Do we have soul?

[Jan Ardena]

TheHun,

Like I pointed out, the taste of an orange can be artificially produced.

So what?
We're talking about orange juice specifically

Therefore you can twist this any way you want, but taste is not the definition of an orange, merely an aspect.

I said: ''The taste is the orange. One could be forgiven for thinking the ultimate purpose of the orange is its taste'', do keep up.

More of the same gobbledygook. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself or someone else? Those who can see it, feel it, and are familiar with its categorization will accept it to be an orange�taste notwithstanding. In any event, not all oranges taste the same, nor do we experience the taste in exactly the same manner..

Wtf are you babbling on about?
An orange has a particular taste which we can identify as ''an orange''. Period.

So a chair and a dead guy have no personality. Wow, now that�s a revelation from god for sure.

???

Alright, can you stop that patronizing crap now? You might not be aware of it, but we are not a bunch of imbeciles needing to be led around by a leash. While I am familiar with that particular tactic from those religious zealots who want to convert others to their way of thinking�or not as the case may be�this is not a conversion camp.

Your being paranoid.

You seriously cannot recognize an orange from a picture without tasting it?

My point is, an O is ultimately about it's taste. It has little to no other essence, and the soul is regarded as the essential component in living things.
I'm not being religious, I'm not trying convert you, I am simply schooling you on what is regarded as the the soul. You can either believe that there is a component like the soul, or not. I don't really give a rat's ass.

I don�t really care how you �understand� the meaning of the term soul.

Then wtf are you participating in this thread for?

I stated that I don�t think souls exist, so your pseudo-scientific attempts at making souls real does not work�even if you kill oranges to accomplish this.

I know you don't think souls are real. But what makes you think I'm attempting to make them real?
I'm explaining what the term ''soul'' means at specific level, namely the essential component.
There is no need to invoke science, pseudo, natural, or bullshit.

And no, taste is not the whole essential point of what an orange is, it�s just an aspect.

What is it that makes an orange an orange if not it's taste?

While you can insist on your orange being defined by its taste, you are wrong.

I didn't insist that it is defined by it's taste, but understand that it is an orange by it's taste, whereas we can see a convincing model of an orange, and be convinced it is
an orange until we taste it. In the same way we can be fooled into thinking something taste like an orange if we don't drink or eat oranges on a regular basis. But artificially flavoured orange juice
does not taste like real orange juice, to one who is used to the real taste of orange.

One more time, I can replicate the taste of an orange and still NOT have an orange in hand.

One more time, I can enjoy the taste of real orange and still NOT have an orange in hand.

If you replicate the taste of orange, then you have no orange.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Baldeee,
This doesn't answer the question. The taste cannot be separated from the orange as it is what makes it an orange.

It does answer the question.
It may not match your own, but it is an answer nonetheless.

The taste can be separated from the orange.
The taste is just a subjective interpretation of chemicals, found naturally within an orange but that can be replicated exactly.
Yes, artificial orange juice does not taste the same, because their purpose is to create something similar but far cheaper.
But if you replicate the chemicals artificially but exactly, no matter how expensive, it will taste of orange juice.

That we label the taste "orange" is merely for efficiency.
We associate the taste with oranges.
But they can be separated.
A person with ageusia would also consider an orange utterly separate from matters of taste.

No. I think the ''soul'' is what makes you a human, as the taste is what makes an orange, an orange.

Then you confirm it is just semantics.
We already have words such as character, personality.
Using the term soul is therefore confusing (due to the associated baggage) if this is all that you mean...
I.e. The subjective view of an individual (by self or by another) that distinguishes one from another.

Ultimately, everything is a subjective experience.

Perhaps. But not if you hold there to be an objective reality.

I think, the ''soul'' is essential component allowing us to be consciously aware, and the bodies we possess represent our consciousness level.

Yes, like "movement" is an essential component allowing a river to flow.
All I think you are doing is perceiving an activity and assigning a descriptive noun for that activity.
And then trying to use the noun as if describing an object.
And then since it is not an object that can be touched or felt (cf. a table) it is given the attribute of being evidence of a non-material entity.

Such stems from failure to identify the noun accurately as describing an activity.

''Consciousness'', based on that logic, is a sympton of the ''soul'' and can be understood to be present through nature by:

Coming into being

Growth/Development

Produce byproducts

Grow old/Dwindle

Die/Cease to exist.

jan.

Do you think stars are conscious, then?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

@The Hun

I think this may be the kind of study you are referring to.
It shows the percentage of people in a country who believe in God versus the country's wealth:

Unfortunately, the contrast isn't very good, so you have to look close to see the country names.

There is a simple correlation for the poorest countries.
People in countries averaging a bare subsistence wage are nearly all believers.
As wealth increases, the graph has more of a scattergun pattern.
Always less religious than the poorest countries, and on average increasingly non-religious as wealth increases, but varying quite widely.

Singapore is right out on it's own as an anomaly to the general trend. Strongly religious and very wealthy.
The religious demographics may surprise you if you don't know the country well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore#Religion

 

[Dazz]

Before I go further, can you answer this question...

What is the difference between an orange and it's taste?

jan.

This wasn't addressed to me yes, but still this analogy is so .... irritating.

Orange: A Citric fruit of the genus Citrus, sprung from orange trees. Can be identified by it's scent, texture, it's segmented interior or pulp, it's juicy, somewhat bittersweet and acidic flesh that gives a strong, singular stimuli to the taste buds on your tongue.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Orange

Taste: One of the five senses, as acted by the respective organ, tongue. Resulted of an interaction between touch and smell, with the substance and your mouth, discerning or, the ability to differentiate between the tastes of sweet, salty, sour and bitter, generating a distinctive predicate called flavor.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=taste

So to begin with, the phrase you quoted should have been:
"What is the difference between an orange and it's flavor?"
The difference is, let's put it this way, the orange is the porter of the quality AND it's TASTE is ONE of it's QUALITIES, and just that. The soul of the said orange would be the sum of all it's qualities and charateristics, saying that the orange IS it's own taste is like saying that i am my hairstyle (or my ability to cook,, when my hairstyle is just one of the qualities i possess, and definitely, my hairstyle (or my ability to cook), as important and central as it might be to me, is not "my soul".
As far as this overrated allegory goes, ONE predicate can not be deemed as the SOUL of anything, when the amount of predicates together is what makes one thing a thing.
And the concept of "soul" wouldn't exist if we had no conscience (or were sentient), so it is fair to assume that soul and conscience are one thing, and also by this, conscience is not a product of the soul (sincerely i think that the opposite is true).

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Fraggle junior.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldeee,

The taste can be separated from the orange.

If separated, then we no longer have an orange.
If the soul is separated from a human, we no longer have a human being.

The taste is just a subjective interpretation of chemicals, found naturally within an orange but that can be replicated exactly.

Real orange juice only comes from oranges.
Please show where orange juice can be replicated exactly, by chemical composition without involving a real orange at some stage

Yes, artificial orange juice does not taste the same, because their purpose is to create something similar but far cheaper.
But if you replicate the chemicals artificially but exactly, no matter how expensive, it will taste of orange juice.

But it's not orange juice, that's my point. Plus it will taste nothing like real orange juice to an experienced palette.

That we label the taste "orange" is merely for efficiency.

It doesn't matter what you call it, it has a distinctive taste that is recognized by everyone who eats oranges.
I think they call oranges, apples, in China, but it makes no difference to the recognition of the taste.

We associate the taste with oranges.
But they can be separated.

a) what is it if not it's taste?
b) take the taste out of an orange, why would it be regarded as ''an orange''?

A person with ageusia would also consider an orange utterly separate from matters of taste.

Because the person has a deficiency.

Then you confirm it is just semantics.
We already have words such as character, personality.
Using the term soul is therefore confusing (due to the associated baggage) if this is all that you mean...
I.e. The subjective view of an individual (by self or by another) that distinguishes one from another.

Then you're not really grasping the meaning of what I'm conveying.

Perhaps. But not if you hold there to be an objective reality.

Objective reality is a part of subjective reality.
Grass is green because we perceive it to be, green is such because we perceive it to be. We cannot describe these colors. We do not know whether
we perceive the same thing when describing the color green.

Yes, like "movement" is an essential component allowing a river to flow.

If you want to look at it like that, then be my guest.
I'm merely explaining the meaning of ''soul'' from the essential point of view. The view expounded in ancient scriptures.

All I think you are doing is perceiving an activity and assigning a descriptive noun for that activity.
And then trying to use the noun as if describing an object.
And then since it is not an object that can be touched or felt (cf. a table) it is given the attribute of being evidence of a non-material entity.

And I think you're desperately trying to convince yourself that such a thing as a ''soul'' does not exist, and doing a bad job.

What I think or believe, is irrelevant, as I'm just giving an explanation.

Do you think stars are conscious, then?

I don't think bodies are conscious unless the spiritual spark is present.
Based on the logic, I accept that these cosmological bodies (including universe(s)) contain spiritual sparks.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dazz,

So to begin with, the phrase you quoted should have been:
"What is the difference between an orange and it's flavor?"

You are absolutely correct.
That is what I meant. Thanks.

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

@The Hun

I think this may be the kind of study you are referring to.
It shows the percentage of people in a country who believe in God versus the country's wealth:

Unfortunately, the contrast isn't very good, so you have to look close to see the country names.




There is a simple correlation for the poorest countries.
People in countries averaging a bare subsistence wage are nearly all believers.
As wealth increases, the graph has more of a scattergun pattern.
Always less religious than the poorest countries, and on average increasingly non-religious as wealth increases, but varying quite widely.

Singapore is right out on it's own as an anomaly to the general trend. Strongly religious and very wealthy.
The religious demographics may surprise you if you don't know the country well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore#Religion

You made a very good point. Not only are the poorest nations highest in religious identification, but the US stands apart in the world for having a fairly high religious population (65%) along with one of the highest GDPs (approx $48,000). If we look at the US demographic a little differently -- religion vs income -- we note that the more backward the religion, the higher it's represented in the lowest wage earners. US followers of Hinduism for example are about 5 times more likely to earn over $100,000 than to earn less than $30,000 -- whereas among the Christian fundamentalists (Protestants who don't call themselves Protestants) 30% earn under $30,000 while 20% earn more than $100,000. And this is a trend. The Hindu and Orthodox religions cluster to the top while the fundies sink to the bottom.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/income-distribution-within-us-religious-groups/

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The fundamentalist Christian churches are full of hucksters.
They teach a crude version of Christianity which nets a lot of money for the preachers.
Primitive Christianity is spreading to other countries, one such being Nigeria, which is leading the way by re-introducing witch burnings.


I don't know whether their Islamic counterparts in poor Muslim countries pull similar tricks.
I would be surprised if they do not.

Hindus do very well financially in the UK too.
The Catholic and Church of England schools are highly regarded, especially for junior education.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dazz,

The difference is, let's put it this way, the orange is the porter of the quality AND it's TASTE is ONE of it's QUALITIES, and just that.

What other qualities exist within ''the porter of the quality'' that makes it an orange as we know it?

The soul of the said orange would be the sum of all it's qualities and charateristics, saying that the orange IS it's own taste is like saying that i am my hairstyle (or my ability to cook,, when my hairstyle is just one of the qualities i possess, and definitely, my hairstyle (or my ability to cook), as important and central as it might be to me, is not "my soul".

What ''characteristics'' does an orange have, that makes it ''an orange'', aside from flavor?

As far as this overrated allegory goes, ONE predicate can not be deemed as the SOUL of anything, when the amount of predicates together is what makes one thing a thing.

I didn't say the taste was the soul of the orange, I said it was it's essence, the component that makes it an orange.

And the concept of "soul" wouldn't exist if we had no conscience (or were sentient), so it is fair to assume that soul and conscience are one thing, and also by this, conscience is not a product of the soul (sincerely i think that the opposite is true).

We are allowed to accept or believe what is acceptable to us. I'm simply explaining what ''soul'' means.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Baldeee,

If separated, then we no longer have an orange.
If the soul is separated from a human, we no longer have a human being.

Again, ageusia sufferers would tend to disagree with you.
Hold your nose while eating an orange and does the orange suddenly become something else because you have shut off the aroma molecules from being interpreted?

Further, if you separate life from a human, we no longer have a human but a body.
Ergo, life equates to soul.
Ergo, the term soul is just semantics.

Real orange juice only comes from oranges.

"Natural" OJ only comes from oranges.
Synthetic OJ can come from anyone who can synthesise it.
Orange juice is just a combination of molecules, with limonene the one that gives it the bulk of its aroma.

Please show where orange juice can be replicated exactly, by chemical composition without involving a real orange at some stage

Since your definition of orange juice is that it must come from oranges, you are just begging the question.
Further, I didn't say it can be at the moment: it is not viably economic to do so when oranges produce it so much more efficiently.
But it is the principle.

But it's not orange juice, that's my point. Plus it will taste nothing like real orange juice to an experienced palette.

You are just further begging the question with such a priori assumptions.
Orange juice is just combination of molecules.
Much like the pigmentation in its skin, the "orange" colour.
In your analogy is there any difference between taste and colour?
I ask because, whereas there is no commercial need to produce synthetic OJ, colours have been created synthetically for quite a while.
And would you argue that chemical X in an orange skin is not the same as chemical X that is produced artificially?
There is no difference between that and the "taste" of OJ in terms of analogy.

It doesn't matter what you call it, it has a distinctive taste that is recognized by everyone who eats oranges.
I think they call oranges, apples, in China, but it makes no difference to the recognition of the taste.

Mere association of the taste with a fruit, and the main source of experiences with the taste being from the fruit, does not mean that it can not be replicated perfectly, nor that the taste is the fruit / fruit is the taste.
It is merely one component that the fruit has that enables it to be recognised as that particular fruit.

a) what is it if not it's taste?
b) take the taste out of an orange, why would it be regarded as ''an orange''?

a) it is the totality of its qualities: the taste, the look, the feel, the smell, the genetics.
b) because it is a fruit of the genus Citrus, and species Citrus x sinensis.
It is the fruit of a living plant and part of its means of procreation, that some animals happen to find edible.
To think that it is its taste is rather a human-centric view.

Because the person has a deficiency.

So what?
If it is separate for one it can be separate for all: just hold your nose while eating it to realise this.

Then you're not really grasping the meaning of what I'm conveying.

I think I'm grasping what you are holding out.
If it is not what you intended then perhaps you need to explain differently.

Objective reality is a part of subjective reality.
Grass is green because we perceive it to be, green is such because we perceive it to be. We cannot describe these colors. We do not know whether
we perceive the same thing when describing the color green.

I suggest you read about what is meant by objective reality, then.
If it exists it is that which gives rise to subjective reality.
Our interpretation of the objective reality is our subjective reality.
So it is ludicrous to say that OR is a part of SR when it is distinct by being unclouded by perception/interpretation by the subjective.

If you want to look at it like that, then be my guest.
I'm merely explaining the meaning of ''soul'' from the essential point of view. The view expounded in ancient scriptures.

"Essential"?
That's rather elitist of you, is it not?
And you are not "merely explaining" but arguing for their position, whether it is one you actually hold or not.
It is disingenuous to then get to a point you can't answer and go "well, I'm only repeating what I've been told!"
It is a cop out.
And a poor one.

And I think you're desperately trying to convince yourself that such a thing as a ''soul'' does not exist, and doing a bad job.

I'm waiting for a definition of soul that has any meaning, as so far the explanations seem to point to existing concepts such as personality, consciousness, life, or combination of.
And such a term adds nothing.
If you think it more, explain.
As for doing a bad job... bad job at what?
I have no need to convince myself that a "soul" does not exist.
I await anything that can convince me that it does, however.

What I think or believe, is irrelevant, as I'm just giving an explanation.

Then don't start a sentence with "I think..." when you have no intention of supporting the thought and want to dismiss it as merely an explanation of someone else's view.
So again, going back to what you think, you seem to view the relationship between "soul" and being human as one views "movement" in a flowing river.
If you disagree, what is it that you disagree with?

And if it is not your belief, if nothing you have so far said is what you actually believe, then what is?

I don't think bodies are conscious unless the spiritual spark is present.
Based on the logic, I accept that these cosmological bodies (including universe(s)) contain spiritual sparks.

So you think a sun is conscious?

 

[Dazz]

Dazz,

What other qualities exist within ''the porter of the quality'' that makes it an orange as we know it?

Orange: A Citric fruit of the genus Citrus, sprung from orange trees. Can be identified by it's scent, texture, it's segmented interior or pulp, it's juicy, somewhat bittersweet and acidic flesh that gives a strong, singular stimuli to the taste buds on your tongue.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Orange

What ''characteristics'' does an orange have, that makes it ''an orange'', aside from flavor?

See above.
BTW. If you can differentiate a lemon from an orange without tasting it you have your answer.

I didn't say the taste was the soul of the orange, I said it was it's essence, the component that makes it an orange.

You tried to infer with that analogy that your essence is your soul.
Taste is equal the essence of the orange, thus, being it's soul. Hence, soul equals essence.

We are allowed to accept or believe what is acceptable to us. I'm simply explaining what ''soul'' means.

jan.

The word "soul" can mean a bunch of different things that, maybe in some cases, relate in meaning, and we here and now are geting the first pictures of this issue.

 

[(Q)]

Yes, if you insist definitions trump evidence, you will inevitably fail.

And, you could clear up this entire argument by providing any non-biological examples to the Psyche. I await your evidence?

Yep, I am the one claiming there is no special relationship between two phenomena, i.e. the default null hypothesis of the scientific method. I cannot prove that no relationship exists, as you cannot prove a negative. That is why the burden rests with the positive claim.

Science already understands the psyche, which is once again "the totality of the human mind, conscious, and unconscious" as being entirely biological.

So, science awaits your evidence for the positive claim YOU made.

 

[kx000]

You can try the route of the pacifist. True pacifism's leads to all good things.

 

[Syne]

Science already understands the psyche, which is once again "the totality of the human mind, conscious, and unconscious" as being entirely biological.

Cite references for these scientific claims.

 

[laura89]

In my opinion, science is impossible to prove that we human being have soul. Because they contradict.

 

[Baldeee]

In my opinion, science is impossible to prove that we human being have soul. Because they contradict.

They don't contradict.
The concept of soul, as currently undefined, is outside the remit of scientific enquiry.
That doesn't mean it contradicts.

 

[Jan Ardena]

They don't contradict.
The concept of soul, as currently undefined, is outside the remit of scientific enquiry.
That doesn't mean it contradicts.

Here are 3 dictionary definitions which concur with any scriptural explanation...

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human.

Secondly, based on those definitions, it does contradict modern science as it can only explain material nature.

jan.

 

[Syne]

Secondly, based on those definitions, it does contradict modern science as it can only explain material nature.

That does not mean they contradict, only that science has a very rigorous domain of applicability.

 

[Baldeee]

Here are 3 dictionary definitions which concur with any scriptural explanation...

Secondly, based on those definitions, it does contradict modern science as it can only explain material nature.

As explained, inapplicability of a tool for examination does not equate to contradiction.
If you intend to drive a screw into a wall, does a spanner contradict the screw?

To contradict, the things must conclude with opposite results.
Science has no result for something it can not examine, and thus there can be no contradiction.
There is also no agreement.