If you believe in gravity, then why not a soul, or spirit?

[Light]

Well, if electrical activity in the brain is the only element to love, then I suppose the laptop would also have love too.

No, it's MY laptop, so I doubt it knows how to do that. Wasn't build to love shit, but it certainly has a lot of electrical activity going on inside it. Enough to like... Run Skyrim, for example. Should be enough for your MRI-definition of a soul, yes?

The MRI definition isn't mine.  I was responding to Velma talking about how an MRI can detect love.

[Asmodean]

I didn't really mean it was a belief, but more specifically , do you believe it's a valid source of knowledge, and I guess you do.  

Mathematics is useful for explaining stuff. It's primarilly a tool used in obtaining knowledge. Outside itself, I wouldn't call maths a source of knowledge, much like outside linguistics, a language is not as much a source of knowledge as a tool of its procurement.

The MRI definition isn't mine.  I was responding to Velma talking about how an MRI can detect love.

You proposed the definition in response. That was what I was working with.

[Whitney]

How do you know you're viewing love?  Because the person says that's what they're feeling?  How would anyone know that what they call 'love' is the same as what another person calls it?

Because they do these things called studies where they test lots of people so they can average out the results to remove subjectivity....

[Asmodean]

Because they do these things called studies where they test lots of people so they can average out the results to remove subjectivity....

Lies! They just say that to get funded and ultimately, that über-expensive limo. 

Why is it that for certain people, sience is just another form of superstition..? Wonder if they've done some studies on that..? 

[Light]

How do you know you're viewing love?  Because the person says that's what they're feeling?  How would anyone know that what they call 'love' is the same as what another person calls it?

Because they do these things called studies where they test lots of people so they can average out the results to remove subjectivity....

So if they did a study, measuring the brain activity of people who believed in a spirit, and there was some difference between those who didn't, that's evidence to you that they have a spirit?

[Asmodean]

How do you know you're viewing love?  Because the person says that's what they're feeling?  How would anyone know that what they call 'love' is the same as what another person calls it?

Because they do these things called studies where they test lots of people so they can average out the results to remove subjectivity....

So if they did a study, measuring the brain activity of people who believed in a spirit, and there was some difference between those who didn't, that's evidence to you that they have a spirit?

If they did A study, no. If they did several conclusive ones, it would likely be the first step in defining yet another mental disorder.

[Light]

How do you know you're viewing love?  Because the person says that's what they're feeling?  How would anyone know that what they call 'love' is the same as what another person calls it?

Because they do these things called studies where they test lots of people so they can average out the results to remove subjectivity....

So if they did a study, measuring the brain activity of people who believed in a spirit, and there was some difference between those who didn't, that's evidence to you that they have a spirit?

If they did A study, no. If they did several conclusive ones, it would likely be the first step in defining yet another mental disorder.

  What did they conclude?  Several people believed their senses to be telling them they were 'in love'?   So if they did the study somewhere where the culture had no word 'love', but 'spirit' in place of that concept, I suppose they would conclude that those people were 'in spirit'.

[Asmodean]

What did they conclude?  Several people believed there senses to be telling them they were 'in love'?   So if they did the study somewhere where the culture had no word 'love', but 'spirit' in place of that concept, I suppose they would conclude that those people were 'in spirit'.

As long as "spirit" is defined as an emotion or a combination thereof, I suppose the answer is yes.

Is there really not a single neurologist, shrink or even a radiology intern here? Someone who can omit all my "supposes" and "mays" and "probablies"?

[Whitney]

How do you know you're viewing love?  Because the person says that's what they're feeling?  How would anyone know that what they call 'love' is the same as what another person calls it?

Because they do these things called studies where they test lots of people so they can average out the results to remove subjectivity....

So if they did a study, measuring the brain activity of people who believed in a spirit, and there was some difference between those who didn't, that's evidence to you that they have a spirit?

um..no...it would be evidence that those who believe in spirits have different brain wave activity.... (and studies similar to that have already been done....look up epilepsy and spirituality on google)

[Whitney]

What did they conclude?  Several people believed there senses to be telling them they were 'in love'?   So if they did the study somewhere where the culture had no word 'love', but 'spirit' in place of that concept, I suppose they would conclude that those people were 'in spirit'.

As long as "spirit" is defined as an emotion or a combination thereof, I suppose the answer is yes.

Is there really not a single neurologist, shrink or even a radiology intern here? Someone who can omit all my "supposes" and "mays" and "probablies"?

squid has a background in this stuff but I think he's busy...I'm sure he'll feel compelled to comment the next time he has time to focus on commenting on the forum in depth.

[Asmodean]

squid has a background in this stuff but I think he's busy...I'm sure he'll feel compelled to comment the next time he has time to focus on commenting on the forum in depth.

Nice! Yes, I shall wash my hands of this weirdness and leave it in Squishy Ones squishy appendages 

oO(Maybe...  )

[Light]

How do you know you're viewing love?  Because the person says that's what they're feeling?  How would anyone know that what they call 'love' is the same as what another person calls it?

Because they do these things called studies where they test lots of people so they can average out the results to remove subjectivity....

So if they did a study, measuring the brain activity of people who believed in a spirit, and there was some difference between those who didn't, that's evidence to you that they have a spirit?

um..no...it would be evidence that those who believe in spirits have different brain wave activity.... (and studies similar to that have already been done....look up epilepsy and spirituality on google)

So then you believe love is real thing, but a spirit is not, even though both feelings could be shown to have effects on brain activity?

[Tank]

Not measurable?  So then, since your sense-of-self is also not measurable, definable, or observable,  it must not exist?

In the interests of clarity, are you now using 'sense-of-self' as another term for 'soul' or have the goalposts moved?  How would you personally measure it and what units would you use?  Is mass, distance or time involved at all?  I'm not sure if you are actively arguing for the existence of the soul or not.

I'm trying to point out, that people seem to readily accept and rely on concepts which are intangible, not quantifiable, and non observable all the time.  So then , why would believing in a soul, or spirit, seem like such a stretch?

But acceleration due to gravity is quantifiable at a nominal 32ft per second per second at sea level on the Earth's surface. If one could not quantify gravitational attraction one could not travel around the solar system. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces that shape the universe. The effects of gravity are quantifiable and observable, one such example being gravitational lensing. It is perfectly reasonable to accept the existence of something for which there is observational evidence. Another example would be magnetism.

[squidfetish]

I'm trying to point out, that people seem to readily accept and rely on concepts which are intangible, not quantifiable, and non observable all the time.  So then , why would believing in a soul, or spirit, seem like such a stretch?

OK I see where you're coming from now.  I think the other guys have pretty much summed up where I'm at.  Evidence.

So then you believe love is real thing, but a spirit is not, even though both feelings could be shown to have effects on brain activity?

Experiences such as love and happiness are products of our brains.  There are people who have difficulty experiencing either or both due to chemical imbalances, which may then be remedied with various medications in order to get them back on a more even keel. I don't imagine there are many people who would claim that these people are 'soulless' while they are suffering from these imbalances.

I don't think it's a good idea to make things more than they are when we are discussing the nuts and bolts of human beings at a fundamental physical level.  However, emotions and the experience thereof are integral to our existence as well as in art, literature, music, and how we apprehend the world generally, so I guess it's a case of using the appropriate language to fit the particular sphere of discussion we are involved in. 

I think it may help the discussion of you could try and elaborate on specifically what you believe a soul or spirit to be.  I'm not accusing you personally, but it is often the case that people of a religious leaning tend to use woolly and nebulous definitions to their words in order that they can move the goalposts or give themselves 'wiggle room' and dodge pertinent questions when they arise.

[Gawen]

I can't show you gamma rays but I can show the effects of it. I can't show you a soul either, nor the effects of it. Equating "Gravity exists, therefore soul exists" is as idiotic as saying "Gamma radiation exists, therefore God".

Are we simply ignoring that each person is a soul, as opposed to having a soul?

Ignoring? I prefer to label a person a "person" with a "person"ality and a conscience, of substance and personification, both physical and mental. Words such as quintessence, spiritual being, pneuma and soul mean nothing to me.