Hey "Soul" Sister!

[Saint_of_Me]

I just had an interesting discussion with another member here on the "Soul." But it evolved into going way off-topic on a thread of a toally differing subject, so we had to close it up.

But it got me wondering: How many of you believe in it?

That is to say: some sort of "life spark" or "divine animation" or "undefined energy source" that drives us and cannot be reduced to being of purely neurological and biological properties?

Thanks for your interest!

I think this thread could get very lively! LOL.

 

[Brian63]

We have personalities that are unique to us, but nothing supernatural or divine about that.

Even other animals have different and unique traits to themselves, but we (generally) do not think animals have souls that go to heaven or hell or somewhere in-between when they die.

So no, not really any soul. That is more of a useful falsehood promoted by religions (not that they are lying...they may very well believe it all true as well).

Brian

 

[Shadowy Man]

I do believe that we have something that is emergent. That cannot be described or understood by the raw materials of which we consist. And there is much to be gained by exploring our inner selves. However, I do not believe that this exists externally to or independently of the raw materials and thus did not exist before we existed and will not exist after we cease to exist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How does this soul interact with the physical brain? For instance, if you get brain damaged and lose your short term memory, is the soul remembering what happens even though the brain doesn't? If so, what was the point of designing humans to access memories via the brain as opposed to via the soul? If not, what is it that this soul does which makes it distinct from the physical brain?

 

[Saint_of_Me]

I do believe that we have something that is emergent. That cannot be described or understood by the raw materials of which we consist. And there is much to be gained by exploring our inner selves. However, I do not believe that this exists externally to or independently of the raw materials and thus did not exist before we existed and will not exist after we cease to exist.

I pretty much agree with this version. Though I believe there more be some sort of "spiritual" afterlife which is the result of that type of undefinable energy or "spark" the Soul provides. I think this may be a sort of merging with an Impersonal Creative Intelligence. I hesitate to call it God..as I think it to be non-caring; to be Deistic rather than Theistic; and definitely nothing at all biblical or Abrahamic.

Hmm..maybe something like this?

http://www.lance-rennka.com/article/5662-body-brain-–-soul-mind-–-universal-intelligence-god

 

[Saint_of_Me]

We have personalities that are unique to us, but nothing supernatural or divine about that.

Even other animals have different and unique traits to themselves, but we (generally) do not think animals have souls that go to heaven or hell or somewhere in-between when they die.

So no, not really any soul. That is more of a useful falsehood promoted by religions (not that they are lying...they may very well believe it all true as well).

Brian

Hmm...comparing our personalities and our psyche with animals is too limited.

After all: they don't have self-awareness. Thus are not sentient beings. At least not in the classical sense. They also have a far more limited emotional scope, and may not even have emotions at all. But rather, at the most, like with dogs, have a survival instinct that persuades them to act friendly and to maintain a symbiotic relationship with their providers.

But: Guile? Jealousy? Hate? Love? Malice aforethought? Shame? Regret? Pride?

No. Not with animals. Therefore it is, I believe, far far easier to explain their "personalities" via merely neurological mechanisms than it is with ours.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. Therefore it is, I believe, far far easier to explain their "personalities" via merely neurological mechanisms.

Not so easy with us, though!

So, argument from complexity? We just have too much of an emotional range to not have souls?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Hmm...comparing our personalities and our psyche with animals is too limited.

After all: they don't have self-awareness. Thus are not sentient beings. At least not in the classical sense.

I don't know what you mean by "classical sense", but assuredly many animals have self-awareness. Having spent the last two decades living with cats, I can safely say that these animals are sentient. They may not have the same "brainpower" that I have, but they are not 'machines' running solely on instinct.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

No. Therefore it is, I believe, far far easier to explain their "personalities" via merely neurological mechanisms.

Not so easy with us, though!

So, argument from complexity? We just have too much of an emotional range to not have souls?

Yeah..something like that. I just cannot picture, say, looking at a live human brain, as in during brain surgery, with the top half of the patient's skull sawed off--looking at the gelatinous three-pound organ, powered by scant millivolts of elecrolytes and neurotransmitters, and believe that in there is all that comprises, say, my old friend Joe. Or that favorite Uncle. All of their loves and hates and fears and opinions. (three things that AI we discussed on another thread will never have). There just has to be more to it. Ya know? I am familiar with the architecture of the brain. The "seat" of the emotions: the limbic center, the Amygdala. But the wiring in those, via the neurotransmitters and their axions and dendrite circuits, still do not seem sufficient to create a fully sentient and emotionally complete human being.

That is, there just seems to be some sort of "spark" missing. And that elusive nuance is what I choose to call the Soul.

I may be naive, but......

 

[Shadowy Man]

Argument from incredulity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All of their loves and hates and fears and opinions. (three things that AI we discussed on another thread will never have). There just has to be more to it. Ya know?

Know, I don't.

I've been to too many bars in the vicinity of refit sites.

Guys put stimulants or depressives in the body and change their chemistry and the brain functions change. If there's a soul, something above and beyond the biochemical construct, it seems odd for that function to be subject to getting drunk enough to cry over an ex-girlfriend who, when sober, is referred to as the psychopathic cunt.

We get tired, our emotions suffer. We get low on sleep or food, our emotions suffer. Horny, drunk, high... And after significant brain damage, our whole personality changes.
Physical changes lead to measurable effects, which seems to indicate a physical process.
Or at least, I haven't seen anything that can't be explained by physical interactions between the brain parts.

I am familiar with the architecture of the brain. The "seat" of the emotions: the limbic center, the Amygdala. But the wiring in those, via the neurotransmitters and their axions and dendrite circuits, still do not seem sufficient to create a fully sentient and emotionally complete human being.

So how do you measure this? We see wide ranges of brain complexity in Earth animals, and wide ranges of emotional capacity. What tells you there's a cutoff? Where is the physical limit that has been reached by the human brain that requires an additional, nonphysical object to explain humanity?

I've been trained in computer operations and capacity since the C3 Fire Control system. Boxes bigger than my wallet that had only a few logic gates, now there are single boxes the size of my watch that are smarter than the entire old systems.
We keep getting smaller and smaller and more and more complicated. I don't see anything offering an objection to our wetware being sophisticated enough to support anything I've seen humans do.

Especially drunk humans.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Argument from incredulity.

Nope. Mine is an Argument from not being able to fathom the notion that the capabilities and nuances of a particular entity (the mind) are all caused by the seemingly very limited material aspects and composition of it.

I like that better.

"Incredulity" wold be more what I would experience, if, say, I saw a chimpanzee hop on a chair and fire up a computer and log-on and respond to my posts.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Know, I don't.

I've been to too many bars in the vicinity of refit sites.

Guys put stimulants or depressives in the body and change their chemistry and the brain functions change. If there's a soul, something above and beyond the biochemical construct, it seems odd for that function to be subject to getting drunk enough to cry over an ex-girlfriend who, when sober, is referred to as the psychopathic cunt.

We get tired, our emotions suffer. We get low on sleep or food, our emotions suffer. Horny, drunk, high... And after significant brain damage, our whole personality changes.
Physical changes lead to measurable effects, which seems to indicate a physical process.
Or at least, I haven't seen anything that can't be explained by physical interactions between the brain parts.

I am familiar with the architecture of the brain. The "seat" of the emotions: the limbic center, the Amygdala. But the wiring in those, via the neurotransmitters and their axions and dendrite circuits, still do not seem sufficient to create a fully sentient and emotionally complete human being.

So how do you measure this? We see wide ranges of brain complexity in Earth animals, and wide ranges of emotional capacity. What tells you there's a cutoff? Where is the physical limit that has been reached by the human brain that requires an additional, nonphysical object to explain humanity?

I've been trained in computer operations and capacity since the C3 Fire Control system. Boxes bigger than my wallet that had only a few logic gates, now there are single boxes the size of my watch that are smarter than the entire old systems.
We keep getting smaller and smaller and more and more complicated. I don't see anything offering an objection to our wetware being sophisticated enough to support anything I've seen humans do.

Especially drunk humans.

Hmm...I didn't realize you had met my ex-wife!

But seriously.....I don't think that the fact that the organic and physical organ that houses part of the soul can be altered with chemicals in any way diminishes the possibility of one.

I never claimed the soul was "all powerful" or "omniscient" or immune to damage. Or infallible or unflawed, for that matter.

Only that I feel there is an intangible spark or "anima" in there somewhere.

Sounds to me like if you had experienced less exposure to chemically damaged homo sapiens in the past that you might be a tad more open-minded to the notion of a Soul/

Or am I way off-base here?

Drew.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Argument from incredulity.

Nope. Mine is an Argument from not being able to fathom the notion that the capabilities and nuances of a particular entity (the mind) are all caused by the seemingly very limited material aspects and composition of it.

That's pretty much a textbook example of 'argument from incredulity.' The 'notion' makes no sense to you so you reject it in favor of one that does.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think that the fact that the organic and physical organ that houses part of the soul can be altered with chemicals in any way diminishes the possibility of one.

Well, it certainly doesn't make one necessary to explain drunk dialing.

I never claimed the soul was "all powerful" or "omniscient" or immune to damage. Or infallible or flawed, for that matter.

Never said you did.
Just that our personalities, all the stuff you say 'there must be more to,' all that stuff changes in proportion to changes to the chemistry and physical integrity of the brain.

To me that speaks volumes.

Sounds to me like if you had experienced less exposure to chemically damaged homo sapiens in the past that you might be a tad more open-minded to the notion of a Soul.

Or am I way off-base here?

Well ,since I believe in ghosts and reincarnation, i'd say you're way off base. I not only am open to, my beliefs pretty much require one.
I just want to find EVIDENCE of one.
I'm not open to calling it 'evidence' that you just can't believe we don't have one.

 

[skepticalbip]

Argument from incredulity.

Nope. Mine is an Argument from not being able to fathom the notion that the capabilities and nuances of a particular entity (the mind) are all caused by the seemingly very limited material aspects and composition of it.

I like that better.

"Incredulity" wold be more what I would experience, if, say, I saw a chimpanzee hop on a chair and fire up a computer and log-on and respond to my posts.

Wouldn't the soul being something separate from the brain make it difficult to explain how injury or removal of some of the brain would erase memory and change personality?

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Nope. Mine is an Argument from not being able to fathom the notion that the capabilities and nuances of a particular entity (the mind) are all caused by the seemingly very limited material aspects and composition of it.

That's pretty much a textbook example of 'argument from incredulity.' The 'notion' makes no sense to you so you reject it in favor of one that does.

So be it.

But then: is that not the original state of mind that spurs men to search for the real truths? Like scientists?

One example would be Mickelson-Morley. They were "incredulous" of the Ether. So they proved it did not exist.

Or Copernicus, who was incredulous of the idea the Sun orbited the Earth. He believed it was the other way around.

So he proved it. That Earth orbit existed.

Like we proved germs exist.

Jenner proved vaccines

Or radiation.

Or proving the idea of your beloved IC chip. A person from 1950 would be incredulous that a chip of silicon the size of your fingernail could hold works in the entire Library of Congress.

With no incredulity would we not be stuck in our present state of knowledge? With no reason to learn?

 

[Brian63]

Hmm...comparing our personalities and our psyche with animals is too limited.

After all: they don't have self-awareness. Thus are not sentient beings. At least not in the classical sense.

I don't know what you mean by "classical sense", but assuredly many animals have self-awareness. Having spent the last two decades living with cats, I can safely say that these animals are sentient. They may not have the same "brainpower" that I have, but they are not 'machines' running solely on instinct.

Yeah, as a kid I remember how fascinating it was that our 2 pet dogs had such vastly distinct and different personalities from each other, and how much they even disliked each other personally, just like humans can and often do. Animals have individuality and are sentient and cognitive too, it is not just humans that are. With animals having distinctive personas, but also not having souls, then it is unnecessary to invoke souls or anything else magical or supernatural to explain human personas either. It is probably erroneous, even.

<Speaking as someone very glad to have lived after Darwin discovered natural selection, as well. So much more of life would have been more confusing before his breakthroughs.>

Brian

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Nope. Mine is an Argument from not being able to fathom the notion that the capabilities and nuances of a particular entity (the mind) are all caused by the seemingly very limited material aspects and composition of it.

I like that better.

"Incredulity" wold be more what I would experience, if, say, I saw a chimpanzee hop on a chair and fire up a computer and log-on and respond to my posts.

View attachment 2902

Wouldn't the soul being something separate from the brain make it difficult to explain how injury or removal of some of the brain would erase memory and change personality?

OK..I am going to make a bet here.

As a psych major...I am of course familiar with the story of Phineas Gage. You learn it in 101 class.

So I am gonna bet that is your link..which I swear on my brand new TAMA drum set (LOL) I have not opened yet, is about Gage and how he completely changed after that steel tamping rod was blasted through his skull.

Let me see now.......

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Well, it certainly doesn't make one necessary to explain drunk dialing.

I never claimed the soul was "all powerful" or "omniscient" or immune to damage. Or infallible or flawed, for that matter.

Never said you did.
Just that our personalities, all the stuff you say 'there must be more to,' all that stuff changes in proportion to changes to the chemistry and physical integrity of the brain.

To me that speaks volumes.

Sounds to me like if you had experienced less exposure to chemically damaged homo sapiens in the past that you might be a tad more open-minded to the notion of a Soul.

Or am I way off-base here?

Well ,since I believe in ghosts and reincarnation, i'd say you're way off base. I not only am open to, my beliefs pretty much require one.
I just want to find EVIDENCE of one.
I'm not open to calling it 'evidence' that you just can't believe we don't have one.

Oh...I feel ya, bro.

I myself usually need evidence. Like with God. Before believing.

And I am light years from claiming to have any for the existence of the Soul.

It is just an idea of mine.

And you will recall the nature of my OP?


p.s. you really believe in reincarnation?

I find that interesting.

I used to. But then ran into some logic problems.

Perhaps fodder for another thread?