Rate this Entry

5 : Excellent 4 : Good 3 : Average 2 : Bad 1 : Terrible

Soul or no soul?!

Posted 08-04-2008 at 11:17 PM by Vent

I recently had a conversation with my father (who's obviously not a philosopher) about my philosophy class that I really like at school.
I was just testing him with some random questions, with this question as well. If you want to know his answer, well, he was contradicting himself.

~before I start~
Let me ask you the same question:
"Do humans have something called a soul that animals, plants and things that never lived lack?"

Believe me, it's more fun if you've an opinion beforehand before diving in of that of another.

On another note. I discussed this many times with a good friend of mine. We all agree on most points, but it's still a really fun topic to discuss about. Even if we agree on most parts, other parts are still left in the dark...ready to be explored.

~BEWARE!~
Right, loss of sanity again, but since this is about souls, I suggest not to read it if you're with any of the religions on the world. You might find the following...disturbing, to say the least.
Also, you may get a sudden fear of death if you read this. Just don't tell me I never warned you...

~Soul or no soul?!~

The first thing what's really interesting about this topic is this: What is a soul? The definition of soul is pretty relative. Some people say it's a special material, but material nonetheless, someothers say it's not a material, but something completely different.

However, there are points where an average person agrees on on the term 'soul':
- it's the essence of what makes us human
- it's what really is US, I mean our consciousness.
- our body is just a box where our soul is in (or trapped in, like some religions dictate)
- humans distinquish from other things by this 'soul'
- a soul is immortal
- a soul is separated from the body when a phenomenon we call 'death' occurs

I'm not going to attack any of these assumptions. I'll just make a few examples to point your in the right direction along with my opinions on it.

Let me ask you something at this stage. If you've answered 'yes' at the beginning of this blog, you're most likely to change that after you've read this.
There isn't scietific evidence that indicates that there exist something that is anywhere close to a soul. We, humans, can only sense something that is made of something, not something that is not made of one.
Descartes and other philosophers raised an obvious question: If a soul is immaterial, how can it effect something that is material?
My answer to that is...not? Again, there's no logical evidence that there should be something like that IN THE FIRST PLACE! A soul is an assumption, just as God. (I mean no offense to believers, atleast it's a optimistic thing to believe in).

My guess: 'There's nothing in the world that is a soul'. If the soul is a material, it can die, so it will disappear too if a human dies.
So everything is made of material (you can relate energy to material, so it's the same thing...more or less)

What's more fun to talk about computers at this stage? You're behind one right now. Just FEEL the computer...and continue...haha. It's material!
Right, CAN computers have a soul? Most people would say 'NO' immediately. But think about it. What makes us different that computers? Right, now you probably think a lot of reasons, most likely emotions too. Too bad, I'm just going to attack that one...hard.
People can program computers to have emotions. They're able to react to in some way if they sense a certain thing around them. Now you probably say that's just a programmed reaction and not emotion itself, since humans feel something in the progress and computers can't feel those. Or can they? Didn't we just establish that a soul is our consciousness? And that a soul is made of material. remember the 'CAN' at the third sentence of this paragraph? Right, if something is material, it's only logical we can make an artificial one, an artificial soul. Sounds contradicting, no? But it isn't as weird as it seems. Forget what you've learned about a soul and think about it, it's quiet possible.
So computers can have souls, we just don't have the technology yet to make one.

Now there's no reason to distinquish humans from machines. What about animals? Do they've a consciousness? Most people say they don't. But why? Animals can't think as logically as humans, that's true. But compare a Pentium I to a Pentium IV, are they really different?
Animals show pain and anger, that's for sure. So they have emotions. Why don't they have a soul then? Maybe not a powerful one as us, but definately one. If you see another human, you only see his emotions, you can't 'feel' his emotions. It's the same for humans looking at an animal. (really tempting to go sidetracked here...)
So what have we established here? That a soul can be powerful and less powerful, just like a Pentium CPU. So it's something more complicated than just a molecule, or something like that. A soul seems a combination of materials that form a soul together.
My best guess now that a WHOLE BODY together can form a soul. So a soul isn't more than just a bunch of cells.

~ergo~
We are no different than computers nor animals. Evertyhing in this world is a bunch of materials that form something. Even a soul falls in that categorie.
You know...I always say why there should be a soul in the first place. We just WANT a soul, so we don't need to be afraid of death anymore as we used to be. But a number of others things too, something as putting ourselves in the center of creation, once again.
I don't mind you believing in it, but I think there just isn't a soul!

~the other side~
As an end note, I would like to state some things that are just too vague for me to answer. They're arguments for that there IS a soul. It's the following:

- How do you explain the phenomenon death? As in a body living for a second then not living for the other?
- How do you explain the fact that a person that just died is slightly lighter? By a couple of grams I believe if you're interested. (SCIENCE!)

I can answer the first one by saying that it's just a malfunction, just like a computer. The second is a complete mystery to me. It seems that it's a fact, but what does it mean? Is it even relevant?

I'd like to end today's blog here. Thanks for reading this mess.

Posted in Mindbusters

Views 594 Comments 5

Comments

1. hmm, for me, the anser to the first question different from the norm from most people. I am a big believer that the Material Universe is an illusion, and I wonder, why am i being born into this time period, where everything that could kill me is becoming safe, where everything is already set for me to use it. I believe that death itself is an illusion, put on only by yourself onto others. so, for me to answer it in the way of souls, is hard with my beliefs. hmm, dont know how to explain in philosophical terms the second question. maybe scientific though. since oxygen causes aging, and muscle and cell deterioration. then maybe someone with more cells requires more oxygen to fuel them, thus causing aging and death faster. ill try philosophy on the second one. um, well... maybe... ok, let me try this... maybe, your.. soul is... more..uh,.. special?.. and thus, uh.. it is... um heavier???

   Posted 08-05-2008 at 06:48 PM by Volfen

2. 	So you're a follower of Plato in some ways. He says we shouldn't trust our senses, since what we see in front of us isn't the truth, or how you say it, an illusion. Plato says we've a soul and that it comes from what he calls the idea world. Where everything we see in our material world exist, but then in the perfect and true form.
   	Posted 08-06-2008 at 01:30 AM by Vent

3. I think one flaw in your logic (And no offense of course, I just want to think along other lines) is that you can't prove that the soul isn't immaterial nor can you prove that it doesn't exist. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and as I've learned in all my science classes, the burden of proof is on science. I think making the assumption that a soul is material is just as unsupported logically as it being immaterial. I think pointing out the differences between humans versus animals/plants, and computers is more important to realizing what a soul *might* contribute than looking at similarities. In the end, if we have something that they don't, then perhaps there would be some evidence even if we can't see the source. I've actually pondered this over and over, especially since I don't have the Biblical knowledge to get any definitive answers on this topic. But, what came to mind is first, our ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Animals and plants act based upon sheer survival. Their every action is to create a way to survive better than other creatures, hence Darwin's theories on survival of the fittest. Computers are programmed to do certain actions based upon what their masters (programmers or users) demand of it. If a computer has a calculator program, I can program it so that if I use the integer of 5, and add it to another integer of 5, I can have the program produce an integer of 10. The computer cannot feel what it's doing, nor can it decide not to do it on it's own accord. So then, what about a human. If humans also live by survival of the fittest, then why do people suffer from this disorder called a conscience. If our goal is to be the fittest creature, then why do we feel bad when we steal from someone to improve our own social standing? Animals and plants do not feel bad if it kills to achieve greater status. How come then, even in the earliest recorded writings, there was guilt present when we murdered another human being? Or, why is it from our earliest recorded historical writings, that love is present? Animals mate with the strongest animals to create stronger offspring. While there are incidences of girls wanting to marry the strongest or richest males, or males wanting to marry the most beautiful women, we also suffer from this affliction called love, which can make us care for someone even if they aren't the brightest or best. These emotions or feelings or the metaphorical "heart" suggest that there might be something affecting humans that do not similarly effect animals or plants or computers. It also tells me that it's likely not a product of evolution, since it actually prohibits our success in surviving rather than increase it. And, if we are the most highly evolved creatures, which derived from other mammals, where did we pick up these bad habits from? Basically, I think there is evidence to support that there's definitive differences between humans and other life forms that can't really be explained. Is it the soul that makes us do that? I can't prove that. But, there's a possibility that it is. And, there's a possibility that it is a non-material entity that can effect our material beings. Until we have the technology to study non-material space, we should not assume that it doesn't exist, or put limits on what it can and cannot do. When the Roman Catholic Church was the leading "scientific" authorities, they assumed that everything revolved around the sun when they could not study it and with no Biblical evidence to support it. There was also the assumption that the world was flat because they had not attempted to sail around the world to explore it. In the same way, true to science, I don't like to put limits on what is beyond our scientific understanding until we do have the technology to better understand it.

   Posted 08-11-2008 at 12:54 PM by Kattrina

4. Let me start this off that how sure I may sound, I don't know anything sure! Nor am I fully convinced of anything that I said. What we both say is based on assumptions. Basic assumptions that need exploring, but it would take really long to do so. So we usually keep them as assumptions, till they one thinks it's really relevant, important or interesting to go exploring one. It's really hard to define a soul. If you look up at the dictionary, it says 'immaterial' in most of them. So I just thought it's commonly accepted that a soul is immaterial. Your idea is based on the assumption that we animals, plants and computers don't and can't know what's right and what's wrong. I'm not saying you're 100% sure here, but what you said is based on this. Hmm how to start this. It seems that animals and plants can't see what's right or what's wrong. If that's the case, then we really are different from them. But how? In other words, can we find the answer by examining a body of a human and an animal? If we look at computers. We might be able to build a computer that is capable of what humans can. We might be able to program a protocol to let a computer make decisions from judging the circumstances. IF that's possible, then I'm pretty much convinced that a soul is not a single little miraculous thing. It's actually a combination of things, like a brain perhaps. Another thing people really like to say. We can program a computer all we want, but he only follows orders, he doesn't know what he's doing. Right, that's a really good argument and I may have a temporary answer for that. We humans have something that is called intersubjective experiences. It's a really powerful something that is worth thinking about. You know when you see someone eating sugar, you get that sweet taste. Yet you aren't experiencing what the person you see is experiencing. You just mimic his experience based on your own experience with sugar (can't use other words in this case ). Why am I saying this? Erm...you've no idea how a computer experiences sugar if he has a sensor to sense it. So what I mean is that since we don't have any intersubjective experience with a computer, we don't know its feelings. So we just assume it doesn't have them. Right...really vague. I know. Hmm, can't explain it better than that without making it another long story. Hope you can understand it.

   Posted 08-11-2008 at 11:45 PM by Vent

5. The world is all in our experience. All theories cannot be proven but can be falsified. Good science is constant testing. (I just realized I used Kattrina's examples but...) Remember when we thought the world was flat and pretty much everybody agreed? What if those scientists and observers just gave up and accepted it for a fact? We probably would have never found out it is in fact round. Remember when the scholastics said that the earth was the center of the solar system? Uh oh, think again. And so I'm a little more original here, Socrates, Newton, Einstein, gravity. Science is not objective. Law is not objective. Nothing is objective. Science is simply a consistent cause-and-effect we observe and somewhat seem to accept. What if suddent A->B becomes A->C? Proof and any of its other forms is a bad word in philosophy and science. Just because there is no scientific evidence of something does not mean it does not exist. Scientific evidence suggests, argues, contends, proposes, but never proves anything. It's like saying that the big bang created the universe but then what created the big bang? There's some scientific theory or law that mass cannot be created or destroyed. Some major contradiction there. Hey, maybe it was God who created the big bang, which created the universe. Uh oh! There are things in this material world that seem to have no explanation, only hypotheses. How about ball lightning? I assume you follow the mind-brain identity. You've established the definition of soul for your sake of argument but it just seems like you're talking about the mind (consciousness, emotions, rationality, mental processing, etc.). Now you see, if everything is empirical in this world, we lack any free choice. You, therefore, contradict yourself because how can you choose to believe in a soul or not? Your "choice" was made for you. Brain is mind, right? So our emotions are basically just a bunch of chemical processes in the brain. So since that's the case, everything in this world is predetermined because of social situations, bodily functions, genetics, instincts, evolution, etc. You were basically born through an extremely long series of predetermined chain of events. For example, if your ancestor had chosen a different mate compared to the one that s/he did, things would be drastically different. However, going by your theory, there actually is no choice in the matter -- in any matter. The ancestor experienced a certain social situation which led to another situation while under the effects of X chemical, which causes a performed action, so on, so forth. That may be how our world operates but I certainly am not happy with that, at all. Can you measure a mind? Can you see it? You may see the brain but what about everything else? Remember Descartes? "I think therefore I am." Evil genius experiment. Just throwing things out there. It's hard to deny that you exist, have a mind, think. Here's something else. If you believe in that theory, maybe you can compare the body of an animal and human. Maybe later on, we can distinguish brain patterns and chemicals to seek a sense of morality inside animals. Just as later on, we may create AI capable of a "soul" or essentially a mind. So if you're capable of building it, why would you be unable to know how the unit processes? Lacks logic there. Begs the question. There's no scientific proof that computers, animals, or plants expressing or containing rationality so therefore it doesn't exist (applying your logic there). Whoops, not so convenient now. And another thing is that you're arguing against, for lack of a better word, religion (I know you're not specifically targetting religion, at least I hope), which is a matter of faith. Even if people can somehow, one day, "prove" that a soul or God or whatever does not exist does not mean you will persuade them. What if they "proved" that the soul existed? Would you accept it? Kierkegaard doesn't call it the "leap of faith" for nothing. You're repeating Aquinas' mistake of trying to rationalize something that cannot be rationalized. It is beyond the natural; yet, you're arguing in terms of the natural. It doesn't work. How can you "prove" that something does not exist? Impossible. Also, just because something is material does not mean we can replicate it (at least not yet). Do you have any idea how complex our circulatory system is (Family Guy reference)? How about our brain? However, I'll give you this. If we are able to perfectly clone a normal functioning human later on, then maybe there is no soul. How does one even obtain a soul? Aren't humans giving birth to humans? Miracle of life? Who knows? Science can only take you so far. It makes me question what you think of human potential. Humans did, in fact, create science and technology, at least I think. O_O; I believe that after-life devalues life. I hate the idea. I'm existentialist (big surprise there! ;P). I also hate authority. So know that I don't entirely disagree with you on God, death, and the soul. I do, however, spot fallacies as well as flawed logic. You contradict yourself and beg the question. The way you typed your argument also bothered me especially this statement: "If you've answered 'yes' at the beginning of this blog, you're most likely to change that after you've read this." I won't say anything specific about that sentence but it reeks of something(s). Language is powerful. Be careful. It's good to be skeptical.

   Posted 08-28-2008 at 02:04 AM by sho

Trackbacks

Vent

• Join Date Jul 2008
• Posts 131
• Blog Entries 5

• Find Blog Entries by Vent

  Containing Text: Search Titles Only

  Advanced Search
• Blog Categories

  • Mindbusters
  • Gaming
• Recent Comments

  • Regarding my quote by Noscrub
  • Chance by pernicion
  • Soul or no soul?! by sho
• Recent Entries

  • Chance
  • Friend or foe?
  • Soul or no soul?!
  • My gaming history
  • Regarding my quote
• Recent Visitors

  • aiontyler
  • dominius
  • Funkydrummer57
  • Iggyefex
  • Ipod
  • Marcus Ferret
  • Noscrub
  • Taeia
  • Zeruel
  • ~Polaris Nova~

• Archive
  <   >  November 2009
  Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
  25	26	27	28	29	30	31
  1	2	3	4	5	6	7
  8	9	10	11	12	13	14
  15	16	17	18	19	20	21
  22	23	24	25	26	27	28
  29	30	1	2	3	4	5