The soul seems like a good candidate for reincarnation - that immaterial substance that, like a rolling drop of water gathers sawdust, collects memories of existence as a particular person/being; these memories giving it identity, defining it as to who it is. — TheMadFool

At this point, you've removed yourself from science though. The only way you can get reincarnation and science to work together, is if you can define reincarnation as something science can examine.

A soul is simply an idea someone came up with. Like a unicorn. No one has ever observed a soul. People can think, "I will live forever in some way," but they never do. A soul does not exist by fact, because no one has ever observed a soul. No one has ever observed it gathering memories, or forming an identity. It is only an idea that our mind exists as something separate from the real universe.

To believe in something that cannot be tested or thought of apart from faith is religion. Philosophy can ask questions about faith, and whether it is viable and helpful in our lives. But philosophy itself is not having faith, it is seeking the truth as reality is. If faith is viable, a philosopher would know this because their logic shows that it is, not because they desire that it is.

The soul seems like a good candidate for reincarnation — TheMadFool

...and the soul is...?

You will need to set out what more there is to the soul than just "what is reincarnated"; else you will have a quiet tragically circular definition: the soul is what is reincarnated, and what is reincarnated is the soul.

Nothing will have been said.

collects memories of existence as a particular person/being; — TheMadFool

Then I am not reincarnated; rather, some other soul steals my memories.

..and the soul is...? — Banno

The more general a term, the more difficult of definition. A hammer is easy to define, 'consciousness' or 'soul' much less so.

But my pragmatic definition is 'the totality of the being'. Not simply 'the person', because 'the person' is, as the name implies, like the mask worn by actors in a drama. The soul implies the whole being - subconscious procliivities, talents, dispositions and attitutides. It need not be anything more than a figure of speech to be meaningful. Of course moderns will want to objectify it - 'well if it's not objectively ascertainable, then it can't be real' - but that arises from a specific disposition.

'the totality of the being' — Wayfarer

I don't see how including my armchair in the soul helps.

you're the kind of soul who wouldn't :-)

you're the kind of soul who wouldn't — Wayfarer

But if soul is the totality of being, so are you.

Although I do have to say I think this is incorrect:

That means a theory of reincarnation is consistent with two statements that contradict each other:

1. There are verifiable memories of past lives

and

2. There are no verifiable memories of past lives

This state of affairs reminds me of the following statement made by the philosopher of science, Karl Popper:

A theory that explains everything explains nothing
— Karl Popper — TheMadFool

Stevenson's research includes thousands of cases of children who recall very specific details of their purported previous lives. Of course many people will insist that Stevenson or some relative coached them or confabulated these details, but Stevenson was quite a carefui researcher and he says he rejected many more cases where he suspected fraud or dishonesty.

But even then, Stevenson never claimed that his research proved the fact of reincarntion, but that it suggested it. He was open minded as to what the underlying cause might be. But there's nothing in what he did that is not consistent with empirical methodology, at least in terms of his work. The whole issue with Stevenson's work is that it suggests the possibility of reincarnation, which undermines a purely materialistic explanation for the transmission of memory. And besides, reincarnation is a cultural taboo in the West, going back to its anethematisation by the Church in the 4th century.

So, people will say that Stevenson's work must be pseudo-science, because they believe, or claim to know, that there could be no means 'known to science' by which such transmission could occur. But that does not mean that his research doesn't meet Popper's criterion. You could simply falsify all Stevenson's research by proving beyond doubt that all his cases were falsified (although I don't believe anyone has done that.)

In any case, recall that Karl Popper's two paradigmatic instances of psuedo-science were Freudianism and Marxism. And also that falsification as principle is now under attack by some influential figures in physics.

But if soul is the totality of being, so are you. — Banno

The totality of a human being, not 'being as such' (although the mythology of the world-soul is interesting in its own right.)

The totality of a human being, not 'being as such' (although the mythology of the world-soul is interesting in its own right.) — Wayfarer

So, on to "what is the totality of human being?"

My armchair might no lnger be part of the soul, but I still am. Hence, you remain the kind of soul who doesn't see how including my armchair in the soul helps.

So, on to "what is the totality of human being?" — Banno

It encompasses all of what is designated by the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious aspects of the psyche - much of which, as Freud showed, is not available to conscious perusal. Drives, proclivities, hidden memories, complexes, talents, dispositions - what is technically known as 'the whole enchilada'.

At this point, you've removed yourself from science though. The only way you can get reincarnation and science to work together, is if you can define reincarnation as something science can examine.

A soul is simply an idea someone came up with. Like a unicorn. No one has ever observed a soul. People can think, "I will live forever in some way," but they never do. A soul does not exist by fact, because no one has ever observed a soul. No one has ever observed it gathering memories, or forming an identity. It is only an idea that our mind exists as something separate from the real universe.

To believe in something that cannot be tested or thought of apart from faith is religion. Philosophy can ask questions about faith, and whether it is viable and helpful in our lives. But philosophy itself is not having faith, it is seeking the truth as reality is. If faith is viable, a philosopher would know this because their logic shows that it is, not because they desire that it is. — Philosophim

Why do you think the idea of souls is unscientific? If there are cases where a person has verifiable memories of being someone else before s/he was born then, one explanation, among others, is that there's something that survives death and enters another person and that something is the soul.

...and the soul is...?

You will need to set out what more there is to the soul than just "what is reincarnated"; else you will have a quiet tragically circular definition: the soul is what is reincarnated, and what is reincarnated is the soul.

Nothing will have been said. — Banno

See my reply to Philosophim.

But even then, Stevenson never claimed that his research proved the fact of reincarntion, but that it suggested it. — Wayfarer

:up:

And also that falsification as principle is now under attack by some influential figures in physics. — Wayfarer

Any references? Thanks

Why do you think the idea of souls is unscientific? — TheMadFool

I don't. I think it incoherent.

I don't. I think it incoherent. — Banno

Why? :chin:

...because I havn't seen a coherent account.

because I havn't seen a coherent account. — Banno

Why? :chin:

What is a soul?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/440584

What is a soul? — Banno

A soul = something that 1)survives death and 2) transmigrates into another body


What's incoherent/wrong with the above?

A leg of lamb survives death and transmigrates into another body...

So a leg of lamb is a soul?

Or have you more to add to the definition?

And also that falsification as principle is now under attack by some influential figures in physics.
— Wayfarer

Any references? Thanks — TheMadFool

https://www.philosophersmag.com/footnotes-to-plato/77-string-theory-vs-the-popperazzi

A leg of lamb survives death and transmigrates into another body...

So a leg of lamb is a soul?

Or have you more to add to the definition? — Banno

A leg of a lamb, most definitely, doesn't survive death - it decays or, if consumed, is digested, a process that destroys the leg.

String theory! - the unfalsifiable theory. I thought the unfalsifiability in this case is due to string theory not making any observable predictions and not because it's consistent with propositions that contradict each other.

Why do you think the idea of souls is unscientific? If there are cases where a person has verifiable memories of being someone else before s/he was born then, one explanation, among others, is that there's something that survives death and enters another person and that something is the soul. — TheMadFool

A good question. Science is about proposing hypotheses that can be tested. So first we have to construct what a soul is. Do you have a definition of a soul that can be tested? Where did someone get the idea of a soul? Was it from an experience, or is it only an idea?

To get an idea, I'm going to revisit an old scientific theory called Phlogiston theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
Essentially, the idea was that fire occurred in things because there was a substance called phlogiston that existed inside of flamable objects. If you'll check the link, a lot of effort went into building up the theory, with plenty of scientists pushing their ideas such that, "Air absorbed the released phlogiton eventually, which was then absorbed by plants. This is why air eventually stopped burning and did not continue on forever."

Theories that sound nice on first glance, but cannot or have not yet been tested, are called "plausiblities". They are the initial creative ideas of our mind that appeal to us. As Phlogisiton was tested, certain contradictions began to show up that could not be explained. For example, some metals when burned actually increase their mass, meaning they are not losing phlogiston. Eventually the oxygen theory of knowledge became the scientific standard. It wasn't because it was want people wanted. It was because the testing showed conclusions which contained repeatedly verifiable results without any competing theory.

Soul theory is the same as phlogiston theory. It sounds nice. We can make all of these nice explanations and reasonings, but they are only explanations and reasonings of creative concepts in our head, not things we apply and test in reality.

Soul theory is simply a story. Its a nice comforting story. Who wouldn't want to live forever or assume they have a greater power then simply being another animal with intelligence? Who doesn't want to think we are special over all of the other living creatures on the planet? But at the end of the day, its just a story. There's no definition of a soul to test. We can't even agree what mind is, you think we can agree on what a soul is?

And to your point that "isn't a soul an explanation about verifiable past memories?" No, it is not. Just like me saying, "Perhaps the person has psychic powers" is not. Or "God gave the man the memories of a famous person" is not. All of those are fun stories that we WANT, but cannot be verified through experimentation. So understand that I do not come at this with derision, or as insulting to your beliefs. Neither do I think believing such things is an insult to anyone's intelligence. We all start off thinking these things sound amazing, and wouldn't it be cool if they were real?

We've found out our intelligence can make us very susceptible to creating stories that we believe might be real. This is incredibly important to our creativity, growth, and discovery. But, like anything about us, we have to learn the right way to use these gifts so they do not get out of hand. You might think exercising 7 days a week with the heaviest weights will get you stronger, but it turns out science (by using the found methodologies that consistently have been shown to have the best chance of matching reality) show you will get stronger if you actually put a few rest days in between. You might think the Sun revolves around the Earth watching the Sun rise in the East, and set in the West. It turns out science found we actually revolve around the Sun.

So before you even address reincarnation, which assumes the soul is something real, you must show how a soul is something which can be scientific. I could try to come up with something for reincarnation, but I am honestly at a loss as to how to make a soul scientific, because I don't even know what one is. Can you try? I'm willing to give it a shot.

So first we have to construct what a soul is. — Philosophim

I don't wish to go that far. All I'm interested in is showing that a theory of "something" that retains memories of its past existence and gets transferred from one life to another is one possible explanation for "past life" memories.

Soul,personality or identity,whatever you want to call it.
Do we really have to debate whether your Identity is a real or measurable thing?
And this personality is a causal agent.
Or what the hell is writing these individual posts?

I don't wish to go that far. All I'm interested in is showing that a theory of "something" that retains memories of its past existence and gets transferred from one life to another is one possible explanation for "past life" memories. — TheMadFool

If you want to keep it scientific, then you have to demonstrate how we can test that something. So first, you have to identify what a memory is, because we will need to identify a memory from one person, and from another.

Here's a layman's terms breakdown of memory and the brain. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/human-memory/
A few points.
1. We know where certain memories reside in the brain.
2. People can forget memories through brain damage.

These are testable, and found as repeatable.

Now refer back to my post where I break down possibilities to prove that a person can have an identical memory of another human being, when when human being had not been there to form that memory. Recall that you must first show that someone can actually recalled the memories of another person. That has not been shown as of now. The tests from Stephenson are not enough to show this. Science must be testable, and repeatable. Meaning you would need to show multiple tests from different scientists confirming that when all other phlogiston possibilities are shown to be wrong, the only remaining conclusion is that these children have actually recalled the memories of dead people.

So again, even prior to reincarnation, you must show it is scientifically possible that people can recall the memories of dead people. Only then can reincarnation even be a considered explanation of why this is. Can you do so?

If you want to keep it scientific, then you have to demonstrate how we can test that something. — Philosophim

Well, that's the point. It can't be tested.

Well, that's the point. It can't be tested. — TheMadFool

Then you have your answer. It cannot be scientific.

Then you have your answer. It cannot be scientific. — Philosophim

Yes but that's what I've been saying all along :chin:

But being unfalsifiable relegates any theory of reincarnation based solely on memories of past lives to pseudoscience. Can we do anything to repair such theories to make them scientific? — TheMadFool

I was answering this point from your second post.

This is why I was looking for ways to fix the theory of reincarnation predicated on verifiable memories of past lives. Making such a theory scientific will push up its credibility rating to 100%, a desirable state of affairs, don't you think? — TheMadFool

I was answering these points.

Sorry. Lost track of what I was saying. Thanks. :up: