the soul

[jfoldbar]

so i was thinking about the "soul" concept and i have a few questions for any people that may believe we have a soul. as i do not.

soul believers claim that when we die, the soul leaves the body and goes to heaven, or hell.

so, im wondering, when and how did the soul enter the body?

was it at birth, or conception, or when. if its at birth, what about a premature birth, or induced somehow. if its at conception, what if the mum has a miscarriage or some other complication.

and where is the soul before it enters the body? and how how does gods cataloguing system decide which soul goes to which body?

and does every human have one? what about spastics and down syndrome etc.

im sure there are humans out there who have less brain capacity than a monkey, do they have a soul? if not, why not. if so, then why wouldnt a more intelligent monkey have one?

boy, there are just so many problems with the whole "soul" concept.

[Silvestru]

This is right up there with "Did Adam have a belly button?" this is the problem with made up concepts. You just make it up along the way I guess. I think no one can reliably answer your questions as there is no scientific method to test made up stuff . But if we are talking from a religious perspective I think the "soul" is formed at conception. 

The last part of your post is pretty inappropriate so I wont address it. 

[jfoldbar]

uuummm, inappropriate how?

if you ask me i think the whole "believing" thing is inappropriate in the 21st century. but hey theres still plenty of em here

[Itoero]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

[TheSim]

Your problems appear to be with regard to the soul being conceived as a substance.   But not of all our indispensable concepts are backed by substances.

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by TheSim

[Phi for All]

What if the "thing" many call a soul is really an emergent property made up of intelligence and some other bits? Or what if the soul is an event, like fire or lightning, and only happens when the right circumstances manifest themselves?

[zapatos]

On 11/26/2018 at 1:25 AM, jfoldbar said:

so i was thinking about the "soul" concept and i have a few questions for any people that may believe we have a soul. as i do not.

soul believers claim that when we die, the soul leaves the body and goes to heaven, or hell.

so, im wondering, when and how did the soul enter the body?

was it at birth, or conception, or when. if its at birth, what about a premature birth, or induced somehow. if its at conception, what if the mum has a miscarriage or some other complication.

and where is the soul before it enters the body? and how how does gods cataloguing system decide which soul goes to which body?

and does every human have one? what about spastics and down syndrome etc.

im sure there are humans out there who have less brain capacity than a monkey, do they have a soul? if not, why not. if so, then why wouldnt a more intelligent monkey have one?

boy, there are just so many problems with the whole "soul" concept.

Clearly you are not interested in answers to any of your questions, but are using them as a method to simply say "I think the concept of a soul is ridiculous".

[swansont]

Along the lines of Phi's comment:

so i was thinking about the "intelligence" concept and i have a few questions for any people that may believe we have intelligence.  

intelligence believers claim that when we die, the intelligence leaves the body 

so, I'm wondering, when and how did the intelligence enter the body?

was it at birth, or conception, or when. if its at birth, what about a premature birth, or induced somehow. if its at conception, what if the mum has a miscarriage or some other complication.

and where is the intelligence before it enters the body? and how how does gods cataloguing system decide which intelligence goes to which body?

and does every human have intelligence?  

I'm sure there are humans out there who have less brain capacity than a monkey, do they have any intelligence? if not, why not.  

boy, there are just so many problems with the whole "intelligence" concept.

 

Any questions you have about the soul probably exist if you apply it to intelligence, and with the same predetermined notions.

[Eise]

On 11/26/2018 at 8:25 AM, jfoldbar said:

so i was thinking about the "soul" concept and i have a few questions for any people that may believe we have a soul. as i do not.

This was jfoldbar's question. So I would expect only people who believe in a soul to react... Which might not too many on these fora.

Of course I can throw in a bon mot (that does not actually fit to jfoldbar's descriptions):

"of course the soul exists: and it is made up of many tiny robots"

But that was an Italian journalist's description of Dennett's philosophy of consciousness...

Ah, found it:

Quote

“Some years ago, there was a lovely philosopher of science and journalist in Italy named Giulio Giorello, and he did an interview with me. And I don’t know if he wrote it or not, but the headline in Corriere della Sera when it was published was "Sì, abbiamo un'anima. Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot – "Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots."

 

[Silvana]

Belief or non-belief doesn't negate the existence of something that can't be proven. 

[EugeniaCarignan]

On 11/29/2018 at 3:59 AM, Silvana said:

Belief or non-belief doesn't negate the existence of something that can't be proven. 

I agree with you totally.

[Phi for All]

On 11/28/2018 at 3:29 PM, Silvana said:

Belief or non-belief doesn't negate the existence of something that can't be proven. 

You should drop the concept of "proof" and "proving" unless you're talking about maths or philosophy. There is no "proof" in science, only supportive evidence. 

Evidence supports whether something exists or not, and the null hypothesis tells us we don't need to invest any trust in explanations that aren't supported. Sure, that means you don't rule out anything you haven't refuted outright, but it also means the best explanations have the preponderance of evidence on their side, so why trust anything less?

[Silvana]

I take your point. In grade school I had a science teacher who wouldn't let us say something was discovered, but that it's existence was discovered, because, of course, it had been there all along.

[Itoero]

We use 'soul' to refer to a person without its physical body.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

We use 'soul' to refer to a person without its physical body.

I don't think I ever would. Are you redefining the term "person" as "including unobservable and non-corporeal" to fit your argument? 

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I don't think I ever would. Are you redefining the term "person" as "including unobservable and non-corporeal" to fit your argument? 

No. That's just how many people I know use 'soul'. People that lie in a graveyard are often referred to as 'souls'.

It doesn't mean we actually believe they have souls, it's only how we often refer to them. There are graveyards with soldiers that died in the war. People often  talks like this: "Pour souls that died in the war"

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, Itoero said:

No. That's just how many people I know use 'soul'. People that lie in a graveyard are often referred to as 'souls'.

It doesn't mean we actually believe they have souls, it's only how we often refer to them. There are graveyards with soldiers that died in the war. People often  talks like this: "Pour souls that died in the war"

If the poor soul died in the war, that makes it sound like the soul and the body are the same. Or at least that the soul is not independent of the physical body.

[Itoero]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If the poor soul died in the war, that makes it sound like the soul and the body are the same. Or at least that the soul is not independent of the physical body.

True, but this is just how people talk. They don't care if it's scientifically correct.

People also talk about the mind...

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Itoero said:

True, but this is just how people talk. They don't care if it's scientifically correct.

People also talk about the mind...

You said "We use 'soul' to refer to a person without its physical body."

But the example you provided referred to 'soul' as as part of the physical body.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

No. That's just how many people I know use 'soul'. People that lie in a graveyard are often referred to as 'souls.

That's the opposite of what you earlier claimed. People lying in a graveyard are NOT without their physical bodies. 

[QuantumT]

The soul. It is kind of a philosophical conundrum.

We live in a universe where information is forever. The atom is, if not indestructible, then at least its components are eternal, if not put through a collider.

So the thought of our qualia and personality to likewise be eternal (information) is not that far fetched.

If we take some steps further down philosophy lane, we stumble upon the simulation "hypothesis". The idea/ontology that our universe and everything in it is simulated by some super computer made by aliens in another universe. In that scenario our body is just an avatar, and the real substance of us is the complex programming making our personality. Or soul.
One could imagine that these aliens might want to save a few copies of us, because they find them interesting. Like Socrates, Einstein and of course me.
That could be an afterlife.

So, the soul and life after death is really not that far fetched, if you widen your horizon of possibilities. They may not end up in their classical forms, but the general ideas are sustainable. Somewhat.

Edited January 13, 2019 by QuantumT

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

The atom is, if not indestructible, then at least its components are eternal, if not put through a collider.

Yeah, not so much. Stellar fusion, radioactive decay, etc.

And what does this have to do with the soul?

 

[QuantumT]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yeah, not so much. Stellar fusion, radioactive decay, etc.

You quoted the answer yourself:

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

then at least its components are eternal

 

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

And what does this have to do with the soul?

I made associations to it immediately after. Why bother replying to a post that you don't bother reading?

[Eise]

11 hours ago, QuantumT said:

The atom is, if not indestructible, then at least its components are eternal, if not put through a collider.

No, not even the components are eternal. Left purely on themselves, some particles (electron, proton (AFAWK) are stable. But as everything is among many other particles, nothing is eternal. Long living maybe, but surely not eternal.

11 hours ago, QuantumT said:

So the thought of our qualia and personality to likewise be eternal (information) is not that far fetched.

Yes, it is very far fetched. There is a veerrry big explanatory gap between the components of atoms and qualia and personality. Either you suppose that a quale and a person are an atom's component (which I think is pretty absurd), or it is a conglomerate of atoms. But then you are lost with your 'eternity', as conglomerates might be broken.

11 hours ago, QuantumT said:

If we take some steps further down philosophy lane, we stumble upon the simulation "hypothesis". The idea/ontology that our universe and everything in it is simulated by some super computer made by aliens in another universe. In that scenario our body is just an avatar, and the real substance of us is the complex programming making our personality. Or soul.

It is an interesting idea. But assume we really are simulations in a simulated universe. Then this simulation also simulates all particles for us, everything we observe and act upon. So for us there is no difference between everything being just what it seems (real particles, atoms, persons) and all being simulated. And when we are software, why couldn't it be software running on our real, not simulated, brains? If the brain breaks down, the software breaks down. But if the supercomputer breaks down, the software also breaks down. So either way there is no eternity. 

10 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I made associations to it immediately after. Why bother replying to a post that you don't bother reading?

I think Swansont read your complete posting: you seem not to be aware of the giant gap between 'eternal components of the atom', the universe, including us being a simulation, and 'the soul'. 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, QuantumT said:

You quoted the answer yourself:

In radioactive decay, and stellar fusion, the components change. (Otherwise how do you get helium-4 from just protons?) They are not eternal.

13 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I made associations to it immediately after. Why bother replying to a post that you don't bother reading?

You posted some nonsense about this being a simulation. What does that have to do with the topic? The OP didn’t discuss that.