By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[shunyadragon]

Hmmm… when I took Psychology in Uni, it mentioned it. Did you want me to upload a book or something? Of course, that was in the early 70’s. I don’t think I saved that book.

In terms of the current knowledge of psychology 1970s is ancient history. This is true for most sciences.

The existence and nature of the soul is a subjective religious claim, and psychology could not possible consider or study the soul in 1970 0r now,

 

[Kenny]

Again, find a psychology textbook that even mentions a 'soul'. You had to go back to a definition from over 350 years ago to even make a link. That is *far* before any serious study of psychology. Find *anything* within the last 150 years that uses this definition.

Ok… obviously “show me a book” is an irrational request.

So let’s look at some info:

"But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts."

Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’

How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.

www.psychologytoday.com

Obviously, there will be the anti-soul position… I’m sure we can agree that the answer isn’t solid in any of the two positions.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can go ahead, I'm not interested in chatting with you about it. In my personal opinion, that is a rabbit hole I've been down on various subjects with you one time too many.

Quite honestly, I doubt the sincerity of your interest and motives.

At this point, it's ok. No problem as they say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fair enough. Again, two people looking at the same thing and coming to different conclusions?

Is that a valid means to differentiate and weigh different conclusions? It assumes that two different people have the same knowledge, experience, bias and ability to judge, yet come to different conclusions about the same thing.

What is each conclusion really being based on?

Would you seek help with a medical issue from a hospital that called me in to evaluate your test results or would you rather have physicians review the results of those tests? We would both look at the same evidence. As the third party in this, you would have to be assumed to be of equivalent ability as me and the medical staff so that you could evaluate the tests and the two conclusions effectively and without basing your own conclusion on personal bias alone.

It would be up to you to evaluate which opinion you go with, but as an entomologist, I think that big thingy in your chest is causing all the problems and it may have to be removed. Whatever it is.

I am collecting my thoughts on this as a separate issue for possible later discussion and debate.

To me it is obvious in that the soul that contains the conscience is displayed in babies. It will never be “verifiable” scientifically because we will never be able to “view” the soul and conscience. .

I have a difficult time reconciling the obvious that is also unverifiable. Those are two different and distinct conditions that cannot exist in the same time and space as I understand it.

Maybe I should have said “obvious to me”?

It would still leave me asking how it is obvious to you, which as it happens, I have been.

Here, I can only refer to it in reference to my position as a believer in Jesus Christ and the scripture therein.

I believe too, but we have moved beyond what we each believe into the realm of a need to demonstrate.

Yes, puppies have souls along with other created creatures. (Whether parameciums have souls or not, I have no idea )

You may know or perhaps be surprised at how controversial that idea is even among Christians.

What differentiates animals from human beings is that man has a spirit made in His image and in His likeness.

And, while a shared belief, it is obvious only on that bias and not for reasons that can be demonstrated to others.

And then too, the wrinkle of what "in His image" means is added to the mix.

 

[YoursTrue]

That isn’t even what this thread is about and means nothing as Christians. If you don’t believe the Word of God then why would you claim to be a Christian, you just said you were seated in Christ in the heavenly places, right? You can’t prove that and not supposed to, we believe that based on what He has already done for us in our lives right here. You are double minded and asking for historical and scientific info. Why would I have to it need to do that? I believe what God wrote and what are you going to say to God when He proves you wrong?

When I was in church as a musician, I was not a believer. Just to clarify, I was a professional, paid musician. It was a big, rich church with a professional choir and organist. (paid.) Nothing the minister or congregants or participants did or said moved me to "believe" in Christ OR God. I had no belief. I was wandering. The music was beautiful and I looked at Jesus on the cross on the wall and felt sorry for him and wondered, what did he do to deserve that other than be a nice guy? Later I learned more and I realized there IS a God who cares and it made sense to me (finally). For this I am VERY grateful. Instead of the jargon, "oh, it's a myth," or "Oh, Jesus believed in myths," or "Jesus told us to love others and God," (whoever God might be), etc. And that by people who say they are Christian.

 

[Kenny]

Is that a valid means to differentiate and weigh different conclusions? It assumes that two different people have the same knowledge, experience, bias and ability to judge, yet come to different conclusions about the same thing.

Happens all the time. That is why we have “different theories” among scientists

What is each conclusion really being based on?

It would depend on what one is talking about.

Would you seek help with a medical issue from a hospital that called me in to evaluate your test results or would you rather have physicians review the results of those tests? We would both look at the same evidence. As the third party in this, you would have to be assumed to be of equivalent ability as me and the medical staff so that you could evaluate the tests and the two conclusions effectively and without basing your own conclusion on personal bias alone.

And yet, people go to two different doctors because one wants a second opinion, and you get a different opinion. I think my example is more appropriate than your analogy.

It would be up to you to evaluate which opinion you go with, but as an entomologist, I think that big thingy in your chest is causing all the problems and it may have to be removed. Whatever it is.

Again… see above reference.

I am collecting my thoughts on this as a separate issue for possible later discussion and debate.

Happy to dialogue, discuss, debate in the spirit of love and respect for each other

I have a difficult time reconciling the obvious that is also unverifiable. Those are two different and distinct conditions that cannot exist in the same time and space as I understand it.

But, again, the soul as well as the conscience is not really “verifiable” by any means. The only think we can verify is that we have a brain that works but really not why it works. IMV

It would still leave me asking how it is obvious to you, which as it happens, I have been.

Yes we have. I don’t know how else to say it except for the example I gave. Babies are born each with a different personality and the don’t come as blank pages. What alternative view do you have?

I believe too, but we have moved beyond what we each believe into the realm of a need to demonstrate.

Again… non-verifiable by any means

You may know or perhaps be surprised at how controversial that idea is even among Christians.

I’m not sure how that changes what I have said. If the soul is defined as “mind, will and emotions”, then, by the nature of the definition, puppies have soul.

As I said, I can only view in according to my foundation of scripture:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Very clear that man has a spirit separate from a soul. It can be found throughout scripture.

And, while a shared belief, it is obvious only on that bias and not for reasons that can be demonstrated to others.

Yes, there are always differing viewpoints and understandings.

And then too, the wrinkle of what "in His image" means is added to the mix.

LOL… YES! It is never-ending! We have literal volumes and volumes of book on the many subjects in the Bible and we haven’t exhausted all that is written therein.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fair enough. Again, two people looking at the same thing and coming to different conclusions?

To me it is obvious in that the soul that contains the conscience is displayed in babies. It will never be “verifiable” scientifically because we will never be able to “view” the soul and conscience. .

Maybe I should have said “obvious to me”?




Here, I can only refer to it in reference to my position as a believer in Jesus Christ and the scripture therein.

Yes, puppies have souls along with other created creatures. (Whether parameciums have souls or not, I have no idea )

What differentiates animals from human beings is that man has a spirit made in His image and in His likeness.

It seems that there are two developing or developed views of the soul here, No, sorry, I am wrong. There are three.

I'm limiting it to the context of this thread, because it is much more complex than that if you start to wonder afield.

Here is what I summarize of those views from the discussion so far.

1. Mind, body and soul as distinct aspects of the individual. Two physical aspects and one immaterial aspect.
2. Mind and soul synonymized within the body. The immaterial and material fused in some way as one thing that is all our thinking, personality and the us that is us.
3. No soul. Only mind and body.

To touch briefly on my allusions to the greater field of views, there is controversy on the existence, origin, number, duration, type, domain and on and on among different cultures, religions, times and so forth. Too complex for discussion here beyond the mere mention of all of that.

Conceptual definitions based on what is believed about the soul exist, but there is no known objective evidence to confirm these definitions or that the soul indeed does exist as those that believe that existence claim. In other words, the definitions are based on things believed and not the observation of the soul in hand.

My own view is based on belief and faith and not on any objective evidence I can present. It falls into the first category. I admit this knowing that I could be wrong about it and that my view is based on that bias and not on any objective evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok… obviously “show me a book” is an irrational request.

So let’s look at some info:

"But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts."

Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’

How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.

www.psychologytoday.com

Obviously, there will be the anti-soul position… I’m sure we can agree that the answer isn’t solid in any of the two positions.

No objective evidence provided in this reference, just conjecture as to the subjective belief in the existence of the soul.

From your source:

While neuroscience has made tremendous progress illuminating the functioning of the brain, why we have a subjective experience remains mysterious. The problem of the soul lies exactly here, in understanding the nature of the self, the "I" in existence that feels and lives life. But this isn't just a problem for biology and cognitive science, but for the whole of Western natural philosophy itself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Happens all the time. That is why we have “different theories” among scientists

Between individuals with equivalent knowledge, experience and expertise, sure.

But other than personal bias, how would a person come to the best conclusion in your scenario?

By this view, opting to have me perform your necessary brain surgery while wondering why I started my first incision on your knee is OK.

After all, I came to a different conclusion than the atheist physician and you'd be better off having a Christian perform the surgery, because on that basis I have a shared love and belief that will ensure your success? But that wouldn't be basing the decision on the evidence, but upon personal bias.

It would depend on what one is talking about.

So there is a difference and some conclusions have more weight than others.

And yet, people go to two different doctors because one wants a second opinion, and you get a different opinion. I think my example is more appropriate than your analogy.

But people do not go to an entomologist or an auto mechanic to be diagnosed even if those two people will look at the same evidence.

Again… see above reference.


Happy to dialogue, discuss, debate in the spirit of love and respect for each other

I appreciate that. It is just in the initial stages and, given all the demands on me, sadly may not unfold as I hope. Time will tell.

But, again, the soul as well as the conscience is not really “verifiable” by any means. The only think we can verify is that we have a brain that works but really not why it works. IMV

I don't know what you mean by conscience here. Are you talking about a sense of morality? Some of that is verifiable.

Clearly we are learning a lot about brains and how they work. Why they work the way they do and the differences in them is a job for psychology.

Yes we have. I don’t know how else to say it except for the example I gave. Babies are born each with a different personality and the don’t come as blank pages. What alternative view do you have?

If I may, it seems that you are in that group that synonymize mind and soul as one thing with both a material and immaterial aspect. Would that be correct?

Again… non-verifiable by any means

That is the crux of the issue and the apparent dichotomy.

I’m not sure how that changes what I have said. If the soul is defined as “mind, will and emotions”, then, by the nature of the definition, puppies have soul.

As I said, I can only view in according to my foundation of scripture:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Very clear that man has a spirit separate from a soul. It can be found throughout scripture.

So based on scripture you believe that spirit and soul are not synonymous. Is this view inserting a fourth element or just a difference in definition?

Yes, there are always differing viewpoints and understandings.

LOL… YES! It is never-ending! We have literal volumes and volumes of book on the many subjects in the Bible and we haven’t exhausted all that is written therein.

And teasing through all of that is where we end up here.

Have a wonderful morning. I hope the temperatures around you are more congenial than those surrounding me.

 

[F1fan]

This seems more dogmatic to me. You really haven’t debunked my position only established that you don’t believe it to be so no matter what the field of psychology does which is the study of the soul

False. My field of study in college was psychology, and two words that are never used are "soul" and "evil". These are religious terms, and irrelevant to studying human behavior. Soul is a broad metaphor that includes some human features, but these features have more specific and accurate words, like consciousness or agency. "Soul" is a fun and poetic word to use when fact and precision isn't necessary.

To explain why you are eager to make your claim here has a simple explanation in psychology. You recognize that the word "soul" has no definitive meaning or application, and you are claiming that it is what psychology examines as a way to give the word legitimacy and descriptive significance. The question is if you are self-aware enough to realize what you are doing, or acting on fear and impulse.

 

[F1fan]

Ok… obviously “show me a book” is an irrational request.

So let’s look at some info:

"But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts."

Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’

How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.

www.psychologytoday.com

Obviously, there will be the anti-soul position… I’m sure we can agree that the answer isn’t solid in any of the two positions.

There has been efforts to make science more attractive to the public for over a decade, expecially given the anti-science prejudice as promoted by the far right. Digging through the dust bin of human history the word "soul" has plucked out, and in your article it was brought back to life, but only as a "God of the gaps" reference. All the article really says is that there are still unknowns about how brains function, and the mystery of self-awareness and identity.

My own opinion is that humans are still trying to find some ultimate significance to the human species, and by association so is the self. Religions have a track record of creating a script, but a bad track record of finding any such significance. So now some folks in science are trying, which is also an old tradition. I think it a fool's errand, and illustrates the insecurity and neediness that most humans feel. There is a lot of effort extended to satisfy the ego and fear, and very little to help the individual learn emotional intelliegnce: stability and agency. We humans are very much like feral cats, that if our fear and insecurity is allowed to fester, and then exploited and become dependent on social/religious norms, we are set in our ways. And trying to mature beyond these behavioral patterns is a long shot.

 

[Kenny]

Between individuals with equivalent knowledge, experience and expertise, sure.

But other than personal bias, how would a person come to the best conclusion in your scenario?

I think that it will remain an unanswerable question which is why there is so much discussion on this issue. One’s person “best conclusion” would not be someone else's

By this view, opting to have me perform your necessary brain surgery while wondering why I started my first incision on your knee is OK

I think this is way out of proportion. We aren’t talking about two completely different things such as knee incision and brain surgery.

The context is when I said you get a second opinion that have different results we are talking about the same knee and surgeons that both have their degrees in knees.

I’m not sure where you are going with this or even why it is presented.

.

After all, I came to a different conclusion than the atheist physician and you'd be better off having a Christian perform the surgery, because on that basis I have a shared love and belief that will ensure your success? But that wouldn't be basing the decision on the evidence, but upon personal bias.

you completely lost me on what you are trying to say.

So there is a difference and some conclusions have more weight than others.

OK.

But people do not go to an entomologist or an auto mechanic to be diagnosed even if those two people will look at the same evidence.

The context is when I said you get a second opinion that have different results we are talking about the same knee and surgeons that both have their degrees in knees.

I appreciate that. It is just in the initial stages and, given all the demands on me, sadly may not unfold as I hope. Time will tell.

OK.. hope so.

I don't know what you mean by conscience here. Are you talking about a sense of morality? Some of that is verifiable.

I’m not so sure. The conscience would part of the soul. I think what is verifiable is that the mind needs to be operating and is united with the soul. I think I shouldn’t have mentioned it because it makes the breadth of what we are talking about too wide and then it becomes too deep to keep it on point.

Clearly we are learning a lot about brains and how they work. Why they work the way they do and the differences in them is a job for psychology.

Yes we are.

If I may, it seems that you are in that group that synonymize mind and soul as one thing with both a material and immaterial aspect. Would that be correct?

Yes, the soul will operate through the mind.

That is the crux of the issue and the apparent dichotomy.

As I have said ( I think)

So based on scripture you believe that spirit and soul are not synonymous. Is this view inserting a fourth element or just a difference in definition?

The context was “Does a puppy have a soul and how is it different from humans”. I am just showing that I believe they are different. Not “Inserting” necessarily but simply explaining your point

And teasing through all of that is where we end up here.

Have a wonderful morning. I hope the temperatures around you are more congenial than those surrounding me.

We will be in the 80’s today with sunshine!

Have a great day

 

[Kenny]

It seems that there are two developing or developed views of the soul here, No, sorry, I am wrong. There are three.

I'm limiting it to the context of this thread, because it is much more complex than that if you start to wonder afield.

Here is what I summarize of those views from the discussion so far.

1. Mind, body and soul as distinct aspects of the individual. Two physical aspects and one immaterial aspect.
2. Mind and soul synonymized within the body. The immaterial and material fused in some way as one thing that is all our thinking, personality and the us that is us.
3. No soul. Only mind and body.

To touch briefly on my allusions to the greater field of views, there is controversy on the existence, origin, number, duration, type, domain and on and on among different cultures, religions, times and so forth. Too complex for discussion here beyond the mere mention of all of that.

Conceptual definitions based on what is believed about the soul exist, but there is no known objective evidence to confirm these definitions or that the soul indeed does exist as those that believe that existence claim. In other words, the definitions are based on things believed and not the observation of the soul in hand.

My own view is based on belief and faith and not on any objective evidence I can present. It falls into the first category. I admit this knowing that I could be wrong about it and that my view is based on that bias and not on any objective evidence.

Very well painted.

I will also admit that I don’t know everything. In times past I have said that I can imagine Jesus sitting everyone down in the class of Christianity 101 to explain it correctly because I know I don’t know everything and the more I know the more I realize how little I know.

I would add a fourth somewhat like unto your #1 - because of my bias

Two immaterial aspects and one physical. The body, which includes the brain, the soul (mind, will and emotions), and the spirit). I usually say it this way, man is a spirit being that has a soul and lives in a body.

 

[Kenny]

False. My field of study in college was psychology, and two words that are never used are "soul" and "evil". These are religious terms, and irrelevant to studying human behavior. Soul is a broad metaphor that includes some human features, but these features have more specific and accurate words, like consciousness or agency. "Soul" is a fun and poetic word to use when fact and precision isn't necessary.

To explain why you are eager to make your claim here has a simple explanation in psychology. You recognize that the word "soul" has no definitive meaning or application, and you are claiming that it is what psychology examines as a way to give the word legitimacy and descriptive significance. The question is if you are self-aware enough to realize what you are doing, or acting on fear and impulse.

That would be a modern viewpoint, yes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that it will remain an unanswerable question which is why there is so much discussion on this issue. One’s person “best conclusion” would not be someone else's

I don't think it is unanswerable. A mechanics conclusions would be different from a physicians in the context of medical assessment. Which holds more weight and is really a complete look at the evidence?

I think this is way out of proportion. We aren’t talking about two completely different things such as knee incision and brain surgery.

The context is when I said you get a second opinion that have different results we are talking about the same knee and surgeons that both have their degrees in knees.

I’m not sure where you are going with this or even why it is presented.

It was presented to illustrate the very real point that an expert view is more important in some circumstances than in others. While we are all free to come to our own conclusions, the fact of the matter is that those conclusions are not equivalent and often wanting. That this exists as a fact is not evidence that a poor conclusion is sound reasoning for its acceptance merely because someone can derive it.

I think it is testable and that we are testing right now.

you completely lost me on what you are trying to say.

It was intended as an example of how bias can be the reason for accepting a conclusion instead of a careful evaluation of the facts. If a person picks or rejects a medical procedure on the basis of irrelevant conditions, they are not making a sound decision on the facts. People actually do this.

Merely claiming that it is simply a case of two people looking at the same evidence is really an insufficient excuse to reject a conclusion on that basis.

OK.


The context is when I said you get a second opinion that have different results we are talking about the same knee and surgeons that both have their degrees in knees.

See, even you would opt to go to an expert whose skills, education and experience put his look at the evidence in a superior position to an entomologist looking at the same evidence.

OK.. hope so.

It will depend on how much time I can set aside.

I’m not so sure. The conscience would part of the soul. I think what is verifiable is that the mind needs to be operating and is united with the soul. I think I shouldn’t have mentioned it because it makes the breadth of what we are talking about too wide and then it becomes too deep to keep it on point.

Any claim of a soul would need verification to demonstrate it. This would be the condition of something physical or a manifestation of the physical that, unlike the soul at this point, is merely speculated. We can examine conscience and observe it in action. That is not true of the soul.

If there is a mixed definition synonymizing soul and mind, then there would have to be some way to separate the two in order to say anything about the soul.

Yes we are.

Agreed.

Yes, the soul will operate through the mind.

Never-the-less, the existence of the soul needs to be established in either view as separate or in conjunction with the mind. That is where we are and where mankind has always been as far as I am aware.

As I have said ( I think)


The context was “Does a puppy have a soul and how is it different from humans”. I am just showing that I believe they are different. Not “Inserting” necessarily but simply explaining your point

I'm still trying to understand what you mean here. Is the spirit the same as soul or another distinct aspect of the whole organism?

We will be in the 80’s today with sunshine!

Have a great day

Rub it in. LOL! I hope you enjoy it. It is cold and rainy here. Still a good day in its own context for reasons more than just the weather.

Take care.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here is what I summarize of those views from the discussion so far.

1. Mind, body and soul as distinct aspects of the individual. Two physical aspects and one immaterial aspect.
2. Mind and soul synonymized within the body. The immaterial and material fused in some way as one thing that is all our thinking, personality and the us that is us.
3. No soul. Only mind and body.

Interesting. How are 2 and 3 different if mind and soul are treated as synonyms.

Also, when you use the word immaterial, do you mean not made of matter, like energy or force, or not part of physical reality, which would be unlike energy and force. For me, energy is physical but immaterial, whereas matter is both and is a specific form of the immaterial made material, and by this reckoning, the material and immaterial are continually fused, as when a star (material and physical) generates a gravitational field (immaterial and physical) with controls the movement of an orbiting planet (matter).

I ask because some posit nonphysical reality, which they call immaterial, but I would call supernatural to distinguish from the immaterial aspects of physical reality (nature).

With that in mind, I would write it like this:

1. Soul refers to something not physical (supernatural) able to exist outside of nature, not made of matter or energy, and able to survive death.
2. Soul refers to personality (metaphor for something generated by the physical brain and which does not survive destruction of the brain)

What do you think?

Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’

How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.

www.psychologytoday.com

Obviously, there will be the anti-soul position… I’m sure we can agree that the answer isn’t solid in any of the two positions.

I looked at the article, and it didn't live up to the claim in its title: "Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’"

He writes, "But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational." What irrational enigmas, and how does the concept of the soul make them rational. He doesn't say.

The only science in the article was a description of the slit-lamp experiment and the role of consciousness in collapsing quantum probability waves into particles, and a reference to 430 atoms clusters demonstrating quantum uncertainty at a more macroscopic level, which is what Schrödinger's cat did as a thought experiment, but this isn't support for any claim about the soul being anything but another word for mind or an aspect of mind.

Also, he contradicts your claim about the soul being a scientific concept or a part of science with, "As I sit here in my office surrounded by piles of scientific books, I can't find a single reference to the soul, or any notion of an immaterial, eternal essence that occupies our being. Indeed, a soul has never been seen under an electron microscope, nor spun in the laboratory in a test tube or ultra-centrifuge. According to these books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death."

So where's the evidence for a soul he claims exists? Nowhere in that article. He's describing mind.

Incidentally, this is how Deepak Chopra started. Also a graduate of Harvard medical school, who also began pitching hocus-pocus and discovered he could make a better living there, and ended up abandoning scientific medicine. To his credit, Lanza hasn't done that, but he has crossed a line pitching to the lay community in Psychology Today, using clickbait (a misleading title), and referring to a hypothesis like "biocentrism" as a scientific theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very well painted.

I will also admit that I don’t know everything. In times past I have said that I can imagine Jesus sitting everyone down in the class of Christianity 101 to explain it correctly because I know I don’t know everything and the more I know the more I realize how little I know.

I would add a fourth somewhat like unto your #1 - because of my bias

Two immaterial aspects and one physical. The body, which includes the brain, the soul (mind, will and emotions), and the spirit). I usually say it this way, man is a spirit being that has a soul and lives in a body.

Okay. So I was beginning to understand what you are saying about spirit.

As I said, this is a very complex issue that extends well-beyond this truncated conception used here.

From a scientific perspective, there is no evidence to consider a soul or a spirit mind you, but because we can imagine so much, we can still discuss it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting. How are 2 and 3 different if mind and soul are treated as synonyms.

That is a good question and I don't really know. Synonymizing a believed aspect with the mind bears the same issues as considering that believed aspect as distinct from the mind. Nothing to test.

I would think that for the third option, since the conclusion is no soul, it is outside of the need to consider the distinctions of separate and synonymous. It would be none in either case.

Also, when you use the word immaterial, do you mean not made of matter, like energy or force, or not part of physical reality, which would be unlike energy and force.

I'm basing it on what I have read and it seems the soul is immaterial in the sense that it outside and apart from physical reality. Which makes arguing for its exists particularly pesky for those claiming it isn't just a belief, but an actual thing.

For me, energy is physical but immaterial, whereas matter is both and is a specific form of the immaterial made material, and by this reckoning, the material and immaterial are continually fused, as when a star (material and physical) generates a gravitational field (immaterial and physical) with controls the movement of an orbiting planet (matter).

I ask because some posit nonphysical reality, which they call immaterial, but I would call supernatural to distinguish from the immaterial aspects of physical reality (nature).

I'm aware that there are limitations to the terminology I'm using, but I tried my best to use something that I thought best in describing these things. It would certainly help to have solid and agreed upon terminology to aid in the discussion. That is probably more the result that a soul is just a conceived thing with no objective manifestation in the physical realm and the concept I'm finding has more descriptions than I can wrap my head around.

With that in mind, I would write it like this:

1. Soul refers to something not physical (supernatural) able to exist outside of nature, not made of matter or energy, and able to survive death.
2. Soul refers to personality (metaphor for something generated by the physical brain and which does not survive destruction of the brain)

What do you think?

I think that you have it. The former describes what I think has been the traditional view of what a soul is. The latter seems to be an attempt to mix it with the physical to give some credence to its existence while agreeing with the opposing view that it cannot be determined to exist in the physical. It seems like an attempt at a syncretic fusion of what we know of the mind and what is believed to amount to the soul.

Again, not something testable, given that it is agreed as near as I can tell, that the soul is supernatural.

I looked at the article, and it didn't live up to the claim in its title: "Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’"

I haven't read it yet but am interested in your take on this.

He writes, "But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational." What irrational enigmas, and how does the concept of the soul make them rational. He doesn't say.

The only science in the article was a description of the slit-lamp experiment and the role of consciousness in collapsing quantum probability waves into particles, and a reference to 430 atoms clusters demonstrating quantum uncertainty at a more macroscopic level, which is what Schrödinger's cat did as a thought experiment, but this isn't support for any claim about the soul being anything but another word for mind or an aspect of mind.

Also, he contradicts your claim about the soul being a scientific concept or a part of science with, "As I sit here in my office surrounded by piles of scientific books, I can't find a single reference to the soul, or any notion of an immaterial, eternal essence that occupies our being. Indeed, a soul has never been seen under an electron microscope, nor spun in the laboratory in a test tube or ultra-centrifuge. According to these books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death."

Actually, I haven't made that claim that the soul is a scientific concept. I don't know of any reason to consider it so. That may have been someone else that said that.

Sorry @It Aint Necessarily So, I just responded to you entire post without considering that you were giving multiple responses to different members.

So where's the evidence for a soul he claims exists? Nowhere in that article. He's describing mind.

Incidentally, this is how Deepak Chopra started. Also a graduate of Harvard medical school, who also began pitching hocus-pocus and discovered he could make a better living there, and ended up abandoning scientific medicine. To his credit, Lanza hasn't done that, but he has crossed a line pitching to the lay community in Psychology Today, using clickbait (a misleading title), and referring to a hypothesis like "biocentrism" as a scientific theory.

There are a lot of claims without any substance to back them up. If I could do anything, it would be to convince people of that fact regarding believed things.

 

[Kenny]

I don't think it is unanswerable. A mechanics conclusions would be different from a physicians in the context of medical assessment. Which holds more weight and is really a complete look at the evidence?

I must have misunderstand the context. I thought the context was the soul

The answer is obvious… for medical needs, a physician is the one we rely on.

That being said, if I were presented by a Medical or Psychiatric PhD that an man can be a woman, I would trust the mechanic if he said, “that is not possible”.

It was presented to illustrate the very real point that an expert view is more important in some circumstances than in others. While we are all free to come to our own conclusions, the fact of the matter is that those conclusions are not equivalent and often wanting. That this exists as a fact is not evidence that a poor conclusion is sound reasoning for its acceptance merely because someone can derive it.

Yes with the caveat of “some circumstances” as stated in the answer above.

I think it is testable and that we are testing right now.

Hope so… that being said — sometimes conclusions are still biased (as it would be mine too).

It was intended as an example of how bias can be the reason for accepting a conclusion instead of a careful evaluation of the facts. If a person picks or rejects a medical procedure on the basis of irrelevant conditions, they are not making a sound decision on the facts. People actually do this.

I agree with this but I’m not sure it is relevant (below)

Merely claiming that it is simply a case of two people looking at the same evidence is really an insufficient excuse to reject a conclusion on that basis.

Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’

How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.

www.psychologytoday.com

So we have two different viewpoints as they look at the same subject.

See, even you would opt to go to an expert whose skills, education and experience put his look at the evidence in a superior position to an entomologist looking at the same evidence

of course, but I still don’t think we are both talking about apples (soul) in this case

It will depend on how much time I can set aside.

Any claim of a soul would need verification to demonstrate it. This would be the condition of something physical or a manifestation of the physical that, unlike the soul at this point, is merely speculated. We can examine conscience and observe it in action. That is not true of the soul.

If there is a mixed definition synonymizing soul and mind, then there would have to be some way to separate the two in order to say anything about the soul.

Agreed.

Never-the-less, the existence of the soul needs to be established in either view as separate or in conjunction with the mind. That is where we are and where mankind has always been as far as I am aware.

Ok… what have we found out (evidence) about the soul?

I'm still trying to understand what you mean here. Is the spirit the same as soul or another distinct aspect of the whole organism?

they are different components of the whole organism

Rub it in. LOL! I hope you enjoy it. It is cold and rainy here. Still a good day in its own context for reasons more than just the weather.

Take care.

- Hope you have a great day.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok… obviously “show me a book” is an irrational request.

OK, an academic reference. A professional journal.

And, why exactly is a book reference an irrational request?

So let’s look at some info:

"But biocentrism — a new "theory of everything" — challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts."

Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’

How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.

www.psychologytoday.com

Obviously, there will be the anti-soul position… I’m sure we can agree that the answer isn’t solid in any of the two positions.

Interesting that the main piece of 'evidence' was badly understood quantum mechanics. Sorry, but the double slit experiment is NOT about consciousness. And yes, the effects are seen even if nobody is looking as long as there is a device obtaining measurements.