how many souls?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence that souls exist, i.e. that consciousness is something more then just a result of interactions between the material components of a brain and the brain's interactions with its environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence do you have that consciousness is exclusively the result of interactions between the material components of the brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...maybe the fact that when the brain is damaged it can affect consciousness? Or are we mistaking "brain damage" for "soul damage"?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn’t pass the basic logic test. It only establishes that the material brain affects consciousness, not exclusively causes it.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence that souls exist, i.e. that consciousness is something more then just a result of interactions between the material components of a brain and the brain's interactions with its environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence do you have that consciousness is exclusively the result of interactions between the material components of the brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...maybe the fact that when the brain is damaged it can affect consciousness? Or are we mistaking "brain damage" for "soul damage"?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn’t pass the basic logic test. It only establishes that the material brain effects consciousness, not exclusively causes it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're asking for proof of something that is impossible to prove. How very typical of your posts on here.

Can you prove that a "soul" plays a role in consciousness?

Personally I believe that the stapler sitting on my desk plays a role in my consciousness. I challenge you to prove to me that it doesn't.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence that souls exist, i.e. that consciousness is something more then just a result of interactions between the material components of a brain and the brain's interactions with its environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence do you have that consciousness is exclusively the result of interactions between the material components of the brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know...maybe the fact that when the brain is damaged it can affect consciousness? Or are we mistaking "brain damage" for "soul damage"?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn’t pass the basic logic test. It only establishes that the material brain effects consciousness, not exclusively causes it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're asking for proof of something that is impossible to prove. How very typical of your posts on here.

Can you prove that a "soul" plays a role in consciousness?

Personally I believe that the stapler sitting on my desk plays a role in my consciousness. I challenge you to prove to me that it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where have I asked for proof of anything in this thread?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Scitzophrenia is something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything that includes a dissociative element could be caused by soul cohabitation.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Where have I asked for proof of anything in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

"What evidence do you have that consciousness is exclusively the result of interactions between the material components of the brain?"

Fine, you asked for 'evidence', not 'proof'. Give me 'evidence' that a soul plays a part in consciousness.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
Where have I asked for proof of anything in this thread?


[/ QUOTE ]
You asked for evidence:

[ QUOTE ]
What evidence do you have that consciousness is exclusively the result of interactions between the material components of the brain, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you got a reply that mentioned something that at the very least makes it more plausible that what I said was correct, you dismissed the reply ("That doesn't pass the basic logic test") because it doesn't "establish" (i.e. prove) that what I said was correct.

That doesn't really make sense unless you meant "proof" when you asked for "evidence". If Hopey misunderstood you, then so did I. Maybe you should state more clearly what you mean. How do you define "evidence" for example?

[Hopey]

He's arguing over semantics now. To most people, the sentence "Show me some proof that X exists" has the same meaning as "Show me some evidence that X exists".

Every time that I decide to answer his questions, rather than ignoring him or treating him like a troll, he reverts back to his troll-like behaviour.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What evidence do you have that consciousness is exclusively the result of interactions between the material components of the brain, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you got a reply that mentioned something that at the very least makes it more plausible that what I said was correct, you dismissed the reply ("That doesn't pass the basic logic test") because it doesn't "establish" (i.e. prove) that what I said was correct.

That doesn't really make sense unless you meant "proof" when you asked for "evidence". If Hopey misunderstood you, then so did I. Maybe you should state more clearly what you mean. How do you define "evidence" for example?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of nonsense has been made “plausible” to a lot of people.

You made a definitive assertion: “There is no evidence that souls exist, i.e. that consciousness is something more then just a result of interactions between the material components of a brain and the brain's interactions with its environment.”

I don’t want “proof” or “plausible”, just the facts best supporting the position that consciousness is nothing more than the material brain and its activities.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
what is a human chimera?

bbb

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the case that triggered my question.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht.../13/ixhome.html

[Cyrus]

Stax, Tamla, Chess, Atlantic, you name it.

By the way, the "Groove Me" guy died recently, did you know?