Do humans have a soul?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by -1- » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:30 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:40 am
-1- wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:49 pm
God did not create a good enough world.
"Good enough" for what? Are you criticizing ha Shem's judgment in such matters? Surely not. "Good" must have been "good for" the specific purpose, no?

But what, then, was the world not "good enough" for, in your estimation?
Change is necessary to better it. The "better" is better than the god-created "good". If it was good enough, it would never need to change any more.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:47 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:30 am
Change is necessary to better it. The "better" is better than the god-created "good". If it was good enough, it would never need to change any more.
Well, the observation that the world would do better with some changes now would suggest is that at some point this world became less that "good enough." It does not help us to ascertain whether it was created that way or became that way later. The Torah says God's original work was technically "good," but man's moral contribution was not so "good," and that the latter accounts for the present deficiencies you observe.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by -1- » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:47 pm
-1- wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:30 am
Change is necessary to better it. The "better" is better than the god-created "good". If it was good enough, it would never need to change any more.
Well, the observation that the world would do better with some changes now would suggest is that at some point this world became less that "good enough." It does not help us to ascertain whether it was created that way or became that way later. The Torah says God's original work was technically "good," but man's moral contribution was not so "good," and that the latter accounts for the present deficiencies you observe.
Your argument is a common mistake. Man's moral contribution can be traced back to God. It's not even a question of free will or of determinism. God did create man with a free will, or else He created a deterministic world. Either way, it is not good enough. It was good, for a while, but it broke down because of an internal bug.

I blame God for creating either a man with a free will that could be swayed the wrong way -- in a good enough world this would never have happened -- or else create world where deterministic causes did not lead to so much bullshit and shit and crap.

Even the fact that we crap is a sign of "not good enough".

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by -1- » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:47 pm
-1- wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:30 am
Change is necessary to better it. The "better" is better than the god-created "good". If it was good enough, it would never need to change any more.
Well, the observation that the world would do better with some changes now would suggest is that at some point this world became less that "good enough." It does not help us to ascertain whether it was created that way or became that way later. The Torah says God's original work was technically "good," but man's moral contribution was not so "good," and that the latter accounts for the present deficiencies you observe.
If the world became less than good enough, as you say, then it was not good enough in the first place, because there would be no reason for the changes to happen that would make this world less than good enough, if the design originally was good enough. Something that ain't broke can't break if there is nothing to break it. In a good enough world there is nothing that damages or threatens the status quo of "good enough".

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:33 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:25 pm
If the world became less than good enough, as you say, then it was not good enough in the first place,...
But you still haven't said good enough for what.

A raincoat is good enough for rain, but not for heavy snow. And it's not because the raincoat is a bad raincoat: it's good for its role. A rubber raft is good enough for the swimming pool, but not for the ocean. Again, it's good in its place. Things are "good enough" for purposes.

For what purpose would you suggest the world was "not good enough"?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5922
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:42 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:22 pm
Man's moral contribution can be traced back to God.
Not if free will is a genuine thing.

Human beings produce other free-will-bearing human beings all the time. Why then would we suppose God could not? That seems counterintuitive, surely.
...it broke down because of an internal bug.
John Milton said that mankind was "Sufficient to have stood, but free to fall." In which case, we might say it was not a design flaw at all.

Think about it: if one is going to have genuine free will, what does that necessarily entail? It entails that you must have at least one choice other than to do what you are programmed to do. You might have more, but if you had less then there's no sense in which we could attribute to you any free will at all.
I blame God for creating either a man with a free will that could be swayed the wrong way
Would it be preferable if man were not genuinely free? For that is the only alternative. Yet many people think freedom is something of surpassingly high value. And I think they're quite right.

Freedom is not "safe." It is a good thing, but it is not safe. By definition, it allows people to choose both right and wrong. But without the option to choose, at least once, there is no sense in which we can speak of a person having chosen aright. We also can no longer speak of personal identity, relationship, love or volition. And how would a world without such things be better than one in which they were available?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by -1- » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:33 pm
-1- wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:25 pm
If the world became less than good enough, as you say, then it was not good enough in the first place,...
But you still haven't said good enough for what.

A raincoat is good enough for rain, but not for heavy snow. And it's not because the raincoat is a bad raincoat: it's good for its role. A rubber raft is good enough for the swimming pool, but not for the ocean. Again, it's good in its place. Things are "good enough" for purposes.

For what purpose would you suggest the world was "not good enough"?
I haven't said "good enough for what" because God did not say what it was good for.

Don't try to force me into something that you don't want to force the other party into at all.

This is when they say you are making different demands on the opinionators, and ask an impossible one of your opponent, while simply ignoring that the same question is also impossible to answer by the other party.

I ALREADY said what I thought was not good enough. It had imperfections, it had trouble built in. It had necessitated change, and something that is good enough does not need changing.

You did not refute that; you came up with a question which is impossible to answer, and you find yourself triumphant.

Well, you feel wrongfully triumphant, my friend, because the person whose side you are taking would also be baffled by your question.

So make the playing field level, please. Otherwise we can all accuse you of unfair bias, of making illogical demands.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by -1- » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:15 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:42 pm
Think about it: if one is going to have genuine free will, what does that necessarily entail? It entails that you must have at least one choice other than to do what you are programmed to do.
Would it be preferable if man were not genuinely free? For that is the only alternative. Yet many people think freedom is something of surpassingly high value. And I think they're quite right.
Yes, you give the answer without blurting it out: if indeed free will is illogical, and can do things that are outrigh unintuitive, illogical, and go agaisnt the grain of the cosmic world order; if free will destroys the cosmic world order; then yes, your question begs its own answer, which is that it was a mistake to create a good enough world and then destroy it by creating a creature in it that will randomly -- absolutely randomly -- destroy it. Call it free will, or anything else that is the motivating force of destruction.

About the love of freedom... it has nothing to do with what we talk about. I would call it an ad hominem argument, "appealing to the man"; would you rather lose your free will in order to live in a perfect, or good enough world? And you draw your conclusion, that people would rather not.

Well, people have not experienced living in the good enough world. They live in a faulty world, and they have no basis of comparison. Therefore the approach you take is not logical, not fair, but is based on playing on people's sentiments, you bring in a sentimental card and play it, and that is precisely what the ad hominem characteristic is in your argument: not a valid argument, because its force is not based on logic, not built on logic, but on human sentiments.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by Belinda » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:58 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Think about it: if one is going to have genuine free will, what does that necessarily entail? It entails that you must have at least one choice other than to do what you are programmed to do.
Would it be preferable if man were not genuinely free? For that is the only alternative. Yet many people think freedom is something of surpassingly high value. And I think they're quite right.
I too think freedom is a high value.

We don't have a binary choice between necessity on the one hand and so-called 'free will' on the other .

What we have is a method to optimise human freedom in an uncertain , risky, and often evil world.

That method is to maximise the powers of choice of every man whoever he is regardless of sex, gender, skin colour, ethnic origin, or social class of origin. The aim of this method is to increase all individuals' capacities for knowledge and sound judgements. These capacities don't accrue from conventional abiding by some established law alone. These capacities advance beyond established laws and examine those from the widest standpoint of universal human rights and responsibilities. This is what maximises freedom.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by -1- » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:02 pm

I am not going into a debate on free will: whether it exists or not, and about its value that it represents to individuals.

This debate is about god creating a good world, but not a good enough world.

If you want to branch out into the free will thing, you have the freedom to do that, but I'm sticking with the good vs. good enough world.

Free will is only one aspect of a good world. It destroyed the good enough world. People say they value free will. But it's immaterial whether they value free will or not, that is, immaterial from the point of view that it does or does not do damage to the world. It is immagerial only from that point of view; if it feels good, or you think it's a valuable asset otherwise, then of course it is NOT immaterial, but very valuable.
Last edited by -1- on Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by -1- » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:08 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:58 am

I too think freedom is a high value.

We don't have a binary choice between necessity on the one hand and so-called 'free will' on the other .

What we have is a method to optimise human freedom in an uncertain , risky, and often evil world.

That method is to maximise the powers of choice of every man whoever he is regardless of sex, gender, skin colour, ethnic origin, or social class of origin. The aim of this method is to increase all individuals' capacities for knowledge and sound judgements. These capacities don't accrue from conventional abiding by some established law alone. These capacities advance beyond established laws and examine those from the widest standpoint of universal human rights and responsibilities. This is what maximises freedom.
I don't understand what you are saying. It looks to me that you want to utilize free will in the choices we knowingly make, and you advocate the use of free will and choices made of necessity to help and bring on the rise of human freedom globally and without discrimination. That's a noble enough cause, and very commendable, except it has nothing to do with the present discussion, other than using an equivocation of the word "freedom".

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by -1- » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:15 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:58 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Think about it: if one is going to have genuine free will, what does that necessarily entail? It entails that you must have at least one choice other than to do what you are programmed to do.
Would it be preferable if man were not genuinely free? For that is the only alternative. Yet many people think freedom is something of surpassingly high value. And I think they're quite right.
I too think freedom is a high value. You think of freedom in general, not of free will. You are agreeing with Immanuel Kan who is talking about something totally different from just simply "freedom". You actually disagree with him, with Immanuel Kan, because he advocates that free will is a bad thing... he pointed out that it's the element in creation that has made a mess of creation.

We don't have a binary choice between necessity on the one hand and so-called 'free will' on the other .

What we have is a method to optimise human freedom in an uncertain , risky, and often evil world.

That method is to maximise the powers of choice of every man whoever he is regardless of sex, gender, skin colour, ethnic origin, or social class of origin. The aim of this method is to increase all individuals' capacities for knowledge and sound judgements. These capacities don't accrue from conventional abiding by some established law alone. These capacities advance beyond established laws and examine those from the widest standpoint of universal human rights and responsibilities. This is what maximises freedom.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Do humans have a soul?

Post by -1- » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:42 pm
Think about it: if one is going to have genuine free will, what does that necessarily entail? It entails that you must have at least one choice other than to do what you are programmed to do.
Would it be preferable if man were not genuinely free? For that is the only alternative. Yet many people think freedom is something of surpassingly high value. And I think they're quite right.
Immanuel, you also committed a fallacy of equivocation. You said people rightfully like their freedom.

Freedom. Which is NOT free will.

Maybe people hate their free will when they choose a bad alternative among many a good alternatives.

Yes, if you think of it: has making a bad choice not haunted you in your entire life? I bet it has. It has in everybody's life. "I should have married Polka instead of Rufke. I'd be a much happier man and provide a much better home for my children." "I should have gone into law school. Then I'd drive a Porsche, not a Mitsubitchy." "I shouldn't have eaten that pork pie. I wanted it so much, but I knew it would be contaminated. Now I wouldn't have this horrible diarrhea."

People like their freedom, but they hate, absolutely hate, the effect of their free will.

You said nothing about free will. You said people like their freedom. That is the equivocation you used. This is a no-no in debate.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

-1-

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:38 pm

How are 'freedom' and 'free will' not inextricably connected? How are 'freedom' and 'free will' not almost synonymous?

I think you're pickin' at nits.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: -1-

Post by Belinda » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:08 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:38 pm
How are 'freedom' and 'free will' not inextricably connected? How are 'freedom' and 'free will' not almost synonymous?

I think you're pickin' at nits.


Henry, Free Will is a religious doctrine about how human beings, apart from all the rest of creation, are not bound by necessity.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests