And do believe that I, this random guy on the internet has a soul
I personally don’t believe that I anyone else has a soul. From my standup I don’t se any reason to believe that our consciousness and our so called “soul” would be any more then something our brain is making up.
I believe only objective fact backed by evidence. There is no evidence of a soul. So, no.
No.
I self-evidently have a consciousness (cogito ergo sum), but logic, reason and the available evidence all point to that consciousness being a manifestation of brain activity and shaped by my genetics, environment and experiences, as opposed to an entity unto itself.
deleted by creator
Many think that cogito ergo sum somehow says or at least implies something about the nature of existence, when it in fact does not. So in that sense, it’s not the “big hitter it’s made out to be,” but that’s not a failure of the principle, but a failure of people to understand what it in fact says, or more precisely, does not say.
I suspect that the problem is that when people consider “I think, therefore I am,” they think that that “I” refers to the entirety of their self-image, and therefore says that the entirety of their self-image, in all its details, objectively exists.
That’s very much not what it means or even implies. It never did and was never intended to stipulate anything at all about the nature of this entity I call “I.” Not one single thing. All it ever said or intended to say was simply that whatever it is that “I” am, “I” self evidently exist, as demonstrated by the fact that “I” - whatever “I” might be - think I do.
It’s not a coincidence that Descartes himself formulated the original version of the brain-in-a-vat - the “evil demon.” He was not simply aware of the sorts of possibilities you mention - of the ramifications of the fact that we exist behind a veil of perception - he actually originated much of the thinking on that very topic. He was a pioneer in that exact field.
Cogito ergo sum doesn’t fail to account for those sorts of possibilities - it was explicitly formulated with those sorts of possibilities not only in mind, but at the forefront. And that’s exactly why it only stipulates the one and only thing that an individual can know for certain - that some entity that I think of as “I” self evidently exists, as demonstrated by the simple fact that “I” think I do, since if “I” didn’t exist, there would be no “I” thinking I do.
And more to the point, that’s exactly why it very deliberately says absolutely nothing about the nature of that existence.
deleted by creator
There’s a pattern of energy that you control at least in part with your thoughts and intentions that the neurons in your brain use to make patterns. You can take chemicals that change these patterns in radical ways, including psychedelics that can unweave those neural connections.
Matter and energy are always conserved though transformed. We know what happens to the physical body. What happens to the energy pattern that animated and controlled the body?
Our body generally stores its biological energy in the form of matter. That’s food in your tummy, blood sugar in your blood, fat on your hips etc… It needs to be brought to a chemical reaction to be turned into physical energy, which generally happens ad-hoc. This biological energy decays like the rest of your body.
And then a tiny bit of physical energy is always present in your body:
- Potential energy: You’ll collapse and transfer it as movement energy into the ground, where friction will turn it to heat.
- Movement energy: You might be swinging your arm as you die. It will likely bump into another object or your body and also be turned into heat by friction.
- Electromagnetic fields: Your brain cells and nerves will be blasting lightnings at each other. Those will fizzle out within a few moments, and again turn into from the friction of the electrical resistance where they impact.
- Heat: The heat from these other processes, as well as your general body heat, is transferred to its surroundings via conduction and infrared radiation.
It decays, like the physical body. Entropy comes for everything in the end.
No.
Not in the sense that there’s some separate component than body and mind.
No
Personally no, and neither does anything/one else, its a very limited religious-brainwormed concept mostly used to just go around and call things ‘souless’ which is all in fun when its a terrible movie or something, not fun when its people and the concept is used to harm them. Its all material and its near countless interactions in many, many forms all the way up and down, in forms we know well and those we have yet to study.
During NDEs your brain glitches out as you’re basically dying (and if you’re really dead technically you’re not human anymore anyway, just sayin, the pop-mythical soul seems to imply permanent human-ness lording all existence in a linear fashion whether directly or by symbolic language) and having OBEs is nothing mystical, in fact reasonably easy to recreate when fully well and alive, so its hard to say those as some concrete evidence for a pop soul concept or against it. I think its the brain making stuff up for now since life is hard and filled with stuff it can’t handle.
A lot of things people call ‘soul’ in pop reference can be taken away quite easily by mere illness, time or even falling out of social graces.
OBE?
Out of the Body Experiences?
I find the hubris of a “soul” amusing.
I don’t think there’s a soul. If you really think about what you “are”, it’s just your thoughts, memories and senses. Everything that you experience as “you” in this exact moment is the thoughts you’re thinking, the memories you can recall and the information your senses are giving you. If someone were to make an exact clone of you, including all the memories in your brain, you would both think that you’re the real “you” but you would also be two different people with different thoughts and perceptions. But what happened to the soul in this case? Has it been cloned too or has a completely new soul been created? In any case, there has to be a new soul because 2 people obviously can’t have the same one. If you instead transplanted the brain into the clone, would your soul have been transferred? I would think so. But doesn’t that just mean that what we think of as a soul, is just our brain?
I would never buy a Kia.
Most wrong take here. The Soul is an underrated vehicle.
It is. I had one. The problem was they didn’t bother installing an immobilizer on them, hence the kiaboyz viral trend. I had to let go of my Soul because of that.
Do we have a sentient soul? I would say no, and as proof I point to those suffering from Alzheimer’s. That disease robs a person of their memory, so by the time of death they have lost much of who they were. If the sentient soul exists, it must be able to remember, otherwise it cannot retain the traits that make the individual unique. It should retain all the memories of our life. Yet those with Alzheimer’s forget who they are. How is this possible if we possess a sentient soul? If we cannot retain memories in this life, how will we do so in the next?
What about those with major brain damage from stroke or mishap? Part of their brain died, and whatever that part contained, it’s now gone. Is their soul now split? Did part of it “move on” with the dead part of the brain?
Everyone believes that they have a soul, the contention is the nature of the soul. You have an intangible essence which inhabits your body, and you identify with your “self”. Some people think it’s some kind of immortal ghost that gets to live in the clouds with other immortal ghosts when the body dies, some people think it’s an emergent phenomenon of some variety which disappears when the body dies. These are differences in explanation, secondary to the ontological question of existence.
The “I” in your statements is proof of your soul, any disagreement is really just pedantic quibbling over terminology because you believe the term has been tainted by explanations you don’t agree with. Even if your brain is “making it up”, it’s still a phenomenon. Your subjective internal experience is made of “soul”, your concept of self is made of “soul”. The entity asking the question and reading the responses is your soul, simple as.
That’s a weak argument. Using this, anything you can refer to has a soul, which is just the idea of that thing in your mind.
The idea of Ohio is intangible, but does Ohio have a soul? How about Clippy? Betelgeuse? Every
selfcall ever made? That person who appeared in your dream once?You’ve quibbled yourself out of meaning anything. The existence of intangible identities is related to what people would call a soul, but you’ve reduced the definition to be unreasonably broad. Your idea of soul is meaningless and isn’t what the OP is talking about.
How did you come to that conclusion based on what I wrote? Nothing you’ve written bears any resemblance to what I said. The concept of Ohio does not inhabit your body, and you don’t identify as it. A thought and a soul are not the same thing just because they’re both intangible. Intangibility is necessary, but not sufficient.
No concept inhabits any body. One may identify as an Ohioan, but nothing about them changes if they do. Many Ohioans share cultural traditions and behaviors, which colour people’s perception of Ohio, and could be described as the Soul of Ohio. Yet you argue that Ohio has no Soul.
Similarly, does the concept of Zeitgeist suggest a spirit that controls people? Does the concept of the Will of the People suggest that countries have personhood?
What most people today mean when they use the word “soul” is much closer to “spirit” or “being” than “self”. Soul is often used poetically to refer to the essential aspects of something, living or otherwise. However when talking about whether souls actually exist, as opposed to simply being made up by the mind, they’re very much not talking about simply the character of an idea, but the vital spark, immortal essence, or animating principle that usually characterizes life.
OP isn’t asking if you believe people have a sense of self, they’re asking if you believe that there is an essence unique to living things that is lost after death, usually supporting the self and memories, which exists by itself rather than as simply a pattern in something else.
OP did not verbalize that as such, this sounds like your personal interpretation.
Regardless, vital spark = being = subjective experience = sense of self = animating principle = consciousness = soul. These are essentially synonyms.
Ohioans may have common attributes, these attributes will shape certain aspects of the soul. Souls are likewise shaped by religion, cultural ethnicity, philosophical beliefs, aesthetic preference, sexuality, and many other factors. These factors are like the hands and techniques that shape the clay, the soul is the clay. Being, at least one’s own (in the solipsistic extreme), is uncontested even by the strictest materialist atheist. It’s only the nature (origin, destiny, scope) that anyone disagrees on.
OP must be refering to the metaphysical definition, as they do not believe that souls exists. As you point out, denying the idea of personal experience is unreasonable, therefore OP must hold that “soul” refers to something more and is not synonymous with the sense of self.
You argue here that such a “something more” soul does not exist, reasonably attributing the idea to emergent properties of natural systems, yet you seem to argue that this constitutes every definition of soul, including the various flavours of “something more”, simultaneously answering yes and no.
This is where the confusing begins. Do you believe souls are emergent or elementary? Is there a persistent metaphysical aspect, or are they ephemeral at best? Are they simply produced by the flesh, or is the flesh just where they reside while alive? Do souls exist, or are they an illusion like a tree in a painting?
The “I” in your statements is proof of your soul
It’s proof of consciousness. If you’re using “soul” synonymously to “consciousness”, well, certainly not everyone does so.
In the use of language I learned, “soul” is the superstitious concept that religious people use, and since I don’t believe in superstitions, I certainly don’t believe that I have a soul.
I definitely possess consciousness, though, in the sense that I recognize contiguous piles of atoms as “objects” and one such object is my own body.
In turn, I would not say that my consciousness asks questions and reads the responses. My body does that. My ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’ are just characteristics of my body. And “I” is my body, too.
Yes, when I meditate I can percive the soul of myself with my consciousness. This cannot be explained or thought, it can only be experienced. And as I am a typical human, I extrapolate that every human has a soul.
You can believe in whatever you want but it won’t make it true. Got to have facts and proof before I’d consider it.
