Stathis,

I do not understand you. It is not me, it is you who are talking about souls. I have just asked you to explain the phenomenon that I observe and you have not done it yet.


Personally, I do not know how to explain such a phenomenon. This was my statement. Hence please do not ascribe me what I have not said.

Evgenii

On 03.09.2011 10:40 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>
wrote:

So you do believe that somewhere in the trajectory of the carbon
atom as it makes its way into the book it will move contrary to
any physical laws. If this happens in cells all the time it
should be easily observable. Does the fact that nothing like this
has ever been observed count for anything?

I do observe books. Say now I am reading Thomas Metzinger "Being no
One". I would say that the book does exist and even that Thomas
Metzinger has written it. Does this fact count for anything?

These facts have no bearing on the question of whether a
transcendent influence affects the atoms that go to make up the book.
If such phenomena occur and are common in biological systems, then we
should see empirical evidence in our experiments; but we never have.
We have never observed flying pigs despite observing many pigs, and
although that does not prove flying pigs don't exist, it is
significant evidence against them.

In this series there is a clear statement that there are
questions that we cannot solve, for example if the Universe is
eternal or not. You rely on cause and at the same time on Big
Bang. But then Big Bang seems to have no cause. Or do you know
one in this case?

That is a question that presents some mystery and cosmologists
argue about. But very few biochemists would claim that miraculous
chemical reactions occur inside neurons.

Okay, so we already have a precedent with the cause logic. Yet, if
once it would be possible to live without a cause, then why it has
happened only once?

If to speak about a human being in general (this concerns
cosmologists and biochemists in particular), then Thomas Metzinger
discusses in his book "autoepistemic closure":

'"Autoepistemic closure" is an epistemological, and not (at least
not primarily) a phenomenological concept. It refers to an "inbuilt
blind spot", a structurally anchored deficit in the capacity to
gain knowledge about oneself.'

This could explain the behavior of biochemists as well as
cosmologists. The brain just does not allow us to understand what
the real universe looks like.

It is *possible* that an immaterial soul exists and we just haven't
discovered it but we should not believe whatever takes our fancy on
the grounds that there is no proof against it, viz. the flying pig
example. Incidentally, I haven't read the Metzinger book but I don't
think he entertains any notion of a soul. Even the likes of John
Searle and Roger Penrose, who don't believe computers can think, do
not postulate the existence of souls.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to