It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Again, you are misusing the word intuition, and ignorance. The earth to them stood still not because of logic, which is a violent stretch of the imagination, and I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but because the earth does not seem to move.
There are no natural objects and processes called 'relationships' with definable structures and functions.
I'm not sure structuralism is taken seriously nowadays.
You mean the relationship between an orbiting body and its primary is not definable? That the structure of a crystal lattice doesn't exist until someone defines it? And that the function of the bile duct is not naturally defined in the structure and function of the liver?
How would you know it is wrong often if you do not use it
I have always found it to be correct
Perhaps you do not like the idea that such a thing can not be explained by science
Perhaps you are thinking intuition is guess work
Perhaps you just want to argue
The reason I have persuade this is
because you sought to undermine 3NL1GHT3N3D1,s idea
of the existence of the soul
with false examples of what intuition is
Many scientific ideas that are generally accepted by people today were formerly considered to be contrary to intuition and common sense.
For example, most everyday experience suggests that the Earth is flat; actually, this view turns out to be a remarkably good approximation to the true state of affairs, which is that the Earth is a very big (relative to the day-to-day scale familiar to humans) oblate spheroid. Furthermore, prior to the Copernican revolution, heliocentrism, the belief that the Earth goes around the Sun, rather than vice versa, was considered to be contrary to common sense.
Another counterintuitive scientific idea concerns space travel: it was initially believed that highly streamlined shapes would be best for re-entering the earth's atmosphere. In fact, experiments proved that blunt-shaped re-entry bodies make the most efficient heat shields when returning to earth from space. Blunt-shaped re-entry vehicles have been used for all manned-spaceflights, including the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle missions.
The Michelson-Morley experiment sought to measure the velocity of the Earth through the aether as it revolved around the Sun. The result was that it has no aether velocity at all. Relativity theory later explained the results, replacing the conventional notions of aether and separate space, time, mass, and energy with a counterintuitive four-dimensional non-Euclidean universe.
The abstract is where the soul comes into play. If intuition is "nothing" then how does it have a word attached to it? Even nothing is something, even if just as an abstract idea.
Do you deny the abstract? If not then you should see what I mean by the soul. If don't see what I mean, you are being willfully ignorant to it in the fear of somehow believing in "dogma" and nothing I say will change your mind.
There is no dogma in my beliefs I assure you, you assume about things you do not understand.
You have yet to say whether you deny the abstract or not. If you believe in abstract concepts and the abstract in general then I see no reason why you have an issue with believing in the abstract soul, where all abstract ideas originate from.
Thoughts are abstract, ideas are abstract, memories are abstract, intellect is abstract, emotions are abstract, just as the source of those things are abstract.
Do I need to look up the definition of abstract for you? It's the opposite of concrete, thus having no place in the physical world. If it is not physical then it has to do with the spiritual. You are completely against anything spiritual because you assume spirituality always has to do with dogma and brainwashing, you couldn't be any further from the truth.
adjective |abˈstrakt, ˈabˌstrakt|
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence: abstract concepts such as love or beauty.
• dealing with ideas rather than events: the novel was too abstract and esoteric to sustain much attention.
• not based on a particular instance; theoretical: we have been discussing the problem in a very abstract manner.
• (of a word, especially a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object: abstract words like truth or equality.
• of or relating to abstract art: abstract pictures that look like commercial color charts.
You seem to share the same exact ideas and thoughts about souls, consciousness, and the like, as another rather active member here. It's uncanny. Most here have not picked up on who you are...
But I'd wager you are one in the same.
originally posted by: Aphorism
I've written thoroughly on the topic of minds, souls and consciousnesses, probably before anyone else here has.
You obviously have a different understanding of intuition than I ...
For the sake of clarity I will explain what I mean by Intuition
Intuition is for I inner tuition
A knowing of things beyond the realms of the sciences
Intuition in my understand is not something which one applies like say logic... Intuition occurs
No one can conclusively prove to another the soul exists or that is does not exist
It is a question that will never go away
If you only believe what sciences prove to be so ... then so be it
Yet science has yet to answer the fundamental question of the source of thought and also the source/cause for the Universe coming into existence.
Both these questions are linked and I personally believe that Higher Intelligence is the key
Perhaps one may not prove there is no soul, but one can easily prove the soul hypothesis is an awful hypothesis. For one, there is nothing left for the soul to do. Everything we've once attributed to the soul can be explained by biology.
The most damning evidence against the hypothesis is how a non-material soul, with no location in space or time, interact with a particular physical body. If it has no location is space or time, how can one soul differ from another? How can it animate anything given that it is without mass, location or energy?
If it can animate the body, it must create energy out of nothing, violating a very well-established physical law. Every physical event has a physical cause wherever we've looked.