|
|
|
|
|
|
by slopinthebag
18 days ago
|
|
|
Not OP but I'll take a shot since I have somewhat similar sounding views. (I assume OP is talking about consciousness and it's origins when they use the term "soul"). > What do you mean by 'supernatural' I would just say something outside our current capacity for understanding. How does that quote go...something like "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". "Not detectable by any measurement" isn't right because we clearly detect it in some way since we are discussing it now. > Feeling that there 'must be' a soul is not enough to prove that it exists. We don't have any proof that consciousness is part of the brain and is produced by it either. We also can't even prove other people are conscious besides ourselves. In this domain the idea of "proof" becomes less relevant. In a simulation of a storm, does anything get wet? In a simulation of a mind, is there a real conscious? A real soul? Or just a simulation of one? My guess is our brains act as a receiver for some "field" of consciousness. Of course it's just a guess, same as yours or anybody else's conceptions of consciousness and the spiritual world. |
|
|
So your definition is merely that the supernatural is the natural we have not been able to measure yet? That's just the 'god of the gaps' by a different name.
> isn't right because we clearly detect it in some way since we are discussing it now.
We could be discussing invisible pink unicorns. so those must be real since we are able to discuss them, right? (obviously not: the same reasoning holds true for why the soul {probably} doesn't exist).
> In this domain the idea of "proof" becomes less relevant.
This is counter to your earlier stance that the supernatural is the natural we haven't yet been able to measure. either proof exists or you have to accept things on faith: you can't have it both ways. this is poor reasoning.
> My guess is our brains act as a receiver for some "field" of consciousness
Not impossible, and could in theory be testable and falsifiable.
There is a lot of conflicting thinking here. Very muddy.