Why do people still insist on the soul?

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Beyond faith and religion, why do some people still insist that there exists a soul? Why can't we be comprised of only matter, but matter so intricately woven that we are still too technologically infantile to understand the pattern in its weaving? I mean, if DNA, the human retina, the cerebral cortex, Dr. Penfield's experiments, the nervous system, a cell's physiology and an MRI's or ECGs outputs can be affected by thought alone, what room is there for some mystical non-material soul? Why do some people require it in their world view at all? Is it simply a concept spewed out by the ego to allow a human to personify himself as something more than matter, as something more than the mundane 9-to-5er that most of us are?

To me, the more I learn about the Universe, the more wonderous everyday life becomes... I think the words 'soul' and 'spirit' are tags that we stick onto physical systems of such grandiose complexity that we seek to cover them up with simple all encompassing words to either mask our own ignorance, or to brush aside the fact that we can erode our ignorance through study and determination in seeking the truth.

I think the 'soul' is the easy answer. The true answer may never be found and that scares us into applying the 'soul' bandage on firmly to cover our wounds. But this cut runs deep and it does not heal when covered. I know its painful, but we need to bleed out all of our questions about the 'soul' before we can start to properly heal one of our deepest of cuts.

Who wants easy? I want truth. Let us bleed and begin the slow painful healing together.

 

[jackle]

Beyond faith and religion, why do some people still insist that there exists a soul?

The main reason for a non-material soul seems to be to support an afterlife. Most the world's population believe in such a thing, but I doubt if many people who don't believe in an afterlife actually do believe in an non-material soul. I'd be interested which belief groups specifically fall into this category.

Of course, if materialism is true we still have a "soul" in the wider sense, it is just purely the result of physics.

I mean, if DNA, the human retina, the cerebral cortex, Dr. Penfield's experiments, the nervous system, a cell's physiology and an MRI's or ECGs outputs can be affected by thought alone, what room is there for some mystical non-material soul?

I imagine that most people who believe in a non-material soul, believe that what goes on in the soul impacts the physical world anyway, so they wouldn't be suprised if any of these things you mentioned are affected by thought alone. This "ghostly" mechanism however, doesn't have to exist anywhere outside the brain - and inside the brain it isn't really very ghostly anymore. We expect thoughts to affect things inside the brain don't we? We also expect our brains to affect the rest of our bodies. There seems to be the same amount of room for a mystical non-material soul as there always used to be. I'm not convinced the room is getting any smaller to be honest, just that if a soul does exist it must be tied into our brains somehow.

...we can erode our ignorance through study and determination in seeking the truth...

We can erode it but never hope to be rid of it all together. That is why there will always be room for belief.

 

[metaquantum]

without soul, music would become very boring...

 

[AsianSensationK]

Same reason people still insist on believing in free will, objective morality, God or any number of things. They believe because it's something they "experience" (at least as a number of Christians have assured me). Certainly it's not something they could verify with science or prove with logic. Heck, the best they can do is provide some obscure philosophical arguments hoping to provide some small shred of evidence for these things.

Still, I don't insist ideas like free will or objective morality are wrong, simply because I can't prove they're true. There's a lot to be said for how intuition is used to understand the world. Then again, maybe I just recognize that I'm still somewhat committed to these things myself.

Of course, that's not what's being asked by the OP. He's asking why some people can't just say "we don't know." It's cause in a way, they feel that they do.

 

[ValenceE]

Sure, but how does matter interact with itself ?

There is something more than matter and that something is immaterial. Here we have the particle/wave duality that presents itself on another form.

Everything in the building blocks of matter can be represented as (at least) these two components and by extending it to the macroscopic realm, the Soul could be the wavelike part of our material bodies…


VE

 

[snowrock]

Also, there's a chance that the soul could be scientifically proven in the future. Imagine the past...we didn't know how bats could travel at night. People probably assumed that bats have extraordinary sight abilities. In turned out that bats aren't as keen-eyed as we are. Technology allowed humans to delve deeper and find out that there exists something unseen, yet helpful to bats. The same goes to the soul. We have not enough technology to see it, but maybe we will.

 

[arildno]

Sure, but how does matter interact with itself ?

It does so, observably, at every level of the universe at all times.
One example is you, interacting with me by pushing a few buttons on your computer

 

[ValenceE]

Indeed, arildno , it does so at every level, at all times…

I asked the question to point out that those ever-happening interactions are conveyed by something that is other than matter itself, something more in the form of energy.


VE

 

[navneet1990]

Certainly it's not something they could verify with science or prove with logic. Heck, the best they can do is provide some obscure philosophical arguments hoping to provide some small shred of evidence for these things.
.

thats were the point of proving has been lost.
When the interest in acceptance has been lost then where is there room for proofs.
even i could just close my eyes and say that all this theory of relativity and all is nothing but cock and bull story
but i dont
millions dont
why ?
because certain methods have been used to prove such things.
similarly
certain methods and mind you when i say methods i mean real hardcore scientific non crap philosofical methods have been used to prove such things.
you just have to have an open mind and the right scientific temper to accept them and when you reach a state where your ready to listen you reach a state when you understand
not only this but also science
everything is ultimately science
its how you percieve it and how much you accept that decides what is the reality you live in

 

[docbob]

I seems like the concept of the soul and spirit are being used interchangeably here, but I'm not certain that the two are the same. The concept of the "spirit" is ancient, and has generally been thought of as something akin to "wind" or "breath". That is, something that was invisible, yet effected the visible or physical world. It was thought that a person's spirit, which animated the individual, passed to the afterlife. Thus, the spirit was essentially the "ghost" of a person.

The idea of the "soul" was somewhat different. The soul was thought to be comprised of the mind, the will, and the emotions. In the ancient Greek language, the would "soul" was "psuche", which is the same root word as our modern word "psyche". It seems that the concept of the soul as the "ghost" is a more recent, and less accurate, construction.

The two ideas are related, but cannot really be interchanged. One illustration that may help is to think of a car and it's driver. The car (like the soul) has the same physical apparatus as every other (or nearly every other) car on the road. But the direction and speed that the car travels, or whether the car is operated in a controlled or reckless manner, is the domain of the driver (spirit).

In response to the original post that began this discussion, I can think of (use my mind to identify) quite a number of reasons for modern man to accept (conclude or deduce to his/her satisfaction) that humans have a soul (mind, will, and emotions), and to desire (exercise their will) to investigate this aspect of the human being, yet which have nothing to do with religion.

 

[rightbackatyou]

Yeah, 'soul' seems to be an appeal to something that transcends the self. I think that this 'soul' takes on an eternal sort of characteristic but I don't think 'soul' necessary implies an afterlife in the sense that we moderns think of an afterlife.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

I think that if one thinks that there is a single soul for each person, one must confront the idea that a monkey has a soul, a fish has a soul, an ant has a soul and an amoeba has a soul, heck even a virus has a soul. IF you think the soul is greater than the domain of the mind, what stops a virus from having a soul? Would one then say that the soul is the biological expression of the DNA encoding resident in all life?

If not, one can then say that the soul is present in inanimate objects like rocks, rivers and the very air we breathe.

It is my view that the soul is the implicate order in all objects of the Universe. If one subscribes to the BigBang theory (as I do) then the soul may be the first inhomogenity present in the primordial soup. This inhomogenity has expanded ever since to create such complexity that it manifests today as lifeforms.

If there were no original inhomogenity, the Universe would be perfectly symetrical and you and I would not exist. Who knows what process (perhaps God) created the first inhomogenity, that is as open a question as can be.

My only point here is that if one admits the concept of a soul to be true. I think one must necessarily say that there is one collective soul and to say that each individual has a discrete soul is misleading and false. Of course this is must my opinion, but I think its quite a logical one.

What do you think?

 

[docbob]

Chaos' lil bro Order has certainly raised some interesting issues. Here are a couple of thoughts that come to mind.

I am one of those that believes each individual has a soul; by which I mean that every human has, at some level and in some capacity, a mind, a will, and emotions. However, when I think of people with severe brain damage; that is, damaged to to point where the brain can barely sustain the heart beat and certain involuntary muscle responses, I wonder just what portion of the mind, will, and emotion remains? I could be persuaded that in the most severe cases, the persons "soul" no longer remains (i.e., the person can no longer think, feel, or desire anything).

This suggests two things. One is that what I call the soul (mind, will, emotions) seems to have a direct connection to the biological/physical person, and is almost certainly centered in the brain. The other is that in "cases" such as severly brain damaged people, certain "critters" like ants, bacteria, virusesusss... viri... aw heck, you know what I mean, or inanimate objects like rocks and such... then no 'mind', 'will', and 'emotions' means no soul.

If, as Chaos' lil bro Order suggested, the soul is, in fact, the implicit order in all objects in the Universe, then all that stuff I've just said is moot. Still, I'm unwilling to abandon my own definition because it seems to define and describe the soul so effectively, whereas the other definition seems vague and nebulous. More "thought based" and less "reality based" if you know what I mean. I hope that doesn't sound insulting or rude because my intent is not to offend.

I DO support the idea that there IS an implicit order in and between all the objects in the Universe. However, I do not think the word "soul" best describes it.

So you see, while I readily admit that the concept of the soul is true, the concept which I have in mind does NOT lead me to conclude that "there is one collective soul", or to believe the notion that each individual has a discrete soul to be misleading or false.

 

[docbob]

I'd like to call for a "Do Over". My last paragraph was not really clear. It should have read...

...So you see, while I readily admit the concept of the individual soul to be true, the concept which I have in mind does NOT lead me to conclude that "there is one collective soul", or to believe that the notion of the individual's discrete soul is misleading or false.

 

[jackle]

However, when I think of people with severe brain damage; that is, damaged to to point where the brain can barely sustain the heart beat and certain involuntary muscle responses, I wonder just what portion of the mind, will, and emotion remains?

Perhaps the soul remains but is being suppressed by the brain damage to the extent that the soul doesn't operate anymore? This may seem like a fudge but it is really just an extension of the observation that the soul's ability to operate is dependent on the condition of the physical brain. eg. Hit someone over the head hard and they loose the ability to make decisions as they pass out. They may still have a few emotions and some type of thoughts as they lie unconscious but they will be heavily affected by the hit to the head. In any case, they can't exercise free will until they wake up. None of this demonstrates that any soul we have relies on the physical brain after death has occurred, but it clearly demonstrates that such a soul relies on the physical brain while we are alive.

When the body/brain is too heavily damaged to support a soul, the soul is supposed to leave and enter the afterlife, of course.

 

[regent]

Well, discerning the fact that most pre-modern philosophers used "soul" and "mind" as the the same, it makes sense that many advocate both the former and the latter. I think "soul" or "spirit" is an imaginary body that is used to portray a desired or 'perfect' version of ourselves. Essentially, soul or spirit could be an alter-ego to the human mind in its struggle to strive for perfection and understanding.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

bob

Chaos' lil bro Order has certainly raised some interesting issues. Here are a couple of thoughts that come to mind.

I am one of those that believes each individual has a soul; by which I mean that every human has, at some level and in some capacity, a mind, a will, and emotions. However, when I think of people with severe brain damage; that is, damaged to to point where the brain can barely sustain the heart beat and certain involuntary muscle responses, I wonder just what portion of the mind, will, and emotion remains? I could be persuaded that in the most severe cases, the persons "soul" no longer remains (i.e., the person can no longer think, feel, or desire anything).

This suggests two things. One is that what I call the soul (mind, will, emotions) seems to have a direct connection to the biological/physical person, and is almost certainly centered in the brain. The other is that in "cases" such as severly brain damaged people, certain "critters" like ants, bacteria, virusesusss... viri... aw heck, you know what I mean, or inanimate objects like rocks and such... then no 'mind', 'will', and 'emotions' means no soul.

If, as Chaos' lil bro Order suggested, the soul is, in fact, the implicit order in all objects in the Universe, then all that stuff I've just said is moot. Still, I'm unwilling to abandon my own definition because it seems to define and describe the soul so effectively, whereas the other definition seems vague and nebulous. More "thought based" and less "reality based" if you know what I mean. I hope that doesn't sound insulting or rude because my intent is not to offend.

I DO support the idea that there IS an implicit order in and between all the objects in the Universe. However, I do not think the word "soul" best describes it.

So you see, while I readily admit that the concept of the soul is true, the concept which I have in mind does NOT lead me to conclude that "there is one collective soul", or to believe the notion that each individual has a discrete soul to be misleading or false.

I think your point it valid. If I am correct you are essentially saying that the soul is the mind, will and emotions. Do you attribute these three factors to be biproducts of the brain? Would this then suggest that any lifeform with a brain has a soul, or do you have another definition? In this matter I am a materialist, I believe the brain is the mind and the will and emotions are neurochemical manifestations in the brain. Since it can be physically shown that various agonist and antagonist neurochemicals can alter a person's emotions (and arguably even their will) I think this is a fair statement.
With this in mind, do you have an organism that teeters on the line of just having a brain, versus an organism that just does not have a brain? I'm not a biologist so I'm at a loss for words at just how small this organism would be.

Btw, I'm not adverse to your theory, in fact I take to it just as equally as I've taken to my theory. I think they are both valid and am curious to hear which organism you think teeters on the threshold of having a soul.

Cheers.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Well, discerning the fact that most pre-modern philosophers used "soul" and "mind" as the the same, it makes sense that many advocate both the former and the latter. I think "soul" or "spirit" is an imaginary body that is used to portray a desired or 'perfect' version of ourselves. Essentially, soul or spirit could be an alter-ego to the human mind in its struggle to strive for perfection and understanding.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure that I'd agree with your definition of the soul as a desired or perfect version of oneself. I've always thought of an individual soul as having a characteristic degree of goodness or badness in it. As in Saddam Hussein having a bad soul and Mother Theresa a good soul, and all the varying degrees inbetween. Maybe we just disagree on the definition, do you have a link to a definition of the soul that supports your notion?

 

[PIT2]

why do some people still insist that there exists a soul?

U seem to answer ur own question:

The true answer may never be found...

 

[mubashirmansoor]

I am one of those that believes each individual has a soul; by which I mean that every human has, at some level and in some capacity, a mind, a will, and emotions. However, when I think of people with severe brain damage; that is, damaged to to point where the brain can barely sustain the heart beat and certain involuntary muscle responses, I wonder just what portion of the mind, will, and emotion remains? I could be persuaded that in the most severe cases, the persons "soul" no longer remains (i.e., the person can no longer think, feel, or desire anything).

This suggests two things. One is that what I call the soul (mind, will, emotions) seems to have a direct connection to the biological/physical person, and is almost certainly centered in the brain. The other is that in "cases" such as severly brain damaged people, certain "critters" like ants, bacteria, virusesusss... viri... aw heck, you know what I mean, or inanimate objects like rocks and such... then no 'mind', 'will', and 'emotions' means no soul.

To me suggesting that soul has a direct connection to biological/physical status of a person is really good, but your last sentences suggesting that an ameba say for example, has no soul doesn't really seems logical to me... I'm not a biologist but why shouldn't an amiba have a soul?
The meaning of the word soul is defined as conciousness or awareness in M.S office dictionary, & as far as I know an ameba is conscious of its sorrundings.
and the other thing which i didn't really get was why should something having a soul have emotions?
I'd be thankfull to know your reasons since the topic is extreamly interesting to me.

 

[docbob]

I think your point it valid. If I am correct you are essentially saying that the soul is the mind, will and emotions. Do you attribute these three factors to be biproducts of the brain? Would this then suggest that any lifeform with a brain has a soul, or do you have another definition? In this matter I am a materialist, I believe the brain is the mind and the will and emotions are neurochemical manifestations in the brain. Since it can be physically shown that various agonist and antagonist neurochemicals can alter a person's emotions (and arguably even their will) I think this is a fair statement.
With this in mind, do you have an organism that teeters on the line of just having a brain, versus an organism that just does not have a brain? I'm not a biologist so I'm at a loss for words at just how small this organism would be.

Btw, I'm not adverse to your theory, in fact I take to it just as equally as I've taken to my theory. I think they are both valid and am curious to hear which organism you think teeters on the threshold of having a soul.

Cheers.

To me suggesting that soul has a direct connection to biological/physical status of a person is really good, but your last sentences suggesting that an ameba say for example, has no soul doesn't really seems logical to me... I'm not a biologist but why shouldn't an amiba have a soul?
The meaning of the word soul is defined as conciousness or awareness in M.S office dictionary, & as far as I know an ameba is conscious of its sorrundings.
and the other thing which i didn't really get was why should something having a soul have emotions?
I'd be thankfull to know your reasons since the topic is extreamly interesting to me.

The basic question in both quotations above appears to be this, "If, or given that, the soul appears to be 'centered' in, or has a direct connection to, the brain, where would one logically draw the distinction between those creatures which have a brain and a soul, and those with a brain (or neural cluster) yet no soul?"

I could say quite a lot about this subject, but in the end my answer will basically be, "I don't really know." So if you're only interested in bottom lines, you can quit reading now, and get back to doing whatever work your respective companies hire you to do. If you care to hear my speculations and opinions, read on.

It has been correctly discerned that I believe the soul consists of the mind, will, and emotions, and that it is, in all probability, centered in the brain. I also believe that in certain organisms where the brain has been severly damaged, and in other organisms where such capacity never existed, then the organisms inability to think, feel, or desire indicates an absence of the soul.

Defining the soul this way answers a number of questions for me, but it also raises a some as well. For example, while such a definition helps to pinpoint the idea I'm attempting to discuss, it begs the question of what, exactly, does it mean to 'think', or to 'feel', or to 'want'? Clearly, one cannot say that an organism such as an amoeba does NOT, on some level, think, feel, or want anything at all.

What may be said, even, perhaps with greater certainty, is that my primary interest in the soul, in myself as well as in others, stems from an innate curiosity of my own. In other words, my mind, will, and emotions, compel me to search for a greater understanding of myself, and then to search out others with which I could interact on an intellectual and emotional level: Ultimately, others with the capacity to willing do so.

The conclusion I've arrived at is this. The soul appears to be integrated into the brain, but also, and almost by definition, only to those portions of the brain which we humans consider the higher learning centers.

Given that, I've ruled out the possiblity of inanimate objects having a soul. I also think it safe to say that living entities such as viruses, bacteria, and amoebae also have no soul, and would say the same for insects, arachnids, fish, most (if not all) terrestrial and marine invertebrates, and a even a considerable number of the mammals.

I could continue, but I think that is enough for you to see where I'm coming from on this issue. I'll express two last ideas and then I'll wait for your responses.

First, it is not my intent to say that the creatures I've discussed do not have their place in the ecosystems of our planet, nor to suggest that they have little or no value. But as I've discussed my concept of the 'soul', I've attempted to distinguish those capacities that higher order entities possesses which other entities do not. I've reserved the word 'soul' for those capacities, and use terms like 'life', 'spirit', 'instinct', and 'biological function' for the others.

Finally, what has vexed, and continues to vex, me the most concerning the soul is whether or not severly brain damaged humans retain their's. When my mother was disabled by a severe stroke, many of her motor functions were effected, yet I could clearly see that much of her thinking, desiring, and emotional functions were intact. The problem, severe as it was, effected mainly that portion of her brain which governed her ability to express herself, not her capacity to reason or feel. In much more severe cases, however, say for example, the case of Terri Schiavo, it seems that if I intend to maintain a consistent definition for the soul, I must admit that she had lost hers. Yet, to say such a thing about another human being strikes me as profane and unduly harsh. My sincerest appologies if it strikes you the same.

 

[jackle]

. In much more severe cases, however, say for example, the case of Terri Schiavo, it seems that if I intend to maintain a consistent definition for the soul, I must admit that she had lost hers. Yet, to say such a thing about another human being strikes me as profane and unduly harsh. My sincerest appologies if it strikes you the same.

I'm not familiar with Terri Schiavo but presumably the same thing could be said about people in a coma.

The soul seems to have the ability to switch off without being "lost". Consciousness seems to get tired, in the sense that we all need to switch it off sometimes (sleep). It could be a bit like my pocket computer, which can hibernate without fully turning off. When it comes out of hibernation, things just go on as before. I think sleep is very different from the kind of shutdown that happens when you actually die. It seems that sometimes people still have a soul (a potential to think, feel and be aware) without actually being able to do those things (like when we are in a deep dreamless sleep).

 

[Time is Unreal]

I would haft too say humans are full of energy when alive , and when they die energy leaves the body in form of soul because energy cannot be created , nor desroyed. I think it just transforms or displaces itself from the body back into the universe. Maybe in the form of a soul or other wise energy we cannot understand or record yet.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

@Docbob

Nice post, fresh insights.
My opinion contrasts yours slightly, I'll try to explain how, but first a quote from you...

QUOTE: 'It has been correctly discerned that I believe the soul consists of the mind, will, and emotions, and that it is, in all probability, centered in the brain. I also believe that in certain organisms where the brain has been severly damaged, and in other organisms where such capacity never existed, then the organisms inability to think, feel, or desire indicates an absence of the soul.'

With this defintion in mind, I thought about something else you then said...

QUOTE: 'Given that, I've ruled out the possiblity of inanimate objects having a soul. I also think it safe to say that living entities such as viruses, bacteria, and amoebae also have no soul, and would say the same for insects, arachnids, fish, most (if not all) terrestrial and marine invertebrates, and a even a considerable number of the mammals.'

I'm not sure what you include in your 'considerable number of mammals' caveat, but let me try to attempt an example where a mammal exerts its will. Consider Mountain goats that fight in spring rutts to claim the right to mate with females. Many times the challenger is much smaller and has less developed horns, but he presses on until the resident alpha male gives up his will to continue the battle. In my opinion this demonstrates will power and even emotion. Physically the superior specimen decides to quit, which to my mind demonstrates an emotional desire, or will, to quit the fight.

Horses also have this spirit as can often be seen in horse racing. This spirit can be considered emotional will in my opinion.

Also, what about advanced birds like Parrots and Maccaws, would they have a soul in your opinion?

 

[docbob]

@Docbob

Nice post, fresh insights.
My opinion contrasts yours slightly, I'll try to explain how, but first a quote from you...

QUOTE: 'It has been correctly discerned that I believe the soul consists of the mind, will, and emotions, and that it is, in all probability, centered in the brain. I also believe that in certain organisms where the brain has been severly damaged, and in other organisms where such capacity never existed, then the organisms inability to think, feel, or desire indicates an absence of the soul.'

With this defintion in mind, I thought about something else you then said...

QUOTE: 'Given that, I've ruled out the possiblity of inanimate objects having a soul. I also think it safe to say that living entities such as viruses, bacteria, and amoebae also have no soul, and would say the same for insects, arachnids, fish, most (if not all) terrestrial and marine invertebrates, and a even a considerable number of the mammals.'

I'm not sure what you include in your 'considerable number of mammals' caveat, but let me try to attempt an example where a mammal exerts its will. Consider Mountain goats that fight in spring rutts to claim the right to mate with females. Many times the challenger is much smaller and has less developed horns, but he presses on until the resident alpha male gives up his will to continue the battle. In my opinion this demonstrates will power and even emotion. Physically the superior specimen decides to quit, which to my mind demonstrates an emotional desire, or will, to quit the fight.

Horses also have this spirit as can often be seen in horse racing. This spirit can be considered emotional will in my opinion.

Also, what about advanced birds like Parrots and Maccaws, would they have a soul in your opinion?

I imagine we agree that it is very difficult to know what animals are thinking and/or what the motivation for their behavior might be. And, while your example of the goats makes a lot of sense to me, the behavior of other animals during the rutting season makes one wonder just what, if anything, the true motivation is. For instance, what is it with the dog and my leg? Or with certain farm animals and nearly every other species of farm animal - and even certain models of farm equipment? Is that thinking, wanting, and feeling? Or is it something much more basic that causes the animal to wake up in a cold sweat when it remembers its behavior?

Still, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the examples you cite actually DO demonstrate the animal is thinking, wanting, and feeling the very things we humans imagine they are. I would agree that those animals do indeed have a soul, and I would probably include dogs (the infatuation with my leg notwithstanding), dolphins, many of the primates, whales, cats... wait a second, scratch cats off the list ..., and others.

 

[verty]

I imagine we agree that it is very difficult to know what animals are thinking and/or what the motivation for their behavior might be.

Oh please. Read a book on evolution, why don't you?

 

[verty]

I would haft too say humans are full of energy when alive

Energy is replaced all the time, primarily from food. It is potential energy.

 

[nannoh]

My two cents on the word "soul".

Definitions of soul on the Web:

• the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life
person:
• a human being; "there was too much for one person to do"
• deep feeling or emotion
• the human embodiment of something; "the soul of honor"
• a secular form of gospel that was a major Black musical genre in the 1960s and 1970s; "soul was politically significant during the Civil Rights movement"

from
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The soul according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the ethereal substance — spirit (Hebrew:rooah or nefesh) — particular to a unique living being. Such traditions often consider the soul both immortal and innately aware of its immortal nature, as well as the true basis for sentience in each living being.

from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

These definitions describe a condition that appears to animate the physical. The soul is shown here to be the essence that gives sentience and purpose to an otherwise useless lump of flesh.

However, my personal opinion, so far, of what a soul is consists of this: its a word that was coined by a group of people (church) who had no idea what made organisms work. They hadn't yet done the research it takes to find out more about the nervous system and the other pertinent facts that have to do with physiology. So here, today, we are left with the vestigial remains of an ontology spawned by an ignorance of the human body, human nature and nature in general.

 

[docbob]

Oh please. Read a book on evolution, why don't you?

Verty,

Thanks for keeping me honest. However, in my own defense I think you should read my comments in their context (i.e., the concept of a soul).

I am aware of only a few books on evolution that attempt to address the expression of emotions in animals (other than humans), but more may exist. Interestingly, the animals mentioned in one of the most popular (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DarExpr.html) are essentially the same ones we've already discussed (dogs, cats, primates). And the expressions of emotion (flattening the ears, raising the hackles, arching the back, etc.) are generally believed to originate in the inner areas of the brain and NOT the higher learning centers. In other words, they appear to be instinctive, fight-or-flight reactions rather than responses deduced from the animal weighing its options. Therefore, I do not take THESE expressions of emotions as indications of a soul.

In my opinion, the behaviors that do indicate higher order learning processes (thinking, wanting, and feeling beyond instinctive levels) are those displayed, for example, when a dog rushes into a burning building, awakens the family, and leads them to safety.

 

[verty]

In my opinion, the behaviors that do indicate higher order learning processes (thinking, wanting, and feeling beyond instinctive levels) are those displayed, for example, when a dog rushes into a burning building, awakens the family, and leads them to safety.

I take it that those soul-like behaviors are vastly in the minority and assumedly wouldn't occur in the wild?

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

In my opinion, the behaviors that do indicate higher order learning processes (thinking, wanting, and feeling beyond instinctive levels) are those displayed, for example, when a dog rushes into a burning building, awakens the family, and leads them to safety.

That's a fantastic example. To play devil's advocate for the sake of objectivity, maybe the dog saves the people because they are its sole provider, thus is ensures its own survival, or what it perceives to be its only means of survival. After all, the dog doesn't know about kennels and pet adoption, so he's really just saving his food supply, or so he thinks (perhaps!).

BTW, your post previous to that quoted was hilarious, you are a gifted writer.



@nannoh

QUOTE: However, my personal opinion, so far, of what a soul is consists of this: its a word that was coined by a group of people (church) who had no idea what made organisms work. They hadn't yet done the research it takes to find out more about the nervous system and the other pertinent facts that have to do with physiology. So here, today, we are left with the vestigial remains of an ontology spawned by an ignorance of the human body, human nature and nature in general.

Profound! I am in complete agreement with your analysis and am impressed with the clarity and conciseness of your post. Please keep them coming, this thread is really taking off with you and the good 'ole Doc fueling its fire.

In my opinion, as I think it was yours as well, none of those 'soul' definitions suffice. The first, '• the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life
person: , is the only definition of the 4 that reflects which definition of the 'soul' we are talking about and its so vague and open to mystical interpretation that its of no real use at all. Personally I think Doc's definition of the soul as being the sum of the mind, will and emotions to be the best defintion so far.

 

[jaynebeal]

I quote the experience of a cardiac patient in America. Having been pronounced clinicly dead..ie...no heart rate, no brain wave activity..the doctors on hand continued to try and reveive the patient which was eventually acheived. On regaining consciousness the patient described in detail both the conversations of the people working on her and also said that she floated out of her body and out of the building whereupon she saw a shoe on a window ledge. Amazed at her recall of conversation and instruments used in resuss' a nurse went to the floor the patient had described and checked the window ledge she cited the shoe to be...it was there and the nurse retrieved it. If she has no soul or no mind perception of metaphysical self...how did she see it? Therefore she must have left her physical body in either soley mind or spirit thus prooving the ability to leave one's body in times of stress or otherwise.

Another case of a young boy suffering a fever...his mother looked in on him and was amazed to see the young boy's spiritual self playing in his room and trying to wake his brother. The spiritual self was identical to the physical self...upon noting his mother was in the room...the young spirit jumped back into the child's body. His mother...agape turned to go and tell her husband of what had occurred only to find him open mouthed behind her, having witnesed the whole thing. This prooves not only a spiritual self but a complete conscious awareness while out of the body aswell.

 

[verty]

If she has no soul or no mind perception of metaphysical self...how did she see it?

I suspect someone invented the story. That's how it usually goes.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

I quote the experience of a cardiac patient in America. Having been pronounced clinicly dead..ie...no heart rate, no brain wave activity..the doctors on hand continued to try and reveive the patient which was eventually acheived. On regaining consciousness the patient described in detail both the conversations of the people working on her and also said that she floated out of her body and out of the building whereupon she saw a shoe on a window ledge. Amazed at her recall of conversation and instruments used in resuss' a nurse went to the floor the patient had described and checked the window ledge she cited the shoe to be...it was there and the nurse retrieved it. If she has no soul or no mind perception of metaphysical self...how did she see it? Therefore she must have left her physical body in either soley mind or spirit thus prooving the ability to leave one's body in times of stress or otherwise.

Another case of a young boy suffering a fever...his mother looked in on him and was amazed to see the young boy's spiritual self playing in his room and trying to wake his brother. The spiritual self was identical to the physical self...upon noting his mother was in the room...the young spirit jumped back into the child's body. His mother...agape turned to go and tell her husband of what had occurred only to find him open mouthed behind her, having witnesed the whole thing. This prooves not only a spiritual self but a complete conscious awareness while out of the body aswell.

If both stories are true than you have an excellent point. We can never know if they are true, that is the obvious problem.

 

[jaynebeal]

Just out of interest...in florida a ressuss unit did this experiment on dogs. They stopped their hearts, drained them of blood and pumped in a saline solution at 5 degrees celcius and pumped it around the body for two hours...they then drained this..pumped back in the blood and restarted the heart with shocks. There were no adverse efects.. and most importantly..no brain damage...which was what the experiment was about...if the stories I posted are factualy correct..are there any volunteers?...l.o.l.

 

[Evo]

I quote the experience of a cardiac patient in America. Having been pronounced clinicly dead..ie...no heart rate, no brain wave activity..the doctors on hand continued to try and reveive the patient which was eventually acheived. On regaining consciousness the patient described in detail both the conversations of the people working on her and also said that she floated out of her body and out of the building whereupon she saw a shoe on a window ledge. Amazed at her recall of conversation and instruments used in resuss' a nurse went to the floor the patient had described and checked the window ledge she cited the shoe to be...it was there and the nurse retrieved it. If she has no soul or no mind perception of metaphysical self...how did she see it? Therefore she must have left her physical body in either soley mind or spirit thus prooving the ability to leave one's body in times of stress or otherwise.

Another case of a young boy suffering a fever...his mother looked in on him and was amazed to see the young boy's spiritual self playing in his room and trying to wake his brother. The spiritual self was identical to the physical self...upon noting his mother was in the room...the young spirit jumped back into the child's body. His mother...agape turned to go and tell her husband of what had occurred only to find him open mouthed behind her, having witnesed the whole thing. This prooves not only a spiritual self but a complete conscious awareness while out of the body aswell.

Please post a link to a credible source to back this up or it will be deleted.

Just out of interest...in florida a ressuss unit did this experiment on dogs. They stopped their hearts, drained them of blood and pumped in a saline solution at 5 degrees celcius and pumped it around the body for two hours...they then drained this..pumped back in the blood and restarted the heart with shocks. There were no adverse efects.. and most importantly..no brain damage...which was what the experiment was about...if the stories I posted are factualy correct..are there any volunteers?...l.o.l.

Please post the link to this research or it will be deleted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please post a link to a credible source to back this up or it will be deleted.

In the case of the first story, I think this refers to the research done by Parnia.
http://www.scimednet.org/library/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm

 

[PIT2]

This is a link to the dog story:

In July 2005 scientists at the University of Pittsburgh's Safar Center for Resuscitation Research announced they had managed to bring dogs back to life with no brain damage by draining the blood out of the dog's bodies and putting an ice cold solution into their circulatory systems, which in turn keeps the bodies alive in stasis. After 3 hours of being clinically dead, the dogs were revived by delivering an electric shock to their hearts. The heart started pumping the blood around the frozen body, and the dogs were brought back to life. Scientists hope to begin human testing and have already begun discussions with hospitals to use "suspended animation" if everything else fails. Safar Research also pioneered modern CPR (cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) techniques.

While most of the dogs were fine, a few of the revived dogs had severe nervous and movement coordination damage, causing them to be mentally disabled, and demonstrating behavior that was deemed "zombie" like. This has been pushed further by the media which named them "zombie dogs".[1] There is concern that this technique, if used on humans could result in brain damage similar to those suffered by some of the dogs in the experiment. Safar Research believes that the process is merely another way to give "more time" to the operation table, as vital repairs could be made when patients are in stasis: emergency operations fail frequently simply because of the lack of time, not the lack of expertise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation

They did something like this on the now famous Pam Reynolds, which after rescucitation was able to describe a very detailed near death experience, including an OBE and a view of 'the afterlife'. Details she saw and heard during her OBE were verified. The surgery lasted 5 or 6 hours, but i remember the period she was actually 'dead' was more like 50 minutes.

Her case was mentioned in other research on near death experiences:

Sabom22 mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.

http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf

That study concluded:

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception.7,8,22,28,31

Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.

 

[nannoh]

This is a link to the dog story:



They did something like this on the now famous Pam Reynolds, which after rescucitation was able to describe a very detailed near death experience, including an OBE and a view of 'the afterlife'. Details she saw and heard during her OBE were verified. The surgery lasted 5 or 6 hours, but i remember the period she was actually 'dead' was more like 50 minutes.

Her case was mentioned in other research on near death experiences:



That study concluded:

I would personally encourage the study of evoked "near life experiences" (NLE) rather than concentrating on "what its like to be dead". This could only add "soul" to what is today often considered a "souless" society.

 

[PIT2]

I would personally encourage the study of evoked "near life experiences" (NLE) rather than concentrating on "what its like to be dead". This could only add "soul" to what is today often considered a "souless" society.

Whats a near life experience?

 

[nannoh]

Whats a near life experience?

Many people are afraid of life because of the many perceived dangers that come with it. These dangers are emphasized everyday by the media, professionals and even parents.

A chronic, condition of introversion has spread into societies where real and imagined dangers keep people behind locked doors. There they gather continuous confirmation about how dangerous life is from news casts, pharmaceutical promotions, reality shows and a host of other uninvited but attractive commentaries.

Many people are often compelled to visit doctors and specialists because of a fleeting pain or anxiety and there their fears are supported by professionally compiled statistics about anonymous "subjects" who appear to be just like them and with the same symtoms.

This tyranny of fear has been exported to places around the world via industry, the military, commercialism and corporate manipulation. It serves to bolster an economic purpose that is enjoyed by a small number of 'entrepreneurs' while terrorizing the majority of a population.

In a paradoxical and contradictory manner death is also feared; even though no one knows what it entails. Fear of the unknown goes a long way toward motivating a fear of life and of death.

The more people fear living and/or dieing the less they will personally experience in life. There will be a tendency to avoid most of the activities associated with living aside from eating, sleeping and "staying safe". This deters the competition that might otherwise democratically steer a society into lively debates and critical discussion concerning its direction in life.

When people get out of the sandwich of fear (of death and life) they will experience life to its fullest or, in the least, they will have a "near life experience".

 

[jaynebeal]

Thank you my champions...l.o.l...Sorry I didn't post the research myself...have been away..I shall come better prepared next time...apologies if I upset anyone by not citing it earlier. Thanks once again.

 

[Evo]

In the case of the first story, I think this refers to the research done by Parnia.
http://www.scimednet.org/library/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm

No, I see no link. I searched the entire story, do you see anything about a shoe?

 

[PIT2]

Here it is, the shoe:

Social worker Kimberly Clark Sharp says she couldn't come to terms with her own out of body, near-death experience until one of her own patients had one. Sharp's patient went into cardiac arrest. After she was resuscitated, the patient insisted she had risen out of her body and floated up around the hospital where she saw a blue tennis shoe on the third floor ledge. To calm down her patient Sharp went to look. "I did find a blue tennis shoe on the ledge," said Sharp. "She got everything right as she described it to me."
http://www.nbc10.com/news/3253894/detail.html

And

What of women like "Maria," a migrant worker who had a heart attack while visiting friends in Seattle? While being resuscitated, she floated out of the coronary care ward of the hospital and was distracted by a tennis shoe on the ledge of the third floor of the north wing. According to Kenneth Ring, a professor of psychology famed worldwide for his research on near-death experiences, Maria described that tennis shoe in detail, including the fact that one of the laces was tucked under the heel. A shocked social worker reported that the tennis shoe, with a lace tucked underneath, was indeed on the third-floor ledge.
http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/nde/001_pages/44.html

 

[mubashirmansoor]

I've heard some other stories of this type too, what if its all true?
In that case there is something which we don't know, we don't know many things but I don't really think proving this is impossible...
What have been experts saying about this?

 

[verty]

The experts say "I'll believe in aliens when they land in my back garden."

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Many people are afraid of life because of the many perceived dangers that come with it. These dangers are emphasized everyday by the media, professionals and even parents.

A chronic, condition of introversion has spread into societies where real and imagined dangers keep people behind locked doors. There they gather continuous confirmation about how dangerous life is from news casts, pharmaceutical promotions, reality shows and a host of other uninvited but attractive commentaries.

Many people are often compelled to visit doctors and specialists because of a fleeting pain or anxiety and there their fears are supported by professionally compiled statistics about anonymous "subjects" who appear to be just like them and with the same symtoms.

This tyranny of fear has been exported to places around the world via industry, the military, commercialism and corporate manipulation. It serves to bolster an economic purpose that is enjoyed by a small number of 'entrepreneurs' while terrorizing the majority of a population.

In a paradoxical and contradictory manner death is also feared; even though no one knows what it entails. Fear of the unknown goes a long way toward motivating a fear of life and of death.

The more people fear living and/or dieing the less they will personally experience in life. There will be a tendency to avoid most of the activities associated with living aside from eating, sleeping and "staying safe". This deters the competition that might otherwise democratically steer a society into lively debates and critical discussion concerning its direction in life.

When people get out of the sandwich of fear (of death and life) they will experience life to its fullest or, in the least, they will have a "near life experience".

Excellent post. You are very wise and a gifted writer.

I know we're getting a little off topic, but I was thinking about one thing in particular that you said, which was, 'A chronic, condition of introversion has spread into societies where real and imagined dangers keep people behind locked doors.' My question is to what factors you would attribute this chronic introversion to. I'm guessing its socio-political. A few micro examples would be nice.