NationStates Jolt Archive

A tangent in the pro-lifers adoption thread seemed to me like it could spur interesting discussion, so I'm going to bring it up here.

I realize that there are many on this board who don't think that any type of soul or spirit exists within a human being, but I do not intend this to be a thread debating the existence or non-existence of such entities. I'm interested in seeing the different viewpoints on how such an entity might be connected to the physical body, at what point it joins with the physical body, and how or at what point it might leave. Even those who don't believe it exists can feel free to throw stuff out there. =)

Anyways, the comment that prompted it was this:


Frankly, I do believe that a person who is brain dead is, for all practical purposes, dead... but they're still a person because I believe that the spirit is stuck with the body until it dies. I don't believe the spirit is housed in the brain. That's a completely unrelated subject, but since you asked, I thought I'd throw that out there.

The idea of the spirit being "stuck with the body" until the body is completely dead is interesting to me.

Do all of the individual cells have to die before the spirit is separated from the body? If so, what about organ donation? In organ donation, an entire living organ is transplanted from the brain-dead body into another living human being. Would it, in essence, take some of the soul with it into the new person?

If all cells do not have to die, is there another specific organ that the spirit is tied to? It seems difficult to argue that it would be, considering that a human being can live without many organs, and can live with transplanted organs for most of the organs they cannot live without. In the end, the part of our bodies that makes us individual, without which we would be an entirely different person, is our brain. Wouldn't that suggest that, if a spirit or soul tied to a human body does exist, it would be tied to the brain?

maybe it's in the mitochondria or something o_0. or maybe that's the general sort of human group conciousness spirit thingy in there seeing as mitichondrial dna is supposed to all ancient and that, or something.

the problem is that the soul, should it exist, does not conform to any rules of physics that we are aware of.

Since it is purely a metaphysical entity, unbound by the laws of physics, trying to ascribe physical conditions that it is bound to is somewhat odd.

Three types of creatures:
Angels and demons - spirit only
Man - body and spirit
Animal - body only

I believe that God made Adam and Eve with souls and that all of us are the spiritual as well as physical/biological children of them. That's the only way that I see that Original Sin can work. I reject that idea that there is a "bank of souls" which God takes from and puts into bodies: there would be no curse of sin for all people that way.

Rather the only way we could all have sinned in Adam is to be spiritual children of his and to have inherited his spiritual qualities through our parents. The Bible teaches Original Sin and that's the only way I can see it to work.

Traducianism (http://www.theopedia.com/Soul)

Three types of creatures:
Angels and demons - spirit only
Man - body and spirit
Animal - body only

I believe that God made Adam and Eve with souls and that all of us are the spiritual as well as physical/biological children of them. That's the only way that I see that Original Sin can work. I reject that idea that there is a "bank of souls" which God takes from and puts into bodies: there would be no curse of sin for all people that way.

Rather the only way we could all have sinned in Adam is to be spiritual children of his and to have inherited his spiritual qualities through our parents. The Bible teaches Original Sin and that's the only way I can see it to work.

Traducianism (http://www.theopedia.com/Soul)

So, at what point does a body gain a soul? At what point does the soul leave? Is it connected in a particular way to the body? It certainly wouldn't make sense for it to be connected to, for instance, the heart, as we can transplant a heart from one person to another without changing who they are.

So, at what point does a body gain a soul? At what point does the soul leave? Is it connected in a particular way to the body? It certainly wouldn't make sense for it to be connected to, for instance, the heart, as we can transplant a heart from one person to another without changing who they are.

Consult your pineal gland.

I like these questions, Dem. These are things I have often wondered at while working my way through other threads (such as the above-mentioned abortion thread).

A tangent in the pro-lifers adoption thread seemed to me like it could spur interesting discussion, so I'm going to bring it up here.

I realize that there are many on this board who don't think that any type of soul or spirit exists within a human being, but I do not intend this to be a thread debating the existence or non-existence of such entities. I'm interested in seeing the different viewpoints on how such an entity might be connected to the physical body, at what point it joins with the physical body, and how or at what point it might leave. Even those who don't believe it exists can feel free to throw stuff out there. =)

Anyways, the comment that prompted it was this:

The idea of the spirit being "stuck with the body" until the body is completely dead is interesting to me.

Do all of the individual cells have to die before the spirit is separated from the body? If so, what about organ donation? In organ donation, an entire living organ is transplanted from the brain-dead body into another living human being. Would it, in essence, take some of the soul with it into the new person?

If all cells do not have to die, is there another specific organ that the spirit is tied to? It seems difficult to argue that it would be, considering that a human being can live without many organs, and can live with transplanted organs for most of the organs they cannot live without. In the end, the part of our bodies that makes us individual, without which we would be an entirely different person, is our brain. Wouldn't that suggest that, if a spirit or soul tied to a human body does exist, it would be tied to the brain?
You're asking good questions.

All I can add to the discussion right now (because my own soul is kind of in pain right now):

I've read of various accounts that after organ donation, the receiver's personality and taste changed. I don't know what to make of it, but when all of the sudden (after the transplantation) you're into eating the favorite dish of the donor (without knowing it, only finding that out later) something's up.

I wouldn't overestimate that, but it sure is interesting.

As for where our soul (should we have one, which I believe) is located - I honestly don't know.

You're asking good questions.

All I can add to the discussion right now (because my own soul is kind of in pain right now):

Um, *hugs* for whatever is bothering you.

I've read of various accounts that after organ donation, the receiver's personality and taste changed. I don't know what to make of it, but when all of the sudden (after the transplantation) you're into eating the favorite dish of the donor (without knowing it, only finding that out later) something's up.

I wouldn't overestimate that, but it sure is interesting.


I've heard of such accounts, but I've never seen a credible account. My advisor is an anesthesiologist on a liver transplant team and she's never heard of any such thing, and, in fact, laughs at it.

I'm sure it is possible that people do demonstrate some personality differences after transplant surgery. It is a long, complicated surgery and the chances of some sort of brain damage are very high. Such patients often suffer some amount of memory loss, at least temporarily, but I don't think it's because they switched hearts/livers/kidneys.

Um, *hugs* for whatever is bothering you.
Thanks. That already helps a little. ;)
I've heard of such accounts, but I've never seen a credible account. My advisor is an anesthesiologist on a liver transplant team and she's never heard of any such thing, and, in fact, laughs at it.

I'm sure it is possible that people do demonstrate some personality differences after transplant surgery. It is a long, complicated surgery and the chances of some sort of brain damage are very high. Such patients often suffer some amount of memory loss, at least temporarily, but I don't think it's because they switched hearts/livers/kidneys.
Whatever the reason(s) for it - if there's a place this rumor has place, it's in this thread. :p

I personally feel that the soul is the "driver" of the brain, the thing that enables our spiritual selves to interact in the physical world. Thoughts exist without the brain, but it is the brain that enables us to think about and perceive physical objects.

It is the core of our selves, and is something that can't really be accessed in our everyday state of mind. It isn't in our bodies, but rather interacts with and transcends them. Only after death or during states like meditative trances, reflection, or the like do we come in to direct contact with that essence, and even then it is limited due to the existence of the physical around us. The soul is the things that takes those neural impulses produced by the brain and produces our subjective experiences and thoughts; it's the translator that makes our thoughts exist. When the brain dies, the soul is released and goes on to whatever destination it goes to; personally, in that regard I believe it is something we choose rather than a "one size fits all option".

So, for me personhood begins when the neural tube begins to develop in to advanced brain components, and ends when the brain dies. In the case of brain damage, the ability of the soul to interact with the physical is limited and so that person's cognitive functions are impaired.

My perspective on these issues comes from my religion, which I found agrees very much with things that I had come to believe even before I joined it, as a result of my own investigating and so on.

The threads I've been participating in over the last couple of days were ones in which I was talking strictly from a non-religious point of view, but try as I might, I have found that to separate what I believe about the secular world from my religious understanding is silly. It's a way to try and connect with people who don't share my religion, by trying to find common ground. I've decide to abandon that approach, because I've learned that sometimes, there just isn't any.

Which lead to the quote that helped inspire this thread (warm fuzzies for me, thank you Dempublicents1. :) ). The impact this will have on that other thread I'll post on that thread later, but now, I'll get down to the subject at hand.

What I've learned is that the body and spirit are collectively known as the soul. When we are born, the body and soul are joined, on a sort of non-permanent basis. They will separate again at the time of death. (To be reunited at the Resurrection later, permanently)

I don't think the spirit can be said to inhabit only one part of the body, like the heart or the brain. People can get artificial hearts and still be a complete person. People have had fully half of their brains removed as a result of injury or illness, and can't rightly be considered only half the person they were.

Dempublicents1 raises an interesting question... at what point DOES the spirit leave the body? I rather think maybe the cause/effect is the other way around. Perhaps the departure of the spirit is precisely the reason the body ceases to function.

I saw an interesting article some years ago, and if I can find it again I'll gladly link it here, in which a scientist had a terminally ill patient on a bed that was mounted to a scale. Accounting for moisture, etc he could track the exact mass of the person on the scale. At the moment of death, he registered a sudden decrease of something like 36 grams. (I don't recall the exact figure, but that was, I believe, reasonably close.)

I think that's the point at which life functions cease, and systems begin to shut down irrevocably. Systems that can go on awhile without nutrients do, like hair folicles and cuticles, but the life has gone, and what is left is just a biomechanical system running down.

I've also heard stories of organ transplants resulting in the recipient gaining some of the personality traits of the donor. Maybe it's so. Maybe the organ has some sort of spiritual imprint on it that affects the spirit in the recipient. It seems reasonable to me.

We're taught that the spirit is composed of a finer matter than that which we're familiar with in our day to day life, but that it does indeed have mass. Animals, plants and any other living things also have spirits. Even my pet tarantula (her name is Speedy. She's adorable.)

Here's a question. Does anyone think that Terry Schaivo's soul/spirit was in heaven before her body died?

Here's a question. Does anyone think that Terry Schaivo's soul/spirit was in heaven before her body died?

I would say if here brain, and at least the neocortex in particular, were no longer functioning, then yes. But then again, the soul really is never in the body to begin with; rather, it uses the body but is not part of it. It's most accurate to say that the soul was likely no longer interacting with the physical world via that body. It might have been, but given the lack of brain activity anything it was doing would be minimal at best. Of course, if it is the case that total death is necessary to "release" the soul, then it would be there until her brain actually died.

I'm not sure. The only thing I know for certain was that she had one. However, if her soul was still trapped in her body it would be infinitely more merciful to release it and give her the opportunity to be conscious again rather than to keep it trapped in something that denies her that fundamental aspect of her being.

Here's a question. Does anyone think that Terry Schaivo's soul/spirit was in heaven before her body died?

I believe her spirit was trapped in a body that could no longer function. It's why I believed strongly that the best approach would be to remove the life support and release her.

That whole mess led to a decision I made for myself which I've shared with my family. If I am ever in a situation like that, where my brain is clinically dead, they are to pull the plug IMMEDIATELY. If I'm not brain dead but in a vegetative state, they are to wait until my next birthday. If I haven't awakened by then, they are to pull the plug promptly. There's something satisfyingly symmetrical about the idea of dying on my birthday...

I figured I would give my idea without reading too many other posts...ideas do change after all...

Qualifier1--I am a Christian(Make of that whatever you like)

Qualifier2--Science has never conflicted with my religious beliefs as science deals with what are essentially proven realities --
Proper science also not only admits its ignorance but thrives on it, one does not seek knowledge if they believe they already know.

Qualifier3-- where science and religion do conflict I believe it be the fault of the observer and not either science or religion's incorrectness.

Spirits/Souls
The human mind, is a reality to our ability to observe it, yet we can not point to it, we can not say "There is the mind" similarly we cannot say "there is the soul"

I believe that the mind and soul/spirit are energy(I say this simply because well I dont KNOW) as they are energy they can not be destroyed, only changed. Hence the spirit is eaternal.

The more exposure I receive to physics and it's ever expanding laws...the laws of physics are not static nor are they complete they are constantly being updated.
The more I see immense possibilities for expansion of the "Spiritual" concept.
What was once equatedwith the supernatural is now common place---and so to does this continue eaternally.
Making a solid particle of matter be simulataneously in two places at once...science fact, not science fiction.
So why could not on a quantum level our "Spirit" exist both with us and perhaps outside our membrane space? Or better still within another membrane space entirely?

I believe that indeed science will eventually tell us that on a quantum level humans are far more complex then ever dreamed... 100years ago if told a doctor lasers would be common place medical tools for healing the human form he would not know what you were talking about...and when you explained yourself he would think you mad.

Yesterday scalpels and needles, today lasers, gene mapping and Nuclear medicine, and tommorow???

Souls and Spirits are merely science not yet realised.

Or something like that.

-snip

That is extremely similar to the ideas I've been constructing in regard to the soul...it's really a fascinating angle to approach the concept of a soul from.

I believe that indeed science will eventually tell us that on a quantum level humans are far more complex then ever dreamed... 100years ago if told a doctor lasers would be common place medical tools for healing the human form he would not know what you were talking about...and when you explained yourself he would think you mad.

I feel the same way. The quantum level has a lot of "weirdness" (there really isn't a better term for it), and I think we're going to realize that those properties have a far greater effect on the universe than we know of right now.

Absolutely.
Man simply likes to believe that he is always at the apex of his knowledge...when he hasnt even hit the summit.

But, note;
Nothing in my statement should in theory conflict with religious belief...only fear mongering Dogmatics fear knowledge.

I would say if here brain, and at least the neocortex in particular, were no longer functioning, then yes. But then again, the soul really is never in the body to begin with; rather, it uses the body but is not part of it. It's most accurate to say that the soul was likely no longer interacting with the physical world via that body. It might have been, but given the lack of brain activity anything it was doing would be minimal at best. Of course, if it is the case that total death is necessary to "release" the soul, then it would be there until her brain actually died.

I'm not sure. The only thing I know for certain was that she had one. However, if her soul was still trapped in her body it would be infinitely more merciful to release it and give her the opportunity to be conscious again rather than to keep it trapped in something that denies her that fundamental aspect of her being.

Okay, if you believe in a soul I can see that viewpoint. But now, do you think the soul or spirit has the same memories/personality/psychological attributes as the living person. Or are they different? In other words could it be possible that the soul does not share an 'identity' with the person, which is why brain trauma, drugs &c. can so radically alter the personality.

Absolutely.
Man simply likes to believe that he is always at the apex of his knowledge...when he hasnt even hit the summit.

I always think of JS Haldane's quote that the universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose. There will always be those things on the edge of knowledge that we don't understand, and there will always be someone with a new idea that pushes those edges farther back.

And, honestly, I never want us to know everything. When that happens, we lose both the joy of discovery and the motivation to keep exploring for new things. The drive for new knowledge inspires us to constantly improve and expand our society, and that is a very good thing from any angle.

But, note; Nothing in my statement should in theory conflict with religious belief...only fear mongering Dogmatics fear knowledge.

A truly religious person should be able to accommodate both; after all, God's creation is necessarily consistent with himself, and any right belief about God has to be capable of accommodating the laws of that creation. Otherwise, it contradicts God.

Yay, abstract theology meets personal philosophy.

My spin on this is that the "spirit" you're talking of is effectively the same as what we call "mind". It is, at the lowest level, a series of biochemical phenomena, but the bigger picture is that it's not just that; it is also the infinite mesh of interactions between the body's composite living things and the various bits and pieces floating around within it. It does not necessarily require conscious thought in order to remain in being.

If you think about every minute cell as a politician, the Mind/Spirit is the circle of debate that you get when you stick the whole lot down in a conference hall and get them to work through their own governance. At death, the government is split; its key members either themselves dead or no longer able to do their job. So the debate ceases and everyone goes their own way. Thus is the spirit dissolved; potentially with a lasting impact on the politicians (who may go off to other governments, leading in to a vague reincarnation ideal). On the other hand, you may get a government that is wounded, having lost many key members to illness or rebellion, but not actually dissolved; for example, brain damage, cancer, retroviral effects etc. In cases such as these, the spirit still lives while there is still a collective life to work through, since the cells are still talking and working things out.

I cannot really comprehend the concept of a soul. I whack it in the chart of make-believe along with religion, faeries, santa clause and Darth Vader. Frankly our individual consciousness is nothing more than a set of chemicals and electrical impulses. Once we die, thats roughly it.

Oddly enough, though, I do believe in a Human hive mind. Thats another story though.

...Darth Vader.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.

*Grins* I love putting things up on a tee. Yet people so rarely take a swing...

Okay, if you believe in a soul I can see that viewpoint. But now, do you think the soul or spirit has the same memories/personality/psychological attributes as the living person. Or are they different? In other words could it be possible that the soul does not share an 'identity' with the person, which is why brain trauma, drugs &c. can so radically alter the personality.

I think that's an interesting question, personally, and one that I am still looking to find a solid answer on. I personally feel that those attributes do remain with the spirit, but that damages to the biological body can affect its ability to apply those properties in the physical world.

Currently, I use the analogy of a car and its driver when talking about things like this. Imagine the body to be a car, and the soul its driver. For example, if a car's brakes malfunction or run out of gas the car will not follow the will of the driver no matter how much they want it to brake or keep running. In many cases of psychological problems or brain damage, particularly less severe ones, the person is fully aware that they have lost some aspect of themselves, which suggests to me that our souls do retain at least some of our personality and memory.

If a person has psychological problems, or they suffer brain damage, it doesn't matter what they want because the means of expressing themselves is not working properly. The soul's vehicle for interacting with the physical world is damaged, and therefore the interactions it has with that world are also affected. It's also possible that the soul plays a role as a "backup" version of ourselves that retains information destroyed due to physical events.

I cannot really comprehend the concept of a soul. I whack it in the chart of make-believe along with religion, faeries, santa clause and Darth Vader. Frankly our individual consciousness is nothing more than a set of chemicals and electrical impulses. Once we die, thats roughly it.

The problem is, that doesn't work. Not only is there the existence of irreducible subjective experience, but also the fact that the brain functions in inherently dualistic terms; there is something that translates those electrical impulses in to thoughts, and it's not just those impulses themselves. If that were the case, then it would mean that it is possible for them to create thought by creating and translating themselves.

The very fact that consciousness is not only an incredibly complex emergent property but contains major irreducible aspects that are unique to each individual and are not entirely dependent on the brain suggests to me that there is more there than just the brain. Plus, there's a ton of anecdotal and anthropological evidence. Belief in the soul is universal among human cultures, and there have been hundreds of thousands, even millions or more, of accounts throughout history (not that all of them are true, of course) that document these kinds of phenomena.

Three types of creatures:
Angels and demons - spirit only
Man - body and spirit
Animal - body only

I believe that God made Adam and Eve with souls and that all of us are the spiritual as well as physical/biological children of them. That's the only way that I see that Original Sin can work. I reject that idea that there is a "bank of souls" which God takes from and puts into bodies: there would be no curse of sin for all people that way.

Rather the only way we could all have sinned in Adam is to be spiritual children of his and to have inherited his spiritual qualities through our parents. The Bible teaches Original Sin and that's the only way I can see it to work.

Traducianism (http://www.theopedia.com/Soul)

What would have you believe that animals do not have spirits or souls? Plenty of animals have personality, strive towards goals and know the differnce between right and wrong. Researchers have found strange behavior in savannah Boars which have burial mound like structures (just like a place where the dead are taken) where the bodies are placed in a ritual like behavior which is thought to be a sign in thier faith in some sort of afterlife or possibly a higher being..

hello.. just testing to see if the moderators are letting posts actaully go through:mad:

Three types of creatures:
Angels and demons - spirit only
Man - body and spirit
Animal - body only

I believe that God made Adam and Eve with souls and that all of us are the spiritual as well as physical/biological children of them. That's the only way that I see that Original Sin can work. I reject that idea that there is a "bank of souls" which God takes from and puts into bodies: there would be no curse of sin for all people that way.

Rather the only way we could all have sinned in Adam is to be spiritual children of his and to have inherited his spiritual qualities through our parents. The Bible teaches Original Sin and that's the only way I can see it to work.

Traducianism (http://www.theopedia.com/Soul)

What makes you think animals don't have souls? Plenty of animals have personality set goals and know the difference between right and wrong...
continued....

The problem is, that doesn't work. Not only is there the existence of irreducible subjective experience, but also the fact that the brain functions in inherently dualistic terms; there is something that translates those electrical impulses in to thoughts, and it's not just those impulses themselves. If that were the case, then it would mean that it is possible for them to create thought by creating and translating themselves.

The very fact that consciousness is not only an incredibly complex emergent property but contains major irreducible aspects that are unique to each individual and are not entirely dependent on the brain suggests to me that there is more there than just the brain. Plus, there's a ton of anecdotal and anthropological evidence. Belief in the soul is universal among human cultures, and there have been hundreds of thousands, even millions or more, of accounts throughout history (not that all of them are true, of course) that document these kinds of phenomena.

Are you arguing the existence of the soul based on the fact human cultures throughout history have believed in something along those lines? Because human cultures have believed in Gods since pythons were worshipped several thousand years ago. That does not magic-up the existence of a god.

Personally I imagine we can eventually map what builds up consciousness. Granted not yet, but provided we survive that long as a species, then why not? There is nothing mystical about life, afterall.

By the way, what are these subjective experiences? I'm curious.

What makes some people not believe that animals have souls/spirits? plenty of animals have personalities, set goals and know the differnce between right and wrong.

What makes some people not believe
That would be a result of their opinion based on what I would call an inflated sense of self importance.

continuing my point now that the moderators have seemed to finnally let up. Reseachers have found interesting behavior amoung savannah boars where the dead are buried (brought to an area) where they exibit a behavior which resembles a ritual which scientists believe it to be something as a homage to a higher spirit or belief in the after-life

Ah... the concept of the connotations revolving around animals practising religion is just too delicious. I think im going to have to curl up in a ball and have an atheistgasm over it.

Dragon-hide Sneakers said it first: Religion is for boars.

Are you arguing the existence of the soul based on the fact human cultures throughout history have believed in something along those lines? Because human cultures have believed in Gods since pythons were worshipped several thousand years ago. That does not magic-up the existence of a god.

All I'm saying with that is that there is no reason to rule it out; given the sheer preponderance of such a belief, it might merit further investigation. Also, given that there are so few beliefs that can be categorized as universal

Personally I imagine we can eventually map what builds up consciousness. Granted not yet, but provided we survive that long as a species, then why not? There is nothing mystical about life, afterall.

That's nothing more than faith, quite simply. There is absolutely no justification for that position.

I mean, there is simply too much anecdotal evidence from multiple sources, cultures, time periods, and levels of society, including my own personal experiences for me to make that kind of judgement, especially given the fact that the natural world itself has properties that could fall in to the mystical category.

By the way, what are these subjective experiences? I'm curious.

What is it like to be me? Or to feel love, or see the color red? What is it like to think?

continuing my point now that the moderators have seemed to finnally let up. Reseachers have found interesting behavior amoung savannah boars where the dead are buried (brought to an area) where they exibit a behavior which resembles a ritual which scientists believe it to be something as a homage to a higher spirit or belief in the after-life

And that means? Animals aren't dumb; many of them have cognitive abilities that approach those of man, and many of them have survival instincts that surpass ours.

I personally believe that any being with the ability to think can have a true soul, and that includes animals like boars, dogs, elephants, humans, dolphins, and so on. If anything, the fact that other organisms can conceive of God suggests that evolution itself is wired to produce belief in God, and I only have to wonder why it would take that form to begin with.

I'm interested in seeing the different viewpoints on how such an entity might be connected to the physical body, at what point it joins with the physical body, and how or at what point it might leave. Even those who don't believe it exists can feel free to throw stuff out there.
Spirit is connected to the physical body by virtue of being, which is a result of the consciousness of the body, and hence is a product of the body; and hence only living things have spirit, and if it is believed that all things are living/aware in some manner, then all things have spirit. God is spirit.

Spirit is the "you" at the centre of a subjective perspective. Awareness of a "world around us" gives us that perspective on the world. Consciousness is a person's faculty of awareness. We are generally aware of things past-tense, after they happen, so as soon as we are self-aware spirit already exists. And this is the important part: it only exists from the subjective perspective, from the viewpoint of the individual who is aware. Only from his pespective is his ability to be aware made into the reality of a "me".
(Incidentally, it is said that the so-called transcendental awareness brings awareness from the past-tense into the present, so that a person can directly experience spirit in the "now".)

So spirit exists as long as the individual remains at a level of consciousness suffiicient to be self-aware. Consciousness varies in levels from awake to unconscious, which is the lowest level of consciousness. I'm not a one who believes that consciousness can exist apart from a body.

A tangent in the pro-lifers adoption thread seemed to me like it could spur interesting discussion, so I'm going to bring it up here.

I realize that there are many on this board who don't think that any type of soul or spirit exists within a human being, but I do not intend this to be a thread debating the existence or non-existence of such entities. I'm interested in seeing the different viewpoints on how such an entity might be connected to the physical body, at what point it joins with the physical body, and how or at what point it might leave. Even those who don't believe it exists can feel free to throw stuff out there. =)

Anyways, the comment that prompted it was this:



The idea of the spirit being "stuck with the body" until the body is completely dead is interesting to me.

Do all of the individual cells have to die before the spirit is separated from the body? If so, what about organ donation? In organ donation, an entire living organ is transplanted from the brain-dead body into another living human being. Would it, in essence, take some of the soul with it into the new person?

If all cells do not have to die, is there another specific organ that the spirit is tied to? It seems difficult to argue that it would be, considering that a human being can live without many organs, and can live with transplanted organs for most of the organs they cannot live without. In the end, the part of our bodies that makes us individual, without which we would be an entirely different person, is our brain. Wouldn't that suggest that, if a spirit or soul tied to a human body does exist, it would be tied to the brain?

Sometimes it's best not to look too deeply into these things.

Maybe the soul is in our appendix, and when it ruptures or explodes that means Satan just took our soul and we're damned to Hell.

I believe her spirit was trapped in a body that could no longer function. It's why I believed strongly that the best approach would be to remove the life support and release her.

That whole mess led to a decision I made for myself which I've shared with my family. If I am ever in a situation like that, where my brain is clinically dead, they are to pull the plug IMMEDIATELY. If I'm not brain dead but in a vegetative state, they are to wait until my next birthday. If I haven't awakened by then, they are to pull the plug promptly. There's something satisfyingly symmetrical about the idea of dying on my birthday...

what if it's the day before your birthday?

Sometimes it's best not to look too deeply into these things.
Why is that?

Laziness?

Desire to continue believing what appeals to you, knowing that it probably won't hold up under serious scrutiny?

Fear of being cast out of the "in crowd" of believers if you dare to question?

Seriously, can you provide one clear reason why it would not be good to ask these questions?

Why is that?

Laziness?

Desire to continue believing what appeals to you, knowing that it probably won't hold up under serious scrutiny?

Fear of being cast out of the "in crowd" of believers if you dare to question?

Seriously, can you provide one clear reason why it would not be good to ask these questions?
it makes my head hurt?

The problem is, that doesn't work. Not only is there the existence of irreducible subjective experience, but also the fact that the brain functions in inherently dualistic terms; there is something that translates those electrical impulses in to thoughts, and it's not just those impulses themselves. If that were the case, then it would mean that it is possible for them to create thought by creating and translating themselves.

It is.

The brain is wonderfully complex, so much so that no "spirit" or "soul" is required to explain what you are talking about.

The brain is shaped by some biological factors that procede according to their built-in directions. The fundamental structure of the brain is shaped before any "thought" as we know it is going on. However, once such "thinking" does become possible, it becomes a part of the shaping of the brain itself!

By way of example: your own learning shapes your brain. If, for instance, you choose to learn to play piano, your brain will actually be structurally altered in many subtle but significant ways. Compared to the brain of a non-piano-player, your brain will devote a bit more to the motor regions that control fine motor movement of fingers and hands. Your auditory processing centers will be altered. And probably much more that we don't yet know about.

In other words, your "thoughts" and your cognitive activities will shape the very structures which you use to "think"! Your thoughts shape the way in which future thoughts will form.

We have known for a long time that this phenomenon is particularly pronounced in growing children. A great example is language. Young infants are in a uniquely plastic stage when it comes to acquiring language. As a native English speaker, there are certain sounds in other languages that I simply cannot distinguish because of how my brain has been shaped by my language background. However, if I were to have a baby, my infant would be able to distinguish those sounds until it passed a critical developmental stage! The language(s) that the infant is exposed to will determine which of several paths of neurological development will be followed.

These are just a few concrete examples, of course, and are on a relatively simple scale (when compared to the vast complexity of the brain as a whole). The take-home message is that there is absolutely no NEED for a soul or spirit to explain the phenomenon of "thoughts shaping thoughts." Our thoughs DO help shape our future thoughts, though they certainly are not the only factor that does so.

it makes my head hurt?
Hey, it's fine to say "I don't personally feel like asking these questions." I just find it lame when somebody says things like, "Sometimes it's best not to ask such questions." That's just bullshit. It's best that SOMEBODY be asking these questions, since so many people don't feel like bothering.

Hey, it's fine to say "I don't personally feel like asking these questions." I just find it lame when somebody says things like, "Sometimes it's best not to ask such questions." That's just bullshit. It's best that SOMEBODY be asking these questions, since so many people don't feel like bothering.

true. I might get into my ideas about souls later......but I tell you it's not going to make me very popular.

true. I might get into my ideas about souls later......but I tell you it's not going to make me very popular.
Hey, if you are actually willing to discuss some of the questions that Dem raised, that will make me happy. It's bloody rare to find anybody who is prepared to address such concrete, straightforward issues about the "soul." So you know I've got your back if you decide to step up! :D

Hrmn. I've been thinking...
What if we are not bodies with souls/spirits,
But we are souls/spirits, with bodies, and there are things we can do that knock the spirit/soul out of the bodies, making our bodies lifeless, limp bodies?

Makes sense, no? Souls and spirits apparently not being attached to any one thing...what if they're attached to our entire bodies itself?[yes, the skin too] While the brain and heart are the drivers of our living, other major organs can be damaged, destroyed and/or removed and we can die. And seeing how oxygen, nitrogen, food, and water keep us alive...The soul or spirit is not energy per se, but it could be a type of metaphysical body that can be seen only in a spirit or metaphysical realm that co-exists with our reality of our physical realm? Such as gravity is a metaphysical force, is it in our realm? Or does it coexist in a different realm, but still affects ours? Such same questions could be applied to all unseeable forces, and spirits and souls of course.

As for transplants, limb ampitations and any kind of removal *even shaving/hair cutting*...What if the soul replicates the part of itself that is being removed and put into the item that's removed, while, during the removal, it is simultaneously moving into the main body as it is replicating itself.

I don't know, just some stuff I came up with...

All I'm saying with that is that there is no reason to rule it out; given the sheer preponderance of such a belief, it might merit further investigation. Also, given that there are so few beliefs that can be categorized as universal

I mean, there is simply too much anecdotal evidence from multiple sources, cultures, time periods, and levels of society, including my own personal experiences for me to make that kind of judgement, especially given the fact that the natural world itself has properties that could fall in to the mystical category.

What is it like to be me? Or to feel love, or see the color red? What is it like to think?

I'm sorry, first of all: Anecdotal evidence is not evidence whatsoever. Simply because a believe is shared by many differing cultures across time does NOT make it correct. Witch craft, Gods, ghosts, pixies, cyclopean monsters and bleh, bleh, bleh. Endless nonsense that has nevertheless existed across cultures and time. None of them, however, are real. So no, anecdotal evidence is absurd, it could be used to argue any point.

Do you propose to tell me that seeing the colour red and an ability to think, as well as self awareness and a chemical reaction labelled love can be considered evidence of a soul?

That's nothing more than faith, quite simply. There is absolutely no justification for that position.

I am unsure what you mean by this if not that my consideration of the future ability to be capable of mapping human consciousness. In which case I have justification on the grounds that many, many supposedly impossible things have now become possible through science.

As I said, life is not sacred. We can create it; eventually we will be able to create it with immense precision. Eventually human curiosity will lead us to mapping the human mind completely, it is relatively inevitable.

Of course call it faith if you like. As a counter balance I will argue it is faith you have that you are you.

maybe it's in the mitochondria or something o_0. or maybe that's the general sort of human group conciousness spirit thingy in there seeing as mitichondrial dna is supposed to all ancient and that, or something.

It's the mitichlorians, man. And the Force.

Many ideas that are now being accepted by secular, possibly atheistic, science were once considered to be nothing more than fairy tales and drug-induced illusions.

One of these "crazy" ideas? Alternative universes. It took a long time but physicists and whathaveyou are finally looking into the idea of there being more than one universe. Why so long? Because there used to be no proof. Now you have all this crap about string theories and matter phasing in and out of existance. Scientists have also gave us all these dimensions. First there was 3. Then, they gave us time to be our fourth. Now, science is practically split between 10d-ers and 11d-ers. Sound like make believe acid trips? Tell that to scientists that deal with this crap. Not geologists or the scientists creating more shampoos to squirt into the eyes of rats. Those scientists have as much credibility outside their specialties as a mechanic or an auto-repair clerk.

A tangent in the pro-lifers adoption thread seemed to me like it could spur interesting discussion, so I'm going to bring it up here.

I realize that there are many on this board who don't think that any type of soul or spirit exists within a human being, but I do not intend this to be a thread debating the existence or non-existence of such entities. I'm interested in seeing the different viewpoints on how such an entity might be connected to the physical body, at what point it joins with the physical body, and how or at what point it might leave. Even those who don't believe it exists can feel free to throw stuff out there. =)

Anyways, the comment that prompted it was this:



The idea of the spirit being "stuck with the body" until the body is completely dead is interesting to me.

Do all of the individual cells have to die before the spirit is separated from the body? If so, what about organ donation? In organ donation, an entire living organ is transplanted from the brain-dead body into another living human being. Would it, in essence, take some of the soul with it into the new person?

If all cells do not have to die, is there another specific organ that the spirit is tied to? It seems difficult to argue that it would be, considering that a human being can live without many organs, and can live with transplanted organs for most of the organs they cannot live without. In the end, the part of our bodies that makes us individual, without which we would be an entirely different person, is our brain. Wouldn't that suggest that, if a spirit or soul tied to a human body does exist, it would be tied to the brain?
My belief: Souls exist. They are not exclusively human traits. The soul is what makes us individuals. Souls are not bound by physical constraints such as form or the limitations of life and death. Souls "wear" physical forms like suits of clothes - suits the souls are sewn into, perhaps, because it is not easy to slip and out of them, but it is not impossible either. The soul is strongly attached to its physical form, but not permanently so, and the existence of the soul is not dependent on the body it lives in. When the physical form dies, the soul, which does not die, moves on to another form, another life, what have you.

Re the OP, I wonder if the brain, as an organ, really is what makes us individuals. It is the organ we use for thinking, but is it the thing that thinks? Does the pen write the letter, or the individual holding the pen? Does the brain think, or does the individual use the brain to think with?

the problem is that the soul, should it exist, does not conform to any rules of physics that we are aware of.

Since it is purely a metaphysical entity, unbound by the laws of physics, trying to ascribe physical conditions that it is bound to is somewhat odd.
I agree. I don't think it is possible to discuss souls empirically. One must use the jargon of metaphysics or mysticism for this.

Re the OP, I wonder if the brain, as an organ, really is what makes us individuals. It is the organ we use for thinking, but is it the thing that thinks? Does the pen write the letter, or the individual holding the pen? Does the brain think, or does the individual use the brain to think with?

I would say that the brain is only the tool of the soul; we could not think and interact in the physical world without a way of doing so, and the brain provides just that. Our thoughts are produced by the soul and exist in the physical world through the brain.

Here's a question. Does anyone think that Terry Schaivo's soul/spirit was in heaven before her body died?

Personally, I'm inclined to think that Terry Schaivo's soul/spirit was long gone. That fight was over an artificially animated corpse. That is what made it so sad.

Another view, possibly even more tragic, would have it that Terry Schaivo's soul/spirit was trapped there, bound to that corpse that was not allowed to rot but would never be alive again.

Thankfully, both are pure speculation, because I can't decide which is worse.

I believe her spirit was trapped in a body that could no longer function. It's why I believed strongly that the best approach would be to remove the life support and release her.

That whole mess led to a decision I made for myself which I've shared with my family. If I am ever in a situation like that, where my brain is clinically dead, they are to pull the plug IMMEDIATELY. If I'm not brain dead but in a vegetative state, they are to wait until my next birthday. If I haven't awakened by then, they are to pull the plug promptly. There's something satisfyingly symmetrical about the idea of dying on my birthday...
My mother and I mutually made almost identical agreements, also as a result of that case.

true. I might get into my ideas about souls later......but I tell you it's not going to make me very popular.

Personally, I'd be very interested in your thoughts on the subject. The only thing that I would have a problem with in a discussion like this is someone trying to claim that their ideas are the *only* ones possible.

I would guess that, even more than simply the discussion of the existence or non-existence of God and how we might interact with said deity, the discussion of a spirit or soul will have many, many possible ideas. Religious belief, while it almost always includes a spirit or soul, is usually rather silent on the exact nature of that entity and how it interacts with the physical (assuming that it is not, itself, physical).

To everyone providing serious thoughts:

I don't want you to think I started a thread and now I'm ignoring everything. I'm not replying, largely, because I think they're all interesting and I really don't take any issue with any of them.

My own personal viewpoint is probably very close to Vetalia's, but there's a lot I haven't really worked through on this. =)

I would say that the brain is only the tool of the soul; we could not think and interact in the physical world without a way of doing so, and the brain provides just that. Our thoughts are produced by the soul and exist in the physical world through the brain.

I agree with you. So far, all your comments about the body as a tool or vehicle for the soul in this world jibe pretty well with my thinking on the subject.

Returning to the OP:

Re the seat of the soul: Hey, talk about your "question for the ages," eh? My answer would be "everywhere and nowhere." I think the soul permeates the body, but even that is merely an inadequate analogy.

Re when does the soul enter the body: By my view, in which the soul is a complete and independent entity, then it may enter the body any time it damn well pleases. It may also exit said body as it likes or needs, as well. I do not think there is any way to decide when, for instance, the soul enters a developing fetus because we do not have enough data on which to base any conclusion. Most lacking of all is any data as to WHY souls enter bodies at all. If I have to speculate, I'd say the quickening benchmark is a good one, since I can only apply my own reasoning to the subject, and I would not want to move into a body that was less developed than a fetus is at quickening. What would be the point, when you can't even see if the most fundamental parts are there and workable?

Your soul is basically you. It doesn't matter how many times you recieved organ and limb donations. You could even have bits of your brain replaced in some future super-surgery and still be you. Your soul is basically wrapped in a cocoon of flesh.

Many will call me a dreamer and that this is just myth. People said the same thing about matter disappearing and now look at what physicists are typing up in little sciency reports. Don't dismiss something as false unless you can prove why. The flat earth idea was proven false. God and souls are merely unproven. Different universes is accepted.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c389/Smunkee/incoherent.jpg

As promised, or likely just alluded to, the following post is my opinion on the subject of your (general your) soul, it is not fact, I can not prove it, and I basically don't want to debate it.......much. The post will likely be long and semi-incoherent.......and so if you read on, you have been forewarned.



To talk about the soul, I have to talk about life, and to talk about life I have to talk about death, and to talk about that, I have to talk about God.......so here goes.

I believe that our lives on earth are short in the grand scheme of things, in fact they are so short and there are so many of us that everything you do in this life may seem to be insignificant, but the truth is, it's really not. I believe that not only do our actions affect our life and the lives of others (which most people won't argue) but that they are imprinted on our very soul for all of eternity. As for whether our souls exist before we are born, I can only assume that they do, I am not talking about a past life, or reincarnation, but an eternal soul that we all possess, the nature of which is our very being. Are we all confused yet? How about bored? I warned you big and bold, so we continue.....

Being eternal, we can't really affix any temporal rules to the soul, meaning I don't know when or by what means it would inhabit the body or even what purpose it serves the body (or the body it, as it were). Everything about you is imprinted in your soul, like if your soul was a notebook and your life the text on the page, everything that happens to you will affect your nature, and everything you do will affect other people. That's where God comes in, or you know He doesn't because He is eternal. The life we know here is very concrete, you are born and then you die, that's it. It's hard to understand the future consequences of our day to day life here, it's harder still to understand the impact they have in the hereafter. I believe God in his infinite wisdom is really trying to keep us from screwing up too badly. In the past 7 or so years I have come to believe that most of the literal crap people spew from the Bible is in fact a way too simple analogy of what really is going on. To explain what I really mean I would have to get into my entire opinion on life, the universe and everything, and I don't mind, but I think I have one run-on sentence too many already and I don't think I really answered any of the questions in the OP.

can I clarify anything?:confused:

...snip...
can I clarify anything?:confused:

I am not posting a reproach to anyone, none at all, and especially not you Smunkeeville. But instead I present a FYI, a food for thought or a clarification of words and ideas, if you will.

I think most of the believers in this thread and you (I’m referring to the Christians only) who are talking about the soul, talking about it being eternal and what not, are in fact talking about the spirit, not the soul, but they don't know the difference or even that there is a difference. But from what I gather from the scriptures the spirit and soul are not the same thing, not biblically anyway.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (ESV)
Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here we see that there are three elements of a human, a soul, a spirit and a body.

Hebrews 4:12 (ESV)
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

And here we see that the soul and the spirit of a person can be divided one from the other… like the joints from the marrow and the thoughts from the intentions of the heart… Although the two seem so closely connected that a casual perusal of two might allow us to think of them as the same thing a better understanding is to see the difference between them.

The Hebrew word for soul is “nephesh” which means “life,” and the Hebrew word for “spirit” is “ruach,” which is the non-material part of a person.

The part of a person that makes each us different from any and every other person is the soul, and it is a necessary piece of a person’s components. Thus, you and I, and everyone else is a different person from every other person. The thing that makes PootWaddle, PootWaddle is the soul.

From my understanding, the soul is the part that makes it possible for our flesh to relate to the world around us, to be alive and feel, and for us to be able to communicate to others that we come into contact with as we live our lives, our soul is why our flesh can become self-aware. Conversely, the spirit is how we approach and communicate with God and eternity. Everyone born has a soul, everyone “reborn” gains a spirit, the spirit enter us and we are brought into the true life because of it, we are then different than the animals. Our spirit becomes a component of us, in our soul. It is the soul, after-all that encompasses who and what we are, our likes and dislikes etc.

Animals and plants don't have a spirit, plants have a body and animals have a body and soul, but only a person made in the image of God can have a body, soul and spirit. A person is born in the need of reconnecting with the spirit, and that’s why Jesus says we have to be born-again to enter true life.

John 3:5-15 (ESV)
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Would it, in essence, take some of the soul with it into the new person?

:eek: Didn't I see this on South Park?

What if ther's just one soul that is reincarnated into eventually everyone, one person or animal at a time? It would be pretty messed up. A Holocaust denier denying something that killed him or her millions of times.

So, at what point does a body gain a soul? At what point does the soul leave? Is it connected in a particular way to the body? It certainly wouldn't make sense for it to be connected to, for instance, the heart, as we can transplant a heart from one person to another without changing who they are.

The body and the soul/spirit are together. So when the sperm and egg come together forming one human being, the spirit is there. The spirit is tied to the body, but not in a way we can easily understand (if we can understand it at all). It is bound, but not to any specific organ. You can't say "And right behind this artery is where the soul is" It's beyond the body, but bound to it, just like all spiritual things: it interacts with what we can perceive with our senses, but it is not here with them.

What would have you believe that animals do not have spirits or souls? Plenty of animals have personality, strive towards goals and know the differnce between right and wrong. Researchers have found strange behavior in savannah Boars which have burial mound like structures (just like a place where the dead are taken) where the bodies are placed in a ritual like behavior which is thought to be a sign in thier faith in some sort of afterlife or possibly a higher being..

Scripture does not agree:

Animals have personality, just like they have emotion, but does that mean that they are capable of moral understanding? No. Scripture says that Man and the angels are the only ones created with this ability and despite observations, science has yet to prove otherwise, that these actions are anything more than conditioning and instinct.

A tangent in the pro-lifers adoption thread seemed to me like it could spur interesting discussion, so I'm going to bring it up here.

I realize that there are many on this board who don't think that any type of soul or spirit exists within a human being, but I do not intend this to be a thread debating the existence or non-existence of such entities. I'm interested in seeing the different viewpoints on how such an entity might be connected to the physical body, at what point it joins with the physical body, and how or at what point it might leave. Even those who don't believe it exists can feel free to throw stuff out there. =)

Anyways, the comment that prompted it was this:



The idea of the spirit being "stuck with the body" until the body is completely dead is interesting to me.

Do all of the individual cells have to die before the spirit is separated from the body? If so, what about organ donation? In organ donation, an entire living organ is transplanted from the brain-dead body into another living human being. Would it, in essence, take some of the soul with it into the new person?

If all cells do not have to die, is there another specific organ that the spirit is tied to? It seems difficult to argue that it would be, considering that a human being can live without many organs, and can live with transplanted organs for most of the organs they cannot live without. In the end, the part of our bodies that makes us individual, without which we would be an entirely different person, is our brain. Wouldn't that suggest that, if a spirit or soul tied to a human body does exist, it would be tied to the brain?

I typed out a long discription of what I thought the soul my consist of, and why it wouldn't be tied to the body, but then I realized that if it weren't tied to the body, there would be no reason for the body.

In other words, souls simply don't make sense.

I typed out a long discription of what I thought the soul my consist of, and why it wouldn't be tied to the body, but then I realized that if it weren't tied to the body, there would be no reason for the body.

Unless the point of the body were to allow you to interact here for some other purpose? I mean, if the earth is a kind of "proving ground" for the soul, where we develop ourselves and prepare for the next phase of our existence, than this would make perfect sense.

Of course, we're assuming that the soul is supernatural in origin; it may end up being a property of the physical universe and no more unusual than anything else. Given the kind of weirdness we've found at the quantum level, and the fact that the brain's activities seem to be a lot more complex than just the interaction of neurons and synapses, I would say we may find life after death to be a physical property of one form or another.

<puts on Mod hat>

continuing my point now that the moderators have seemed to finnally let up.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511850

It really has nothing to do with Moderators letting up. It has to do with Jolt's new spam filter.

<removes Mod hat>

My view on the soul is similar to Vetalia's. He already said everything I wanted to say. :(

Unless the point of the body were to allow you to interact here for some other purpose? I mean, if the earth is a kind of "proving ground" for the soul, where we develop ourselves and prepare for the next phase of our existence, than this would make perfect sense.

Then wouldn't the soul be necessarily tied to the body? We are getting into some Judaic and Hindu undertones here, and they require that the soul stay in the body (or bodies) until a sort of realization occurs correct?

Of course, we're assuming that the soul is supernatural in origin; it may end up being a property of the physical universe and no more unusual than anything else. Given the kind of weirdness we've found at the quantum level, and the fact that the brain's activities seem to be a lot more complex than just the interaction of neurons and synapses, I would say we may find life after death to be a physical property of one form or another.

I tend to think of the soul as being supernatural by definition, but the existence of the self after the death of the body is an interesting topic that I wouldn't rule out.

Then wouldn't the soul be necessarily tied to the body? We are getting into some Judaic and Hindu undertones here, and they require that the soul stay in the body (or bodies) until a sort of realization occurs correct?

I think so; I'm not particularly sure, but I believe that's correct. But then again, the soul is necessarily tied to the body (unless things like OBE/astral projection are in fact real occurrences) until death, when it is released for whatever comes next.

In other words, the soul can't stop interacting through the body until death, but it is not part of it.

I tend to think of the soul as being supernatural by definition, but the existence of the self after the death of the body is an interesting topic that I wouldn't rule out.

It would hinge on what exactly produces consciousness; given that we now know that the brain is vastly more complex than we had imagined it in the past, and many of its properties are emergent, I would not rule out this possibility.

In some ways, one might even be capable of discerning practical evolutionary advantages for the existence of conscious survival after death, particularly if it were possible to communicate with the deceased in one form or another. Such a thing could enable the construction of an entire system of religious and social beliefs which would provide a source of focus and unity for the surviving members of the group. The "collective unconscious" of Jung might actually be the conscious minds of the dead guiding us...it's a strange thought, but one that has practical uses. We see this concept universally in early animist belief systems; indeed, the concept of ancestor worship and reverence has only faded in the West in recent centuries, and still exists in most parts of Asia.

The body and the soul/spirit are together. So when the sperm and egg come together forming one human being, the spirit is there. The spirit is tied to the body, but not in a way we can easily understand (if we can understand it at all). It is bound, but not to any specific organ. You can't say "And right behind this artery is where the soul is" It's beyond the body, but bound to it, just like all spiritual things: it interacts with what we can perceive with our senses, but it is not here with them.

How do twins and chimeras fit into all of that? Does one soul split into two when twinning occurs? Do two souls merge into one when a chimera occurs? Or does one of them "die", while the other one lives? Or can one body have two or more souls?

Are all souls unique, or is there some sort of recycling? If they are, isn't it depressing that most souls are never born with a live body and that about half of them never even reach the level of possible consciousness?

--Don't think I'm picking on you. It's just that your viewpoint of the soul is one that is held by many, but generally without much detail.

Scripture does not agree:

Animals have personality, just like they have emotion, but does that mean that they are capable of moral understanding? No. Scripture says that Man and the angels are the only ones created with this ability and despite observations, science has yet to prove otherwise, that these actions are anything more than conditioning and instinct.

Does soul = moral understanding? If so, wouldn't that mean that a child does not have a soul until it is capable of such understanding?

How do twins and chimeras fit into all of that? Does one soul split into two when twinning occurs? Do two souls merge into one when a chimera occurs? Or does one of them "die", while the other one lives? Or can one body have two or more souls?

Are all souls unique, or is there some sort of recycling? If they are, isn't it depressing that most souls are never born with a live body and that about half of them never even reach the level of possible consciousness?

--Don't think I'm picking on you. It's just that your viewpoint of the soul is one that is held by many, but generally without much detail.

Yeah, these are the questions that always crop up for me when this particular soul-view is voiced. In my opinion, the idea that "besoulment" occurs when the sperm fuses with the egg only works if you don't actually understand the human reproductive process.

If you just want to purely play the odds, then you're left with a situation where the majority of fertilized eggs do NOT end up becoming individual human infants. That makes it kind of strange to argue that "besoulment" occurs at fertilization.

The brain is wonderfully complex, so much so that no "spirit" or "soul" is required to explain what you are talking about.
Just so. And that's another reason why "spirit" or "soul" is not about explanation, it's just about being.

I would guess that, even more than simply the discussion of the existence or non-existence of God and how we might interact with said deity, the discussion of a spirit or soul will have many, many possible ideas. Religious belief, while it almost always includes a spirit or soul, is usually rather silent on the exact nature of that entity and how it interacts with the physical (assuming that it is not, itself, physical).

It doesn't "interact with the physical" so much as it "is interaction with the physical." Spirit is about our being.

I believe that our lives on earth are short in the grand scheme of things, in fact they are so short and there are so many of us that everything you do in this life may seem to be insignificant, but the truth is, it's really not. I believe that not only do our actions affect our life and the lives of others (which most people won't argue) but that they are imprinted on our very soul for all of eternity. As for whether our souls exist before we are born, I can only assume that they do, I am not talking about a past life, or reincarnation, but an eternal soul that we all possess, the nature of which is our very being. Are we all confused yet? How about bored? I warned you big and bold, so we continue.....

Being eternal, we can't really affix any temporal rules to the soul, meaning I don't know when or by what means it would inhabit the body or even what purpose it serves the body (or the body it, as it were). Everything about you is imprinted in your soul, like if your soul was a notebook and your life the text on the page, everything that happens to you will affect your nature, and everything you do will affect other people. That's where God comes in, or you know He doesn't because He is eternal. The life we know here is very concrete, you are born and then you die, that's it. It's hard to understand the future consequences of our day to day life here, it's harder still to understand the impact they have in the hereafter. I believe God in his infinite wisdom is really trying to keep us from screwing up too badly. In the past 7 or so years I have come to believe that most of the literal crap people spew from the Bible is in fact a way too simple analogy of what really is going on. To explain what I really mean I would have to get into my entire opinion on life, the universe and everything, and I don't mind, but I think I have one run-on sentence too many already and I don't think I really answered any of the questions in the OP.

That's lovely, Smunkee. It emphasizes the contrast between the point of view that looks for causes and the point of view that signifies the world.

Wouldn't that suggest that, if a spirit or soul tied to a human body does exist, it would be tied to the brain?

Based on the native scriptures, the 'soul' is the motive power of the meat... the hungers and needs, and the 'spirit' is the air we breath... what makes us 'alive'.

The best way I've seen to describe it is:

Soul = "the 'fire' in the blood."

Spirit = "the 'breath of life'."

(In the Hebrew text, animals have 'souls', just as people do... it just doesn't often make it into English translations).

Based on the native scriptures, the 'soul' is the motive power of the meat... the hungers and needs

Philosophically, I think this is a cool concept. The soul as motivation, our drive to act. Cool.


Soul = "the 'fire' in the blood."

The soul as metabolism?


Spirit = "the 'breath of life'."

(In the Hebrew text, animals have 'souls', just as people do... it just doesn't often make it into English translations).
Having spent part of last year studying the pathways which provide energy for our cells, I find that a very interesting idea. Heaven knows, the Krebs cycle certainly felt like a vengeful spirit during finals week...

That's lovely, Smunkee. It emphasizes the contrast between the point of view that looks for causes and the point of view that signifies the world.

I was wondering if anyone was going to try to read it, it still strikes me as mostly incoherent. :p

How do twins and chimeras fit into all of that? Does one soul split into two when twinning occurs? Do two souls merge into one when a chimera occurs? Or does one of them "die", while the other one lives? Or can one body have two or more souls?

I'm inclined to say that in the case of twins there would be a splitting of the soul, just as with the body and I'm not quite certain what is meant by "chimera": there are a lot of definitions for that word. Assuming you mean two embryos which become one (is that even possible?), I would say that there is a sort of "melding" of souls: two souls with one consciousness. But I could never hold any of this as doctrine or dogma (at least not without sin) because Scripture tells us very little and most (if not all) of what we "know" about souls beyond what Scripture states explicitly is assumption and guess-work.

Are all souls unique, or is there some sort of recycling? If they are, isn't it depressing that most souls are never born with a live body and that about half of them never even reach the level of possible consciousness?

They would most certainly need to be uique. The Bible makes clear that at death, that's it. There are no more chances to repent. If there were recycling, one would possibly have many lives in which one could repent.

--Don't think I'm picking on you. It's just that your viewpoint of the soul is one that is held by many, but generally without much detail.

That's because Scripture doesn't give much information on the subject, so a lot of stuff on the subject of souls is speculation and cannot beheld to dogmatically without sin.

Does soul = moral understanding? If so, wouldn't that mean that a child does not have a soul until it is capable of such understanding?

Understanding /=/ understanding. Understanding with the mind, thinking things out, mental comprehension is one definition of understanding. But what I (and many others) mean when we say "moral understanding" we mean a sense of right and wrong, of godly and ungodly, of obedience and disobedience. And that, Scripture teaches, is present at conception.