Science or Soul?

[Ether]

When attempting to understand the world should we appeal to the soul or science?

What do you think....take the question as you see it.

Myself, I think in order for me to understand the world....which is most certainly a life long journey...I would probably need a balance, thus appealing to both science and the soul.

[Dave+Kay]

What do you mean 'understand the world'? like... why we are here and how the world came to be and stuff?

[Linja]

Originally posted by Testorz@Sep 29 2005, 11:06 AM
What do you mean 'understand the world'? like... why we are here and how the world came to be and stuff?
Well, you see, we're here because Mommy and Daddy decided to "take their relationship to another level", and.. :lol:
Yeah, I'm guessing that's what Ether meant. Maybe just understanding things about the world, the people, the well I'm not sure how to explain it. And as for the actual question, I'd say that you have to have a balance between scientifical and psychological explanations to understand the basic questions and answers.

[Ether]

I meant like....everything, the way it turns, why things like hurricanes happen, the way people function....everything!

Does that help or not?? Tell me if it doesnt....I'll see if I can put it in different words.

[Dave+Kay]

Originally posted by Ether@Sep 29 2005, 12:54 PM
I meant like....everything, the way it turns, why things like hurricanes happen, the way people function....everything!

Does that help or not?? Tell me if it doesnt....I'll see if I can put it in different words.
yeah, that's fine :P well. basicly. i don't turn to either. both are flawed so i just don't bother looking for reasons why stuff happens.

[Ether]

but dont you have like morals.....?

[Todd]

Originally posted by Ether@Sep 29 2005, 08:30 AM
but dont you have like morals.....?
You do not have to be religious or spiritual to have morals.

[Linja]

Originally posted by Todd+Sep 29 2005, 02:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Sep 29 2005, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ether@Sep 29 2005, 08:30 AM
but dont you have like morals.....?
You do not have to be religious or spiritual to have morals. [/b][/quote]
True.

[Ether]

Did I say that you did.....

I was just merely pointing out that morals are built on by the things we learn and mistakes we make ect...dont you think that &#39;morals&#39; as such would either have to have a connection to either the soul or science....think about it...

[saunderitos]

soul and religion mentally,physically ,science obviously :P

[Holiday]

I have strange beliefs that are rather hard for some people to grasp.
I believe in science. I think that is what our world should really be based on. I think any ruler should have an objective view and not think that any god is going to "save them." I also blieve that we have to have our own sense of morals. I, personally, literally can&#39;t do mean things to people unless i&#39;m blinded by anger. I&#39;m not guided by a faith, but I do believe in life. I also believe people have an essence.

To sum up, I think people should live their lives by science, and do what is best for life. Not just go blindly about hoping some higher power will "save them" from whatever harm they have cuased. Life and making the most of it is what is important. Not just your own life, but the life of the planet and the plants. But whatever survives should be for the bettering of everything around it.

I&#39;m not sure if my beliefs constetute a soul per say. But I do blelieve that people need to have some sort of guiding system from within. Call it a soul or a conscience, whatever you will; science is what my beliefs are centered around.

I&#39;m not sure if that made any sense, but I have to go to school. So if you are confused or care, I might come back to this later.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Ether@Sep 29 2005, 10:15 AM
Did I say that you did.....

I was just merely pointing out that morals are built on by the things we learn and mistakes we make ect...dont you think that &#39;morals&#39; as such would either have to have a connection to either the soul or science....think about it...
No, morals are linked to common sense.


I&#39;m not religious, thus, I don&#39;t learn that murdering is bad from religion.
I&#39;m no psychologist, so I don&#39;t learn the effects of someone dying truly has on someone else&#39;s family. I don&#39;t learn that from science.

I learn that murdering someone is bad from common sense. You kill someone and end their life, DUH, that&#39;s bad.

[Glenn]

Yeah...believe in science.

[Ether]

Originally posted by Todd+Sep 30 2005, 03:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Sep 30 2005, 03:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ether@Sep 29 2005, 10:15 AM
Did I say that you did.....

I was just merely pointing out that morals are built on by the things we learn and mistakes we make ect...dont you think that &#39;morals&#39; as such would either have to have a connection to either the soul or science....think about it...
No, morals are linked to common sense.


I&#39;m not religious, thus, I don&#39;t learn that murdering is bad from religion.
I&#39;m no psychologist, so I don&#39;t learn the effects of someone dying truly has on someone else&#39;s family. I don&#39;t learn that from science.

I learn that murdering someone is bad from common sense. You kill someone and end their life, DUH, that&#39;s bad. [/b][/quote]
so morals are derived from common sense. Where does common sense come from then...?

Isnt common sense based on lifes experiences....that are derived from our mistakes and things we learn.....and what helps us to learn...science. This is my own opinion and you are intitled to yous...but no matter which way I look at it....I find a connnection to both...common sense could also been seen as instinct...and instinct is part of human nature (something within us)...

Holdiay : I totally get where you are coming from....its called lateral thinking lol ;)

[D_A_V_I_D]

Alsmost everyone is so focused on finding the reason for things.

The world could just be completely random, therefore looking for an explination would be pointless.

[Ether]

if the world was completely random there would still be a purpose...seeking the reason as to why the world is random...

:lol:

[Linja]

Originally posted by Ether@Sep 30 2005, 07:04 PM
if the world was completely random there would still be a purpose...seeking the reason as to why the world is random...

:lol:
But if you wanted to answer that, you could pick something completely random and pass it off as wisdom.

[Holiday]

Originally posted by Ether@Sep 30 2005, 12:05 AM

Holdiay : I totally get where you are coming from....its called lateral thinking lol ;)
:huh: really now?


Lateral thinking is a term coined by Edward de Bono, a British psychologist, physician and writer. He defines it as a technique of problem solving by approaching problems indirectly at diverse angles instead of concentrating on one approach at length. For example:

It took two hours for two men to dig a hole five feet deep. How deep would it have been if ten men had dug the hole for two hours?
The answer appears to be 25 feet deep, but we can generate some Lateral thinking ideas about what affects the size of the hole:

-A hole may need to be a certain size or shape so digging might stop early at a required depth.
-The deeper a hole is the more effort is required to dig it since waste soil needs to be lifted higher to the ground level. There is a limit to how deep a hole can be dug by man power without use of ladders or hoists for soil removal, and 25 feet is beyond this limit.
-Deeper soil layers may be harder to dig out, or we may hit bedrock or the water table.
-Each man digging needs space to use a shovel.
-It is possible that the more people you have working on a project, the more each person will assume he can slack off and there&#39;s more people to talk to.
-More men could work in shifts to dig faster for longer.
-We have more men but do we have more shovels.
-Were the two hours dug by ten men may be different weather conditions to the two hours dug by two men.
-Would we rather have 5 holes each 5 feet deep?
-Rain could flood the hole to prevent digging.
-The two men may be an engineering crew with digging machinery.
-What if one man in each group is a manager who will not actually dig?
-Temperature conditions may freeze the men before they finish.
-The most useful ideas listed above are outside the simple mathematics implied by the question. Lateral is about thinking that is not immediately obvious and about ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic.

Techniques that apply Lateral thinking to problems are characterised by the shifting of thinking patterns away from entrenched or predictable thinking to new or unexpected ideas. A new idea that is the result of Lateral thinking is not always a helpful one, but when a good idea is discovered in this way it is usually obvious in hindsight, which is a feature Lateral Thinking shares with a joke.

A notation used in Lateral thinking, is Po. This stands for Provocative operation and is used to propose an idea which may not necessarily be a solution or a &#39;good&#39; idea in itself, but moves thinking forward to a new place where new ideas may be produced



How long would it take to dig half a hole?
You can&#39;t dig half a hole.

Wow, i&#39;m coplicated. :lol:

[Ether]

Originally posted by Mali+Oct 1 2005, 01:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mali @ Oct 1 2005, 01:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ether@Sep 30 2005, 07:04 PM
if the world was completely random there would still be a purpose...seeking the reason as to why the world is random...

:lol:
But if you wanted to answer that, you could pick something completely random and pass it off as wisdom. [/b][/quote]
even then there would be a purpose...a silly one....but still a purpose : The purpose would be to pick something weird... :P

Everything has a purpose....always, even if there is not a purpose, then the purpose would be to not have a purpose...not that that makes sense, its hard to exlpain.

Another example could be the lack of an identity....you say you have no identity but still you have one....your identity is &#39;the person who lacks and identity&#39; ^_^

Holiday: it was a joke....hence the ;) ...next time I will make myself more clearer&#33; ^_^ Thanks for the amusing quote about lateral thinking though it was very.....amusing&#33; :lol:

[Razan]

I think it should be a balance of both, science and soul. Religion doesn&#39;t necesarily mean soul. I think people totally forget about the right side of their brain and are more focused on the left because that&#39;s what you need to succeed in this life. I think most religions go to the left side of the brain. Spirituality goes to the right, so does art, music etc. People aren&#39;t in touch with nature and forget that they are part of it themselves, we aren&#39;t above nature.

I sound like such a hippie&#33; :lol:

Mali, you are the most random person I&#39;ve met and proabably will ever meet&#33;

[Christopher]

Science and maybe soul to soften all the things that are dissapointing cause Science says they don&#39;t exist

[Louis]

Originally posted by Ether@Sep 29 2005, 12:54 PM
I meant like....everything, the way it turns, why things like hurricanes happen, the way people function....everything&#33;

Does that help or not?? Tell me if it doesnt....I&#39;ll see if I can put it in different words.
I can tell you why hurricanes happen.

Because of humans. No better explanation.

Even though hurricanes usually develop around open water and develop due to the certain circumstances of the weather, our pollution and everything has something to do with it. I&#39;m not going to go into details though.

It&#39;s science. Soul is just opinion. Science is facts.

[Evan™]

Originally posted by GiriosXeni+Oct 1 2005, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (GiriosXeni @ Oct 1 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ether@Sep 29 2005, 12:54 PM
I meant like....everything, the way it turns, why things like hurricanes happen, the way people function....everything&#33;

Does that help or not?? Tell me if it doesnt....I&#39;ll see if I can put it in different words.
I can tell you why hurricanes happen.

Because of humans. No better explanation.

Even though hurricanes usually develop around open water and develop due to the certain circumstances of the weather, our pollution and everything has something to do with it. I&#39;m not going to go into details though.

It&#39;s science. Soul is just opinion. Science is facts. [/b][/quote]
how much science is fact because the soul told them it is....i think thats the way the world works....

[Razan]

Originally posted by GiriosXeni+Oct 1 2005, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (GiriosXeni @ Oct 1 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ether@Sep 29 2005, 12:54 PM
I meant like....everything, the way it turns, why things like hurricanes happen, the way people function....everything&#33;

Does that help or not?? Tell me if it doesnt....I&#39;ll see if I can put it in different words.
I can tell you why hurricanes happen.

Because of humans. No better explanation.

Even though hurricanes usually develop around open water and develop due to the certain circumstances of the weather, our pollution and everything has something to do with it. I&#39;m not going to go into details though.

It&#39;s science. Soul is just opinion. Science is facts. [/b][/quote]
Agreed about the hurricanes.
But not everything is 100% fact, what about the things that can&#39;t be explained by science?
Soul, is very important, in my opinion, everything should have a balance, you can&#39;t just cut something off completely.
Opinions are very important ;)

[Arhaz]

Science cannot explain a lot of things that religion can and whatever it might say, the reasons aren&#39;t worth all the explanation. We do not go empty headed when we are given the reason for a question. Science doesn&#39;t explain such curiousity, our soul does. we are curious and that&#39;s that. ask a scientist why he&#39;s curious to study about so many things, and he&#39;d just say it&#39;s his nature. what&#39;s nature then? he&#39;ll define the natural evironmant. he can&#39;t explain anything but the facts that may seem true, but it&#39;s all actually made up because he craves something to appeal to him, apart from religion and the soul. he makes up theories that are eventually found out to be lies.
YES, THE DARWIN THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FALSE.
so, i feel that soul rules but science is no underdog either.

[salinameteora]

hope this helps u decide
To state Earth is a point in space
A place in the universe of infinity
Is a mere paradox of the infinite
No actual point of space or time is possible
Given infinity has no beginning, no end
Nothing is the surrounding
Yet being is the encompassing
The essence of being is infinitesimal infinity continuum

The vital, the spiritual, the truth is essence
A vast affirmation of the reality of being
Is the paradoxical essence of vital subject and object

The whole of infinity equates with the truth
Of universal being as scientific positive veracity
There is no lie in the truth
The truth is in the lie
The paradox of truth is all is infinity
Is the structure of universal unity
The lord of life is the alpha and omega of truth

[Intergalactic Christ]

I quoted this in another thread:

A Ghost In The Machine (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html)

It&#39;s a very interesting essay, it uses brain problems to argue against the existence of the soul.

And nope, I don&#39;t believe in the existence of the soul.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Ether@Sep 30 2005, 03:04 PM
if the world was completely random there would still be a purpose...seeking the reason as to why the world is random...

:lol:
Doesn&#39;t random, by definition, mean LACK of definite purpose? If it&#39;s random, isn&#39;t there nothing to look for? Or do you mean how things happened?

To the topic at hand, the jury is still out for me.


Tranz: " Science cannot explain a lot of things that religion can and whatever it might say, the reasons aren&#39;t worth all the explanation. We do not go empty headed when we are given the reason for a question. Science doesn&#39;t explain such curiousity, our soul does. we are curious and that&#39;s that. ask a scientist why he&#39;s curious to study about so many things, and he&#39;d just say it&#39;s his nature. what&#39;s nature then? he&#39;ll define the natural evironmant. he can&#39;t explain anything but the facts that may seem true, but it&#39;s all actually made up because he craves something to appeal to him, apart from religion and the soul. he makes up theories that are eventually found out to be lies.
YES, THE DARWIN THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FALSE.
so, i feel that soul rules but science is no underdog either. "
That doesn&#39;t mean that religion explains anything more than science does, actually, you just proved that it explains less by avioding causality altogether.

[Razan]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ@Oct 15 2005, 08:54 AM
I quoted this in another thread:

A Ghost In The Machine (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html)

It&#39;s a very interesting essay, it uses brain problems to argue against the existence of the soul.

And nope, I don&#39;t believe in the existence of the soul.
I like the essay, very well done except for one point:
"If there is a god who is fair and just, and who punishes or rewards us for our actions, he would not set things up so that these actions can be dictated or altered by brain chemistry, genes, or other factors over which we have no control. Unless he is an unjust tyrant, he would make our actions the result of the individual&#39;s free choice."
I&#39;m sure you would think God&#39;s an unjust tyrant if he didn&#39;t give us the right of free choice but now you&#39;re saying he&#39;s unjust because he gave us some freedom, I don&#39;t get it.

I think that the mind and soul are one.
In one language (forgot which one) the mind, soul and spirit are all one word, there&#39;s no difference.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Razan+Oct 22 2005, 02:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Razan @ Oct 22 2005, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Intergalactic Christ@Oct 15 2005, 08:54 AM
I quoted this in another thread:

A Ghost In The Machine (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html)

It&#39;s a very interesting essay, it uses brain problems to argue against the existence of the soul.

And nope, I don&#39;t believe in the existence of the soul.
I like the essay, very well done except for one point:
"If there is a god who is fair and just, and who punishes or rewards us for our actions, he would not set things up so that these actions can be dictated or altered by brain chemistry, genes, or other factors over which we have no control. Unless he is an unjust tyrant, he would make our actions the result of the individual&#39;s free choice."
I&#39;m sure you would think God&#39;s an unjust tyrant if he didn&#39;t give us the right of free choice but now you&#39;re saying he&#39;s unjust because he gave us some freedom, I don&#39;t get it.

I think that the mind and soul are one.
In one language (forgot which one) the mind, soul and spirit are all one word, there&#39;s no difference. [/b][/quote]
I think he&#39;s referring to mental disorders, seen as that&#39;s what the whole essay is about. Also, well done to you for getting through it :P

[Razan]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 22 2005, 02:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 22 2005, 02:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Razan@Oct 22 2005, 02:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Intergalactic Christ@Oct 15 2005, 08:54 AM
I quoted this in another thread:

A Ghost In The Machine (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html)

It&#39;s a very interesting essay, it uses brain problems to argue against the existence of the soul.

And nope, I don&#39;t believe in the existence of the soul.
I like the essay, very well done except for one point:
"If there is a god who is fair and just, and who punishes or rewards us for our actions, he would not set things up so that these actions can be dictated or altered by brain chemistry, genes, or other factors over which we have no control. Unless he is an unjust tyrant, he would make our actions the result of the individual&#39;s free choice."
I&#39;m sure you would think God&#39;s an unjust tyrant if he didn&#39;t give us the right of free choice but now you&#39;re saying he&#39;s unjust because he gave us some freedom, I don&#39;t get it.

I think that the mind and soul are one.
In one language (forgot which one) the mind, soul and spirit are all one word, there&#39;s no difference.
I think he&#39;s referring to mental disorders, seen as that&#39;s what the whole essay is about. Also, well done to you for getting through it :P [/b][/quote]
I just skipped all the words I didn&#39;t understand...which were quite a bit :lol:

I still think that just because you can&#39;t see it doesn&#39;t mean that the soul doesn&#39;t exist.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Read the article, it&#39;s trying to say that disorders of the brain can influence the way you act, therefore diproving the existence of the soul. The words you probably don&#39;t recognise are the disorders.

Edit: Try reading this part, it&#39;s small compared to the rest of the article ;)


The Strange Case of Phineas Gage

The strange story of Phineas Gage is one of the classic cases of neurology, and one of the first that led scientists to suspect that there might be regions of the brain specifically devoted to personality and reasoning. The terrible accident this man suffered, while tragic, also served to cast a gleam of light on the inner workings of the mind and reveal how fragile the neurological construct called the self is in all of us.

It was the summer of 1848, in New England, and the Rutland and Burlington Railroad Company was building new tracks for its trains. The proposed path ran over uneven ground, and outcrops of stone had to be blasted to clear a way for the rails to be laid.

The construction crew supervising the blasting was led by one Phineas Gage, a 25-year-old man whose employers described him as "the most efficient and capable foreman in their employ" (Macmillan 2000, p. 65). He was further said to have "temperate habits" and "considerable energy of character", and "was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of action" (ibid.) In short, a better person to lead the construction crew could not have been found.

In order to blast, the crew would drill a narrow shaft in the rock, fill it halfway with explosive powder, insert the fuse, and then fill the hole the rest of the way with sand, which would direct the explosion inward, toward the rock it was intended to destroy. Once the sand was added, it had to be tamped down with an iron bar, then the fuse was lit and the blast went off. Gage and his crew were performing just such a procedure when the fatal mistake occurred.

For one particular shaft, the blasting powder had been poured and the fuse set, but the sand had not yet been poured. However, before it could be added, Gage became distracted and unthinkingly tamped down the explosive powder itself. His iron tamping rod struck sparks, the powder ignited, and the blast - channeled and directed by the narrow walls of the drill shaft - went off in Phineas Gage&#39;s face. The tamping iron, which had been in the hole at the time, was propelled upward like a bullet straight at his head.

The iron tamping rod, over three feet in length and tapering from an inch-and-a-quarter diameter at one end to a quarter-inch at the other, pierced Gage&#39;s left cheek point first, penetrated the base of his skull, passed through the front of his brain, and flew out through the top of his head, leaving a ghastly exit wound. Covered with blood and brain material, the iron landed over a hundred feet away. Gage was knocked over by the force of the blow, but astonishingly, then sat up and spoke. He was conscious and seemed in command of his faculties, despite the terrible injury he had suffered. His men helped him get to town to see a doctor.

The physician who examined him, Dr. John Harlow, confirmed that initial impression. Phineas Gage was fully coherent; he was not paralyzed and had no difficulty walking, speaking or using his hands. He had lost sight in his left eye as the result of his accident, but otherwise his senses and faculties were intact. He even spoke with Harlow perfectly calmly and rationally despite the gaping wound in his skull. In disbelief, the doctor helped treat him, and with his help Gage eventually survived the injury and a subsequent infection and fever - a major achievement by itself, in an age before antibiotics.

However, it soon became apparent that Gage had not survived his ordeal unchanged. Almost immediately after his fever had passed and his wounds had healed, major and surprising changes in his personality began to surface. In essence, he was no longer the man he had been before the accident. As Dr. Antonio Damasio writes:

"Yet this astonishing outcome [Gage&#39;s survival] pales in comparison with the extraordinary turn that Gage&#39;s personality is about to undergo. Gage&#39;s disposition, his likes and dislikes, his dreams and aspirations are all to change. Gage&#39;s body may be alive and well, but there is a new spirit animating it." (Damasio 1994, p. 7)
The man Phineas Gage had been before his accident was gone. As a perplexed Dr. John Harlow wrote, he had become "fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity which was not previously his custom, manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operation, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned... A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man." (quoted in Damasio 1994, p. 8)

A sharper contrast with the man he had been before would be impossible to imagine - "the alterations in Gage&#39;s personality were not subtle" (p. 11). Where once he had been polite, modest and likable, he had become crude, profane and tactless. Where once he had been responsible and goal-driven, he now became lazy and irresponsible, and would conceive all kinds of wild plans and fail to follow up on any of them. Where once he had made shrewd and wise decisions, it now seemed he was actively attempting to drive himself to ruin through repeated instances of bad judgment. So dramatic and obvious was the change that his former friends sadly said that he was "no longer Gage" (quoted in Damasio 1994, p. 8). His employers refused to give him his old job back, not because he lacked the skill, but because he no longer had the discipline or the character.

For the next several years, Gage held menial jobs working in a stable or as a stagecoach driver. However, in 1860, he began unexpectedly suffering from seizures. After this, his decline began to accelerate; he worked as a farmhand and did other odd jobs, but always moved on before long, as he "[found] something that did not suit him in every place he tried" (Macmillan 2000, p. 66). Finally, on May 21, 1861, he suffered a series of major seizures, slipped into a coma, and died without regaining consciousness.

Gage&#39;s skull was exhumed after his death and became a museum exhibit, and a hundred and twenty years later, Dr. Damasio and his colleagues decided to analyze it to determine exactly where his brain had been injured. Building up a three-dimensional computer model of his skull, they ran simulations to determine the most likely path of the iron bar through it based on the never-fully-healed entrance and exit wounds.

What they found was not surprising. The region of Gage&#39;s brain that was damaged was a part of the frontal lobes called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex - precisely the part now believed to be critical for normal decision-making (p. 32). With this part of his brain destroyed, he was unable to plan for the future, behave himself according to social rules and customs, or decide on the most advantageous course of action. That he behaved as he subsequently did was to be expected, and was not his fault or the result of any conscious decision. Dr. Damasio writes, "It is appropriate to say... that Gage&#39;s free will had been compromised" (p. 38).

The most important lesson that we can draw from the strange and tragic case of Phineas Gage is that the frontal regions of the brain play a major role in determining personality. Likewise, they play a crucial role in controlling behavior, allowing us to inhibit our reckless impulses and conduct ourselves as society expects. These functions can be disabled when the frontal lobes are damaged or destroyed. Nor is Phineas Gage&#39;s case the only one like it on record. As the remainder of this section will show, there are many more examples of people with frontal lobe damage who exhibit similar symptoms: an inability to make wise decisions, to behave as law or custom expect, and to fit into society as an ordinary human being. How can a dualist hypothesis explain this? Did the blast of the iron on that morning in 1848 knock Gage&#39;s soul out of his head? A materialist theory of mind can easily explain how a person&#39;s character traits can be altered by physical harm. For dualist models that hold that character traits ultimately arise from an immaterial "ghost" invulnerable to harm, these cases are not similarly explicable.

[Razan]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ@Oct 22 2005, 04:12 PM
Read the article, it&#39;s trying to say that disorders of the brain can influence the way you act, therefore diproving the existence of the soul. The words you probably don&#39;t recognise are the disorders.
I read until it started talking about amnesia.
The brain can influence the way you act but that isn&#39;t what the soul does. The soul doesn&#39;t tell you how to act, your soul is how you act.

Edit: I posted this before you edited your post and added the article. *goes to read the article*

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Razan+Oct 22 2005, 04:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Razan @ Oct 22 2005, 04:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Intergalactic Christ@Oct 22 2005, 04:12 PM
Read the article, it&#39;s trying to say that disorders of the brain can influence the way you act, therefore diproving the existence of the soul. The words you probably don&#39;t recognise are the disorders.
I read until it started talking about amnesia.
The brain can influence the way you act but that isn&#39;t what the soul does. The soul doesn&#39;t tell you how to act, your soul is how you act.

Edit: I posted this before you edited your post and added the article. *goes to read the article* [/b][/quote]
Okay, I&#39;ll check back in a bit then, I hope you have something to say

[Razan]

One guy out of million survives an out of body injury. No wonder the guy&#39;s cranky and disrespectful, he can&#39;t see out of his left eye&#33; That doesn&#39;t prove anything about the existence or lack of the existence of the soul.
All of a sudden he changed because he had a near death experience not because a part of his brain that decides what his personality is like got damaged.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Razan@Oct 22 2005, 04:51 PM
One guy out of million survives an out of body injury. No wonder the guy&#39;s cranky and disrespectful, he can&#39;t see out of his left eye&#33; That doesn&#39;t prove anything about the existence or lack of the existence of the soul.
All of a sudden he changed because he had a near death experience not because a part of his brain that decides what his personality is like got damaged.
Not being able to see doesn&#39;t necessarily make you cranky.

And, yes it does disprove the existence of the soul. The soul, like you said, is how you act. That, and other examples in the essay (which you didn&#39;t read) show that damage to your frontal lobes will change your personality. I think that if the guy had survived with his brain intact edit: or another part of his brain damaged, he would have been glad to be alive, and therefore polite to his workers.

I think your last sentence doesn&#39;t make sense, "his personality didn&#39;t change because the part of his brain which controls his personality got damaged," is basically what you are saying. If part of your brain gets damaged, it will affect the way it works, the brain is a very complex organ. Working the soul into this, if the soul did exist, it wouldn&#39;t have been damaged by an object, and he would have been completely normal, dispite having part of his brain absent.

[Link04]

I read the article, and, be it my own ignorance, or something else, I don&#39;t see the correlation. Who says the "soul" or "spirit" is merely your personality traits? It&#39;s seems like an over-specific, odd definition, in my mind. Upon altering the mind, one alters the person, yes, there&#39;s no dispute about that. But are you trying to insinuate that the soul is nothing but the human brain? If that&#39;s the case, you haven&#39;t really "disproved" the existence of a possible soul, you&#39;ve just asserted that everything exists on a physical plane; that there are no metaphysical properties to a human being.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Link04@Oct 22 2005, 11:37 PM
I read the article, and, be it my own ignorance, or something else, I don&#39;t see the correlation. Who says the "soul" or "spirit" is merely your personality traits? It&#39;s seems like an over-specific, odd definition, in my mind. Upon altering the mind, one alters the person, yes, there&#39;s no dispute about that. But are you trying to insinuate that the soul is nothing but the human brain? If that&#39;s the case, you haven&#39;t really "disproved" the existence of a possible soul, you&#39;ve just asserted that everything exists on a physical plane; that there are no metaphysical properties to a human being.
Alright, unfortunately, my reply has gone walkies so I&#39;ll try and remember what I said.

The soul is your personality traits. What else could it really be? Your personality is everything from the way you walk, to your beliefs about communism.

Yes, I am trying to say that the soul is infact the brain. The soul is believed to be a metaphysical being, and if everything exists on a physical plane, then the soul doesn&#39;t exist.

I&#39;m getting the impression that by soul, you mean personality. Am I correct? Because I&#39;m talking about (for example), the spiritual being that hindus believe is released when a dead body is burnt.

[Link04]

I wanted to know the definitions of the terms you were making your argument on, that is all. I understand your argument, and I&#39;m not against it per se, I&#39;m just not sure WHY you think a soul is only defined by an individual&#39;s personality traits. I mean, just saying "what else could it be?" doesn&#39;t really justify anything.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Link04@Oct 23 2005, 10:19 PM
I wanted to know the definitions of the terms you were making your argument on, that is all. I understand your argument, and I&#39;m not against it per se, I&#39;m just not sure WHY you think a soul is only defined by an individual&#39;s personality traits. I mean, just saying "what else could it be?" doesn&#39;t really justify anything.
Like I said, personality is everything from the way you walk to your thoughts on communism. Personality is what makes you a person, an individual, and this is what I believe is controlled by the brain. The brain does not merely control body functions, it controls the persons individuality too. I don&#39;t think I&#39;m explaining myself well, because I&#39;m shattered, but do you understand me now?

Another thing: I don&#39;t think you can put "only" and "personality" side by side, because personality is a huge thing.

[Link04]

Personality, however big a scope it encompasses, is singular, if at the very least in grammar. I can see why you see "only" personality as laughable though, since if we subtract the body, that would appear to be all that&#39;s left. I think I understand the terms of your argument now, thanks.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Link04@Oct 24 2005, 03:10 AM
Personality, however big a scope it encompasses, is singular, if at the very least in grammar. I can see why you see "only" personality as laughable though, since if we subtract the body, that would appear to be all that&#39;s left. I think I understand the terms of your argument now, thanks.
No problem ^_^ Can I ask you, what are your beliefs?

[Link04]

Originally posted by Intergalactic Christ+Oct 24 2005, 06:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Intergalactic Christ @ Oct 24 2005, 06:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Link04@Oct 24 2005, 03:10 AM
Personality, however big a scope it encompasses, is singular, if at the very least in grammar. I can see why you see "only" personality as laughable though, since if we subtract the body, that would appear to be all that&#39;s left. I think I understand the terms of your argument now, thanks.
No problem ^_^ Can I ask you, what are your beliefs? [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m not sure whether I stated it earlier, but my mental jury is still out on this one. It&#39;s one of the very few topics I&#39;m not quite sure of.

[Intergalactic Christ]

Originally posted by Link04+Oct 25 2005, 02:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Oct 25 2005, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Intergalactic Christ@Oct 24 2005, 06:40 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Link04@Oct 24 2005, 03:10 AM
Personality, however big a scope it encompasses, is singular, if at the very least in grammar.* I can see why you see "only" personality as laughable though, since if we subtract the body, that would appear to be all that&#39;s left.* I think I understand the terms of your argument now, thanks.
No problem ^_^ Can I ask you, what are your beliefs?
I&#39;m not sure whether I stated it earlier, but my mental jury is still out on this one. It&#39;s one of the very few topics I&#39;m not quite sure of. [/b][/quote]
Okay, I was just curious ^_^ It&#39;s kind of more interesting not knowing anyway, what I always say ;)