What's a soul?

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: What's a soul?

If a theory can explain a phenomenon perfectly and the tenets of the theory can be tested and confirmed in all cases where it is used empirically, then it might be considered a law.

Right, that's what's I was meaning when I said 100% true. You explained it better, I'll admit, but I'm not disagreeing.

I haven't really taken a stance on the issue at hand, so I'll do that.

I'm not sure if we all agree that souls do exist, because though the topic asks "what is a soul", most of the discussion seems to be centered around if there is in fact such a thing.

I believe they do exist in each and every one of us, though it is not a tangible part of our body. I would say it's what makes us unique. Without souls, we are all basically the same person, just with different physical characteristics.

Now, I can't say that souls are responsible for every person in the world having a unique fingerprint; I don't know why that is. I don't think souls are responsible for that, despite my argument. I think the soul is what makes us who we are. It's what drives Kilroy_x to post in the CT thread so much. It's not just his intelligence, but his enthusiasm in doing so. I think it's what makes Jim Carrey such a funny guy.

If we don't attribute the unique personalities of many people to their individual souls, then what do we attribute them to? To their intellect? If we do that, then why aren't there millions of Jim Carreys running around?

[devonin]

Re: What's a soul?

We attribute the unique personality of people to their unique personality. they need not possess some seperate "personality giver" that you call a soul.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

I believe they do exist in each and every one of us, though it is not a tangible part of our body. I would say it's what makes us unique. Without souls, we are all basically the same person, just with different physical characteristics.

Well, there's no reason except instinctive emotional reaction for us to think it wouldn't be possible for all humans to be basically the same person. Also the differences between people can be very large or very small. Why would you use a singular invention such as the "soul" to differentiate all variances? If people have souls because they are different, then to people who have very few differences or none at all, are these people lesser in some respect?

If we don't attribute the unique personalities of many people to their individual souls, then what do we attribute them to?

There's a problem with where you've been taking this. You have so far defined "soul" in a way that makes it synonymous with individual variance. Your justification for the existence of a "soul" is individual variance.

However, there is still the issue of how a soul comes about, and the properties of a soul if they vary at all from the properties of a given individual. If they don't, then "soul" is a redundant description or a sweeping uniform label of already existing, explainable phenomenon. In the case that using the label prevents understanding of the phenomenon there is a problem.

To their intellect? If we do that, then why aren't there millions of Jim Carreys running around?

What do you mean by intellect? There are countless reasons why there aren't millions of Jim Carreys running around. First of all is individual genetic variance, secondly environment. Within these two large areas we could find trillions of factors which would explain exactly how variance occurs, if they were capable of being interpreted.

[ledwix]

Re: What's a soul?

Genetic variance defeats your ability to say that souls are made up of unique personalities, because the scientific explanation doesn't necessitate souls, as devonin said. I do believe, however, that above all, human beings do have souls.

For example, have you ever thought about why you are you? Why can't you be someone else? Why isn't you me? Why isn't me you? Why aren't you a more primitive animal? Don't you ever feel lucky to be the mind of one of the 6.5 billion living human beings, rather than the trillions of bugs and apparently lesser-thinking creatures? Each person has the amazing ability to observe this world from his own viewpoint. No one else has your viewpoint; your perceptions are indefinitely stuck inside you. My reasoning is that we are souls experiencing a physical boundary; otherwise, there would be no consciousness. If you say consciousness is imaginary and an illusion arising from the sum of various mechanical processes (I don't deny these processes, but rather discredit their ability to explain everything you are thinking right now and why you have the right to perceive the way you do), then you are discrediting yourself, because what you are thinking right now is meaningless and imaginary. From that logic, why trust what you are thinking when consciousness is only an illusion? If consciousness is not an illusion, then we are still able to think as a whole creature regardless of what each individual cell in 100 trillion cells is "thinking."

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

No

I do believe, however, that above all, human beings do have souls.

Oh, so you're a hypocrite.

For example, have you ever thought about why you are you? Why can't you be someone else? Why isn't you me? Why isn't me you? Why aren't you a more primitive animal?

Yes to all. There are answers to all of those questions as well, just not the sort of emotionally satisfying answers you would accept.

Don't you ever feel lucky to be the mind of one of the 6.5 billion living human beings, rather than the trillions of bugs and apparently lesser-thinking creatures?

Why? I am by definition human. It would not be possible for what constitutes me to be anything other than me in all my properties, including being human.

My reasoning is that we are souls experiencing a physical boundary; otherwise, there would be no consciousness.

Your reasoning is silly. Also it's possible there isn't consciousness, as you mean it.

If you say consciousness is imaginary and an illusion arising from the sum of various mechanical processes (I don't deny these processes, but rather discredit their ability to explain everything you are thinking right now and why you have the right to perceive the way you do), then you are discrediting yourself, because what you are thinking right now is meaningless and imaginary.

I question the words you employ, but in every respect this is nonsense. My life has the meaning I give it, and it isn't imaginary because even if it is a result of synergistic effects and even if it doesn't measure up to any objective reality, it is still real.

From that logic, why trust what you are thinking when consciousness is only an illusion?

Why not? At any rate, an appeal to the supposed absurdity of a state of affairs isn't necessarily a refutation. It's conceivable a reductio ad absurdum is an accurate description of reality.

If consciousness is not an illusion, then we are still able to think as a whole creature regardless of what each individual cell in 100 trillion cells is "thinking."

Neither of those statements are of how thought works. Your dichotomy is nonsensical.

[ledwix]

Re: What's a soul?

I never said I knew how thought works, but it is more complex than anything we'll be able to explain.

How am I a hypocrite? Does the regarding of something as scientifically unnecessary make it unreal? "Science does not necessitate the internet realm to exist for the world to exist; therefore, the internet does not exist."

There are answers to all of those questions as well, just not the sort of emotionally satisfying answers you would accept.

What are the answers to the questions? I'm curious, really.

Just because you ARE HUMAN NO MATTER WHAT does not mean that you are not lucky to have been made a human. Though everything you have ever been has been human, this does not mean your state of consciousness couldn't have been in some other animal. Animals other than us exist. I am examining something you are not even considering, merely because at any point in your history you have existed in human form....might as well be saying, "Why should I feel lucky to be rich? I was BORN rich."

Okay so you think my reasoning is silly, because souls are silly, and even acknowledging their possibility deserves ridicule. I also think yours is.

All right, but I can easily say that although also nonobective, the soul is real, given that you consider your purpose in life real. You have no more right to say that than I do to say the soul is real. Having goals in life does not mean you can say you serve a real purpose, from your explanations.

[Orch_Dork]

Re: What's a soul?

i think your soul is like everyting inside your mind. kind of like your personality and who and what you care for. but i cant really explain it well. thats just what i think

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: What's a soul?

Well, there's no reason except instinctive emotional reaction for us to think it wouldn't be possible for all humans to be basically the same person. Also the differences between people can be very large or very small. Why would you use a singular invention such as the "soul" to differentiate all variances? If people have souls because they are different, then to people who have very few differences or none at all, are these people lesser in some respect?

Why would I use a singular invention such as the "soul" to differentiate all variances? I don't use it to diffirentiate all variances, just variances in personality. And because it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Are you suggesting that genetic variances and the environment are the tools you use to differentiate all variances? If so, then how do you explain twins? There are very few genetic variances between twins, and I think I can say with reasonable certainty that they will grow up in the same environment. But they still will be uniquely different from each other.

That ties in to answer your question about people who have few or no differences. Last year, I dated a girl named Colleen who had a twin sister, Maureen. They looked exactly alike except for their hair length, so people could distinguish between them. While I dated Colleen, I got to know Maureen very well, but I realized that while they lived under the same roof and were twins, they had very separate personalities and life goals. Colleen was more reserved and laid-back about doing things. She was also very shy. Maureen, on the other hand, was very outgoing and active.

No, I don't think that makes them lesser. There was something about Colleen that I was attracted to more than Maureen, and it was her personality. What makes them different is that they each have a unique soul, a unique personality. That's what I'm saying makes us who we are.

However, there is still the issue of how a soul comes about

I don't think I can give you an answer that will satisfy you. Personally, I believe God (of the Christian faith) gives us a soul at birth. Don't ask me how it happens, I don't know. Don't tell me that my arguments are biased because of my beliefs because I already know that. I'm trying to look at it objectively, but it's more difficult for me than it probably is for you. I trust that everything about Christianity is true and I don't need to see proof. I don't know if you're a Christian or not, but I would guess not, considering the way you approach CT discussions.

That's a huge difference between you and me, we believe differently. I don't think you can contribute that to genetic variance. Strictly genetic variance. Environmental factors, yes, I can see how you might contribute that difference to environmental factors. However, I don't think I'm ever going to be able to sway you on the subject of Christianity and faith, and I think your personality makes it that way.

Am I equating personality with the soul? Yes.

if they were capable of being interpreted.

If you are unsure that the "trillions of factors" can even be interpreted, can you use that to make a point? If we can never interpret them, how do we even know there are "trillions of factors"?

We attribute the unique personality of people to their unique personality. they need not possess some seperate "personality giver" that you call a soul.

Then why do we all have unique personalities? Or do you believe we do not? I can imagine that you take the same stance as Kilroy_x does, which is that genetic variances and environmental factors are the reason. If you do, then my argument is directed toward you as well.

It would not be possible for what constitutes me

What does constitute you? Are your only answers going to be higher brain function and reasoning capabilities? Walking upright?

what you are thinking right now is meaningless and imaginary.

To you. Try to look at the discussion from Kilroy_x's point of view.

At any rate, an appeal to the supposed absurdity of a state of affairs isn't necessarily a refutation.

(I'm speaking to ledwix here.) Right. He isn't necessarily saying you're wrong, he's just questioning the validity of the claims you're making in your argument.

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: What's a soul?

does not mean that you are not lucky to have been made a human

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can say this. At all. Is it really left up to chance whether I am a goat or a human being?

[jewpinthethird]

Re: What's a soul?

I never said I knew how thought works, but it is more complex than anything we'll be able to explain.

How am I a hypocrite? Does the regarding of something as scientifically unnecessary make it unreal?

No, it just makes it not scientific, which means it is speculative and lacks any concrete evidence, which in turn makes your argument lose all credibility since it is based on the assumption that souls exist.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

I never said I knew how thought works, but it is more complex than anything we'll be able to explain.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think I'm qualified to judge that, let alone you.

How am I a hypocrite? Does the regarding of something as scientifically unnecessary make it unreal?

As a person who claims to believe in the empirical scientific method, adopting unfalsifiable beliefs from nowhere is hypocritical.

"Science does not necessitate the internet realm to exist for the world to exist; therefore, the internet does not exist."

Science doesn't necessitate anything to exist. Science observes what does exist and can therefore be observed, makes hypothesis about such things, and tests them.

What are the answers to the questions? I'm curious, really.

Ok.

For example, have you ever thought about why you are you?

I am me because the entity which is "me" is precisely equivalent to a set of finite physical processes with traceable material causes. The causes are responsible for my properties and....

Why can't you be someone else? Why isn't you me? Why isn't me you?

The finite and connected nature of the given processes which compose me prevent me from being anyone else. Conceptually there are parts of "me" which can transfer, but this is more like effecting others in a way that brings similarity in function to some aspect of them rather than an actual fluidity of being.

Why aren't you a more primitive animal?

Because if I was a more primitive animal, I would be a more primitive animal, not me. "I" am precisely equivalent with the form I currently take. This form "I" take may change, but the statement always remains the same as long as it is made in reference to the present.

Just because you ARE HUMAN NO MATTER WHAT does not mean that you are not lucky to have been made a human. Though everything you have ever been has been human, this does not mean your state of consciousness couldn't have been in some other animal.

My general (but not complete, this would be impossible) state of consciousness could, hypothetically, be in another animal now. Even if every other person on earth thought in the same exact way as me, had the same memories, all that jazz, there's no psychic transfer because a given consciousness is tied in its entirety to a given finite set of processes.

I am examining something you are not even considering, merely because at any point in your history you have existed in human form....might as well be saying, "Why should I feel lucky to be rich? I was BORN rich."

So, what's wrong with that? You can feel good about being who you are, but it seems rather silly to pretend that who you are could remain static in the face of variances as huge as species. Unless you want to redefine self as a dynamic process, which I have no problem with, I don't see this going anywhere. Even if you do, I get the feeling you would continue to treat large aspects of the individual "soul" as static.

Okay so you think my reasoning is silly, because souls are silly, and even acknowledging their possibility deserves ridicule. I also think yours is.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/god-accident

I don't care. I don't think you particularly do think.

All right, but I can easily say that although also nonobective, the soul is real, given that you consider your purpose in life real. You have no more right to say that than I do to say the soul is real. Having goals in life does not mean you can say you serve a real purpose, from your explanations.

Um, what? Subjective valuation is still real valuation. There are also quantifiable factors which can be observed working behind my explanation, yours remains unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

I really, really don't think you understand my explanations, certainly not well enough to make the statement in your last sentence.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: What's a soul?

Why would I use a singular invention such as the "soul" to differentiate all variances? I don't use it to diffirentiate all variances, just variances in personality.

All variances in personality is also somewhat senseless because again, personalities vary in different degrees. Two people can have very similar, even identical personalities. Would this be to assume they have identical souls? But you invented the concept of the soul to explain necessary individual variance. If this variance doesn't exist in all cases, how can the soul exist, at least in all cases?

And because it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

I'm very sorry to hear this.

Are you suggesting that genetic variances and the environment are the tools you use to differentiate all variances?

Yes.

If so, then how do you explain twins? There are very few genetic variances between twins, and I think I can say with reasonable certainty that they will grow up in the same environment. But they still will be uniquely different from each other.

It's not possible for any two people to grow up in the exact same environment. You should also realize that even the "very few" genetic differences between twins can have a huge magnitude of repercussions in terms of differences. If a computer can operate in terms of binary and perform all manner of complex operations, imagine the possible variances in a 4 option language repeated in varied patterns as many times as genetic code.

story

k

No, I don't think that makes them lesser. There was something about Colleen that I was attracted to more than Maureen, and it was her personality. What makes them different is that they each have a unique soul, a unique personality. That's what I'm saying makes us who we are.

A unique personality perhaps. Actually, just a personality at all. I really don't see why the concept of soul needs to be introduced, it's redundant at best.

I don't think I can give you an answer that will satisfy you. Personally, I believe God (of the Christian faith) gives us a soul at birth. Don't ask me how it happens, I don't know. Don't tell me that my arguments are biased because of my beliefs because I already know that. I'm trying to look at it objectively, but it's more difficult for me than it probably is for you. I trust that everything about Christianity is true and I don't need to see proof. I don't know if you're a Christian or not, but I would guess not, considering the way you approach CT discussions.

I am not a Christian. I see no moral problem with most Christian beliefs, including belief in souls, but given the nature of this discussion I would advise you that I won't accept unfalsifiable concepts as basis for anything, and although theological argument might make your position more internally consistent, it would still remain unfalsifiable. Unless of course we got into negative theology, but even that is sort of blah.

That's a huge difference between you and me, we believe differently. I don't think you can contribute that to genetic variance. Strictly genetic variance. Environmental factors, yes, I can see how you might contribute that difference to environmental factors. However, I don't think I'm ever going to be able to sway you on the subject of Christianity and faith, and I think your personality makes it that way.

Yes, probably. I'm glad you're willing to concede at least the possibility of a combination of genetic and environmental factors being the sole factors in personality.

Am I equating personality with the soul? Yes.

That's fine. I just don't see why you need something identical to personality to accompany personality.

If you are unsure that the "trillions of factors" can even be interpreted, can you use that to make a point? If we can never interpret them, how do we even know there are "trillions of factors"?

We count the gene's responsible for neural and cognitive development, the biological processes behind thought, and as many societal factors as we can without being redundant, then consider all the possible ways these could interact. Some redundancy is bound to occur even here though.

The problem with interpretation is we're doing it with the very same tools that we don't understand and are trying to interpret the functions of.

What does constitute you? Are your only answers going to be higher brain function and reasoning capabilities? Walking upright?

I can't imagine I would be capable of describing all of them without redundancy. However, what constitutes me in my entirety is the sum total of physical processes associated with my body, including my brain. This is my atomic self, or perhaps simply my brain is. Past that, actions, perceptions of me etc. , aren't really aspects of me as far as I can discern.