When do you get a soul? & related questions.

glaucon said:
Nonetheless, one cannot begin from nothing, which is what blind supposition is...
Click to expand...
determining whether something is a blind supposition or not comes after the point of application, which in turn occurs after the point of theory/outlook.
IOW you can only test an idea once you have an idea and a means to test it.

Of course the reductionist rebuttal of this is that there is no (empirical) means to test the soul ... which brings us back to the issue whether empiricism has a monopoly on all claims of knowledge (after all, if one insists that it does - which ironically is a non-empirical claim - there's no scope for any issues of application)
 
Cris said:
The term "soul" as used in the OP assumes the concept of duality. I.e. a 1 to 1 relationship between a physical body and something imaterial that it depends upon somehow, e.g. a symbiotic relationship, or perhaps a dependent parasite.
Click to expand...
a body only requires a soul if there is an expectation for it to have consciousness.

a soul only requires a (material) body if they have a desire that requires expression in the conditioned world (for instance, to be a gross materialist, there is a very real need for a soul to have a material body)
The idea is that this soul is the entity that represents the essense of "I" and is considered immortal. The question then becomes when do these two entities come together to make the whole.
Click to expand...
at conception of course
The Christians believe it occurs at conception and the Muslims believe it is some weeks later. Curiously this is why Bush tried to outlaw stemcell research and limit science while the perceived backwardness of Islam embraced such research.
Click to expand...
Suggesting that its only humans who have souls poses problems (which find their way into issues of application and so on)
But before we can truly address the OP we need to understand what this "soul" thing is and how it relates to the physical. For example LG maintains that every living cell requires a "soul" to keep it alive. In which case a "soul" never enters a person but is an integral part of life, e.g. something alive cannot occur without this essential component.
Click to expand...
Its not my idea.
Its an idea prominent throughout the Vedas
In Leo's case, soul is more like "The Force" in the Star Wars movies, and somehow our physical body's have some type of networking connection with this universal entity. The concept of a soul entering the body again makes no sense in this case.
Click to expand...
This is also an idea present in the vedas. Sometimes it is referred to as "brahman". Usually such advocates argue that the self has no fundamental substance and that it is all an illusion which finds its perfection when individuality ceases to exist. Basically the idea was re-introduced in post- buddhist india (by Sankaracharya - more commonly known as Mayavadi philosophy) so it shares a few similarities.
In short, it requires non-existence (or "abhava") to come to the table in order to be taken seriously.
Needless to say, there are numerous criticisms of such a take.

So once we have established the ideas the next step should be justifications and evidence, which is somewhat where we are in the topic.
Click to expand...
which means you have to address the normative boundaries of the question - IOW "how one has to be" in order to know it.
For instance if one advocates that the standard tools of empiricism are sufficient (ie the senses), it begs the question how the senses could ever hope to see what they are seeing with.
 
Snakelord
You said: "It appears we have to go back to issues of theory and determine what qualities determine a "soul"".

So, let's go back to theory and determine what qualities 'determine' a soul. How do you propose it is 'determined'?
Click to expand...
basically there are two options

one is empirical and/or philosophical speculation (the long way .... which eventually culminates in the short way)

and the other is devotional service to god (the short way)
Perhaps I use a different definition, but I consider 'determine' to mean: 'to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc'.
Click to expand...
seems like you are predisposed to the long way
So, kindly show me - by going back to whatever 'theory' it is how you conclude or ascertain - after reasoning and observation - that a soul exists, what qualities that soul has and how we determine that to be the case. If you don't mind.
Click to expand...
in short the qualities of the soul are eternity, knowledge (cognizance) and happiness.

We get a brief indication of this even in conditioned life.
For instance despite your body being vastly different 30 years ago, you still have retained the same selfhood.

And also, as mentioned previously, happiness is the default position of everyone.

Of course the problem is that we have a sense of self based on the body. This is because we are under-ridden by a host of material desires. So any authoritative means to observe the soul require a diminishing of those material desires. Hence the subject entertains a diverse range of options according to whether one is predisposed to empiricism , philosophy or devotional service to god (or as more often tends to be the case, a mix of such things).
 
There is very few of us that get soul. ....Lee Michaels was one of the most soulful white vocalists of the late '60s and early '70s...
 
lg,

IOW "how one has to be" in order to know it.
For instance if one advocates that the standard tools of empiricism are sufficient (ie the senses), it begs the question how the senses could ever hope to see what they are seeing with.
Click to expand...
Advocating the existence of a fantasy imaterial soul does not advance us any nearer to a solution either.

All you are saying is that because we cannot yet determine how the brain generates self-awareness etc, then lets invent a fantasy and assert that is the answer.

Until you can demonstrate how a soul achieves the "seeing" process then you are in no better position than the materialists. In fact, worse, since you cannot yet show that anything immaterial can be possible, let alone have existence.
 
Cris said:
lg,

Advocating the existence of a fantasy imaterial soul does not advance us any nearer to a solution either.

All you are saying is that because we cannot yet determine how the brain generates self-awareness etc, then lets invent a fantasy and assert that is the answer.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, you fall upon the fantasy that "somehow, someday we will be able to see what we are seeing with" to avoid the requirement of applying yourself to a means that is actually capable of investigating the subject

Until you can demonstrate how a soul achieves the "seeing" process then you are in no better position than the materialists.
Click to expand...
Until you are willing to apply yourself, you have no position outside of speculation

In fact, worse, since you cannot yet show that anything immaterial can be possible, let alone have existence.
Click to expand...
yes
demonstrating something immaterial to the material senses would certainly be a remarkable feat.
:eek:
 
Last edited:
For instance despite your body being vastly different 30 years ago, you still have retained the same selfhood.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't say "vastly different", just bigger really. Your brain probably changes the most as it gains new information and new perspectives. Of course then you're just one hard smack on the head away from losing all of that and becoming an entirely different person, (would that be 'soul')?.
 
LG,

Advocating the existence of a fantasy immaterial soul does not advance us any nearer to a solution either.

All you are saying is that because we cannot yet determine how the brain generates self-awareness etc, then lets invent a fantasy and assert that is the answer.

On the contrary, you fall upon the fantasy that "somehow, someday we will be able to see what we are seeing with" to avoid the requirement of applying yourself to a means that is actually capable of investigating the subject
Click to expand...
Nonsense, we have a physical brain whose vast complexity we fully recognize and are yet unable to fully decipher how it functions. We also know it is responsible for all known mental functions, e.g. thought, memory, emotions, identity, intellect, etc. This is the same ballpark that we would expect consciousness since these are related functions. Until we complete our analysis of the brain and can explain how it operates it seems somewhat pointless imagining fantasy and exotic explanations that have zero basis.

“ Until you can demonstrate how a soul achieves the "seeing" process then you are in no better position than the materialists. ”

Until you are willing to apply yourself, you have no position outside of speculation
Click to expand...
The brain is the ballpark, something immaterial is not even in the galaxy in comparison. I.e. it has no precedent and no starting point from which to begin to investigate it.

“ In fact, worse, since you cannot yet show that anything immaterial can be possible, let alone have existence. ”

yes
demonstrating something immaterial to the material senses would certainly be a remarkable feat.
Click to expand...
In exactly the same way that attempting to see something that does not exist.

If you know it exists then you must use some immaterial senses to perceive it. Since I assume we are both human you can tell me how to use my immaterial senses, so I can see souls the same as you, correct? Or if not then what mechanism do you use to perceive souls?
 
lightgigantic said:
On the contrary, you fall upon the fantasy that "somehow, someday we will be able to see what we are seeing with" to avoid the requirement of applying yourself to a means that is actually capable of investigating the subject

Until you are willing to apply yourself, you have no position outside of speculation

yes
demonstrating something immaterial to the material senses would certainly be a remarkable feat.
Click to expand...


How do you investigate?

Until you have proof, you have no position outside of speculation.

Without demonstration, knowing there is something immaterial is a remarkably ridiculous feat.
 
(Q) said:
That would make sense, atheists obviously didn't meet the expectations, hence we have no souls... or consciousness.
Click to expand...
atheists may expect that there is no essential difference between a dead body and a living one, but clearly its a stance born of belief and not evidence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top