Just a trite question

I mean, unless you are just following directions and letting someone else do the thinking for you.

But even kindergartners add some of their own thought to the styrofoam cup they put the seed in.

You're REALLY not understanding this. SCIENCE HAS A SPECIFIC DEFINITION. Not ANY contemplation is considered science. Me contemplating what I think of a poem is NOT science. OBSERVATION IS THE FIRST STEP OF THE PROCESS OF WHAT CAN BE CALLED SCIENCE. What, my dear, has been observed that leads you to the hypothesis of a soul? A scientist that specializes in the realm of whatever the definition of a soul overlaps would simply say, "Nothing."

Let me try to put it in yet another way you might understand. If Star Wars was written as a scientific report of a cosmic occurrence, people would first ask, "Okay,we see your historical theory. Now, what observation led you to come to this hypothesis? What phenomena did you observe that this story explains?" When you say that you didn't observe anything that would lead to you calling this story a hypothesis, you're pretty much admitting to skipping the first fundamental step of what science is, thereby NOT making it science.

By the way, when I say "observation", I'm not referring to "experimentation". I'm referring to the observation that leads to the hypothesis that leads to the experiment.

I made the mistake of using a scientific term for something that isn't scientific. I was hoping the "Kind of like" would differentiate it enough.

If you consider a Soul as Concept, like Hate, Chivalry, Phobia, then given what is understood to be the concept of a soul might be destroyed if it was fully understood. That there might be such a thing as Fragile Forbidden Knowledge.

I suppose there's an argument that nothing is ever really "destroyed," that it would be more changed into something that would decidedly not be described as a soul.

Something else I would ask, although, I think I know Lib's answer already, does anyone consider Science the sole answer to everything in life? Forgetting any bickering over religion, but what about philosophy? Surely, most would agree that there are ideas and concepts that fall outside the realm of science or math, no matter how amorphous and ill-defined they might be?

Are you being obnoxious on purpose?

If your silly low minded analogies are an attempt to undermine my competency and intelligence the only thing you are going to accomplish is a loss of my respect.

Please, do, please, please, inform me of the correct term for objective contemplation of a subject with open ended questions that have the possibility of being tested and observed if they can first be answered or at least defined. Since I seem to have ruffled your feathers so thoroughly by referring to the concept as a part of the scientific process, a process which you seem to falsely think and wish to make evident that you and you alone in this conversation hold so dearly and highly as to be able to understand it properly.

The only thing you have accomplished, as of your last post, is making yourself look like a fool who would rather argue a point of proper terminology than give the evidence behind your idea that there is no such thing as a soul. Simply stating that there is no evidence to observe does not equal giving evidence of there being no evidence to observe. That requires objective studies showing a lack of observable evidence.

Or shall I just go forth from here under the assumption that you do not consider thought important in any way? Since you are willing to argue that it is not so deeply in order to avoid addressing other questions?

While you are at it, go back and read where I said I have no reason to believe there is or is not such a thing as a soul. Then think of how much more completely you would have lost your point of there being no such thing as a soul on someone who does in fact believe strongly in one.

EDIT: @nate

So... wait, you're saying that a soul is more like a descriptive term, and reductionism pretty much destroys it? Like "chivalry" being broken down into its individual social and biological components, making it into something else? Cuz that's profound, and I like it. But then essentially the soul is an imaginary construct that exists when you assign meaning to it, like assigning meaning to the word "love", when the idea it symbolizes can be broken down into biochemical components. In that sense, yes, I'm on board with you. But as a physical/otherworldly phenomena, nope.

There are absolutely things that science, in its current form, cannot grasp. But that's mainly up in the air for philosophy. I've had my share of qualia arguments.

I'm saying there is a possibility that it could exist as that. That broken down to biochemical parts, there could collectively be something best described as a soul, but that it would need that philosophical aspect to work within science to recognize what it is, and that by reaching to that degree, finally grasping all that is needed to understand what a "soul" is, would destroy/change why or what we would even need a soul for. That if we ever were to discover a soul, that we might not even be described as "human" anymore.

Hence! animals don't got souls!

Low minded? You think I'm patronizing you? Cuz all I did was try to show a simple example of what the theory of a soul is missing to be considered science. If you found it too simple, than excuse me, but that's what analogies are meant to do. They put the argument in a simpler perspective.

What you've put forth is not a scientific question, as nothing has been observed in nature that would call for such a hypothesis (at least nothing where the soul hasn't already been ruled out as an explanation). Therefore, any question posed, like the mere possibility of its existence, would fall under the realm of philosophy. It's like asking whether there's a tea kettle floating around Pluto. The idea came from nowhere, and nothing observed could make it a probability, but it at least shows more promise of being true, considering we've observed that tea kettles exist, and Pluto exists. It falls into the realm of simply creating ideas out of nothing, which is not science. Observation is the key you're missing.

I am arguing for the terminology. The proper use of the term science is important to me. If you don't care, than whatever, but I'm simply trying to keep you from sounding like a fool, which I don't think you are, so stop being so goddamn defensive about what I think of you. If you want me to point to individual instances where we've been able to construct and explain aspects of behavior by isolating the physical properties of the brain, thereby explaining the observed phenomena through natural means, as opposed to a "soul", then you're pretty much going to have to read a hell of a lot more than I can tell you. Bottom line that did it for me was reading some studies on the effects of certain areas of the brain, how neurons work to make the body do what it does, and the biochemistry involved, all of which have been able to explain the phenomena previous generations have ascribed to the soul. However, when it comes to the philosophy of it, I'm still left undecided, and if you want to discuss qualia, I'd be more than happy to.

Again, stop getting defensive. I'm just explaining how you incorrectly confused "science" with "philosophy". That's what we're obviously discussing, so stop thinking I'm avoiding the subject.

I know you don't. Again, just explaining why contemplating its existence isn't scientific (anymore, anyway).

I sorta get what you're saying. But... still... without a definition of the function of a soul, you're left with pretty much nothing to go on in order to find it. Like, some people think of the energy released in our neurons as a soul. They recognize it as such, as it fits their own definition of what a soul is (the life giving sort of energy that brings consciousness in the body).

EDIT: The problem lies in what people define as a soul.

Hard to believe, but I side with Liberum on this debate.

to Nate : what is generally defined as soul, notably by the christian tradition, is a existence of an irreductible, immaterial nature of an individual (another question is whether it also applies to other sentient beings), independant of the corporal state and surviving after death. It is in other words the essence of the personality, the ideal form of a particular individual. Some traditions attribute it a moral status which is evaluated after death/the end of the world and properly rewarded/punished.
As a cultural phenomenon, a concept that is shared in a society, it is quite strong. One does not need to believe in the soul to understand what someone means when saying "this singer sings with soul".
As a philosophical/spiritual concept, it is quite problematic. Scientifically, it is irrelevant.

Thank you! That pretty much sums it up entirely. "Irrelevant". Why didn't I think of that?

I simply began speaking to you the way you have been speaking to me- arrogantly and condescendingly. That does not make me defensive, though I was wondering if you would pull the stop being emotional card. You didn't let me down there. Though I suppose you did finally annoy me enough for me to let it show.

I said over and over that most of my rambling was philosophical. Very obviously philosophical, though I am not arrogant enough to think it was any sort of high philosophy, or even close.

meh. The conversation no longer pleases me and I cannot decide if I was just not clear enough with my thoughts or if you just didn't want to bother actually asking what I meant until it was clear because telling me I am wrong is more fun.

@pepper

I was admittedly frustrated when I had to repeat the point. I'm sorry if I sounded condescending, but repeating the same thing over and over can get tiring, so I felt it was necessary to get the idea across. Not to mention, you threw out this little nugget:

You were quite clear with what you meant. You specifically said:
1. Contemplation, in itself, was scientific.
2. Therefore asking if a soul exists is scientific.

I explained how it wasn't, considering what's already been insinuated about what constitutes a soul. That's all. Then you went off on how, because of what I explained to be considered science, I don't value thought. That's absolutely ridiculous considering I was only defining what science is, and how it's considered different from philosophy. If you don't want to accept that, and would rather think I'm just being a jerk for some reason, then I can't do anything else for you. It's a clear definition. I tried to explain it, and it is what it is.