Re: Snoke's response

From: janice matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 15:19:56 EDT

At 02:57 PM 8/13/2005, Jim Armstrong wrote:
>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

### Yeah, that's one consideration.
Any comment on the other point that's actually quite aa bit more important?
ie: the point being made under this statement:

  "But there's another point that's actually quite a bit more important. ..."

Janice

>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 15:20:30 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 15:20:30 EDT