Please Explain a Soul

[Ana the Ist]

I understand the dilemma, but it is not unique to my definition. It's an old philosophy problem of trying to separate properties from substance. As with your example of language, when does a language stop being a language? If I remove one word from English, is it still English? If I remove all but one word is it still English? If I only remove one letter and use an alphabet of 25 letters, is it still English? Why can I arrange those 26 letters in one way and get English, and then arrange them a different way and get French? It's a game one can play with anything, and it is a difficult game to answer.



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. Both your brain and mine are human brains, and yet your soul is different than mine. In my analogy (with the soul as the programming language), the brain would equate to the computer. And if we want to extend the analogy further, the mind would be a specific program written in that language ... 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. Those are the other plexuses (the other programs) of the soul.

All of that is what one might call the "clinical" aspects of the soul. Within the context of the Biblical discussion there is also a wealth of symbolic meaning.

Whatever changes you make to a language, whether it be English or French, it's still a language.

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

 

[Resha Caner]

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

No. But I do believe in a material bodily resurrection ... and recall I said I consider soul and spirit two different things (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. But I do believe in a material bodily resurrection ... and recall I said I consider soul and spirit two different things (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

....so what's a spirit then?

 

[Resha Caner]

....so what's a spirit then?

The spirit is the vital principle of a living being.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The spirit is the vital principle of a living being.

So...it's a concept?

 

[Resha Caner]

So...it's a concept?

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.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Well that's different isn't it? You called it a "vital principle". Principles are conceptual in nature. So now it isn't a principle?

 

[Ken-1122]

Good question. I do not know the answer.
Same situation to a mentally ill person.

But, you may treat it as an exception and dealt with the situation separately.

Historically, people treated it as a person be snatched by evil spirit. I think it might still apply today because we do not know the nature of soul yet.

As much as we know about ourselves today, why do we not know the nature of the soul yet?

Ken

 

[daniel777]

Well that's different isn't it? You called it a "vital principle". Principles are conceptual in nature. So now it isn't a principle?

can't it be both?

As much as we know about ourselves today, why do we not know the nature of the soul yet?

Ken

I have the same thoughts about the nature of experience.

 

[juvenissun]

As to your last paragraph...no, I don't agree. I don't know what feeling you consider to be "god" or "spiritual" but there are many subtle and not so subtle nameless feelings. I won't say I've never experienced what you have, I may have indeed, I just never considered it anything but myself. I am sure though, that all feelings are chemical in origin, and while our ability to manipulate these feelings chemically grows every day, I'm sure we are still far off from being able to recreate every feeling possible. Would it make you wonder if one day you saw a commercial....

"Warning, taking Euphrexia max cause feelings of divine oneness with all your surroundings and the entire universe, may induce thoughts of an almighty creator who cares for and loves you, should you experience feelings of spiritual divinity and grace, stop taking Euphrexia and consult your physician."

Christian Potion, 0.1 cc. per day. Free of charge.

 

[juvenissun]

As much as we know about ourselves today, why do we not know the nature of the soul yet?

Ken

Because we do not know much.

 

[KCfromNC]

Such statements are common to this question when asked by unbelievers, and I find that odd. You're poisoning the well. How can you not believe in something before I even tell you what I think it is?

Because it is the only thing one can do to undefined, unspecified ideas. It doesnt' even make sense to say you believe in something but have no idea what that something is, so lacking belief as a default is the only sane option.

This isn't poisoning the well, it's working from a reasonable null hypothesis.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well that's different isn't it? You called it a "vital principle". Principles are conceptual in nature. So now it isn't a principle?

This has the flavor of a semantic debate. I can't tell if that's what you're doing or if you're asking for further clarification. I'll just say up front that I find many semantic debates silly. If you see a need to lock down on a particular usage of a word, I'll just pick a different word that better conveys the meaning to you.

But first I'll explain my usage, which comes from definition 2 of this link:
Principle | Define Principle at Dictionary.com

Specifically, I am using "principle" to mean a fundamental law. In physics (or, more specifically, my field of mechanics) it is common to speak of "first principles". For example, a first principle of mechanics is Newton's Laws. Whether or not you want to consider those laws conceptual is somewhat beside the point as they are based on something observable.

Likewise, I can observe a difference between someone who is alive and someone who is dead - someone who has a spirit and someone whose spirit has departed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This has the flavor of a semantic debate. I can't tell if that's what you're doing or if you're asking for further clarification. I'll just say up front that I find many semantic debates silly. If you see a need to lock down on a particular usage of a word, I'll just pick a different word that better conveys the meaning to you.

But first I'll explain my usage, which comes from definition 2 of this link:
Principle | Define Principle at Dictionary.com

Specifically, I am using "principle" to mean a fundamental law. In physics (or, more specifically, my field of mechanics) it is common to speak of "first principles". For example, a first principle of mechanics is Newton's Laws. Whether or not you want to consider those laws conceptual is somewhat beside the point as they are based on something observable.

Likewise, I can observe a difference between someone who is alive and someone who is dead - someone who has a spirit and someone whose spirit has departed.

That's fine, but you're still speaking about something conceptual in nature. Newton's laws describe the way something works, they aren't a thing to "depart" another thing.

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.

 

[Ana the Ist]

can't it be both?

Actually, no, it can't. Something can't be both "conceptual" in nature and also "power" anything. Power in that context refers to energy, which is definitely a "thing". Principles don't power anything...or exist outside the mind.

 

[Soul2Soul]

So you believe such a person might be looking at the spirit but recognize it as something else? Or do you think perhaps they would be unable to see the spirit unless they believe it exists first?

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).

I ment "spirit" instead of "soul". Do you suppose you could train your spirit to witness such an event and retrieve such information to you upon awakening?
Ken

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.

 

[daniel777]

Actually, no, it can't. Something can't be both "conceptual" in nature and also "power" anything. Power in that context refers to energy, which is definitely a "thing". Principles don't power anything...or exist outside the mind.

I was talking about the word. And if it can't be both, how does one begin to talk about non-conceptual things, or things that "exist outside the mind"?

It seems like you're setting up some impossible standards with your word games.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was talking about the word. And if it can't be both, how does one begin to talk about non-conceptual things, or things that "exist outside the mind"?

It seems like you're setting up some impossible standards with your word games.

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?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was talking about the word. And if it can't be both, how does one begin to talk about non-conceptual things, or things that "exist outside the mind"?

It seems like you're setting up some impossible standards with your word games.

Maybe it would help if you looked at post 26 where he describes it as like "electrical power". Now take the physics analogy of say the first law of thermodynamics. It's a concept to describe the movement of heat....but it isn't also heat. It's not both.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's fine, but you're still speaking about something conceptual in nature. Newton's laws describe the way something works, they aren't a thing to "depart" another thing.

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.

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.