Please Explain a Soul

[AECellini]

your spirit sounds like the "vital force"

Vitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Resha Caner]

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.

IMO it's not a red herring. Are you familiar with the TV show The Big Bang Theory? One of the central premises of that show is how people with a scientific world view deal with human relationships. In that regard, the character of Sheldon Cooper is often portrayed as the best scientist but also the one least capable in people skills. He's the butt of many jokes on the show because he "doesn't get it." Of course TV exaggerates, but at the same time the reason it's funny is because it so closely matches my experiences with real engineers.

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.

The phrase "naturally-occurring" is throwing me. So you want to capture a spirit out in the wild somewhere and test it like a lab rat?

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.

Whether or not I do that depends on the context of the conversation. What you consider baggage may carry significant symbolic meaning for me.

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.

As I said, I am quickly underwhelmed by the qualitative musings of scientists in this area. Neuroscience has it's uses. IMO, finding the "self" is not one of them.

In general I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla - unless it's my mother's recipe for home-made vanilla ice cream. And actually, given a choice between chocolate ice cream and potato chips, I would probably choose the chips ... but that depends on the weather. I'd probably lean toward the ice cream on a hot day.

I consider that part of my "self". Is what I just said all illusory? I don't really have those desires? Could Dr. Hood scan my brain while I'm thinking about all those things and extract that information?

I think it would be much easier to just ask me.

 

[Resha Caner]

your spirit sounds like the "vital force"

There are some similarities, but I would reject a lot of the pagan and New Age ideas surrounding vitalism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Apologies.

That's what I get for gender stereotyping.

No problem. You're not the first...or likely the last.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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




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.



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.

1. spirit = cause of life
2. spirit is not needed to explain life
3. Therefore, no cause is needed to explain life

3 follows 2, but 2 doesn't follow 1. In fact, if 2 is correct...we don't even need 1.

That's a cute definition of resurrection. How does that happen...since you made it clear the self (soul) is gone with the physical body. Does it involve time travel...or magic perhaps?

 

[Resha Caner]

1. spirit = cause of life
2. spirit is not needed to explain life
3. Therefore, no cause is needed to explain life

3 follows 2, but 2 doesn't follow 1. In fact, if 2 is correct...we don't even need 1.

I was asking if you agree with 3. My sequence was probably too brief, so I'll repeat it in more detail.

1. Caner's statement: spirit = cause of life
1.a. Ana implictly (though not explicitly) accepted that definition.
2. Ana's statement: spirit is not needed to explain life
2.a. Using 1. to substitute "cause of life" for "spirit" yields
3. A cause of life is not needed to explain life

Do you agree with #3?

That's a cute definition of resurrection. How does that happen...since you made it clear the self (soul) is gone with the physical body. Does it involve time travel...or magic perhaps?

I assumed you would realize that it is God who will resurrect. I'm sure you do consider that magic, but the simple explanation is Jeremiah 29:11. God has plans for us just like an engineer has prints for the machine he's going to build.

 

[brightlights]

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.

Well may I suggest that you still use the concept in daily conversation without using the term? If someone hurts your feelings and you say: "I am hurt by that statement" you're not talking about your physical person. Yet we all know what you mean. Nothing about your brain or your body was damaged by an offensive statement. Something else about you was damaged. The term "soul" is getting at that thing.

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.

I'd first of all like to say that the "burning in hell" language is highly symbolic. While I do affirm the biblical doctrine of hell, the "fire" is simply imagery. Few serious students of the Bible believe in a literal burning. This would almost be inconceivable. This all is, of course, besides the point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was asking if you agree with 3. My sequence was probably too brief, so I'll repeat it in more detail.

1. Caner's statement: spirit = cause of life
1.a. Ana implictly (though not explicitly) accepted that definition.
2. Ana's statement: spirit is not needed to explain life
2.a. Using 1. to substitute "cause of life" for "spirit" yields
3. A cause of life is not needed to explain life

Do you agree with #3?



I assumed you would realize that it is God who will resurrect. I'm sure you do consider that magic, but the simple explanation is Jeremiah 29:11. God has plans for us just like an engineer has prints for the machine he's going to build.

Uhhh...we've had a breakdown of communication here. I didn't implicitly agree with anything. 2 is your statement...not mine. 3 only follows because you defined "cause" as "spirit". So if you rewrote it as "A spirit isn't needed to explain life." You would be correct. However, that's what makes premise 1 entirely unnecessary and unfounded.

I'll have to look up Jeremiah, but please remember, when I asked...

"So you don't believe a soul exists after a physical death?"

You said no. Now you're changing that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well may I suggest that you still use the concept in daily conversation without using the term? If someone hurts your feelings and you say: "I am hurt by that statement" you're not talking about your physical person. Yet we all know what you mean. Nothing about your brain or your body was damaged by an offensive statement. Something else about you was damaged. The term "soul" is getting at that thing.



I'd first of all like to say that the "burning in hell" language is highly symbolic. While I do affirm the biblical doctrine of hell, the "fire" is simply imagery. Few serious students of the Bible believe in a literal burning. This would almost be inconceivable. This all is, of course, besides the point.

In your first portion, you seem to equate the soul with feelings. Is that about correct?

I was actually unaware that a literal hellfire isn't taken seriously. Why is that?

 

[Resha Caner]

Uhhh...we've had a breakdown of communication here. I didn't implicitly agree with anything. 2 is your statement...not mine.

I'm not saying you accepted that the spirit exists, just that you accepted my definition of it. And, if you chase back through the chain, #2 is based on the quote below. But ... never mind.

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

I'll have to look up Jeremiah, but please remember, when I asked...

"So you don't believe a soul exists after a physical death?"

You said no. Now you're changing that?

No.

 

[Davian]

...
As I said, I am quickly underwhelmed by the qualitative musings of scientists in this area. Neuroscience has it's uses. IMO, finding the "self" is not one of them.
...

What would to suggest as an alternate methodology for exploring the workings of the brain, if neuroscience is not up to the task?

 

[Resha Caner]

What would to suggest as an alternate methodology for exploring the workings of the brain, if neuroscience is not up to the task?

I would suggest using neuroscience to study the brain - and that primarily for medical reasons. I wouldn't suggest using neuroscience to address the example I gave in my post. But maybe you'll enlighten me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not saying you accepted that the spirit exists, just that you accepted my definition of it. And, if you chase back through the chain, #2 is based on the quote below. But ... never mind.





No.

I'm sorry, that just seems to negate all of christianity. Now you're saying (again) the soul doesn't exist after physical death. What difference to me (or anyone) would it make if it isn't my soul in my newly created resurrected body that gets to enjoy heaven or suffer hell? That would make faith, salvation, redemption and all the rest of it rather pointless, wouldn't it?

 

[Davian]

I would suggest using neuroscience to study the brain - and that primarily for medical reasons. I wouldn't suggest using neuroscience to address the example I gave in my post. But maybe you'll enlighten me.

I did not say that you did. "Just asking you" is not a methodology.

What would you suggest as an alternate methodology for exploring the workings of the brain, if neuroscience is not up to the task? What methodology would you use to explore and describe the "self"?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm sorry, that just seems to negate all of christianity. Now you're saying (again) the soul doesn't exist after physical death. What difference to me (or anyone) would it make if it isn't my soul in my newly created resurrected body that gets to enjoy heaven or suffer hell? That would make faith, salvation, redemption and all the rest of it rather pointless, wouldn't it?

This is a very interesting reply. Are you familiar with Star Trek and the ongoing debate that Spock and Dr. McCoy used to have about the transporter? The idea of the transporter was that the computer disassembled the body of the person (basically killed them), and then assembled an exact replica in the new location. Exact. Same personality, same memories, same exact physical structure - just maybe using different electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. to do it.

Spock always took the position that it was the same person. McCoy took the position that it wasn't, and objected to having to use the transporter.

So, you're taking McCoy's position here. Why exactly is there some kind of discontinuity here such that the resurrected body is not you?

 

[Resha Caner]

What would you suggest as an alternate methodology for exploring the workings of the brain, if neuroscience is not up to the task? What methodology would you use to explore and describe the "self"?

Two different questions, and I've answered them both.

 

[Davian]

Two different questions, and I've answered them both.

Where?

 

[Resha Caner]

Where?

#82 and #92. You didn't like my answer.

 

[Davian]

#82 and #92. You didn't like my answer.

You'll have to enlighten me. I do not see any alternative methodologies in either of these posts.

Unless, by "methodology" you would think of geology as "looking at rocks".

 

[Resha Caner]

You'll have to enlighten me. I do not see any alternative methodologies in either of these posts.

I didn't suggest an alternate methodology. That was what you wanted. I suggested a way to get an answer ... though I guess I'm not sure what I would call getting an answer if it's not a methodology.

So, are you suggesting that an invalid method is better than just asking me if I want chocolate ice cream?