Is the mind the same as the brain, or do we have souls?

Nobody is negating the idea of self is useful....it exists thus it must have purpose. What we are doing here is diving deep into its structure and opiniating about its emergent characteristhics and the state of flux on which the very experiencing of self rests. I don't honestly see what is confusing about it. It is common sense you and I are not the same persons we were 20 years ago...if all that you mean by a "self" is that experiencing requires a unified process that explains very little upon what being one self entails. Even ppl with strong amnesia never stopped believing their selfs were lost...that ought to gives some thought on the matter.

May your program file remain intact and error free until that day you are again reloaded and executed on new hardware.

The difference is probably not meaningful or significant, but I prefer Paul's description - program execution suspended in sleep mode. But yeah, all programs will be put in run mode again and results analyzed.

Of course 'I the atheist' faults the concept, since that atheism partially resides in the historical perniciousness of religious concepts which ascribe to 'an afterlife'. There is a fine line between opiates as a palliative, and opiates which kill.

Why would one allow something pernicious and having no legitimate basis to play a part in one's POV about God's existence?

That's like allowing alien UFO 'enthusiasts' to affect my POV on the possibility of alien life existing. It's just not a factor.

I cited two here.

That's not my version of what's happening here among the self-doubters. I see all this "soul searching" as posturing. It's about what Fresco calls social dancing: trying to look cool, deep and controversial.


It's also common sense that people never REALLY change, that the very concept of change implies some permanence, that plus ça change plus c'est la même chose, or that "everything needs to change so that everything can stay the same". (Il Gatopardo by Lampedusa). The relationship between permanence and change are complex, the two are intertwined and sometimes mutually supportive. Just because things seem to change constantly doesn't mean they don't stay the same at a more fundamental level. It's more subtle than that.

People can lie, fresco, and your worldview cannot account for that.

I read those. Please explain how they apply.

No Fresco...concepts are for the most part place holders for whatever the subjective selfs find worth investing in...a Religion per se doesn't kill...cultural clashes and tribalism do !
I know you know I am dead right on this...so lets leave it there.

My historical posting on A2K is proof enough I don't give a **** about social status quo, symbolism, and conventional agreement....for better and for worse I provide an anedoctal first hand analisis on the matters at hand, sometimes against great odds and against social establishment..I have a personnal distaste for fashion, for coolness, and being the king of the hill...
I serve to the best of my limited abilitty, honest straight forward clear Reasoning. I really WANT TO LEARN not impress A or B about whatever they might think about me. More I am autistic to that sort of "impressionism", it is completely beneath any worth, spending my limited time on Earth on delusions about status quo...no fools gold in "my house"...

...I was 16 when I first helped an older friend working on his Psychology master degree, I did a lot of work for others just because at the time it was a challenge, time went on and I had the grades to get a PHD if I wanted one...and guess what, I ditch it all after understanding the system and how you climb the social tree...I am bound to be a natural rebeld and dont regret it for a minute...

My POV on 'existence' is that the word refers to a functional relationship between 'observer' and 'its world'. Thus 'God exists for believers since having a God concept informs/directs their praxis of living...i.e. it is functional for them. But the concept has no function for me, and is even dysfunctional when actions of some believers interfere with my praxis of living ( a thought I often have whenever I go through the tedious security procedure at airports).

As outlined numerous times on A2K, this view rejects a 'naive realistic' view of 'existence' in which 'things exist' independently of the requirements of conceptualizers/observers. All things require a thinger ! Many 'things' are functional for all of humanity. 'God' certainly is not one of them.

Its more complex then that Fresco, because imbeved in your view you assume "observers" as active contructing elements of the "world"... you assume free will, while I don't...a matter of nuance. A computing machine although more complex is as "active" as a rock...the world is indeed intertwined with "experiencing" but I am way more carefull with the loaded language bagage an "observer" entails in common sense...I have a very poor idea on what or where an "observer" is...

....as for Truth, experiencing is undeniable...all is True...we just don't quite know where things fit exactly...

As I sit here eating lunch, this thread brings one question to mind -
Is it possible for a naval gazer to enjoy a chicken sandwich and a coke?

OMG, this thing is so good! It wonders if it's existence is real, is it just imagining this orgasmic taste or is it just an experience of expectation?

No Fil, as you well know, religion rationalizes tribalism, and tribalism can lead to genocide (etc ). BUT religions which subscribe to an 'afterlife' can uniquely produce 'suicide bombers' intent on hastening their own passage into it and those of their victims. Given current events we would be fools not to acknowledge that.

Given that some 'navel gazers' tend to be vegetarian and anti-caffeine, you may have a point, but not an ontological one !

They apply because they refer to the word nephesh as the breath, ghost or life itself that can be given up and left in the netherworld.

"Terrorists" are westerners, young, unemployed, without a moral education, because family works 12-14 hours a day and cinic about the future...no it is not the seventy virgins and the after life that is the problem...the "terrorism" meme finds echo in a society that is destroying itself while in a big party booze...
You guys fault Religion but one could as well fault football...if you think purging Religions will make the world more rational you are seriously deluded.

Ditto Fil.

The ignorance about what causes people to give up their lives for any number of things (including ISIS) is why governments will never have the ability to address it, let alone eliminate it. If you think there is nothing in common between the 30,000+ Americans who kill themselves every year and what motivates people to join ISIS, etc. you just don't get it.

Rubbish! Show me a maliciously suicidal football hooligan, or a jihadi who does not think he has a superior 'moral code' and I'll accept that point. There is a great deal of PC pussyfooting about the refusal to specifically cite 'afterlife' mythology as a predisposing factor in devaluing 'this life'.
Of course 'purging' religion is impossible. Its the price many humans pay for their cognitive abilities, their apprehension about their 'fate', and their conformity to socially transmitted cognitive palliatives. Hence we have the irony of religious services for the victims of 'other lifers' assuring the mourners of the very 'afterlife' which has directly precipitated their loss. But who is going to play the role of the innocent child who laughs at the 'Emperor's new clothes'...certainly nobody who has invested in an outfit from the same tailor !

Football hooligans have killed people.