Mail Archive

A Fresh Look at the Cosmos

• Subject: A Fresh Look at the Cosmos
• From: Hendrik M
• Date: Sat Jul 01 07:02:37 1995
• Message-Id: id550

>In article <3sq6kf$el5@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, 
>Madhudvisa dasa wrote:
>
>> web@spiderman.unx.dec.com (Wayne E. Barlow) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >In article <3sd35o$bf2@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, 
>Madhudvisa dasa writes:
>> >|> makaliwe@ils.nwu.edu (Hendrik Makaliwe) wrote:
>> >|>
>> >|> >What is the "Soul"??
>> >|>
>> >|> It's the person... It's you!
>>
>> >Do you mean my self-conscious part?
>>
>> No. I mean you. You are not the body. The body is a machine [I'm sure I've
>> said this before...] YOU ARE THE SOUL, THE DRIVER OF THE MACHINE OF THE
>> BODY... (that's what I meant anyhow)
>

Firstly, I have read your response and you are NOT presenting scientific
arguments. You are not even presenting logical arguments. You do not understand
the scientific process at all. In any discussion you can't just say "As I said
before, the idea of having a single driver of our body is wrongheaded." This is
not a scientific or logical statement. You have to look at my response to your
statement and comment on that. You have to show my response was illogical or
flawed in some way.

You may believe there is no soul, there is no God, that is your "religion", but
that "religion" (atheism) can NOT be proved or disproved by science. Science is a
completely different thing altogether. Science is the process of observation and
experiment. It is a valid process but it only attempts to develop models that
explain the observations around us. Good science means good models... The models
do not necessarily have anything to do with what is actually going on. There may
be more than one model that correctly describes and predicts the operation of a
certain system but science can't actually say what is really happening. The system
may be operating in a completely different manner to the model.

So science is about modeling reality, it is not about reality. Every real
scientist will agree to this. Science cannot deal with absolute knowledge. It is

an accepted limitation of science. Science is observation and experiment so to
perform a scientific experiment you have to be able to construct an experiment
which can be performed to prove/disprove your theory. If such an experiment cannot
be constructed then science cannot deal with that knowledge. It is a limitation of
the scientific process. It doesn't mean the knowledge is wrong. It just means
science can't say one way or another.

You are trying to "scientifically" prove there is no God, there is no soul... But
science can't do this. You can't use science to support atheism. You can't
construct an experiment to perform to prove God doesn't exist. It is beyond the
scope of science.

>Ah, so the driver is the soul.
>But a computer also has a driver (the operating system), so does it have a
>soul also?

You are clutching at straws. It's a crazy proposition. You are trying to equate a
person with a computer program... If you can't tell the difference you don't know
anything about computers. Firstly there are very few similarities between a person
and a computer operating system so it is a very bad analogy. But even if you can
establish some link it doesn't help you in your argument. If I am a computer
operating system I can do nothing independently, I am completely controlled by a
person who gives me commands. My operating system (msdos & windows) only performs
the commands I type into it. It doesn't do anything else. So how can such an
analogy help you prove atheism? It is clearly a bad analogy anyhow because there
is nothing in common between an operating system and a person...

>
>As I said before, the idea of having a single driver of our body is wrongheaded.

You have posted your "wrongheaded" statement after your operating system analogy.
But the analogy doesn't support your statement. The operating system has a single
driver, the person using the computer. So you are cutting your own throat...

>Our body is controlled (mostly) by our brain,

A very definitive statement! If you make such a statement you have to support it
with evidence. I have proposed thet the body is controlled by the spirit soul and
have given a consistent logical explanation to support it.  but you have not
explained anthing...

Because the soul is absolute it cannot be disproved therefore it is outside the
scope of "science". But so is the knowledge "water is wet". You can't define a
scientific experiment to prove water is not wet so this statement cannot be
considered by science. This is a limitation of the scientific process. It does not
mean because science can't prove "water is wet" therefore "water is not wet"...

> which is composed of myriads
>of components, each doing its own task. Each component controls a certain
>part (e.g. the movement of your thumb).

That's alright and no one can deny the brain is part of the machine of the body
and it is connected with controlling the different parts of the body. I have no
argument with this. It has nothing to do with the ideas I have presented in my
article so why bring it in? It doesn't help your case. You are trying to equate
the brain with a computer operating system and that is a reasonable analogy but
once again you are cutting your own throat because the computer operating system
is ultimately controlled by a person, a spirit soul. The brain is certainly there
but it doesn't work by itself. It is directed by the spirit soul as the operating
system is directed by the person using the computer...

>Of course, there are components that are "managers", their jobs are to
>control other components. And of course, there are components that do top
>level jobs like long term planning.

What? You are using the analogy of a computer operating system to support your
statements here. Where is the long term planning? Is my operating system sitting
there thinking, "Madhudvisaa dasa is typing his reply to this nonsense in
Eudora now but he wants to post it to the newsgroup so he will want me to select
all the text when he's finished and post it into Free-Agent..." Operating systems

do nothing of the sort... You type a command (or the application you are using
passes a command to the OS) and it just executes that command... That is exactly
what the brain does. It gets commands from the soul and executes them. So your
analogy is nice, but it supports my argument not yours.

>By this point, you might say "so there must be a component that has the
>topmost control, which is the soul". Well, this is not necessarily the
>case. It seems more plausible that there is NO centralized control in our
>brain.

Why? You have never seen a computer operating system that doesn't have a person, a
spirit soul, controlling it. It is not possible. Ultimately the control is with
the person using the computer.

>Ever heard of distributed computing? Many computers can participate in
>solving a huge problem, each doing its part, WITHOUT any centralized
>control.

Where is such a distributed system solving one problem without centralized
control? That is not possible. If I want to solve a problem I may need to call
others to help me. I may not have the knowledge or time to do it myself, I may get
some other people to do it for me, but there has to be some direction by me
otherwise how will all the different people know what to do? Have you ever seen
such a thing! You can just imagine it, builders, carpenters, electricians,
plumbers all working independently without any central control... What sort of
building would you get?

>Of course, each computer should know how to interact with others,
>but they don't take order from a centralized processor on how to interact.
>Each decides this for itself.

I think you are talking about the internet. Not a multi-processor solving a single
problem. The internet is a mail delivery system very much like the postal service.
Your software (under your control) posts packets of information with an address
attached. Then the message is delivered by passing it from node to node in the
network. But there is control. The whole network obeys certain rules. It's just
like the post office. You can say each branch of the post office is independent,
they all have different managers. But there is still central control...

>
>You might say that the soul is the one that generates our will,
>motivations, goals, etc. But Freud had shown that our behaviour is the
>product of MANY interacting forces, many of them unconscious.

He has given one idea. But it doesn't help your argument. He did not try to say
there is no person that it's all chemicals. He was a little more advanced than
that. He was studying the mind. It has nothing to do with the brain and he did not
explain how chemical combinations could do these things. He was just studying the
mind... I have no argument that there are many external impulses that influence
us. But you have mentioned the "unconscious". Now this is interesting. First you
are trying to use an the analogy of a computer operating system, which is clearly
not conscious. You are trying to explain there is no soul [and the symptom of the
soul is consciousness..] Consciousness is the thing that differentiates something
with a soul from something without a soul. Life and death. So you have [by talking
of the "unconscious"] accepted consciousness... So consciousness is the symptom of
the soul.

>For instance, right now I am writing this message. Part of me is excited
>to write a long explanation. But another part is "suggesting" that I
>should take some sleep. So which one is the soul?

That is your mind. Your mind is thinking feeling and willing. Your intelligence is
accepting and rejecting the ideas put forward by your mind and the soul is
observing...

>Our behavior is the product of many forces (motivations, beliefs,
>emotions, etc.). They interact - sometimes supporting each other,
>sometimes contradicting each other. When there are opposing forces, one of
>them might eventually win. For instance, I might decide to stop writing a
>take a nap - so the force that is "suggesting" me to sleep might win this

>time. But it might lose next time.

Why the difference? Who are "you", the "I" that makes the decision. There is no
"I" in the operating system. It makes no decisions. It follows the instructions of
the person entering the commands and those written by the programmer. So your
senses are sending so many signals to you mind, you mind comes up with ideas and
your intelligence analyzes the ideas and decides whether to accept or reject them
and the soul is above all this. And this is all completely outside the scope of
science. Science only deals with matter, but we are talking about something more
subtle than matter here...

>
>In short, there is NO single force that controls everything and generates
>every goal I have. Everything is the product of many things (beliefs,
>experiences, etc). And each part (force) is executed by a certain part of
>my BRAIN.

This is only a dogmatic "religious" statement to support your "faith" in atheism.
You have not proved it scientifically. It cannot be proved or disproved
scientifically. Nor have you presented even a logical analogy showing anything
anywhere can think, feel and will without consciousness, the symptom of the
presence of the soul.

>
>I can believe that we have soul and consciousness.

You shouldn't write such illogical nonsense. How can you expect anyone to take you
seriously? You start by saying "As I said before, the idea of having a single
driver of our body is wrongheaded," but now you dare to say, "I can believe we
have a soul." A soul is clearly the single driver in the body... That's what the
concept of a "soul" is.


>But consciousness is
>NOT something APART from the brain. It is the symptom of the workings of
>my brain.

Once again religious doctrine. It's your belief only. You can't prove it and you
can't make it true by just saying it and your analogy [the computer operating
system] contradicts it. You have cut your own throat.

>When my brain stops working, I'll lose my consciousness - and,
>consequently, also my soul.

Yes. When the brain stops the machine of the body is no longer useful so the soul
leaves the body. But now you are believing in the soul? It is not possible to talk
to you logically. You should have went to bed and written this in the morning I
think. :-)

>I am not criticizing the idea of a soul & consciousness because I cannot
>see it.

You can't criticize the idea of the soul and consciousness. It is a completely
valid and logical idea. There are no flaws in the logic. It perfectly explains
what we see. No one can criticize it. You can't disprove it. It is beyond your
definition of science.

>I am criticizing the idea that they are APART from the physical workings
>of my brain. It is just like software. You cannot see it, but it is NOT
>something mysterious.

The brain, of course, might be like a computer, and the dna might be like the
program, the operating system... But YOU are the operator. You are the person
inside the machine. You are the driver within the car.

I am frustrated by you because you are a religious fanatic. You have some idas you
want to justify. You are trying to do this using "science" but science doesn't
claim to prove or disprove the soul or God. It is outside the scope of science. So
everything you have written has come out as crazy nonsense and it's painful to
have to read it.


>And it is implemented in the hardware.
>I can believe that I have consciousness, but IT IS A PRODUCT OF THE
>ACTIVITIES OF MY BRAIN.

But by writing it in capital letters doesn't make it true. You have failed to show
this in your article. How can you say it now. It is completely illogical.

>All the ideas of a soul, consciousness, etc are OK with me.
>BUT THEY ARE THE PRODUCT OF MATTER.

By definition the soul is not a product of matter. You can't accept the soul and
say it is a product of matter. It is crazyness. Either there is a soul and
consciousness or there is not. If there's not we are a combination of chemicals.
If we are a combination of chemicals you have to show how a combination of
chemicals can produce consciousness. Otherwise it is just a whole lot of
sentimental religious nonsense just to try and support your religion of "atheism".

We have never seen life come from matter anywhere. You can not show me one
instance of this happening anywhere. I see life coming from life everywhere so my
statement "Life comes from life" is clearly true. If you want to say "life comes
from matter" you have to prove it. It is clearly incorrect we see everywhere "LIFE
COMES FROM LIFE... LIFE IS NOT A PRODUCT OF MATTER..."

>Life is a product of matter - matter in a very specific organization.

PROVE IT RASCAL! SHOW ME MATTER GENERATING LIFE!

>
>If you want to define a SOUL that is DIFFERENT than the body, you have to
>show a proof of its existence apart from matter. Show an example that
>proves the existence of a soul, that cannot be explained by a mechanistic
>account.

My friend you are impossible. Why don't you read the article? CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE
SYMPTOM OF THE SOUL... Have you heard it yet? YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS
WITH YOUR MECHANISTIC SCIENCE... It is a symptom of the soul. (and, as you have
seen, there is a completely consistent and logical philosophy to support this. You
have only spouted out reams of inconsistent illogical garbage. You have no basis
for your beliefs. You have not given a logical explanation.)


>Show me an example of a soul WITHOUT a body.

How? Your eyes can only see matter! You can't "see" the soul. But, as I have said
so many times, consciousness is the symptom of the soul and you can see
consciousness (but only when the soul is in a material body). Souls without
material bodies are ghosts and ghosts can be detected also...

The gross body is earth, water, fire, air and ether. The subtle body is the mind,
the intelligence and the false ego and above all this it the soul. At the time of
"death" the gross body becomes an unsuitable residence for the soul so the soul is
forced to leave the gross body. He leaves with the mind, intelligence and false
ego. The symptom of the soul leaving the body is death. Everyone knows it.
Something very dramatic happens at the time of death. You can't explain death
without the soul. There is so much energy in the body and suddenly all that energy
is gone. The soul is required otherwise the conservation of energy principle is
not valid.

>
>Another thing: how do you PROVE that the same soul can move to another body.

How can you prove it can't? We have established everything logically. The soul
"theory" perfectly explains everything we observe. We have so many volumes of
books and everything is logical and perfectly consistent with our observations.
However you, on the other hand, have a philosophy which is illogical, cannot
explain our observations and you can't even back it up by a reasonable analogy.

>I would say that each body, each brain produces ITS OWN goals, plans, etc.
>Can you give an example that definitely shows (PROVES) that the SAME soul

>has moved to another body?

WHO CARES WHAT YOU SAY... You are only saying it to back up your religion of
"atheism". These are the mummerings of a crazy religious fanatic. You can't
support this argument in any way, shape or form. Even if you can come up with a
reasonable theory [and there are reasonable (logically speaking) atheistic
theories] it doesn't negate the "theory" of the existence of the soul. You cannot
fault it. It is a perfect "theory". You have to at least accept the possibility
the soul exists. Science doesn't deny the soul or God. It is beyond the scope of
science. So you are just proving your foolishness by trying to present the
nonexistence of the soul in a "scientific" way. No real scientist will support you
in this.

>
>
>>It is a little subtle. We are not just a combination of chemicals.
>>Otherwise how could we be having this conversation? Do you truly believe
>>it is possible for chemicals, all by themselves, with nothing to mix or
>>agitate them even, to mix themselves up and form you and me and then talk
>>with each other? There is something more to it than that.
>
>Of course there is something more. It is the organization.
>Chemicals cannot produce humans by themself.

You are so stupid... If chemicals cannot produce the humans then what did
according to your theory? And even if chemicals did produce humans what produced
the chemicals?

You have argued before [in capital letters mind you] that "everything is a product
of matter". So matter is nothing but chemicals therefore you have argued
"Everything is a product of chemicals." And now you say "Chemicals cannot produce
humans by themself...".

>But chemicals organized in a certain manner can.

So [even if it's true] what organizes them. In the beginning there was nothing...
and from nothing magically, with no cause, the chemicals come, and magically from
the chemicals life comes... In your theory where is the possibility of anything
but chemicals? Where does the organization come from... If you put bottles of
chemicals on the table THEY WILL NEVER ORGANIZE TMEMSELVES -- YOU HAVE RO MIX
THEM. This in itself is sufficient to disprove your nonsense.

>Life is a product of a combination of chemicals, but it is not JUST a
>combination of chemicals. It is a combination of chemicals organized in a
>very specific way. That makes it different.

NONSENSE RASCAL... You can't just say it. You have to prove it. Make life by
combining chemicals... We see every day life coming from life. Life does come from
life you can't argue with that.

Your whole presentation is flawed because you are trying to  disprove the model
based on the soul. But that model is completely valid. Even if you succeed in
developing another model based on chemicals magically combining to cause life it
doesn't touch the soul model. You can't discredit a prefectly valid model by
developing another model...

>
>>Matter can not move
>>unless it is touched by spirit...
>
>The earth is moving. So it is also caused by spirit?
>I thought it was gravity .... :-).

Yes. MATTER CANNOT MOVE UNLESS IT IS TOUCHED BY SPIRIT. (BTW the earth may not be
moving. It depends on your model and science agrees with this. Either the earth or
the universe is moving. We can say there is relative movement, that's all.)

Matter doesn't move by itself. Even using gravity nothing moves by itself. Gravity
says things will keep moving in the same way once they start moving [which is
nonsense but that's another topic altogether!] But there has to be something to

start the movement in the beginning. Even if it's the big bang. Science says [and
can not say anything] nothing about the ultimate cause of the big bang. So even if
you can explain everything as coming from the big bang you have to accept that the
energy came from somewhere... And that is God.

>
>
>Btw, your long discussion about falsifiability seems to show that you
>don't understand the idea - and neither does the person you are having a
>discussion with.
>Saying that a theory is falsifiable does not mean there IS something wrong
>with the theory. It just means that the theory can be tested. There is a
>way to discern whether it is true or false. There is a certain phenomena,
>which, IF true, will DISPROVE the theory. This way, we can go and test the
>phenomena. If that phenomena does not occur, we can believe that the
>theory is correct.
>If a theory is falsifiable, we should be able to say something like:
>   "if A happened, the theory is wrong".
>This is NOT the same as saying that the theory IS wrong. But it gives
>something (A) that we can test. It gives a HYPOTHETICAL situation that, IF
>true, will disprove the theory. You have to give other people the chance
>to DISPROVE your theory. This is the essence of falsifiability.

Yes. It only works with things that are not known to be true. For example "water
is wet" can no be falsified so it is outside "science". But is is not a faulty
statement. It is absolutely true. Science can't deal with facts, only theories
that can be proved false. It is an accepted limitation of the scientific process.

>
>An example of a theory that is not falsifiable is your idea of soul.
>You said: "I know I am right and you can't prove I am not".
>Also you said: "What is beyond this universe is _COMPLETLY_ beyond our
>power to see".
>These are not falsifiable, since you don't show me how to test you idea.
>Which make your idea not scientific.

They are as unscientific as the statement "water is wet". But that doesn't make
water dry. You have spent all this time and energy to try and prove "water is
dry"... But you can't do that with science either!

• Prev: The Flat Earth? - Conclusion
• Next: A Fresh Look at the Cosmos
• Alpha: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Alphabetical Index
• Date: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Date Index