Why do we cater to the idea of a soul?

"We pay too much homage to an ancient set of myths"

current beliefs will soon be ancient also

no one fucking knows no matter how smart we think we are or how much useless time we spend over-thinking things......... enjoy the goddamn ride whatever that entails
 
"We pay too much homage to an ancient set of myths"

current beliefs will soon be ancient also

no one fucking knows no matter how smart we think we are or how much useless time we spend over-thinking things......... enjoy the goddamn ride whatever that entails
Yes and I don't expect to hold on to those hopelessly mistaken ideas just because those traditions makes things better for my group alone, much less use them to force others to do stupid things to the detriment of society.
 
Get you some SOUL. Be Happy. Make others around you happy. While your still alive, forget about some mystical bits after your gone. Those bits will live on in the hearts of those you leave behind. THAT is your SOUL.
 
The reports of feeling peace or having vivid visions during near death experiences makes sense when we know the brain floods the body during these traumatic events with chemicals like serotonin, endorphins and possibly things like DMT.

That is one way of interpreting the evidence. Interestingly, it's rarely, if ever, interpreted that way by those who undergo the experience.
 
I think we're not just butt dust. Lol. But it is a very complicated thing, as you surely know.

I imagine that was a good experience. A good memory.

Yea...I guess she had just taken a large swig of Coca-cola, which you can still get down there in those glass bottles, and tastes super fresh and good. She had just taken a huge swig and just blew it all over everyone in the row in front of them.

When they'd all got back they had a group, pass-the-pic sort of thing where they told everyone the highlight of their trip. She said that her highlight was when she snorted coke down there. It burned her nose, but Mexican coke is so good.
 
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.

Listening to several podcast I've been surprised to find out that some people have no inner voice and some people cannot mentally visualize in their head.

This is in the same line as what you are describing. The people interviewed made similar comments about having no concept, since they have never experienced these things.

While I cannot imagine not having these capabilities.
 
" I'm grateful for my short time here. My short time of consciousness."

This captures my existential position.

I believe my afterlife will be no different than my before life and so with the little time I have in my present life, I hope I have and can do some good things to bring joy to those who I will leave behind.
This is my thought process now.

So much different than when I attended the weekly indoctrination sessions. (No offense meant toward believers)
 
"There is scarcely a greater cause of confusion and difficulty in the comprehension of Hebrew modes of thought than the tendency – in part, to be sure, a necessity – that impels us to translate nephesh by the word “soul.” The nephesh is the life or the self of the man, the living man himself, just as he is here and now. The older Hebrews had no word for body (σωμα), and what we call body was not to them the opposite of nephesh, but was inseparable from it." ~Frank Chamberlain Porter

Still, though, seems like a pretty petty fight to pick. What do you care if some people believe in a soul?
How can one make a fight in either belief?

It's interesting to talk about and I have my position but I can no more prove it correct than I can the opposite incorrect.

And thought I do on occasion overstate my position, I actually find these topics very interesting.
 
I grew up Catholic-I have had it in me at times (yrs ago) to believe in such
What destroys it all for me is to hear Baptist preachers scream about how All coffins will open one day and we will all fly up to sit with God
I once had a Baptist preacher tell me that according to evolution he could break his watch into many pieces and throw it in the ocean and it would one day be a fully functioning watch again.
 
I agree with this.

I've also been thinking about where we draw the line. Humans have "consciousness," okay. What about apes or dogs? Do they? If so, why, and if not, why not? And if they do, then do dolphins? Cats? Bats? Where does it end, and why does it end just there?

I think the oldest religions end up saying that everyone and everything has consciousness (or a soul), that the material universe in some sense *is* a soul.

I've always sort of understood animism or pantheism, mostly on an intellectual plane. But I had a couple epiphanies lately when reading Robin Wall Kimmerer. She points out that for third person singular pronouns, most indigenous languages do not chose "it." They chose "he" or "she." And so almost everything is conceived of in personal terms ("it" is reserved for things that people make, like tents or knives). And since almost everything - animals, plants, rocks, stars, waters - is referred to with personal pronouns and conceived of as like a person, the neurological circuitry in the human brain that is activated by interpersonal relationships becomes activated in our connection to the natural world (IOW, this is much more than just an opinion or an idea, it involves the actual behavior and activity of the brain itself). And so it is simply offensive to call a river an "it," to reduce it to merely its physical aspect. It would be like looking at someone's grandmother in the kitchen and going "it is cooking."

She also said that indigenous languages are very verb-heavy. They have many more verbs, and many of them are deployed in ways that seem bizarre to western materialism. For example, "Sunday" is a verb. What you doing today? I'm sundaying....oh, me too. Prof. Kimmerer said that one of her toughest challenges in learning her native Potawatomi was hearing that "bay" was a verb. She was like, "No it's not. It's a person, place or thing. A bay is a noun." Until she realized that it was only a noun in the abstract. Any actual, individual, singular bay...well just go look at it. You'll see it's in motion....water coming in, clouds passing by, sounds of seabirds, insects buzzing around...this place is indeed "baying."

For me, once I got a glimpse into those two things, the whole flower of animism unfolded before me. It is very beatiful. And much closer to the truth, IMO, than western epistemology (minus Spinoza and a few others) and western materialism.

From this point of view, do humans have souls? Of course. As does everything else in the whole of creation.
I believe that animals have the same thing we refer to as a soul or consciousness in the same way we believe we have them. But, just as with humans, I'm not sure it survives the death of the body.
 
I grew up Catholic-I have had it in me at times (yrs ago) to believe in such
What destroys it all for me is to hear Baptist preachers scream about how All coffins will open one day and we will all fly up to sit with God.
Especially when, if they are correct, so many conservative Christians will be heading in the other direction, if you get my drift.
 
Back
Top