Chabel Khan

Melbourne, Australia

Someone is shy

Edit profile

Chabel hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

F829f80882d42af95267934f5c74b4edcb1dfdb8 50x50
Chabel Khan
Posted almost 3 years ago
Is having science vs religion debates productive?
Budimir, I know you from another froum. Nice to see you around! I think the debate about religion is important. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are interesting examples when it comes to attacking religion for their erroneous portrayal of human origins. They believe if religious folk believe in an afterlife or a soul, it cheapens this life and makes humanity inherently filthy and needs to be "cleansed". We also need to go back to the basic principle that the person who makes assertion X needs to prove it. The religious people make the assertion X that god exists. Irreligious people say, "Prove it. Science, the disciplines that generate empirical evidence, has not given us a conclusive answer." It is true that the data is inherently agnostic, and most atheists agree, on a cosmic level: yes, some higher being may have created us. But, when it comes to the cultural incarnations of such, Vishnu, Allah, Ra, Zeus, of the Abrahamic god, it seems so self-evident these are fables passed down through nomads. Benevolent god? You could point to the pain and supposed 'evil'. There are many ways of attacking premises of a conception of god. So, certain conceptions, yes, we can thoroughly smother with criticism to the point it seems very unlikely like gremlins, ghosts etcetera. The "First Cause", no, science wont speculate on that. Most rational atheists wouldn't either.
F829f80882d42af95267934f5c74b4edcb1dfdb8 50x50
Chabel Khan
Posted almost 3 years ago
The theory of Dualism raises interesting questions about the existence of the Soul
My assumptions? We are made of energy and we are effectively all interconnected. This is fact. Prove me wrong. There is always doubt in any scientific thesis; you have no idea about the falsification principle in science it would seem. If you can prove to me an immaterial existence, I will believe in it. Prove to me a soul exists. Now, may I just add, you have not presented any such evidence. Your evidence is equivalent to say music is non-physical. You are talking about touch. Additionally, other variables are not accounted for in the study such as sun exposure from my reading. I do not see how this is evidence of a metaphysical existence, just an extension of what is already known about physical systems: nothing in that study was immaterial. Answer my questions. You have yet to do so. I have responded to all of yours. If you keep on this track, I will not waste my time with you. What does that even mean "impossible"? The fact it occurred shows the brain can formulate hallucinations of all different diversity. Please, show me an example of an 'impossible' hallucination. Gremlins can be imagined, just like a 'soul'. They are equally as substantiated by facts. Rude metaphor? I hardly think so. Your evidence is basically, "You cannot conclusively prove me wrong." No, I can't. I never said I could. What I said is that it is the equivalent of me going, "There is a teapot behind Mars. Prove me wrong." "Well Austin, there is no evidence to suggest such and your proof actually never demonstrates anything metaphysical or pertaining to being supernatural." Tell me Austin. I believe we are all possessed by demons. Prove me 'indubitably' wrong.
F829f80882d42af95267934f5c74b4edcb1dfdb8 50x50
Chabel Khan
Posted almost 3 years ago
The theory of Dualism raises interesting questions about the existence of the Soul
Hey Austin! Cheers for the links. I do not see how this proves or gives any merit to a soul, some metaphysical thing. Energy interacts in marvellous ways; you are electrical at your core. Surely, when you are overcome by fear or love this can impact things in your surroundings which are also electrical. We emanate energy; we are energy. Touch is also very important; I believe their have been studies where newborn babies are deprived of touch and how this is detrimental to them. Additionally, think of the intimacy and beneficial results music have on the body! Music is vibrations in the ear of the tiny follicles and then translated by the brain. It is very intimate and can be negative and beneficial; it is, however, not an example of a non-physical entity or force. Touch is very much physical, words are physical and intimate. Energy is physical. Massage is great as it relieves pressure in the body, but is so sensual, so physical. For me you just showed how the closely knit connections between energy and how intimate it is. I have no qualms with the idea energy my have some form of memory or is malleable by other energy, but it is all a physical system. The interaction was physical in my opinion and the 'results' were physical. Some call massage and music spiritual because of the sheer intimacy of the experience, but I call that heightened physicality. Many other variables in those studies need accounting. Simple things such as sun exposure. Out-of-body experiences can be induced in healthy people: http://www.physorg.com/news107099946.html It is a sensory illusion. And if someone is 'allegedly dead', they were not dead. They probably had an oxygen deprived brain and some very weird misfiring in the brain. Are hallucinations an example of a soul? What about hallucinations of a paranoid schizophrenic? How do explain them? I would call your explanation as feasible as the tea pot behind Mars controlling the universe.
F829f80882d42af95267934f5c74b4edcb1dfdb8 50x50
Chabel Khan
Posted about 3 years ago
The theory of Dualism raises interesting questions about the existence of the Soul
@Austin: I am sorry if I was too presumptuous, but all my questions are relevant questions to be asked of anyone holding the position in a transcendental essence. And do we really maintain a constancy in our identity? Are you the same person that you were five seconds ago? Would you not have had more experience, aged and even grown closer to death? Their may be some seemingly static features, but they are constant evolving to the environment they are in. This is how we survive. Although, if you are going to argue for this possibility (which I would liken to arguing the existence of a teapot on the other side of Mars...), you need to give some solid reasoning, corroboration or a model that internally consistent with our scientific understanding. You have not. I have made copious references to neurological findings. Where is your evidence? How do you solve the simultaneous interaction between "mind" and "body" if they are separate paradigms and yet entangled? And if so, by what? What is the metaphorical 'glue'? You have no addressed these questions. Please do.
F829f80882d42af95267934f5c74b4edcb1dfdb8 50x50
Chabel Khan
Posted about 3 years ago
The theory of Dualism raises interesting questions about the existence of the Soul
@ Austin: Why would I add an unnecessary paradigm when the fact I can alter/damage a physical component and what we abstractly called "mind" or "consciousness" is affected? You are saying consciousness is entangled with the physical, but not the physical. Tell me, how do you get the "consciousness" and "brain" to glue together, so to speak, so that they function simultaneously? We should also add a second unnecessary paradigm to this! Now, show me an immaterial mind. No point working off of that premise if it is false. Prove the existence of a soul, a "ghost in the machine", gremlins in my noggin' et cetera. And, while you are at it, explain how these two essences, or as I referred to them before as 'paradigms', function together. Where is the 'glue"? It is quite easy to prove we use the construct "I" to describe our whole physical constituency (or if you want to add a superfluous paradigm). Do you use the word "I" to talk about your arm or your foot? I think you use it in a holistic manner. This construct is an abstract manifestation of consciousness which I believe to be wholly physical; it emerged as we became complicated, self-aware and articulate beings to direct our multi-cellular bodies: identity. I think identity is an evolutionary illusion, an efficient one. And Daniel has completely ignored my view: I said it the 'mind' (a description or symbolic, abstract construct) emerged from constituents; I am saying it is a complicated neuronal electrochemical physical interaction and not that our thoughts reside in some smaller part of, say, a neuron. Our thoughts exist on the plane of current neuronal complexity. I do think research in neuroscience/neurobiology will further demystify the brain. And the "thing" calling myself "I" is the physical entity; it is called metacognition. May I ask what thing calls your "soul" a soul and what thing calls your soul's soul a soul... We could keep going with this. I, my physicality, believes abstract thought = brain.
F829f80882d42af95267934f5c74b4edcb1dfdb8 50x50
Chabel Khan
Posted about 3 years ago
How Can We Make TED Attractive To Children?
Not Dan, but I am seventeen. I find the talks accessible, but, to be fair, I spend most of my time learning new things and reading books most people my age wouldn't! Also deeply interested in society and philosophy and therefore have a propensity to spend my time learning as a hobby and not see it as a laborious chore that some of my peers do. If they have an insatiable thirst for knowledge, and a reasonable background, they should enjoy the talks.
F829f80882d42af95267934f5c74b4edcb1dfdb8 50x50
Chabel Khan
Posted about 3 years ago
The theory of Dualism raises interesting questions about the existence of the Soul
Stand still while I perform a full-frontal lobotomy on you. Lets see what you have to say then! Okay, the jesting aside - how do you prove this? Yes, it is true other parts of the anatomy have nervous systems (I believe out intestinal region does and there is also suggestion of one in the heart; if I am wrong, could someone correct me?), and it is also true our spine can make decisions or spinal reflexes by the way of interneurons. But, the brain is what is proven to be central to your personality, analytical skills, language, imagination.. and all the things you tell me are not attributable to the brain. You are running with superstition like an esoteric mystic. You are effectively arguing that there is no communication from brain to nerves. This is just simply false. How do you move your appendages?