Are humans only body and lacking soul?

[Divagating the Future]

The physical sciences so contend that we humans are but skeleton,muscle,tendon,blood,internal organ,sense receptor,and nervous system: that being humans are essentially defined by the physical parts constituting them. If we so had a different array of constitution { say different nervous system } humans would not be human as we define them. That being then→ to ultimately understand humans we must then understand the physical physiological systems that as such comprise them. No system comprising humans can so be deleted. That includes the functioning of the brain and the nervous system. Thoughts and memories can't be literally screened,measured,nor dissected. They can only be declared through instruments that indicate their being These instruments determine their being via also unseen electrical impulses that are only defined by their mere existent. So as here are negative x negative= a positive. And, that positive physical science does not dispute their existence in the least.

My field of study was in neuropsychology and combined with teachings of my heritage ascertain to such see humans in a different way.

Mystics refute this assumption of humans being merely physical exactly for the above reason, but always consider that humans are something more in addition to the physical body, or at th least→potentially something else, perhaps. This being the concept of soul→ some nonphysical portion, very much the essence of human, which may be able to exist independently of the physically embodied human. That instead, humans are essentially a mental being, and while humans may or may not posses a soul they are capable of contracting and as so merging with nonphysical things outside of their bodies, Or, the idea that humans may come,through proper preparation,→further evolution← to develop something other than the purely physical in themselves, which then so follows becomes very much a part of their realities. Mystics see the body as a relatively unimportant or a very large important shape of experience, but as only one component of the "total' nature of humans. Many cases indicating this is possible have valid documentation.

Fascinating.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Divagating the Future

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

The soul is a religious concept. Moved from Other Sciences to Religion.

[Divagating the Future]

!

Moderator Note

The soul is a religious concept. Moved from Other Sciences to Religion.

 

 

K

[Santalum]

The physical sciences so contend that we humans are but skeleton,muscle,tendon,blood,internal organ,sense receptor,and nervous system: that being humans are essentially defined by the physical parts constituting them. If we so had a different array of constitution { say different nervous system } humans would not be human as we define them. That being then→ to ultimately understand humans we must then understand the physical physiological systems that as such comprise them. No system comprising humans can so be deleted. That includes the functioning of the brain and the nervous system. Thoughts and memories can't be literally screened,measured,nor dissected. They can only be declared through instruments that indicate their being These instruments determine their being via also unseen electrical impulses that are only defined by their mere existent. So as here are negative x negative= a positive. And, that positive physical science does not dispute their existence in the least.

My field of study was in neuropsychology and combined with teachings of my heritage ascertain to such see humans in a different way.

Mystics refute this assumption of humans being merely physical exactly for the above reason, but always consider that humans are something more in addition to the physical body, or at th least→potentially something else, perhaps. This being the concept of soul→ some nonphysical portion, very much the essence of human, which may be able to exist independently of the physically embodied human. That instead, humans are essentially a mental being, and while humans may or may not posses a soul they are capable of contracting and as so merging with nonphysical things outside of their bodies, Or, the idea that humans may come,through proper preparation,→further evolution← to develop something other than the purely physical in themselves, which then so follows becomes very much a part of their realities. Mystics see the body as a relatively unimportant or a very large important shape of experience, but as only one component of the "total' nature of humans. Many cases indicating this is possible have valid documentation.

Fascinating.

Soul, self, consciousness,......they all different descriptions of the same thing as far as I am concerned.

 

Why does the fact that they refer to an awe inspiring physical biological phenomenum demean it for those with religious leanings?

[Divagating the Future]

Soul, self, consciousness,......they all different descriptions of the same thing as far as I am concerned.

 

Why does the fact that they refer to an awe inspiring physical biological phenomenum demean it for those with religious leanings?

 

I am merely trying to placate and bring it into a perspective that ..some..people are unable to grasp. Understand? ☼

[ajb]

From a scientific perspective, there is no tangible, irrefutable, repeatable, reliable evidence for the existence of a soul or any related concept like ghosts.

 

To me, the soul, ghosts, supernatural and religion tell us much more about the human mind rather than nature.

[11dees]

Actualy souls and spirits aren't disproved because there are 11 dimensions we only experience 4 but we can still exsist in others hence soul/spirit

[chilehed]

Humans are alive, therefore by definition they have souls.

 

The word soul indicates the life force, so in fact every living thing has a soul. A body with no soul is not alive... a rock, for example.

Edited March 2, 2012 by chilehed

[Phi for All]

I believe that the concept of consciousness is more meaningful than the concept of soul. I can hope that my consciousness may survive the death of my body, but I hear a lot of beings are after my soul.

 

Actualy souls and spirits aren't disproved because there are 11 dimensions we only experience 4 but we can still exsist in others hence soul/spirit

If souls can't be disproved then neither can they be proved, so it doesn't follow hence that souls reside in some higher M theory dimension.

 

Humans are alive, therefore by definition they have souls.

 

The word soul indicates the life force, so in fact every living thing has a soul. A body with no soul is not alive... a rock, for example.

You're fixing a definition of soul that fits your beliefs. Christianity, for instance, says only humans have souls.

[chilehed]

You're fixing a definition of soul that fits your beliefs.

I'm using the definition based on the origin of the word in Greek philosophy, and taken up by St. Thomas Acquinas. That's what the definition is.

 

 

Christianity, for instance, says only humans have souls.

St. Thomas would disagree.

 

There are Christians who would agree with you. That doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.

Edited March 3, 2012 by chilehed

[Phi for All]

I'm using the definition based on the origin of the word in Greek philosophy, and taken up by St. Thomas Acquinas. That's what the definition is.

But ultimately it's a circular argument. You're saying souls exist because everything living has a soul because that's the definition of soul.

 

 

St. Thomas would disagree.

 

There are Christians who would agree with you. That doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.

It's not my belief. I don't believe in "souls". But the Bible of the Abrahamic religions talks about this specifically:

 

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It doesn't mention that God breathed souls into the animals and plants.

 

There is some mention in the Koran about Mohammmed dealing with animals as if they also had souls. I don't know if Judaism grants souls to plants and animals.

[immortal]

It is documented that Shankara, the founder of non-dual advaita, left his body and entered the body of a dead King and brought that body back to life and this can be only possible if "jiva" or a "soul" exists.

 

Adi Shankara - wiki

 

After debating for over fifteen days, with Mandana Misra's wife Ubhaya Bharati acting as referee, Mandana Misra accepted defeat. Ubhaya Bharati then challenged Adi Shankara to have a debate with her in order to 'complete' the victory. She asked him questions related to sexual congress between man and woman - a subject in which Shankaracharya had no knowledge, since he was a true celibate and sannyasi. Sri Shankracharya asked for a "recess" of 15 days. As per legend, he used the art of "para-kaya pravesa" (the spirit leaving its own body and entering another's) and exited his own body, which he asked his disciples to look after, and psychically entered the dead body of a king. The story goes that from the King's two wives, he acquired all knowledge of "art of love". The queens, thrilled at the keen intellect and robust love-making of the "revived" King, deduced that he was not their husband, as of old. The story continues that they sent their factotums to "look for the lifeless body of a young sadhu and to cremate it immediately" so that their "king" (Shankracharya in the king's body) would continue to live with them. Just as the retainers piled Shankracharaya's lifeless corpse upon a pyre and were about to set fire to it, Shankara entered his own body and regained consciousness. Finally, he answered all questions put to him by Ubhaya Bharati; and she allowed Mandana Misra to accept sannyasa with the monastic name Suresvaracarya, as per the agreed-upon rules of the debate.

[Phi for All]

It is documented that Shankara, the founder of non-dual advaita, left his body and entered the body of a dead King and brought that body back to life and this can be only possible if "jiva" or a "soul" exists.

What kind of documentation did they have in the 9th century that would count as evidence today? Certainly unobservable souls are a lot like God, you can't really document their existence.

[immortal]

What kind of documentation did they have in the 9th century that would count as evidence today? Certainly unobservable souls are a lot like God, you can't really document their existence.

 

Of course one cannot document the evidence of a soul like they document the evidence for Big Foot or Loch Ness monster. The method is documented and they can be repeated and the same phenomena can be demonstrated even today, its just there are hardly a few who try such methods and as long as someone demonstrates it the topic is open to debate.

[chilehed]

But ultimately it's a circular argument. You're saying souls exist because everything living has a soul because that's the definition of soul.

I'm saying that

1. The definiiton of "soul" is "the substantial form of living bodies", or alternatively "the life principle of living beings".

2. Living bodies exist.

3. Therefore, souls exist.

 

That's not a circular argument.

 

 

It's not my belief. I don't believe in "souls".

I was indicating my agreement with your assertion that many Christians say that only humans have souls. But that's not a universal opinion among Christians.

 

 

But the Bible of the Abrahamic religions talks about this specifically:

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It doesn't mention that God breathed souls into the animals and plants.

It wasn't written in English. In the original Hebrew "a living soul" is hay-yim hay-yah, which actually means "a living living". This supports my position that soul means "life principle".

 

That it doesn't speak of animals and plants being living beings doesn't help your position. The intent of the story is to discuss the nature of human beings and their relationship with God; the nature of plants and animals isn't relevant and in any case there's no need to explain that they're alive because it's obvious. What's not obvious is the distinction between the life principle of plants and animals versus that of humans. They are living, we are living-living. We have a rational soul which will exist for eternity, they have an irrational soul which will not. That's part of the point of the story: there's an ontological difference between them and us.

Edited March 3, 2012 by chilehed

[Phi for All]

I'm saying that

1. The definiiton of "soul" is "the substantial form of living bodies", or alternatively "the life principle of living beings".

2. Living bodies exist.

3. Therefore, souls exist.

 

That's not a circular argument.

The proposition you're trying to prove, that souls exist, is explicitly implied in your definition of soul. This is the very essence of a circular argument.

 

And your definition is flawed. How can a soul be "the substantial form of living bodies"?! Every definition of soul I can find describes a soul as insubstantial and immaterial. Where is the substance of a soul that I can observe and test?