A soul?

[Quartermass]

This is one question I wonder about from time to time, and now my curiosity is rearing its ugly head.

Why do humans need a soul?

That's one thing that's never been explained in the Bible.

And what is a soul for?

I really wish I knew.

But I don't have any answers, only thoughts.

[Speck Tater]

1. My theory...

And please bear in mind that this is a theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. I like it simply because it's fun to believe. That said...

There are three things in the universe that are elemental, eternal, and unchanging:

1. Space/time
2. Mass/energy
3. Consciousness/information

The fact that we are intelligent and the fact that we are conscious are unrelated. Intelligence is an epiphenomenon of the data processing capabilities of the brain. The fact that we are conscious has nothing to do with the physical brain. Since consciousness is elemental it's not "made of" anything else. It simply is. When enough of this quality accumulates in one place it crosses some threshold and becomes self-aware. The "soul" is a packet of condensed elemental consciousness. It is what may survive physical death, if we can hold it together so it doesn't dissipate. It could occupy another physical body, as in reincarnation, if it is so motivated. Or it may simply dissipate if that particular "soul" lacks any strong desire to continue as a consciousness unit, and lacks any strong attachment to physical existence (as in "karma", "samsara", etc.)

[GliderGuider]

12. What an elegant way of seeing!

"The "soul" is a packet of condensed elemental consciousness."

That is exactly how I experience my essential Self, but I've never been able to express it with such succinct elegance. Mind if I borrow it?

I'd be extremely interested in knowing what sort of process led you to this understanding.

[Speck Tater]

13. Feel free to borrow or use it any way you like.

My crazy ideas are all public domain.

This theory of mine goes back at least 30 years so I don't recall what line of thought got me to it. It had something to do with the idea that since on any given technologically advanced planet there are probably thousands, if not tens of thousands of simulations running on highly advanced computers so whatever reality you find yourself in the odds are strongly in favor of it being a simulated reality. So if THIS reality is a simulated reality, which it probably is, then how do we inject our consciousness into it in order to "play the game"?

Anyway, goofy random metaphysical theories are sort of a hobby of mine. :)

[Humanist_Activist]

18. Where is the proof that intelligence and consciousness are unrelated?

Indeed, where is the proof that consciousness is removed from the physical brain? Until you come out with evidence, all you have is blind speculation wrapped in a pseudo-scientific blanket.

[Speck Tater]

19. Permit me to quote from my reply number 1

"And please bear in mind that this is a theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. I like it simply because it's fun to believe."

To recap...
No proof.
No claim of proof.
No evidence.
No claim of evidence.
No reason whatsoever that you should take it seriously.

And since it makes no material difference, either for good or for ill, to my day-to-day existence, or yours, whether I believe it or not it seems that I have the right to believe it for no other reason than it's fun to believe.

You, of course, are free to disbelieve it in favor of whatever you, personally, find more fun to believe.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. OK, I don't understand this...

How do you suspend your critical thinking skills? More fun to believe? There are plenty of things I think would be cool if they existed, dragons, fairies, elves, wizards, etc.

But that doesn't mean I actually think any of these exist, same for soul or others. I make a distinction between fantasy and reality.

[Speck Tater]

36. You have WAAAAY over generalized what I said.

Some things demonstrably belong to reality.
Some things demonstrably belong to fantasy.
Some things are demonstrably undecidable. (Google "Kurt Gödel", or "Werner Heisenberg" for example)

In cases where the matter at hand is demonstrably real or demonstrably fantasy then it certainly matters what one believes because what one believes can affect ones choices and behaviors in ways that are either conducive to or detrimental to one's social fitness, happiness, or perhaps even one's survival.

In cases where matters are demonstrably undecidable, a person's decision to believe one unprovable hypothesis over another unprovable hypothesis can have no bearing on one's day to day life, except perhaps to satisfy some other psychological need. Thus one might choose to believe that the soul exists because it provides a certain amount of psychological comfort to them to believe that. On the other hand one might choose to believe that the soul does not exist because it provides a certain amount of psychological comfort to them to believe that.

It depends on whether one is comforted by believing that the soul will survive death, or by believing that logic provides all the answers. Neither belief is defensible on rational grounds because both are unprovable and unfalsifiable. Therefore, choosing which to believe comes down to a matter of personal preference. In other words, believing whatever we find is most fun to believe.

The deist finds it fun to believe in an afterlife, thinking this makes him "superior" to the poor materialist. The skeptical materialist finds it fun to believe in the infallibility of logic and rationality, thinking that this makes him "superior" to the superstitious deist. Both are kidding themselves. The only difference is that I openly admit that I'm kidding myself and find it fun to believe that this somehow makes me "superior" to either of them (which is nonsense, of course).

[rrneck]

20. I agree with GG on that one.

A very nice way of looking at it.

[ZombieHorde]

24. That is definitely the most detailed description of a soul I have seen.

I think of consciousness as a byproduct of some arrangements of atoms, but that is also just based on me guessing. I really have no idea why this clump of matter is self aware and has thoughts.

[GliderGuider]

34. Some further thoughts inspired by your post

While it's usual to think in terms of elemental dyads of Space/Time and Matter/Energy, I decided I prefer to think of space, time, matter and energy as forming a single interlocked framework for physical reality.

We know these four are essential qualities of reality, but we also know they are changeable. Since Einstein we know that matter and energy can be transformed into each other; that mass bends space; and that mass can be increased and time slowed down by increasing velocity (which comes from increased energy).

These four parameters of physical reality are interdependent, so don't behave like individual elements. Instead, think of them as a set - call it STME - reminiscent of the set of nucleic acids ACGT that make up the DNA of life. The STME set itself is elemental, since without it reality could not exist. The interplay between those four qualities establishes both the nature of this overall reality and the characteristics of local reality at any "point" in the physical universe.

I didn't need the pairing of Consciousness with Information, so for me Consciousness stands on its own. It does so for a very good reason - it is the field within which our physical "STME" reality arises. Pure consciousness is outside of space and time, as it must be in order to become the field for those qualities, and it has neither mass nor energy. Pure consciousness - as distinct from our experience of it - is both formless and void of content.

The key insight for me was the idea that a soul is a packet of condensed consciousness. A helpful analogy would be gas condensing in intergalactic space, eventually becoming dense enough to ignite as a star. In much the same fashion, consciousness condenses around a nascent human being, eventually becoming dense enough that it "ignites" into a self-aware soul.

Just as stars come in different sizes and qualities, so it is with consciousness. One possibility is that consciousness condenses to varying degrees everywhere throughout physical reality. To us this appears as forms of life, and may even include forms we don't usually consider to be alive, like stars and galaxies, planets and rocks, table lamps and books - all the way down to individual subatomic particles.

"Nice intellectual noodling," I hear you say, "but what of Love? Surely Love has a place in this conscious universe?" Here is how I think this works.

As human beings, we respond to our world in two ways - through thought and feeling. When we experience Consciousness through Thought we perceive it as Awareness. When we experience Consciousness through Feeling we express it as Love.

Fun stuff indeed. Thanks for the inspiration!

[Speck Tater]

37. Those are some interesting ideas!

I like your idea (if I'm understanding you correctly) that consciousness is the 'place" where "STME" come into existence.

Check out Sir James Jeans:

--quote--
The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Sir James Jeans "The mysterious universe" page 137.
--/quote--

In an interview:
--quote--
I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe... In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.
--/quote--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hopwood_Jeans

(ED: to add quote)

[MarkCharles]

2. Psychologists have explanations for these kinds of artifacts, these kinds of

ways of looking at the self, devoid of empirical evidence.

Take the bank robber, the rapist, the car theif, even the killer.

Put him in a prison, for 10 to 50 years, or for the rest of his life. How does he ever gain acceptance and a way to find a god without giving him a new identity, OH I GET IT...

Let's give him a "SOUL"!!!

A "soul" can be error free, can be crime free, a chance for a do-over!

Our souls are "pure", our souls are our "essence", our desire for a perfect self.

There's a lot of philosophical and psychological writings on this, all theory, no empirical evidence, other than a few anecdotal interviews:

interviews with recently converted Christians and Muslims in prison

interviews with men and women a week or two before they were executed

interviews with clerics, who claim that they saw the "real soul" of convicted murderers and rapists.

No real data, but the concept of the "soul" has a very useful function in religious thinking, a way to bring even the most vile and detestable people into a belief in the supernatural, the religious, the "believer" community.

Make up a philosophical facade that accepts each and everybody, we will find a way to get more people to join the group.

THAT is the purpose of the concept of a "soul".

[murray hill farm]

3. Generally,

ones soul is believed to be all that there is in a being that is not the body, the emotions, the senses or the mind of the person. It presents the belief that there is more that cannot be measured or experienced physically, but connects the being with the "all" that cannot be explained or known as a physical being. Something that none of can know or explain.

[On the Road]

4. The Old Testament Really Doesn't Talk Much About a Soul,

and the earliest Jewish beliefs don't seem to have really considered that humans were split up into separate physical and spiritual parts.

The New Testament authors certainly believed in a soul separate from the body. Paul was probably influenced by Greek thought and mystery religions. The author of the gospel of John was probably influenced by Egyptian Judaism, which partly drew from Egyptian religion.

It's hard to know exactly what Jesus himself thought, since a lot of the gospel material may not reflect too many of his real words and actions. John 3, with the discussion about the water and the spirit, would be a great place to start, but since the discussion doesn't work in Aramaic and there were no other witnesses, it's likely that chapter was made up to express the writer's philosophy.

Even where a soul is discussed, it may not be all that distinct from what we think of as mind. I doubt that most Biblical Jews or early Christians thought of the mind as one thing and the soul as additional thing that exists apart from the mind. There is one verse in Hebrews which seems to make the distinction, but it's a pretty weak basis for drawing any widespread conclusions.

-------------------------

Personally, I think that the idea of the soul comes partly out of the experience of self-awareness. Even today, it's difficult to see oneself as a set of physical or biological reactions on a par with everything else that goes on the natural world. Postulating a soul IMO is not too much different from saying that consciousness is a fundamentally different sort of thing from the physical world (and in truth, it's not really possible to explain very well).

The other reason for the soul is the belief in an afterlife. As that belief grew and evolved, it required a vehicle for a person to exist after death. And that vehicle became the soul.

[Nihil]

35. Agreed ...

> Personally, I think that the idea of the soul comes partly out of the experience
> of self-awareness. Even today, it's difficult to see oneself as a set of physical
> or biological reactions on a par with everything else that goes on the natural
> world. Postulating a soul IMO is not too much different from saying that
> consciousness is a fundamentally different sort of thing from the physical world
> (and in truth, it's not really possible to explain very well).

The idea of the soul is a way to resolve the questions that occur to a conscious
creature in moments of introspection.
e.g.,
"What is noticing this sensation?"
"What is observing these feelings?"
"What is thinking these thoughts?"
"What is asking these questions?"

:shrug:

Of course, then religion sticks in its oar and uses it as a mean of extracting
money and/or extorting certain behaviours.

My use of the word "soul" is the first kind, not the church kind.

[SheilaT]

5. The idea of a soul is also connected

to the idea of survival of consciousness after bodily death.

[Igel]

6. "Why do humans need a soul?"

A. There is no reason saying that it is necessary for humans to have souls in order to be human.

B. There is every reason for people to think they have some immortal, putatively pure portion (although that "pure" business isn't universal) that survives after their death.

There are Xian denominations that simply say the idea of an "immortal soul" isn't derived in any straightforward sense from the biblical canon, but is read into it to create support for non-Hebraic traditions and folk beliefs.

[rrneck]

21. They don't.

Unless they experience something that is important to them and elect to call it a soul. Then it becomes important.

It's important to most religions for people to have a soul, as defined by them, so they can sell it back to them.

[GliderGuider]

22. +1

On both counts! :thumbsup:

[BlueToTheBone]

7. The Tibetans say

that you are not that body, you are not those emotions, you are not those thoughts.

[snagglepuss]

8. Britannica's short entry is worth the read.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/555149/soul

[valerief]

9. Ain't no soul except for the two soles on the bottom of your feet. nt

[Kurmudgeon]

10. Your soul is YOU.

[laconicsax]

11. What does that even mean?

:shrug:

[Speck Tater]

14. In other words, your not-soul is not-you. nt

[laconicsax]

15. huh...

[ZombieHorde]

23. I think they're dividing the human condition into two categories:

1) Your soul (whatever that may be).

2) Your atoms, thoughts, and feelings.

And then I believe they are claiming the soul is the owner and/or user of the atoms, thoughts, and feelings.

I believe they are thinking of our atoms, thoughts, and feelings the way we think of clothes.

I think.

[laconicsax]

26. That may be what is meant.

Too bad for them it isn't likely to be true.

[Speck Tater]

27. When I wrote "In other words, your not-soul is not-you."

It was meant as tongue-in-cheek satire on meaningless statements in general. Any attempt to figure out what I meant can be avoided by the realization that I didn't mean anything. I was stringing words together in novel ways to see what emerged.

But now that I think about it, I guess random strings of words can often pass for "philosophy".

[rrneck]

29. People reflexively

assign meaning to things, even if no meaning is intended. We just can't keep from trying to understand.

[ZombieHorde]

28. I agree. That version is not likely to be true according to my opinion. nt

[deacon_sephiroth]

16. but are you your soul?

oooOOOOooOOOOooooo, trippy existential conversation is trippyyyyyyyy.

[GliderGuider]

17. Are you your body? Your thoughts? Your memories? Your accomplishments?

Meditation using Ramana Maharshi's inquiry "Who am I?" as a vehicle to dive below these ephemeral mechanisms of self-identification leads fairly reliably to a formless sense of essential Self. It definitely feels a lot more like Me than anything in my life-story does. Is that Self-sense a taste of my own soul? When semantics are brushed away by direct experience, it's certainly close enough for this old atheist...

[deacon_sephiroth]

25. I was just kidding but that sounds wild... n/t

[Old and In the Way]

30. Or a strictly anecdotal basis, I've read that the human body loses a small amount of mass

at the moment of death. I don't know if this has been scientifically validated, but it is intriguing. I don't know if this would qualify as the "soul" escaping the mortal coil, but I'm not sure what other process could account for this measurable loss...assuming this does, in fact happen.

[laconicsax]

31. It was measured in 1907 in a laughable study.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/feb/19/science.science

[Old and In the Way]

32. Thanks...but I'm kind of surprised that more rigious scientific studies

using more precise measuring equipment haven't attempted to duplicate his results since then. If this loss of 21 grams was recorded within a minute of death, I wouldn't think that elemental breakdown of the body would happen so quickly as to be the source of this loss. The article's belittlement of the experiment is noted...but their alternative explanation isn't backed up with any serious empirical data to support their conclusions, either.

[TygrBright]

38. "Soul" is a highly plastic concept.

It would probably be futile to answer the questions "Why do humans need a soul?" and "What is a soul for?" without determining some parameters for what actually defines "soul." There are some fascinating ones in this thread.

My own concept is that "soul" is a convenient word for that which may connect us to energy and material phenomena that we have no way of perceiving or measuring in space/time. If we are so connected. If such energy and material phenomena exist.

I choose to believe they exist, based on my own deductions and experiences. I am not so sure about "soul," but I find it an internally defensible hypothesis based on many of the same criteria.

Using that concept, I'd postulate that while we may "need" soul, we may not be equipped to perceive the reasons therefore, any more than humans in the 14th Century were equipped to perceive why we need amino acids in our diet, or why we need white blood cells.

And although I've conceptualized what "soul" is "for" as defined above, I can't answer the corollary question about why it is necessary or desirable for us to be connected thus to that which we lack the abilities to perceive.

There is a hypothesis that in space/time as we experience it, everything that has ever existed and/or will ever exist is in existence now: Every erg of energy and particle of matter has always existed and will always exist: All matter and all energy are continually changing state and rearranging. The total sum/volume of all energy and matter remain constant.

The function of "soul" may be related to a similar teleological view of that which is beyond our ability to perceive or measure: It, too, whatever it may be, could be a constant sum, and each "soul" is an element of that sum.

That's as far as I can go without being drafted for the Annual Solipsism Marathon, though.

speculatively,
Bright