"If soul doesnt exist, it dont matter..."

[GrimKingGrim]

I certainly do also, and glad you are civil minded in this way. So we differ from the animals, what is that difference? In asking I clearly agree we do, but want to qualify the difference from your viewpoint.

The fact we're highly aware cognitive beings who're aware of who and what we are. Not many animals come close outside of chimps and even they're a longshot off. This is what makes us special.

I have also - did you find the medical doctor helpful? - I have found psychotherapist or pastoral minister helpful in a quite different manner, without dismissing the medical doctor's time-limited help and understanding of medication.

I was weary of quoting the full thing because I never saw a doctor for depression. I should have pointed that out. My bad.

Well in themselves people differ as you are well aware, hence there would be different records for each patient. It differentiates a human being who condition is not due merely to biological or chemical or organic factors, from one who condition is. But even in both cases both patients can be called souls.

I'd use the word "human" in lieu of souls but we both can agree that a medical condition, gene deformity, etc. does not make someone a lesser or greater human and we're all pretty much the same.

Understanding that people are souls doesn't make one treat them less than human. It allows one greater insight into those conditions that are outside the domain of the medical doctor - this is my point.

It puts an unnecessary middleman between you and the person. What you describe as the soul is just the person themselves. Saying it's a soul just takes value away from the person.

I don't hold the soul and the body to be neatly separate however. But since its part of humanness to be a soul, I don't see why someone would deny it.

Never established. How does one obtain and lose a soul?

Most of the problems people are having come from a only partial recogition of the soul and its capacities to some extent it seems to me, loss of understanding of our humanness.

*Humanity. The word is humanity and no we're fully aware of it. And what capability does the soul have? Again it doesn't even have a solid definition

 

[grasping the after wind]

If anyone would like to define what they meant by "soul" it might make conversation less incoherent.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I'd say it's the equivalent to the force in Star Wars. Completely unexplained and used as filler for oddities.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Since he is non existent you can do neither of those things.

Ok but the concept still exists and he or she is an analogy of you, in a "language game" and "thought experiment"....

For instance I hereby apologise for the all too violent (gun slinging) imagery in the OP (remember shoot or kiss). The "karmic image" or "enmnegram" or "pyschological imprssion" remains a bit dodgy.

I am doing some "soul searching" here...

So heres my attempt at reprogramming the OP:

1 - via major lazer - lean on (blow a kis, fire a gun, we all need somebody to lean on)

and 2 - via jimmy hendrix - hey jo (where you going with that gun in your hand - i caught my society messing round with alien self concepts)



Which do you prefer, beloved denizens of CF?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqeW9_5kURI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3JsuWz4xWc

Where is your "soul" now, where does your karma take you? See image below for healing power, or does it turn you "off" in terms of being positive minded?


Are you going to feel blessed by beauty or cursed by over imagination (even if you dont believe in the supernatural, you may well at least probably have a hint of cognizance of "blessing" and"cursing" - benign or malign causes and effects). Boromir an ear...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If anyone would like to define what they meant by "soul" it might make conversation less incoherent.

Logical Positivism then? I think Wittnegstein would say in his later days that is has a role in a language game, and therefoere meaning. Even if is has a "mythological" (or even invisible pink unicorn like) existence, it can still be part of a conceptual and cultural schematic.

Look inwards, dear friends...

People may individually mean various things by "soul" but it tends to relate to enduring elf or self or even health concept, as the debil destroys the soul, and also relates to self awareness, mental powers etc.

Not of the "external material existence" but ot the inward, psychiological and "ethereal" - that which cannot draw a picture or take a photo of directly. So please dont snap, take a better angle... clicking to the vibes is better for your health.

Your move.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ding dong ding dong, wheres your hippocampus gone??


The hippocampus (named after its resemblance to the seahorse, from the Greek ἱππόκαμπος, "seahorse" from ἵππος hippos, "horse" and κάμπος kampos, "sea monster") is a major component of the brains of humans and other vertebrates. Humans and other mammals have two hippocampi, one in each side of the brain. It belongs to the limbic system and plays important roles in the consolidation of information from short-term memory to long-term memory and spatial navigation. (wikipedia)

 

[Davian]

Logical Positivism then?
...

Try for a definition that is falsifiable, if not testable.

I'll wait.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Try for a difintion that is falsifiable, if not testible.

I'll wait.

Share that popcorn!

Thanks

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Definitions of cosciousness belong to or derive from metaphysics ultimately. I think so anyway.


There are correlates to consciousness, like brain activity, and correlates to brain activity, like consciousness. But it is neather testable not falsifiable that brain acivity is identical to consciousness.

Of course you have identiy theorists, but they belong to philosophy, not to science. Many contemporary philosophers say that it is in fact irreducible.

You cant discuss first preson in the third, and make them equal. There will always be a leap of faith in asserting identity.

Of course, it may not be "that much of a faith" in your minds, considering that theres a close association between matter and consciousness. But even "matter" itself is a postulate, or a posit, which may be overcome with further insight.

So there we have it, what is the issue remaining? I imagine that in another context, where you werent "up against a theist" and "agruing against the soul concept", you would readily agree to much of what I have to say, but presently you have "motivated reasoning" and "confirmation bias" etc in favour of antagonising the religious interpretation of cognitive life...

So, there cant be a falsifiable definitition of consciousness, just as we cant falsify "this is a dream" etc. This idea of testability and falsifiability has been mooted to some degree by the "quine duhem" thesis, which states that the groundwork assumptions of science cannot really be proven, they belong to philosophy, and are always contingent and open to error etc.


I think we have multiple lines of evidence relating the brain to consicousness all the same. But materialistic absolutiism, thats just another fallible position. Of course its inductivelty strong I suppose, in the web of cognitive life. I just dont go to the extreme of presuming its infallible, or all we really have. That type of example is self referential and biased. Even if it does help cure dementia, depression etc - that utility does not annihilate the alternatives. That woul be pragmatism, its true because it works, trying sweep our innate fallibility under the rug...

If we look at the issure from modal logic, and modal onology, in one possible world we have a soul and in one possible world we dont. There can be no "verifiying" (etc) which one we are actually in. We have a horse race of betting on this and that mode of argument, philosophy, scientific this and that etc. But our fallibility in modal epistemology, for me, means to some degree we are rationally free from absolute constraints.

Its like a Kantian persopective on the noumanal, freedom, faith etc. There are no final proofs, we only have so much of a handhold, and the rest is open field where we plant our hopes and dreams. I never actually read Kant by the way.


Scientists say we may be in a VR simulation for example. Or a "Multiverse". Ok therse are putatively material things, but compared to the view of 100 years ago, they are vastly more "magical" than previous scientists could have imagined. Thats where, from an inductive angle, I chhoose to accept that we "may" be souls. Its a leap of faith yes, but one also rooted in historical and even analytic philosophy style perspectives.


People often say philosophy has to catch up with science. But lests not forget the philosophical path(s) scientists choose to tread.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Other than that I am going to have to try and quit these debates. My mind is not strong enough to take on all comers.


Final thoughts, if there is an unfalsifiable or free aspect to reality, in that we mould our world view to some degree a priori with regards to the absolute nature of things especially - then this is is a sense the "paranormal" aspect of reality.

Even atheistic materialism is paranormal, becuase anthough it subsumes experience into its frameworks, these themselves cannot be tried and testedin a scientific fashion. The branch we choose to sit on cannot be its own ancestor. Science is nutritious, and great, but it is one amongst many forms of sowing and reaping, technically speaking. In the geneology if life it is a great way, yet only one amongst many, often interconnected like ivy and branch in an ecological web of "life gardens" at the budding tips of our chosen path....

Thus metaphysically, in our cognitive approach to what is, we have "bounded rationality" (see wikipdedia), not only with regards to the mundane, but also philosophically as we create our relaity on the conceptual level to some degree as we sow and reap in experience.

Lets face it though, we are also bonded unto a empirical domain of experience, whatever its "christian name", and there are of course places where the incurables go until they die. But "absolute madness?", nay, its more like the voice of social acceptability in the guise of objective reason. What does death prove, when we are all mortal? Well, we are limited at least.

Yet, we learn of good and evil, and the good tends towards that which "binds" us better to the world we live in. Thus our rationality is in some sense free, but so is our being constrained in a feedback loop. Beliefs have consequences (under most models of action which are going to help us survive) , but I believe I will survive better under paranormal type B, i.e. theistic rather than non theistic life. At present. At least.

IIRC Russel askes Wittgenstein if he could know whether there was a dragon behind him, to which he answered in the negative. I am arguing there could be a dragon before us, although we believe it not.

Its a silly and a sad thing to say in a sense, but to speak allegoriclaly I will mention that in China the dragon was identified with the skies. "All under one" - under the dragon firmament. UNder the masculine seed energy inseminating the "fruit bearing" earth. Our "spiritual skies" or mind-scape is plastic, clay, malleable metal, mouldable plasma - in a sense. As Heidegger poetically argued, the mythos precedes the logos. Even logic and math, are ultimately presumed to be true rather than fictional. We may not get by well withouth them, but as I said we all die in the end, or so it seems. The assesment of that probability approaches infinity at least, with every step we take...

We are, as biological lifeforms, autopoeitic systems. In a philosophical and religious sense too this is true. We "build worlds" like humble little masons, like miniature gods and godesses. Yet we also have to live in them, and experience the fruits of our labours.


I an not an anthropo-theist, a true "God-man" asserter, but more of a gap at the heart of being to mention a Sarterian phrase. From that gap comes the narrative, and then we can do the science, and not before. When would the robot overtake the master, or the child to rebel against its parent and leave home? We can never leave home, and our technology will remain our myth, if you see what I mean...


An effort of our will to power, our will to live.

I love the study of philosophy, science and faith, but I am choosing a path where it also loves the posit "me" as much as I do, or try to at least, as we all shoud in our fallible ways...


And yes I do believe in objective, absolute truth.


Fare ye well CF, and peace to people of good will etc <
~
GS


"That no bearer of burdens can canbear the burden of another. That man have nothing except what he strives for. That (the fruit) of his striving will soon come to sight. Then will he be rewarded with a reward complete." (Quran 53:38-41)

 

[NewEnglandGirl]

GrowingSmaller the "soul" is the combination of the spirit and the physical body according to the bible in Genesis. Our souls obviously exist! If it is spirit you speak of well I know that mine certainly exists. If you are a Christian you know this, that you are more than just the sum of your physical parts. If you are a "materialist" or "existentialist" then you never will accept the existence of a spirit as long as you hold those beliefs.

 

[dms1972]

I'd say it's the equivalent to the force in Star Wars. Completely unexplained and used as filler for oddities.

No I am not using the term "soul" it that way, and didn't realise this was what you thought people mean when they said "soul".

The definition i accept is not my own, but from CS Lewis : "a soul is that which can say 'I am' " (Note: its a misattribution that Lewis said "You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have body." He didn't say this or put things this way.

Also I can agree with the statement made by philosopher William Barratt: "The soul, is more inclusive, more encompasing than reason."

And with Thomas of Aquinas when he writes "the soul united with the body is more in the image of God than when separate..."

GrowingSmaller the "soul" is the combination of the spirit and the physical body according to the bible in Genesis. Our souls obviously exist! If it is spirit you speak of well I know that mine certainly exists. If you are a Christian you know this, that you are more than just the sum of your physical parts. If you are a "materialist" or "existentialist" then you never will accept the existence of a spirit as long as you hold those beliefs.

I agree with what NewEnglandGirl writes here, but want to ask what do you mean by "existentialist" - Kierkegarrd for instance did he not accept the existence of a spirit? Sartre I agree would have had a hard time with "spirit" in any christian sense.

 

[bhsmte]

Why should we care about our soul if it doesnt exist?

Well, lets say you dont have a near identical twin brother or sister, is it therefore ok for me to not give a damn about how i "treat him" or "treat her".

"Your soul doesnt matter, because it doesnt exist. And I am going to option A shoot... [or option B give a big loving kiss to...] your non existent twin too."

Fizzzoooo............

(put that cap on in the thought lab)...

And for your own safety please ensure youre not wired into the excrement detector.

You lost me.

What does whether a soul exists or not, have to do with treating people with respect or not?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks once again, for the assistance over this time. Moral and intellectual development. I'll try and keep your backs...

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you are a Christian you know this, that you are more than just the sum of your physical parts. If you are a "materialist" or "existentialist" then you never will accept the existence of a spirit as long as you hold those beliefs.

I agree that "you are more than just the sum of your physical parts". I am an emergentist -- parts can acquire new powers when they work together. That doesn't mean that I believe in anything supernatural, but rather that our emergent biological functions include the power to be consciously aware. One may call that "spirit", but that isn't a separate entity, but rather a power (or activity) of certain biological entities.

(Note: I'm not sure if I am a "materialist" in the sense you mean. I'm definitely not a reductive materialist.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[contratodo]

Perhaps the spiritual realm is experienced at or even above the speed of light.

Therefore we are inside of the spiritual realm, the speed of light being like a wall we can not get past.
Also, if at the speed of light there is infinite mass, then perhaps that is what is holding us down, that we are inside of the light somehow.

Death would therefore be much like a rollercoaster, you reach that peek and you know and feel like your about to start going very very fast.

 

[dms1972]

I agree that "you are more than just the sum of your physical parts". I am an emergentist -- parts can acquire new powers when they work together. That doesn't mean that I believe in anything supernatural, but rather that our emergent biological functions include the power to be consciously aware. One may call that "spirit", but that isn't a separate entity, but rather a power (or activity) of certain biological entities.

I dabbled in the emergentist notion for a while, but its a position I am moving away from, i came to it from a reductive approach, that I also now am moving away from, and towards the Genesis account of creation, since I have been given better theological resources to understand it - my mind baulked at the the term " made in the image of God" because I wanted it explained more adequately, and not having knowledge of were to look. Since then I found Philip Edgecumbe Hughes book "The True Image".

I don't have a problem with people using "person" but I think there are different and important nuances in the terms "soul" and "person" that mean treating them all as merely synonymous tends to gradually result in loss of meaning.

 

[contratodo]

soul - particles of light we have not yet learned to detect contained inside our blood/DNA.
body - physical matter, time, space, everything we can detect and measure.

When we die the particles of light inside our blood/DNA are able to transverse among the other particles of light already all around us, it is our physical body containing our blood, that stops our soul from interacting with the light.

 

[bhsmte]

soul - particles of light we have not yet learned to detect contained inside our blood/DNA.
body - physical matter, time, space, everything we can detect and measure.

When we die the particles of light inside our blood/DNA are able to transverse among the other particles of light already all around us, it is our physical body containing our blood, that stops our soul from interacting with the light.

How do you know this?

 

[lesliedellow]

How do you know this?

He doesn't. It makes me cringe when fundamentalists try to give religion a pseudo-scientific basis. It doesn't need it. It can stand on its own two feet.