Are there souls?

[Lord_Sidious]

And this picture token in the 9/11. Looks like devil or something

 

[Erik Mesoy]

What did that have to do with anything?


Back on topic...

"Definer 'sjel', hadetpåbadet." is what I said to someone in my class who asked me this. Translate at own risk.

 

[Perfection]

Ok, that makes sense. Well, I'm not going to go digging up evidence for you. Besides, you'll probably find flaws in it and I'm not really in the mood to continue this debate. Your skeptical energy is stronger than my desire to prove anything.

Well, that's you're decision, and I still feel justified dismissing it as gooblydegook.

I'll just say one more thing, if you are always waiting for proof before you act you are always dependent on external circumstances for validation. If you act without proof then you will be the first to experience the proof if your hypothesis is correct.

That's very true, however I do not have unlimited resources therefore I have to pick and chose the proirities for what I research, previous evidence has shown to me that these sorts of claims are not as fruitful as other claims in providing benefits to my living standard and satiating my curiosity, therefore I do not invest as much time researching them.

So, what do you think happens when we die?

I've seen no solid evidence to the idea that our conciouness continues therefore I assume nothing occurs and our conciouness ends.

 

[shadowdude]

I've seen no solid evidence to the idea that our conciouness continues therefore I assume nothing occurs and our conciouness ends.

But what proof do you have that conciouness ends? You have no idea if it does it not, you cannot place that as the defacto conclusion.

 

[Perfection]

But what proof do you have that conciouness ends? You have no idea if it does it not, you cannot place that as the defacto conclusion.

Correct, I do not have proof. I assume that it doesn't continue because I haven't seen any solid evidence to its continuity. In my philosophical mindset if something has no solid evidence then I should not consider it to be valid and should not take it into account when making decisions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Birdjaguar:
Maybe I'm just dense, but I really don't see where you're going. It's all fine until you're talking about "Reality". Like we agreed, everything we know about the universe, whether through scientific experiments, rational thought, whatever, goes through our brain. Because our brains validate these experiences and thoughts, we have reason to believe in a universe of discrete objects. But why jump to conclude that there is a different Reality containing some different kind of existence when it is imperceptible?

That step was my point.

Our brains misrepresent Reality in a way that allows us to live in a finite universe of discrete objects. In Reality (capital R) there is only one infinite, eternal, unchanging, permanent existence: God (for lack of a better name). God is not outside the universe.

The discussion sprung fromm your comment that a god outside of the universe could not act on objects in the universe and I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to present a scenario that contradicted your remark. As long as you stay within the boundaries of scientice and scientific thinking you are correct; there is no reason to go beyond those constraints and interject an alternate reality. But that is what religion does. It introduces a layer of Reality that transcends our universe. Each religion makes this leap in its own way and presents its version of Truth.

This unproveable Reality is what troubles those who believe that Truth can be discovered soley through science. You seem to be of that school. I am not. For me there is a reality beyond the universe. In fact I begin with that premise and build everything on top of it. You start (I presume) at the other end with the physical universe and build on what we know about that through science. I don't think you can get to my starting point from yours.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Imagine what you would see if you could wear special glasses that only showed you quarks and leptons. What would the world/universe look like?

This is a trick question, right?

I think it would look exactly the same. Special glasses not required. Flat windows, or thin air, will do it.

Now, if you could change your perception so that you only recognized quarks and leptons, that would be a radical change. You'd need a powerful microscope. But then you'd lose the big picture, and never be able to see all the leptons in your hand at once (much less comprehend how they interact to operate as a hand).

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is a trick question, right?

I think it would look exactly the same. Special glasses not required. Flat windows, or thin air, will do it.

Now, if you could change your perception so that you only recognized quarks and leptons, that would be a radical change. You'd need a powerful microscope. But then you'd lose the big picture, and never be able to see all the leptons in your hand at once (much less comprehend how they interact to operate as a hand).

You got me!
And then rephrased my question correctly. I was playing fast and loose with language, and naturally a smarter person (you) caught my error. Thanks for making it all clear.

Now that you have asked and answered the question, how would such a view of the world change our sense of reality and what was real? Would our society be any different?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Now that you have asked and answered the question, how would such a view of the world change our sense of reality and what was real? Would our society be any different?

Such a view of the world, being the idea that we are all thoroughly made of these basic physical constituent particles? I don't think it makes the difference that some fear it makes. Joy is still joy, pain is still pain, life is still awesome.

On the other hand it does make some difference to one's view of oneself and one's place in the world. The particular particles that make up one person or another are disposable and interchangeable. We each gain and lose water molecules by the bajillions daily. If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, it looks highly probable that some of the atoms which were once part of you are now part of me, and vice versa. Similar reasoning leads to a kind of reincarnation-on-the-cheap for those who don't believe in the traditional concept of souls. Take a look at my subversive little web link.

Our matter changes, and our form changes too. We grow or shrink, the connections in our brains change, and our personalities change. It's not what you're made of that makes you you, and it's not how the matter is arranged, either.

What your identity comes down to, in the absence of souls, is a matter of space and time, in addition to the humanity that you share with everyone else. You are that thing there, and I am this thing here. To see oneself and others this way, IMHO, makes the gap between self and others look smaller than it would if you believed in souls a la Descartes. How? And with what consequences? I'm not sure. Take a look at my reincarnation-on-the-cheap essay and tell me what you think.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Such a view of the world, being the idea that we are all thoroughly made of these basic physical constituent particles? I don't think it makes the difference that some fear it makes. Joy is still joy, pain is still pain, life is still awesome.

Nicely said; I agree.

On the other hand it does make some difference to one's view of oneself and one's place in the world. The particular particles that make up one person or another are disposable and interchangeable. We each gain and lose water molecules by the bajillions daily. If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, it looks highly probable that some of the atoms which were once part of you are now part of me, and vice versa. Similar reasoning leads to a kind of reincarnation-on-the-cheap for those who don't believe in the traditional concept of souls. Take a look at my subversive little web link.Our matter changes, and our form changes too. We grow or shrink, the connections in our brains change, and our personalities change. It's not what you're made of that makes you you, and it's not how the matter is arranged, either.

What your identity comes down to, in the absence of souls, is a matter of space and time, in addition to the humanity that you share with everyone else. You are that thing there, and I am this thing here. To see oneself and others this way, IMHO, makes the gap between self and others look smaller than it would if you believed in souls a la Descartes. How? And with what consequences? I'm not sure. Take a look at my reincarnation-on-the-cheap essay and tell me what you think.

I did, and its great spin on all this. My favorite part is:

But these are all different people, separate from each other; they can’t all be me, because then they’d all be one and the same person, instead of many.

And I would contend we are all one. There are not many souls, only one, differenciated by our limited perception. the "magic glasses I mentioned earlier would reduce our ability to see differences between us and others.

As people we are driven by our separateness and the gap between us and those around us. As the differences and the gap closes, we tend to get along better and see less separateness. I think that most of us are genetically driven by an internal "force" that tries to eliminate the gaps between us an others. Sometimes it comes at the expense of opening other gaps wider. Family, friends, pets, hobby groups are as close as we can get.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Simply put, I don’t know.

All though the words “I don’t know” may be really hard to shallow in today’s modern information age world, sometimes it is the only answer we have. We cannot answer, but it is the doubt in itself that allows the existence of the soul to harbor within without evidence, but that is what the human condition is all about. To deny the existence of a soul without evidence is arrogant, because they do not know and to strongly advocate the existence is almost, if not just as, arrogant, (not ignorant)


In other words, say a man came up to you and said. “sign this paper and give your so-called "soul" and I’ll give you five bucks”, would you sign it? That personal choice is all that matters, because in the end it is only you who will go into the “unknown”.

I’m tired.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Welcome QVN to CFC and OT.