Please Explain a Soul

[Resha Caner]

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.

Cool.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I get the time example, I really do...and I think it would maybe apply to some other words as well. I don't think it applies here though, since I really have no idea what you or anyone else means by the words "soul" or "spirit". Like your example says, we all understand those usages of time, no one seems to agree on a soul.

Take when a christian says to me, "your soul will burn in hell forever.". Ok...without nerve endings is that even going to hurt? Without a brain, will I know I'm in hell? It's all rather empty and meaningless with some understanding of that and although this thread now has over 700 views...I haven't seen one person try to answer.

If I had to wager why, I'd say they want to avoid the obvious follow-up question "how do you know?"

 

[Resha Caner]

Take when a christian says to me, "your soul will burn in hell forever.". Ok...without nerve endings is that even going to hurt? Without a brain, will I know I'm in hell? It's all rather empty and meaningless with some understanding of that and although this thread now has over 700 views...

If someone has actually made that statement to you, they were out of line. With that said, I think you know very well what they were saying. When you make statements like this, I can't believe you're doing anything more than playing games.

I haven't seen one person try to answer.

And statements like this are an outright falsehood.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If someone has actually made that statement to you, they were out of line. With that said, I think you know very well what they were saying. When you make statements like this, I can't believe you're doing anything more than playing games.



And statements like this are an outright falsehood.

You should check your own answers before you say my statement is a falsehood. Show me where you explained if a soul can "see, smell, feel, think, taste, hear" as I explicitly asked in the OP. You didn't. Care to retract that ad hominem?

If the best you can do is insist that somehow I implicitly know what you...or anyone else...means by the term "soul", then I'll just consider you giving up on any meaningful explanation at all. I shouldn't really have to respond to someone whose best response is "liar liar pants on fire."

Edit: the funniest part of this is you use "soul" as others seem to use "spirit" and vice versa...and you're attempting to argue that somehow I understand what you mean by each term.

 

[Resha Caner]

You should check your own answers before you say my statement is a falsehood. Show me where you explained if a soul can "see, smell, feel, think, taste, hear" as I explicitly asked in the OP. You didn't. Care to retract that ad hominem?

I gave my understanding of soul, and then, rather than repeat this question to me, the flow of the conversation switched to spirit. I assumed you considered the question answered. Even if it was not, you can't say I didn't try.

Do you want to resume then? If so, I must insist we address the types of issues I've been trying to raise. It will help me understand your expectations. For example, what thing is it in the human body that you think has these perceptions? Does the eye see? All by itself as a "thing"? Independent of the brain?

If the best you can do is insist that somehow I implicitly know what you...or anyone else...means by the term "soul", then I'll just consider you giving up on any meaningful explanation at all. I shouldn't really have to respond to someone whose best response is "liar liar pants on fire."

I was referring to the phrase you quoted: "your soul will burn in hell forever." You have absolutely no idea what someone is trying to convey with that phrase? They could mean you're going to get a free puppy tomorrow for all you know?

Edit: the funniest part of this is you use "soul" as others seem to use "spirit" and vice versa...and you're attempting to argue that somehow I understand what you mean by each term.

From the beginning I've said the Biblical usage doesn't provide the specificity you likely desire. Further, I was very clear that my explanation was my usage of the words.

I am aware of how others sometimes use the word. Even though I am aware of these varied usages, they don't seem to confuse me as much as they do you. As such, I've also offered to discuss how you or anyone else perceives those words. I don't see what the issue is.

 

[poolerboy0077]

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.

Moved onto what? What epistemology are you operating under and what is your justification?

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.

You appear to reference the Bible as though we deem it authoritative. We do not. We may if you are able to provide warrant. Are you able to? Moreover, in what sense are narrative methods effective?

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.

Examples and analogies can provide a useful tool to communicate logical structures that may be otherwise go unnoticed by persons who are not very plugged in to relevant information being discussed. They do not by themselves provide justification. After all, anyone can offer a logically valid argument in which the conclusion follows validly from the premises without the premises necessarily being true.

I doubt you ask someone who says they love you to prove it scientifically - to explain how it would be falsified.

The analogy here isn't very good considering that, while love could in a sense be studied biochemically (we can measure dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, etc.), the ontologically subjective experience of love (i.e., the "qualia" experienced by a given individual) differs from an external phenomenon not tied to first-person subjective experience. The limitation in higher cognitive sciences is that, aside from brain scans and the like, researchers depend in large part on the communication of experience by the subject to other parties. That doesn't render us unable to prove anything scientifically, it simply presents a limitation in our confidence for certain claims. We can take the amalgam of biochemistry, behavior, and reports to compare them against one another, compare them against other subjects, and make an inference to the best explanation. The explanation, then, would have to be falsifiable; in other words, it must be such that you can, in principle, conceive of evidence that, if they existed, could disconfirm it.

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.

Why bridge them in the first place? To me it appears as a confirmation bias of sorts.

Ready?

Go ahead.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I gave my understanding of soul, and then, rather than repeat this question to me, the flow of the conversation switched to spirit. I assumed you considered the question answered. Even if it was not, you can't say I didn't try.

Do you want to resume then? If so, I must insist we address the types of issues I've been trying to raise. It will help me understand your expectations. For example, what thing is it in the human body that you think has these perceptions? Does the eye see? All by itself as a "thing"? Independent of the brain?



I was referring to the phrase you quoted: "your soul will burn in hell forever." You have absolutely no idea what someone is trying to convey with that phrase? They could mean you're going to get a free puppy tomorrow for all you know?


From the beginning I've said the Biblical usage doesn't provide the specificity you likely desire. Further, I was very clear that my explanation was my usage of the words.

I am aware of how others sometimes use the word. Even though I am aware of these varied usages, they don't seem to confuse me as much as they do you. As such, I've also offered to discuss how you or anyone else perceives those words. I don't see what the issue is.

Sorry...your definition for soul, which stands in contrast to the other two answers given, amounts to the word "self"...which doesn't exist after death. Your use of the term spirit...which also stands in contrast to the other two given, is entirely abstract and meaningless.

If you want to know how an eye transmits images to the brain, pick up a biology book. I'm asking if your "spirit" can see without eyes and you're just dodging the question.

If you think the bible answers my question, and that's what you believe, by all means...quote your bible passage.

The issue is when you call me a liar for pointing out you actually don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about when you use the term "spirit" (or what everyone else has called a "soul").

Edit: no, I don't understand what someone means by "your soul will burn in hell"...not just because soul is a meaningless concept...but hell and heaven ultimately are as well. I'd rather keep this as simple as possible at the moment and stick with "soul/spirit" for now.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry...your definition for soul, which stands in contrast to the other two answers given, amounts to the word "self"...which doesn't exist after death.

It seems you've basically got it. You're right that as I use it the soul does not exist after death.

"Self" is not a bad synonym for "soul". In fact, I checked dictionary.com, and they note the two as synonyms. So you understand "self"? Hmm. Interesting. I'll take note of that. Others have told me it sounds as if I'm describing "mind", but that never seemed quite right to me. So let me ask you a few questions, then:

1) Do you think "mind" and "self" are the same thing?
2) Do you think it is valid for people to talk of a "self"? If so, why is the word "soul" a problem for you? It's just a translation of the Hebrew nephesh (or Greek psyche).
3) You might ask: why not just translate nephesh as "self"? My answer would be because the root meaning of that Hebrew word has symbolic meaning (as I mentioned before). Are you interested in knowing about that?

Your use of the term spirit...which also stands in contrast to the other two given, is entirely abstract and meaningless.

We never finished that conversation. But I begin to wonder if I'm trying too hard. Maybe, as with soul, I can find something much simpler to get this across to you.

If you want to know how an eye transmits images to the brain, pick up a biology book. I'm asking if your "spirit" can see without eyes and you're just dodging the question.

Sigh. No, I'm not. I thought it might help. My answer is no. No, the human spirit, once it leaves the body, cannot sense anything. It's not even the "self" anymore. That requires the resurrection of the body (1 Corinthians 6:14).

So, as simply as I can put it, when the "spirit rests in God" I interpret that to mean He will remember us ... that He will keep his promise to resurrect us.

no, I don't understand what someone means by "your soul will burn in hell"...not just because soul is a meaningless concept...but hell and heaven ultimately are as well.

OK, I'll help you out then. They're saying you will be eternally punished. However, let me repeat that it is improper for them to say that. Only God can judge your eternal fate. Further, AFAIK, the Bible never uses that specific term, so I believe it's also an unBiblical phrase.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems you've basically got it. You're right that as I use it the soul does not exist after death.

"Self" is not a bad synonym for "soul". In fact, I checked dictionary.com, and they note the two as synonyms. So you understand "self"? Hmm. Interesting. I'll take note of that. Others have told me it sounds as if I'm describing "mind", but that never seemed quite right to me. So let me ask you a few questions, then:

1) Do you think "mind" and "self" are the same thing?
2) Do you think it is valid for people to talk of a "self"? If so, why is the word "soul" a problem for you? It's just a translation of the Hebrew nephesh (or Greek psyche).
3) You might ask: why not just translate nephesh as "self"? My answer would be because the root meaning of that Hebrew word has symbolic meaning (as I mentioned before). Are you interested in knowing about that?



We never finished that conversation. But I begin to wonder if I'm trying too hard. Maybe, as with soul, I can find something much simpler to get this across to you.



Sigh. No, I'm not. I thought it might help. My answer is no. No, the human spirit, once it leaves the body, cannot sense anything. It's not even the "self" anymore. That requires the resurrection of the body (1 Corinthians 6:14).

So, as simply as I can put it, when the "spirit rests in God" I interpret that to mean He will remember us ... that He will keep his promise to resurrect us.



OK, I'll help you out then. They're saying you will be eternally punished. However, let me repeat that it is improper for them to say that. Only God can judge your eternal fate. Further, AFAIK, the Bible never uses that specific term, so I believe it's also an unBiblical phrase.

You can forget the term soul...I only used it because such definitions vary so widely. Yours is your own and entirely natural, so I'm not concerned with it. It's the abstract supernatural concepts I'm concerned with. If you want to see what I understand of "self" you can look into my thread "A Quantifiable Self" in.this section...I think it explores the concept quite nicely.

My problem with your description of the term "spirit" lies mainly in the contradictions you've used. You said it was the "vital principle in life". I said it was conceptual then? You said no...then provided a definition of principle which is conceptual. I pointed that out...then you equated it with words that are entirely non-conceptual. If you can describe it another way, please do ...but I would suggest you be sure first of the difference between what's conceptual and what isn't.

If you believe that a spirit cannot sense anything...how would it, say, suffer eternally? Wouldn't existing as a spirit be about the worst case scenario regardless of where it went?

 

[Resha Caner]

Moved onto what? What epistemology are you operating under and what is your justification?

I tend toward instrumentalism. Science gives us the best model it can, but nothing ever provides a perfect correlation. As such, I see no justification for calling it anything other than a model.

You appear to reference the Bible as though we deem it authoritative. We do not. We may if you are able to provide warrant. Are you able to? Moreover, in what sense are narrative methods effective?

I don't know what "we" you are speaking for, but I have no expectation that you take the Bible to hold authority over you. However, if you're actually interested in knowing the Christian usage of soul/spirit it is the authority on that subject.

I think you answered your own question about the effectiveness of narrative methods in your next paragraph.

The analogy here isn't very good considering that, while love could in a sense be studied biochemically (we can measure dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, etc.), the ontologically subjective experience of love (i.e., the "qualia" experienced by a given individual) differs from an external phenomenon not tied to first-person subjective experience. The limitation in higher cognitive sciences is that, aside from brain scans and the like, researchers depend in large part on the communication of experience by the subject to other parties. That doesn't render us unable to prove anything scientifically, it simply presents a limitation in our confidence for certain claims. We can take the amalgam of biochemistry, behavior, and reports to compare them against one another, compare them against other subjects, and make an inference to the best explanation. The explanation, then, would have to be falsifiable; in other words, it must be such that you can, in principle, conceive of evidence that, if they existed, could disconfirm it.

I think you should give this speech to your significant other on Valentine's Day. I'm sure it will be received as quite romantic.

Why bridge them in the first place? To me it appears as a confirmation bias of sorts.

How so? Are you not interested in understanding Christian usages of the words soul/spirit?

Go ahead.

Well, let's first check if what helped Ana will help you. If I say "self" is a close synonym for "soul" does that answer the question for you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If I say "self" is a close synonym for "soul" does that answer the question for you?

You also said you didn't have trouble understanding what others meant by soul or spirit. Then you said this...

"I was referring to the phrase you quoted: "your soul will burn in hell forever." You have absolutely no idea what someone is trying to convey with that phrase? "

Do see the problem with the claims you're making? To you, the phrase "your soul will burn in hell forever" shouldn't make any sense to you either. You don't believe a soul exists after death.

 

[Resha Caner]

You can forget the term soul...

Then I'll take your answer to my 3rd question as "no". And I didn't expect lengthy answers to the first 2 questions, but maybe you feel they required a long answer.

My problem with your description of the term "spirit" lies mainly in the contradictions you've used. You said it was the "vital principle in life". I said it was conceptual then? You said no...then provided a definition of principle which is conceptual. I pointed that out...then you equated it with words that are entirely non-conceptual. If you can describe it another way, please do ...but I would suggest you be sure first of the difference between what's conceptual and what isn't.

Apparently your discussion with daniel777 on that matter wasn't satisfactory. I'm debating whether it is an unnecessary diversion or not to debate one word "principle" in order to get at the meaning of another "spirit".

I guess I'll skip it for now, but I suspect it's an issue that may haunt us since you seem to be insisting that the supernatural is only a concept (and I'm assuming you're using "supernatural" as a synonym for "spiritual").

If I'm not going to use "vital principle" I'm answering off the cuff here, and we may have to go around a few times before I'm sure the words properly convey my intent. Let's try this: spirit = the cause of life.

If you believe that a spirit cannot sense anything...how would it, say, suffer eternally? Wouldn't existing as a spirit be about the worst case scenario regardless of where it went?

As I'm using the term, human spirits don't suffer. As I've said, the body will be resurrected, and it is the body that will suffer (or experience paradise).

 

[Resha Caner]

Do see the problem with the claims you're making? To you, the phrase "your soul will burn in hell forever" shouldn't make any sense to you either. You don't believe a soul exists after death.

It almost seems like you're forcing yourself to not understand simply because you disagree with the statement in some way. I can disagree with the statement and still understand what the speaker intends.

It goes back to "brightlights" comment on usage.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then I'll take your answer to my 3rd question as "no". And I didn't expect lengthy answers to the first 2 questions, but maybe you feel they required a long answer.



Apparently your discussion with daniel777 on that matter wasn't satisfactory. I'm debating whether it is an unnecessary diversion or not to debate one word "principle" in order to get at the meaning of another "spirit".

I guess I'll skip it for now, but I suspect it's an issue that may haunt us since you seem to be insisting that the supernatural is only a concept (and I'm assuming you're using "supernatural" as a synonym for "spiritual").

If I'm not going to use "vital principle" I'm answering off the cuff here, and we may have to go around a few times before I'm sure the words properly convey my intent. Let's try this: spirit = the cause of life.



As I'm using the term, human spirits don't suffer. As I've said, the body will be resurrected, and it is the body that will suffer (or experience paradise).

Daniel777 declined to answer my last question to him. I asked him if he could tell conceptual from not. He didn't answer so I took that as him understanding my point.

As for the cause of life...I think we can explain that quite well without a spirit...but if you can elaborate, please do. While you're at it...

Please tell me what resurrection entails...that won't make a whole lot of sense without an explanation either.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It almost seems like you're forcing yourself to not understand simply because you disagree with the statement in some way. I can disagree with the statement and still understand what the speaker intends.

It goes back to "brightlights" comment on usage.

Well since your usage is demonstrably different...which one is correct?

 

[poolerboy0077]

I tend toward instrumentalism. Science gives us the best model it can, but nothing ever provides a perfect correlation. As such, I see no justification for calling it anything other than a model.

I don't take much issue with this. Most scientists I know would agree that certain assumptions are made in science: that there's an objective reality, that the universe operates according to regularities, and that human beings can learn about and understand these regularities, etc. I think the distinction between instrumentalism and realism is a useful one to make a mental note of but it's needlessly pedantic for what we're discussing here. It reminds me of E-Prime. Sure, it's more accurate to say, "The grass appears to be green" as opposed to "it is green" but I also operate using practical knowledge, so the point distracts us from the meat and potatoes of this topic.

I don't know what "we" you are speaking for, but I have no expectation that you take the Bible to hold authority over you.

Ana is an atheist as well. I'm making the reasonable assumption she doesn't take the Bible as authoritative in matters of empirical science.

However, if you're actually interested in knowing the Christian usage of soul/spirit it is the authority on that subject.

Not if it's not a useful to form valid predictions and testable results.

I think you answered your own question about the effectiveness of narrative methods in your next paragraph.

I think you should give this speech to your significant other on Valentine's Day. I'm sure it will be received as quite romantic.

That response seems rather silly. If we want to understand, say, what constitutes a flower, one approach is to look at its molecular constituents. I'm not suggesting that that's the only way we can speak about flowers and that we've deflated their aesthetic importance to us. That would be asinine. Likewise, of course I wouldn't use the same language for a loved one the way I would speak in a scientific context. That's like asking someone whether they'd ever call anyone they care about "obese" (assuming they are) to their face when talking about the reality of obesity. This reeks of a red herring.

"Effectiveness" to me in this context isn't about sensitivity to feelings. That matters to me in an entirely different context. Here I'm trying to pin down natural phenomena using the most useful of epistemologies.

How so? Are you not interested in understanding Christian usages of the words soul/spirit?

Not in this context, no. In another context in which I was curious to learn about the beliefs of different faiths, perhaps, but here I'm interested in spirits as a supposedly naturally-occurring phenomenon.

Well, let's first check if what helped Ana will help you. If I say "self" is a close synonym for "soul" does that answer the question for you?

If that's all you mean by it I'd prefer you proceed by using the term "self" instead of "soul," given that the latter carries much baggage.

In talking about the self, many neuroscientists, like Bruce Hood, have pointed out that the self is illusory. Illusions are subjective experiences that are not what they seem, but are nonetheless mental manifestations rather than external phenomena. I'd be curious to see your take on what you know about the science of the self and your take on such claims.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't take much issue with this. Most scientists I know would agree that certain assumptions are made in science: that there's an objective reality, that the universe operates according to regularities, and that human beings can learn about and understand these regularities, etc. I think the distinction between instrumentalism and realism is a useful one to make a mental note of but it's needlessly pedantic for what we're discussing here. It reminds me of E-Prime. Sure, it's more accurate to say, "The grass appears to be green" as opposed to "it is green" but I also operate using practical knowledge, so the point distracts us from the meat and potatoes of this topic.



Ana is an atheist as well. I'm making the reasonable assumption she doesn't take the Bible as authoritative in matters of empirical science.



Not if it's not a useful to form valid predictions and testable results.




That response seems rather silly. If we want to understand, say, what constitutes a flower, one approach is to look at its molecular constituents. I'm not suggesting that that's the only way we can speak about flowers and that we've deflated their aesthetic importance to us. That would be asinine. Likewise, of course I wouldn't use the same language for a loved one the way I would speak in a scientific context. That's like asking someone whether they'd ever call anyone they care about "obese" (assuming they are) to their face when talking about the reality of obesity. This reeks of a red herring.

"Effectiveness" to me in this context isn't about sensitivity to feelings. That matters to me in an entirely different context. Here I'm trying to pin down natural phenomena using the most useful of epistemologies.



Not in this context, no. In another context in which I was curious to learn about the beliefs of different faiths, perhaps, but here I'm interested in spirits as a supposedly naturally-occurring phenomenon.



If that's all you mean by it I'd prefer you proceed by using the term "self" instead of "soul," given that the latter carries much baggage.

In talking about the self, many neuroscientists, like Bruce Hood, have pointed out that the self is illusory. Illusions are subjective experiences that are not what they seem, but are nonetheless mental manifestations rather than external phenomena. I'd be curious to see your take on what you know about the science of the self and your take on such claims.

I'm a guy.

 

[JGG]

Blind Post: Just read about the soul in a Christian "apologist" book as the emotional/cognitive essence of a being.

I don't know how that fits, or how that is different from the mind.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I'm a guy.

Apologies.

That's what I get for gender stereotyping.

 

[Resha Caner]

As for the cause of life...I think we can explain that quite well without a spirit...but if you can elaborate, please do.

As I said, I'd have to think on it more. "cause of life" is close, but "the essence that sustains life" might be slightly better.

Still, I find your reply odd. If you accepted the phrase "cause of life" as a definition of spirit, then how are you going to explain life without that? Are you saying life has no cause?

To better clarify, let me try this to explain what I'm hearing:
1. spirit = cause of life
2. spirit is not needed to explain life
3. Therefore, no cause is needed to explain life

Please tell me what resurrection entails...that won't make a whole lot of sense without an explanation either.

Resurrection is the creation of a body that embodies a self which has previously died. In other words, the resurrection of John means John died, but John now has a new body.

Well since your usage is demonstrably different...which one is correct?

Hmm. I think I understood brightlights' post, and didn't have any major objections to it. I imagine, however, that we might differ in the particular definitions we would assign to the words soul & spirit. I, of course, prefer mine. If I didn't I would change.

I can guess where you're going with this, but I think we're about to lose the forest for the trees, and I think I encouraged that problem.