I don't see what the big deal is about the article. It talked about how a probe can be used on fish brains to detect basic thoughts like hunger, fear and a few others. We know what parts of the brain become active when we have these basic thoughts by looking at a CT scan. It's not saying that scientist are able to tell what someone is going to eat or what in particular they are afraid of or something more complex I don't think.
The issue is that neuroscientists are getting closer and closer to looking at thoughts. Right now, we can tell what people are thinking about, by watching neuron activity. And so far, no sign of any limit to how detailed that method can get.
The issue is that neuroscientists are getting closer and closer to looking at thoughts. Right now, we can tell what people are thinking about, by watching neuron activity. And so far, no sign of any limit to how detailed that method can get.
After this comment, its clear that you aren't interested in what Barbarian is saying. I want to know, what exactly are you wanting to talk about or get at with this thread? Mainly because the op is basically a deceleration that the soul is connected to the physical world. The article also says a lot of pretty language. There is nothing wrong with pretty language in itself, but in science discussion, pretty language is usually used to hide a lack of a logical connection and use pathos or emotion instead of evidence.
The article doesn't actually explain how we know a soul exists, but just states that one is there and scientists can't test for it. Also the article and outset of the piece starts talking about bionics and life and how to know if humans are bionic or alive. The problem is that even without a soul, humans wouldn't be bionic. Bionic means life like, as humans we are alive. We aren't life like, we are alive.
So I was wondering, What exactly are you wanting to discuss?
When we speak of the "soul" we need to first define our terms with some precision. We won't be able to agree or even understand if we are using one word for differing concepts. The word "nephesh" has a root meaning of "the throat" as may be seen in several passages in the Old Testament:
In Isaiah 5:14 the word nephesh is translated “appetite,” but it really means “throat” (see also Ps. 107:9, where “the thirsty” is literally “the dried-out throat” (nephesh). The throat is also the instrument of breathing (Jer. 15:9). The use of the word for the throat indicates that nephesh expresses the idea of life and desire, in this case for food and water.
The Bible does not teach that God made a body and put a soul into it like a letter into an envelope of dust.
God breathed the breath of life ---> Man became a nephesh.
Abram asked Sarai to say that she was his sister in order that “my life (literally, “my soul,”) will be spared” (Gen. 12:13).
The Hebrew way of saying “Let me live” (1 Kings 20:32) is “Let my soul live.”
The phrase “that my soul may bless you before I die” (Gen. 27:4, NKJV) simply means “that I may bless you.”
Consider:
“The laborer’s appetite [nephesh, desires, needs] works for him” (Prov. 16:26)
“Do not turn me over to the desire [literally, “Do not give me up to the nephesh (desire, greed)] of my foes” (Ps. 27:12)
The word "Soul" is a poor translation for what was understood by the word "nephesh". Disambiguation for the term may needed here because many different cultures have contributed to our current understanding or misunderstanding of the word. I can remember cartoons where the final judgment of the "soul" was was represented as a thing that looked a small cloth. This 'soul' was originally white but had been stained black (in part) by misdeeds. The thing either rose (to heaven) or sunk depending on a mystical balancing calculation.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.