Thread: Does the soul really exist?

Ok so that's the question: does the soul really exist?

I don't think it does, but would like to hear others views.

Rich.

Originally Posted by Rickz2020

Ok so that's the question: does the soul really exist?

Depends...... If all that's required for existence is a thought then the soul exists.

Originally Posted by Rickz2020

Ok so that's the question: does the soul really exist?

I don't think it does, but would like to hear others views.

Rich.

I don't know. It depends on how you define soul.

soul in the classical sense was your consciousness, your "being" or "essence". As we now know that consciousness is electrical signals flashing around brain tissue, it's your call.
Maybe your "essence" is different than your consciousness?

Originally Posted by 15uliane

soul in the classical sense was your consciousness, your "being" or "essence". As we now know that consciousness is electrical signals flashing around brain tissue, it's your call.
Maybe your "essence" is different than your consciousness?

If we are going to define soul as consciousness then soul, like consciousness, becomes an open question. And consciousness is not a simple question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Yes, electrical phenomena are one of the aspects to the physiology of consciousness, but to predicate the whole of human experience on the kinesis of electrons?
A computer uses electrons, but is it conscious?
A computer is a good starting model for the human brain though.
Here is a generalized model for a computer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine.

Then there is the data set to be manipulated by the computer, and the process the computer uses to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm

After all that, we now have a rudimentary model of dubious applicability.
But hey, it's a start.

Originally Posted by Rickz2020

Ok so that's the question: does the soul really exist?

I don't think it does, but would like to hear others views.

Rich.

One simple Answer YES it does exist
Have you ever wonder what is the bedrock, the basic strata, of your emotions and Dreams

And people let us stop trying to be complicated Here for I love Simplicity :|

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

If we are going to define soul as consciousness then soul, like consciousness, becomes an open question. And consciousness is not a simple question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Yes, electrical phenomena are one of the aspects to the physiology of consciousness, but to predicate the whole of human experience on the kinesis of electrons?
A computer uses electrons, but is it conscious?
A computer is a good starting model for the human brain though.
Here is a generalized model for a computer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine.

Then there is the data set to be manipulated by the computer, and the process the computer uses to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm

After all that, we now have a rudimentary model of dubious applicability.
But hey, it's a start.

This has nothing to do with the question......

It has everything to do with the question. Nobody can even define soul or consciousness in a meaningful way. Given that, how are we supposed to reply to the question of whether or not it exists?


Tell us... does a bleabalwomp exist? What's a bleabalwomp, you may ask? Oh, it's just like "essence" or some sort of "higher being."

Does that help in addressing the question? No. It's a load of crap, as is the concept of soul. It's a rhetorical shorthand with ambiguous meaning used to describe things which people lack the education to understand or explain more precisely. It's a flypaper for the ridiculous.

Originally Posted by didact

And people let us stop trying to be complicated Here

I'll be as complicated as I want. What are you going to do about it?

Originally Posted by didact

for I love Simplicity :|

Sounds like a personal problem.

Originally Posted by didact

This has nothing to do with the question......

See inow's post above.

Originally Posted by inow

Tell us... does a bleabalwomp exist?

Almost certainly not as an homoexistential entity, but now that you've mentioned it, it would be part of a data set.
I think it should be similar to a jabberwock.

Seems like when you ask a question you need to define the key words in the question... Rickz2020?

In classical sense, the soul is a being withing oneself. The soul is the "operator" of the body.

To me, this is clearly the mind. Experiments conducted on "free will" have shown that it;s not as free as we think and in fact, the body makes the decision and "free will" is just an illusion.

The soul was invented by religion. I believe that there is no such thing as the "soul" because we ourselves are constantly evolving, changing and adapting to our surroundings and needs. Our desires change based on what we have available to us and we make decisions depending on our desires.

If there really was a soul, it would be measurable. To me, the soul is just an illusion - just as "free will" is, invented by religion to provide something that can be punished or taken away.

I wasn't expecting a scientific answer to my question, but I am/was hoping for some good thought exercises.

Some people clearly are satisfied with bogus fairy tails and accept them as truth, whereas I and many others want proof and quantifiable data to back theories.

Let's see if anyone has any decent arguments for the existence of the soul. I would be most interested to hear them.

Regards,

Rich.

I don't think anyone could prove without fairy tales the existence of the soul if it was merely the operator of the body, as that role is clearly taken by the brain.

If it is the awareness of the surroundings and the capability for analyzation and reasoning outside the realm of survival (A.K.A how I define the consciousness), then I could make an argument for it. It could end up being lengthy and I'm sure there is a weakness:
The soul springs from the body, as simmias of Thebes argues in the phaedo. The "harmony" of the body's parts creates the consciousness, the consciousness is the "essence" (sorry inow), the higher level, the result of the brain coming together the way it does. To use a 3000 year old example, the body is like the harp and the soul like the melody. It is clear that the consciousness springs from the body, yet it is not physical like the body. Our consciousness must therefore be separate from the body, yet tied to it.
In other words, the consciousness springs from the "science", yet because one cannot define consciousness in physical terms, the consciousness must not be physical, and is therefore separate from the very physical body.

Please forgive me for trying to be devils advocate (and probably failing)
Edit: Please don't just say no, give counter arguments so we can have a good discussion.

As in something special that lives on after our bodies die but somehow reflects who we are--It's completely make believe.

I wil try to prove, then, that the consciousness is immortal. The consciousness is analogous to the harp and the harmony in that it is a result of the body. Nol?
However the consciousness is separate from the body, because although it's origins are physical, The consciouness is not physical, like the body, and is therefore separate from the body, right?
Objections before we move on?

Originally Posted by 15uliane

The consciouness is not physical, like the body, and is therefore separate from the body, right?

Wrong. It might be boring but consciousness is entirely physical (i.e, chemical, electrical etc); no brain = no consciousness. As a vivid example, Terri Schiavo's consciousness ended when her brain was severely damaged by lack of oxygen--there were no more thoughts, no personality, no "soul" to linger on.

Live harmonic harp music doesn't exist without a harp.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

I wil try to prove, then, that the consciousness is immortal. The consciousness is analogous to the harp and the harmony in that it is a result of the body. Nol?
However the consciousness is separate from the body, because although it's origins are physical, The consciouness is not physical, like the body, and is therefore separate from the body, right?
Objections before we move on?

No objections, I'd like to see it done if only out of curiosity. Couple questions though: Are you going to say that consciousness is like this huge array of radio wave receivers and that everyone of us is tuned in to their own personal frequency? Will you also say that in cases where weird shit might be happening like telepathy or reincarnation it is the result of signal overlap or something like that?

Zinjanthropos, I must have set the bar really high in previous discussions.
Thats not a example of the consciousness being physical, but dependant on the physical body, Lynx_fox. The actual consciousness is not physical. Can you hold awareness or your thoughts in your hand? Youre getting ahead of the discussion: now have to think of a whole new "immortal soul" argument.
an interim argument to discuss while I think could be that, to carry the sound analogy furthur, the sound of a harp still exists if you break the harp, the sound waves still travel through the air, and, just for fun, if you were in a perfect echoing chamber the sound would exist forever.
:-D

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by 15uliane

The consciouness is not physical, like the body, and is therefore separate from the body, right?

Wrong. It might be boring but consciousness is entirely physical (i.e, chemical, electrical etc); no brain = no consciousness. As a vivid example, Terri Schiavo's consciousness ended when her brain was severely damaged by lack of oxygen--there were no more thoughts, no personality, no "soul" to linger on.

Live harmonic harp music doesn't exist without a harp.

100% correct.

"The consciouness is not physical" ??? Someone needs to read a book, other than the bible.

But let's continue and see where he goes with the story, which by the way, a story cannot prove anything. If you want to prove something then you will need credible sources, maths to back it up and other forms of evidence.

Math? This is philosophy not physics. Just 'cause other people have been yelling "math please" all over the rest of the forum doesn't mean you have to yell it the philosophy forum. Credible sources? WTF? This is a thought experiment.
Are you saying you can hold thoughts in your hand? You can hold your consciousness? Sure, you can hold the ones and zeros, the meaning, but you can't hold your actual thought

If I'm holding my head in my hands then am I holding my thoughts also? Reminds me of a Supertramp song.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If I'm holding my head in my hands then am I holding my thoughts also? Reminds me of a Supertramp song.

If thats your opinion than thats your opinion. It's not mine.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If I'm holding my head in my hands then am I holding my thoughts also? Reminds me of a Supertramp song.

If thats your opinion than thats your opinion. It's not mine.

Actually my thoughts are contained within my head so I really don't need my hands to hang on to them. 8)

Not really an opinion but a question. I know you're serious and don't let this untimely interlude stall your quest. I'm very interested to see what you come up with as proof for the immortal consciousness.

Originally Posted by inow

It has everything to do with the question. Nobody can even define soul or consciousness in a meaningful way. Given that, how are we supposed to reply to the question of whether or not it exists?


Tell us... does a bleabalwomp exist? What's a bleabalwomp, you may ask? Oh, it's just like "essence" or some sort of "higher being."

Does that help in addressing the question? No. It's a load of crap, as is the concept of soul. It's a rhetorical shorthand with ambiguous meaning used to describe things which people lack the education to understand or explain more precisely. It's a flypaper for the ridiculous.

Wooh! It seems Like I have attracted some wrath here. If you posted this, it is probably certain that you never comprehend the post I had earlier commented on. You seem not to see that this has nothing to do with PhysicalScience although it has some connection with the Mind (the Brain---as it is biologically referred to). I think you should learn form legendary writers like Sidney N. Brhemer on the Subject. Besides there is no need for FLAME WAR here, leave it for the Infants. :? :?

Originally Posted by didact

Wooh! It seems Like I have attracted some wrath here. If you posted this, it is probably certain that you never comprehend the post I had earlier commented on. You seem not to see that this has nothing to do with PhysicalScience although it has some connection with the Mind (the Brain---as it is biologically referred to). I think you should learn form legendary writers like Sidney N. Brhemer on the Subject. Besides there is no need for FLAME WAR here, leave it for the Infants. :? :?

You didn't even try to answer his question. "What is the soul." You actually reinforced he argument with the fuzzy ill defined "You seem not to see that this has nothing to do with PhysicalScience although it has some connection with the Mind (the Brain---as it is biologically referred to)," while introducing yet one more ill defined term: the mind.

Meanwhile, despite your assertions, there's not one whit of credible evidence that suggest anything that involves our thinking and personality exist beyond our physical bodies. It is like the Supertramp song.

Originally Posted by didact

Wooh! It seems Like I have attracted some wrath here. <snip> there is no need for FLAME WAR here, leave it for the Infants.

Lol. Thanks for the chuckle. There was no flame in that reply, and if you think there was, it's probably best for you to lighten up a bit.