Do we have a soul? - General

[QUOTE=matsta;35086547]Actually there is no 'straight up' evidence for that claim.[/QUOTE] do you even understand occam's razor [editline]11th March 2012[/editline] also there is evidence, please open a cognitive neuroscience textbook some time

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35091770]do you even understand occam's razor [editline]11th March 2012[/editline] also there is evidence, please open a cognitive neuroscience textbook some time[/QUOTE] I do understand occam's razor. I just don't think it is even an indicator that you arrived 'absolute truth'. Actually, I don't think it is a rule for finding truth, it is just a rule for explaining/predicting the biggest amount of phenomena with the smallest assumptions possible. One would have called occam's razor in the time of Newton with things in the Earth and Einstein's Physics, [B]and would have been right in doing so[/B] in some way. He would have been right because science looks mainly for the ability to make accurate predictions with 'the less amount of work possible'. Yet now we say that Newton's physics is 'wrong' because it doesn't explain all phenomena. Models that are made with present evidence and using the less amount of assumptions possible or, if you want to say it that way, the biggest use of occam's razor possible just didn't last long until some facts that didn't fit the model exactly were found. And about evidence of consciousness, when I said there was no 'straight up' evidence, that means that 'evidence' we have now of the origins of consciousness is not [B]direct[/B] evidence, it relies heavily on induction and the acceptance of pre-established models (like physicalism). In fact, it is (I believe) impossible to obtain direct evidence that the origin of consciousness lies in our perceptible universe.

[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;35033577]The human brain functions with electrical impulses and stuff, and when we die I like to think that these electrical impulses still exist, kinda like radiowaves. You can't pick them up with equipment, but they exist, and they have our memories and our mind in it, and it floats away and stuff. It's a silly thought, but it's the most logical thing I can think of that resembles a "soul".[/QUOTE] Electrical impulses can be picked up with equipment.

The answer is no.

[QUOTE=Motherfuckers;35098873]The answer is no.[/QUOTE] Great argument.

[QUOTE=matsta;35094980]I do understand occam's razor. I just don't think it is even an indicator that you arrived 'absolute truth'. Actually, I don't think it is a rule for finding truth, it is just a rule for explaining/predicting the biggest amount of phenomena with the smallest assumptions possible. One would have called occam's razor in the time of Newton with things in the Earth and Einstein's Physics, [B]and would have been right in doing so[/B] in some way. He would have been right because science looks mainly for the ability to make accurate predictions with 'the less amount of work possible'. Yet now we say that Newton's physics is 'wrong' because it doesn't explain all phenomena. Models that are made with present evidence and using the less amount of assumptions possible or, if you want to say it that way, the biggest use of occam's razor possible just didn't last long until some facts that didn't fit the model exactly were found. And about evidence of consciousness, when I said there was no 'straight up' evidence, that means that 'evidence' we have now of the origins of consciousness is not [B]direct[/B] evidence, it relies heavily on induction and the acceptance of pre-established models (like physicalism). In fact, it is (I believe) impossible to obtain direct evidence that the origin of consciousness lies in our perceptible universe.[/QUOTE] a) are you suggesting that einstein somehow violated occam's razor when formulating relativity, and then was subsequently vindicated? if so, you are so, [h2]so[/h2] wrong. (please clarify) b) induction is a bad thing? what the fuck else are you going to use? [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] you're setting the bar for evidence so high that it escapes the observable universe. your notion of "direct evidence", as I understand it (?) is impossible.

I don't believe in a soul but I believe that there must be something that makes us conscious.

it weighs a few pounds, it's quite squishy, doesn't taste good, and lives inside your skull cavity

Earth has a electromagnetic heartbeat.. In my opinion the energy we produce from our thoughts can be considered our "Souls", Scientists have been able to produce images of what we see from electrical brainwave pulses of humans by using machines that moniter the electrical currents that go through your brain when you think. I also remember reading a article that Earth's heartbeat resonated louder during 9/11. :tinfoil: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo[/url]

I'd like to imagine we do. The idea that there is nothing after death; that we simply cease to exist is a pretty depressing viewpoint imo. Thinking that there's a whole other adventure (at least as far as life can be considered one) makes the idea of death more acceptable to me, and - yes, sorry I'm one of [i]those[/i] guys - gives me the hope that one day I'll be able to see all my friends and departed family again on the other side.

[QUOTE=Phobin;35108045]I also remember reading a article that Earth's heartbeat resonated louder during 9/11. :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] no that is complete and utter shit [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHTJUX9TZJ8[/media]

I think it's funny that even if we had a soul, or that we didn't have a soul, [b]it wouldn't change a thing[/b]. I mean we either do have a soul, or we don't. And like I said that doesn't even change anything.

I'm a Christian and I believe we do. Rage all you want.

We are a form of life... The nature give us many properties like every animal on this earth: a motherfucking brain. Our brain is full of function, like the first post on this thread said, and when we die those functions are "breaked" or "corrupted" and then... It is the cells-destruction...

We not have a soul, it's an idea built upon the fear of no afterlife by our ignorant ancestors, also a plague which has no place in modern society

philosophy proves the existence of a soul and a God that it's good, but at the end it all depends if we chose to believe or not. I believe that our body and our soul doesn't belong to us, but to the earth(the body) and to God(the soul) but what is ours is the mind, that is formed from both, because we don't think only about what's physical but from spiritual things too. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] Also, there have been way too much study about this and near every religion went into the conclussion that we have a soul. If there wouldn't be some sort of proof or logic that point to the fact that we have a soul people would just accept it.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;35110297]I think it's funny that even if we had a soul, or that we didn't have a soul, [b]it wouldn't change a thing[/b]. I mean we either do have a soul, or we don't. And like I said that doesn't even change anything.[/QUOTE] Right, because adhering to believing in complete and utter bullshit our entire lives is just swell right? I mean, what's the point of ANY scientific studies anymore if that's your way of thinking? Hell, believe in ferries, believe in creationism, believe in god, believe in mythological monsters, believe in anything you want cause they either exist or they don't, and apparently "that doesn't change a thing". If we DID have a soul and found evidence towards this than that would completely change all of modern biology and revamp the way we look at life. Of course, there's nothing to indicate that such a thing exist so we can keep it in the "nonsensical bullshit pile" that's, thankfully, been steadily increasing for the past few years. [QUOTE=Javyer;35113788]philosophy proves the existence of a soul and a God that it's good, but at the end it all depends if we chose to believe or not. I believe that our body and our soul doesn't belong to us, but to the earth(the body) and to God(the soul) but what is ours is the mind, that is formed from both, because we don't think only about what's physical but from spiritual things too. [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] Also, there have been way too much study about this and near every religion went into the conclussion that we have a soul. If there wouldn't be some sort of proof or logic that point to the fact that we have a soul people would just accept it.[/QUOTE] I think you're very confused towards what you're trying to say. "Philosophy proves the existence of a soul and a god" wtf are you talking about? Philosophy and theology are both completely and entirely subjective fields, they can't prove or disprove anything... [B][U]ever[/U][/B]. Why would it matter what you chose to believe in? Its not like your beliefs magically change the very foundation of the universe, you're either right or wrong. "studies on this and every religion went into the conclusion that we have a soul", wow, you don't say? You mean, something that is built upon the ideas of the supernatural and spiritual aspects of perception ADHERE to those very ideas? Seems legit and completely unbiased, but hey they're STUDIES, so they MUST be true... And what do you mean "if there wouldn't be some sort of logic or proof that points towards the apparent existence of souls.."? I literally cant understand what you're saying. Did you mean to say people wouldn't accept it? Because, you know, if there isn't supporting evidence or logic behind your ideas than, to be blunt, they dont hold much meaning to me along with a great deal of other people. Perceptual "evidence" or philosophies don't really bolster anything regarding the existence of souls. Maybe they bolster your [U]belief[/U] towards the existence of a soul, but not directly towards the existence of a soul.

[QUOTE=Javyer;35113788]philosophy proves the existence of a soul and a God that it's good, but at the end it all depends if we chose to believe or not. I believe that our body and our soul doesn't belong to us, but to the earth(the body) and to God(the soul) but what is ours is the mind, that is formed from both, because we don't think only about what's physical but from spiritual things too.[/quote] :v: philosophers agreeing on things? you made my day [quote]Also, there have been way too much study about this and near every religion went into the conclussion that we have a soul. If there wouldn't be some sort of proof or logic that point to the fact that we have a soul people would just accept it.[/QUOTE] so just because all religions agree on something it must be true? what exactly makes theologians so trustworthy in something better served by cognitive science?

[QUOTE=Lilyo;35113973] I think you're very confused towards what you're trying to say. "Philosophy proves the existence of a soul and a god" wtf are you talking about? Philosophy and theology are both completely and entirely subjective fields, they can't prove or disprove anything... [B][U]ever[/U][/B]. Why would it matter what you chose to believe in? Its not like your beliefs magically change the very foundation of the universe, you're either right or wrong. "studies on this and every religion went into the conclusion that we have a soul", wow, you don't say? You mean, something that is built upon the ideas of the supernatural and spiritual aspects of perception ADHERE to those very ideas? Seems legit and completely unbiased, but hey they're STUDIES, so they MUST be true... And what do you mean "if there wouldn't be some sort of logic or proof that points towards the apparent existence of souls.."? I literally cant understand what you're saying. Did you mean to say people wouldn't accept it? Because, you know, if there isn't supporting evidence or logic behind your ideas than, to be blunt, they dont hold much meaning to me along with a great deal of other people. Perceptual "evidence" or philosophies don't really bolster anything regarding the existence of souls. Maybe they bolster your [U]belief[/U] towards the existence of a soul, but not directly towards the existence of a soul.[/QUOTE] One of the first things I'm taught about contemporary phylosophy is that to reason about life and God means we have something inside that give us the hability to think what is unthinkable. We are to used to see the world as it looks like but not as it is. But the real truth can't be thought, it has to be discovered, and I asure you that you will be 100% sure that you have a soul when you commit yourself and go as a missionary helping people. That is a feeling that go beyond comprensation. Proud make us inteligent, but ignorant, when you forget about every feeling and sensation you are free of the rules that this world taught you, you are yourself and no other influence. Most people decline the idea of a superior being cause of fear for being insignificant. Sorry for my bad english.

Can you apply the word 'soul' to our fragile consciousness that exists between semi-random firings of synapses? Yes, of course. Can you apply the word 'soul' to a sort of mysterious paranormal energy that has never been acknowledged by scientists? Yes, but you'd be wrong.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35107253]a) are you suggesting that einstein somehow violated occam's razor when formulating relativity, and then was subsequently vindicated? if so, you are so, [h2]so[/h2] wrong. (please clarify)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=I]One would have called occam's razor [B]in the time of Newton[/B] with things in the Earth and Einstein's Physics, and would have been right in doing so in some way.[/QUOTE] I meant that if something like Einstein's equation's would have been made in the time of Newton someone would have probably called Occam's Razor. And he/she would have been right in doing so, because at that time it would have been reasonable to think that one doesn't need a complicated theory that would predict almost the same as the one made before (Newton's one). But now we do acknowledge Newton's theory as 'incomplete' (at best) and only a 'useful tool'. This is because Newton based his theory on the data known to him at that time, but isn't it what we do now with science? Moreover, isn't that science itself? [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35107253]b) induction is a bad thing? what the fuck else are you going to use? [editline]12th March 2012[/editline] you're setting the bar for evidence so high that it escapes the observable universe. your notion of "direct evidence", as I understand it (?) is impossible.[/QUOTE] I didn't say you can't use induction. What I say is that you can't use it for the purpose you intend to. You can, of course, do science (as science is the paradigm of induction). But you must first know the limits of what science can and cannot conclude. Otherwise you would be making metaphysical claims without even knowing you are doing so. You can, for example, obtain unquestionable evidence that the force of gravitational attraction between two objects (of X properties) increases when the distance between them decreases if you define force, objects, and those properties adequately [B]in terms of your own experience[/B]. But that is not the same with consciousness because it is not an object one can obtain evidence from. In fact, one can never define [I]other's[/I] consciousness in terms of their own experience because one never experiences other's consciousness. I always like to say it this way: You could believe that you are the only conscious being in the world and the all the other beings are just 'animated machines' and there is nothing that will prove the contrary. Of course, it is [I]reasonable[/I] to conclude that other living things are conscious by recalling the similarities between them and you. But it is by no means a conclusion one can logically deduce from those similarities.

[QUOTE=Javyer;35113788]philosophy proves the existence of a soul and a God that it's good, but at the end it all depends if we chose to believe or not. I believe that our body and our soul doesn't belong to us, but to the earth(the body) and to God(the soul) but what is ours is the mind, that is formed from both, because we don't think only about what's physical but from spiritual things too.[/QUOTE] Philosophy is only a matter of opinion. My philosophy says quite the opposite. I don't think there is any at all reason to believe in god, a soul, or life after death. I don't believe that such complicated things can exist without evidence or explanation to their existence. There is however nothing unrealistic or illogical about believing that we don't have a conciousness without a brain, and that it's silly to let a hypothesis dictate how you should live your life. I believe that unless that there is proof that something might exists, or proof that it might not exist, we have no reason to believe it's true. I don't believe the universe was created for a reason, because nothing proves it needs to exist for a reason. I don't believe there exists a real purpose to our lives, because nothing proves that there needs to be a reason to our existence. I believe we exist entirely by chance, and that the best reason to continue living is because you enjoy existing. [editline]13th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Javyer;35114752]One of the first things I'm taught about contemporary phylosophy is that to reason about life and God means we have something inside that give us the hability to think what is unthinkable. We are to used to see the world as it looks like but not as it is. But the real truth can't be thought, it has to be discovered, and I asure you that you will be 100% sure that you have a soul when you commit yourself and go as a missionary helping people. That is a feeling that go beyond comprensation. Proud make us inteligent, but ignorant, when you forget about every feeling and sensation you are free of the rules that this world taught you, you are yourself and no other influence. Most people decline the idea of a superior being cause of fear for being insignificant. Sorry for my bad english.[/QUOTE] I can see why you people might think of religion as something that would expand your view on life, but to me it only does the opposite. I believe our universe and everything in it, is a far greater unsolved mystery than what we can only assume religion offers. To be religious would not make me feel free in any way, I feel like religion dictates how I should live and how I should think, and I do not wish to limit my mind is such a way. I have my own reasons for helping people, I believe that good actions encourage other good actions. A mutual bond between man, do no harm and recieve no harm in return. I'm a small piece of a puzzle, hoping that my place in the world can help brings all the pieces to harmony. I do not worry about being insignificant, I think any creature has any more real reason to exist than the other. I prefer to not have an afterlife. I think that this life is the only one we'll ever have, and this is a very good reason you should enjoy it to its absolute fullest and to not let uncertain things such as the unproven claims of religion dictate how you should live your life. Many people like to refer to Pascal's wager that if you die an atheist and god is real, you go to hell. While if you die a religious man and god is not real, you die the same way as atheists. However what people forget is the life we live before we die. If you die an atheist, you lived a life of being allowed to think freely and enjoy life however you pleased. If you die a religious man, you lived a life of fearing the existence of hell and allowing something you can't prove dictate how you should live.

[QUOTE=Lilyo;35113973]Right, because adhering to believing in complete and utter bullshit our entire lives is just swell right? I mean, what's the point of ANY scientific studies anymore if that's your way of thinking? Hell, believe in ferries, believe in creationism, believe in god, believe in mythological monsters, believe in anything you want cause they either exist or they don't, and apparently "that doesn't change a thing". If we DID have a soul and found evidence towards this than that would completely change all of modern biology and revamp the way we look at life.[/QUOTE] If we found about a soul, it wouldn't change [b]SHIT[/b] we already know about our biology and the cells. And my way of thinking? What's the point of thinking about ANY of them Souls, Gods or Mystical fucking monsters then? The points of these "nonsensical bullshit things" lie in the symbolism anyway.

We haven't fully found out everything about the brain, which is why we haven't managed to create a mind reading machine yet. Still, we know how it works and some parts of it, but nobody has ever mapped out the whole thing yet.

It's the same thing as being born, you don't remember your past, you just start a life. ou didn't exist so you had no feelings or memoris, so will happen in the end. When we die we die, we don't work, we just rebirth as a pig or a human again. When the end of the world starts we all die, and we won't feel a thing, because we don't exist. Remember this is my opinion, so don't hate me :(

So your theory is that mankind doesn't exist? Also, if we don't remember our past, then how do we know it was our past when your mind is mostly defined as memories and feelings?

I didn't mentioned it, doesn't mean I think there's no mankind :D ninja'd Eeehh that's kinda weird

[QUOTE=Jocke;35119800]When the end of the world starts we all die, and [B]we won't feel a thing, because we don't exist.[/B][/QUOTE] In that case, I do not understand this sentence.

[QUOTE=DrasarSalman;35119875]In that case, I do not understand this sentence.[/QUOTE] Oh, I mean when we're dead our body doesn't work so... we got no feelings or anything [editline]13th March 2012[/editline] o be honest I have no ideá, all is like a conspiracy to me, besides I suck at conversations like this:v:

Then what exactly is the soul? Just a part of us that leaves when we die like an emigrating appendicitis (hopefully Google translate gave me the right word)? I really don't see the point, because according to you we will not have any mental or physical similarities with our previous lives.