Do we have souls?

[Starboard Tack]

I do not believe in any deity, but I do believe in a soul, for want of a better word. I guess I would define it as a representation or manifestation of me, which is separate and distinct from my physical being. Maybe my metaphysical being. I don't define myself as atheist, because I associate the word as an absolute. The only absolute reality I consider valid is infinity, which by definition embraces all possibilities. I guess agnostic best describes me, as I definitely believe in a spiritual world, which is devoid of deities and other man made constructs like heaven and hell.
Does anyone else here share these ideas?

[barbtries]

1. yes

a belief that's never been shaken. though i recognize that it behooves me to believe this particularly having lost a child. life would be so much harder if i didn't believe we'll be together again.

[awoke_in_2003]

5. "life would be so much harder if i didn't believe we'll be together again"

that was the hardest thing for me to accept- that I would never see my mother again, or my grandchildren after I died. Once I did, I realized I had better make the most out of the one life I have with them.

[barbtries]

6. i did all that

then she was killed.
i don't and won't accept it. and as i mentioned, that belief has stuck with me my entire life.

[ZombieHorde]

33. I hope you are right.

I hope you do see her again.

[barbtries]

37. thank you,

[FarCenter]

2. I don't believe in a soul as you define it

But you lost me with the "infinity" part onwards.

No soul, no afterlife, and no god that communicates with humans, but I could be an agnostic with respect to a cosmological god.

[Neoma]

3. We have consciousness.

I believe that Goddess is the universe, but it's not a personal Goddess, I don't pray to her or worship. I just believe that the universe is Goddess and she simply is. No religion involved, no books, no rituals. I just figure that if anything was doing the creating, it was the universe and we're a bit of a fluke. So why not? (I'm pantheist.)

I play around with ideas about afterlife, ghosts, or other fantasies. The difference is that I put them back on the shelf when I'm done with them.

Though if I went totally religious, I'd worship the dirt, the sun, and water. But immortality? No, that's just a bad wish.

[Starboard Tack]

61. I feel pretty much the same way.

Creation makes no sense, so neither does a creator. I accept infinity as a physical reality, but impossible to comprehend. That's why we try to define everything, to help us cope with an infinite reality. Religion is one of the tools, but really it's just a form of denial.

I don't know if there is an afterlife, so to speak. I doubt it. But I do believe there are an infinite number of other dimensions/realities/parallel universes, call them what you want.

Ghosts are a whole other subject and, I think, can manifest in different ways, though not necessarily after death. But ectoplasm is definitely real IMO. But, like you, Ill put that back on the shelf for now.

[GliderGuider]

4. I think maybe...

I don't know if I "believe" we have souls, but I'm open to the possibility, especially having felt during meditation what seemed to resemble some descriptions I'd read. I particularly like A. H. Almaas' description of "Personal Essence". It's the closest to what I've experienced, that being a sense that there is a "me-ness" that exists outside of time and space, and forms the container within which my reality occurs. Words, as you might well imagine, are problematic in this area.

Is this concept objectively real? Not a clue. Is it meaningful to me personally? Absolutely. I have a policy of regarding anything with meaning to me as being real - within my own essential container, at any rate.

See what I mean about words?

[barbtries]

8. i like the way you put that.

i'll remember this.

[Warpy]

11. Deep meditation is like that

because everything falls away: memory, plans, language itself, pleasure, pain, any consciousness of one's own physical presence. If there is a soul that continues on, it must be rather like this, leaving everything that made up personality and memory behind as our brains that created and stored much of it also die.

I'm rather looking forward to that part. There are a lot of things I'd love to forget.

[Starboard Tack]

20. Very well put.

[Wistful Vista]

21. Humans (and possibly other semi-sentient animals) can believe anything if they want to bad enough.

It really is that simple.

[GliderGuider]

38. That's true. It's why I'm practicing the suspension of all belief and disbelief.

It helps to connect with one's experiences directly, without layers of assumption distorting the view. The holding of beliefs and disbeliefs isn't an inevitable side effect of sentience. At least that's what I believe...

[laconicsax]

7. I don't.

I've seen no evidence for what you describe.

[Starboard Tack]

22. I have seen evidence on several occasions and in different ways

Enough to convince me.

[laconicsax]

25. If you don't mind, would you care to tell us the nature of that evidence?

[cleanhippie]

68. Apparently, Mr. Tack is unwilling to share his "evidence" with us.

Probably having second thoughts, as it would place this "evidence" under the bright light of scrutiny and critical thought, and it won't hold up to the pressure.

[AlbertCat]

71. I have seen evidence on several occasions and in different ways

Anecdotal evidence is useless....

Let's see the experiments and statistics....

Would you believe any of your "evidence' had no one told you you had a soul 1st?

[Starboard Tack]

93. I don't believe it because someone told me I had a soul.

Experiments and statistics could never prove something that does not exist in the physical world.
I can only offer my own anecdotal evidence, which to a skeptic is no evidence at all, except evidence of my delusion. You can tell me things that you experienced in your life that shook the very foundation of what you had believed up to that moment. To me, it would be no more than an interesting story.

I am very skeptical, by nature, and remain so, but I have also witnessed enough and experienced enough to convince me of the existence of the soul. I also do not think the soul is confined to human existence, but possibly is inherent to all things. Certainly all living things.

[AlbertCat]

114. I don't believe it because someone told me I had a soul.

How do you know that? It's been drummed into you since birth. There has never been a time when whatever experiences you had and think are so important have not been associated with a soul.

The idea of such a thing as a soul is an idea some caveman came up with to explain something or some feeling he didn't understand.

And all living things have souls? Bacteria and viruses have souls? A geranium has a soul?

What's the difference between a soul and a ghost? Do you believe in ghosts?

I know you seem to have had some experiences that make you sure that there is a soul, but there are a lot more that everybody has had that point to there being none. I don't think you are as skeptical as you think you are. If you were, supernatural explanations would be further down on your list of possibilities.... and especially if you can be so sure about "something that does not exist in the physical world."

[Starboard Tack]

119. "It's been drummed into you since birth."

Speak for yourself. You have no idea what has or has not been drummed into me since birth. You try to explain the non-existence of things you don't understand, which is just as hard.
A ghost, in my experience, is the manifestation of the soul in the form of ectoplasm. I have only seen this phenomenon once and I believe it was the ghost of a man visiting the place of his upcoming demise. I had a friend who claimed to have seen this ghost on three consecutive nights. My friends and I laughed at him, as none of us believed such nonsense. He invited us to accompany him to the same spot where he claimed to have previously seen the ghost, always between midnight and 2.00am. It was a clear summer's night. No mist. No clouds. Four of us hid behind a hedge about 100 feet away from the spot. After waiting for almost an hour, this man sized shape of dense white vapor emerged from a solid earthen bank at the side of a country road. Slowly it moved to the center of the road, crouched and appeared to be clawing at the road surface. The road made a sharp bend at this spot. We watched for about ten to fifteen minutes as it continued to repeat this clawing at the surface. My friend got up and slowly approached. When he got to about ten feet from it, the shape scurried back to the same place from where it had emerged. We all walked over and examined the road surface and the bank, which was about ten feet high. There was no sign. No trace of anything. WTF was it we all wondered. The following day, a road construction worker took a short cut on this road, driving a backhoe. At the exact same spot, the backhoe overturned and the driver was crushed to death. The conclusion we came to was that he was visiting the place of his death in his sleep. This was reinforced by the fact that it never appeared again after that night. That's my only ghost story. So, I have no personal experience of ghosts appearing after death, but I have known a few who claim to have had such experiences.

[AlbertCat]

148. A ghost, in my experience, is the manifestation of the soul in the form of ectoplasm.

Been watching too much "Ghost Busters"?


ectoplasm.... pu-leeze!

[Starboard Tack]

151. What would be your explanation? I didn't make it up.

I didn't believe in ghosts before the incident. None of us did and I'm not sure that I do now, but you asked me what the difference was between souls and ghosts and this story came to mind. If you can come up with a better theory, I'm listening. But the most obvious to me was some kind of precognition, which resulted in a physical manifestation, commonly described as ectoplasm.
This falls into the realm of the paranormal, rather than the supernatural. I have no evidence or belief that ghosts exist beyond death. The paranormal writer Paul Roland in his book The Complete Book of Ghosts (2007) argues that ghosts are the "manifestation of people still living, proving that out-of-body experiences are not as rare or as impossible as some people might think".

[cleanhippie]

152. I think you just showed your hand, and you are pulling our chains here. Nice job.

Ectoplasm? Really?

http://www.skepdic.com/ectoplasm.html


For a self-identified "skeptic", I think you are either pulling our chains or need to seriously reevaluate just what it means to be a "skeptic".

[Starboard Tack]

154. See my post #151

I am not pulling anyone's chain. Being a skeptic does not meaning denying what is before your eyes. I am still highly skeptical of ghosts, especially in terms of existing post mortem.

[cleanhippie]

159. "I am still highly skeptical of ghosts" - But that contradicts your statement that you DO believe in

ghosts, no? Maybe I misread that, but I thought you said you did, in fact, believe in ghosts.

[Starboard Tack]

163. No, I was answering a question about the difference between ghosts and souls.

My answer doesn't claim to be definitive. It's only a theory based on my experience. As I say I have no evidence of ghosts being around beyond life. But what I describe as a ghost is what I think may be a physical manifestation of the soul. I've also said that I am in no way certain that souls exist beyond life, but I feel sure they do during life.
Has nothing to do with the supernatural IMO. Also, I don't attach much, if any importance to the concept of an afterlife, or reincarnation. I'm open to the possibility, but fail to see the relevance. It is much more important for me to enjoy the journey I'm on, than to dwell on a past I can't recall or a future that, if it exists, I know nothing of.

[cleanhippie]

150. I also do not think the soul is confined to human existence, but possibly is inherent to all things.

Then there MUST be corroborating evidence to leads you to that conclusion. Evidence BEYOND just your personal experience. To make such a claim WITHOUT any corroboration beyond personal experience is THE definition of delusion.

Delsuion:
1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion

So the natural question that arises from your claim is, what corroborating evidence supports your anecdotal evidence that would lead you to come to this conclusion?

[Starboard Tack]

155. Note, I said possibly. It's a thought.

Like, the earth having a soul, is not an original notion. Like a collective soul. The absolute skeptic will never believe in anything. Everything must be scientifically proven.

When discussing metaphysics, corroborating evidence is not principal. This is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

[cleanhippie]

160. You seem to be moving the goalposts, ST.

Your previous posts imply (both implicitly and explicitly) in various forms that you do believe in this thing called a "soul". I can get behind the idea you are discussing, but you have made some extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if the claim OR its proponents, are to be taken seriously.

[Starboard Tack]

161. What extraordinary claims have I made?

[cleanhippie]

162. Hmm, let's see.

"...I do believe in a soul, for want of a better word. I guess I would define it as a representation or manifestation of me, which is separate and distinct from my physical being.

"I have also witnessed enough and experienced enough to convince me of the existence of the soul. I also do not think the soul is confined to human existence, but possibly is inherent to all things. Certainly all living things.

"I have seen evidence on several occasions and in different ways...Enough to convince me."

"I don't base my belief on wishful thinking, but on personal experiences, some shared by others."

"I don't see the soul as something after death but rather a state of being, separate and alongside, both life and death. A parallel existence, independent of consciousness, or physical being. "

Thats just a few examples. Seems pretty extraordinary to me.

[Starboard Tack]

164. I don't see anything extraordinary about any of that.

And I have expressed my beliefs and interpretations, which is quite different from making claims. I am sharing my thoughts and experiences with a group of fellow atheists and agnostics, supposedly a safe haven from ridicule and derision.
Belief in a soul is not antithetical to atheism, though it may be to some atheists, just as derision of those who have different view and beliefs, is not a trait of all atheists.

[cleanhippie]

165. Riiight. Ok then.

I guess we're done here.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

9. I dunno, is there an invisible unicorn prancing around the moon?

Because there's as much proof for the unicorn as there is for the concept of a soul. Humans are temporary creatures, and fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe, and believing otherwise is just wishful thinking.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Humans may be temporary "creatures", but that is a limited definition

and does not preclude the existence of a soul. We may also be insignificant, as individuals, in the grand scheme of things. Significance is relative and is a subjective evaluation. I don't base my belief on wishful thinking, but on personal experiences, some shared by others.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

27. Personal experiences (or anecdotes) are not evidence

of anything, even if shared by others. What they are evidence of is the mind's distinct ability to be creatively imaginative. (In other words, the mind's ability to make shit up.)

If you have proof that souls exist, just lay it out there. Convince me.

[GliderGuider]

46. When I look back over deep human history,

"creative imagination" seems to have played an enormous role in most human actions. The fetish for evidence on the other hand is quite recent - developed over the three hundred years since the Enlightenment. Before that time, evidence and imagination seemed to play hand in hand more often than not. You may prefer the scientistic worldview and its accomplishments, but to summarily dismiss creativity and imagination is to draw a cone of arrogant silence over much that gives value to being human.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

100. I don't dismiss creativity or imagination

I will readily admit that they played a part in human development, but I think they are poor replacements for evidence.

Granted, it often takes a creative or imaginative mind to expand the science in a direction that others had not yet thought of, but creativity and imagination are different from the empirical evidence required to show that the new idea has merit. Does that make sense? I'm having a hard time describing what I mean.

[GliderGuider]

108. No, you make sense - I get what you mean.

I appreciate that in order to communicate a scientific idea one needs evidence. I have a different prioritization of science and art though, partly because I'm so totally jaundiced about the effects of human technology on the planet. What I keep coming back to is how little of the human experience has anything to do with science in the way we understand it today. It may seem to us that science is the very pinnacle of human achievement, but to me that's simply because we're embedded in a couple of hundred years of post-enlightenment global industrialization.

I'll take a Bach cantata over a new scientifically-proven knock-reducing gasoline additive as evidence of human accomplishment, any day of the week. I hold beauty as one of the highest of human values - a value that has been driving us to ever greater heights since well before the days of the Lascaux cave paintings. Now it's true that evidence played a part there too - after all, we were developing new pigments experimentally 100,000 years ago. But the reason we did that was not to make paint, the reason was to make paintings.

In a sense science is like the ego: a great servant, but a lousy master. When we venerate the concept of scientific evidence to the point of worship, we risk committing the same error that religions do - all dissenting world-views risk being judged as heresy.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

129. But, shouldn't we be able have both?

It's possible a culture that gains scientific achievement without stifling the creative. Societies have been able to cultivate both science and art for thousands of years. I would argue that scientific advancements are what allow humans the time to explore creative avenues of exploration.

So while you prefer the Bach cantata to a technological or scientific achievement, the fact that you are able to enjoy music is due to the scientific advancements that gave us humans so much leisure time.

[GliderGuider]

133. Indeed we should.

However, when I say, "I have experienced something that makes me think I might have a soul" and people immediately respond with "Show me your evidence", that tells me that evidence is being valued over experience.

Of course that reaction isn't universal, even in our industrialized, science-driven culture. On FB part of my community consists of visionary artists, non-dualist mystics and people who call themselves "lightworkers". All of them place a very high premium on direct personal experience relative to objective evidence. I feel quite at home there - most of those people are very open-minded and non-confrontational which makes for quite pleasant interpersonal experiences. The other part of my circle tends to be evidence-driven ecologists and environmentalists who are drowning in despair. Guess which bunch I prefer...

[rrneck]

137. Damn, I wish I'd said that.

Well put. Well put indeed.

[Starboard Tack]

62. I said I have evidence, not proof.

I'm not here to convince you, or prove something that may or may not exist, but to share thoughts and ideas on the subject. My experiences are subjective and have caused me to believe in the existence of the soul. I don't think it makes me feel more, or less, secure or comfortable. Anecdotes are not going to convince a skeptic. Why would they? I have never been convinced of anything supported only by anecdotal evidence. Even when told by those I know and trust. If I saw a UFO and described it in detail, I doubt you'd believe me. Why should you? Doesn't alter the fact that I've seen one.

[cleanhippie]

69. Evidence IS proof. You either have it, or you don't.

ev·i·dence
   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.


So what is your "evidence" that has lead you to believe in this claim you make?

[Curmudgeoness]

10. I do not believe we have souls.

I think that souls and continuing on after death are all related, and are associated with a god. Too bad---It would be nice to think that I was somehow special and unique.

The only way that I would define a "soul" would be that bit of energy that will be released when my body no longer is alive. Since energy cannot be destroyed, only transferred from one form to another, when we die, I expect that the energy left in my body will have to "move" somewhere else. And that is all I see.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Why do you think souls must be related to a god?

Buddhism believes in the soul, but not a god.

[Curmudgeoness]

30. The concept of a soul means a belief that there is something after death.

I just can't wrap my head around that. It is not rational to me.

As to Buddhism, it is a religion as well as a philosophy. There is the belief in rebirth, Buddha is considered a holy man, and karma is a superstition. This all points to some supernatural force (god?) that is directing it all.

[Starboard Tack]

81. I don't see the soul as something after death

but rather a state of being, separate and alongside, both life and death. A parallel existence, independent of consciousness, or physical being.
Karma to me is an exercise in spiritual balance. Makes a lot of sense. Buddhism is about enlightenment, not a supernatural force guiding or directing everything.

[Curmudgeoness]

105. There is that pesky word "spiritual".

I am not sure what that means, but I have a hard time with it. Spirit---spiritual---some force outside us and inside us? Something we have that other animals don't have? I don't get it. I do not call myself spiritual or feel spiritual. I think, therefore I am. Nothing more.

[onager]

43. I don't believe we have souls either.

Unfortunately, those damn scientific killjoys have already answered your question about the energy being transferred. I'm afraid there's not much comfort in it - our personal energy is transferred by the completely unspiritual act of decomposing. Just like every other animal and plant on earth.

Usual Boring Personal Stuff - I can actually take some comfort in that. Many years ago, at a family reunion, the subject of burial came up. I said I wanted to be cremated. My entire family was horrified...except one cousin-in-law (wife of my cousin).

She's a Crow (Indian, not bird...in case Rick Santorum is reading). And agreed with me, at an age when no adults ever agreed with me. Said she thought it was much better to be burned, to return to the earth and sky, than be put in the ground to rot. Amongst all the Southern Baptists and Pentecostals, she's still one of my favorite relatives.

IMO, many believers confuse their minds with souls. We all have thoughts, dreams and experiences we hate to think will "go to waste" after we die. For years, the woo-woos blathered about the "electrical energy" in our heads and how it could be used to read other minds, do remote viewing, talk to the dead and bend spoons. Supposedly that survived our deaths.

But thanks to those damn scientists again, and their brain research, we know the electrical energy running around our heads is so weak it can barely penetrate our own skulls. Let alone any other skulls. And when our brains die, we are truly dead. Though that doesn't seem to stop most Republicans.

So if I have to connect my death to a work of fiction, I don't think I'll go with the Xian Bible or any other uneducated guess about what happens to us after death.

My chosen work of fiction, dammit, is the movie Blade Runner, and the words of that great theologian Roy Batty:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

[Curmudgeoness]

107. You put your finger on it-----

there is confusion between mind and soul. Yes, they are the same thing, if you want to introduce "soul" into conversation.

I have changed my mind about cremation. I always said that was what I would do, but I would have preferred to be buried in the ground without preservations and concrete vaults---just put in the ground. That was not possible when I first decided that was what I wanted unless I was in a third world country. Today, there are natural burial places that actually will do just that. Awesome. (Not that this has anything to do with souls, you just brought it up.)

[DavidDvorkin]

12. You can believe anything you want to, but your belief is baseless

The mind does not exist without the physical brain.

[GliderGuider]

13. You believe that, do you?

[DavidDvorkin]

14. There is no reason to believe anything else.

[GliderGuider]

16. Could you define "reason" in your sentence above?

Lots of people see a "reason" to believe in one, but I think they use a different definition of the word than you do. I suspect you're speaking as a positivist.

I see no reason to believe, period.
I also see no reason to disbelieve.
It's a dilemma, wrapped in a riddle, hidden inside a paradox...

[DavidDvorkin]

17. "Reason" as in evidence, data

Replicable and verifiable observations, not subjective feelings.

[GliderGuider]

39. Just so. n/t

[Armin-A]

29. sums it up for me as well

[Starboard Tack]

31. I'm not talking about the brain.

How do you know the mind or soul does not exist without the brain. Your belief that it doesn't is based on your cognitive experience. My belief that it does exist is not baseless. It is based on my cognitive experience. Your assumption is based on lack of such experience.

[Wistful Vista]

36. A lack of belief in fantastic claims doesn't require any evidence, it is the default condition.

The proponent of such claims has the burden of proof. It's really a very basic principle of logic, that you seem unaware of. You could probably google "proving a negative" for some insight.

[Starboard Tack]

45. I think it is possible that some humans, or those who pose as humans, may not have souls.

This isn't a science class where we need empirical proof. I have no real evidence that you exist as a human being. You could be part of some computer algorithm, which actually wouldn't surprise me. Or you could be a wistful part of my imagination.

[GliderGuider]

47. You really should look into Pyrrhonism.

You would probably find it fascinating, maybe even useful. It sure straightened a few things out for me when I discovered it a little while ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism

[Starboard Tack]

49. Interesting. Reminds me of Descartes.

In my youth I went into the "wilderness" (a place devoid of all human contact or interaction) where I spent my 40 days and nights pondering my existence, which I had never doubted previously. After casting aside all the pre-existing circumstantial evidence of my being, I came to the conclusion that the only sure thing was that there existed an entity that questioned it's own existence. At the root of the question was a thought. "...donc je suis". But where did the thought come from? My brain was the vehicle that carried the thought. The originating entity was my mind/soul.

A few weeks later, after returning to civilization I stumbled upon Spinoza's book on Cartesian Philosophy.

[ZombieHorde]

15. I doubt it.

I think the fact that we can think and feel is just a byproduct of certain constantly shifting atom arrangements. I don't think it has any inherent meaning, reason, or value.

[Deep13]

18. If so, they are mortal.

"Soul" is just what we call our consciousness and feelings. It is coterminous with our physical bodies.

[Starboard Tack]

85. It's what some call consciousness and feelings. Not me.

I think it exists across dimensions. Whether it may, or may not be coterminous with our physical beings is dependent on one's individual perception of it.

[Deep13]

102. Yup, across dimensions...

...length, width, height, duration and mass too. There is just no reason to suppose it is anything other than something generated by out physical minds.

[Starboard Tack]

104. Do you really think you are aware of all dimensions?

Do you also belong to the "Flat Earth Society"?

[Wistful Vista]

19. Sure. On our shoes.

Supernatural superstition is still superstition.

[Starboard Tack]

32. Why am I surprised that you would be so insightful?

[Wistful Vista]

35. Because your expectations are low since few people are your intellectual equal, I imagine.

If that isn't it, I have no idea.

[Starboard Tack]

86. And your shoes are fishy

[Wistful Vista]

87. I know, my wife sat on them.

...

[Starboard Tack]

103. Disgustingly sexist. Are you in grade school?

[Wistful Vista]

124. My wife is a guy...like me.

Are you in kindergarten?

[Starboard Tack]

125. Then why would you use such puerile mysoginistic humor?

[Wistful Vista]

131. Congrats on the "puerile" wordsmithing. If you had spelled "misogynistic" correctly,

your plaintive rant would've been worthy of note. Sadly, it was not.

On edit...I just discovered you believe in ghosts, so I must inform you I won't be wasting any more time with you, I'll just go talk with my goat, a more productive enterprise.

[Starboard Tack]

134. Thank dog. Ciao! Chow!

[Ron Obvious]

23. No

If we were to define a soul as retaining memories and personality, then the answer is quite clearly no. Since physical damage to the brain because of strokes or alcohol/drug abuse can make radical changes in a person's personality (I mean 180 degrees in rare instances), and wipe out memories, it's clear to me that whatever we may define to be our "self" is completely bound up in our fleshly selves and nothing more.

I know I'll never see my parents, sister, or my three best friends again. I wish it wasn't so, but wishing it wasn't so doesn't alter the facts, I fear.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Why do we have to define a soul in that way?

Personality is merely the storefront, or the window to the soul, as eyes are sometimes described. The soul is maybe one's essential character, which may or may not be reflected in one's personality.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

42. If you redefine the word "soul", then is it really still a soul?

Words have meaning, and if you start throwing out the meanings of words, then they're useless.

[Starboard Tack]

59. Nobody is throwing out the meaning. We're clarifying it.

To have an intelligent conversation it is vital that we understand what we mean and how we define a word. For example the Latin and Italian word for soul is "animus" or "anima".

The anima and animus, in Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind, as opposed to both the theriomorphic and inferior-function of the shadow archetypes, as well as the abstract symbol sets that formulate the archetype of the Self. The anima and animus are described by Jung as elements of his theory of the collective unconscious, a domain of the unconscious that transcends the personal psyche. In the unconscious of the male, it finds expression as a feminine inner personality: anima; equivalently, in the unconscious of the female it is expressed as a masculine inner personality: animus.

[Wistful Vista]

88. From whence did you copy and paste that?

I'd love to see who wrote it.

[GliderGuider]

89. It looks like it came from an Indonesian psychology paper published last year.

I found it on scribd, but I can't find an English translation.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77925534/Persona

The word "theriomorphic" means "having an animal form", in the sense of totems, familiars, animal spirits or animal gods. As such, it contrasts with "anthropomorphic", which would be representations in human form. Cool word, theriomorphic.

[Wistful Vista]

90. Well golly, and to think I was skeptical...

[GliderGuider]

94. Self-delete - wrong place

[Starboard Tack]

91. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus

[Wistful Vista]

92. I should have guessed.

...

[GliderGuider]

96. Not much for depth psychology either, eh?

Give it time, it grows on ya.

[Wistful Vista]

98. So does melanoma.

[GliderGuider]

99. Ah, but depth psychology can heal old wounds, rather than creating new ones...

n/t

[Ron Obvious]

50. What's left

What's left of you when I strip away your memories and your personality?

I think the science is fairly clear that the sense of self is nothing but a chemical illusion created by the brain. I know; I can't wrap my head around it very well either. I still like to think there's an atomic 'Me', some little man operating the controls inside. It's natural to think so. Same with free will -- it seems self-evident, and yet the area of the brain that deals with the physical motion of my arm, say, fires a fraction of a second before the decision-making part of my brain fires and I decide to move my arm.

[Starboard Tack]

55. The soul is what's left

Memories and personality are not essential to the soul? They are only temporary decorations and accessories, like the brain and the body, that help us negotiate the physical world.

[Ron Obvious]

97. I don't know what you mean by a soul then.

If you've ever dealt with someone with severe dementia, where most of their memories are gone and they just seem to go through the motions, it seems like their "soul" has left. Now I don't believe in a soul, but I went through this with my father a few years back. I'd look him in the eyes and made no connection because his dementia had eaten his memories and personality. It literally felt like there was nobody at home anymore.

What makes me me and you you, is tied up in our memories and our personality which resides in our vulnerable organic brains. When that dies, there's nothing left. I'm as certain of that as I'm certain of anything.

[Starboard Tack]

101. The soul is an intangible entity

separate from our memories and personality. As different, and even more so, as personality and character. The soul is the essence, not the window dressing. All other things are finite, while the soul exists in the realm of the infinite.

[AlbertCat]

72. The soul is maybe one's essential character

Last edited Wed Jan 18, 2012, 01:29 AM - Edit history (1)

And what is that?

Are you the same as you were at age 3?

how about a newborn?

I think the "essentials" may be set by your genes. Y'know, your behavior is about 50% genes and 50% environment, which play off and effect each other thru your life. Both are physical entities and neither "live on" in the combination that is you.

You might want to read some Steven Pinker. Try "How the Mind Works" and "The Blank Slate".

[rrneck]

28. Yes. And it's constantly getting me into trouble

If it would leave me alone I could go about my business buying stuff, chasing women, and screwing everyone around me for whatever I can get. But noooooo. I have to respond to the damn thing and listen to it ask me uncomfortable questions. It keeps reminding me of its similarity to other people's souls and pointing out how damaging their souls just damages mine.

If it weren't for my goddamn soul I would have been a millionaire playboy Wolf of Wall Street by now.

Sheesh.

[Curmudgeoness]

34. I think that you are confusing soul with conscience, but

that's ok, we all do that. It's an easy mistake to make.

Or we could make the argument that you would be "soulless" if you were a millionaire playboy Wolf of Wall Street.

[rrneck]

40. The golden rule...

do unto others...

A theory of mind joins our perceptions of ourselves with our perceptions of others. For all I know a soul is just self awareness.

The way those fuckers on Wall Street have been behaving precludes the possibility of a soul.

[Curmudgeoness]

110. I would buy that definition of a soul then.

But since the word "soul" has too many connotations of religion and the supernatural, I still prefer "self awareness" to describe self awareness.

[GliderGuider]

111. That sounds like mirror neurons in action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3] Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behaviour of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate and other species including birds. In humans, brain activity consistent with that of mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex.

Mirror neurons were first described in 1992. Some scientists consider this to be one of the most important recent discoveries in neuroscience. Among them is V.S. Ramachandran, who believes they might be very important in imitation and language acquisition. Ramachandran has also speculated that mirror neurons are involved in understanding other people's feelings (empathy) and that they have played a role in the development of human culture.[4]

However, scientists such as Greg Hickok have expressed skepticism in regard to the claim that mirror neurons are the basis of the cognitive ability to understand others' intentions or feelings. Hickok, the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at UC Irvine, has argued that there is little or no evidence to support the claim that mirror neurons are involved in understanding the intentions of others.[5] Despite the excitement generated by these findings, to date no widely accepted neural or computational models have been put forward to describe how mirror neuron activity supports cognitive functions such as imitation.[6]

The function of the mirror system is a subject of much speculation. Many researchers in cognitive neuroscience and cognitive psychology consider that this system provides the physiological mechanism for the perception action coupling (see the common coding theory).[3] These mirror neurons may be important for understanding the actions of other people, and for learning new skills by imitation. Some researchers also speculate that mirror systems may simulate observed actions, and thus contribute to theory of mind skills,[7][8] while others relate mirror neurons to language abilities.[9] It has also been proposed that problems with the mirror system may underlie cognitive disorders, particularly autism.[10][11] However the connection between mirror neuron dysfunction and autism is tentative and it remains to be seen how mirror neurons may be related to many of the important characteristics of autism.[6]

But that's still not the domain of the "soul" that I think ST is taking about here, and certainly not what I mean when I use the word.

[rrneck]

132. It's close but

a theory of mind works just as well with fictional characters. I don't have to see Gandalf do something to imagine what he might think or feel.

It's true that my conception of soul is not something that exists seperate from my body. When I die it all ends there. But while I live I would like to find commonality with those around me, and perceiving in others something I think I see in myself is a way for me to share my humanity.

Mine is unique because it's mine, but it isn't special because everybody has one.

Now I've gone and posted before I read your post. I'll go check it out.

[Starboard Tack]

44. Why confusing soul with conscience?

Why can't they be the same, or one be embedded in the other? The key is that the soul exists separately from what we call the physical. An essential part of us that while alive is attached to our physical being. When we die, maybe it dies also, maybe not. Maybe it retains a separate identity, maybe not. I don't feel it is essential to religion, but I do believe it is essential to life.

[GliderGuider]

48. The problem is that religions have appropriated the concept of the soul so completely

Just like they did with so many other ancient ideas. That association puts the idea itself beyond the pale here, even if there are no gods attached.

The group is heavily influenced by logical positivism and its various materialist philosophical offshoots. That puts people like me who are atheists but not materialists at a social disadvantage. As long as you can point to your atheism or agnosticism, there should be no official problem.

What I try to do is treat the discussions as play (something we don't get nearly enough of in this society) and use it to sharpen and clarify my thoughts in the process.

[Starboard Tack]

51. Funny, I never felt that the soul concept had been appropriated by religion

Even when I was going through my religious phase I didn't think that. But I wasn't raised in the Roman Catholic faith, where the soul is a really big deal and your ancestors' souls are held to ransom in purgatory. But that's all about business.

[GliderGuider]

64. That's entirely as it should be IMO.

I was raised in an atheist, positivist home where the concept of the soul was associated with religion and summarily dismissed. I hear many of the same phrases here that I did around the dining room table in my youth, so that's probably why I have the reaction I do. It took a lot of work to get past that...

[Curmudgeoness]

109. You are still considering the soul to be existing separate from

our physical beings. That gets into the supernatural. I don't think that there is anything beyond and in addition to the physical being. If a soul exists separately, does that mean that all living beings have souls? If not, why not?

[Starboard Tack]

112. Yes, I believe each living being has a soul, or the potential to have a soul.

I'm not fond of the word "supernatural" as it is often associated with gods and religion, but I'm OK with it in the sense of supernatural meaning extraordinary or describing something associated with forces we don't understand or that cannot be explained by science.

The soul belongs in the realm of metaphysics. So it is pointless to attempt to define it using physics.
Plato believed in the immortality of the human soul. The soul was, he thought, an entity that was fundamentally distinct from the body although it could be and often was affected by its association with the body, being dragged down by what he called in one passage “the leaden weights of becoming.” The soul was simple, not composite, and thus not liable to dissolution as were material things; further, it had the power of self-movement, again in contrast to material things.

[rrneck]

135. I'm not sure I can adequately answer that question.

But I'll try.

Everything that happens inside our heads is the result of an electrochemical process. For me to be convinced of any seperate essence we might call a soul I would have to see empirical proof.

Buy does the lack of physical proof make the concept of a soul any less magical? We can give souls to imaginary characters and call it fiction. How barren would our lives be without literature, drama, art, music and poetry?

We can give souls to animals and I think we frequently do. We call them pets. Would that we treated the rest of the animal world with such compassion. All we have to do is give them souls.

What would the world look like if we gave it a soul? What if we treated it as if it had an essence as unique as our own, or at least tried to?

On the other hand, if we conceive of a soul as a thing that belongs to us but is separate from us it quickly becomes a commodity. Then sooner or later there will always be someone willing to tell us what to do with it and punish is for doing otherwise. I think I'd rather music have soul than to sell my soul to the company store.

For my part it pleases me to consider the perception of my essence my soul. I am as I see myself and I can allow others that same privelage. Our souls are something we can give away and never miss, receive and never own, share and never lose.

That's about as close as I can get just offhand typing with one finger.

[GliderGuider]

136. +1

That sure works for me!

[Starboard Tack]

145. I'm with you there. It's a tough one to define.

If only James Brown were still around, maybe we could ask him. But we got some folk thinking here. I don't think souls are the exclusive property of religious people.

[rrneck]

146. Not only is it imposdible to define

if too many settle too hard on a definition the human barbeques begin.

[OriginalGeek]

52. I think the seed of doubt was planted in me

in my early teens when the preacher at the fundamentalist church I grew up in did a sermon on souls and talked about (I will have to paraphrase here as it was 35+years ago) "scientists" who performed experiments with people who they knew were about to die. They had placed these people (with their permission) on the most sensitive scales they could find that had the ability to discern changes in weight as small as micro-fractions of a gram. They then watched as the person died and recorded the smallest of changes on weight on the scale and that was the soul leaving the body.

At first I thought "Wow! That's amazing!" but within minutes I began wondering why they were trying so hard to find evidence of a soul. Shouldn't a soul by it's very nature be weightless? Shouldn't I just be accepting the soul concept on faith anyway? That's how they told me to accept everything else. Why the sudden change? Suddenly they need some experiment that proves the concept? I thought they shouldn't even have been looking for evidence. And then I thought doesn't breath have water vapor and, therefor, weight? Couldn't their soul just be a last breath leaving the body?

I lasted in church a few more years but I've been a godless, soulless atheist ever since.

[Starboard Tack]

56. My point is, you can be godless, but still have soul.

One does not depend on the other.

[OriginalGeek]

58. Yes I think I understand your point

I just don't agree with it. I don't believe in a soul. Certainly not as described by christian theology (or any of the other theologies I've heard of). If you want to call my consciousness a soul then I guess I have one until the day I drop dead.

If your definition if soul is something else then I really do not understand your point and would need it clarified. But if it includes any energy or substance or thought or feeling or emotion that lives on after I die and includes my personality, then I don't believe it.

I believed it way back then but not any more.

[Starboard Tack]

60. I don't know if it continues after the body dies.

And to me that is not really important. To me the soul is not part of a linear existence, constrained by time, but rather exists in an infinite number of dimensions, or realms of existence, including the current physical one. Time is a human construct, as is religion and everything else we define, to help us deal with this dimension that we call reality, or life.
Many years ago, I had an 11 year old son. We were playing chess one night, when he suddenly stopped playing, looked at me and asked "What happens when we die?" I replied that I didn't know, but that I imagined life as a dream, where things change, like stepping out of a room into an endless corridor and randomly entering another room, where everything may be different or everything may be the same, like parallel universes. He said "OK, I see what you're trying to say", and we continued playing with no further discussion. The next morning he went on an errand with a family friend. They passed a car that had run off the road into a ditch and stopped to see if anyone needed help. He ran across the road and was killed instantly by another car coming down the road. I tell this because I will never forget the look in his eyes when he asked the question. A question he had never asked before. Part of him knew. I call it his soul part.

[GliderGuider]

63. .

That's quite something to read first thing in the morning.

Thank you.

[OriginalGeek]

73. I am not even gonna pretend I can understand that kind of pain

I simply can't. My Dad, Mom, Uncle and Grandma have all passed away in the last 5 years and I still don't think all of them combined can compare to losing a child that way. It is a very human thing to try and find meaning in tragedy all I can do is wish you the very best on your path and hope you will forgive me if I don't take that path.

[Starboard Tack]

77. That's fine but I don't really see it as a path.

More of a concept that came to me in first grade. A boy in my class died and we had two minutes of silence in my school to remember him. I had no concept of death prior to that, but I'll always remember those two minutes. As a five year old, I did know about dreams. I had them every night and was fascinated by them. I came to the conclusion that, if I could dream of other people, then they could dream of me and consequently I could dream of them dreaming of me dreaming of them and so on, ad infinitum. That's how I dealt with death at the age of five and it stuck. The dream changed. Even when I explored the existence, or possible existence of God, I saw it as a dream. We were all in God's dream, and by the same token, God was in our dreams. This evolved into a chicken and egg conundrum for me until I realized that there wasn't a first or last. Everything is simultaneous. Therefore God is purely an invention on our part, because we demand a finite world. A world with beginnings and endings. A world ruled by this thing we call time. We are obsessed with it and religions cash in on that obsession, by offering rewards and punishments based on timely accomplishments.

[AlbertCat]

75. One does not depend on the other.

Since neither actually exists... you can do what yo want with them.

[onager]

53. This would probably be better discussed in Religion.

However you define "the soul," things with an Afterlife are usually a topic for the religious, not non-believers.

Since I'm seeing a lot of new names in here, just a friendly reminder - this is the Atheist/Agnostic GROUP. It is intended as a safe haven for non-believers. Religion is an open FORUM where anyone can post on any religious topic.

[laconicsax]

54. Religion is a group now.

[Host]Anyone who wants to participate in discussions here is welcome, provided they respect the "safe haven" nature of this group.[/Host]

[Starboard Tack]

57. I do not associate having or recognizing one's soul with religion

I do not believe in any god or any religion, but I am convinced that I have a soul. Many atheists and agnostics feel the same. That's why we're discussing it. Give it another name if you like.

[i_sometimes]

67. Thank you.

To my early morning bleary eyes, this thread looks like an invasion of stupid.
To my half cup of coffee eyes later, still full of stupid.

[AlbertCat]

76. To my half cup of coffee eyes later, still full of stupid.

Indeed.

It's like ghosts and gods. If no one had ever told you from birth you had a thing called a "soul", would you even come up with the idea?

All these supernatural characters were made up by a bunch of cave men and have been passed on ever since.

All this fear of death and oblivion. Grow up!

[Starboard Tack]

79. My concept of soul has no bearing on anything I was told.

And it has nothing to do with ghosts or gods or religion or caves or the supernatural or fear of death and oblivion. On the contrary, if all there is at death is oblivion, which I accept as a possibility, then what is there to be afraid of? Fear is peddled by those who believe in heaven and hell. A closed mind may well be devoid of a soul. I think many living people do not have souls. What do they call them, zombies?

[AlbertCat]

115. My concept of soul has no bearing on anything I was told.

Must be why your definition of the word "soul" is not most peoples'.... and is crap. It has nothing to do with a god. It doesn't necessarily go on after death. A turnip has one. I suggest you call this personal thing you've made up something else.

[Starboard Tack]

123. Are you just here to insult and disrupt?

[AlbertCat]

138. Are you just here to insult and disrupt?

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Nope.
Just to point out that this soul talk is nonsense.... no matter how dear it may be to you. It's like alien abductions or something.

Pointing out the weaknesses in your emotional hypothesis is not disruptive.

If you are going to make extraordinary claims, you must back it up with extraordinary proof.

And you HAVE been changing your definitions.... which are not the usual ones most people understand. If you think all living things have a soul, do you mean that? Or just those big, moving, sentient living things we interact with? There's a big difference there.

It's all obviously very personal to you. It makes you feel good and you are no doubt a nice person who wants us all to feel that good too. But you have to be accurate.

You never tell us the actual experiences that guided you to your "soul". That's OK if they are really personal. But it does make it way difficult for us "empiricalists"

I apologize for my harshness. I am deliberately being unyielding and trying to be emotionless about it.





Y'know... it take both kinds.... both of us to "make the world go 'round". I don't think there is a soul. I think you are describing something else.... something not supernatural. I think you are unintentionally ignoring outside influences on your interpretation. But please go on with your quest to express yourself and your experiences so they can be shared. I would not have you stop.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. Honestly no, I'm always puzzled by the concept of souls, they seem contradictory...

and frankly we have enough problems defining the self as it is, much less claim its permanent even if our bodies are not. Souls obviously don't animate our bodies, or determine our personalities, emotions or capabilities, our brains do that. We are a accumulation of our memories and thought processes, change those, and you change the person, does the soul change as well? If so, then does it change after death, the most drastic thing that can happen? If it doesn't change, then what makes the soul you in the first place?

In addition, the other problem is trying to grasp infinity, even assuming there's a spiritual realm, an infinity in it sounds like absolute hell, regardless of actual conditions within it. The best case scenario is actually an afterlife that is indistinguishable from this one, except no death, but also no birth as well. Indeed, one of the most common concepts is that it doesn't change, ever, and neither does the soul, this is perhaps the worst type of existence imaginable.

[Iggo]

66. No.

[AlbertCat]

70. Do we have souls?

No. Of course not.

When your physical being is gone... so are you.

Others may remember you with their imperfect memories generated by the synapses in their physical brain, but that is gone when they are gone.

And "infinity embracing all possibilities" is just gobbledygook talk. (Does it embrace the possibility that infinity does not embrace all possibilities?)

Where does this soul reside? In your body or out of it? What of "you" does it encompass? Your personality? I can change that with drugs or by cutting out a part of your brain so you are unrecognizable. Are you even the same person you were at 5 years old? Did you have a different soul then? How is a soul different from a ghost?

[Starboard Tack]

82. Question - Do you accept infinity?

Or do you believe existence itself is finite? If you believe it is finite, then you must believe that it was created from nothingness.

'And "infinity embracing all possibilities" is just gobbledygook talk.'
Is it really. I think it pretty much defines infinity, inasmuch as infinity can be defined, which, of course, is the problem.

You are not going to find answers to spiritual questions by using physical criteria.

[AlbertCat]

116. Or do you believe existence itself is finite?

Mine is. And my existence was created by my parents' genes, not "nothing". What a wild assumption.

A "soul" is supposed to be a personal, discrete thing by its real definition, not the existence of the whole universe.... which I believe can come from "nothing".

You keep moving the goalpost just to remain fuzzy and to keep your made up definitions from being pinned down. You don't make much sense. Your insights seem too personal to be of much use to a question like "Is there a soul".

And infinity is a defined mathematical concept.

And asking if something exists or not is a scientific question, not a "spiritual" one... whatever "spiritual" means. I'm not interested in the "supernatural" since the only reason anything exists in this universe is because the laws of physics allow for it and the circumstances for it, however rare or improbable, have occurred.... since the thing exists. If a soul exists, it's because of these factors and therefore it is natural and subject to physical laws.

[Starboard Tack]

122. I asked if you thought existence itself was finite, not your existence.

All existence. Do you think all other existence ceases when you die? Simple question.

[AlbertCat]

139. Do you think all other existence ceases when you die? Simple question.

No it isn't a "simple question". It's a nonsense question. Why would I think that? The universe will go on after you and I are gone. What does such a thing have to do with a soul?

[Starboard Tack]

144. If you want to have a discussion with me I'll be happy to oblige.

But that is not going to happen if you continue to be condescending and dismissing everything I say as nonsense. Try to show some respect please if you seriously want me to answer your questions. And if you are genuinely curious, then please be patient. We'll get to the "soul" part eventually. One step at a time. It's called evolution.

Now, the universe will go on after you and I are gone. Good. I believe it will go on forever and I believe it has existed forever, even before the big bang and after the next big whatever. That's what I mean by infinity, or eternity. The infinite nature of time and space, or the infinite nature of existence. (Not personal, individual existence, just existence). If one accepts that, then why refute the concept of infinite possibilities, including parallel universes, metaphysics, ufos, souls, ghosts etc. instead of dismissing them out of hand. It's like someone who only speaks and understands only one language thinking those who speak different tongues are speaking nonsense. Nonsense, like beauty, is in the eye, or ear, or mind of the beholder.

Just because some religions espouse the idea of a soul and eternity doesn't mean the rest of us are excluded. They don't own the rights any more than they own the truth.

[PVnRT]

74. No

We have sufficiently advanced brain chemistry that allows us to process things such that we are self-aware. There are no souls, no afterlife, nothing separate from the physical world.

[dmallind]

78. What are souls exactly? Why should we have them? What are the indications that we do/do not?

We should ask these questions first. So much of what I see described in these metaphysical terms are well understood and entirely mechanistic neurochemistry. Sure there are gaps in neuroscience like most disciplines, but we need to be very careful that we can at least define and putatively detect ghosts in the machine before we ask if they are there. Without that, asking the original question is like asking what my grobbleblarg quotient is.

[Starboard Tack]

83. If you have one, you'll know what it is, though I doubt you'll be able to adequately describe it.

Looking for the soul in neuroscience is like looking for the stars at noon.
There doesn't have to be a reason to have a soul. Reason is a man made justification for everything. God did not create the universe and neither did man. Looking for reasons for everything is a combination of man's arrogance and ignorance.

[AlbertCat]

117. Looking for the soul in neuroscience is like looking for the stars at noon.

But we know exactly where the stars are at noon.


Poetry will not help you here. Well, unless it's good and not Rod McKuen....

[Starboard Tack]

121. Knowing where something is and seeing it are two different things.

[AlbertCat]

140. Knowing where something is and seeing it are two different things.

More nonsense.

You said "looking for...." which in normal English means trying to find out where it is.

"Seeing" stars requires photons and eyes and a brain.

The other kind of "seeing" means "understanding" as in "I see what you mean".

But of course you didn't use the word "seeing" or "see".

[frogmarch]

80. No

When our bodies die, we are dead. Period.

That's my take on it.

[Starboard Tack]

84. You may well be correct.

We probably will be dead in any sense that we understand. I don't know if the soul survives the death of the body, but I do believe it exists separately from the body. Maybe it loses it's individual nature and returns to the universal soul or as Jung describes it, the "Collective Unconscious".

[GliderGuider]

95. I've been thinking some more about how I experience that "soul-sense"

Here are some of the qualities I perceive:

1. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my personality. Its "me-ness" seems far more fundamental than my personality. In fact, my personality seems almost transparent, a pile of experiences whose shape I (mis?)interpret as my self in my day-to-day life.

2. There is a sense of timelessness about it. Not just that it survives death or is immortal or anything so simple, but that it exists entirely outside time - that time happens within it, rather than it existing within time. A (poor) physical analogy might be the process of digestion, by which the body assimilates nutrients. Time seems like part of the digestive mechanism by which the "soul" assimilates experiences.

3. There is a sense of spacelessness about it. In the same way that it enfolds time, it also enfolds space. It forms a container for the universe I experience.

4. I almost always experience it in conjunction with a "unity of existence" experience - the "all-is-one", oceanic sensation described best by Eastern philosophies like Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita. In this state it's obvious that I am the same as everything else, that there is in fact no "I" - that the personality I take to be "me" in ordinary times is an illusion, a construction, a changeable story that allows me to interact with physical consensus reality.

But you know what? There isn't a god in sight anywhere. Except when I look in a mirror, of course.

Oh, and for those who are dying to ask, I have no "evidence" for any of it. It's all subjective meaning. It really doesn't matter, either to me or to Me, whether anyone else buys it. But it might encourage someone else who has been wondering if they can have feelings like these and still call themselves an atheist.

[Starboard Tack]

106. Very well put.

[AlbertCat]

118. Endorphins will do that to you.

Many of us have similar experiences....

I have...

I just do not ascribe them to supernatural occurrences or entities. Supernatural explanations are last on my list. I call myself an atheist because I know my feelings are generated by my brain. Just like yours were.

And you see a god when you look in the mirror?????

Jesus H Christ! Perhaps what you are feeling is just megalomania. It just sounds like an acid trip.

[GliderGuider]

120. Interesting you should mention acid.

I have always felt that the title of Huxley's book "The Doors of Perception" was very well chosen. IMO psychedelics like LSD, mescaline and psilocybin do sometimes open the doors and let you look through rather than just paint a pretty picture for you.

You're right, many of us have similar experiences. We each attach personal interpretations and meanings to them, meanings that are inevitably coloured and shaped by the psychological filters of our experiences, our cultural setting, our education and our physiology. If I interpret an experience in a particular way, that doesn't mean that the meaning I give it must be universally shared. Quite the contrary - the more personal an experience is, the more personal and less transferable its meaning becomes.

If I say that I have experienced something I interpreted as "soul-like", that has nothing to say about how you might interpret a similar experience. The fact that I give it one meaning and you another doesn't make either of us wrong, just individuals.

If I'd started the thread, I might not have asked the OP's question, "Do we have souls?" as that phrasing implies the objective nature and universality of something called a soul. Perhaps I might have asked "Do you think you have a soul?" or "Have you ever experienced anything you would call a soul?" or something similar.

My best answer to the original question is, "I have no idea whether we do or not." But I can (like a good politician) answer the questions I would have asked instead, in which case the answers would be "Very possibly" to the first and "Yes" to the second. But clearly I can only speak for my own thoughts and experiences. They have no bearing on yours.

OTOH, my questions wouldn't have stirred up nearly so much interesting conversation as the OP did...

[AlbertCat]

141. "Have you ever experienced anything you would call a soul?"

Now that to me is a much more interesting question.

Y'know, I love music, Bach and Handel.... Stevie Ray Vaughn and The Black Angels. I love art and theatre.... especially dance. In college I did plenty of acid, BTW. But within all that, I never get a feeling that leads me to a supernatural conclusion. I find the supernatural so unsatisfying that I simply reject it as any kind of plausible answer to anything. And since my rejection of the supernatural, my love of art has only increased. It's a mystery to me how, say, a Rothko painting can move me.... but it can. Ascribing it to brain function does not diminish the sensation at all. It makes me marvel at the brain.... the one that did the painting and the ones that interpret it.

I know I sound rude, but that's just because I give no fuzzy warm deferrals to poetic explanations that haven't considered the scientific method and its revelations. That pisses off people who take these things personally. That's my failing.

But I am not trying to be disruptive. I want "spiritual" ideas explained. If they are so important to someone, they should take the time to explain them. So I play devil's advocate.

[GliderGuider]

147. One great disservice (among many) that religion did for humanity

...was to equate "soul" with "supernatural". That linkage has shut down a lot of potentially fruitful scientific and philosophical investigation, especially as the cultural gulf between the subjective and objective has grown since the Enlightenment. The concept of "soul" originally had a quite natural context, starting with ancient animist beliefs.

When I investigate my soul-sense it feels entirely natural. How could it not, since it springs from my own nature? For me this marks one of the most important dividing lines between religion and spirituality. Spirituality (for me at any rate) is personal, subjective, natural and liberating, while religion is impersonal, objective, supernatural and enslaving. I have a great sense of connection with the former, and nothing but contempt for the latter.

[uriel1972]

113. I have seen no evidence of a soul

so I don't believe we have them.

[Starboard Tack]

126. Do you only believe what can be proven by empirical evidence?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

127. You ask that as if it's a bad thing

Implied in your question is the idea that intellectual inquiry is somehow bad or a weakness or a personality defect.

[Starboard Tack]

128. How do you arrive at that concusion from a simple question?

Is the question itself sufficient evidence for you to believe such an implication?
Talk about jumping to conclusions.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

130. Because I've seen the question too many times to count

It's almost invariably of the "I have other ways of knowing" variety. My armor is rusty and falling apart from all the internet theism wars I've fought - in other words, I've been around the block a few times.

So, if that's not what you meant, why would you ask the question? People either make their judgments based on empirical evidence or they don't. Your question seems to suggest something wrong with those who do base their lives on evidence and logic.

[AlbertCat]

142. How do you arrive at that concusion from a simple question?

Perhaps it's implied by some of your other posts. You imply you think there are other ways of knowing what's real.

But you are right. There is nothing inherently sinister in your question.

But also "Evolve...'s" conclusion is not entirely unwarranted. I know just what he means in his reply.

[Starboard Tack]

143. Ah, I see. Different rules for different people

I imply there are other ways for knowing what is real, like my own eyes, my own ears, my own experiences. Subjective rules. But you know what he means and he knows what I mean because you guys have "been around the block" so many times and dealt with such tiresome questions before. Interesting.

[AlbertCat]

149. knowing what is real, like my own eyes, my own ears,

Eyes and ears are notoriously unreliable.

You know the experiment where subjects were asked to look at a film of people in a circle throwing a ball and calling our a number they have been assigned as the receive the ball. The subject is asked to notice what number gets the ball when.

After the exercise they are asked questions like "How many times did #5 get the ball" Stuff like that. Then they are asked if they saw the gorilla.


No one did.

Then they are shown the ball throwing film again, without a task to do while watching it. A guy in a gorilla suit blatantly walks out to the middle of the frame and waves at the camera.


No one saw it.

Just because you saw something, or didn't see something, does not make it true.


How am I to take someone who thinks ectoplasm is real seriously? You really are tiresome!

Adios!

[cleanhippie]

153. "How am I to take someone who thinks ectoplasm is real seriously?"

I think you nailed it right there.

[Starboard Tack]

156. When four people witness the same event, I give it some credibility.

Because you don't believe it does not make it false. Ectoplasm is a word I used to describe what we saw. Do you have a better word or explanation?

[AlbertCat]

157. When four people witness the same event, I give it some credibility.

Not when all 4 are disposed to want to see the event.
!00's of people will see the Virgin Mary if they all want to.


"Do you have a better word or explanation?"

Delusions.


Try rejecting all the supernatural explanations you been told about in Bill Murray movies (and all your life, tho' you haven't seemed to notice you've been told) and see what's left.

[Starboard Tack]

158. We were not disposed to see the event.

Three of us scoffed at the idea and just went along because our friend insisted. We were all sober, non religious, adults. Supernatural and paranormal are not synonymous.
I don't often recount this event because I expect reactions like yours, but I don't know you and your calling me delusional means nothing and adds nothing to the discussion. If you have nothing constructive to say, why say it?

[lindysalsagal]

166. Sometimes I wonder if simply random dna can account for all of the differences

between people, including siblings. Then, I wonder if simply random dna can also account for all of our similarities.


(Scratching head, wandering off, looking for something to eat.)

[Starboard Tack]

193. I'm sure lots of truths have been discovered by wondering.

And wandering. Bon appetit!

[backscatter712]

167. Our brains are information-processing organs, not supernatural radio receivers. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

168. I agree

That's our brains. Do you believe our brains account for everything we are, though, through it's information processing? We are more than computers. We have consciences, feelings and a sense of right and wrong that has nothing to do with our processing power.

[darkstar3]

169. Why do you think these concepts have nothing to do with our brain power?

[Starboard Tack]

170. Because that would exclude those with diminished brain power

The idea that our value as individuals resides solely in our cerebral processes is elitist and offensive. To deny one's inner being, or essence, in favor of superior intelligence does not compute with reality.

[darkstar3]

171. Uh huh...Have you ever dealt with a relative

who suffered from Alzheimer's? Dementia? Brain damage?

The facts are simple. Those stricken with these unfortunate problems later in life suffer fundamental changes in self. Their feelings, their senses of right, wrong, decency, social interaction...their very grasp on the nature of life and the world around them changes in a way so jarring that the only way to describe the change is "they are a totally different person now."

I'm not exaggerating this, either. If anything, i haven't conveyed the raw magnitude of change. Brain damage patients have been known to suffer drastic changes in emotional states leading to the loss of relationships and jobs. Alzheimer's and dementia patients have been known not just to regress to an earlier state, as is depicted in popular culture, but to change into a person so unrecognizable that family members simply give up on visiting them in hospital.

It is your brain, unequivocally, that gives you the sense of self to which you refer. It is your brain that gives you your sense of morality, your consciousness, and your emotions. You say that's offensive? Well let me tell you what I find offensive. I find the fact that you twist my words into "superior intellect = superior value" offensive. I find the fact that your view is so anthropocentric that you ignore other animals with consciousness, emotions, and morality offensive.

And I find the idea of an "inner being, or essence" to be wishful thinking. I even engage in that wishful thinking sometimes, but I don't give that wishful thinking anywhere near the credence of actual fact.

[Starboard Tack]

172. Have I ever dealt with such things? Unfortunately, yes.

More than once. One of closest and dearest friends is disappearing daily with Altzheimer's and it is heartbreaking. His brain has deteriorated to the point that he doesn't know me or his family any longer. His behavior is sometimes violent and totally against character. He was always a loving and gentle man. I have seen the same happen to other friends and relatives. In spite of that, his soul is untouched and shines through his suffering. The brain may well control one's sense of morality, consciousness, and emotions, but it does not control one's inner self, one's essence. In fact, I believe the converse is true. The soul controls the brain until that connection to the physical being is lost, as is the case with Altzheimer's and other brain injuries.
Where we differ, is that you think the brain is the driving force and I think the soul is the driving force. You see it as wishful thinking, I see it as reality. We have differing points of view, that's all.
"I find the fact that your view is so anthropocentric that you ignore other animals with consciousness, emotions, and morality offensive."
Where did you get that notion from? I think animals have souls too. I sense it all the time. I haven't done it in over thirty years, but I would recommend a dose of LSD or mescaline to anyone who doubts the existence of the soul.

[darkstar3]

173. That's a treacle-sweet phrase, "his soul is untouched and shines through..."

Now tell me how you've seen that. How do you quantify or qualify his "soul", and how to you know that it's doing anything?

I lost my great-grandmother to dementia. My great-uncle is in late stage Alzheimer's. When another uncle of mine died, the trauma and anguish changed my aunt so much that when she followed him to the grave shortly thereafter, the family said "she'd already been gone for a while now." In those cases, and many more of stroke victims, head trauma victims, and others in my old community, I never once saw evidence of something I would call a "soul" or an "inner self" shining through. What I did see was clear evidence that the fundamental self changes, sometimes in its entirety, when the brain is subject to savage modification.

Now for the funny part: You modified your brain chemistry using hallucinogens, and you think it allowed you to see beyond your own brain chemistry.

[Starboard Tack]

176. Some of us see things that others don't.

I don't criticize you for seeing what you see and I expect the same from you. Respect.
The point about hallucinogens is that they can remove the obstacles to perception that the brain puts in the way. It unblocks the pathways. There are other ways to attain the level of consciousness necessary to perceive the soul. One is meditation. I have had relatives develop dementia during the last months or years of their lives. The likelihood increases with longevity. Brain trauma may cause a disconnect with one's soul in the same way as it can cause a disconnect with parts of the body.

[darkstar3]

177. Some of us see things that aren't there, like ghosts and demons.

You find what you look for. I notice you weren't able to explain how you quantify or qualify a soul, or how you see it in a person. I also notice that you are unable to explain how modification of brain chemistry allows you to see beyond brain chemistry.

[Starboard Tack]

178. Not everything that exists is quantifiable. Feelings and thoughts, ideas, concepts e.g.

Read "The Doors of Perception". Huxley explains the LSD effect much better than I ever could. Or you could just try it and then maybe you'd know what I mean.

[darkstar3]

180. True, however that which you can see generally is.

As for your LSD thing, I'm not really interested in illegal drugs, but you might read "The Demon Haunted World" in order to get a more interesting view of what incredible deceptions your brain is capable of.

[GliderGuider]

182. If it was legal would you be interested?

I've never been much of a fan of governments telling me what I can do with my consciousness, but one must be practical, I guess. Psilocybin mushrooms are legal to consume in many places, and can do much the same thing. Salvia divinorum is an even more powerful entheogen.

The brain is capable of offering great truths as well as great deceptions. The issue is always deciding which is which. There's also the issue of whether something that is a deception might be meaningful at the same time. IMO the validity of an insight is independent of its trigger.

[darkstar3]

183. Since you're jumping in here, perhaps you can answer the question

How can altering your brain chemistry to cause hallucinations allow you to see beyond brain chemistry?

[GliderGuider]

184. What does "see beyond brain chemistry" mean?

I don't think anyone understands the action of hallucinogens on the brain in terms of their effects on consciousness. The research was shut down too fast. What we're left with as a result is subjective reports.

To turn the question back, how does even normal brain function allow us to see "beyond brain chemistry" in terms of creating ordinary consciousness? In other words, what is consciousness, and where does it come from? The attempted explanations I've seen so far are pretty simplistic and don't address those root questions.

The manipulation of consciousness is a bit of an unsolved riddle in anesthesia, for example - we know how to do it, but we still don't know why it works:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5903/876.abstract
[div class="excerpt" style="border:solid 1px #000000"]Abstract

When we are anesthetized, we expect consciousness to vanish. But does it always? Although anesthesia undoubtedly induces unresponsiveness and amnesia, the extent to which it causes unconsciousness is harder to establish. For instance, certain anesthetics act on areas of the brain's cortex near the midline and abolish behavioral responsiveness, but not necessarily consciousness. Unconsciousness is likely to ensue when a complex of brain regions in the posterior parietal area is inactivated. Consciousness vanishes when anesthetics produce functional disconnection in this posterior complex, interrupting cortical communication and causing a loss of integration; or when they lead to bistable, stereotypic responses, causing a loss of information capacity. Thus, anesthetics seem to cause unconsciousness when they block the brain's ability to integrate information.
It's a long way from being able to disrupt consciousness temporarily to explaining the subjective effects of hallucinogens like LSD. If we don't even know (yet) where normal consciousness comes from, it's unlikely anyone would be able to answer your question about altered consciousness.

[darkstar3]

185. So you don't have an answer.

You and ST keep talking about how LSD and other hallucinogens give you the opportunity to see and perceive things...things about consciousness...things beyond the human brain and beyond normal perception. The problem is that all you're seeing is altered brain chemistry at work, and yet you insist that something more is there.

If there's something more there, prove it. Show me any logical way in which altering your brain chemistry can allow you to see this something more. Tell me how you know that this something more is any more than a phantom in your mind.

[GliderGuider]

186. No, I don't. Not one that will satisfy you.

You're approaching this question from the materialist perspective, while I'm approaching it from the phenomenological. To me the important reality is the meaning of the experience itself - in fact I treat any experience that has meaning to me as being real. Not "objectively real" (though in this case I'm not sure what that phrase might mean) perhaps, but certainly subjectively real. I suspect that is not one of your criteria for assessing reality, which is what inspired my "Two Solitudes" post below. Our frames of reference are essentially orthogonal.

[darkstar3]

187. That's because your frame of reference is made up of much that is made up.

[AlbertCat]

188. Some of us see things that others don't.

In your imagination.

And consciousness is overrated.

The majority of what "you" do... to keep your very body alive, you are unaware of. Like digestion, fighting disease, a whole myriad of interconnected systems that you may only notice if something is not working correctly.

But the ONLY place your sense of self and consciousness resides is your brain. This you clearly cannot see.

[Starboard Tack]

190. But the ONLY place your sense of self and consciousness resides is your brain.

I actually agree with that statement. One's sense of self and one's consciousness do reside in the brain and perhaps, solely in the brain. I see the soul as having only a temporary and somewhat tenuous connection to one's physical being.

There are things we experience in life that cannot be explained scientifically. That may well be because our scientific knowledge has not evolved sufficiently to understand such phenomena. Or it may be that certain phenomena exist beyond the realm of science as we know it.

[darkstar3]

194. You realize that's the God of the Gaps argument, right?

[Starboard Tack]

195. More like the soul alongside argument

The argument may sound similar, but God of the Gaps is an argument to justify the existence of a deity. I don't know or care whether the existence of the soul can be proven scientifically. Proving it would not change the reality of it, even if that reality is no more than a concept.
My point is, that believing in or acknowledging the existence of what an individual might perceive as a soul, is compatible with a non belief in any god or creating entity.

[darkstar3]

196. Your two arguments take advantage of the same logical fallacy,

known as the Argument from Ignorance. You're also engaging in false presumption when you say you don't care if it could be proven because proving it wouldn't change it being real.

[backscatter712]

174. Yes.

Of course, we have consciences, feelings, morality, and yes, I believe that can be boiled down to information that is coded into the connections of our neural networks.

[Starboard Tack]

179. Many believe as you do. Maybe you're right. Maybe not. I think not.

[AlbertCat]

189. I think not.

I suggest some research!

Try reading some books by Steven Pinker. They are great! Unbelievably interesting.

And of course you can disagree with him. Many do.

[Starboard Tack]

191. I'm somewhat familiar with Pinker, but haven't read his books.

Definitely a brilliant mind. I'll keep an eye out for his books.

[GliderGuider]

175. There may be "Two Solitudes" at work here.

On one side are the materialists - to them the universe is a purely physical place, all human subjective experience is an emergent property of the brain's electrochemistry.

On the other are those I might call phenomenologists, specifically those who ascribe in some way to the phenomenology of mind or spirit, as outlined by Hegel. To such people (speaking from personal experience), the working of the mind assumes a degree of independence from the brain. In many cases the perception is of a "Self" that is has little to do with the physical brain/body at all.

From my perspective, the gulf between the two positions is largely a product of the rationalist culture that has grown up since the Enlightenment. The rules of evidence for the two sides are quite different, as are the definitions of "truth", "meaning", "value" and even "reality".

The materialist worldview has been in the ascendant for the last couple of hundred years, and has had enough success at restructuring the physical world that the correctness of the position seems axiomatic. For a variety of reasons, this position seems incomplete to the phenomenologists, who point back to thousands of years of non-materialist human culture as evidence for the evolutionary correctness of their position.

To bring it back to the terms of reference for the group, this difference mirrors the theism/atheism debate so closely that I wonder if it might be the underlying driver of most such conflicts. Perhaps we're dealing here not so much with truth and falsehood, but simply with people who perceive the world in different ways. If this is the case, the best we can hope for is to increase each side's understanding of the other, but converting each other through argument is a lost cause.

[Starboard Tack]

192. Brilliantly put, my friend. Your insight is inspirational.

I guess I'm a phenomenologist, who has a lot of catching up to do.

[Jean V. Dubois]

181. As far as I can tell, no. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if verifiable, repeatable evidence

is provided.

I don't believe this is the case as yet.