The human soul

Inspire by another topic, I thought this was a big enough question in itself to explore here.

What are your thoughts on the human soul? Does it exist? Doesn’t it? If it does? What does the soul “include” (personality, memory, etc)? Where does it reside? Do non-humans (animals, trees) have one? Do inert beings (mountains, for instance) have one? Have you had any experiences that have given you evidence for the probability of the human soul?

Manu wrote: Does it exist?

It does for some and not for others :ohmy: :laugh: ... as a belief and/or experience I suppose. It's obviously a good one for Jedi to have if they partial to including the movies, and it is something within my working models of the Force as I have had enough positive hits with it to have kept it in my efforts. Is it really real.... its just another one of these examples of asking for physical proof of something said to be non-physical, and probably a sort of category mistake. But for me illusion is not a dirty word on its own, and so belief need not extend into objective reality for it to have purpose.

I understand the conventional idea of the soul to be related to what we understand to be consciousness combined with our ego-identity, like each of our individual identities and awareness is powered by some kind of "spiritual program" conceived by a programmer ("God").

I find myself believing that at least this idea of a soul is a superstitious explanation for our individual identities (ie. "why am I 'me' and not someone else?").

As for what could be a more accurate idea for this, I'm not sure but I'm mostly inclined to refer to writings of Carl Jung for a more psychological angle on this.

This isn't an answer to Manu's questions but I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to watch this talk by Dr. Iain McGilchrist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ryt_dCHt5o&t=256s

This is the music from the section muted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSNot2pen7Q

It generated quite a bit of discussion in the press:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/03/science-soul-philosophy
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/07/soul-criticism-andrew-brown-science-self-knowledge

Some notes here:
http://www.markvernon.com/what-happened-to-the-soul

Does the soul exist?

Religions all over the world have discovered it, disconnected from each other. They usually see it as a method advancing past this corporeal realm.

As a Jedi... Well, to quote... 'luminous Briggs we are are. Not this crude matter'. The soul is a conduit through which we feel the Force. It generates thay energy, that tension. When it is removed, the energy it gives leaves, and the being it was within dies.

It is life, energy, being. Things without it are a shadow of their former self (think a corpse lying in a casket, or a Christmas tree in February)...they were once beautiful and what we loved, but no longer. Love, true love, comes through the Force. We don't love the body. We love the spirit, the soul, the Force signature that is the person or creature it is connected to. It resonates with us, brightens our path.

For myself, as a Jedi, that is what a soul is. I've seen it, in my projection practises. People glowing like stars, but all interconnected, a Web of light between us all. We are just conduits through which the Force enacts itself on the World, balancing itself, and gives us our spirit.

Arisaig wrote: Does the soul exist?

Religions all over the world have discovered it, disconnected from each other. They usually see it as a method advancing past this corporeal realm.

Let's say they have asserted it. We wouldn't have this discussion if they hadn't, because nothing else would have us think that there might be any such thing. This is, incidentally, the one thing religions generally have in common. Not all of them assert any gods, but all of them do assert that some essence of self exists, separable at least in concept from the physical body, and often able to survive its demise.

But no, we know for as certain as we know anything at all that there not just isn't, but really cannot be any such thing as a soul or a spirit or a life force of some kind that actually makes any real difference whatsoever. We can speak of them as figures of speech, as metaphors, concepts to help us convey how we feel about ourselves, each other, the world around us and our place in it, or to help us appreciate all of those things. But there is at this point no gap in our knowledge big enough for any real souls to actually be hiding in still. We know pretty much for a fact that there aren't.

Gisteron wrote:

Arisaig wrote: Does the soul exist?

Religions all over the world have discovered it, disconnected from each other. They usually see it as a method advancing past this corporeal realm.

Let's say they have asserted it. We wouldn't have this discussion if they hadn't, because nothing else would have us think that there might be any such thing. This is, incidentally, the one thing religions generally have in common. Not all of them assert any gods, but all of them do assert that some essence of self exists, separable at least in concept from the physical body, and often able to survive its demise.

But no, we know for as certain as we know anything at all that there not just isn't, but really cannot be any such thing as a soul or a spirit or a life force of some kind that actually makes any real difference whatsoever. We can speak of them as figures of speech, as metaphors, concepts to help us convey how we feel about ourselves, each other, the world around us and our place in it, or to help us appreciate all of those things. But there is at this point no gap in our knowledge big enough for any real souls to actually be hiding in still. We know pretty much for a fact that there aren't.

Yes, much in the same way we speak in metaphors and such about the Big Bang.

Arisaig wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

Arisaig wrote: Does the soul exist?

Religions all over the world have discovered it, disconnected from each other. They usually see it as a method advancing past this corporeal realm.

Let's say they have asserted it. We wouldn't have this discussion if they hadn't, because nothing else would have us think that there might be any such thing. This is, incidentally, the one thing religions generally have in common. Not all of them assert any gods, but all of them do assert that some essence of self exists, separable at least in concept from the physical body, and often able to survive its demise.

But no, we know for as certain as we know anything at all that there not just isn't, but really cannot be any such thing as a soul or a spirit or a life force of some kind that actually makes any real difference whatsoever. We can speak of them as figures of speech, as metaphors, concepts to help us convey how we feel about ourselves, each other, the world around us and our place in it, or to help us appreciate all of those things. But there is at this point no gap in our knowledge big enough for any real souls to actually be hiding in still. We know pretty much for a fact that there aren't.

Yes, much in the same way we speak in metaphors and such about the Big Bang.

Barring the tiny exception that we don't speak of the Big Bang like that at all, yes, entirely the same way.

I used to be visited on a weekly basis by an old man, a very kind and learned man, who was a Jehovah’s Witness. We met for about an hour a week, and he would talk to me about his religion. One of the things I was surprised to learn is that Jehova’s Witness do not believe in Hell, nor do they believe in the existence of a soul. He explained how the original scripture is mistranslated as “soul” and that the idea was added via Helenistic influence of the Greeks. The original scripture translates as “breathers”, refering to people as simply “alive”.

Buddhism is also a religion that does not believe in a soul.

I wonder to what extent the “soul” is a result of religious discovery, as Arisaig suggest, and more a result of syncretism leading to its adoption as a fact. I am sure it was in the interest of the ruling political and clerical classes to insist on the existence of the soul, to be able to emphasize the possibility of eternal torment for political control.

I always believed there was a part of us that leaves this body when we die and continues on.
A soul is a convenient label for me. When I volunteered in a hospice seeing death was like watching something vital depart from a person. That spark that makes us, us.
I do think animals have that spark but am not too sure with inanimate objects.
Nature has an energy all of its own, could that be a soul? Maybe. Or is what we label a soul just energy that ignites all life, in which case then I would have to include most everything has that.
Because the energy within a person or animals shows within actions, emotions, speech ect.. Its probably easy to label that spark as a soul as such.
Within nature I suppose I attach emotions to storms, I see violence in nature, indifference, cruelty and love, beauty. Yet thats me projecting what I feel.. I can see life in nature, so I can imagine energy that goes on (as I think similar to a soul)

Do soul's exist?
I believe personally that something exists that holds the basis for who we are at the core. Wether I call it a soul or life energy or something different. I have no evidence, no proof of something more. I argue with myself over wether this belief is true, maybe I just dont want to believe that spark is lost.

I believe I carry an ancestral "memory" in my DNA that helps shape who I am. I am a unique manifestation of that combination that did not exist before and will not exist in any form afterwards. The energy that was me will dissipate and be recycled into a thousand different forms, and in that way I will become a part of those things but not a conscious part. The very fact that I am who I am and not anyone else is evidence enough for me that we are all connected by the fact we are made of the same star dust but that is as far as that connection goes. We do make connection through shared experience, but that is a manifestation of our biological makeup and not some sort of metaphysical function. When I die, who I am just goes away. But I get to pass part of that on in offspring and in the energy I was. However those things no longer belong to me. They belong to the universe to do with as it pleases.

Manu wrote: Buddhism is also a religion that does not believe in a soul.

I disagree with that to some extent.
I would say that they don't generally believe to the enduring 'self' as a separate spiritual entity (being the 'one' that is tied to the physical self during rebirths).
But I'd say that they do believe in en enduring spiritual existence, namely the dharmakāya.... whether that is in the minds of those alive or some enduring spiritual dimension is a point of difference within various Buddhist schools of thought.

In my experience I tend to assert that personal identity as we know it (in the physical realm) is like a algorithmic paradigm! One which is easily manifested within the spiritual realm (if one is able to receive it) such that the appearance of an enduring soul at times informs religious experience to something akin to an enduring personal soul (incorrectly perhaps).

So in that particular view of things, to use the movies, the Force ghost is for all intents and purposes equivalent to being the dead Jedi...... but that it is more accurate to view it as a manifestation of the Force.
Which begs the questions where are things stored (insight) and how are they accessed (skill), do they have a role with other physical things ie with who haven't known them (spirit), are they aware of being within the Force (flesh) and can they change or grow within the Force (courage). So that approach serves as a useful paradigm to explore experiences with these concepts if one has opened up the third eye and exploring the psyche for any new potentials within it or outside it

Thanks Manu

Every person has their own idea - path- belief - practice ways n such so I always keep a open chair for those who share and those who wish to...

I believe in the Force.
I am part of that Force.
I have been a part of the Force since before me and I will return to it after this path is at its end.
My mind is not my soul.
My heart is not my soul.
My feelings and my thoughts are not my soul.
My soul endured and shall endure. My soul has no fear or side. It is the what is all around me. My actions create harmony or objection. My opinions create my focus.
Many people -ways- ideas- organizations - religions and paths believe in a soul. Right or wrong is tomeach of to choose here. Where and how is up to each of us and we have our own interpretation and definition from out different experiences and study.

Maybe I was somewhat brief and assertive in my claim that there is no such thing as a soul and how we know this for pretty much as certain as we are that the earth isn't secretly flat.
This is not just one opinion among many. Look...
We know - for a fact - that absolutely everything that makes us who we are is at the very least conducted through, if not produced by, our brains, and by extension bodies, at least while we are still alive. This is not controversial, we know this so well that we can actively manipulate both individual choices as well as entire personality traits through drug injections, through direct nerve stimuli, and through less direct stimulation like hypnosis or psychotherapy. We have countless cases correlating different kinds of brain damage to different kinds of changes to the person, and there is strong indication that the more damaged a brain is, the less functional - as a person - its owner, whether that function partly escapes to hover above them till death releases the rest, or whether it entirely vanishes.
Do we have a complete theory linking individual quantum effects to the macroscopic structures like individual nerve cells or entire bodies with their persons? No. Far from it. Would it be a useful thing to find out? Maybe. I doubt it, but it's possible that such knowledge might yield application for, say, medicine.
But... We know how atoms work. We don't have just guesses. It's not a mystery that "nobody really understands". Consider this:
In your ordinary text book or lecture notes, you may find the value of the electron magnetic moment, g_e ~ 2.0023. So far so good... This is not how precisely we can measure it, though. The recommended value for use in research as given by the NIST CODATA is g_e ~ 2.00231930436182. What, is that supposed to impress? Surely, anyone can just add more digits to have it look fancier. You take any measurement, no matter how imprecise, multiply it with an irrational number and you can in principle give an arbitrarily long result. One wouldn't be much of a sceptic if one were not to inquire what the uncertainty for this measurement is. Well... the margins of error, as it happens, are known, too. The standard deviation for g_e is 0.000000000026%. Well, great, so we have very precise instruments for some frequency ratio in atomic physics. Why is that interesting? Here is why:
There is a theory, an equation starting from first principles, that permits us to compute the value of g_e. According to the simulations of that equation, g_e should be "something like" 2.00231930436.
Take a pause to let this sink in. This purity of understanding is unmatched by anything else. This is the single most accurate prediction ever composed by man, and it is part of a theory I have heard Jedi refer to for as long as I had the pleasure to know any, called Quantum Field Theory. QFT is no joke. In part because of this, though by no means solely hereby, QFT is the single most successful theory ever constructed. It is not a "just a theory" theory. There is plenty of higher order effects we don't understand, all of physics is far from settled. But we have the fundamental particles down, way, way past any point of no return. There is no going back, this theory is the single most certain thing outside of pure maths. And there are consequences to this certainty. Information is quantifiable. What makes you what you are, the essence of your being must be a macroscopic effect that ceases to exist as the processes in your brain collapse. There is no second option. We know enough about our composition and the particles that govern our daily lives to say that none of the ones leaving our bodies upon its demise can contain or enable any kind of spirit or life force. We know furthermore that if there are particles we haven't discovered yet (already quite a big if at this point), then their interactions with the ones we know about must be too weak to make any kind of difference whatsoever. If the interaction were any stronger, i.e. strong enough to make any kind of difference, with the precision we have at our avail we would have noticed that difference by now. We would have discovered the soul particle by now, if anything like it existed.
There is no such thing as a soul. We know this for a fact. That may sound depressing to some, but it is how it is, and no amount of dislike can change anything about it (yes, we know that, too). What we don't know is how to go through the one life we actually have. It is, arguably, a more pressing and immediate matter anyhow, though not the subject of this thread. The question about spirits and afterlives, at any rate, is not an open question anymore. We know the answer to it now.

I don't suppose you've watched the video I posted on the first page of this thread Gisteron? You are making a category error (according to McGilchrist - the lecturer in the video). You can't find the soul with measurements because it isn't a 'thing'. It is a symbol for something greater that we can't otherwise, or ever be able, to define precisely - precisely because it isn't a 'thing'. The tools of science can be magnificently precise but they can't be used to work out how much you love someone - not with hormone measurements, skin conductance, neurotransmitter levels or even psychometric tests. There are physical correlates of course but they don't come close to providing the answer. Its like measuring the scent of roses with a microscope. Wrong tool for the job! The soul is like this!

Loudzoo wrote: I don't suppose you've watched the video I posted on the first page of this thread Gisteron? You are making a category error (according to McGilchrist - the lecturer in the video). You can't find the soul with measurements because it isn't a 'thing'. It is a symbol for something greater that we can't otherwise, or ever be able, to define precisely - precisely because it isn't a 'thing'. The tools of science can be magnificently precise but they can't be used to work out how much you love someone - not with hormone measurements, skin conductance, neurotransmitter levels or even psychometric tests. There are physical correlates of course but they don't come close to providing the answer. Its like measuring the scent of roses with a microscope. Wrong tool for the job! The soul is like this!

If its not a thing, how does it exist? Actually we could use a microscope to see smell. If it is powerful enough we could detect the actually molecules carrying the odorous chemicals that excite our olfactory nerve. In addition the physical reactions you describe to detect the state of love can also be detected. What you have not demonstrated is that that state is a scale of intensity.

No, but you did say that it wasn't in response to the OP, and Dr. McGilchrist isn't here to converse with us, so no point responding to it. I'm sure if one or more of us wanted to adopt any of his points they would have done so and it would be part of the discussion anyhow.
But I don't think that my response is past the question either. What ever the soul is supposed to be, either it is supposed to have relevance to our lives or it isn't. If it isn't, then it is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist at all. And if it is, then there is positive indication that there is no such thing. You can't move things "outside the realm of science" and still insist that they are real in any non-abstract, meaningful sense. If something "exists outside of reality", that's functionally identical with it "really not existing". That there may be some philosophical nuance I'm missing out when saying this is fine. I'm not a philosopher. To me things that matter matter and things that don't are either fun to ponder to no end, or a waste of time, or both.

As for whether we can meaningfully quantify feelings or experiences... That depends. Some insist that there is something "it is like to" have an experience. To me that's begging the question. It is presupposing this essence of self that it sets out to prove. In order to save the argument from being viciously circular I think those who assert its conclusion - or premise, since they are the same - have all of their homework well ahead of them to demonstrate that love is a term referring to anything other or beyond "merely" the biochemical processes we know for a fact correspond to it. A task they have no realistic chance of fulfilling whatsoever.

I'd actually like to think soul could be mapped, and quantified, and need not exist as a separate particle.... and that soul might exist post death by virtue of some carrier field which is sensitive to and capable of holding the information state created by the neurobiology. Basically being a computational problem at the moment and so in effect not having the tools to work with it, yet. Reason being so a greater experience of self could perhaps be one day uploaded into a replacement body

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Loudzoo wrote: I don't suppose you've watched the video I posted on the first page of this thread Gisteron? You are making a category error (according to McGilchrist - the lecturer in the video). You can't find the soul with measurements because it isn't a 'thing'. It is a symbol for something greater that we can't otherwise, or ever be able, to define precisely - precisely because it isn't a 'thing'. The tools of science can be magnificently precise but they can't be used to work out how much you love someone - not with hormone measurements, skin conductance, neurotransmitter levels or even psychometric tests. There are physical correlates of course but they don't come close to providing the answer. Its like measuring the scent of roses with a microscope. Wrong tool for the job! The soul is like this!

If its not a thing, how does it exist? Actually we could use a microscope to see smell. If it is powerful enough we could detect the actually molecules carrying the odorous chemicals that excite our olfactory nerve. In addition the physical reactions you describe to detect the state of love can also be detected. What you have not demonstrated is that that state is a scale of intensity.

The point is well made there Kyrin. You CANNOT see a smell !!! If you can see it - it isn't a smell - its a sight. You can only smell, a smell.

Loudzoo wrote: The point is well made there Kyrin. You CANNOT see a smell !!! If you can see it - it isn't a smell - its a sight. You can only smell, a smell.

No, that's just false. You're assuming, on no grounds whatsoever, that a smell is something more or other than what we know smells are literally composed of. And upon being corrected, you just double down and insist in your assertion that indeed they are, still with no demonstration to that effect at all. Why?