What is a soul?

Given the nature of these forums, I guess it’s no surprise to see frequent references to the human soul. As someone who doesn’t have a spiritual bone in his body, it’s tough to get a real feel for what’s being discussed. Which is not a problem in the sense that my natural sceptic’s instincts tell me this is an area where reality might best be described as blurred. But it’s also one of the reasons for my fascination. What is it that draws people to their beliefs in this area?In all that follows I will play the role of devil’s advocate, assuming solely for the sake of argument that the human soul does exist. This avoids the need to continually qualify my beliefs on the subject, which may be wrong in any case!As a starting point I’m curious about whether the soul should be considered as inextricably linked to material existence, i.e. does a person’s soul come into existence only with their corporeal being? If so, does it occur at the moment of conception, or some time later?Or is the soul something that already exists, waiting to be united with a human body when it eventually arrives on this earth? Or am I completely mistaken in the notion that souls are individual essences, each unique to a single person? Is there any sense in which the soul might be considered a ”global’ essence, with human existence acting as a portal through which to access it?My next question concerns the idea of ”shaping’. Is it the soul that shapes the corporeal being of an individual, or vice versa? Or neither? And in instances where individuals are unaware of their soul, are their souls aware of them?There are numerous other questions I’d like to ask, but I think it’s worth waiting to see if this post gets promoted to the status of thread, and gets any responses thereafter.Before signing off, I think it’s appropriate to remove my devil’s advocate’s hat lest I find it becomes too comfortable.

Perhaps that is the case where you come from, which may go some way to explaining why you believe what you believe. However, in my part of the world, this is most definitely not so, although I suspect we may be observing different aspects of human behaviour.But I’d like to return to the debate if I may, and put my devil’s advocate hat back on. To this end, I’m going to concentrate solely on areas where we might be able to have some worthwhile debate, rather than get bogged down in the dogma. Am I to take this to mean that you believe that animals do not possess souls? If so, I guess I need to ask if you consider a belief in the soul to be incompatible with a belief in the theory of evolution? Or are you suggesting that the soul evolved with man? So how should I assess anything that anybody has to say on the subject?

More or less.Remember I’m simply trying to get a feel for what it is people actually believe in this area. When I talk to others about it, or read about it, it’s very unclear to me what they’re trying to say. I tend to get answers like, ”if you were to experience it, you’d know what I was talking about’.I’m basically just throwing ideas about to see how things develop.

If you’re interested, there’s a fascinating book that deals with altruism in nature, including forced altruism. It’s called The Handicap Principle by Zahavi and Zahavi.

Cheers Larni.I’m not ignoring your reply. It’s just that I suspect we may have broadly similar views on the subject, so I don’t really have anything to take issue with (or expand upon).

I guess at this point I need to stop playing devil’s advocate and start giving something of myself to the debate - at least in this post. ToE suggests that species homo sapien evolved from other life forms - a path that can be traced right back to the earliest single celled stuff. So at some point in the evolutionary journey, something that was not a human being evolved into a human being, begging the question, what part of that evolution caused the soul to come into being? Which explains the relevance of my observation, but given that you do not believe in ToE, it becomes something of a redundant issue. I don’t want to launch into some long diatribe here, so I’ll settle for pointing you in the direction of Message 8 by Larni and Message 10 by Phat. Very broadly speaking, this is how I tend to see things.So of course I understand the concept of what many like to call a soul. But it’s the ideas that follow on from that become contentious. Especially as research into animal behaviour is starting to seriously blur the lines between what it is to be human and what it is to be animal.The notion that we are special and different, due to our ”higher’ consciousness is starting to come under serious threat. There may be plenty of other species that are just as ”special’. I don’t have a problem with that; I think it’s great. But I’m not clinging to some self-important conceit of my ”special’ place in the universe.Okay, back to the devil’s advocate for one last session.Let’s say for the sake of argument that god exists and that Jesus of Nazareth was god incarnate.Does god have a soul in the same sense that humankind does? Did he develop a second soul when he visited earth in the body of Jesus? If so, what became of this second soul? If not, did Jesus have a soul at those times he was ”emptying himself of his divinity’?

As I alluded to in an earlier post, and indeed recently on another thread, recent developments in animal research is starting to bring into question the extent to which humans are unique in terms of self-awareness, abstract thought and even language capabilities. In the interests of balanced argument, I should emphasise the phrase ”bring into question’, because this research is far from conclusive. However, and this is somewhat hypothetical at the moment, if our previous observations prove unreliable, and humans do not possess anything that cannot also be found in (at least some) other animal species, would you feel obliged to reappraise your understanding of what a soul means to you? You seem to be making a monster leap of faith here. There is no evidence that the ”non physical’ aspects of human existence that you allude to arise out of anything other than that existence, and are consequently entirely dependant on it. I think if you want to make this case, it has to be as a matter of faith rather than reasoned argument.Sorry, but part of being a sceptic involves treating faith-based ”knowledge’ with extreme caution.

I put the word ”special’ in quotes to indicate it wasn’t my sentiment, but rather the sentiment of others, especially those who tend to greet the notion of man as just another species with a degree of derision. This is related to one of the ideas I was throwing about in the OP. But I proposed it as a sceptic playing devil’s advocate. I’m not sure how comfortable I’d be with the idea if I were a believer though. It raises the question of, why bother with the whole earthly experience? For sure, I could come back with the old standby, “it’s not my place to question god’s will”, but that always seems like such a lame riposte.But it’s quite an interesting idea though, for all that. If it were true, do you think that any soul could be united with any body? Do you ever wonder how your life would have turned out if your soul had been united with the body of Richard Dawkins?

My only reply to that would be not yet. However we already have some pretty well established research which shows chimps out-performing humans in memory based puzzles.But I take your point. However I’m not suggesting that we’re going to end up with antelopes performing brain surgery or penguins running government departments . not for a little while at least. But you’re surely not suggesting that humans with learning difficulties or a mental impairment are any less human or any less likely to have a soul as a result?

Cheers 2ice.It’s always good to get a reply that’s concise and to the point.Just for the record, would you say you are more of an expert on the silly and pointless or on the soul?

I don’t know what to say to you here. Maybe it’s because it’s as tough for a non-believer to express what it is to not seek meaning, or feel the need to seek meaning, as it is for a believer to express their spiritual feelings.Firstly, I assume when you talk about meaning, you’re talking about purpose or sense of purpose.Okay, where to start? My philosophy of life is pretty simple; try to respect everybody and everything I come into contact with. But I’m far from perfect and I can screw up from time to time. So I try to learn from my shortcomings and not make the same mistake twice.But for me this isn’t a sense of purpose, it’s a sense of being. If you want me to see it as a sense of purpose, then I would have to express it as a sense of responsibility towards my fellow humans and other life forms on the micro level. I cannot affect the workings of the universe at anything other than the lowest level - grand designs and salvation are just nonsensical notions that would get in the way of my discharging my responsibilities to those around me.Now you and me have very different ideas about how we came to be here. But for me that is irrelevant to my sense of being.If I arrive at some place and meet somebody, does it matter whether I came by car or by train? I’m going to interact with them just the same regardless. Similarly, does it matter whether the meeting is pre-arranged (with a sense of purpose), or just a happenstance? Of course not, the thing that determines my behaviour is my sense of being.So I don’t need ”meaning’ in the spiritual sense, the complexity of life caused by blind chance is more than enough for me. Ensuring that I’m always trying to do the best for those around me is more than enough for me.I hope this goes some way to explaining why I haven’t felt the need to put a bullet in my temple just yet. I think I would broadly agree with Woodsy in message #70, or at least defer judgement on what emotions such as love are until we learn more about workings of the brain.Having said all that, there are some interesting (if contentious) ideas emerging about memory cells possibly existing in parts of the body other than the brain which you might find interesting, http://www.associatedcontent.com/...heart_have_a_memory.html.

I’m a little confused about who is cowtowing to who here. Perhaps you could enlighten me?Maybe given the quality of human they have to work with, animals hardly think it’s worth the effortAfter all, in the depths of winter, it’s me who has to drag himself out of bed and battle the elements to earn the money that helps keep my dogs in the manner to which they have become accustomed, whilst they spend the day in front of the fire. Yep, it seems pretty clear who’s the boss of who in this association Given man’s intelligence, imagination and ingenuity in creating advancements in motivation etc, it does pose the question as to who is the real intelligent designer in this whole affair. The idea that the non-physical properties to which you refer being unique is one that is increasingly coming under pressure from scientific research. So whilst I respect your beliefs in this matter, I’m sure you’ll understand that I feel no obligation to be constrained by them in the way I view the world.

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.

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”?

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?