Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The entire sum of someone's being, or a vessel for something else?
that either die with you or are left in solid matter.
it would be kind of depressing to think this is all i am
i think wishful thinking is more depressing
it's like. a question of the ages.
the physical from bowski...
the human body as an object that someone 'has'. this suggests that the owner of the body is something separate to the body that it owns. if the body is the entire sum of you, then all you can say is 'i am my body'. if you known what i mean.
your mind wouldnt be YOUR mind in a different body.
i'd like to be a different body right now
i am a bit "off the wall" arent i?
you're always at the point furthest from yourself
that 'edged' the Top 10 I think. And very fey with it.
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
I 'have' a body but would like to believe that we're more than this. I guess I maintain a kind of dualistic model, however then this poses issues as how does something which is metaphysical affect something physical...hmmmm
to be made between thought and personality being the combination of electricity moving through the brain, chemical composition of the body, etc, and the soul as a separate (or symbiotic or conjoined) entity?
and his materialistic monism, is the most popular view; talk of soul is described by Gilbert Ryle as 'talk of ghost in the machine'...I just can't accept that we're just blindly programmed robot machines though... Yeah we are just a composite of chemical processses but we're still all individuals and have emotions...not wholly sure where I'm going with this. *lame*
of a connecting energy that is common to all things with life and motion. As nothing is every really separate from the world around it - matter is indestructible, etc, even if you reduce skyscrapers to ash, that ash goes into soil which goes into fruit, which goes into the human body, which then creates another human through procreation etc.
Which is why reincarnation is actually the only religious belief which may be scientifically viable. Energy = neither created nor destroyed; the combination of chemical/potential/kinetic energies which make you into a living being, when you die, dissipate into other, separate chemical/potential/kinetic energies which will re-combine to form a sentient being again at some unspecified point in the future. In between death and reincarnation, you experience nothing - not blackness, nothing - and it passes in no time at all, since if you're not experiencing anything it follows that you cannot experience the passage of time.
However, the concept of experiencing nothing for an infinite amount of time (you die, and then that's it) is fundamentally anomalous. You cannot have a zero-experience of time - i.e. no time passing - that lasts forever. So you've got to experience something after death at some stage, with nothing experienced in between the old experience of life and the new experience of life, although the gap between the old and the new could be any amount of time: and this new experience has got to be to do with the transfer of energy, as John says. It can't scientifically be any other way and it certainly doesn't involve angels and fluffy clouds.
So there you go. Those are my beliefs. They may be COMPLETELY wrong, but I'll stand by them...
why do you have to experience something after you die? there's nothing left of you to experience anything. you need a nervous system and functioning brain to experience anything. if you believe monism that is. if you believe dualism then fine, but there's no evidence for dualism.
there's a real sense in which the bits of us that soak into the earth when our bodies decompose 'live on' in other beings. just as the chicken I ate at the weekend 'lives on' in me. but that's not the same thing as a soul existing.
also time is relative. read some stephen hawking if yr interested. I can't explain it very well.
you could say we are robot machines. that doesnt mean we aren't individuals or have emotions. I dont understand why people (not saying you, just generally) think that for life to be purposeful there has to be some kind of metaphysical "soul". Even if all our decisions and processes happen at a level below our own awareness, it is still "us" on some level so surely that is heartening?
surely you want to believe what's true?
You can't really think that - it's tantamount to 'ignorance is bliss'...
I'm just saying, there's no reason why it would always be the case that knowing more about ourselves/the universe is better. <-Shittest constructed sentence ever.
Having said that, I think it's almost certainly worth the risk.
now i see you put an "If" at the start of your post. I nned slep.
a positivist then John?
how far you can stretch enlightenment
below seem to suggest otherwise
I believe it's the former, as I'm an atheist, and I think a person is nothing more that their physical body, how could they be? But those who believe in an afterlife would think otherwise.
But just the idea of energy and something distinct from matter, perhaps.
I ha e so much to say on this subject, I literally can't even start. But good on JB for raising the bar of discussion.
if you think you have a 'mind' or a 'soul' or a 'self' that's seperate from your body then go get lobotomised and see if you're still 'you'. The brain's an organ that can go wrong just like any other. as soon as it does you realise that the illusion of self is just part of our sruvival mechanism.
if yr about to disagree with me and say you think we have an immortal dualistic component then I'd like to ask you this, if a person who has alzheimer's disease dies and their immortal soul lives on then from which point in their life is the soul taken? which point in the cycle of their personality survives? is it the disjointed forgetful person they were when they died? their 12 year old self? their baby self? the person they were on april 3rd 1965? how is this determined?
No I think it's monumental wishful thinking that there's anything more to life than what we are here and now. And if you think this makes life less magical then more fool you. To think that we beings who are little more than budles of carbon and water can do wonderful things like making music or falling in love!
If you think having a 'soul' is more impressive than that then I've got a stack of paul daniels DVDs that should keep you entertained for the rest of your life as long as you don't allow yourself to think he's not really magic.
the human self-image there from mister Lu, I'm sure you'll all agree.
Anyone care to mount an impassioned rebuttal?
with which to access the soul - let's say for arguments sake that the soul is an immaterial entity that exists through time and space
assuming you're not just playing devil's advocate, which I suspect you are. i'll try and answer that question if you can explain what you mean by:
- 'access' the soul
- 'immaterial entity which exists through time and space'
implies a few things
mostly that the dualist concept exists only as a phantom of the corporeal self
could it not be instead that the soul or spirit - as opposed to matter - really does exist but requires a functioning body in order to access it
in other words, 'life' may be a conjuction of body and soul because the same physical body can be either alive or dead depending on whether that body is working properly
you're basically saying that a radio creates its own music rather than receiving radio waves and converting them into sound - and when the radio breaks or the battery runs out and the sound ceases to be heard that this is proof that radio waves don't exist
I find it hard to agree with this
sense but it is a speculative hypothesis. Since the existence of a 'soul' is unproven, is it not more rational to not believe it exists?
your radio wave analogy doesn't really hold any water because we can detect radio waves. we know they're there.
but if you're suggesting a soul is literally 'broadcast' into a body from outside the observable universe in some way then perhaps you can also think of a way to able to detect that? I find it unlikely but I can't prove it's not true. any more than I can prove the easter bunny doesn't exist.
but there's no flaw that I can see in the monism argument. we perceive ourselves to have a 'mind', just as we can perceive ourselves, for example, to be 'in love'. but 'love' can be explained in terms of chemical reactions and hormones and instinctive evolved drives geared toward the survival of our species. our brains are illusion mechanisms. Think about how we 'see'. we don't literally get images projected onto our brains. if we did then our brains would need to be the same size as whatever we were looking at. our brain decodes information send from receptors in our eyes and interprets it so we can understand and respond to the world. what we 'see' is actually an illusion created by our brain. I think the same thing applies to our sense of self.
this doesn't prove your 'radio waves' idea is wrong. but it doesn't require it to be true. our minds make an illusion of 'self' because it is of benefit to our survival to do so.
but due to time contraints I'll have to get back to you later
I will say this though - radio waves have been existing since the big bang (or close to) and we only began to detect them through scientific instruments extremely recently. A little along the electromagnetic spectrum we have visible light waves which have been detectable by scientific instruments since a little before radio waves BUT have been detectable by the human eye ever since the human eye eveolved
think about it - I'll get back to this later
i've thought this idea before. same as with germs, x-rays, the sun going round the earth etc etc. people tend to draw conclusions based on what they can see. that's not wrong.
and you're completely right to say that we may one day be able to detect the elementary particles which form 'the soul'. it would be an amazing discovery if we could. I don't know if I'd welcome finding out i'm going to exist forever but I guess I'd have no choice.
but for the moment there's nothing to suggest the soul exists other than a long history of people declaring they do. and a good deal of wishful thinking. and there's no significant gap in the current explanations of how our bodies work to imply that we need a 'soul' to fill it.
to go back to your radio argument. If I had a large lump of cheese and you had an FM radio. and i said 'radio waves don't exist cos I can't pick them up on my lump of cheese' you'd say 'come and listen to my radio'. We can see evidence for monism, we can't see any for dualism.
Heart FM mostly.
The "soul" is just an emergent property arising from the complexity of the brain isn't it?
We can't explain emergent properties in terms of their parts (because they're more than the sum of their parts by nature) so I guess it's natural for humans to think there must be something "outside" of the body when really (I would argue) there isn't.
I'm no expert on chaos theory but I think that's the gist of the anti-dualism argument.
chaos theory have to do with dualism?
because it explains the way highly complex systems can give rise to emergent properties. In this case, the interaction of billions of neurones in the brain giving rise to what we call the "soul". Therefore, the "soul" is not a separate entity outside of the body.
I misread the last sentence of your post. I didn't notice the 'anti'.
would be largely unknown, right?
in that we know relatively little about how the brain works. but just because we don't know that doesn't mean we need to have a 'soul' as an alternative explanation.
if that's what you were even saying.
which you probably weren't.
It wasn't. I'm just trying to shake the tree a little.
Hey look at this note I just got from marcofella:
"one day i'll meet you again **New**
one day you WILL be sorry. You are a fucking hypyocrite! You can't take any form of crit at all, but dish it out.
if we defined them as emergent, we would know where they emerged from. And we could work out what parts are involved in producing the emergent property.
Scientists have already found lots of brain areas associated with conciousness for example, which could also be defined as an emergent property. I would argue that the "soul", whatever that really means, is the same sort of thing.
in the conventional sense of something that continues after death. Though we do in that we can acknowledge this.
I like determinism.
i've been expecting an ace creakyessay in this thread...
The question itself is suspect as it represents an abnormal way of defining things.
When you are a young baby animal yet to be broken it is simple you are you and you connect with other things.
ALL of us have been taken and 'broken' by society/family into 'seeing' things in a certain way, including seperating yourself into body (lower animal aspects to be ashamed of publically (poo sweaty smells, smelly breath, hairy body, boogies, flatulance)) and what is defined as higher aspects......hiding aspects of our body away......brains triumphing over the beast as it were........good/evil almost
This is really quite warped, but it is accepted.........given that our terms of reference are a bit mad to start off with, I do not find people referring to something other as bonkers or lunatic, it really is quite natural, I mean it is societies breaking of us that creates the concepts of levels of conciousness in the first place .....'animal', 'civilised human'.......many then progress this series to include 'transcendental being'.........this is no more loony than what is already taught, it is just less accepted behaviour.
People feel that there is a truth to this because there is a loss, a disconection that occurs when we are broken......occassionally as adults we make reconnections, sometimes at such a deep subtle level that we think it gives us glimpses of the divine.
The truth is that reality is much more wonderful/devine/awsome than our 'created' selves allow us to realise.............so why are people who try to envisage a soul so stupid ? huh? I dont think they are, they just notice that there is something wrong/missing, they havnt quite realised what it is
and I don't blame them for wanting there to be more than 'just us'. I want that too. And i think there is more than 'just us'. many times more. but all of that exists in the physical observable universe and is no less wonderful for doing so.
perhaps what you're saying is that 'the soul' is our struggling to connect with that which lies beyond the scope of our minds? I'd acknowledge that this feeling exists in my mind too, and so is 'real' in that sense. but the soul has a specific meaning as in 'part of our being which is seperate from and which lives on after our body dies'. So i don't think it's helpful to use the word 'soul' to refer to this feeling of awe at the universe we lose the connection to when we're 'broken' (good keatsian choice of word, barry).
but I also want to include the 'soul believers' in this, perhaps 'soul believers' are imagining that the soul goes on 'after life' because what they glimpse or suspect is there seems to be beyond that which is described or atributed to exist by 'normality'
'everlasting soul believers' cannot relinquish their belief in the form it exists until they become more aware of connectedness/completeness in a more real sense, they cannot abandon it because they (rightly) sense there is 'more' and the belief form they use seems most sensible because of the analagies to 'body and mind' 'animal/primative/civilised' used in their tutalage.
Im woffling now ill shut up
because I want them to know there is somewhere warm and nurturing they can transfer their belief system to.
By the way apparently there is a book out soon (I believe) by this australian aboriginal (Bob Randle)
I have gotta check oout his story.
He was born in the outback, aboriginal mother white father bout 80/90 years ago.
As he said on radio
for childhood he lived in the landscape naked, uncluttered, unseperated.
Then when 12? was taken by churchy people (they thought it wrong that white children were like that) and lived for the first time 'INSIDE' really really freaky for him (he didnt seem to relate any force though.....then later on he lived in a town now he travels on a mechanical plane between cities of light and was on a R4 radio program being very eloquent, insightful, laid back and lovely and charming...............How fantastic must his life view be? from animal human to city visitor.
How perfectly his life, kind of encapsulates the whole of human history. He seems to have accepted everything as an experiance (or journey? through his life?)
I think hes got a book anyway
see you at truck
meant to be a pm I am a momo
I can kill a threads soul effortlessly
always make me question the question(er). If there is more to us than meets the eye, or if not, is only really significant if you put it into some kind of belief system, which might, for example advocate living in a certain way for the good of your immortal soul, or could justify the kiling of certain people for the good of their souls or because they lack souls. Or suchlike
Other than that I think "I don't know." is probably the only honest answer I can give.
Knowledge for knowledge's sake?
Don't you WANT to go on holiday on Mars?
Why would you believe anything else?
An awareness that the predominant set of beliefs in any given time is not always correct, and that knowledge is constantly expanding and evolving, and that not every great discovery has yet been made?
and your second point definitely isn't a reason to believe anything.
But as your argument seems to amount to "why", how about: "why not?". Rad.
Centuries of human culture suggest otherwise as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
And there are a million reasons to doubt that the accepted idea about something in any given time is correct. You don't find it problematic that we happen to be living in an age where science is predominant, and so everything is reduced to science?
and you sound like a patronising twat.
"Why not?" is much weaker question than "Why?" as is fairly obvious.
Your link doesn't suggest anything about reality.
I don't find that everything is scientific a problem as science is by definition true. Why would that be a problem unless it has negative effects?
you lost me here.
A good example:
"you lost me here.
The exclamation mark just eminates smug.
I believe that there are good reasons why people should not believe the first I think that Ive given one up there ^^^^ somewhere, of course i write reams of guff so it might not be locatable.
it creates a negative atmosphere.
And i'm a sucker for acting like a twat on the internet, I couldn't pass it up, really.
this is horrible, Im in my wannabe shamen mindset at the moment and as such I have to want to get you two to have a resolution......
.now Ive already written far too much stuff, so rather than try to find the words that will 'Reconnect you'
I will instead adopt the 'ghandi stance' and not eat till you give each other hugs
Also, from the wiki page:
"Eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinkers, often opposed to clericalism and skeptical of religion, sometimes came to express their more emotional responses to the world under the rubric of "the Sublime" rather than discussing "spirituality"."
Some people have mused that the beauty of music is evidence of 'something else'
although apparently fish also possess the same brainal area that appreciates music in humans, so if 'the divine' sings to humans it also sings to fish (but not trillobites).
Me? I know where it comes from so Im smug and alright.
proven or provable at the moment, (see my post below) In fact I would say that it is humanly irrational (or pessimistic) not to entertain the idea that there are unseen/proven truths humans are not always logical according the ways that logic is employed in our global economic society (pure logic does not exist in any argument) Logic has been harnessed into arguments to reinforce the most adventageous/powerful positions (on the whole) human emoting is seen as illogical.
Human prosperity that is controlled and predictable in a small area is seen as logical, the wringing of hands over human misery is considered irrelevant.
Einstein is a good example of a theoretical scientist who 'believed' in the unknown, because of this he was able to doubt his own theories (although recently they are reinforced) Science should always nurture good natured possibility, to attack believers in 'souls' is anti human, at present the flavour of how science should be used is mostly out of human beings desires. Id it sometimes produces products such as Ipods that you yearn after it is only because of the dosh not cos of you, science would allow itself to produce weopons for dosh just as readily, research grants/funding is what it is all about, amateur scientists should get lottery backing if you ask me...........I hate how all these matters are publically debated in such polarised terms, as if there SHOULD be a winning argument
there is a seperate vessel and there isn't.
I can believe that things that are unknown exist. Cynicism is a part of a healthy person too though. Emphasis shouldn't be placed on creativity because it simply seems more positive.
I'd say logic in the international community used to exploit isn't logical. It's easy to think that science neglects emotion but it isn't true. "Science" neglects emotions.
is horrible to many humans subconciously
(only scientists with extreme detecting instruments/techniques are 'legitimately' allowed this necessity nowadays)
it is a facet of human make up to contemplate the possibility of something that you cannot see or have no proof (as yet) of
(thats why we are good inventors, discoverers, good improvisors, good tool makers, good at surviving without much advantages (apparently))
Without humans being given permission to imagine creatively, we wither.
Only by reconnecting their 'broken' selves, will many humans get the warmth that they will need to replace the loss of the idea of religeon/everlasting/creative imagination/soul, the problem is most societies nowadays operate on free market economy principals which are antagonistic to humans reconnecting on the whole
I'm firmly on the monist side of the fence but I think it's insufficient to suggest that someone's being is somehow coheres, or is contained, depending on what metaphor you choose to use, solely in a body.
The unquestioned 'territorial integrity' of the 'body' or 'self' already appears to imply a dualist ontology.
but for many your words would confuscate rather than elaborate,
shouldnt your ideas be made available for many rather than the few?
Admitedly my multitude of words might not make things much clearer, but I dont always want to be clear and definate, I just want more of a feeling, i suspect you are after a preciseness that this subject kind of defies, because any conclusion that you reach with precision would be disputed......sometimes you have to be woolier
that the question creates an assumption for metaphorical purposes. To assertion of a clearly separate body or soul directs the discussion down a path for rhetorical reasons that I assume Chiaroscuro doesnt draw the distinction and terms set out my the question
What I'm basically trying to say is that the question already implies a particular answer.
The idea of 'someone's being' - of the person as a separate entity from their environment - whether you are apparently being EITHER 'monist' or 'dualist' in the conventional philosophical sense, already rests on a kind of dualist ontology.
Its a view that's difficult, or impossible to shake off, given that perhaps the most important aspect of human development is the separation of an 'interior' sense of self from the 'exterior' surroundings.
When we ask apparently verifiable 'is this the case?' type philosophical questions, we're necessarily employing this dualist world view, i.e. "I know that I have a particular colloquial working understanding of the world, but what is the REAL world ACTUALLY like?"
So like pretty much all philosophical questions, there isn't 'an answer'. The human body isn't 'actually' anything in particular.
though we can criticise binary oppositions, and reject monism, theres a sense of them being inescapable, allowing the relevancy of such discussions.
the general area of discussion is a perfectly reasonable one, but setting it us as a question to be answered is kind of pointless.
The whole Euro-American idea that philosophy is somehow like science, and is about using analytical techniques to produce verifiable 'conclusions', really irks me. As far as I'm concerned, philosophy's ultimate goal should be normative, not descriptive.
I agree completely. I suppose I was playing devil's advocate a little bit. The Western approach is very uncritical of itself in its motivations and its claims to authoritative conclusions (as you say). Ultimately an 'I dont know' answer, while not very useful for people wanting rigid discussion, is the best way of going about things
How would you even define philosophy? I was always under the impression that philosophy was an extensive branch of reasoning.
that was yet another question about what something is. I'm not trying to say what philosophy is, I'm trying to argue what it should be.
As far as I'm concerned, reasoning is a method which is employed in philosophy. It certainly isn't an end in itself. I was trying to suggest that philosophy should be defined in terms of its goals rather than its methods. Its ultimately about how we should live.
chiaroscuro, i understand you better now....thats fine what you said......yeah I dont think philosophy will help when the thread question is phrased like that.......all that stuff you say about inner and outer selves is part of what humans undergo changing from human animal to 'civilised' human I guess.
I really enjoy experiancing the dissolving of this division, which I can do on some occassions.......its euphoric.
When this happens, to a degree, in some people who have only a few traditionally normal reference points, I guess they describe the experiance as religeous.
does not help as although it may break the divisions somewhat, it also sedates/coshes your mind so much that you cannot detect/experiance what is going on.
talking about the existence of a soul? not the duality between inside world/outside world.
I know there's some overlap. but I don't think anyone's advocating that we are 'one with nature' in anything other than the physical sense in which all nature is 'one' with everything else.
you don't need to be made 'one with everything' because you already are, whether you're a human being, a banana or a lego brick. i think the question is whether there's to more 'everything' than we can scientiffically explain and prove - i think this is our 'gut' instinct but it's not bourne out by objective reasoning or scientific evidence.
in the idea of the soul BECAUSE they detect there is 'more' ......what they are actually detecting is what they have lost by the artificial divisions created by traditional intellect/reasoning/conditioning.....the divisions that make us see the world as external and internal.
Before you force divisions and ploarity and duality onto young human animals, they are not as separated from the world, communal soul of the world is a far more sensible concept than individual soul, because the world will go on after you are gone, if you are part of the world then this is both a source of abject terror (when children realise, whilst being taught to be divisional individuals, that the world will go on without them, that they will die)
Conversely when you are an adult and are in the latter half of your life and sometimes dispair of the worlds trevails , then being able to realise you are part of the whole world and that the whole world will go on without you (i.e. you reconnect) then this idea is a source of great comfort.
People name that which they vaguely percieve due to barriers as a soul. that is why I feel it is relevant to discuss this in this question
but I was replying to chiaroscuro talking about inner/outer.
and I think I said up there^ that we would do better to have a new word for 'soul' as you describe it because I completely agree that this 'straining towards oneness' is a feeling which is real for everyone and a factor in believing in a soul in the sense of an immortal part of you. they're two very different things and we're in danger of being misinterpreted. if i say 'i believe in the soul' and i mean a creakykneesian soul then I want it to be clear that I don't mean a christian soul.
anyone care to make up a new word?