Question to Atheists?

Question

How do you reconcile subjective experience (for example seeing the color red) with the reality of 'red' only being neuronal impulses of electricity across one's brain? Have you ever considered that it might be necessary for a soul to translate these impulses of electricity (and no, your brain does not do it; it's just that matter, equations, in short: materialism.)?

Please try to understand what I'm saying, and respond only to this assertion. Thank You.

When I say that a soul exists - I'm purposefully very vague - what I mean is there is a disconnect between what we could possibly understand about the brain - it could, according to you, be explained strictly in terms of atom a colliding into atom b. And let's say I had God-like knowledge of these actions. Yet I would never know what the color red would look like from this information alone - it is something in short that materialism can't explain.

ZC, think about what you said - red is a wavelength... just that! A wavelength! Just 1.35 nanometers or whatever it is. How do you get red out of that. Yes, it hits the eye. Yes it activates the image center of the brain. Where is red? Where does the experience come from, electrical currents?

@ rhsanders, yes, i have no idea of whether a human being or not did write that statement. But don't we have proof that personal experience does exist? We can argue if computers can possess this quality, but we know for a fact that humans do. Don't we?

A few things: I never said that animals didn't have 'souls'. Conversely, I also never said that it was impossible for something to react to outside stimuli (for example the color red) without having a 'soul'. I am saying, however, that according to the current view held by Atheists, materialism (the belief that everything can be explained in terms of material objects), the --- subjective experience --- of the color red is impossible. Re-read the paragraph until you get what i'm saying. Thank you.

I did define 'soul'. See my first edit.

lets say your brain sees red and asigns it a number, ok. Then it sees yellow and assigns it a number. ok. what our conciousness takes those numbers as has nothing to do with soul.
Its pure physical. My computer can differenciate between red and yellow does that mean it has a soul too? Lastly, the colors being nothing more than different wavelength of light DO register to the eye different from one another. You eye reacts different to each one of them.
Ever heard of a person injuring their eye and becoming color blind? Does that mean they have killed a part of their soul by playing darts?

Well let's assume that your brain differentiated between the stimuli red and yellow. Why must this differentiation be accompanied by the experience of red and yellow? And more strangely, why the specific qualities of red and yellow? (Their red and yellow-ness?) If I was an animal that only saw two colors... let's say... red and yellow, imagine if they switched... next edit

There would be a difference... the subjective experiences of red and yellow have just been switched... but looking at it from a material point of view, there is no difference whatsoever. Every quark could be in the same location, yet there is a difference. Does this not suggest that materialism can't explain all of the facts that are present, and 'something else' (I should have never said soul) exists?

Answer 1

We see the color red because whatever object we are looking at is absorbing every other color of light except red, which it is reflecting.

Other than that, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Being an atheist doesn't mean I respond well to gibberish. Oh, and I don't accept the concept of "souls," just in case you're wondering.

Answer 2

I agree with Frenzy...uh..what? And as a matter of fact, no I do not think that you need a soul to do that, that is what you're brain is there to do, a flower doesn't have a soul (according to most Christians, though I think it still has a life force, which is what I consider a spirit) but it opens during the day and closes at night, so does that mean (to you) that plants have a soul? Or a bull, (stereotypically) when it sees red it goes ballistic, (though not really, just proving a point.) If animals and plants do not have souls, then why is it that these living organisms can react to different colors, (or light in the case of the plant)?
-EDIT- Also, does that mean color blind people or blind from birth people do not have a soul? It's all in the eye, rods, cones, and retinas and what not...look in a Biology book if you want more details.

Answer 3

lets say your brain sees red and asigns it a number, ok. Then it sees yellow and assigns it a number. ok. what our conciousness takes those numbers as has nothing to do with soul.
Its pure physical. My computer can differenciate between red and yellow does that mean it has a soul too? Lastly, the colors being nothing more than different wavelength of light DO register to the eye different from one another. You eye reacts different to each one of them.
Ever heard of a person injuring their eye and becoming color blind? Does that mean they have killed a part of their soul by playing darts?

Think about it.

Answer 4

Better to know that every other color was absorbed and that red bounced off, giving the proper imaging of a specific color, in all of the spectrum of possible colors, than to assume that color-blindness isn't a disease, it is a chemical imbalance of color recognition in the memory part of the brain (the cerebral cortex).

Unless you really wanted the light that bounced off to change color, in which case you would shine a different color of light upon the "red" object, initially making it purple, orange or pink.

The soul was the common explanation for life. This isn't the truth anymore, the truth now is electrical impulses, blood, oxygen, water, vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell, memory, motor function.

Answer 5

Please define EXACTLY what the "soul" is, or this question can not be answered properly.

The "soul" was used as an explanation for the life force that more primitive mankind did not know how to explain. We now understand that the so-called "soul" is actually the bio-electric forces within the human body. The "soul" also was an attempt to explain why mankind talked, and we know that now too. Natural or supernatural, the fact that we are here is a miracle, and I think its more of a miracle if its natural.

Answer 6

I see your point, but there is nothing to it. A computer program, examining a scanned image, can do exactly the same thing, and doesn't require any sort of a "soul" to do so. A gedankenexperiment: I will claim that the words you are now reading were written by a human being. How can you know that this isn't a fabrication, and that they actually came from a well-programmed computer? You can't.

Answer 7

Red is any of a number of similar colors evoked by light consisting predominantly of the longest wavelengths of light discernible by the human eye, in the wavelength range of roughly 625–750 nm.

So no, red isn't "just neuronal impulses".

And no, the imaginary concept of "soul" isn't necessary. The brain DOES do it.

Answer 8

There is no such thing as a "soul" that translates impulses of electricity. Your brain does that. Colors are subjective. Ever hear of color blindness?

atheist

Answer 9

I don't get your question. I'm sorry.

But you do realize that some atheists believe in souls, don't you? A belief in souls does not require a belief in gods.

And I don't know if this relates to your question, but red is not recognized the same way by each person. Some people see it as the same as green, or brown.

Answer 10

The attached link explains about the perception of colour. There is not a single reference to the soul.

According to Christian beliefs (to the best of my knowledge) only human beings have souls. All primates can detect colour, as can many insects. If they can detect colours without souls, why would humans need souls to detect colour?