A definition for 'Soul'
 

*WARNING* Seriousness ahead...


In one of my daily random brainstorms, I started to contemplate on the definition of 'soul', and wether it is merely a feeble attempt to explain what we describe as consciousness.

I have a good deal of random thoughts on the subject, and pretty much an opinion I'm going to stick to for the time being. But as I bet you're pretty much aware of, I'm best at reacting (*cough* criticizing) rather than initiating, so I'm going to let the matter boil in my head for a while, and check back later and post my findings. So I'd welcome anyone to have a jab at the subject...

This is ment as a serious thread, which absolutely is in the minority in the offtopic forum, so don't go monkey business mmmk?

Soul is the singular unlinked consciousness of an individual. It is your individuality that defines you as different from others. It is the part of you that leaves a mark on others, and on objects and, mostly, your art. It describes you as you, and it defines you.

...well as far as I have experienced, and in my humble opinion.

The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

Well. I'm glad to see you have taken an interest in philosophy.

You are touching upon what most philosophers would call metaphysical philosophy, or Dualism.

Dualism is the idea we have a mind or soul as well as a body, as opposed to Materialists who believe there is no soul and just a body.

'Dualists' think of the mind/soul as a substance that has no space (can you imagine that?) and has no material (so is made of nothing - it has no weight, it can't be measured).

These Dualists believe there is some kind of connection between the soul and the body. The soul is who we are. It is our emotions and our thoughts, our individual. The soul communicates with the body somehow (although admittedly Dualists can't explain how - an immaterial substance interacting with a physical spatial body? That doesn't make sense surely!) and controls our physical actions. For example, when you decide to punch a wall, it is you soul connecting with the body, telling it to move and punch. Also this works in reverse. After punching the wall, your body tells the soul you are in pain, and so you experience pain in your soul.

Some Dualists who reject the claim that the soul is non-spatial believe it is situated in the brain/or in the body. But this still doesn't explain how there is a connection.


What I like is the idea that it is possible that your soul could be anywhere (assuming it occupies space). My soul could be on a star in Alpha Centauri for all I know, then again it might even be in your house. There are many many many problems with Dualism, which I shan't discuss for fear of making you fall asleep, possibly damaging both your face and the keyboard.

I should just like to suggest one of the problems, which is known as the 'Other Minds' problem. This argues that there is nothing to stop the suggestion that we could have more than one soul. In fact we could have several hundred, all performing different acts. One for conciousness, one for pain, on for happiness etc...

Who knows eh?
:wink:

The immortal element of who we are and that which sets us apart and above the animals. That essence of who we are which will receive judgement in the afterlife.

I suppose I'm a Materialists then...

At the moment there isn't a lot of detailed information regarding the brain and the soul, we can however look at some of the facts presented to us.

The brain pretty much controls every bodily function. It's also reasonable to assume the brain is in control of a person's character as well, seeing as by releasing chemicals into the brain (by use of for example pills), you can change someone's behaviour. So as it stands, the brain controls everything, one can then wonder what the function of the soul is.

So you believe animals do not have a soul? Wouldn't that pose a problem for christian whom believe in the Evolution Theory? I would assume evolution didn't just decide at one point to start developing a soul for mankind, it was either already present in animals, or it wasn't there to begin with.

[quote="Travis Dane"]This is where the disparity between is becomes problematic Travis. The Bible clearly states that man was set apart and above the animals and was given that unique spark (aka the soul). Evolution is not problematic for those who believe that it's simply a label that's been applied to describe one of God's systems or processes. You also make the assumption that a Christian that believes Evolution exists also agrees with you that mankind sprang from the beads of sweat running off a volcano's butt. There are levels of agreement...and it would not be 100% in this case.

If you don't believe in a soul Travis you'd better get busy...you only have this life and you're wasting it bickering on Internet Message Boards...

Get busy doing what? I've always considered religion, and to some extend the 'soul', to serve as reasons why we should lead a successful live. If we hadn't had those reasons in the middle-ages, we'd been seeing mass suicidal behaviour. Sort of something to pull yourself through life you could say. Seeing as I won't be 'going' anywhere after this life, It doesn't really matter what I do.

The question what exactly the function of a soul is, still stands though. Assuming we'd judged by god, he would be far better off just taking a copy of our brain, and examening it for characteristics and memory.

He who said "Religion is the Opiate of the masses" really did not understand the distinctions between Religion, Faith and Belief.

AFAIK, the soul is not going to show up on an MRI, PET, CT Scan or anything else medical. Those who take nothing on Faith will not believe in a Soul. That seems a no-brainer to me. Those who possess Faith are likely going to believe in it. That seems a clear divide to me.

Personally, I think that to not openly and honestly examine the tenets of the World's Faiths is to do yourself a disservice. ESPECIALLY if you are capable of critical thought. Blind adherance to anything (Religion or Atheism) is very short-sighted. There are so many people in this world who believe and so many similarities among them that you really have to wonder. In examining Christianity it rings true to me. Can I quantify it for you? Probably not as there is that Faith element that will not have value to you and leave you viewing an unbalanced equation. I think the soul would also fit into that area for you. Am I right?

Atheism is about refusing to accept matters where insuffecient evidence is there to support it, thus blind adherance to Atheism seems like an oxymoron. You can't blindy follow something and call yourself an Atheist at the same time.

Anyway, religion has a tendency to kill of a discussion mainly because of lack of evidence, as you end up with just yes and no. So lets just take it a step at a time, do you think the Soul has any other purpose than being an ticket to heaven? I think a lot of people use Soul as a synonym for Consciousness, does that however include christians? Does Soul stand for Consciousness among other things in christianity? Because that would give us something we could seriously discuss.

I think the soul is you, and it is your consciousness. I have no idea what christianity believes, my own opinion of organized religion would be too counter-productive in this thread. I think you do retain consciousness after death... More later, I am too tired and scatter brained at the moment to really knuckle down.

I know that some believe that the soul is that permanent essence of who you are. In the case of those who believe in reincarnation it carries that unique flavor of who you are forward to your next life. The soul would not interact at a conscious level but at the unconscious I suppose.

I suppose the Trill would be a good analogy of that relationship.

Not to argue Travis but I think your view of Atheism is broader than it actually is. Atheism is merely a refusal to accept or a lack of belief in God or gods. And it can be as blindly followed as any Religion. Atheism has nothing to do really with evidence and can be based on whatever criteria the holder of the belief wants....including no evidence at all.

that would be Skepticism

Well fair enough, there are different types of Athiesm, and I happen to subscribe to the one I posted, which is however I believe the most common one.

Now, my problem with consciousness is the fact that we will be able to reproduce it. Well not nescesarily reproduce, but rather emulate, by means of A.I. Although a bit of science fiction at this point, a lot of us may eventually witness it. Now if we will be able emulate it, how can we determin wether or not consciousness is actually present? We know it's just a machine, but then again, so are we? The point I'm trying to make is, what we regard as consciousness, is just our incredibly complex and advanced brains at work, in combination with our senses (sight, sound etc).

AI, at it's best, will lack that divine spark and simply be an incredibly talented machine. The difference being the soul. A unique quality of humanity.

Honestly, likening humanity to AI in a real comparison is to devalue humanity. How much farther need you go until humanity is as disposable as machines? I am certain it was logic like this that the Vogon employed in their Environmental Impact Statement that was filed for the Galactic Bypass.

Yes, but what does this soul contribute? We can pretty much assume almost everything we do is driven by the brain, which in many ways is just a computer, albeit a complex one.

The process of replacing humans where possibly has already set in to be fair. Mass-production is pretty much the domain of computerised machines. Slowly but certainly tasks involving brawn will be taken over by AI, and it gives the lower-educated a serious problem to think about.

However, it's not like the 'terminator' scenarios are just around the corner, it would require rethinking about computer design, as I'm not sure wether current computers will ever get powerful enough to emulate the human brain using cold hard logic. Mind you though, I'm not saying it isn't possible, everything's possible, it's just really hard emulating something analog using something digital.

Being an atheist requires just as much, if not more, blind faith than being religious. Not only do you have to completely believe that nothing exists, but you also have to deal with the repercussions of that fact.

I think agonosticism is the way to go, there is simply no evidence either for religion or for atheism.

Sounds like this is where the conversation moves into the philosophical realm. It may very well be a situation where the sum of the parts is greater that the individual pieces. As the soul is something that must be taken on faith there is little that is known directly about it. I suspect that the soul may also be that level on which the Holy Spirit communicates directly. For those not of the Christian Faith it would be that individual piece of the collective consciousness that we each own and share in. But this is not something you're going to find in a book or on a gas chromatoscope.
But making them equivalent is the danger. There's a difference between more sophisticated tools making production and work easier versus saying that humans are equal to the tool. Saying the "shovel" is just as important as the person wielding it.

Cloning is the real Frontier IMO where this whole creator/creation Soul/No Soul will get played out...not AI. YMMV

Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and, uh, what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: people are not wearing enough hats. Two: matter is energy. In the universe, there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio, as orthodox Christianity teaches. It has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved, owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.

Re: A definition for 'Soul'
 

I agree! :D