Do Humans Have Souls Beyond Mind and Body?

[Pythagorean]

So you'll change the definition of soul just so that you can discuss existence of the soul? I don't get it, why claim that the aspect of self and individuality and the sensation of being a single entity is a 'soul' when there's already a word to describe this. Specifically: the mind.

1) I'm using one of the oldest definitions: Plato's definition as I posted earlier "the essence of a person". It's not really a required part of the definition that it be immaterial (though, as I showed previously, physical processes can be immaterial and still have significant meaning as a phenomena).

2) I completely disagree that the soul is equatable to mind. The mind is much bigger than the soul. The mind has many processes of which we are not conscious

You've just turned the soul into something that can never be argued against, ever.

I've done quite the opposite. I've turned it into something falsifiable. If it's found that our sensation of a whole individual is a fallacy and an illusion produced by processes in our brain, than it becomes less likely that a soul exists.

Daniel Dennett alludes to this in his talks about consciousness. He asks, "What if nobody's running the wheelhouse". I.e. 'what if there's no soul'. I'm totally open to the argument... but you're not making it. You're arguing semantics.

What you say is a functionalist definition of the soul, isn't actually the definition of soul. It's like people who change the definition of god to mean 'that which created/caused the universe to come into existence'. I used to be in that camp but I realized it's just wrong.

Hrm... I think you're caught up on your own past fallacies. I think I've actually showed the relevance of my definition and where it was used in the past (perhaps for the first time in western history, but not sure).

Anyway, many people use your definition of god, generally deists. It doesn't particular bother me. I guess the misconception you seem to own is that you imply that whenever people are not talking about the soul or God, they're meanings are standardized... which they are not.

It's always important to define what you're talking about in philosophical questions. Once you've defined what you're talking about, arguments about semantics (what you're doing) are pointless. It doesn't confront the logical approach of the problem. If I'm consistent within my definitions then you should be able to understand what I'm saying, and that's all language really is for: communication. Once you see my point, you can agree with it, argue against it, point out strengths and weaknesses... but just saying "oh, but I don't like the way you used that word" is pretty ridiculous and unproductive, especially since I laid out a pretty straightforward definition. This is why people are always rolling their eyes at semantics arguments. Semantics are important to lay down at the beginning of the discussion, but arguing over them won't get you anywhere. If you want to be productive, you just have to accept definitions people use and argue within them.

Anyway, I still don't see why my definition is wrong. It's not the Western Christian version that you may have been comfortably raised with, it's much older than that and much more fundamental.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I've done quite the opposite. I've turned it into something falsifiable. If it's found that our sensation of a whole individual is a fallacy and an illusion produced by processes in our brain, than it becomes less likely that a soul exists.

YES! That's what medicine and science in general are doing, but it's an incremental process. You have to suspend faith to examine the basis of it, and as one explanation (Dinosaurs, not Dragons) becomes defiitive... well... that's how it goes.

So I sit here thinking, "I don't see a soul as likely, as we explain phenomena that were once exclusively 'mystical', or have at least rendered them merely mysterious. That said, there is 'wiggle-room', and to deny that would be to deny the very process we're engaged in."

Doubt, not as some casual thing, but a true state of unresolved cognitive dissonance, if you can manage it turns you into the "Uber-Skeptic". You just have to care and be curious, otherwise you're merely apathetic, and your doubt has to be real (in whatever proportion) as well, or it's just rhetoric.

 

[brainstorm]

Even if you don't call it a "soul," don't you recognize that there is something inside you perceiving your body and its surroundings from the inside?

I assume that this "consciousness" exists to some extent in many living things. Anything with eyes must be seeing, right? Granted a muscle can respond directly to a nerve-cue without the need to perceive the sensation of the nerve-impulse, but somewhere in between that and seeing has to be some form of perception, right?

A fly experiences more than a rock, don't you think?

 

[pallidin]

Wondering out-loud...

If a "soul" exists, is it so intertwined with my human physiology that laying next to a nuclear bomb, detonated, would destroy my soul?

 

[zomgwtf]

Anyway, I still don't see why my definition is wrong.

Ok, I'll asume that your definition of my soul is not the same thing as saying 'my mind' is true.

It's not the Western Christian version that you may have been comfortably raised with, it's much older than that and much more fundamental.

No wtf? I'm just saying that you shouldn't change the accepted definition just so that you can continue to discuss it's existence or non-existence. However I've said that I'll accept your definition of the soul and I'll accept that what you've said so far does not more so define the mind.

I think your definition is more Aristotelian than Platonic though.

Why do I think this? It appears that you believe more of a 'emergent' property type of soul as Ape was discussing before. That is even though I'm many parts I feel as though I am one, this is surely an emmergent property and it is ME. It doesn't mean it is an actually separate entity however, in my opinion this is just the mind. That's why I've been discussing the semantics card so much. I do not see the point in calling this a soul when in modern language it is known as the mind. This is more of a Aristotelian view on the soul.

The Platonic soul is a tripartite made of Reasoning, Apetite and Spirit. They depend on each other in order for you to be happy. If you are happy then you are just, vice versa works as well. The soul is eternal and it can never be destroyed. The soul is also immaterial from the point of view of Platonic thinking. (as far as I can remember from what I've studied). You set out using the Platonic definition of soul and I was fine with that. You then changed up the definition and I didn't agree with that. I'll accept it though.

 

[zomgwtf]

Wondering out-loud...

If a "soul" exists, is it so intertwined with my human physiology that laying next to a nuclear bomb, detonated, would destroy my soul?

Some people believe the soul continues its existence after our material death, some think it doesn't.

This reminded me of a bit of logic I remember from philosophy class. It's intended to show that dualism is a 'legit' view point.

1 x and y are the same if they are identical. For x and y to be identical there must not be one property held by one and not the other. (Indiscernibility of Identicals part of Leibniz Law)
2 Possibly, my mind exists without my body.
3 It follows that, my mind has the property "possibly exists when my body does not".
4 However, my body does not have the property "possibly exists when my body does not".
5 Therefore, there my mind holds a property which my body does not.
6 Therefore, my mind and my body are not identical.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello all,

Very interesting views, comments and replies….


Imo, living human beings all have a material body, a physical mind and a ‘spiritual soul’.

Living in a material world, our body is the interface between our mind and the immediate environment in which both exist. In turn, this immediate environment extends to a material universe that itself exists as a body through which its inner laws are manifested for us to witness and experience.

The mind is emergent from the brain and its energetic nature becomes entangled with the ‘spiritual soul’, which in turn emanates from the universal’s energetic source, in tune with our body/mind selves.

Our personality is primarily linked with our mind as the mind, through all our life’s experiences, is and has been the monitor/registrar/sensor of our emotions and, given our level of consciousness, the decider of how our body is put in action in response to those experiences.

As I see it, the spiritual soul has nothing to do with personality, mind or consciousness, but is intimately ‘personally related’ to their human host as a whole, in a much deeper interaction with natural laws as expressed through universal absolute Truth and Love.

In this description, the ‘spiritual soul’ would not be an individual feature but could be an (infinite) emanation of the universal energetic realm, existing and manifesting itself to each and all living human beings. What could then possibly survive after the body’s death is not the mind, nor the personality or consciousness, but a ‘self’, fused with that personally related 'spiritual soul'.


Regards,

VE

 

[Pythagorean]

No wtf? I'm just saying that you shouldn't change the accepted definition just so that you can continue to discuss it's existence or non-existence.

I never changed the definition of the soul. You and I simply have different definitions of the soul based on how we've been exposed to it.

I think your definition is more Aristotelian than Platonic though.

So you accept that it's not a definition I pulled out of my arse? We can call it a secular soul if you like. I've used that term before.

Why do I think this? It appears that you believe more of a 'emergent' property type of soul as Ape was discussing before. That is even though I'm many parts I feel as though I am one, this is surely an emmergent property and it is ME.

Sure, emergent properties is one way to describe it. But I always found that kind of vague. It, like the soul, means different things to different people while still having some pervasive themes.

It doesn't mean it is an actually separate entity however, in my opinion this is just the mind. That's why I've been discussing the semantics card so much. I do not see the point in calling this a soul when in modern language it is known as the mind. This is more of a Aristotelian view on the soul.

I'm not defending any claim that it's a separate entity. However, I disagree that the soul is the mind. The soul is very likely a process/part of the mind, but the mind is an even bigger concept (it would have to be to contain the soul). In addition to the soul, the mind includes processes that we wouldn't associate with the soul.

Of course, this depends on how you define mind. I define it as and abstraction of the unconscious as well as conscious information processes occurring in the brain. An abstraction I say, because we generally analogize it as the software of the brain, not the information processes that make up the software package.

The Platonic soul is a tripartite made of Reasoning, Apetite and Spirit. They depend on each other in order for you to be happy. If you are happy then you are just, vice versa works as well. The soul is eternal and it can never be destroyed. The soul is also immaterial from the point of view of Platonic thinking. (as far as I can remember from what I've studied). You set out using the Platonic definition of soul and I was fine with that. You then changed up the definition and I didn't agree with that. I'll accept it though.

I didn't change the definition of it that I am aware of. I never considered whether it was immaterial or not. I doubt it is material (like I said, I suspect it's a physical process of the material: a stable state) but that's not really important to the whole reason we (non-religious intellectuals) care about the soul in the first place.

I'll repeat again my definition(s):

The essence of a person

The difference between a dead person and a live person

 

[zomgwtf]

Yes Pythagorean, sorry for my semantics talk I was having earlier. It wasn't necessarily directed at you. Just kinda got outta hand.

With your definition of a soul why do you think it is necessary to concieve such an idea? What purpoes does it serve or problems will it solve. (in the mind/body duality)

 

[brainstorm]

Think for a moment about the meaning of differentiating the concept of soul from that of body, but also mind, ego, memories, etc.

What else is there left as "a soul?" I am thinking that soul may be equivalent to the Freudian "id." I.e. an underlying set of desires that motivate the ego and get rewarded by it, but are separate and distinct from it.

Think of it this way. People can go through personality changes where they have difficulty recognizing or remembering how it was to be the way they used to be. Yet on another level they still feel a certain way about themselves or they desire certain things that their superego and ego may not allow them to achieve.

In terms of reincarnation, it would make sense that the unfulfilled id seeks rebirth in a new body or situation where it can attain the superego and ego it thinks will help it achieve the things it desires, whether through karmic attraction/debt or maybe for other reasons.

Yes, I know I'm throwing in lots of spiritual/religious terminology, but the issue is why a soul would progress through series of ego-personality changes and changes in thought-perspective during the course of a lifetime, or even multiple lifetimes if you want to play with that idea.

I think it must have to do with underlying desires and will-power that transcend both mind/thought AND bodily/physiological needs, although both may develop in dialogue with the soul's development as a separate thing.

 

[zomgwtf]

If the soul can develop and change then would I be correct in assuming that the soul is a worldly thing? Since change is time dependent?

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes Pythagorean, sorry for my semantics talk I was having earlier. It wasn't necessarily directed at you. Just kinda got outta hand.

With your definition of a soul why do you think it is necessary to concieve such an idea? What purpoes does it serve or problems will it solve. (in the mind/body duality)

That's really part of the question. Why do we feel this way? Is there an evolutionary purpose for this self image?

A lot of the imperative processes our brain performs do so without direction from our consciousness. Why do we need a conscious process? How has it helped us survive?

 

[brainstorm]

If the soul can develop and change then would I be correct in assuming that the soul is a worldly thing? Since change is time dependent?

What do you mean by "worldly?" When I use the word "worldly," it is in the context of contrasting it with "divinity." From a spiritual perspective, worldly authority is sometimes contrasted with divine authority. That doesn't necessarily mean that divine authority doesn't operate "in the world" because Holy Spirit works by "dwelling" in people. It means more that some authorities are concerned with worshipping "worldly" things or "matters of flesh," i.e. materialism, whereas divine authority is concerned with "matters of spirit." The implication is that serving worldly interests can have a negative effect on spirit, or at least divert people from it. For example, if someone is focussed on food, sexuality, wealth, social-approval, etc. they can start to think of spiritual happiness as unimportant. That can lead people to sacrifice their conscience in order to gain worldly/material/flesh pleasure/happiness.

So, according to that logic, the soul has both worldly/material and divine/spiritual orientations, but because it is seen as fundamentally a spiritual/divine thing, it is supposed to benefit from not being diverted too much from itself to pay attention to worldly things like materiality, human/social authority, bodily pleasure, etc. So hopefully that helps explain the logic of relating spirit/soul to worldliness within this ideology of spirit/soul.