Do Humans Have Souls Beyond Mind and Body?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GreatEscapist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether humans possess souls that are distinct from their minds and bodies. Participants explore various definitions of "soul," the implications of scientific understanding, and philosophical perspectives on the matter. The conversation touches on the intersection of science, philosophy, and personal beliefs regarding identity and existence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Philosophical exploration
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants believe in the existence of souls, while others argue that what we perceive as a soul may be a product of complex brain functions and chemical processes.
  • Definitions of "soul" vary significantly, with some suggesting that traditional views of a soul as a separate entity have been discredited.
  • There is a debate about whether the existence of a soul can be scientifically tested, with some asserting that interactionist substance dualism is a testable hypothesis.
  • Some participants express materialist views, suggesting that sensations attributed to the soul are linked to self-identity and brain function.
  • Philosophical references are made to historical figures like Descartes and contemporary scientists like Francis Crick and Christof Koch, who have explored the nature of consciousness and identity.
  • Humor and light-hearted comments about the concept of souls appear throughout the discussion, particularly in relation to personal beliefs about consequences and existence after death.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence or nature of souls. Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about definitions, implications, and the relationship between science and philosophy.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in defining "soul" and the challenges in quantifying its properties scientifically. Participants acknowledge that the concept of a soul may not align with traditional definitions and that assumptions play a significant role in the discourse.

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:
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/ ?

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 interesting 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 interesting 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.
 

Similar threads

Create a human hive mind
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
784
Does anyone know what a soul is?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Can High Intelligence Truly Govern Our Emotions?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Why do humans search for religion and higher truth?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Is the Concept of the Soul Still Relevant in Modern Philosophy?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Philosophy of Science: Discussing Maths, Physics, Mind, & AI
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Do We Have Souls? - Sam Harris' 2004 Book Explored
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
Location of the Soul: Body/Head Separation Debate
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
We think with our minds and feel with our hearts?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
11K
Do Humans Tolerate Physical Pain Better Than Mental Strain?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K