Clones and Souls

[unicorn]

Would clones have souls? Maybe that's why they die so quickly...because God does not endow them with souls...they are copies of the biological aspect of a being--souls cannot be replicated. Souls are what spark life/animate the biological being. What do you guys think?

[unicorn]

QED:

I've already pointed out that there is proof for the existence of souls (as I have defined them) by scientific research. Ignoring the research won't make the evidence go away.

That's a very good summation of the experience of being "alive."

Actually, it's you taking my definition of soul out of context. But, you are kind of right...the soul continues to exist and be alive after we are dead.

It's a wonderful thing isn't it.

Sure is, my friend!

We simply never see any form of disembodied consciousness. Not ever.

We don't see alot of things. Doesn't mean they aren't there...or didn't you already know that. We have evidence of souls, however, as I've already pointed out.

The problem with trying to convince me of the existence of soul is that it flies in the face of this universal.

No it doesn't. Besides, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You asked and I have answered. I started this thread to discuss whether clones have souls, not to debate the existence of souls.

On the AI stuff...not really much to say. We are talking about souls, not intelligence. And that AI don't have souls is completely logical.

[ENIGMA]

soul--a sense/recognition of identity (encompassing sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason, memory) that continues to exist/experience apart/independently from the cessation of all brain/bodily functions

Judging from the story of Phineas Gage he had no such thing.

Why would you presume that anyone else would?

[QED]

I've already pointed out that there is proof for the existence of souls (as I have defined them) by scientific research. Ignoring the research won't make the evidence go away.

A British scientist studying heart attack patients says he is finding evidence that suggests that consciousness may continue after the brain has stopped functioning and a patient is clinically dead.

Let's discuss this particular bit of scientific research. I'm bound to point out that it comes nowhere near the standards of scientific proof in terms of repeatability (AFAIK only one study of its kind was conducted) and the results are far from being consistent. I really don't want to come across as overly dismissive, but when it comes to consciousness its quite obvious that there is a gradient. I hope you understand what I mean by this: when half awake half asleep we are somewhere on this slope and regular perceptions, such as passage of time, can become severely distorted.

I once had a serious accident at a swimming pool in which I was knocked-unconscious after hitting the side of the pool after slipping off a diving board. The experience of slowly sinking to the bottom is etched into my memory. I recall being totally calm and dispassionate on the way down, a sort of neutral bliss from which I could still just about see the column of water above me. This tunnel became like the classic tunnel with a bright light at the end before I came round in A&E some time/distance later. If this experience is anything to go by, it simply reminds me of the transition to and from sleep with the accompanying distortions of perception that we experience on a routine basis in the security of our own beds.

If I were tyring to put a spiritual spin on these experiences I have no doubt that I could convince myself of virtually anything. Enigma's mention of Phineas Gage is a topical addition to any thread concerning souls because it clearly underlines how much our personality is tied to the material nature of our brains. If personality was embodied within a non material soul then why does mechanical damage to the brain alter the personality. The studies into stroke and Altzheimers victims show over and over again that memory, personality and conscious awareness all have a one-to-one relation with the material composition of the brain. Not one example out of millions of individual cases has contradicted this view.

So I hope you'll understand how a study of personal reports coming from patients losing and regaining consciousness following heart attacks can provide very little evidence to support the notion of a seat of consciousness outside the material brain. To be convincing the brain must undergo irreparable damage in such a way as to eliminate the possibility of consciousness being revived from its structure. Only then would we have to propose some alternative residence such as an immaterial soul. But as stated, in cases where material damage has been sustained it is very clear that a corresponding dent is made in the properties you wish to ascribe to soul.

We simply never see any form of disembodied consciousness. Not ever.

We don't see alot of things. Doesn't mean they aren't there...or didn't you already know that. We have evidence of souls, however, as I've already pointed out.

By "see" I assumed that you would understand that this encompasses all that makes something evident. I had no idea that you would take such a literal view of the statement. We don't literally "see" with our sight a whole host of things yet we know of their existence due to their direct or indirect effects on the whole range of our senses. What you have failed to do so far is describe any effect by which we are forced to propose a disembodied soul in order to account for it. Semiconscious experiences and ghost stories don't cut it.

[McCulloch]

Let me share with you a little reason and logic...

Impressive... McCulloch, you do know that your little "attempt" at logic has nothing to do with our discussion, right?

I was trying to model a little bit of what a logical argument would look like, since you seem to have difficulty producing one.

soul--a sense/recognition of identity (encompassing sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason, memory) that continues to exist/experience apart/independently from the cessation of all brain/bodily functions.

Good. I have not seen any proof that such a thing exists. Your examples of near death experiences only proves that our definition of death may need revising. There are at least two plausible explanations of NDEs.

1. the existence of a soul which continues to exist apart from the physical body
2. the sense of identity which exists as a function of the brain is not completely destroyed at the cessation of measurable brain activity. If the physical system is restarted soon enough after measurable brain activity ends, this sense of identity had not been lost.

Since there are still more than one plausible explanation for NDE and at least one of the plausible explanations excludes the existence of a soul then NDEs do not prove the existence of soul.

[Bugmaster]

the sense of identity which exists as a function of the brain is not completely destroyed at the cessation of measurable brain activity.

Actually, AFAIK, near-death experiences do not involve cessation of brain activity. The brain can function for ~5 minutes without support from the cardiovascular and respiratory systems; after that, brain damage sets in, and consciousness deteriorates rapidly and permanently. All the NDEs I've heard of occur within those 5 minutes. In fact, the sensations that accompany the NDEs (tunnel of white light, hearing whispers, etc.) are consistent with the sensations people normally experience during oxygen deprivation. This leads me to believe that NDEs are nothing more than our brains reacting to oxygen deprivation (due to heart failure, etc.), and not a result of undetectable immaterial souls.

[unicorn]

McCulloch:

I was trying to model a little bit of what a logical argument would look like...

gulp, you call your example logic?

Your examples of near death experiences only proves that our definition of death may need revising...NDEs do not prove the existence of soul.

NDE's prove that my definition of a soul exists upon death. Are there efforts to revise the definition of death at present? Until then, we must work with the definition we have. As a result, NDE studies prove that a soul exists after death. What that soul is and if it continues to exist if death (at its current definition) continues to be present, are the real questions.

Besides, and this will be fun, can you prove that there is not a soul, McCulloch?

[ENIGMA]

Besides, and this will be fun, can you prove that there is not a soul, McCulloch?

I'm not him, but I'm feeling a tad ignored, so anyway so I'll take this one:

Again:

The Story of Phineas Gage

now in addition to:

The story of Henry M.

Now I am willing to provide cliff notes for the two articles above, but considering that there are only 9 pages total between them, I think you can manage.

The upshot between both of the articles is that if it is your position that anything more than my tetris playing skills get into the afterlife, then you have some explaining to do.

[unicorn]

ENIGMA:


Oh, I totally missed you for some reason. But, after reading your articles, I realize that I probably would have skipped over you purposely if it hadn't happened that it was an accident.

I'm sorry to tell you, but your articles have nothing to do with souls, and definately prove nothing of any value in this discussion. Two things I can say that might help you understand why: Just because a person's personality changes, doesn't mean their identity changes; just because a person cannot retrieve memory, doesn't mean it's not there.

[ENIGMA]

ENIGMA:

Oh, I totally missed you for some reason. But, after reading your articles, I realize that I probably would have skipped over you purposely if it hadn't happened that it was an accident.

At least we're honest. That's a good sign.

I'm sorry to tell you, but your articles have nothing to do with souls, and definately prove nothing of any value in this discussion.

Yes, but because they don't mention the word "soul" in them they quickly get written off. Figures.

Two things I can say that might help you understand why: Just because a person's personality changes, doesn't mean their identity changes;

Really? Are you so sure? Let's look at the definition you provided:

soul--a sense/recognition of identity (encompassing sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason, memory) that continues to exist/experience apart/independently from the cessation of all brain/bodily functions

Every item that is bolded on the above list is affected by a change in personality. Phineas Gage's specific case showed a change in his ability to think and reason in certain ways as well.

So, as you were so want to ask:

Can you prove that brain damage doesn't change one's identity?

just because a person cannot retrieve memory, doesn't mean it's not there.

If you read the article as opposed to skimming it and looking for big words/"soul" it would be readily apparent that the problem is not in memory retrieval but rather in creation of long term memories.

Oddly enough, your position would indicate that somehow losing the rest of your brain is supposed to allow you to create and retrieve memories. Which bits of your brain are stopping you from getting those memories?

[McCulloch]

Your examples of near death experiences only proves that our definition of death may need revising...NDEs do not prove the existence of soul.

NDE's prove that my definition of a soul exists upon death. Are there efforts to revise the definition of death at present? Until then, we must work with the definition we have. As a result, NDE studies prove that a soul exists after death. What that soul is and if it continues to exist if death (at its current definition) continues to be present, are the real questions.

If we use your definition of soul,

• soul--a sense/recognition of identity (encompassing sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason, memory) that continues to exist/experience apart/independently from the cessation of all brain/bodily functions

and we assume that there will be no further redefinition of the point of death (even though the point of death has been variously defined as cessation of breathing, cessation of pulse and cessation of measurable brain activity). Then NDEs still do not prove that a soul exists independent from the body. All they prove is that, under some conditions, these abilities can be restored after apparent death, if the bodily functions can be restored. There is still no evidence that a soul, if it exists, has any continuity apart from the body which once housed it.

Besides, and this will be fun, can you prove that there is not a soul, McCulloch?

One principal of debate is that someone who makes a positive claim, such as "souls exist", bear the burden of proof. Science has no need for the idea of a soul. Our sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, think and reason and our memory can all be accommodated without recourse to a extra-bodily independent soul. In short, I have no need for the soul hypothesis. Apologies to Stephen Weinberg.