What is a soul?

What do you believe is evidence? Your idea of evidence is likely my idea of your belief.
The concept of soul fits my definition and understanding of a sense of who I am. I declare it. It is one aspect of how I define myself. I choose to identify with this. That you can make no sense of it is unimportant. What you declare yourself is. It will define "you" and how and if we will interact. Your belief that soul makes no sense is a choice based on belief. This is not a problem to me. If you are not a soul, to me, you are "not". Then I simply experience a meaningless causal effect. I believe that is not the case. I have faith that you are more. That is what this thread is about. No need to appologise. Faith makes no sense by this definitionless definition, yet it exists and makes sense to me. What is it about soul that is senseless to you and why? What makes sense to you?

Too funny. Thanks, I needed that. No, stop. I can take only so much mirth.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe there are those who have souls and those who don't. A soul could be a birth defect, needing lifelong spiritual medication, or it could be installed later through evangelical surgery. In my case, a soul is something I was born without, like a tail, horns, webbed feet, feathers...”Hoot Mon

When your done rolling on the floor with your feet in the air perhaps you will finally explain your view.

So you define a soul as an apendage? What is your idea of this thing you were born without? How would you describe it?

I cannot explain a soul. It is not sensible. I can believe that it is that which exists beyond death, but that is just a belief, not something factual, that can be tested or verified.It is not sensible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I thought we’d already discussed this.Meaning, like much else in this world, is in the eye of the beholder. As far as I can understand you, you believe there is more to you than ”the sum of the parts’, and that something ”extra’ is what allows you to impart meaning upon the world around you. I on the other hand do not believe I am any more than the sum of my parts, so you immediately assume that what I say is meaningless because I do not ”possess’ this extra something that would allow me to impart or understand ”meaning’.I think you need to read a book like The Handicap Principle by the Zahavi’s to allow you to see how debilitating your view of information exchange and ”meaning’ is. You appear to be stuck in the endless loop of, “I feel there is something more to me than the sum of my parts, and that is what gives meaning to my existence. Any viewpoint or evidence that fails to address this is by definition meaningless, therefore I am wasting my time even giving it my consideration”.You seem determined to try to ”reason away’ my ”no soul’ view, without producing anything other than your own feelings and incredulity in support of your own viewpoint. I have no real problem with this, other than your endless failure to acknowledge that there are more definitions of the word ”meaning’ than the one you recognise and adhere to.You appear to want to reject any definition of ”meaning’ that does not match your own as meaningless. You appear unwilling to enter into a dialogue which requires you to consider the possibility that what we feel when we listen to music may be related to other forms of interaction between waveforms and physical forms, without resorting to the very defensive, “I don’t communicate with chemical reactions!” Well hey, maybe you need to start, you might learn something about yourself and the universe you inhabit!Way back in Message 82, you used the term, “intent to learn”. I thought it was a little odd at the time, because I tend to learn from whatever comes my way - I have no idea what I might learn tomorrow, or the next day, as I cannot see into the future. Looking back on your statement now though, I see the hint of a suggestion of ”directed’ learning, a sense in which you only appear to want to learn things that reinforce your belief structure, and when presented with views that threaten that structure, there may be a tendency to cover your ears with your hands and start making shrill noises to drown out the offending idea.In Message 136 you tell jar, “That you can make no sense of it is unimportant. What you declare yourself is.” If the only thing that is important to you is your own worldview, how do you evaluate the worth of that view? How do you reconcile it with alternative worldviews, or is that not important to you? Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

I think a large part of what we believe in this area is down to temperament. How we interpret our consciousness and self-awareness may come down to what our emotional needs are.I don’t, and have never felt, the need to believe in supernatural beings or an afterlife. That is something that has been a constant throughout my life, but I don’t think it defines me in any way - many others feel the same way, so there is nothing uniquely ”me’ about that.However, when I read about what others believe a soul to be, I can appreciate where they’re coming from to a degree, but I don’t feel inclined to accept their interpretation, even though much has been made of the idea that it’s all a matter of belief.I think this term is sometimes used to suggest that all personal beliefs are equally valid, simply because they are personal, and cannot be experienced by others. However, I like the idea of examining the basis for our personal beliefs, to see if ”they hold water’, so to speak.This is where a forum like EvC comes in. We can exchange views and try to get some understanding of what others are feeling and experiencing. This helps us to test the basis of our own personal beliefs and, hopefully, respect the beliefs of others, who may feel differently to ourselves. Perhaps, but I don’t think you should assume that it is necessarily the same as yours. Depending on the terms of reference, I could express a sense of “I”, but it might not be the same as it was yesterday, and may not be the sense as it is tomorrow.I think one of the tests we can apply is how do we feel when we meet someone we haven’t seen in a very long time. These can often be difficult meetings because both parties have changed so much - the respective senses of “I” can be significantly different to what they were ten or twenty years previously.I could very well be wrong, but I don’t think my failure to recognise an unchanging “I” in myself is especially unique. In conclusion, I detect no enduring soul that is the essence of “me”, or would have been the same essence of “me” regardless of my life journey.

2ice_baked_taters, re: I don't define a "soul" anything but a fluffy figment of the imaginations of true believers. How am I suppose to describe something that doesn't exist? I was also born without a need to be spiritual, so my personal glossary is tilted away from that kind of silliness.”Hoot Mon

Frankly I have never felt the need to believe in the supernatural or an afterlife either. My only need is that I really want to know as much of the truth that I am able to grasp. I do believe that there is more truth than can be discovered by the scientific method however. The thing is, that whether we have a need to believe in something or not, the truth is still the truth, irrespective of any need. That is one of the reasons I'm here, although the main reason I suppose is that I'm fascinated by science and I'm here to learn. EvC is a great place for both. I contend though that there is a core "I" that exists. As I said before, we are changed through experience, culture, our maturing etc, but those are just renovations to the room that represents our core being. I look at my wife of many years and wonder what she is thinking. We can never know what goes on in another person's head because of the fact that we are all separate and distinct. My "I" will never be able to view the world through my wife's "I".

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Mmm . my experience is that our emotional needs can affect our understanding in many areas, can predispose us towards one point of view as opposed to another. Maybe I’m over simplifying things, but sometimes when faced with great complexity, I choose the option that feels most ”right’, simply because the problem seems insoluble to my reason and logic. Perhaps I’m alone in this, but it’s not what I observe in the world around me. When I get up in the morning and look in the bathroom mirror, I see the same face I saw the morning before, there is never any perceptible change - outside of the obvious, if I’ve had a haircut the previous day, etc. However, if I compare what I see in the mirror to a photograph taken some years earlier, I can start to see some very large changes.Similarly, when I wake up, I wake up in the same bed I went to sleep in, and most of the memories I had the night before are still be fairly fresh in my mind. This might be seen as continuity of “me”, but as I’ve already suggested, this may be misleading. Whereas I can compare the way I look today with the way I looked twenty years ago, it’s not so easy for me to compare how I “was” twenty years ago with how I “am” today. I feel I am a different person, and have also been told by others I am different in many ways. This is the closest I can come to ”photographic evidence’, and it’s telling me I am not the same person.Sure, I have plenty in common with that previous “me”, but I also have plenty in common with other people. However, this does not mean we share a common “I” or soul.But before closing I’d like to draw your attention to a link I set up in Message 33, http://www.associatedcontent.com/...heart_have_a_memory.html.The idea that organs other than the brain may have the ability to store memories, and affect personal tastes, is both contentious and fascinating. Clearly, if these ideas have any substance, it raises all kinds of questions regarding the sense of “I” favoured by many. However, I’ll not pre-judge the issue and wait to see if you wish to respond.

Apologies for the late addendum, but this is a question I’ve been meaning to ask on here for some time.If you don’t know what’s going on inside the heads of others, and you can’t view the world through their “I”, how can you know your sense of “I” is in any way unique to you?

No. By the nature of the way you percieve you misinterpret me. There is nothing "extra". I recognise you as a soul as I do myself. We speak in the posessive for this very reason. Our conversation would not be possible otherwise.
It was you who insisted there was no meaning to seek.
My understanding of your view is that you have found meaning in life based upon your beliefs you expressed in message 33. No different than any other human who has sought meaning throughout history. Though you continue to insist otherwise. They are part of the meaning you base your life upon. I am the sum of my parts only from one perspective. I understand that perspective. I choose another. My parts are not me nor am I their sum. They are aspects of me. There are many things that I find meaning in just as you do, though it appears you insist otherwise.
My understanding of myself includes your perspective but is not limited by it. When you can find a better way to express that which science can not I may consider the notion. Until then you are a soul to me. How it may be mechanically expressed is of interest but only in a mechanical sense. It has no meaning beyond that.
Why would a chemical machine find anything offensive? Keep in mind that the term machine is a human invention that has nothing to do with the human body. It's the horse before the cart. However it is a box you have placed yourself in.
Learning mechanics, though interesting, will teach me nothing of true consequence. Yes. Intent. You intend to learn and see things from one perspective.
You have intentionally chose this way to see things. Information/experience comes our way....we choose how to see it and incorporate it or disregard it based on intent. This can be said of both points of view. You are stuck in the mechanical and all explanations are derived from this one perspective.
You do not delienate from this course.
I recognise a mechanical perspective but do not limit myself to it.
Your view to me is quite limited. You disregard anything but the mechanical and are offended when I oblige.

Not for the first time, we appear to be going round in circles. I appear to acknowledge the fact that we talk of ”meaning’ or ”meaningless’ in two different contexts. I see nothing in anything you have said at any point that recognises this differentiation.So, hopefully, for one last time I’ll reiterate the context in which my reply to nemesis should be read. Nemesis, in Message 30, stated that he felt life without a ”higher purpose’ would be meaningless. He was very specific about this, “At the same time, if we were to go by strict naturalism, there isn't any purpose to anything. Why not just forgo this whole thing, since it would be meaningless”. So when I talk about seeking ”meaning’, I am talking about 'meaning’ in the context of the ”higher purpose’ alluded to by nemesis, and by yourself in Message 64, for example.I see no evidence for the “higher power or purpose” you refer to in Message 64. Consequently I see no ”higher meaning’ associated with any “higher power or purpose” and feel no need to seek one out. This is the very specific context in which I refute ”meaning’. Thereafter, all bets are off if we want to start to discuss wider senses of the word.Just so there is no further confusion, I am happy to state that I am fascinated by the processes that lead to life and consciousness, the processes that lead to me sitting here at my keyboard formulating these words into the ”meaning’ I wish to convey. At this point I expect we may not be too far apart in how we see the world, but beyond this point I expect we diverge markedly.I see not a shred of evidence that would lead me to believe that any of the above cannot be pinpointed to specific, measurable electro/boi/chemical reactions within my brain (or other parts of my body?). None of which reduces my sense of awe and wonder, but I do not associate this sense of awe and wonder with anything other than positive stimuli within said brain.Plants don’t even have brains, yet they are stimulated towards certain musical arrangements, and away from others. I cannot make you see the relationship between these things, so I am unable to express to you how easy it is for me to experience the world in the same way as you, but without and sense of ”higher meaning’. The awe and wonder to which I refer arising out of brainwave activity that produces positive stimuli that I wish to experience over and over, as opposed to negative stimuli I would prefer to avoid.Analogies are always dangerous around this place because they invariably lead to as much confusion as they do clarity, but we keep on making them because we think we’re smart enough to come up with the ”killer’ analogy.Imagine I have a friend. Tough to imagine, I know, but see what you can do. One day this friend comes around in a state of excitement. They’ve discovered what they call a magic cake, and they really want me to try it. I do, and love it, so ask if I can have the recipe, but am told the recipe is magic as well, so I won’t be able to bake it.At this point I call another friend who happens to be a scientist. I ask if they will analyse the cake to see if they can tell me what the ingredients, and their proportions, are. A couple of days later I get a call telling me the recipe.So I set about trying to bake the cake, applying a bit of trial and error to figure how the ingredients should best be combined. After a few attempts I produce a cake that looks, tastes and feels exactly like the magic cake.Needless to say I call my friend and tell them of my success and invite them round to sample my recipe. It isn’t the same, they declare. I tell them it seems exactly the same to me - looks, tastes and feels exactly the same. They agree, but say there is something I am missing, the ”magicness’ of the cake. Which is what exactly?, I ask, and they explain it as best they can, but it sounds like exactly the same experience I am having, but they think theirs ”magical’ and I don’t. When pressed on this they reply, well you know, it just is, you don’t get it because your view of the world is limited.I’ve just spent some time running through some of your posts on this thread, and I don’t see anything that you say that offers a single insight into “you” the soul that is any different to what I see as “you” the bio/chemical entity. I see little beyond the tired old platitudes and generalities that abound on sites like this.You are very keen to assert that there is a “you” that is beyond the scope of scientific measurement, but offer nothing of what that is. Isn’t it time to put up a bit more than, “you can’t see because of the limitations you place upon reality”? Don’t be shy; I don’t think anyone can steal the “youness” of “you”, that which is beyond the reach of scientific measurement, if you post it on here. Oh dear. I think your understanding of learning and the way we learn is a little outdated.As we unravel the mysteries of the human mind and consciousness, we are increasingly finding out that much of what we learn happens at the sub-conscious level, as are many of the choices and decisions we make. For example, there’s some very controversial research, and conclusions being drawn, by the likes of Libet and Lau, http://dericbownds.net/...ree-will-free-wont-or-neither.html.The idea that I am the product of my conscious decisions is starting to look increasingly doubtful. I can see why some may choose to exercise their ”intent to learn’ to not learn this, but perhaps these are the real tests of open-mindedness or setting of limitations on how we view reality. I’m talking about the tendency to deny what is measurable in favour of what is not measurable. If I appear to be offended, it’s not by what you offer, it’s by the fact that you offer nothing, nothing beyond, I believe there are things about me beyond scientific measurement, and you just don’t get it, that is.I think we need to examine the ”preciousness’ of your personal belief system.It’s not uncommon to see the point of view that all personal beliefs are equally valid, given that no one other than the believer has had the experiences that have helped shape those beliefs. I have some sympathy for that view, but none for the practice of hiding behind the catchall of, “my beliefs are beyond the scope of scientific measurement, so you couldn’t possibly be expected to understand them because only I am capable of that”.Despite your belief to the contrary, I am not offended by alternative views, but I do get very disillusioned by those who proclaim a belief but are either unable or unwilling to articulate the basis for that belief. I find the, “I believe it and you can’t prove it otherwise, so I don’t need to justify it” all a bit vacuous and depressing.If that were the best somebody has to bring to this forum, why would they bother?Finally, I think you need to differentiate between the notion of disregarding and that of examining and concluding the idea has little or no value. The world is full of inventors, but most of the inventions that have ever seen the light of day have been worthless, apart from in the eye of the inventor. Does that make the rest of us limited in our understanding by our perspective, or were they just lousy inventions? Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

You have chosen a higher purpose and have stated so. I am amused by your insistance that this is not so when your statements are to the contrary. You do not sit stagnant. Why? Mesage 43 you state your far from perfect. lol You insist this is to convey a sense of humility.
Humility? why? For what purpose? The following car anology is amusing because you fail to follow the trail of why you need a well functioning car to it's root motivation.
The fact that you have some notion of things running smoothly hints at your higher ideal. That you refuse to acknowledge it is what is most amusing because you are not an uninteligent human. You have a notion of "better" It is not just this simple notion but your beliefs that shape this notion that are your higher purpose. All you do comes from this place of belief. Everything you interpret will be measured by this ruler you have intentionally chosen by direction of your core belief. That is the way people work. All people. You are no exception. You serve this core belief. You believe the human mind is a mystery? In what sense?
The notion of concious and unconcious is exactly that. A notion. How accurate a description of what is, it is, is far from setteld. It is not a notion I adhere to or am perticularly comfortable with as it is based upon assertive interpretation. lol. Yes as one you also hold deer. This forum topic is one you have not been able to funtion in becasue you are unwilling to acknowledge your beliefs as such. When you do so we shall have a true and "meaningful" conversation. They key is you believe there is evidence to support your position. I recognise evidence but of what, is forever open to interpretation. Yours, mine, and a host of others. That is where faith and belief always take over. One cannot escape that fact.
I recognise this. You deny it. What is, is
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : bad spelling day lol