The Human Soul
I am familiar with the Christian view of the soul, but I am interested in hearing the atheist view on this subject. Does such a thing as a soul exist? If so, what is it, exactly? Is it eternal? Do other creatures have it as well as humans? And if you are opposed to the idea of the soul, why? What is conciousness then? Is this a question that can be answered without any mysticism?
All I know is... Cogito ergo sum.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
- Login to post comments
How much does a 'soul' weigh?
How large or small is a 'soul'?
Where is the 'soul' located on an anatomy chart?
How much radiant energy does a 'soul' produce or consume?
At what maximum speed can a 'soul' travel at in order to go to its destination?
What would I use to feed my 'soul'?
Can a 'soul' be extracted if it is faulty?
How would a 'soul' burn in hell or frolic with angels?
Can I use my 'silver cord' to strangle someone else's 'soul'?
Does a tree have a 'soul'? What about a rock?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
To answer your question simply - no.
exactly, there simply isn't one.
Then let me ask this: You are the product of millions of chance events and the fact that you even exist is luck. Well, maybe not luck, but you get what I'm going at. Anyways, the fact remains that if one factor in the past were lsightly changed, you, you're conciousness, would not exist.
I can't comprehend that idea. Death I understand. Life, I think I understand. But non-existance? It is beyond me at this point.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
Basically, yes. I don't see what this has to do with a soul though.
Well, think of it like this. It would be just like death, only without that tiny insignificant place in time where you would have been alive.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Do you remember the time before you were born? The time after you die will be exactly like that.
I actually like where you're coming from Xamination!
Here's some food for thought for those empiricists who feel that their existence is entirely physical.
It is almost certain that, through the many, many processes that you are all aware of regarding cell growth and ingestion of elements, not one atom in your body was there when you were born. What does that mean about a physical concept of the self?
If you thought something about energies in the brain, okay. If you are aware of the law of conservation of energy then you know that no energy is destroyed in any reaction. In this case, the reaction is death.
So, if memories are physical then they are insubstantial because the body is insubstantial. If they are energetic, then they never disappear, even if they do dissipate.
The 'soul' need not be a ghost that rises above you in near-death-experiences. Have some sense of poetry - the physical returns to the earth and the energetic dissipates to become one with the universe. What is to say you won't have some sort of conscious to an even higher degree when your thoughts are no longer contained inside your head, even if they cannot develop due to lack of the physical.
BAM! Like I said. Food for thought. Pun definitely intended.
Simply put - reincanation.
That is, most certainly, NOT what I said.
Reincarnation would come after the processes I described, if it does exist. And even then, there is no indication that the one "soul" would reincarnate itself again and again as it was. Instead, it may be that new beings draw from a "pool" of previously grown souls.
Ever seen Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within? Kinda like that maybe?
(Not necessarily what I believe, but something I consider)
Wait. So , atoms have a consciousness?
atoms have brains??? Time to call CERN before they smash nuons in July.
Are we trying to ascribe characteristics to matter itself?
Is it wrong to say that no brain = no thought? No temporal lobe = no memories?
Blood loss to the memory parts of the brain cause the memories to be inaccessible. Permanent blood loss would cause the memories to disappear forever. Gone. Not floating in space or tossed into a volcano in Hawaii or genetically encoded in a mushroom.
Like a renamed file on a mac. It's fucking gone.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
To get back to the original question, the soul, or illusion thereof, is a trick of brain chemistry. Everything we feel and everything we think comes down to the synaptic connections formed in our brains, and the chemical interactions that make thinking possible. Less evolved animals have "souls" as much as we do, most don't have the burden of concsiousness or self awareness though. Your question boils down to those two seemingly mammalian atributes, consciousness, and self awareness. Those are the contributing factors in the illusion of soul. So, simply put, no there is no such thing as a soul.
The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.
Wait... are you saying that you don't have conciousness, that self-awareness is an illusion?
Well, I can't prove that I'm self aware, but I know I am.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
I don't believe he is denying that we have conciousness and self-awareness. I think what is being said here is that what you consider to be an immaterial soul is actually natural bodily processes. Hence the illusion of a soul.
Did you read that at all? I said we do have consciousness and self awareness, but not a soul.
I sold my soul for a sandwich once. But I am in the market to buy a new one.
That must have been one good sandwhich. Would you like some soul food? :P
Atheist Books
Look, whatever description you want to ascribe to this "soul" thing makes little difference. Essentially, I would describe it as information - be it memory or experience; whatever, that survives in one form or another after we die.
And it is entirely possible that an atom or electron experiences a moment of consciousness. Conscious does not entail a brain. That is a HUGE assumption when we don't know that much about consciousness. There is one theory that suggests that it is because of the density of our brains and structures that promote a high degree of interaction that we experience consciousness to a far higher degree than any animal we know. And it also suggests that subatomic particles experience a moment of conscious action once every, I dunno MILLION years or something. But what is to say that something like, say, the planet itself isn't conscious of itself? It's not like it could talk to us. That'd be like us trying to explain things to our cells.
Yes, because what we know about thought is limited to human experience. I find it fairly self important of people to assume we are so priveleged in this department that we can assume that to be intelligent you must be like us (or an alien with better technology, but essentially the same!).
And one of the things you should be aware of is that, even if half of your brain is removed, you still have your motor functions. That contradicts, to a degree, the localisation of certain functions of the brain. It is true to a degree that functions have locations in the brain but that is merely where they are centered. The removal of parts of the brain diminishes memory or motor function but doesn't obliterate it altogether because memory is also stored holographically.
"Soul" does not entail continuing to feel emotion or being able to store memory or anything involved with the functions of the human body. Who knows, maybe the "soul" crystallises in a body because it can't grow any other way. All it means is that the energy of your mind and body does not simply disappear when you die but maintains some sort of affiliation - if you know anything about entanglement then this is not a far-fetched theory.
Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you can't accept the possibility of anything metaphysical. I'm not saying I believe any of this, but it is all stuff that I consider. Because if it is true - and some of it has some convincing evidence - then it is VERY important.
We may not fully understand consciousness, but we know enough about it to know that an electron, or even an atom can't have it. It requires a complex organ to hold it.
I'd love to see you cite a serious scientist on that nonsense.
We also have no reason, none whatsoever, to believe that the Earth is conscious. If the Earth, as a whole, were conscious, there should be some evidence of coordinated action. The problem with analogizing us to our cells is that our cells don't have the mental faculties to evaluate our consciousness. It's not just a problem of scale, cells are fundamentally too simple to understand and learn.
The brain is a very complex organ which is capable of adapting to wide variety of problems. I don't see how that proves anything.
Do you actually have any evidence for any of this mumbo jumbo?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
It is theorised by most people that atoms or electrons cannot experience consciousness. Some have alternative theories. That's all I was demonstrating. I'm sure you're well aware of the difference between knowing something and theorising something.
Roger Penrose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_penrose#Physics_and_consciousness
And an advocate of Penrose's work, Stuart Hameroff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff
Ecosystems and a general sense of balance are coordinated. Besides, how would one even comprehend the goals and actions of an entire planet? It's not an unfair analogy because a planetary consciousness might have exactly the same perspective of a human being. Just because you think you are able to learn doesn't mean you can learn to the degree that another form of life might be able to. Use your imagination.
It's relevant as a contradiction to the argument you made concerning memory loss due to irregularities in the physical brain. You made an argument that physical changes can affect memory. I made the argument that physical change merely diminishes memory and I think nonlocalisation is a very powerful argument for the idea that consciousness isn't as limited by specific physical structures as some would like to think.
Your use of the phrase "mumbo jumbo" is offensive. I'm not a mystic so don't get up on your high horse about science and evidence; I'm not an idiot. I majored in Physics in high school, am currently a university-level Philosophy Major and got a distinction in the exam for my last Philosophy unit- Philosophy of Science! So many of these things are currently under discussion by philosophers of science concerned with quantum theory and entanglement.
Watch 'What the Bleep do We Know?!' - some of it is questionable but there are some very prominent scientists discussing consciousness in that movie. You don't have to agree with everything said, but it gives some intriguing examples of verifiable studies conducted and some interesting, if a little radical, explanations.
Read 'The Holographic Universe' by Michael Talbot, if you can find a copy. There are hundreds of examples of strange occurrences in that book that can be linked to quantum physics and holography IN THEORY. Yes, there it is. Theory. I don't act like I have all the answers because I understand that the nature of science is to formulate theories that will always need to be revised and updated.
I made the claim regarding blood loss or deprivation to memory loss. That isn't just a hypothesis either. It is a theory.
Why do philosophers feel the need to weigh in on the subject of neuroscience? I can understand a neuroscientist making opinions philosophically (See Sam Harris).
Shouldn't we leave 'consciousness' and its definitions up to the neuroscientists or psychologists?
Here's a thread that I found interesting a while back(actually still do):
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/the_nature_of_the_brain
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Let us assume that an individual atom has no self-awareness. Let us also assume that the average person is self-aware. Since humans are simply a combination of different types of atoms, when do a group of atoms realize they are atoms - or what combination of atoms do you need for them to realize what they are as a whole?
If I were to create a human atom by atom in my evil labrotory with the help of my assistant Igor, when lightning struck and my creation awoke, would it be self-aware?
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
Hypothetical answers are allowed for hypothetical questions.
Atoms make up molecules. Molecules interact, but not because of a 'consciousness'. Basic chemistry. If a reaction happens this way once then it will happen in the same way every time unless something changes. Those changes don't have to be caused willfully by anything.
Can I forcefully blink my eyes and cause a tornado in Tokyo? If Tokahuro wins the next Ninja Warrior Challenge will there be peace in the middle east? The temperature rises just enough to change the type of combination of two atoms to make the molecule 'propagate' and VOILA 3 billion years later, cells of symbiotic molecules, no one had to think about it. The chemistry was just right.
For me, it seems the question of consciousness isn't so much something special to anything. It is a symptom of a chemical process. One that hasn't seen its end yet either.
As far as the 'buliding of a human' in your evil laboratory, I don't know. Let's try it. Where is your evil laboratory? I'll bring the sugar and some scrap iron. Do you have running water in the lab?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Nothing, as it is incorporeal (without matter).
It has no quantity, and hence no volume.
It "informs" the matter of which a human being is composed. It is the thinking "structure" of the human body. So, in a certain sense, it is found on the entire anatomy chart.
Zero, unless you count the body's action, which it causes. If you count that, it causes all action, so all the body's radiant energy.
It is not a body and hence cannot move through space.
The soul does not need to consume anything to live. You can speak metaphorically, and the answer would be "grace" or sharing in the life of God keeps your soul's spiritual life vibrant.
Not at all.
The soul itself does neither. Burning comes with the final resurrection of all bodies. There is an allegorical burning that occurs in the "worm of conscience" that torments the soul that is seperated eternally from God.
I don't have any idea what a "silver cord" is. I think it is some New-Agey thingy, in which case I don't acknowledge that such exists.
Yes, in a sense. A soul is a form that is a principle of life. So, a tree has a soul, properly speaking. It does not have a rational, or thinking, soul, but it has a vegetative soul. A rock has a form, which is the non-living equivalent.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Well, it's your prerogative to believe that to be true, but you limit yourself by not considering other theories. Don't you find it the least bit intriguing that you are aware of the fact that your existence is comprised of chemical processes? If our thoughts were truly governed purely by chemical processes wouldn't we be no different to most animals? Although perhaps we're not as different as we'd like to think we are. Nevertheless, whatever you class consciousness as - a standalone ontological entity; a by-product of chemical processes - consciousness exists. What you mean to say is that consciousness ends at death, but I see no reason to believe that to be the case, since all matter and energy is infinitely recycled and intertwined.
I don't think it unfair for a philosopher to 'weigh in' on debates regarding neuroscience. Philosophers have to look at what is logical and defensible. Neuroscientists and Psychologists, like everyone, are often swayed by what the want to be true. In fact, evidence is almost always sought in pursuit of an existing hypothesis and contracting results are often ignored by scientists. So yes, I think a philosopher is most welcome at any round-table discussion of consciousness, just as an atheist should be welcome at any discussion of religion - to provide an alternative view or to point out when others are being contradictory or unreasonable.
St. Michael,
Those are the answers that I've gotten before and thus continue to frown upon as being untestable ergo invalid. Another reason for my continued anti-theism. Thanks for trying.
No matter. No energy to measure. How precisely does this 'soul' function to 'control' my body?
You may be comfortable with allegorical burning and metaphors. However, I see metaphors as a means to communicate, not to be taken literally.
I find it intriguing that you would cursorily dismiss the hypothesis concerning a silver cord, but you cling to the notion of the soul itself. Why is it that you won't juxtapose that with your own ideas about a soul? When you can answer that, then you will know why I disregard the 'soul' altogether.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
The Sage,
What you are calling 'theories' seem to be nothing more than hypothetical speculation.
Yes. I actually do find it intriguing that my existence is comprised of chemical processes. With that said, it does not denigrate the magnificence of those processes. Nor does it degrade our willingness to understand them for what they are not what we wish them to be.
The point is that we ARE different than animals. However, haphazardly ascribing that difference to something as obscurely defined as a soul seems rather loose-minded.
I understand that you see no reason to believe that death means death for the consciousness. Your beliefs are well stated, but poorly defended in my opinion. I see no reason for the 'consciousness' to continue on without the structures that support it and feed it. No brain = No thoughts, feelings, memories, etc.
How much does the thought of a permanent death scare you? Does it scare you? It does me. However, if it is reality then it must be faced and all of the wishful thinking with regard to a soul is not going to MAKE it true.
Philosophers philosophize, hypothesize, and even theorize. I agree. However, without science to back it up, it all becomes speculation. In the case of the 'soul' it becomes conveniently untestable speculation in my opinion. Thus my equating neuro-philosophers with reprobates intent on misleading the masses with fictitious stories.
This seems to be one case where the NOMA rule could be put in place. Perhaps? Unless it decides to continue to overstep the boundaries of science.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Well, yes, you can find a theory for almost any idea, no matter how outlandish. The question that is more interesting is which theories are well-supported and which ones have a good chance of being supported.
Fair enough. However, I would point out that he is a physicist and mathemetician, and his arguments about human consciousness are not, according to wikipedia, anyway, widely accepted in scientific circles, so I'm not sure he counts.
Moreover, I don't think there's any reason to think that either the halting problem (which I'm fairly familiar with) or Godel's Incompleteness Theorum (which I hadn't heard of until I looked it up) would provide a reason to doubt that the human brain is purely physical.
You'd have a better time making that argument about ecosystems rather than the Earth as a whole. To claim that the Earth itself is conscious, you'd have to demostrate cases of geology assisting biology or vice versa to claim that the whole planet is conscious. If the earth is not conscious, however, you would expect that ecosystems and geology would coexist with themselves and each other by reaching points of equillibrium, which as far as I can tell is what happens.
I'm assuming you're referring to one of my attempts to discuss the physical nature of the brain with StMichael. If I recall correctly, in those post, I posted a link to some examples of the results of brain damage. Read it. Brain damage has been known in many cases to cause not simply a loss of memory, but changes in behavior as well, including some seemingly irrational paradoxes. Yes, the brain is sometimes able to adapt to damage and function mostly normally. Sometimes it can't. I don't see the contradiction. I'm not a neurologist, but it seems like it would be just a matter of specifically where the damage occurs and how extensive it is.
It sounds pretty mystical to me. Perhaps I've misjudged you, but you hadn't presented any science or any reason to believe what you were saying, just suggesting some beliefs that one might choose to adopt seemingly for fun. I like to believe in things for good reasons, and I like to encourage others to do the same. I still don't think you've really presented much reason to believe in this stuff, so I can't really apologize for calling it mumbo jumbo.
I didn't accuse you of being an idiot or uneducated.
I'll watch it, at some point.
Knowledge is always qualified with an appropriate dose of uncertainty, which often goes unmentioned because it is usually quite small when discussing something as fact. I don't claim to have all the answers, but that does not stop me from calling out someone else who is making wild, unsupported claims. Claims like this:
"And it is entirely possible that an atom or electron experiences a moment of consciousness."
No theory, no evidence, just a wild suggestion offered as fact. And besides that, contradicting the seemingly well-founded principle that consciousness requires a complex device which an electron cannot be considered. You seem quite willing to accuse me of putting on airs, but what about you?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Well, I've already quoted some sources of my - yes aptly-named - hypotheses. My research is continuing of course, since it's in early stages for me to comprise some convincing, structured theory. All theories start with a hypothesis. Once I get 'The Holographic Universe' back off my friend, I'll quote some passages and see if I can find corroborating evidence of some of the studies referenced in the book. It's quite a fantastic book, in my opinion.
Suffice to say that I became an atheist when I was 13 and quickly developed hostility toward religion and a general impression of death as the final end and anything remotely metaphysical as psychobabble. As a science student I picked up a few books on astronomy and physics (not all of which I could comprehend at the time) but, when I was 16 I read 'The Holographic Mind.' With well-referenced clarity, this one book led me to the conclusion that it is not unscientific or irrational to consider the metaphysical - souls & psychic phenomena etc - as possible. Like I said, I'll give you some examples as soon as I get the book back.
I understand your problem with untestable theories, but you have to be careful what you rule out. If we're going to be technical, there are a thousand-and-one possible explanations for why a ball falls to the ground when it's dropped. You can't test gravity as a theory exclusively, but merely give a name to our observations. My point is that there's a lot of unusual discoveries being made in quantum-physics that are going to need some radical explanations if we're ever going to work out what's going on and SOME of those explanations and theories have significant philosophical implications.
rexlunae:
That was a fair response to my argument. But it should be noted that I'm not saying these theories are true. I'm not saying I believe them. I believe they are possible and, when I have time, I look into them. I'm aware of how radical the claim that atoms or electrons experience a moment of consciousness is. I found it particularly stirring myself when I first heard it. Nonetheless, it is a claim that has been made and whether or not the majority of the scientific community accepts it is irrelevant to is truth-value. You are aware of how many people contradicted Galilieo when he promoted the copernican model of the solar system instead of the ptolemaic. Just because an idea isn't popular doesn't make it wrong. Everyone's theories deserve to be considered, but most people (aka the majority of scientists, as you said) prefer to believe what they've already established their worldview as. Everyone is biased. Einstein (and the majority of scientists at the time) didn't believe entanglement would be possible because it contracted his core belief that objects could not interact to that degree at long distances. But it was proved to be true. I'm not a scientist, but as I said in my previous post just a few minutes ago, theories have to start somewhere. As a Philosopher I am merely interested in the philosophical implications of some of the wilder theories of our time and I believe they deserve consideration.
The energy of the body is that coming from the soul. It is precisely my point that all actions of the body come from the soul. The soul does not "control" the body - it is the acting of the body. I think it also depends on your definition of "test" for whether the soul is untestable. I would argue it is clear from observation that a soul exists and that one needs to be posited in any living thing, but obviously my testing is a different standard from yours. I think the problem is mainly a wrong concept of what a soul is; a soul is not a little spirit that flies around in the air and gets caught in a body, driving it like a train. A soul is an immaterial entity that is the form or structure of any living body, causing it to have life.
Energy, in this sense, is likewise a material term; one cannot measure something that is inherently immaterial.
The burning of hell does not properly happen until the resurrection of the body. Thus, it doesn't come into the discussion at all.
Lastly, I see no evidence to postulate a "silver cord" at all. I have no idea what it would be or why it would need to exist. The soul has no parts because it is immaterial. It is like saying this idea of Jelly-Beans has a rope with which to strangle another idea - that of Kit-Kats. It just doesn't make sense at all.
Souls are postulated from the general notion of form. Forms are necessary in all things, just from the fact that the matter in them is ordered in a specific way. For example, consider what pure matter would be, without any structuring principle at all - it would be entirely formless and without any intelligibility. The form or structure of a thing is what we perceive in the matter when we see an actually existing physical thing in the world. A form of a living thing is a "soul."
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
This is my response to the original question.
You wanted to know the atheist view on it? The official atheist response for the existence of a soul would sound like this "hahaha...oh I'm sorry, wow that's a big no, no such thing, I'm busy go play nintendo."
I know I can't answer for every atheist. Technically atheism just counts out god, so an atheist could by a stretch of the imagination believe in having a soul. I for one don't.
A soul doesn't exist. It's a word people misuse in the place of other things. Personality, consciousness, a black ladie's singing voice, attitude, nitrogen gas, behavior, and plenty of other things.
I could argue that other creatures exhibit any of the things that get confused for the notion of a soul, but that would be silly. Then again lemurs have excellent singing voices.
What is consciousness? That can be answered easily without any sort of mysticism. Self awareness. Nothing mystic about that.
You doubt by using your brain. You doubt, therefore you think, therefore you are. Your brain ceases to work, you cease to doubt, you cease to think and cease to be.
The easiest way to become lost is by pretending you know where you are going. ~ Keno
In that case, let me give an equal non-explanation.
What is a coin? One word, money.
Using a concept that is often interchanged with another, does not mean that stating one concept explains anything about the former.
What is addition? One word, math.
If one does not know how to understand addition, what makes one think that he might understand math. Furthermore, if one does not have an explanation for addition besides 'math', I would state that one does not much of an understanding of either.
I'm not giving my own thoughts on the soul, or consciousness.. just pointing out that this answer should not, in my opinion, be considered adequate.
What are feelings? One word, emotion.
That's pretty much it. We are monoists, people who understand that no trait is outside of the physical workings of the brain. Since I started working in neurology, I posted this on a different thread a while back.
As it turns out, the brain spends a lot of it's time talking to itself. Not very much of it is wired to sensory processing. As I type this, billions of tiny electrochemical gradients in ion channels buried inside nueron fascicles are reversing, causing an influx of sodium, potassium and chloride to cross into the synaptic membrane. As a stimulus produces a negative electrical charge, it forces the ions through the channels and into a synaptic knob where billions of nuerotransmitters bind to tiny voltage gated ion channels admitting the ions through the dendrite into another nueron producing a reaction. In essence, every controlled function works like this. You probably know that brain size does not correlate with intelligence. You want to know what does? Syanptic connections. Every time a new peice of information is gleaned, an axon makes a new link with a dentride, forming a new synapse. This process is the result of billions of years of painstaking evolution.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
i don't think the sage is saying anything radical especially to physicalists. why shouldn't thoughts and consciousness be made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe?
StMichael,
Everyone knows you believe in the soul. The original question was whether there are any reasons that an atheist might have to believe that souls exist. Your opinion isn't relevant to this discussion. I'm not trying to be cruel, all I'm saying is that no-one will read your posts. Save yourself the time.
Thanks, 'hello.' Of course if thoughts can be thought of as "things" they are made up of the same things as the rest of the universe. The issue here is whether or not consciousness is immaterial, but transmitted by the material world. Your comment is the reason why I think it's possible that consciousness doesn't disappear at death.
And to everyone who keeps stating that it is clearly irrational to believe in the soul, I maintain that you are welcome to your opinion. However, I suggest that you look into newer scientific research a little and realise that 'soul' is simply a word; what it means is much more important. As I suggested earlier - simply a form in which consciousness exists even after the physical body dies, whether or not that form can continue to grow or learn isn't relevant (all examples given from the anti-soul side have either been about memory or about learning).
I suggest checking out http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html for more information on explanations of experience formerly believed to be "mystical" which could be explained by quantum physics.
I am not just asserting my own personal opinion that souls of human beings exist and are subsistent; rather, I think it obvious that this is the case and that any rational thinker ought to agree with the evidence. The evidence for the existence of a soul is clear from the fact that human beings are alive and have minds. This is what a soul is for a human being - the principle that orders the body as a living, thinking thing. To deny a soul is to deny that a human being is alive, thinking, or has any structure to his/her body. The subsistence of the soul is something else, however. There are three clear reasons why the rational soul must be subsistent (immortal):
First, because universals, like what it is to be a dog, are immaterial entities. One cannot show me a handful of the essence of dog-ness. An immaterial thing is only known in an immaterial agent - the mind.
Second, the mind can know all bodies. Any sense organ can only know material things under the particular material aspect to which it is disposed - a nose knows smells, an eye knows bodies as coloured, and so on. This is true in two ways: if the mind were matter, every matter is determinate in this way and can only take on a material form insofar as it is in this way determined. Hence, it could not take on all material bodies. Or, in the other way, if it were identical with an organ of sense, it could only sense certain bodies, like smellable ones. But this is manifestly false, and hence the soul is immaterial and exercises its action of thinking independent of the body - it is subsistent.
Third, the mind is manifestly not a sense organ. Every sense organ is impeded in sensing things that are more sensible. The mind's operation in knowing things is not at all impeded as things because more immaterial or knowable. In fact, the more intelligible things are, the more clearly we know them. Hence, the mind is immaterial, subsistent, and not identical with an organ of the body (read: the brain).
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
ATTENTION THEISTS: STOP POSTING IN THE FREETHINKING FORUM. YOU HAVE PLENTY OF PLACES TO POST. THIS IS FOR ATHEISTS ONLY. THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING.
what are the characteristics of a soul? where do you separate the soul from the brain? does a soul carry memory? how do you differentiate one soul with another soul? are all souls the same?
If you want to continue the discussion, please create a new thread, or you can private message me, as it seems we are upsetting the balance of things.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
I'm going to reignite this thread. Everyone seems to have abandoned it since St. Michael posted here...
After a lengthy conversation with Darth_Josh, I want to post a few things. Luckily for me, it's 9pm here where it's 6am there and he needed sleep!
I want to state that I don't believe in the soul in the conventional sense. This conversation has obviously changed to consciousnes etc which is what most theists consider to be a soul. I don't believe in ghosts or anything like that.
HOWEVER.
I do not deny the possibility that consciouness could possibly affect reality! I honestly suggest checking out the essay I posted in my earlier post. Since I realise that traveling to this website constitutes effort, something which I myself am not a fan of most of the time, I will post the entire article here.
This is where I draw my inspiration from in this topic. There is no mention of a soul but as I said to Darth_Josh, the philosophical implications of this theory are parallel to those of the existence of a soul: life after death, consciousness, the immateriality of thought, "matter" experiencing moments of conscious decision, planetary consciousness etc etc etc. If you take a moment to consider the implications, I'm sure you'll understand why I have been pushing the points that I have.
I also suggest checking out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holophonic_sound
The holophonic sound thing is really interesting, you can listen to a sample of it. I just listened to it and it is unbelievable. If you close your eyes it's almost like someone is actually shaking a box of matchsticks all around your head. Eerie...
Fine. NO-ONE reply!
I just have to let you know that I read your post but had no great input toward it. It's just that I don't know. I could speculate about conscienceness after death or energy that leaves the body but I honestly do not have any educated guess on the matter and the only reason I am replying now is in hope that someone will try to answer you more thoroughly.
Good luck, Sage.
Sage, Please have patience. That's a lot of material to read. lol.
I promise that within the week I will respond with my thoughts.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
@TheSage
I've just gotten around to reading your big post. I'm glad you posted it, it's really interesting, and it makes it a lot easier to see what you were talking about when you started this thread. It seems there isn't very much to the theory yet, but still food for thought. There are several very different hypothesies mentioned, and they are very tenuous.
My first impression is, of course, skeptical. I think the fact that brain damage can cause mental impairment indicates that we depend very heavily on the physical world for our consciousness. At the same time, it seems reasonable to suggest that our memory may employ holographic recording to store information.
As for the question of a holographic universe, that's a much harder question. It doesn't even necessarily bear on our existence. It seems likely to me that even if the universe is just a holographic reflection of a single thing, we may be part of the reflection. I could only guess about the possiblities that quantum entanglement brings, but the idea that the universe is only one thing reflected many times seems to be reaching to the extreme of reasonability. I would have to wonder, if there is only one thing in the universe, what causes the reflections?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Well I'm glad that a few people have at least read this and my efforts weren't for nothing lol.
Martha - Thanks for the input, even if you didn't feel up to making a structured response. I'm glad that people are at least reading it.
D.Josh - awesome.
Rexlunae - I'm extremely glad that this has made you consider some new options. I apologise for it taking me so long to even present something concise to you all. It's true that it seems there isn't a great deal to the theory from this essay, but it was written at least 15 years ago (Michael Talbot, the writer, died in 1992 at the young age of 39 due to leukemia ). And his last book, The Holographic Universe, has a great deal more to it. I hope to get it back from my friend today. I understand that you're skeptical, in fact that's pretty good considering the low level of evidence before you. All I wanted to prove was that it was worth considering. This is an avenue of thought I find greatly interesting because, if true, it means that things are nowhere near as separate as we tend to think and the implications of that are... well, under discussion, but many possibilities arise!!!Could you clarify the bold statement in relation to the previous sentence? I've a gut feeling that the bold may have been worded awkwardly, but just to be sure: you're not contending that consciousness might possibly be "immaterial," right?
Also, what are you considering "consciousness" to be in this context? What facet of mind is it that you're considering may continue after death?
Semantics often make a good argument weak. It annoys me. That's not directed at you, but merely a general statement. I guess I would say consciousness insofar as the sensation that we are aware of ourselves, as well as the personality that we associate with ourselves. That is what I would suggest has a possibility of continuing after death.
I am suggesting that consciouness itself is immaterial so much that it isn't made of matter. I know that seems a roundabout statement to make, but when you consider that matter is merely a form of energy and we're probably talking about energy or latent energy or who knows what.
But the side of experience that we associate with the brain - emotion, I guess; maybe memory - does not continue on. Basically, Freudian psychology doesn't apply to the soul, so you can't be traumatised in a post-death state. This part of my discussion is all speculation, though.
All I'm getting at is that if everything IS connected, and nothing can be permanently destroyed, why is it so far-fetched to believe that a (hypothetical) non-material aspect of consciousness survives while the brain dies. It's like a piece of computer code in the internet. The computer that came from may be long gone, but the information is still there because it is connected,or wired to the rest of the information in such a fashion as to be indivisible!
(The statement in bold was worded kinda awkwardly. I meant that some aspect of consciouness may be material, but that aspect takes form through the physical.)
That it is a question of physical information rather than physical matter. Do not confuse physicalism with naive materialism.
Define insubstantial. Is an email insubstantial?
Again, you are neglecting that information is also physical but neither 'returns to the earth' nor 'becomes one with the universe'. Information can be both created and destroyed. Think of information as physical arrangement of matter/energy in spacetime. That is what our minds and memories are. Actually, mind is also a process, a stable transformation of information over time.
Occam's Razor. There is no evidence that this is so, and so there's no reason to believe it. It may occur, but since you seem to be implying some magical supernatural afterlife, we have no way to know, since the supernatural cannot be detected by the physical.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
The only way information in our brains can survive beyond our bodily death is for the person to express their ideas on a medium or artifact that survives past death. Information is not a supernatural thing, it is purely physical, so it requires purely physical means to propagate itself in the physical universe.
Define experience and consciousness.
There is no evidence to support any of this.
It is. We are part of the planet, and we are conscious of the planet and of ourselves, making the planet (us) conscious of the planet (us + whatever else we know about the Earth).
Humanity is like the brain of the planet and each person is like a neuron in that brain. The planet's consciousness is composed of us.
Of course, the analogy breaks at some level, because humans are far more advanced than a single neuron. Our consciousness is capable of understanding itself, meta-awareness, which a single neuron is not capable of.
And in any case, we DO 'explain' things to our cells, but we use hormones and neural signals to do the talking. Human culture (family, school, church, TV, media, etc.) teaches individual humans about humanity and the world, so yes, the world does talk to us through cultural expression.
What if spirit/soul is just 'what you leave behind when you die', and that can include many many things such as writings, videos, memories in your friends and loved ones, what you've taught your kids and students, other people writing about you, the school play you performed in, the movie you starred in, a song you wrote, etc.
Carl Sagan is dead, but his spirit lives on in me and many others. Nothing supernatural required.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Would you consider the orbiting GPS satellites to be 'coordinated action'?
I agree, but I still think it's a useful analogy overall.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!