Scientific Test of the Soul

[Cheerful Charlie]

I think the idea that souls are the "seat of intellect" has gone out of favor as more and more is learned about the brain. The prevailing idea is now that it represents the consciousness of the being; it is that entity which uses the intellectual power of its brain to solve the white and red light problem. Proponents of this view would argue that there is such an entity when a human is taking the test, but with the chicken there is nothing "inside", just a network of conditioned responses predicated on anticipation of reward. The test as designed is not equipped to demonstrate the existence of that variable, however.

Again, if Descartes is right, the chicken has no soul. But it has enough intellect to get its kernel of corn. It performs not much different from the human. No soul needed for the human.

Feser. the souls does little until after death and God's activation of our soul.

Lots of people take the soul very seriously and people like Feser pour caustic scorn on us poor materialists with our scientism and utter ignorance of the teachings of Aquinas and Aristotle. Tons of fundies believe on souls despite the fact the Bible has little to say about souls and their nature.

Does the soul of our activated soul of chicken laugh at us? Feser's approach is different, it cuts the Gordian knot and allows him to say whatever he wants about the soul, ignoring the materialists all together. Of course it's pure speculation, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Such as my pondering about the nature of a chicken's activated soul. A chicken soul with super intellect and super senses? I get to speculate too! One empty assertion is as good as any other. Why would God deny a chicken it's right to a super soul, activated to the maximum possible state? And no, I am NOT being facetious. It's a serious series of questions.

 

[Random Person]

Maybe chickens have souls too.

Yes, that is a response. Its just that chicken souls don't go to heaven, you see little atheist? Uhm, no. In Aristotle's view of souls, soul is more akin to mind, a sort of black box about which Aristotle makes "observations". The soul has intellectual, appetitive abilities et al. And there are human souls, animal souls, vegatative souls, as some theists drawing on this back round have in fact opined animals have souls, ignoring the fact that Aristotle's view of souls was a world apart from the Christian view. Of course some, notably Rene Descartes denied animals have souls. As a notorious example, Descartes declared cats have no souls and hence aren't truly conscious.

So my chicken test would arguably strictly apply only to those who follow Descartes dictum.

So we must ask, if Descartes is wrong, and chickens do have consciousness and souls, why don't they get to go to heaven? Why is God so mean to chickens? Or maybe they do, and the fact the Bible doesn't openly state that doesn't mean they don't.

Isn't theology fun?

If there is no fried chicken in heaven then why bother?

 

[bilby]

The theory is that animals do not have souls, as per Rene Descartes. Souls supposedly are the seat of our intellects. This simple test seems to indicate this particular set of theories about souls is nonsense. Its probable a chicken would learn to peck a red button when the rd light comes on, a white button when the white light comes on. If intellect is part of our soul, a chicken, having no soul in theory should not be able to do this.

Why would God decide not to give souls to animals?

So we can eat them without crushing guilt.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The theory is that animals do not have souls, as per Rene Descartes. Souls supposedly are the seat of our intellects. This simple test seems to indicate this particular set of theories about souls is nonsense. Its probable a chicken would learn to peck a red button when the rd light comes on, a white button when the white light comes on. If intellect is part of our soul, a chicken, having no soul in theory should not be able to do this.

Why would God decide not to give souls to animals?

So we can eat them without crushing guilt.

It's wrong to eat animals. We do it only because we are corrupted by original sin.

 

[bilby]

So we can eat them without crushing guilt.

It's wrong to eat animals. We do it only because we are corrupted by original sin.

Not at all. It's wrong to kill (and eat) anything with a soul; but we have no problem in declaring that those we wish to kill are soulless. Hell, we even do it for sections of humanity that we feel the need to exterminate.

That's what souls are really for - they identify who we are not allowed to kill without feeling bad about having done it.

Killing and then not eating is just a waste.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I can't see how anyone who has seen a family member in the final stages of Alzheimers can believe in this soul business. The last time I saw my great-aunt Pearle, in 1995, she was completely gone -- babbling an astounding non-stop torrent of syllables, word fragments, bits of sentences from seemingly every day she ever lived -- all in an incomprehensible, chopped-up mess. She was gone. She was, legally speaking, a person named Pearle. Every other identifying aspect of her mental presence and personality was obliterated. To believe in the soul, I guess you'd have to invent a scenario where God restores the old brain function -- and of course, at that point, you're adding your own brand-new Bible teaching so that the story holds together. Not that the believers don't do that in other cases where their favorite story book runs into the wall of reality.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It's wrong to eat animals. We do it only because we are corrupted by original sin.

Not at all. It's wrong to kill (and eat) anything with a soul; but we have no problem in declaring that those we wish to kill are soulless. Hell, we even do it for sections of humanity that we feel the need to exterminate.

That's what souls are really for - they identify who we are not allowed to kill without feeling bad about having done it.

Killing and then not eating is just a waste.

Of course, we are only allowed to eat "clean" animals, not the "unclean".

And of course, God likes the smell of bar-b-queing cattle. So I guess on second thought, it's OK. And no cheeseburgers! And if killing a chicken results in a chicken ascending to a highly intelligent activated soul, it's almost a blessing to kill chickens.

 

[bilby]

Not at all. It's wrong to kill (and eat) anything with a soul; but we have no problem in declaring that those we wish to kill are soulless. Hell, we even do it for sections of humanity that we feel the need to exterminate.

That's what souls are really for - they identify who we are not allowed to kill without feeling bad about having done it.

Killing and then not eating is just a waste.

Of course, we are only allowed to eat "clean" animals, not the "unclean".

And of course, God likes the smell of bar-b-queing cattle. So I guess on second thought, it's OK. And no cheeseburgers! And if killing a chicken results in a chicken ascending to a highly intelligent activated soul, it's almost a blessing to kill chickens.

That's the great thing about theology; you can use it to demonstrate that anything you want to do is not just acceptable, but actually demanded by God - and of course that anything other people want to do is an abomination that will result in their being damned for eternity.

The gods always seem to agree completely with the opinions of the priests. That's a remarkable coincidence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

One hilarious/sad thing about Christianity is that it's pretty obvious that whoever invented Christian theology was familiar with Greek philosophy. Which means that they knew it was all bullshit right from the get go. Didn't stop them.

The Greeks has similar notions about the soul. They thought emotions and thoughts resided in the stomach. But they also knew that brain damage only occurred when the head was damaged. So even long after they knew knew it for a fact it was nonsense they still taught it. I'm guessing something like this was going on when Christian theology was first formulated.

I don't think the creators of Christianity actually believed all the nonsense they penned. I think they knew it was metaphor. John Cleese has a great quote on this. It was something along the lines of that any religion has smart followers and stupid followers. The idiot religious people take it literally and the smart ones see it as a metaphor. He guessed that was just as true 33 AD as it is today.

I don't think the people who invented Christianity (or Judaism) really believed in an actual soul. I think they understood it was poetic metaphor. I don't think they had a modern understanding of neurology (obviously). I suspect it was more like them marveling at the mystery. Intelligent people have never had problems with admitting when they don't know stuff.

 

[iolo]

Souls, like gods, are part of antiquated thinking, which made sense once but have nothing to do with the modern world or modern beliefs and have to be 'translated' to make any sense. Pretending to live in the distant past is silly.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Souls, like gods, are part of antiquated thinking, which made sense once but have nothing to do with the modern world or modern beliefs and have to be 'translated' to make any sense. Pretending to live in the distant past is silly.

Soul is one theory that allows the idea that we survive death and live forever.

The other idea from Christianity with roots in the NT is that after the second coming, we will see a new world arise where are bodies will not age and die. Augustine's "City of God" has an entire book dedicated to explaining how that works. He halso has a chapter dedicated to explaining how a physical body sent to hell can burn forever. He must have been fun at parties.

The concept of a soul is absent from the early OT was was a rather late addition. But a lot of people like it because its an idea that seems more in line with the ideas of Aristotle, his World Soul. It seems less silly than Augustine's New World Order to come. Which itself had its root in the post-Babylon prophets.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Souls, like gods, are part of antiquated thinking, which made sense once but have nothing to do with the modern world or modern beliefs and have to be 'translated' to make any sense. Pretending to live in the distant past is silly.

I feel I have a soul, ie a sense of self. Don't you?

I don't actually believe I have one, but the phrase is instantly relatable for everybody. Don't you think?

 

[iolo]

Souls, like gods, are part of antiquated thinking, which made sense once but have nothing to do with the modern world or modern beliefs and have to be 'translated' to make any sense. Pretending to live in the distant past is silly.

I feel I have a soul, ie a sense of self. Don't you?

I don't actually believe I have one, but the phrase is instantly relatable for everybody. Don't you think?

No, I don't. The self is a fantasy created by grammar. Because we say 'I' we think it means something. 'Man is a bundle of sensations'.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I feel I have a soul, ie a sense of self. Don't you?

I don't actually believe I have one, but the phrase is instantly relatable for everybody. Don't you think?

No, I don't. The self is a fantasy created by grammar. Because we say 'I' we think it means something. 'Man is a bundle of sensations'.

Now you're conflating the metaphor with the real. The idea "unicorn" can exist and be meaningful even if unicorns don't exist. That's how the soul works.

Let's test this. Look at my picture of a badger:



Isn't the badger pretty?

 

[iolo]

Like any other fantasy, doubtless.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Like any other fantasy, doubtless.

If you identified that as a unicorn then the word is meaningful. That's all we ask from words. They also don't have to be precise. They just have to convey enough meaning to set it apart from any random noise. If we're talking about an abstract chair, they can take all manner of physical manifestations. Both you and I will most likely have a concrete image of a chair in our heads when we're discussing. These chairs can be quite different. But we can still have a meaningful conversation. This is how the soul works. But don't try to sit on it. You will fall and hurt your butt.

 

[iolo]

Like any other fantasy, doubtless.

If you identified that as a unicorn then the word is meaningful. That's all we ask from words. They also don't have to be precise. They just have to convey enough meaning to set it apart from any random noise. If we're talking about an abstract chair, they can take all manner of physical manifestations. Both you and I will most likely have a concrete image of a chair in our heads when we're discussing. These chairs can be quite different. But we can still have a meaningful conversation. This is how the soul works. But don't try to sit on it. You will fall and hurt your butt.

If words merely denote fantasies, I fail to see what use they are. 'Chair' denotes something we can experience; 'self' doesn't - it is just a less likely unicorn.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you identified that as a unicorn then the word is meaningful. That's all we ask from words. They also don't have to be precise. They just have to convey enough meaning to set it apart from any random noise. If we're talking about an abstract chair, they can take all manner of physical manifestations. Both you and I will most likely have a concrete image of a chair in our heads when we're discussing. These chairs can be quite different. But we can still have a meaningful conversation. This is how the soul works. But don't try to sit on it. You will fall and hurt your butt.

If words merely denote fantasies, I fail to see what use they are. 'Chair' denotes something we can experience; 'self' doesn't - it is just a less likely unicorn.

A concrete chair perhaps. But not an abstract chair. When sitting on, an abstract chair, will give you just as much support as a unicorn. Unless you sit on the horn. Which is pointy and will not be a pretty sight.

Words don't have to be useful. Nor does life. You're not a robot. If you've ever done anything in life that isn't perfectly efficient you'll have your answer to what the point is in imagining unicorns. They're pink, fluffy, friendly and pokey. What's not to like about imagining a creature like that? Feel the unicorn love!

And not to point out the obvious, but the progress of science, is entirely dependent on us having the ability to imagine things that don't yet have a name. It's called imagination. It's healthy to use it. I am now imagining you learning something from this thread. That fantasy fills me with joy. Even though I'm aware that I'm probably wasting my time. But before reality sets in, I'm going to savor this glorious fantasy. Mmmmm cozy fantasy.

edit: Oh... and last night I imagined quite the foxy lady. I would never in a million years actually get to score with a chick like that. But I used the fuck out of that fantasy.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think the idea that souls are the "seat of intellect" has gone out of favor as more and more is learned about the brain. The prevailing idea is now that it represents the consciousness of the being; it is that entity which uses the intellectual power of its brain to solve the white and red light problem. Proponents of this view would argue that there is such an entity when a human is taking the test, but with the chicken there is nothing "inside", just a network of conditioned responses predicated on anticipation of reward. The test as designed is not equipped to demonstrate the existence of that variable, however.

The problem for this back-peddling view is that there is now clear evidence that not just the problem solving intellect but every aspect of the "mind" from emotions and personality traits to sense of personal identity and conscious experience is a neurological by-product. People with specific brain lesions can actually be instructed to engage in highly specific physical interactions with objects in front of them that they perform perfectly (likely inserting envelopes into a slot randomly rotating on a 360 degree axis) despite not having any conscious experience of seeing the slot. IOW, consciousness is not needed to control actions but is more of a by-product experiencing our brain execute processes. The importance of conscious processing for most of what people think, feel, and do is highly over-rated. It is more of an observer than a director of the brains operations.

 

[Juma]

Souls, like gods, are part of antiquated thinking, which made sense once but have nothing to do with the modern world or modern beliefs and have to be 'translated' to make any sense. Pretending to live in the distant past is silly.

I feel I have a soul, ie a sense of self. Don't you?

I don't actually believe I have one, but the phrase is instantly relatable for everybody.

So what? Nobody says that the concept doesnt exist. It just doesnt refer to real fenomena.