Exploring the Possibility of Human Souls

[Lacy33]

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.

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

Yeah! You have to change the definition of the soul. Absolutely! The old definition does not work anymore. It belongs to outdated systems.
If you had to redefine the soul, how would you do it zomgwtf? How would you start?

 

[zomgwtf]

Yeah! You have to change the definition of the soul. Absolutely! The old definition does not work anymore. It belongs to outdated systems.
If you had to redefine the soul, how would you do it zomgwtf? How would you start?

I don't change the fundamental definition of words in order to prove that something exists. That's called dishonest as I have pointed out many times in this thread. Adding to a definition, well that's different. It happens all the time, but changing the word completely... that's a no-no. Either find make a new word (happens all the time in philosophy) or find a different term to specifically discuss what you intend to portray.

I do not think that the word 'soul' is out-dated at all. In fact there are some pretty well thought out logic proofs for the existence of a soul which is not the body.

As well, I editted my post to add some more stuff, you should read it. Specifically about changing the definition of god in order to proove that god does exist. It's pointless, sure that specific definition of god probably does exist but it has no bearing on the existence of the regular word used. It does not prove or disprove anything about gods in fact, just shows that the universe had a starting point.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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)

Personally I was referring to the whole shebang, physical and mental. A fundamental flaw in my comparison with meteorites is that they were one thing where a "soul" is more complex and the explanation for the whole of its definition is more than a one for one (thunderstone = meteorite) but rather it has multiple explanations for various parts of its supposed existence.

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.

While there are genuine "believers" I think that most of them are stuck in old definitions relying on authority. These people are not restricted to philosophy and religion either; there are still plenty of believers in things such as the "luminiferous ether" and phrenology. I believe that there are also people of genuine curiosity (the bread and butter of science), such as Lacy and Frame, which I think are far more common than the "genuine believer" and, scientist or not, help promote study and discovery by preventing a scientific dogma that may otherwise dismiss mysterious phenomena rendering potentially worthwhile questions moot. These are the people who are mostly involved in the "goalposting" of redefining old mysteries in the face of new discoveries. "Genuine believers" hold to outmoded definitions and dismiss new discoveries. Those of genuine curiosity take in new information reframing the old questions and creating new definitions for these mysteries to suit current theory and thought.

The "mind" seems the last bastion of mystery connected to the concept of the "soul" and so it is no wonder (to me) that most current revisions of definition are "mind" centered. To me the concept of "soul" is the parent of the theory of the emergent property (and dualism of course); that 'life' and 'mind' are more than the sum of their constituent parts. The idea of phenomena which are not entirely tangible is not so far fetched in my opinion. Perhaps emergent properties do not really exist but they are certainly an interesting and relevant line of thought in the process of understanding reality.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I just finished watching this class a couple weeks ago. Highly recommended. The prof has some interesting arguments against the soul.
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/content/class-sessions

 

[Lacy33]

I don't change the fundamental definition of words in order to prove that something exists. That's called dishonest as I have pointed out many times in this thread. Adding to a definition, well that's different. It happens all the time, but changing the word completely... that's a no-no. Either find make a new word (happens all the time in philosophy) or find a different term to specifically discuss what you intend to portray.

I do not think that the word 'soul' is out-dated at all. In fact there are some pretty well thought out logic proofs for the existence of a soul which is not the body.

As well, I editted my post to add some more stuff, you should read it. Specifically about changing the definition of god in order to proove that god does exist. It's pointless, sure that specific definition of god probably does exist but it has no bearing on the existence of the regular word used. It does not prove or disprove anything about gods in fact, just shows that the universe had a starting point.

This does not stand consistent with your previous post to which I was asking you your thoughts on the topic.
You edited the post I was responding to and I don't think it is a good investment of time looking at pretty fish in murky waters.
You can shut down this conversation if you like. Do you think this topic will not surface some place else?

 

[Lacy33]

I just finished watching this class a couple weeks ago. Highly recommended. The prof has some interesting arguments against the soul.
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/content/class-sessions

Oh Thank you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't change the fundamental definition of words in order to prove that something exists. That's called dishonest as I have pointed out many times in this thread. Adding to a definition, well that's different. It happens all the time, but changing the word completely... that's a no-no. Either find make a new word (happens all the time in philosophy) or find a different term to specifically discuss what you intend to portray.

Words find new definition all the time. Science requires precision in terms but general vernacular is flexible and can reflect the evolution of cultural thought based on new scientific discovery. Unless one is seeking to make an argument of precision logic I see no reason to create new terms as it only confuses the matter as every person will have a new word for their pet theory. To keep up a continuous interpersonal dialog of ideas definitions need to change with current thought and culture. It maintains the established root concepts and questions.

 

[zomgwtf]

I just finished watching this class a couple weeks ago. Highly recommended. The prof has some interesting arguments against the soul.
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/content/class-sessions

Yeah it's a very interesting course I agree.

@Lacy I didn't change what I was saying at all. I was saying quite straight forwardly that we can not change the fundamental definition of soul in order to just keep the souls existence continuing more concretely. It just doesn't make sense to me.

@ape It's interesting that you bring up emergent properties. I tend to think of the soul as an emergent 'possible property'. The mind however is mostly what gives rise to this 'possible emergent property'. The soul is just something that we've created, this has no bearing on whether it actually exists or not.
It does have a bearing on necessity though. For instance people claim that the universe had a beginning, maybe it did but is it necessary to think about? To believe in? Some current cosmological models I've seen certainly make it unnecessary to think about... in fact, I think it's the mainstream idea now days.

 

[zomgwtf]

It maintains the established root concepts and questions.

Only if it does this which is why I keep stressing the importance of fundamental defintion. I did say adding on or adjusting a definition certainly is possible and does occur frequently. That's not the direction that some people here want to take though. They are all for a total redo of the word soul, just so that they can discuss it's existence... it makes no sense since we already have words to describe what they've defined it as.

As well definitions of words is very important in philosophy, this isn't everyday speech.

 

[zomgwtf]

One thing I want to explain about what I mean when I say unnecessary is that it does not solve anything and can not be shown to be true.

What does the soul encompass to you? Let's specifically talk about conciousness. The soul is me, how is it my conciousness? How does it have the atribute of conciousness? What makes it more believable than just the materialist 'mind' view? We might not know how the mind works but saying it's the soul doesn't fix any problems, we still don't know anything about the mind and we still don't know anything about conciousness.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Yeah it's a very interesting course I agree.

@lacy I didn't change what I was saying at all. I was saying quite straight forwardly that we can not change the fundamental definition of soul in order to just keep the souls existence continuing more concretely. It just doesn't make sense to me.

@Ape It's interesting that you bring up emergent properties. I tend to think of the soul as an emergent 'possible property'. The mind however is mostly what gives rise to this 'possible emergent property'. The soul is just something that we've created, this has no bearing on whether it actually exists or not.
It does have a bearing on necessity though. For instance people claim that the universe had a beginning, maybe it did but is it necessary to think about? To believe in? Some current cosmological models I've seen certainly make it unnecessary to think about... in fact, I think it's the mainstream idea now days.

Give me a single definition of what a "Dragon" is. Go on. Make sure it applies to all cultures, and is accurate both historically, and currently.
...
...
...

Yeah, it's not really that easy. Langauge has to evolve with concepts, and that is fundamentally different from using a fallacious argument to win a rhetorical contest.

This isn't a contest, it's SUPPOSED to be a collaboration, enriched by the fact that we have diverse views, beliefs and perspectives. Frankly, you're not adding to this at all, and you're moving into the realm of being genuinely disruptive. I find that frusterating, because I know that isn't how you NORMALLY act, and it certainly doesn't reflect your intellect.

Would it kill you try a new approach to express the concept you're trying to communicate? You speak of the "mind", but let me tell you as someone more than a little familiar with neurobiology and psychology... believing that you have ONE mind, one single entity that is YOU, is much the same as saying you have a soul.

The ACCURATE scientific view is that what we percieve as consciousness (having nothing more advanced that we know of to compare it to) is an artifact of many complex systems, and interactions in the CNS, and distributed organs which have an effect on the CNS. There are theories as to how we add up to conscious beings, (i.e. People with MINDS), and the best ones currently out there show that when we are most aware of ourselves, our enture brain "lights up" in some very interesting patterns. Of course, all that means really is that we see blood flowing to certain regions, and infer that they must be more active compared to "null" regions.

Then we discover that, no, there is no "quiet" time in the brain. Your DMN (Default Mode Network) is always on, and seems to be either a strong reflection of your mental health (I don't mean 'a little sad' I mean illness) or a cause of it. Hell man, we're still disovering endogenous ligands, for instance [EDIT: Clarification: those that led to] cannibinoid receptors. The brain may well not be mystical, anymore than I think QM is "mystical". It is MYSTERIOUS, and complex, and to couch your argument in terms of scientific certainty, is wrong. Don't believe me?... ask your local friendly neurologist, who will probably laughingly remark that we're essentially Phrenologists with ideas and better tools.

We dont' feel the texture of your skull, now we observe blood-flow, and might I add, in ways that often obscure related data. You have to ignore variables in a system as complex as the brain, and often that leads to discoveries of the role that some small part plays in how we think. It does often miss the forest for the trees however, such as the DMN, or the interaction between the frontal lobe executive functions and other parts of the brain.

I feel confident saying that if you stick a serial murderer under an fMRI, and run the proper tests, you'll find that their frontal lobe is not doing a whole hell of a lot (ditto with sociopaths of many flavours). That tells you SOMETHING, but it hardly goes towards answering questions of a soul.

Once again, we're left with too little information to draw such a strong conclusion either way, although as the notion of a soul seems to be a distinctly human concept, I find it hard to believe they exist. As you said, there is no need for that explanation, but that doesn't rule it out either.

As TheStatutoryApe has implied, one must be able to recognize the world in terms of probablities and work from there. Certainty is rarely useful... just ask Eisntein's Corpse how he feels about "Spukhafte Fernwirking". Uncertainty, as long as you don't use it as an excuse to be apathetic, is motivating! Uncertainty, and the realization of the magnitude of that uncertainty (not talking about HUP at all btw) makes me MORE curious, not less. I'm more driven to understand and gain a greater confidence that, "nope, no soul" or visa versa.

Skepticism and Certainty are fundamental enemies. Certainty requires faith, and Skepticism eschews faith in favour of exploration, and setting a high standard of proof, but neither does it give you the comfort of faith in the absence of something and all that implies. You might want to do some research into the PHILOSOPHY of Skepticism, not just the word as it's often bandied about, usually alongside "cynicism" or "science". Skepticism embraces the scientific METHOD, not all products of science. The former is skepticism, the latter is faith.

 

[Frame Dragger]

One thing I want to explain about what I mean when I say unnecessary is that it does not solve anything and can not be shown to be true.

What does the soul encompass to you? Let's specifically talk about conciousness. The soul is me, how is it my conciousness? How does it have the atribute of conciousness? What makes it more believable than just the materialist 'mind' view? We might not know how the mind works but saying it's the soul doesn't fix any problems, we still don't know anything about the mind and we still don't know anything about conciousness.

I assume by "anything" you're exaggerating for effect? Otherwise, I'd have to argue that point, as being a minimal understand, not "NOTHING". Ugh... I just used double negative. I hate myself a bit for that. :tongue:

 

[GreatEscapist]

Only if it does this which is why I keep stressing the importance of fundamental defintion. I did say adding on or adjusting a definition certainly is possible and does occur frequently. That's not the direction that some people here want to take though. They are all for a total redo of the word soul, just so that they can discuss it's existence... it makes no sense since we already have words to describe what they've defined it as.

As well definitions of words is very important in philosophy, this isn't everyday speech.

I understand what you mean- changing the word, and essentially the argument is very annoying. But I do believe that there are many definitions and perspectives to soul.
But the one I was talking about is a soul separate from mind, body, and biological/chemical processes. Why is this so hard to prove? Well, obviously, if it isn't a part of *you*, how can you describe it, much less put an actual definition to it?
And if then, the soul is *you*, how come people are affected by mental disease, drugs & alcohol, Alzheimer's, and such? How can a personality change if it is separate from the physical body?
Oh, and NO, a soul can't be physical, Lacy. It would then be the mind.

One thing I want to explain about what I mean when I say unnecessary is that it does not solve anything and can not be shown to be true.

What does the soul encompass to you? Let's specifically talk about conciousness. The soul is me, how is it my conciousness? How does it have the atribute of conciousness? What makes it more believable than just the materialist 'mind' view? We might not know how the mind works but saying it's the soul doesn't fix any problems, we still don't know anything about the mind and we still don't know anything about conciousness.

Read what I said above- it's more questions, but I'm kinda going the same way as you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

@Ape It's interesting that you bring up emergent properties. I tend to think of the soul as an emergent 'possible property'. The mind however is mostly what gives rise to this 'possible emergent property'.

I agree. Though I also see emergent properties in 'life', which is part of ancient concepts of 'soul', and complex systems in general. The 'soul' seems to be the primordial question of how to reconcile subjective experience with materialist objectivism. I can not imagine a person "looking out through their eyes" and never experiencing an alienation between body and mind. Not wondring how this subjective experience correlates with physical reality.

The soul is just something that we've created, this has no bearing on whether it actually exists or not.

Only if it does this which is why I keep stressing the importance of fundamental defintion. I did say adding on or adjusting a definition certainly is possible and does occur frequently. That's not the direction that some people here want to take though. They are all for a total redo of the word soul, just so that they can discuss it's existence... it makes no sense since we already have words to describe what they've defined it as.

As well definitions of words is very important in philosophy, this isn't everyday speech.

I do not see "soul" as an artificial creation but rather an expression of subjective experience and conjecture based on that experience. In this way the root of the definition, the crux of the question, never changes; it is only looked at from new and different perspectives.

Even when creating new arguments, and new definitions to accompany them, we pay homage to the old concepts if for no other purpose than to ground our discussion in our common experience and strengthen our communication with familiar words. I do not think that Lacy, Frame, and Pythagorian mean to keep alive a dead idea but rather seek to find common ground for discussion in common parlance and subjective experience.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I agree. Though I also see emergent properties in 'life', which is part of ancient concepts of 'soul', and complex systems in general. The 'soul' seems to be the primordial question of how to reconcile subjective experience with materialist objectivism. I can not imagine a person "looking out through their eyes" and never experiencing an alienation between body and mind. Not wondring how this subjective experience correlates with physical reality.



I do not see "soul" is an artificial creation but rather an expression of subjective experience and conjecture based on that experience. In this way the root of the definition, the crux of the question, never changes; it is only looked at from new and different perspectives.

Even when creating new arguments, and new definitions to accompany them, we pay homage to the old concepts if for no other purpose than to ground our discussion in our common experience and strengthen our communication with familiar words. I do not think that Lacy, Frame, and Pythagorian mean to keep alive a dead idea but rather seek to find common ground for discussion in common parlance and subjective experience.

Speaking for myself, I know that's what I'm trying to do. I believe that's Lacy's goal, and as Pythagorian seems to offer excellent insight when needed, I'd say it's his too.

 

[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.