What is a soul?

His differences make him different. Nobody else responded to it, so from what did you take, "understanding"? Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

What do you mean by value here? How is the usual concept of value applicable to living organisms at all? How is this not the fallacy of confusion of categories? How is your idea of value related to the definition of a particular organism? What makes a particular organism a slug is that it fits our agreed description of a slug: if it did not, we would call it something else.One can, of course, tell us from slugs by simple inspection. Why do you need vague terms like "transcendental"?You seem to be ignoring how matter is organized to make various objects and organisms, in order to sneak in the supernatural.

I can only tell you how it is for me. It is not possible for anyone other than me to experience my life experience, any more than it is possible for them to experience any life experience other than their own. If I have failed to successfully convey what it is not to seek the meaning to which you refer, I guess I need to brush up on my communication skills.I think it’s real easy to fall into the trap of seeing ourselves in others. To think they must be feeling the same things we are. I notice the idea of reductionism has been introduced to the thread. I suspect reductionism might define my ”sense of being’ as no more than learned behaviour that allows me to function more efficiently in the various groups I belong to, i.e. family, friends, work etc. I would have no problem whatsoever with this definition. It seems to fit in well with my perception of reality.I think it’s interesting you are reading the notions of ”idealism’ and ”perfection’ into what I've written. I’ve read and re-read my post and see absolutely nothing that supports that view. I said I am ”far from perfect’ which is a whole different thing. Sure it might suggest I am comparing myself to some notional ideal, but it’s just a term to convey a sense of humility. Maybe it’s just cultural thing, but it’s a saying that gets used all the time where I come from.But let’s take a look at other aspects of my behaviour. I also try really hard to keep my car properly maintained and serviced. Does this imply a sense of striving towards perfection or ”elevation towards a non-physical ideal’? Does it imply a need for ”meaning’ in my life? Nope, I find it just helps it to function more efficiently. Agreed, I could/should have been more clear on this point. Having used the term ”grand designs and salvation are just nonsensical notions’, I can see that this may be interpreted to mean I believed them to be concepts that are beyond the detection of the five senses. That was not my intention. In my view these are concepts invented by humankind and that any attempt to attribute any ”higher meaning’ to life is similarly misguided.But for anyone with an interest in humankind, the best way to understand the origins of such widespread beliefs is to get believers to share their feelings and experiences. You can read a thousand books, but unless you actually take the trouble to ”connect’ with people, you risk ”missing’ so many points. Which is why I’m here on this forum, happy to discuss ideas that I disagree with. I don’t think the term ”blind chance’ should be confused with randomness. The word blind is used to suggest that when a mutation happens, for example, the mutating organism has no sense of purpose during that mutation. The suggestion is not that organisms are driving themselves towards pre-determined goals through the use of mutation, but that mutation happens and some previously unforeseen outcome may occur.The ”chance’ bit is more interesting, and maybe gives us a chance to get back on topic belatedly. This sounds like you are edging perilously close to determinism.I’m a little hamstrung on this one, as you haven’t actually gone into any more detail than “I am a soul”, so am unable to determine what that belief entails. If you’d like to continue the debate, perhaps you could go into some more detail, to see if there are any ideas that arise from the notion of combining ”chance’ and the soul (whatever that might be).Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

So, all the comunication we do is just useless gibberish with no meaning, a futile attempt at conveying who we are to another so they may know us for, we are unknowable but to ourselves. Seek no meaning for we are unkowable. Wow.....that is amazing. If no one understands
you and you have or seek no meaning what do you have? Explain this sense of "being" with no meaning. That would be projection yes? So, you are me or, I am you. To follow this thoroughly there is no "you" Just an intricate web of chemical reactions that interacts to stimuli. Just physical events and matter to analyze. This correlates with meaninglessness quite well. Where is the being? All I understand here is "It is" I do not ask a rock what it is. I cannot know a rock any more than I can know a person correct? Humility? to what? Why? You seek no meaning. Humility is a non physical ideal rife with motivations. Motivations are subjective non physical characterizations of behavioral observations. Why?You are attempting to comunicate that you have no meaning. I am trying to understand your meaninglessness. I am confused when you appear to convey meaning even if non intentionally. More to the point. How can human kind invent something? All events are
products of thier environment. "invention" is a subjective interpretation of physical events. "invention" implies meaning. I am getting real mixed messages here. No one can know you. You claim a "desire?" to "connect" and for others to "connect" Why? There is no higher purpose. You seek no meaning. I am trying to understand the meaningless sense of being you experience. I think I am beginning to understand. I cannot know your experience because as in the case of mutation there is no predetermined goal or meaning. Just a series of unforseen reactions to stimuli. I think?
A meaningless sense of "being" This is a tough one for me. What is perilous about it? I have done nothing more than state the fact that all events that will happen as they will....will happen as they will. Your above statement implies that you acknowledge some sort of "free will". How is it that you determine this "free will"? Is this not just natural randomness at work? Are you different or apart from nature? You are chance are you not? I am still trying to get a sense of "you", "being" with no meaning. I am a soul that experiences life. I am learning from the human experience. Asking you to identify exactly what "you" are is just as meaningless. Your answer, physically, will forever be lacking. Any meaningful answer will contradict your idea of "being" without meaning which is a contradiction in my understanding so far. Show me an answer with no meaning and I will have a meaningless answer.

An organism is nothing more than a complicated compound object. There is no need for sepparation.

Spoken like a true godless materialist. But your definition overlooks something crucial.Life itself.Most people would say the quality of being alive has something to do with defining an object as an organism.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Though this speaks nothing of a higher power...thank you.Now,Read the last statement in message 49

I see that your definition of 'soul', to the extent that you have offered one, makes it synonymous with 'life.'Organisms are just complex compound clumps of matter, you say. What separates them from other clumps of matter is that they happen to be animated. You call this animating energy 'soul.''Soul' is the ingredient that makes material entities metabolize and reproduce and have experiences. It's the thing at work in your body that makes you a living, functioning personality rather than a lump of material stretched on a table in a med school. To be a soul is to have life.All very well.It follows from this that 'soul', as you define it, is a feature of all living creatures. You are a soul, the banana slug is a soul, the redwood tree the slug lives on is a soul. To be an organism is to be a soul.Is this your view?___Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing quest for literary perfection.Edited by Archer Opterix, : ever ongoing.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I am woman, hear me roar, eh? I suppose that IF a soul is the mind, will, and emotions, a wood slug would be unable--as far as we can tell-to be able to shout out its own existence.I suppose part of this argument hinges on the idea of man being one of many animals....each as valuable in God eyes as the other---or whether we are unique and set apart in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe we’re talking at cross-purposes, because we appear to be talking of ”meaning’ in two different ways. One might be the ”meaning’ of the myriad things that happen within a life, the other might be ”spiritual meaning’, which is the one I say that I do not seek.Let’s start with the first of these.I’m going to start with the use of signals to communicate information in nature. Signalling is rife in nature - between members of the same species and different species, including prey and predator. Signals, of a sort, have even been observed in microbial life forms. Observation of these shows them to be beneficial to both the sender and receiver in terms of increasing their survival chances.This is because they contain information that the receiver can use - there’s no reason why it cannot be considered to have ”meaning’ for the receiver. So it could be argued that the search for ”meaning’ is widespread throughout nature. If that is your definition of ”meaning’, then I don’t have a problem with it. I wouldn’t want to ascribe to it the ”meaning’ or ”purpose’ of life, as both these terms suggests that life itself is a signal carrier from which ”meaning’ can be extracted.But let’s move on. As I alluded to earlier, I could have chosen the term ”spiritual meaning’ instead of just plain, old ”meaning’. However the discussion between nemesis and myself was so obviously discussing spiritual issues, it never even occurred to me to qualify it. At some point it becomes necessary to make assumptions about the reader’s basic capabilities with regard to their ability to understand narratives within the context in which they are placed, otherwise we would spend our whole time qualifying or pre-qualifying every minute detail of what we write.At this point I’m going to outline my interpretation of what nemesis was saying.One or two things are explicit. Nemesis believes in a god, and he believes himself to be a soul. Thereafter it is possible to infer that he also believes that his god is responsible for his existence. My interpretation of what he says is that nemesis believes his life to be a message from his god, so that he may decipher the ”meaning’ contained within and increase his chances of survival in an afterlife. He is, therefore, seeking the ”meaning’ that has been encoded in his life by his god. I apologise to nemesis if I have misrepresented what he believes.I on the other hand do not believe in the existence of any supernatural being or higher power. I do not believe that life is an encoded message that contains any ”meaning’. It would be nonsensical, therefore, to search for an encoded message that does not exist.I don’t know if it is within my powers of communication to make my position any clearer. Okay. I took great pains to ensure I used terms such as “to experience”. This phrase clearly makes a distinction between first hand experience and second hand knowledge of experience, gained through communication.If I want to learn what it might be like to travel to the South Pole, I can read about it or watch a documentary, or even speak to someone who has been there. Depending on the ability of the narrator, the extent to which I am able to ”put myself in their shoes’ will vary. But there’s one inescapable fact, the only way I can actually experience going to the South Pole is to get off my butt and do it.I’m certainly interested to find out what you convey to others to let them see who 'you' are. Are you willing to share some of it with us? No. That would be the oft seen cry of, “I feel this way, therefore everybody must feel this way. I cannot imagine anything other than what I feel”. A practical example of this would be, 2ice baked taters feels there is ”meaning of being’, therefore every other ”human on earth’ must feel the same way. So what does make me? A little nature and a lot of nurture, perhaps? But I don’t want to avoid the reductionism question. I see no evidence to suggest that “it is” cannot coexist quite happily with consciousness. Advances in the neurosciences do nothing to lessen this idea - quite the contrary I believe. Isn’t it just an emotional attachment to the notion that we 'must be more than a biological machine' that causes us to shy away from a more widespread acceptance of this? You keep using words like “ideal”. One of the definitions of humility is meekness, and is used by me to convey the idea of non-threatening. I don’t know if you’ve read the whole thread, but if you have you will see that the exchanges between nemesis and myself were a little confrontational at the start, but as the debate progressed, our tones became more conciliatory. In the spirit of this, I was looking to convey a sense of, “I might not agree with your beliefs, but I’m not about to stomp all over them”. This is entirely speculation on my part, but I wonder if the current trend in the neurosciences towards attributing ever more influence to the sub-conscious mind may not lead to the conclusion that inventive ideas are no more than known solutions to ”unknown’ problems being worked on sub-consciously. I’ve already dealt with the ”meaning’ question, and about communicating our experiences to others, but I think it’s worth reiterating the bit about microbes signalling each other. Even primitive life forms “connect”, but do they seek ”meaning’ in the way you understand it? I am guilty of an assumption here, or perhaps association. I tend to associate those who believe in the soul as being synonymous with those who believe in free will. Do I myself believe in free will? On the balance of probability, I say no. But I do believe in the illusion of free will.I saw it as being perilous for you. If I was mistaken, I apologise for my lack of understanding. For those who seek ”spiritual meaning’, my answer will forever be lacking, but may become more difficult to ignore with each passing year. Or am I now being as presumptuous as you were with your, “Every human on earth seeks meaning of being”?

Again, Why? What would be the difference if you did stomp all over them?
Why the choice and how do you characterize it? Nature/Nurture? There's a difference? Explain to me how one arrives at the delineation. So to anologise....It is hot...it is cold....It is hard....it is radioactive....It is concious. Ah consiousness is a quality perhaps. Not a concrete and measurable thing. Or is it? Help me out here. Understanding how something mechanically works.
Consciosness is mechanical then. Choice, it is simply a perfect example of natures randomness at work. Invention is the result of random mutation. Explain this "we" What is there to accept? What accepts it? No, you have and are still attempting to sepparate meaning from experience. Unless all of your experiences are meaningless. How does one make a choice from a meaningless experience? How is spiritual meaning apart from, well, non spiritual? It is all meaning. Somehow you want to sepparate it. Is it not all meaning of the myriad things that happen during life?
Perhaps you meant to say that you do not agree with looking to anything other than yourself for inspiration. Yet you claim you are not perfect. What does this mean? There is no higher power or purpose so what is the motivation to improve? How do you know something is an "improvement"? Why is it an improvement? Explain this notion of an illusion of free will. Is this different from determinism? No apologies necessary I stand by my statement unless someone can show me how meaningless their life is. This will be tough as any explanation will have meaning and require a meaning for any possible way to begin an explanation.
I am curious as to your aversion to the notion of a higher power or purpose while holding that you percieve you are not perfect. What is the nature of this perception of imperfection? How can you know?

I’m going to take some time out and try to compose something that may allow you to see why my perception of reality makes perfect sense to me, even though it will always be nonsensical to you.In the meantime, I’m really interested in finding out what makes you ”you’. What makes ”you’, the soul? You’ve alluded to it on a number of occasions but offered no ”meat on the bone’ whatsoever.To gets things started, could you answer the following? Is there a part of ”you’ that is ”essential’, that would be unchanged regardless of your life experiences? For example, had you been born 100 years ago into abject poverty in Calcutta, would you still have been ”you’ on some level?

This is a misconception. There is not a part of me that is essential. I am essential. Your mind is stuck in the mechanical. You are component oriented. Whenever I would have been born would make no difference other than I would have experienced different circumstances and made different choices. People can drastically change their personality within a lifetime. This is done by either choice or necessity. In either case they are still themselves just doing what they choose or what they must do to survive and experience their circumstances in life. One may have a different persona but it is still they who choose to experience life that way in response to those particular circumstances. The simple fact that we in effect go through multiple sets of bodies in a lifetime as cells die and are replaced drives home to me that we are not our physical bodies. Now one can take exception and consider that our brain cells last a life time unless damaged. This still illustrates that we go beyond when other pathways are made and the person continues to go on. In cases where behavior is radically changed it simply means that the person is handicapped. It is no different if one loses an arm. One can not use an arm one does not have. I am not my behavior or my personality any more than I am my arm. I can be identified by my choices made evident by my actions through these things. Think of symbolism. In this way we can be many things. The choice is ours. We all through our lives identify "people" by their actions and how we relate to them. We understand a movie star one way until we see them in "real life" We know people at work in one way and tend to also act a particular way at work. We react toward race or looks or weight or behavior. It is all just symbolism of a fashion.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : extra thoughts

I just wanted a way ”in’, to engage you so that you would start to reveal some of the things you believe. I posed the question “what is a soul?” in the opening thread and ended up talking interminably about my own beliefs.If you read my question carefully, I don’t ever say that I believe in a ”component soul’. Remember I don’t believe in a soul at all. I am aware that you have already implied your belief in the ”oneness’ of the soul. However, I wanted to explore the idea of the ”youness’ of you, and if it was in any way transferable, so sought to construct a scenario that might offer some insight.I am happy to plead guilty to the belief that human beings are essentially biological machines, and will try to expand on that when I get some time. You really need to help me out here. Are you saying that you would have been the same soul, living a different life, developing in a different way, with a different sense of who ”you’ are/were, but still ”you’ in some non-physical sense?Do you see where I’m coming from? If you can be identified by your choices, and your choices had been different because of the circumstances of your life, to what extent could ”you’ still be regarded as ”you’ and not somebody else?Or are you saying there would still have been an ”I’, just a different ”I’, and the you that is ”you’ might never have existed?But what I really need to understand is what you are saying with the phrase, “would make no difference”. Would make no difference to what? I’m still not getting the sense of what you mean by soul and ”essential’.

Simply look at what actors do. The evidence of our ability to "be other people" is blatantly obvious. People climb into and out of character on a regular basis throughout their lives. People profoundly change character within their lives all the time becoming different people by others perception. Does this mean they cease to exist at some point because they change? Every time you learn an improtant life lesson you fundamentally change. Why do you think it is expressed as spiritual growth? I am. within this life alone I can be many things. Many people. I have tended to settle upon a belief based on my experience and what the world has shown me.
You believe you are your experience. I believe I simply experience.
I am not my nose or my clothes or my hair or my status in the comunity...I am not a mere collection of my experiences for I experience them, however, they do become part of me in a sense. I can be identified by them however they are not me. The choices involving them are the tracks I leave behind. I am a force that affects my surroundings. As are you. You seek a tangible tied to a mindframe of physical component. The concept of "I am" does not fit that. Nor will it ever be identified by it. It is no different than to understand that the universe may be infinite and might have always existed. It is only we that put limits on things. I believe we draw lines we can understand setting limits to our understanding until we are ready. This is evident to me in the maturing of people everywhere. A person will not see a fundamental truth until they are ready to.