body contain two apparent souls.

I think that that would be a lot more persuasive against the catholic dogma than "Well, you see, identical twins come from the same egg."

>>2352496
Ok, you argument is logically consistant, etc. However do you relize the implications of your resaoning?

You are saying that is possible for a conscious beings to exist without a soul! YOU OPEN A A HUGE FUCKING CAN OF WORMS!

By unlinking soul to conscious you fuck up most religious dogma!

Nice try though

>>2352500
Shut up OP, your argument was wrong the first time you made it, and it's still wrong now.

There is a difference between soul and spirit. The soul is the connection between mind and will, it's a persons reason, how they choose to interpret existence and their own being.

Without soul there is no reason,
Without spirit there is no meaning,

In the case of spirit; we have the obvious drive, or meaning, to reproduce -- to find a partner to whom we'll create children with. We are attracted to the spirits of others.

In the case of the soul; taking into account the actual living spirit, there would be no use in reproduction if there was nothing to reproduce for. Why would we have kids if there is no reason to to the action?

Spirit (Reproduction)
Soul (Reason For Reproduction)

The soul, or Reason, allows us all to co-exist. Without reason then we would all just kill ourselves. Be reasonable.

>>2352522
The question is whether the disconnected brain has consciousness or merely unconscious autopilot.
Related posts:
>>2352455
>>2352496

>>2352524
Not OP bro

>>2352485
>Uniqueness is used in a mathematical context
I see your problem. You're using a different form of the word unique here. Its kind of like someone saying 'that dick is exactly 7 inches long'. Their definition of exactly is probably using a measuring device such as a ruler or tape measure, which is not actually accurate enough to find an exact measurement. Just because math says that's what unique means, doesn't mean thats the way its gonna be used in every situation.

>>2352526
>You are saying that is possible for a conscious beings to exist without a soul! YOU OPEN A A HUGE FUCKING CAN OF WORMS!
The last noted version of the argument would imply that, yes. But it is not necessary unless it is shown that the "alien" half-brain has independent consciousness, and not merely unconscious autonomy.

>By unlinking soul to conscious you fuck up most religious dogma!
Not really. This way, you can even say that animals can be "conscious" without having "souls", if you want. Not my personal view, I'd rather say we all have *some* kind of soul or none of us do, but hey.

There is no PROOF of NO SOUL.
There is PHYSICAL PROOF of NO SOUL
There is EMPIRICAL PROOF of SOUL

>>2352539
Yeah, I'm OP. I already tried telling that guy I'm not even posting in this thread, I'm just watching the discussion. Oh well, I guess it makes the people who can't accept this feel better to call everyone a samefag OP.

>>2352553
"Empirical proof" is an oxymoron, and "empirical evidence" IS "physical evidence". Anyway, 1/10

>>2352559
empirical evidence does not have to be physical evidence

Your argument is crap. I don't believe in a soul, but your "proof" is so tenuous as to make you a retard for thinking it useful.

Stop trying to prove the unproveable and get on with enjoying life.

>>2352567
You can observe things with are nonphysical?
Isn't everything that exists "physical"?

>>2352455
>>2352496

Both sides of the disconnetced brain have the same kind activity present, and are capable of learning.

>>2352575
What does the term "physical" mean?

>>2352577
[citation needed]
And this is handled by a form of this argument anyway:
>>2352496

Reported for spam, samefagging and stupidity

1 brain controls 2 arms, 2 legs and much much more.

>>2352577
Reported.

Empirical Observance (E)
Physical Observance (P)
Mental Observance (M)

P =/= M
(P + M) = E
E > P
E > M


There are two realms in existence, the mental realm or 'Heaven', the higher conciousness that we all exist within (commonly referred to as, inter alia, 'the outer imagination', 'the imagination field' or 'the force'). We cannot see the mental realm, but it is there, it is composed of the things in life of which we 'cannot see' -- abstract nouns such as love, charity, joy, honesty, infatuation, etc. Whilst the physical realm or 'Earth' is composed of the symmetrical opposites, those things of which we can see, and feel physically (which are the drive or boost to our mental impulses). Think of it like a 7-layer OSI - the 'courage' from the physical realm sends the message to the 'wisdom' of the mental realm.

To perfectly observe and, in OPs case, prove/disprove soul, you would do using empirical observation; taking into account both physical and mental realms of existence.

>>2352605
OK, I see kinda what you're getting at, but you really need to define these terms here.

>>2352605

>paragraph of woo bullshit

Oh thanks for clearing that up.

>>2352619
Elaborate on the terms you would like help understanding and I will inform you of the meanings/implications.

>>2352582
It's general scientific knowledge bro. But here are few articles since you aren't in the know.

Kertesz, A. (2000). Alien hand, free will and Arnold Pick. The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 27, 183.

Baynes, K., Tramo, M. J., Reeves, A. G., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (1997). Isolation of a right hemisphere cognitive system in a patient with anarchic (alien) hand sign. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1159–1173.

Cooney, J. W., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Neurological disorders and the structure of human consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 161–165.

>>2352496 impies that consciousness can exist without a soul. That defeats tons of religious dogma downwrite. Hence you would have made OP's point.

>>2352632
LOL
Mysticism AND arrogance. Nice.

Anyway:
Empirical
Physical
Mental

It's clear you're not using the common definitions.

>>2352403
>A brain can be split in such a way, as to allow for a two seperate consciousness to arise.

[citation needed]; your link to wikipedia does not provide any informations backing up that claim.

>>2352403
Christianity has always held the possibility of one body containing multiple souls. One man was afflicted by so many demons that when Jesus cast them out there were so many that they entered into a HERD of pigs.

All your arguments just reinforce your own opinion and have no bearing on what people believe who are Christian. Even if you took this to the leaders of the catholic church they would look at you, smile, and throw you out the door.

>>2352640
FUCKING TOLD BY >>2352638

>>2352638
Fight ignorace with science!
WIN!

>>2352638
No, it requires that one soul can only ever correlate to one consciousness. That's a completely different (and made up) contention.

>OSI Model

>>2352655
And all of you were buttraped by >>2352459
but you ignored it so I was forced to reiterate his point here
>>2352651

It's valueless. Even if you prove that one brain can contain two consciousnesses it does absolutely nothing to refute Christian doctrine which has always stated that a single body can hold multiple souls.

Your self reinforcing atheism only works on yourself.

>>2352655
Unfortunately, no. Save your reply images for later. I cannot access the first article, the second article discusses very limited cognitive abilities and not consciousness and third article discusses fact that consciousness emerges in left hemisphere.

If you were so kind and read those articles again for me and please quote particular parts that support notion mentioned in >>2352640 I would be most thankful.

>>2352651
>Gods of the Gaps

I'n my /sci/? GTFO!

Your point is meaningless.
The main problem you will need to answer is who can one "soul" become "two"? How "does" an existing soul "split"? Can they be "combined"?

You religion is starting to sound like DBZ

>>2352655

I came.

>>2352668

Yes, fuckwit, but these souls need to come from somewhere, and Xtianity holds they come from conception. You are arguing that if someone with this split brain appears then they need an extra soul to come external. Which means they must be possessed. There's no other doctrine for it.

>>2352675
>doesn't read or understand the articles

>trying to save face

I can't do all the work for you bro. You need to learn critical thinking and reading skills on your own. Sorry.

>>2352688

>won't
>can't

No soul, you say?

>>2352688
As you were unable to provide any sources for your claims and your are apparently not willing to do so, this discussion has no further meaning. Good bye.

PS: Next time you copypaste articles from wikipedia sources, please read them first.

OP's proof has at least one equivocation fallacy.

Define soul and unique explicitly and try running the argument again. It won't work very well.

>>2352675
>doesn't read or understand the articles

>trying to save face

I won't do all the work for you bro. You need to learn critical thinking and reading skills on your own. Sorry.

(fixed for the FUCKING GRAMME NAZI! >>2352698)

>>2352717
>doesn't understand what a thought experiment is

>doesn't understand basic mathematics

Still no soul?

>>2352718

I wasn't talking about your semantics. I was referring to the fact that you saying you "can't do the work for him" is because he's right and you literally can't answer him, rather than unwilling to do so.

>>2352728

Is that you in the middle, you pederast.

?

>>2352704
>>2352728
>>2352746

I wtf'd

>which one of the hands of people who have it appear to take on a mind of its own
><span class="math">/bf{Appears}[/spoiler]
>alien hand syndrome results when disconnection occurs between different parts of the brain that are engaged in different aspects of the control of bodily movement. As a result, different regions of the brain are able to command bodily movements, but cannot generate a conscious feeling of self-control over these movements

It's not two consciousness you fucking retard. Its better described as the person's unconscious mind going off on doing it's own thing when its not wanted. Everyone has unconscious mind; if you ever walked while having a conversation, drove anywhere while paying attention to the radio, or were just doing something while thinking heavily about something else and then latter realized that you don't remember at all paying attention to what you were doing original but still were able to do it. Alien hand syndrome is just the brain going into autopilot like that when you weren't trying to doing anything. It's not a second person.

Thus,
one mind
one soul
one god
Amend.

>>2352723

I can read the logic of the argument, and its is valid. However, the way it is written, unique things cannot exist. I will not say that it is sound.

>>2352755
>>2352755
>conservapedia

EPIC FAIL BRO

>>2352685
So? Perhaps by splitting the brain you open up half to being possessed by a demon. What part of Christianity doesn't allow for this?

Here's what I see in this thread.

Accept my godless world views, look I have proof.
No you don't.
YES I DO! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.

You lost this argument already so stop bothering to try. The only people you can convince are atheists who already think like you do.

People with no soul are forever alone.

Convert.

>>2352766
>Can't refute
>Ad hominems, ad hominems everywhere

>>2352768

>You lost this argument already so stop bothering to try

You haven't even presented one. If you mean to say that, given this was all true, the surgery could be performed, the only way you could be consistent is by saying the person is possessed.

If you don't believe in possession then your doctrine is defeated. If you think this procedure induces a demon, prove it.

The argument was never over how many "souls" the body can house (which is what you were raging over earlier) it's about coming up with an explanation of how they got there.

>>2352485
ITT: omg, I took a logic class, now I can disprove god cause I'm logical now! Wow I must be so smart to be able to grasp this difficult concept of contradiction. These idiots probably can't do it.

>>2352766
>>conservapedia

No that was from the wiki article

NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN

SAGE

>Assume the soul exists:
>Then, the soul is not unique (See 1)

>But the soul was defined as unique,
okay

>Hence, the soul doesn't exist
Illogical bullshit right here.
you didn't prove the soul doesn't exist. you pulled this part out of your ass.

>>2352755
>This.Amend

>>2352768
>christfag mad that he has no soul
>still looking for the God of Gap's

One part of a split soul becomes a Demon, ehh?

Which part? What's to say the "person" doesn't change into the Demon, and the the "alien hand" is still the Non-Demon soul!

OMFG! WE CAN CHANGE PEOPLE INTO DEMONZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! WE MUST PERFECT THIS SCIENCE!

Hey OP, all you did was sorta disprove the christian version of the soul.

good luck with the hindu one, they know logic better than you do.

>>2352848
>doesn't understand proof by contradiction
>doesn't understand a mathematical proof

>>2352876
soul was misidentified
argument works for a definition of soul that only OP uses
not meaningful to anyone else

The question isn't "do you have a soul," it is "how big is your soul?"

>>2352457

So does multiple personality disorder.
The people with it have separate speech patterns, ways of writing, behavioral mannerisms, etc. when they are each of their multiple personalities. If that's not evidence.
Also, who said that killing one was necessary for proof that it was? How would you kill the alien hand syndrome? chop off the arm? It's only because it manifests in a particular body part. If it manifests in an entire body, I think it is still valid.

This relates to the whole mind-body divide issue.

OP.

why you so insecure?

>>2352908


image sauce?

>>2352932
fiat lux

>>2352876
It's also not a proof by contradiction. Proof by contradiction does not rely on external evidence - it shows that a set of axioms is inconsistent (self-contradictory).

>>2352953

This gentleman is correct, and this point's been made a few times ITT.