Do we have soul?

That's special pleading, the claim that a concept is off-limits to rational inquiry because it's in it's own special category.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On the contrary, that is special pleading since it is assuming that its rational to use the scientific process to evidence the claim in the first place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I also know for a fact there is no soul on the basis of my own separate rational process that isn't science. I call it Spiderology. I could teach it to anyone but it takes years of study and the correct frame of mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not convinced that we can prove that humans don't have souls, certainly not if we are using 'prove' in the logical proof sense. But we can produce plausible reasons to think that we don't.

If we define 'soul' in the earlier ancient sense as some mysterious animating substance whose presence makes physical bodies move under their own power, display sentience and be alive, and whose absence constitutes death, we can probably say that modern physiology and molecular biology have rendered it largely superfluous. Biologists no longer explain life by attributing it to some vitalistic life-substance or life-force.

More recent Western concepts of the word 'soul' tend to separate the idea from physiological biology, equating it more squarely with 'mind'. (Some of the ancients were already doing this, especially in the Indian tradition.) Descartes' hypothetical mind-substance is the classic early modern example of this psychologizing tendency, imagining a kind of non-physical stuff that's supposed to somehow account for and explain subjective awareness. If mind- or soul-stuff is present and interacting properly with material bodies, then it's thought that those bodies enjoy subjective experiences and a sense of self, of 'me'. If the mind- or soul-stuff is absent, then those metaphysically deprived physical bodies might still appear alive, moving about biologically and perhaps even speaking, using language and insisting that they are having experiences, but they would just be subjectively empty 'zombies', moving hunks of clockwork meat, phony simulacra of real people. Descartes apparently believed that all the other animals apart from man fit this dismissive description.

I think that several objections can be raised to that kind of view. For one thing, zombies in this sense are probably impossible. For another, attributing subjective awareness to the presence of some mysterious non-physical substance doesn't really explain subjective awareness and isn't really any more informative than just saying that subjective awareness is mysterious. The whole thing ends up being kind of circular, since seemingly our only evidence for the existence of this mind-substance is the subjective experience that the mind-stuff is being called into existence to somehow explain.

Perhaps most important as time goes on, will be the fact that these kind of theories are vulnerable to the same kind of advances in physiology that spelled trouble for the older vitalistic life-force theories. We already have lots of evidence for the close dependence of subjective states on brain function. Alcohol and psychoactive drugs provide obvious examples, as do the subjective effects of brain injuries and the sometimes profound effects that brain damage can have on personality. My expectation is that as neuroscience continues to advance, and as neurophysiology becomes better at accounting for how it is that we have subjective experience, the mind- and soul-substance theories will gradually fade away as the life-force theories finally did in the 19th century.

But we haven't gotten to that point yet, and there's still a faction in the philosophy of mind who stoutly insist that it will never come to pass, because in their view no physicalistic account can ever possibly account for subjective experience. So the battle continues.

As for me, I don't believe that souls literally exist, nor do I believe in any metaphysical life- or soul-substances.

 

You also probably accept two specific people as your biological parents .... despite never having had them go through dna testing and never having witnessed your conception.

:shrug:

 

Why?
We have subjective experience of billionaires.
We may not have direct experience of being a billionaire, but we have experience of their existence (through the press etc).
Ageusia sufferers have no such subjective experience of taste, which is a specific sense.
So it is a flawed comparison.

It means that it has not been shown to be incorrect.
It remains a possibility, whether one considers it rational or not.

If there is no evidence that rationally supports the claim then I consider it to be a matter of faith.
I have no such evidence.
Ergo for me it would be a matter of faith.

Because I hold it to be a cornerstone of what I deem the rational explanation.

Firstly because OJ is nothing but chemicals.
And can, theoretically, be synthesised with 100% accuracy so as to be indistinguishable (as per example of the colours).
Secondly because it is not the essential component.
It is merely a component, along with the flavour, the texture, the colour, the shape etc.
Biologically the essential component is the seed by which the species propagates no survive.
That we produce oranges primarily for their juice is irrelevant.
We didn't create them.
They evolved to be oranges before we came along.

Your point is that you do not regard it as human.
I would say that it is a rather complex philosophical issue, and your conclusion is a result of your view of soul, not something that can give credence to your position.

I am saying that if anything is produced synthetically with 100% accuracy then it is indistinguishable and non-different from the original.

As previously explained, this is a human-centric viewpoint.
The view you are espousing is one that stems from an external person's use of that fruit.
This is thus not analogous to the soul.
There is no evidence that we have a purpose, and that the soul is the essential component for that purpose.
It is an unwarranted assumption.

Who says we have to enjoy it?
Does something we do not enjoy therefore not have a soul / essential component?
And no, I do not agree that it is of no use without the flavour.
It has much reduced usage for humans, though.

So again you are just using the term soul for "life", the "act of living".

Already done:
The fact that 100% accurately synthesised material is no different to the natural.
The fact that you are looking at what is essential through the purpose you consider the object to have... Which is thus reliant not only on you already believing that the object has a purpose, but that you know what the purpose is.
While you can do that for the fruit from a human-centric viewpoint, you are unable to do so for life itself.

It's called an analogy.
Much like the one you are using with orange juice.
Chemical x is whatever chemical is extracted from the plant that gives it the colour.
The colour being the "essential component" to the flower in question.
The chemical x is also able to be 100% accurately synthesised.
The synthetic and natural versions are indistinguishable.
The analogy is to orange juice, if able to be 100% accurately, would indistinguishable.

And if you start arguing for credence because orange juice can not be replicated 100% then you are ignoring all other analogies (e.g. Colour being the essential component of some flowers etc) and hinging your argument on matters of technological capability rather than any actual logic.
Further, the economic viability of replicating it 100% does not mean that it can not be.

It is a reason many things that are possible are not done, or even attempted: economic viability (including considerations of time, effort, benefits, risks, rewards etc).

Yes.
Of what relevance is that to the point I made?

So rather than clarify, you merely dismiss?

So you keep saying.

Perhaps you have confused me for someone who claims the soul does not exist?
That is the only way I can see you thinking your comment is relevant.
To be clear: I have not said the soul does not exist.
I am still waiting for a definition/understanding that is more than just semantics, and actually offers something.

If that is where your arguments lead me.

Relevancy?

I disagree.
I have always been me, I and baldeee.
I have never been anything other than that.
I may not have labelled myself that in the beginning, but labels do not define reality.

So separate the symptom from they cause to explain why they are different.
What is different?
A virus is not the flu symptoms.
If consciousness is the symptom of the soul, what is the soul?

Maybe you'll be able to adequately explain what you mean, or maybe you won't. :shrug:

 

Your explanations of why it was a contradiction only explained why it was futile.

Yes, but not everything that might exist falls in the remit of science.

No, but there needs to be some way to determine the veracity of what is claimed to be "known".
Science is rather good at that, where applicable.

Reason, logic, observation, experience, and, if it ever occurs to me, revelation.

Which 5 are you talking about?
The one that defines the soul as something that can be understood to present through the 5 stages of life?
This one makes no sense to me as I can not see the need for something extra beyond life itself.
Why introduce a concept that is not seemingly needed?

Or are you referring to the soul being defined as me, or as pure consciousness?

You have offered a few, so which specifically are you referring to here?

You just need to realise that it is not a matter of either/or, but can include "I don't know" or some other non-committal or agnostic position.

 

This is such a common point of contention that societies typically document the event quite rigorously, hence a birth certificate.

 

I will state it depends on your definition of a soul. I firmly believe ALL humans have souls, you just have to find it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Animals do not have souls (what would be the purpose of a creature that is without chance of surivival.)

There is also a death certificate and a time of death.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

WHAT! Are you fucking serious? YOU are the one trolling with nonsense about the brain being non-biological, it is fucking common knowledge that the brain is biological. YOU provide evidence for a non-biological brain, pal.

 

Please note that Syne is deliberately and dishonestly baiting. It was Syne who made the original claim that "science has not conclusively, or even compellingly, determined that the psyche is wholly a product of biology", I had not said anything about biology up to this point. Hence, it is Syne who must produce evidence to back up this claim.

 

Don't let whatever frustration that you might experience participating in arguments influence your moderating. Keep the roles separate.

I might agree with you that (Q) overstated things a little. I don't think that science currently possesses a full and complete understanding of how brain functioning gives rise to cognition and to our seeming subjective intuition of self. That's still very much a work-in-progress.

But I do think that (Q) is basically correct in that science addresses 'the psyche' in naturalistic terms and doesn't posit separate realms of hypothetical non-physical mind-substance to account for it.

It's just common sense: if there's no evidence for the existence of something, then there's no evidence for that thing's existence.

In the case of brains and 'the psyche', there's no end of evidence linking changes in subjective states to simultaneous changes in brain physiology. Alcohol, psychoactive drugs and brain injuries are commonplace examples. It's why players in many sports wear helmets and why there's currently so much concern about concussions. It's why clinical neurology exists as a medical speciality.

I'm not sure what would count as evidence of the opposing view, that 'the psyche' is dependent on and is the product of something else entirely, some mysterious non-physical mind-substance. I guess that one might expect to find evidence of the independence of 'the psyche' from whatever events are happening to one's body in the physical world. Even assuming that the bodily senses are physically mediated and may be disrupted by physical events, one would still expect a person's underlying reason, consciousness and sense of self to remain reasonably stable throughout.

The evidence doesn't appear to support that.

 

Yet the document has the same scientific shortcomings as before mentioned ....

 

You are still avoiding the argument I made, which is that my evidence against a soul is the same as your argument for it.

 

Soul is reality.

 

actually I am pointing out how even you, in your more saner moments, have no problems with claims about reality that are not supported by any sort of science

:shrug:

 

No idea what you are blathering on about the brain, as you even quoted me, with no mention from me of the brain at all. That seems to have been a straw man of your own making.

I will take these posts as ample evidence that you do not know what the null hypothesis is, nor its importance to the scientific method. I simply stated the null hypothesis, which is the default position of science until positive evidence is found. To which you made the positive claim:

 

Wow, I mean, just WOW! The brain and the mind and psyche are all one. Duh.

I will take your deliberate baiting and trolling here as evidence of a very poor choice for moderator of these forums. Not only that, you still have not produced evidence for YOUR claim that the pyche (brain, mind, consciousness, etc.) are non-biological.

This is one of most ridiculous conversations I've ever had.

 

Who said it was "off-limits"? How can it be off-limits if there could be a possible means to falsify it? Being currently unscientific does not mean a thing does not exist, nor that it may not become accessible to science in the future.

 

Again, another positive claim that you need to support.

Still no clue about what the null hypothesis is, huh?