Argument for a soul?

[VitalOne]

Vitalone,

What is the value of such a baseless speculation? Surely to demonstrate a point you would need a real world example? Do you actually have a real example of someone waking up in a different body?

The value is clearly to show you that you aren't your body.

But again what does this mean? Without senses how would such a thing observe and if it could observe what could it do with the information without memory?

When you are angry, are you your anger? Are you what you see, hear, touch, taste, and feel? Are you your thoughts? The soul, is the thing behind these things - you. That's what I'mt rying to say.

Surely you mean we don’t know HOW the brain does these things not that it doesn’t do them – you can’t conclude that it doesn’t do them.

Ok, so you are concluding that the brain does do these things when there's no evidence that they do.

Why and what role would it play? Without personality, memory, emotions, or thoughts, it is a null entity- equivalent to something that doesn’t exist.

Why do you think it needs to exist?

If you act a different way, assuming a different personality, does that mean that you no longer exist? It's not null, it's like the director or observer, without it none would exist.

It doesn't need to exist, I'm just shining light on a big possibility.

That’s false. We do know the brain accounts for all these things through endless clinical studies especially on brain damaged patients. I hope what you mean is that scientists have yet to figure out exactly how the brain achieves these properties. Why make any assumptions about fantasy supernatural entities when we have not come close to exhausting the natural yet, especially when there is no precedent for anything supernatural?

No, you're wrong, I've taken a psychology course. There's lots of loopholes in neuroscience.

It's only supernatural if you're a fool. It's like showing a caveman a TV and him saying it's magic. You being the complete fool, assuming something like a soul is supernatural and fantasy-like simply because you don't know how it works.

There's nothing supernatural about it. There's nothing irrational about it.

No that is false. Unless you can show that souls exists the concept of the soul is an imaginative fiction. That is simple fact.

Well, I guess that means the superstring theory is also imaginative fiction, and so is a large area of physics, cosmology, etc...yet people like you don't regard it as such. This is because of your cynical anti-religious views

Well, how can I prove it exist? What type of experiment would work? If you can't prove something exist, that doesn't mean it doesn't, that means you can't prove it exist.

 

[VitalOne]

well then what is it? "the observer"? could you possibly be more vague than that?

Here you go, have fun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

if the soul doesn't depend on the brain, then how come if you damage the brain your personality changes, memories disappear, etc?

Because your brain is damaged. How many times do I have to say the brain and soul are separate. The soul comes first, it always exists. The brain depends on the soul.

then WHAT does it do? c'mon, we first need to know what the hell the soul is! you need to be specific.

It causes everything to occur, without it, no pheonomenon could happen.

ok, does your soul grow? does your "observer" become more observant as you grow up or something?

The soul changes, but it doesn't "grow" as in expand or physically gain anything. Again...how does this go against the idea of a soul?

and again, WHAT is the soul and what does it do? where is it? what's the purpose of the soul?

we have to know what you're talking about when you say soul. We can't argue against it if we don't know what it is!

The soul is you. It has no material existence. It's the cause of material existence. It does not really do anything, when you say that you make it seem as if it's separate from yourself, like a material body. The soul is really the only thing that actually exists.

 

[Cris]

Vitalone,

When you are angry, are you your anger? Are you what you see, hear, touch, taste, and feel? Are you your thoughts? The soul, is the thing behind these things - you. That's what I'mt rying to say.

Yes OK I understand. And this might be achieved through a part of the brain, would you agree?

Ok, so you are concluding that the brain does do these things when there's no evidence that they do.

There is no other bodily organ that can come close other than the brain. I.e. there are no other candidates, where else would you suggest we look?

If you act a different way, assuming a different personality, does that mean that you no longer exist?

That’s another hypothetical that doesn’t seem to make any sense.

It's not null, it's like the director or observer, without it none would exist.

That’s fine if I view the function as just another operation performed by the brain – but wouldn’t call it soul.

It's only supernatural if you're a fool. It's like showing a caveman a TV and him saying it's magic.

So we agree that the soul is just part of normal brain function, is that correct?

You being the complete fool, assuming something like a soul is supernatural and fantasy-like simply because you don't know how it works.

That’s something of a confused perspective. I’ve assumed you consider the soul is something supernatural because more scientists haven’t shown how the brain can do it.

There's nothing supernatural about it.

That’s fine but that’s not how religionists see it. Wouldn’t it be safer if you referred to this idea as consciousness and that we don’t know yet quite how the brain maintains that?

There's nothing irrational about it.

Not if you agree it isn’t supernatural.

Well, I guess that means the superstring theory is also imaginative fiction, and so is a large area of physics, cosmology, etc...yet people like you don't regard it as such.

Almost, but those leading edge hypotheses do have significant inductive evidence behind them, but the scientists do not claim them as truth unlike religionists who do assert that souls exist but without any evidence. And yes most of science is inductive and that means there is always a possibility that those theories are wrong. The difference between fantasy, fiction, speculations, hypotheses, and induction, is perhaps nothing than a matter of degree. How do we decide which – how much evidence is available, precedent, and an evaluation of credibility? Note that a fantasy might become a truth in the future.

This is because of your cynical anti-religious views

Or a matter of carefully considered perspective and credibility.

Well, how can I prove it exist? What type of experiment would work? If you can't prove something exist, that doesn't mean it doesn't, that means you can't prove it exist.

Exactly, so you have no basis on which to assert the claims as truth. We can admit we simply do not know and agree the ideas are speculative until evidence is uncovered, if ever, although I am no longer clear on whether you have a religionist slant here or not.

 

[Cris]

Vitalone,

How many times do I have to say the brain and soul are separate. The soul comes first, it always exists. The brain depends on the soul.

Where does the soul reside? You said in the previous post that it isn’t supernatural so it must be material. So where is it?

It causes everything to occur, without it, no pheonomenon could happen.

Phenomenon? What? We are still discussing duality here, right?

The soul is you.

I.e. the mind, right?

It has no material existence.

Then it is either supernatural but you claim it isn’t or it is the emergent property of brain complexity which is an established position. Do you want to offer a different option?

It's the cause of material existence.

If it isn’t material how does it create material components?

It does not really do anything, when you say that you make it seem as if it's separate from yourself, like a material body. The soul is really the only thing that actually exists.

And your body doesn’t? This looks like gibberish.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Better than that of God creating itself then creating our universe.

Anyway, that is not the point I was making. The point is, even if there is a 'God', religions past, present, future and even the ones that won't be created, only one can be true of a possible infinite amount. How's your luck? Science has already proved parts of your religion wrong (I assume you're Christian).

wrong, i am Jewish. AND i believe in the validity of science.

the problem is this: faaaaar too many people take what is written in the Torah and the NT literally, at face value. i personally believe that the Torah and science can harmoniously exist, and that it is a matter of time. just because science has yet to prove something, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist, right? the whole purpose of science as i understand it, is to explain the unexplained through the means we have available to us (and to look for alternative method as well), according to secular criteria.

G-d, the soul, and creationism will all be proven through science....given the time, resources, and interest necessary. to be blind to possibility is the most un-scientific thing i have ever heard of.

 

[Sarkus]

The soul is you. It has no material existence. It's the cause of material existence. It does not really do anything, when you say that you make it seem as if it's separate from yourself, like a material body. The soul is really the only thing that actually exists.

If the soul is not material - what is it? How can it interract with the material plane of existence? How does it influence us?

A non-material item MIGHT indeed exist....
But it would be logically identical to something that doesn't.

 

[c7ityi_]

The problem with understanding the self is that most people think everything is material. In reality, everything is mental. All apparent "physical matter" is made of "mind". Mind creates magnetism, which creates electricity and the illusion of an outside.

Matter is the feeling of a barrier or a frontier between what I think I am, and what I think I am not. The feeling of matter (or of atomic particles) comes from the meeting of two opposite wills: the will to be infinite struggling against the will to reject infinity. Where these two necessities are in opposition, a wall of resistance is felt.

So, when you understand what matter and mind is, they are completely united, the same thing.

 

[Sarkus]

The problem with understanding the self is that most people think everything is material. In reality, everything is mental.

Evidence please?

All apparent "physical matter" is made of "mind". Mind creates magnetism, which creates electricity and the illusion of an outside.

Evidence please?

Matter is the feeling of a barrier or a frontier between what I think I am, and what I think I am not. The feeling of matter (or of atomic particles) comes from the meeting of two opposite wills: the will to be infinite struggling against the will to reject infinity. Where these two necessities are in opposition, a wall of resistance is felt.

Evidence please?

(Are you a solipsist, by any chance?)

The trouble with your view, c7ityi_, is that it is logically the same as anything that doesn't exist.
That's not to say it isn't so - but there is no way to prove it, as there is no evidence, and thus irrelevant beyond an intellectual possibility - along with the infinite other logical possibilities. No one can prove what you say isn't true, nor can anyone prove it is.

 

[RoyLennigan]

If the soul is not material - what is it? How can it interract with the material plane of existence? How does it influence us?

A non-material item MIGHT indeed exist....
But it would be logically identical to something that doesn't.

the soul, or some aspect of it, must be material. It must be because it acts on the material world. You consciously affect the world around you, therefore if there is a 'soul' then it must be part of this universe. This does not mean the soul doesn't exist, but it does mean that if it does exist, then it probably exists in a manner unlike that which many people belive it does.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

When you are angry, are you your anger? Are you what you see, hear, touch, taste, and feel? Are you your thoughts? The soul, is the thing behind these things - you. That's what I'mt rying to say

when you're angry, see, feel, hear, touch, taste... they're all functions by the brain. You can stimulate certain areas of the brain and cause say a taste of lemon in your mouth. I don't know specifically about anger, but we do know that fear is in the amygdala, and we've identified brain areas associated with pleasure, etc. We also know their cause and everything (all that endorphin stuff, etc.)
it's CHEMICALS. That's why you can take a stupid pill and get depressed or NOT depressed, etc.
as for thoughts... I'm not aware of any research indicating there is a specific region of the brain for "thoughts" (besides the cerebral cortex), but we do know that face recognition for example is in a specific area of the brain. There are people who cannot recognize faces, not even their own... as a result of damage to that part of the brain. (I believe it's called... paragnosia?) As for other thoughts, they are related to certain parts of the brain, as you can tell people to think of say... their boyfriend and you know what areas of the brain they are using, etc.
... the thing behind these things- brain. That's what I'm trying to say.

Ok, so you are concluding that the brain does do these things when there's no evidence that they do.

there's plenty of evidence. MRI scans, brain damaged patients (like that face recognition disorder, that guy who got a steel bar through his head and his personality ... yes, personality changed, alzheimer's patients, etc), electrodes used to stimulate the brain (they recall things, they feel, hear, taste, things)
there's overwhelming evidence.
YOU are the one believing things with no evidence whatsoever.

No, you're wrong, I've taken a psychology course. There's lots of loopholes in neuroscience.

what kinds of loopholes? when did you take that psychology course?
I've taken a psychology course (this semester... it's still very fresh in my mind... and not to brag or anything but i have pretty damn good grades ), anatomy course (last year, also good grades), read magazines (like that national geographic article about the brain and such), read the news, etc.
... to be continued... i'm scared of windows crashing or something...

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Here you go, have fun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

oh great, could you be even MORE vague?... again? I don't want to know what buddhists, christians, etc. believe the soul is, I don't want to know every possible meaning for a soul, I want to know what YOU mean when you say "soul". You've clarified it more... as being thoughts and stuff, but that link doesn't help any.

Because your brain is damaged. How many times do I have to say the brain and soul are separate. The soul comes first, it always exists. The brain depends on the soul.

... yes, the brain is damaged...meaning the brain does those things. It's a very simple concept. You damage something, and what it does is damaged. You damage the brain, and your thoughts, feelings, everything you are is damaged.
where is the soul in all of this?
if the soul and the brain are separate, damaging the brain shouldn't have anything to do with what the soul does. you say the soul is your thoughts and whatever, but those are controlled by your brain.

It causes everything to occur, without it, no pheonomenon could happen.

does it cause rain? (lol... i'm just joking I know what you mean)
so you're saying the soul controls the brain? ... um... talk about no evidence.




if there is a perfectly natural, "mundane", explanation, why resort to the supernatural? (messed up "quote" from "is it real" in NGC)
everything you claim the soul is is actually the brain doing things. The brain is a physical entity and it acts like one... meaning it abides by the "laws" of physics. There's no room for the soul controling it.

 

[VitalOne]

If the soul is not material - what is it? How can it interract with the material plane of existence? How does it influence us?

A non-material item MIGHT indeed exist....
But it would be logically identical to something that doesn't.

The soul comes first, then the material world. The soul does not depend on the material world, the material world is not the cause of the soul existing, it is the soul that is the cause of the material world.

And vacuum energy technically has no "material" existence, but it can interact with the material plane.

 

[Sarkus]

And vacuum energy technically has no "material" existence, but it can interact with the material plane.

I suggest you do some more research on "Vacuum Energy".

 

[Sarkus]

the soul, or some aspect of it, must be material. It must be because it acts on the material world. You consciously affect the world around you, therefore if there is a 'soul' then it must be part of this universe. This does not mean the soul doesn't exist, but it does mean that if it does exist, then it probably exists in a manner unlike that which many people belive it does.

No - if it exists it MUST be material - and as such is just another name for a (definable) material process. Nothing exists that is not material.
If the soul is "immaterial" it is logically similar to something that doesn't exist.
If the soul is material - please explain how it can be identified and where the evidence for its existence lies.

 

[RoyLennigan]

No - if it exists it MUST be material - and as such is just another name for a (definable) material process. Nothing exists that is not material.
If the soul is "immaterial" it is logically similar to something that doesn't exist.
If the soul is material - please explain how it can be identified and where the evidence for its existence lies.

I don't know that a soul exists. But I also don't know that it doesn't exist, and neither should you. I think we might someday discover that there comes a point at which forces acting on our universe become almost unnoticable. And that perhaps what people call 'God' or 'soul' is just one of these forces from outside of our universe. There are many things that we cannot detect and which are therefore 'immaterial' to us because of that (I say this because science discovers things everyday, and will find them, though it hasn't yet). It does not mean that they might not become material once we have found them. I am not talking of an imaginary force becoming real, but a real force which we deem imaginary, becomes real in how we think of it. Perhaps the 'soul' is like the quantum probability wave, which collapses upon observation.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't know that a soul exists. But I also don't know that it doesn't exist, and neither should you. I think we might someday discover that there comes a point at which forces acting on our universe become almost unnoticable. And that perhaps what people call 'God' or 'soul' is just one of these forces from outside of our universe. There are many things that we cannot detect and which are therefore 'immaterial' to us because of that (I say this because science discovers things everyday, and will find them, though it hasn't yet). It does not mean that they might not become material once we have found them. I am not talking of an imaginary force becoming real, but a real force which we deem imaginary, becomes real in how we think of it. Perhaps the 'soul' is like the quantum probability wave, which collapses upon observation.

I certainly don't know that a soul doesn't exist - much like I certainly don't know that a God doesn't exist.

But why choose to believe in something, and make claims of something, for which there is no evidence?

And this is why we ask for definitions of something before assessing the puported evidence of its existence.
I could define "soul" as the chair on which I sit. I have evidence of its existence and can spout what I like about it that fits the evidence.

But if you define the "soul" as immaterial, which it seems most do, then you are already on troublesome ground with regard to evidence, as there can be no evidence of something that is truly "immaterial".
I'm not talking about something that is only immaterial because it hasn't been identified yet - but something truly immaterial - i.e. something that can not react/interact in any way with the material universe - because then it is logically consistent with everything else that doesn't exist.
I'm not saying that the truly immaterial doesn't exist - but that it its existence is logically irrelevant.

As soon as you define the "soul" as material then you fall into two categories:
(a) those that claim it is an already evidenced material process/item;
(b) those that claim it is a material process/item that will one day be discovered.

In the former you are merely defining the "soul" as something already known - like me defining it as my chair. That's okay - but why not refer to it as what it is already known as instead of invoking ideas of spiritualism and religion?!

In the latter case, all I ask for is evidence of the existence.
Until then I certainly will not believe in its existence, as it is as likely as any other infinite number of possible as-yet-undiscovered things for which there is currently no evidence, and unless you have evidence of something it is absurd to make claims of anything about them.

So basically - unless you have evidence to support the claims you make, those claims will only be subjective speculation / imagination and nothing else. Much like a fairy story - but with less plot.

 

[VitalOne]

I suggest you do some more research on "Vacuum Energy".

"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Material existence requires matter, therefore by definition vacuum energy technically doesn't materially exist.

 

[Sarkus]

"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Material existence requires matter, therefore by definition vacuum energy technically doesn't materially exist.

I don't want to divert this to a technical argument - but Vaccum Energy is only "devoid of matter" due to the existence of the particle/anti-particle pairing - that cancel each other out - hence zero sum. Both, independently, have mass (or anti-mass).
Or are you now going to say that if you have a lump of matter, and an equal and opposite lump of anti-matter, then the lump of matter doesn't exist?

As I said - read up on the subject.

 

[VitalOne]

I don't want to divert this to a technical argument - but Vaccum Energy is only "devoid of matter" due to the existence of the particle/anti-particle pairing - that cancel each other out - hence zero sum. Both, independently, have mass (or anti-mass).
Or are you now going to say that if you have a lump of matter, and an equal and opposite lump of anti-matter, then the lump of matter doesn't exist?

As I said - read up on the subject.

I am aware of the anti-particle/particle pairing. The actual vacuum energy is not pairing itself, it is the result of the two cancelling each other out. The actual energy is not the particles nor their pairing.