SOUL - Who? What? Where?

[lightgigantic]

Cris

The problem with theists is that they are so narrow and closed minded that they do not explore the many varied other potential posibilities that we might discover and develop.

Many people, even scientists, say the same thing about atheism

All the time they are stuck with - God did it - and vainly hope for paradise after death then they will never grow.

and hoping to down load your brain on a computer to live for ever is not a vain hope?

The god concept is really very naive and primitive.

On the contrary, even primitive jungle religion is more advanced than your limited concepts of growth

 

[lightgigantic]

sam, light,

Try this thread for more on mind uploading. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2585

And a more serious forum looking at computer-brain interfacing - http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=SF&f=47

The concept is new to you guys huh? Are you not aware of Robosapien concepts? I.e. one of the next probable stages of human evolution.

New concept? Hardly

Even humans can perform algorithms.


The reduction of consciousness to mechanistic functions is bereft of even a vocabulary, what to speak of a methodology.

Actually it is interesting that you reject the "fancifulnes" of theism but ar e forced to take shelter of some other doctrine that is equally as fanciful

 

[c7ityi_]

Duality was originally devised as a way to explain personality, emotions, feelings, thoughts, memories, etc, because our ancestors had total ignorance of the possibilities of neural networks, electricity, and the immensely complex world of micro biology.

Neural networks, electricity and micro biology does not explain personality, emotions, feelings, thoughts, memories, etc.

All you see are the effects of these things, not the causes.

BS. I was once a theist as were many atheists.

People can easily become brainwashed again. Just because you moved to the other side doesn't mean you've found the truth. You became an atheist because you saw that your beliefs were naive, but if you rediscover THE REAL God and inner spiritual realms, you might turn into a theist again. I was once an atheist like you.

Basic hard-wiring causes some motor fucntions and verbal actions to be exibited, i.e. crying, and flailing of arms.

tears are the blood of the soul. because the soul is invisible, the blood is invisible. the blood comes from the eyes, because like everyone knows-- if we look someone in the eyes, we see their soul.

that's why animals don't cry the same way as humans, because their souls are not as developed.

This is all entirely physical with absolutely no need for a soul in any aspect.

just because there is no need (or because you don't understand why there is a need) for a soul, doesn't mean there isn't one!!

So we have both used the term “spiritual” here, yet it is still not defined.

you can say that the world is only spiritual (inside the mind) or only material (outside the mind).
consciousness (me and the outer world) is a duality.

Who exactly is who?

what is this who you're talking about? there is only one existence, one life, one self, in infinite bodies. the fruits fall from the tree on autumn, but the life (spirit, breath) does not dissapear, because when the tree breathes outwards, the fruits, bodies, appear again. i, the life, is in all of the fruits, but i come from the tree, which comes from the earth, and so on, ad infinitum (nothingness, God). i am omnipresent.

All the time they are stuck with - God did it - and vainly hope for paradise after death then they will never grow. The god concept is really very naive and primitive.

It's your concept of God which is naive. If I saw God as you did, I couldn't believe in it either!

 

[Fathoms]

The concept of the soul is redundant. I'd like to live forever just like the next guy, but the idea that consciousness would at all resemble even superficially the minds of humans is a terrifying prospect. We are animals, we have specific psychological traits that would be detrimental to an immortal. The basic drives (eat, sleep, procreate, survive) would have no place in an afterlife. Those are psychic garments that have specific, quantifiable evolutionary use. Outside of the context of mortality they become extrenous attributes that can only hinder. How are we to retain psychological health if nothing we do perfoms any necessary function? It's life's transience that gives us meaning, that defines our charactor. Our emotions are designed to help us to avoid danger, form familial and communal bonds, persue happiness and to empathize and form attatchments. This just shows how superficial the 'soul' really is. It's not needed explain mortal life, and there is no reason to think that any part of the us that is here and now should go on surviving past death.

Consider the way the mind works. 10,000 mostly useless thoughts a day running through our heads, the ability to conceptualize only in very limited fashion , emotional neurosis and attatchment, the inability to expand your mind beyond the boundaries set out by the grey matter in our skulls. It's ridiculous to think that any part of us would go on past death. For what purpose? I could not imagine the horror of being trapped in my limited conscious personality forever. Do we at least get to sleep in the afterlife?

 

[c7ityi_]

and there is no reason to think that any part of the us that is here and now should go on surviving past death.

Why are you in that specific body at this specific time? What is the mechanism that determines which physical body your consciousness is attached to? If there are several consciousnesses, what prevented you from being born as me? Or someone else of the billions of people on this planet?

I could not imagine the horror of being trapped in my limited conscious personality forever.

We're not trapped in one personality. You create your own personality with your thoughts. When the body has died, we (consciousness) are born into a new body, with a new brain and everything. Nothing about this life will be remembered, just like you don't remember the life before this.

But I think it's very likely that we will be conscious forever. That doesn't sound comforting to me, but at least we don't remember our past lives, so we can always hope that there is an eternal rest/death/nirvana.

 

[Plunkies]

tears are the blood of the soul. because the soul is invisible, the blood is invisible. the blood comes from the eyes, because like everyone knows-- if we look someone in the eyes, we see their soul.

that's why animals don't cry the same way as humans, because their souls are not as developed.

This guy is pure comedy. You realize you sound like a child right?

 

[c7ityi_]

People often say: show me proof and then I'll believe it.
But the thing is: you get the proof when you believe it.
It works the other way around.
If you don't believe it, you're not gonna believe me; you're not gonna believe any proof that I would be able to show you.
So there's really no point.

I am consciousness, everyone is the same consciousness... my body is just one among the its infinite bodies... my body (any of them) is like a character in a videogame which I control. It's not me, the real me is the one consciousness, and the entire world are it's manifestations.

This guy is pure comedy. You realize you sound like a child right?

sure... but i think children often say intelligent things...

 

[redarmy11]

Consciousness is actually generated by a 4000-year-old blind druid called, um, Neshyar, living high in the mountains of Nepal, using a machine adapted from an old-fashioned bellows.

I'll show you the proof of this when you truly believe it.

 

[Plunkies]

sure... but i think children often say intelligent things...

If you had said something intelligent I wouldn't have told you that you sound like a child.

 

[Vega]

The idea of a soul, or that there is an afterlife, is an ancient, if not immortal thought in and of itself, throughout the history of mankind. As archaeologists and other scientists peruse our past through artifacts and writings and buildings, religion and the afterlife have been recurring themes in almost every, if not every, culture. Ideas that there were gods, goddesses, and deity's that watched over us, showed pleasure or displeasure of our actions, sending harvests and plagues at a whim... and that one day, after our bodies perished, our soul would either be sent back to another earthly body, or be face-to-face with the god(s) to either be rewarded or punished.

So... where does that leave us? Why, again, do we derive a part of ourselves to be immortal when all our senses tell us all things pass away?

One of the most fundamental immaterial things about us, as people, is the ability to think. The ability to construct complex "thoughts" are quite immeasurable (despite what proponents of standardized testing would have you believe). They cannot be weighed, touched, smelled, heard, or seen. We can try to gauge how well our mind can process certain types of thought, but thought itself? Completely immaterial.

So the marriage of our physical selves with our nonphysical abilities and proof's of existence is certainly something that has been around for quite some time. But, while we can "think," and certainly our physical world shows proof of our abilities to do so, what cannot be shown, or has yet to be proven, is the "proof" or "ability" to live on past our physical bodies...

Most people, when they think of "I," or themselves, identify themselves through personality traits (i.e., I am caring, I am funny, I am shy...). People are their personalities. And your personality is your brain. But most people think of their brain as part of the mortal, or material, world. Not as their soul. And the soul is always intrinsically defined as that part of you, or you yourself, which will continue to live on after death, which in default includes your shyness, your funny bone, your dry wit. But if your brain is actually in control of these parts of ourselves which we deem as immortal, what is left for the soul to actually do or be?

The idea of afterlife only exists because, being as we cannot comprehend not existing, we therefore imagine a life for afterward, because we cannot fathom not thinking, not feeling, not existing. We cannot fathom not existing, and therefore, we must continue to exist even when all we know and all we see disappears or goes away...

Hence, the idea of a soul. Because, we know our bodies fail us. (Mine is failing me right now with a mid-summer cold!!) So we needed something separate from that, something that didn't depend on our bodies to carry us over to the great afterlife, the eternal bliss we imagine must be...

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Come now, certainly not all theists are so narrow-minded. A lot of people in general have poorly developed world views, but I am not so sure of how theism bears on this. I have met many superstitious people who blindly appeal to a religious authority for their beliefs, but I also have encountered a fair share of thoughtless individuals who have simply jumped on the atheist bandwagon because it is fashionable to dislike religion, and have never earnestly desired to understand their own philosophy. And the concept of a God has at least caused me to investigate my reality much more thoroughly than if I had never known of it. It has made me more of a critical thinker, and it has caused me to question more, than perhaps anything else. I have tottered between atheism and theism for years as the debate has played within me, and my desire to reconcile the apparently contradictory teachings of religion and science has caused me to gain a deeper understanding of both.

Maybe there is something to the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." As I have observed the people in my life, I have found that many of them will simply do either what they want or what you convince them that they want, using whatever justification seems convenient. An invisible man who controls everything is a very convenient justification. But those who desire a deeper satisfaction, those willing to question, will not be deterred by such obvious oversimplifications. Waiting beneath the naive face of mythology is the philosophical work of deep thinkers and the story of the human condition. It has been the same story the world over, whether under Jehovah, Ahura Mazda, or the Greek pantheon. But if that story were to vanish from our memories - if God died forever and never again did the invisible man haunt us from atop the castles of our leaders and oppressors - ninety-five percent of the people in the world would still need to be told what to do and how to behave.

The difference would be that five percent of the people in the world could no longer enrich their lives with much of the hidden wisdom of the past. The thoughtless would remain thoughtless; they would be otherwise compelled to blindly obey, as the communist leaders of the U.S.S.R. and its allies managed without the backing of God during the Cold War. Some other "religion" would inspire the next great atrocity. Our historians would record the great event, and our thinkers would attempt to find meaning among the madness. And so would be planted the seeds of the mythology of the future, the rebuilding from scratch of our civilization's collective unconscious. And that, regardless of what you believe about God, would be a tragedy.

I can't believe that no one responded to this post.

 

[c7ityi_]

I'll show you the proof of this when you truly believe it.

only IF IT IS TRUE, i will get the proof-- not from you... but i will discover it myself, once i start believing that.

belief does not work without proof and proof does not work without belief!!

So... where does that leave us? Why, again, do we derive a part of ourselves to be immortal when all our senses tell us all things pass away?

because we've only seen outside things pass away. we haven't seen what death is when experienced from the inside.

The idea of afterlife only exists because, being as we cannot comprehend not existing, we therefore imagine a life for afterward, because we cannot fathom not thinking, not feeling, not existing.

everything that we can imagine is possible, otherwise we wouldn't be able to imagine them. but we can't imagine non-existence, because it is impossible. it does not exist!

I can't believe that no one responded to this post.

why is it strange? it has only been there for a couple of hours!!

 

[lightgigantic]

The idea of a soul, or that there is an afterlife, is an ancient, if not immortal thought in and of itself, throughout the history of mankind. As archaeologists and other scientists peruse our past through artifacts and writings and buildings, religion and the afterlife have been recurring themes in almost every, if not every, culture. Ideas that there were gods, goddesses, and deity's that watched over us, showed pleasure or displeasure of our actions, sending harvests and plagues at a whim... and that one day, after our bodies perished, our soul would either be sent back to another earthly body, or be face-to-face with the god(s) to either be rewarded or punished.

So... where does that leave us? Why, again, do we derive a part of ourselves to be immortal when all our senses tell us all things pass away?

One of the most fundamental immaterial things about us, as people, is the ability to think. The ability to construct complex "thoughts" are quite immeasurable (despite what proponents of standardized testing would have you believe). They cannot be weighed, touched, smelled, heard, or seen. We can try to gauge how well our mind can process certain types of thought, but thought itself? Completely immaterial.

So the marriage of our physical selves with our nonphysical abilities and proof's of existence is certainly something that has been around for quite some time. But, while we can "think," and certainly our physical world shows proof of our abilities to do so, what cannot be shown, or has yet to be proven, is the "proof" or "ability" to live on past our physical bodies...

Most people, when they think of "I," or themselves, identify themselves through personality traits (i.e., I am caring, I am funny, I am shy...). People are their personalities. And your personality is your brain. But most people think of their brain as part of the mortal, or material, world. Not as their soul. And the soul is always intrinsically defined as that part of you, or you yourself, which will continue to live on after death, which in default includes your shyness, your funny bone, your dry wit. But if your brain is actually in control of these parts of ourselves which we deem as immortal, what is left for the soul to actually do or be?

The idea of afterlife only exists because, being as we cannot comprehend not existing, we therefore imagine a life for afterward, because we cannot fathom not thinking, not feeling, not existing. We cannot fathom not existing, and therefore, we must continue to exist even when all we know and all we see disappears or goes away...

Hence, the idea of a soul. Because, we know our bodies fail us. (Mine is failing me right now with a mid-summer cold!!) So we needed something separate from that, something that didn't depend on our bodies to carry us over to the great afterlife, the eternal bliss we imagine must be...

What you failed to establish is why thhis desire is falsely met

For instance there is the argument that we have no experience of anything that vast numbers of the population desire that does not actually exist - (like we desire water, perhaps more desperately in the desert, and water exists - similarly we desire love, friendship, food etc etc and all these things are seen to exist)

basically it is the teleological argument that this universe and our minds are designed in very specific ways to interact, and if there is an observable phenomena that is seen to manifest in our desires in vast numbers of the population in all periods of time, then the fundamental principle of that desire exists.

In other words the next life is a very real thing - whether you take your funny bone or dry wit with you is another thing

 

[Plunkies]

everything that we can imagine is possible, otherwise we wouldn't be able to imagine them. but we can't imagine non-existence, because it is impossible. it does not exist!

I can't imagine something billions of miles away but the stars still exist. I can't imagine something a tenth of a millionth of a millimetre across but atoms still exist. Wtf are you talking about?

 

[c7ityi_]

I can't imagine something billions of miles away but the stars still exist. I can't imagine something a tenth of a millionth of a millimetre across but atoms still exist. Wtf are you talking about?

I can imagine that the universe is infinitely large, but I can't imagine there being a boundary where space itself suddenly stops existing. So, I think the universe is infinite. It's also easy for me to imagine that the universe is made of infinitely small "particles" (nothing)

I can even imagine pink flying elephants...

 

[Baron Max]

I can't imagine something billions of miles away but the stars still exist. I can't imagine something a tenth of a millionth of a millimetre across but atoms still exist.

Of course you can .....you just wrote it out for all of us to read it!

Baron Max

 

[scorpius]

There are a lot of corruptions of language that opens this up in ways I don't intend ....

Children have more soul than adults
This music has soul
He is a happy soul
etc etc

While obviously the word "soul" is a theistic reference to that which bears reference to our identity it also has other definitions that take it outside of such colloquialisms (such as the soul bears witness or receives judgement and is held accountable etc etc)

In other words it is greatly influential, if not integral to our existence, seeming to be subject to some law of result beyond the laws of result that pertain to the body. If the soul exists then obviously it is a uniform substance, and its being is not constituted as that of a christian soul or a jewish soul etc etc (that said - feel free to offer scriptural evidence if you think otherwise)

Generally speaking it becomes impractical to refer to the soul (or even to deny the soul, as in the case of Buddhism) without reference to scriptural authority, since we could very well slip in to identifying the mind with the soul (which is generally how the word "soul" finds its usage in common english).

So the topic of discussion here is the offering of interpretations of scriptural evidence that can establish many of the points raised in the poll or other issues such as the plurality/oneness/duality of the soul.

theres no souls,if there were dont you think we all could comunicate with any/all the dead,since these are allegedly souls/spirits

 

[RoyLennigan]

theres no souls,if there were dont you think we all could comunicate with any/all the dead,since these are allegedly souls/spirits

we do. Its just that its not communication in any form that you are used to and they don't have minds like they did when they were alive. So the communicating is very different.

 

[Plunkies]

Of course you can .....you just wrote it out for all of us to read it!

Baron Max

Wow you almost make c7ityi_ look intelligent.

 

[VitalOne]

There is a soul. In the future, maybe a few hundred or thousand years it will probably be discovered as a missing link that explains the mysteries of consciousness at last.

With our current science how can anyone design an experiment to verify that the soul does/doesn't exist?