the soul

[Itoero]

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

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

That's how it's mostly used but we use it as well to refer to an actual person. It depends on the context 'soul' is used in.

In the dutch language the literal translation of 'soul' is also used to refer to the inside of something...like the inside of a wine bottle.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Itoero

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, Itoero said:

That's how it's mostly used but we use it as well to refer to an actual person. It depends on the context 'soul' is used in.

In the dutch language the literal translation of 'soul' is also used to refer to the inside of something...like the inside of a wine bottle.

2

or the inside of a person as in 'I got soul'

[Itoero]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

or the inside of a person as in 'I got soul'

True, but the soul of a wine bottle is 'physical', the soul of a person not so much...

[QuantumT]

On 1/14/2019 at 1:11 PM, swansont said:

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

You are absolutely right. I should have called them "information" instead.

On 1/14/2019 at 1:11 PM, swansont said:

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

IMO that is the closest we can get to a soul. Namely a digital version of our personality that can be "saved".

On 1/14/2019 at 9:58 AM, Eise said:

So for us there is no difference between everything being just what it seems (real particles, atoms, persons) and all being simulated.

You are absolutely right, except for one little detail: Answers! If we assume that we are simulated, it answers many questions.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

You are absolutely right. I should have called them "information" instead.

IMO that is the closest we can get to a soul. Namely a digital version of our personality that can be "saved".

You are absolutely right, except for one little detail: Answers! If we assume that we are simulated, it answers many questions.

What religion depends on us being in a simulation? (This is posted in religion)

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

What religion depends on us being in a simulation? (This is posted in religion)

My bad. I was too focused on the concept to pay attention the location.

[dimreepr]

On 1/14/2019 at 5:08 PM, Itoero said:

True, but the soul of a wine bottle is 'physical', the soul of a person not so much...

Is it still a wine bottle if it, now, only contains air?

[Prometheus]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

What religion depends on us being in a simulation? (This is posted in religion)

The closest i know of is a certain flavour of Hinduism in which we are all parts of the Brahman (universal soul) broken off and deliberately made to forget we are actually the whole so that the Brahman can have some fun role-playing. In this view, existence is a drama and we are playing our part. And everyone knows drama contains both tragedy and comedy.

I quite like it as an analogy.

[Gees]

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 8:44 AM, Prometheus said:

The closest i know of is a certain flavour of Hinduism in which we are all parts of the Brahman (universal soul) broken off and deliberately made to forget we are actually the whole so that the Brahman can have some fun role-playing. In this view, existence is a drama and we are playing our part. And everyone knows drama contains both tragedy and comedy.

I quite like it as an analogy.

I like the analogy also, but don't think it was meant to be understood as any kind of simulation.

Hinduism is an old and well considered Religion that has studied consciousness for many years. Because of this study, they have uncovered concepts that are difficult to comprehend and even more difficult to convey, so they use stories and "Gods" to explain these concepts.

Brahman's universal soul is one of these and involves the problems of understanding "self" or the "soul". Most people think that we each have a "self" or "soul" and that this "soul" remains whole after we die like a spirit or ghost, or they think it simply disappears. This causes all kinds of questions to arise like, where did the "self/soul" come from? where does it go afterward? how are new ones created? how is reincarnation possible? etc. Then there is the problem of other life. We know that all life has survival instincts, which is self preservation, which means that all life is trying to protect and preserve its "self". Does that mean that all life might also have a "soul"? What happens when a specie becomes extinct? Or when a new specie is formed? Are there "souls" lined up for all species somewhere in heaven? Then there is the problem of species being connected like in Jung's Collective Consciousness, and the evidence that species are interconnected in ecosystems. The longer you think about it, the crazier it gets.

This is what I have referred to as the "mind-numbing problem of self". There is evidence that we are each individual, and there is evidence that we are all connected, so which is it? The Hindu came up with a wonderful explanation; we are all part of the universal soul (self), but forget that when we are born. This explanation is not only easy to understand, it is also fairly accurate from what I know of consciousness.

Gee

[Prometheus]

I agree that it wasn't meant as a computer simulation, but the magic, or technology, by which it is achieved is irrelevant. It's the same concept - a reality is created for a powerful being to play with. Anyone who thinks the Matrix was ground-breaking haven't read much sci-fi or religion: the ideas been around at least since Zhuangzi said:  I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.

Also, it's difficult to talk about Hinduism without stating which flavour: they vary so much they can start to look like different religions all together.

In terms of all those questions, they go away if you think of it just as an analogy. That's why i like Buddhism and Taoism - they rarely start chasing their tails with such questions, and just focus on the direct experience of living.

[Eise]

4 hours ago, Gees said:

Hinduism is an old and well considered Religion that has studied consciousness for many years.

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

Also, it's difficult to talk about Hinduism without stating which flavour: they vary so much they can start to look like different religions all together.

Exactly. There are many forms of Hinduism, even materialism.

4 hours ago, Gees said:

he Hindu came up with a wonderful explanation; we are all part of the universal soul (self), but forget that when we are born. This explanation is not only easy to understand, it is also fairly accurate from what I know of consciousness.

That seems to be from Advaita Vedanta. 

4 hours ago, Gees said:

Most people think that we each have a "self" or "soul" and that this "soul" remains whole after we die like a spirit or ghost, or they think it simply disappears. This causes all kinds of questions to arise like, where did the "self/soul" come from? where does it go afterward? how are new ones created?

In materialism this is simple: there is no thing as a soul or independent self. Consciousness of course exists, but is explained as a process, mainly of the brain. That answers the questions you raised.

4 hours ago, Gees said:

We know that all life has survival instincts, which is self preservation, which means that all life is trying to protect and preserve its "self".

Of course not. The 'self' is more or less the complete organism: the organism is trying to protect and preserve itself, not "its self". I hope you see the difference...

4 hours ago, Gees said:

Does that mean that all life might also have a "soul"? What happens when a specie becomes extinct? Or when a new specie is formed? Are there "souls" lined up for all species somewhere in heaven?

All these questions evaporate from the materialistic (or naturalistic) world view. 

4 hours ago, Gees said:

Then there is the problem of species being connected like in Jung's Collective Consciousness

There does not exist such a thing. You probably mean Jung's 'collective unconsious': but this is not an entity with which we all connect. It is the set of archetypes we have from birth, uninfluenced from culture. From the link, in Jung's own words:

Quote

My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.

So the archetypes are not in some metaphysical 'collective unconscious', but are in every human individual, inherited biologically from our parents. All humans, according to Jung, share the same archetypes, because we all belong to the same species.

5 hours ago, Gees said:

there is evidence that we are all connected...

Really? Or anekdotes, ideology, false interpretations, unproven religious world views?

5 hours ago, Gees said:

This explanation is not only easy to understand, it is also fairly accurate from what I know of consciousness

It is too easy. Feel like a soul? Then there is one. Feel connected? Then we are, (in the metaphysical sense of course; in psychological, sociological, environmental and biological sense we of course are connected; but we do not have to invoke magic for that...). Just to be aware that nothing exists independently.

[Gees]

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 3:56 AM, Prometheus said:

I agree that it wasn't meant as a computer simulation, but the magic, or technology, by which it is achieved is irrelevant. It's the same concept - a reality is created for a powerful being to play with. Anyone who thinks the Matrix was ground-breaking haven't read much sci-fi or religion: the ideas been around at least since Zhuangzi said:  I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.

"For a powerful being to play with"? Are you serious? You come across as a person, who has some respect for and insight into Religions, but I can not find a speck of theology or philosophy in that statement. It appears to be a story told to people, who will believe it because they don't know any better. If you can explain the theology behind that "story", then please do so, as it makes no sense to me.

Consider that Zhuangzi questioning reality does not automatically translate to a "God" playing with people. That is one hell of a jump.

 

Quote

Also, it's difficult to talk about Hinduism without stating which flavour: they vary so much they can start to look like different religions all together.

I agree that there are many flavors of Hinduism, as there are in most older Religions, but there is theology and study behind the stories.

One of the professors that I was corresponding with taught Physics, but also researched Religions. He wrote up a synopsis on eight or ten Religions giving the major points and differences, which was kind of interesting. With Hinduism, his explanation for Brahman was that this "God" created reality and humans so that he could KNOW himself. This actually makes some sense. If you study Religions, you know that they are a study of consciousness, but predominantly a study of emotion. Emotion is not known; it is experienced. Before you start to argue that point, consider how difficult it is to explain love, consider that we use art, music, dance, etc., to express emotion. This is because emotion is analogue, it is felt; after we experience it, then we can think about the experience and try to put our feelings into digital words to make it known to us.

So Brahman, the universal soul (emotion) created reality and people in order for there to be senses to experience and brains to produce thought so that he could KNOW himself. As a theology, this can work as a reasonable explanation. So when we are born, we forget we are part of Him, but are still connected and feeding his need to know. (chuckle)

 

Quote

In terms of all those questions, they go away if you think of it just as an analogy. That's why i like Buddhism and Taoism - they rarely start chasing their tails with such questions, and just focus on the direct experience of living.

Doesn't Buddhism accept reincarnation as a matter of course? Sounds like some serious tail chasing to me.

 

[Prometheus]

6 minutes ago, Gees said:

Consider that Zhuangzi questioning reality does not automatically translate to a "God" playing with people. That is one hell of a jump.

You made that jump, not me; a common misconception among monotheists. It is not that a powerful being is playing with you, it's that you are the powerful being and you are at play. To view oneself as God is often the ultimate conceit, the sin of sins, in monotheism. 

I've not studied Hinduism in detail, but my understanding is that there is no single point of all creation, but rather an endless cycle of birth, sustenance and death. Destruction is as divine as creation - it's all part of the cosmic play.

There's a fundamental difference in perspective between many Eastern religions (and some Paganism/neo-paganism interestingly) and monotheism. We aren't things that come into the universe, created as if molded by some creator. We come out of the universe, as an apple will grow from an apple tree. 

 

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Doesn't Buddhism accept reincarnation as a matter of course? Sounds like some serious tail chasing to me.

Buddhism teaches rebirth - certainly circular. The difference seems to be they actually learn to enjoy chasing their tail whereas monotheists get all wound up when people don't take their tail chasing seriously. Just how it seemed to me when i was young and looking at these things. Now i'm discovering that Europe has always had similar traditions, from Hellenistic and Stoic thought, through to Northern Shamanic practices: unfortunately Christianity erased those traditions.

But my point was about discarding sophisticated theological cleverness for direct experience, which you seem to agree with.

 

[Gees]

11 hours ago, Prometheus said:

You made that jump, not me; a common misconception among monotheists. 

I don 't think so. You can't blame this on me. It has nothing to do with monotheism and everything to do with English. Following is the paragraph in question:

Quote

I agree that it wasn't meant as a computer simulation, but the magic, or technology, by which it is achieved is irrelevant. It's the same concept - a reality is created for a powerful being to play with. Anyone who thinks the Matrix was ground-breaking haven't read much sci-fi or religion: the ideas been around at least since Zhuangzi said:  I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.

You started out with "computer simulation", jumped to "magic", "technology", "a powerful being", the "Matrix", then ended up with "I am now a butterfly", in just a few short sentences. When you write a paragraph, the first sentence is the introduction and the last sentence is the summation -- I had reason to ask for clarification.

 

Quote

It is not that a powerful being is playing with you, it's that you are the powerful being and you are at play. To view oneself as God is often the ultimate conceit, the sin of sins, in monotheism. 

I think that you are putting too much emphasis on "God" in your view of monotheism. Technically, all souls come from "God" and then return to "God" (except for the rejects in Hell) so it is not really that much different. We are all connected in some way at some level. I think the biggest difference is that in monotheism, and especially Christianity, people expect to retain their corporeal forms, so this leads to all kinds of ideas of the "afterlife" and also identifies us and "God" as individual. I see your point that it would be difficult to see yourself as the "powerful being" if you expect all beings to have a corporeal form. This seems to be a significant difference. imo.

 

Quote

I've not studied Hinduism in detail, but my understanding is that there is no single point of all creation, but rather an endless cycle of birth, sustenance and death. Destruction is as divine as creation - it's all part of the cosmic play.

When you talk about a "single point of all creation", you come precariously close to challenging evolution, so I won't comment on that, but the endless cycle of birth and death, creation and destruction, is something that I see as very likely.

 

Quote

There's a fundamental difference in perspective between many Eastern religions (and some Paganism/neo-paganism interestingly) and monotheism. We aren't things that come into the universe, created as if molded by some creator. We come out of the universe, as an apple will grow from an apple tree. 

Here I agree with you.

 

Quote

Buddhism teaches rebirth - certainly circular. The difference seems to be they actually learn to enjoy chasing their tail whereas monotheists get all wound up when people don't take their tail chasing seriously. Just how it seemed to me when i was young and looking at these things. Now i'm discovering that Europe has always had similar traditions, from Hellenistic and Stoic thought, through to Northern Shamanic practices: unfortunately Christianity erased those traditions.

I suspect that monotheists get wound up because they see death as the end of the race -- no do-overs -- so they can't get it wrong. For a while now, I have been considering the idea that the theology of a society may be an indication that the majority of the people are either, linear in their thinking or holistic in their thinking. Linear thinkers would see a beginning and an end clearly and tend to be assertive regarding what they believe is progress. Holistic thinkers tend to see things as cycling and are sometimes suspicious of too much change.

 

Quote

But my point was about discarding sophisticated theological cleverness for direct experience, which you seem to agree with.

Experience is good and valuable -- I like it. But I am still a "pretend" philosopher, so I would never discard the theology, sophisticated or otherwise.

Gee

 

[Prometheus]

3 minutes ago, Gees said:

When you talk about a "single point of all creation", you come precariously close to challenging evolution,

Huh? How's that?

 

4 minutes ago, Gees said:

I think that you are putting too much emphasis on "God" in your view of monotheism.

Maybe there are monotheists that don't emphasise god, but i've not met them. Seems almost a contradiction of terms.

 

 

[Strange]

9 hours ago, Gees said:

I think that you are putting too much emphasis on "God" in your view of monotheism.

Mono = one; theism = bound morpheme meaning "belief in God, a god, or gods," from Greek theos "god" 

Perhaps you can give an example of monotheism that doesn't involve believing in a god.

9 hours ago, Gees said:

When you talk about a "single point of all creation", you come precariously close to challenging evolution

Also wrong. There may have been single unique event of the creation of a living cell from which everything else evolved. That doesn't challenge evolution.

 

It's almost as if you don't know what you are talking about on every subject you venture an opinion on. 

[ScientistAlexandrus]

Soul can be our colloquial word to call a collection of Information linked with Causal relations. But basically,to mean it as something that is "separate" and "unrelated and outside" "this World" is not true. Information cannot be destroyed. Our minds,Thoughts,memories,etc are actually from Atomic/Molecular and sometimes Subatomic/Quantum level. There is perfect and obvious evidence for this. So as a Transhumanist,I think Soul is as a whole a colloquial term to say information linked with Causal connections.