Do you believe you have a soul?

Doc Ruby

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Now the problem with the soul is that there is no phenomenon or hypothesis. It is a "belief", nothing more, and that is something that is outside science. If you want to believe in a soul, that's fine if it makes you happy. But using fictional radio-wave dreams several centuries ago to somehow back it up? It's a non-sequitur.

Actually there are a great many reports of phenomena, from ghosts to out of body experiences near death. The vast majority of these are probably the products of delusion, hysteria, narcotics, or fraud, but nonetheless. The big issue is that they haven't been replicated in a lab, although you have to wonder just how much effort has been seriously put into doing so.

The radio wave example was used to illustrate that we didn't know everything then and we don't know everything now. Science may one day very well discover actual evidence for the persistence of sentience. Myself, I think it will. But I'm not saying for a fact that you are wrong - you may be right, I can accept that without embracing it.

On the other hand it is scientifically inaccurate to state categorically that there is no persistence, especially with regard to the lack of scientific understanding of the nature of intelligence.

Thank you for your in-depth explanation of the situation with the neutrinos by the way, but I was already familiar with it. The telegraph link was just the first one on google.

Seachmall wrote: »

As far as our understanding of the physical world goes it does not allow for the existence of a soul.

In fairness you've never claimed to be a scientist, so I won't call you on that, but as far as our understanding of the physical world went back in 1150AD radio waves were impossible.

And again, again, especially with regard to the lack of scientific understanding of the nature of intelligence. There's an awful lot we just do not know, if that can't be accepted then one is not thinking scientifically.

Maximus Alexander

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Science may one day very well discover actual evidence for the persistence of sentience. Myself, I think it will. But I'm not saying for a fact that you are wrong - you may be right, I can accept that without embracing it.

For what it's worth, I'd prefer to be wrong on this and would love if you were right. I despise my fleshy mortality and the idea of eternal oblivion. Unfortunately, for me, that appears to be the future.

Unless they manage to perfect full body transplants before I die. :P

Seachmall

Doc Ruby wrote: »

In fairness you've never claimed to be a scientist, so I won't call you on that, but as far as our understanding of the physical world went back in 1150AD radio waves were impossible.

Yes. And if you asked a scientist 500 years ago could we share information with people 1000s of miles away in the blink of an eye they would have said "No.".

Like I said, those "No."s aren't absolutes.

I'm sure if you asked a scientist for an absolute answer to any of the posed questions they might have said "Maybe.", but for day-to-day conversation "Absolutely No." is perfectly reasonable.


Going back to the original point regarding whether it's reasonable or rational to believe the comparisons to these scientific/technological advancements aren't valid.

A "soul" by our understanding is metaphysical. The radio waves etc. aren't. Those things are inherently incomparable.

In fact, if a "soul" was to be found to exist it couldn't fit our current definition because the metaphysical isn't tangible, measurable, etc.

If a "soul" was found to exist it would have to be physical.

So a physical soul I'd say could exist, but a metaphysical one? Nope.


I don't know what would constitute a "physical soul", maybe a future device that replicates our "mind" onto a machine or into someone else could be considered a device that "captures" the "soul". So "Soul" would have to be redifined in the same way "nothing" was (BTW "nothing" wasn't actually redefined, but in conversation it sort of has been. E.g. when a scientist explaining the Big Bang might say we came from "nothing" he doesn't really mean "nothing" by our definition of it).

Doc Ruby

Seachmall wrote: »

A "soul" by our understanding is metaphysical. The radio waves etc. aren't. Those things are inherently incomparable.

How can you have an understanding of something that you don't believe exists? You're using metaphysical as a placeholder for woo woo magic and by extension superstition and ignorance. That's exactly where I'm not coming from. You're also making definitive assertions that nobody familiar with the scientific process would make.

Seachmall wrote: »

If a "soul" was found to exist it would have to be physical.

Ah, so we understand all there is to know about the physical world, great we can lock up the LHC and send everyone on a holiday.

Seachmall

Doc Ruby wrote: »

How can you have an understanding of something that you don't believe exists? You're using metaphysical as a placeholder for woo woo magic and by extension superstition and ignorance. That's exactly where I'm not coming from.

Do you not see the "soul" as a metaphysical entity?

You're also making definitive assertions that nobody familiar with the scientific process would make.

Care to point them out?

Ah, so we understand all there is to know about the physical world, great we can lock up the LHC and send everyone on a holiday.

Where did I say that?

Doc Ruby

Seachmall wrote: »

Do you not see the "soul" as a metaphysical entity?

In your meaning of "magical woo woo", no. I think thats the primary point of misunderstanding here; keep in mind what used to be magical and attributed to gods is now solidly explained by science. Its not that big of a stretch to envision there are a lot more dark corners to discover.

Seachmall

Doc Ruby wrote: »

In your meaning of "magical woo woo", no. I think thats the primary point of misunderstanding here; keep in mind what used to be magical and attributed to gods is now solidly explained by science. Its not that big of a stretch to envision there are a lot more dark corners to discover.

Which is a point I made many posts ago.

"Soul" would have to be redefined. I think most people see the soul as a metaphysical or even religious entity, which isn't something science concerns itself with.

Doc Ruby

Seachmall wrote: »

"Soul" would have to be redefined. I think most people see the soul as a metaphysical or even religious entity, which isn't something science concerns itself with.

How would you redefine soul, genuinely?

Couldn't it validate religion instead (and I'm not religious)? What if the sentient part collapsed into a miniature version of its own afterlife based on the beliefs it held in life, if you're talking about a self sustaining information structure that's even a likely outcome. As far as that soul was concerned, there really would be a god, even if there was no such thing to the wider universe.

There's a lot of ways something like that could pan out, best to keep an open mind tbh.

Seachmall

Doc Ruby wrote: »

How would you redefine soul, genuinely?

Anything that's not metaphysical.

Couldn't it validate religion instead (and I'm not religious)? What if the sentient part collapsed into a miniature version of its own afterlife based on the beliefs it held in life, if you're talking about a self sustaining information structure that's even a likely outcome. As far as that soul was concerned, there really would be a god, even if there was no such thing to the wider universe.

That is in an interesting idea. Although I'm not sure I'd say it validated religion, but it's definitely an interesting idea.

There's a lot of ways something like that could pan out, best to keep an open mind tbh.

I am, but the metaphysical doesn't warrant one.

To steal Seamus' signature,

Being open-minded simply requires a willingness to give equal weight to all evidence, regardless of your viewpoint.

Being open-minded does not require a willingness to give equal weight to all viewpoints, regardless of evidence.

weemcd

I might have had a soul once, but dead end job, low income, no job prospects, distance between friends and the fact that I take joy from very few things these days lead me to believe anything I had resembling a soul has grinded away down to nothing

OneArt

I like the Buddhist idea that beings are just made up of different parts. There's no such thing as a soul or self.

Doc Ruby

Seachmall wrote: »

Anything that's not metaphysical.

So its not the idea of persistence that bothers you, its the association of that with the social concept of magical woo woo, basically being anti-organised religion.

Seachmall wrote: »

Being open-minded does not require a willingness to give equal weight to all viewpoints, regardless of evidence.

And likewise the absence of evidence does not neccessarily imply evidence of absence.

44leto

Nah no soul, no spirit, just a bio engine.But Automatic doors ignore me.

Seachmall

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So its not the idea of persistence that bothers you, its the association of that with the social concept of magical woo woo, basically being anti-organised religion.

Doesn't have anything to do with religion, organised or not.

Metaphysical claims are impossible to verify or know. They are all ultimately baseless, almost by definition.

And likewise the absence of evidence does not neccessarily imply evidence of absence.

Never said otherwise.

tommy2bad

Do I have a soul? No
I am a soul.

V Eight

Metaphysical claims are impossible to verify or know. They are all ultimately baseless, almost by definition.

and in answer......

[FONT=times new roman,helvetica]Which fish can perform operations?
A Sturgeon!

Where do little fishes go every morning?
To plaice school!

What fish goes up the river at 100mph?
A motor pike!

How could the dolphin afford to buy a house?
He prawned everything![/FONT]

.................

cloptrop

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Ok do you consider yourself superior to a severely retarded person who isn't self aware?

So are you saying retarded people are norml people but with no soul?
Thats a pretty hardcore assumption dude, I hope you have some sort of science to back that up .

CrazyRabbit

I had a soul. But the government took it and gave it to the banks. Apparently they ran out.

LH Pathe

tommy2bad wrote: »

Do I have a soul? No
I am a soul.

2bad you'll be the soul survivor

Helix

RichieC wrote: »

Not in the traditional sense. I do believe humans can lose touch with their inate humanity and turn feral.

there is no "inate humanity" really, that's all learned based on your environment

if you need to live like an animal to survive, chances are you will. if you have the comfort of living in a relatively reasonably civilisation, you won't need to go that route

arguably only the former is built in, and the latter is forced

pragmatic1

Helix wrote: »

there is no "inate humanity" really, that's all learned based on your environment

if you need to live like an animal to survive, chances are you will. if you have the comfort of living in a relatively reasonably civilisation, you won't need to go that route

arguably only the former is built in, and the latter is forced

Do you think empathy is a learned trait?

LH Pathe

I think a lot of people took blue for green. Everyone knows trolls have no soul

Helix

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Do you think empathy is a learned trait?

i think its a trait that everyone is capable of given the right environment, but i dont think it's a given, no

LH Pathe

Few people have the verve to display empathy outside a certain person all too often. If we can't casually wear our heart on our sleeve for fear of sharks snapping it off us then what hope I ask.. what hope! .. I don't give a fück I'll unload it on anyone.

MrStuffins

128 posts. Has anyone actually bothered to say what the f*ck a soul is? For those who believe in souls, what the hell is it?

LH Pathe

dunno. I just went with the second example of the first definition I found

Both were wildly contrasting

RichieC

Helix wrote: »

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Do you think empathy is a learned trait?

i think its a trait that everyone is capable of given the right environment, but i dont think it's a given, no

Correct

It is not a given. Some people lack it. Psychopaths and sociopaths for instance.

Most have it though. Look up mirror neurons.

Doc Ruby

MrStuffins wrote: »

128 posts. Has anyone actually bothered to say what the f*ck a soul is?

Yeah there's been extensive debate.

MrStuffins wrote: »

For those who believe in souls, what the hell is it?

The collection of memories, intellect, and emotional responses that makes up you as opposed to me would be I'd say a fair definition. Lose any of those three and you have a different person really, although I suppose you could make a good argument that memory isn't essential.

Some cultures believe the soul resides in the stomach, which is where you get the "gut feeling" idea from, butterflies in your tummy when that special person walks in, and other such responses. Its interesting really, I don't think there's much of a biological reason for your stomach to be involved in your romantic life. There's as many notions about it as there are religions.

LH Pathe

RichieC wrote: »

Helix wrote: »

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Do you think empathy is a learned trait?

i think its a trait that everyone is capable of given the right environment, but i dont think it's a given, no

Correct

It is not a given. Some people lack it. Psychopaths and sociopaths for instance.

Most have it though. Look up mirror neurons.

Then you'll be surprised this pathe is crippled with empathy. as the reason for being a sociopath. empathy won't get you by today, not a hope it's like dodge city out there.

Which brings to mind time or place? This area has a rep.. permanently I imagine it's somewhat more 'laid back' elsewhere but then I can't expect to experience others' empathy as a sociopath.. but then that's the reason for being a sociopath apparently? So which came first.

/I just mirroring what I experience guys... Let's move on.

SheFiend

I don't believe in souls. I've no reason to. I'm amazed at some of the comments here, and it's an interesting debate so I by no means want to insult anyone. But some comments seem to come from educated people, and yet seem to suggest that it's more scientific minded to believe in something that you can't disprove, as opposed to withholding belief until it can be proved?

Sindri

A soul in my opinion, or what is mistaken for one, is simply the mind and all that that entails, which is quite a bit but I'm not arsed listing it. Think unconscious and preconscious, metacognition, memory, secondary consciousness and and a host of others but particularly one's unconscious impulses, or memories, that are the basis of the formation and foundation of the personality.

SheFiend

I assumed the word 'soul' was being used to describe a person's identity or personality being able to survive death.

LH Pathe

The soul is essentially the spirit. Whether we like it or not we all have one, just as they are one and the same however there's mean spirits n bad souls. what we need to dispel is the notion that it might be flying about peoples heads, long after we've died like dome sort of willo the wisp and can be summoned for cash

I do salutations, might lay the table for two hell I may even catch myself occasionally talking to someone long since passed but that's just acknowledgment of somebody long since dead. whose qualities might be required or that I just happen to miss - you have a soul majority in denial get over it. But do you have soul.. ah.

/or as someone said here, you are a soul

SheFiend

LH Pathe wrote: »

The soul is essentially the spirit... you have a soul majority in denial get over it. But do you have soul.. ah.

Do you believe your soul / spirit will survive death?

LH Pathe

SheFiend wrote: »

Do you believe your soul / spirit will survive death?

-no it'll die with me.

Kidchameleon

builttospill wrote: »

The word "soul" pisses me off. It's essentially a buzzword ala "energy" to describe a host of characteristics that are actually formed in the brain. Back in primitive times when very little was known about the brain, people would automatically think that any kind of courage, emotion or morality etc a person had came from their "soul"- a simple, religious explanation for something they couldn't fathom. Well no, all these things are born out of the complexities of the brain so there is absolutely no such thing as a soul-just one's brain which makes us tick on a spiritual level.

Soul is just a nice airy-fairy word to sum up all of these emotions. I mean can someone tell me where it can be found or will I be given a load of astral mumbo jumbo that is in no way tangible with science?

Maybe. But until somebody recreates it in a lab ill keep on beliveing I have a soul.

bnt

Doc Ruby wrote: »

How would you redefine soul, genuinely?

You seem to be hung up on this question of definitions, but that's just a distraction. You don't have to define something exactly before you can say "I don't believe that"; belief is not a default position, to be taken unless there's a reason to disbelieve.

Earlier on you said something like "you can't define life", to which I say "so what?" Maybe you have to define something before you can "believe" in it, but you don't have to "believe" in life: like gravity, it exists regardless of what we believe or not. It is not contingent on our beliefs. The proposition is supported by evidence, not belief.

Go ahead and define a "soul", if you like, and if you can. It will take more than a definition to make me believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence. This is standard theist tactics: raise interesting-sounding theological questions, tell us the questions are important, and that we have to answer them. But the questions themselves are founded in a theology that is itself divorced from reality. Well: they're your questions, not mine, and I don't accept the unspoken assumptions behind them - and so I feel no obligation to spend any time and energy in trying to answer them.

tommy2bad

bnt;
Go ahead and define a "soul", if you like, and if you can. It will take more than a definition to make me believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence.

The point of a definition isnt to convince anyone of the existence of something, it's so we can agree on what we are talking about.
Then we can argue about the evidence.
Christian Theists define a soul thus "The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated."
Not the most precise definition but as far as they are willing to go.
I don't think the idea of a soul separate and distinct from a body is possible or worth anything anyway. So if we 'have' a soul we have it no more than we have life. We are souls body mind and spirit if you want to add an unnecessary codicil thats your choice. Personally I believe once body and mind are present spirit is no more that repeating the seperate soul idea.

Maximus Alexander

tommy2bad wrote: »

"The soul brain may be defined as the ultimate internal principle organ by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated."

Funny that.

Akrasia

Dr. Manhattan wrote: »

In fairness, the thread would have floundered without them.

Could we please stop all this trawling (trolling, geddit)and stick to the topic?

No, we don't have a soul, our minds and personalities and everything that makes us who we are, are products of our genes, experiences, physical well-being and environment.

The proof of this is that people who have their brain chemistry changed through injury or medication can act in a way that is completely out of character to the person he/she used to behave.

If people had a soul that could somehow survive death, then the 'essential characteristics of our personality' shouldn't be so dependent on the physical environment our bodies inhabit.

unless of course, we want to redefine soul so that it is meaningless (ie, a soul is 'some part of you that continues to exist after death' which could be interpreted as anything from the atoms that used to make up your body, to the artifacts of your life that live on in the memories of others and the consequences of actions you took in life, to some kind of wishy washy 'energy' that you allegedly had that allegedly continues to exist intact without your body

Moses G. Washington

Ole MGW got soul.

Snowie

i thought I did but I get a ginger beard

blaze1

I sold mine to the devil and the price was cheap.

tommy2bad

Akrasia wrote: »

Could we please stop all this trawling (trolling, geddit)and stick to the topic?

No, we don't have a soul, our minds and personalities and everything that makes us who we are, are products of our genes, experiences, physical well-being and environment.

Can we also include all the actions and interactions we have , the complete picture needed to make a 'person'

Akrasia;
unless of course, we want to redefine soul so that it is meaningless (ie, a soul is 'some part of you that continues to exist after death' which could be interpreted as anything from the atoms that used to make up your body, to the artifacts of your life that live on in the memories of others and the consequences of actions you took in life, to some kind of wishy washy 'energy' that you allegedly had that allegedly continues to exist intact without your body

Which is a dualistic approach and non Christian and nonsensical.

KeithAFC

Do all those millions of fish caught every year have souls? Its a nice idea though.

old hippy

I've got soul but I'm not a soldier.

Canis Lupus

old hippy wrote: »

I've got soul but I'm not a soldier.

Little late there...

Maximus Alexander

old hippy wrote: »

I've got soul but I'm not a soldier.

That's already been posted in this thread. And every thread that mentions the word soul. Not to mention it doesn't even make sense.

I've got ham but I'm not a hamster.

old hippy

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That's already been posted in this thread. And every thread that mentions the word soul. Not to mention it doesn't even make sense.

I've got ham but I'm not a hamster.

Apologies, too damn lazy to read entire thread. Who really cares about our souls, mind?

tommy2bad

KeithAFC wrote: »

Do all those millions of fish caught every year have souls? Its a nice idea though.

Well yes, every living thing is a soul. Stop with the Plato.