So I'm meditating right, and this thought hit me. What if there is no "I". What if there is no soul? Are the buddists smarter than modern neuroscientists? I mean they've discovered that there is no soul/self for the last 2500 years, where as modern science hasn't even discovered this trick.

File: 9 KB, 174x206, 1319188025639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:13:00 2011 No.4163207 [Reply] [Original]

So I'm meditating right, and this thought hit me. What if there is no "I". What if there is no soul? Are the buddists smarter than modern neuroscientists? I mean they've discovered that there is no soul/self for the last 2500 years, where as modern science hasn't even discovered this trick.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:15:16 2011 No.4163220 2/10 troll. I already know souls don't exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:15:16 2011 No.4163222 >>4163220 But has science proven that it doesn't exist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:16:24 2011 No.4163230 >>4163222 Have you proven that you don't have an invisible dick in your ass?

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:17:32 2011 No.4163232 Souls do exist. A dead person and an asleep person atomically have the same composition, but there is something else that is making a crucial difference between one of them being a living person, and the other being dead. That is the soul.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:18:32 2011 No.4163235 >>4163232 >>4163232 >>4163232 A star and a man have the same composition. You would not say the star has a soul. The variable is activity and base.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:18:32 2011 No.4163236 >this thought hit me >what if there is no "I" >this thought hit ME >hit ME >ME >ME babby's first enlightment

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:18:40 2011 No.4163238 >>4163230 Quit being butthurt. OP asks a legitimate question. You resort to adhominen attacks. Typical /sci/ atheists

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:19:48 2011 No.4163242 >>4163232 that would be the electric current going through your brain. besides, drowned people can be brought back to life way after they've been, technically, pronounced dead and lost all signs of life

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:19:48 2011 No.4163243 >>4163236 blame the semantics for being poor

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:20:48 2011 No.4163244

>>4163207
>>4163207

>If there is a soul, you need proof. The burden of proof is on you.
>If there no soul, it is irrelevant.
>Are the buddhists smarter? Who knows.
>No soul for 2500 years. This could be used as religious dogma for unity.
> Modern science has not discovered. Modern science never postulated this in the first place.

Also. Mind / Body Problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:20:56 2011 No.4163249 >>4163244 so you're one of those supposedly "rationalist atheists". Funny you're so ignorant

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:21:04 2011 No.4163254

>>4163235
Incorrect.
A star is made primarily of hydrogen and helium.
A man is made primarily of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, with no helium.
A star is simple and uniform, a man is complex and has different molecular structure in different areas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:21:04 2011 No.4163255 >>4163243 You've yet to achieve samadhi

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:22:12 2011 No.4163258 >>4163255 English?

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:23:12 2011 No.4163260 >>4163242 No. After true brain death when the soul has departed, you do not return. The soul is still bound when you are comatose or close to death.

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:23:12 2011 No.4163262

Humans have layers of neurons, nuclei, cortexes, etc. all working together in the brain that spew out reactions based on memories and chemical reaction patterns stored in the Hippocampus and the rest of the limbic system.

These stored reactions, chemical interactions, and electrical patterns are the soul.

A comatose person has a problem preventing these processes to complete or even start, everything is still there.

A star is made of the same atoms, but arranged differently in an inorganic manner.

There's some biology for you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:23:20 2011 No.4163265 >>4163258 You dont know shit about loss of self.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:24:20 2011 No.4163269 >>4163258 It is a higher level of meditation, similar to enlightenment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:24:20 2011 No.4163271 >>4163254 but they're still both matter. the matter in a human is the same as the matter in the core of a star, it's just arranged differently. Souls are invisible to hypothesis tests, so I don't see any point in this debate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:24:20 2011 No.4163272 >>4163260 You best be trolling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:25:27 2011 No.4163279 >>4163269 >Achieved enlightenment >On 4chan

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:26:36 2011 No.4163280 >>4163265 >implying you know what loss of self feels like >>4163269 oh thanks

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:27:45 2011 No.4163288

>>4163271
Yes, atoms are the same no matter where they are, but it is the structure and how they bind with thousands of other atoms which determine the physical structure of the solid form in which they reside.
The soul is not made of atoms, it is not physical.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:27:45 2011 No.4163291 So can I achieve enlightenment by experiencing loss of self?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:27:45 2011 No.4163294 >>4163280 Yea, no one does. That's the fucking point.

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:28:45 2011 No.4163296

>>4163254

>A star is simple and uniform

What the fuck am I reading

A star is infinitely more complex than a planet and ANYTHING on that planet.
It is PERPETUAL NUCLEAR FUSION going on. Ultrahigh energy atoms crashing into each other trillions upon trillions of times a minute releasing ludicrous amounts of energy in all directions in a SUPERVIOLENT EXPLOSION OF RAW MATTER.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:28:51 2011 No.4163300 >>4163288 >Thousands of other atoms >Thousands Troll detected.

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:28:51 2011 No.4163301

>>4163260

this true brain death of yours... how, in physical terms, would it be different from the usual kind of death, e.g losing all signs of life? if the only difference is the soul, then your reasoning is circular.

and tell me, does a computer have a soul? how about a bug? a bacteria? where do you draw the line? if you assume humans are the only beings to have souls, then your point of view is very narrow.

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:28:51 2011 No.4163302

>>4163249
>>4163249
>>4163249
>>4163249

>Assuming I'm an atheist.

Get rid of the connotations.
"Atheist=one who believes in God"

Wanna know why I don't believe in a soul? Because its so fucking abstract and everyone explains it a different way? Is it just the expression of self-solipsism.

tl'dr: WTF is a soul.

Oh wait "I R TEH BUTTHURT MAD NEKBURD ATHEEST"

No. Seriously. Enlighten me. Describe this soul.

Other animals must have it if they have human traits.
They feel pain. They see, hear, feel. They have culture and tribes.

Other animals evolved? Right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:29:12 2011 No.4163305 >>4163288 but matter is still matter. and if the soul is not matter or energy, then it is invisible to all of our current instruments and, in fact, our current laws of physics. If the soul is invisible to physics, then it effectively does not exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:29:51 2011 No.4163304 >>4163294 >no one does you are truly enlightened

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:30:00 2011 No.4163308 Asserting the existence of a soul, like asserting the existence of a god, is a non-falsifiable claim. Debating it is just worthless semantical bullshit and a waste of everyone's time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:30:00 2011 No.4163310 >>4163296 I think the point is that there is less information needed to create a generic star than a generic person.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:30:00 2011 No.4163311 >>4163302 Soul is the immaterial thing that survives after death.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:31:16 2011 No.4163318 >>4163311 Oh really? any evidence of that? any potential mechanism for this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:32:16 2011 No.4163324 >>4163308 /thread >>4163311 If it's immaterial, then it's either virtual (i.e. exists within your brain) or does not exist at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:32:16 2011 No.4163325 >>4163318 Well we're alive aren't we? Thats the proof that there is a soul.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:33:23 2011 No.4163327 >>4163310 But there isn't. Even the smallest star has more atomic data than all the atoms ever on earth. A supermassive star is where all atomic data heavier than iron of the entire solar system was fused within minutes. ALL OF IT!

>>	please fuck me up the ass Mon Dec 19 18:33:23 2011 No.4163328 File: 50 KB, 440x360, thegame2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4163311

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:33:23 2011 No.4163329 >>4163325 ALL OF MY RAGE.

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:34:32 2011 No.4163332
File: 63 KB, 516x516, image004.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4163296
>A star is infinitely more complex than a planet and ANYTHING on that planet.
Not so.
Learning the complex biology of thousands of different species would be very difficult. Learning about a star would be very easy, they are very similar to each other, they have only a few basic parts, such as the core and the photosphere.
They are not complex, just large.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:35:40 2011 No.4163338 >>4163300 Many many thousands. Billions even. Atoms are very small, therefore we are made up of a huge number of them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:36:40 2011 No.4163339 >>4163328 see >>4163302 >tl'dr: WTF is a soul. I gave an answer

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:38:03 2011 No.4163351 File: 21 KB, 438x438, brofist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You're learning the truth, OP.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:38:03 2011 No.4163352 >>4163338 I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that one. Atoms are HUUUUGE.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:38:57 2011 No.4163349 >>4163325 bacteria are alive - do they have souls? how do you define life? how does living material differ from nonliving material?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:39:03 2011 No.4163358 >>4163349 life = anyone that speaks

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:39:12 2011 No.4163362

>>4163332

Those are only fucking projections that ignore the little stuff, same as the core of the earth.

It is not four layers and the crust is BILLIONS of times more complex than that, so stop fucking simplifying!
It's the exact same for stars, that is an utter oversimplification of a massively complex and INHUMANLY LARGE process.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:40:12 2011 No.4163363 >>4163244 >This could be used as religious dogma for unity actually this is untrue. Buddhist use few axioms and logic to deduce that there is no eternal soul that survives death.

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:41:21 2011 No.4163370

>>4163301
The brain still being alive and housing your soul is what keeps you alive. Other failings of the body lead to death because they cause brain death. Your heart stopping causes blood to not be pumped to your brain, the brain will die without oxygen, forcing the soul to be severed.
Computers do not have souls. It may be possible in the future, the idea has been approached films such as I, Robot.
bugs and bacteria do not have souls either, simple organisms do not have complex enough brains capable of housing a soul, they operate like robots.
I do not know exactly where the line is drawn, but at some point certain animals evolved to be able to bind to souls, and this increased their survivability.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:43:36 2011 No.4163382 >>4163370 Until you can draw a logical line between soul-containing brains and non-soul-containing-brains, then your argument is useless here. We've already logically described where we think the line is.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:43:36 2011 No.4163383 >>4163305 It can be detected using neuroimaging techniques. Dead peoples brains do not look the same internally.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:44:36 2011 No.4163384 >>4163370 Is this satire? I can't tell anymore.

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:45:52 2011 No.4163388

>>4163383
because there's no chemical or electromagnetic activity in them. Duh.
So electromagnetic energy and chemical activity are now the substituents of the soul? What characteristics of EM radiation indicate a soul? Because, obviously, light is EM radiation, but it is not a soul. What chemical reactions indicate the presence of a soul?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:45:52 2011 No.4163390 File: 92 KB, 300x300, akfsjld.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4163370 >>4163370 >The brain still being alive and housing your soul is what keeps you alive >2011 >being a dualist >being a woman ISHYGDDT

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:45:52 2011 No.4163394 >>4163388 >because there's no chemical or electromagnetic activity in them maybe thats the soul?

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:47:00 2011 No.4163400

>>4163362
The process may be complex, but after you understand it for a single reaction inside the sun, you understand it for all the trillions of times it happens.
It is the same thing happening over and over again in an unimaginably huge scale, but it is not complex, it is uniform throughout that particular layer of the sun.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:47:00 2011 No.4163402 >>4163362 Large? yes. Complicated? No How to make a star: 1. Make a big enough cloud of hydrogen (mostly pure) 2. Let it collapse under its own gravity and start fusion. Tada! a star. Lets see you make a person with such simple steps.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:47:00 2011 No.4163403 File: 14 KB, 145x145, cost1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Wow some people on /sci/ actually believe a "soul" exists? Fucking retards

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:48:08 2011 No.4163410 >>4163390 So what are you a monoist? or a nondualist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:49:16 2011 No.4163416 >>4163394 So tell me how a vial of reacting acids and bases and a lightbulb emitting light and heat are not souls.

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:50:24 2011 No.4163418

>>4163382
Lines are hard to draw in evolution, change is very gradual, and there are trillions of different organisms.
A line can not simply be drawn clear cut between what has a soul and what does not.
Similarly, a line can not be drawn clear cut between what is alive and what is not. There is a gradual change between self replicating molecules that we consider to not be alive, and the simplest of living organisms.
Viruses are a grey area here, one can not simply categorise so easily.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:50:24 2011 No.4163420 >>4163416 no one said anything about lightbulbs not having lightbulb souls

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:51:32 2011 No.4163426 File: 6 KB, 240x251, 1292536424262.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Buddhist do believe in the existence of a soul.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:51:32 2011 No.4163428 >>4163426 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta derp

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:51:32 2011 No.4163429 >>4163388 The electromagnetic energy and chemical activity are side effects of a soul currently binded to a functional mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:51:32 2011 No.4163430 >>4163403 Only the females. Harriet also believes in free will, by the way. I assume she was homeschooled.

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:52:40 2011 No.4163436

Would one of you motherfuckers at least try to give a coherent fucking definition of what a soul is supposed to be? Because right now reading you all is like

>we derpaderpaherp is because electromagnetic radiation is derpdurhurr

/sci/, my fucking hairy, hemorrhoid infested ass.

You can't into making a shred of sense without definitions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:53:40 2011 No.4163438 >>4163429 Prove it. I mean, you can babble on about this as much as you want, but where's the evidence?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:53:40 2011 No.4163439 >>4163429 Go on...

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:53:48 2011 No.4163441

>>4163418
you are weaseling out of defining your argument. You obviously have an opinion - you would not be defending it here if you didn't. So what is your opinion? Where is the line drawn between soul and nonsoul?
IMO, souls do not exist, and "life" is just a state of matter characterized by homeostasis and reproduction.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:54:55 2011 No.4163444 >>4163430 If you define what you mean by free will, I will say whether or not I believe in it. I went to public school.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:54:55 2011 No.4163445 >>4163441 >IMO This is not about your opinion. Its about fact and the fact states that there is a soul

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:55:04 2011 No.4163453 >>4163429 can you mechanistically describe how a soul creates electromagnetic radiation and causes chemicals to react? nope, you can't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:56:04 2011 No.4163455 >>4163429 What properties does your "soul" have?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:56:12 2011 No.4163456 >>4163445 Fine. I want to hear her hypothesis, not her opinion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:56:12 2011 No.4163457 >>4163445 What? No, that's not true. That would mean the supernatural exists, which should be your first clue that you're wrong. Souls don't exist, and neurobiology backs that up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:57:12 2011 No.4163463 >>4163457 Neurobiology says nothing about souls.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:58:20 2011 No.4163468 >>4163463 it says nothing about them because they do not exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:59:28 2011 No.4163474 >>4163468 Neurobiology also states nothing about how the universe works either. That doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 18:59:28 2011 No.4163476 >>4163463 In the same way that evolutionary biology says nothing about creationism, yet still proves it wrong by way of contradiction.

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 18:59:28 2011 No.4163479

>>4163438
The evidence is life, and also in the results or the neuroimaging.

>>4163439
The soul has (some) control over the physical world from the point where it is binded. It controls the complex neurological pathways in your brain, and by extension, allows you to control your entire body.
The body is very well set up for this, it is amazing.
Picture yourself at the wheel of your car, all you have is the wheel and the pedals and some buttons on the dashboard, but you can control the movements of the entire car, you can go forwards, backwards, use the windscreen wipers, indicate, and flash your headlights.
These are analogous to all outputs that you can operate with tour own human body, but the car is far simpler than the human body is, and the human body has many many more outputs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:00:28 2011 No.4163480 >>4163476 >believing worshiping science is better than worshiping bible

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:01:43 2011 No.4163488

>>4163474
By that logic, electrons don't exist because neurobiology doesn't explain them.

neurobiology describes how the stuff in our heads works based on overarching theories of chemistry, biology, and psychology. that's the only region of the universe that it's concerned with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:02:52 2011 No.4163493 >>4163479 a) circular argument; please leave b) describe HOW the soul does this. Theories are no good if they can't describe a mechanism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:02:52 2011 No.4163494 >>4163488 neurobiology only states things about the observable states in our head. since soul is an immaterial thing, science cannot disprove it

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:03:00 2011 No.4163499

>>4163479
>The evidence is life, and also in the results or the neuroimaging.

But those exact results discredit the concept of souls by proving that everything attributed to them is actually a natural process occurring in the brain.

>>4163480

I didn't say anything about worshiping science. Are you accusing me of that merely for disagreeing with you?

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 19:03:52 2011 No.4163497

>>4163441
I do not know where the line is drawn, I am no expert on this, but I do know that souls exist.
Do not misunderstand me, this does not automatically mean God exists or anything like that, a soul existing only make the difference between consciousness and none-consciousness, this may be possible without gods.
If you presume this to be a religious argument, you will lose track of the point.

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:05:08 2011 No.4163507

>>4163479
>The evidence is life
Oh please, be more ambiguous and vaguely poetic. That's what's missing from this coldly scientific thread.

>and also in the results or the neuroimaging.
No, I want you to tell me *how* any specific neuroscientific findings support your soul hypothesis. Don't just say "neuroimaging". That's not an answer to my question.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:05:08 2011 No.4163511 >>4163494 How do you know souls are immaterial? You have no basis to define them as such. They're a made up concept.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:06:16 2011 No.4163513 >>4163497 I'm not assuming this is a religious issue. I'm just asking you to tell me how you know a soul exists and in what circumstances it appears. If it exists, then there must be some mechanism that explains it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:06:16 2011 No.4163515 >>4163497 so by your definition of soul, soul := consciousness This is different from what most people think of as the soul.

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 19:06:16 2011 No.4163516

>>4163493
How is it a circular argument?

I have already said a soul is not itself made of physical matter, it does not have 'properties' in the physical world, but it makes consciousness possible.
They are the reason the universe has life, when a universe could very easily have just been empty space, stars, and rocks, and none of us would be here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:06:16 2011 No.4163517 >>4163511 They are immaterial because science cannot study it. Its not seeable. Its only feltable. Think for a second, who is thinking this thought right now? Who is reading these words right now? Thats the soul we're talking about

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:07:24 2011 No.4163523 I don't know if this helps, but... THIS THREAD IS BANANAS, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:07:24 2011 No.4163525
File: 112 KB, 600x480, killthemall.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Threads like this just remind me that magic believers are stupid worthless people. How can you be a grown-ass man in 2011 and believe in fucking ghosts, or spirits, whatever you want to call them? And to claim science supports it? Something they would never say to the face of an actual neuroscientist. Or they'd throw a fit, accusing him of worshiping science.

Fucking retarded inferior garbage creatures.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 19:07:24 2011 No.4163527 >>4163515 That is a simple way of putting it, but basically yes.

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:09:39 2011 No.4163533

>>4163517
>>4163516
Arguments that rely on nonphysical or anecdotal evidence are not rigorous enough to be classified as theories. Your opinions are not supportable by any known mechanisms, nor are your observations repeatable or quantifiable. Facts must be repeatable and quantifiable.

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 19:10:55 2011 No.4163537

>>4163525
If you are equating a soul with 'magic' and 'ghosts' it is no wonder you do not understand them.
It seems you do not even want to understand.
Ironic seeing as you are conscious yet do not even believe in your own soul.
You are rude and arrogant, you are not worth talking to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:11:55 2011 No.4163545 >>4163537 You just said that soul != consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:11:55 2011 No.4163546 >>4163527 so basically, you're saying... that humans have consciousness. paging Stockholm.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:12:55 2011 No.4163550 So can we just wrap up and say that buddhists are right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:13:04 2011 No.4163555 >>4163550 seconded.

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 19:13:04 2011 No.4163557

A lot of people have been posting, I apologise but I can not respond to them all

>>4163533
I would have thought it was obvious to most people.
You must at least believe in consciousness?
The soul is the mechanism for this, even if we do not yet fully understand it yet.

>>4163545
No, I said it was.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:14:12 2011 No.4163560 >>4163550 About what?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:14:12 2011 No.4163563 >>4163560 That there is no soul? That they're smarter than neuroscientists

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:16:28 2011 No.4163571

Wtf has happened to /sci/, you guys?

A philosophy thread. Nay, an Eastern philosophy thread, and no one yet has proclaimed this shit to be full bullshit which has no place on this board? I'm shocked.

Anyway, topic has been discussed to death, those who stand by logic can clearly be pointed out by anyone, as can those who are standing by mindless dogma. Sage.

Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:16:28 2011 No.4163573
File: 27 KB, 600x450, 1321343348399.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4163537

>If you are equating a soul with 'magic' and 'ghosts' it is no wonder you do not understand them.

No, you're misusing the term.

>It seems you do not even want to understand.

There is nothing TO understand. You're wrong, and that's the end of it.

>Ironic seeing as you are conscious yet do not even believe in your own soul.

Soul is not another word for consciousness. It is the supernatural essence of a person including consciousness, personality, memories and emotion which can leave the brain and exist apart from it after death. No such thing exists or is possible. It would be like trying to remove the song from a vinyl record and have it continue to play in thin air with no phonograph.

>You are rude and arrogant, you are not worth talking to.

You're Harriet. I think I come out ahead on this one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:16:28 2011 No.4163574 >>4163557 Consciousness is easily explainable as a virtual construction. If that's what you're saying, then fine.

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Mon Dec 19 19:16:28 2011 No.4163575 File: 165 KB, 302x356, 01290843.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4163232 haz, wtf are u doin to my /sci/?? would you fuck off back to /x/ you fucking pontificating veggie-fag!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:17:36 2011 No.4163579 >>4163571 lol ignorant atheist. Sucks for you that the scientists are open to any and all ideas

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:17:36 2011 No.4163581 >>4163575 Yes, make the little monkey dance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:18:36 2011 No.4163582 >>4163571 >and no one yet has proclaimed this shit to be full bullshit which has no place on this board? I'm shocked. Many people have. Read before you post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:18:44 2011 No.4163589 >>4163579 >lol ignorant atheist. Sucks for you that the scientists are open to any and all ideas They are, and have still found that you are wrong, hence why a majority of scientists are atheists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:18:44 2011 No.4163590 >>4163575 /r/ing Harriet and EK lesbian grudge fucking

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:19:52 2011 No.4163594 >>4163589 lol majority of scientists like Einstein? Newton? Who else? They're all agnostics

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Mon Dec 19 19:19:52 2011 No.4163595

>>4163573
"There is nothing TO understand. You're wrong, and that's the end of it."
That is just your opinion. Prove me wrong.

"You're Harriet. I think I come out ahead on this one."
What is that supposed to mean? How does my name have any relevance?

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Mon Dec 19 19:20:52 2011 No.4163601 File: 254 KB, 398x360, 13645647.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4163581 monkey?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:20:59 2011 No.4163604 >>4163589 Actually a scientist that has closed their minds on the any possibility is not a scientist at all. Most scientists are therefore agnostics

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 19 19:21:59 2011 No.4163610 File: 275 KB, 890x723, h_ek_o copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4163590 Closest thing I have.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math