Souls

[Jobar]

The discussion of Adam & Eve vs. Science (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=139206&#post139206) started me to thinking about the place of the soul in religious belief, particularly the Abrahamic religions.

Of course, we unbelievers think the soul is no more real than God(s), unless perhaps as an ancient way of naming consciousness; nothing spiritual or supernatural about it. But I tend to think that even the most liberal of believers has to hold to some notion of a soul as an eternal and non-material aspect, facet, or distillation of every human; indeed, from a religious viewpoint mankind can be defined as those beings who have souls.

So, I want to see if we can get some opinions on souls, hopefully from believers, as I'm sure we skeptics will be pretty much of one mind on this.

[Notta]

When I lost my faith, giving up the idea that I had an eternal soul was even harder than not believing in Jesus. I think it was the last thing to go.

[Politesse]

I don't regard human beings as the only things with souls, but I like your term "distillation"- the soul is that which is most essential about a person. And at our most essential we are one and the same with God and the rest of the universe, so yes, the soul is ageless by implication. The eternal life that Jesus taught was to be found in recognition, not destination. Not immaterial, I wouldn't say. Nothing immaterial exists, unless you can establish otherwise. But the mistake of the materialists has always been to misunderstand the full implications of existent things, the full range and depth of qualities that an existent thing possesses. The materiality of a thing, its physical representation, is only the tip of the iceberg to what a thing truly is. Reality is of infinite depth and significance. You ever hear the Buddha's teaching, "All things are bodhisattva"? It's because each of them could lead you to the universal truths if you were to contemplate them fully.

[rog]

I don't regard human beings as the only things with souls

Can I ask, what else do you think has a soul?

[BioBeing]

But the mistake of the materialists has always been to misunderstand the full implications of existent things, the full range and depth of qualities that an existent thing possesses.

One could at least equally well say that the problem with the theist is that they instill too many qualities into the material.

[Politesse]

But the mistake of the materialists has always been to misunderstand the full implications of existent things, the full range and depth of qualities that an existent thing possesses.

One could at least equally well say that the problem with the theist is that they instill too many qualities into the material.
One could, yes. Depends on who is closer to the truth, yes? Although I don't know if theist would be the term I use, since plenty of theists seem to view supernatural as something "other" either imposed on reality or hidden away from it.

[Politesse]

Can I ask, what else do you think has a soul?Everything shares in having an intrinsic nature beyond the purely physical; the only thing that distinguishes us is our level of awareness. So I suppose anything with a sufficient level of awareness can be said to have a "soul", and its something of a subjective determination at any rate. The soul is less a "thing" that one possesses or not than a aspect one does or does not recognize.

[rog]

Politesse, I know that proof is off the cards here, so I won't even try to press you on that :)
Could you explain though how this 'intrinsic nature beyond the purely physical' became to be associated with what are basically complex chemical machines [Bacteria, Humans], I don't think your statement is Christian orthodoxy - how did you come to this understanding?

I wonder if you would be prepared go go out on a limb and speculate: if a sentient computer were ever created, could it have a soul?

[Rie]

So.. what is 'Soul' as in music? I'm serious here. I believe this name given to a type of music shows what we think a soul is.

[Politesse]

Politesse, I know that proof is off the cards here, so I won't even try to press you on that :)Indeed. Really, we're looking at the exact same evidence more or less but regarding it through different doors of perception, and its not the easiest gap to cross by means of debate.

Could you explain though how this 'intrinsic nature beyond the purely physical' became to be associated with what are basically complex chemical machines [Bacteria, Humans],One can simply observe it if one has a mind to, and many have. I would argue that most people have some rudimentary sense of "themselves" beyond the quantitative facts of their substance, even some glimmer of how this places them in the greater scheme of the universe. I'm sure it could just be some trick of the mind, of course. But I would need more than just the allegation of the same to believe it, you know?

I don't think your statement is Christian orthodoxy - how did you come to this understanding?Even if there were a clear orthodox position on the soul (there isn't, and I'm closer to some Eastern thinkers than you probably realize) I've never been afraid of a bit of heterodoxy. Much of this is the result of my own meditations and necessary (to my mind) revisions of medieval thought in light of more recent philosophical developments. If I had to cite my influences in this regard they would probably be, in descending order, Christ himself, Gregory of Nyssa, Lao Tzu, perhaps a bit of Evagrios and the pseudo-Dionyssus, and ibn Arabi. I've also some grounds for agreement with Karl Rahner vis the perception of the soul and its nature in self and others.

I wonder if you would be prepared go go out on a limb and speculate: if a sentient computer were ever created, could it have a soul?If it can perceive that it has one, sure. It's made of the same stuff that we are after all.

[Politesse]

So.. what is 'Soul' as in music? I'm serious here. I believe this name given to a type of music shows what we think a soul is.
That's very perceptive of you, and I agree. To the extent that we accord souls to the things we observe, it can probably be fairly claimed that they possess them, even (perhaps) a bar of music. Certainly music can be bodhisattva, as Siddartha put it, and lead one into the realm of the perception of souls. All things are of a similar base essence; what makes a distinct soul is only the perception of an observer that it has one. As I said, I think of a soul as being something of a subjective determination.

[Ray Moscow]

I accept "soul" as a poetic term for some aspects or even the totality of a person or even a nonhuman living thing. What I don't accept is the idea that this "soul" survives the death of that person (or thing), except in others' memories.

[BioBeing]

But the mistake of the materialists has always been to misunderstand the full implications of existent things, the full range and depth of qualities that an existent thing possesses.

One could at least equally well say that the problem with the theist is that they instill too many qualities into the material.
One could, yes. Depends on who is closer to the truth, yes? Although I don't know if theist would be the term I use, since plenty of theists seem to view supernatural as something "other" either imposed on reality or hidden away from it.
True - theist was not the correct word. "Non-materialist" might have been better.

But just what is it that a materialist misses, and how does anyone know?

[Daydream]

When I use to believe in a soul, I thought the soul was the essence or personality of the person that lived on in the afterlife. It took watching a loved one die with Alzheimer's to realize that people need a functioning physical brain to have a personality and once the brain dies, so does the personality. I don't believe in a soul or an afterlife anymore.

[sohy]

When I use to believe in a soul, I thought the soul was the essence or personality of the person that lived on in the afterlife. It took watching a loved one die with Alzheimer's to realize that people need a functioning physical brain to have a personality and once the brain dies, so does the personality. I don't believe in a soul or an afterlife anymore.

I care for people with AD and I've frequently wondered how people can maintain their belief in mind/body dualism when it becomes so very obvious that our minds are dependent on the physical structure of the brain, which is grossly impaired as the disease progresses. Religious beliefs involve a lot of magical thinking so I shouldn't be so surprised, I guess. There are even neurologists that believe in an afterlife. Go figure.

Soul has become as much as secular term as a spiritual one. Soul/funk is my favorite genre of music and even more so than in other types of music, it provides for deep emotional release. Certainly, there is a strong influence from gospel music and the Black church, but those influences are translated into a purely secular form. I usually always think of the strong emotions that are part of the human experience when I think of the term soul.

[Free in Freeport]

I'm definitely a skeptic, but my beliefs on this matter are not entirely clear.

A part of me yearns for something more than day-to-day experiences. Or maybe I'm just moody. It's been one hell of a crappy week!

[Febble]

Well, I think Hofstadter pretty well nails it.

http://tal.forum2.org/hofstadter_interview

[Yahzi]

So, I want to see if we can get some opinions on souls, hopefully from believers, as I'm sure we skeptics will be pretty much of one mind on this.
Well, you got one literate and descriptive opinion from Politesse.

Unfortunately, though I've read it several times now, I don't think I know any more about souls than I did before I read it...

[David B]

Well, I think Hofstadter pretty well nails it.

http://tal.forum2.org/hofstadter_interview

I also think Hof nails it pretty well, I just wish that he had found a different word, rather in the same way that I wish Einstein had found a different word in his God playing dice quote.

David

[lpetrich]

I'm definitely a skeptic, but my beliefs on this matter are not entirely clear.

A part of me yearns for something more than day-to-day experiences. Or maybe I'm just moody. It's been one hell of a crappy week!

Massimo Pigliucci had once written on how to have your own mystical experience, but I can't find it anywhere online anymore. But he lists these methods:

Meditation
Gases like carbon dioxide and ethylene
Stroboscopic lights
Various drugs, like mescaline, LSD, ...
Scurvy and pellagra
Self-flagellation
Starvation
Sensory deprivation
Concentration on an intellectual task
Brain damage
Schizophrenia
Persinger's transcranial magnetic stimulator


Richard Carrier had had some impressive mystical experiences in his Taoist years, as he described in From Taoist to Infidel (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html):
I was a happy Taoist for many years. ... During all this, in cultivating the mental life that Taoism taught, I had powerful mystical visions, which only confirmed further that I was on the right track. These ranged from the simple to the fantastic. The simplest and most common was that clarity of an almost drug-like wonder, perceiving everything striking the senses as one, unified whole. It is hard to describe this. Normally, your attention is focussed, on something you are looking at or listening to, or in a semi-dream-state of reverie, but with a meditative sense of attention this focus and dreaminess vanishes and you are immersed in a total, holistic sense of the real. It is both magnificent and calming. It humbles you, and brings you to the realization of how beautiful simply living is, and how trivial all your worries and difficulties are. Profound insights about the world would strike me whenever in such a state, leading far more readily and powerfully to an understaning of myself and the world than studying or reasoning ever did.

The most fantastic experience I had was like that times ten. It happened at sea, well past midnight on the flight deck of a cutter, in international waters two hundred miles from the nearest land. I had not slept for over 36 hours, thanks to a common misfortune of overlapping duty schedules and emergency rescue operations. For hours we had been practicing helicopter landing and refuelling drills and at long last the chopper was away and everything was calm. The ship was rocking slowly in a gentle, dark sea, and I was alone beneath the starriest of skies that most people have never seen. I fell so deeply into the clear, total immersion in the real that I left my body and my soul expanded to the size of the universe, so that I could at one thought perceive, almost 'feel', everything that existed in perfect and total clarity. It was like undergoing a Vulcan Mind Meld with God. Naturally, words cannot do justice to something like this. It cannot really be described, only experienced, or hinted at. What did I see? A beautiful, vast, harmonious and wonderful universe all at peace with the Tao. There was plenty of life scattered like tiny seeds everywhere, but no supernatural beings, no gods or demons or souls floating about, no heaven or hell. Just a perfect, complete universe, with no need for anything more. The experience was absolutely real to me. There was nothing about it that would suggest it was a dream or a mere flight of imagination. And it was magnificent.

[Aupmanyav]

Nice quote, Ipetrich.

In hinduism, as you know we have all types of permutations and combinations. Soul could belong to living beings (humans and animals), but if you go by the story of 'Dharmavyadha' in Bhagawat Purana, then to vegetation also, and for the followers of Sankara even in-animate things are the same as Brahman, the sole constituent of the universe.

1. It could be completely different from God (Madhva),
2. Part of Brahman, and hence is similar, but not identical (Ramanuja),
3. Same and yet different from Brahman (Nimbarka).
4. The world is said to be the sport of Krishna, the Brahman (Vallabha),
5. Inconceivable and simultaneous one-ness and difference (Chaitanya - Hare Krishna)
6. Brahman is the only reality, and the world, as it appears, is illusory. Soul is Brahman (Sankara).

[Silly Sausage]

When I was a child, I was taught that everyone had a soul, even 'bad' people, and that at the time of death, the souls would go to either heaven or hell depending on how that person has acted in their life time. I'm not sure if I believed this back then, having always been fairly sceptical about everything.

The brevity of human life makes me painfully sad, and at times I do wish that souls existed and there was something more after we die, but that does not mean that I believe. Its usually when I hear stories of the horrible things that humans do to each other, not only in the name of religion, that my dis-belief is reaffirmed.
I'm not the most intellectual person around, but this is the best way I can describe how I can feel about the subject.

[rcscwc]

Great post Aup.

[Febble]

Well, I think Hofstadter pretty well nails it.

http://tal.forum2.org/hofstadter_interview

I also think Hof nails it pretty well, I just wish that he had found a different word, rather in the same way that I wish Einstein had found a different word in his God playing dice quote.

David

I don't mind the word. Better than trying to call it a "consciousness" or something. It's what people think of as souls, except when they are embarassed and want to call it something else. And it doesn't even die with your death, in Hofstadter's sense. I think it was a good choice.

He describes what people think of as souls, and demonstrates that they exist, are not entirely confined by our own bodies, but not immortal.

[Aupmanyav]

.. and demonstrates that they exist, are not entirely confined by our own bodies, but not immortal.A question mark for each contention ???

[premjan]

Chaitanya's view is the closest to correct, but Nimbarka is pretty close too.

[Alethias]

Well, I think Hofstadter pretty well nails it.

http://tal.forum2.org/hofstadter_interviewNot sure I could completely agree with Hofstadter.

I can buy off on the idea of the soul being the essential pattern of a person. But I have sincere doubts that the pattern is reproducible without the biological, chemical components.

I may have memories of "Shine on you crazy Diamond", by Pink Floyd, but the pattern isn't a perfect match to the original. Even if you were somehow able to take composites of peoples memories of the song and compare them over time, the composites would vary from how the performance of the song by the original artists changed over time.

In a similar fashion, my memories of my dad may count as a fragment of his soul, and if you were able to composite all the memories of everyone that ever knew him, you'd get closer to his true essence. But I doubt if you could ever reproduce something that would change over time in the way he changed over time without housing it in a biological containment field(a body in other words) that duplicated his genetic substance.

If you composited all memories of someone that were sufficiently well known, and were able to clone their body, and upload their composited memories into their cloned body, sure, you'd capture their soul, using the word the way Hofstadter uses it. But I don't think any other method would suffice.

[Febble]

Well, I think Hofstadter pretty well nails it.

http://tal.forum2.org/hofstadter_interviewNot sure I could completely agree with Hofstadter.

I can buy off on the idea of the soul being the essential pattern of a person. But I have sincere doubts that the pattern is reproducible without the biological, chemical components.

He doesn't claim so.

I may have memories of "Shine on you crazy Diamond", by Pink Floyd, but the pattern isn't a perfect match to the original. Even if you were somehow able to take composites of peoples memories of the song and compare them over time, the composites would vary from how the performance of the song by the original artists changed over time.

Yes, indeed, and that is Hofstadter's point.

In a similar fashion, my memories of my dad may count as a fragment of his soul, and if you were able to composite all the memories of everyone that ever knew him, you'd get closer to his true essence. But I doubt if you could ever reproduce something that would change over time in the way he changed over time without housing it in a biological containment field(a body in other words) that duplicated his genetic substance.

Of course not. But that's not what Hofstadter is saying.

If you composited all memories of someone that were sufficiently well known, and were able to clone their body, and upload their composited memories into their cloned body, sure, you'd capture their soul, using the word the way Hofstadter uses it. But I don't think any other method would suffice.

I probably conveyed his idea misleadingly. But Hofstadter wouldn't disagree with you at all, as I understand him.

He regards (as his book title implies) what he calls the "soul" as a loop - moreover, a loop that never takes exactly the same trajectory twice (i.e. a "strange" loop). He also sees the "soul" (as I do) as a view of the world from a particular vantage point, or rather trajectory (because our "point of view") moves through time and space. He sees ourselves as also housing, in crude form, the "points of view" of others - as indicated of course in the phrase "I can see it from her point of view". He gives a very moving story of after his wife had died, and his children were small, of feeling that he wanted not only to experience his daughter's birthday part for himself, but "for Carol" - to experience it as she would have done, and which he was, in some crude sense, able to do, because of how well they had been able to see things from "each other's point of view".