Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: PiMac who wrote (33459)	3/29/1999 1:21:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) of 108807

>Upon what gene lies the soul, the reason, the love? Where the greed, the power lust, the sociopathic? < We might operate from different premises here. My initial answer is that there can be no gene for the soul because soul is a chimera, a construct of the priests. I have seen no evidence for anything within me or my fellow sentients {broader term deliberately chosen) that has power of existence beyond the tangle of white meat in our skulls. If you can show me that the soul is made of sterner stuff than mere attitude - I'll consider your thesis. I posit that I AM my body. Change my body, and you change me. Anyone who has taken a proper dose of one of the top-shelf psychedelics or has had a close friend suffer a full-blown psychotic delirium has reason to doubt the continuity or permanence of a soul. Spirit IS meat. (I am sure that I am running afoul of the followers of Jesus with my ideas. A number of them follow this thread with great attention. It is bound to be one of their Guilty Pleasures, eliciting giddy terror not unlike that felt by Mormon freshmen with theirr first purloined XXX cassette.) Furthermore I think that this most common invocation of the danger of genomancy (what of our souls?) is a big red herring. It's about our bodies, our minds and our memories - but soul? This is inverted vitalism. It introduces an inappropriate appeal into the bioLuddites' moral argument against what is coming. We need to argue the ethics of genomancy from applicable premises, something concrete - not from a perhaps deliberate obfuscation by invoking dusty but dearly-held fossils of our animal prehistory. By this I mean those who try to argue science with religion - and those who try to argue religion with science. Both are imho dead-end courses.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next