Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Does experiences constructs soul?

  1. yes

    2 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. no

    1 vote(s)
    33.3%
  1. Jul 5, 2009 #1
    I assume
    When we we got birth we were hardwares ,from that point with the single change of time frame ,we began collecting information using every known and unknown sense organs stored in our brain at active or inactive spot, affected our behaviour and our activities to do in the nest instantaneous time frame. All the information that we received actually made us ,we are not of us , we are due to information we get and leaded to make our decision.
    if that does it mean information makes soul ? or simply telling experiences construct soul


    guys you can help mewith your views, and correct if I am wrong
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 5, 2009 #2

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Your question presumes the existence of souls in the first place. There is no satisfactory evidence that souls are anything more than wishful thinking.
     
  4. Jul 5, 2009 #3
    Well if you read his post it's implying not the religious soul that your refer to but the 'your mind' soul. You know, i'm not sure what word to use for it other than soul. Consciousness?

    But yes I think that experiences build up the person you are. Just think, people aren't born bitter...
     
  5. Jul 5, 2009 #4

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Let's try not to second-guess the OP.
     
  6. Jul 5, 2009 #5
    not a religious soul, purely scientific
     
  7. Jul 5, 2009 #6

    negitron

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I think you mean "self" rather than "soul".
     
  8. Jul 5, 2009 #7

    negitron

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    As opposed to totally misinterpreting it?
     
  9. Jul 5, 2009 #8

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    There is a modern definition of soul nowadays that necessarily exists as the naming of an observed phenomena.

    Infomax hinted at it himself:

    The observed phenomena itself is the degree of social individuality humans, mammals, and perhaps many other species exhibit that differentiate themselves from other members of the same species. Note that I said social individuality, as opposed to physical (aesthetic) differences.

    Your emotional sense of individuality, your personal shape of consciousness, would be your soul.

    This is similar, but not quite the same as when someone exhibits their soul as utilized by jazz and funk musicians "he's got soul!". In this case, the subject is still the same kind of psychological identity, but the phrase is not implying that no one else in the room has souls; it is implying that he has mastered a lucid expression of his or her emotional depth and maturity. It more means that he is in touch with and aware of his soul (i.e. his emotional and psychological state).

    People who "lack soul" (businessmen and scientists are accused of this more than any other social group) aren't really missing their soul... they're just tend to be a bit emotionally and socially underdeveloped.

    To answer the OP's question:

    I don't think that experience alone "constructs" soul. I think it's a combination of genetic makeup and experiences. You may argue that it is only the genetic makeup, depending on how exactly you define soul, and everything else just affects the growth and development of the soul.
     
  10. Jul 5, 2009 #9

    negitron

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This is a pointless and confusing usage, because as I already pointed out, we have a perfectly good word that means that without all the unnecessary religious baggage: self.
     
  11. Jul 5, 2009 #10

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That may be so, but it's becoming more common in the modern age.

    hmm, let's try this:

    "Self Brothers"
    "Heart and Self"
    "Self Food"

    naw, I like my secular soul.
     
  12. Jul 5, 2009 #11

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    and another thing:

    When I lay back on my fertilized lawn (as it reacts with my skin) under the golden sun (as it gives me skin cancer) smoking a cigarette (as it gives me lung cancer) and sip a cheap beer (as it eats away at my liver) and I say "ahh, this is good for the self" I can assure you that it most certainly is not good for the self.

    The point being that self includes my hands, my bones, my eyes, my toes, my stomach and my heart, while the soul pertains to a certain abstract aspect of the brain.

    edit:

    however, for your convenience, I will henceforth refer to it as the secular soul. I think I like that better anyway. And it's an alliteration.
     
  13. Jul 5, 2009 #12

    negitron

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    None of those examples is secular in origin.
     
  14. Jul 5, 2009 #13

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Do you not celebrate any holidays just because they weren't secular in origin? It's important for humans to develop themselves emotionally and socially.

    In fact, they're starting to find that even math is learned through emotions initially. They're sort of our mental vehicle, or at least the fuel for it.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200007/raising-baby-what-you-need-know
     
  15. Jul 5, 2009 #14

    negitron

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Actually, I don't really celebrate any holidays. They all seem pointless and arbitrary. But, that's just this atheist's opinion.
     
  16. Jul 5, 2009 #15

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As opposed to answering the question that was asked. If the OP wants to modify it after seeing the results it generated, let him.

    That being said, I have no problem going out on a limb, supposing a different meaning and then moving on, it's just that I think it should be granted as a risk and stated as such.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2009
  17. Jul 6, 2009 #16

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm an atheist and a physics graduate for the record. I have a sort of disposition towards holidays and spirituality myself, but it's because I'm lazy and selfish and these things take energy and focus, not because I think they're pointless.

    It's a lot like exercise, only for the brain (and not the cognitive side of the brain). You don't really feel motivated to do it, but it can be enjoyable once you're actually participating and it's inevitably healthy for you.

    It's great to know a lot of things and develop rationale and logic, but it doesn't help a great deal if you're emotionally retarded. This is why I think it's important (especially for stereotypical scientists) to acknowledge their emotional selves, whether they call it their secular soul or not.
     
  18. Jul 6, 2009 #17

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is a mess, and it's a good example of why we enacted writing standards. There are too many ways to intepret this word jumble.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Does experiences constructs soul?
  1. The soul (Replies: 7)

  2. That's a soul? (Replies: 132)

Loading...