Re: Snoke's response

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 14:57:58 EDT

This is no slam dunk. One consideration is that our brains are
bicameral, having two separate but communicating physical parts that
cooperate to yield a higher composite functionality. Isn't it possible
that what is sensed on one side might be monitored by the other in such
a way as to know whether this is an internal or externally-stimulated
event? JimA

janice matchett wrote:

> At 12:18 PM 8/13/2005, Gregory Arago wrote:
>
>> ... Likewise, if human beings are simply 'natural beings,' then
>> everything we say, think, feel or do can be measured, observed,
>> heard, tasted or experimented upon as if we are 'only natural' and
>> thus limited to a naturalistic paradigm. Somewhere in the equation
>> doesn't the non-theism or anti-theism of biological science, or even
>> simply of Darwinian evolution, have to be called to account? ....."
>
>
> ### Have you heard about this "experiment", yet?
>
> "...... science has after a fashion demonstrated the soul.
>
> It doesn't have a tremendous amount of evidence there but this is an
> interesting thing to ponder. When the brains of some people are opened
> they can touch the brain with electrodes to stimulate different
> memories and the like.
>
> This is why some people have argued that memories are merely a
> chemical kind of response and don't have any relationship to a self, a
> separate soul, a person other than the brain.
>
> But when scientists have stimulated part of the brain and the patient
> is conscious, the patient can actually tell whether a memory is being
> stimulated by the scientist or whether the memory is being brought
> forward out of their own consciousness.
>
> They say, "Hey, you did that. I didn't."
>
> This makes a very powerful point. "You stimulated that memory, I
> didn't." Who's the "I?"
>
> The "I" was the person inside there, the "I" is the soul.
>
> So there's a distinction between a chemical response that produces a
> memory and a volitional response that produces a memory. So it is not
> entirely true that there is not scientific evidence for the existence
> of the soul because there is some.
>
> But there's another point that's actually quite a bit more important.
>
> That's the fundamental point of whether science is the only road to
> truth. And there are actually three different ways to refute that. And
> it's very straight forward.
>
> You can almost sum them up under one concept.
>
> The idea is that if science is the only way to truth then science
> itself is self-refuting because science is built on a series of truths
> that cannot be demonstrated by science but must be in place even for
> science to be valid.
>
> For example, is orderliness in the universe an illusion or is that real?
>
> Is the external world knowable at all?
>
> Are the intellect and the five senses reliable tools to examine the
> world?
>
> Are values like "be objective" or "report data honestly" appropriate
> in the scientific endeavor?
>
> Is nature basically uniform?
>
> Do numbers in truth exist?
>
> Do the laws of logic apply to reality?
>
> All of these things are non-scientific questions but they relate to
> the issue of truth that must necessarily be in place for science even
> to be practiced.
>
> So the point I'm making is that if you hold the belief that science is
> the only thing that is a measure of truth, then science is in hot
> water because science can't justify itself.
>
> Science is not the sole arbiter of truth.
>
> Ethics is another source of truthful information.
>
> Philosophy is another source of truthful information.
>
> History...Do you know that even mathematics is not scientific? Math is
> used in science, it underlies science, but you cannot prove math
> scientifically.
>
> So the point is this, its an empty claim by Dr. Sagan that the soul
> can't exist because no scientific evidence has been produced to
> support the idea that there is a soul.
>
> There can be other kinds of evidence that are not merely scientific
> yet be very valid. ......." ~ Gregory Koukl
> http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/science/saganand.htm
>
>
Received on Sat Aug 13 15:01:59 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 15:02:00 EDT