And Santa Claus brings the presents and babies come from the stork. Like your fairy tale about the soul, there is zero evidence supporting those outlandish stories either...:)

I understand the word 'soul' to mean 'the totality of the being' - as suggested by sayings such as 'body, mind and soul'. it's not a precisely defineable term, but I think that is what I think it suggests.

I think it's mistaken to speak in terms of the soul as being something you have. It is not an appendage or add-on, but the totality of the being. That is my reading of it.

A book I have noticed about the subject is this one:

A Brief History of the Soul, Stewart Goetz et al. http://a.co/dL2D8xA

(If anyone has read it, I would be interested in their opinion.)

One way to imagine the emergence if the soul would be to imagine it as a state of sleep. Heraclitus mentions such an analogy as does Shakespeare in Hamlet.

The mind moves seamlessly from an awake state to a dream state or sleep state. There is no explanation why it how such a movement between states occurs, but it does. So now one is all of a sudden asleep, possibly dreaming. Within this state of being, out of no where, all sense of duration (real time) and concrete space vanish. There is just vague feeling that something is transpiring.

And then, out of no where, the mind awakens and duration and space reappear. What initiates these changes in states of being? To understand this, I believe, would give us some insight into the death/birth cycle.

The sense of real time and concrete space greatly diminishing does not necessitate a soul in any way. And neurologists have great ideas of what initiates these changes in those states of being.

Your reading is wrong since there is no evidence of anything but the body, including the brain.

"Hi, I'm new, I'm a deep thinker addict and I've been so for about 20 years of my 25. Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post or if my posts are not scientifically or APA/MLA/Chicago format inclined. This is a question I've pondered and struggled with for a long time, participating in a sort of tug of war with my emotions and logic. I need a sense of clarification on the topic. I think it will give me satisfaction. I need input. Do you think the soul exists as a separate entity from our body, do you think personality has to do with the soul, do you think some souls shine brighter than others or can our existence and disposition be chalked down to environment and biology?

I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on."
--Locks

While it is sometimes "nice" to imagine that we as human beings are special and have spirits or souls as far as I can tell there is nothing that makes us any different from the other plants and animals that we are lesser than us and we don't believe they are special enough to have souls.

In fact, the idea of spirits and souls goes back to the days when we didn't understand many aspects of the world around us and we use to think of the forces of nature around us where living if not sentient beings themselves. In such societies it is often taboo and/or forbidden to tamper with such unknown forces much like it is forbidden in our society to tamper with certain aspects that make us human beings. However in order for science to advance this mindset had to be put aside and it was replaced with the concept of the "process". A "process" is an inanimate, impersonal, "thing" that doesn't have any ghost like natural forces/gods/spirits/etc in primitive religions/societies. The easy example of a process is the fire created when striking a match: at first a match only has the potential to become fire but it is in an inert state, however when struck the fuel at the top combined with oxygen in the air (along with heat created by friction) to create a chemical reaction or process that becomes fire. The strange thing about "processes" is that they can seem like they are alive when they are not and they can create an aspect of something alive while at the same time not being alive itself; such as the process that allow our cells to function. Also it is worthwhile to note that concept of a process is really a paradigm shift in the way one thinks because one can not really believe in the concept of the process and also see the world in the way we did when we imagined the world to be filled with spirits.

Anyways my main point about processes was to eventually point out that WE ARE ALSO NOTHING MORE THAN PROCESSES AS WELL. You see the one thing we forgot to do (or at least most of us forgot to do) is realize that you can't see nature as merely processes and not accept that human beings are not special snowflakes in that there isn't any fantastic "magical" spirit that allows us to live any more than there are magical things allowing your computer to operate. If your hard drive crashes, it is almost all but a given that the information it contains is gone forever; that is of course if recover software and/or services can not retrieve it. When your brain is without oxygen for over 15-25 minutes it does the equivalent of crashing like a hard drive does and you along with your memories are "gone" much like the data in a hard drive is no longer accessible.

Of course I could be wrong in that there is nothing out there allowing us to have a spirit and there is more to us us than the processes that we are aware of that allows us to live and exist, but without any proof that there is anything is sort of logical to accept that the concept of spirits, magic, and similar romantic thinking to be merely a form of escapism than something based n facts.

Do you think the soul exists as a separate entity from our body, do you think personality has to do with the soul, do you think some souls shine brighter than others or can our existence and disposition be chalked down to environment and biology?

I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on. — Locks

What has ruled out the existence of souls?

Some people say that the existence of deities can never be proven true or false. Theism and atheism are therefore irrational, and only agnosticism is rational, the thinking goes.

The same could probably be said about the question of the existence of souls.

For me, evidence of persistence of memory would give rise to the possibility of a continuation of self - possibly through multiple physical lives. What we call innate skills and natural talents can be considered such evidence. It is one way to possibly explain child prodigies and idiot savants.

Hi, I'm new, I'm a deep thinker addict and I've been so for about 20 years of my 25. Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post or if my posts are not scientifically or APA/MLA/Chicago format inclined. This is a question I've pondered and struggled with for a long time, participating in a sort of tug of war with my emotions and logic. I need a sense of clarification on the topic. I think it will give me satisfaction. I need input. Do you think the soul exists as a separate entity from our body, do you think personality has to do with the soul, do you think some souls shine brighter than others or can our existence and disposition be chalked down to environment and biology?

I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on. — Locks

I do not believe in the soul at all in anything other than a metaphorical sense of the unique being of a particular person.


But no, I believe that we are thoroughly physical beings. Science has not discovered anything like a soul, nor do I have any phenomenological or empirical experience of one.


While I acknowledge that the human mind is an incredibly complex and unique entity, unlike anything else we encounter in the world,I have no reason to think it is anything beyond an evolved capability of our biological makeup, continuous with but far more developed than the minds of other animals.


As a consequence, I do not believe in anything like survival of death, let alone immortality. Further, the libertarian notion of free will seems pretty much out to me too.


That said,life is still wondrous and should be celebrated. Maybe even all the more so!

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO For me, evidence of persistence of memory would give rise to the possibility of a continuation of self - possibly through multiple physical lives. What we call innate skills and natural talents can be considered such evidence. — Rich

I think such things are better explained by simply appealing to the fact that we have certain innate capabilities that we are born with and thatthese are different for anyone. Exquisite talent can often seem supernatural in some way, but I see no real reason to suppose that it actually is.

What has ruled out the existence of souls? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't see why something like a soul is a logical impossibility. On the other hand, I've seen no real a priori or a posteriori evidence that something like a soul exists.

Exactly. Talents (memory of skills) that we are born with. This would be evidence of persistence of memory. This would be how memory across look lives would manifest if indeed it existed. It is no more supernatural than the skills we learn while playing sports or learning a musical instrument. It is the nature of evolution.

I understand the word 'soul' to mean 'the totality of the being' - as suggested by sayings such as 'body, mind and soul'. it's not a precisely defineable term, but I think that is what I think it suggests.

I think it's mistaken to speak in terms of the soul as being something you have. It is not an appendage or add-on, but the totality of the being. That is my reading of it.

A book I have noticed about the subject is this one:

A Brief History of the Soul, Stewart Goetz et al. http://a.co/dL2D8xA

(If anyone has read it, I would be interested in their opinion.) — Wayfarer

I haven't read that book but I like this line of thinking. It dovetails very nicely with much of our colloquial use of the term "soul." I also think it has connotations with the factor that every person has his own unique mix of characteristics and qualities. "No two souls are alike." Of course, it also means something like deep feeling, i.e. "that musician / song had a lot of soul."

The fundamental structure of my life is pretty much organized around my atheistic beliefs that there is no God and that there is no soul. As a consequence, I try to live my life knowing that my life and consciousness will be temporally limited by death and so I have only one shot to make it amazing along the way.

↪Brian Exactly. Talents (memory of skills) that we are born with. This would be evidence of persistence of memory. It is no more supernatural than the skills we learn while playing sports or learning a musical instrument. It is the nature of evolution. — Rich

It theoretically could be evidence of a previous life, but I think that link is weak. I think some babies and children just have an incredible ability to learn new things based on their biological makeup very, very quickly and to an exceptional degree.

If one was interested in pursuing a line of investigation, this would be one avenue that can be pursued. Persistence of memory during one life and multiple lives could provide the fundamental key to understanding this metaphysical question.

For this idea to have merit, it must be shown that memory is not stored in the brain but rather in the underlying fabric in the universe, while the brain acts as a filter just as a TV tuner might. Rupert Sheldrake has outlined some experimental possibilities for such a line of exploration.

↪Brian If one was interested in pursuing a line of investigation, this would be one avenue that can be pursued. Persistence of memory during one life and multiple lives could provide the fundamental key to understanding this metaphysical question.

For this idea to have merit, it must be shown that memory is not stored in the brain but rather in the underlying fabric in the universe, while the brain acts as a filter just as a TV tuner might. — Rich

In theory, but in practice, I am not sure how a scientist could really research the persistence of memory in a way that was meaningful and would verify the existence of survival of death. That seems like a pretty tall order to me and not at all realistic.

I haven't read that book but I like this line of thinking. It dovetails very nicely with much of our colloquial use of the term "soul." I also think it has connotations with the factor that every person has his own unique mix of characteristics and qualities. "No two souls are alike." Of course, it also means something like deep feeling, i.e. "that musician / song had a lot of soul."

The fundamental structure of my life is pretty much organized around my atheistic beliefs that there is no God and that there is no soul. As a consequence, I try to live my life knowing that my life and consciousness will be temporally limited by death and so I have only one shot to make it amazing along the way. — Brian

The second para seems to undercut the first. I thought your post would lead towards there being soul, but not.....

For something as developed and complex living being as a human, the word "soul" and the definition of a soul is extremely useful when describing the complex system.

This is because the opposite, a rigid denial of there existing anything like a "soul" will likely result in a very simplistic mechanical thinking about the mind/body problem and how humans function in general. Yet I fear that the word has too much religious baggage and hence people (especially scientists) will frown it's use and avoid the term. Hence someone will create a stupid word in it's replacement, just as the utterly idiotic term of the "meme", when there is a perfect simple word to describe the phenomenon with the word "idea".

Sheldrake provides concrete lines of experimentation.

↪Brian Sheldrake provides concrete lines of experimentation. — Rich

Not familiar with him or his work but I'd be interested to learn about it. Not because I'm likely to accept or condone it, but just cause I like to know stuff.

Sheldake terms it morphic resonance and morphic genesis. Very similar concepts to Bergson's Memory.

He has a website and there are many YouTube videos. The video that was banned by TED (even though a TED group created it) is quite interesting in a general way but doesn't really get into his theories.

Exquisite talent can often seem supernatural in some way, but I see no real reason to suppose that it actually is. — Brian

What, then, is the natural explanation for 'exquisite talent'? How could a Darwin have predicted, say, a Mozart? What precedents are there among the animals for such a talent? If 'none', then how is it 'natural'?

Rejecting a notion that hasn't been supported by science or the laws of physics, and is undercut by all we know of those things, isn't mechanical thinking, but rational thinking.

Actually, it is positivism.

Sheldake terms it morphic resonance and morphic genesis. Very similar concepts to Bergson's Memory. — Rich

Hah! Didn't know that, but just assumed something like that. Thanks.

Yeah, there is, so get up and dance about it. Clearly everyone for all human history, and across culture were just primitive idiots, because of some evolutionary malfunction or some such. Just all wishful thinking, but us enlightened know that if you want it to be true, or you prefer it, then it must be delusion, and nonsense. That's why we're all so fat, isolated, and depressed. It's the cost of our identities as good, smart, rational people. Everything to the pyre in the name of keeping up appearances regardless of what actually moves you at a visceral level. That movement is just primitive irrational emotions, opposed to our super smart rationality... We know everything now you know, other don't want to unweave the rainbow because they're "mysterians" in love with mystery, that don't want to admit that we know everything now.

Rejecting a notion that hasn't been supported by science or the laws of physics, and is undercut by all we know of those things, isn't mechanical thinking, but rational thinking. — Thanatos Sand

Actually, it is positivism. — Wayfarer

And basically that's my point: it pushes the focus towards a distinct philosophy, positivism.

Not that there's inherently wrong with that, actually. As I said, the term is useful for a complex phenomenon as people likely will some grasp of what you are referring to. To use the religious aspects of the term is a different issue. Because of the religious undertones of the term, somebody will likely start to deny the existence of a soul, but won't likely start a similar rant against other similar terms (that Rich pointed out) are used.

Aristotle found nothing. He theorized a concept of the soul. Big difference. — Thanatos Sand

OK, so we don't find anything in nature then. We don't find different species, we don't find a difference between animals and plants, it's all theory, just like Aristotle's difference between living and non-living is just theorized. Where's the big difference? Is gravity just theory?

I think it's mistaken to speak in terms of the soul as being something you have. It is not an appendage or add-on, but the totality of the being. That is my reading of it. — Wayfarer

It would be more accurate to say that the soul has a body. This is one ancient perspective, analyzed by Plato, that the body is a vessel for the soul. This was dismissed by Plato though (the exact argument I can't recall), as not completely adequate for describing the relationship between soul and body. I believe it has to do with the reasons why he developed the concept of a tripartite person.

Judging by human experience, he concluded that there needs to be a medium between soul and body. I do not know the Greek word he used to refer to this medium. but it's commonly translated as spirit, or passion, and related to ambition. In Plato's description, the soul controls the body through the means of spirit, but also the constraints of the body act upon the soul through the same medium. One's disposition is a description of this relationship. So the soul of the well-mannered, ambitious individual, has effective control over the body through the means of spirit, but this spirit must remain balanced with the constraints which the body places on the soul. And this why virtue, for Plato is a type of knowledge. It involves knowing and maintaining this balance so that it does not tip toward the wrong side, and the soul remains in control.

No, it's rational thinking. According to your faulty logic, science is positivism; it's not.

Also, you need to read Comte, you don't know what positivism is.