Please Explain a Soul

[Ana the Ist]

Don't worry. I know you brought it up, but I'm not interested in making a point about the afterlife. That's not what intrigues me here.



OK. You shifted slightly. At first you were saying the first in precedence is you and any copies aren't. Now all you're saying that they are two different selves. But saying it's clear is not an explanation.

Why are they two different selves and not two instances of the same thing? I'm sure you don't want to say it, but it almost sounds as if you're saying there is some immaterial essence that makes you who you are.

Well it would only be a copy of "you" up to a specific time. Let's say that time is right "now". All your experiences, memories, etc, up to "now" are the same....after "now" obviously they wouldn't be. Maybe a week, a month, a year from now you seem like two very different people. The point is that there's two different selves. If the point to where they would be the same is called "now" or "death" or whenever makes no difference. After that point they would diverge.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well it would only be a copy of "you" up to a specific time. Let's say that time is right "now". All your experiences, memories, etc, up to "now" are the same....after "now" obviously they wouldn't be. Maybe a week, a month, a year from now you seem like two very different people. The point is that there's two different selves. If the point to where they would be the same is called "now" or "death" or whenever makes no difference. After that point they would diverge.

True. And that means the person you are now is not the person you were 10 years ago. Does that mean those two points in time represent different selves?

 

[Ana the Ist]

True. And that means the person you are now is not the person you were 10 years ago. Does that mean those two points in time represent different selves?

Yes. From ten years apart they.would appear very very different. Watched over the course of a lifetime, a constantly changing idea.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes. From ten years apart they.would appear very very different. Watched over the course of a lifetime, a constantly changing idea.

But are they different selves?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But are they different selves?

In what sense?

 

[Resha Caner]

In what sense?

Ha! OK, we can stop right there as far as I'm concerned. But, if you want, give me an answer for each of the different senses you're thinking of.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ha! OK, we can stop right there as far as I'm concerned. But, if you want, give me an answer for each of the different senses you're thinking of.

In the sense that "you" and "I" are different "selves"....no, they are not.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Actually, you're kinda making my point about why it is relevant. Quantifying love - giving an explanation of the associated chemical responses of the body - through empiricism or whatever means does not meet the request of the question, "Do you love me?" The question requires a qualitative response based on shared experience.

Not necessarily. At least not in principle. Maybe that's a limitation currently, but I don't think that's an inherent limitation. You would first have to operationalize the term "love" to get clear about what we mean and what markers are relevant so we can cross a threshold. We can't replicate the qualia, but that's true of any first-person, ontologically subjective experience. That doesn't mean we can never say anything empirical about a phenomenon. You can supplement the quantitative with qualitative data if you want it to be more robust, but qualitative alone will possibly not do it. I mean, you have to take someone's word on it, after all. They could be lying, which is why survey research has huge limitations.

In any event, are you suggesting the existence of a self cannot be arrived at empirically?

Exactly my point (except maybe the part about "naturally-occurring" that you haven't explained yet). Anyway, thanks. So what exactly is it you're asking to falsify?

Whether the self is an illusion or not. You seem to say it isn't, so I'm wondering what evidence, if it existed, would disconfirm that position?

So neurology has proven that autonomy and free-will are illusions? Hmm. That could settle a lot of debates on this forum. Please share.

Not neurology, neuroscience. I feel that would derail this thread and I'm also on my phone typing and pasting with my fingers, but I'll leave you with this:

Consider that physiologist Benjamin Libet famously used EEG to show that activity in the brain's motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move.

It is concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous, freely voluntary act can begin unconsciously, that is, before there is any (at least recallable) subjective awareness that a ‘decision’ to act has already been initiated cerebrally. This introduces certain constraints on the potentiality for conscious initiation and control of voluntary acts.
​

So brains can determine what you will do before you even are aware. You subjectively appear to have freedom to behave. Only moments after do we become conscious of our "decisions" and believe we are in the process of making them.

But again, this will derail the main topic.

 

[Exphabius]

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.

What I am about to present here are my own opinions, but to re-hash on some things let us look at the dictionary definitions of soul and spirit:

Soul
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4. the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5. a human being; person.

Spirit
1.the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2.the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3.the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4.conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5.a supernatural, incorporeal being, especially one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.

Ok, that given, proper internet research will reveal that the 'soul' is the 'immortal essence of a person'. I go a step further to suggest that the soul is the mechanistic vehicle (as imposed by God or the overseer) by which a manifestation of the mind, and mayhap, body is taken to a recipient new body so that one can pursue their afterlife(s). This from the point of death as then an amalgamation of the combined optimized peak intellect that one accrues during his/her life as it then gets combined and intertwined towards the new you, it being a nominative factor, the body and hence continual existence. It is very common to see in stereotypes that one can be given an option to sell their soul to another body. This could be the devil, God, or any sentient incumbent. It is this stereotype then that suggests one's 'body' (higher evolved) could leave one's destiny into the devil's hand instead of a path more noble or better. We are all children under God (mayhap accidentally) and hence it is natural that a father figure would indeed care for our continual existence (again, never eternal) onto an afterlife given the tech-knowhow.

Guess what, I believe that the unseen universe (ie: dark matter, anti-matter, quantum sized, parallel dimensions) is very much REAL and can be justified by near pseudo reasoning and existing intellectual discoveries. Quantum teleportation is one small example of something that seems downright impossible but theories suggest it is theoretically possible (2:42 in video), eg: h t t p : / / www . youtube . com / watch?v=_qmSdC7aQpY

What the soul consists of we do not know as this is in an unseen universe co-existing on the same time frame as yours within the fabric of space. Continuation in existence is also seen as a natural trait of evolution and hence seems logical that a point of seemingly infinite energy sheer intellect could have evolved obeying different laws of physics than our 'seen' own. I am not sure where animism would fit in the scope of soul in things but mayhap God intended too for the most peculiar of subjects to have souls too (a pebble, an object), from time to time. A more recent suggestion connects it with a root for "binding", Germanic *sailian (OE sēlian, OHG seilen), related to the notion of being "bound" in death, and the practice of ritually binding or restraining the corpse of the deceased in the grave to prevent his or her return as a ghost (from Wikipedia, 2014), already as a different physical apparition (seems like ancient punishment if you ask me).

When I die I shall be cremated after my organs are donated (the most noble way to go) but it is my belief that my God given soul shall serve as a tool to continue with my existence into the 'new' me - as a carrier figuratively speaking. A soul then to me is like a backup drive that is fixed on a steady locus of control on your whole being (self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion). Having a soul is amazing, it brings comfort, it brings hope, it brings life! I would never sell my soul to anyone else other than God for surety of eudaimonia. A soul has an affinity for negative thoughts and images, in one reading, and this makes sense in Star Trek 5 (Kirk needs his pain to make him who he is), (2:11 in video) ie: h t t p : / / www . youtube . com / watch?v=LvfRYD3ZPHA

Ahem, furthermore the spirit seeks to rise above the entanglements of life and death also. I believe the spirit differs from a soul in the sense that it is a mechanistic entity that incorporates the physical aspects of the body into its vehicle to transportation to an afterlife, except spirits cannot be sold as it pertains to the outer layers of the human mind and the physical body overall - hence why ghost apparitions are often related to spirits. Spirit also means courage, vivacity and vigor and can be directly influenced by one's DNA. Wikipedia states that a spirit is an incorporeal but ubiquitous, non-quantifiable substance or energy present individually in all living things. Mayhap an ethereal plasmic complex machine existing out of direct sync to one's whole being. By that reasoning I would theorize that a spirit may be slightly (or greatly) more in tune with this plane of reality than a soul. When we are taking God into consideration a spirit may even exemplify the holy spirit which may land on any one soul, if this is the case how come everyone does not act with the same personality once touched by the holy spirit? Simple, God is comprised of every personality in existence (Vedic scriptures) and hence everyone is a different individual, as ordained for the Glory of God (the latter not being human in form except maybe for Jesus), a spirit can coexist in unity with Godhead.

One way to feel the soul is to think about things abstract in nature, such love, beauty, loyalty etc. Soul is in contrast to physical. We do feel non-physical things, that is a strong evidence of soul.

I agree, the soul is not physical (as far as science suggests) but instead it is that inner collective being of inner desire of whom you want to be given optimal wisdom - and it is a vehicle of transport of the spirit.

For 100% sure, brain injuries have changed the part of a person that we might call the soul.

I STRONGLE disagree... The soul would (reasoning here) co-exist in mayhap more than just three dimensions; time being an example. The soul is spatial and at the point of re-manifestation, depending on karma, beliefs, creeds, or pathway in life, it is quite plausible that a collection of all your memories at their 'set' peak would intertwine into one amalgamated mind. The soul is not trapped in the present is what I am trying to say, instead it has a historical element to it and for that it should be cherished to the maximum.

... No, it does not. Hence why I said it is material ... or would it be better to say it is dependent upon the material? So, no, the soul would not exist without a material brain, and yet it does not exactly equate with a brain because each brain is unique. ... but the soul is more than the mind. I equate the mind with the rational, whereas the soul also includes the emotional and instinctual - the personality and memories.

I agree with you that the soul would include emotional aspects of your life but I believe that the spirit is more in charge with the 'instinctual'.

The spirit is the vital principle of a living being.

I agree, but mayhap not the only principle as there is the soul also. The present Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the soul as "the innermost aspect of humans, that which is of greatest value in them, that by which they are most especially in God's image: 'soul' signifies the spiritual principle in man." By respecting such teachings we can plausibly conclude that the soul carries elements of the inner human psyche as well, whereas the spirit would be the outer.

...The laws of physics describe the way physical things interact, why would you consider a spirit to be like that? What does it describe? Like a soul...I imagine nothing would have to remain once the physical body dies.

I would expect for a spirit to interact physically on an observable method only by very advanced technology of which we do not yet possess. The word 'soul' is rooted with the word 'binding', and given its similarity to spirit we may consider it possible to trap a spirit at the cost of one's soul. Technologies that would do this on our dimension mayhap lie in different dimensions with one way access to our own - we just do not know, yet...

...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). ...

The fact we have five senses already illustrates we can know conceptual truths and whatnot. Every culture on the planet has had religious, superstitious, or customary habits in spirit, it is human nature. So when time and time again individuals rely on that gut hunch, that motivates our innate minds, we are then able to approach closer to truth under God's majestic plan. A soul can be perceived as abstract but it also can be perceived as a natural element that coexists in existence.

... Moreover, our human brains wouldn't need to exist if spirits kept our thoughts and animated our bodies, providing motor functions and such. ...

Just because a spirit keeps our essence and personality (in cases) does not mean we would not need a brain. Our universe operates by established laws of physics and in order for things to work right (your body, society, everything) it is essential that things operate a certain way so as not to distort the fabric of reality. It is the law of nature.

... 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? ...

You will definitely know when you come and go from hell every time you are upset. Bad karma (as judged by the divine order) will have a direct impact on your happiness level on the next life to be. Such a comment from a Christian would hurt if one is in tune with his personality and constantly sins.

“Sin is causing ‘any’ form of harm as ‘sheer’ reason is absent from the equation”

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

I would say that the soul does not exist after death only to some individuals - those ordained by higher life (and ultimately God) to perish after death. This possibly for the endless cycle of rebirth of your own life and present existence - the only way to beat the Hindu cycle of incarnation 'some' would believe.

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. ...

I think of the Ship of Theseus when reading this bit, or rather Theseus's paradox. Well, quantum teleportation was already highlighted earlier further up. My ideas is that mayhap the soul triggers a re-arrangement for quantum entanglement of the whole body and that the spirit serves as an individuality physical trait communicator.

Equation isn't the word that I would use because I think that "soul" gets at more than feelings. It's getting at the whole inner life. I was reading the Psalms this morning and there was a verse that said something to the effect of: "I will praise you with my lips and with my soul." Now what could that mean? I believe what the psalmist is saying is that he will praise God with his words but also from his "heart" (another vague word). ...

Well, giving up one's will (future path) to something nobler, like God, seems to me like an act of love. The praising with the lips is one indicative of love, already a sensual remark to elevate the gist towards one of passionate earnest ultimate love.

Well, that was my spiel early in the morning whilst rather tipsy... hic

 

[Davian]

Your post is there for all to read. I'm not required to quote anything at all. I could just respond with a wall of text. I quote to bring focus to how I am interpreting you and what I am specifically responding to. If I have misunderstood you, then clarify it.



Because you seem to think neurology is the way to study "self". I proposed it as part of "self", so I would expect your method to address that.



I'm sure you think my opinion is invalid. As it happens, I'm not undergoing any cognitive dissonance at the moment, so I think it is valid.



Scientific. Just as geology is not the science to explore "self", neither is neuroscience. To use the analogy I've used all through this thread, using neuroscience to explore "self" is like someone checking the CPU in their computer to figure out where the bug is in a program.

If any science is suited to the study of "self", it's psychology ... not that that thrills me either.

I am going off the grid for the next two weeks. I will follow up with you then to see what you mean by "scientific".

 

[Glico]

The soul is the immaterial aspect of a human being. I think soul and spirit are interchangeable terms, and they mean the same thing.

The soul resides inside a Person, and is a person's life force or vitality (meaning that if the soul dies, the person dies also).

 

[Resha Caner]

In any event, are you suggesting the existence of a self cannot be arrived at empirically?

Whether the self is an illusion or not. You seem to say it isn't, so I'm wondering what evidence, if it existed, would disconfirm that position?

This is why I thought instrumentalism was relevant to the topic. If you're an empiricist, that may be more the root of a disagreement between us than if I can provide you "evidence".

Given that I see science as a method for making models, not a method for describing reality, the best I think we can achieve is to quantify something. That means a mathematical model, and mathematics always begins with an assumption - an axiom or postulate. So, if you want to say "self" is an assumption, that doesn't really bother me. cogito ergo sum

As I said to Davian, using neuroscience (neurology was just a typo on my part) is like trying to reverse engineer a computer program by studying the CPU ... and people try that. In my controls work we sometimes try to understand what our competitors are doing by tracking the signals from the ECM and observing the related machine behavior. Given the human mind is thousands (if not millions) of times more complicated, my experience says, "Good luck with that."

IOW, I have no idea how "self" can be quantified. But that doesn't mean "self" is an illusion. As I also said to Davian, if any science can delve into this it would be psychology. The result would be qualitative - a methodological version of my quip, "Just ask me."

 

[durangodawood]

I STRONGLE disagree... The soul would (reasoning here) co-exist in mayhap more than just three dimensions; time being an example. The soul is spatial and at the point of re-manifestation, depending on karma, beliefs, creeds, or pathway in life, it is quite plausible that a collection of all your memories at their 'set' peak would intertwine into one amalgamated mind. The soul is not trapped in the present is what I am trying to say, instead it has a historical element to it and for that it should be cherished to the maximum.

We can speculate about what the soul "really is" til we're blue in the face.

BUT its not even disputable that brain injuries can change characteristics of a person that believers would typically ascribe to the soul.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I am about to present here are my own opinions, but to re-hash on some things let us look at the dictionary definitions of soul and spirit:

Soul
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4. the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5. a human being; person.

Spirit
1.the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2.the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3.the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4.conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5.a supernatural, incorporeal being, especially one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.

Ok, that given, proper internet research will reveal that the 'soul' is the 'immortal essence of a person'. I go a step further to suggest that the soul is the mechanistic vehicle (as imposed by God or the overseer) by which a manifestation of the mind, and mayhap, body is taken to a recipient new body so that one can pursue their afterlife(s). This from the point of death as then an amalgamation of the combined optimized peak intellect that one accrues during his/her life as it then gets combined and intertwined towards the new you, it being a nominative factor, the body and hence continual existence. It is very common to see in stereotypes that one can be given an option to sell their soul to another body. This could be the devil, God, or any sentient incumbent. It is this stereotype then that suggests one's 'body' (higher evolved) could leave one's destiny into the devil's hand instead of a path more noble or better. We are all children under God (mayhap accidentally) and hence it is natural that a father figure would indeed care for our continual existence (again, never eternal) onto an afterlife given the tech-knowhow.

Guess what, I believe that the unseen universe (ie: dark matter, anti-matter, quantum sized, parallel dimensions) is very much REAL and can be justified by near pseudo reasoning and existing intellectual discoveries. Quantum teleportation is one small example of something that seems downright impossible but theories suggest it is theoretically possible (2:42 in video), eg: h t t p : / / www . youtube . com / watch?v=_qmSdC7aQpY

What the soul consists of we do not know as this is in an unseen universe co-existing on the same time frame as yours within the fabric of space. Continuation in existence is also seen as a natural trait of evolution and hence seems logical that a point of seemingly infinite energy sheer intellect could have evolved obeying different laws of physics than our 'seen' own. I am not sure where animism would fit in the scope of soul in things but mayhap God intended too for the most peculiar of subjects to have souls too (a pebble, an object), from time to time. A more recent suggestion connects it with a root for "binding", Germanic *sailian (OE sēlian, OHG seilen), related to the notion of being "bound" in death, and the practice of ritually binding or restraining the corpse of the deceased in the grave to prevent his or her return as a ghost (from Wikipedia, 2014), already as a different physical apparition (seems like ancient punishment if you ask me).

When I die I shall be cremated after my organs are donated (the most noble way to go) but it is my belief that my God given soul shall serve as a tool to continue with my existence into the 'new' me - as a carrier figuratively speaking. A soul then to me is like a backup drive that is fixed on a steady locus of control on your whole being (self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion). Having a soul is amazing, it brings comfort, it brings hope, it brings life! I would never sell my soul to anyone else other than God for surety of eudaimonia. A soul has an affinity for negative thoughts and images, in one reading, and this makes sense in Star Trek 5 (Kirk needs his pain to make him who he is), (2:11 in video) ie: h t t p : / / www . youtube . com / watch?v=LvfRYD3ZPHA

Ahem, furthermore the spirit seeks to rise above the entanglements of life and death also. I believe the spirit differs from a soul in the sense that it is a mechanistic entity that incorporates the physical aspects of the body into its vehicle to transportation to an afterlife, except spirits cannot be sold as it pertains to the outer layers of the human mind and the physical body overall - hence why ghost apparitions are often related to spirits. Spirit also means courage, vivacity and vigor and can be directly influenced by one's DNA. Wikipedia states that a spirit is an incorporeal but ubiquitous, non-quantifiable substance or energy present individually in all living things. Mayhap an ethereal plasmic complex machine existing out of direct sync to one's whole being. By that reasoning I would theorize that a spirit may be slightly (or greatly) more in tune with this plane of reality than a soul. When we are taking God into consideration a spirit may even exemplify the holy spirit which may land on any one soul, if this is the case how come everyone does not act with the same personality once touched by the holy spirit? Simple, God is comprised of every personality in existence (Vedic scriptures) and hence everyone is a different individual, as ordained for the Glory of God (the latter not being human in form except maybe for Jesus), a spirit can coexist in unity with Godhead.


I agree, the soul is not physical (as far as science suggests) but instead it is that inner collective being of inner desire of whom you want to be given optimal wisdom - and it is a vehicle of transport of the spirit.


I STRONGLE disagree... The soul would (reasoning here) co-exist in mayhap more than just three dimensions; time being an example. The soul is spatial and at the point of re-manifestation, depending on karma, beliefs, creeds, or pathway in life, it is quite plausible that a collection of all your memories at their 'set' peak would intertwine into one amalgamated mind. The soul is not trapped in the present is what I am trying to say, instead it has a historical element to it and for that it should be cherished to the maximum.


I agree with you that the soul would include emotional aspects of your life but I believe that the spirit is more in charge with the 'instinctual'.


I agree, but mayhap not the only principle as there is the soul also. The present Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the soul as "the innermost aspect of humans, that which is of greatest value in them, that by which they are most especially in God's image: 'soul' signifies the spiritual principle in man." By respecting such teachings we can plausibly conclude that the soul carries elements of the inner human psyche as well, whereas the spirit would be the outer.


I would expect for a spirit to interact physically on an observable method only by very advanced technology of which we do not yet possess. The word 'soul' is rooted with the word 'binding', and given its similarity to spirit we may consider it possible to trap a spirit at the cost of one's soul. Technologies that would do this on our dimension mayhap lie in different dimensions with one way access to our own - we just do not know, yet...


The fact we have five senses already illustrates we can know conceptual truths and whatnot. Every culture on the planet has had religious, superstitious, or customary habits in spirit, it is human nature. So when time and time again individuals rely on that gut hunch, that motivates our innate minds, we are then able to approach closer to truth under God's majestic plan. A soul can be perceived as abstract but it also can be perceived as a natural element that coexists in existence.


Just because a spirit keeps our essence and personality (in cases) does not mean we would not need a brain. Our universe operates by established laws of physics and in order for things to work right (your body, society, everything) it is essential that things operate a certain way so as not to distort the fabric of reality. It is the law of nature.


You will definitely know when you come and go from hell every time you are upset. Bad karma (as judged by the divine order) will have a direct impact on your happiness level on the next life to be. Such a comment from a Christian would hurt if one is in tune with his personality and constantly sins.

“Sin is causing ‘any’ form of harm as ‘sheer’ reason is absent from the equation”


I would say that the soul does not exist after death only to some individuals - those ordained by higher life (and ultimately God) to perish after death. This possibly for the endless cycle of rebirth of your own life and present existence - the only way to beat the Hindu cycle of incarnation 'some' would believe.


I think of the Ship of Theseus when reading this bit, or rather Theseus's paradox. Well, quantum teleportation was already highlighted earlier further up. My ideas is that mayhap the soul triggers a re-arrangement for quantum entanglement of the whole body and that the spirit serves as an individuality physical trait communicator.


Well, giving up one's will (future path) to something nobler, like God, seems to me like an act of love. The praising with the lips is one indicative of love, already a sensual remark to elevate the gist towards one of passionate earnest ultimate love.

Well, that was my spiel early in the morning whilst rather tipsy... hic

Lol cool story bro...

Seriously, I see that's only your third post...and a fun read. I'm only going to respond to parts though...

"I would expect for a spirit to interact physically on an observable method only by very advanced technology of which we do not yet possess. The word 'soul' is rooted with the word 'binding', and given its similarity to spirit we may consider it possible to trap a spirit at the cost of one's soul. Technologies that would do this on our dimension mayhap lie in different dimensions with one way access to our own - we just do not know, yet..."

That's interesting. You think science will one day "observe" a spirit. That begs the question if nothing about it is observable, why do you think it's there?

"You will definitely know when you come and go from hell every time you are upset. Bad karma (as judged by the divine order) will have a direct impact on your happiness level on the next life to be. Such a comment from a Christian would hurt if one is in tune with his personality and constantly sins"

I'm just not sure what you're getting at here. You're saying someone who sins feels bad because someone says they should? Maybe a better question would be, do you think people can do "bad" things and still be very happy about it?

 

[poolerboy0077]

This is why I thought instrumentalism was relevant to the topic. If you're an empiricist, that may be more the root of a disagreement between us than if I can provide you "evidence".

Given that I see science as a method for making models, not a method for describing reality, the best I think we can achieve is to quantify something. That means a mathematical model, and mathematics always begins with an assumption - an axiom or postulate. So, if you want to say "self" is an assumption, that doesn't really bother me. cogito ergo sum

As I said to Davian, using neuroscience (neurology was just a typo on my part) is like trying to reverse engineer a computer program by studying the CPU ... and people try that. In my controls work we sometimes try to understand what our competitors are doing by tracking the signals from the ECM and observing the related machine behavior. Given the human mind is thousands (if not millions) of times more complicated, my experience says, "Good luck with that."

IOW, I have no idea how "self" can be quantified. But that doesn't mean "self" is an illusion. As I also said to Davian, if any science can delve into this it would be psychology. The result would be qualitative - a methodological version of my quip, "Just ask me."

This isn't a question of quantification. The assertion that it is an illusion is not dependent on whether or not we can quantify it. Health is not really all that quantifiable, but it still can be defined with respect to certain markers and it is the amalgam of these that we describe with such a word. Whether the self is an illusion will depend on whether or not it is true that the unity we experience in the senses is occurring, or whether our brain is merely generating this qualia of a locus of consciousness that we feel rests behind the eyes looking out into the world. It can be analogized to asking whether holding a pencil at one end and moving it up and down really is showing true flexibility or whether our brain is simply creating that optical illusion. Or whether sounds one experiences are external stimuli or brain generated (like the voices schizophrenics hear). That's why I brought up falsifiability. You need a way to be able to disconfirm a "narrative" and have it be malleable to the data.

 

[Resha Caner]

This isn't a question of quantification. The assertion that it is an illusion is not dependent on whether or not we can quantify it. Health is not really all that quantifiable, but it still can be defined with respect to certain markers and it is the amalgam of these that we describe with such a word. Whether the self is an illusion will depend on whether or not it is true that the unity we experience in the senses is occurring, or whether our brain is merely generating this qualia of a locus of consciousness that we feel rests behind the eyes looking out into the world. It can be analogized to asking whether holding a pencil at one end and moving it up and down really is showing true flexibility or whether our brain is simply creating that optical illusion. Or whether sounds one experiences are external stimuli or brain generated (like the voices schizophrenics hear). That's why I brought up falsifiability. You need a way to be able to disconfirm a "narrative" and have it be malleable to the data.

This seems like a lot of hand-waving to me.

I wasn't totally denying qualitative markers, but how does one communicate the qualitative? IMO through a common, shared experience. I can't understand the qualitative aspects of being an anglerfish because I've never been one. I can understand certain analogous traits - they move, they eat, they reproduce. But I can't understand swimming in the dark at a depth of 2000 m. So, again, the qualitative can only be understood through common experience.

That can somewhat be addressed by reproducing the sensory experience - taking pictures, recording sounds, etc., but it still lacks because I can't interact and respond to what my senses take in. I can only absorb the information.

Lacking common experience, the only way to communicate is through the quantitative. I can't sense an IC engine (grabbing the crankshaft and trying to feel how fast it rotates would be a very bad idea), but I can measure how much fuel I'm putting in and what power comes out. So, for those who don't think they've experienced soul/spirit - for unbelievers - the easiest approach would be something quantitative. I don't know how to do that. Therefore, my only recourse is to invite them to participate and gain that common experience.

You've said this thing about how the brain does it before we know it several times, and that is just odd. Athletes, musicians, etc. have long known about what they would call "muscle memory" or what I might call "instinct". It's the reason for practicing. I've never said the self consists of only our conscious thoughts. It includes the instinctual. If the brain does it, it is part of self. There is no separation between what the self does and what the brain does. The other thing I find odd about your comments is that you speak as if you are the measurement instrument and not just another person. You "know" all these things about how the self is illusory because neuroscience measured it ... and then you perceived those measurements by taking them in through the self-same senses that supposedly deceived the test subject. I don't see how you can say that works.

 

[Soul2Soul]

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

i personally believe that belief in the spirit (and I'm considering the spirit in my understanding of it from the Bible) requires faith. As far as "other" spirits are concerned .... I am not aware of non-religious indications. I have read some stuff about an individual"s "aura" but IMO it doesn't correspond with my understanding of one's 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

To be honest - the subject of the spirit, and of The Holy Spirit is one that I need to study more ..... but to try and answer your questions - I believe that we are spiritual beings {created in God's (spiritual) image} and in that regard I would think of the spirit, in a sense, as being like the supernatural dark matter of a human being. I believe the spirit is not so much controllable by anyone as it's presence/influence can be ignored/disregarded etc by the person. I do not believe the spirit "sleeps" nor "dies" in the way we do in our lives here on Earth. I do not believe the spirit gets injured physically as we get injured. I have to say that as far as I can understand the spirit is "born" when a human life is deemed to have started existing - for me I consider that to be when it's an embryo.

 

[Ken-1122]

To be honest - the subject of the spirit, and of The Holy Spirit is one that I need to study more ..... but to try and answer your questions - I believe that we are spiritual beings {created in God's (spiritual) image} and in that regard I would think of the spirit, in a sense, as being like the supernatural dark matter of a human being. I believe the spirit is not so much controllable by anyone as it's presence/influence can be ignored/disregarded etc by the person.

Suppose the person chooses not to ignore/disregard it but instead chooses to focus on their spirit; do you suppose they could gain some type of control over their spirit?

I do not believe the spirit "sleeps" nor "dies" in the way we do in our lives here on Earth. I do not believe the spirit gets injured physically as we get injured. I have to say that as far as I can understand the spirit is "born" when a human life is deemed to have started existing - for me I consider that to be when it's an embryo.

Thank-you!

Ken

 

[Soul2Soul]

Suppose the person chooses not to ignore/disregard it but instead chooses to focus on their spirit; do you suppose they could gain some type of control over their spirit?

My understanding (according to Scripture) is that as a Christian I should walk in step with the (Holy) Spirit - pay heed to It's influence .... although I may not always do so and in that sense I'm exerting my own control over that influence of the (Holy) Spirit's. I do not believe that I can "control" the (Holy) Spirit in my life in any way to administer to my needs/desires etc. I believe it is more a case of working in conjunction with the influence of the (Holy) Spirit ..... growing spiritually.

Thank-you!
Ken

You are welcome.

 

[Ken-1122]

My understanding (according to Scripture) is that as a Christian I should walk in step with the (Holy) Spirit - pay heed to It's influence .... although I may not always do so and in that sense I'm exerting my own control over that influence of the (Holy) Spirit's. I do not believe that I can "control" the (Holy) Spirit in my life in any way to administer to my needs/desires etc. I believe it is more a case of working in conjunction with the influence of the (Holy) Spirit ..... growing spiritually.




You are welcome.

Actually I was talking about your spirit; not the Holy Spirit. Do you believe it is possible for you to gain control of your spirit?

Ken