If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it? — Null Noir

It seems to me the only way immaterial souls could be confirmed to exist for certain is if a revealed God has bequeathed us with them. Otherwise, we would have to discover the existence of souls with science or something, and that sounds unlikely, or least difficult, to me.

Question 2: If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you? In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose. And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things. — Null Noir

I feel like if God has given us souls, he would have worked some free will magic into it, even if we are not wholly, physically identified with said souls. That being said, there could be deterministic mechanisms in a soul, too, I think. Thus, the issue of whether or not one is truly in control of oneself goes deeper than just the question of the existence of souls and whether or not they encompass our entire being (that is to say, including the body). If Christianity were specifically right, then we should listen to the relevant theologians on the matter - and I am no theologian.

Question 3: If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person? — Null Noir

God could just load our souls with our entire psychological being seamlessly upon death and, given he has given us the ability to choose freely according to our wills, the choices we make would indeed matter in terms of avoiding hell. Honestly, this would be a trifle for an omnipotent God.

Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say? — Null Noir

I suppose so, but that seems to imply that the soul is physically housed in, or connected to, the body or brain in some way.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

The concept of the 'soul' is one which is believed in by most religions and ancient philosophers, but rejected by many materialistic thinkers. In many ways, the soul could be seen as consciousness itself, including the interface between 'mind' and 'body'.

It was partly Descartes' thought which led to the separation of mind and body. This has been challenged by ideas of embodiment as central to consciousness.

The idea of the soul doesn't in itself require the existence of God, or a deity. However, it could be argued that some approximation towards 'God' or a 'supreme reality could be figured from the idea of a source of consciousness from the nature of soul. This is suggested in Plotinus's idea of the 'One', which is the connective source.

Welcome to the forum,
Jack

It seems to me the only way immaterial souls could be confirmed to exist for certain is if a revealed God has bequeathed us with them. Otherwise, we would have to discover the existence of souls with science or something, and that sounds unlikely, or least difficult, to me. — ToothyMaw

I see. So the only way of actually telling if we have something like a "soul" would be through science. But, as we know, scicence is very rigurous and strict. Thus, proving souls would be near impossible within our lifetimes due to how slow science is at accepting these kinds of ideas, not to mention they were most probably tested before. And let's say we had souls, we would know... right? I don't mean scientifically. I mean both intuitively, and by the fact that God, or perhaps even Jesus Himself would visit us regularly. And angels would be on watch and visible to us 24/7 driving most of us insane since we would not be capable of "withstanding them" unless they are in our dreams. But if they were to show up in our dreamns, we would not believe them. That's how I view it, at least.

I feel like if God has given us souls, he would have worked some free will magic into it, even if we are not wholly, physically identified with said souls. That being said, there could be deterministic mechanisms in a soul, too, I think. Thus, the issue of whether or not one is truly in control of oneself goes deeper than just the question of the existence of souls and whether or not they encompass our entire being (that is to say, including the body). If Christianity were specifically right, then we should listen to the relevant theologians on the matter - and I am no theologian. — ToothyMaw

Thank you for answering this question even if you're not a theologian. It means a lot, because Question 2 was the one that was bothering me most.
Indeed, I didn't think of the fact that there could be "Free Will Magic," as you've described it. I have nothing else to add to this part of your answer, since you're right. Theologians are more suited.

God could just load our souls with our entire psychological being seamlessly upon death and, given he has given us the ability to choose freely according to our wills, the choices we make would indeed matter in terms of avoiding hell. Honestly, this would be a trifle for an omnipotent God. — ToothyMaw

I didn't think of that, this is an amazing response! I have tried to figure out whether it truly mattered to be a good person for the longest time. But I never thought that if God is truly omnipotent, he could seamlessly transfer our old consciousness into the soul and punish us that way.

I suppose so, but that seems to imply that the soul is physically housed in, or connected to, the body or brain in some way. — ToothyMaw

This was the reason I was kind of skeptical of the claims that say "you are the soul living in a human body."

Welcome to the forum, by the way. — ToothyMaw

Thank you ToothyMaw for the warm welcome! I appreciate it a lot!

The concept of the 'soul' is one which is believed in by most religions and ancient philosophers, but rejected by many materialistic thinkers. In many ways, the soul could be seen as consciousness itself, including the interface between 'mind' and 'body'. — Jack Cummins

I believe I have read of that possibility somewhere... maybe I listened to it in a video or podcast or something. But I agree, the "soul" could just be what we call "consciousness."

It was partly Descartes' thought which led to the separation of mind and body. This has been challenged by ideas of embodiment as central to consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Sadly, I don't know much about Descartes' ideas apart from "I think, therefore I am." I really need to read one of his books... but I’m not that good at reading books. I get intimidated by the number of pages a book has, but I digress.

The idea of the soul doesn't in itself require the existence of God, or a deity. However, it could be argued that some approximation towards 'God' or a 'supreme reality could be figured from the idea of a source of consciousness from the nature of soul. This is suggested in Plotinus's idea of the 'One', which is the connective source. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, the soul doesn't need the existence of a God in order for it to exist. If we look at Buddhism, for example, they don't really have a "God" per se. They have the Buddha, sure. And yes, they pray to him. But the Buddha was not a "God" in any way shape or form. He was just a man who achieved what people call "Enlightenment." That's it. I could be very wrong, though...

Welcome to the forum,
Jack — Jack Cummins

Thank you for the kind welcome, Jack! I appreciate it, a lot!

There's one way scientifically to discover souls exist, and that is to discover some significant physical behaviour inside of a brain that cannot be explained by matter behaving like normal matter. If all matter in the universe behaves like normal matter, then human behaviour by extension would have to be a consequence of matter behaving like matter.

The hypothesis that there's a soul, however, is the hypothesis (it seems to me) that some non matter "mind/soul" thing is reaching into the universe and changing something about the behaviour of matter, making it do one thing when it otherwise would have done another thing.

It doesn't seem in principle impossible to detect such a thing, though it might be so difficult that it's practically impossible anyway. Especially if the interface between the soul and the physical world is only to be found in the most microscopic physical events in the brain, like the kinds of events that determine if a neuron would fire or not.

(Personally, I don't find there to be a need for souls or minds to be nonphysical)

There's one way scientifically to discover souls exist, and that is to discover some significant physical behaviour inside of a brain that cannot be explained by matter behaving like normal matter. If all matter in the universe behaves like normal matter, then human behaviour by extension would have to be a consequence of matter behaving like matter.

The hypothesis that there's a soul, however, is the hypothesis (it seems to me) that some non matter "mind/soul" thing is reaching into the universe and changing something about the behaviour of matter, making it do one thing when it otherwise would have done another thing.

It doesn't seem in principle impossible to detect such a thing, though it might be so difficult that it's practically impossible anyway. Especially if the interface between the soul and the physical world is only to be found in the most microscopic physical events in the brain, like the kinds of events that determine if a neuron would fire or not — flannel jesus

Ah, thank you for the clarification. Thank you for your kind response, Flannel Jesus!
Indeed, now that I think about it... it could be classified under a category such as Quantum Mechanics or something entirely new. Maybe I’m wrong again, but I don’t mind being wrong! It is the learning experience that matters.

For me, knowledge and understanding are the most important things.

There's one way scientifically to discover souls exist, and that is to discover some significant physical behaviour inside of a brain that cannot be explained by matter behaving like normal matter. If all matter in the universe behaves like normal matter, then human behaviour by extension would have to be a consequence of matter behaving like matter.

The hypothesis that there's a soul, however, is the hypothesis (it seems to me) that some non matter "mind/soul" thing is reaching into the universe and changing something about the behaviour of matter, making it do one thing when it otherwise would have done another thing. — flannel jesus

That's really interesting, and I think you might be right. But let's say we have souls separate from the brain (a possibility suggested in the OP) that can still act on the brain, and that are endowed with the ability to select courses of action freely. If we were to choose one course of action over another according to the will of said soul, would it truly be causing matter to behave in a way that it otherwise would not have? I would say not necessarily, given multiple possible choices could have been freely made at a particular juncture.

However, if the very mechanism by which the soul acts on the brain in itself causes matter to not behave like matter as a means of effecting a soul's will - even given multiple choices could be made - then I think you would be correct.

If we were to choose one course of action over another according to the will of said soul, would it truly be causing matter to behave in a way that it otherwise would not have? — ToothyMaw

If it weren't, then it seems you could remove the soul and expect a person's body to behave the same way.

Which seems weird, especially because our bodies write things about having souls. Why would a body without a soul write about having a soul?

If we were to choose one course of action over another according to the will of said soul, would it truly be causing matter to behave in a way that it otherwise would not have?
— ToothyMaw

If it weren't, then it seems you could remove the soul and expect a person's body to behave the same way. — flannel jesus

Okay, then how would a body behave in the absence of this freely choosing soul? Is there a single pre-determined route we each would take through reality that our souls, if they existed, would allow us to deviate from? Or would one's path be a function of the existence of many possible choices, given one can choose from them freely? This possibility of matter behaving "otherwise" seems empty to me, as the only two scenarios we appear to be considering now would be that in one case we have free will, and in the other we do not. As an aside: do you think that if we had free will and it was taken away, our justifications for ideas of agency, for instance, should remain the same?

Okay, then how would a body behave in the absence of this freely choosing soul? — ToothyMaw

That's up to people who think we have souls to argue. But it stands to reason that they'd have to say bodies would do something different without souls - otherwise, souls wouldn't make a difference.

Free will is a challenging topic

Okay, then how would a body behave in the absence of this freely choosing soul?
— ToothyMaw

That's up to people who think we have souls to argue. But it stands to reason that they'd have to say bodies would do something different without souls - otherwise, souls wouldn't make a difference. — flannel jesus

So you don't think the existence of free will would matter if it were manifested by a soul? Really? Can a proponent of free will really ever point to the behavior of anyone and say for sure that that person's actions are different from what they would have been had they lacked free will?

Unless I'm mistaken, it is on you at this point to explain why free will wouldn't matter so long as it doesn't manifest in the form of matter not behaving like normal matter in the brain. Also: I don't actually think we have souls.

How do you think the soul works? — Null Noir

I’ve always thought of soul as a near-synonym for mind, self, identity, ego, psyche, consciousness, or spirit. They each mean something a little different - they have different connotations and contexts - but I think when we use those words we’re talking about the same thing.

If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? — Null Noir

Many of us believe it arose from our physical bodies - our nervous systems - just like life arose from inorganic matter.

If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say? — Null Noir

You have laid out the mind-body problem, usually blamed on Descartes. It has been causing problems and undermining the credibility of philosophy and philosophers for hundreds of years.

Oops, I forgot - welcome to the forum.

Welcome.

I realized years ago that what ancient peoples referred to as the soul was likely them attempting to understand internal body electrochemistry. So in that framework, you can see the "soul" with a variety of different medical imaging technologies.

I don’t believe in a soul and haven’t encountered any arguments that convince me otherwise. I can understand how our dread of death has led humans to create pantheons and afterlife narratives.

But why care? What difference does it make if we have a soul or not? If we do, what’s the next step? Does it make life more worth living? Does it connect you to the religion of your family of origin? Does it allow you to convert to Hinduism? Does it chase away meaninglessness and uncertainty? Does the idea of a soul stand between you and some goal?

Question 1: If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it? — Null Noir

It helps to understand where the word came from and what it has meant over history. The Greek equivalent (and I'm not a scholar of ancient Greek, but this is common knowledge) is translated as 'psuche', meaning 'animating principle, inner being or life'. That word is also the root of 'psyche' which lives on in English as 'mind' (the subject of 'psychology'.) And I think you can make the case that what the ancients meant by 'soul', we today mean by 'mind' - which takes away some of the mystical-sounding connotations of 'soul'.

The complicating factor is that the nature of mind is itself very elusive. But two points I would make, is that it is not any kind of thing. Nowhere, in the vast inventory of things we find in the world, will you find 'mind'. You know you are, or 'have' a mind, although if you lost it, you may not know it had been lost, because the faculty in you which knows anything would no longer be present. And that whatever 'mind' or 'soul' is, it is not something you have but what you are. If we can't see it, it is because we are the one looking. Looking for it is like the eye trying to see itself.

The second point is, as first Sigmund Freud and then Carl Jung discovered, the mind has aspects which are hidden from conscious awareness, namely the sub- and unconscious. There is a vast amount to study in their theories so I won't try to summarize them, other than to say that 'mind' is far more extensive than what you're able to be consciously aware of at any given time. What we commonly think of as 'mind' as in 'I made up my mind' or 'a thought crossed my mind' is only the tip of a very large iceberg.

My take on it is that 'soul' simply refers to 'the totality of your being'. It includes your past, your future, your talents, skills, proclivities and inclinations - much more than just the ego, which is the mind's idea of itself. Interpreted that way, it is a meaningful concept.

these questions that have been eating at me from the inside ever since I've read a little about religion and very little about philosophy. — Null Noir

Sort of like a tapeworm, I suppose. What little amount of reading is most responsible for this eating away -- a little religion or a little philosophy? (Either one can cause the problem, seems like.) Keep reading.

Question 3: If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person? — Null Noir

What makes you think your SOUL is going to heaven? The Christian creeds say nothing about the soul. What the creeds do say is this (from the Apostles Creed):

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

The business of the soul started back in the book of Genesis, 2:7

Getting to heaven is, according to Jesus, not the reason you should be good to other people. Being good to other people is just what is expected of you, (Micah 6:8 -- "What does God expect of you? Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God"). So get on with it. Be good.

Here's the AI summary: This verse is crucial in understanding the biblical view. God forms the human body from dust and then breathes life into it, resulting in a living soul. This implies that the soul is not pre-existent but comes into being with the breath of life.

the Bible uses the term soul and spirit in different places. One could get hung up on the difference, if there is one. Please do not. We are embodied beings, that is certain. Whether we have a spiritual dimension, and what this is, will remain an open question.

Apparently we will face the Final Judgement as trembling bodies.

Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose. — Null Noir

You are not. Nobody is. We are steered this way and that, for better and for worse, by all sorts of determinants we have no (or very little) control over. However, that is not to say that you will not be held accountable on earth by your fellow primates. If you get drunk, get into your car and kill somebody, you will be punished. We don't have much control over how alcohol works -- it very reliably and happily intoxicates us. However, before you get drunk and kill somebody, there are several points at which you could choose:

a) to not drink alcohol
b) to not go to the bar.
c) to not drink liquor at the bar (yeah, yeah, I know; what would be the point?)
d) to not drink more than two oz of alcohol over 2 hours time. Then leave, or switch to soda.
e) bring a designated driver with you, so that IF you were drunk, your driver could get you home safely.
f) receive treatment for alcoholism if you can't control your use of alcohol. The fact is, in so many ways life sucks.

All of us have those choices; still, people get drunk; drive; kill people--themselves, somebody else, or both. Many people make themselves and everybody else miserable by drinking too much. They do not have control. Some people avoid drinking alcohol at the bar. Others sharply limit their alcohol use. Some people do all of those, but there are no guarantees. The failure rate of alcohol treatment is fairly high, even among people who want to quit drinking.

Still, despite all of that, we still hold people accountable, even though we are not really in control of everything we do. That problem isn't going away, so get used to it.

What do I believe? There is no soul or spirit. What was called the spirit is the multivariate complexity of embodied selves--everything we are. When we die, we stay dead. There is neither a heaven nor a hell.

Perhaps there is some supreme deity, doing whatever supreme deities do for eternities. Damned if I know.

Since everybody else is welcoming you, I'll also extend a firm handshake of welcome.

Forthcoming book The Soul, Paul Ham. Looks interesting!

is that it is not any kind of thing. Nowhere, in the vast inventory of things we find in the world, will you find 'mind'. — Wayfarer

That’s an odd thing to say. I have my mind here right now in front of me. It’s as real as anything else in the world. It’s as much a thing as anything else in the world. As real as a 1909-S vdb penny.

I have my mind here right now in front of me. — T Clark

Speaking figuratively, of course.

a) to not drink alcohol
b) to not go to the bar.
c) to not drink liquor at the bar (yeah, yeah, I know; what would be the point?)
d) to not drink more than two oz of alcohol over 2 hours time. Then leave, or switch to soda.
e) bring a designated driver with you, so that IF you were drunk, your driver could get you home safely.
f) receive treatment for alcoholism if you can't control your use of alcohol. The fact is, in so many ways life sucks. — BC

Fair enough - perhaps you left out C2) "to not be a cunt"

My take on it is that 'soul' simply refers to 'the totality of your being'. It includes your past, your future, your talents, skills, proclivities and inclinations - much more than just the ego, which is the mind's idea of itself. Interpreted that way, it is a meaningful concept. — Wayfarer

I think this is an interesting frame for the 'soul' idea. There's something wonderfully poetic about the term, which transcends words, yet somehow speaks to our sense of wholeness or being.

Quite right. It's a lovely word, regardless of whether it's fashionable or not. I was most impressed by a 1996 Tom Wolfe essay, Sorry but your Soul Just Died, when I first started posting to forums - about neuroscientific explanations of mind and their existential implications.

Ha! I used to use that Wolfe title too, to describe rampant examples of managerialism at various workplaces I've been.

Speaking figuratively, of course. — Wayfarer

My experience of my mind is just real as my iPhone. I was going to say my experience of my mind is just just real as my experience of my iPhone. I guess both are correct.

My experience of my mind is just real as my iPhone. — T Clark

Speaking figuratively, of course. — Wayfarer

If our experience of our minds is not real, then what the hell are we doing here?

My claim was the mind is not a thing. Doesn't mean it's nothing. But it's not a thing, it's not an object. Your 'experience of the mind' is not an experience at all mind is that to whom experiences occur, that which sees objects, and so forth. It is not itself an object. That's one of the things that makes philosophy of mind such a big and elusive topic.

Here I stand
My brain is in my hands
My mind is before me
An IPhone is ringing in Massachusetts
A mind is annoyed

My claim was the mind is not a thing. Doesn't mean it's nothing. But it's not a thing, it's not an object. Your 'experience of the mind' is not an experience at all mind is that to whom experiences occur, that which sees objects, and so forth. It is not itself an object. That's one of the things that makes philosophy of mind such a big and elusive topic. — Wayfarer

This has the hallmarks of our usual discussions. We use the same words in different ways - give them different meanings. And then we argue about who’s definition is correct.

And, you see the philosophy of mind as a much larger and more elusive topic than I do.

The soul is the illusion of "ding an sich." That false reasoning we've projected upon the world as real.

It is a matter of fact that the mind is not an object in any sense other than the metaphorical, such as ‘the object of the argument’, ‘the object of the question’.