What Is a Soul?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition and existence of the soul, with participants expressing varied views. Some argue that the soul is a psychological concept without physical evidence, while others equate it with consciousness or life essence, suggesting that it encompasses emotions and experiences. The debate touches on historical perspectives, noting the soul's origins in ancient cultures and its evolution as a meme. Participants also explore the implications of defining the soul, questioning whether insects or plants possess souls and how one might measure or observe a soul. The conversation highlights the challenge of reaching a consensus on the soul's definition, with some asserting it exists as a non-physical entity, while others dismiss it as metaphorical. Ultimately, the discussion reveals a complex interplay of beliefs, definitions, and the limitations of measuring abstract concepts like the soul.

Do you believe there is a soul?

  • Total voters
    16
Physics news on Phys.org
No, It's more of a psychological manifestation. No evidence to suggest "souls" exist.
 
I don't believe in a soul. It's just an abstract concept conjured up by people trying to explain things.

It's interesting to note that "soul" dates back to ancient Egypt, and possibly Sumeria. The concept had spread all over the world. It's a meme.
 
According to my own definition of the soul, sure. :smile:
 
I generally equate mind and soul so to some degree yes.
 
Of course there is a soul at least to the extent that each individual might place limitations in their interpretation.

Are there immortal souls or reincarnated souls or some other place for souls in the universe besides the confines of the planet - that becomes a matter of individual religious belief.

Are there self aware life essences that incorporate the more classical descriptive aspects of the soul like emotions, and urges and feelings mapped onto unique life experiences, then surely there are.

Perhaps the poll should more incisively ask are there immortal souls?
 
I voted yes. I define the soul as a living being minus its physical body. Without a soul, the body lies dead.
 
I will leave definition of the soul to the post/poster that inspired this thread, which I referenced in post 1.

But even with the most liberal definition possible (i.e. make up your own), the results aren't looking good for coberst's postulate.
 
jimmysnyder said:
I voted yes. I define the soul as a living being minus its physical body. Without a soul, the body lies dead.
So, insects have souls?
 
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
I will leave definition of the soul to the post/poster that inspired this thread, which I referenced in post 1.

But even with the most liberal definition possible (i.e. make up your own), the results aren't looking good for coberst's postulate.

I said no. There is simply no such thing. Its just a metaphor for consciousness.
 
  • #11
Well, there is soul music for sure :-p But since it could not be qualified "unique", so there would not be a soul.
 
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
So, insects have souls?
Yes. Compare a living insect the instant before death to that same insect the instant after death. Subtract the identical body from both. The difference is the soul.
 
  • #13
jimmysnyder said:
Yes. Compare a living insect the instant before death to that same insect the instant after death. Subtract the identical body from both. The difference is the soul.

What do we do with the remainder though?
 
  • #14
jimmysnyder said:
Yes. Compare a living insect the instant before death to that same insect the instant after death. Subtract the identical body from both. The difference is the soul.

So, if I understand you correctly:
Since it is quite common at the moment of expiry that the body loses control of secretive functions (just ask hospital personell!), excrements are parts of our soul?
 
  • #15
Cyrus said:
What do we do with the remainder though?
I mean take the difference between the living (minus the body) and the dead (minus the identical body) insect.
 
  • #16
arildno said:
So, if I understand you correctly:
Since it is quite common at the moment of expiry that the body loses control of secretive functions (just ask hospital personell!), excrements are parts of our soul?
Are you saying that it is part of your body? Anyway, the instant I had in mind is a bit more instantaneous than the one you are talking about.
 
  • #17
jimmysnyder said:
I mean take the difference between the living (minus the body) and the dead (minus the identical body) insect.

Ah, yes. I was thinking of division of mind and body...wonk wonk wonkkkkk.
 
  • #18
jimmysnyder said:
Are you saying that it is part of your body? .

Who else does the contents of the urethra and intestines belong to, then?
 
  • #19
jimmysnyder said:
I mean take the difference between the living (minus the body) and the dead (minus the identical body) insect.
And it is made out of what? How much does it weigh? With what instrument can I observe it?
 
  • #20
DaveC426913 said:
And it is made out of what? How much does it weigh? With what instrument can I observe it?

An L ron hubbard E-meter, obviously.
 
  • #21
DaveC426913 said:
And it is made out of what? How much does it weigh?

28 grams, I think Victorian "scientists" established.
 
  • #23
DaveC426913 said:
And it is made out of what? How much does it weigh? With what instrument can I observe it?
Do you believe in flame?
 
  • #24
I like the Blues Brothers version
 
  • #25
jimmysnyder said:
Do you believe in flame?
Yes. I can weigh it, and observe it.
 
  • #26
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. I can weigh it, and observe it.
You can observe the difference between a living being and a dead one too.
 
  • #27
jimmysnyder said:
You can observe the difference between a living being and a dead one too.

But that does not give any insight into a soul. I could say its the lack of oxygen in the blood.
 
  • #28
jimmysnyder said:
You can observe the difference between a living being and a dead one too.
Would you isolate and define that difference for me in terms more concrete than the absence of something else?

If I have a living thing, and it dies in my hands, and I throw away its lifeless body I am holding what's left. What am I (figuratively of course) holding in my hands?
 
  • #29
Cyrus said:
But that does not give any insight into a soul. I could say its the lack of oxygen in the blood.
I wasn't asked to give any insight into a soul other than define it. Derive as much insight as you can. If you define the soul as the presence of oxygen in the blood, then do you believe in a soul?
 
  • #30
jimmysnyder said:
I wasn't asked to give any insight into a soul other than define it.
But you haven't defined it.
 
  • #31
jimmysnyder said:
I wasn't asked to give any insight into a soul other than define it.
But you haven't defined it.

See: "in terms more concrete than the absence of something else"
 
  • #32
DaveC426913 said:
If I have a living thing, and it dies in my hands, and I throw away its lifeless body I am holding what's left. What am I (figuratively of course) holding in my hands?
You got it backwards. There is no way to get rid of the lifeless body, all you can do is move the mess. It is the soul that is thrown away.
 
  • #33
jimmysnyder said:
I wasn't asked to give any insight into a soul other than define it. Derive as much insight as you can. If you define the soul as the presence of oxygen in the blood, then do you believe in a soul?

No, you misunderstood what I said. I mean lack of oxygen in the blood is the difference between someone alive or dead. Nothing to do with the concept of a soul.
 
  • #34
Cyrus said:
No, you misunderstood what I said. I mean lack of oxygen in the blood is the difference between someone alive or dead. Nothing to do with the concept of a soul.
So plants are not alive?
 
  • #35
jimmysnyder said:
You got it backwards. There is no way to get rid of the lifeless body, all you can do is move the mess. It is the soul that is thrown away.
Hang on a sec. I moved the mess (which is the living creature sans its soul), what is left behind?

You can't sidestep the question. If it exists as more than a concept, then I can measure it. Tell me how I can measure it.



As a wise man on another forum likes to say: I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
 
  • #36
I ain't got no rhythm, I ain't got no soul.
 
  • #37
Cyrus said:
I mean lack of oxygen in the blood is the difference between someone alive or dead.
But there is no difference in the amount of oxygen in the blood at the instant after death than there was at the instant before.
 
  • #38
jimmysnyder said:
So plants are not alive?

Well, not in the same sense that animals are. I don't think the definition of life for a plant is the same as an animal.

For example, a person that's a 'vegtable' is alive, but not really.
 
  • #39
DaveC426913 said:
Hang on a sec. I moved the mess (which is the living creature sans its soul), what is left behind?

You can't sidestep the question. If it exists as more than a concept, then I can measure it. Tell me how I can measure it.



As a wise man on another forum likes to say: I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

You have ALF living in your backyard!?
 
  • #40
DaveC426913 said:
I moved the mess (which is the living creature sans its soul), what is left behind?
The mess, it's just in a different place. The soul left Dodge when the being died. You can't hold it in your hand, it's gone.
 
  • #41
jimmysnyder said:
But there is no difference in the amount of oxygen in the blood at the instant after death than there was at the instant before.

I don't know if that's true. The lack of oxygen to the brain is what kills you.
 
  • #42
Cyrus said:
Well, not in the same sense that animals are. I don't think the definition of life for a plant is the same as an animal.

For example, a person that's a 'vegtable' is alive, but not really.
For purpose of my definition, a person that is a 'vegetable' is really alive. My definition of soul includes plants as well as animals.
 
  • #43
jimmysnyder said:
The mess, it's just in a different place. The soul left Dodge when the being died. You can't hold it in your hand, it's gone.
Of course I can't hold it in my hand, that's why I keep saying "figuratively".

But if it exists, I can measure it, at least in theory. Tell me what it is I'm measuring or admit that you've put forth an unfounded belief.
 
  • #44
ohhh--its lunchtime where I live--

filet of soul
 
  • #45
DaveC426913 said:
Of course I can't hold it in my hand, that's why I keep saying "figuratively".

But if it exists, I can measure it, at least in theory. Tell me what it is I'm measuring or admit that you've put forth an unfounded belief.
Don't get nasty. I was invited to this thread. You can't measure atoms either, but you can count them. There are as many souls are there are living beings.
 
  • #46
jimmysnyder said:
Don't get nasty. I was invited to this thread. You can't measure atoms either, but you can count them. There are as many souls are there are living beings.

Thats a pretty bold and unfounded claim though, you must admit!

Sure you can measure atoms. Pick something up! You feel the weight of them, don't you? You can touch them, see them, taste them. You can even destroy them, or create them!
 
  • #47
jimmysnyder said:
Don't get nasty. I was invited to this thread. You can't measure atoms either, but you can count them. There are as many souls are there are living beings.
I do not mean to come across as nasty. My apologies.

I can measure atoms. I can tell you quite a bit about them.

But I am getting a bit insistent because you have put forth a claim and are studiously avoiding defining it.


And I think that pretty much ends further discussion on it, since you have no definition for it. Kind of a self-locking argument.
 
  • #48
DaveC426913 said:
I do not mean to come across as nasty. My apologies.

I can measure atoms. I can tell you quite a bit about them.

But I am getting a bit insistent because you have put forth a claim and are studiously avoiding defining it.


And I think that pretty much ends further discussion on it, since you won't define what it is we're discussing.
Do you believe in physical theories?
 
  • #49
Cyrus said:
Thats a pretty bold and unfounded claim though, you must admit!

Sure you can measure atoms. Pick something up! You feel the weight of them, don't you? You can touch them, see them, taste them. You can even destroy them, or create them!
Do you believe in physical theories?
 
  • #50
jimmysnyder said:
Do you believe in physical theories?
What do you mean? Do I believe there are such things as theories about the physical world? Sure. Theories, as with all thoughts, are concepts in the minds of humans. Souls are concepts in the minds of humans too.
 

Similar threads

What Are the Key Perspectives on Life?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Best Caption Contest Pictures: These Gotta Be Saved
Replies
8
Views
2K
What are the rules for the PF Photo Contest on Curves?
Replies
17
Views
5K
News Should government benefits be conditionally granted?
2
Replies
69
Views
10K
Sean Carroll and the immortality of the soul
Replies
4
Views
7K
Does anyone know what a soul is?
Replies
31
Views
5K
Insights What Are Infinitesimals – Simple Version
Replies
5
Views
3K
How do deviations from classical logic impact computation?
Replies
3
Views
3K
How does the PF Username Game work?
3
Replies
141
Views
15K
What are the FAQs and How-Tos for Physics Forums?
Replies
11
Views
146K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top