Just a trite question

I find listening to people talk about their belief in god or a higher power, I mean really listening, when they are simply sharing how they have been personally touched and changed just as fascinating as listing to the same passions of reason that an atheist gives in a similar conversation about their beliefs.

It is when people try to convert me to their way that I am annoyed.

Your faces are a trite question!

Shhh! Let me make every response into a single post. Yes, cammie. Thank you. Love your post. Wouldn't change a thing. Jaz, yes, I would say the old philosophers that said the planets were gods should've kept their mouths shut. Evidence and true scientific theory is founded on facts, probability of those facts being true, and the theory's predictive abilities. When it comes to religious beliefs, nothing that has been truly observed has been unexplainable by mechanisms that we already understand as simple (reductionism). I make out-of-this-world theories all the fuckin' time, but I will never profess them as true until there is substantial evidence for them. That's what science is. It's not a simple subject of chemistry/physics/mathematics. It is, quite specifically, a process. Until an idea has gone through that rigorous process, no, I will not take it seriously. I can talk about quaila as a subject of the soul's existence, but our observable paradigm has not yet been able to include this idea of "consciousness" beyond what we understand about the fundamental aspects of the brain.

Okay, I've forgetten some of the posts I read, but those were the ones that stood out to me. G'night, y'all. Drunk, and a little pissed that the girl I went out with had to go home, cuz her folks are in town, but what can I do? ... Oh yeah, rant all over this thread. Done! Now what the fuck am I gonna do?

this, exactly.

Do you know what a pack animal is? (Not the kind that transports goods).

FTFY

Proof of people without soul, ergo, the soul exists!

It's so cute that some of you guys still believe in souls.

you're the worst in the best kind of way

I pictured Steve patting everyone's head like you do with a kitty and saying that. It was cute.

I refuse to believe that everything is just chemicals and science.

Didn't Dan Brown prove that we have souls in The Lost Symbol?

Yes--I did enjoy The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons; however, Symbol was pretty bad

That's not making sense to me and I grew up Catholic. Lots of Sunday school.

But then again, I also had to google "soul" because they apparently graded on a hard curve.

What even is a soul? What's it made of? Where is it kept? Is it a physical part of my brain? Is is generated by my brain? Is it inside my body or somewhere else? Where did it come from? Was it evolved or given to me by God? If you clone me will my clone have a soul? Will it be a clone of my soul? Can you copy a soul? What if I become brain dead, will my body still have a soul? If you took my soul away, would I still be me? Who am I? Am I my soul or my brain?

Saying I have a soul doesn't explain anything that can't be explained naturally. It only raises questions. It is a bad theory.

I think all the questions you just wrote are exactly what makes investigating the idea interesting.

As far as raising questions goes, in my opinion, the best kinds of science have even bigger questions raised with every question they answer.

One of the best parts of scientific investigation and discovery; There is always more to learn.

Okay, the problem I have with nate's statement:

The phrasing. "Too delicate to be understood"? If you mean "to be observed", SAY "to be observed". The idea of observation "destroying" something (the idea you're referring to is the behavior of subatomic particles, which are NOT destroyed, only "changed" in terms of behavior) is seen when there is some sort of interference intended to make the object observable. If it's "destroyed" by simply attempting to monitor it, I doubt it can survive in the realm of our physical bodies. There is no trace of this force you can't even describe/explain.

True, but a new theory has to explain more than the old theory, not just raise unnecessary questions.

That was for pepper's comment.

That's tragic.

pepper:

It's only scientific if it can be observed. What, in nature, has been observed that could only be explained by a soul? Pretty much nothing. So no, those questions are precisely why it's not scientific to search for the soul. It's sort of like saying that there are strange bite marks on a dead person's neck, and someone says it must've been a vampire because they read Dracula. Suddenly, it's some scientific pursuit to research vampires.

Yes. True.

I thought of a question you left off: Does the soul have anything to do with ones personality?

As in, when it leaves the body, say after death, does it resemble the person whom it inhabited in any way, does it have any consciousness of its own which was used to influence the biological body of the person while it was alive? Is it an individual or is it a metaphorical drop of water in the universal sea of "life force".

I hope that made sense.

Theory is observed, first, in the mind.

Does something need to be the only explanation in order for the explanation to be correct, or even to be possible or probable?

Now, you've brought a new question: If there is a soul, does the soul work in conjunction with biological forces to create consciousness? Or to create self awareness?

on the postulation that a soul has anything to do with a personality, the case I mentioned earlier in the thread:

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

A large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his brain's left frontal lobe, and for that injury's reported effects on his personality and behavior – effects so profound that friends saw him as "no longer Gage".

also, I just want to comment on the fact that those of you who believe in a soul seem to feel very strongly about it, as if you're very invested in this thing you were born with. I am not trying to belittle your belief, but I am curious:
why is it so important you have a soul and not just a brain/mind?
is it because you believe it is a part of you that cannot expire?
what would not having a soul mean?
how would it change meaning in your life in any significant way?
are you any less of YOU without a soul?

I'd like to throw out there that the only emotional investment, if any, I have in the topic of a soul is the pondering on whether there is such a thing or not. I hope my posts do not sound as though I am actually arguing for one direction or the other.

not at all. and if I may say so this is one of the more interesting conversations we've had in a while. PAs and what I ate last can get boring.
I mean, unless you ate like, a soul made of razorblades or something.

So a lobotomy, or an accident that accomplishes the same, changes the personality.

Would a soul, assuming it works in conjunction with the brain to create personality, then also become handicapped by its normal channels it had developed for contributing having been partially damaged and thus compensate by helping to create a new personality?

Much like a right handed person who loses their right hand will eventually learn to live life as a left handed person, by forced default?

Do vampires favor sucking blood from the left or right side of the neck?

That's just the problem, right there. Explanation for what? The forces that drive our minds have already been observed and explained, just as those bite marks can probably be traced to some species we find later (with some people still believing it was a vampire, simply because it's the tradition to do so). Why, then, is it scientific to think there's another force that hasn't been observed or is even capable of being observed that does... pretty much nothing.Nothing is traceable to an unknown force that would be explained as a "soul". It's like the discovery of dark matter. We understood some movements to be very peculiar in some galaxies that could only be explained through an unseen mass generating large amounts of gravity. The math was done, and now we have a pretty solid understanding of the material known as dark matter. It's only when there's something to be observed that one can make a theory about its details. What has been observed that a soul would explain? As cammie said, the idea of a personality/behavior is related strictly to physical elements. As a countless number of disorders suggest, so is pretty much everything else (memory, intelligence, creativity, etc).

HA!

The common misconception that most people make is that "science and chemicals" aren't profound. The fact that they exist in such a sophisticated manner suggests that everything is created in a beautiful and perhaps mystic way.

I apologize for my word usage, it's such a difficult concept to express.

It would only be scientific to question whether there were another force. Not to actually think it to be true, or untrue for that matter, without the proper evidence.

The biggest problem to observing a soul that I see is actually defining what a soul even is. Which leads to philosophy land, which is a never ending loop of things un-observable outside of the mind.

On that note, I agree that there is no observable physical evidence, that we know of, and that cannot be more logically explained by other forces, that supports a theory that a soul exists.

That's like saying it's scientific to question whether fairies were somehow responsible for evolution. It may be, in the absolute broadest sense of the word, "scientific", but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the unobserved, unseen fairies exist at all when we already have a pretty good understanding of what drives evolution. So it would be unscientific to ask whether these fairies mate and reproduce, considering the fairies, themselves, have yet to be observed.

Lib- Except that we still do no have any tangible, observable, idea why anything at all exists in the first place. How it came to exist, I mean.

In a way, it could be compared to trying to imagine Nothing. Nothing as in, even the absence of a vacuum.

Is it unscientific, or, only scientific in the broadest sense, to contemplate what forces cased the Big Bang? I mean the forces that caused there to be any matter or energy to exist in order to Bang in the first place?

Is it unscientific to contemplate the probability of dimensions we can only create mathematical theory about? Is it unscientific to to question whether mathematical theory built on mathematical theory built on mathematical theory could be built on originally flawed math?

science does not attempt to explain why. only how. people confuse that a lot.

All I do is think about nothing.

EDIT: @pepper

Except for the fact that the universe exists. We can't have any absolute proof of how exactly the universe was created, specifically because it's a historical occurrence. Science is a predictive process. This is true, unless we can mimic the process and observe the creation of a universe, then we would have proof based on the scientific method.

However, because of deduction, we're able to theorize what could've happened because it happened, and only through deduction can we narrow down what most probably happened. We are still capable of ruling out other theories based on this process. Ergo, we've been able to rule out the idea of a soul as a driving force of anything we've come to observe. Considering it, itself, is left unobserved, and nothing in the universe even hints at its existence, it is unscientific to consider its nature.

I know this is off-topic, but this post of yours reminded me of this quote from Phil's book, Praise of Motherhood:

If that’s my mother then where is her smile, tell me that, and don’t say she’ll always be in my heart because she won’t, she won’t be anywhere that matters after she dies. She will be nowhere once she’s not even here in the hospital bed. You show me where, exactly, my mother is in my heart. Which ventricle? How much blood does my mother require to linger in my heart? How do you show off how beautiful and wonderful your mother is when she’s hidden in a muscle somewhere under your ribs? Where is her substance? What can your poetry do to make her less absolutely, terrifyingly, impossibly, absurdly dead?

I find Why to be far more fascinating. How must be explained before Why can be properly understood. The two aren't able to be untangled.

Edit- and that is one of the big problems with figuring out if a soul is a real thing. Because before How can be answered and Why understood, we first need to know What.

So, What, if anything, is a soul?

If a soul is fiction then How and Why are unnecessary and already answered.

We Think the universe exists. No one has given me any proof that anything outside of what I Think is actually real. Has anyone given you any, or are you just taking it on faith?

Anyway, this is what I was meaning when I said everything about talking about a soul leads to mucked up philosophy land.

Your argument in this post is good.

One thing your argument assumes, however, is that What a soul is has been definitely defined. If you take away that assumption, then it becomes unscientific to not contemplate the idea of a soul.

If that's what you were saying, then don't use the term "science" in place of "philosophy". Science is a specific process. My post stands as valid. Under the circumstances you're describing, you might as well be able to say pretty much absolutely anything, truthfully or otherwise, and it could be considered true. Fortunately, that's not the nature of science.

When it comes to this, you're right. A soul isn't defined. But based on what you've been saying/insinuating about the soul (something separate from the mind that could potentially be responsible for our consciousness, or simply a separate component of it), I can deduce what it isn't. What it isn't is anything we have come to observe.

EDIT: If that's not true, then I could make up a word and say that it's scientific to discuss what it might mean.

'Why' assumes an intention. You can't ask a hurricane why it killed a loved one.

Can asking why not assume an intention? idk

So far, I think "why" has been synonymous with "how" in this conversation. Like, why does the earth revolve around the sun? Asking how would be asking for the same answer.

I have not used the term "science" in place of "philosophy". In fact I have continuously been pointing out that most of my rambling in this thread should be defined much more as mucked up philosophy than science.

[pepper said]

It would only be scientific to question whether there were another force. Not to actually think it to be true, or untrue for that matter, without the proper evidence.

The biggest problem to observing a soul that I see is actually defining what a soul even is. Which leads to philosophy land, which is a never ending loop of things un-observable outside of the mind.

On that note, I agree that there is no observable physical evidence, that we know of, and that cannot be more logically explained by other forces, that supports a theory that a soul exists.

Then you stated that questioning whether or not there is a soul is scientific in the same way thinking about vampires and fae is scientific.

And I responded with something that was meant to get you to be more specific than loose silly analogies about why it is an unscientific question.

Then I rambled some more and responded to you with stuff that I have again defined as more loose philosophical gunk.

The main point at the beginning of our conversation was: convince me that asking questions and contemplating possible answers is not science. As you asserted it wasn't.

You cannot.

That is the basis, the core, the platform for all science. Whether good science or bad.

Sure, where one goes with those questions can get really screwy and ridiculous. But to state that contemplation itself is unscientific is just as ridiculous.

The statement that "contemplation=science" tells me you're confusing science with philosophy. That stands.

As I've said, science is a process. My description of why contemplating the nature of a soul is unscientific was directly responding to exactly what you claimed as scientific. It's not. The very first step in the scientific method is observation. Considering the scientific community's deductive process, it can be said that nothing we've observed hints at the existence of a soul. Therefore it fails to meet the "observation" aspect of the scientific process. Therefore, it's not scientific. It's only philosophical.

Contemplation=a part of the scientific process.

How are you going to develop an experiment to observe without thinking about it first? How are you going to analyze the results and come to a conclusion with out thinking about it all?

The very first step in anything that must be consciously accomplished is thinking about it.