Do Humans Have Souls Beyond Mind and Body?

[Frame Dragger]

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.

I would be interested to hear more of your experiences, here or in another thread. If not, I understand, but from my experience few people have seen death in the "slow motion" that a nurse does. Doctors, well, you know... too little time, and the nurses are the actual caretakers anyway.

I won't forget the first time I touched a cadaver... I never imagined that a body could be so utterly DEAD. I realize that sounds silly to most, but I suspect you know what I mean. You almost expect them to sit up and shake it off... and the stillness is the ultimate giveaway. I'm not saying that this makes me believe in a soul, but it's astonishing how empty a person is when they die.

As for the process of dying... and the result, while I suspect most people here have experienced the death of someone close, I find the experience of meeting someone I know is going to die (caring about them as a human with empathy, but not family etc) allows one to see death and the process of dying in a more objective light.

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

Really? I wonder which religion created that god for that purpose.

Besides your comment doesn't even really address what I was saying, your talking about necessity of 'human needs' and I'm talking about logically necessary.

By the way even if I do assume that this god was created to 'love, comfort and help people feel secure' that is far from making it necessary according to Maslow's hierarchy. Believing in such a god is not the only way to achieve these things.

 

[Lacy33]

God is the supreme alpha male.
The ultimate father figure.
The greatest leader.
etc.

That is a mouthful. Are we all required to accept that or is that your personal feeling?

 

[zomgwtf]

God is the supreme alpha male.
The ultimate father figure.
The greatest leader.
etc.

My definition of god doesn't lead me to this conclusion not at all.

++Speaking of specific religious god(s) are against forum rules. You should leave the preaching out of the philosophy forums.

 

[Frame Dragger]

God is the supreme alpha male.
The ultimate father figure.
The greatest leader.
etc.

...Really? Amaterasu is going to be PISSED about this... along with a fair number of hundreds of pantheons. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is the supreme alpha male, but not all of them. Actually, I agree with Lewis Black about my particular heritage (Judaism): "The god of The 'Old' Testament... is a prick!" He's not so much "alpha" a just... really pissy.

Angels as described in the various bibles (not by modern twits selling TV shows and books) also reflect the "prick" nature of this fictional god.
Simon R. Green, a fun fantasy writer put these words into the mouth of his protagonist regarding angels:

"Forget all your usual notions about angels... All the usual images of angels as nice guys with wings, long nighties, and a harp fixation. Angels are God's enforces, his will made manifest in the world of men. The Spiritual equivalent of the SAS. When God wants a city destroyed, or the firstborn of a whole generation slaughtered, he sends an angel. When the Day of Judgement finally comes, and the world is brough to an end, it will be the angels who do all the dirty work..."

That is a pretty accurate reflection of MOST Judeo-Christian fundamentalism. If you believe that, then I can see how god is the ultimate alpha male, but I also could see that as somewhat pissy, and rather hands-off. I think it's a good reason to focus on the soul as a philosophical element, and not a religious one.

 

[Lacy33]

Oh that is rich Frame Dragger.
Not totally agreeing or following all of it. But that can be well said of a day seriously trying to chase a soul down the rabbit hole on a hospice unit.
There is an animating force in us. Your right though, don't know what family of pure study it would belong to.
I think it is complicated to keep us away from understanding it...now..., but simple enough for us to all get it at some point. What do you think?

 

[Frame Dragger]

Oh that is rich Frame Dragger.
Not totally agreeing or following all of it. But that can be well said of a day seriously trying to chase a soul down the rabbit hole on a hospice unit.
There is an animating force in us. Your right though, don't know what family of pure study it would belong to.
I think it is complicated to keep us away from understanding it...now..., but simple enough for us to all get it at some point. What do you think?

Truly I don't know. Intellectually I see no reason for a soul, or animating force, and recognize the psychology that underlies what you describe.

On the other hand I've seen what you describe, and know exactly what you mean. I don't know that people can ever separate that level of subjective experience from the objective reality enough to assess.

Then again, if there WERE a god, and faith was the point during one's life, then making sure that articles of faith are not verifiable or falsifiable is also logical.

So... I don't know! Perhaps that animating force is the sum-total of our complex biology, but then... it could be... well, you see how this line of thought goes. in a circle. I tend to end up eating my own tail when I think about these things, but one must keep the mind limber!

EDIT: By the way, I would just like to express my admiration for your previous occupation. Being a nurse is HARD, I know (from observation, not experience) and nursing the terminally ill presents so many challenges for all involved. Some things in this world are fundamentally kind, and I believe that giving a bit of yourself to comfort the dying is one of those things. Puppies are another, but really that's another thread. lol

 

[GreatEscapist]

Really? I wonder which religion created that god for that purpose.

Besides your comment doesn't even really address what I was saying, your talking about necessity of 'human needs' and I'm talking about logically necessary.

By the way even if I do assume that this god was created to 'love, comfort and help people feel secure' that is far from making it necessary according to Maslow's hierarchy. Believing in such a god is not the only way to achieve these things.

1. Certainly one of them.
2. Just a tangent.
3. I guess not. It was more of a thought, than absolute truth.
Back to what I was saying a loooong time ago, I don't think souls exist. How to explain some spiritual stuff that happens (i.e, death experiences, "ghosts", etc.), I don't know. But that's not important yet, because if I can't prove it very easily, it's probably not going to affect me very much in real life. Seems kinda stupid to live my life for my spiritual afterlife if there isn't a guarantee that there is one.

 

[Legion81]

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?

I don't think humans have souls. If a soul was real, then you would have all types of questions like what is a soul made of, where does it come from, how long does it exist, what attaches it to a body, etc.. If you accept that a soul is imaginary, then your life is on equal ground to the existence of a rock... meaningless (on the greater scale) and without the need of origin/destination (accept for big bang, origin of matter stuff). While the latter might be less pleasing to an individual, it seems to be the simplest answer to the soul question.

 

[Frame Dragger]

1. Certainly one of them.
2. Just a tangent.
3. I guess not. It was more of a thought, than absolute truth.
Back to what I was saying a loooong time ago, I don't think souls exist. How to explain some spiritual stuff that happens (i.e, death experiences, "ghosts", etc.), I don't know. But that's not important yet, because if I can't prove it very easily, it's probably not going to affect me very much in real life. Seems kinda stupid to live my life for my spiritual afterlife if there isn't a guarantee that there is one.

I agree, but wow that last sentence = "Take THAT Pascal's Wager!"

That said, I don't believe you were saying "kill and pillage and live it up", but rather that one shouldn't live in fear or dread of eternal punishment, or see life as merely a blip on the way to paradise.

Oh, as for explaining near-death, I can't say that it's perfectly explained, but apoptosis of neurons is one strong possibility, and the reality that "death" is only well defined in retrospect. Before you think I just lost my mind, I mean that when someone is alive, vs. DEAD, is not clear-cut. We have working definitions, and after a while they are valid.

Of course, we still don't know if the severed heads falling by the Guillotine were aware for a moment, if you catch my drift. The entire concept of "near" death, says it all! They were NEAR death, not dead! If they had died, they wouldn't be back. A kid who is hypothermic, and is revived after an hour+ of being down, has had what anyone in the popular media and public would call "Near Death" or "HE wa dead for an hour!"

Well no. When an organism dies, "things" happen at the cellular level, and there is no coming back from it. What a kid like that experienced is a kind of forced hibernation.

So, when someone starts to challenge me with "NDE's", I point out that approaching an event horizon without passing it still means you have no clue what lies beyond (be it nothing at all, or something.).

 

[MaitreyaB]

Could it be that we disagree not based on the existence of something, but based on how we define the word? I contend that a soul can exist or not exist, depending on how you want to define the term 'soul'. But then we will have to argue over the definition of what a word means. It's just a word, it really can't encompass the depth of existence. Is there anyone here comfortable with admitting things exist beyond their level of comprehension? How about accepting the answer might be that there is no answer?

"Save the theories for later, Watson, when we have some facts. You make theories first and you end up finding facts to suit your theories rather than theories to fit your facts"
-Sherlock Holmes

 

[zomgwtf]

I don't understand what people mean by 'animating' force on here.

Somehow the fact that when you see a dead person and they don't move that must imply that there is some other 'force' pulling strings behind the scenes and which has just decided to... idk bugger off?

When does this occur? When a patient is clincially dead? Legally dead? What about when a person is in a coma? In my mind it's a silly reason to make an assumption that there is a force behind 'animation' of a human body. In my mind it's all biological and chemical, no mystical force.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Could it be that we disagree not based on the existence of something, but based on how we define the word? I contend that a soul can exist or not exist, depending on how you want to define the term 'soul'. But then we will have to argue over the definition of what a word means. It's just a word, it really can't encompass the depth of existence. Is there anyone here comfortable with admitting things exist beyond their level of comprehension? How about accepting the answer might be that there is no answer?

"Save the theories for later, Watson, when we have some facts. You make theories first and you end up finding facts to suit your theories rather than theories to fit your facts"
-Sherlock Holmes

I think Pythagorean already gave an excellent defintion of "soul" rooted in the history of the term. I'd read back on this thread just to get up to speed. That said, I doubt you'll find ANY physicist that believes they can comprehend EVERYTHING. Then again, an argument that something is unfathomable, but exists, is a statement of faith, not really a philosophical principle as we've been working with them in this thread.

@zomgwtf: You would NEVER mistake someone in a coma for a corpse unless one simply doesn't pay attention. People move, shift, breath, smooth mucles work. It may be below the threshold of "noise" we screen day to day, but in a corpse the absence is astonishing. I'm not saying I have a problem with the intellectual concept of "dead vs. alive" and that there must be extra "strings", but rather that the IMPACT of seeing someone alive one moment, and dead the next... is arresting. Med schools are full of tough guys and gals, and a LOT of them have... issues... with Anatomy 101 when the cadaver is there.

We're human, we personalize, but the slap of meat that is a corpse is so divorced from even a comatose individual that again... arresting. I'm not saying it's a valid argument for a soul, just that I knew what Lacy meant. As for "animating force", as I said, it could very well be the sum total of our complex biology, not a soul. The experience of being close to someone as they die, being there before and after, but not being so close that your emotions are in utter turmoil... it's... singular. I wouldn't recommend it if you haven't experienced it yet... it is quite disturbing.

 

[zomgwtf]

It's just a word, it really can't encompass the depth of existence. Is there anyone here comfortable with admitting things exist beyond their level of comprehension? How about accepting the answer might be that there is no answer?

It already has a set definition so we don't need to argue about words. As well this just shows that it's false (for now I guess) and deserves no belief in it. The burden of proof is in those who attempt to SHOW its existence, not those that deny it.

This is best demonstrated by me saying that a giant green fire breathing dragon lives in my garage. He's a great hider though so whenever you enter the garage you can't see him, he's there though. Does that entitle any belief? Does it mean that the story is 'beyond our capabilities of understanding!' No, it does not. All it means is that the theory is worthless and unnecessary, just like that of a soul.

 

[MaitreyaB]

"It already has a set definition so we don't need to argue about words."

"I think Pythagorean already gave an excellent defintion of "soul" rooted in the history of the term."

This is a circular argument and a fallacy. It has a definition because it has a definition...

 

[GreatEscapist]

I don't understand what people mean by 'animating' force on here.

Well, you explained it pretty well.
And if all of that is explained by biological/chemical processes, I'm very impressed by the brain.
Then again, I guess souls would have to connect with the brain somehow. NDEs have to be processed and interpreted by the senses, and the brain has to connect a meaning with them.
Which would complicate the souls-exist theory.
EDIT: And major lol to the green fire-breathing dragon comment.

 

[Frame Dragger]

It already has a set definition so we don't need to argue about words. As well this just shows that it's false (for now I guess) and deserves no belief in it. The burden of proof is in those who attempt to SHOW its existence, not those that deny it.

This is best demonstrated by me saying that a giant green fire breathing dragon lives in my garage. He's a great hider though so whenever you enter the garage you can't see him, he's there though. Does that entitle any belief? Does it mean that the story is 'beyond our capabilities of understanding!' No, it does not. All it means is that the theory is worthless and unnecessary, just like that of a soul.

It means the theory isn't really a theory, just a hope or guess. You might have a pet dragon, as unlikely as I find the concept. Then again, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the notion that Dragon could never have existed, so my confidence is implicitly connected to my conviction that dragons are fictional. I am yet to see the proof (which as you say is indeed the burden of the 'prosecution') of a soul, but I'm yet to see related phenomena explained away as well as dragons.

So, I believe that the notion of god and souls is just a human artifact, like etchings on cave-walls, but how to refute it? KNOWING that a soul doesn't exist is an article of faith, much as believing that one does. Uncertainty and an open mind, protected by skepticism is really the wy to go in my opinion. Then again, we rarely choose what we believe, at least, at the conscious level.

 

[GreatEscapist]

Then again, we rarely choose what we believe, at least, at the conscious level.

We can change what we believe. At a very conscious level.

 

[zomgwtf]

"It already has a set definition so we don't need to argue about words."

"I think Pythagorean already gave an excellent defintion of "soul" rooted in the history of the term."

This is a circular argument and a fallacy. It has a definition because it has a definition...

Not that that was what either of us has said. It's not an argument, it's a fact.

 

[MaitreyaB]

Then again, we rarely choose what we believe, at least, at the conscious level.

If that's what you believe, you certainly make it happen.

 

[zomgwtf]

It means the theory isn't really a theory, just a hope or guess. You might have a pet dragon, as unlikely as I find the concept. Then again, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the notion that Dragon could never have existed, so my confidence is implicitly connected to my conviction that dragons are fictional. I am yet to see the proof (which as you say is indeed the burden of the 'prosecution') of a soul, but I'm yet to see related phenomena explained away as well as dragons.

How else can you explain the burn marks that appear on the floor and roof? Ohhhh for cases like this, the kind that aren't engraved into the human condition by our history, we turn to science. You would probably conduct some sort of experiment to show conclusively that there is no dragon. We make special conditions for other things though, only when they are well deserving!

By the way, I'm still sticking to my guns, there IS a dragon.

EDIT: by the way, imagine that the test we conducted showed that young hooligans were coming into my garage and making scorch marks thinking it was funny that I believed it to be a dragon. Would it be crazy for me to still believe in the dragon?

 

[Lacy33]

Could it be that we disagree not based on the existence of something, but based on how we define the word? I contend that a soul can exist or not exist, depending on how you want to define the term 'soul'. But then we will have to argue over the definition of what a word means. It's just a word, it really can't encompass the depth of existence. Is there anyone here comfortable with admitting things exist beyond their level of comprehension? How about accepting the answer might be that there is no answer?

This I think is well said and I too wait for a common language that will make sense to all of us concerning this particular "mystery."

 

[MaitreyaB]

Telepathy!

 

[zomgwtf]

This I think is well said and I too wait for a common language that will make sense to all of us concerning this particular "mystery."

This is not philosophy and saying that it can have various meanings changed at a dime is dishonest. It's called changing the goalposts, and it's a fallacy.

 

[Lacy33]

Telepathy!

Oh! That's interesting. Perhaps you young people here will see that as a common language.
Perhaps we could push the idea by making duct tape available for all.
But I'm sure I entirely agree, "telepathy."

 

[Frame Dragger]

How else can you explain the burn marks that appear on the floor and roof? Ohhhh for cases like this, the kind that aren't engraved into the human condition by our history, we turn to science. You would probably conduct some sort of experiment to show conclusively that there is no dragon. We make special conditions for other things though, only when they are well deserving!

By the way, I'm still sticking to my guns, there IS a dragon.

EDIT: by the way, imagine that the test we conducted showed that young hooligans were coming into my garage and making scorch marks thinking it was funny that I believed it to be a dragon. Would it be crazy for me to still believe in the dragon?

It would be far less 'crazy' than SEEING the dragon... frankly I'd assume the onset of dementia, possibly due to stroke.

Then again, we rarely choose what we believe, at least, at the conscious level.

If that's what you believe, you certainly make it happen.

That's quite the assertion, and contrary to much physiological and psychological evidence. I'm not arguing for some kind of limp philosophy, simply that much of what we attribute to "choice" is really a matter of animal habit, needs, etc. What we believe is usually a function of our circumstances, and upbringing, and if you think closing your eyes and thinking REALLY HARD changes that... good luck. Please, convince someone with low self-esteem that they're worthwhile, or start believing that your toaster loves you. I'm waiting...
...
...

 

[Lacy33]

This is not philosophy and saying that it can have various meanings changed at a dime is dishonest. It's called changing the goalposts, and it's a fallacy.

Philosophy can endure change and you can keep your dragon too. You can have both.

 

[zomgwtf]

Philosophy can endure change and you can keep your dragon too. You can have both.

That wasn't the premise in the post you quoted and agreed with, here's some more goalpost raising. .

Anyway I think this thread has run it's lifetime. People aren't truly interested in having an honest discussion about the soul.

Some people just want to poke fun at religion and others just want to say I BELIEVEEE!

Then there's one person like 'I can change the definition of the word so therefore I can make its existence true, or not true!'

Greatttt stuff PhysicsForums philosophy group!

 

[Lacy33]

That wasn't the premise in the post you quoted and agreed with, here's some more goalpost raising. .

Anyway I think this thread has run it's lifetime. People aren't truly interested in having an honest discussion about the soul.

Some people just want to poke fun at religion and others just want to say I BELIEVEEE!

Then there's one person like 'I can change the definition of the word so therefore I can make its existence true, or not true!'

Greatttt stuff PhysicsForums philosophy group!

I have reread the thread and don't think this discussion has gone off the questions of the OP.
I am enjoying this very much, I don't understand why you are feeling so feisty.
Can you tell me?
I think its good to talk about this without bringing in religion and just because it is under "philosophy" it does not have to be such.
Tell me what you think the soul is without all the supports.

 

[Frame Dragger]

That wasn't the premise in the post you quoted and agreed with, here's some more goalpost raising. .

Anyway I think this thread has run it's lifetime. People aren't truly interested in having an honest discussion about the soul.

Some people just want to poke fun at religion and others just want to say I BELIEVEEE!

Then there's one person like 'I can change the definition of the word so therefore I can make its existence true, or not true!'

Greatttt stuff PhysicsForums philosophy group!

Errr.. don't take this the wrong way, but if you look back in the thread it pretty much disintigrated when relgion was injected into, rebuilt, and now you've pretty much killed it. I think, frankly, that you're being too rigid for the "lounge", and damned harsh on Lacy.

This isn't a contest, it's supposed to be an exchange of ideas. Just because we're not discussing the soul in terms you want to, doesn't mean that the thread is dead. You could of course, make a thread to discuss your particular view. You're adding an element of, let's call it "intensity" to the conversation that really didn't need to be there.

We're not here to catch you, or Lacy, or anyone else in your "logic trap": 'Fallacy, a fallacy, I smell a fallacy!'... come on, leave that on the way to forum, and we might have more funny and less fighting. Oh, and yes, that was a "something funny on the way to the forum" reference.

Maybe we should leave this be for the night (well, it's evening where I am), and see if there is anything to be said tommorrow. Presumably PF won't be eaten by dragons anytime soon.

@Lacy33: Philosophy can definitely endure change, but I'm not sure that he gets to keep his dragon. To me, that is a solopist view in that subjective reality is all, so his dragon is as real as he wants it to be. That would be fun, but seems vanishingly unlikely. That said, I take your analogy as meant.
---

My view is that while we all have beliefs and tendencies, there is nothing wrong with prolonged uncertainty. Why the rush to a conclusion zomgwtf? Besides, while it is the burden of those who believe in a soul to prove its existence, that doesn't mean the rest of us can't participate or learn from the discussion. Sometimes... hell OFTEN, the process has value.

This is an educational site, and I for one have not "poked fun" at religion, or said "I Believeee". I'm hear to discuss and learn, not impose my views on others... I save that for the regular forums and life.

 

[Lacy33]

Well...said! Good night.

 

[zomgwtf]

This is a philosophy forum meant to discuss philosophy in. I'm no contesting anything because people won't discuss the soul in terms I want to, it's because there's nothing philosophical being discussed.

As well I was poking fun at Maitreya when I said it was a fallacy because she was the one bringing up the term fallacy. Then Lacy agreed with her in their own little fallacy, so I called it out. Simple.

This forum might be in the lounge but that is far from saying you can discuss whatever you like. There are regulations to be followed still and if you find I'm being harsh on people then so be it. I came to this discussion intending to discuss the soul and the philosophy of the soul. I've studied the soul in philosophy both in school and online (one of the online philosophy courses with aspects of the soul which I found most interesting has been posted here) and was hoping that others would be interested to discuss these philosophies, however that's not the case.

 

[DaveC426913]

I came to this discussion intending to discuss the soul and the philosophy of the soul ... and was hoping that others would be interested to discuss these philosophies, however that's not the case.

Yeah, it went off the rails in about post 15. By that time, there didn't seem to be a lot of serous discussion of the kind the OP was looking for, and threads have a way of defaulting to silliness if they lose their direction.

OTOH, the OP didn't really pose a question to be answered, except "what do you think?". And, not to put to fine a point on it, I guess we answered that question in spades!

 

[Lacy33]

Dave, are suggesting the thread be closed even though some of us are enjoying it?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, are suggesting the thread be closed even though some of us are enjoying it?

I'm not suggesting anything. zomgwf is kind of unhappy with the thread; I was simply pointing out that, while some threads do get hijacked by silliness, there are some theads that simply run out of fuel shortly after take off...

 

[Lacy33]

I'm not suggesting anything. zomgwf is kind of unhappy with the thread; I was simply pointing out that, while some threads do get hijacked by silliness, there are some theads that simply run out of fuel shortly after take off...

I see that Evo locked your thread when you tried asking a similar question:

" Re: Do you believe there is a soul?
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."
That was some time ago.
Perhaps it was good to try again.

Even though silliness and crankiness resulted from this thread it did bring up some good points and sincere reasons for thought about something that truly interests many people.
How to handle a subject like this takes much talent. I saw at least three people in this discussion who seemed to be objectively managing the topic.
Don't you think?

 

[brainstorm]

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.

I'm not trying to define soul by talking about inhabiting a body or being a body. This was just a personal spiritual revelation for me that I could think of myself as a soul inhabiting a body instead of as my body itself. I think of the body like a flesh robot whose senses, nervous system, musculature, etc. provide a platform for the soul to engage in material activities.

Although I feel damage done to my body, I would say that damaging my body is the same as damaging me - at least not when I reflect on it consciously. In a way it is, the same as if you would harm some material possession, I would feel personally affected. In fact, a body is like a personal vehicle made out of living tissue, imo, only it's very difficult for the soul to detach itself from the sensations generated by the nervous infrastructure. I'm sure it is possible, such as when people sustain very painful injuries and go into shock or have out of body experiences during near death experiences, but I don't think it's just a question of making a choice to ignore sensation.

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?

This reminds me of that movie with Harrison Ford where he has a stroke or something and becomes simple minded and everyone likes him better. I think souls do persist through radical personality changes, traumas, insanity, and even labotomies. I'm not sure whether I believe that a soul can leave a body behind permanently while the body is still living. I'm also not sure whether another soul could take the place of an old one in a departed body. This is getting into the weird side.

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.

Spiritually at least, I like to believe that souls have eternal life and possibly re-incarnate. I do think they are individual, even though they aren't separate.

It's funny to me when you say that consciousness is not verifiable. Verifiable to whom? Anyone who is conscious can verify it to themselves, even if they can't prove it to anyone else.

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.'"

Nice ending for your post. I agree, but I think it's purpose is to create purpose. It is significant that God refuses to prove the existence of God - and it is related to the nature of the relationship between divinity and faith. One way to look at it is that as the creative being that created humans to create, the act of creating divine knowledge is itself the human method of discovering God. So faith is necessarily a creative act (pro-active) instead of reactive, as are discovery or proof-seeking.

If God was conceived as the almighty "discoverer" and the creation was called "the discovery" that God "discovered" instead of created; then maybe it wouldn't be faith but perception that was emphasized as the means of realizing God. Of course, if reactive concepts were used, then the question would always be left open of how it got there in the first place for God to discover it or otherwise react to it.

 

[Lacy33]

brainstorm, I really like this post of yours. But love the thought experiment idea.
There is a lot of play in creative thought.
I also think that might be what zomgwtf was trying to do here and there.

 

[zomgwtf]

@brainstorm How exactly would you show the soul being attached to your material body? Whether it's a direct connection or a communication connection. Can you imagine your soul without your body? Without having anybody or form?
Where does it (the soul) get the energy to control this 'robot' body?

 

[Lacy33]

@brainstorm How exactly would you show the soul being attached to your material body? Whether it's a direct connection or a communication connection. Can you imagine your soul without your body? Without having anybody or form?
Where does it (the soul) get the energy to control this 'robot' body?

Hmmm. I wonder too... Why don't you think a bit about it and tell me what you think.

 

[Pythagorean]

I know these questions weren't addressed to me, but they look fun

How exactly would you show the soul being attached to your material body?

based on my definition, you make measurements using Neural Correlates of Consciousness and find the system of neurons responsible for consciousness. The soul will pertain more to self-consciousness than general consciousness.

Can you imagine your soul without your body?

Brain Death, where only your core systems (hindbrain) are running but the rest of your brain is dead. That's equivalent to taking a shotgun to a spider, but we can be sure the spider is no longer there.

Without having anybody or form?

Kind of. It's form may be just a matter of neural configuration, but it may also be a matter of neural processes. Processes are harder to give form.

Where does it (the soul) get the energy to control this 'robot' body?

ATP/oxygen

 

[Lacy33]

OK, zomgwtf,
It looks like Pythagorean learned from the medical books however left out body temp.
Don't try this at home!
(silly stuff will kill this thread) I so wish this would stay on the arcane.
Not to say Pythagorean's comment is silly. I hope someone finds a coalition uniting physical laws and consciousnesses studies.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I'm not trying to define soul by talking about inhabiting a body or being a body. This was just a personal spiritual revelation for me that I could think of myself as a soul inhabiting a body instead of as my body itself. I think of the body like a flesh robot whose senses, nervous system, musculature, etc. provide a platform for the soul to engage in material activities.

Although I feel damage done to my body, I would say that damaging my body is the same as damaging me - at least not when I reflect on it consciously. In a way it is, the same as if you would harm some material possession, I would feel personally affected. In fact, a body is like a personal vehicle made out of living tissue, imo, only it's very difficult for the soul to detach itself from the sensations generated by the nervous infrastructure. I'm sure it is possible, such as when people sustain very painful injuries and go into shock or have out of body experiences during near death experiences, but I don't think it's just a question of making a choice to ignore sensation.


This reminds me of that movie with Harrison Ford where he has a stroke or something and becomes simple minded and everyone likes him better. I think souls do persist through radical personality changes, traumas, insanity, and even labotomies. I'm not sure whether I believe that a soul can leave a body behind permanently while the body is still living. I'm also not sure whether another soul could take the place of an old one in a departed body. This is getting into the weird side.


Spiritually at least, I like to believe that souls have eternal life and possibly re-incarnate. I do think they are individual, even though they aren't separate.

It's funny to me when you say that consciousness is not verifiable. Verifiable to whom? Anyone who is conscious can verify it to themselves, even if they can't prove it to anyone else.


Nice ending for your post. I agree, but I think it's purpose is to create purpose. It is significant that God refuses to prove the existence of God - and it is related to the nature of the relationship between divinity and faith. One way to look at it is that as the creative being that created humans to create, the act of creating divine knowledge is itself the human method of discovering God. So faith is necessarily a creative act (pro-active) instead of reactive, as are discovery or proof-seeking.

If God was conceived as the almighty "discoverer" and the creation was called "the discovery" that God "discovered" instead of created; then maybe it wouldn't be faith but perception that was emphasized as the means of realizing God. Of course, if reactive concepts were used, then the question would always be left open of how it got there in the first place for God to discover it or otherwise react to it.

Now that was a truly well considered reply; thank you brainstorm! Obviously we come at this from very different beliefs, but I'm surprised at how we agree on many of the details; if there were a soul, I would expect it to be much as you describe.

Then I look at the news of 25 miners dead, trapped in a coal mine, and I wonder how long my uncertainty would last in the face of that kind of personal trauma? Perhaps my views do require more structure...

@Pythagorean: I for one, am interested in anything you have to offer. You clarified the term "soul" early on, for which I am "eternally" grateful, heh.

Your point about neural processes goes directly to my comment about the DMN (Default Mode Network) of the human brain. We have a LOT of background noise that used to be dismissed as... well... noise. Now, it seems that activity can be correlated with major mental illness, cause or effect being unclear.

Even when we're asleep, we dream, and when we're awake and unfocused, our brains are ticking away. That seems to be the beginning of a scientific explation for the subjective experience of continuous consciousness, or a soul.

@DaveC: I think you're right, but I don't think this thread is beyond hope or worth. That... and you really do deserve that humour award, we definitely gave him a piece of our minds! Poor lad/lass...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is not philosophy and saying that it can have various meanings changed at a dime is dishonest. It's called changing the goalposts, and it's a fallacy.

At one time many things were defined such that they do not make much sense now after science has been able to explain them more objectively. Obviously we can not say that these phenomena did not exist until they were objectively defined. And in the interim between 'discovery' and 'definitive' explanation there was likely quite a bit of hypothesizing and subjective conjecture as to the nature and definition of these phenomena. "Goalposting" as you call it.

My favourite example, one which seems somewhat striking to me, is that of meteorites. It seems odd to me that as a people that have been obsessed with the stars and the mysteries of what we see in the sky for thousands of years our scientific community at large did not accept the existence of meteorites until only about two hundred years ago. Peasants and farmers and even whole communities claimed to have seen fiery objects fall from the sky and the scientists told them that they were mistaken. That these rock specimens they sent could not possibly have fallen from the sky. You see there was a legend of "thunder stones", fiery objects hurled from the heavens by the gods, and obviously only superstitious people believed in such things. Today though if we were to hear of a thunder stone we would probably immediately think of meteorites. It is not that the thunder stone did not exist, only that it was not understood and defined in a manner indicative of the culture that 'discovered' it and their scientific limitations.

So I do not believe in a "soul" as theologians have defined it but I believe that science has found the "soul" in the myriad complex functions of the human body and brain and demystified it.

 

[zomgwtf]

I agree with both Pythagorean and StatApe. However my term for that is my mind not my soul.

The definitions I use are:
Mind- the intellect and conciousness of myself. This includes all cognitive functions that occur at an unconscious level.

Soul- an immaterial and normally supernatural life force of me. It's chiefly responsible for personality and conciousness however other functions may be applied to it depending on the belief. The main point though is that it is specifically defined as immaterial. (which is the actually definition of the word for thousands of years)

The reason we need to make a distinction between these words is to not confuse ourselves or others of what we are talking about. For instance in Pythagoreans explanation I'm not sure if he's talking just about the mind, or if he actually is discussing something immaterial.

As well Ape, I didn't mean that the fact that the word is difficult to define was the goalposting, but the fact that they think they can change the definition to suit whatever conclusion that they want to achieve is. Your meteorite example is a very good one, however I don't believe it's the same thing. They didn't change the definition of the actually words in order to continue to believe/not believe. They just couldn't accept it. If however the evidence came about that they were definitively meteorites and not 'thunderstones' thrown from the gods and they decided to change up the definition of such thunderstone in order to make it appear as though the thunderstones are thrown by god, then this is changing the goalpost. People who believe in a soul/animating mystic force tend to do this a lot.

 

[brainstorm]

@brainstorm How exactly would you show the soul being attached to your material body? Whether it's a direct connection or a communication connection. Can you imagine your soul without your body? Without having anybody or form?
Where does it (the soul) get the energy to control this 'robot' body?

Imagine that your knowledge, memories, and other "baggage" that you've acquired through life and experience are not the soul itself. Imagine that the soul has access to all the various "baggage" but it is just the consciousness that interacts with the "baggage," the body, the body's surroundings, etc.

Now, if the soul isn't a material thing but rather a pattern, couldn't that pattern by transferred between material hosts? From a materialist point of view this is an impossible concept but imagine you could transfer or exchange souls with another body. If you did, how would you know that you had if you also exchanged all knowledge and memories, and even a sense of ego/self, with the other person?

You would experience your new self as your own. You would have access to all the memories possessed by that self as your own. You would have access to the knowledge of that mind-body as your own. Basically you would become the other person and have no memories from being the person you were before the soul-transfer occurred.

It's easy to say that if there is no memory of the transfer that it didn't take place, but what if it DID take place and there was no subjective record of it because memories, knowledge, and sense of ego/self remain with the body? You could ask yourself how long you've actually been inhabiting your current body, but you would have no way to figure it out.

Complete nonsense from materialist science point of view, but spiritually interesting possibility I think.

 

[GreatEscapist]

This is not philosophy and saying that it can have various meanings changed at a dime is dishonest. It's called changing the goalposts, and it's a fallacy.

It's defined differently, by different people, and that's okay. Why is it defined differently? Because there isn't proof of it, and so then people substitute their own definitions in for it. It's the conscience, the separate entity from one's body, the "inner self", etc. It basically has the same meaning.
Dishonest would indicate that we are using two totally different definition, like that we would be calling it a fish and an inner self. THAT'S completely changing goalposts, and being unfair.
Words can have more than one meaning. Dictionaries have plenty of them.

 

[GreatEscapist]

My favourite example, one which seems somewhat striking to me, is that of meteorites. It seems odd to me that as a people that have been obsessed with the stars and the mysteries of what we see in the sky for thousands of years our scientific community at large did not accept the existence of meteorites until only about two hundred years ago. Peasants and farmers and even whole communities claimed to have seen fiery objects fall from the sky and the scientists told them that they were mistaken. That these rock specimens they sent could not possibly have fallen from the sky. You see there was a legend of "thunder stones", fiery objects hurled from the heavens by the gods, and obviously only superstitious people believed in such things. Today though if we were to hear of a thunder stone we would probably immediately think of meteorites. It is not that the thunder stone did not exist, only that it was not understood and defined in a manner indicative of the culture that 'discovered' it and their scientific limitations.

And that is the problem with things that can't be proved by scientists. Skeptics (Me. ) will never believe it unless we see it, and can't point out flaws in the proof. Like the whole green-fire-breathing dragon example- that was wrong, much to many religious people's disappointment.
And, to the posts pointing out this is slowly degrading, hey, it's a fun argument. I like seeing what some people think. I usually learn a thing or two.

 

[Frame Dragger]

And that is the problem with things that can't be proved by scientists. Skeptics (Me. ) will never believe it unless we see it, and can't point out flaws in the proof. Like the whole green-fire-breathing dragon example- that was wrong, much to many religious people's disappointment.
And, to the posts pointing out this is slowly degrading, hey, it's a fun argument. I like seeing what some people think. I usually learn a thing or two.

Indeed, but Skeptics must always keep unproven matters in the "conditional pile", not "excluded" or "included".

In other words, you couldn't convince me with a special effects studio that dragons exist, because that level of "extraordinary claim" requires "extraordinary evidence". If I were so inclined for some reason, I suppose I would examine the marks (burn, claws, etc), compare that you story, etc... etc...

That doesn't mean you stick yourself in a 50-50 "superposition" of belief and disbelief, just that each claim should ideally be examined, if possible. Obviously it isn't possible, so better ways to do this involve tests such as the classic "You can feel my 'aura'? Even through clothing? Even with your eyes shut? Ok, I'll stand behind this scrim, or not... you point to where I am."

No one passes that test.

For dragons, and monsters in The Loch Ness, I "poo poo", because there are no truly new claims, new evidence, and in fact debunking it is fairly easy. Dragons fall into that category as well, unless we choose to think of "Komodo Dragons..."

For souls, and for reasons others have described, we just don't have that kind of ability to test. A solopist would laugh at all of us, if s/he were not too busy musing on our fictional nature. The bottom line, is that I agree with your conclusions based on what I've seen, and I would be surprised->shocked if souls were discovered (can't imagine how...). That said, the "mysteries" (not mysticism) of the brain and body do remain. Hell, if you can convince a conference of Psychiatrists/Psychologists that you've discovered the mechanism by which Tourette Syndrome gives birth to coprolalia/-phagia/-axia you would win more awards than... than... you'd win a LOT of awards.

So, we have a notion of what the frontal lobe is responsible for, but then, that list is ENORMOUS. That can be said for most of the complex structures of our brains, and how they in turn, relate and work with other portions. The brain is not mystical (I believe), but it is damned mysterious and massively complex, far more so than big lizards which DID exist at one point (they just happened not to breath fire or eat people, as no people existed when Dinos roamed...).

What was the basis of the dragon myth? My guess is someone found fossiles and drew a fairly natural conclusion for the time (monsters, not dragons). Hell, I find a T-Rex to be fairly impressive, but if I just found a some dead baby dinosaur I might well think "MONSTER!" if I were living in a different age and place.

Now we're back to "Thunderstones" again.

EDIT: I agree with you GreatEscapist. I enjoy the process here as much as the conclusions. I've made a friend on this thread as well (Hi Lacy!), and let's face it, this concerns us all. It's not something we can DO anything about, but it concerns us. Besides, who DOESN'T want insight into the thoughts of others?

 

[Pythagorean]

I agree with both Pythagorean and StatApe. However my term for that is my mind not my soul.

The definitions I use are:
Mind- the intellect and conciousness of myself. This includes all cognitive functions that occur at an unconscious level.

Soul- an immaterial and normally supernatural life force of me. It's chiefly responsible for personality and conciousness however other functions may be applied to it depending on the belief. The main point though is that it is specifically defined as immaterial. (which is the actually definition of the word for thousands of years)

The reason we need to make a distinction between these words is to not confuse ourselves or others of what we are talking about. For instance in Pythagoreans explanation I'm not sure if he's talking just about the mind, or if he actually is discussing something immaterial.

As well Ape, I didn't mean that the fact that the word is difficult to define was the goalposting, but the fact that they think they can change the definition to suit whatever conclusion that they want to achieve is. Your meteorite example is a very good one, however I don't believe it's the same thing. They didn't change the definition of the actually words in order to continue to believe/not believe. They just couldn't accept it. If however the evidence came about that they were definitively meteorites and not 'thunderstones' thrown from the gods and they decided to change up the definition of such thunderstone in order to make it appear as though the thunderstones are thrown by god, then this is changing the goalpost. People who believe in a soul/animating mystic force tend to do this a lot.

I'm talking about a specific aspect of mind. I'm more interested in why people percieve the sensation of having a Immaterial soul.

But I'm also open to the idea that it exists as a process (like the weather) rather than as a material. So I still think it's a physical process, material or no.

Even in physics, materials only serve as the medium for the physical phenomena (like wave propagation)

also, I think there's two approaches to defining soul. Textualists who take ancient definitions literally, and functionalists, who look for the functional form of the definition. I would be a functionalist, I'm looking at the aspect of self and individuality. The sensation of being a single entity, despite being made up of many fundamental units of life.