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

[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’

New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension.

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’

New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension.

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.

 

[Polymath257]

That would be a modern viewpoint, yes.

The modern viewpoint based on evidence, reasoning, and skepticism. As opposed to the ancient viewpoint based on ignorance, superstition, and faith.

 

[Polymath257]

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

OK, so there is no evidence that would convince a skeptic? The 'best conclusion' is whatever feels good to you?

If that is all you are saying, then it is a personal opinion and nothing more. And after that, I have no issue.

You can believe in dragons, unicorns, fairies, souls, deities, or whatever else you want *as a matter of personal opinion*.

I do get nervous when people claiming they *know* things without evidence then go on to vote based on thoseoptions in ways that affect others that don't share those opinions.

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

We are talking about whether there is evidence for a soul and how it would be evaluated. If everyone is equally qualified, then NOBODY is qualified.

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.

OK, so we have two opinions about souls. What steps can we take to resolve the differences? What evidence would be relevant one way or the other?

And another: you claim that babies are different because of a soul and not because of the physical aspects *even though the physical aspects are different*. In what way are the physical differences, specifically in the brain, not enough to account for the differences in personality?

 

[Polymath257]

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

OK, under the hypothesis of a soul, what specific, testable predictions can you make?

Via what mechanism does the soul 'control the body'? How do you reconcile this control with what we know of, say, conservation of energy?

Does the soul control at the level of neurons or of neural pathways, or on the brain as a whole? What would be evidence for such control that is not explained in more detail by the known physical properties of the brain?

And yes, the lack of such details means that your proposal doesn't even get to the stage of needing to be 'debunked': it isn't even wrong.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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.

It appears to me that proving the existence of the soul to skeptics is very important to you. Why is that, may I ask?

 

[Polymath257]

It appears to me that proving the existence of the soul to skeptics is very important to you. Why is that, may I ask?

Because I want to avoid error. The best way to do so is to be skeptical. Also, suppose someone managed to prove the existence of a soul or anything else nonmaterial. That would open up huge horizons of new scientific investigation. The techniques used might be useful for investigating other things.

It is nothing different than expecting gravitational waves to be proven or the existence of the Higgs boson, or the existence of dark matter. Alternative ideas should be investigated, but skeptically. Theories, however interesting, may not pan out and will then need to be put aside.

Two things could happen when asking for proof: either nothing is found, in which case we can discard that possibility, or something is found and new things are open to being studied. Either way it is a win.

What I would ask is why proving such things is not important to many. Why would one believe before evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

That is certainly possible that a psychology book will not use the word soul. I did take psychology in college, thinking I'd be interested in it. (I was not after that class because I felt it was banal and vapid Empty. Just to kmow, I further read Freud and Jung after that, also to no avail except that poor Jung went off the beam anyway in his orgone box.)
Now here's the thing -- a person can go on trial for a vicious, violent act, or maybe he was drunk and ran over a pedestrian, killing him. Either way -- would a psychology book claim it was evolution that led his conscious being to do these things? I believe it would, if indeed it went into a bit of evolutionary "science" or presumptive thinking of the -- psyche. Now my opinion of that possibility is -- utter ridiculousness. It makes far more sense to me that loving education of the psyche was taken away from Adam and Eve when they sinned against the God that made them and God left them off to themselves to determine right from wrong or good vs. evil. Naturally I believe you will disagree with that -- but that's how I see it and it makes sense to me. God did not offer education to gorillas, bumblebees, and fish. Only to Adam and Eve in the beginning.
The Mosaic Law came later. For a reason.
@Kenny Also, I'm hoping you will read this. Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

It appears to me that proving the existence of the soul to skeptics is very important to you. Why is that, may I ask?

I'm going to elaborate a bit further.

People have believed a wide range of things over recorded history. Most of these things were wrong, or at least incomplete. The way we determine which ideas are right and which are wrong is by observation, testing, and reason. We *know* that emotions are often involved and can lead a person astray. So we should try to reduce the amount that emotions are used in the determination of truth. We *know* that people have been superstitious and that has lead to actions that were unnecessary or dangerous. We *know* that getting things wrong can lead to bad choices, bad public policy, etc.

Many people believe in a soul. But, amazingly, nobody seems to actually be able to give any evidence for such a thing. if anything, most people try to *avoid* any discussion of evidence. And that leads me to think that it is MOSTLY a product of superstition and error as opposed to being simply a disagreement. Otherwise, rigorous investigations into 'souls' would have found solid evidence of them. The fact that the belief is so common and the evidence non-existent tells me it is emotions at play and NOT reason, evidence, logic, or a desire to find the truth.

Ultimately, I want to understand how things work. I want to know what is true and to discard what is false (ideas that are neither are a different matter, by the way). I also prefer that others have similar skepticism simply because I live in a society where the actions (and thereby the beliefs) of others affect me and those I care about.

 

[YoursTrue]

It appears to me that proving the existence of the soul to skeptics is very important to you. Why is that, may I ask?

I haven't gone into much about the soul yet and translation and application. I know you didn't direct that above to me, but I thought I'd answer it anyway. It becomes a bit interesting as we look at what the Bible says and why -- God will not/cannot/and does not intend to have anyone, even the worst unrepentant sinner suffer in conscious torment in some place called hell. Later for that though -- perhaps. I say perhaps because as the Bible says, I do not know if I'll be able to discuss this later, but I hope the best for you. Definitely no conscious torment, though. For anyone.
James 4:14 -
Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.
@Polymath257

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

There's more and more and more. And just imagine how much more to come!
P.S. A neurologist told me about the connection between eyesight and the brain and that everything is connected to the brain. Amazing, is it not? Yes, I think so. God has done things for us in wondrous ways. He told Adam, not gorillas, to not eat the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden. However it happened, it makes absolute sense to me. (He didn't tell that to gorillas, and gorillas do not have law books and lawyers, etc. That "proves" it. )

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm going to elaborate a bit further.

People have believed a wide range of things over recorded history. Most of these things were wrong, or at least incomplete. The way we determine which ideas are right and which are wrong is by observation, testing, and reason. We *know* that emotions are often involved and can lead a person astray. So we should try to reduce the amount that emotions are used in the determination of truth. We *know* that people have been superstitious and that has lead to actions that were unnecessary or dangerous. We *know* that getting things wrong can lead to bad choices, bad public policy, etc.

Many people believe in a soul. But, amazingly, nobody seems to actually be able to give any evidence for such a thing. if anything, most people try to *avoid* any discussion of evidence. And that leads me to think that it is MOSTLY a product of superstition and error as opposed to being simply a disagreement. Otherwise, rigorous investigations into 'souls' would have found solid evidence of them. The fact that the belief is so common and the evidence non-existent tells me it is emotions at play and NOT reason, evidence, logic, or a desire to find the truth.

Ultimately, I want to understand how things work. I want to know what is true and to discard what is false (ideas that are neither are a different matter, by the way). I also prefer that others have similar skepticism simply because I live in a society where the actions (and thereby the beliefs) of others affect me and those I care about.

I am not going into detail now about what comprises a soul in the biblical sense. However, yes -- Matthew 10:28 says,
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
So then, according to this, the SOUL can be destroyed...Gone...forever...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

I find in the Bible one's spirit is a neuter "it" as mentioned at Ecclesiastes 12:7 B.
God's spirit (Psalm 104:30) is also a neuter genderless "it" according to Numbers 11:17,25 ( it ).
So, as God's spirit is also Not a person, but His impersonal power kind of like a Power Plant's power grid.
Which sends out power to accomplish something. God's spirit is what guided Jesus to accomplish what he did.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I am not going into detail now about what comprises a soul in the biblical sense. However, yes -- Matthew 10:28 says,
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
So then, according to this, the SOUL can be destroyed...Gone...forever...

I'd like to add just as Adam became a living soul until Adam died.
God breathed the breath of life into lifeless Adam - Genesis 2:7 - than Adam came to life.
So, Adam went from non-life, to life, and returned back to non-life.
A person can Not return to a place he never was before, so Adam simply returned back to the dust of the ground.

 

[Kenny]

OK, an academic reference. A professional journal.

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


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.

I translate that into “no answer will be a good answer” for you.

 

[Kenny]

There's more and more and more. And just imagine how much more to come!
P.S. A neurologist told me about the connection between eyesight and the brain and that everything is connected to the brain. Amazing, is it not? Yes, I think so. God has done things for us in wondrous ways. He told Adam, not gorillas, to not eat the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden. However it happened, it makes absolute sense to me. (He didn't tell that to gorillas, and gorillas do not have law books and lawyers, etc. That "proves" it. )

I’ve also learned that when you are holding bitterness, it creates dark spots on your brains and what looks like leaves on the nerve endings eventual leave. (Forgiveness is so important). And that you joy can actually create new pathways in your brain.

 

[Kenny]

It appears to me that proving the existence of the soul to skeptics is very important to you. Why is that, may I ask?

Actually, it isn’t. I am completely finished with the discussion with Polymath. It has been mostly just a desire to see where he/she was going with it. My last post with the poster is just two posts above.

With Dan it is more like a great discussion of thoughts, which I like.

By and large with non-theists and atheists, on this forum, it is more of the pounding of positions that it is a sharing of ideas or thoughts. IMV.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, so there is no evidence that would convince a skeptic? The 'best conclusion' is whatever feels good to you?

I believe that Jesus met Paul on the road to Damascus as he was bent on persecuting Christians. I realize many do not believe that.

Acts 26:
But I have had God’s help to this day, and I stand here to testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen: that the Christ would suffer, and as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to our people and to the Gentiles.”
At this stage of Paul’s defense, Festus exclaimed in a loud voice, “You are insane, Paul! Your great learning is driving you to madness!”
But Paul answered, “I am not insane, most excellent Festus; I am speaking words of truth and sobriety. 26For the king knows about these matters, and I can speak freely to him. I am confident that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. 27King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Can you persuade me in such a short time to become a Christian?”
“Short time or long,” Paul replied, “I wish to God that not only you but all who hear me this day may become what I am, except for these chains.”