The all-purpose Snarf thread

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]if you are hung up on reductionism, then you have a whole lot more reading to do regarding philosophy of the mind

That's a cop-out, which is not what I was asking for.[/quote]

No, it isn't a cop-out. You are misrepresenting the consensus in the scientific community in order to make your theory appear necessary, when, in fact, it is not.

[quote]Ultimately, your fundamental premise and reason for writing the book is one that is still very much up in the air

Only in philosophical and religious circles, brother. There is scientific debate about how far Heisenberg uncertainty extends, there are debates about at what point determinism sinks in, in the history of the universe, et cetera. But there is no scientific camp that argues that the soul magically makes ex nihilo acts of will that are actualized by the body. That's not scientific, it's not even sensible. Gilbert Ryle's proclamation of the "ghost in the machine" has dominated the scientific camp since it was made, and I don't think you can disprove that by simply calling me unread.[/quote]

Snarf, you are admitting to the problem inherent in your argumentation and then act like you can sweep it under the table. If reductive determinism is simply false then there is clearly room for free will. The [i]how[/i] is certainly not settled, but nor should it be at this point, since most scientists are still trying to figure out what to do with Heisenberg. On this point, David Bohm's theory is the [i]only[/i] deterministic theory that offers an explanation, and it is most certainly not as widely accepted as you make it appear to be.

In general, my problem with most of your posts (aside from their lack of orthodoxy) is the fact that you constantly make broad overgeneralizations and caricatures of a number of intellectual discussions, and those caricatures don't hold up to serious scrutiny. When we actually turn to those discussions, things seem far more uncertain than you make them out to be.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 20 2005, 09:56 PM'] The best case scenario would be that we could articulate existing doctrine in such a way as to accomodate a scientifically-sound view of the soul. 
[/quote]

I just don't think we'll ever be able to pin down the a soul's definition by science...

I've got a grasp of physicis, but as far as theology & psychology, I am completely unread. I can appreciate that you want a thorough criticism of your book and theories, but I don't know enough about the building blocks of your hypotheses in order to see if you've stacked them correctly.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 27 2005, 10:57 AM']I just don't think we'll ever be able to pin down the a soul's definition by science...

I've got a grasp of physicis, but as far as theology & psychology, I am completely unread.  I can appreciate that you want a thorough criticism of your book and theories, but I don't know enough about the building blocks of your hypotheses in order to see if you've stacked them correctly.
[right][snapback]836842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


My guess is your grasp of physics is the time youv'e spent in the bar analyzing pool shots or perhaps the force needed to bust a pool stick over your head. It's obvious you don't have much of a grasp of anything else.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 27 2005, 09:15 AM']  It's obvious you don't have much of a grasp of anything else.

[/quote]

Shame, shame, thess. If you start a name-calling contest in PM, the rules are that you KEEP it in PM. You don't drag a fight INTO someone's house...much less someone's thread about the true nature of the soul.

Although, I think a definition of a fight has to involve both of the parties landing a punch every [i]once[/i] in a while. Otherwise, it's just a red-*ss beatdown.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 27 2005, 11:19 AM']Shame, shame, thess.  If you start a name-calling contest in PM, the rules are that you KEEP it in PM.  You don't drag a fight INTO someone's house...much less someone's thread about the true nature of the soul.
[right][snapback]836845[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You started this junior. It is my hope I get kicked off this board. I can't stand your ugly avatar.

Edited December 27, 2005 by thessalonian

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 27 2005, 09:20 AM']You started this junior. 
[/quote]

....you message [i]me[/i], call me a jack***, and say that I started it?

LOL

Here, I started a thread for [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45127"]YOU[/url]

Kindly step out of this thread...

Edited December 27, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 27 2005, 11:24 AM']....you message [i]me[/i], call me a jack***, and say that I started it?

LOL

Here, I started a thread for [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45127"]YOU[/url]

Kindly step out of this thread...
[right][snapback]836849[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Just so the record is staight cow who said this:

Apparently someone got a big box of poopie under their Christmas tree this year.

Oh so funny. wasn't it. Shall I start posting your pm's?

your good at the lol thing cow. Not good at common sense and knowing when to shut up however.

Edited December 27, 2005 by thessalonian

[Cow of Shame]

*sigh*

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45127"]Let's try again, eh? Move along, move along...[/url]

[homeschoolmom]

C'mon, you two... knock it off....

[Cow of Shame]

You're a bit late to this party, HSMom. Check the time stamps on this & the locked thread.

And if I might quote myself from the start of this...

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Dec 27 2005, 09:19 AM']If you start a name-calling contest in PM, the rules are that you [b]KEEP it in PM.[/b] 
[/quote]

Edited December 27, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[homeschoolmom]

Yes, I see....

[Snarf]

I think it's funny that you mention me "misrepresenting" scientific consensus when it turns out that less than 50% of scientific academicians believe in God, and far less regularly attend services. So, yeah, I agree to some extent, but not in your favor.

Sorry it's been a while since I've been here, but I'm trying to be more involved with school and less with the internets.

And yes, I do acknowledge more than once that it is not a closed book on the subject of determinism. However, factoring in reductionism (which more or less IS a closed book) makes this a small detail. I honestly think that a non-deterministic world would work much easier for my theory.

To demonstrate, to posit the ability of souls to determine the course of action on an ad hoc basis at the quantum level, you must assign to them some prescience of the outcome. That's no big deal when dealing with the human brain, as it's not unreasonable to suppose that the soul could figure out what thoughts will be instigated by firing this or that synapse. But there's too much more than that to reasonably grant the soul ALL (or at least consensus amount) of power over the mind, there are far too many factors involved. Environmental exposure forges far too much to our decisions for the soul to be the sole agent, and that's to say nothing of incidental factors such as ambience, chemicals to which a person is exposed, and that little thing known as GENETICS.

As for my definition that a soul in heaven pertains to a life marked foremost by caritas, versus the repentant thief on the cross, I said GENERALLY. I actually happen to agree with the Church in that one's eternal destiny is cast by their state of Grace at death. However, I will not define rigid rules of who does and does not go to heaven or hell because I AM NOT GOD, and NOR ARE YOU. The rules of ratios of caritas/cupiditas are dogmatically-sound general guidelines, but obviously God reserves the right to deal with whomever however He wishes.

Anything I've forgotten? I don't really have time to fish the thread right now. My book is now for sale at Amazon and Barnes and Noble online, but you can get it a little cheaper if you order it off my website. I have a set price listed on my website, but since I'm interested in hearing what other well-read Catholics have to say about it I'll accept any reasonable offer from you guys.

In other news, I'm taking a a class on Anselm right now. It's fun, but tends to focus on him more as a logician over a theologian.

[Cow of Shame]

Good to see you back on the boards....although, it's even better to hear you've been focusing on real life

[Snarf]

Thank you, Cow.

I went to confession today, and I discussed my feelings about the theory and how it truly troubles me that I could be bordering on heresy. He told me that theology is dynamic and constantly evolving, that the Church is an institution of humans (I know that it's divinely-ordinated), et cetera und so weiter. He told me that as long as I accept the fundamental statements of the Credo, I should not feel like less of a Catholic as long as I do not place my authority as being higher than that of the Church. He said that he did not see why my idea would be deemed heretical, so I reminded him of the anathemization of Origen (which I feel does not apply to me, but it's frequently been flung at me). He said he'd have to think about that for a while.

What I tried to explain to him is that I'm not guided by anything except my lust for the truth, and I would love to point to Coeternalism as simply a stage in my development. He didn't really reply to that, just reiterating what had been said before.

As evidenced elsewhere, my faith in God is rock-solid. However, my faith in the soul has long been faltering. If it's not eternal, it's simply superfluous. That's my connundrum.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Snarf, I really do understand how you feel. I know what it is like to struggle with certain aspects of the Faith, and I know how difficult it can be when struggling through this kind of thing to be constantly told that you are wrong. For my part, I would much rather you consider me a friend and a helper in this intellectual struggle than an adversary or opponent.

Hard Determinism is not personally one of my convictions or something that I find convincing, but if it is something that you are simply not willing to give up, then perhaps you might find Kant's Third (I think) Antimony helpful. Just as Kant argues that we [i]must[/i] be able to speak of the world as determined [i]and[/i] speak of humans as totally free, perhaps you might widen that line of thought to say that we [i]must[/i] think of ourselves as physical and temporal [i]and[/i] spiritual and temporal.

In this way, there would be no claim that the soul is co-eternal with God, but rather that it is temporal just as the body is temporal. Moreover, the apparent contradiction between a physical body and a spiritual soul both being the "cause" of action would be explained away by pointing to the problem as something beyond the limits of pure reason. Thus, it is concluded that we must necessarily be able to claim that we are both physical and spiritual in a wholly temporal sense.

If, on the other hand, you do not hold strict determinism in a clenched fist, then I would be glad to talk with you more about other viable alternatives.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff