What is the Definition of a Soul?

[shnkrmn]

Feel like there's more than you can sense all you want. That's how other theoretical constructs became fact.

Decontextualizing because I can.

 

[Philly_Buddah]

Thousands of scientists lied to the entire world about something like global warming, just to give a recent example. Do you really think the discovery of proof of the existence of something like ghosts, souls, etc would be broadcasted to the public?

If anything they would try to hide it even more after they discovered it to be true and hide any ways to detect that theyre real. Same thing with aliens, demons, etc anything like that. People are taught to think all of that type of stuff is a joke or myth and only believe whats "officially" released, by the same people who are hiding it from them at that. The system is set up like that from the day youre born, some people think for themselves and dont believe every little thing theyre told.

There are hundreds of people who have tried to come out to the public with proof of these things. Most of the more serious ones have been killed, died 'mysteriously', especially in cases involving proof of intelligent alien life. People are followed constantly, under surveillance, made out to be crazy or have their lives/credibility ruined, etc. Ive seen it happen myself.

Very few of the experiences I had could be explained any other way. The fact that most come out to be true will make you go crazy since these things arent supposed to exist. Ive went through and investigated almost all of the more serious experiences that I had and none of them could be explained in any 'normal' way. Im not the type of person to just hear a bump in the night and think "ghost!" or see a light in the sky and think "aliens!". I have a life and dont think about this stuff 24/7 but theres not really a way to get away from it when these things continue to happen randomly. I tried my hardest in the past to forget about it or become ignorant and put the experiences off as nothing. Its impossible, the fact is that these things do exist and the experiences were very real. Thats the reality its no use staying in denial.

 

[doc111]

Feel like there's more than you can sense all you want.

But once you pull something out of imagination, stick a name on it, start to define it and give it special properties, and attach it to other mythological constructs without any evidence for it puts you right in the camp with the folks who think demons cause illness.

If you feel that you can provide evidence that would indicate the presence of said object without directly observing the object then do so.

That's how other theoretical constructs became fact.

Without the evidence it's just another lame Stephen King novel.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on "souls". It doesn't matter to me what you believe. I'm not some evangelist trying to preach fire and brimstone to fear you into believing in the divine. I've already said numerous times that I'm not religious and I don't know if there's more. I feel like there may be. What's wrong with that. I don't go around saying demons are causing illness. Ridicule me all you want. It's not going to change my feelings or beliefs. I just think it's funny how closed minded some of you guys are. You leave no room for the possibility of souls or gods or afterlife. Maybe none of it exists, I don't know. I don't go to church and I don't believe a lot of the crap being put out by religion. My whole point is just because science hasn't been able to prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's all I'm saying.

Why would you "feel" like there is more than what we can detect with our senses?

Why does this matter? If we can't detect it, doesn't that essentially mean it's not real?

What is your definition for non-existence?

That might seem like an odd question to answer, but I'm just wondering what your criteria for something being real is?

I don't think it does matter........or it matters a lot. I don't go around "defining" things. I don't work for webster's and I'm not a scientist. I know what I've experienced. I've been through a long period where I was atheist. I've been to war, I've seen hundreds, maybe even thousands of people die. When you watch another human die in horrible ways it changes something in you. Call it fear of death, call it whatever you want. As I said to morgen, I don't care what you believe but you guys paint everything in black and white............I don't believe it's that simple. I try to keep an open mind and I damn sure don't go around trying to ridicule people for their beliefs (and some surely deserve it). Mine come from my experiences in life, not a minister or a preacher or an Imam. Perhaps I am wrong. Only time will tell.

 

[morgentaler]

Decontextualizing because I can.

Except that the phrase you made it into is incorrect.

A theoretical construct is based on evidence. Not on things you imagine from lack of evidence.

Theories aren't just guesses or wild shots in the dark. They're what happens when a hypothesis grows up after being well fed by science.

 

[morgentaler]

Thousands of scientists lied to the entire world about something like global warming, just to give a recent example. Do you really think the discovery of proof of the existence of something like ghosts, souls, etc would be broadcasted to the public?

Thousands of journalists lied...

And then you went 'full retarded'.

 

[morgentaler]

So if your neighbor likes to tell you about the little blue man in the medicine cabinet that tells him about the NWO conspiracy and protects him from the aliens, do you keep an open mind to him or do you say "Whoa, he's fucking nuts."

If he invites you in and you see a little apartment layout inside the guys medicine cabinet, with working amenities to scale, and an inch tall dog running around barking, do you start to think there might be something to the claim?

Nobody has shown the inch tall dog yet.
They're still standing in your doorway saying "He's real, and only I can see him."

If you want to say we can't discount souls "just because" then we can't discount anything, ever.

Except there's no more support for the concept of a soul then there is for an afterlife, or ghosts, or Barney being a real walking, talking, plush toy imbued with the memories of Ed Gein.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on "souls". It doesn't matter to me what you believe. I'm not some evangelist trying to preach fire and brimstone to fear you into believing in the divine. I've already said numerous times that I'm not religious and I don't know if there's more. I feel like there may be. What's wrong with that. I don't go around saying demons are causing illness. Ridicule me all you want. It's not going to change my feelings or beliefs. I just think it's funny how closed minded some of you guys are. You leave no room for the...

 

[doc111]

So if your neighbor likes to tell you about the little blue man in the medicine cabinet that tells him about the NWO conspiracy and protects him from the aliens, do you keep an open mind to him or do you say "Whoa, he's fucking nuts."

If he invites you in and you see a little apartment layout inside the guys medicine cabinet, with working amenities to scale, and an inch tall dog running around barking, do you start to think there might be something to the claim?

Nobody has shown the inch tall dog yet.
They're still standing in your doorway saying "He's real, and only I can see him."

If you want to say we can't discount souls "just because" then we can't discount anything, ever.

Except there's no more support for the concept of a soul then there is for an afterlife, or ghosts, or Barney being a real walking, talking, plush toy imbued with the memories of Ed Gein.

I love your little analogies! Well, I'll tell you what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't ridicule him. If he believes he has a little blue man in his medicine cabinet...............oh well. As long as he's not a danger to himself or anyone else I don't see a problem with his "belief". That being said, I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. You are talking about something that sounds like a mental illness as opposed to something millions, probably billions of people believe in. It's cool if you want to be mr. analytical and need to see proof of everything. I'm assuming you haven't been on this earth for a very long time and I am also assuming you haven't seen everything. Are these assumptions correct? If so then maybe try opening your mind. You've got to have some degree of faith that the scientists you rely on so heavily aren't lying to you. Human beings tend to do that a lot. Scientists are human beings last I checked. Case in point, global warming.

 

[shnkrmn]

Except that the phrase you made it into is incorrect.

A theoretical construct is based on evidence. Not on things you imagine from lack of evidence.

Theories aren't just guesses or wild shots in the dark. They're what happens when a hypothesis grows up after being well fed by science.

Right you are! That's what quoting out of context is great for! Repeated often enough and you get sincere statements like

"Thousands of scientists lied to the entire world about something like global warming, just to give a recent example."

 

[morgentaler]

Scientists are human beings last I checked. Case in point, global warming.

Do tell about this case of yours?

I suppose you actually frequent the science sites that actually discuss the issues, instead of just reading the newspaper reports.

I've interned at a newspaper. If you think you're getting facts from reporters, you're sadly mistaken.

Reporters take sound bites and sensationalize them just enough to make someone want to buy the product so that the newspaper can sell advertising.

The trend of global warming, though slight, is real. Whether it's anthropogenic in nature is under debate.

If you see any media format start throwing around the words "climate change" and "controversy", back away from them. As they do not understand the difference between changing climate (climate is ALWAYS changing) and the global warming debate.

If there is any deception involved in the 'global warming' issue, look toward the media and the spin doctors on both sides. Al Gore is just as much twisting the screws on the facts as anyone else, but that doesn't detract from the science indicating that there is a 30 year warming trend that should raise concern.

 

[doc111]

Do tell about this case of yours?

I suppose you actually frequent the science sites that actually discuss the issues, instead of just reading the newspaper reports.

I've interned at a newspaper. If you think you're getting facts from reporters, you're sadly mistaken.

Reporters take sound bites and sensationalize them just enough to make someone want to buy the product so that the newspaper can sell advertising.

The trend of global warming, though slight, is real. Whether it's anthropogenic in nature is under debate.

If you see any media format start throwing around the words "climate change" and "controversy", back away from them. As they do not understand the difference between changing climate (climate is ALWAYS changing) and the global warming debate.

If there is any deception involved in the 'global warming' issue, look toward the media and the spin doctors on both sides. Al Gore is just as much twisting the screws on the facts as anyone else, but that doesn't detract from the science indicating that there is a 30 year warming trend that should raise concern.

My point was pretty simple..........facts can be easily manipulated. How often are they caught? I totally agree with your assertions on global warming. I was in the fire service for 15 years. I dealt with the media all the time. I know full well how often they get it wrong as well as how substantive the content.

We also tend to forget that we have only begun to scratch the surface of what science has yet to discover. Science is quite literally brand spankin' new. It's not without flaws as we are not without flaws. I believe it can never be without flaws as we can never be without flaws. You so firmly base all of your understanding and knowledge on a foundation which is rife with its own cracks...........so to speak. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a science hater. In fact I'm quite the opposite. I love science. I voraciously devour as much information as my little brain can assimilate. But I have to constantly remind myself that science isn't perfect either.

 

[morgentaler]

Not as new as you might think.

Ibn al-Haytham was utilizing scientific methodology 1000 years ago.

Galileo refined and standardized it 500 years later.

But in that 1000 years there's nothing to substantiate a soul, that consciousness is any more than a biochemical process, or that an afterlife exists. Never mind that X number of people believe souls to be real. If numbers mattered, the geocentric view of the universe would have been correct.
Should we accept the possibility of the soul with any more consideration than the possbility of unicorns, lycanthropes, and dragons?
At least dragon myth can be attributed to dinosaur fossils, unicorns to narwhal horns, and lycanthropes to porphyria.
The concept of the soul goes well with the carrot-and-stick philosophy of religion (you give now, we give back when you're dead) but is unsupported outside of religion. And religion is not exactly concerned with facts.

 

[doc111]

Not as new as you might think.

Ibn al-Haytham was utilizing scientific methodology 1000 years ago.

Galileo refined and standardized it 500 years later.

But in that 1000 years there's nothing to substantiate a soul, that consciousness is any more than a biochemical process, or that an afterlife exists. Never mind that X number of people believe souls to be real. If numbers mattered, the geocentric view of the universe would have been correct.
Should we accept the possibility of the soul with any more consideration than the possbility of unicorns, lycanthropes, and dragons?
At least dragon myth can be attributed to dinosaur fossils, unicorns to narwhal horns, and lycanthropes to porphyria.
The concept of the soul goes well with the carrot-and-stick philosophy of religion (you give now, we give back when you're dead) but is unsupported outside of religion. And religion is not exactly concerned with facts.

Even if science is a thousand years old that is still very young. Our short life span makes it seem long but you should know this. Bacteria weren't discovered until the late 1600's and viruses weren't discovered until the late 1800's, yet they were still making us sick long before we knew what they were or that they even existed. I honestly don't know if any serious scientific work has been done to see if humans have a "soul". I find it quite interesting how you keep coming back to religion. It seems as if you think that anyone who believes they have a "soul" must be religious. I don't associate the two although I understand that most religions believe in "souls" as well.

On a somewhat related note, I'm interested in what has caused this disdain for all things religious or spirtual. I imagine some Freudian catastrophe from your childhood may be the culprit. I think I understand your hardcore logic and reasoning, I just don't get your closedmindedness. Aren't most stoners the opposite?

 

[PadawanBater]

Dude, Doc, what's the difference between being "close minded" and "skeptical" to you?

Also, you keep mentioning that scientists have flaws because they're only human. I totally agree with you - but the scientific method does not. It is essentially flawless. It is highly unlikely for bad science to be accepted by thousands of scientists as one of them would figure out what is wrong. If thousands of scientists cannot figure out what is wrong with something, it tends to be good science.

So while your observation that people can fuck up couldn't be more correct, science itself is golden. The system we've designed is exactly for that reason. Back in the day before scientists got together and started keeping track of everything they knew they needed to devise a system where human error doesn't play a part because that could seriously fuck up the results. Thus peer review and corroboration were born.

There is no faith required in accepting the scientific facts. You don't need faith to be sure that the scientists aren't lying to you because their findings have been scrutinized and checked and rechecked over and over and over again by thousands of people much smarter than me who are specifically interested in finding errors in the work.

All this without even touching on the implications of predictability science has to offer. -if I can accurately predict something is going to happen - that's science. How else could you explain it, because I can assure you, no human beings are capable of telling the future.

 

[doc111]

Dude, Doc, what's the difference between being "close minded" and "skeptical" to you?

Also, you keep mentioning that scientists have flaws because they're only human. I totally agree with you - but the scientific method does not. It is essentially flawless. It is highly unlikely for bad science to be accepted by thousands of scientists as one of them would figure out what is wrong. If thousands of scientists cannot figure out what is wrong with something, it tends to be good science.

So while your observation that people can fuck up couldn't be more correct, science itself is golden. The system we've designed is exactly for that reason. Back in the day before scientists got together and started keeping track of everything they knew they needed to devise a system where human error doesn't play a part because that could seriously fuck up the results. Thus peer review and corroboration were born.

There is no faith required in accepting the scientific facts. You don't need faith to be sure that the scientists aren't lying to you because their findings have been scrutinized and checked and rechecked over and over and over again by thousands of people much smarter than me who are specifically interested in finding errors in the work.

All this without even touching on the implications of predictability science has to offer. -if I can accurately predict something is going to happen - that's science. How else could you explain it, because I can assure you, no human beings are capable of telling the future.

So are you saying that science has solved all the mysteries? We've seen everything there is in the universe and we have all the answers as a species? The scientific method may not be flawed by definition but you have humans carrying out said method which adds flawed into the equation. Until robots are doing all of our research it's all potentially flawed. Even then are robots perfect? Hardly. All we can do as laypeople is trust the articles. Trust the data. Trust the scientists. We simply don't have the time and resources to individually verify everything. Some things which were once thought to be true because science said so have turned out to be wrong. You can't separate the science from the scientist therefore it's all potentially flawed.

I define skepticism as "I don't know if it's true but I leave room for the possibility".

I define closedmindedness as "It's not true if I cant touch, smell, see, taste, measure or quantify it."

You're a smart dude I can see that but there are more bizarre things on this planet which science cannot or has not been able to explain.........can't explain! There are even more bizarre things awaiting us out in the universe. Bizarre beyond our wildest imaginations, I believe. I know you're young and I don't pretend to know what experiences you've had but trust me my friend, the more you learn, the more you will realize you don't know. Weird how that works. Trust me, the quest for knowledge and truth is an unending one. We will never have all the answers. It's just not possible. I just hate seeing someone as obviously smart as yourself being so closedminded about some things.

 

[mindphuk]

So are you saying that science has solved all the mysteries? We've seen everything there is in the universe and we have all the answers as a species? The scientific method may not be flawed by definition but you have humans carrying out said method which adds flawed into the equation. Until robots are doing all of our research it's all potentially flawed. Even then are robots perfect? Hardly. All we can do as laypeople is trust the articles. Trust the data. Trust the scientists. We simply don't have the time and resources to individually verify everything. Some things which were once thought to be true because science said so have turned out to be wrong. You can't separate the science from the scientist therefore it's all potentially flawed.

I define skepticism as "I don't know if it's true but I leave room for the possibility".

I define closedmindedness as "It's not true if I cant touch, smell, see, taste, measure or quantify it."

You're a smart dude I can see that but there are more bizarre things on this planet which science cannot or has not been able to explain.........can't explain! There are even more bizarre things awaiting us out in the universe. Bizarre beyond our wildest imaginations, I believe. I know you're young and I don't pretend to know what experiences you've had but trust me my friend, the more you learn, the more you will realize you don't know. Weird how that works. Trust me, the quest for knowledge and truth is an unending one. We will never have all the answers. It's just not possible. I just hate seeing someone as obviously smart as yourself being so closedminded about some things.

First off, what is a soul according to you? Yes, there are many things in this world we don't yet understand but the idea of a soul did not come about because of evidence but is a philosophical/theological construct. If something exists but does not affect the material world in any way, can you really say it exists? What is existence? We don't need to observe or measure something directly, science is very good at understanding things even through indirect observations, i.e. we can't detect it but we can see it's impact on the cosmos.

In his book, A Demon Haunted World, Dr. Carl Sagan relates the story of the invisible fire-breathing dragon living in his garage. He asks, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

Right now the soul is the dragon. Until you come up with something that the soul does that cannot be explained by more conventional means, it is worthless. Granted, a soul might very well exist but if it does nothing, then it's existence is inconsequential.

BTW, you might consider reading Sagan's book as it explains what skepticism is.

Sagan presents a set of tools for skeptical thinking which he calls the "baloney detection kit". Skeptical thinking consists both of constructing a reasoned argument and recognizing a fallacious or fraudulent one. In order to identify a fallacious argument, Sagan suggests the employment of such tools as independent confirmation of facts, quantification and the use of Occam's razor. Sagan's "baloney detection kit" also provides tools for detecting "the most common fallacies of logic and rhetoric", such as argument from authority and statistics of small numbers. Through these tools, Sagan argues the benefits of a critical mind and the self-correcting nature of science can take place.
​

From wikipedia:
Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[2]
The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by argument or evidence.

 

[doc111]

First off, what is a soul according to you? Yes, there are many things in this world we don't yet understand but the idea of a soul did not come about because of evidence but is a philosophical/theological construct. If something exists but does not affect the material world in any way, can you really say it exists? What is existence? We don't need to observe or measure something directly, science is very good at understanding things even through indirect observations, i.e. we can't detect it but we can see it's impact on the cosmos.

In his book, A Demon Haunted World, Dr. Carl Sagan relates the story of the invisible fire-breathing dragon living in his garage. He asks, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

Right now the soul is the dragon. Until you come up with something that the soul does that cannot be explained by more conventional means, it is worthless. Granted, a soul might very well exist but if it does nothing, then it's existence is inconsequential.

BTW, you might consider reading Sagan's book as it explains what skepticism is.

Sagan presents a set of tools for skeptical thinking which he calls the "baloney detection kit". Skeptical thinking consists both of constructing a reasoned argument and recognizing a fallacious or fraudulent one. In order to identify a fallacious argument, Sagan suggests the employment of such tools as independent confirmation of facts, quantification and the use of Occam's razor. Sagan's "baloney detection kit" also provides tools for detecting "the most common fallacies of logic and rhetoric", such as argument from authority and statistics of small numbers. Through these tools, Sagan argues the benefits of a critical mind and the self-correcting nature of science can take place.
​

From wikipedia:
Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[2]
The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by argument or evidence.

I've read all of Sagan's work. Occam's razor is sometimes wrong, as demonstrated in the fictitious but otherwise entertaining movie Contact. I honestly don't care if any of you believe in the occult or the mystical. I don't care if you buy into religion or spirituality. The points I've made in this thread stand. We could spend the rest of eternity debating what a soul is or do they exist but I have much work to do in the garden, so enjoy this discussion and stick to your hardcore logic and reason.

 

[Philly_Buddah]

Thousands of journalists lied...

And then you went 'full retarded'.

Thousands of scientists lied.

Im curious to know what part of my posts are "full retarded" since everything I said in it was true. I also didnt know it was possible for a person with an IQ over 150 to even go "full retarded".

What I do see that I consider pathetic is 3-4 posters in this thread that go around to every thread like this just to debunk and disprove everyone while continuously disrespecting them and their beliefs while nitpicking every little word said. I dont believe in god like the christians do, Ive done research and I have plenty of arguments against it along with having absolutely no proof of a god from personal experience, yet you dont see me wasting all my time going all over the internet disrespecting people and their beliefs just because I dont believe in it.

You try to put everyone who believes in this off as crazy or incredibly gullible while you yourself are completely close minded and unfairly hold your basket of BS "knowledge" higher than everyone elses.

 

[Mr.KushMan]

Thousands of scientists lied.

Im curious to know what part of my posts are "full retarded" since everything I said in it was true. I also didnt know it was possible for a person with an IQ over 150 to even go "full retarded".

What I do see that I consider pathetic is 3-4 posters in this thread that go around to every thread like this just to debunk and disprove everyone while continuously disrespecting them and their beliefs while nitpicking every little word said. I dont believe in god like the christians do, Ive done research and I have plenty of arguments against it along with having absolutely no proof of a god from personal experience, yet you dont see me wasting all my time going all over the internet disrespecting people and their beliefs just because I dont believe in it.

You try to put everyone who believes in this off as crazy or incredibly gullible while you yourself are completely close minded and unfairly hold your basket of BS "knowledge" higher than everyone elses.

I believe its "knitpicking".

Peace

 

[PadawanBater]

Thousands of scientists lied.

This has been a repeated claim here lately. To this I say; OK, but what about the ones that didn't...? Do we disregard the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of individually collected pieces of data by legitimate scientists?

If you have 10 scientists, and one of them lies, do you then disregard the other 9 scientists work? Is all of science?

This is what you guys are doing with your denial of climate change. Same thing the creationists do with evolution... Mentioned that to Cracker but I guess he didn't get the analogy...

What I do see that I consider pathetic is 3-4 posters in this thread that go around to every thread like this just to debunk and disprove everyone while continuously disrespecting them and their beliefs while nitpicking every little word said.

Make sure you realize the distinction... I never disrespect people because of their beliefs, I disrespect them for holding such irrational beliefs that shape other aspects of their personality in negative ways. If I held a belief that said it's OK (encouraged in fact) to hate the "lifestyle" of anyone who listens to country music, should that belief be respected?

The same logic applies to religious beliefs. In short, they don't deserve respect.

I dont believe in god like the christians do, Ive done research and I have plenty of arguments against it along with having absolutely no proof of a god from personal experience, yet you dont see me wasting all my time going all over the internet disrespecting people and their beliefs just because I dont believe in it.

That's not the reason I do it. I visit forums like this and start these kinds of threads because they need to be started, people need to hear it. Our civilization has gone on too long with these insane beliefs getting passively passed off as moral and good and not to be touched, shaping the hearts and minds (for the much worse) of everyone it poisoned along the way...

 

[greensister]

Well if you want to pull thermodynamics into this then you would know that things get more complex not less complex. For a perception to go from brilliant colors and sounds to nothing disobeys a law of entropy.

Einstein said, that math can't describe reality, only its quantities. This should be taken in, as it truly captures the power of perception, that its just to perfect. What we see isn't truly what is being measured, but an interpretation of it.

Peace

Einstien was also jewish, a very prminative and misogynistic monotheistic superstition. He may have known math and physics, but didnt know crap when it came to the afterlife. Just like everyone else.

What we percieve as complex, is simple in the universal context and vice versa. Order is chaos. Its all about perception. I actually exist a few seconds in the future, but im stuck where i am in what is called the present. Stupid shearing of the 4th dimension. Where did all my waves of probibility go?