Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a soul?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 191 (367481)
12-02-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by dogrelata
12-02-2006 9:44 AM


Re: Soul = Non Physical Properties of Humans
dogrelata writes:
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?
1. Human intelligence so far exceeds that of animals that humans, as per Biblical Genesis, totally dominate over all animals, the animals, to a great extent being the useful beasts of burden, food, clothes, et al, for the service of mankind.
2. Mankind is the unique species which has the intelligent capablility of creating advancement in technology, motivation, education et al, whereas other than environmental adjustments, all animals pretty much remain static throughout history relative to this phenomena.
3. No animal has ever trained it's pet person to do anything but cowtow to it's (abe: irristable) whims.
dogrelata writes:
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.
That nobody has observed the demise of the soulish non- physical unique properties of humans, imo, lends credence to the possibility of the body being nothing but the physical embodiment of a metaphysical living soul.
Edited by Buzsaw, : change wording
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dogrelata, posted 12-02-2006 9:44 AM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by dogrelata, posted 12-03-2006 9:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 32 of 191 (367496)
12-02-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
12-02-2006 1:31 PM


Re: The soul undaunted
Afterall, I think we might agree that love isn't actually just firing synapses or the release of dopamine. Indeed, there is something that yearns to be more laudable than mere chemical reactions.
This is a presumptuous assumption on your part. You have no way of knowing what we all might agree on. What do you have against chemical reactions? Do you really detest the physical world as you seem to claim? If so, why?
If our personalities are an emergent property of our bodies, what is wrong with that? It seems quite sufficiently marvellous to me without invoking undetectable ghosts to inhabit those bodies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2006 1:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-03-2006 11:22 AM Woodsy has replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 33 of 191 (367540)
12-03-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
12-02-2006 1:31 PM


Re: The soul undaunted
nemesis juggernaut writes:
Well, sure, I've often wondered why, provided God exists, what need there is through going about this physical life. In fact, that is the one thing never mentioned in the Bible. 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, and just put a bullet in your temple?
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.
nemesis juggernaut writes:
I have often wondered if thoughts don't actually come from the mind, per say, but rather if the mind is only the medium through which they are expressed. For instance, when we take an EKG of the brain and flash images of loved ones on a screen, we can see all sorts of brain activity. But maybe that is the brain discerning what is sees and as a result, you see all of these components of the brain active. Afterall, I think we might agree that love isn't actually just firing synapses or the release of dopamine. Indeed, there is something that yearns to be more laudable than mere chemical reactions.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-02-2006 1:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 12-03-2006 10:39 PM dogrelata has replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 34 of 191 (367541)
12-03-2006 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
12-02-2006 4:02 PM


Re: Soul = Non Physical Properties of Humans
Buzsaw writes:
3. No animal has ever trained it's pet person to do anything but cowtow to it's (abe: irristable) whims.
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 effort
After 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
Buzsaw writes:
Mankind is the unique species which has the intelligent capablility of creating advancement in technology, motivation, education et al, whereas other than environmental adjustments, all animals pretty much remain static throughout history relative to this phenomena.
Imo, intelligent design better explains this higher soulish aspect observed in humans than random and natural processes.
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.
Buzsaw writes:
That nobody has observed the demise of the soulish non- physical unique properties of humans, imo, lends credence to the possibility of the body being nothing but the physical embodiment of a metaphysical living soul.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 12-02-2006 4:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 191 (367549)
12-03-2006 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Woodsy
12-02-2006 5:34 PM


Re: The soul undaunted
quote:
Afterall, I think we might agree that love isn't actually just firing synapses or the release of dopamine. Indeed, there is something that yearns to be more laudable than mere chemical reactions.
This is a presumptuous assumption on your part. You have no way of knowing what we all might agree on.
Which would make my inclusion of the word "might," cover nicely.
What do you have against chemical reactions?
Nothing.
Do you really detest the physical world as you seem to claim? If so, why?
Detest the physical world? Of course not. However, the temporal world is a fleeting moment. Do you have children, sir or madam, only to view them as the random collocation of cells? If you believe that all we really are is a chemical soup, I'd ask for you to read my first post on the matter to understand how I have come to my beliefs.
If our personalities are an emergent property of our bodies, what is wrong with that? It seems quite sufficiently marvellous to me without invoking undetectable ghosts to inhabit those bodies.
Indeed, it is marvellous. Perhaps, then, you can explain to us what makes you, you. Would we need to view you holistically in order to know who you are-- your entire gestalt-self? Clearly not, as we're communicating with typed words, and yet, we each, clearly have unique qualities. In other words, "who we are" somehow comes through in our words making our posts easily identifiable. I find that fascinating.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Woodsy, posted 12-02-2006 5:34 PM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Woodsy, posted 12-03-2006 5:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 36 of 191 (367564)
12-03-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
12-01-2006 10:18 PM


Re: Soul = Non Physical Properties of Humans
Buzz writes:
Imo, intelligent design better explains this higher soulish aspect observed in humans than random and natural processes.
So to be able to accept one unscientific notion, another one has to be dreamed up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2006 10:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 12-03-2006 3:34 PM Larni has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 191 (367574)
12-03-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Larni
12-03-2006 1:57 PM


Re: Soul = Non Physical Properties of Humans
larni writes:
So to be able to accept one unscientific notion, another one has to be dreamed up?
Are you implying that the alleged random and natural processes are unscientific regarding the phyche which is observed to exist in humans?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 12-03-2006 1:57 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Larni, posted 12-03-2006 3:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 38 of 191 (367576)
12-03-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
12-03-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Soul = Non Physical Properties of Humans
Buzz writes:
Are you implying that the alleged random and natural processes are unscientific regarding the phyche which is observed to exist in humans?
No. I am arguing that you are using one dreamed up idea to validate another; eg. ID to validate the soul.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 12-03-2006 3:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 39 of 191 (367580)
12-03-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
12-03-2006 11:22 AM


Re: The soul undaunted
Do you have children, sir or madam, only to view them as the random collocation of cells? If you believe that all we really are is a chemical soup, I'd ask for you to read my first post on the matter to understand how I have come to my beliefs.
This is disingenuous. People are neither random collections of cells nor chemical soup. As for your post, it is so wrapped in cant and verbosity that I can make nothing of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-03-2006 11:22 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-03-2006 6:11 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 40 of 191 (367584)
12-03-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by dogrelata
12-02-2006 12:49 PM


I am an expert on silly. As I change with time, to ask what I am depends upon the moment. I am certainly no expert on myself. Though I have managed to learn a few things about me as time has passed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by dogrelata, posted 12-02-2006 12:49 PM dogrelata has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 191 (367585)
12-03-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Woodsy
12-03-2006 5:10 PM


Re: The soul undaunted
This is disingenuous. People are neither random collections of cells nor chemical soup.
Then what are you? Who makes you, you? What makes you unique from every one else?
As for your post, it is so wrapped in cant and verbosity that I can make nothing of it.
The other readers seemed to understand it. Maybe you can't engender any feeling from it because such an experience has never come to you.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Woodsy, posted 12-03-2006 5:10 PM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-03-2006 8:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 46 by DominionSeraph, posted 12-04-2006 1:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 42 of 191 (367597)
12-03-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Hyroglyphx
12-03-2006 6:11 PM


Re: The soul, enslimed but undaunted
To suggest that people are 'random collections of cells' or 'chemical soup' is fallacious on the grounds of reductionism.
You're recycling an old rhetorical cliche. One asks 'What's a human being worth?' One then calculates the value of the water, salt, zinc and other materials contained in the human body and concludes that a human being is worth, say, only four euros. The idea is to force the listener into concluding the existence of a soul because, after all, everyone feels they are worth more than four euros.
Fallacies follow as soon as the soul is proposed as a solution to this non-existant problem.
First, the proposal appeals to bias, not reason. It assumes we consider ourselves of more 'worth' than four euros for reasons we can't rationally explain (the reason being mainly emotional). The soul is offered as a rationalization. Second, the proposed solution assumes that the existence of a soul as defined in the speaker's own personal belief system is the only alternative to being worth only four euros. The whole thing equivocates, of course, on the idea of 'worth'. Many kinds of worth exist but the argument takes no notice.
None of this adds up. To illustrate, I offer Exhibit A: the banana slug.
Note that the banana slug is more than a random collection of chemicals or cells. This is a functioning organism. It possesses integrated physical features. It possesses appetites, intentions, senses, the ability to learn and to reproduce. It feels pain and, in the face of threats to its life, will endeavor to preserve itself.
A banana slug is a living being.
Where are the theologians arguing for a soul for this creature? By your argument the banana slug must surely possess one. We are not looking here at some random collection of chemicals. We see an integrated, living creature that possesses this undeniable quality of slugness. In assigning it the name 'slug' we recognize that it amounts to more than the sum of its chemical parts. It is a totality, a unity.
On the grounds you have suggested there is no reason to deny this creature its soul. So what do you say? Does it have one?
__
Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing quest for literary perfection.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-03-2006 6:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-03-2006 11:00 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 43 of 191 (367606)
12-03-2006 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by dogrelata
12-03-2006 9:53 AM


Re: The soul undaunted
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.
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.
Ever human on earth seeks meaning of being. You have expressed a desire to "respect" and an acknowledgement of shortcomings based upon an ideal of perfection. Also a desire to learn from mistakes pushing toward your idea of perfection. You have humbled yourself to the service of a none physical thing. These statements are rife with meaning and sense of purpose. You seek to elevate yourself toward a non physical ideal. Why?
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.
Why? What is best? Your choices are random chance are they not?
There is nothing known to man to indicate whether or not anything is caused by "chance"
Perhaps the idea of random should be replaced with unknown. The more we know about an event or subject of an event the closer we come to anticipating the outcome. With the understanding that with each and every reaction there is an equall and opposite reaction....nothing is ever random. We are just not capable understanding or keeping track of that many variables. Now if you meant that there is no higher power involved in life then you should be more clear. However you allready surve the higher power of your ideal. A concious drive toward "betterment" (whatever that is) exists or is it random?
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.
You may apply your quote below to your quote above.
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.
Is not your sense of "being" just a feeling? What love physically is..is imaterial. What love means to us is all that matters or...does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dogrelata, posted 12-03-2006 9:53 AM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by dogrelata, posted 12-04-2006 8:48 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 191 (367608)
12-03-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Archer Opteryx
12-03-2006 8:52 PM


Re: The soul, enslimed but undaunted
To suggest that people are 'random collections of cells' or 'chemical soup' is fallacious on the grounds of reductionism.
Am I reducing the worth of a human being or are they? See, we have one group that claims that humans are no different, than say, your banana slug. Each has equal value. If we have equal value, then what makes the slug, a slug? Aren't we all made of matter? Or is there something transcendental at work in the lives of either us, the slug, or both?
The idea is to force the listener into concluding the existence of a soul because, after all, everyone feels they are worth more than four euros.
What makes any of us worth more than four, five, six, or a billion Euros? What does it all mean?
The soul is offered as a rationalization.
Shouldn't it be? I mean, even if the soul were what the Greeks thought it was, which really is secular in nature, would you find it easier to ascribe to the notion of a soul? I think on some level we all understand that there is a vast difference between humans and slugs. The greater the intelligence of a being, the more we, as humans, seem to find some sort of companionship.
Many kinds of worth exist but the argument takes no notice.
Then you must inexorably find yourself at parity with the slug, no? You either consecrated or you aren't.
Note that the banana slug is more than a random collection of chemicals or cells. This is a functioning organism. It possesses integrated physical features. It possesses appetites, intentions, senses, the ability to learn and to reproduce. It feels pain and, in the face of threats to its life, will endeavor to preserve itself.
I think you crediting the slug with far more cognizance than what we can presently know about such a creature.
A banana slug is a living being.
Indeed... But then again, so is a blade of grass.
Where are the theologians arguing for a soul for this creature? By your argument the banana slug must surely possess one.
How have you deduced by my argument that the slug must surely possess one?
On the grounds you have suggested there is no reason to deny this creature its soul. So what do you say? Does it have one?
The slug has a spirit-- the breath of life. But if we can break this far down using your logic, could we surmise that bacteria, nematodes, or fungi have souls? What do you think makes the soul? Do you believe in the Judaic version of a soul, or the Hindi, or the Greek? What does it encapsulate? Can it be fully understood? When does a lifeform receive its soul, etc?
__

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-03-2006 8:52 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-04-2006 12:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 47 by Woodsy, posted 12-04-2006 8:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 45 of 191 (367616)
12-04-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
12-03-2006 11:00 PM


Re: The soul, enslimed but undaunted
n-j:
Am I reducing the worth of a human being or are they? See, we have one group that claims that humans are no different, than say, your banana slug. Each has equal value.
I'm not sure this is a fair statement of anyone's position. Who says they have 'equal value'? And what is that person's measure of value? Can you offer some quotes here?
It is certainly not a statement of science. The question of 'value' is philosophical, not scientific. You seem to be discussing (what you take to be) the implications of science here rather than actual methods or findings.
If we have equal value, then what makes the slug, a slug? Aren't we all made of matter? Or is there something transcendental at work in the lives of either us, the slug, or both?
Leaving aside any assertions about value, I'd say living things consist of both matter and energy. Everyone knows this. That's one reason why talking about living things as if they only consisted of matter is to be reductionist.
I'd also say many living things are complex. They consist of multiple living units (cells) organized and specialized in ways that result in a larger living unit (organism). Some complex living units are so organized (brain cells, nervous system) as to possess consciousness and decision-making intelligence.
How transcendent is that? I don't know. Transcendence appears to be relative. A self-sustaining, self-replicating combination of matter and energy will appear transcendent compared to inert matter that lacks this kind of energy. A large complex creature with a brain enabling self-awareness and conscious choices will appear transcendent compared to single-celled creatures lacking such potential. There's plenty of transendence in this picture. But I don't see how any of it proves what you want it to prove.
My impression is that the ancients used the word soul to describe the energy aspects of living things where they used the word body to describe the material aspects. That's pretty much how the usage goes, isn't it?
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : spelling.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-03-2006 11:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024