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

[Kalis]

You can faith in people man; that has nothing to do with religion. Do you have friends? Do you trust them? What do you base that trust on? Facts? You have faith in them. Words have different meanings; deal with it.

Congratulations on completely missing the context of the discussion I was having.

[damntree]

Congratulations on completely missing the context of the discussion I was having.

Oh I'm sorry. Do go back to talking about how faith and the soul are religious terms and can't be used to mean anything else unless they're being hi-jacked. Sorry I misunderstood your position.

[Dvaldin]

Science has already proven that not everything can be determined.

[Deleted]

show me one piece of evidence that they don't exist then.
should be easy since there is plenty.
once again the actual 'fact'(if anything in these highly philosophical discussions can be called fact) is that no one on the planet earth has proof one way or the other or if they do they haven't spoken up.

scientists the world over saying "no comment" isn't them saying "nope, no soul"

it's them admitting that it's well over their(and all of our) understand of the universe.

You're basically implying that if it cannot be disproved, we should take into account the possibility of something existing, are you? I'm sorry, but that's not how the educated part of the world operates. You cannot satisfy intelligent, rational people by sticking your head in the sand while chanting "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is the go-to argument of any proponent of supernatural claims.

Moreover, a scientist having no comment on a topic of the supernatural most likely isn't due to some deep rooted respect for things that are yet above our mental grasp, but most likely because they don't waste time entertaining ideas that are absolutely ludicrous. Astrophysicists do not feel the need to delve into the claims of astrologers and geologists do not pay much attention to people who'd believe the earth was flat.

As someone significantly wiser than both of us once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence", which simply means that if you make extraordinary claims, a category a soul would fit neatly into, you've better come up with the evidence. Until you do so, we have no reason to listen to you.

[Kalis]

Oh I'm sorry. Do go back to talking about how faith and the soul are religious terms and can't be used to mean anything else unless they're being hi-jacked. Sorry I misunderstood your position.

The context in which 'soul' was being used IS a religious term. The context in which I was discussing 'faith' WAS in a religious context.

You may not understand what the context of the terms we were discussing meant, but that is hardly my fault. The person I was having the discussion with did, and it is irrelevant that you cannot grasp it.

[blackblade]

I believe a soul is something that is not tangible. A person can, for example, pinpoint something that looks human, but is not, and interestingly enough, it causes a surge of negative emotion. Like, if you see a hyperrealistic computer rendering of a person, you'll A) feel like something is not quite right, and B) become overly suspious of them, despite the fact that they're trying to save orphans from a burning house. (Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley)

Esentially, a construct made to act human will lack force of personality, and therefore, humans can't really compute what they're dealing with and suspect that it is not what it seems, even if it looks 100% human.

[Wikiy]

You're basically implying that if it cannot be disproved, we should take into account the possibility of something existing, are you? I'm sorry, but that's not how the educated part of the world operates. You cannot satisfy intelligent, rational people by sticking your head in the sand while chanting "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is the go-to argument of any proponent of supernatural claims.

Moreover, a scientist having no comment on a topic of the supernatural most likely isn't due to some deep rooted respect for things that are yet above our mental grasp, but most likely because they do waste time entertaining ideas that are absolutely ludicrous. Astrophysicists do not feel the need to delve into the claims of astrologers and geologists do not pay much attention to people who'd believe the earth was flat.

As someone significantly wiser than both of us once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence", which simply means that if you make extraordinary claims, a category a soul would fit neatly into, you've better come up with the evidence. Until you do so, we have no reason to listen to you.

You, good sir, nailed it. Kudos to you, and i like the fact you're a fan of Christopher Hitchens. I'd just like to add that just because science says we should be open-minded, doesn't mean we should respect the opinions of those that make up silly, unsubstantiated claims and then try to tell us we have to respect their opinions. If you're going to give ghosts the benefit of the doubt, then i'll only respect you if you give them the benefit of the doubt as much as you do to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Dezerte]

You, good sir, nailed it. Kudos to you, and i like the fact you're a fan of Christopher Hitchens. I'd just like to add that just because science says we should be open-minded, doesn't mean we should respect the opinions of those that make up silly, unsubstantiated claims and then try to tell us we have to respect their opinions. If you're going to give ghosts the benefit of the doubt, then i'll only respect you if you give them the benefit of the doubt as much as you do to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

On open-mindedness;

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan

I think he nailed it with that statement.

[Wikiy]

On open-mindedness;

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan

I think he nailed it with that statement.

I'm having a hard time imagining a "peaceful" and soothing person like him saying something like that (not that i'm saying that he didn't, just saying it'd sound weird coming from him). xD

[damntree]

The context in which 'soul' was being used IS a religious term. The context in which I was discussing 'faith' WAS in a religious context.

You may not understand what the context of the terms we were discussing meant, but that is hardly my fault. The person I was having the discussion with did, and it is irrelevant that you cannot grasp it.

Really because it appears for the last few pages he was arguing that he wasn't using it in a religious way and you keep saying you can't without hi-jacking it.

[DiscostewSM]

We haven't grasped the workings of the universe to know whether this "soul" exists, and as such is just a theory. Science itself is constructed by theories we developed by observation, analysis and experimentation. There is no actual proof in them because any proof found is also based on theories. Even theories that have stuck with us for hundreds of years get debunked sometimes because we find something new, which we can't explain or understand and yet opposes the original theory.

[Kalis]

Really because it appears for the last few pages he was arguing that he wasn't using it in a religious way and you keep saying you can't without hi-jacking it.

He claimed it wasn't religious, but his entire context was based on the religious idea of the soul as some form of 'life energy/spirit'.

If his concept wasn't religion based, then why use the term 'soul' in a similar context to that used in religions? My point was that he shouldn't use the term 'soul' to describe an unrelated, but superficially similar concept, but that he should use another term - otherwise he is deliberately hijacking a religious term.

[Marxman]

I don't believe in souls. The bright white light that people see when they're dying? Chemical reactions in the brain as it shuts down cause that. There ahs not yet been one shred of evidence to the contrary.

As far as what a "soul" is when one is alive, it's simply the genetic make-up of one person's brain. It's your identity and personality as a human being.

[Eroginous]

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.

So let's start with the basics and try to narrow it down to as specific as possible. Just answer the questions the best you can.

#1 Does every living thing have a soul ? Only humans ? Maybe other animals as well ? How about plants ? Maybe insects ? What about mushrooms as they're sort of neither animal nor plant, do mushrooms have souls ?

#2 At which point is a soul created ? In example of humans. Does an adult male have a soul ? Does a teenager have a soul ? Does a freshborn baby have a soul ? Does a fetus inside the mother's womb have a soul ? Does an inseminated egg cell have a soul ? Does a sperm have a soul ? What if the sperm is still inside the father's balls but hasn't gone out yet, does it have a soul ?

That covers who has a soul and when it is created. Once we can narrow it down we can proceed with more interesting stuff.

1. There is only the natural world. Anything that has any influence on the natural world, exists within the natural world, and thus is testable in the natural world.

2. At any time when something is untestable and thus cannot be verified to have an effect within the natural world, then it is indistinguishable from something that does not exist in the natural world.

3. Any supernatural claims must be supported by facts and evidence which exist in reality, otherwise it cannot be verified to have an effect in the natural world. Once a supernatural claim IS supported by facts and evidence which exist in reality, then that claim is no longer considered supernatural and will become a part of scientific understanding of the natural world.

4. There are absolutely zero facts or evidence that souls exist. Instead, neuroscience has proven that the mind is strictly a function of the brain, and once that brain dies, then the mind stops functioning completely. Medical science has also proven that once the body dies, the electrical current that powers the body dissipates.

5. At this point, we have a pretty good understanding of how the human body and brain works, and our understanding is completely supported by facts and evidence which exists in the natural world.

6. No soul or god is needed to understand how the body/brain works in practical applications. On the contrary, there is no supernatural explanation which comes close to giving us our understanding of the body and brain in a way that science does.

[Deleted]

#2) Cannot study it if the world cannot agree on it? Does that mean that we can't study evolution because there are religions who do not agree with it?

Not only religious disagree with darwin's evolution

[Austilias]

We haven't grasped the workings of the universe to know whether this "soul" exists, and as such is just a theory. Science itself is constructed by theories we developed by observation, analysis and experimentation. There is no actual proof in them because any proof found is also based on theories. Even theories that have stuck with us for hundreds of years get debunked sometimes because we find something new, which we can't explain or understand and yet opposes the original theory.

Pretty much this. The one thing I have noticed about people who argue from the scientific perspective is that, while happy to admit the fact that science can be wrong, they nonetheless present their arguments as though they are founded on absolutes. In a way it is a reflection of what politicians have done for centuries; arguing from black and white terms, but never going so far as to make a promise.

Take the Sagan quotation that people seem to think is self-evident in its meaning and an end in itself to debate ("It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."); all it does is raise more questions than answers. At what point is one's mind so open that their brain falls out? Who sets this standard? It is easy to scoff at religious concepts but then one must ask themselves, is the Multiverse Theory any more legitimate and reasonable? Keeping with Stephen Hawking and what he has proclaimed of the Event Horizon, that to stand upon its edge is to see past, present and future; is that any more legitimate and reasonable than what someone of a religious/spiritual mindset might espouse? I'd posit no, interesting though those theorisations may be.

We live in an infinite universe where anything is possible, though it's very easy for humans to overlook our limitations; combine that common fact of life with the very tangible fact that our knowledge and thought is bound by our senses and what we can perceive of the universe around us, and you come to a far greater realm of humility than that of many modern day, scientifically minded individuals who operate from the cognitively dissonant, have-your-cake-and-eat-it position that science is always right, except when its wrong. The definition of 'right' is also important to note in this instance however; when people say 'science is right', what is usually meant is that 'science works'. Other things we have seen to work and indeed have done for thousands of years include the wheel, but that is not to say a better method cannot be found; the same is true of science. As for me, I keep an open mind; however much those of a scientific persuasion, whom I agree with almost always, might try to limit and define 'an open mind' within their own terms.

[damntree]

He claimed it wasn't religious, but his entire context was based on the religious idea of the soul as some form of 'life energy/spirit'.

If his concept wasn't religion based, then why use the term 'soul' in a similar context to that used in religions? My point was that he shouldn't use the term 'soul' to describe an unrelated, but superficially similar concept, but that he should use another term - otherwise he is deliberately hijacking a religious term.

Granted but he's not attaching any religion to it. He's saying what if there is something like a spark of life; why not call it a soul? I guess we could go with chi.

[Khanjin]

No, souls do not exist.

Our actions and feelings are based on electric/chemical impulses in our brains. Most stuff like keeping our organs working is automatic, but what we feel and experience is impulses based off of our sense organs that picks up our environment and keeps us from doing stupid stuff to potentially die. We've developed brains during what is called evolution, to keep us alive for longer or more safely, through natural selection. This has made the human mind exceptionally good at finding solutions, and what you're experiencing when you're pondering the questions "is God real" or "are souls real" is just your brain at work always trying harder to find solutions for problems to potentially make yourself live longer/safer. Your mind have made up a concept (or somebody else's mind, you've read stuff or talked to people to learn about God or Souls, haven't you) that is "perfect" and don't want to let go of it because it is "perfect" and would be great if it was the case. Religious or superstitious people are just more hung up on this than others.

No offence intended.

[Dendrek]

If you think he is wrong, then you need to come up with a convincing argument and prove him wrong.

Shifting the burden of proof. If he makes a claim, he needs to prove it. It is impossible to prove a negative -- to prove something DOES NOT exist. It cannot be done.

[Tzalix]

Much of what we believed hundreds of years ago has since been proven to be false. The word "impossible" should be banned from the vocabulary and replaced with "implausible".

It is true that we cannot prove a negative, we cannot prove that something doesn't exist. But if we go deep enough into philosophical thinking, we find that we actually cannot prove that something exists either.

I will once again bring forth this point. Trying to drag "facts" into a philosophical question is moronic. And yes, it is, by all means, a philosophical question. The belief in "souls" or similar ideas does not have to be religious. Religion may or may not be the source of the idea, and the word "soul", but the meaning of words change over time and so does ideas.