Do Humans Have Souls Beyond Mind and Body?

[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.