Please Explain a Soul

[daniel777]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. You're talking about the word "principle"? Why would a principle have to be anything but conceptual to talk about non-conceptual things?

soul... or any word really.

i was basically making the point that if, as you say:
something is conceptual, it cannot exist outside the mind.
then
if
something exists outside the mind, it isn't conceptual.

however,
since we cannot exist outside of our own mind, we cannot know of anything that isn't conceptual (or at least we can only approach non-conceptual things conceptually).

we solve this by allowing the same word to refer to both conceptual constructs and "real" things.

It's true that a concept and a "real" thing aren't "actually" the same, but who cares? You can't talk about one without implying other.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually, some physical laws describe conservation - the conservation of energy or mass, which can't be created or destroyed. So, when a boiling pot of water starts to cool (the temperature drops) it's not just an interaction. Energy "departs" the water. The heat energy transfers from one material substance (water) to another (air). When a body dies, the spirit transfers from one being (the person) to another (God) - Luke 23:46. Maybe you are still hung up on the words I'm using. I'm using analogies because I'm not trying to make the claim that a spirit is energy. The concepts are similar in some ways, but I'm not trying to appropriate physics to justify what a spirit is. I'm just saying that I don't see it as something that physics would say is impossible.

Sure, but the energy itself is a thing. The principle describing it's movement is a concept. Either way, it sounds like you think it's entirely non-physical.

 

[Ana the Ist]

soul... or any word really.

i was basically making the point that if, as you say:
something is conceptual, it cannot exist outside the mind.
then
if
something exists outside the mind, it isn't conceptual.

however,
since we cannot exist outside of our own mind, we cannot know of anything that isn't conceptual (or at least we can only approach non-conceptual things conceptually).

we solve this by allowing the same word to refer to both conceptual constructs and "real" things.

It's true that a concept and a "real" thing aren't "actually" the same, but who cares? You can't talk about one without implying other.

I'm still not sure what you're saying. What do you mean "we cannot exist outside our own mind" as it equates to knowing something is or isn't conceptual? Do you really not understand the difference between a concept and what isn't? If you do...how?

 

[Ken-1122]

I have the same thoughts about the nature of experience.

Why would you have such thoughts?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Because we do not know much.

We know a lot about ourselves.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Well to be honest if such a person was "looking at the spirit" and presented an alternative explanation for it's presence/existence - that would be interesting and I would personally welcome that. In this particular case I do think that proof of the spirit requires faith rather than science ..... and thus perhaps it is more about acknowledging it's existence (through faith) rather than proving it's existence scientifically. If the spirit can be proven scientifically I would look forward to that achievement. (Although my understanding would maintain that we are spiritual beings created in God's image).

So belief in spirits require faith? Outside of religion, is there anything that indicates to you that spirits actually exist?

I do apologize - you did refer to the spirit and not the soul. Sorry, my mistake. My understanding is .... that would not be a role/function/purpose of the spirit.

So what is the role/function/purplse of the spirit? Do you have control of your spirit? Do spirits sleep when you sleep? Do they die when you die? are they born when you are born? Injured when you become injured?

Ken

 

[daniel777]

Why would you have such thoughts?

Ken

when i was still in school, i had to write a few pages about the elusiveness of consciousness and experience as part of a paper discussing psychological research methods. there's a lot to talk about there...

 

[juvenissun]

We know a lot about ourselves.

K

Fine. So you know you have no soul. Fine with me.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sure, but the energy itself is a thing.

What do you consider to be a "thing"? There is no energy without something to store it in some way (kinetic or potential) and there is no thing that does not have some energy (kinetic or potential). AFAIK even ideas like vacuum energy are usually accompanied by a virtual particle. If one cannot exist without the other, are they really separate things? IOW, is energy really just a property of a thing and not a thing itself?

So, I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make by calling energy a thing. There are interactions between the spirit and the body. If there weren't, I don't see that there would be any sense it calling it the vital principle (element, constituent, part, component, substance) of life.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What do you consider to be a "thing"? There is no energy without something to store it in some way (kinetic or potential) and there is no thing that does not have some energy (kinetic or potential). AFAIK even ideas like vacuum energy are usually accompanied by a virtual particle. If one cannot exist without the other, are they really separate things? IOW, is energy really just a property of a thing and not a thing itself?

So, I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make by calling energy a thing. There are interactions between the spirit and the body. If there weren't, I don't see that there would be any sense it calling it the vital principle (element, constituent, part, component, substance) of life.

Well, although thoughts and principles are themselves things, in regards to this conversation, I'm referring to that which exists outside the mind as a "thing".

Calling something a principle, and then using words like "element" or "substance" just seems really contradictory to me. They aren't remotely the same. Not even close.

 

[poolerboy0077]

These supposed souls seem to run counter to what we already know about ourselves and about consciousness generally. We know that if we damage one part of the brain we lose certain information. For example, if we damage the fusiform gyrus, we cease to recognize faces but we can still recognize everything else. So we can continue to damage more and more of the brain and yet more information is lost, but we're to believe that if we damage the whole thing at death, consciousness just leaps out of the brain, with all of our faculties in tact, recognize our relatives and speak English. It really does take faith to arrive at a position that runs entirely counter to all the facts we currently have discovered about ourselves.

No. In keeping with the computer analogy from before, the program won't run unless you plug in the computer. It needs the electrical power.

The spirit is what powers - what vitalizes life.

There's no need for this spirit to vitalize our life. We have tangible, external sources of energy to keep us alive (e.g., air, food, water, etc.). Moreover, our human brains wouldn't need to exist if spirits kept our thoughts and animated our bodies, providing motor functions and such. Our brains have to be incredibly large to be able to perform this complex phenomenon called consciousness but it has to be so large that it kills 1 in 5 women who give birth without modern medicine. That's really messy design. It's also very inefficient. It's a huge hog that sucks up tons amount of oxygen just to feed it and it's also vulnerable to injury. If we had spirits we wouldn't need brains and God certainly would need to design and give us any. If a God exists, then obviously a mind can exist without a body. So too could we be designed thusly.

 

[Resha Caner]

There's no need for this spirit to vitalize our life. We have tangible, external sources of energy to keep us alive (e.g., air, food, water, etc.).

This comment seems a reasonable challenge to what I said. The rest of it doesn't really apply.

Even then, I'm not quite sure what your objection is (or Ana's for that matter). Suppose I tell you I think a body in motion has fuinneamh. Are you going to disbelieve me or tell me I'm wrong?

 

[brightlights]

Countless times on here I've seen the term "soul" and "spirit" used almost interchangeably...and without any real explanation for what they mean. The clearest understanding I have, is that a soul is some part of you that exists apart from your physical self (as in, a supernatural part of a person).

Frankly, this sounds awful. Without eyes, ears, nerves, a tongue, a nose...and all the other rather nice physical bits of myself, I'd just be some thinking "essence" without any real sensory experience. Does this actually sound good to anyone? Would you want to exist as this? Am I way off here? If so...please correct my understanding...but before you do...consider please...

If a soul has access to all the sensory experiences we have and enjoy in our physical bodies, just what is the point of having a physical body? Wouldn't we all be better off as souls?

Just for reference, I don't believe in the soul, or spirit, but I'm curious how those who do reconcile this.

An excellent question as the term is often used ambiguously and inaccurately in conversation. I'll give what I see to be the biblical perspective:

Body and soul (or spirit, the two words are synonymous) are two different perspectives on the human being. The human is essentially a physical body. God created the body and the body is good. Christian hope is in the resurrection of the body rather than a disembodied existence as a pure spirit.

But to describe a person in terms of their body does not say all there is to say about them. This is where language of soul or spirit comes in and this language describes the personality.

The two things cannot ultimately be separated. The soul depends on the body and the body depends on the soul. They both contain the other. What affects the soul affects the body and what affects the body affects the soul. In the resurrection the whole person -- body and soul -- will be restored.

But what about when we die? What does the Bible say about that? It's a bit mysterious, but somehow when you die you are truly dead. Your person is in the ground (body). But also you are "with the Lord". Your person is with him (soul). This is not a normal or ultimately desirable state of existence and so ever those who are dead and "with the Lord" are awaiting the resurrection of the body when their whole person will be restored.

So soul and body are two ways of describing the human person.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Even then, I'm not quite sure what your objection is (or Ana's for that matter). Suppose I tell you I think a body in motion has fuinneamh. Are you going to disbelieve me or tell me I'm wrong?

I think the analogy is not a good one because while you just made up "fuinneamh" on the fly, we do have some background knowledge of what souls or spirits mean. So my objections make assumptions about what others mean by the terms. If I misrepresented them you're free to correct them and give details. Did my last response misrepresent those terms?

 

[Resha Caner]

I think the analogy is not a good one because while you just made up "fuinneamh" on the fly ...

Actually, I didn't. It's a Gaelic word, so it has its background as well. I don't know how much you've read of this particular thread, so I don't know what background you have WRT the current conversation just as I don't know how much background you have in Gaelic.

I'm not anxious to repeat the whole thing, but maybe that's where we're headed.

... we do have some background knowledge of what souls or spirits mean.

There is some, but IMO it's muddled.

We have 2 options here. We can discuss the background you're familiar with, and I can comment on whether or not it actually fits with my Lutheran faith ... in my experience most of these types of things don't.

Or, we can discuss what I mean by those words - which, again, would require considerable back-tracking unless you're willing to read the whole thread.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Actually, I didn't. It's a Gaelic word, so it has its background as well. I don't know how much you've read of this particular thread, so I don't know what background you have WRT the current conversation just as I don't know how much background you have in Gaelic.

From a cursory search I made it seems the word simply means energy, vigor or spirit, so essentially it's replacing English words we're already discussing, which we admitted were nebulous and vague, for ones in other languages.

Or, we can discuss what I mean by those words - which, again, would require considerable back-tracking unless you're willing to read the whole thread.

Let me see if I can collect the main thrusts here:

"My view is that the soul is material; a manner for associating information with meaning (what I call a plexus); and further a collection of those plexuses along with the rules for their operation and manipulation. In simple terms, I would consider it the programming language for the mind.

"I equate the mind with the rational, whereas the soul also includes the emotional and instinctual - the personality and memories. Those are the other plexuses (the other programs) of the soul.

"Maybe you are still hung up on the words I'm using. I'm using analogies because I'm not trying to make the claim that a spirit is energy. The concepts are similar in some ways, but I'm not trying to appropriate physics to justify what a spirit is. I'm just saying that I don't see it as something that physics would say is impossible."
​

I'm wondering how you came to these explanations. Are these empirical observations? What would be needed in order to falsify them?

 

[Ana the Ist]

An excellent question as the term is often used ambiguously and inaccurately in conversation. I'll give what I see to be the biblical perspective:

Body and soul (or spirit, the two words are synonymous) are two different perspectives on the human being. The human is essentially a physical body. God created the body and the body is good. Christian hope is in the resurrection of the body rather than a disembodied existence as a pure spirit.

But to describe a person in terms of their body does not say all there is to say about them. This is where language of soul or spirit comes in and this language describes the personality.

The two things cannot ultimately be separated. The soul depends on the body and the body depends on the soul. They both contain the other. What affects the soul affects the body and what affects the body affects the soul. In the resurrection the whole person -- body and soul -- will be restored.

But what about when we die? What does the Bible say about that? It's a bit mysterious, but somehow when you die you are truly dead. Your person is in the ground (body). But also you are "with the Lord". Your person is with him (soul). This is not a normal or ultimately desirable state of existence and so ever those who are dead and "with the Lord" are awaiting the resurrection of the body when their whole person will be restored.

So soul and body are two ways of describing the human person.

As much as I appreciate the answer you, and I guess only a few others dared to give, I'm rather underwhelmed. These answers are so nebulous they almost lack any real meaning or understanding of the words. I suppose that's better than nothing...but no one has even tread near the OP's questions. If it's a simple "I don't know", I'd at least understand that. This is almost like claiming to know, but unable to explain.

 

[Resha Caner]

As much as I appreciate the answer you, and I guess only a few others dared to give, I'm rather underwhelmed.

This makes a good preface for a reply to poolerboy. I am equally underwhelmed by the explanations of scientific realists - especially in the qualitative areas of biology and psychology. Part of the reason is that I used to be a scientific realist, and it was the failure of that philosophy that caused me to move on.

I don't know your philosophy of science (or poolerboy's), but I often encounter here what seems to be realism. With it comes a realist expectation of Christianity. But my position is largely that I don't think energy is as solidly defined as people think it is, and as such I think it unfair to expect me to provide a scientific explanation of spirit that asks more than what is asked of energy. I'll remind you that my area of focus is mechanics. I work in terms of energy all day long. It has been rigorously developed and defined in mathematical terms, but it remains a principle. Equating it to a "thing" in the real world is not going to be as easy as some may think.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm wondering how you came to these explanations.

First, I hope you read my reply to Ana in the previous post. Second, as I said to Ana early on, the Bible doesn't define soul and spirit as explicitly as you would probably like. The Bible largely teaches through narrative methods - methods which are very effective, and which the Western obsession with science and logic seems determined to shed.

And yet notice in every discussion where a definition is requested how people will resort to examples to shore up their definition - a narrative method.

Answering through narrative doesn't mean something is not real - not material. I often use human relationships as an example. I doubt you ask someone who says they love you to prove it scientifically - to explain how it would be falsified. Or when your friend talks about a father you've never seen, you don't ask for material evidence of their father before you'll allow them to continue talking about him.

So, how did I come by these explanations? They are my attempt to bridge the gap between the narrative explanations in the Bible and what I perceive to be a demand for scientific realism. I think it's an unreasonable demand, but it's better to have the conversation and see if I can help your understanding than to have no conversation at all.

Are these empirical observations? What would be needed in order to falsify them?

So, when we distill life down to its constituents, what we can observe is largely a matter of chemistry ... and that chemistry is largely described in terms of mechanics - forces and energy - even though there are some nuanced differences.

As such, it is possible there is a connection between spirit and energy. I'm not saying spirit is energy, and I'm trying to avoid giving you some hippie answer ... Wow, man, like I totally feel your energy.

But what I'm proposing is this: If we discuss something you probably think you're familiar with (material, force, energy), I think I can easily draw analogies between those concepts and spirit to help you understand. You'll also have to accept that as I draw those analogies, I'll be pointing you to Bible verses that I think demonstrate the principle I'm trying to explain.

Ready?

 

[brightlights]

As much as I appreciate the answer you, and I guess only a few others dared to give, I'm rather underwhelmed. These answers are so nebulous they almost lack any real meaning or understanding of the words. I suppose that's better than nothing...but no one has even tread near the OP's questions. If it's a simple "I don't know", I'd at least understand that. This is almost like claiming to know, but unable to explain.

This is basically the case but this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. This is more a problem with language than it is with the concept. Wittgenstein noticed this problem with language and suggested that understanding a word is about being able to use it, not being able to define it.

Similarly, Augustine said: "What is time? When I think about it, I know. But when asked about it, I don't know." We regularly use language that we can't clearly define. When I say: "I'm running out of time" or "make sure that you're ready on time" or "what time is it?" everyone understands what I mean. But when I ask: "what is time?" when I try to get at the essence of time I don't really know what to say.

This doesn't mean that time isn't a real or meaningful concept. It means that understanding language doesn't have to do with being able to define it, but being able to use it.