Do we have soul?

[Jan Ardena]

Baldeee,

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?

I'm sure that you would agree that if an ageusia sufferer, or someone deliberately cutting off their aroma molecules from being interpreted, would be classed as non-intelligent if they came to the conclusion that an orange has no flavor because they can't detect taste, in-spite of the wealth of testimonial evidence to the contrary.

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.

That's like saying the flavor of oranges being the essential component, and point, is just semantics. But it actually is, unless you believe that it just happens to have a nice flavor, and we just happened to to come by it, and the whole thing nothing but a coincidence. Then I understand your point. But neither of us is actually wrong if that's how we really see it.

That being said, I am holding up my end by giving an allegorical explanation of the soul regardless of whether we believe souls to be real or not.
You, on the other hand, are blocking it as an explanation. You are actively shooting it down when there is no need to.

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.

Well, that is the original meaning of ''orange juice''.
Let's look at the fictitious concept of ''Frankenstein's'' monster. It is made up of human parts, but is it regarded as human? No.

Q - What is a nickname for genetically modified food?
A - Frankenstien food.

I know this is hardly relevant, but it just goes to show that at the heart of it, we understand natural to be different from synthesis no matter how realistic it looks or tastes.

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.

I wouldn't say the ''oranges produce is so much more efficiently'', I would say ''they produce it'' and ''it'' is exactly as it is supposed to be.

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?

In my analogy I refer to the flavor as being the essential component of the orange. I would go as far as to say, and this is my opinion, that the crowning glory of the orange tree is the fruit thereof, and the construction of the fruit is done specifically to create the flavor. Chemical X may be the same, but chemical X is part of the natural makeup of the container of the nutritionally delicious flavor. A flavor that is unique to that fruit, and no other construction matches up, no matter how nice, or how nice we may think it is.

There is no difference between that and the "taste" of OJ in terms of analogy.

A person that is used to eating fresh oranges, or drinking freshly squeezed orange, may beg to differ.

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.

So keeping with the orange thing, you're saying that the taste can be replicate perfectly, meaning that someone whose palette is sensitive to oranges would NOT be able to tell the difference between an authentic and replicated orange?

We know what an orange looks like, spherical, he rind is mostly orange in colour (green also), inside there is a fruity-fleshy part which houses the juice, also we find seeds so we can make more oranges... and that's about it. Apart from it's flavor, what other point is there to an orange?

It is merely one component that the fruit has that enables it to be recognised as that particular fruit.
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.

A house is the totality of it's qualities, but none of the qualities of a house can make it a home, and for the best part the real point to buying a house is to make it into a home, whether for yourself or for someone else. So yes these can all be definitions of an orange, but one best benefits from it's flavor, something that all these defining qualities go into producing. Which is why I say that it is the essential component, and without that component there is no need to identify it, as what we know it, or expect anything from it. Wax oranges look great, but they're not oranges, they only look like oranges.

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

There is such a thing called reality, and holding one nose, or being deficient in the smell and taste department does not mean the taste and aroma are not the essential part of the fruit. Just like not believing in God, or not believing we are essentially a spiritual soul acting in material bodies, mean they do not exist.

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

I said straight of the ''you are the soul'', not that you have a soul.
The ''soul'' is not material, it is the opposite of material. It never comes into being, never grows, never dies.
It is pure consciousness.

The soul is a finite spark, separated from the the infinite soul due to some desire to become independent.
It falls from it's proper position becoming denser (acquiring) debt (karmic) getting itself deeper into illusion.
Because of it's association with material nature (the place for independent wannabes), it begins to believe that this nature is reality thereby accepting it's conditional state as real (not illusory). So because of this condition (acceptance of matter as real) it believes that it is subject to death, and consequently dies (or the body/vehicle). Eventually it gets caught up/trapped in the snare of material existence forgetting it's real identity and purpose.

Now while I accept this, it does not mean that I'm telling you that this is right or that you are wrong. You asked for a definition, and I've given two now.

The Bhagavad Gita is the book to really get this information, but you may need someone to explain it in greater detail if you are seriously inquiring as to what is the soul.

BG. 2.13: As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.

I hope that helps.

jan.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Does an Orange have a soul?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldeee,

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?

One can still attempt to drive a screw into the wall with a spanner, it would just simply be a futile exercise.
The contradiction with material science attempting to discover, or measure spiritual essences lies in the fact that science can only measure that which we can sense. Our senses are only applicable to material nature, IOW, we are limited in our physical capacity to the physical world, and some of subtle material world. The nature of spirit is not detectable en-mass as it is does operate in the same way. Of course you can deny that it's all hocus-pocus because you haven't registered anything that is spiritual by nature, but that adds nothing to the discussion. In fact it kills it.

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.

You are assuming that if the soul exists, then science can examine it, and until such time it is reasonable to assume that no such thing exists.
The contradiction, as I mentioned earlier, occurs because material nature and spiritual nature are completely opposite, everything will appear natural to a materialist because that is their conscious level. If God arranged the stars writing ''Hello'' across the galaxy, there are still those who will not believe that God exist, and there must be a natural explanation for that occurrence.
If you want to understand what the soul is, then you surrender some of that pride, which is something like wiping the dust of a mirror to see clearer. There is no way you're going to understand what it is through science.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Does an Orange have a soul?

No. But the tree does.

jan.

 

[Syne]

Baldeee,
...
You are assuming that if the soul exists, then science can examine it, and until such time it is reasonable to assume that no such thing exists.

No, he actually just said that science CANNOT examine the immaterial:

Science has no result for something it can not examine

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, he actually just said that science CANNOT examine the immaterial:

He also said...

The concept of soul, as currently undefined, is outside the remit of scientific enquiry.

...meaning that until the soul is defined (how or by what?) it remains unscientific.
This could mean that, should it be defined then it is a subject of science.
The point is that it will always remain outside of the scientific remit by it's very nature.

jan.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

No. But the tree does.

jan.

I'm Saved!

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm Saved!

I stand corrected.

jan.

 

[(Q)]

Cite references for these scientific claims.

Haha, that's a pretty funny joke. Again, you can clear this right up with evidence for a non-biological brain.

 

[Baldeee]

I'm sure that you would agree that if an ageusia sufferer, or someone deliberately cutting off their aroma molecules from being interpreted, would be classed as non-intelligent if they came to the conclusion that an orange has no flavor because they can't detect taste, in-spite of the wealth of testimonial evidence to the contrary.

I'm sure they would agree that the orange has molecules that some/many/most are able to experience as flavour and taste.
But to them, as the subjective experience it is, taste does not exist.

That's like saying the flavor of oranges being the essential component, and point, is just semantics. But it actually is, unless you believe that it just happens to have a nice flavor, and we just happened to to come by it, and the whole thing nothing but a coincidence. Then I understand your point. But neither of us is actually wrong if that's how we really see it.

Not being wrong does not mean that it is not meaningless or redundant as an explanation.
Other than as part of a cyclical argument that ultimately relies on blind faith.

That being said, I am holding up my end by giving an allegorical explanation of the soul regardless of whether we believe souls to be real or not.
You, on the other hand, are blocking it as an explanation. You are actively shooting it down when there is no need to.

I am merely applying parsimony.
Further your analogy is, as has been argued, flawed.

Well, that is the original meaning of ''orange juice''.

Yet the issue is whether perfectly replicated but synthetic version would also be orange-juice or not.

Let's look at the fictitious concept of ''Frankenstein's'' monster. It is made up of human parts, but is it regarded as human? No.

Why not?
I would suggest you raise such a question in another thread if you want your answer to be taken seriously rather than dismiss the notion out of hand.

Q - What is a nickname for genetically modified food?
A - Frankenstien food.

I know this is hardly relevant, but it just goes to show that at the heart of it, we understand natural to be different from synthesis no matter how realistic it looks or tastes.

We understand the process to be different, yes.
But the rest is just prejudice rather than looking at what is relevant.

I wouldn't say the ''oranges produce is so much more efficiently'', I would say ''they produce it'' and ''it'' is exactly as it is supposed to be.

Yet plants also create, and were the primary source, of food colouring.
Now it is also made synthetically.
Are you saying it is different, even though the chemicals produced by the end of each process are indistinguishable?
The synthetic process is becoming more efficient.
It is the reverse of the OJ example, but the point is the same.
Colour is another property of the orange, as is the taste and flavour.

In my analogy I refer to the flavor as being the essential component of the orange. I would go as far as to say, and this is my opinion, that the crowning glory of the orange tree is the fruit thereof, and the construction of the fruit is done specifically to create the flavor. Chemical X may be the same, but chemical X is part of the natural makeup of the container of the nutritionally delicious flavor. A flavor that is unique to that fruit, and no other construction matches up, no matter how nice, or how nice we may think it is.

The orange producers actually create the orange to produce the most juice per fruit as well as the best flavour they can manage.
Some go more for taste, others more for juice.
Others go more for the number of fruit per tree etc.
But needless to say, yes, it is your opinion, but as shown through the analogy of the colour it is merely your prejudice that prevents you from accepting that synthetic copies, if identical, are just that.
And you are also no closer to rectifying the issue with the analogy that the taste is merely an interpretation of a physical component of the orange fruit.
It may be what you consider to be the "essential essence", but we might consider blood or oxygen to be the essential component of a person.
Or veins.
Or a heart.

A person that is used to eating fresh oranges, or drinking freshly squeezed orange, may beg to differ.

Anyone can beg to differ.
It is the grounds on which they differ that matter.
And if they adhere to your argument they would be as demonstrably flawed.

So keeping with the orange thing, you're saying that the taste can be replicate perfectly, meaning that someone whose palette is sensitive to oranges would NOT be able to tell the difference between an authentic and replicated orange?

If they can distinguish between chemical X produced from an orange, and chemical X produced synthetically, then they might be able to.
But since they are indistinguishable at the molecular level: no, they would not be able to.
And I'm not saying that the taste can be replicate perfectly at the moment.
No one has bothered to try because growing oranges is more economic.

We know what an orange looks like, spherical, he rind is mostly orange in colour (green also), inside there is a fruity-fleshy part which houses the juice, also we find seeds so we can make more oranges... and that's about it. Apart from it's flavor, what other point is there to an orange?

As a food source for insects and other animals.
But you are also looking at purpose from a subjective, human-centric viewpoint.
Purpose is subjective.
And I fail to see how this is relevant to the analogy of orange juice to the soul...
Is the soul the "purpose" of being human?
Whose purpose?

A house is the totality of it's qualities, but none of the qualities of a house can make it a home, and for the best part the real point to buying a house is to make it into a home, whether for yourself or for someone else. So yes these can all be definitions of an orange, but one best benefits from it's flavor, something that all these defining qualities go into producing. Which is why I say that it is the essential component, and without that component there is no need to identify it, as what we know it, or expect anything from it. Wax oranges look great, but they're not oranges, they only look like oranges.

Relevancy?

There is such a thing called reality, and holding one nose, or being deficient in the smell and taste department does not mean the taste and aroma are not the essential part of the fruit. Just like not believing in God, or not believing we are essentially a spiritual soul acting in material bodies, mean they do not exist.

Ah, so now it's the "you can't prove they don't exist!" argument.
If I had ever claimed that they do not you might be on to something.
I haven't.
I just have issue with your explanations as to what a soul is.
And to your attempts at analogy.
And until someone provides a useful or meaningful explanation that is clear of circulatory arguments or requirements for blind faith, I can't see a need to believe in their existence.
Parsimony.

I said straight of the ''you are the soul'', not that you have a soul.
The ''soul'' is not material, it is the opposite of material. It never comes into being, never grows, never dies.
It is pure consciousness.

So now you have defined it as me, and as pure consciousness.
Which is it?
Why call something the soul if you already have words for it?
What is wrong with "I" or "consciousness" or "life", if that is what you mean?

The soul is a finite spark, separated from the the infinite soul due to some desire to become independent.
It falls from it's proper position becoming denser (acquiring) debt (karmic) getting itself deeper into illusion.
Because of it's association with material nature (the place for independent wannabes), it begins to believe that this nature is reality thereby accepting it's conditional state as real (not illusory). So because of this condition (acceptance of matter as real) it believes that it is subject to death, and consequently dies (or the body/vehicle). Eventually it gets caught up/trapped in the snare of material existence forgetting it's real identity and purpose.

Now while I accept this, it does not mean that I'm telling you that this is right or that you are wrong. You asked for a definition, and I've given two now.

The Bhagavad Gita is the book to really get this information, but you may need someone to explain it in greater detail if you are seriously inquiring as to what is the soul.

BG. 2.13: As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.

I hope that helps.

It does.
Thank you.

 

[Baldeee]

One can still attempt to drive a screw into the wall with a spanner, it would just simply be a futile exercise.

Futility does not make a contradiction.

The contradiction with material science attempting to discover, or measure spiritual essences lies in the fact that science can only measure that which we can sense. Our senses are only applicable to material nature, IOW, we are limited in our physical capacity to the physical world, and some of subtle material world. The nature of spirit is not detectable en-mass as it is does operate in the same way. Of course you can deny that it's all hocus-pocus because you haven't registered anything that is spiritual by nature, but that adds nothing to the discussion. In fact it kills it.

None of which makes it a contradiction.
Just mutually exclusive at worst.

You are assuming that if the soul exists, then science can examine it,...

No I am not.
I am assuming that if science can examine it then I can know whether it exists or not.
Until that time, or until something else comes along to convince me, I am not in a position to say whether it exists or not.
The first step, though, is to arrive at a definition that makes some sense to me.

... and until such time it is reasonable to assume that no such thing exists.

Assume it does not exist, yes.
Believe it does not, no.

The contradiction, as I mentioned earlier, occurs because material nature and spiritual nature are completely opposite, everything will appear natural to a materialist because that is their conscious level. If God arranged the stars writing ''Hello'' across the galaxy, there are still those who will not believe that God exist, and there must be a natural explanation for that occurrence.
If you want to understand what the soul is, then you surrender some of that pride, which is something like wiping the dust of a mirror to see clearer. There is no way you're going to understand what it is through science.

Mutual exclusivity, as you describe, is not a contradiction.

 

[Baldeee]

...meaning that until the soul is defined (how or by what?) it remains unscientific.
This could mean that, should it be defined then it is a subject of science.

It means that until it is defined it remains unscientific.
When it is defined, that definition will determine whether it is scientific or not.
Something can be defined so as to be unfalsifiable, and thus outside the remit of science.
Having a definition does not make something the subject of science.

The point is that it will always remain outside of the scientific remit by it's very nature.

Then it is mutually exclusive.
But this does not make it contradictory.

 

[spidergoat]

The point is that it will always remain outside of the scientific remit by it's very nature.

jan.

Translation: to the best of our knowledge there isn't one. But if you want to indulge in fantasies, it's one of an infinite number of them.

 

[(Q)]

He also said...



...meaning that until the soul is defined (how or by what?) it remains unscientific.

Until souls can be detected, they remain nonexistent.

The point is that it will always remain outside of the scientific remit by it's very nature.

jan.

That's a fallacy and a contradiction.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldeee,

I'm sure they would agree that the orange has molecules that some/many/most are able to experience as flavour and taste.

Maybe, maybe not.

But to them, as the subjective experience it is, taste does not exist.

With that logic most of us would agree that billionaires do not exist.

Not being wrong does not mean that it is not meaningless or redundant as an explanation.
Other than as part of a cyclical argument that ultimately relies on blind faith.

What does ''not being wrong'' mean then?
Faith or blind faith is not needed to accept that we are essentially a spiritual component. Why would you think they are?

I am merely applying parsimony.

Why?

Further your analogy is, as has been argued, flawed.

No it hasn't. OJ is the essential component that makes an orange an orange, the soul is the component that makes a living being, live.
How is that flawed?

Well, that is the original meaning of ''orange juice''.

Yet the issue is whether perfectly replicated but synthetic version would also be orange-juice or not.

No. The issue is as stated above.

Let's look at the fictitious concept of ''Frankenstein's'' monster. It is made up of human parts, but is it regarded as human? No.

Why not?
I would suggest you raise such a question in another thread if you want your answer to be taken seriously rather than dismiss the notion out of hand.

My point is that it is not regarded as a human.

We understand the process to be different, yes.
But the rest is just prejudice rather than looking at what is relevant.

Maybe, maybe not.

Are you saying it is different, even though the chemicals produced by the end of each process are indistinguishable?
The synthetic process is becoming more efficient.

Are you saying that synthetic juice is non different to pure orange juice?

But needless to say, yes, it is your opinion, but as shown through the analogy of the colour it is merely your prejudice that prevents you from accepting that synthetic copies, if identical, are just that.

The color is not the essential component of the orange, we call it orange because of it's color, but we utilize the orange primarily because of it's flavor. Without that component we would have no use for it.

And you are also no closer to rectifying the issue with the analogy that the taste is merely an interpretation of a physical component of the orange fruit.

The flavor is the only reason we enjoy it. Without it, it is of little to no use. Do you agreee Baldeee?

It may be what you consider to be the "essential essence", but we might consider blood or oxygen to be the essential component of a person.
Or veins.
Or a heart.

They are essential, but without the living entity, namely the soul, they are of no use.

Anyone can beg to differ.
It is the grounds on which they differ that matter.
And if they adhere to your argument they would be as demonstrably flawed.

Your allowed to conclude how you like, but unless you show me how my analogy is flawed with regards to demonstrating an aspect of the soul, we're just going round in circles.

If they can distinguish between chemical X produced from an orange, and chemical X produced synthetically, then they might be able to.

a) we're not talking about chemical x, we're discussing the essential component of an orange, and the essential component of a living being, namely the soul

b) I don't know what you mean by chemical x, or how it relates to the subject matter.

And I'm not saying that the taste can be replicate perfectly at the moment.

I know you're not, because you can't.

No one has bothered to try because growing oranges is more economic.

And that's the only reason right? Riiiiight!

Apart from it's flavor, what other point is there to an orange?

As a food source for insects and other animals.

You're aware that flavor is present within the rind aren't you?

And I fail to see how this is relevant to the analogy of orange juice to the soul...

That's a pity.

Is the soul the "purpose" of being human?

The soul is the essential component.

There is such a thing called reality, and holding one nose, or being deficient in the smell and taste department does not mean the taste and aroma are not the essential part of the fruit. Just like not believing in God, or not believing we are essentially a spiritual soul acting in material bodies, mean they do not exist.

Ah, so now it's the "you can't prove they don't exist!" argument.

No I can't prove they exist, but I'm not arguing for their existence. But one would be stupid to conclude that taste does not exist because they have no capacity to taste, or they cut off their capacity to taste, in spite of overwhelming testament to the contrary.

If I had ever claimed that they do not you might be on to something.
I haven't.

Your going round in circles.
I accept that you cannot accept my analogy.

And until someone provides a useful or meaningful explanation that is clear of circulatory arguments or requirements for blind faith, I can't see a need to believe in their existence.

That is your perogative.
Just as it is the perogative of someone who has lost or given up the sense to smell, to conclude that smell does not exist because he/she can't smell.

So now you have defined it as me, and as pure consciousness.
Which is it?

Both.

Q - ''who are you?''
A - ''i am Baldeee''
Q - ''who is Baldee''
A - i am/me

Conclusion - you are ''i am'' and ''me'' before you are Baldee (I feel a song coming on)

Why call something the soul if you already have words for it?
What is wrong with "I" or "consciousness" or "life", if that is what you mean?

Actually, the correct term is spirit-soul, and it's symptom is consciousness.
When you refer to the ''I'', then you refer to you.

Maybe you'll understand what I mean, or maybe you won't. :shrug:

It does.
Thank you.

Good!
No probs.

jan.

 

[Syne]

Cite references for these scientific claims.

Haha, that's a pretty funny joke. Again, you can clear this right up with evidence for a non-biological brain.

You made the claim that "Science already understands the psyche...as being entirely biological". Back up that claim, or I will consider this trolling.

Trolls tend to follow certain patterns of behaviour that may include:

Posting of similar responses and topics repeatedly.
Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them.
Never attempting to justify their position.
Demanding proof or evidence from others while offering none in return.
Vanishing when their bluff is called, only to reappear in a different thread arguing the same point.
Deliberately derailing discussions onto tangential matters in order to try to control the flow of discussion.


Trolls are not tolerated on sciforums. - http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=22​

You do understand what the null hypothesis is, right?

Until souls can be detected, they remain nonexistent.

Science does not work that way. Science cannot make pronouncements on things it has no evidence for, and lack of evidence is not evidence of absence unless you can detail what it is we should expect to find that we do not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldeee,

Futility does not make a contradiction.

I didn't say it was.

You are assuming that if the soul exists, then science can examine it,...

No I am not.
I am assuming that if science can examine it then I can know whether it exists or not.

And science can only examine that which exists. Right?

Are you assuming that knowledge of something is only to be accepted as knowledge if science can examine it?
If not, what other method of acquiring knowledge do you accept?

The first step, though, is to arrive at a definition that makes some sense to me.

What is it about the 5 definitions I gave you that doesn't make sense to you?

Assume it does not exist, yes.
Believe it does not, no.

I didn't even know it was possible stop yourself from believing.
How does that work?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

...Science does not work that way. Science cannot make pronouncements on things it has no evidence for, and lack of evidence is not evidence of absence unless you can detail what it is we should expect to find that we do not.

If the concept isn't even falsifiable, then it can be dismissed without evidence. Scientifically, that is the equivalent of saying it most likely doesn't exist. What evidence can you think of that would prove we have no soul?

 

[spidergoat]

No

But nina simone did.

I agree, but that's a different kind of soul.

 

[Syne]

If the concept isn't even falsifiable, then it can be dismissed without evidence. Scientifically, that is the equivalent of saying it most likely doesn't exist. What evidence can you think of that would prove we have no soul?

Only as scientific:

Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Uses​

I do not think anyone has claimed the soul to be scientific. Perhaps sufficiently advanced AI will answer the question.