Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Darth Wong · Post by **Darth Wong** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:33 pm

SamG wrote:Well, strictly speaking, you probably can. In philosophy of the mind and in discussion of the mind-body problem, use of the word "soul" doesn't have to directly engage the question of an afterlife or religious views about it. Philosophers can affirm or deny the existence of the soul (whether human or non-human) within these narrow confines, something along the lines of Dictionary.com's first definition, where an afterlife plays no direct part in the discussion.

Actually, Dictionary.com's first definition as quoted earlier explicitly says that it is distinct from the physical body, which does forcibly engage the question of life beyond the death of the physical body.

god0fgod · Post by **god0fgod** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:53 pm

Not necessarily. That's like saying our clothes enter the afterlife because they aren't part of the body.

Darth Wong · Post by **Darth Wong** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:36 pm

Umm, dude, actually your clothes will continue to exist after your death, unless you leave specific instructions in your will to have all of your clothes destroyed.

SamG · Post by **SamG** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:53 pm

I didn't say the question doesn't naturally arise. I said that philosophers can and have discussed philosophy of the mind and the mind-body problem, have used the term "soul" in that context, and have done so entirely on topic. The question of an afterlife isn't, or doesn't have to be engaged to discuss the soul.

Darth Wong · Post by **Darth Wong** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:57 pm

Yes, but when philosophers discuss the "mind-body problem" as you put it, they either believe in an afterlife or they conclude that there is no such thing as a "soul".

SamG · Post by **SamG** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:01 pm

I didn't put the mind-body problem as anything. The term is part of the literature, not my invention. What philosopher believe about an afterlife isn't part of that particular problem. The problem exists or it doesn't exist. Soul fits into that disussion.

god0fgod · Post by **god0fgod** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:48 pm

Darth Wong wrote:Umm, dude, actually your clothes will continue to exist after your death, unless you leave specific instructions in your will to have all of your clothes destroyed.

That isn't what I meant. "That's like saying our clothes enter the afterlife". Don't worry if you do not understand.

I better sort of this grammar issue.

Darth Wong · Post by **Darth Wong** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:02 pm

SamG wrote:I didn't put the mind-body problem as anything. The term is part of the literature, not my invention. What philosopher believe about an afterlife isn't part of that particular problem. The problem exists or it doesn't exist. Soul fits into that disussion.

Yes, and what I'm saying is that the term "soul" doesn't really mean anything outside the context of people who believe in an afterlife, apart from its loosest use (as in "soul food", or "soulful music").

Darth Wong · Post by **Darth Wong** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:04 pm

god0fgod wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Umm, dude, actually your clothes will continue to exist after your death, unless you leave specific instructions in your will to have all of your clothes destroyed.
That isn't what I meant. "That's like saying our clothes enter the afterlife". Don't worry if you do not understand.

I better sort of this grammar issue.

No, I understand. However, you don't understand that your own statement contains some built-in assumptions which are not necessary. If your clothes survive after your death, then they do enter your afterlife. The problem is that you are assuming the afterlife to be some kind of mystical religious plane of existence, instead of merely being whatever exists after your life ends.

Returning to the point, there is no intelligible reason to declare that humans have something called a "soul" while animals do not.

OlympusPK · Post by **OlympusPK** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:33 pm

I definitely think it'd be possible.

html-n-beyond · Post by **html-n-beyond** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:17 am

I love how EXreaction thinks that being opposed to "playing God" is "BS"...just remember "be careful what you wish/hope for..."

EDIT: I also love how this thread developed into a debate about religion and the belief (or lack thereof) of an afterlife and "soul"...but I guess I shouldn't be "shocked" because whenever DNA testing comes up in a debate it leads to the Evolutionism vs. Creationism/Science vs. God debate...

god0fgod · Post by **god0fgod** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:12 pm

No it was because I used the word "soul" and people couldn't except my meaning for it.

Post by **KevC** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:10 pm

OlympusPK wrote:I definitely think it'd be possible.

It won't.
You can't get bits of other species DNA and add them in to make the one you want.

Darth Wong · Post by **Darth Wong** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:36 pm

god0fgod wrote:No it was because I used the word "soul" and people couldn't except my meaning for it.

I'd still like to hear your justification for your claim that only humans have one, while animals do not. You've been consistently ducking that question, and it applies regardless of which definition of "soul" you're using.

god0fgod · Post by **god0fgod** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:36 pm

What? I never said anything about other animals not having souls.

advertisements