My uncle once said, last year at a cousin's graduation party, that, since electricity or some other form of energy powers the body/brain, it must be evidence of there being a soul. Think about it. In physics, there's a law called the Conservation of Energy. Energy can not be destroyed, lessened, or heightened; it can only be transferred to other objects or changed into other forms of energy. Can it be that the electricity in our bodies either goes to our 'heaven' or perhaps becomes one with the Earth?Or maybe it simply does something more mundane, like go from kinetic energy to potential...Something like that.

If any of this seems half-baked, my uncle was drunk and I only have 3/4ths of a year of a conceptual physics class under my belt XP

From every account I know of the spirit*, it is of the same shape as the body, so, in reality, using that concept, the brain IS the soul, if only a part of it.

Common Misconception: Soul and spirit ARE different by Biblical references, which used the first widely-produced book, thus, in some ways, creating its definition.

Somewhere in Genesis it mentions animals having souls, but no spirits. I could definitely be wrong about this, but I beleive the soul is the mind, but that's just the way the words struck me. (The Bible isn't the most up-to-date book in wording)

~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper

I suppose our 'being' can be loosely defined in four ways, to stem off of your theory, Nytloc.

Body - Physical manifestation of ourself. Also the vehicle for the brain, soul, and spirit.

Mind - The brain. Where everything in the body is operated, and also where memories are stored, intellectual capacity is determined, and whatnot.

Spirit - Basically, emotions. This is what drives us to make the decisions we do, based on our spiritual standing.Anger, love, hate, joy, all of these stem from spirit. Think Buddhism and its stand on spirituality, and you'll catch my drift.

Soul - The life essence of the body, mind, and spirit, so to speak. Not much is known about this. A constantly updated photocopy of ourselves that we send to the afterlife when we die?Who knows?This is basically the energy that 'fuels' spirit and mind.

Another half-baked theory from Moggy that he'll probably forget by tomorrow?You betcha!But hopefully, it'll influence someone else to consider these points

Most anthropologists think that even the primitive humans believed in some sort of life force or spirit that inhabits body and gives it life. I think the concept of spirit was invented originally to give a reason as to why we are alive, and later adapted to make the idea of a dead person going to Heaven, yet not apparearing to move, plausible.

Western Philosophy tends to place the definitions as:

Body: Physical substance that has extension, solidity, and form - basically, what we can perceive

Mind: Mental "substance" - lacks extension, form, etc. but is responsible for thought, ideas, emotions, etc.

For more on Mind-Body Dualism, Descartes makes a good introduction...

The soul is seen as basically another term for "mind" in this sense, and similarly for spirit. In terms of why this concept is popular is probably down to a couple of factors:

There is a difference between our actions and our thoughts - they seem different in type, only one is perceivable in the physical world, and so it makes sense to attribute this to two separate things. Also, thoughts seem to be what causes actions, and so is what makes us different from inanimate things, so it makes sense that there is something other than physical about us to make that difference.

The other main factor would possibly be considered more "wishful thinking" - namely that we are aware that people die, and we see their bodies cease functioning. While this could also be suggestive of some kind of soul, it is also worth noting that pretty much all definitions of soul include the idea of "eternal" - which, because the soul is considered the essence of what makes us individuals/alive/who we are, then guarantees our existence in some form for eternity, it's just that we cannot detect this component...

Of course, there are various problems with the idea of duality - just as there are problems with monism (physical or ideal) - such as how do minds and bodies interact, which out of minds and bodies is responsible for x (emotions, reactions, perception, etc.) and various other queries that have not been answered conclusively.

In the case of Phineas Gage, it can be argued that the brain, as what is often considered the place where the soul "resides" (very loose definition, as to reside in a given location would require it to have extension"), could be seen as the device through which the body and soul interact, and so by damaging the brain, rather than damaging the soul, which would logically not be damaged by something physical, the means by which the soul could interact with the body was damaged, and so the abilities of the soul to act on the body were impared, causing the outcomes observed.

As far as arguments in favour of the soul go, it seems to be mostly an intuitive concept that there is something more than just physical processes going on inside us - I mean, you are aware of thinking and controlling the body, so how could something physical explain this? - rather than any specifically laid out argument. The onus tends to be more on disproving the existence of a soul than on proving it...

I prefer to think that SOMETHING happens after one dies, because trying to imagine that nothing happens whatsoever hurts my brain. Seriously. I think that, much like it's very hard to actually PICTURE infinity, human minds can't truly conceive nothingness, or rather, actually BEING nothingness. We're far too used to physicality to truly conceive something that isn't physical. I mean, we can acknowledge it, but we can't understand it.

Yeah, you have to exist to be able to ponder wether or not you exist. o_O

The soul? Eh. Call me idealistic but I like to think that kids killed off before their 5th birthdays (general aging there) by disease, disability, or what have you get another chance, eh? Seems a bit harsh that the only life they get is @#$!$@ up by something beyond their control. ^_^; And if there's no soul, well there's no chance of that happening.. heh

In terms of thoughts which may cause your brain to hurt, how about this: Imagine you are a disembodied being. Just try. Brain hurting yet?

The point of that little exercise: It's very difficult, if not impossible, for us to conceive of existing without some sort of body. So, after the body dies, what kind of existence does that leave us with, or are we re-incarnated in some way?

Also, on the subject of identity, are you really the same person you were last year? If so, what is the same about you? Given that all your cells will have been replaced (several times over, I imagine) between then and now, a continuous "self" seems to be something other than physical. So what would it be?

Traditionaly religious myths were ways to explain the unexplainable phenomena that occur all the time. Since we cant see what happens to ourselves when we die, we will most likely keep the idea of a spririt and a soul until the time comes when we know. Frankly, i believe we have them, but i dont know if its institutionalization or my own beleifs.

The idea of being nothing more than a tube of flesh scares me somewhat. If you don't mind, I'll stick with souls, and maybe I'll think of something that proves it later.

Aristotle believed in the "Excluded Middle" principle, or that if something is not True then it must be False.

Aristotle also believed in perfection, that somewhere there was a perfect circle, and that we could recognize imperfect cicles in the world around us only because the perfect circle existed somewhere. Where? In the realm of the Gods of course. Just like we see a Poodle and a Wolfhound and recognize that they are both "dogs", with very little resemblence to each other, because somehow they some resemblance to the perfect dog in the realm of the Gods.

Clearly we know that there are many situations where an excluded middle just doesn't work. Many things are not binary in nature. If the sky isn't blue that does not mean that it is black, it could be overcast and gray.

If Bessy the Cow doesn't give 4 liters of milk on thursday it doesn't mean that she didn't give none, she could produce more or less.

Now that we all have a quick into intro Aristotelean logic, we can see that Aristotle NEEDED to believe in souls. Because we have the physical, we need the non-physical, and if it is not one it is the other. If our physical self is trapped in the imperfect physical world, clearly our non-physical self can go to the realm of the Gods, and become inspired by perfection.

I think the real question being asked here is, "Are we really nothing more than chemical reactions walking around?"

And the answer to that is very personal, and one that you must come to on your own. Either by adopting one of the many worldviews already out there, or mixing and matching beliefs until you are happy.

And you have to decide whether you believe in an afterlife or not. (There goes that excluded principle thing again) Unless you decide not to decide because you just don't know (agnostics).

Anyways, paraphrasing the words of Pi, "Go as far as the legs of logic will take you, then leap on faith to your conclusion."

Jimro

*clapclap* Well said, Jimro.

While the excluded middle principle isn't an all-inclusive doctrine, there are still a lot of areas where it does work. Granted, things where "all or nothing" do not apply are around, but if there is something lacking in terms of a physical description, assuming that a perfect physical description exists, then what would explain the lack? If it cannot be physical, then it must be by definition non-physical. In terms of those categories, the excluded middle principle does apply fairly well. You just need to make sure it is not mis-applied - something Aristotle was probably well aware of, if you look at his views on what is required for a Eudaimon (content/virtuous - Greek translation is a little bit difficult for this term) life - something of a mid-point between two extremes of various aspects, such as courage and cowardice...

The main debate these days on whether a soul exists or not is somewhat dependent on what the individual believes a full description of a human in physical terms could accomplish. Since we lack such a description, we cannot at present know whether anything would be lacking in the description or not, and so whether a non-physical substance (soul) would be needed to explain this lack or not. However, there are various arguments based around predictions of what a full physical description of a human would be capable of explaining, which is where most of the debate is based. And so, yes, at the moment, the answer is basically down to what you believe, but that does not mean that you should not be able to back up your beliefs rationally...

The only problem with backing up your beliefs rationally is that the guy with the opposing belief also backs his belief up rationally. This is where the starting premises are based on faith, and therefore so is the rational conclusion.

Basicall saying, "I believe this point a to be true, so therefore point Z must be true." while the other guy says, "I believe point A to be false, so therefore point Z is false."

This argument is as old as humanity, and it will not be won by either side. There are great historical debates between philosophers, and no group consensus.

But it does make for an interesting mental exercise, which is a good thing.

Jimro

I think the real question being asked here is, "Are we really nothing more than chemical reactions walking around?"

And the answer to that is very personal, and one that you must come to on your own. Either by adopting one of the many worldviews already out there, or mixing and matching beliefs until you are happy.
My beliefs on the functioning of human beings can be summed up pretty much like that, and yet for some reason people think that means I don't believe in love or emotion or any of that. Simply untrue. Just because I don't think we have souls doesn't mean I think we shouldn't love and enjoy life as much as possible.

Anyways, paraphrasing the words of Pi, "Go as far as the legs of logic will take you, then leap on faith to your conclusion."
Excellent book, that.

I agree with Harley and SH. The very idea that I'm nothing more than a piece of flesh that enter into nothingness when I die is unfathomable and completely terrifying.

I think this is why I believe in the idea of a life after death. I'm a firm believer that there is a heaven, a place where everything is at peace with no pain, sorrow, or war. I simply cannot imagine fading into nothingness when life is over. I've always believed that it's better to live like there is a heaven and find out that there's nothing rather than live like there's nothing abd find out that there is a heaven.

Quote:

---

Excellent book, that.

---

You've caught my attention. What book are you referring to?

This and we can always submit to the watchmaker's theory.

What is that, you ask? Well, say you enter a room that has never been opened before (that is, after it was finished). Inside there is absolutely nothing... except a watch. Must've been a gift from the company or somethin'. Still, what ONE thing is undeniably fact about the watch? That somebody put it there? True, true, but moreso, that somebody MADE that watch. SOMEBODY had to, it's not like you find watches materializing on their own in the great outdoors.

Now granted that's more of a Deist's approach to things, but still, it's a fairly good argument... (Interesting fact: The US' founding fathers were Deists, hence how I learned this. Note how they very rarely say "God" on its own, more "a natural god". They definitely weren't Christian; if anything, they looked down on it.)

colonial deists did believe in god *or at least said they did and you are mostly right about the natural god* however, colonial deists had an outlook of ,"look what god gave us, lets not be sad and go to hell for origional sin since god in fact loves us all and wouldnt forsake us for an ancestors mistake" which was a very different approach than most other religions in the new world followed.

however i have no idea what deists philosophy on adam and eve were...

deists basicly have the outlook*fad thats come in and out of existance* that most youthful christian faiths follow now.

The very idea that I'm nothing more than a piece of flesh that enter into nothingness when I die is unfathomable and completely terrifying.
Why, though? It's not like it'd matter when you're dead, because things like fathomability and terror will be meaningless.

I think the belief that this is my only shot at life makes me a better person. I try to live every moment of my life under the assumption that one day it will all become completely and utterly meaningless in ways that human beings will never be able to comprehend. I've always felt it unwise to take something for granted that could run out at any time -- especially considering the place and social standing in which I live.

As for the traditional concept of the afterlife, I don't need to be bribed with imaginary promises of eternal bliss to act like a decent human being.

The watch thingy doesn't have anything to do with the existence of the soul, but with the creation of the universe.

I don't believe in souls or any kind of afterlife. I think it's all just a fantasy to help people cope with the cruelest aspect of life.

The cruelest aspect of life being the loss or lack of it. OH THE IRONING

I think faith gives a sense of hope to people for when they die, though frankly the fact that in the bible it says *6600 something like that... 5500 maybe* select people from those specific tribes will actually partake in the end of the world, and the rest of us will, well i assume just sit and play harps and yawn *that last part was a joke*... the idea doesnt leave for much to look forward to in the afterlife. Nothing to hope for when ur dead i geuss...

EDIT: now that i think about it, the afterlife would be a horrible place in my opinion if only nonagressive passifism was aloud, i have always thought competition and physical endurance brought me closer to god, so i dont like to think of an afterlife of solice and sublime rest.

The excellent book is "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel.

www.amazon.com/exec/obido...s&n=507846

Jimro

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that just because I think death is meaningless doesn't mean I think life is.

Quote:

---

Why, though? It's not like it'd matter when you're dead, because things like fathomability and terror will be meaningless.

---

To be honest, I really don't know. I know that, if there's nothing after death, I won't feel anything. Still, there's that nagging fear that I just can't get rid of.

Sorry for the slight backtrack, but I've been fairly busy recently...

Jimro, while the other side may well have rational arguments to back up their beliefs, that doesn't mean you shouldn't work out the reasons for holding your beliefs. For starters, if you cannot find any justification for holding your position, then it might be worth questioning whether your belief is correct, and through this kind of process, prejudices such as racism, sexism and so forth become a lot less common, and less tolerated. Also, being able to provide some justification for your view is valuable for explaining your position to others, as they can then follow a line of argument, rather than just "this is right".

Cycle, while you're right about the fact that if death is the end, then you won't know anything afterwards, that doesn't answer all issues about the existence of a soul. The concept of a soul providing life after death is comforting as long as there is something to have concepts like "death", but if we're gone, it doesn't matter. However, a stronger position for believing in the existence of a soul is the "there's more to me than a bunch of chemicals" line, which tends to be more popular, as well as more contentious, since we're not sure whether the feeling of consciousness is epiphenomenal (coincidental) to the processes of the brain or not. After all, how do we know whether computers feel anything or not?? And if they do, does this mean they have a soul?

First off, may I just comment how disturbing that there is more text in Kayla's sig than her post

Secondly, stop worrying about when you're going to die, damn it

Seriously, why the hell are people so hung up on "ooo I'm so afraid, what'll happen to me after I die..." etc etc. We'll never get the answers and even if we did, it wont change anything. We all have to die, and living in fear of it is just a waste of life.

Seriously, people need to get their head in the moment, we occupy such a damn small time on this planet, and all we seem to want to know is "how did we get here?" and "what'll happen when I'm gone?"

Screw that, whatever happens, each and every one of us will find out, on the day, and wether it be letting your spirit soar, or sleeping the cold sleep where nothing happens. It'll happen.

Personally, I use soul as the descriptive term for emotions and creativity, rather than an actual entity which makes up my "self". I'm just a fleshy wad of meat, with chemicals which say this and that. No devine spirit, no angels and devils whispering in my ear. Just hormones flowing through my system and nerves sending messages telling me when I'm hungry, how to feel, how to react. Etc.

Afterall, you can hardly attribute your emotions to an entity, like a soul, if people across the world are taking pills to control the chemical balances and adjust their emotions to healthier levels.

Word. I couldn't care less about why I'm here, all I know is I'm going to make the most of the fact that I am. I've always been more scientific than religious anyway; I'm much happier staring into space and thinking about what is in the Universe, and not why the Universe is there. I think sometimes we ask the wrong questions and the fruitless pursuit of the answers can suck all the joy out of life.

We're all going to die, that much is certain. What's going to happen to us when we die? Here's an idea; wait and see. Make the most of life, live to the fullest you can, and who knows, there may be a Heaven of sorts waiting for you after all.

42.

What's sad is how much people have read into that, though. It's just a random number Adams picked and now it's like a giant conspiracy theory.

Yeah. Nobody writes jokes in base 13.

Trim

For starters, if you cannot find any justification for holding your position, then it might be worth questioning whether your belief is correct,

Just think about that for a moment.

Ok, moment over. BELIEFS are beliefs, not correct or incorrect. Racists can find all sorts of evidence to support their viewpoint as repugnant as it is. To this day there are those still studying the differences between black and white skull structures.

I agree that self examination is an integral part of intellectual maturity, but expecting someone else to come to the same conclusion as you because you are both looking at the same evidence is rather naive. Both Catholics and Protestants read the Bible and have different views on it, in a dialogue spanning centuries. I ask you which one has the correct belief.

Expecting someone to arrive at the "correct" belief because of logic is a bit much, especially when "correct" is based on their belief system in the first place.

Jimro

Here's some good questions...

Where do our memories go when we forget? Just because we forgot, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Who were we before Sperm 432562 said to Egg 43 "Let's get making babies!"? Were we existing before then?

If a tree falls in the forest, there is always someone around to hear it. Even if it's just the other trees.

You can't see sorrow, but you know it's there.

The point is (finally!) babies and dogs and birds lose interest in things they can't see because they think they no longer exist. But they do. It's called Object Permanance.

Jimro, while the same piece of evidence can provide different, equally valid conclusions to various different people, it doesn't mean that they should not provide some reasoning as to how they reached their conclusion. I never said that prejudices are entirely got rid of through examining the justification for beliefs, but it has worked to a fair extent, due to people not finding any compelling justification to back up their prejudice.

I would also not say that anyone would reach the One True Answer through logical reasoning or finding justification for beliefs. Instead, I would say that this is the way to ensuring that you hold a coherent, consistent position on what you believe is right, and why you think it is right, and other beliefs are wrong. But, ultimately, I believe that your guess as to what is right is as good as mine, from an objective standpoint. However, from my perspective, I consider various beliefs people hold to be right/wrong, for various reasons. To that extent, I believe you can consider beliefs correct or incorrect, but as you point out, that comes from a personal rather than objective perspective.

As for Harley's questions:

To what extent do our memories really exist? We may perceive them at various points, but do they exist enough to "go somewhere" when we forget them?

I tend to prefer the idea of a soul rather than a purely physicalist account simply because I do not believe that my experiences of self can be summed up through scientific explanations based on what is physically there. However, I accept that it may end up being the case that actually we only truly come into existence when we are conceived, and that memory is simply a haphazard storing of data which is not constantly perceived and can just be deleted if irrelavent - much like a computer's memory. And as for seeing sorrow, we are aware of the effects of sorrow, and can often see it in the faces of others when they are upset. So, to that extent, we can see sorrow...

Sometimes I think it's funny that people see the body as the container for the soul, when it makes more sense for our soul to be the container for our body.

I mean, something has to be holding us together.

-Shakudo-

"70,000 hits, baby! Whoo!"

I believe that your guess as to what is right is as good as mine, from an objective standpoint. However, from my perspective, I consider various beliefs people hold to be right/wrong, for various reasons. To that extent, I believe you can consider beliefs correct or incorrect, but as you point out, that comes from a personal rather than objective perspective.

You have every right to exercise that opinion on a personal level as well as a societal level. As a society we have laws that define actions as legal and illegal based on what we can agree on as right and wrong.

In many cultures before "Western Domination" stealing was a highly valuable and well respected skill, especially in the Plains Indians of North America.

Human sacrifice was fine and dandy for the Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs. Female circumsision is an unecessary mutilation still carried out in many parts of the world.

Now the reason why those behaviors existed is because of a societal understanding that they were somehow right and natural. We can call this a conditioned predisposition. You and I also have conditioned predispositions, and I believe that they are so deeply ingrained that we cannot overcome them even with self examination. Why? Because just like a racist we will find consistant logical reasons to support them because to us they are self evidently right and natural.

Jimro

Then how do views change? After all, monotheism was once just an idea one person came up with, or had revealed to him, against a backdrop of a polytheist society. So why did that idea become so popular? And why is it considered less popular today than a century ago?

There's only so far reasoning based on factors introduced to a society from outside can take you, I believe, and, while people may be more inclined to think a given thing is right or wrong, this may prove to be contradictory to other beliefs they hold to be true. When someone reaches a problem like this, I would assume that they would either seek some compromise, or dismiss one of their beliefs because they hold the other more strongly. Hence, while things such as racism are justifiable for some people, and do not contradict any of their other beliefs, examining why you hold something to be true will potentially cause you to discover that some of your beliefs are contradictory, and hence revise your beliefs accordingly.

If what you say is "true" then the rationalist movement would still be as popular as it was....instead we see more and more "modern" people turning to shamanism, paganism, metaphysics, vitalism, and other irrational beliefs along with the mainstay religions.

Which can only lead me to conclude that people are not entirely rational. And for self examination to produce any "progress" there must be a defined standard for progress, which so far has been your own personal standard. Which is just fine, but personal standards don't go very far with the rest of us.

The only way to influence other people is to have your personal standard become a societal standard. Just like Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed set the standard for Judeaism, Christianity, and Islam. Moses and Mohammed used spiritual revelation along with military conquest to influence history, Jesus used revelation and rhetoric.

Obviously societal values change with time, what was once scandalous (sex) was put out in the open by the efforts of one man (Dr. Kinsey) and now sex is everywhere. Number one search on the net in fact...

But we cannot expect other people to react the same way to the same evidence, we cannot expect other people to have the same value system we espouse, and we cannot expect other people to modify their behaviors by our definitions of right/wrong. Actually we could expect such things, but we would be continually disappointed because we cannot control other people.

Jimro

Firstly, I deliberately avoided using "progress" in the last post, since, as you suggest, it would imply some kind of end to which people would reach. I opted instead for "change", since that does not imply any ultimate goal.

You claim that the only way to influence people is to have your view become the standard for society. Why go that far? While there are various people who have profoundly affected society with their views - making them a standard subsequently aspired to - and you have already given some examples of this, but I would argue that we can have an affect on the views of the people around us, rather than having to do something as large-scale as you seem to imply. This is also a far more achievable aim, and one which you arguably do every time you voice some kind of opinion - after all, you are attempting to convince me that your view on why we hold certain beliefs is correct, while I am arguing from a different perspective. Both of us are providing a certain amount of reasoning for our arguments as well, in order to try and explain why we think we are right, and hence try to convince the other to accept our view as right. I certainly don't think that I am trying to change the views of absolutely everyone within this society, and doubt that I will, but I would hope that my view would be respected and considered by those around me, and possibly even be adopted by some.

Yes, people will interpret the same evidence in different ways. But they will provide reasons for this, for both their own benefit, and, to their mind, the benefit of others.

To my mind, there is no good reason for most, if not all, prejudices - certainly not for racial, religious or gender reasons. This may be partly due to the society I've grown up in generally being liberal, but there are still bigots in the society I'm in, so how do you explain that kind of variation within society?

so how do you explain that kind of variation within society?

Simply because everyone in your society has had different experiences, different perspectives on shared experiences, and variation in any population is to be expected.

Being part of a group or society does not mean giving up your personality or individuality, only that there is some common ground with which you interact with other members of the group.

Look at the 16 Briggs Myers personality types and you'll begin to understand why intellectual and spiritual variation is so ingrained into humanity. It has been my experience that the more homogenous a group the more selective or oppressive the "group" has to be to keep that homogeneity. In the case of the military it is selection, everyone has to survive the training to stay in. In many communist countries it is brutal oppression and denying individual freedoms.

As far as personality types go, www.personalitypage.com/info.html Just so you know, my personality type is ISTP, introverted sensor thinker perciever.

There are underlying differences between people, and the false teaching that "we are all the same" may sound good and egalitarian but it also stifles true learning about how to cater to each others needs.

Jimro