• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Evidence for the Human Soul

BurnOneDown

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
453
Not so much as an eternal self, but more as an agent of free will. Something that transcends biological programming.

Creativity
Choice (debatable)
Humor
Suicide

In relevance to:
NSFW:
A quote from Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut.. I'm writing a paper about the theme of humans as machines...

"Kilgore Trout once wrote a short story which was a dialogue between two pieces of yeast. They were discussing the possible purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own excrement. Because of their limited intelligence they never came close to guessing that they were making champagne."

I always interpreted this quote as a metaphorical testament to agnosticism. In the same way that the yeast are unaware of the higher intelligence and greater purpose that surrounds them, humans could also be completely oblivious to a greater power.

But now, after reading if for my lit class, it seems more appropriate that it is actually an anecdote that supports the theme of humans as machinery. I say more appropriate because I dont think Vonnegut ever expressed any agnostic sentiment.
 
consciousness/sentience/the "soul" is, imo, a very special byproduct or side effect of biology reaching a certain level of complexity. nothing divine about it, though that doesn't devalue how special it is in the least.
 
Indeed, divinity is in the eye of the beholder in this case. It depends on a value judgement of the process that brings us about. If the process is seen as existing indiscriminately, through the process of billions of years of of the creation of different types of atoms in different sized suns, expelling matter through a seemingly random pattern, coalescing onto a/multiple miniscule planet that is microscopic in respect to the radius of its orbit around an equally miniscule sun which is microscopic in relation to the radius of it's orbit around a super-massive black hole in the center of a galaxy, which is one of billions in a multiverse that spread itself out through the process of a near infinite amount of Big Bangs.
--- more in next post (software won't let me type it all in one post)
 
With the above information, it seems equally likely and unlikely for us to develop. If you think it is unlikely for the Big Bang which created the matter of this universe to eventually result in us due to the processes that occur in space existing in such a massive scale, with what now appears to be expanding distance between areas of activity, then you might favor the fact that each person is a unique and infinitely separate conscious entity that is also conscious of the universe that it is, then you might see some divinity in all of it. Of course the above conclusion can be met with a view that the process of Big Bang -> Us is a random process. However, if you think that the random process resulting in Us is a likely process, because entropy increases as time continues, and we are the result of this entropy, which eventually finds itself to join together into concrete patterns of patterns that make up a framework of consciousness, then We are quite a mundane result. We may be a special result, perhaps (at least according to our senses) the most advanced result the cosmos has to offer, but still, ourselves inevitably lead to void, and are therefore meaningless.

I like to lean towards the exoteric idea that We are composed of normal matter, but create (through our actions, experiences, memories, thoughts) a spiritual-type of matter, which is not quite measurable with the senses and instruments that we have. Of course, that is idealized, and probably not realistic. But, I've already been steeped in nihilism, and it doesn't exactly do well for people who are prone to depression.
 
Last edited:
As with "god", I find the discussion of what a soul might be so much more fruitful than the question of whether one exists.

ebola
 
^ Exactly.

It seems odd to me, but throwing around words like "soul", "ego", "consciousness", etc. with no valid established definition is a really popular practice in philosophical debates.
 
consciousness/sentience/the "soul" is, imo, a very special byproduct or side effect of biology reaching a certain level of complexity. nothing divine about it, though that doesn't devalue how special it is in the least.

I agree.

More accurately, human awareness is divine, but so is everything else. In my view.
 
good thread.

some of these things are ...inexplicable, aren't they ebola?:)
 
Indeed.

How would you respond if one were to say that it is pointless to attempt to explain the inexplicable?
 
^I would say that it depends on the context. If one hopes to prove the existence of anything that we cannot measure through empirical devices, then it is utterly pointless. Agnosticism seems to hold as close to the truth as possible when it comes to spiritual matters. But, that does not make spiritual matters completely pointless to discuss. As long as one discusses how it is helpful to oneself, and others; instead of why their personal metaphysical conjectures are more reasonable than others.
 
i consider agnosticism to refer to certainty of belief, remaining content neutral.
...
I have to try to explain the inexplicable; that's where the action inheres.
 
i think we all have souls, it's what seperates us from each other apart from psychical apperance.
Not even our personality, behind that. the way we percieve information and project our personality.

i think it is inexplicable because we are trying to look for what we are using to search at the time of the search. for eg, trying to look into you're own eyes, (without a mirror).
 
ebola-

I think that athiesm, like theism, and nontheistic mysticism is still a belief. Even when one chooses to believe not to believe, they believe so. I think agnosticism gets as close to the center between belief and disbelief as possible. But, yes, I shouldn't have used to word truth in connection with agnosticism, as it implies certainty. I am full of syntax errors today.
 
Oh, indeed it's a belief, but I believe more in terms of formal properties of believing rather than substantive content of belief.
 
Oh, indeed it's a belief, but I believe more in terms of formal properties of believing rather than substantive content of belief.

I think this is a great approach. Whenever I meet someone who is a strong atheist, or for that matter holds any belief that I don't, what I tend to ask myself is, "What is it about the person's life circumstances and overall temperment that would lead them to choose that [un]belief over the alternatives?"

Because let's face it -- every person's worldview is somehow congruent and fitting with with the rest of their life, or else they wouldn't hold it. (Thank you, Structuralists :) )

Taking this approach is a great step in the direction of being at peace with people who don't believe and carry themselves as I do, I find.
 
a lot of scientist say that free will and conciousness is an illusion and we basically act on instinct just like any other animal.
 
^ that has yet to be conclusivly proven.

and re: the inexplicable, everything has an explaination, its just a matter of our being advanced enough to detect/comprehend said things.
 
well in my opinion a soul is mabye not so much of a thing as a quality if i worded that correctly
 
Top