What is a 'soul' to you?

[AtheistCrusader]

I have a lot of trouble grokking this concept. I've been variously told that people have them, or that people *are* a soul. That the brain acts sort of like an anchor/antenna for it, and that it resides somewhere else, maybe like a different dimension. It is often depicted as a whole-body type field, and sometimes as just something in the brain region, or several points along the long axis of the body. Sometimes that it IS our consciousness, sometimes that it powers it, or attaches to it, opinions vary.

But there are properties to it that don't make sense to me. For instance, we can't detect it, but physical changes to the brain can temporarily or permanently alter a personality, that would suggest to me that it isn't really a thing at all.

But I'm curious, setting aside my personal impression 'that doesn't exist', what is the general consensus on what a soul 'is' or 'where' it is?

[trotsky]

1. Not only that, but there's the whole problem of traumatic brain injury.

Sometimes, people recover from a brain injury with a different personality. Did their injury change their soul? When they die, which soul will they be?

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Yes, that's the core reason I take a materialistic view of how our consciousness works.

TBI from explosion, impalement, projectile damage, lightning strike, even a surgeon's knife excising damage, can permanently alter a personality, in ways that are highly predictable at this point.

First reason on the list I feel the soul, if there is such a thing, doesn't really 'do' anything consciousness-wise.

[procon]

3. Not being religious,

I reject those supernatural definitions. However, I've always hypothesized the term was synonymous with the id or ego, one's self-awareness or consciousness, or the sense of self.

[longship]

4. Phineas Gage.

Phineas Gage.

Also, the many ways neurologists can alter brain function by interventions, from drugs to magnetic stimulation, argue clearly for no ghost in the machine. That, on top of the well studied neurological disorders which illustrate all the behaviors and senses attributed as evidence for a soul by those claiming dualism.

For instance, a recent debate featuring physicist Sean Carroll and neurologist Steve Novella against a couple of dualists illustrates the issues well.

Here, documented on Novella's Blog: Afterlife debate, with link to the debate video.

I think this may be the whole video:

If not, it is at the link above.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Thanks, I love the I2 series.

I'll have to watch this a little bit later. Lots of 'big' info in the responses here. Cool beans.

[longship]

20. Let me post links to Sean Carroll's posts.

Is there life after death -- a debate

Afterlife Aftermath

Regards.

[tazkcmo]

28. Hey!

Thank you for those links. Sounds very interesting and will be watching this evening.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. A style of cooking and a type of modern popular music.

[cbayer]

6. General consensus? Really?

It that isn't a trap, I don't know what is.

It's like the blind men and the elephant. There is no general consensus. There is no authority. There is only each individuals experience.

And yours is as valid as anyone else's.

Soulless? You don't think it's a thing at all? Who really cares. Not I.

Are you sincerely interested in what other people feel this is? Sincerely?

[AtheistCrusader]

11. And here you are, to accuse me of all sorts of nefarousness.

Think I'll take a pass this time.

[cbayer]

13. Yes, loads of nefarousness. FWIW, taking a pass would mean not responding.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Correct.

You might note, I didn't address any of your 'points'. And I'm not going to. Not this time.

[cbayer]

17. Ok, you can stop engaging any time.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Likewise.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Wow. Just Wow!

You have one atheist poster in this forum who diligently goes overboard to be polite, to not offend, to attempt dialog and discourse, and somebody just has to shit all over that effort.

[trotsky]

24. Not unexpected at all. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

52. Warren, in case you weren't aware, she doesn't see your posts

Nor the posts of your tagalong buddy. No biggie, but I thought you might wonder why neither of you ever get a reply.
AC, otoh, is a tough, intelligent debater, doesn't throw personal insults around and shows some fucking respect. You might look to him for some pointers, especially if you want to be included in more conversations. Just sayin'

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Starboard, thanks a million for the heads up. You are a swell guy!

I just want you to know that OTHER people can see my response quite well. I'm not sure you understand how DU works, I just want you to not embarrass yourself so much.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Hey, no problem. You're a swell guy too, I think.

I forgot about all those OTHER people who love to see your posts. Silly me. How could I forget how much we love to read those one sided conversations.

I haven't embarrassed myself since I was 7 when I pooped my pants accidentally while talking to my uncle Doug. It was Ok though, I just reached into my pants, pulled it out and tossed it over the hedge like nothing happened. I don't think he even noticed, so my embarrassment didn't last long.

When you're as big a goofball as me you don't get embarrassed easily. You should see me pole dance some time.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. Oh no really you have embarrased yourself here much more recently than that.

For example, you once compared gay marriage to bestiality. That was a pretty embarrassing mistake. And then rather than admitting that it was a rather unfortunate thing to do, you attempted, at least twice, to explain to all of us how that wasn't what you did at all.

Your pal rug responds to me all the time, even though he knows I have him ignore. Have you given him a similar heads up?

[Starboard Tack]

75. Wrong again Warren. I didn't embarrass myself, in spite of your efforts

Anyone with half a brain knew that I never compared gay marriage to bestiality. Your accusations don't make things real. Bestiality is a sexual fetish. Gay marriage is a union between two people. Marriage is no more about sex than it is about eating.

People should be allowed to marry whomever or whatever they choose, provided no one is harmed. That was my point. Including themselves. I don't compare marriage to anything. It is a basic right, common to all, which should be recognized and respected by all governments and social groups.
When it comes to performing religious ceremonies, the decision should be made by the religious organization involved, not the government. Civil marriages should not be restricted without good cause, demonstrating potential harm to one or more of the parties involved.
The US is particularly puritanical about marriage, but is slowly making progress.

How do you know rug responds to you all the time? And how would I know you had him on ignore until now?
Oops!

[phil89]

61. We all live by the rules of reality regardless of experience or perception.

Thinking you have a soul does not mean you have one. It has yet to be demonstrated.

[cbayer]

72. And thinking no one has one doesn't mean they don't.

You are right. It has not been demonstrated or disproved. Jury out and will probably stay out forever.

So let's just have a little respect for people whether they believe it or not. And let's recognize that there is and never will be any consensus. One persons concept of a soul is going to be widely different than someone else's and completely incompatible with someone who doesn't believe in it all.

So be it.

[Starboard Tack]

7. That part of you which is undefinable.

One can attempt to define it, but that would be an exercise in futility. We can describe it, but not define it. I think we all recognize its existence, on a core level, even though we may reject it on an intellectual level.

I think it has nothing to do with one's ego or id or other self identifier. It is that infinitely intangible essence that is integral to all living things, that by its very nature defies definition.

So, that is what a "soul" is, and is not, to me.

Trying to define things that do not belong to the finite world is pointless.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. What things aren't in the finite, material world, that are intrinsically part of us?

Given the realities of the things I mentioned around, for instance, traumatic brain injury, surgery, etc?

What are we that requires additional consideration beyond what can be demonstrated in meatspace?

[Starboard Tack]

21. Everything that isn't, obviously.

What are we that requires additional consideration beyond what can be demonstrated in meatspace?

You tell me. You're the one talking about "additional consideration", whatever that means.

If these things were definable, then they would be part of the finite world. Your questions cannot be answered here, or anywhere else. It's like asking how much does a thought weigh?

You practice yoga, right? Meditate on the thought and you might find the right question.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I'm asking what isn't explainable that requires this metaphysical soul concept to explain or

'hold' unexplainable.

What is unexplainable about humans? That's what I mean by 'additional consideration', something that isn't materialistic that must exist, beyond what we know. What fits in that category that justifies the existence of the category at all?

[Starboard Tack]

25. I don't think anything "requires" it, either to be nor to be explained

Last edited Fri Aug 22, 2014, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Lots of things are unexplainable, be they about humans or not. We seek explanations about everything. That is a particular human trait, to want an explanation. Everything has to be justified and categorized in the finite world. The soul doesn't belong to the finite world, so requires no justification, nor categorization, nor raison d'etre. It just is. Doesn't require a God, nor even acknowledgement. It's a little like gravity, yet completely and infinitely different.
As fascinating as the tertullian.org treatises are, they are all attempts to define something which is as impossible to define as ? (pi).

I'm sure my attempts to not define the undefinable are doing little to satisfy your curiosity. Truth is, nobody but you can provide a satisfactory answer to your question. So, if you are serious, do the meditation.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Well, therre are two relevant categories.

I'm just going to compartmentalize this for simplicity. I realize this is a pretty smokin' complex issue. But here goes:

Unexplained
Unexplainable

From my viewpoint, a lot of things fit into that first box. But they can be explained. We discover new stuff all the time, such as a newly discovered tendon in the knee that nobody knew about, earlier this year. It was in the unexplained box. Now it's been found, explained. It was discoverable.

But for something to fit in the second box, it must be something that cannot be discovered. cannot EVER be explained. Ever. No matter what brilliance, testing, evaluation, resources, etc are thrown at it. It would forever remain in that box.


I am not aware of any human qualities that we know exist within that box.
Are there some you can suggest?

(Meditation doesn't work for me. I'm as comfortable doing yoga to thrash metal, as I am traditional meditation-y type music. I don't know what meditate means, beyond think really hard. Pointing that out, because that might explain why I don't perceive anything about myself as an entity beyond what I CAN examine, what I CAN think about. Same with meditation. To me, it's just thinking about stuff. Maybe a little slower or calmer than normal, or more focused, but there isn't anything intrinsically 'different' about it to me.)

[Starboard Tack]

47. Actually, I don't think it is such a complex issue.

Your 2 categories are valid.
In the physical world, everything is explainable, in theory. It's just a matter of time and we'll figure it all out. Even gravity, perhaps.

Now, the soul belongs in the "unexplainable" box. And it always will. To you, and many others, this is a problem, because you feel the need for an explanation, a definition, otherwise you are tempted to reject the notion of its very existence. And where do you look for an answer? Other humans who don't know either. We can come up with all kinds of fancy conglomerated thoughts and ideas, but we don't know. Why don't we know? Because it doesn't fall into the realm of the "knowing" or the "explainable". It is the classic "catch 22".

Don't sweat it. It either exists or it doesn't. Your recognizing it, or not, changes nothing. Feel free to imagine what it might be, or dismiss it as nonsense. The reality of the universe doesn't change one iota because we, as individuals, think something is true or not. Our own personal reality may change, on a subjective level, but that's about it. Trying to prove the existence of something on a metaphysical level with the tools of the physical world is pointless.

We have people like our friend Brettongarcia, who is writing treatises on this subject, (when he's not working on major govermental projects) along with his colleagues, in an attempt to prove that

"much of the traditional dualistic, over-spiritual idea of the "soul," is wrong. As we try to show that something more like the rational and brain-oriented view of the soul - or better said, the mind - is far, far more fruitful and true."

And we have hamsters, running on wheels, accomplishing as much, but eating less. But that's a conversation for another time, when we want to discuss "evolution" and "population control". Sorry, couldn't resist.

Carry on! Your serve.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. I agree we've come full circle.

But we skirted the core question.

Why do we, or some of us think there is a soul at all.

[Starboard Tack]

56. I don't know why? I think it's more about how.

We either feel it or we don't.

[Htom Sirveaux]

78. Our potential to change our habits.

It can't be reduced to any given brain state (since it's about the future, which hasn't happened), but if the potential didn't exist at all, then nobody could ever change, and we know that isn't the case either. That's one specific case of casual continuity, which is the fact that I have access to only my mindstream, and not someone else's. That sustained access is gives rise to thoughts of individual souls.

[rug]

8. I still like Tertullian.

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-22.htm#P2560_840932

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Holy wall of text, Batman!

All right, I'll read it.

[rug]

14. Sorry. I had to read it once. Then I went back to it.

If nothing else. it's a classic in philosophy with a specifically Christian overlay.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. It's going to take a while to digest.

Is this uniquely Catholic in scope, or broadly Christian or some mix between?

[rug]

66. He wrote at a pivotal time, the turn of the third century CE, over 100 years before Nicaea.

Doctrine was in flux and he was a Montanist some time before he wrote this. He is the source of much orthodox catholic doctrine.

Tertullian was well versed in classical philosophy and it's no accident this bears the same name as Aristotle's writings on the soul. I would call it an early Christian statement on the human soul in contrast to the earlier classic philosophers.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. When was it written?

The section on sleep vexes me. And I don't just mean Democritus's idea.

I might have agreed with the 'always in motion' bit back when I was a lucid dreamer, but I can't do it anymore. Lost that in my mid-20's.

[rug]

65. Circa 208-212 CE

[Brettongarcia]

23. The only view of "soul" and our "spirit" that makes any rational sense, is ...

... that what was meant by the term, is roughly what we would call our deep feelings, ideas. Or our mind or consciousness.

Many theologians and preachers have tried to use parts of the Bible, to try to absolutely distinguish and separate "soul" from "mind." However, they misused Biblical passages, when they said that God condemned the "mind" and intelligence.

To be sure, the Bible told us to avoid the "vanities of the mind"; but we are not to avoid the mind itself. Paul in fact bemoans the fact that for prayerful people, often "the spirit prays, but the mind is unfruitful." While major Philosophical philosophers like Augustine or Aquinas valued the "rational soul"; identifying our deepest and best nature, our soul, with "reason." And our minds.

Many theologians have insisted that the soul is special; that it is different from the "mind" completely. And also that it is made of different material than physical matter. However, this notion of something beyond matter, I try to prove, is not good, and alienates religion from physical reality. Most scientists would suggest that our inner feelings, sentiments, mind, are in fact material: they are electro- or chemical etc. things in the material brain.

Sensing some problems with their notion of a non-material soul, some theologians finally might agree that the soul is related to the mind, and can reside in our material bodies or brains. But still, next they want to dualistically say that the soul however, is ultimately independent of mere physical "bodies" or "flesh." They want to claim the soul is really different from material things; in order that they can say that the soul does not necessarily die, when the body dies. They want to say that the soul so independent of our bodies, that it can float up at our death, to live on immortally, in a rather spiritual soulful Heaven, say.

In my own writings however, I and others like me are currently working to show that much of the traditional dualistic, over-spiritual idea of the "soul," is wrong. As we try to show that something more like the rational and brain-oriented view of the soul - or better said, the mind - is far, far more fruitful and true.

Roughly, the most rationally or scientifically acceptable view of the "soul," is that it is at best a confused notion of our mind or consciousness. Which is never entirely different from or independent of, material things.

[Starboard Tack]

32. That's fantastic. Can't wait to read the finished product. It's such an original idea.

In my own writings however, I and others like me are currently working to show that much of the traditional dualistic, over-spiritual idea of the "soul," is wrong. As we try to show that something more like the rational and brain-oriented view of the soul - or better said, the mind - is far, far more fruitful and true.

Got a link, a publisher, a release date for this book of revelations? Will you be interviewed on "Coast to Coast"?

[Brettongarcia]

50. I suspect you might be ironic? But in any case, a rough draft is free online

I'm pretty sure it's found in these writings by Dr. Woodbridge Goodman; specifically in his two book drafts on a real "Immortality" and "Resurrection." Which involve the nature of an immortal and resurrecting spirit or soul, in part.

If you'd like to recommend it to a publisher, feel free to do so; and ask him to contact me on my Facebook page. Or secondarily contact Woodbridge Goodman. (Though we are both often very slow about responding from his Wordpress account. Expect even a month time lag until initial response?)

Currently the idea is to offer at least a draft of the ideas, free of charge online. Ideas should not be behind a pay wall, after all. Though we wouldn't object to a pay-for paper version; since at least the draft is out there. For free.

For the people.

A few of these ideas have been covered in some academic articles. But these books are designed to put it all together - along with many new ideas. To look at a rather new idea of immortality. And the real nature of the "soul."

In a form that an everyday person or average college grad might hopefully find readable. It's written in religious language, to be sure.

http://woodbridgegoodman.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/science-7-2-verifiable-resurrections/

[Starboard Tack]

54. OK, thanks. Might take a while. Looks like a lot of reading.

I'm not quite clear on who Dr. Goodman is. Is that you?

[Brettongarcia]

57. We work together. The rest of the theory is basically this:

Essentially, as just stated, the soul or human spirit is our mind; which is developed as states of the material brain. So the soul/mind grows up and exists only as a physical state of a physical substrate: the brain. In this way we have a materialistic verification of the soul.

Furthermore, this allows for a kind of immortality of the soul. For example: we can write our thoughts down, parts of our mind down, on a physical computer or a piece of paper say. So that amazingly, you can say that parts of our mind can live on, past our death. By way of yet another physical material medium: paper, a memory bank. Writers have spoken of this; as literary Immortality.

In addition, elements of the Bible, from Plato, agreed that our "name," "reputation," ideas, live on in the minds, "memories" (and brains and bodies) of those physical people who remember us, generation to generation. Or in whatever books we write.

So that the mind and soul are material. They grow up in material things. But they can survive in other physical things than our own body. Like books

So finally here is a material, scientifically-supportable/verifiable view of (much of) the soul; and its immortality.

Theologically, seeing this new understanding of the physical side or version of religion, is presented as the fulfillment of the Biblical prediction of "god" or "spirit" returning to "earth." That is accomplished when we at last understand religion, in material language and concepts.

[Starboard Tack]

62. OK. Interesting concept. I'll take a look.

[phil89]

63. So you're defining it into existence?

And where is the science in this? What is observable, measurable and unfalsifiable here?

[Brettongarcia]

67. Not defining it into existence; seeing it appear in our consciousness at last. It was always there.

Lots of observables, confirm-ables here. For example: destroy a brain, and thought/mind disappears. So the mind-brain link is verified by a hundred years of physiological psychology and biology.

The survival of human ideas on pieces of paper, is observable; Anthropology calls it the preservation of culture.

And so forth. Add it all up? And you have ... a scientifically-verifiable immortality.

Or resurrection.

One that also, strangely, finds constant support in the Bible itself.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. Well not really. "ideas on paper" have no subjective experience.

The concept of a "soul" is generally linked with the subjective experience, typically as some ur-experiencer that through some unverifiable mumbo-jumbo persists independent of the life of the individual.

While a motivation for artistic expression can be to record something about the subjective experience of the artist that will persist independent of the artist, that really is not the same as the actual subjective experience itself. It is instead an imperfect impression in some media of something about what that experience was like. One that another observer can perhaps understand, can empathize with, but the experience of observing a work of art is just not the experience of creating that work. No matter how meticulous the effort is to recreate a sense of experience, it always falls short.

However, if and when we manage to record not just something about what subjective experience is like, but a complete individual consciousness itself, then indeed one could consider that technical achievement as the realization of the soul concept.

A good question would be how traditional religions would react to the ability to record consciousness, to upload one's conscious self and have that image be capable of experience independent of its original bodily incarnation. My guess is "not well".

[Brettongarcia]

82. I mostly accept your updates on 1) the basic idea on ideas vs. consciousness surviving

My notion of the 2) dawning/arrival of a materialistic/scientific Anthropological notion of religion is slightly different though. That in a sense fulfills even as it might be said to transcend or replace traditional or folk religion; with science. With the scientific study of religion and culture.

That is? I'm reading the Bible, in particularly its Second Coming motif, as essentially self-deconstructive: it contains within itself a mechanism that is designed to present and allow at last, preferentially, a "second," objective, "earthly," scientific view of religion and culture. As realized by say, Anthropology.

[tazkcmo]

26. Caramel. n/t

[mr blur]

27. Wishful thinking.

[edhopper]

29. my take on the concept

is that if a believer accepts that they are not restricted to the time their body is alive, there is some part of themselves that must exist outside the confines of the physical being.
Now what it is will vary with the beliefs of the person, but for there to be something beyond this life, there has to be this spiritual component.
Like most spiritual ideas, things get dicey when we start asking for something more explicit. It becomes undefinable but they just know it's there and it conforms to their beliefs.

For me it's this:

[Starboard Tack]

37. I agree that it is undefinable

I don't think the "soul" if it exists, necessarily continues to exist beyond this life, and if it does, it is doubtful that it would retain any attachment to one's current identity, or incarnation. So, that kind of soul belief is pretty pointless, imo. I would be more comfortable with the junkyard analogy, where the soul is like an old car engine that gets recycled into a new body, new brain, new everything. No memories of past lives, unless you want to do a Shirley McLaine and go there, but why would one? The ego doesn't come with the soul, in this analogy. Gets left in the junkyard. So, anyone expecting to hang out with his buddies, or Gramps, is going to be very disappointed.

But let people believe whatever they want. It won't change anything. Sooner or later, we'll all find out, or we won't.

[edhopper]

44. To use your analogy

the soul seems like a superfluous concept that is unnecessary to explain any of it.
When in parts, it don't work, put them all together, a running car. The engine then is just a functioning brain.

[Starboard Tack]

49. That's one way of looking at it. I agree about trying to explain it. You either feel it or you don't

I'm open on this subject. I'm not convinced either way. And I don't spend much time thinking about it. But, if I were a betting man, I'd wager it exists. I wouldn't bet the farm, but I'd bet a couple of cows, maybe a sheep and a meadow.
On the God, almighty creator thing, I'd bet the whole farm and the neighbor's farm that He exists only in the minds of His believers. So, if I'm wrong, I either arrive in heaven penniless and in debt, or I get sent downstairs where I get to hang with my buddies. That's a win-win situation.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. Speaking of James Brown....

This is probably the only white boy who could share a stage with James Brown and hold his own in the soul department
- Robert Palmer:

[edhopper]

76. Cool

thanks. Gone too soon.

There is a video of the TAMI shows that had Brown and the Rolling Stones, among others.
The Stones had to follow Brown and said basically "WTF, you can't follow James Brown."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

81. Yep.

Anybody but Palmer would get blown off the stage. He's been dead for ten years. That's pretty impressive that the Stones wouldn't want to follow James Brown, and they're full of soul and the electrified blues. Palmer must have taken advice from ZZ TOP: "Women go crazy 'bout a Sharp Dressed Man."

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for the "Steel Wheelchairs" tour. That's a bad joke I stole from The Simpsons. The most intelligent sitcom on TV in my opinion. Now I've watched 3 weeks of Black Jesus and it's pretty funny too.

Minor thread derail here, different meaning of "soul".

[TheNutcracker]

30. A soul is conscienceness

[edhopper]

33. Is that separate

from the physical body? Does it exist outside the brain?

[Htom Sirveaux]

45. To me, that's like asking if a computer program is separate from the cd it is on

Yes and no. Yes, it is distinct, but no, it does not exist apart from a medium. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be transferred between mediums.

[edhopper]

48. You mean like the

idea of preserving peoples identity in cyberspace?
Or something psychic.

[Htom Sirveaux]

51. More the first than the second.

But if there is a mind-like entity behind the whole universe, that would be like a database that could be saving the data of people's identities, among all the other info about the universe. If nothing else, it might be a more plausible way to think about various afterlife scenarios.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. This is a common interpretation.

I can see why people often come to this conclusion. Thank you.

I have follow-up questions based on that. In your opinion, are non-human animals that exhibit signs of consciousness, also in possession of, or exhibit the qualities of a soul?

For instance, a species that exhibits consciousness-suggesting qualities like... Play. Empathy. Peer bonding. War. A species like Bottlenose Dolphins. Though to various degrees, other animals also exhibit these qualities. (For instance, the Gorilla, Koko, who cried when she was informed via sign language, that Robin Williams had died.)

[glowing]

35. To me its the "energy" that resides in the body...

AND personality, is different than a soul. At least in my eyes.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Do you have an opinion on

what the energy brings to us, what it powers or does?

[glowing]

43. No, but I'm sure science will catch up at some point...

But in a scientific point of view, energy can never be destroyed, it can only change forms... So, the soul can take on different forms, be reborn (perhaps on "alien" planets)... and that time is a continuous loop; not a straight line. The energy had to have been created within the big bang. Didn't we just come extremely close to re-creating the "God particle"... The reality is we can see 3-D, we can perceive time dimensions.. its harder to go past that thought as to higher dimensions.

[edhopper]

46. The God particle is a misnomer

and has nothing at all to do with the concept of a God.
The physicist who called it such regrets the nickname.

And energy just runs downhill, what ever you think this energy within our body is, it becomes heat and dissipates, it doesn't travel to another planet, which would take more energy and violate the laws of thermal dynamics.

People should stay away from using physics when talking about metaphysics, it never turns out well.

[longship]

68. My problem is the use of the word "energy" in this context.

Energy means a very specific thing which I do not think you mean here, that which can do work. And work means the application of a force to move something, for instance.

So, I do not think you are using the word "energy" properly here. Most people who use it this way have no idea what it really means. I suppose it is some place holder for some unknown in that context when it is in reality constrained to something very specific.

In other words, it's a scientific word used outside the realm of science. That makes it more or less meaningless in this context.

If a soul was really energy it would have measurable effects, none of what are seen outside of the abject foolishness of the silly ghost hunters scaring themselves in the dark.

I apologize for my pedantry here.

[glowing]

69. Each to their own.

[Voice for Peace]

36. whatever it is arrives with our first breath, and leaves with our last.

That's about all I know; I believe it's the part of me which
is imperishable.

My favorite metaphor for the individual soul is a drop
from the ocean. The ocean represents the infinite animating
sustaining energy, life itself.

Drops of this ocean leave the ocean, temporarily as vapor,
or as a splash. They travel on a journey not necessarily
of their own choosing. Maybe a journey of a day, maybe
100 years, depending on where they fall and what they
encounter along the way.

There is never a moment when the mission of that drop
is not clear: return to the sea.

I identify with that drop. It's the closest analogy to my
own sense of the infinite within me, and to my life
journey, which rarely makes sense, other than to
follow this urge toward the timeless, unchanging
and omnipresent beauty in the here and now.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. That flows a bit like a poem.

Thank you.

[Starboard Tack]

40. I like that one.

I think part of it gets left behind too. That's the gift you give, that lives on.

[cornball 24]

53. Thank you for your incredibly beautiful analogy! As many are, I have always

been drawn to the mystique of the ocean, the ebb and flow of the tide as if it mirrors the breaths that we humans need for our very existence.

[longship]

70. As good as any description.

And as AC aptly pointed out, poetic.

I like the "we are star dust" narrative, too, because we literally are that as well.

To me, there is no separate soul. Consciousness ends when the brain is deprived of oxygen at death. End of story, unless ones works live on. For most of us, that would be a relatively short time. C'est la vie.

Best to make the best of it.

[RufusTFirefly]

42. Fascinating question. "Soul" tends to be a rather loaded, religious word though

Given that you and I share the same "faith" AC, perhaps "consciousness" is a better term?

Although most of us have a sense of a constant identity somewhere deep down that follows us throughout our lives, social cognitive neuroscientists such as Matthew Lieberman at UCLA suggest that even our "core" is permeable and subject to the influences of our environment and the manipulation by people around us. (Not surprisingly, teenagers are most susceptible to this change in identity, but we are all subject to it.)

But getting back to the soul/consciousness, by far the most intriguing (and convincing) explanation I've read comes from Princeton neuroscientist Michael Graziano is an internal model of our brain's ability to pay attention.

His book, Consciousness and the Social Brain, is devoted to explaining this idea, which he calls the attention schema theory. We perceive very few things directly. Instead our brain uses models to simplify and understand our world around us. Much of this simplification is evolutionary in nature. The fact is that we don't need all the gritty details to survive. A classic example is "white light." Although it contains all the colors in the visible spectrum, we see it as simply white rather than the muddy mixture it should be.

At any rate, Graziano's theory of consciousness (and, once again, I'm making the leap to include the religious notion of the soul) is as follows:

"The brain does two things that are of particular importance to the present theory. First, the brain uses a method that most neuroscientists call attention. Lacking the resources to processes everything at the same time, the brain focuses its processing on a very few items at any one time. Attention is a data-handling trick for deeply processing some information at the expense of most information. Second, the brain uses internal data to construct simplified, schematic models of objects and events in the world. Those models can be used to make predictions, try out simulations, and plan actions. What happens when the brain inevitably combines those two talents? In the theory outlined in this book, awareness is the brain's simplified, schematic model of the complicated, data-handling process of attention."

[Lordquinton]

71. soul is a cheap, lazy, limiting, loaded, useless word

Used to sound deep when describing a person. You boil down the life experiences and education and training and preferences. Everything a person has done. Mlions upon billions of years of genitic evolution. Where they grew up, the water they drank, the food they ate the way their mother comber her hair.

To say that the soul is detached from all that and that it is unexplainable is an insult to the human experience.

Imo

[cbayer]

73. My apologies. This has turned out to be a very interesting thread

that you have managed very well.

I pre-judged your intent and I was wrong.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Understood.

In fairness, there is history that I can see justifiably leading you to that sort of conclusion.

[pinto]

79. In human terms -

I think it's a counterbalance to the individual, a commonality. While we all recognize ourselves and othesr as individuals, there's that something we recognize as commonly human. Something we each are a part of yet larger and more encompassing.

I think empathy, compassion, understanding flow from the soul. In that framework, I feel if someone commits an atrocity against another or others they not only kill the other, they kill their own soul.

Something we recognize but can't define. "The eyes are the window to the soul" is apt.

[Iggo]

80. To me, a soul is something made up by people who can't face the fact of their own eventual demise.