Evidence for the Human Soul

[exarkann]

@Apostacious: I'm curious as to how you think that something can have no explanation(function, relationship to/with other things, composition, ect). seems pretty self evident to me that everything in the universe can be analyzed/rationalized/defined, if not now, then at some point, and not necessarily by humanity.

 

[ebola?]

a lot of scientist say that free will and conciousness is an illusion and we basically act on instinct just like any other animal.

Like who?

 

[Apostacious]

@Apostacious: I'm curious as to how you think that something can have no explanation(function, relationship to/with other things, composition, ect). seems pretty self evident to me that everything in the universe can be analyzed/rationalized/defined, if not now, then at some point, and not necessarily by humanity.

Because, as you say, this is something that humanity is not capable of. We may be able to imagine the relationships which compose of the "whole," but the fact that you assume there is a final totality of relationships among things that is wholly finite, and is therefore ultimately knowable, is a belief. There is no "unit cell" of the universe, and there is no proof that the universe is itself, finite. We aren't even sure if we exist in a multiverse. It is probable, but not irrefutably knowable.

 

[Shrooms00087]

How are these abilities evidence? Just absence of evidence isn't proof. Creativity is pretty subjective considering there are elephants that can paint. Most of "soul"/consciousness is just memory interacting with other parts of the brain drawing up the illusion of the unexplained. In due time though. Humor for instance is how you perceive things. How your perceive things has a lot to do with memory and your conditioning, your positive reinforcements, and your negative reinforcements. Suicide I am not clear how this relates to the soul so much as a chemical imbalance. Those who have done ecstasy know in truth what chemical imbalances can do.

 

[shmandy5]

perhaps the soul could be described as the quility or tendencey of exhibiting all these abilities, some present as evidence rather than an actual entity in itself.
just a thought though not really on any certain side

 

[shmandy5]

How are these abilities evidence? Just absence of evidence isn't proof. Creativity is pretty subjective considering there are elephants that can paint. Most of "soul"/consciousness is just memory interacting with other parts of the brain drawing up the illusion of the unexplained. In due time though. Humor for instance is how you perceive things. How your perceive things has a lot to do with memory and your conditioning, your positive reinforcements, and your negative reinforcements. Suicide I am not clear how this relates to the soul so much as a chemical imbalance. Those who have done ecstasy know in truth what chemical imbalances can do.

verry well said indeed

 

[ebola?]

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).

We have mirrors: each other. While imperfect and incomplete, from here, we come to know that which attempts to come to know.

ebola

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

To me, the human soul calls for no evidence, it's a brute fact. I'm here right now, consciously experiencing, assumably so are you, and no more needs to be said.

Although philosophical inquiries into the nature, source, and properties of mind have been useful exercises for many people, I don't think much is gained by refusing to accept the sentient 'I' axiomatically, and assuming it nonexistent or illusory until it can be explained, analyzed, or logically justified. Fans of the Analytical School of philosophy and cutting edge academic philosophy of mind (the heirs to Logical Positivism's legacy), will probably consider me a killjoy for saying this, but so be it. I've gained nothing valuable for living a better and more connected life by holding back from affirming soul / self / mind / atman / etc, and although I'm not against others doing it if they so choose, I'm not in much position to recommend it.

 

[Shrooms00087]

^

Ignorance is bliss to some I suppose. They do have drugs that quite literally render you unconscious, so while under the throws of this drug do you lose your soul? What about the other conscious beings that just aren't self-aware? No souls? What about the ones that are? Do dolphins have souls? To me just giving up on finding out how we think and behave about ourselves, environment, and others is more important than believing mysticism based on the philosophy of bronze age understanding of what exactly consciousness is. That's just me.

 

[L2R]

How are these abilities evidence? Just absence of evidence isn't proof.

It is evident through such examples that some things appear to arise with no cause.

Creativity is pretty subjective considering there are elephants that can paint.

The ability to arbitrarily move a brush and creativity are two different things. How can one hold an original idea, one which is not based on a conscious mashing of memory, without something else?

The elephant may indeed be a creator of original thought and creativity, but we cannot gauge it since it lacks the ability to express it as we have.

Most of "soul"/consciousness is just memory interacting with other parts of the brain drawing up the illusion of the unexplained.

Agreed, but that "most" is still only one part of consciousness. The parts which pertain to humour and creativity actually rest elsewhere and are fleeting in experience.

Humor for instance is how you perceive things. How your perceive things has a lot to do with memory and your conditioning, your positive reinforcements, and your negative reinforcements.

Humour is much more that this. It is easy to be socially critical, but to do so in a genuinely comical way (not to resort to cliche) takes a certain connection to that thing we're talkig about.

Suicide I am not clear how this relates to the soul so much as a chemical imbalance. Those who have done ecstasy know in truth what chemical imbalances can do.

I think the OP's point here is that we do things that are against our genetic programming. Not all suicide is chemical imbalance related, however inbalances are indeed very powerful.

 

[Shrooms00087]

It is evident through such examples that some things appear to arise with no cause.

I don't quite know what you're referring to so I'll just skip it for now.

The ability to arbitrarily move a brush and creativity are two different things. How can one hold an original idea, one which is not based on a conscious mashing of memory, without something else?

The elephant may indeed be a creator of original thought and creativity, but we cannot gauge it since it lacks the ability to express it as we have.

How would you gauge abstract art? Regardless the elephant that I am thinking about drew a tree. That is both imaginary and a creation.

Agreed, but that "most" is still only one part of consciousness. The parts which pertain to humour and creativity actually rest elsewhere and are fleeting in experience.

I don't know enough to comment on that. I assure you though humor can easily be explained through conditioning (Or how they were conditioned).

Humour is much more that this. It is easy to be socially critical, but to do so in a genuinely comical way (not to resort to cliche) takes a certain connection to that thing we're talkig about.

Pretty vague. It's all perception based. That's my opinion anyway, which to me is better than reverting to mysticism.

I think the OP's point here is that we do things that are against our genetic programming. Not all suicide is chemical imbalance related, however inbalances are indeed very powerful.

We do many things against our genetic responsibilities. Surely it's come about through society. Even now we don't know where or why love comes from or is. Or altruism. I mean aside from chemical imbalance which are both involuntary and voluntary (drug use). There's a lot to be explained but we can't revert to some philosophy that we won't ever be able to explain it.

 

[L2R]

How would you gauge abstract art? Regardless the elephant that I am thinking about drew a tree. That is both imaginary and a creation.

recreation is different from creation. even if the elephant could paint a picture perfect image of a tree, it doesn't connote creativity. hell, take the elephant out of it, cameras do that all the time. cameras are not creative.

I don't know enough to comment on that. I assure you though humor can easily be explained through conditioning (Or how they were conditioned).

The use of the word "conditioning" does not preclude a mystical element. One could be conditioned to have more of a mystical perspective.

Pretty vague. It's all perception based. That's my opinion anyway, which to me is better than reverting to mysticism.

It's vague by definition, and so to expect anything more is to miss the point.

We do many things against our genetic responsibilities. Surely it's come about through society. Even now we don't know where or why love comes from or is. Or altruism. I mean aside from chemical imbalance which are both involuntary and voluntary (drug use). There's a lot to be explained but we can't revert to some philosophy that we won't ever be able to explain it.

That's fine, but we do actually have these limitations in our rationality and knowledge. That's what Aristotle was all about. His critical doubt is still valid and it is not a reversion to anything to accept our limitations.

i refrain from using loaded and easily misunderstood terms such as "soul" or even "consciousness". all i'm talking about is "something else" aside from the physical universe.

 

[Shrooms00087]

I do enjoy the conversation but we risk monopolizing this conversation this'll be my last reply.

recreation is different from creation. even if the elephant could paint a picture perfect image of a tree, it doesn't connote creativity. hell, take the elephant out of it, cameras do that all the time. cameras are not creative.

I do think you have a point here. Though, I think this is a semantical argument as with any philosophy discussion. Creativity to me, is creating an idea, thought, or sight.

The use of the word "conditioning" does not preclude a mystical element. One could be conditioned to have more of a mystical perspective.

No, it does. It precludes it entirely. If they were CONDITIONED to be mystical, then they were conditioned to be so, and doesn't fault on the word or practice of conditioning.

It's vague by definition, and so to expect anything more is to miss the point.

This is going to sound bad and I don't mean it disrespectfully, but I don't think there is a point in what you were saying. Maybe I just didn't get it but it's clear we'll splinter into the groups of thought on the matter.

That's fine, but we do actually have these limitations in our rationality and knowledge. That's what Aristotle was all about. His critical doubt is still valid and it is not a reversion to anything to accept our limitations.

i refrain from using loaded and easily misunderstood terms such as "soul" or even "consciousness". all i'm talking about is "something else" aside from the physical universe.

Well I can't say we don't have limitations, I personally think this is well in grasp of comprehension.

Again, I don't want to flood this I did enjoy it though, and would be happy to carry out in private chat after you've responded to this. :D

 

[L2R]

it's cool, i'm not trying to change your mind, just alluding to a different perspective, one which i have come to via some practice in creative writing, a very bizarre trip in and of itself! nice chat, mate!

 

[Mr. Squiggle!]

There is no evidence for the human soul dude.

 

[L2R]

nice counterargument 8)

 

[sheepie]

good thread.

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

Very true.

In order to understand a concept, we have to have the ability to step back and gain a perspective. If we ARE a concept, then it is simply impossible.

It is possible

a lot of scientist say that free will and conciousness is an illusion and we basically act on instinct just like any other animal.

I do believe this, humans are just smarter when it comes to "instinct" we can sacrifice pain for greater pleasure. Free will is completely separate from the soul.

From my limited understanding of my soul, I believe that the soul is like a amp meter in a circuit. It's still "part" of the circuit, though it plays no role. Simply "being", "spectating". It can be in any animal, or machine, maybe even an inanimate object. This is my understanding and I am open to the fact that it may be wrong.

 

[ebola?]

a lot of scientist say that free will and conciousness is an illusion and we basically act on instinct just like any other animal.

Who argues this, and how are we defining "instinct"?

ebola

 

[L2R]

i think the assertion is that the universe is merely deterministic. the use of "instinct" just throws a spanner in the message, but i think it means "acts only on genetic and sociological predispositions."

i would agree that the universe is mostly this. i'd say a great majority of the average person's actions are precisely this zombified or animalistic reaction and immitation, however we fleetingly do connect with a divine spark plug which drives this meat and dirt engine.

 

[sheepie]

i think the assertion is that the universe is merely deterministic. the use of "instinct" just throws a spanner in the message, but i think it means "acts only on genetic and sociological predispositions."

i would agree that the universe is mostly this. i'd say a great majority of the average person's actions are precisely this zombified or animalistic reaction and immitation, however we fleetingly do connect with a divine spark plug which drives this meat and dirt engine.

Agree agree agree agree.

It'd say 100% of all our actions are from genetics. The "divine spark plug" is more of a camera. It plays no role except to spectate our actions and "feel" like we're in them.