The simplest explanation is best. --The case against the immortal soul--

[Jeremiah]

Let's say humans do have a soul: Is it an effect of physiological agents or does it come from somewhere else?

If not the brain -- the brain, which does actually exist, and does seem able to create, what we know as, the human soul-- if not the human brain: Then where does the soul come from?

Given the alternative suggestions; gods, spirits and other vague & ambiguous claims of a transcendental nature. None of which have any actual hard evidence to support their existence : Is not brain the most obvious and simplest explanation for the origins of the human soul?

And if the brain is the most suited explanation for the origin of the human soul, then does it not also follow that when the brain ends the soul ends?

 

[ninerbuff]

When the brain suffers trauma or is chemically altered, personality changes. Souls are apparently tied to the personality of the individual. If you are "put under" for surgery, you have no recollection because brain activity is numbed. Same with getting knocked out. Once brain activity ceases, that's all she wrote.

 

[Meow Mix]

There's also research that shows brain damage causes statistically significant differences in how people respond to moral dilemmas -- if making moral decisions isn't part of the soul then I don't know what is, because clearly the evidence suggests those come from the brain.

There are also parasites which can change a person's personality; one of the better-known ones is Toxoplasma gondii. It even affects men and women's personalities differently because of the difference in men and women's physiological brains (women have more white matter, men more gray -- for instance).

With the amount of evidence surrounding the brain to mind correspondence I'd say that at this point arguing the mind somehow causes brain chemistry (rather than the other way around) is as asinine as arguing that itchy red bumps attract mosquitos.

 

[Madhuri]

Let's say humans do have a soul: Is it an effect of physiological agents or does it come from somewhere else?

If not the brain -- the brain, which does actually exist, and does seem able to create, what we know as, the human soul-- if not the human brain: Then where does the soul come from?

Given the alternative suggestions; gods, spirits and other vague & ambiguous claims of a transcendental nature. None of which have any actual hard evidence to support their existence : Is not brain the most obvious and simplest explanation for the origins of the human soul?

And if the brain is the most suited explanation for the origin of the human soul, then does it not also follow that when the brain ends the soul ends?

Simple answer doesn't mean right answer. It can mean right answer, but not necessarily. So the conclusion you made is based on probability decided by your own subjective mind as other people make the same type of subjective conclusions. In the end, nobody really knows.

 

[Madhuri]

Souls are apparently tied to the personality of the individual.

Only some more recent concepts, otherwise the above is incorrect.

 

[Meow Mix]

Simple answer doesn't mean right answer. It can mean right answer, but not necessarily. So the conclusion you made is based on probability decided by your own subjective mind as other people make the same type of subjective conclusions. In the end, nobody really knows.

Occam's Razor isn't subjective, and this isn't even a case of Occam's Razor since there is evidence for one possibility but no evidence that has stood to the test of evidence/reason for the other.

It's pretty clear that the mind is a holism of the brain.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I personally believe the Individual soul is an illision of the mind.

All the Theist I know do not believe that the mind and the soul are the identical. One might say that the mind is a conduit for the soul to express it self. If the mind is damaged then the soul in unable to properly express its nature.

 

[Meow Mix]

I personally believe the Individual soul is an illision of the mind.

All the Theist I know do not believe that the mind and the soul are the identical. One might say that the mind is a conduit for the soul to express it self. If the mind is damaged then the soul in unable to properly express its nature.

If the mind includes:

-Personality
-Likes/dislikes
-Moral judgement
-Learning capacity
-Decision making processes

...then what else is there for the "soul" to be at all?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe if we have a soul, where it comes from probably has something to do with the merging of an egg and sperm, and that it's presence doesn't revolve around the brain, and that it lives vicariously through us.

 

[Madhuri]

If the mind includes:

-Personality
-Likes/dislikes
-Moral judgement
-Learning capacity
-Decision making processes

...then what else is there for the "soul" to be at all?

Haven't I explained this before? Hindu belief is soul=Consciousness.
Consciousness includes none of the above mentioned. It is a simple state of Being. And it is life itself.

 

[Madhuri]

It's pretty clear that the mind is a holism of the brain.

Yup, I wouldn't contradict that.
But I stand by my earlier statement. Just because a particular conclusion seems simple doesn't make it reality. In many cases, we simply lack the knowledge to make the correct conclusion.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

If the mind includes:

-Personality
-Likes/dislikes
-Moral judgement
-Learning capacity
-Decision making processes

...then what else is there for the "soul" to be at all?

You see all the above stated qualities of the mind to the hindu are not the soul they are the mind like Madhuri said.

The point I disagree with you on is epiphenomenalism. My belief is that concousness is endemic to the cosmos and not just a side-effect or by product of matter. I have given this argument many times on RF and I am tired of it. So you don't need to take my dim wit view of it in to account. Erwin Schroedinger and others express this view much better then I could.

 

[Jeremiah]

Simple answer doesn't mean right answer. It can mean right answer, but not necessarily. So the conclusion you made is based on probability decided by your own subjective mind as other people make the same type of subjective conclusions. In the end, nobody really knows.

I personally believe the Individual soul is an illision of the mind.

All the Theist I know do not believe that the mind and the soul are the identical. One might say that the mind is a conduit for the soul to express it self. If the mind is damaged then the soul in unable to properly express its nature.

"So the conclusion you made is based on probability decided by your own subjective mind"

" One might say that the mind is a conduit for the soul to express it self."

Breath comes from lungs, sweat from sweat glands, tear from tear ducts and the cognitive from the brain. It is more then, simply, my opinion, Madhuri, we know these thing come from the brain. And all you have really done is multiplied entities beyond necessity.

I think the only reason people don't accept our finite nature, is that over time, the human soul has become mystified. If not for the thousands of years of fantastic story telling, most would have little doubt of our final and complete end.

 

[Jeremiah]

Yup, I wouldn't contradict that.
But I stand by my earlier statement. Just because a particular conclusion seems simple doesn't make it reality. In many cases, we simply lack the knowledge to make the correct conclusion.

"In many cases, we simply lack the knowledge to make the correct conclusion."

In many cases, yes, but this is not one of them; it has become too obvious.

Death, and I mean death, is very real; it is the nature of the universe. The Sun will die, the Earth will die and we will die. All things pass, and we are, in no way, an exception to this.

 

[TheKnight]

Let's say humans do have a soul: Is it an effect of physiological agents or does it come from somewhere else?

If not the brain -- the brain, which does actually exist, and does seem able to create, what we know as, the human soul-- if not the human brain: Then where does the soul come from?

Given the alternative suggestions; gods, spirits and other vague & ambiguous claims of a transcendental nature. None of which have any actual hard evidence to support their existence : Is not brain the most obvious and simplest explanation for the origins of the human soul?

And if the brain is the most suited explanation for the origin of the human soul, then does it not also follow that when the brain ends the soul ends?

Assuming that everything you have said in your post is correct, we must also assume that the brain does not continue activity in some form that we are currently unable to detect. We also assume that the brain is only in operation when the physical object we call the brain is experiencing activity.

Obviously, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to prove that brain activity continue after the death of the body in a form that we currently cannot detect.

 

[Madhuri]

"In many cases, we simply lack the knowledge to make the correct conclusion."

In many cases, yes, but this is not one of them; it has become too obvious.

Death, and I mean death, is very real; it is the nature of the universe. The Sun will die, the Earth will die and we will die. All things pass, and we are, in no way, an exception to this.

This is true for everything material. I happen to believe in the Spiritual too.

 

[Madhuri]

"So the conclusion you made is based on probability decided by your own subjective mind"

" One might say that the mind is a conduit for the soul to express it self."

Breath comes from lungs, sweat from sweat glands, tear from tear ducts and the cognitive from the brain. It is more then, simply, my opinion, Madhuri, we know these thing come from the brain. And all you have really done is multiplied entities beyond necessity.

I think the only reason people don't accept our finite nature, is that over time, the human soul has become mystified. If not for the thousands of years of fantastic story telling, most would have little doubt of our final and complete end.

Humans seem to naturally ask the question at some point: Who am I?
Because we do not have the answers, the universe and existence is a complete mystery to everyone. So the question would and will continue to arise whether or not we had knowledge from ancient religions.

Sweat might come from sweat glands, but what causes the body to function in this way? Science looks right down to the atom to try and understand the beginning of how the entire universe operates. The constant expansion of our knowledge means that we are constantly changing our understanding of things. Nothing is just as simple as our eyes can see. If that were the case, then the people who believed in a flat earth before we had the technology to realise differently would have had a valid argument.

But as it happens, we are realising more and more how complicated reality is. And the fact remains, consciousness and the cause of existence is a mystery to both us common people and scientists. So you may be right, but you may also be wrong. Like I said, what you believe is what seems probable to you based on the knowledge you have now, just as I believe what seems probable based on the knowledge that I have now. And as happens to most people, our understanding of self and reality will change over time as we acquire new knowledge.

 

[nrg]

And if the brain is the most suited explanation for the origin of the human soul, then does it not also follow that when the brain ends the soul ends?

I've tried to use Occam's razor numerous times when discussing God, and honestly, the fact that there seems to be a general lack of understanding about it is just where it begins to feel futile.

And the theists who do understand it, tend to give explanations that makes no sense as to why they shouldn't be guided by it when it comes to the concept of God, souls or anything super natural.

It would be nice if this discussion would not be plagued by those problems, but I doub't it.

 

[Jeremiah]

This is true for everything material. I happen to believe in the Spiritual too.

That, of course, would be the unnecessary entity. The spiritual is not needed to explain anything. Not that it explains anything at any rate; it is such a vague and shapeless concept that it practically means nothing.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

"So the conclusion you made is based on probability decided by your own subjective mind"

" One might say that the mind is a conduit for the soul to express it self."

Breath comes from lungs, sweat from sweat glands, tear from tear ducts and the cognitive from the brain. It is more then, simply, my opinion, Madhuri, we know these thing come from the brain. And all you have really done is multiplied entities beyond necessity.

I think the only reason people don't accept our finite nature, is that over time, the human soul has become mystified. If not for the thousands of years of fantastic story telling, most would have little doubt of our final and complete end.

1st thing Madhuri and I see the world in a slightly different way. I will let her speak for her self. She is more eloquent then I am any way.

I will say this your argument is geared to the folks of the Abrahamic faiths not us.

If John Wheeler is correct that we not only participate in bringing change to being in the world around us but also the far away and long ago by observing the Universe. Then it is the epiphenomenalist who will be cut by Occam's razor.

Schroedinger however believed that this issue will never be resolved by science. So we both might need to take our leaps of faith for a long time.