What's a soul?

[ledwix]

I'm tired of seeing religious threads getting flamed for lack of evidence. I do agree that the recent thread topic was illogical through both religious and scientific reasoning. I do not, however, condone becoming judgemental about what every religion is. For reasons I may discuss later, I'd also like to address the following:

What is your view on what a soul is? Do you believe souls even exist? If so, what constitutes a soul? What animals, plants, fungi, etc. have souls? Where do you draw the line?

I'll provide my input in a bit.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

A soul is a metanomic poetic construct, social device, and/or heuristic label for natural phenomenon outside the range of human perception.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

To me, a soul is a spirit in anything that can contribute to society and the environment (even if that means just existing) and can breathe. Because of my strict belief in logic or better yet "seeing is believing," I would say that souls either exist or don't, but I don't like to get involved in these situations unless there is evidence. How can a discussion on souls have more relevance in regards to religious and scientific reasoning compared to that of the last thread?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

and can breathe.

Um. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to ask, but how do you define "breathe"? Respiration occurs in a multitude of ways. If you define the process as broadly as possible, in terms of a process of combustion, then such things as rust and fire technically have souls.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

Well I meant a living being basically. I define breathing the way that you do so that statement was wrong and should be ignored.

[ledwix]

Re: What's a soul?

...so you define a soul as a living thing. Do your 100 trillion cells have individual souls? >___< That becomes problematic, as they are living things that don't perform any functions other than what they are programmed to do. I think a soul is something that contains not only an ability to willingly disturb its natural surroundings but desire to do so. Because of this, you could say that souls are entities that have the ability to think.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

How do you prove that thinking isn't just reactionary though? A human being is reducible to their component processes, but somehow when you see all component processes together you manage to add them up to something greater than their simple combination.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

First off, this topic is just as seemingly unprovable as religion. Second of all, What if souls are exactly like people and that our cells are equivalent to a type of cell in each soul? Perhaps in my sense, these cells are a part of an entire soul (maybe souls of their own, but who knows?).

[jamuko]

Re: What's a soul?

This looks like it could get into the matter of free will. You say your cells "don't perform any functions other than what they are programmed to do"; I don't think anyone would argue with that. But then take it to the next level... earthworms? They are alive, they appear to move in a way that shows free will, but their processes are very simple. Some would say that they are too low a level of life to have a soul, and only act out of "what they are programmed to do".

Take it another step up... birds? Small mammals? They also appear to have free will, but only act out of simple biological processes as well.

You can keep taking steps up the ladder of animal intelligence until you reach human life. Where is the line drawn? Who are we to say that we, as complex as we are, do honestly have a free will that isn't simply acting out of our biological instincts?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

Wow, very good point. I would have to say that we don't know if we just act out of our biological instincts or if there is any line drawn. I guess this is why humans shouldn't necessarily claim that they are the superior race. I wonder what it would be like if these animals had the ability to talk and think for themselves... or if we could give animals such a power.

[ledwix]

Re: What's a soul?

That something greater (an overall function being performed by all cells as a whole, such as my typing on this comp right now) is a soul. What I am doing right now is reacting to a statement and replying to it, true. However, you cannot scientifically explain to me why I am reacting this way, nor predict exactly what I will type, nor explain the concept of individuality. (If you can, go for it) If there is a set of laws determining the exact reactionary actions of a person or group of beings, one could tell his future, the future of mankind, the universe, etc. in EXACT detail. If you were to launch a lifeform out of a cannon, that human being would decide how to react, whereas an inanimate object would have a definite fate according to physics. If you set an object next to a cliff, a rock, perhaps, it would never jump off the cliff, since it had no soul. A being with a soul can decide whether or not to jump off the cliff.

Now consider this. I read in The Elegant Universe that if one knew the exact location and velocity of every single particle in the universe, that one could also know the location of each and every particle in the universe at ANY point in time, from distant past to distant future. Let us assume that a race of beings harnesses enough energy to travel around to individual sectors of the universe and detonate massive bombs, disintegrating and destroying every physical body imaginable. This would disprove the above theory, because you cannot describe this event through reactionary processes alone. The above statement should apply, given that there is no such thing as life. There is, though, and life is a gift. If it is not, then what are you doing right now? Existing without a purpose? Without goals, things to strive for, everyday actions? (Sorry, that might not be relevant)

[jamuko]

Re: What's a soul?

If that is your reasoning, then you must believe that anything that grows has a soul. Do you believe all animals, bugs, and other life forms with unpredictable patterns all have souls? If you set an earthworm on the ground, you can't predict exactly where it will go, or how it will wriggle. Even the growth of plants can't be exactly predicted. Do you believe plants have souls as well? What about mold?

Everything that is alive on this earth is unpredictable to some degree. The world is not a simple computer; there are many variables that go into how a being moves and lives, and the more complex the being gets, the more difficult it is for our minds to get a grasp on, which is when the concept of "soul" seems to come into play.

Unless you believe that all living things have souls, you will need a better argument for what constitutes one.


Edit: Regarding your cliff scenario... if we're going to compare living things to inanimate objects, then what about artificial intelligence? It is conceivable that a robot or similarly programmed "inanimate object" could also make a decision of sorts to make the jump.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: What's a soul?

Perhaps, most humans have the same repetative goals unless something outlined from some god. I mean we have jobs (some), eat, sleep, have certain hobbies, but what else is there? Probably nothing (which I would hate because humans are so impatient for a god to exist because we have so much fear about our population just dying). Sure humans have goals set by themselves to satisfy themselves, but do they serve any purpose if we all die out? For the most part, I don't think so.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

That something greater (an overall function being performed by all cells as a whole, such as my typing on this comp right now) is a soul.

Any attempt to define which functions demonstrate a level of functionality equivalent to a soul is guaranteed to be arbitrary, or at least dangerously subjective.

What I am doing right now is reacting to a statement and replying to it, true. However, you cannot scientifically explain to me why I am reacting this way, nor predict exactly what I will type, nor explain the concept of individuality.

So what? What I can't do today I can do tomorrow, so it goes in history. The label "soul" will exist for precisely as long as people can't give or understand the answers to that list you just gave me. That doesn't mean you as an individual, as the collection of your thoughts and answers, don't consist entirely of quantifiable phenomenon.

If there is a set of laws determining the exact reactionary actions of a person or group of beings, one could tell his future, the future of mankind, the universe, etc. in EXACT detail.

The amount of calculations involved in determining such things precisely would be far beyond examination of just people, would also likely be far beyond even physical possibility.

If you were to launch a lifeform out of a cannon, that human being would decide how to react, whereas an inanimate object would have a definite fate according to physics.

Lifeforms are reducible to physics. Organic chemistry is still chemistry.

If you set an object next to a cliff, a rock, perhaps, it would never jump off the cliff, since it had no soul. A being with a soul can decide whether or not to jump off the cliff.

You seem to be equating complexity with a soul. This retains the problem, at what level of complexity does something have a soul?

Now consider this. I read in The Elegant Universe that if one knew the exact location and velocity of every single particle in the universe, that one could also know the location of each and every particle in the universe at ANY point in time, from distant past to distant future. Let us assume that a race of beings harnesses enough energy to travel around to individual sectors of the universe and detonate massive bombs, disintegrating and destroying every physical body imaginable. This would disprove the above theory, because you cannot describe this event through reactionary processes alone.

... yes you can. What the hell do you think this race of beings are composed of, pure "soul"? No, they're composed of particles as well.

There is, though, and life is a gift.

Cute.

If it is not, then what are you doing right now?

Following mechanical laws outside of my range of awareness.

Existing without a purpose?

I can give myself a purpose, I don't need to pretend there are purposes external to me.

Without goals, things to strive for, everyday actions? (Sorry, that might not be relevant)

It's relevant, it just isn't a good argument.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

Sure humans have goals set by themselves to satisfy themselves, but do they serve any purpose if we all die out? For the most part, I don't think so.

Sure they have a purpose. They have the purpose of immediate satisfaction. And if human beings existence is finite, why must their goals be infinite? Why search for the meaning of human life outside of human nature?