Pop Philosophy

[camus-cat-cigarette]

Happy BIrthday to Incomparable ALBERT CAMUS •~ 7. November 1913 --- with Gratitude & Love.

[philosophybits]

“The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular.”

— Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

[philosophy-pop]

Pop Philosophy: one post everyday, open to discussion

[philosophy-pop]

Pop Philosophy: one post everyday, open to discussion

[gattungs-wesen]

Choose your team

[philosophy-pop]

Pop Philosophy: one post everyday, open to discussion

[vivienvalentino]

[philosophy-pop]

Pop Philosophy: one post everyday, open to discussion

[philosophy-pop]

Pop Philosophy: one post everyday, open to discussion

[bandit1a]

Not entirely; there are various spaces for dissent and debate, depending on where you live and how you integrate into the local socio/economic environment

[philosophy-pop]

Couldn’t there be part of that presented world? The parts that we question may be the specific ones that the “presented world” allows us to.

[browsedankmemes]

[growingupdifferently-blog]

Every human is a discoverer

Every human will once in his life investigate something that is completely unknown to his other living human fellows - he will investigate what happens after his own death and he will do so all on his own. Don’t underestimate the courage of being human.

[philosophy-pop]

Pop Philosophy: one post everyday, open to discussion

[philosophy-pop]

Hello, people.

So, I'm taking requests, about any philosophical quote, idea or theory, from any movie, series, or music video.

I'm lacking both inspiration and memory.

May the Gods be with you all!

[philosophy-pop]

Pop Philosophy: one post everyday, open to discussion

[philosophy-pop]

Pop Philosophy: one post everyday, open to discussion

[growingupdifferently-blog]

1. Has science disproven the immortal soul?

The typical argument against the soul is that we believe it evolved like all our other capabilities. As an environmental scientist I have no problem with an “eating robot” like a first cell developing by random processes.

The problem is that a mind is fundamentally different from every property, substance or energy of the universe we know. Using physical evolution as a proof for the evolution of a mind is proof by analogy and not science.

What does proof by analogy mean? For example: If you use measurements of the temperature of chemical fire on earth to estimate the temperature of the sun (nuclear fusion) you will make an error of several million centigrades. And it does not help that the sun looks a lot like fire.

A further argument is that mind developed because it is needed for better survival. That is a non sequitur and I am hence skeptical. Moving at the speed of light would give survival advantages too, but I don’t expect it to evolve any time soon. This argument only tells you why it could evolve, if it did evolve - not that it evolved.

The third argument is that it is proven that brain and soul are identical because if certain parts of the brain are hurt the soul changes in relative predictable way.

This is tricky. There are two ways in science to proof something. One is empiric proof only and the second is empiric proof and having a working testable model that explains how said proof comes about.

The first proof is regarded low as pure empiric evidence has often proven to lead to wrong conclusions. For example two things can happen at the same time and bear no connections or be connected in a way that the scientist didn’t foresee.

The idea that the brain is the soul is exactly that - a purely empiric consideration. A model of how the activity of the brain really becomes thought does not exist.

If you do not describe that process, I can not disprove it, and if it can’t be disproved than it probably ceased to be real science.

In a later post I will explain how immortal souls could exist EVEN if god(s) do not exist.

[philosophy-pop]

Pop Philosophy: one post everyday, open to discussion