The human soul - it's time to get to the bottom of this

[semaphore]

Not too sure what the two have to do with each other ?

I don't accept determinism - if one proves determinism (i.e. no free will) then one disproves the soul. But I suspect that isn't a likely outcome.

You're operating on your own definition of a soul here. Most people consider the main feature of a soul to be that it is immortal.

[schwarzkopf]

...and what would be those observations that indicate the existence of a soul be?

One example is the science of free will -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will for example.

There is a lot of philosophy on this as well (including the time travel experiments on free will).

[Themius]

I'll just say the theory that seems most plausible to me is we exist in another dimension and ourselves are attracted to a body though some means of tuning. Like a radio, radio is always around us, music is always around us, and yet we can't hear anything unless we using something to tune to it. I mean there are interesting stories of people receiving organs and dreaming of the person without ever meeting them. The theory that our dna is a tuning mechanism would seem to make sense in this situation.

[Julian Rayne]

The human soul. What is it ? How do we get it ? For the purpose of this thread, I define human soul as something that transcends the earthly body. A higher function. Something that possibly is not limited. Something that possibly can "live" on after death.

Nothing fitting this definition exists. It's just unscientific woo-woo.

[schwarzkopf]

You're operating on your own definition of a soul here.

No - I don't own any dictionary companies.

Here we go - with the highlights to be taken note of (not ignored):

First definition:
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.

Second definition:
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness

Notice in both cases - the parts about separable and/or surviving death are clarified to be 'as believed' or 'commonly held'.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 04:32 PM ----------

Nothing fitting this definition exists. It's just unscientific woo-woo.

Only once you get to the last bit. Until then the concept of a non-material part of us is well within scientific discussion.

[semaphore]

One example is the science of free will -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will for example.

There is no clear evidence that we truly have free will. As far as we can tell our decision process is entirely thre result of physical processes. Even if it does, it is unclear how free will is therefore an observation of the soul, rather than simply the result of the biological structure of our brain. Not that souls are defined as free will, you more or less inserted that into your own definition.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 04:36 PM ----------

No - I don't own any dictionary companies.

I'm talking about your association of soul with free will. And regardless of how dictionaries you use define it, my point was that it is not what people normally "consider" souls to be. Therefore your dictionaries agree with me ("believed to be, commonly held to be").

[Simulacrum]

No - I don't own any dictionary companies.

Here we go - with the highlights to be taken note of (not ignored):

First definition:
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.

Second definition:
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness

Notice in both cases - the parts about separable and/or surviving death are clarified to be 'as believed' or 'commonly held'.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 04:32 PM ----------



Only once you get to the last bit. Until then the concept of a non-material part of us is well within scientific discussion.

You're just one of those compatibalists who go around re-defining the meanings of words like "free will" and "soul" to mean something other than what the colloquial meaning is, then say that those things can totally exist; as if that was some sort of victory.

There is no non-material part of us. If I removed the right material parts of you, any attributes you may have assigned to these magical non-material parts would disappear from you, because they don't exist.

[schwarzkopf]

There is no clear evidence that we truly have free will.

Once you go into logical/philosophical discussions - free will becomes more like a certainty (mainly to do with the proof that a person who understands our decision processes enough to determine in advance a decision, can alter it - thus creating free will etc).

Even if it does, it is unclear how free will is therefore an observation of the soul, rather than simply the result of the biological structure of our brain. Not that souls are defined as free will, you more or less inserted that into your own definition.

I never said the soul might not exist in the brain (much as our vision and thinking etc) do as a matter of fact my belief is that the soul is the quantum level of the brain function.

Also - I never said that souls are free will, I said that free will is an sign of a soul. Free will is at the core of morality, and morality is a core function of the soul (as defined by the dictionary). Morality cannot exist without free will.

[Deleted]

Perhaps a soul is just our minds. And they'll hopefully live on.. The fact that you can perceive things from your own perspective. Thoughts that go through your mind.. It's invisible, but it's there. Perhaps this is the soul. I'm merely just speculating, but perhaps all minds continue to exists perhaps.. Who knows?

[schwarzkopf]

You're just one of those compatibalists who go around re-defining the meanings of words like "free will" and "soul" to mean something other than what the colloquial meaning is, then say that those things can totally exist; as if that was some sort of victory.

My apologies for using the dictionary... my bad. Should I just make up words like everyone else ?

There is no non-material part of us.

Really - dreams, love, hate.... imagination, creativity. LOTS of non-material parts of us.

[semaphore]

Only once you get to the last bit. Until then the concept of a non-material part of us is well within scientific discussion.

Except it isn't. Science is strictly about the physical world. Something that is immaterial by definition, is not scientific.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 04:40 PM ----------

Really - dreams, love, hate.... imagination, creativity. LOTS of non-material parts of us.

Except all of them are material aspects of our brain functions. As I have repeatedly told you.

[Palmatum]

The human soul. What is it ? How do we get it ?

You're assuming we even have one... Bad start.

[thatmikeguy]

There is no determining anything in any way, other than what you accept. See, everything came from absolutely "nothing" at some point no matter what one "believes" or chooses to accept. We hate to hear this, but that's the bottom line. Other realms, other existences, other time, other space, other whatever, are all the same outcome as far as we can measure. All things were at some point, from well nothing as far as we will ever know or "believe" in this life. Go enjoy something..

[Jokerfiend]

Actually, we don't know if the universe is finite or not. We can only observe so much, (about 9 nonillion Earth's worth of mass in what we've observed so far) we also don't know that those boundaries don't exist.

And how is the notion that there must be an absolute origin fallacious? What fallacy is that specifically? There is nothing we have ever observed that hasn't had a beginning. The very idea that there isn't an absolute origin seems absurd to me. Nothing else in nature just exists for no reason.

But that is my exact point. We cannot have something from nothing. So what made the Universe? Are you telling me it was just there? A pinpoint so infinitely small, yet infinitely massive, and for some reason just exploded into the Universe. That it was just hanging around in a void, for no purpose, and had no reason to be there? What was the reason the Universe exploded? Does it happen more than once? How many times has it happened?

If you logically look at the questions science has so far made. It makes no sense for us to be here. So if we look at it like this, Universe was stable until X event made it explode. That event X is God. Even if it becomes explainable. That is God. It was what created everything.

I just don't buy into our Universe was just there for no reason. How can something be created out of nothing? How can the matter and mass exist in the first place? It's illogical.

[damntree]

Irrelevant. I never said souls don't exist,

The human soul. What is it ?
Fictional.

How do we get it ?
Imagination.

Always entertaining.

[schwarzkopf]

Except it isn't. Science is strictly about the physical world. Something that is immaterial by definition, is not scientific.

Really - much of today's science is amount non-material stuff. After all, only recently did they even discover how the material part of the universe even worked at all

Except all of them are material aspects of our brain functions. As I have repeatedly told you.

No - the way they WORK are able to be measured, and I expect the soul to be exactly the same (in the sense of scientific).

Note the difference between how something works and what it is.

.... as I keep saying.

Love is NOT material, nor measurable. The processes that cause it are.
Soul is not material, nor measurable. The processes that cause it will be in the future.

[Beavis]

My apologies for using the dictionary... my bad. Should I just make up words like everyone else ?



Really - dreams, love, hate.... imagination, creativity. LOTS of non-material parts of us.

You can prove those things exist by looking at somebody's brain through a neuro-imaging device. There is literally no proof of a soul.

[fung]

and after thousands of years of debate by the greatest philosophers, it was solved to everyone's satisfaction in an off-topic videogame forum

[Jeina]

You're going on the assumption that there is such a thing as a soul. That's -quite- the assumption. No one has a soul, you just believe what you want to believe.

Without a soul, free will doesn't exist. Human behavior could eventually be boiled down to an exact science. However, since no human will act the same way in any given situation 100% of the time, we can discern that our actions are not entirely based on science, but on something more, ergo, a soul.

[schwarzkopf]

You can prove those things exist by looking at somebody's brain through a neuro-imaging device. There is literally no proof of a soul.

ArrghhH!

No - you can measure how those things WORK through a neuro-imaging device.

You can't see or measure the things themselves.

That is a big difference.