Do we really have souls?

[L2R]

^those aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Foreigner]

The first time I ever saw someone die as a child, something bright seeped out of their body and went upward toward the ceiling before vanishing at a specific point. I've also been clinically dead and been out of body, watching myself and doctors de-fibing me back to life. I'm content with thinking of it as some kind of bioelectric energy that was momentarily entangled as the body died, before blinking out of existence; but, I find it far more reassuring to think of it as a soul.

What I do believe is that if there is a soul, it is beyond the comprehension of mind. I also believe that there are many other states of existence that humans don't know about, or have forgotten due to the physical limitations of this form. It's been psychedelics that have given me some insight into the fact that we are probably way more expansive when not in this form, but we've truncated ourselves in order to compress into this limited body. The reason I think this is because when I was clinically dead and having an OBE, I could remember everything about what I really was... but once I was back in the body I forgot it again. And believe me, I did not want to go back into my body, but the fact that I was forced to leads me to believe that there is some meaning to all this.

In short: this question will never be satisfactorily answered, and the only way to know for sure is to die.

 

[rickolasnice]

What do you mean by soul?

An immaterial energy that makes you you (your personality)?

If so.. What happens to the soul when somebody suffers brain injury and a part of their personality changes or a part of their personality just disappears? How is it that you could change a persons personality completely by altering the physical brain. What happens to the soul when a person is reduced to drooling zombie that can no longer think in words let alone use them to communicate? Where was the soul before birth? Is there an infinite amount of souls just waiting to link up with a brain, are there a certain amount that recycle.. a dead mans soul will find a forming foetus, or are they made a long side the physical human brain?

I know a lot of people don't see changes in physical brain = changes in consciousness as evidence that the soul does not exist but i disagree.. It's in no way proof there is no soul but it is evidence suggesting it.. and saying otherwise is a bit like saying that theory of evolution doesn't disprove creationism. Believing in things without evidence to suggest something as being there, real or true then where do you stop? You can't disprove any God, so hey.. I believe in all of them. You can't disprove heaven and hell, ghosts, reincarnation, Valhalla, The Summerland.. so yep.. they're all true.

It's existence, most of the time, is caused by a want or sometimes even a kind of need for people to believe there is more to "life" than the life we live here on earth. A denial that we are nothing more than a seriously complex piece of biology that will only exist for a handful of decades before becoming other peoples memories and a very direct trip straight to the bottom of the food chain. A hope that we will see loved ones that have died again, and indeed that loved ones that have died still exist. It's a very strange thought to think that someone just doesn't exist any more.. it's easier to believe in fairy tales of an after life than to accept that there is nothing after you die. Your parents aren't going to welcome you open arms into an eternal existence of nirvana.. Welcome to the void. What did you experience before you were born? What makes you think it's going to be any different to that when you die?

 

[Psyduck]

we are nothing more than a seriously complex piece of biology

Can you refer to inherent properties of matter which explain:

(a) individuation: if reality "only" consists of atoms, how can a multiplicity of atoms gather into a unified organism?
(b) separation: which properties inherent in matter can cause the separation of the individual from its environment?
(c) identity: what kind of properties inherent in matter constitute temporal identity? i.e. why is experience "continuously integrated" and does a person not "die" after every singular (momentary) experience?

p.s.

(a') if you cannot do this: then the human body itself reduces to billions of atoms, and organisms themselves are mereologically non-existent; moreover, all the neurological speech about "the brain" is meaningless, because a "brain" does not exist; there are only billions of atoms occupying space: nothing in reality exists (chairs, tables, cars, dogs, cats, brains, hands, human bodies,...) except fundamental atoms.

Also, I repeat:

Do we have (non-religious) souls?

I am convinced that no material principle whatsoever can explain the above three issues, and one must refer to something immaterial (e.g. Aristotelean/Leibnizean substantial forms); although, not necessarily having a religious connotation.

 

[rickolasnice]

Honestly Psyduck, no.

But gaps in our (or my) knowledge does not mean a soul is needed to fill the gaps..

To say that nothing exists apart from the fundamental atoms that make things up is a bit of a strange way of looking at things. Atoms arranged in certain ways will become certain things. Get a couple of hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom and you get water. When atoms are arranged in such a complex way such as a human brain then things become a lot more complicated and a lot more weird.. This doesn't imply there is more to consciousness than the material brain.. all it says is that our knowledge of how the human brain works is not complete (at least enough to understand how consciousness is produced from the most complex thing known to man - the human brain.

Are you denying that a tree is nothing more than atoms arranged in such a way that it falls into the category of alive?

Using a soul to fill the gaps in our understanding of how the human brain can produce consciousness is like using God did it to fill the gaps in the fossil record or what caused the big bang. The gaps are getting smaller as our knowledge is becoming greater.. There will always be gaps that people will cling to as enough to keep believing what they do regardless of what all known evidence suggests.

 

[pmoseman]

This is just an easy question people refuse to accept the answer and make the proof ridiculously complex. Does a penguin exist? Yes. Does big-foot exist? No. Until you see big-foot or a penguin there is no reason to assume it exists. It is really that simple. You do not see 500 photos and signs of a penguin which have all proven phony.

 

[ebola?]

I am convinced that no material principle whatsoever can explain the above three issues, and one must refer to something immaterial (e.g. Aristotelean/Leibnizean substantial forms); although, not necessarily having a religious connotation.

This might just be what you're getting at paraphrased, but I find it fruitful to look at the processes through which the apparent material and immaterial are produced and conditions of possibility for these processes rather than simply positing an immaterial beyond the material.

ebola

 

[blue1995]

Mind, body, and soul. We are each our own Holy Trinity, so to speak.

 

[L2R]

This might just be what you're getting at paraphrased, but I find it fruitful to look at the processes through which the apparent material and immaterial are produced and conditions of possibility for these processes rather than simply positing an immaterial beyond the material.

ebola

id like to see some of this fruit

 

[Foreigner]

^ Ditto.

 

[ebola?]

We'll see if it's actually THAT fruitful.

However, the relationship between the material and immaterial seems most curious to me. Out of complex systems of 'matter' in structured interaction emerges some awareness, some experience of this interaction, but clouded by the functional illusion that this awareness is of a distinct, bounded entity (the organism) set in opposition to the body of conditions that gave rise to it (the environment), when in reality, the organism is the result of the sum forces of the universe coming to some sort of self-awareness. It is via this functional illusion that we begin to discriminate between material and immaterial in the first place, applying such labels to phenomena post hoc . So while what is deemed material structures the immaterial in the first place, the material becomes intelligible only in terms of our immaterial experience of it. So the material and immaterial are mutually constitutive in some sense (see my post on strange loops). How could that work?

Well, I think that we need to look prior to the action of consciousness as a lens that accords materiality to that in its purview 'outside' it. Instead, logically prior to all this (prior to logic! and thus never fully intelligible), there is an indeterminate flux of conditions for possibility. In a unified moment, a single process conditions an organism-environment interaction that imposes the immaterial/material distinction in cooccurrence with the emergence of subject and object; contra our capabilities of understanding, the interaction between organism and environment is logically prior to both organism and environment. . .action comes before actor and acted upon. However, once having emerged, actor and acted upon continue, both subject to the context imposed by that generative indeterminate flux but also manifesting as the unfolding of indeterminate conditions for possibility into defined, coherent 'things'. In this way, the manifestations of latent possibility transform this body of conditions of possibility.

And so this goes on, perhaps until all is investigated/discovered/created, as the self-conscious organism comes to realize every latent possibility. . .until all that was potential is manifest, until all that could be discovered/created has manifest, fully understood. Yes, this would be something like 'the singularity'. Or maybe we just continue as periodic blips which come to understand tiny parts of themselves and then evaporate.

ebola
(i hope this actually makes sense to someone. basic ontology is tough)

 

[L2R]

oh i see the fruit, it's you, isn't it?

so the mind and body and the external environment and everything developed gradually. there's no chicken and there's no egg. the emergence of consciousness is ongoing, it didn't switch on, it grew, it grows: it evolved, it evolves. etceterama.

i agree, but what do we take away from this with relation to a soul? does it not exist? but why, is it because that is flatly true, or are we poorly defining what a soul is, and are therefore looking in the wrong place?

 

[ebola?]

Don't ask me: I first jumped in this thread specifically to ask what a "soul" might be. . .and I don't really use the concept.
BUT, per the framework I put forth above, the 'soul' is a tiny emergent 'spark' of the universe coming to partial self-awareness, ephemeral, emerging only briefly in complex systems but doomed to dissolve as all lurches toward entropy.


ebola

 

[EliCash]

oh i see the fruit, it's you, isn't it?

so the mind and body and the external environment and everything developed gradually. there's no chicken and there's no egg. the emergence of consciousness is ongoing, it didn't switch on, it grew, it grows: it evolved, it evolves. etceterama.

i agree, but what do we take away from this with relation to a soul? does it not exist? but why, is it because that is flatly true, or are we poorly defining what a soul is, and are therefore looking in the wrong place?

I would say one thing we've defined well is what the soul is, I don't see there ever being a real yes/no answer to the question of the soul's existence though. Even if you could fully explain the brains inner functions people would still find something mystical in the way those functions translate/manifest into consciousness.

 

[L2R]

as per that framework, if the property is emergent, then what is half a spark?

 

[ebola?]

Does this framework necessitate or preclude that there be degrees of consciousness? With other emergent phenomena, is there always a gradient of existence of what emerges? In some cases, yes, but in others, no, as far as I can see. For example, while you can't "sort of" have chemical reactions, you can sort of have cultures, societies, and life-forms (viruses are a fun border-case). I consider it plausible that there is a gradient of consciousness/experience/perception/etc. Imagine when you awake gradually, not via some alarm, or that you come out of anaesthesia. Do you begin with all your faculties present immediately? At least for me, this process is gradual, involving successive integration of aspects of awareness of myself and my environment. Thus, it is plausible that there is a gradient of consciousness, and that simpler organisms possess a more rudimentary awareness, involving little meta-processing, ranging down to organisms that fail to produce any experience of their activity.

ebola

 

[L2R]

very good, but we are now only working through the limitations of the senses. the spark is dimmer when the sense is dimmer, correct? now is that because simpler chemisty generates dimmer sparks, or is that the spark is the same, but it is working through dimmer sense filters?

nb. the question hasn't changed, bro.

 

[ebola?]

very good, but we are now only working through the limitations of the senses.

Mmmm...I'm also thinking in terms of cognition. Eg, during stage 1 sleep and in particular when entering or exiting it, I possess some sort of awareness, but it's deranged and limited.

the spark is dimmer when the sense is dimmer, correct? now is that because simpler chemisty generates dimmer sparks, or is that the spark is the same, but it is working through dimmer sense filters?

I want to say, continuing with this metaphor, that only from the perspective of this spark does it seem that there is a gulf between the spark itself and apprehension of its existence (whereby perception can range from clear to indistinct); it is via a singular context that awareness of this context emerges, this singular context also conditioning this awareness's inability to comprehend its origins in full. However, from this background context, one may infer the shape of all possible manifestations of awareness 'prior' to their 'actual' instantiation.

So maybe my hesitation hinges as much on what it means for a phenomenon to exist as it does on what the soul is.

ebola

 

[L2R]

Mmmm...I'm also thinking in terms of cognition. Eg, during stage 1 sleep and in particular when entering or exiting it, I possess some sort of awareness, but it's deranged and limited.

as am i.

the waking from sleep analogy came to my mind also (before you posted it). it's an accurate one, i think. your sleep is governed by your circadian rhythm, which is a non conscious function of your body. consider the state your body is in when awake and the state your body is in during sleep. the transition from one to another is not instant, and your consciousness changes gradually. since it is governed by the body and not the consious mind, it is the body which impedes this consciousness. this is analogous of evolution also, where simpler organisms have a degree of this consciousness (regardless of whether it is ethereal or not).

So, when i elaborated on your framework, i took it further to say that consciousness is directly tied to sensoral capacity/quality.

I want to say, continuing with this metaphor, that only from the perspective of this spark does it seem that there is a gulf between the spark itself and apprehension of its existence (whereby perception can range from clear to indistinct); it is via a singular context that awareness of this context emerges, this singular context also conditioning this awareness's inability to comprehend its origins in full. However, from this background context, one may infer the shape of all possible manifestations of awareness 'prior' to their 'actual' instantiation.

So maybe my hesitation hinges as much on what it means for a phenomenon to exist as it does on what the soul is.

ebola

Don't forget, definitions, by definition, are relative in essence. A thing is a thing when it is as opposed/contrary/compared to other things. In a void, a definition is meaningless. All silliness about demons aside, descartes gives a fairly sufficient defintion of existence. i mean, really, what other choice is there? what difference does it make? there's an experience ofa thinking thing. let's just agree to that and move on.

As for souls, there is a common perception that we a ghosts in a machine, simple drivers to these meat sacks which are identical in character and essence to what is on display for all to see in meat city. This idea of an eternal ego is fundamentally faulty, since we change throughout our lives. The star wars cliche of memory wipes is convenient but nonsense. We pick up character defining traits and dispositions from our experiences in this life, we don't arbitrarily wake up to who we were always and before we were born and will be after we die. You are not a photocopy of your soul, or vice versa.

The reason i questioned the common understanding of what a soul is, is because it is too easy to dispove. Hence the use of spark in the last few posts, which seem to be far more an accurate reflection of what it is that we are, once we shred the lifetime of scar tissue which accumulates and forms our respective characters and egos. The soul/spark is like a ball of chewing gum rolling down hill. It has control over rolling slightly to the left or right at times, but he roll is incessant. The gum picks up dust and grit through this lifetime. We only see these pollutants, and call those parts "me". imo (of course).

Anyway, I think your hesitation is as a result of a faulty framework for the task you're attempting: finding what came before the duality of the issue. But as i noted, the duality is still there. The endeavour is futile.

 

[Ksa]

I've been thinking about this for a while. If a person's gender, culture, and all life experiences were taken away, would anyone really have different beliefs and morals? I believe that people are a product of their enviornment, so honestly, I don't believe that souls exist. Give me some replies below, I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this!

The soul is the way energy flows into the animate body causing it to behave. The soul and the body are one. Religion splits them into 2. You should starve the body, do Ramadan, because if you torture the body the spirit prevails. That belief is wrong in my views, the spirit and the body are one. There's no need to brutalize the body. The more in harmony your body is the better your spirit is too.