I am currently working on developing a comprehensive theory of cognition which will account for the existence of man's body, mind and soul, and hereby invite all other posters to reasonably critique or otherwise constructively contribute to the further development of the theory.
It should be presumed and understood from the outset that this scientific experiment is both a scientific and religious work in progress and that any successful development of this theory by current posters will be duly accredited to all those who make reasonable contributions to it's development.
Here is a minimalist account of the theory developed so far by yours truly:
COGNITIVE THEORY of BODY, MIND & SOUL.
by
John Crawford
Initial Premises, Presuppositions and Definitions:
1 BODY consists of physically perceivable sensations of material objects and physical forces.
2 MIND consists of self-conscious cognitive mental processes which intermediate between Body and Soul.
3 SOUL is the essence of self, ego, personality, memory and conscious self-awareness of existence.
Self-evident Postulate and Justification
for Theoretical Premises:
I know (cognize) that I have a brain and nervous system within my body, but have no observable, experiential, testable or scientific way of knowing that my brain or nervous system are capable of knowing anything in the sense that it may be classified as mental, cognitive or self-conscious knowledge.
Further Expositions on, and definitions of,
the Nature, Character, Being, Structure and Essence
of Body, Mind and Soul.
1. BODY:
All physical phenomena which may be reasonably and rationally categorized and classified as being part of the universe which physicists have defined as consisting of material force and mass.
2. MIND
All that which is strictly intellectual, cognitive, conceptual and mental in the realm of consciousness and self-awareness.
Eg: ideas, beliefs, theories, thoughts and knowledge.
3. SOUL
All which pertains to self-consciousness and awareness of self, ego, personhood, individual identity and spiritual existence.
Body, Mind and Soul
Moderator: Moderators
Post #71
Katsuro wrote:jcrawford wrote:
Marx, Darwin and Freud did the same and left it to the rest the world to study, test, and demonstrate the truthfulness of their theories.
I have been testing it for several weeks now.Two things here:
1) Are you admitting you haven't tested any of your theory?
No problem, since my theory demonstrates the existence of our souls.People often seem to be confused about the meaning of the word 'theory' in the scientific context. Contrary to popular belief it DOES NOT mean "s*** I made up", theories have to be based on something you can demonstrate.
Don't worry. I am including other people in my experimental tests ever since proving my theory to my own soul.2)You cannot make up a "theory" and not bother to back it up with any evidence, instead leaving other people to test it for you!
Science works on the presupposition that man's mind is capable of discovering the laws by which God created and governs the universe.Do you think science works that way?
A lot of scientists are lazy and sloppy.Apart from anything else it's lazy and sloppy.
A lot of a prior presuppositions and theoretical hypotheses are built into that first observation.Unless I am mistaken the scientific process is along the liens of - observe, make a hypothesis based on these observations, test the hypothesis.
You are just prejudiced against lazy scientists and don't want to participate in scientific experiments.The scientific process I doubt is along the lines of - make something up, get everyone else to do the hard work for you and to do your testing!
Of course he did. That is why he hesitated to publish his theories for almost 25 years.Besides, Darwin did not leave it to the rest of the world to test and demonstrate the truthfulness of his theories.
His observations were based on his pre-conceived theories about what he was observing.His theories were based upon observations and were backed up with demonstratable evidence which, over time, other scientists looked at and eventually came to agree on.
Both were philosophers although Darwin was more psychologically astute than Marx.Also Marx was more of a philosopher. Darwin was a biologist, you cannot compare the two or group them together.
Post #72
Seriously? Oh come on you have to be joking? You must be. I refuse to believe anyone would actually think along these lines.
Lmao, this is brilliant. Im totally submitting these to fundies.
Take your theory to a real scientist im sure he will see your theory demonstrates souls and congratulate your on ur nobel prize.
Write a paper on it, oh please do. Call it "Demonstrating the existence of souls"
Back it with all the strong evidence that you have, and watch the world realise you are right. Wow you will be famous forever my man.
That is of course if your theory is demonstratable and backed up by evidence of course. It is isn't it? Good you will be renowned forever then.
No problem, since my theory demonstrates the existence of our souls.
Lmao, this is brilliant. Im totally submitting these to fundies.
Take your theory to a real scientist im sure he will see your theory demonstrates souls and congratulate your on ur nobel prize.
Write a paper on it, oh please do. Call it "Demonstrating the existence of souls"
Back it with all the strong evidence that you have, and watch the world realise you are right. Wow you will be famous forever my man.
That is of course if your theory is demonstratable and backed up by evidence of course. It is isn't it? Good you will be renowned forever then.
Post #73
jcrawford wrote:
jcrawford wrote:
jcrawford wrote:
jcrawford wrote:
jcrawford wrote:
jcrawford wrote:
I never said or gave any subtle indication that I don't want to participate in scientific experiments. And it depends on how you mean. If you mean I don't want to participate as a lay person in experiments carried out by real scientists you'd be wrong (depending on what those experiments were). If you mean I don't want to carry out experiments myself you'd be right because I'm not a scientist. And so what if I don't want to take part in experiments? How is the relevant to anything? If I didn't want to take part I would just not take part and ignore it. But here I've spent a significant amount of time replying and taking apart your arguments. Besides, what you're doing is not science, not real science anyway so scientific experiments are certainly irrelevant here.
jcrawford wrote:
LMAO once again you cannot be serious?! You truly believe Darwin hesitated to publish his theories for 25years because he was waiting for others to test and demonstrate the truthfulness of his theories? You don't think maybe it was because in the 19th century saying such things would have brought Darwin into ridicule and may even have been dangerous? Especially as Christianity was much more prevalent even in the scientific community (remember this is around the same period that when the 1st dinosaur fossils were discovered scientists thought these animals must still be alive somewhere, as God would not allow any of his creations to become extinct [they obviously hadn't read the old testament lol])? And it did, it brought Darwin a lot of ridicule. It wasn't until another man (I apologise for forgetting his name) openly talked about similar ideas to Darwin's own that he decided he could publish his theories. Also what you said makes no sense what-so-ever. Darwin hesitated to publish his theories because he was letting others test and demonstrate the truthfulness of them? How could they when he hadn't published them yet?!! How could the rest of the scientific community test his theories for him when he hadn't disclosed them? All due respect, but do you listen to yourself?
jcrawford wrote:
lol. It doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. As quixotic said take it to a real scientist and see what he makes of it.No problem, since my theory demonstrates the existence of our souls.
jcrawford wrote:
You proved your theory to your own soul? Well there's a suprise, you managed to prove your theory to yourself! The proof of a theory is not in wether you convince yourself or not, it's covincing other people. And if you set out to prove your theory right you inevitably will. In science you do not test your theory to prove it right, you test it to see IF it is right. There is a big difference.I am including other people in my experimental tests ever since proving my theory to my own soul.
jcrawford wrote:
Science works on the presumption that God created the laws of the universe? Hmm somehow I imagine most scientist would disagree with you there.Science works on the presupposition that man's mind is capable of discovering the laws by which God created and governs the universe.
jcrawford wrote:
I don't doubt that's true, but not good scientists. We're talking about good science here, ACTUAL science. Lazy scientists who don't bother to do the work themselves and back up their own arguments do not deserve to call themselves scientists. Plus, just because someone else does something it does not make it ok for you to do the same. It is possibly the lamest argument ever. Others do it so I can too. Other people commit rape, how do you think the court will react at your trial if your defense is noting more than "lots of people have committed rape!"?A lot of scientists are lazy and sloppy.
jcrawford wrote:
Indeed that is true. Good science, as with good history, should ideally be conducted without presumptions or bias. But such is the nature of people it is almost unavoidable that any research will be tainted with varying degrees of bias. But that is one of the wonderful things about science; there are other scientists to question your findings and make you adequately demonstrate that your conclusions are valid. If you can't back up your conclusions with sufficient evidence then your theories will be discarded.A lot of a prior presuppositions and theoretical hypotheses are built into that first observation.
jcrawford wrote:
LMAO that is possibly the funniest thing I have read in a long, long time. You cannot be serious? Mate, crack?? Of course I'm prejudice against lazy scientists! That's not the same as being prejudiced against black people or Jews! Being prejudiced against someone solely for the colour of their skin or their race is ridiculous as it has no basis. It has no rational behind it, it's an opinion based on nothing but an outward appearance. Being prejudiced agains lazy scientists however is based on something reasonable; it is based on the fact that lazy scientists by definition are not doing their jobs properly! I mean come on! If I was to make negative comments about lazy defense lawyers would you say I'm just prejudiced against lazy defense lawyers?! I hope not because that prejudice would be entirely justified by the fact the lawyers are not doing their jobs properly and are likely to let innocent people go to prison! If scientists are all lazy then they won't do proper science and we will never find the real explanations for anything! I would like to refer you to the Cambridge Dictionary definition of 'prejudice' - noun - an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge. So actually no I'm not prejudiced against lazy scientists because my opinion of them is not unfair nor is it formed without enough thought or knowledge.You are just prejudiced against lazy scientists and don't want to participate in scientific experiments.
I never said or gave any subtle indication that I don't want to participate in scientific experiments. And it depends on how you mean. If you mean I don't want to participate as a lay person in experiments carried out by real scientists you'd be wrong (depending on what those experiments were). If you mean I don't want to carry out experiments myself you'd be right because I'm not a scientist. And so what if I don't want to take part in experiments? How is the relevant to anything? If I didn't want to take part I would just not take part and ignore it. But here I've spent a significant amount of time replying and taking apart your arguments. Besides, what you're doing is not science, not real science anyway so scientific experiments are certainly irrelevant here.
jcrawford wrote:
Of course he did. That is why he hesitated to publish his theories for almost 25 years.Quote:
Besides, Darwin did not leave it to the rest of the world to test and demonstrate the truthfulness of his theories.
LMAO once again you cannot be serious?! You truly believe Darwin hesitated to publish his theories for 25years because he was waiting for others to test and demonstrate the truthfulness of his theories? You don't think maybe it was because in the 19th century saying such things would have brought Darwin into ridicule and may even have been dangerous? Especially as Christianity was much more prevalent even in the scientific community (remember this is around the same period that when the 1st dinosaur fossils were discovered scientists thought these animals must still be alive somewhere, as God would not allow any of his creations to become extinct [they obviously hadn't read the old testament lol])? And it did, it brought Darwin a lot of ridicule. It wasn't until another man (I apologise for forgetting his name) openly talked about similar ideas to Darwin's own that he decided he could publish his theories. Also what you said makes no sense what-so-ever. Darwin hesitated to publish his theories because he was letting others test and demonstrate the truthfulness of them? How could they when he hadn't published them yet?!! How could the rest of the scientific community test his theories for him when he hadn't disclosed them? All due respect, but do you listen to yourself?
jcrawford wrote:
What? That doesn't make sense either. How can you base what you observe on your theories that are based on what you observe? Darwin's theories came about after what he had observed in nature. he saw certain things that made him come up with his theory of evolution. He did not suddenly produce evolution out of nowhere and then observe. That is unless of course Darwin himself and those who study history have lied.His observations were based on his pre-conceived theories about what he was observing.
:-0
Post #74Amen brother - power to the people.
Prrriiiase the LORDA, prrraaise the LORDA.
I cast out the Devil in you!
What do we say to reason "NO", logic "NO", evidence "NO".
Prrriiiase the LORDA, prrraaise the LORDA.
Look up the word demonstrate. Your theory does not demonstrate a soul. You have not presented any evidents to that end. All you have done is theorised how a soul fits in with the rest of the person. Theories theorise, demonstrations demonstrate. You have not presented any evidence at all. All your work is based on presupposition that there is a soul, which has not I itself been proven to exist ...by anyone, in fact there is no evidence for a soul....none.
How have you been testing it? By asking people on forums what they think of it? Well this "test" isn't going to well now is it. All you are doing is demonstrating your lack of ability in the scientific realm.
Prrriiiase the LORDA, prrraaise the LORDA.
I cast out the Devil in you!
What do we say to reason "NO", logic "NO", evidence "NO".
Prrriiiase the LORDA, prrraaise the LORDA.
Look up the word demonstrate. Your theory does not demonstrate a soul. You have not presented any evidents to that end. All you have done is theorised how a soul fits in with the rest of the person. Theories theorise, demonstrations demonstrate. You have not presented any evidence at all. All your work is based on presupposition that there is a soul, which has not I itself been proven to exist ...by anyone, in fact there is no evidence for a soul....none.
How have you been testing it? By asking people on forums what they think of it? Well this "test" isn't going to well now is it. All you are doing is demonstrating your lack of ability in the scientific realm.
Post #75
Of course it does, since your soul chose to relate and respond to it.Katsuro wrote:jcrawford wrote:lol. It doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort.No problem, since my theory demonstrates the existence of our souls.
Does Quixotic have a unified theory of reality which enables him to determine what is real like I do?As quixotic said take it to a real scientist and see what he makes of it.
What is more real than a Christian scientist? An atheistic scientist?
Re: :-0
Post #76Prrriiiase the DEMONSTRATION, prrraaise the demonstration.Quixotic wrote:Amen brother - power to the people.
Prrriiiase the LORDA, prrraaise the LORDA.
I cast out the Devil in you!
What do we say to reason "NO", logic "NO", evidence "NO".
Prrriiiase the LORDA, prrraaise the LORDA.
Look up the word demonstrate. Your theory does not demonstrate a soul. You have not presented any evidents to that end. All you have done is theorised how a soul fits in with the rest of the person. Theories theorise, demonstrations demonstrate. You have not presented any evidence at all. All your work is based on presupposition that there is a soul, which has not I itself been proven to exist ...by anyone, in fact there is no evidence for a soul....none.
How have you been testing it? By asking people on forums what they think of it? Well this "test" isn't going to well now is it. All you are doing is demonstrating your lack of ability in the scientific realm.
I cast out the Demonstration in you!
What do we say to the LORD, "NO", logic "NO", evidence "NO".
Prrriiiase the DEMONSTRATION, prrraaise the DEMONSTRATION.
Post #77
No one has ever demonstrated Darwin's or Freud's theories, and yet they became famous on the merits of their humanist fantasies alone.Quixotic wrote:Seriously? Oh come on you have to be joking? You must be. I refuse to believe anyone would actually think along these lines.
No problem, since my theory demonstrates the existence of our souls.
Lmao, this is brilliant. Im totally submitting these to fundies.
Take your theory to a real scientist im sure he will see your theory demonstrates souls and congratulate your on ur nobel prize.
Write a paper on it, oh please do. Call it "Demonstrating the existence of souls"
Back it with all the strong evidence that you have, and watch the world realise you are right. Wow you will be famous forever my man.
That is of course if your theory is demonstratable and backed up by evidence of course. It is isn't it? Good you will be renowned forever then.
Ummm....yer
Post #78Firstly, what does that even mean? Validity by humanist fantasies?
Wow!
With regards to what i think you were getting at:
Darwins theories have been verified through many means. Our study of the natural world and the fossil record is totally in line with the core of his theory of evolution by natural selection, without a single counter example. Evolution has been seen in the lab in bacteria and is the only explanation for how complex systems can arrive from less complex systems. it is an elegant solution to solving how we came to be as we are, it may be wrong, but it is the closest thing we have so far. Just saying "God did it" asks more questions that it answers, it does not solve any problems at all.
In the case of Freud, many of his ideas and theories have been made defunct by studies in the fields of evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience etc etc. Just to show that science is by it's nature progressive. Everyone is trying to prove everything false all the time, to enable the creation of better models, even in the case of their own work. Taking on board reasonable criticism and argument is an integral part of the scientific process. Freud is only famous because he is the father of psychology, not because his theories have stood the test of time.
You seemed to have missed the point of humanism also. One corner of it being a basis on scientific research not religious dogma. Humanism has no fantasies, that is the point, it is not self deluding. If tomorrow it was demonstrated that there is in fact a God and you will go to hell if you don't worship him then the humanist attitude to this would be to worship him for the sake of people. But no such demonstration of anything super natural, god, soul, heaven , hell, angels daemons, pixes, ghosts etc has ever been demonstrated ....ever...just to repeat....ever. This started of with you having what you called a theory, testing it through these boards. Well it has many many holes in it, now just because we are disputing it you think you are still right just because others have done the same. if you want to create a credible theory you need to look at evidence, build it around that, then let people pull it to pieces to see if it stands up.
Wow!
With regards to what i think you were getting at:
Darwins theories have been verified through many means. Our study of the natural world and the fossil record is totally in line with the core of his theory of evolution by natural selection, without a single counter example. Evolution has been seen in the lab in bacteria and is the only explanation for how complex systems can arrive from less complex systems. it is an elegant solution to solving how we came to be as we are, it may be wrong, but it is the closest thing we have so far. Just saying "God did it" asks more questions that it answers, it does not solve any problems at all.
In the case of Freud, many of his ideas and theories have been made defunct by studies in the fields of evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience etc etc. Just to show that science is by it's nature progressive. Everyone is trying to prove everything false all the time, to enable the creation of better models, even in the case of their own work. Taking on board reasonable criticism and argument is an integral part of the scientific process. Freud is only famous because he is the father of psychology, not because his theories have stood the test of time.
You seemed to have missed the point of humanism also. One corner of it being a basis on scientific research not religious dogma. Humanism has no fantasies, that is the point, it is not self deluding. If tomorrow it was demonstrated that there is in fact a God and you will go to hell if you don't worship him then the humanist attitude to this would be to worship him for the sake of people. But no such demonstration of anything super natural, god, soul, heaven , hell, angels daemons, pixes, ghosts etc has ever been demonstrated ....ever...just to repeat....ever. This started of with you having what you called a theory, testing it through these boards. Well it has many many holes in it, now just because we are disputing it you think you are still right just because others have done the same. if you want to create a credible theory you need to look at evidence, build it around that, then let people pull it to pieces to see if it stands up.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #79
A scientist that does not take into account their religion when analysing the data. In the role of 'scientist' they are non-theistic. What they believe in their personal life isjcrawford wrote:Of course it does, since your soul chose to relate and respond to it.Katsuro wrote:jcrawford wrote:lol. It doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort.No problem, since my theory demonstrates the existence of our souls.
Does Quixotic have a unified theory of reality which enables him to determine what is real like I do?As quixotic said take it to a real scientist and see what he makes of it.
What is more real than a Christian scientist? An atheistic scientist?
irrelavent.
