by dhw, Sunday, May 27, 2018, 10:58 (801 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: [..] what “difference” are you proposing?

DAVID: I am stating that the functional form of the soul is malleable in life and in death, as the personage remains the same. I am sure quantum strangeness allow for my thought.

And I keep asking you what you mean by the functional form if you are not referring to the soul’s modes of observation and communication, or to changes in the content (our immaterial attributes). So once more, please explain what other “difference” you are proposing. According to you, the soul is a piece of God’s consciousness which is inserted into the brain, can’t think without the brain, but can think without the brain. “Quantum strangeness” explains nothing, and does not remove the illogicality of your argument.

DAVID: I have agreed over and over that your thought pattern is logical if we accept the starting point of a static soul mechanism. I don't. Understanding that the universe is based on quantum mechanics I think the soul is also and malleable in its functional from between life and death.

I have no idea what you mean by a static soul mechanism. My starting point is the dichotomy between dualism and materialism which leads to all the contradictions in your arguments, as – apologies for the repetition! – you claim to be a dualist (mind and body are separate entities that work together in life), but subscribe to materialism (the mind cannot think without the body) and then revert back to dualism (the mind CAN think without the body). Furthermore, you agree to the one “static” element I have mentioned, which is that if dualism is true, the mind remains the same mind – i.e. yours or mine – when the body dies. The theory I have offered resolves these contradictions, and incorporates “malleability” (if the soul lives on after death, it must change its modes of observation and communication, and will remain open to new experiences). I do not see how vague references to static souls and quantum mechanics in any way contradict the logic of my proposal, or resolve the illogicality of your own.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum