Do you believe there is a soul?

[DaveC426913]

Simple question. Use your own definition. Simple answer.

cross ref this thread (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1788790&postcount=2)

[vincentm]

No, It's more of a psychological manifestation. No evidence to suggest "souls" exist.

[waht]

I don't believe in a soul. It's just an abstract concept conjured up by people trying to explain things.

It's interesting to note that "soul" dates back to ancient Egypt, and possibly Sumeria. The concept had spread all over the world. It's a meme.

[arildno]

According to my own definition of the soul, sure. :smile:

[TheStatutoryApe]

I generally equate mind and soul so to some degree yes.

[LowlyPion]

Of course there is a soul at least to the extent that each individual might place limitations in their interpretation.

Are there immortal souls or reincarnated souls or some other place for souls in the universe besides the confines of the planet - that becomes a matter of individual religious belief.

Are there self aware life essences that incorporate the more classical descriptive aspects of the soul like emotions, and urges and feelings mapped onto unique life experiences, then surely there are.

Perhaps the poll should more incisively ask are there immortal souls?

[jimmysnyder]

I voted yes. I define the soul as a living being minus its physical body. Without a soul, the body lies dead.

[DaveC426913]

I will leave definition of the soul to the post/poster that inspired this thread, which I referenced in post 1.

But even with the most liberal definition possible (i.e. make up your own), the results aren't looking good for coberst's postulate.

[DaveC426913]

I voted yes. I define the soul as a living being minus its physical body. Without a soul, the body lies dead.
So, insects have souls?

[Cyrus]

I will leave definition of the soul to the post/poster that inspired this thread, which I referenced in post 1.

But even with the most liberal definition possible (i.e. make up your own), the results aren't looking good for coberst's postulate.

I said no. There is simply no such thing. Its just a metaphor for consciousness.

[humanino]

Well, there is soul music for sure :tongue2: But since it could not be qualified "unique", so there would not be a soul.

[jimmysnyder]

So, insects have souls?
Yes. Compare a living insect the instant before death to that same insect the instant after death. Subtract the identical body from both. The difference is the soul.

[Cyrus]

Yes. Compare a living insect the instant before death to that same insect the instant after death. Subtract the identical body from both. The difference is the soul.

What do we do with the remainder though?

[arildno]

Yes. Compare a living insect the instant before death to that same insect the instant after death. Subtract the identical body from both. The difference is the soul.

So, if I understand you correctly:
Since it is quite common at the moment of expiry that the body loses control of secretive functions (just ask hospital personell!), excrements are parts of our soul???

[jimmysnyder]

What do we do with the remainder though?
I mean take the difference between the living (minus the body) and the dead (minus the identical body) insect.

[jimmysnyder]

So, if I understand you correctly:
Since it is quite common at the moment of expiry that the body loses control of secretive functions (just ask hospital personell!), excrements are parts of our soul???
Are you saying that it is part of your body? Anyway, the instant I had in mind is a bit more instantaneous than the one you are talking about.

[Cyrus]

I mean take the difference between the living (minus the body) and the dead (minus the identical body) insect.

Ah, yes. I was thinking of division of mind and body............wonk wonk wonkkkkk.

[arildno]

Are you saying that it is part of your body? .

Who else does the contents of the urethra and intestines belong to, then?

[DaveC426913]

I mean take the difference between the living (minus the body) and the dead (minus the identical body) insect.And it is made out of what? How much does it weigh? With what instrument can I observe it?

[Cyrus]

And it is made out of what? How much does it weigh? With what instrument can I observe it?

An L ron hubbard E-meter, obviously.

[arildno]

And it is made out of what? How much does it weigh?

28 grams, I think Victorian "scientists" established.

[humanino]

More seriously than my previous post, I found the following linked video quite interesting :
Jill Bolte Taylor: My stroke of insight (TED) (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html)

[jimmysnyder]

And it is made out of what? How much does it weigh? With what instrument can I observe it?
Do you believe in flame?

[rewebster]

I like the Blues Brothers version

[DaveC426913]

Do you believe in flame?Yes. I can weigh it, and observe it.

[jimmysnyder]

Yes. I can weigh it, and observe it.
You can observe the difference between a living being and a dead one too.

[Cyrus]

You can observe the difference between a living being and a dead one too.

But that does not give any insight into a soul. I could say its the lack of oxygen in the blood.

[DaveC426913]

You can observe the difference between a living being and a dead one too.Would you isolate and define that difference for me in terms more concrete than the absence of something else?

If I have a living thing, and it dies in my hands, and I throw away its lifeless body I am holding what's left. What am I (figuratively of course) holding in my hands?

[jimmysnyder]

But that does not give any insight into a soul. I could say its the lack of oxygen in the blood.
I wasn't asked to give any insight into a soul other than define it. Derive as much insight as you can. If you define the soul as the presence of oxygen in the blood, then do you believe in a soul?

[DaveC426913]

I wasn't asked to give any insight into a soul other than define it.But you haven't defined it.

[DaveC426913]

I wasn't asked to give any insight into a soul other than define it.But you haven't defined it.

See: "in terms more concrete than the absence of something else"

[jimmysnyder]

If I have a living thing, and it dies in my hands, and I throw away its lifeless body I am holding what's left. What am I (figuratively of course) holding in my hands?
You got it backwards. There is no way to get rid of the lifeless body, all you can do is move the mess. It is the soul that is thrown away.

[Cyrus]

I wasn't asked to give any insight into a soul other than define it. Derive as much insight as you can. If you define the soul as the presence of oxygen in the blood, then do you believe in a soul?

No, you misunderstood what I said. I mean lack of oxygen in the blood is the difference between someone alive or dead. Nothing to do with the concept of a soul.

[jimmysnyder]

No, you misunderstood what I said. I mean lack of oxygen in the blood is the difference between someone alive or dead. Nothing to do with the concept of a soul.
So plants are not alive?

[DaveC426913]

You got it backwards. There is no way to get rid of the lifeless body, all you can do is move the mess. It is the soul that is thrown away.
Hang on a sec. I moved the mess (which is the living creature sans its soul), what is left behind?

You can't sidestep the question. If it exists as more than a concept, then I can measure it. Tell me how I can measure it.



As a wise man on another forum likes to say: I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

[Evo]

I ain't got no rhythm, I ain't got no soul.

[jimmysnyder]

I mean lack of oxygen in the blood is the difference between someone alive or dead.
But there is no difference in the amount of oxygen in the blood at the instant after death than there was at the instant before.

[Cyrus]

So plants are not alive?

Well, not in the same sense that animals are. I dont think the definition of life for a plant is the same as an animal.

For example, a person that's a 'vegtable' is alive, but not really.

[Cyrus]

Hang on a sec. I moved the mess (which is the living creature sans its soul), what is left behind?

You can't sidestep the question. If it exists as more than a concept, then I can measure it. Tell me how I can measure it.



As a wise man on another forum likes to say: I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

You have ALF living in your backyard!?

[jimmysnyder]

I moved the mess (which is the living creature sans its soul), what is left behind?The mess, it's just in a different place. The soul left Dodge when the being died. You can't hold it in your hand, it's gone.

[Cyrus]

But there is no difference in the amount of oxygen in the blood at the instant after death than there was at the instant before.

I dont know if thats true. The lack of oxygen to the brain is what kills you.

[jimmysnyder]

Well, not in the same sense that animals are. I dont think the definition of life for a plant is the same as an animal.

For example, a person that's a 'vegtable' is alive, but not really.
For purpose of my definition, a person that is a 'vegetable' is really alive. My definition of soul includes plants as well as animals.

[DaveC426913]

The mess, it's just in a different place. The soul left Dodge when the being died. You can't hold it in your hand, it's gone.
Of course I can't hold it in my hand, that's why I keep saying "figuratively".

But if it exists, I can measure it, at least in theory. Tell me what it is I'm measuring or admit that you've put forth an unfounded belief.

[rewebster]

ohhh--its lunchtime where I live--

filet of soul

[jimmysnyder]

Of course I can't hold it in my hand, that's why I keep saying "figuratively".

But if it exists, I can measure it, at least in theory. Tell me what it is I'm measuring or admit that you've put forth an unfounded belief.
Don't get nasty. I was invited to this thread. You can't measure atoms either, but you can count them. There are as many souls are there are living beings.

[Cyrus]

Don't get nasty. I was invited to this thread. You can't measure atoms either, but you can count them. There are as many souls are there are living beings.

Thats a pretty bold and unfounded claim though, you must admit!

Sure you can measure atoms. Pick something up! You feel the weight of them, dont you? You can touch them, see them, taste them. You can even destroy them, or create them!

[DaveC426913]

Don't get nasty. I was invited to this thread. You can't measure atoms either, but you can count them. There are as many souls are there are living beings.I do not mean to come across as nasty. My apologies.

I can measure atoms. I can tell you quite a bit about them.

But I am getting a bit insistent because you have put forth a claim and are studiously avoiding defining it.


And I think that pretty much ends further discussion on it, since you have no definition for it. Kind of a self-locking argument.

[jimmysnyder]

I do not mean to come across as nasty. My apologies.

I can measure atoms. I can tell you quite a bit about them.

But I am getting a bit insistent because you have put forth a claim and are studiously avoiding defining it.


And I think that pretty much ends further discussion on it, since you won't define what it is we're discussing.
Do you believe in physical theories?

[jimmysnyder]

Thats a pretty bold and unfounded claim though, you must admit!

Sure you can measure atoms. Pick something up! You feel the weight of them, dont you? You can touch them, see them, taste them. You can even destroy them, or create them!
Do you believe in physical theories?

[DaveC426913]

Do you believe in physical theories?What do you mean? Do I believe there are such things as theories about the physical world? Sure. Theories, as with all thoughts, are concepts in the minds of humans. Souls are concepts in the minds of humans too.

[Evo]

First, you would have to define what a "soul" is. It can mean different things to different people.

Anyway, we're not going to get anywhere with this so, upon request, thread closed.