NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

I for one believe we all have souls; we have a spirit that lives within us and that spirit is our personality. It is what defines us as people.

I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God or follow any religion to have a soul. Spirituality is a separate thing from religion and God because it defines you as a person. Your soul; your spirit is your passion, emotion. It is what makes you human.

My "soul" is my consciousness, which is in my brain.

A soul? What the hell is a soul?

I believe in the soul. It is the thing that establishes the link between mind and body, that innermost part of our being that determines who we truly are.

I agree with you almost 100 percent.

Almost...

I believe that the human soul is born "pure" as it were, not tainted by so-called "original sin". The soul is tainted, and redeemed, by actions. Also, I believe that the human soul is immortal, and does survive after death.

You might agree with it, but you just didn't say it in the OP :p

But, like I said, I agree with your sentiments. Especially in that belief in God or religion in general is not a prerequisite for a soul.

A soul? What the hell is a soul?

I said that I think it is. I want to know what you think it is. There is no real right or wrong answer because we don't know what a soul truly is. We can speculate and make philosophical musings about it.

It's a myth parents tell to their children if they want them to grow up to be a minister.

I might want to add that the soul may very well be a physical, observable property that lies at the root of consciousness. It doesn't have to be spirit, or supernatural, or anything else...the line between different forms of matter and existence are becoming so blurred that it could be accommodated quite easily.

The soul is a mythical construct largely associated with the conscience and the afterlife. In many ways, the soul as conscience and moral compass can be said to simply be an emergent product of the brain, much as the mind is. Of course, the system can simplified down into conscience and moral compass being an aspect of the mind, rather than something distinct.

The soul is also seen as a vessel into the afterlife. The body and mind gone (as the mind is an emergent property of the brain, and therefore limited to the life of the brain) the soul can be believed to be something unrelated to the first two, and held as eternal. If an afterlife exists, the soul carries on as a representation of the original human in the afterlife, either as a distinct individual or a continuance of the original (how that can be, if the mind is a mortal entity, is beyond me).

If one believes in Philosophical Idealism, one can also consider the mind to be similar to soul in relation to a possible afterlife. As all things in Idealism are held to be mental realities rather than physical realities, and the mind is held to be separate from the brain, the mind could be eternal, and carry on after the body has died. If there is an afterlife, then the mind would then experience this afterlife in whatever form it takes after death.

And no, I didn't take any of that from Wikipedia, jerks :p

I'll Ride anythin with a soul!!!!! :fluffle:

What is the human soul?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Jb-sex-machine-live.jpg

Duh.

I believe in the soul. It is the thing that establishes the link between mind and body, that innermost part of our being that determines who we truly are.brain stem functions?

Frankly, I don't see why so many non Judeo-Christians have problems accepting the soul. It was a natural conclusion reached by many of the Greek Philosophers, and, occassionally, the concept of the immortal soul is rejected by some of the more liberal Evangelicals, particularly the Univeralists, on the grounds that the concept of an immortal soul is too much a philosophical concept, and for themselves don't find enough support for it in Sacred Scripture.

See here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Socrates_and_Plato)

One of the reasons that Plato believed in the Soul was because of the apparent (seemingly contradictory) dualities in man. Consider this:

Say you know you love a girl. You want the best thing for that girl. The best thing is to wait until marriage to have sex with her (or, if you are a non Abrahamic, until she is ready for it).

On the other hand, you probably really don't wanna wait. You'd prefer to have sex with her with or without her willingness. Now.

So we have inclinations both for and against ...well...raping...the girl, in relation to our different modes of thinking, let's say in this case our Reason and our Instinct.

Well, Plato says that the reason that we have this duality is because of the Soul. Plato posits a three part soul. This is basically the analogy:

Say you have a charioteer (The Reason) with two horses. One horse goes according to the will of the charioteer (the spirited part of the soul) and is his friend. The other goes against the charioteer, and goes running after his desires (the lusty, base part of the soul).

So even Plato, and Socrates before him, Greeks, who have never heard of Jesus or the God of Abraham, posited a soul. Furthermore, they posited an immortal soul.

A soul? What the hell is a soul?

Maybe they are talking about Seoul....

Duh.

James Brown is dead.

I KILLED HIM.

James Brown is dead.

I KILLED HIM.

Must you be always so cartoony?

James Brown is dead.

I KILLED HIM.

Yet if James Brown died in Christ he shall never die, but shall have life everlasting.

Yet if James Brown died in Christ he shall never die, but shall have life everlasting.

Indeed. He will get up (get on up) forever.

What is the human soul?

Superstitious nonsense for people who are desperate to feel that they are somehow special, somehow more than meat.

I believe in the reincarnation of souls.

Superstitious nonsense for people who are desperate to feel that they are somehow special, somehow more than meat.


And you are intellectually superior to the Classic Philosophers?

And you are intellectually superior to the Classic Philosophers?

We'll never know now will we? Don't forget, they recorded their thoughts (or were recorded) - most other thinkers of the day did not. Open territory, so of course they seem like giants. I think Fass, or any modern intellectual, would be able to talk to them earnestly and probably build a much more detailed construct of the world.

And you are intellectually superior to the Classic Philosophers?

Are you under the impression that I am going to entertain such a boring and obvious troll as you? Rest assured, I am not. So, shoo!

I like the idea of a soul. I like the idea of karma, and the soul would be the label attached to everyone to ensure that the correct karma is assigned to the right person.

Soul = Brain

Atheists don't have souls.

Are you under the impression that I am going to entertain such a boring and obvious troll as you? Rest assured, I am not. So, shoo!

My friend, I am a college student majoring in Philosophy and Latin. I am a well trained First Order Logician. I am probably one of the best average people you'll find debating on the internet debating in favor of Traditional Theological positions. Yet I am a troll?

Funny, considering that your, not my post, used such violent language against the opposition.

And you are intellectually superior to the Classic Philosophers?

Well Aristotle thought that men had more teeth than women. Clearly being intellectually superior to a man who can't count isn't much of a challenge. ;)

Well Aristotle thought that men had more teeth than women. Clearly being intellectually superior to a man who can't count isn't much of a challenge. ;)

Maybe the women he knew got into a lot of bar fights?

And you are intellectually superior to the Classic Philosophers?

Classic philosophers? There are many influential philosophers today who believe in the soul and have defended it quite capably.

Well Aristotle thought that men had more teeth than women. Clearly being intellectually superior to a man who can't count isn't much of a challenge. ;)

The Greeks had a poor understanding of scientific, emperical knowledge. However, that wasn't that expertise of the Greek philosophers. The expertise of the Greek philosophers was metaphysics.

That said, while Aristotle himself had a poor knowledge of science himself compared to our own, he was probably one of the chief figures in history that led to later scientific inquiry and emperical knowledge, particularly in his advancements of the concepts of induction and the universal.

The soul is a mythical construct largely associated with the conscience and the afterlife. In many ways, the soul as conscience and moral compass can be said to simply be an emergent product of the brain, much as the mind is. Of course, the system can simplified down into conscience and moral compass being an aspect of the mind, rather than something distinct.

The soul is also seen as a vessel into the afterlife. The body and mind gone (as the mind is an emergent property of the brain, and therefore limited to the life of the brain) the soul can be believed to be something unrelated to the first two, and held as eternal. If an afterlife exists, the soul carries on as a representation of the original human in the afterlife, either as a distinct individual or a continuance of the original (how that can be, if the mind is a mortal entity, is beyond me).

If one believes in Philosophical Idealism, one can also consider the mind to be similar to soul in relation to a possible afterlife. As all things in Idealism are held to be mental realities rather than physical realities, and the mind is held to be separate from the brain, the mind could be eternal, and carry on after the body has died. If there is an afterlife, then the mind would then experience this afterlife in whatever form it takes after death.

And no, I didn't take any of that from Wikipedia, jerks :p

The problem is - our definition of 'soul' in modern paralnce, is almost entirely latter Judeo-Christian... and ignores the origins of the concept within that tradition.

In the Hebrew, the 'soul' is the 'fire in the blood'... the hungers that make flesh a living thing. In the Hebrew, the 'spirit' is like a piece of god, it is the 'breath of life' that animates us.

We now use soul and spirit almost interchangably, and add to them the concept of an eternal 'passenger' - a meaning that wasn't originally even suggested. The Hebrew gives both ideas as having a clear finish with the death of the body.

I believe we have a consciousness distinct from animals, and I believe we have a personality, mind and emotions which are more than simply neurons in the brain etc. Whether that's a soul or not, I don't know...

The only way I can look at a human soul is as an abstract idea. I'll let you know my further thoughts on the matter in the after-life. If there is one.

I believe we have a consciousness distinct from animals, and I believe we have a personality, mind and emotions which are more than simply neurons in the brain etc. Whether that's a soul or not, I don't know...

Why do you believe we have a consciousness distinct from that of animals? Wouldn't some idea of evolution of a same concept be more logical?

I believe we have a consciousness distinct from animals, and I believe we have a personality, mind and emotions which are more than simply neurons in the brain etc. Whether that's a soul or not, I don't know...
Why do you believe we have a consciousness distinct from that of animals? Wouldn't some idea of evolution of a same concept be more logical?

WTF... we are animals. But I know what you mean, and my belief is somewhat like that.

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

I for one believe we all have souls; we have a spirit that lives within us and that spirit is our personality. It is what defines us as people.

I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God or follow any religion to have a soul. Spirituality is a separate thing from religion and God because it defines you as a person. Your soul; your spirit is your passion, emotion. It is what makes you human.
I do not want to convert you, but I might rrecommend reading this text (it scared me rather much however): http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

You know, I am a materialist and do not understand why anyone wants to swap this wonderful world for an only assumed next one.

I believe that the mind is the body (well, a part of it at least), and not some separate thing that lives in/interacts with your flesh. You are your body, not some immortal conciousness that resides in a shell of meat. All of what you are isn't even limited to your brain, really.

So... the idea of a soul doesn't fit with my beliefs. Or if some sort of immortal soul does exist, it doesn't seem like it would be overly important. Your personality exists mainly in your brain, so I don't know what would be left for a soul to have.

I'm a non-Judeo-Christian-Abrahamist type person (referring to the issue raised by GnI that modern notions of souls are dominated by those religions). I'm an animist. We're all about spirits and many of us are about souls, too. They are not necessarily the same thing. Depends on what kind of animist thought one follows. There are many, each indigenous to their own cultures. And I think that is one reason why there is no really clear concensus about what a soul is in the modern Abrahamic traditions, too -- they converted mostly animistic pagans over the past centuries, and many of these conflicting notions reflect those pre-conversion cultures.

So I think it's good that we're having a discussion about what each of us thinks a soul is or is not.

My animism stems from European folk beliefs (mix of mediterranean, German, and Russian, reflecting my heritage). It includes two separate ideas of "spirit" and "soul." To me, "spirit" describes certain kinds of spiritual beings or entities or manifestations. Spirits are very much like other creatures and are possessed of a soul, just like other creatures. In my belief system, all beings have souls -- humans, animals, plants, spirits, gods, even inanimate objects, hell even man-made objects sometimes. The soul is the individual life force that carries the individual self (distinct from identity or memory or experience). It is immortal and may incarnate/reincarnate in any form, anywhere, living life upon life upon life, in this world, or in many other spiritual worlds.

In a sense, I might say that, to me, the soul is more "us" than our bodies, which is merely a container or vehicle that the soul uses.

The problem is - our definition of 'soul' in modern paralnce, is almost entirely latter Judeo-Christian... and ignores the origins of the concept within that tradition.

In the Hebrew, the 'soul' is the 'fire in the blood'... the hungers that make flesh a living thing. In the Hebrew, the 'spirit' is like a piece of god, it is the 'breath of life' that animates us.

We now use soul and spirit almost interchangably, and add to them the concept of an eternal 'passenger' - a meaning that wasn't originally even suggested. The Hebrew gives both ideas as having a clear finish with the death of the body.

You know what this really reminds me of?

The Allspark.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/CreationMatrix.jpg

I do not want to convert you, but I might rrecommend reading this text (it scared me rather much however): http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

You know, I am a materialist and do not understand why anyone wants to swap this wonderful world for an only assumed next one.

...because this world sucks?

I'm a non-Judeo-Christian-Abrahamist type person (referring to the issue raised by GnI that modern notions of souls are dominated by those religions). I'm an animist. We're all about spirits and many of us are about souls, too. They are not necessarily the same thing. Depends on what kind of animist thought one follows. There are many, each indigenous to their own cultures. And I think that is one reason why there is no really clear concensus about what a soul is in the modern Abrahamic traditions, too -- they converted mostly animistic pagans over the past centuries, and many of these conflicting notions reflect those pre-conversion cultures.

So I think it's good that we're having a discussion about what each of us thinks a soul is or is not.

My animism stems from European folk beliefs (mix of mediterranean, German, and Russian, reflecting my heritage). It includes two separate ideas of "spirit" and "soul." To me, "spirit" describes certain kinds of spiritual beings or entities or manifestations. Spirits are very much like other creatures and are possessed of a soul, just like other creatures. In my belief system, all beings have souls -- humans, animals, plants, spirits, gods, even inanimate objects, hell even man-made objects sometimes. The soul is the individual life force that carries the individual self (distinct from identity or memory or experience). It is immortal and may incarnate/reincarnate in any form, anywhere, living life upon life upon life, in this world, or in many other spiritual worlds.

In a sense, I might say that, to me, the soul is more "us" than our bodies, which is merely a container or vehicle that the soul uses.

I think you did something important here - you defined your terms... and that kind of implies you've thought about what 'soul' and 'spirit' are, and are choosing to use common terms, and explain why you think they mean something other.

I can certainly see logic behind the idea of animating forces... although I would be loathe to call them either 'souls' or 'spirits'. But, that's because I just don't want the baggage attached.

...because this world sucks?

Meh, it's all we have.

You know what this really reminds me of?

The Allspark.


Is the Allspark = Matrix of Leadership/Creation Matrix?

Souls are what we are and what our surroundings teaches us to react to,... an empty vessel within a vessel.

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

I for one believe we all have souls; we have a spirit that lives within us and that spirit is our personality. It is what defines us as people.

I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God or follow any religion to have a soul. Spirituality is a separate thing from religion and God because it defines you as a person. Your soul; your spirit is your passion, emotion. It is what makes you human.

If there is such a thing, it is no more than your consciousness, which in itself is no more than an expression of the state of your brain at any one time.

Atheists don't have souls.

It's true. I had mine removed. Now I keep it in my memories chest, in case I need it again.

Meh, it's all we have.

Possibly.

Is the Allspark = Matrix of Leadership/Creation Matrix?

Souls are what we are and what our surroundings teaches us to react to,... an empty vessel within a vessel.

The Matrix of Leadership was a gateway to the Allspark.

It's true. I had mine removed. Now I keep it in my memories chest, in case I need it again.
You kept yours? I gave mine to this guy in a suit with horns and a tail. He was a great guy, always laughing.
Possibly.

Well we won't find out until we die.

Well we won't find out until we die.

Unless you sell it.

I think you did something important here - you defined your terms... and that kind of implies you've thought about what 'soul' and 'spirit' are, and are choosing to use common terms, and explain why you think they mean something other.

I can certainly see logic behind the idea of animating forces... although I would be loathe to call them either 'souls' or 'spirits'. But, that's because I just don't want the baggage attached.

And that's why I defined the terms.

Just as this world is all we've got (as someone pointed out), so this language is all we've got to work with. "Spirit" and "soul" are perfectly good words, and I don't think they should be thrown over just because someone else uses them in a way that is minutely different from the way I use them. Their broader meanings can cover most usages. On the other hand, if we are going to talk about something in which the language is so loaded down with baggage, then we must be very clear about how we are each using the loaded words in order to be clear to each other.

I'm used to this precisely because I am an animist in a Judeo-Christian society. I have had to think very very close and hard about what these words mean in order to find a way of explaining/expressing my beliefs that is not colored by Judeo-Christian assumptions about what the words are supposed to mean.

To say that "soul" means the Christian concept of soul is, imo, rather like saying that "car" means Ford Explorer. There are lots of car models and lots of concepts of soul, and I do not think it unreasonable for people to make some effort to be clear about which one they are talking about.

The biggest hurdle, in my experience, has been just to get some people to admit that there are other concepts of soul besides their own.

Maybe they are talking about Seoul....

Well, if that's the case, I don't really know of any Seouls other than the one in Korea.

You kept yours? I gave mine to this guy in a suit with horns and a tail. He was a great guy, always laughing.

He offered me some Pogs for mine.
Technically, it's not my soul anyway. Tim Buckley owns it, along with many others.

It's true. I had mine removed. Now I keep it in my memories chest, in case I need it again.
Why does that sound familiar to me? Are you quoting something/someone?

Soul? Probably doesn't exist - a creation of conciousness rising from emergence.

Well, if that's the case, II don't really know of any Seouls other than the one in Korea.

There's a restaurant in my neighborhood called Seoul Food. Does that count as another Seoul?

Why does that sound familiar to me? Are you quoting something/someone?

Not to my knowledge…

I believe in an immortal soul, but I also believe that it doesn't fully define us when we are born. I imagine it to be something like a snowball running down a hill, that we build and grow throughout life until the very end.

Yeah, that sounds good. I'll go with that.

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

I for one believe we all have souls; we have a spirit that lives within us and that spirit is our personality. It is what defines us as people.

I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God or follow any religion to have a soul. Spirituality is a separate thing from religion and God because it defines you as a person. Your soul; your spirit is your passion, emotion. It is what makes you human.

The soul, philosophically, is the life principle. It is what gives us human nature or animal nature or plant nature that our matter corresponds to. Matter may be manipulated in countless ways; think of how many basic elements we share in our construction with animals and plants (carbon especially.) But because of our organizing principle we are fundamentally different from them, most especially in our powers of reason.

James Brown is dead.

I KILLED HIM.

Must you always act like a cartoon character?

Must you be always so cartoony?

Must you always act like a cartoon character?

:p

WTF... we are animals. But I know what you mean, and my belief is somewhat like that.

Why do you believe we have a consciousness distinct from that of animals? Wouldn't some idea of evolution of a same concept be more logical?

I didn't explain it very clearly did I?

Firstly, yeah, I meant other animals.

And I used the word "distinct" simply (and clearly mis-leadingly) to illustrate how very different and more advanced and complex I think it is, to the extent where it seems almost so different a thing that you can't compare. But I would definitly take into account the evolution of consciousness as (at least) a part of what I believe human conciousness involves.

Not to my knowledge…

Strange... I could swear I remember reading something in which someone says something about keeping their soul in their memory chest in case they need it someday.

Oh well.

*I hand matter off to the little mental file clerks who are in charge of my memory and who already have a huge backlog of work. Maybe I'll remember what it is 10 or 15 years from now.*

There's a restaurant in my neighborhood called Seoul Food. Does that count as another Seoul?

Not sure. I guess so. Still, the fact holds, that I have no Seoul.

Strange... I could swear I remember reading something in which someone says something about keeping their soul in their memory chest in case they need it someday.

Oh well.

*I hand matter off to the little mental file clerks who are in charge of my memory and who already have a huge backlog of work. Maybe I'll remember what it is 10 or 15 years from now.*

Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ. (Why does everyone always forget the second part of that saying?)

Not sure. I guess so. Still, the fact holds, that I have no Seoul.

Not even any Seoul Music?

Not sure. I guess so. Still, the fact holds, that I have no Seoul.
You could get some if you eat at that restaurant. :D

Not even any Seoul Music?

Never heard of such a thing.

You could get some if you eat at that restaurant. :D

Okay, and where does one find this restaurant?

I didn't explain it very clearly did I?

Firstly, yeah, I meant other animals.

And I used the word "distinct" simply (and clearly mis-leadingly) to illustrate how very different and more advanced and complex I think it is, to the extent where it seems almost so different a thing that you can't compare. But I would definitly take into account the evolution of consciousness as (at least) a part of what I believe human conciousness involves.

The reason I ask is - we don't KNOW the consciousness of other animals. I'd say dolphins are a similar sort of intellectual 'evolutionary' stage to use, perhaps - but I couldn't tell you what they know, or think.

We certainly don't know if they have understanding of the same concepts as us - and we have no way to communicate those questions. Indeed, those questions might be meaningless to a dolphin - and it might not be because we are smarter or more conscious than them - they might be right.

Maybe the world IS exactly as it looks - and the dolphins are right on the money...?

Why would we be so distinct, anyway? Because 'god' made us special?

We certainly don't know if they have understanding of the same concepts as us - and we have no way to communicate those questions. Indeed, those questions might be meaningless to a dolphin - and it might not be because we are smarter or more conscious than them - they might be right.

The dolphins are clearly smarter than us:
We build houses for them. We feed them. Exploitation!
When they save us from sharks, it's their version of PETA.
:D

Okay, and where does one find this restaurant?

Cambridge, Massachusetts. On Massachusetts Avenue, somewhere between Harvard and Porter Squares. I can't be bothered to spend the 15 seconds it would take to look up the actual address, but it's not that long a stretch of street. Happy hunting.

Cambridge, Massachusetts. On Massachusetts Avenue, somewhere between Harvard and Porter Squares. I can't be bothered to spend the 15 seconds it would take to look up the actual address, but it's not that long a stretch of street. Happy hunting.

I already have enough info. Enough to decide that i'm not going to go across the Atlantic Ocean just to go to some restaurant.

The reason I ask is - we don't KNOW the consciousness of other animals. I'd say dolphins are a similar sort of intellectual 'evolutionary' stage to use, perhaps - but I couldn't tell you what they know, or think.

We certainly don't know if they have understanding of the same concepts as us - and we have no way to communicate those questions. Indeed, those questions might be meaningless to a dolphin - and it might not be because we are smarter or more conscious than them - they might be right.

Maybe the world IS exactly as it looks - and the dolphins are right on the money...?

Why would we be so distinct, anyway? Because 'god' made us special?
I'm not religious in the slightest, so I don't think we're different because of God (just to get that out of the way). And I definitly don't know enough to definitively say anything or claim anything conclusive, other than what my mind is toying with at the moment and what my "instinct" goes with.

I am equally doubtful about whether we'll ever really know the consciousness of animals such as dolphins, especially if it is a very different consciousness to what humans have (in which case, perhaps we'll never know because it'll be out of our grasp).

Based on human conciousness and the human mind (not necessarily knowledge or beliefs), it would seem that no animal has quite the same extent of capabilities, but that's mainly based on a lack of evidence to prove these abilities, rather than evidence to prove a lack of these abilities. So my position stems from assuming a lack of abilities until those abilities are proven (though I recognise that evidence may not be possible, even if the abilities exist).

However, for example, the fact that a great amount of research on language in animals has consistently shown they lack the ability to develop language skills as advanced as in humans, while still not actually proving anything impossible, is the kind of thing which leads me to my thoughts. As well as physiology of the brain seeming to be less developed in all other animals (though extremely close in some cases).

Again, I would not claim anything definitive or claim that my thoughts are logically fool-proof to any extent, simply explaining where my vague thoughts on the matter come from. Though I would love to know more about the area and research involved... (hurrah for summer holidays and time to read random educational books for fun!)

The reason I ask is - we don't KNOW the consciousness of other animals. I'd say dolphins are a similar sort of intellectual 'evolutionary' stage to use, perhaps - but I couldn't tell you what they know, or think.

We certainly don't know if they have understanding of the same concepts as us - and we have no way to communicate those questions. Indeed, those questions might be meaningless to a dolphin - and it might not be because we are smarter or more conscious than them - they might be right.

Maybe the world IS exactly as it looks - and the dolphins are right on the money...?

Why would we be so distinct, anyway? Because 'god' made us special?
Well, let's be honest, GnI, and admit that the exact same questions apply to our fellow humans as well. I mean, seriously....NSG. I ask you. ;) :D

I already have enough info. Enough to decide that i'm not going to go across the Atlantic Ocean just to go to some restaurant.
Your loss, brother. That's some damned good Korean bbq.

Your loss, brother. That's some damned good Korean bbq.

Not my fault that it's on the other side of the ocean.

<snip>

Based on human conciousness and the human mind (not necessarily knowledge or beliefs), it would seem that no animal has quite the same extent of capabilities, but that's mainly based on a lack of evidence to prove these abilities, rather than evidence to prove a lack of these abilities. So my position stems from assuming a lack of abilities until those abilities are proven (though I recognise that evidence may not be possible, even if the abilities exist).

<snip>

I take the opposite position. Without proof that other creatures do not have such abilities, I consider it prudent to assume that they may have them. I choose this view because my motivation is to live in harmony with other beings and avoid causing or suffering unnecessary harm because of my actions. To me, the easiest way to be considerate of others is to follow the "Golden Rule" and treat them as I would wish to be treated, and it helps if I think of others as similar to myself.

I like to have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe, so I assume not only that other animals also like the same thing, but as an animist, I assume that the air and water prefer to be clean, too. Do I know that air and water have the ability to prefer any such thing? No, I do not, but if feeling empathy for air and water, as if they were beings like myself, helps me maintain and advocate for a clean environment, then I will think that way -- even if in the long run, it turns out to be nothing more than my imagination.

I guess I would rather be thought of as silly and fanciful than as selfish and uncaring.

Getting back to the subject of the soul, I cannot prove that I have one, let alone that anything else has one. Yet I feel that such a thing is within me, and empathetically, I feel that others have such things as well. There is no proof, not even any evidence. Only a feeling, but that is good enough for me, for what I need in my life.

Do souls exist? God I hope not.

I take the opposite position. Without proof that other creatures do not have such abilities, I consider it prudent to assume that they may have them. I choose this view because my motivation is to live in harmony with other beings and avoid causing or suffering unnecessary harm because of my actions. To me, the easiest way to be considerate of others is to follow the "Golden Rule" and treat them as I would wish to be treated, and it helps if I think of others as similar to myself.

I like to have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe, so I assume not only that other animals also like the same thing, but as an animist, I assume that the air and water prefer to be clean, too. Do I know that air and water have the ability to prefer any such thing? No, I do not, but if feeling empathy for air and water, as if they were beings like myself, helps me maintain and advocate for a clean environment, then I will think that way -- even if in the long run, it turns out to be nothing more than my imagination.

I guess I would rather be thought of as silly and fanciful than as selfish and uncaring.

Getting back to the subject of the soul, I cannot prove that I have one, let alone that anything else has one. Yet I feel that such a thing is within me, and empathetically, I feel that others have such things as well. There is no proof, not even any evidence. Only a feeling, but that is good enough for me, for what I need in my life.
Most of the time, my actions probably reflect yours. I would never want to act cruelly to animals, will be caring to animals in every situation I can think of, and would avoid causing any kind of harm. It doesn't hurt to be compassionate, and could also have a side benefit of helping compassion develop towards humans as well. Clearly, while I have a "feeling" that animals are very different to us, I still have some sense of "feeling" which makes me empathise with animals on some level. I know it would cause me great guilt and pain to harm an animal, though my logic would still try to dismiss those feelings.

However, without evidence to prove that animals are on the same level, feel the same feelings, experience things in the same way etc as humans, they will never take top priority with me over "human issues" such as poverty and on issues such as (legal, restricted!) animal testing, I would not want to hold back medical developments on an unproven assumption. And, I still have the strong "sense" from somewhere (either just an instinct, based on what we know or don't know, or a mix of both) that humans are more advanced and experience things in a more complex and developed manner.

Do souls exist? God I hope not.

And that would be... why?

Do souls exist? God I hope not.

Clever.

The soul has been the subject of poetry, plays and music...

It has been used to define food. Soul food.

How would you define the use of soul in this area?

We've looked at it from the spiritual side.

Most of the time, my actions probably reflect yours. I would never want to act cruelly to animals, will be caring to animals in every situation I can think of, and would avoid causing any kind of harm. It doesn't hurt to be compassionate, and could also have a side benefit of helping compassion develop towards humans as well. Clearly, while I have a "feeling" that animals are very different to us, I still have some sense of "feeling" which makes me empathise with animals on some level. I know it would cause me great guilt and pain to harm an animal, though my logic would still try to dismiss those feelings.

However, without evidence to prove that animals are on the same level, feel the same feelings, experience things in the same way etc as humans, they will never take top priority with me over "human issues" such as poverty and on issues such as (legal, restricted!) animal testing, I would not want to hold back medical developments on an unproven assumption. And, I still have the strong "sense" from somewhere (either just an instinct, based on what we know or don't know, or a mix of both) that humans are more advanced and experience things in a more complex and developed manner.
I understand your point of view. I, however, have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that sounds like "X is better and, thus, more important, than Y." Unless the betterness can be proved, then I see that as just prejudice. I should point out that I have the exact same knee-jerk reaction against any kind of social or political group that in any way implies that membership is better than non-membership and, thus, members are better than non-members. My negative response to that is so strong, I apply it to the whole of my own species, too. It's just a me thing.

With that said, I would repeat that I want to avoid unnecessary harm. I'm not one of those devout Buddhist monks who go about sweeping the way in front of them so they should not accidentally step on a bug. I do avoid stepping on bugs if I see them on the pavement, but if I'm getting bitten or my house is getting infested, those little suckers are going down. Likewise, it bothers me to see people idly pulling leaves off trees, but I do not hesitate to uproot weeds from my garden (when I'm lucky enough to have a garden). I feel bad about killing the bugs and plants, and as an animist, I apologize for it and try to make sure I do not harm them beyond what is necessary. And I remind myself and them (presuming they exist) that someday they will get their own back from me, as in the meaning of an old wood-cutter's rhyme, something that was recited to ward off angry tree spirits: "Old girl, give me of thy wood, and I'll give thee of mine when I turn into a tree."

So, I do not rank human needs as "better" or "more important" than the needs of other creatures, but I do acknowledge that my needs are more immediate to me than other creatures' and that my first (though not only) responsibility must be to my own kind. But I also am mindful that everything I take from my world creates a debt that I will pay eventually.

The soul has been the subject of poetry, plays and music...

It has been used to define food. Soul food.

How would you define the use of soul in this area?

We've looked at it from the spiritual side.
Are you asking what the phrase "soul food" means? And "soul music"? And such like?

In very basic terms, it means certain kinds of foods and music that are/were popular among black Americans. As I understand it, it refers to food, music, etc, that express and satisfy one's soul.

I understand your point of view. I, however, have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that sounds like "X is better and, thus, more important, than Y." Unless the betterness can be proved, then I see that as just prejudice. I should point out that I have the exact same knee-jerk reaction against any kind of social or political group that in any way implies that membership is better than non-membership and, thus, members are better than non-members. My negative response to that is so strong, I apply it to the whole of my own species, too. It's just a me thing.
With political groups, I'd have the same knee-jerk response. But then I guess this all links up, because, if I view humans as more important, than prejudice against humans is clearly more important. But I can definitly understand why you'd have that reaction.

With that said, I would repeat that I want to avoid unnecessary harm.
I definitly agree with that, in pretty much any case of anything!

I don't have the same view of the world and paying a debt as such, and (for me) this talk would not involve plants at all. But, interestingly, I still don't particularly like random destruction of nature

Based on human conciousness and the human mind (not necessarily knowledge or beliefs), it would seem that no animal has quite the same extent of capabilities, but that's mainly based on a lack of evidence to prove these abilities, rather than evidence to prove a lack of these abilities. So my position stems from assuming a lack of abilities until those abilities are proven (though I recognise that evidence may not be possible, even if the abilities exist).


I don't really understand this position. First - it assumes that the human 'extent of capabilities' is greater than that in any other entity. Secondly - I don't know if it is a god logical position to assume in this fashion. I'd be willing to bet you assume a baby will have a similar 'extent of capability' to your own... although, by the logic you suggested, you SHOULD be skeptical until they are displayed.

I think this shows an anthropocentic perspective. Of course you favour humans, we ARE humans. I just don't necessarily think it's a good platform for logical thought.


However, for example, the fact that a great amount of research on language in animals has consistently shown they lack the ability to develop language skills as advanced as in humans...


Again, the assumption of superiority... like number of symbols in vocabulary somehow equates to being better...?

I would not want to hold back medical developments on an unproven assumption.


For me, the simple fact that almost all animal testing is almost entirely useless for giving valid indicators of equivalence in humans... is enough reason to be more than a little skeptical of the need for animal testing.


And, I still have the strong "sense" from somewhere (either just an instinct, based on what we know or don't know, or a mix of both) that humans are more advanced and experience things in a more complex and developed manner.

It's called anthropocentricity. Of course 'our' kind is better than 'theirs'.

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?


I don't believe in souls, we're very complex biological creatures but we don't have a non-physical component (except maybe our ideas and personality etc, but they too are the result of physical and biological processes)

Frankly, I don't see why so many non Judeo-Christians have problems accepting the soul. It was a natural conclusion reached by many of the Greek Philosophers, and, occassionally, the concept of the immortal soul is rejected by some of the more liberal Evangelicals, particularly the Univeralists, on the grounds that the concept of an immortal soul is too much a philosophical concept, and for themselves don't find enough support for it in Sacred Scripture.

See here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Socrates_and_Plato)

So because some dead Greeks believed in a soul, everyone should? The Greek's didn't have the knowledge of modern psychology and neuro-science which we take for granted; I see no good reason to believe that there is a 'soul' which is independent of the brain.

One of the reasons that Plato believed in the Soul was because of the apparent (seemingly contradictory) dualities in man. Consider this:

Say you know you love a girl. You want the best thing for that girl. The best thing is to wait until marriage to have sex with her (or, if you are a non Abrahamic, until she is ready for it).

On the other hand, you probably really don't wanna wait. You'd prefer to have sex with her with or without her willingness. Now.

So we have inclinations both for and against ...well...raping...the girl, in relation to our different modes of thinking, let's say in this case our Reason and our Instinct.

Well, Plato says that the reason that we have this duality is because of the Soul. Plato posits a three part soul. This is basically the analogy:

Say you have a charioteer (The Reason) with two horses. One horse goes according to the will of the charioteer (the spirited part of the soul) and is his friend. The other goes against the charioteer, and goes running after his desires (the lusty, base part of the soul).

So even Plato, and Socrates before him, Greeks, who have never heard of Jesus or the God of Abraham, posited a soul. Furthermore, they posited an immortal soul.

I fail to see how any of this shows the existence of an immortal, non-physical soul. Plato's threefold distinction is broadly similar to Freud's Id (desire), Ego (sort-of reason), and Super-Ego (conscience). Freud didn't see any need to posit an immaterial soul.

i think the soul is the bottom of god's shoe:)

I don't believe in souls, we're very complex biological creatures but we don't have a non-physical component (except maybe our ideas and personality etc, but they too are the result of physical and biological processes)

Ok, so we don't have a non-physical component except for our ideas, personality...? *head explodes*

Care to elaborate?

and i do know lemon soul is one of the tastiest kinds there are

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

I for one believe we all have souls; we have a spirit that lives within us and that spirit is our personality. It is what defines us as people.

I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God or follow any religion to have a soul. Spirituality is a separate thing from religion and God because it defines you as a person. Your soul; your spirit is your passion, emotion. It is what makes you human.
I've yet to encounter any concept of a "soul" that even begins to approach the beauty of the most basic aspects of neuroscience and physiological human consciousness.

Every concept of "souls" that I've been told about sounds simplistic, boring, and unimaginative. It's like stories about how magic pixies make flowers grow; when you actually learn how flowers REALLY grow, the magic pixies seem pathetic and flimsy by comparison.

Frankly, I don't see why so many non Judeo-Christians have problems accepting the soul. It was a natural conclusion reached by many of the Greek Philosophers, and, occassionally, the concept of the immortal soul is rejected by some of the more liberal Evangelicals, particularly the Univeralists, on the grounds that the concept of an immortal soul is too much a philosophical concept, and for themselves don't find enough support for it in Sacred Scripture.

See here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Socrates_and_Plato)

One of the reasons that Plato believed in the Soul was because of the apparent (seemingly contradictory) dualities in man. Consider this:

Say you know you love a girl. You want the best thing for that girl. The best thing is to wait until marriage to have sex with her (or, if you are a non Abrahamic, until she is ready for it).

On the other hand, you probably really don't wanna wait. You'd prefer to have sex with her with or without her willingness. Now.

So we have inclinations both for and against ...well...raping...the girl, in relation to our different modes of thinking, let's say in this case our Reason and our Instinct.

Well, Plato says that the reason that we have this duality is because of the Soul. Plato posits a three part soul. This is basically the analogy:

Say you have a charioteer (The Reason) with two horses. One horse goes according to the will of the charioteer (the spirited part of the soul) and is his friend. The other goes against the charioteer, and goes running after his desires (the lusty, base part of the soul).

So even Plato, and Socrates before him, Greeks, who have never heard of Jesus or the God of Abraham, posited a soul. Furthermore, they posited an immortal soul.

Are you actually trying to use that as an argument for the soul? Because, while that may have been near flawless in Plato's day, that is possibly the worst argument I can imagine in the context of what we now know about evolution and the mechanisms of our brain.

I do not accept the idea of any sort of supernatural 'soul' and believe that in two hundred years only a minority of people will.

Frankly, I don't see why so many non Judeo-Christians have problems accepting the soul. It was a natural conclusion reached by many of the Greek Philosophers, and, occassionally, the concept of the immortal soul is rejected by some of the more liberal Evangelicals, particularly the Univeralists, on the grounds that the concept of an immortal soul is too much a philosophical concept, and for themselves don't find enough support for it in Sacred Scripture.

See here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Socrates_and_Plato)

One of the reasons that Plato believed in the Soul was because of the apparent (seemingly contradictory) dualities in man. Consider this:

Say you know you love a girl. You want the best thing for that girl. The best thing is to wait until marriage to have sex with her (or, if you are a non Abrahamic, until she is ready for it).

On the other hand, you probably really don't wanna wait. You'd prefer to have sex with her with or without her willingness. Now.

So we have inclinations both for and against ...well...raping...the girl, in relation to our different modes of thinking, let's say in this case our Reason and our Instinct.

Let me just stop you right here. If you have any inclination to rape somebody, SEEK HELP NOW.

I'm not playing. I'm not kidding. If you EVER experience the desire to force sex upon another human being, SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP IMMEDIATELY.

If you want to rape somebody, this is not philosophical evidence for a soul or any such bunk. It is evidence that you are a danger to your fellow humans.

A healthy, normal human can desire sex without having any remote interest to have sex with unwilling parties. If you believe that it is normal and healthy to desire sex with unwilling parties, you are both incorrect and also a sexual predator in the making.


To get back to what I think was your point, it's a lousy point anyhow. The fact that humans have both desires and also the ability to exercise judgment does not in any way require the existence of a soul of any kind. I don't care if Plato said it, it's still a crappy argument.


Well, Plato says that the reason that we have this duality is because of the Soul. Plato posits a three part soul. This is basically the analogy:

Say you have a charioteer (The Reason) with two horses. One horse goes according to the will of the charioteer (the spirited part of the soul) and is his friend. The other goes against the charioteer, and goes running after his desires (the lusty, base part of the soul).

So even Plato, and Socrates before him, Greeks, who have never heard of Jesus or the God of Abraham, posited a soul. Furthermore, they posited an immortal soul.
They also posited that the planets must move in circular orbits.

<snip>
Every concept of "souls" that I've been told about sounds simplistic, boring, and unimaginative...
<snip>
Yep, that's how it looks to me, too.

I do not believe in the existence of any 'human soul', other than as an alternative descriptor for consciousness. Like so many other cultural memes it is an idea that originated in the dark days of humankind when magical/spiritual explanations were made to explain any phenomena that were not understood by the people (which, if you delve back in time far enough, covers almost everything).

Just like many of these other beliefs, the concept of a soul has survived to this day because it has been adopted by some major religions and has therefore been presented as Truth and reinforced generation after generation, until we reach the present day where even otherwise educated and intelligent people find themselves accepting its existence as obvious.

I don't really understand this position. First - it assumes that the human 'extent of capabilities' is greater than that in any other entity. Secondly - I don't know if it is a god logical position to assume in this fashion. I'd be willing to bet you assume a baby will have a similar 'extent of capability' to your own... although, by the logic you suggested, you SHOULD be skeptical until they are displayed.

I think this shows an anthropocentic perspective. Of course you favour humans, we ARE humans. I just don't necessarily think it's a good platform for logical thought.


That's what I disagree with about his points as well. I couldn't quite express it that clearly though.

In terms of daily life and regular thinking and planning, it's perfectly natural for us to favor our own kind/species, because by doing so, we are favoring ourselves, and self-preservation is a basic instinct. But there is no logical basis for assuming that we are superior in any way to any other creature, nor more advanced, nor more important to the universe.

In fact, I'd say there is a logical basis for NOT thinking that, as we see every day that, in the interdependent, cyclical world we live in, not being mindful of the welfare, needs, fears, hostilities, etc, of other beings has negative consequences for us. So, in the long run, it is self-destructive to put ourselves ahead of others all the time, and to assume that we are more important to life -- even our own lives -- than other creatures are.

This is why - with apologies to the posters here who I respect, but who do not believe in such a thing a soul -- I do not accept the argument that only humans or "higher animals" have souls. Anything that I think I have, I assume that any other being may have as well, because I am not more special than anything else on Earth.

My "soul" is my consciousness, which is in my brain.

Agreed.

My soul is the colection of all my thoughts, memories, impulses, behaviors, knowledge and wisdom I have, controled by the hormones of my body and limited by the flesh of the brain and the boundaries of the body.

Without my brain, I´m gone. Meaning that without a brain, there is no soul. And meaning once I die, and my brains stops working, I´m dead, along with my soul.

I've yet to encounter any concept of a "soul" that even begins to approach the beauty of the most basic aspects of neuroscience and physiological human consciousness.

Every concept of "souls" that I've been told about sounds simplistic, boring, and unimaginative. It's like stories about how magic pixies make flowers grow; when you actually learn how flowers REALLY grow, the magic pixies seem pathetic and flimsy by comparison.

Care to explain what the sensation of emotion is: (heres a hint, neuroscience only explains what triggers it)

Yep, that's how it looks to me, too.

I do not believe in the existence of any 'human soul', other than as an alternative descriptor for consciousness. Like so many other cultural memes it is an idea that originated in the dark days of humankind when magical/spiritual explanations were made to explain any phenomena that were not understood by the people (which, if you delve back in time far enough, covers almost everything).

Just like many of these other beliefs, the concept of a soul has survived to this day because it has been adopted by some major religions and has therefore been presented as Truth and reinforced generation after generation, until we reach the present day where even otherwise educated and intelligent people find themselves accepting its existence as obvious.
Saying that "soul" is an alternative descriptor for "consciousness" is fine - I have no problem with that - but it begs the question, what is consciousness? We can talk about neurology all we like. It does not address the fundamental concept of that question -- which is not how does the process of conscious thought happen in the brain, but rather, what is it that is thinking, aware, conscious? What is this illusion or reality called "consciousness"? Science cannot answer or even address that question at all. It does not have enough relevant data. Religion and philosophy at least have some tools with which to try and describe the issue fully. To be honest, I think philosophy is better equipped to address it than religion. But my point is that, just because it is not within the realm of science, does not mean it is a nonsensical thing to talk about.

Another issue I have with your argument, and the "scientific" arguments of others, is that you seem not to recognize that it is based on just as many assumptions and presumptions as the pro-soul arguments.

For example, your statement that you think "soul" is an alternative descriptor for "consciousness." You seem to be saying that, since we have the one word, the other word is rendered meaningless, since we have consciousness instead of souls. However, in the jargon of grammar, an "alternative descriptor" is called a synonym. Synonyms are different words that have the same meaning. If "soul" is an alternative descriptor/synonym for "consciousness," then "soul" = "consciousness." And if you believe that consciousness exists, then it is nonsense for you to say that soul does not exist -- because the two words refer to the same thing, according to you.

And if "soul" is an alternative descriptor for "consciousness," why doesn't it go both ways? Why can't we accept "consciousness" as an alternative descriptor for "soul"? So your implication that the one word has more meaning or somehow replaces the other in some kind of progression of thought through history is undermined by your own statement. Synonyms do not negate each other. So you may be trying to make a point here, but you are not supporting it with a logical argument. The existence of consciousness does not negate the existence of soul. Not the way you've set it up.

in addition, if you think they are different things (i.e. not just alternative descriptors) then how does the existence of one thing prove that the other thing does not exist?

There are other assumptions and biases apparent in your statements as well. I'm referring to remarks like "the dark days of humankind," references to religion, and "otherwise educated and intelligent people" believing something you do not. All of these imply not only a prejudice against religion and an assumption that soul beliefs are necessarily learned from religion, but also a prejudice in favor of materialistic scientific thinking over other kinds of thought structures (presumably including philosophy), and an assumption of cultural "progress," i.e. that the new ways are inherently better than the old ways, which goes hand in hand with assumptions about what is old and what is new. And behind all of this there seems to be the a priori assumption that you are right and others are wrong. I have the same objection to this as I had to Glitziness's anthropocentric world view.

I'm sorry to vivisect your rather simple and straightforward statements like this. I don't really take issue with the fact of your view-point. I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong about there being no such thing as a soul. I only want to point out that soul-believers are not the only people going forward on a foundation of assumptions. I think a lot of conflict could be avoided if people would be as critical of their own thinking as they are of other people's.

According to LDS theology, Soul = Spirit + Body

The spirit existed before the creation of the world. It is joined with the body here on earth as an infant and is separated again at death. In the end, after the Second Coming, the spirit and body will be rejoined permanently.

Saying that "soul" is an alternative descriptor for "consciousness" is fine - I have no problem with that - but it begs the question, what is consciousness? We can talk about neurology all we like. It does not address the fundamental concept of that question -- which is not how does the process of conscious thought happen in the brain, but rather, what is it that is thinking, aware, conscious? What is this illusion or reality called "consciousness"? Science cannot answer or even address that question at all. It does not have enough relevant data. Religion and philosophy at least have some tools with which to try and describe the issue fully. To be honest, I think philosophy is better equipped to address it than religion. But my point is that, just because it is not within the realm of science, does not mean it is a nonsensical thing to talk about.

Another issue I have with your argument, and the "scientific" arguments of others, is that you seem not to recognize that it is based on just as many assumptions and presumptions as the pro-soul arguments.
The OP explicitly asked about 'the human soul', and so this was what I addressed. The whole 'what is thought?' / 'what is it to be aware?' / 'what is consciousness?' line of questions is therefore, in my opinion, outside the scope of the debate. For what it's worth I also think that, for the time being, philosophy might be the discipline to deal with them. That said, attempting to use any methodology to derive answers to questions where those answers cannot be tested in any meaningful way seems utterly pointless (to me).

Out of interest, since you mentioned them, what 'tools' do you believe that philosophy and religion possess that can be applied to these questions? I look at them and all I see is blind conjecture slanted towards community control, and nothing testable. Yes, yes, this is another example of my bias towards the scientific method.

For example, your statement that you think "soul" is an alternative descriptor for "consciousness." You seem to be saying that, since we have the one word, the other word is rendered meaningless, since we have consciousness instead of souls. However, in the jargon of grammar, an "alternative descriptor" is called a synonym. Synonyms are different words that have the same meaning. If "soul" is an alternative descriptor/synonym for "consciousness," then "soul" = "consciousness." And if you believe that consciousness exists, then it is nonsense for you to say that soul does not exist -- because the two words refer to the same thing, according to you.

And if "soul" is an alternative descriptor for "consciousness," why doesn't it go both ways? Why can't we accept "consciousness" as an alternative descriptor for "soul"? So your implication that the one word has more meaning or somehow replaces the other in some kind of progression of thought through history is undermined by your own statement. Synonyms do not negate each other. So you may be trying to make a point here, but you are not supporting it with a logical argument. The existence of consciousness does not negate the existence of soul. Not the way you've set it up.

in addition, if you think they are different things (i.e. not just alternative descriptors) then how does the existence of one thing prove that the other thing does not exist?
My view of the 2 terms as synonymous is not the view held by most people who use the term 'soul'. The contention of some of the 'pro-soul' group (nice term, by the way) is that the soul is not the same as consciousness, but that it is some kind of non-physical essence that will transcend physical death and live on in some undefined way. It is my belief that, under this definition, the soul does not exist. I therefore do not see anything nonsensical in my argument. My apologies if I didn't make the distinction clear.

There are other assumptions and biases apparent in your statements as well. I'm referring to remarks like "the dark days of humankind," references to religion, and "otherwise educated and intelligent people" believing something you do not. All of these imply not only a prejudice against religion and an assumption that soul beliefs are necessarily learned from religion, but also a prejudice in favor of materialistic scientific thinking over other kinds of thought structures (presumably including philosophy), and an assumption of cultural "progress," i.e. that the new ways are inherently better than the old ways, which goes hand in hand with assumptions about what is old and what is new. And behind all of this there seems to be the a priori assumption that you are right and others are wrong. I have the same objection to this as I had to Glitziness's anthropocentric world view.
Guilty as charged. I am biased towards scientific thinking, and biased away from any theory that requires the invocation of things whose existence cannot ever be proven or disproven. This, by necessity, includes all of religion and most of philosophy. Philosopers tend to escape most of my distaste since they tend to posit 'this is how things might be' scenarios, as opposed to religions' 'this is how things are, you will burn in hell if you disagree' rhetoric. Also, any individual's worldview is always going to involve an a priori assumption that they are right - that's just the way it works. If I didn't believe I was right I wouldn't have posted my views.

I'm sorry to vivisect your rather simple and straightforward statements like this. I don't really take issue with the fact of your view-point. I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong about there being no such thing as a soul. I only want to point out that soul-believers are not the only people going forward on a foundation of assumptions. I think a lot of conflict could be avoided if people would be as critical of their own thinking as they are of other people's.
Firstly and foremostly, don't be sorry... having to consider contrary viewpoints is the very essence of critical thinking and I welcome the opportunity. For the record (and yes, I note that the comment was not directed at me but at the world in general), I am extremely critical of my own thinking. The views that I post reflect the current position that I have come to after considering all of the information available to me.

You are quite correct that 'soul-believers' are not the only ones basing their views on a foundation of assumptions. However, and this is the critical difference, they are the ones who are not prepared to put forward testable hypotheses. Without wishing to re-ignite the whole furore over the intrinsic advantages of the scientific method it is this willigness to put theories up for inspection and testing, and being prepared to accept that said theories require adjustment where experimental evidence indicates that they are wrong, that - to my mind, at least - puts science ahead.

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

I for one believe we all have souls; we have a spirit that lives within us and that spirit is our personality. It is what defines us as people.

I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God or follow any religion to have a soul. Spirituality is a separate thing from religion and God because it defines you as a person. Your soul; your spirit is your passion, emotion. It is what makes you human.

There is a fundemental truth that not a lot of people realise.

We all have soul, ask James Brown, he knows.(oohhh and the lucky few of us also have funk!)

Care to explain what the sensation of emotion is: (heres a hint, neuroscience only explains what triggers it)
The "sensation" of emotion is fundamentally no different from any other sensation experienced by a human being, from a neuroscience point of view. Explaining the "sensation" of an emotion is, when you get down to the basics of it, no different than explaining the "sensation" of a piece of silk brushing against your skin.

Sure, we don't know everything about every step of the process yet. So? Sounds like you view the soul as yet another god-of-the-gaps cop-out. Which fits right in with my previous evaluation: boring and unimaginative.

It's always obvious when somebody who knows nothing about neuroscience tries to stump me, because they invariably use terms that are so general and vague as to be utterly meaningless.

The "sensation" of emotion is fundamentally no different from any other sensation experienced by a human being, from a neuroscience point of view. Explaining the "sensation" of an emotion is, when you get down to the basics of it, no different than explaining the "sensation" of a piece of silk brushing against your skin.

Sure, we don't know everything about every step of the process yet. So? Sounds like you view the soul as yet another god-of-the-gaps cop-out.

The one that keeps me up at night and makes my mind go around in endless circles, and maybe you could help me out with this one Bottle? Is this:

So it is possible to achive a change in ones psyche in accordance with ones will. The question then is if both the will and the psyche are both aspects of the brain, which part of the brain is responsible for achiving a physical change in the brain in accordance with with which part of the brain?

The one that keeps me up at night and makes my mind go around in endless circles, and maybe you could help me out with this one Bottle? Is this:

So it is possible to achive a change in ones psyche in accordance with ones will. The question then is if both the will and the psyche are both aspects of the brain, which part of the brain is responsible for achiving a physical change in the brain in accordance with with which part of the brain?
That's like asking which part of the body is responsible for the fact that you can move your hand by also moving your arm. It's all connected.

My conscious actions will frequently have physical consequences for my body. Sometimes these are entirely intentional, and sometimes there are physical consequences that occur in addition to, or even in spite of, my conscious efforts. The brain is no different in this regard, either.

Our brains are impacted by our environment. If I consciously change my environment in some way, I will be changing the inputs to my brain. The complexity of the brain is such that we can't predict all the zillions of subtle ways that a single environmental change may impact the status of the brain, or all the subtle ways that such change might influence the future state of the brain. Particularly since the current state of an individual's brain is going to be, well, individual. My brain may have a totally different lasting response to a particular stimulus, compared to the response of your brain to the exact same stimulus.

Remember, too, that "physical" doesn't always mean "structural" when it comes to the brain. For instance, a change in concentration of a given neurotransmitter is a physical change that could have tremendous impact on your brain, but it doesn't require movement of a specific "part" of your brain. There could be a global up- or down-regulation throughout many parts of your brain.

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

I for one believe we all have souls; we have a spirit that lives within us and that spirit is our personality. It is what defines us as people.

I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God or follow any religion to have a soul. Spirituality is a separate thing from religion and God because it defines you as a person. Your soul; your spirit is your passion, emotion. It is what makes you human.

I believe that we have a soul and I also believe that we have a spirit. Although, I think that we need some kind of religious belief to be spiritual.

That's like asking which part of the body is responsible for the fact that you can move your hand by also moving your arm. It's all connected.

My conscious actions will frequently have physical consequences for my body. Sometimes these are entirely intentional, and sometimes there are physical consequences that occur in addition to, or even in spite of, my conscious efforts. The brain is no different in this regard, either.

Our brains are impacted by our environment. If I consciously change my environment in some way, I will be changing the inputs to my brain. The complexity of the brain is such that we can't predict all the zillions of subtle ways that a single environmental change may impact the status of the brain, or all the subtle ways that such change might influence the future state of the brain. Particularly since the current state of an individual's brain is going to be, well, individual. My brain may have a totally different lasting response to a particular stimulus, compared to the response of your brain to the exact same stimulus.

Remember, too, that "physical" doesn't always mean "structural" when it comes to the brain. For instance, a change in concentration of a given neurotransmitter is a physical change that could have tremendous impact on your brain, but it doesn't require movement of a specific "part" of your brain. There could be a global up- or down-regulation throughout many parts of your brain.

Okay I understand that, but let me clarify a bit for you.

I am a thief, I like to do it, I actualy do not see thieving as an immoral act.
One day though, I percive the hurt that my actions are causing my family, so I make the desicion to change. After a while practicing not being a thief I find that I no longer have to try. I just am not a thief anymore, and into the bargin I now veiw thieving to be immoral.

Now as I understand with my laymans knowledge this sort of thing is governed by both the balance of differant chemicals in the brain, and the neuro pathways.

Which part of the brain gets to effect both of these, in accordance with my will. In other words how does it happen that the chemical/electrical mix in my brain, can effect a change in the chemical/electrical in accordane withe the chemical/electrical mix in my brain.

What governs this? Is it the much talked about Self, could we call such a thing a soul?

Heh of course it could be that my problem with this stems ultimatly with my lack of knowldge on the workings of the brain.

That's what I disagree with about his points as well. I couldn't quite express it that clearly though.

In terms of daily life and regular thinking and planning, it's perfectly natural for us to favor our own kind/species, because by doing so, we are favoring ourselves, and self-preservation is a basic instinct. But there is no logical basis for assuming that we are superior in any way to any other creature, nor more advanced, nor more important to the universe.

In fact, I'd say there is a logical basis for NOT thinking that, as we see every day that, in the interdependent, cyclical world we live in, not being mindful of the welfare, needs, fears, hostilities, etc, of other beings has negative consequences for us. So, in the long run, it is self-destructive to put ourselves ahead of others all the time, and to assume that we are more important to life -- even our own lives -- than other creatures are.

This is why - with apologies to the posters here who I respect, but who do not believe in such a thing a soul -- I do not accept the argument that only humans or "higher animals" have souls. Anything that I think I have, I assume that any other being may have as well, because I am not more special than anything else on Earth.

If you read the original language of The Bible, it clearly attributes a 'soul' to animals, just like humans have. It is only the later Judeo-Christian traditions that chose to overlook it... in favour - I assume - of an argument for anthropocentrism.

And yes, I do think it was 'choice' that eliminated that teaching - the same word is present in each occassion, it's just only translated at all when connected with humans... otherwise, it just doesn't get translated.

Agreed with the other part, as well - anthropocentrism may seem intuitive, but (I'm inclined to believe) it is ultimately self-destructive.

Okay I understand that, but let me clarify a bit for you.

I am a thief, I like to do it, I actualy do not see thieving as an immoral act.
One day though, I percive the hurt that my actions are causing my family, so I make the desicion to change. After a while practicing not being a thief I find that I no longer have to try. I just am not a thief anymore, and into the bargin I now veiw thieving to be immoral.

Now as I understand with my laymans knowledge this sort of thing is governed by both the balance of differant chemicals in the brain, and the neuro pathways.

"Governed" is an iffy word to use, here.

All of your thoughts and feelings are, physically speaking, chemical and electrical reactions occurring in the physical network of your brain. But it's not entirely accurate to say that these physical reactions or structures exclusively "govern" your emotions. You are responding to external stimuli, remember, and the reactions that are currently occurring in your brain are occurring in the context of a complex, responsive organ which has a physical memory. The current state of your brain has been impacted by what you have experienced in the past.

In other words, reactions which occurred in the past will help to shape the way your brain behaves in the present, and your present reaction occurs within an external context as well.


Which part of the brain gets to effect both of these, in accordance with my will. In other words how does it happen that the chemical/electrical mix in my brain, can effect a change in the chemical/electrical in accordane withe the chemical/electrical mix in my brain.

How can it not?

Think of it like if you pinch yourself. You send a command to the motor neurons of your hand, and consciously direct it to pinch your arm. The sensory system of your arm receives information about the pinch, and relays the input to your brain, and you experience pain.

Ta-da! By exerting your conscious will (motor movement = pinch), you created a chemical/electrical change in your brain (pain from pinch).

I can't think of a single conscious action you could undertake which would not have the effect (or side-effect) of altering the chemical/electrical status of your brain. That's how the brain works! It's a receiver AND a transmitter.


What governs this? Is it the much talked about Self, could we call such a thing a soul?

"Soul" is a word that is much like "God." It's so vague that it can mean anything, and is therefore dull to me. It's just a word people fall back on when they can't think of a genuinely interesting answer. If you want to call your splendid consciousness a "soul," that's your business, but I don't see why you'd want to insult the very feature which makes you such a fascinating animal!


Heh of course it could be that my problem with this stems ultimatly with my lack of knowldge on the workings of the brain.
It's not really about lack of knowledge, in this case, so much as it being a complicated and somewhat dizzying subject.

I think, maybe, part of what you're getting at is where a conscious impulse "starts." To use my above example, what creates the will to pinch oneself? We can pretty easily understand that the pain is a logical (and fairly simple) reaction to experiencing the pinch, but in that case we know the "start" point. We know that the system was acted upon by a pinch, and responded accordingly.

So what "makes" the will to act? What starts that ball rolling? What acts upon what to cause the system to produce conscious will?

Now THAT is a huge question. :D

The "sensation" of emotion is fundamentally no different from any other sensation experienced by a human being, from a neuroscience point of view. Explaining the "sensation" of an emotion is, when you get down to the basics of it, no different than explaining the "sensation" of a piece of silk brushing against your skin.


Which can't be explained by neuroscience.


Sure, we don't know everything about every step of the process yet. So? Sounds like you view the soul as yet another god-of-the-gaps cop-out. Which fits right in with my previous evaluation: boring and unimaginative.

This has nothing to do with God. It has a lot to do with the fact that you play down the mysteries of the mind as "boring and unimaginative", and yet some of the most important and fundamental characteristics of the mind (or soul or whatever you want to call it) are beyond the scope of our understanding on the brain. I'm not saying any of this shit proves that there is a soul, but that doesn't mean you have to insult such ideas.

I think, maybe, part of what you're getting at is where a conscious impulse "starts." To use my above example, what creates the will to pinch oneself? We can pretty easily understand that the pain is a logical (and fairly simple) reaction to experiencing the pinch, but in that case we know the "start" point. We know that the system was acted upon by a pinch, and responded accordingly.

So what "makes" the will to act? What starts that ball rolling? What acts upon what to cause the system to produce conscious will?

Now THAT is a huge question. :D

Heh that is exactly what I was trying to get at.

Which can't be explained by neuroscience.

Sure it can.

It has been partially explained already. The fact that we aren't yet done doesn't mean we can't ever figure it out. Indeed, our progress to date has been very encouraging!


This has nothing to do with God. It has a lot to do with the fact that you play down the mysteries of the mind as "boring and unimaginative",

Wrong already. The mysteries aren't remotely boring or unimaginative. They're mysteries. What's boring and unimaginative is using lame superstitious cop-outs to make up random, trite "answers" instead of actually investigating.

In my experience, the reality is always--ALWAYS--more interesting than the superstitious stories. And, as you point out, we only know PART of the reality! If the tiny part of the reality that we do grasp is already infinitely more fascinating than fairy tales, just imagine how incredible the full reality must be!


and yet some of the most important and fundamental characteristics of the mind (or soul or whatever you want to call it) are beyond the scope of our understanding on the brain.

Our CURRENT understanding, sure. Of course, our understanding will never be advanced by the lame, lazy fools who content themselves with wishy-washy blather about souls and whatnot. Our understanding will be expanded by the dedicated and inquisitive folks who aren't satisfied by children's stories and empty "spiritual" terminology.


I'm not saying any of this shit proves that there is a soul, but that doesn't mean you have to insult such ideas.
I find "souls" to be boring, sloppy, unoriginal concepts more often than not. Given that we are in a topic discussing the concept of the soul, I think I have ample reason to share my opinion. I find many peoples' description of the physical brain to be insulting, too...so what? We all have our opinions.

Heh that is exactly what I was trying to get at.
I can partly answer that question, but only partly.

If I consciously choose to, say, eat an apple, we can find several "start" points for my conscious action.

We know that humans have innate biological drives, such as hunger. We also know that humans normally have pretty complex memory systems, so a human can learn which means of satisfying a given drive are the most effective or more desirable.

So if I experience hunger in a certain setting, I can remember past experiences and conclude that eating an apple is the best possible response to the stimulus (feeling hunger). I can then use other information to choose how to go about obtaining and consuming an apple, again based at least in part on my past experience.

That's just a very simple example, but you can maybe see how this could be expanded to more complicated situations.

At the core, you have drives, experience, and reason working to generate conscious actions.

Sure it can.

It has been partially explained already. The fact that we aren't yet done doesn't mean we can't ever figure it out. Indeed, our progress to date has been very encouraging!


Well let me tell you what I mean. Sure we can pretty much narrrow down how everything in the body works, how our nerves sends signals to the brain that release certain chemicals that trigger certain sensations. But we still don't understand how we are conscious, and how we can think, and how we can experience these emotions. We know what causes it too, but we don't know why. etc...


Wrong already. The mysteries aren't remotely boring or unimaginative. They're mysteries. What's boring and unimaginative is using lame superstitious cop-outs to make up random, trite "answers" instead of actually investigating.

In my experience, the reality is always--ALWAYS--more interesting than the superstitious stories. And, as you point out, we only know PART of the reality! If the tiny part of the reality that we do grasp is already infinitely more fascinating than fairy tales, just imagine how incredible the full reality must be!


I'm not sure if you understand what I mean by soul. Many ideas about the soul are not remotely religious. I think it's extremely insulting to the generations and generations of great thinkers who have spent their life defining and studying concepts of the soul. It's a gross over simplification to just dismiss it all as fairy tales (calling it fairty tales is a huge strawman).


I find "souls" to be boring, sloppy, unoriginal concepts more often than not. Given that we are in a topic discussing the concept of the soul, I think I have ample reason to share my opinion. I find many peoples' description of the physical brain to be insulting, too...so what? We all have our opinions.

But you are putting every single possible definition and idea about the soul into one group and insulting them. They are all completely different, you can't believe they schoolyard "lolz fairytales" bullshit stereotype about every single possible definition.

I don't think it matters -- the semantics of what you call it, that is. "Soul" carries with it tons of baggage from religions and related dreck. All I know is that my MIND understands that the low angle of the sun through the atmosphere combined with particulate matter in the ait itself scatters and splits light into some of its constituent colors, producing "sunrise" or "sunset". However, it takes my "soul" to be affected by my perception of its aesthetic properties -- its beauty.

Music can be defined as patterns of sounds and silences in time. However, it's my "soul" which is affected by CERTAIN arrangements of those patterns (such as Henryk Gorecki's Symphony #2, Puccini's "O Mio Babbino Caro" from Gianni Schicci, "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi" from Orff's Carmina Burana or even Ringo Starr singing Roger Miller's "Husbands and Wives" on his Goodnight Vienna album).

Debating the nature, or even the existence, of a soul is as close to pointless as any argument gets because the nature of perception is completely individual...in fact, it may be the most individual thing about us as humans. But hey, it won't stop the argument, because that's something else that makes us human...the need to bicker.

Well let me tell you what I mean. Sure we can pretty much narrrow down how everything in the body works, how our nerves sends signals to the brain that release certain chemicals that trigger certain sensations. But we still don't understand how we are conscious, and how we can think, and how we can experience these emotions. We know what causes it too, but we don't know why. etc...

Again, not true.

We are already making huge strides in understanding how human thought works, how consciousness arises, and why consciousness is a useful trait for an organism to develop. We have preliminary explanations for why humans have developed consciousness while other life forms have not.


I'm not sure if you understand what I mean by soul. Many ideas about the soul are not remotely religious. I think it's extremely insulting to the generations and generations of great thinkers who have spent their life defining and studying concepts of the soul. It's a gross over simplification to just dismiss it all as fairy tales (calling it fairty tales is a huge strawman).

And I don't think you've read my posts carefully enough to understand what I'm talking about when I talk about "souls." Seeing as how this paragraph demonstrates that you've totally missed my point.

Discussions about consciousness and human thought are sometimes phrased in terms of the word "soul," or some similar term. These discussions and debates have great merit, despite the use of a vague term that currently serves to muddy debate more than anything else.

In addition, your appeals to authority are a waste of time. Great thinkers have been wrong many times throughout history. It's not insulting to point out when somebody is wrong. Aristotle was a terrific thinker and a brilliant chap, but he still was wrong about a lot of things.


But you are putting every single possible definition and idea about the soul into one group and insulting them.

I'm insulting the use of vague terms like "soul", and any corresponding attempts to over-simplify and pixie-dustify what should be a very interesting discussion about the nature of consciousness.

I don't think it matters -- the semantics of what you call it, that is. "Soul" carries with it tons of baggage from religions and related dreck.
But, you see, that is precisely why it does matter. "Soul" is a word with so much baggage that it's more of a distraction than anything else.

I reject the notion of the soul, of spirituality, and of religion. What we may call a "soul" is in fact the unique wiring of our brain, its neurochemistry, and our memories. Nothing more. Consciousness is simply the interactions of neural pathways and memory.

Again, not true.

We are already making huge strides in understanding how human thought works, how consciousness arises, and why consciousness is a useful trait for an organism to develop. We have preliminary explanations for why humans have developed consciousness while other life forms have not.


Well I havn't seen anything that actually explains what I mean, do you have any links as to what you are talking about?


And I don't think you've read my posts carefully enough to understand what I'm talking about when I talk about "souls." Seeing as how this paragraph demonstrates that you've totally missed my point.

Discussions about consciousness and human thought are sometimes phrased in terms of the word "soul," or some similar term. These discussions and debates have great merit, despite the use of a vague term that currently serves to muddy debate more than anything else.


Ok, whats your definition of soul btw?


In addition, your appeals to authority are a waste of time. Great thinkers have been wrong many times throughout history. It's not insulting to point out when somebody is wrong. Aristotle was a terrific thinker and a brilliant chap, but he still was wrong about a lot of things.


I didn't say they are all right, just not boring.


I'm insulting the use of vague terms like "soul", and any corresponding attempts to over-simplify and pixie-dustify what should be a very interesting discussion about the nature of consciousness.

I don't think of a lot of theories that way. I see it as an in depth look at many "being qua being", as in aspects of us as a person, that seems to be ignored by neuro science and psychology.

But, you see, that is precisely why it does matter. "Soul" is a word with so much baggage that it's more of a distraction than anything else.

I see. The semantics of the term "soul" are far too distended and cloudy to ever be useful in a debate about "the soul" itself.

I reject the notion of the soul, of spirituality, and of religion. What we may call a "soul" is in fact the unique wiring of our brain, its neurochemistry, and our memories. Nothing more. Consciousness is simply the interactions of neural pathways and memory.

Then you reject three separate things which are only tangentially related, as far as I can tell.

"Soul" is an experience of affect and self-awareness innate and unique to each human being.

"Spirituality" is more of an expression of/attempt to express the ineffable, baffling and constantly evolving ideas about the nature and cause of consciousness and self-awareness (aka Who Are We And Why Are We Here?).

"Religion" is a more tangible system of rules, ideas, and dogma designed to, let's face it, order and control human life. Who organizes and leads religions organizes and leads people...for better or worse...historically the latter.

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

I for one believe we all have souls; we have a spirit that lives within us and that spirit is our personality. It is what defines us as people.

I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God or follow any religion to have a soul. Spirituality is a separate thing from religion and God because it defines you as a person. Your soul; your spirit is your passion, emotion. It is what makes you human.

I favour the mysticism of Plato. In my version, spirit is a product of consciousness, and so comes into being as soon as information begins to be gathered by the burgeoning new body. Spirit is the idea that exists of every "thing" in the world around us. With the first development of self-awareness is born the soul, which is spirit concretized into ego --"I am".

I agree that the soul is that in us which is is moved by such things as music, emotion and circumstance, and to some degree all things in the world around us.

Actually, if a soul turns out to be immaterial and can't be tested, then whoever's going after a Theory of Everything is going to have a hard time.

Somehow, I'm inclined to think that a TOE is possible (though we won't suddenly have access to control of the universe or anything). Just like QED is good model of the world that works by rules, if the world works by rules, there has to be a chain of causality linking each level of rules/theory to the next layer. And this applies to everything (that's why its called a TOE), humans are no exception. So, if you are not willing to dump a chain of causality that has been tested multiple times (actually a horrendously large sum of money has gone into trying to disprove other people's theories), I'd say that there's no space for a soul in the running/actions of a human. A human's (including mine) actions are dictated by the circumstanes he/she is in.

Forgive my rambling... =(

Edit: Should I continue explaining? Its getting deep rapidly...

Actually, if a soul turns out to be immaterial and can't be tested, then whoever's going after a Theory of Everything is going to have a hard time.

Somehow, I'm inclined to think that a TOE is possible (though we won't suddenly have access to control of the universe or anything). Just like QED is good model of the world that works by rules, if the world works by rules, there has to be a chain of causality linking each level of rules/theory to the next layer. And this applies to everything (that's why its called a TOE), humans are no exception. So, if you are not willing to dump a chain of causality that has been tested multiple times (actually a horrendously large sum of money has gone into trying to disprove other people's theories), I'd say that there's no space for a soul in the running/actions of a human. A human's (including mine) actions are dictated by the circumstanes he/she is in.

Forgive my rambling... =(

Edit: Should I continue explaining? Its getting deep rapidly...

Sure, go on.

The thing about the "chain" analogy (and it's a good one) is that, even in the context of that analogy, there is a background against which the chain exists, something from which to distinguish it as "chain".

The thing about the "chain" analogy (and it's a good one) is that, even in the context of that analogy, there is a background against which the chain exists, something from which to distinguish it as "chain".

What 'chain' analogy? Huh? *metaphorical head scratching*

Let's say, we start on the premise that QED is the working model of how the universe functions (it isn't, but for the sake of argument):

The level that QED functions at is at the scale of single particles. Schrodinger's wave equation is useful to predict the probability cloud of existence of a particular particle. In practise, it is possible to calculate the entire wave function of a large complex object (say a mug). That is impossible in actual practise (obviously).

Ok, so what scientists have done is that we calculate the positions of electrons around atoms. What we do notice is that patterns arise from the consequences of Schrodinger's model. Atoms behave in specific ways, chemical reactions occur. And within certain conditions, a reasonable approximation can be made for their behaviour. That's where stuff like chemistry and molecular orbital theory comes in...

The same thing is repeated multiple times, you still can't calculate the behaviour of a mug of coffee from molecular reactions... So we have hydrodynamics, Euler's theory of column buckling and so on... these theories are about the consequences of a smaller scale theory.

Eventually, you get to the middle level theories, like psychology, economics, political science (dunno about that one). The scale is at the human levels. Like psychology is about the study of human behaviour, it is a set of rules that are emergent from the study of neural interactions and logic. We can study each individual neuron firing and the mechanisms by which this happens. The pattern that emerges is that neural nets can perform computations. (I do not claim that psychology is accurate in any way, it might be, but I'm keeping silent on that)

Here is a blank spot where science hasn't really gotten to yet: what are the forms of neural nets that give a human its thought and behaviour? Yes, we (humans as a whole) have not found the larger pattern above the simple operation of neurons and simple logic that can be done with them. This just means that we haven't found the rules by which our brain operates at a level that is easy to compute, yet it still implies that the brain and thus humans operate by emergent rules. Even if we don't behave like molecules or electrons, doesn't mean that the "simple" rules at the QED scale don't dictate what happens to us...

So, 200? years of science says that there's no space where the soul comes in... of course the scientists discovered the rules in the other direction, large to small, but only because it was easier to do so... it doesn't affect the chain of causality...

Feel free to try a shot at these few questions?
1. How much brain do I have to remove before a person's soul 'departs', or how dead do you have to be?
2. If you suffer a blow to the head, and you lose say, the ability to have emotions (my friend who takes bio claims that the amygdala does emotions, *shrug* doesn't matter if its true or not). Can your soul still feel emotions? Can you still feel emotions, even if you don't?
3. Purely hypothetical question: Imagine a Star Trek kind of age, those matter transmitters they have. I order one to duplicate me. It never grew up in the usual sense, but me2 behaves, talks, thinks and feels just like me. In fact, if I died in the operation, me2 could be a perfect replacement... Does the other me have a soul? Does my soul 'depart' after I get killed?

Enough for now...

What 'chain' analogy? Huh? *metaphorical head scratching*
The phrase "chain of causality" is a metaphor that sets up an analogy to visually demonstrate the interaction of cause with effect.

...
This just means that we haven't found the rules by which our brain operates at a level that is easy to compute, yet it still implies that the brain and thus humans operate by emergent rules. Even if we don't behave like molecules or electrons, doesn't mean that the "simple" rules at the QED scale don't dictate what happens to us...
But what dictates those rules?

Feel free to try a shot at these few questions?
Sure, but it's just my opinions I offer.

1. How much brain do I have to remove before a person's soul 'departs', or how dead do you have to be?
As much as would determine conscious being.

2. If you suffer a blow to the head, and you lose say, the ability to have emotions (my friend who takes bio claims that the amygdala does emotions, *shrug* doesn't matter if its true or not). Can your soul still feel emotions? Can you still feel emotions, even if you don't?
In my opinion, the soul isn't what experiences emotions, but rather is us, capable of metaphorically being moved by them. If you remove the ability to have emotions, then logically you cannot still feel emotions.

3. Purely hypothetical question: Imagine a Star Trek kind of age, those matter transmitters they have. I order one to duplicate me. It never grew up in the usual sense, but me2 behaves, talks, thinks and feels just like me. In fact, if I died in the operation, me2 could be a perfect replacement... Does the other me have a soul? Does my soul 'depart' after I get killed?
It has its own soul.

There is no such thing as a soul, especially an immortal one. You are your brain and nothing more. Even less, chemically created electrical impulses running across thin and twisted membrane. when you die you die and all that you were ceases to exist; your short time is over and all you have to look forward to is the trippin' you'll get when your brain is deprived of oxygen just before you go. Some people call that last part a NDE and claim it is proof of a soaul and afterlife but the truth is much colder and simpler.

Souls, like religion, are just shit that people made up to comfort themselves about death.

I see. The semantics of the term "soul" are far too distended and cloudy to ever be useful in a debate about "the soul" itself.



Then you reject three separate things which are only tangentially related, as far as I can tell.

"Soul" is an experience of affect and self-awareness innate and unique to each human being.

"Spirituality" is more of an expression of/attempt to express the ineffable, baffling and constantly evolving ideas about the nature and cause of consciousness and self-awareness (aka Who Are We And Why Are We Here?).

"Religion" is a more tangible system of rules, ideas, and dogma designed to, let's face it, order and control human life. Who organizes and leads religions organizes and leads people...for better or worse...historically the latter.

I never, for a moment, claimed they were intrinsically related. I simply stated that I reject them. The semantics of "soul" are irrelevant - "soul" has religious overtones which are removed if "consciousness" is used in place. I reject the notion of the soul.

What is the human soul?


A wholly owned subsidiary of Hallmark Cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallmark_Cards).

Kitsch sells.

i believe that i am a soul, or awairness, and that in this life i have a body, this body. in other lives i have other bodies and between lives i may either exist somehow without one, or perhapse sleep the sleep of none existence.

the human soul is no better, worse, or different then, any other kind of a soul. nor for that mater is a soul 'human'. but rather a soul is a soul is a soul, whatever body it may or may not happen to be born into, on this world, or any of the zillions and zillions of other tangable material worlds, on which there is sentient life, throught the solar systems of the galaxies of this, and perhapse other, universes.

if the dreams/memories of other lives i was born with are any indication, my previous and future lives were not and will not likely again be on this particular world. it IS a BIG universe out there, and whether it is choice or chance or some other factor that causes us to be born on the livable world of one solar system and not that or those of another, it is still a BIG universe out there, with as much likelyhood of being born on one livable world, as another.

=^^=
.../\...

Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ. (Why does everyone always forget the second part of that saying?)

Because it makes a compliment into a statement "if you don't agree with me you are a fool" ... perhaps?

"Seldom differ" and "think alike" are pretty much the same thing, after all.

Because it makes a compliment into a statement "if you don't agree with me you are a fool" ... perhaps?


Seems to me that the full statement is saying exactly the opposite, by warning people against thinking just like me or anyone else. Don't think just like me because I might be a fool.


"Seldom differ" and "think alike" are pretty much the same thing, after all.

Thus "Great minds" == "fools"

i believe that i am a soul, or awairness, and that in this life i have a body, this body. in other lives i have other bodies and between lives i may either exist somehow without one, or perhapse sleep the sleep of non-existence.
*...*

To "have a soul" might be an enhancement to simply being a thinking animal.

But to "be a soul" essentially makes you a prisoner or passenger in a body, and disdainful of the mind.

-----------

It's probably time I defined my own idea of "soul." It seems to me to be something that the conscious mind grows from, since when I'm asleep I believe I still have a soul. When I'm dreaming (asleep) I also have some part of consciousness, but it is living in the soul instead of standing on its own, projected as it were into the world.

So here's my definition: my soul is all the parts of my life which are not conscious. It's the subconcious, it's the life-functioning of my body, it is my emotions, my preconceptions, my involuntary responses and instincts, and it's my personhood in society.

It's not a grand thing, nor a religious or even spiritual thing. It grew slowly with my body, probably grew for a while before it could support consciousness. The only sense in which it exists apart from my living body is the "personhood" sense, being a living (or died) being in the eyes of others.

Seems to me that the full statement is saying exactly the opposite, by warning people against thinking just like me or anyone else. Don't think just like me because I might be a fool.

I guess that works. The first half of the saying is usually used lightheartedly, to comliment another on thinking as you do.

Thus "Great minds" == "fools"

:confused: Joke?
"Great minds think alike." "Fools think alike."
It does not follow that great minds think as fools do.

Here's another saying that is better when completed, from P.T. Barnum:

"Never give a sucker an even break, and never wise up a chump."

:confused: Joke?
"Great minds think alike." "Fools think alike."
It does not follow that great minds think as fools do.


Not literally or necessarily, perhaps. But it still seems to me that the purpose of the complete saying is to encourage those who think of themselves as 'great minds' to be more humble. (this meaning being lost when the second sentence is removed, as has been complained about)

Does not exist. Much like the Abrahamic God.

What is the human soul?

Is it something that we're born with or do we earn it through living and growing as people or is it something else entirely?

Do you believe that you have a soul or spirit?

I for one believe we all have souls; we have a spirit that lives within us and that spirit is our personality. It is what defines us as people.

I believe that one doesn't have to believe in God or follow any religion to have a soul. Spirituality is a separate thing from religion and God because it defines you as a person. Your soul; your spirit is your passion, emotion. It is what makes you human.

I believe you answered your own question.

I'm pretty much in agreement with the OP's suggestion "the soul is what makes a person." The last paragraph though quite confusingly equates soul with spirit ... a disaster in the baggage-handling room.

Thanks for your reply.
The phrase "chain of causality" is a metaphor that sets up an analogy to visually demonstrate the interaction of cause with effect.
In that case, I was trying to demonstrate the causal chain between particles and human behaviour. Thanks for clearing that up.

But what dictates those rules?
If what you are asking is the rules of the emergent system, we have no way of finding those rules simply by looking at the simpler level. (I think I remember choas theory coming in somewhere, but never mind)
In a simple experiment, you can refer to Langton's Ant. The seemingly simple rules the Ant follows results in emergent patterns that (at least as far as anybody has tried) gives three distinct patterns: The Ant first follows a simple pattern, then shifts to a seemingly random wander, and finally settles into an infinite loop. By simply looking at the rules and the initial conditions, we have no way of proving that the Ant will follow these three stages. We find these patterns only by running the Ant on a computer...

If what you are asking is what governs the emergent rules, I will continue the line of thought above. Although the Ant's path cannot be predicted (I'm not exactly sure why, if anyone knows, I would like to learn), the Ant still follows those three general patterns, Order, Chaos, Repetition. The three phases is what I meant when I talked about emergent rules. While the rules follow no immediate causal link from the simple rules to the emergent, it doesn't make it any less certain that the Ant is following those simple rules. The Ant goes through the three phases, yet at any point in time of running, you could freeze the simulation and say that is what the Ant is going to do next.

In a similar way, you could take a human brain and analyse how the neurons fire and how they work together to do logic. That doesn't tell you much about how the human brain functions, but the fact (in the empirical sense) that the neurons in the human brain follow rules (much chemistry here) means that the behaviour of the brain is governed by those rules. The behaviour we see in humans is the pattern we have come to recognise, precisely the emergent pattern of the structure and whatever neurons do.

At no place in this pattern of complex rules does a soul come in. Once it is established that neurons are what makes up our brains and how they work is found, the chain of causality is established (to use the metaphor) despite not knowing the emergent properties of each neural net of the brain.

After this, your possible responses vary to widely for me to preempt, so I'll wait...

Sure, but it's just my opinions I offer.
I sure don't mind...

As much as would determine conscious being.

In my opinion, the soul isn't what experiences emotions, but rather is us, capable of metaphorically being moved by them. If you remove the ability to have emotions, then logically you cannot still feel emotions.

It has its own soul.
New questions, feel free to pick and choose:

1. If you wake up after a long time of brain deadness, (I'm sure there are a few recorded cases of this) does your soul return to your body?

What's you're definition of concious being? Does it include animals? Plants? Rocks?
I'm tempted to point to a few cases of brain damage that prevent people from retaining memory... they cannot form new memories and thus cannot remember anything beyond a few minutes ago... is the soul damaged?

2. During the Second World War, Hitler's regime was brainwashing children into fighting for Germany. Are thier souls damaged by this?

3. Fine. So, if we manage to duplicate people, like in Star Trek, we can make souls?

4. My brother read this and mentioned that I didn't define soul. Thus I do so now: The soul is the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being. (from wikipedia)
Having the properties:
-is not a corporeal object/process
-dictates the actions of the body of that being it is unique to
That is the definition of a soul under which I claim does not exist.

What's yours?

1. If you wake up after a long time of brain deadness, (I'm sure there are a few recorded cases of this) does your soul return to your body?

Maybe the soul was asleep while the rest of you; it's like a carbon footprint. It's a movie that's been paused. Placed in suspended animation perhaps.

What's you're definition of concious being? Does it include animals? Plants? Rocks?

Sure a rock can have a soul... if it's a haunted rock! :)

I'm tempted to point to a few cases of brain damage that prevent people from retaining memory... they cannot form new memories and thus cannot remember anything beyond a few minutes ago... is the soul damaged?

The soul probably remembers but the human mind doesn't. The mind is the fragile part, not the soul. The soul has its own memory vault. The soul remembers what we don't.

3. Fine. So, if we manage to duplicate people, like in Star Trek, we can make souls?

No, a soul is something that comes with age and experience.

Babies may be born with a blank soul; one that can be shaped after birth. So, likely any duplicated humans would have a blank soul until they have been able to live and experience life. Make and form their own opinions. Have their own spiritual moments and insights into life.

*...*

1. If you wake up after a long time of brain deadness, (I'm sure there are a few recorded cases of this) does your soul return to your body?

"Brain-dead" is a medical diagnosis. In the case of recovery, clearly the brain wasn't dead the way a rump steak is dead.

People recovering from coma generally have no sense of time having passed. That seems like cessation of consciousness, then it's resumption. General anaesthetic would be a useful case too.

Sorry, I'll correct that, not brain dead, just no electrical activity... coma in other words.

The soul is some sort of "divinity" in you, a little piece of God that resides in you. Without a soul you may or may not be alive. But if you are alive without a soul you shall be lifeless, you will be like a corpse, you will be able to breath and such. But you'll be like the first computer in the world. You will be able to use every organ in your body and yet you cannot "totally" use them. Many people have different beliefs for a soul. In such cases, Christians believe that the soul when dead shall be judged. I am to believe that if the soul is or is not true it shall be the whole body that consists the soul. Not just the Brain or the Heart and such, but it shall be the whole body that shall cloth the soul. The soul shall act on it's own and your own will. It's like having a dream. The souls will shall be creating what you dream, and your will shall be creating what you do in this dream. Everything around the soul is controlled in a 50/50 rate. Let's think that you have a bad life, your parents always scold you, so in an attempt to rid them off your brain decides that you should leave. You've already packed your things and everything is ready for your departure. Suddenly you overhear your parents shouting preferably with joy. Your mothers pregnant, your brain still thinks of the bad stuff your parents did to you. But your conscience or soul is thinking back. You have never hated your family, you have told them you hate them, your brain is saying you hate them, but your soul still loves your family. So in thinking about it, in about nine months time you won't be only three in your family. Your thoughts then race back, your family supported you in your graduation. They supported you when you wanted to become an actor/actress. So with your conscience controlling it, you stay. The Human soul let's say "In short" is merely you.

People recovering from coma generally have no sense of time having passed. That seems like cessation of consciousness, then it's resumption. General anaesthetic would be a useful case too.Maybe the soul was asleep while the rest of you; it's like a carbon footprint. It's a movie that's been paused. Placed in suspended animation perhaps.
In which case the soul is intrinsically tied with the body. So the affecting the body affects the soul... that is different from my definition of soul as having the property of not being a corporeal process/object...
Unless:
1. Corporeal processes/objects can affect incorporeal things, in which case, you also need to show how and where the incorporeal soul affects to body in the chain of causality... while staying incorporeal (nice scientific breakthrough there...)
2. A soul does not have the property of being incorporeal, it would be subject to corporeal objects and processes. No questions there. But then it would be subject to the same causal connections... In that case, I'm likely to conclude the soul is the brain... =)
Sure a rock can have a soul... if it's a haunted rock! :)
Haha, there was a good one minute laughing there...
The soul probably remembers but the human mind doesn't. The mind is the fragile part, not the soul. The soul has its own memory vault. The soul remembers what we don't.
Eh? I thought the soul controls the body. Then why do these people behave as if those memories are gone, unless destroying what we think are the memory centres actually prevents the soul from using its memory vault to control the body. See point 1 above...
No, a soul is something that comes with age and experience.
Babies may be born with a blank soul; one that can be shaped after birth. So, likely any duplicated humans would have a blank soul until they have been able to live and experience life. Make and form their own opinions. Have their own spiritual moments and insights into life.
But the duplicated humans behave exactly like me... Unless of course you say that they won't. Oh well, so much of hypothetical situations...

Sorry for the sarcasm... =(

[
The soul is some sort of "divinity" in you, a little piece of God that resides in you. Without a soul you may or may not be alive. But if you are alive without a soul you shall be lifeless, you will be like a corpse, you will be able to breathe and such. But you'll be like the first computer in the world. You will be able to use every organ in your body and yet you cannot "totally" use them. Many people have different beliefs for a soul. In such cases, Christians believe that the soul when dead shall be judged. I am to believe that if the soul is or is not true it shall be the whole body that consists the soul. Not just the Brain or the Heart and such, but it shall be the whole body that shall cloth the soul. The soul shall act on it's own and your own will. It's like having a dream. The souls will be creating what you dream, and your will shall be creating what you do in this dream. Everything around the soul is controlled in a 50/50 rate. Let's think that you have a bad life, your parents always scold you, so in an attempt to rid them off your brain decides that you should leave. You've already packed your things and everything is ready for your departure. Suddenly you overhear your parents shouting preferably with joy. Your mothers pregnant, your brain still thinks of the bad stuff your parents did to you. But your conscience or soul is thinking back. You have never hated your family, you have told them you hate them, your brain is saying you hate them, but your soul still loves your family. So in thinking about it, in about nine months time you won't be only three in your family. Your thoughts then race back, your family supported you in your graduation. They supported you when you wanted to become an actor/actress. So with your conscience controlling it, you stay. The Human soul let's say "In short" is merely you.
]

I edited the quote for some grammar, hope you don't mind.

You brought up the operation of the soul in your point of view. May I ask these questions:
(numbers continue from my previous post)
5. Exactly where in the causal chain that I brought up above does the soul cause me to decide to stay in your hypothetical situation? In other words, the soul operates at which scale of the universe? Cells? Chemistry? Quatum Mechanics?
Yes, I possess a lot of confidence in the accuracy of our science.

6. What is the method, physical or otherwise, by which the soul alters my brain in such a way so as to call me to stay? This is nearly the same question as above but with subtle differences. The soul can possibly change what I want to do through many ways, altering brain paths, causing specific neurons to fire at specific times... so which physical mechanism does the soul change is what the question is about.

7. If the soul can change people's behaviour, I should be worried. The souls around me could change their behaviour at any time, not just for good... For that matter, my soul could up and decide to up and make me throw myself out of the window... (I live on the 6th storey)

To "have a soul" might be an enhancement to simply being a thinking animal.

But to "be a soul" essentially makes you a prisoner or passenger in a body, and disdainful of the mind.
Or... the "passenger" is "an enhancement."

i believe that i am a soul, or awareness, and that in this life i have a body
To "have a soul" might be an enhancement to simply being a thinking animal.

But to "be a soul" essentially makes you a prisoner or passenger in a body, and disdainful of the mind.
Or... the "passenger" is "an enhancement."

I put the pyramid of quotes in there because I can't explain my statement out of context.

I found Cameroi's statement perplexing. I was trying to figure out the consequences of "being a soul, having a body" but not really considering that body to be part of oneself.

I think different people have different degrees of engagement with the world. Personally, I'm not that engaged most of the time, I'm thinking abstractly or dreaming, or examining my own perceptions. Clearly others have their consciousness in an even more remote or seperated place where they'd be hard-pressed to put words to their thoughts or perceptions. I don't think that makes them dumb; we all live somewhere.

And it seems that most people (and this is easier to judge in RL, than here where we must all express ourselves in words) are more immediately engaged than I. They live in what they see or do, almost unaware of themselves. I would guess that, if you took away the "baggage" of the concept of soul, somehow expressed the idea of "being without consciousness" ... that these people would find it a minor part of their being.

"I have no soul" and "I am the soul" are extreme positions I find difficult to understand.

So I probably shouldn't have tried to make a dualism of it.

Thanks for your reply.

In that case, I was trying to demonstrate the causal chain between particles and human behaviour. Thanks for clearing that up.
And I was trying to point at the idea that, whichever part of the chain we choose to look at, or more to the point if we choose to look at all the chains chained together, there is still must be something from which to distinguish this chain of chains as a chain.

If what you are asking is the rules of the emergent system, we have no way of finding those rules simply by looking at the simpler level. (I think I remember choas theory coming in somewhere, but never mind)
... By simply looking at the rules and the initial conditions, we have no way of proving that the Ant will follow these three stages. We find these patterns only by running the Ant on a computer...
You'd said, "that the brain and thus humans operate by emergent rules. Even if we don't behave like molecules or electrons, doesn't mean that the 'simple' rules at the QED scale don't dictate what happens to us..."

So we look to the bigger picture to find the rules. The bigger the picture gets, the more we see the rules that dictate the rules. Do we ever get to the rule of all rules? If we don't, ever, then that undefined rule of all rules is basically what "god" means to a lot of people.

If what you are asking is what governs the emergent rules, I will continue the line of thought above. Although the Ant's path cannot be predicted (I'm not exactly sure why, if anyone knows, I would like to learn), the Ant still follows those three general patterns, Order, Chaos, Repetition. The three phases is what I meant when I talked about emergent rules. While the rules follow no immediate causal link from the simple rules to the emergent, it doesn't make it any less certain that the Ant is following those simple rules. The Ant goes through the three phases, yet at any point in time of running, you could freeze the simulation and say that is what the Ant is going to do next.
I'm not sure I follow all you're saying, what simple rules you specifically mean; but isn't it so that the emergent rules emerge from the behavior of the things following the "simple" rules? Isn't that like saying that what "dicates what happens to us" emerges from us? (Hint: Yes.)

What dictates "order"? If animals migrating across the prairie move in an orderly manner, is it their movement that dictates that order?

In a similar way, you could take a human brain and analyse how the neurons fire and how they work together to do logic. That doesn't tell you much about how the human brain functions, but the fact (in the empirical sense) that the neurons in the human brain follow rules (much chemistry here) means that the behaviour of the brain is governed by those rules. The behaviour we see in humans is the pattern we have come to recognise, precisely the emergent pattern of the structure and whatever neurons do.
But the behavior of the brain is different from the behavior of the human, which is the emergent pattern. You seem to be blending things together, treating them as if they were the same thing, though that may just be a choice of wording.

To address what you said, I can agree that our behavior is governed by many rules such as found in the operation of the brain, social conditioning, etc. I equate the soul with the emergent pattern "me" (ego, self-identity) that arises from consciously being. It emerges from all the things we gather to ourrselves to be a part of ourselves: things like happy, sad, warm, cold, left, right, up, down, heavy, light, dark, bright, loud, quiet, soft, hungry, full, smart, silly, random, orderly, concerned, indifferent, uncomfortable, etc. All these things move us and shape who we are.

Spirit is another concept, one that transcends the things I gathered together to be "me" above, in order to make "me" real.

At no place in this pattern of complex rules does a soul come in. Once it is established that neurons are what makes up our brains and how they work is found, the chain of causality is established (to use the metaphor) despite not knowing the emergent properties of each neural net of the brain.
I think there is a place for it, a rather firm one in our beliefs. Just as there is a place for "me."

New questions, feel free to pick and choose:

1. If you wake up after a long time of brain deadness, (I'm sure there are a few recorded cases of this) does your soul return to your body?
I believe it can never "leave" the body; it's not a seperable entity. As an "emergent property" of conscious being, if you are conscious and being, then... there it is.

What's you're definition of concious being?
Being conscious. Sorry if that sounds frivolous. Bodily functions make us conscious; beyond that I'm at a loss to describe the mechanics of being, not having sufficient learning.

Does it include animals? Plants? Rocks?
There is a context in which all those things can be included, namely that of the mystic. For the materialist or the idealist, the empiricst or the rationalist, the theist or the deist, the inclusion or exclusion of certain things will vary.

I'm tempted to point to a few cases of brain damage that prevent people from retaining memory... they cannot form new memories and thus cannot remember anything beyond a few minutes ago... is the soul damaged?
There is no way to physically damage an immaterial thing such as an idea, symbol, concept or "emergent property".

2. During the Second World War, Hitler's regime was brainwashing children into fighting for Germany. Are thier souls damaged by this?
I don't believe that souls get "damaged" in the way minds do, though they can be metaphorically moved by such events.

3. Fine. So, if we manage to duplicate people, like in Star Trek, we can make souls?
In my opinion, if we make "conscious being" then that makes a soul.

4. My brother read this and mentioned that I didn't define soul. Thus I do so now: The soul is the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being. (from wikipedia)
Having the properties:
-is not a corporeal object/process
-dictates the actions of the body of that being it is unique to
That is the definition of a soul under which I claim does not exist.

What's yours?
The Wikipedia definition combines what I would call soul with spirit. I defined soul earlier, and again above, as the self-identity "me". I also described it as metaphorically "moved" by things like events and emotions, and as an "emergent property" of conscious being. Soul, ego, self-identity are all equated, either realitistically or functionally, and their nature is symbolic.

That's different from spirit, though, which gives reality to "being me". Spirit is the transcendence of soul.

Soul is an emergent result of the processes of conscious being, the things I identify with as "me", and spirit is the essence of "being me", which is from a subjective perspective.

I found Cameroi's statement perplexing. I was trying to figure out the consequences of "being a soul, having a body" but not really considering that body to be part of oneself.

I think different people have different degrees of engagement with the world. Personally, I'm not that engaged most of the time, I'm thinking abstractly or dreaming, or examining my own perceptions. Clearly others have their consciousness in an even more remote or seperated place where they'd be hard-pressed to put words to their thoughts or perceptions.
That I can agree with.

Many people do keep separate the idea of "me" from "my body," as something different from it, and from the perspective of the mind they are: two different ideas. It's not unusual, especially considering how ingrained in our language the dualism is. But, of course, the proto language sprang from a culture of dualism.

I don't think that makes them dumb; we all live somewhere.

And it seems that most people (and this is easier to judge in RL, than here where we must all express ourselves in words) are more immediately engaged than I. They live in what they see or do, almost unaware of themselves.
Or, to put it the other's way, they have a different concept of what constitutes their "self", so that what they are is self generally unaware of the body.

I would guess that, if you took away the "baggage" of the concept of soul, somehow expressed the idea of "being without consciousness" ... that these people would find it a minor part of their being.
To the mystic, "being without consciousness" is what we "really" are, and conscious being is illusory, though not minor. I have to agree that many Western theists could find that disturbing.

"I have no soul" and "I am the soul" are extreme positions I find difficult to understand.

So I probably shouldn't have tried to make a dualism of it.

I never, for a moment, claimed they were intrinsically related. I simply stated that I reject them. The semantics of "soul" are irrelevant - "soul" has religious overtones which are removed if "consciousness" is used in place. I reject the notion of the soul.

"Soul" only has religious overtones to those who were had those overtones inculcated. The word has no such overtones to me.

I find it disappointing that religion's history and legitimate attempts (through apologetics, heuristics and those in the religious community who are very deep thinkers and can make rational statements about the topic) to understand the ineffable "divine spark" which humans experience are always overshadowed. First by those who've used religion for control or other nefarious purposes, and second by those who can only react to those in the first category.

Thank you for your reply, GBrooks. Time to get down to composing mine...

And I was trying to point at the idea that, whichever part of the chain we choose to look at, or more to the point if we choose to look at all the chains chained together, there is still must be something from which to distinguish this chain of chains as a chain.
To avoid misunderstanding, my metaphor of the chain of causality (I'm sorry if I spelled it casuality, I'm sure I did somewhere...) refers to the chain of events by which simple underlying rules of the universe can generate complex behaviour, like human behaviour. An easier to understand example would be economics. While each person follows his own rules of behaviour, the aggregate behaviour of a large number of people can be predicted (to a certain extent of course) through patterns noticed by the economists of the past.

The background against which these events occur is the universe. I think...

If we look at each metaphorical link in the chain, we can see that it is made of the patterns that humans have identified. These patterns allow us to make up rules by which the universe at the scale of that 'link' operates. We keep in mind that each 'link' of the 'chain' is a direct result of the 'link' that is at the next smaller scale.
You'd said, "that the brain and thus humans operate by emergent rules. Even if we don't behave like molecules or electrons, doesn't mean that the 'simple' rules at the QED scale don't dictate what happens to us..."

So we look to the bigger picture to find the rules. The bigger the picture gets, the more we see the rules that dictate the rules. Do we ever get to the rule of all rules? If we don't, ever, then that undefined rule of all rules is basically what "god" means to a lot of people.
Who am I to say what you believe in? If you call it, the deepest underlying rule by which the universe operates, "God"; then what the physicists are now trying to discover, the theory of everything, is what you call "God". If I remember correctly, Einstein said something similar once. *Goes off to search the internet*

Edit: I found it: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." - wikipedia 1:52, 08/07/07
I'm not sure I follow all you're saying, what simple rules you specifically mean; but isn't it so that the emergent rules emerge from the behavior of the things following the "simple" rules? Isn't that like saying that what "dicates what happens to us" emerges from us? (Hint: Yes.)
Yes, that's right. No, that's wrong. Sorry about that, just couldn't resist. =P

The emergent rules aren't "there" in the sense that the universe works by those rules. It doesn't. The universe follows the TOE, that we (as humans) haven't found (yet?). The emergent rules are the patterns that exist within a certain framework and under certain assumptions. For example, the ideal gas law, pV=nRT, only applies to gases (duh) and under certain assumptions (I shall not go through with it now, but I'm fine with explaining if you ask). This is a pattern that was noticed by certain scientists when they worked with gases. Under certain conditions that the assumptions break down, the "law" does not apply any more...

Ok, its not exactly wrong, that depends on what you meant to mean with emerges from us. If you say that it emerges from the soul, then the soul is essentially is the emergent properties/rules/patterns of the human brain. See @ below.
What dictates "order"? If animals migrating across the prairie move in an orderly manner, is it their movement that dictates that order?
Order is whatever we, as humans, can spot. If we hovered above the animals in a silent invisible helicopter and observed that the chaotic mass of migrating animals seem to always have a spiral like movement, then we can hypothesize that migrating animals demonstrate such behaviour. Then we examine the whys, hows, and thereofs.
But the behavior of the brain is different from the behavior of the human, which is the emergent pattern. You seem to be blending things together, treating them as if they were the same thing, though that may just be a choice of wording.
The brain controls the person through the use of a large nervous system. You could say that the behaviour of the person is the emergent pattern of the behaviour of the brain; though it is debatable, the brain to body connection is probably the worst place to put the soul. Thank you for helping me clarify the matter, I had no idea it came across that way...
To address what you said, I can agree that our behavior is governed by many rules such as found in the operation of the brain, social conditioning, etc. I equate the soul with the emergent pattern "me" (ego, self-identity) that arises from consciously being. It emerges from all the things we gather to ourrselves to be a part of ourselves: things like happy, sad, warm, cold, left, right, up, down, heavy, light, dark, bright, loud, quiet, soft, hungry, full, smart, silly, random, orderly, concerned, indifferent, uncomfortable, etc. All these things move us and shape who we are.

Spirit is another concept, one that transcends the things I gathered together to be "me" above, in order to make "me" real.

I think there is a place for it, a rather firm one in our beliefs. Just as there is a place for "me."

I believe it can never "leave" the body; it's not a seperable entity. As an "emergent property" of conscious being, if you are conscious and being, then... there it is..

Being conscious. Sorry if that sounds frivolous. Bodily functions make us conscious; beyond that I'm at a loss to describe the mechanics of being, not having sufficient learning.
Of course, if you say the soul is the emergent pattern... see @ below.
There is a context in which all those things can be included, namely that of the mystic. For the materialist or the idealist, the empiricst or the rationalist, the theist or the deist, the inclusion or exclusion of certain things will vary.
Of course, about an hour after I posted, I realized that the answer depends very much on what is called a soul.
There is no way to physically damage an immaterial thing such as an idea, symbol, concept or "emergent property".

I don't believe that souls get "damaged" in the way minds do, though they can be metaphorically moved by such events.
Well, yes. It's impossible to directly damage an emergent property of the brain. But, it's possible to damage the brain is such a way that the conditions of the emergent property don't exist. That state is what we officially call dead. See Ideal Gas Law example above. In the case then of the person dying, the soul then vanishes as the emergent property we have come to recognise as a soul does not exist.
In my opinion, if we make "conscious being" then that makes souls.
I think that works given your earlier definition.
The Wikipedia definition combines what I would call soul with spirit. I defined soul earlier, and again above, as the self-identity "me". I also described it as metaphorically "moved" by things like events and emotions, and as an "emergent property" of conscious being. Soul, ego, self-identity are all equated, either realitistically or functionally, and their nature is symbolic.

That's different from spirit, though, which gives reality to "being me". Spirit is the transcendence of soul.

Soul is an emergent result of the processes conscious being, the things I identify with as "me", and spirit is the essence of "being me", which is from a subjective perspective.
What is the essence of 'being me'? I'm not confident of my guess of your definition of 'essence'.

If you say that my definition of soul refers to your definition of spirit... I'll refer to it as spirit in this paragraph. If spirits cannot affect the world and are not affected by the world except to record that person's (that it belongs to) life, then the spirit may or may not exist by current scientific studies. Something that is not affected by material objects and cannot affect material objects (including human behaviour) is then inconsequential to the running of daily life. If that is what you have in mind, you're welcome. This is why I added the property of the spirit controlling the human body. A spirit in people that can control human behaviour is what I claim cannot exist.

@: I'll concede that, under the definition of the soul being a emergent property of the brain, the soul does exist. Its almost, but not quite, the same as calling the brain a soul. Its more like calling the behaviour of the brain a soul.

[If you notice problems with my posts and/or logic, please feel free to respond]

The background against which these events occur is the universe. I think...

If we look at each metaphorical link in the chain, we can see that it is made of the patterns that humans have identified. These patterns allow us to make up rules by which the universe at the scale of that 'link' operates. We keep in mind that each 'link' of the 'chain' is a direct result of the 'link' that is at the next smaller scale. If I remember correctly, Einstein said something similar once. *Goes off to search the internet*
But if all these chains together are the universe, then there still must be a background from which they are distinguished as the universe. Schrödinger knew that, though I can't vouch for Einstein, not having read his words.

Religions call it things like the "void" or "emptiness" or "waters beneath." It's significant only in the degree to which it is ignored in Western philosophy and materialist thinking.

Who am I to say what you believe in?
I was just being rhetorical. ;)

If you call it, the deepest underlying rule by which the universe operates, "God"; then what the physicists are now trying to discover, the theory of everything, is what you call "God".
That may well be, for some of them, but if (if) they are looking only to the chains, or the chain of chains, then they are ignoring the background emptiness. And that's not a bad thing, as it's eternally undefined (i.e. we don't ever get to it); but it is what separates the scientist from religious person, the empiricist from the idealist, the naturalist from mystic.

Yes, that's right. No, that's wrong. Sorry about that, just couldn't resist. =P

The emergent rules aren't "there" in the sense that the universe works by those rules. It doesn't. The universe follows the TOE, that we (as humans) haven't found (yet?). The emergent rules are the patterns that exist within a certain framework and under certain assumptions.
But doesn't everything? If we find this TOE by looking at the chains, then it too will exist within a certain framework and under certain assumptions.

For example, the ideal gas law, pV=nRT, only applies to gases (duh) and under certain assumptions (I shall not go through with it now, but I'm fine with explaining if you ask). This is a pattern that was noticed by certain scientists when they worked with gases. Under certain conditions that the assumptions break down, the "law" does not apply any more...

Ok, its not exactly wrong, that depends on what you meant to mean with emerges from us. If you say that it emerges from the soul, then the soul is essentially is the emergent properties/rules/patterns of the human brain. See @ below.
I would say, rather, emerges from the conscious observer, the same way that "soul" does.

Order is whatever we, as humans, can spot.
Just so.

We are the framework.

If we hovered above the animals in a silent invisible helicopter and observed that the chaotic mass of migrating animals seem to always have a spiral like movement, then we can hypothesize that migrating animals demonstrate such behaviour. Then we examine the whys, hows, and thereofs.

The brain controls the person through the use of a large nervous system. You could say that the behaviour of the person is the emergent pattern of the behaviour of the brain; though it is debatable, the brain to body connection is probably the worst place to put the soul. Thank you for helping me clarify the matter, I had no idea it came across that way...
Or... in the same way that order dictates the movement of animals whose movement dictates what order is, through our observation of it... in that same way, the brain dictates what becomes the mind, which dictates what we as a brain "do" in the world, through our observation of it. And again, in the same way, we gather to us and store in memory things that dictate what we "are," that in turn dictates an "us" who gathers these things together, through observation.

Emergent patterns. Gotta love 'em.

Well, yes. It's impossible to directly damage an emergent property of the brain. But, it's possible to damage the brain in such a way that the conditions of the emergent property don't exist.
Right; and if the emergent property in question is my "being," then it'd be pretty hard to for anyone to say that there is a state of "being" in which "I" don't exist.

That state is what we officially call dead. See Ideal Gas Law example above.
Just so... and this is where it gets interesting. And philosophical. If "I" am a symbolic representation of an emergent property of conscious brain activity, and if "I" am what is lost when death occurs (i.e. the bit that we mourn when we go to a funeral), and if I, through my observation and assumptions, am the framework around which which "general patterns" like "Order, Chaos, Repetition" come to be that dictate the "rules" of my world, our universe, then what is really "lost" in "death"? What is the universe without "me"?

But perhaps I'm getting ahead of the conversation.

In the case then of the person dying, the soul then vanishes as the emergent property we have come to recognise as a soul does not exist.

I think that works given your earlier definition.
Yes; but there is still a context, though, in which the spirit can have "permanence" of a sort. If we strip away things like "Order, Chaos, Repetition" that cease as "we" cease; if we strip away all the chains that depend on our observation and assumptions to give them life, in essence stripping away the universe's rules; if we strip away our definition of reality --here and now, mind you, not when we're dead --what are we left with? Reality that is apart from all our concepts of it, apart from the capability of the observer to impose "order," apart from all the words we can use to describe it, apart from all the chains we identify. Philosophers still use a word to describe it (we pretty much have to call it something), they call it the noumena. Religions call it the "void" or "emptiness" or "waters beneath".

More on that later.

What is the essence of 'being me'? I'm not confident of my guess of your definition of 'essence'.
I learned essence from Plato. He's fun. Think of it this way. If you live in a city you're probably familiar with intersections. Each one is unique and different. Some have two-way stops, some four, some only three. Some have landscape around the edge, some plain. Some have businesses, some have lights, some have restrictions. Some have three people and cars a day, some three hundred. Each one is different, but all are the same in essence: two or more roads coming together. 'Essence' is what makes each intersection an intersection, even though they are all different. It is the "idea" of an intersection. Plato would have said that that idea lives in every intersection. It is the "life" or spirit of it. It brings it alive, metaphorically.

Without the idea of a thing, the thing is nothing (no-thing, not a "thing") --nothing but unidentifiable void (or emptiness, or noumenon). Ideas impose order on the chaos of the universe.

The essence of "being me" is this presence here looking out at the world around me, a presence that is "not really here" physically because it is symbolic in nature, emergent pattern... and yet, from where I sit, is undeniably "me." It is useful, it is essential "me", and it exists. Without it, I am undefined void. Without it, I have no ideas. Without it, I cannot impose "order" on the universe. Without it, the universe is undefined void. As am I.

This is a good thing. :D

Think about it. Without ideas, the universe is void, without order and structure. Together, without ideas, me and the universe are one big undefined void. Religion philosophically acknowledges that undefined voidy oneness when it says that what we are in essence is eternal. "Time" is part of the order we impose with our ideas. "Molecules" and "TOE" are our ideas, part of the order we impose. "Shape" and "colour" and all properties we observe are part of the order we impose with our ideas. "Emergent pattern" like "me" is part of the order we impose, as is the "life" and "death" of that pattern.

Philosophy is fun.

If you say that my definition of soul refers to your definition of spirit... I'll refer to it as spirit in this paragraph. If spirits cannot affect the world and are not affected by the world except to record that person's (that it belongs to) life, then the spirit may or may not exist by current scientific studies. Something that is not affected by material objects and cannot affect material objects (including human behaviour) is then inconsequential to the running of daily life. If that is what you have in mind, you're welcome. This is why I added the property of the spirit controlling the human body. A spirit in people that can control human behaviour is what I claim cannot exist.
In spirit, I am the same spirit that informs* the universe. All that voidy oneness stuff.

If I haven't totally confused you by now, I will now (and sorry if I come on strong, but I believe strongly). Spirits can "affect the world" in the sense that "I" affect the world. We call it "will." Emergent properties dictating what happens to the things that cause them to come into being.

The universe really is circular in nature, by this philosophy.

*Inform = form from within, as with ideas.

@: I'll concede that, under the definition of the soul being a emergent property of the brain, the soul does exist. Its almost, but not quite, the same as calling the brain a soul. Its more like calling the behaviour of the brain a soul.

[If you notice problems with my posts and/or logic, please feel free to respond]
Bravo.

But if all these chains together are the universe, then there still must be a background from which they are distinguished as the universe. Schrödinger knew that, though I can't vouch for Einstein, not having read his words.

Religions call it things like the "void" or "emptiness" or "waters beneath." It's significant only in the degree to which it is ignored in Western philosophy and materialist thinking.
Ok, now I understand the thing about chains of chains...

Sadly, I'm a materialist... Just took that political test on another thread... it ranked me 90% more materialist than other people... so you know what my answer is going to be... which is:
If the void against which the world exists as you claim does not affect the world (is incorporeal) and cannot be affected, we run into the same argument as with the recording spirit I mentioned earlier...
I was just being rhetorical. ;)
So was my reply... =P I didn't know yours was though...
That may well be, for some of them, but if (if) they are looking only to the chains, or the chain of chains, then they are ignoring the background emptiness. And that's not a bad thing, as it's eternally undefined (i.e. we don't ever get to it); but it is what separates the scientist from religious person, the empiricist from the idealist, the naturalist from mystic.
Well, if its eternally undefined... it had better not affect the material world or it'll get defined...

You can't treat undefined things in any way... Therefore, we are entitled to ignore it if it doesn't affect the universe...
But doesn't everything? If we find this TOE by looking at the chains, then it too will exist within a certain framework and under certain assumptions.
But a TOE's assumptions would encompass everything possible in the universe, from extreme energies to relativistic speeds... Its framework would be the universe and the assumptions would be that this is the rule by which the universe works...
I would say, rather, emerges from the conscious observer, the same way that "soul" does.

Just so.

We are the framework.

Or... in the same way that order dictates the movement of animals whose movement dictates what order is, through our observation of it... in that same way, the brain dictates what becomes the mind, which dictates what we as a brain "do" in the world, through our observation of it. And again, in the same way, we gather to us and store in memory things that dictate what we "are," that in turn dictates an "us" who gathers these things together, through observation.
The order by which we make sense of the world has nothing to do with the world in actual fact. It is just our understanding of the world and our (humans that is) recognition of the fact and patterns (as we see it of course) of the universe... It makes no difference that the us to do observation is a brain in a human body, the human body doing what it does to get those observations. In no place does it require a 'you' to do it, a computer could make observations you know, just not ones that humans would easily understand...
Emergent patterns. Gotta love 'em.
Haha, or were you being sarcastic?
Right; and if the emergent property in question is my "being," then it'd be pretty hard to for anyone to say that there is a state of "being" in which "I" don't exist.
The 'I' ceases to exist when the body the 'I' resides in no longer displays the usual patterns associated with the 'I'. Note that this means that the 'I' can be defined to be anything and what the 'I' is is only meaningful to the people who came up with the definition. The universe does not operate with an 'I' in mind...

A better analogy comes to mind. You should understand this if you can do programming. A pointer in a computer stores the address code of a piece of infomation. The 'I' is just that, a pointer. It points to the properties observable at the human scale by humans of a human brain.
Just so... and this is where it gets interesting. And philosophical. If "I" am a symbolic representation of an emergent property of conscious brain activity, and if "I" am what is lost when death occurs (i.e. the bit that we mourn when we go to a funeral), and if I, through my observation and assumptions, am the framework around which which "general patterns" like "Order, Chaos, Repetition" come to be that dictate the "rules" of my world, our universe, then what is really "lost" in "death"? What is the universe without "me"?
Is it just me, or is this turning rapidly into solipsism? (Did I spell it right?)

The way we make sense of the universe has nothing to do with the universe, when you die, the universe goes on... (unless you are a solipsist) What is lost in death is the organization of the human brain that the 'I' was in and now longer exists... But the brain is still there, it just doesn't have the property of functioning in the way we expect it to when its alive...
Yes; but there is still a context, though, in which the spirit can have "permanence" of a sort. If we strip away things like "Order, Chaos, Repetition" that cease as "we" cease; if we strip away all the chains that depend on our observation and assumptions to give them life, in essence stripping away the universe's rules; if we strip away our definition of reality --here and now, mind you, not when we're dead --what are we left with? Reality that is apart from all our concepts of it, apart from the capability of the observer to impose "order," apart from all the words we can use to describe it, apart from all the chains we identify. Philosophers still use a word to describe it (we pretty much have to call it something), they call it the noumena. Religions call it the "void" or "emptiness" or "waters beneath".
I'm taking the analogy further. When you take away the actors, the curtain, the stage, the audience; do you still have a play. No, you don't. In the same way, when you strip away the universe together with its rules, you have nothing...

Yet, you still have an understanding of what a play is. Only because you are not the play. When the play (the universe this time) has you as an actor, you get removed with everything else...

If you only remove the human concepts by which we see the universe, all you get is the universe, human concepts don't act like anything other than as a 'pointer' to the universe. Removing the pointers in a computer results in a hard disk full of whatever was in it, but the computer can't use it... In the same way, when you remove the human concept of the universe, it reduces to the actual material universe itself. Not the one we have a conception of. Its possible to reconstruct the pointers on a hard disk by looking at how its contents fit together and how the computer reacts when parts are run through it. This is the goal of science, to decipher the pointer library of the universe by seeing how it fits together... (ok, so its not a very good analogy but I had to come up with something)
I learned essence from Plato. He's fun. Think of it this way. If you live in a city you're probably familiar with intersections. Each one is unique and different. Some have two-way stops, some four, some only three. Some have landscape around the edge, some plain. Some have businesses, some have lights, some have restrictions. Some have three people and cars a day, some three hundred. Each one is different, but all are the same in essence: two or more roads coming together. 'Essence' is what makes each intersection an intersection, even though they are all different. It is the "idea" of an intersection. Plato would have said that that idea lives in every intersection. It is the "life" or spirit of it. It brings it alive, metaphorically.

Without the idea of a thing, the thing is nothing (no-thing, not a "thing") --nothing but unidentifiable void (or emptiness, or noumenon). Ideas impose order on the chaos of the universe.

The essence of "being me" is this presence here looking out at the world around me, a presence that is "not really here" physically because it is symbolic in nature, emergent pattern... and yet, from where I sit, is undeniably "me." It is useful, it is essential "me", and it exists. Without it, I am undefined void. Without it, I have no ideas. Without it, I cannot impose "order" on the universe. Without it, the universe is undefined void. As am I.

This is a good thing. :D

Think about it. Without ideas, the universe is void, without order and structure. Together, without ideas, me and the universe are one big undefined void. Religion philosophically acknowledges that undefined voidy oneness when it says that what we are in essence is eternal. "Time" is part of the order we impose with our ideas. "Molecules" and "TOE" are our ideas, part of the order we impose. "Shape" and "colour" and all properties we observe are part of the order we impose with our ideas. "Emergent pattern" like "me" is part of the order we impose, as is the "life" and "death" of that pattern.
Ok, what I understand then of your essence is similar to the Plato 'perfect idea' of an object. I shall reply with this in mind, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

I disagree. The universe is there. We make sense of it, and our sense is only sense to us.

In a more personal tone... I helped my brother create a program to recognise a technical triangle. (stock market, technical analysis) Boy, did we have a hard time. I knew what a triangle was, I could point to one and say: "That's a triangle" So did my brother, although he was less clear. I was all ready to do the first test. Had defined the triangle as far as I could, what with grouping the results into different ones too... The computer chucked me a triangle on my first hit... All was going well until I noticed that the time period for the triangle was too far fetched (about a year?)... Ouch... Its still buggy by the way.

What is nicely defined to us, is not defined to anything other than us... Not even to a computer, which we know so well...

The universe is just that, if the Earth spontaneously ceased to exist now, the solar system would continue to spin (albeit differently), the sun will still shine. There's just no one to see it... Since we are in the universe, our thoughts must also follow the universe's rules... How is it that our thoughts can give form/order to the universe? It only makes order out of the universe for us...
Philosophy is fun.
Yes, I did philosophy is IB 1 & 2... I like the discussions... especially tossing a morally outrageous statement into the class and defending it... hehe, fun times...

Nothing like waking up in the morning wondering what the other guy/gal 's reply would be...
In spirit, I am the same spirit that informs* the universe. All that voidy oneness stuff.

If I haven't totally confused you by now, I will now (and sorry if I come on strong, but I believe strongly). Spirits can "affect the world" in the sense that "I" affect the world. We call it "will." Emergent properties dictating what happens to the things that cause them to come into being.

The universe really is circular in nature, by this philosophy.

*Inform = form from within, as with ideas.
Its all right, I tried to figure it through. And I like puzzlers... =P (not that you post very confusing posts)

By that philosophy, if I understand you correctly, the universe is very circular...
In mine, the universe is absolute. Our understanding is not absolute at all.
Bravo.
Thanks for your patience...

Although the soul only exists when you define it like that... It like a matter of calling a spade a spade. A spade is only a spade if you call it a spade...

*Grits teeth* I hate it when NSG asks me to relog just because I took too long to compose a reply...

Is it just me, or is this turning rapidly into solipsism? (Did I spell it right?)
Not on my part; in fact, from the point of view of this philosophy, you are the one indulging solipsism (yes, you spelled it correctly).
:)

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow.

If the void against which the world exists as you claim does not affect the world (is incorporeal) and cannot be affected, we run into the same argument as with the recording spirit I mentioned earlier...

Well, if its eternally undefined... it had better not affect the material world or it'll get defined...

You can't treat undefined things in any way... Therefore, we are entitled to ignore it if it doesn't affect the universe...
Effecting the world is irrelevant, and ignoring it is what most everyone does anyway, so that's alright.

But we do have ways of dealing with undefined things. We simply assign them a placeholder word --"zero" for example, or "I", or "God".

But a TOE's assumptions would encompass everything possible in the universe, from extreme energies to relativistic speeds... Its framework would be the universe and the assumptions would be that this is the rule by which the universe works...

The order by which we make sense of the world has nothing to do with the world in actual fact. It is just our understanding of the world and our (humans that is) recognition of the fact and patterns (as we see it of course) of the universe... It makes no difference that the us to do observation is a brain in a human body, the human body doing what it does to get those observations. In no place does it require a 'you' to do it, a computer could make observations you know, just not ones that humans would easily understand...

Haha, or were you being sarcastic?
No, not being sarcastic. Let me ask, these assumptions you speak of, whose are they? Who makes these assumptions? If the order we observe is part of the world, how can it have "nothing to do with the world"? If observing the world doesn't require an "I", whether mine or someone/something else's, then who is doing the observing?

The 'I' ceases to exist when the body the 'I' resides in no longer displays the usual patterns associated with the 'I'. Note that this means that the 'I' can be defined to be anything and what the 'I' is is only meaningful to the people who came up with the definition. The universe does not operate with an 'I' in mind...

A better analogy comes to mind. You should understand this if you can do programming. A pointer in a computer stores the address code of a piece of infomation. The 'I' is just that, a pointer. It points to the properties observable at the human scale by humans of a human brain.
But the "I" isn't defined to be just anything, it's me. :) "I" is only truly meaningful to me, because it emerges only for me. From me.

I like the idea that "I" is a pointer, good analogy. But it's not just pointing at data (the idea of me), it's pointing at ...me (experiential me). *waves*

It's a *self* realization self-realized.

Is it just me, or is this turning rapidly into solipsism? (Did I spell it right?)
Let's try a different track. Referring back to Plato, the idea of a thing exists for each thing. Today we think of the idea as being of the mind, a product of brain activity. If one were to mistake the "idea of a thing" as the actual things that are really out there, outside our consciousness, then that would be solipsism.

Let's review perception. We open our eyes (for example) and see a world around us. The data is stored in the brain and interpreted by the mind as "forms" like colour, shape, distance... and that information is immediately recalled in memory as "knowing". When we know a perception, it's already memory. It's already idea. The entirely universe as we know it is as we know it. Everything we know about the world is everything we know about it. Right? There is nothing about the world, for us, that is not reducable to "the idea of a thing."

Now, let's go back to those assumptions. These were assumptions made by us in defining the universe, for us. The models we make of the universe, like the proposed TOE, is all information, all ideas. If we mistake the data we're manipulating for something that's actual, then that would be solipsism. Only if we keep a proper distinction between "the world as we know it" and "the actual world" which is essentially undefined (void, emptiness, waters beneath) do we avoid solipsism.

The way we make sense of the universe has nothing to do with the universe
That I can agree with, as it maintains the distinction I mentioned. The universe as it actually is is undefined. All our definitions of it are ours. Our ideas.

...when you die, the universe goes on...
There you go. Eternal life. (I know; that's not what you meant.)

What is lost in death is the organization of the human brain that the 'I' was in and now longer exists... But the brain is still there, it just doesn't have the property of functioning in the way we expect it to when its alive...
But this "organization" of the human brain is one of our ideas. What is "lost" in death is the idea I call an emergent property of conscious being (soul).

We cannot claim "death" for the undefined bit, because, well, it's undefined. Does that make sense? (This is agnosticism.) We equally cannot claim "death" for an idea like spirit, or the experiential "me", because the idea that it "exists" in our brains is one of our ideas. To claim it ceases to be is to claim knowledge we cannot posess. That's where many people who believe in eternal life "place" the soul or spirit, in the undefined. And there's no one to say it's wrong. No one has that right.

I'm taking the analogy further. When you take away the actors, the curtain, the stage, the audience; do you still have a play. No, you don't. In the same way, when you strip away the universe together with its rules, you have nothing...
And this play that you don't have, this "nothing," what if your information tells you that the play must exist? What if in knowing that all you know of the world around you is the idea you have of the world, perceptions stored in memory, and in knowing that, you also know that there must be an actual world out there, apart from your ideas? If our ideas define the world, then it in actuality must be undefined (chaos, void, emptiness) to us.

Yet, you still have an understanding of what a play is. Only because you are not the play. When the play (the universe this time) has you as an actor, you get removed with everything else...
Wherefrom did this understanding of what a play is come, if not because bits of plays were observed previously and stored in memory? Our capacity to imagine is dependent on information stored in memory --that's why for some there is no difference between the hallucination and actual experiences. Both are drawn from the same knowledge stored in memory.

When the play (the universe) is removed, what I have really lost is conscious being.

If you only remove the human concepts by which we see the universe, all you get is the universe, human concepts don't act like anything other than as a 'pointer' to the universe. Removing the pointers in a computer results in a hard disk full of whatever was in it, but the computer can't use it... In the same way, when you remove the human concept of the universe, it reduces to the actual material universe itself. Not the one we have a conception of. Its possible to reconstruct the pointers on a hard disk by looking at how its contents fit together and how the computer reacts when parts are run through it. This is the goal of science, to decipher the pointer library of the universe by seeing how it fits together... (ok, so its not a very good analogy but I had to come up with something)
The human concepts by which we see the universe are its definition, for us. If we remove the pointers, we remove us and our definitions (like "order"), because we cannot "be" consciously without those ideas. There would be nothing to distinguish ourselves from the universe (back to the voidy oneness for us).

The "actual material universe" is not really material, because "material" is one of our definitions, our conceptions, an idea we have of the universe. It's one of the things you just removed. :)

I disagree. The universe is there. We make sense of it, and our sense is only sense to us.
I never claimed it wasn't there. I agree with you: it's there, and we can make sense of it. The "sense" we make of it is all our ideas put in neat order.

What is nicely defined to us, is not defined to anything other than us...
Something we can both agree on, wholeheartedly.

How is it that our thoughts can give form/order to the universe? It only makes order out of the universe for us...
In the same way it makes "order", it makes "light" and "dark", "hot" and "cold", "big" and "small", "close" and "far"...

Thanks for the discussion. I'm out for the week.

I've got stuff to do now, can only reply later today. And I can't reply after today until friday...

Ok, I'm going to break my 'promise' to post later today and post now. Sorry, couldn't resist. Take your time to reply.

Let me summarize your points as using quotes is getting too unweildly. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You said in essence that:
- Our understanding of the world is only our understanding of the world
- Thus we cannot say that the universe really works that way
- Therefore, aside from our understanding of the universe, there is only the actual universe. If I understand correctly, this is what you mean by the undefined thing. (Lets call it 'the actual world' for the purposes of argument)
- Therefore, all our knowledge is interdependent and relies on one important assumption that our knowledge represents the real world in actual fact.
- Without this assumption, we cannot assume that the universe operates in the way we understand it as that is the assumption.
- Confusing our knowledge with the world is solipsism.

Did I get it right? I'll assume I did and continue.

I'll tackle that assumption first. Without that assumption, all our knowledge and perception of the world is in question. Agreed. Therefore, without the postulate (lets leave it as that) of our perception correlating with the real world, we cannot claim to understand anything. And as such cannot claim to reasonably exist in the real world as the "me" you refer to is also based on our perception.

I know Descartes said: "I think therefore I am" as the only definitely true thing. I'll like to say that I think this is not definitely true. Your perception of yourself is just that a perception, subject to that same assumption. How do you know you're thinking, what if a demon was making you think you are thinking? This is similar to a question I asked myself while attempting to write a story. I created the characters, their personality, their universe. That universe obeys rules, (yes, I rely on rules alot) the characters follow their personality. Do they think? No. I make them think. I follow the rules I created myself on how the characters behave. They could say, "I think therefore I am" because the rules make them think they are thinking. (The story doesn't really follow the rules very strictly, I'm not perfect. =( )

Without such a postulate, we therefore cannot understand, cannot react, cannot even believe without it coming into question. Without such a postulate, the rules of logic break down, you can't even tell that there is an undefined universe out there.

Clearly, such a postulate is required if we are to function in any way at all. I'm certainly going to use it. Even if the postulate is wrong, even if we are really just characters on the stage of a play/story, we have no choice but to accept it. Yes, this argument and logic does hinge on the postulate, but what else do we have? Its circular, that's why its a postulate. (I could make my characters work out the logic for this without compromising the rules, one of them is certainly intelligent enough. The postulate is wrong in that case {or is it?} , but they will work with it, there's no choice)

When a division is placed between our perception and the world, (aka. the postulate is removed) the existence of our perception and the existence of the world is called into question.

Now my rant is over, I'll get down to the other points you made.

Here is where I take a different path from the solipsists. If I remember my philosophy correctly, (its been half a year) solipsism is about the universe being only in your perception. Thier path returns to the same problem. A person's perception is all there is to the universe could very well be true. Agreed, but if your perception is all there is to the universe, there is nothing to the universe beyond your perception. In a reference to my early tabletop fantasy games, the situation is similar to how the goblin behind the door only exists after the adventurers open it.

So here's my postulate broken down in detail:
- the world, along with everything in it, exists apart from our senses
- our perception reports the world accurately to us, through their own filters of course.

Our senses can be fooled, but if they're fooled, then the world is doing some fooling around. (sorry, couldn't resist =P )

Under this postulate, (and a few more) the existence of the actual world still cannot be proven to be false or true. However, what we can do is rely on our perception to give accurate infomation, or failing that, that our perceptions have been set up by the world. To a certain extent (I'm inclined to believe this is very large, but its debatable) , all scientific studies rely on this postulate. And my points on previous posts also rely on this postulate.

Yes, I'm agnostic/weak atheist. How did you guess? Never mind, it was obvious.

Let me summarize your points as using quotes is getting too unweildly. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You said in essence that:
- Our understanding of the world is only our understanding of the world
- Thus we cannot say that the universe really works that way
- Therefore, aside from our understanding of the universe, there is only the actual universe. If I understand correctly, this is what you mean by the undefined thing. (Lets call it 'the actual world' for the purposes of argument)
- Therefore, all our knowledge is interdependent and relies on one important assumption that our knowledge represents the real world in actual fact.
- Without this assumption, we cannot assume that the universe operates in the way we understand it as that is the assumption.
- Confusing our knowledge with the world is solipsism.

Did I get it right? I'll assume I did and continue.

I don't have time to read your whole post at the moment, sorry, but I'll respond to this part.

I bolded the sentences I disagree with.

You were right earlier when you said that if there's no effect the undefined has on the defined it can safely be ignored. Thing is, the undefined and the defined are not two different worlds, so there is no effect one CAN have on the other. It's not two different worlds, it's just "the world". The only difference is our view of it.

The only significant, meaningful separation we make between the two is between "the world as we know it" and "the world as it actually is." Everything we call "knowledge" is on one side of that fence.

Knowledge IS "our assumption that the universe operates the way we understand it." In making that assumption, we "know" things. Science is not incorrect: we can and do make correct assumptions. As far as we know, we are the only ones who can say that "the universe really works that way" being the only ones who have developed this level of understanding.

But it's still just understanding --standing under --reality. It's not on a level with it, and never can be. Our species will never stop learning as long as it exists. Scientific exploration has no end.

I do agree that, at the same time, "our knowledge" does represent "an assumption that our knowledge is the real world in actual fact." Knowledge is a representation. Where we mess up is assuming that our knowledge IS the real world in actual fact, and with the knowledge that "the world as we know it" is not "the world as it actually is" firmly in place, we can see that that is an incorrect assumption.

Will continue later.

Did I get it right? I'll assume I did and continue.

I'll tackle that assumption first. Without that assumption, all our knowledge and perception of the world is in question. Agreed. Therefore, without the postulate (lets leave it as that) of our perception correlating with the real world, we cannot claim to understand anything. And as such cannot claim to reasonably exist in the real world as the "me" you refer to is also based on our perception.
Understanding is all we can claim. Nothing more, and nothing less. "Correlation" is not the issue in what I was discussing. Let's assume correlation with a reasonable probability of accuracy and continue from there.

I know Descartes said: "I think therefore I am" as the only definitely true thing.
Sort of. More as the only sure thing. His reasoning was that even if he doubted his own existence, there must still be some agency doing the doubting. Another truth he derived in a similar manner was God, with a particular understanding of what God is.

I'll like to say that I think this is not definitely true. Your perception of yourself is just that a perception, subject to that same assumption.
But, then, who is doing the perceiving of "you"? That doesn't work, see. The subject (the self) is the one doing the perceiving. "You" must be the subject of yourself, or it's not "you" we're talking about at all.

When a division is placed between our perception and the world, (aka. the postulate is removed) the existence of our perception and the existence of the world is called into question.

Now my rant is over, I'll get down to the other points you made.
The division is not between perception and existence, though. It's between our version of reality, which gives definition to reality, and reality as it actually is apart from how we've defined it. Our definitions have for the most part a high probability of accuracy, as far as they go. If they didn't, science would fall apart and chaos would rule.

Here is where I take a different path from the solipsists. If I remember my philosophy correctly, (its been half a year) solipsism is about the universe being only in your perception. Thier path returns to the same problem. A person's perception is all there is to the universe could very well be true. Agreed...
You keep agreeing with someone, but it's not me. :) Haha.
*Peers into the void*
Sorry...

...but if your perception is all there is to the universe, there is nothing to the universe beyond your perception. In a reference to my early tabletop fantasy games, the situation is similar to how the goblin behind the door only exists after the adventurers open it.
Schrödinger's goblin!

So here's my postulate broken down in detail:
- the world, along with everything in it, exists apart from our senses
- our perception reports the world accurately to us, through their own filters of course.
Now we agree, the latter with a high degree of probability.

Our senses can be fooled, but if they're fooled, then the world is doing some fooling around. (sorry, couldn't resist =P )

Under this postulate, (and a few more) the existence of the actual world still cannot be proven to be false or true. However, what we can do is rely on our perception to give accurate infomation, or failing that, that our perceptions have been set up by the world. To a certain extent (I'm inclined to believe this is very large, but its debatable) , all scientific studies rely on this postulate. And my points on previous posts also rely on this postulate.

Yes, I'm agnostic/weak atheist. How did you guess? Never mind, it was obvious.
The world's existence is not in question with the issues I was discussing. My point was more to suggest a philosophy in which it is possible that things like 'soul' and 'eternal life' take on meaning. In the world where we assume our perceptions to be all that exists, these things are out of their context, out of their element, and so make little sense.

It's even a context in which agnosticism has more meaning. ;)