If the soul forms at conception, then how do twins, triplets, etc. factor in?

[AV1611VET]

So how do they feel about heart transplants? Does the soul swap residences like some kind of ethereal hermit crab? - or is it binned with the old heart?

My GUESS is that the new heart gets programmed by the brain.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My GUESS is that the new heart gets programmed by the brain.

But I asked about the soul.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I asked about the soul.

It swaps residence.

 

[blackribbon]

So the personality never changes... unless the personality changes?

Let me say this again, I believe THE PERSONALITY doesn't change....just the ability to EXPRESS it changes when a person is sick in certain ways or has brain damage.

The simpliest way to explain this is take a person who is able to speak clearly....then break their jaw and wire their mouth shut....their ability to communicate changes but they don't change nor does what they want to say....heal and unwire the mouth, and they can communicate again. If there is permanent damage, like the tongue is half-gone, then they will never communicate the same way but who they are and what they have to say, doesn't.

Same with the brain...only now it is the brain that is malfunctioning due to illness (reversible) or damage (permanent change)

 

[blackribbon]

The claim about souls entering at birth, was specifically about a birth of an alive baby. It was even mentioned specifically that the soul enters "with the first breath of air".

That was never my claim...and I was just addressing the question from my viewpoint.

 

[blackribbon]

I'ld say that the fact that brain state can alter a personality, means that personality in general is determined by the brain.

So when's the last time that you "observed" a soul?

I hear a lot "I believe..." which are then "supported" by bare claims.

Do you understand why I don't find any of this even remotely convincing?

I don't think I have to convince you because you aren't wanting to find believe in a soul. As an atheist, it would mean that your belief system is wrong and you aren't wanting to find the existence of a soul.

You hear a lot of "I believe" because they are only just now starting to scientifically study the presence of a soul. Interesting enough, the medical world is interested in this and they have seen enough evidence to want to study this. What kind of proof do you want? You are right, at this point it doesn't exist. We are left with theory only. However, I find that there are very few atheists in the medical professionals that deal in specialties where people face life and death frequently. They have seen too many things that they can't explain naturally or biological.

I did quote the verse that said God knows us before we are even in the womb. To me that is my evidence. And I back it by what I have observed. And yes, I do believe I have "seen" or met a few people's souls....in the very ill or very old patients when they are beyond the ability to communicate. I am a night nurse so I deal with people who are dying in the quietness of the night. I also do postpartum nursing and get to see the new-ness of a soul in a baby only hours old. I talked to my husband's soul when he was dying. No proof but I have no doubt that I did. Luckily, I don't need for you to believe me or be convinced.

 

[blackribbon]

Where exactly?
Last time I checked, the heart is a muscle that pumps blood.

My son actually just had a checkup at the cardiologist. I watched the cute little dude's heart on the monitor. All I saw was a muscle, pumping blood.

Did you see the electrical activity on the monitor? Since I know you didn't, does that mean it doesn't exist or wasn't there?

Did you see the heart muscle being oxygenated or the waste material being carried away? (this is not part of the blood being pumped through the heart) Does it mean it wasn't happening because you didn't see it?
Luckily, you doctor sees things that you don't and uses more than the monitor to see them. Nobody "sees" the electrical activity but it can be measure so we know it is there. The soul is kind of the same except we don't have anything to measure it yet...we know it is there just like the electrical activity of the heart existed before the invention of the ECG.

But I don't believe the soul is primarily attached to the heart...it is just an organ and an organ that fails easily. I believe it is connected to the brain and the personality and the psyche....not the neurological part of the brain).

 

[Waggles]

So, before being born, the body isn't a "person" but just a soul-less meatbag. Therefor, abortion does not harm a person.

A baby is still a person. A child. If permitted to be born then they will receive the spirit of God and
become a living soul (body & spirit). But they are still a human child.
Every child, every baby in the womb has the moral right to be given life and to become a child not
only of their parents, but also of God the Creator.

Of course abortion harms (kills) a person - the child within the womb fully dependent on the
nurturing of their mother even til after birth.
Describing our prenatal children as less than human is akin to the depravity of the Nazis and Communists
who happily slaughtered millions of people who they deemed as not worthy of life (for a greater cause).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let me say this again, I believe THE PERSONALITY doesn't change....just the ability to EXPRESS it changes when a person is sick in certain ways or has brain damage.

The simpliest way to explain this is take a person who is able to speak clearly....then break their jaw and wire their mouth shut....their ability to communicate changes but they don't change nor does what they want to say....heal and unwire the mouth, and they can communicate again. If there is permanent damage, like the tongue is half-gone, then they will never communicate the same way but who they are and what they have to say, doesn't.

Same with the brain...only now it is the brain that is malfunctioning due to illness (reversible) or damage (permanent change)

The problem with that viewpoint is that it is indistinguishable from the far more parsimonious idea that personality is solely a function of the brain; it raises more problems than it purports to explain (not least the Problem of Interaction) which means it has no explanatory power, there is no evidence in its favour (quite the opposite), and it is illogical, as below.

For example, taking the TV analogy - you can tell a TV is a signal receiver and transducer because when you damage it, the picture or sound becomes degraded - but the plot of the movie, the gender of the news presenter, or the cast of the sitcom, don't change. Can you suggest any facet of the soul's influence that can be observed not to change, whatever the brain injury?

 

[blackribbon]

The problem with that viewpoint is that it is indistinguishable from the far more parsimonious idea that personality is solely a function of the brain; it raises more problems than it purports to explain (not least the Problem of Interaction) which means it has no explanatory power, there is no evidence in its favour (quite the opposite), and it is illogical, as below.

For example, taking the TV analogy - you can tell a TV is a signal receiver and transducer because when you damage it, the picture or sound becomes degraded - but the plot of the movie, the gender of the news presenter, or the cast of the sitcom, don't change. Can you suggest any facet of the soul's influence that can be observed not to change, whatever the brain injury?

The tv is not a fair comparison because it isn't alive and can't build new ways to communicate. It is all or none. It doesn't try to find ways to communicate when the normal way stops nor does it have a need to communicate.

As for my my theory about personality changes in brain damaged people is NOT illogical but no, I don't work in neurology so I can't prove it. I have said all along that it is my theory. Also, it is completely separate from my theory that personality and soul are connected. It is consistent with my theory that the soul and personality are connected.

All I can say is that I work with people who are very ill - those who display changes in character and personality and go back to normal, people with histories of brain damage (who often express how frustrated they are when they don't respond appropriately or "normal" in their opinion), and people who are dying. I have said all along that my opinions are just that and based on my personal experiences.

I also believe that you used the word "parsimonious" incorrectly because I can't find a definition of that word that makes any sense but I don't think that soul or personality are attached to the brain and do exist beyond the time the brain stops function....I just believe that the brain is somehow where they connect or attach to the body.

I am not a student of philosophy so I can't discuss the Problem of Interaction. I only can discuss what I know about physiology and medicine and what I have experienced and observed. I know that no matter what state a person is (including close to brain dead), we are taught to talk to them like they are there. And one of my husband's doctors (Medical Director of the Brain & Spine Center at MD Anderson Cancer Hospital) told me to always keep talking to my husband because "hearing" was the last sense to go...and I observed him explaining the details of a procedure (and apologizing for the pain it would cause) to my husband even after he told me he believed my husband to be brain dead.

Your lack of experience with working with people who are dying and doubt don't negate my experiences and what I believe. At this point, neither can be proven so we are each free to believe what we want. However, when you are dying some day, I sincerely hope that you get medical care from people who believe as I do because it would be kind of sad to be neglected because you were dying and "what does it matter" how we treat you if you are going to be dead and completely non-existent in a day or two anyway. If dead is dead, who cares if you die in your own feces or completely alone anyway?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The tv is not a fair comparison because it isn't alive and can't build new ways to communicate. It is all or none. It doesn't try to find ways to communicate when the normal way stops nor does it have a need to communicate.

True enough, but that doesn't really address the question - the point of the analogy.

As for my my theory about personality changes in brain damaged people is NOT illogical but no, I don't work in neurology so I can't prove it. I have said all along that it is my theory. Also, it is completely separate from my theory that personality and soul are connected. It is consistent with my theory that the soul and personality are connected.

You don't have to prove anything or work in neurology to give a reasoned argument.

I also believe that you used the word "parsimonious" incorrectly because I can't find a definition of that word that makes any sense...

In the context of explanations, parsimony means frugality or simplicity; a more parsimonious argument invokes fewer ontological entities - it's the concept behind Occam's Razor (i.e. don't multiply entities beyond necessity).

In the context of this discussion, I'm arguing that the soul is a redundant entity - it is not necessary to explain the observational evidence; if we posit activity of the brain as the source of personality, damage to the brain adequately explains changes in personality, and (partial) recovery of the brain adequately explains (partial) recovery of personality. A soul is neither necessary nor observed. What explanatory or predictive value does it have?

... I don't think that soul or personality are attached to the brain and do exist beyond the time the brain stops function....I just believe that the brain is somehow where they connect or attach to the body.

Yes, your belief is evident, but I'd like to hear some justification or reasoned counter to my argument (above). This is, after all, the Physical & Life Sciences forum; if I was to say something is 'magic', I'd expect to be challenged on what that means and how I propose that it works.

I am not a student of philosophy so I can't discuss the Problem of Interaction.

You don't need to be a student of philosophy to explain how you think something apparently immaterial and undetectable can influence the physical function of the brain; we know what the brain is made of (cells made of protons, neutrons, and electrons), we know how they interact, and we know the forces that can affect them and are relevant at human scales (electromagnetism, gravity). If you were to suggest that the soul could be an electromagnetic phenomenon, that would have implications: why can't it be detected? how it could continue after death? what power source does it use? how does it maintain it's structure or pattern? As it happens, electromagnetism isn't a plausible candidate, but the questions remain.

I only can discuss what I know about physiology and medicine and what I have experienced and observed. I know that no matter what state a person is (including close to brain dead), we are taught to talk to them like they are there. And one of my husband's doctors (Medical Director of the Brain & Spine Center at MD Anderson Cancer Hospital) told me to always keep talking to my husband because "hearing" was the last sense to go...and I observed him explaining the details of a procedure (and apologizing for the pain it would cause) to my husband even after he told me he believed my husband to be brain dead.

That's good practice, but how is it relevant to the discussion?

Your lack of experience with working with people who are dying and doubt don't negate my experiences and what I believe.

Of course not - so?

At this point, neither can be proven so we are each free to believe what we want.

Of course we are, but a discussion is not just each person asserting their beliefs; that would be very boring. What evidence or argument do you offer to support your assertions and/or counter the argument I gave?

However, when you are dying some day, I sincerely hope that you get medical care from people who believe as I do because it would be kind of sad to be neglected because you were dying and "what does it matter" how we treat you if you are going to be dead and completely non-existent in a day or two anyway. If dead is dead, who cares if you die in your own feces or completely alone anyway?

Seriously? Consider the mirror argument, that if a person's essence (or whatever) detaches from the body and continues on in a soul after death, the body has then become just an empty vessel, no longer of interest. If the body is dead and the soul has moved on, who cares how it's treated?

Both views naively fail to acknowledge the realities of the situation (and appear irrelevant to a discussion about soul and personality).

Humans are social, emotional beings; the dying are generally treated with care and respect because they're not dead, to ease possible suffering for them, and make their last hours as comfortable as possible; for those involved, it's a time of deep cultural significance, often rich with ritual, tradition, and emotion. What happens to the body after death varies hugely between cultures and contexts, from simple and immediate disposal to elaborate rituals over days or weeks.

But you'll have to explain how that's relevant to a discussion about whether the personality resides in an independent soul or is a product of brain activity, because it sounds like a complete red-herring to me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It swaps residence.

OK; is that your personal opinion, or do you have an authoritative source?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK; is that your personal opinion, or do you have an authoritative source?

That is my personal opinion.

 

[SPF]

It's said that we gain a soul the moment an egg is fertilized. Fair enough.

But I just had a thought: twins, triplets, etc. arise when the developing egg splits into several different ones. So if the soul forms at conception, does it suddenly split up into two or three souls as the twins or triplets develop? Did the initial egg suddenly contain multiple souls at conception so they multiple babies were alike in mind for a time until the split happens?

Christians have used the phrase "life begins at conception" because conception is generally understood as the absolute beginning of a human life.

In the case of identical twins, obviously we know scientifically now that only 1 life was actually created at the initial point of fertilization. The principle doesn't change though. We would simply say that 1 human life was created at the moment of conception, and a second human life was created when the cells split into the second.

The principle is that all human life is morally valuable from its beginning - however that beginning may have occurred.

 

[wndwalkr99]

It makes no theological sense.

But biologically, it makes perfect sense and is no mystery at all.

Hmm.

It's said that we gain a soul the moment an egg is fertilized. Fair enough.

But I just had a thought: twins, triplets, etc. arise when the developing egg splits into several different ones. So if the soul forms at conception, does it suddenly split up into two or three souls as the twins or triplets develop? Did the initial egg suddenly contain multiple souls at conception so they multiple babies were alike in mind for a time until the split happens?

(Feel free to move this if it's in the wrong section, I posted it in Physical and Life sciences because, well, it's about the miracle of life. XD)

It's said that we gain a soul the moment an egg is fertilized. Fair enough.

But I just had a thought: twins, triplets, etc. arise when the developing egg splits into several different ones. So if the soul forms at conception, does it suddenly split up into two or three souls as the twins or triplets develop? Did the initial egg suddenly contain multiple souls at conception so they multiple babies were alike in mind for a time until the split happens?

(Feel free to move this if it's in the wrong section, I posted it in Physical and Life sciences because, well, it's about the miracle of life. XD)

 

[wndwalkr99]

Quite poetic isn't it?

Poetic. Doesn't make it true.

 

[wndwalkr99]

I've heard at various points that many are pro-life because a person gains a soul at the moment of conception.

What is a "soul"?

 

[wndwalkr99]

We call that the age of accountability.

Adults are saved by grace through faith.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Small children are saved by grace through innocence.

Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

What is "faith"? How do you define it, in this context?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is "faith"? How do you define it, in this context?

It is the belief that Jesus Christ, as God in the flesh, sacrificially died on the Cross for the redemption of our sins; and that all we have to do is acknowledge that we are sinners, believe that Jesus died and rose again, and place our trust in Him as our Lord and Saviour.

This is what we call the Romans Road:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

You can do it in the privacy of your own thoughts. Just pray and admit you're a sinner, be willing to repent of your sins, and ask God to save you.

Done!

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 

[JackRT]

Poetic. Doesn't make it true.

No it doesn't but truth is sometimes better conveyed poetically.