Do Humans Have Souls Beyond Mind and Body?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GreatEscapist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the existence of souls, questioning whether they are separate from the mind and body or merely a product of brain chemistry. Participants express differing views on the soul's nature, with some arguing that the traditional concept of a soul has been discredited by science, while others maintain that the soul's influence on the physical realm remains a philosophical debate. The conversation highlights the importance of definitions and assumptions in understanding what a soul is, with references to dualism and materialism. Some participants express a desire for the existence of a soul, linking it to personal identity and the fear of non-existence. Ultimately, the thread illustrates the complexity of the topic and the interplay between science and philosophy in discussions about the soul.
GreatEscapist
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Just curious on your opinions.
Do you think humans actually have souls, separate from their mind and body, or is it just part of a chemical process within our minds?
I personally believe that people have souls, but it's kinda confusing, because they can seem to be altered by drugs and perspectives, which would indicate that we don't really have souls, but complex brain functions.
Soooo...what do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It all depends what you mean by "soul." There are certain things we know from science. There are things we don't know from science that are debated as philosophy of mind. The typical conception of a soul, as a separate substance from physical substance that has some control over a physical body, has pretty much been discredited. It all depends on your definitions and assumptions though.

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/, especially substance dualism and interactionism.
 
kote said:
The typical conception of a soul, as a separate substance from physical substance that has some control over a physical body, has pretty much been discredited.

Isn't that a little strong for an issue that is scientifically untestable?
 
pallidin said:
Isn't that a little strong for an issue that is scientifically untestable?

Your assumption that the existence of a soul can't be tested implies that souls do not influence the physical realm, which already excludes the possibility of interactionist substance dualism.

Substance dualism is testable. All the evidence we have says it doesn't exist.

There are other types of dualism and conceptions of souls, which is why I mentioned how important the definitions and assumptions are.
 
kote said:
Your assumption that the existence of a soul can't be tested implies that souls do not influence the physical realm...

What? That doesn't make any sense.
Implications of untestable issues are commonly known as speculations.
 
Gingers do have souls!
 
pallidin said:
What? That doesn't make any sense.
Implications of untestable issues are commonly known as speculations.

We can test things that directly influence physics. Interactionist substance dualism posits a soul that directly influences physics. It is a testable hypothesis.

By the way, 1+1=2 isn't testable either. There are other ways to get knowledge besides scientific tests.
 
  • #10
I'll state my general philosophical position first: I'm a materialist. I don't believe in a dualistic sort of soul.

I believe the sensations we attribute to the soul are generally those of self-identity. But I also think we generally consider the soul a core part of ourselves that doesn't change easily. In this regard, I think genetics and early developmental neural wiring play a large part in this role, as well as traumatic events (assuming they aggressively rewire core brain circuitry). I also think our emotional memory plays a significant role.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/October/04100702.asp
 
  • #11
The issue is science cannot quantify or qualify the properties of a 'soul'. I do not find that surprising. It is neither proof or disproof that 'souls' exist.
 
  • #12
Chronos said:
The issue is science cannot quantify or qualify the properties of a 'soul'. I do not find that surprising. It is neither proof or disproof that 'souls' exist.

This statement itself reveals a lot about souls though. Historically souls have been thought to control the body. Descartes thought that the soul interacted with the body through the pineal gland (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/).

If it is true that science can't quantify or qualify the properties of a soul, then the conception of a soul as acting on a body through some organ or some other physical method must be false. This is a statement about the nature of souls, and it disqualifies the possibility of the interactionist dualism that historically was the popular view. Your assertion that science can't quantify souls is a claim of the nonexistence of certain types of souls - the type that science would be able to test.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Chronos said:
The issue is science cannot quantify or qualify the properties of a 'soul'. I do not find that surprising. It is neither proof or disproof that 'souls' exist.

I disagree. Of course, you can't be fixated on any particular religion's definition of soul (I assume you're utilizing the Christian definition). What we're interested in is what gives rise to the people's sensation of having a soul or identity that is unique to themselves.

Francis Crick (an atheist, molecular biologist, and neuroscientist most famous for his contributions to discovering the structure of DNA) alludes to this in his book's title:
The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul

Crick passed away in 2004, but his work is being carried on by Christof Koch.

Here's a paper by Koch: http://www.klab.caltech.edu/Papers/438.pdf
Here, he makes the point that subjective experience can be objectively measured and explained.

Prior to reading any Crick or Koch, I'd always referred to my "secular soul" as being the more steady states in brain circuitry that provide a persistent self-identity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
I think that people's "souls" are really just their mind. The brain's really complex, so I'm sure it is capable of producing all of the things we think to be a "soul".
I blame chemical reactions, personality, and reasoning.
 
  • #15
I hope there is a "soul"; Otherwise I'm SOL in not too many years.
 
  • #16
pallidin said:
I hope there is a "soul"; Otherwise I'm SOL in not too many years.
We kinda all are, eventually.
 
  • #17
pallidin said:
I hope there is a "soul"; Otherwise I'm SOL in not too many years.

No, other way around.

If there's a soul; you may find it's going to be stuck on a spit and toasted.

Better that there's no soul. No soul, no consequences.

:biggrin:
 
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
No, other way around.

If there's a soul; you may find it's going to be stuck on a spit and toasted.

Better that there's no soul. No soul, no consequences.

:biggrin:
I agree.
 
  • #19
There was a very good online, open, course in philosophy specifically on the soul. I thought it was extremely well done but I forget which university it was hosted at... I'll try to dig it up.
 
  • #20
zomgwtf said:
There was a very good online, open, course in philosophy specifically on the soul. I thought it was extremely well done but I forget which university it was hosted at... I'll try to dig it up.

http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/content/class-sessions

?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
kote said:

Yup, that's exactly the one I was referring to. Thanks. So it was on death sorry :smile:. I think the reason I thought it was specifically about the soul was because I had stopped watching after those parts... maybe I should finish it now. :smile:
 
  • #22
DaveC426913 said:
Better that there's no soul. No soul, no consequences.

:biggrin:
Ditto. :P
 
  • #23
DaveC426913 said:
If there's a soul; you may find it's going to be stuck on a spit and toasted.

Yeah, and I can't even bring some BBQ sauce. :mad:
 
  • #24
This is a Soul:

http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/kia_soul_production_31.jpg

I'm saving up to buy one.
 
  • #25
Math Is Hard said:
This is a Soul:

http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/kia_soul_production_31.jpg

I'm saving up to buy one.

Do they have that on "lay-a-way"
 
  • #26
pallidin said:
Do they have that on "lay-a-way"

I'll probably have to get a pre-owned Soul. Which is kind of a drag since it will come with someone else's sins.
 
  • #27
Lol...
 
  • #28
Math Is Hard said:
I'll probably have to get a pre-owned Soul. Which is kind of a drag since it will come with someone else's sins.
At least it's cheap. And it functions.
Everything you need...
 
  • #29
I find it intersting that the notion of a soul is linked to consequence in an afterlife. It seems more reasonable that if such a thing existed, there would be no point in holding it accountable for what biological drives or desperations drove the person to.

I for one, would rather not vanish as though I'd never been. It is, for me, the dread that runs my life; not of imminant death or risk of harm... simply the inevitable dissolution of me, and those I love. I find the notion intolerable, and no less inescapable for that. Life can be terribly hard to face sometimes, but I LIKE being a "me"... whatever that is. I certainly don't want to suffer in some eternal torment, but I don't see how that is anything but mythology.

Ahhhh, I really wish I could believe in an afterlife. :cry:
 
  • #30
Frame Dragger said:
I find it intersting that the notion of a soul is linked to consequence in an afterlife.
I've no idea why people are talking about specific religious forms of the soul in this thread... especially since this is supposed to a philosophy forum.
 
  • #31
zomgwtf said:
I've no idea why people are talking about specific religious forms of the soul in this thread... especially since this is supposed to a philosophy forum.
I know of no other kind.

I'm going to guess that the philosphy field has adopted the term soul to apply to some other setof criteria? That was kind of dumb.
 
  • #32
DaveC426913 said:
I know of no other kind.
You only know of a soul that sins apply to? That's a shame.

I'm going to guess that the philosphy field has adopted the term soul to apply to some other setof criteria?
Err... criteria that doesn't fit 'sinning'?
Do you know anything about or read any philosophy? -Serious question.

That was kind of dumb.
I see... why do you come to the philosophy forums? I don't understand.
 
  • #33
zomgwtf said:
You only know of a soul that sins apply to? That's a shame.
I only know of a religious soul - the eternal afterlife kind. That's the question you asked, so that's the answer you got.

zomgwtf said:
Err... criteria that doesn't fit 'sinning'?
Why do you keep talking about sinning? I'm talking about a soul.

Do you see no distinction? Do you also see no distinction between a soul and wings and a halo? Why aren't you asking me about that?

zomgwtf said:
Do you know anything about or read any philosophy? -Serious question.
Your questions are all backwards. If you have some definition of a soul that is not about living on after one is dead then out with it!

zomgwtf said:
I see... why do you come to the philosophy forums? I don't understand.
I do not choose forums. I select 'new' posts from the menu, which gives me everything unfiltered by forum. Posts that interest me I participate in.
 
  • #34
Nah I spoke of a SPECIFIC religious soul. AKA Coming from the old testament, in which case the soul is defined as the combining of the body and the spirit. The soul is what separates from the body and is then weighed when you die... This isn't even the case for all of the Abrahemic faith churches. I think that talking about specific religion(s) is not allowed at these forums.

That's the soul everyone is talking about no? That's the one that I made mention to in my post which you responded to.

The OP had clearly intended this to be a constructive discussion on the issue of the soul existence from a philosophical persepective. Not some free for all make sarcastic remarks about sins and going to hell.
 
  • #35
zomgwtf said:
Nah I spoke of a SPECIFIC religious soul. AKA Coming from the old testament
No you didn't.

zomgwtf said:
The soul is what separates from the body and is then weighed when you die... This isn't even the case for all of the Abrahemic faith churches. I think that talking about specific religion(s) is not allowed at these forums
No one was. Except you. Now.
 
  • #36
It all started with someones comment about being SOL.
Then:
If there's a soul; you may find it's going to be stuck on a spit and toasted.

Better that there's no soul. No soul, no consequences.
I agree.
Ditto.

How many philosophies talk of souls in such a way? You can hardly try to say that you weren't discussing a specific religious idea of the soul.

I'll probably have to get a pre-owned Soul. Which is kind of a drag since it will come with someone else's sins.
{bolding mine}

Regardless I was specifically referring to this post. Pretty much conclusively discussing an old testament use of the word soul.

As for my comment, you had even quoted it and commented on it:
DaveC426913 said:
zomgwtf said:
I've no idea why people are talking about specific religious forms of the soul in this thread... especially since this is supposed to a philosophy forum.
I know of no other kind.

I'm going to guess that the philosphy field has adopted the term soul to apply to some other setof criteria? That was kind of dumb.
{bolding mine again}

I guess that clears things up, I didn't say 'specific religious forms of the soul'. Maybe the problem is that I didn't refer to pretty specific old testament interpretations on the use of the word soul? I hardly felt that was necessary considering the discussion going on previously.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
DaveC426913 said:
I know of no other kind.

I'm going to guess that the philosphy field has adopted the term soul to apply to some other setof criteria? That was kind of dumb.

You pretty much have it backwards. Religion adopted the term from philosophy:

wikipedia said:
Plato, drawing on the words of his teacher Socrates, considered the soul as the essence of a person, being, that which decides how we behave. He considered this essence as an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. As bodies die the soul is continually reborn in subsequent bodies. The Platonic soul comprises three parts:

The first sentence is the most general definition applied to almost all uses of the word "soul" throughout history. It's based on an observation of phenomena (our sentience and ability to subjectively experience things). As zomgwtf alluded to, the soul is the difference between your lifeless body and your living body.

The next sentences are speculation about the soul, which is what religion has done. It's also what we're doing here in this thread. I, for instance, believe that the difference between being alive and dead is a matter of processes occurring between neural cells (I hope it's not too much of a stretch). I also believe the soul ceases to exist as a whole once a person dies.
 
  • #38
So, there is no current scientific evidence for a "soul"
Therefore it does not exist.

Are we really willing to exclaim that?
 
  • #39
DaveC426913 said:
No you didn't.


No one was. Except you. Now.

Not true. "burning in hell" isn't in Judaism, or any of the proto-canaanite religions (Edit: and many more I'm not listing :END EDIT). Frankly, most religions are more concerned with sorting the exceptionally worthy from the rest, and "the rest" is recycled or sequestered by one means or another.

You can't talk about a soul attatched to a notion of eternal consequences unless you're talking about a particular religion, or at least thinking about one. The rest Pythagorean already clarified quite nicely!


@Pallidin: Some are, some aren't. Does it matter? It's more that as we DO discover scientific evidence which explains a process or behaviour, that was once only explicable through... well... a Local Hidden Variable theory. :smile:
 
  • #40
First off, I don't think that materialist science has the capability of finding or measuring the existence of a soul using the frameworks available to it. Empiricism will always find other explanations for "soul."

Second, the irony of materialist science and empiricism is that neither are possible without a conscious observer. The consciousness of the observer is the point from which other other materialities are perceived, so to the extent that it is very interface of observation, consciousness is really the only thing that can be absolutely verified as existing.

So do you deny the material existence of souls because you can't find them empirically? Or do you recognize the absolute primacy of the soul in that nothing is observable except by means of consciousness?

Personally, I experience myself as a being inhabiting a body, so I describe the thing that inhabits my body as a "soul."
 
  • #41
brainstorm said:
First off, I don't think that materialist science has the capability of finding or measuring the existence of a soul using the frameworks available to it. Empiricism will always find other explanations for "soul."

Second, the irony of materialist science and empiricism is that neither are possible without a conscious observer. The consciousness of the observer is the point from which other other materialities are perceived, so to the extent that it is very interface of observation, consciousness is really the only thing that can be absolutely verified as existing.

So do you deny the material existence of souls because you can't find them empirically? Or do you recognize the absolute primacy of the soul in that nothing is observable except by means of consciousness?

Personally, I experience myself as a being inhabiting a body, so I describe the thing that inhabits my body as a "soul."

I would call that your DMN, plus a frontal lobe. Are you the same person today that you were 10 years ago? What does it mean for a soul, or brain, to change and evolve? The notion of a soul as the unchanging ESSENCE of someone, is somewhat tarnished by equating it with consciousness.

If you're making that a semantic distinction, I clearly disagree. That said, you said "inhabits my body" which implies that you believe a body is a vessel for a soul, and all material and empirical observations hinge on there being someone to observe them in the first place. That to me is the straightforward definition of a soul, nothing divergent.

I don't know if a soul exists or not, but I would express my tendency in beliefs by saying, "I experience myself as being an individual, inseperable from my biology. I'm not inhabiting a body, I am my body. Damage my body and you damage ME; get an icepick through the old orbit and we CHANGE.

That's the point of divergence: When you give me an trans-orbital lobotomy (you know you want to lol) do you change my brain, my soul, or both? Is my soul expressed through my biology, and all you've done is interfere with the, um, medium so to speak, or have you also pithed my soul?

Of course, finally... when you die, is there an "everlasting" part of you, or do you consider "soul" to be ultimately synonymous with individual consciousness... which by the way opens a whole philosophical can of worms too. "Consciousness" not as absolutely verifiable as you might think, even putting Solopist aside.

I don't know, but I believe (much to my misery) that when our meat goes, that's it. I spend far too much time staring at imaging results and studies to believe that what I'm seeing requires a soul.

As you say however, if a soul is MYSTICAL, and/or purposeful (i.e. there's a REASON why it gets shoved into a body) then your logic might hold a la Douglas Adams. “'I refuse to prove that I exist,'” says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'"
 
  • #42
pallidin said:
So, there is no current scientific evidence for a "soul"
Therefore it does not exist.

Are we really willing to exclaim that?

Er, Well in my opinion there is no scientific evidence and no logical reason given what scientific evidence we do have to assume we have a soul.

Yes I am willing to exclaim that. Yes I am comfortable with the fact that when I die, I'm dead.

The assumption of having a soul is the same type of assumption in saying that a God created the universe. It's unnecessary.
 
  • #43
zomgwtf said:
Er, Well in my opinion there is no scientific evidence and no logical reason given what scientific evidence we do have to assume we have a soul.

Yes I am willing to exclaim that. Yes I am comfortable with the fact that when I die, I'm dead.

The assumption of having a soul is the same type of assumption in saying that a God created the universe. It's unnecessary.

I believe as you do, but... I'm not comfortable with that. Might I ask how you've found that kind of... peace?

EDIT: to clarify, by "not comfortable" I mean, I'm not comfortable with dying and being nothing, not your statement of that.
 
  • #44
Frame Dragger said:
I believe as you do, but... I'm not comfortable with that. Might I ask how you've found that kind of... peace?

EDIT: to clarify, by "not comfortable" I mean, I'm not comfortable with dying and being nothing, not your statement of that.

Well, it just sort of came with the whole idea of death being the end. I mean like I don't particularly think of my life as very special or important at all. I mean like it IS special and important to me but on the grande scheme of things it's rather insignificant.
I was also not raised religiously really, I attended church with my mother when I was quite young but that was it. I studied religion on my own terms and found them to be useless to me. I was never raised thinking that when I die I go some place special, maybe that also had an impact on it.

Who knows all I know is that I don't really mine the thought. That's not the same as saying I don't respect my life and to prove I accept death as the end I'll kill myself, because that's not true at all. I really want to live out a full and hopefully great life and to help others in life and possibly even bring about new conscious life.
 
  • #45
Many years ago I worked as a hospice nurse. I further studied at the time, the physical process of death from medical books.
Not that I can explain anything concretely. I can say I gained some insights by noting "life" "animation" "soul" in the the body and body without it.
Not sure I could do the same study today as it was a very strong study for the emotions.
 
  • #46
zomgwtf said:
The OP had clearly intended this to be a constructive discussion on the issue of the soul existence from a philosophical persepective. Not some free for all make sarcastic remarks about sins and going to hell.
Sarcasm is accepted, too. It makes things livelier.
And some post way back, a dude pointed out that a soul shouldn't be held responsible for biological crap. Isn't the whole point of a soul to guide the physical? To overcome human nature?
Isn't that like, the entire point of Jesus's ramblings on the soul? To fight the bad and overcome it? To escape death of your spirit?
Just saying.
 
  • #47
zomgwtf said:
Well, it just sort of came with the whole idea of death being the end. I mean like I don't particularly think of my life as very special or important at all. I mean like it IS special and important to me but on the grande scheme of things it's rather insignificant.
I was also not raised religiously really, I attended church with my mother when I was quite young but that was it. I studied religion on my own terms and found them to be useless to me. I was never raised thinking that when I die I go some place special, maybe that also had an impact on it.

Who knows all I know is that I don't really mine the thought. That's not the same as saying I don't respect my life and to prove I accept death as the end I'll kill myself, because that's not true at all. I really want to live out a full and hopefully great life and to help others in life and possibly even bring about new conscious life.

Interesting, I also was raised in a religiously neutral household. My mother took pains to raise me Jewish, but not with the faith or the belief, but the culture. I stuck with it until my Bar Mitvah, chanted my Torah and Hav-Torah portions, and have only returned to a temple for funerals, and weddings.

Like you, I was free to study, and I don't see my life as special (beyond, as you say, that it's special to ME lol). That being said, I find the concept of dissolution very difficult to accept. By no means do I want to hurry to my end, as you also point out...

I suppose I just wish the universe was a more comforting place. That said, I wouldn't trade my view of the world for peace of mind in a delusion. I want to be asking "How?" and "Why?" on my deathed... I just wish I could expect something more than the oblivion before my birth.

I believe that to be the case, but it is terrifying. We are very very odd animals, we humans. I'm afraid, because I love life, and an eternity of nothing seems a bit overwhelming.

EDIT: @GreatEscapist: Heh... I'm that "dude", and yeah, sarcasm definitely makes things lively, but it has to be in the context of some more content.
As for your view of the soul is very much what we find in Judeism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Bhuddism (and more), that the soul is the captain of the ship, the seat of who we fundamentally are beyond thoughts and desires. The thing is, a lot of religions look at that, and don't see a need to assign everyone a place in "eternity".

Take the Greek Mythology and all predecessors back to Sumeria) of Hades. Some really awful people end in Tartarus, and the truly valerous end in Elysium. Most get blaaaaaah, and fade away under a willow tree, if they make it across The River Styx at all. Norse mythology is similar, with the majority either ending in Hel's domain, or literally handpicked by Valkyries from the field of battle. Hinduism takes more of a "recycling" approach, but again, the notion isn't individual perfection, but perfection of spirit. It's pretty clear that it must have been one hell of a strong motivator, especially given short and brutal lives (by our standards). That said, these common themes are more about social engineering than anything else. Christianity is interesting in that it is so individually focused; EVERYONE has a place in heaven, or hell (or maybe limbo, which really seems hellish to ME), which is... odd in a different way. Ah well... no one ever claimed religion or mythology had to be rational.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
zomgwtf said:
The assumption of having a soul is the same type of assumption in saying that a God created the universe. It's unnecessary.
It is.
God was created for most people to be comforted, loved, and feel secured. That's necessary according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Whether you believe in it or not, it is necessary.
 
  • #49
GreatEscapist said:
It is.
God was created for most people to be comforted, loved, and feel secured. That's necessary according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Whether you believe in it or not, it is necessary.

I believe he was saying that from a scientific point of view it is unecessary, not that humans didn't naturally gravitate towards some notion of comfort, justice, etc. To live day to day, we have a LOT of faith in the stability of our little world, or we literally lose our minds. Is it any wonder that such "circuitry" would not evolve alongside social structures?

So, yeah, you're right, and he is too. The cat is officially alive and dead.

That said, "necessary" isn't a qualified statement. "Tendency" is probably better lingo.
 
  • #50
God is the supreme alpha male.
The ultimate father figure.
The greatest leader.
etc.
 
Back
Top