Before I go further, can you answer this question...
What is the difference between an orange and it's taste?
jan.
Do we have soul?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
Before I go further, can you answer this question...
What is the difference between an orange and it's taste?
jan.
Gibberish. That explains nothing.
Both are physical things that exist in reality, unlike souls.
This orange story is a nice allegory, but that’s all it is. Taste –even if it is completely subjective—actually exists as a sense. Souls on the other hand have yet to be proven to do so.
An orange obviously exists in a physical form with a color, shape, size and yes, taste. So what has that got to do with souls? I understand the link you are trying to show, but again, we can experience what an orange is by touch, sight, scent, taste. Where does that leave the soul then? Are you trying to state that our consciousness is also our soul, so it’s just a matter of semantics? Or are you trying to state that it is something extra? Taste is a sense; the concept of a soul is a speculative exercise in philosophical musings.
One is an object, the other is one of many subjective experiences/interpretations of the object by our consciousness.
So do you think "soul" is a subjective experience?
If so, then of what?
Or do you think "soul" is that which has, or enables, the subjective experience?
If so, then what is the difference between "soul" and consciousness?
Other than semantics.
@Elecricfetus
I don't think he meant it as a joke.
PIG is to PORK
as IRON ORE is to STEEL.
Does the same comparison work with
MIND and SOUL?
I think they do, and that you don't need to be a theist to accept it.
I don't think he meant it as a joke.
PIG is to PORK
as IRON ORE is to STEEL.
Does the same comparison work with
MIND and SOUL?
I think they do, and that you don't need to be a theist to accept it.
Last edited:
So what is it that you find so funny?
You find my response/analogy hilariously simple yet accurate?
Do you perhaps find my response to be ludicrous?
Whatever your view, is not posting a picture without explanation a form of trolling?
At least have the decency to explain what you think is funny.
And why you think it.
TheHun explains it in his post above how an orange and the taste of orange are both physical things. When making this comparison to souls, the example immediately fails based entirely on that one fact, that the orange and the taste of the orange can be shown to exist as physical things, while souls have not.
In fact, it is completely fallacious to compare physical things in our universe with that of things in the supernatural.
But, we can look at your example, as well. What is a "feeling of uncertainty"? If it's a "feeling" by definition, then it is a physical thing going on in our bodies, and most likely something going on in the brain. So yeah, that physical process going on in our bodies does exist in the same manner as a sack of potatoes, neurons firing, biological chemicals being released by various glands all resulting in the "feeling", whether it be uncertainty or something else.
Then, why not just call it our "Psyche" instead of calling it a soul?
But wait! Doesn't that which is defined as being our psyche disappear when our brains die? And, doesn't the soul live on after the body and the brain are long dead? Can we then define the soul as being our psyche with this problem?
Psyche, or consciousness, is essentially a part of our personality and thereby an intangible part of the self. The term soul is used to denote the religious meaning of same. So the religious people have a soul and we have a consciousness, or psyche if you prefer.
It is the same thing as calling a formal recitation directed at non-Abrahamic deity superstitious and one that is directed at one of the monotheistic gods a prayer. It’s a magical incantation either way.
It is the same thing as calling a formal recitation directed at non-Abrahamic deity superstitious and one that is directed at one of the monotheistic gods a prayer. It’s a magical incantation either way.
Because science has not conclusively, or even compellingly, determined that the psyche is wholly a product of biology. "Soul" is a term that more directly expresses this. But functionally, they are the same.
It is trivial that something which may rely on biology for its phenomenal expression would cease to find expression without that conduit.
Oh please Baldeee, as you delightfully point it out its all semantics: is the soul just a meaningless word? Well then lets give it a rigid definition to test against... which appears to be what further posters are trying to do, so carry on.
Yet, the very first sentence to the definition is:
"In psychology, the psyche is the totality of the human mind, conscious, and unconscious."
That appears totally biological to me. Do you have some alternative non-biological objects to add to this definition?
It does no such thing, it only adds complexity and confusion to already defined concepts.
And, yet it does, without any problems whatsoever.
Definitions are not evidence, nor do they establish scientific fact.
If you insist on a wholly biological source for the psyche, the scientific burden is yours, as the null hypothesis (here, that there is no special relationship between the psyche and biology) is the default stance of the scientific method.
No, it merely accepts the null hypothesis.
What?! Are you saying that the psyche can express itself without a body? I do not think you know what you are saying.
- Status