In light of the "idea" that Biden is a soulless construct, what is a soul? Why should we believe in it, cater to it as part of politics or as a reason to interfere in people's personal life? There's no evidence of one. There is not a single confirmable idea of what a soul could be. We have no idea of how one could be created, if there is a life span and if one can be destroyed or marred. If one can be marred, is it irredeemable damage? Most importantly, who can judge one?
Why do we cater to the idea of a soul?
- Thread starter finesse
- Start date
- Replies: 79
- Views: 687
- Off-Topic
Milk and Cookies
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 307
Its the most dead-end concept in all of religious philosophy
heelinhell
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,727
I've always wondered if I had a soul before I was born...
- Messages
- 1,984
Every accusation …
heelinhell
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,727
I think those who believe in a soul do so because the soul is considered to be everlasting and surviving the death of the physical self.
I hope Tar Spiel will weigh in on this, but there are very very few organized religions that do not believe in life after death, and I contend that notion binds those who believe in the God of their choice as characterized by their chosen religious affiliation.
If it could be proven ( which it can't ) that there is no afterlife, organized religion would wither on the vine which would be a good thing for the world.
I hope Tar Spiel will weigh in on this, but there are very very few organized religions that do not believe in life after death, and I contend that notion binds those who believe in the God of their choice as characterized by their chosen religious affiliation.
If it could be proven ( which it can't ) that there is no afterlife, organized religion would wither on the vine which would be a good thing for the world.
- Messages
- 1,161
To me, there seems to be a clear divide between religions that believe souls are an exclusive feature of humanity and those that acknowledge the possibility that other living things could also possess a soul. I belong to a religion that pretty much dismisses non-human souls as the stuff of fairy tales and the sort of thing you tell the elderly and children to make them feel better about dying pets. And gloss over when killing cows and pigs with a hammer to the forehead within sight and hearing of other members of their herd. The first time I saw & heard the intake side of slaughterhouse was a real lesson in the value of higher education for me.
heelinhell
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,727
If you don't mind, I would be interested to know of which religion you belong. It dismisses the soul as a fairy tale. I assume it rejects the notion of an after life, as well ?
- Messages
- 1,161
I probably worded what I was trying to say badly, as I normally do. The denomination I belong to very much believes in the concept of humans having souls and that these souls exist after our human body has expired. But at the same time, my demonination really doesn't spend much theological capital on the notion that cows, pigs, chickens, deer, etc. have souls that continue on after we have eaten them.
an0maly
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 205
When playing the game Monopoly this card can relieve stress and allow some confidence in the conception of how the game will go, as can obtaining a second queen in a game of chess. Robert Sapolsky and others have noted that many animals have a clear conception of their own possible death, but apparently no lasting stress about it. Zebras may experience extreme fright when running from a pride of lions, but once a kill is made the others that are safe will graze or even play somewhat nearby, realizing their own person threat is over, with no conception it could be any of them meeting such a fate in the future.
Our species evolved with a large neocortex for solving future problems as a survival skill, and with that is conceptualizing personal fate, and also inventive idea making. The capacity to clearly imagine our own future death, given human culture invents notions which function to relieve stress and promote confidence, makes it seem automatic that the invention of ideas of a soul that survives death would arise and be codified strongly in various cultures.
There is never much thought about what would be "preserved" in notions of a soul that continues living. Throughout life, people change in personality in very large ways, and so which of those is to be represented in some sort of afterlife? Consider the case of Phineas Gage, the unfortunate 19th century man who suffered a large brain injury, and transformed from a kind and peaceful person to a hostile and nasty person. Which "soul" gets an afterlife? Saying both is just a denial of the reality they are not compatible, and both were fully real human personalities. Consider cases of people with brain dysfunction who only have short term and fleeting memory, a few minutes at a time (depicted as an example in the film Memento). Again, you can't escape the question and say all of them.
Beyond the demonstrative cases above, we all exist differently in different stretches of time and events, and are different people as time goes by; picking one of those at death as getting a permanent or supposedly infinite life does not make sense, upon deeper examination. Nor does combining them, nor does picking a "best version" of some past point.
All of this metaphysical musing reminds me of something else, though. The only idea of an after-life I have ever come across that had any appeal was in the remarkably calm and charming film After Life, from director Hirokazu Kore-eda. The idea there was that you could re-live one singular wonderful memory from your life, over and over, forever. It's absurd, but a very charming idea. Outside of this, the notion of an infinitely long life is ultimately repellant, and would either be infinite repeating or infinite nonsense, as this is profoundly bound to the Hilbert's Hotel paradoxes on infinity. Life has meaning within boundaries of time and of events, and could not have it otherwise.
- Messages
- 2,347
I could relive the 1982 Basketball Natty over and over and over
When playing the game Monopoly this card can relieve stress and allow some confidence in the conception of how the game will go, as can obtaining a second queen in a game of chess. Robert Sapolsky and others have noted that many animals have a clear conception of their own possible death, but apparently no lasting stress about it. Zebras may experience extreme fright when running from a pride of lions, but once a kill is made the others that are safe will graze or even play somewhat nearby, realizing their own person threat is over, with no conception it could be any of them meeting such a fate in the future.
Our species evolved with a large neocortex for solving future problems as a survival skill, and with that is conceptualizing personal fate, and also inventive idea making. The capacity to clearly imagine our own future death, given human culture invents notions which function to relieve stress and promote confidence, makes it seem automatic that the invention of ideas of a soul that survives death would arise and be codified strongly in various cultures.
There is never much thought about what would be "preserved" in notions of a soul that continues living. Throughout life, people change in personality in very large ways, and so which of those is to be represented in some sort of afterlife? Consider the case of Phineas Gage, the unfortunate 19th century man who suffered a large brain injury, and transformed from a kind and peaceful person to a hostile and nasty person. Which "soul" gets an afterlife? Saying both is just a denial of the reality they are not compatible, and both were fully real human personalities. Consider cases of people with brain dysfunction who only have short term and fleeting memory, a few minutes at a time (depicted as an example in the film Memento). Again, you can't escape the question and say all of them.
Beyond the demonstrative cases above, we all exist differently in different stretches of time and events, and are different people as time goes by; picking one of those at death as getting a permanent or supposedly infinite life does not make sense, upon deeper examination. Nor does combining them, nor does picking a "best version" of some past point.
All of this metaphysical musing reminds me of something else, though. The only idea of an after-life I have ever come across that had any appeal was in the remarkably calm and charming film After Life, from director Hirokazu Kore-eda. The idea there was that you could re-live one singular wonderful memory from your life, over and over, forever. It's absurd, but a very charming idea. Outside of this, the notion of an infinitely long life is ultimately repellant, and would either be infinite repeating or infinite nonsense, as this is profoundly bound to the Hilbert's Hotel paradoxes on infinity. Life has meaning within boundaries of time and of events, and could not have it otherwise.
ChapelHillSooner
Honored Member
- Messages
- 811
I don’t know about soul but you will never convince me that consciousness can arise from a complex organization of matter. I will firmly hold to the belief that consciousness is a separate entity of nature at the minimum. It might require some complex logic to organize into something that allow experience but it simply can’t emerge from that organization.
And by consciousness I mean the instantaneous awareness of my existence and thoughts. I can’t guarantee anyone else has it. I can’t even guarantee that I had it when I started writing this post as that could be an illusion created by my memory but my awareness of that memory can’t simply be from an organization of matter and energy.
I have seen no reasonable explanation for a resolution of the transporter paradox.
But, anyway, that is tangentially related to a concept of a soul.
And by consciousness I mean the instantaneous awareness of my existence and thoughts. I can’t guarantee anyone else has it. I can’t even guarantee that I had it when I started writing this post as that could be an illusion created by my memory but my awareness of that memory can’t simply be from an organization of matter and energy.
I have seen no reasonable explanation for a resolution of the transporter paradox.
But, anyway, that is tangentially related to a concept of a soul.
Milk and Cookies
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 307
What argument or evidence has convinced you this is impossible?
sringwal
Honored Member
- Messages
- 966
I see the concept of the soul as being the religious take on consciousness, so I, personally, found your point valid.
ChapelHillSooner
Honored Member
- Messages
- 811
Common sense. It would be entirely consistent with physics to have what David Chalmers coins a philosophical zombie - a being identical to a conscious being but lacking consciousness. And no known scientific inquiry could determine the difference between the two.
Or as I said the transporter thought experiment where a person is transported to two different locations. Which is you? If that question doesn’t even make sense to you then I am not sure you actually have a consciousness.
We know that we can lose consciousness and it is can happen because of physical things going on. I am not denying that consciousness may require complex organization of matter and our conscious experience depends on this organization, but that is separate from claiming it emerges from a complex organization of matter.
Unfortunately our language makes it hard to discuss these things. I find when philosophers argue this they are always just speaking past each other.
Milk and Cookies
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 307
Appreciate the summary. Yes, these concepts are hard to discuss in message board format but still interesting to share large ideas.
Based on what you've laid out about your position you might consider softening your original language on your stance. Intuition is usually a pretty weak form of evidence so its probably a bad justification for claiming something is impossible. And an idea being consistent with physics is another very low bar as way of evidence. Just something to consider.
From my view, all examples of consciousness we know about require a physical brain while we have zero examples of consciousness not requiring a physical brain. While consciousness is a long way from being completely understood, I don't see any evidence so far to support an idea of a matter-less entity of pure consciousness. I'm open to all possible concepts for consciousness but it appears consciousness being an emergent property of a physical brain is leading the race by a wide margin.
an0maly
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 205
This thought experiment is one of intuitive appeal without reference to any real world example, and shifts a burden of proof to where it is not indicated. The notion that a philosophical zombie could "run" (not chase like the monster kind, but run like a computer program) without being conscious--is entirely undemonstrated. It is an invented conception and assertion in search of uncritical acceptance.
We can unpack the problem I am evaluating here but taking it all down several notches with another thought experiment. Imagine a bloodhound dog with a nose that takes in molecules left by a prison escapee it is tracking down. The molecules hit the dog's olfactory receptors, they transmit signals to the brain and it knows where to keep tracking. Can this all happen with no smell being experienced, no brain recognition of the smell or the trail?
Your typical reaction is that is nuts--the system is demonstrated to be working because all indications of a dog smelling and acting on the smell. You don't posit this is possibly "zombie smelling," without experience, and that nothing is "actual" smelling. It's transparently an absurdly undemonstrable metaphysical whim of an idea. This raises upward to seeing your conception of a zombie "acting" 100 percent like it is conscious. There is no support anywhere, nor any mechanism in any kind, nor even a rudimentary theory for these actions outside of the already found evidence for its physical strata as the functional sources.
The question is also great fun, but depends on what the person copies experience, and on random fluctuations of the two (now two) brain functions. Arriving in different settings their perceptions diverge, clarifying it is now two people, even if they are like ultra super identical twins. If in perceptually identical settings random internal variations (perhaps even quantum ones) also produce two people and two consciousnesses, but both may appear as the same person in all actions.
ChapelHillSooner
Honored Member
- Messages
- 811
The problem is that consciousness is not a testable phenomenon. We can’t be sure that it exists outside of our own personal experience so it is impossible to clear any type of higher bar either way. And, as I said before I admit that physical circuitry impacts how we perceive consciousness. I don’t deny that. In my personal worldview, that circuitry allows something that exists to be sufficiently steered to something that makes sense. A rock may have some form of consciousness but the experience would be limited by its lack of circuitry guiding it.
I have wondered if this actual argument might itself be an indication of whether a being is conscious. People who have no subjective experience will argue to the end that there is nothing special about consciousness because in their machinery no such thing actually exists. And if you have that subjective experience and you are smart enough to contemplate such things, you will understand why the idea is so perplexing.
That could be the root of the problem with discussing the idea. It is impossible to explain consciousness unless one actually experiences it.
Now the problem with that line of thinking is that it would require that there is a pathway to the mind that is non-physical meaning free will may actually exist. I am not sure I am willing to go there. As far as I know I am just on this ride and free will is an illusion and that includes my pondering about consciousness itself.
But, anyway, my view of consciousness leaves open the concept that there may be more than one of them within me. There may be millions or even an infinite number. I am merely one of them though each are having this conversation right now. Obviously that idea - which I don’t necessarily subscribe to - would necessitate that free will is an illusion.
As a side note, I don’t have binocular depth perception. While I use both eyes for peripheral vision, my brain can’t merge together images of an object that both eyes can see so it always filters out one or the other. I can’t even imagine what it is like to have it. I can sort of guess but I will never know the true experience of it. I imagine someone who is completely color blind (monochromatic) couldn’t imagine what color is. Thinking about those is what made me ponder our own inability to conceptualize things we can’t experience. And, no, I am not making a claim you do not experience consciousness, though I will admit to having pondered it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 767
Consciousness being primary remains a valid theory, but is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. My default hypothesis is that the brain, despite just being a meat machine, creates consciousness, but the mechanism isn't clear yet. The problem with the primariness of consciousness being your default hypothesis is that
1) it effectively ends the search for the mechanism in the brain that creates consciousness (so just give up looking?), and 2) it potentially means the physical world isn't real, but is rather created by conscious, perhaps via wave function collapse, quantum entanglement etc.. With 2), plenty of New Age gurus will ask that they buy their self-help books to tap into your consciousness superpowers and bend the physical world to your will (quantum healing, etc.). Part 2) is where the heaps of bullshit arrive on the scene.