Is there any reason to believe that such a thing as a soul exists?
By which i mean a fundamental part of who we are which survives after death. It seems to me that anything which we attribute to the soul is more properly attributed to the brain which of course does NOT survive beyond death.
None. From the moment we become conscious we begin to develop conditioning of the nervous system. - 18 months to 2 years - develop a sense of a separate self and other. - 4 - 6 years, begin to get an idea of what those around us consider right and wrong. By 12, begin to comprehend moral ambiguity, priorities, dilemmas and what underpins morality and ethics.
Throughout our childhood, we develop an idea, both conscious and unconscious, of who we are via the way others speak to us and treat us. Our self-view is also created through how we interpret and react to that treatment, and through the dominant social, cultural and educational ideas we repeatedly encounter. If there is a neurological difference, this will affect the way experiences are processed and how the persona develops.
The deeper the conditioning, the more difficult it is for the adult to voluntarily change, but since the brain is inherently adaptable, choice and change are almost always possible.
The sum of all this is what we normally imagine to be "me", "who I am", "soul" or "spirit". Without a living body, nervous system and brain, none of it is possible. All of it dissolves with death.
@Pikachu like i said my belief came first as i was agnostic before that. So i didn't need convincing. I did not look at the structure of the universe and decide a Creator existed.
We are all energy from the same source. Just a ripple on the sea. I do not remember before i was born or after I died. It will be interesting to see what happens. I have my suspicions though and you won't find them in any book.
in all the times man has sought this answer, centuries and often using science we have NEVER seen evidence for a soul stories of ,, "what I saw when i died" come from people who are [b]Not Dead[/b] and all the "but what about" this or that claims of memory past life.. all of that are very easy to create, ghosts... Hauntings,, all seem to evaporate in the light of rational investigation
I do like the & souls Model used by Egypt and Tibet but that is just more speculation, even if attractive
@Pikachu I do. I I went through a spiritual awakening. I am part of the universe, and the universe is part of me. It is ever expanding. It is eternal. My life is just a bit part of its eternity. I would have said “we are part of the universe” but other people are going to believe what they want to about it until they believe otherwise, in this life or another
@Pikachu [quote]Well since you go on at length after this statement, i'll ignore it and assume you found at least some point in doing so😉[/quote]
No, I just continue regardless 😪 But hey, if you're game then we're game
Also, don't forget to answer my questions too: [quote]Is there any reason you cannot fathom a conceptual, metaphysical domain?[/quote] Are you approaching from a physicalist model?
[quote]That life can exist without a brain is irrelevant in this context. Or so it seems to me.[/quote] I guess we should have started off with the concept of a soul first. What is a soul to you? Or what you're questioning the existence of, so we can move on properly?
[quote] On what basis do you make that claim? [/quote] This is the exact point where you'll find that physicalism is about to dichotomize us. Some related concepts like dissociation, subjectivity come into play here where we find that we're not all just this straight, biological machine that fine tunes to come to conclusions. But again, you're gunna have to clarify if this metaphysical domain even is a consideration to you so we can properly discuss and conclude these things. Otherwise, this conversation will devolve into something where it is just you asking for a stance to be proposed and judged by your stance and worldview, and then we cannot criticize and analyze both sides properly to establish why your worldview holds this judging seat and its concreteness and evidences. Likewise, then this worldview I possess about the soul needs to also be analyzed and we can see what makes sense and what doesn't.
[quote]I find it an odd assumption that the apparently healthy body is "perfectly" healthy[/quote] This is the whole issue with sudden death. Upon scanning, the entire body is healthy, so they conclude it sudden death and say the heart just stopped. It is the heart attack of the gaps, in a sense.
[quote]I also don't understand how a body failing without medical explanation is indicative of soul that exists beyond and without the body[/quote] Then what's missing? When you place that body next to a sleeping one, both end up looking completely different. And if these bodies were just purely mechanical, why don't we just start it back up like a car? Hypothetically, from a physicalist perspective, there is just a leak or a broken spark plug, to break it down into a concrete example. In cars, you fix that and run it and it starts functioning. But when a human dies, there is no bringing life back into them. Even with the brain present
So, what do you actually propose is the answer to this question that has neuroscientists and biologists without an answer? (For those who talk about only the physical, scientifically observable, chemical world)
[quote]Is there any reason you cannot fathom a conceptual, metaphysical domain?[/quote]
I can conceive of it but i need to see evidence that it exists in order to believe it. We know the physical exists. The metaphysical seems to be on less sturdy ground.
[quote]What is a soul to you?[/quote]
In this context simply some form of your consciousness that continues to exist after the destruction of the body.
[quote]And if these bodies were just purely mechanical, why don't we just start it back up like a car?[/quote]
I guess in that case you're assuming you understand how the machine works which is not really justified considering how much scientists still don't know about how humans work.
@Pikachu [quote]We know the physical exists. The metaphysical seems to be on less sturdy ground[/quote] So you're certain that this physical world exists. So am I. It would be insanity to deny this all. So, about the metaphysical domain, suppose you had to discover or request evidence for it. The first question would be what form the impact metaphysical concepts have on the physical world would take and how we can address them.
Is it safe for you to step into a stance where we would have to come in tune with our metaphysical components of ourselves to make sense of these things?
An example being like we use eyes to observe visible, physical things. Then use our logic to rationalize truths, evidences, and axioms. Then our mind for imagination (which is metaphysical) and our soul for feelings (which is metaphysical). Metaphysical things are studied in soft sciences because these phenomenon can be partially understood, if not completely, through observation and data the same way we observe hard sciences to rationalize the real world, partially, if not completely
Please, criticize (truly constructively or positively) and share with me your judgements or thoughts about the above
[quote]In this context simply some form of your consciousness that continues to exist after the destruction of the body.[/quote] I can agree to that. I imagine it as a separate entity to the physucal body that envelopes the entire experience, consciousness, identity, and existence we feel on a level that goes deeper than observation. Something that is clearly tethered to the same body and at the time of death is separated, in which we bury bodies because we know the soul/life cannot be returned. Even if we take a simply cardiac arrest and start pumping the heart, that a dead body truly will be dead not because of the heart (where if it was the issue, things would start up again like a dead car by simply pumping it) but because of some other trigger that turns off. Naming it the soul is just a thought, and some scientists are starting to lean towards a soul existing. Otherwise, merely kickstarting or replacing a broken or stopped part would be all that was needed to get a human running. The soul to me can be seen as a trigger or kickstarter or key for life. Without it, the physical body is truly dead. Different to sleep. This is why stillborns with healthy bodies are dead. They have everything but ONE metaphysical, nonbiological thing. Because scientists don't actually know what causes the heart to beat. Anatomically, they've pieced up the entire heart. But this key trigger that instructs it to beat is clearly not a physical or electrical thing. Otherwise, heart shocking and CPR would work in a physicalist paradigm and then people would be like a dead car battery that just needs starting
Unlike the metaphor that a human puts some key into the heart and starts it. The heart has its own system, separate to the brain to pump, yet it pumps sometimes and stops sometimes and we cannot force it. Its initialization and end are out of physical control. Unlike other, purely physical things. Namely inanimate, nonliving things. These clearly differ to living creatures on a dimension different than simply atomically.
Considering this, if it were true, would this combination of soul and body make sense to you? Regardless of either of our current beliefs. Would it be a complete way to view life and death?
[quote] I guess in that case you're assuming you understand how the machine works which is not really justified considering how much scientists still don't know about how humans work [/quote]
Hmmm, let me spin this to show you an idea. Imagine I said you assume I do not know because scientists do not know. (Which you implied)
To dissect it plainly, you just proposed underlying premises:
1. I can't know something before scientists do (hence, you saying my justification is based on scientists) Does this really sound rational and true? 👀 Why do you say that as if scientists are the ceiling of knowledge? Can I discover something without a scientist? Suppose they catch up, is it THEN I'm allowed to know what I already know? 👀 (considering a discovery)
2. That science is the only toolkit to knowledge. Because I can know things through means that [b]aren't[/b] scientific. Did ya know this? (In fact, science is based on this)
No.. The torch analogy works best. You have a "soul" or belief system as long as you are alive. But when the battery goes flat or the bulb blows, the light goes out and thats it pal...😷
@Axeroberts I agree. Whie we live a soul is who we feel we should be inside. You might call it our better nature. Of course, its optional. Not everyone has one..😷
That's a whole lot of fanciful thinking, too... old habits and superstitions offer too many people comfort for some damn reason. What's more likely to happen is a nation of religious nut cases will get "The Bomb" and do everybody in.
I guess I phrased my comment a bit too forcefully. Sorry about that but... look how close Trump may be to running for POTUS again. And - gulp! - possibly winning the whole thing!
I can talk to people that have lost limbs. I can talk to people with pacemakers. But I have yet to talk to anyone that has lost their entire body.
Also what of the person would even survive? If something did survive it has to be so small and... odd that you wouldn't even be considered human anymore. Maybe a soul does exist but we all turn into inhuman monsters, alien things or get eaten by the Egyptian Ammit. Maybe we get enslaved other there. Or drugged up to the point that we just don't care about our grieving loved ones.
The brain and personality, the self itself can be diseased, damaged and shattered beyond repair. So what of the immutable soul that is supposed to be unchanging? Literally nothing IS unchanging. The only thing unchanging is death. That is, oblivion.
Also a soul is a historically "modern" invention. In really ancient Juadism the oldest word is sheol which simply meant grave. At that time when people died they were just dead. No mention of a soul and no afterlife and God himself was a physical being that walked on earth getting in fights with randos and cheating when he was losing. (Genesis 32:25) It was all this physical existence.
It remindss me of when the Greeks actually explored Mt Olympus and couldn't find their gods so they moved them to a spiritual realm instead.
I desperately want there to be something. But there are an uncountable number of ways a soul and afterlife can go wrong and only a handful of ways it can turn out good. That pessimism and sheer scarcity of evidence leaves me with no recourse but to not be convinced.
And finally no one has ever come back from the dead. People that are "dead" for 5, 10, 30 minutes. Even hours are not biologically dead. It takes three days for the majority of the biochemical processes in the body to cease functioning. All that our machines are built to measure is neuro-electrical activity. But just because that activity falls below a certain cut off point for the machine to read doesn't mean there can't be a continuing biochemical state of consciousness going on. It's just that if the electrical activity isn't started again soon that continuity of self can be interrupted and the self lost due to accumulated brain damage.
But for me to be more convinced of NDEs I'd have to see someone come back after three days when I know they have been dead dead. Not just regular dead. And that has never happened. Therefore I can only take NDEs with a grain of salt.
