Do you believe in a soul?

[Cainad (dec.)]

what's the point of a shoe if you dont have a soul?


oh sorry, i thought this was the one sentence meme bomb thread

Also, this thread reminds me of a very profound and important post made on POEE.co.uk a long-ass time ago:

Confucious say large gulf exists between having an open mind and weaving everything you fucking read into an ever widening mesh of bullshit, covering up the inconsistencies with what you arrogantly think of as reasoning skills.

^D/N/T

[Elder Iptuous]

also succinctly put by my grandfather quite often:
"have and open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out"

[hooplala]

Hoopla's answer, "Semantics," strikes me as something of a cop-out to be honest.  It sounds like you're saying you believe in a soul but don't want to call it that.  Which, if you'll forgive me for saying, sounds pretty damned silly.

What's wrong with silly?

[hooplala]

Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?

Yup, I certainly do.  Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying."  Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know.  This is speculation.  The question was asked, I gave you my answer.  Not my fault, YOU don't like it.

It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.

It doesn't mean it is not possible.  It does not make it true or false.  It just is.

That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?

Does it have to be useful?

Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.

That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation.  It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge.  We will never truly know until it is experienced.  Until then.....

There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.

What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.


You're a fucking idiot.

Kai, I love you but this is pretty harsh.

All he was saying is that humans are not infallible, so there is no way our ideas and concepts are infallible.  It's impossible.  Do the physical laws work?  Yes, or we would have tossed out that model and found another model more useful.  But its still just a model.  We know the laws work here on Planet Mudball, and we have reasonable proof that the laws work in the space around Planet Mudball, beyond that we know nothing.

Lack of measurable proof of any existence beyond death is not proof against existence beyond death.  You can't measure art, or one's appreciation of art, but I think most of us would agree it exists.

It's an unanswerable -and therefor pretty much meaningless- argument, and only leads to second circuit nonsense.

[hooplala]

Well then, do you question the validity of your argument?

Yup, I certainly do.  Which is why it ends with "Or I could be lying."  Like everyone else, I do not nor could I ever truly know.  This is speculation.  The question was asked, I gave you my answer.  Not my fault, YOU don't like it.

It certainly isn't your fault. But I'm also free to criticize.

It doesn't mean it is not possible.  It does not make it true or false.  It just is.

That's very zen and all, but is it really applicable to anything useful?

Does it have to be useful?

Only if you're sick of ineffectual mental-masturbation.

That's all it will ever truly be, mental masturbation.  It is why it is called a belief and not knowledge.  We will never truly know until it is experienced.  Until then.....

There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.

What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.


You're a fucking idiot.

That's not what I said at all.  It is all fine and dandy to base measurements upon measurements, but we must be prepared for the possibility of those measurements being wrong.  If say for instance down the proverbial road we find that 1+1 does not equate to two, then everything we have based on that is now drivel.  We could be wrong. I am at least willing to admit it.  I am monkey. I do not know the entirety of the universe.  What I do know is all of the other monkeys who are talking are in the same boat as I am.  They could be wrong as well.  Then again they might have gotten lucky and be right.  Hooray if that is the case, but I can't count it an an absolute.  I can put some faith into it. I can believe they are right, but deep down it is still only a belief and not a fact.

....

You really DON'T know anything about the scientific method do you?

I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you either.

It is starting to sound like religion at this point.

[hooplala]

I'm not angry or upset. Caps lock is cruise control for cool. I just did it to get your attention. You still haven't given any examples of sound experiments which violate basic physical laws.

Yup, you are absolutely right. I haven't. That does not prove or disprove the possible existence of such experiments. Only we have not heard of them.  It is my biggest problem with science these days is if it was published and a lot of like minded individuals say it is correct, it must be.  Using this same formula, we can any subject with enough people who believe in it as fact.  I'm going to do my best to stay away from such an argument as it can never truly be a discussion. 

My statement has basis in the very points you placed, ie if the energy where to dissipate, it would most likely do so in the form of heat.  We know the body does indeed cool upon death and also releases it bowels, both show a loss of heat.  My point is still valid in that area.

As for the zombie thing, it was pure speculation.  Btw, the human brain does function a lot like a computer and the body like a machine.  We even jump start them when they stop running.

Or I could still be lying.


BTW, if you want to get my attention, a normal post works best.  All caps is most likely to have me classify you as a fanatic and nothing worth the time and effort to converse.

A) Are you suggesting we do away with peer review? REAL bright ideal there. Also, lets go back to bloodletting and exorcisms!

B) Yes...we've already established that heat is photons within the infrared range, and that it is also very measurable. Are you suggesting heat = soul?

C) No, it doesn't. Come back to me when you have a degree in biology, or at least some biological background under your belt.

No, I never said to get rid of it, just stop taking it as fact and understand we could all be wrong.

I never suggested the heat was a soul.  I am suggesting that the energy dispersed as heat upon the body's death could or might be a soul.

So....it would follow then that all heat is soul matter? Or are you just completely inconsistent like that?

Or, maybe the soul moves about as heat like other forms of energy? Or the soul is composed the same energy that is found in everything?  Hmmmm.....these concepts sound familiar.

Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If you can master nonsense as well as you have already learned to master sense, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man begins to be free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.

If you can master nonscience as well as you have already learned to master science, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man begins to be free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.

[Manta Obscura]

To begin, understand you can't make me go away.  It is not going to happen.

The arguments in this thread are starting to become like an intellectual herpes: the same conditions recurring with little or no change

what's the point of a shoe if you dont have a soul?


oh sorry, i thought this was the one sentence meme bomb thread

Also, this post made me guffaw.

[shadowfurry23]

It is starting to sound like religion at this point.

I don't believe that it is possible to discuss the soul without discussing religion.

  Weather a person has a soul or not in life is largely irrelevant- it is what happens to that 'soul' after death that gives it meaning at all.  And when you talk about life (or some form of existence) after death, that means you're talking about religion.

[Cramulus]

If you can master nonscience as well as you have already learned to master science, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man begins to be free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.

[hooplala]

It is starting to sound like religion at this point.

I don't believe that it is possible to discuss the soul without discussing religion.

  Weather a person has a soul or not in life is largely irrelevant- it is what happens to that 'soul' after death that gives it meaning at all.  And when you talk about life (or some form of existence) after death, that means you're talking about religion.

I meant science was starting to sound like a religion at that point.

[Vene]

It is starting to sound like religion at this point.

I don't believe that it is possible to discuss the soul without discussing religion.

  Weather a person has a soul or not in life is largely irrelevant- it is what happens to that 'soul' after death that gives it meaning at all.  And when you talk about life (or some form of existence) after death, that means you're talking about religion.

I meant science was starting to sound like a religion at that point.

You WILL convert and follow the teaching of Newton, Bohr, and Darwin or we will flay the flesh from your bones.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that this entire conversation is skidding off into unnecessary areas of funk. I happened to pick up Book Four, by Crowley, the other night on my way to bed. In rereading the 'Preliminary Remarks', I found what may be a decent rejoinder to this thread. I'll cut paste a few points here, but the whole thing is a good read.

EXISTENCE, as we know it, is full of sorrow. To mention only one minor point: every man is a condemned criminal, only he does not know the date of his execution. This is unpleasant for every man. Consequently every man does everything possible to postpone the date, and would sacrifice anything that he has if he could reverse the sentence.

Practically all religions and all philosophies have started thus crudely, by promising their adherents some such reward as immortality.

This seems as decent a statement as can be made on the topic. Humans appear to die, humans don't seem to like the idea of dying and mosbunal religions offer them some sort of option.

No religion has failed hitherto by not promising enough; the present breaking up of all religions is due to the fact that people have asked to see the securities. Men have even renounced the important material advantages which a well-organized religion may confer upon a State, rather than acquiesce in fraud or falsehood, or even in any system which, if not proved guilty, is at least unable to demonstrate its innocence.

Being more or less bankrupt, the best thing that we can do is to attack the problem afresh without preconceived ideas. Let us begin by doubting every statement. Let us find a way of subjecting every statement to the test of experiment. Is there any truth at all in the claims of various religions? Let us examine the question.

Our original difficulty will be due to the enormous wealth of our material. To enter into a critical examination of all systems would be an unending task; the cloud of witnesses is too great. Now each religion is equally positive; and each demands faith. This we refuse in the absence of positive proof. But we may usefully inquire whether there is not any one thing upon which all religions have agreed: for, if so, it seems possible that it may be worthy of really thorough consideration.

It is certainly not to be found in dogma. Even so simple an idea as that of a supreme and eternal being is denied by a third of the human race. Legends of miracle are perhaps universal, but these, in the absence of demonstrative proof, are repugnant to common sense.

Now I see this as a really great practical example of Model Agnosticism in action. Each religion uses some specific model, maybe it has a Buddha nature, or Kali, or Original Sin or Theatens... but maybe, if they at all reflect some aspect of reality... maybe they all have a common point. Crowley seemed to think so. This next bit covers what he saw as similar:

There is, however, one form of miracle which certainly happens, the influence of the genius. There is no known analogy in Nature. One cannot even think of a "super-dog" transforming the world of dogs, whereas in the history of mankind this happens with regularity and frequency. Now here are three "super-men," all at loggerheads. What is there in common between Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed? Is there any one point upon which all three are in accord?

No point of doctrine, no point of ethics, no theory of a "hereafter" do they share, and yet in the history of their lives we find one identity amid many diversities.

Buddha was born a Prince, and died a beggar.

Mohammed was born a beggar, and died a Prince.

Christ remained obscure until many years after his death.

Elaborate lives of each have been written by devotees, and there is one thing common to all three -- an omission. We hear nothing of Christ between the ages of twelve and thirty. Mohammed disappeared into a cave. Buddha left his palace, and went for a long while into the desert.

Each of them, perfectly silent up to the time of the disappearance, came back and immediately began to preach a new law.

After examining some other notable 'teachers he concludes:

Making every possible deduction for fable and myth, we get this one coincidence. A nobody goes away, and comes back a somebody. This is not to be explained in any of the ordinary ways.
....

We have only the accounts given by the men themselves.

It would be very remarkable should we find that these accounts agree.

Of the great teachers we have mentioned Christ is silent; the other four tell us something; some more, some less.

Buddha goes into details too elaborate to enter upon in this place; but the gist of it is that in one way or another he got hold of the secret force of the World and mastered it.

Of St. Paul's experiences, we have nothing but a casual illusion to his having been "caught up into Heaven, and seen and heard things of which it was not lawful to speak."

Mohammed speaks crudely of his having been "visited by the Angel Gabriel," who communicated things from "God."

Moses says that he "beheld God."

Diverse as these statements are at first sight, all agree in announcing an experience of the class which fifty years ago would have been called supernatural, to-day may be called spiritual, and fifty years hence will have a proper name based on an understanding of the phenomenon which occurred.

Theorists have not been at a loss to explain; but they differ.

The Mohammedan insists that God is, and did really send Gabriel with messages for Mohammed: but all others contradict him. And from the nature of the case proof is impossible.

The lack of proof has been so severely felt by Christianity (and in a much less degree by Islam) that fresh miracles have been manufactured almost daily to support the tottering structure. Modern thought, rejecting these miracles, has adopted theories involving epilepsy and madness. As if organization could spring from disorganization! Even if epilepsy were the cause of these great movements which have caused civilization after civilization to arise from barbarism, it would merely form an argument for cultivating epilepsy.

Of course great men will never conform with the standards of little men, and he whose mission it is to overturn the world can hardly escape the title of revolutionary. The fads of a period always furnish terms of abuse. The fad of Caiaphas was Judaism, and the Pharisees told him that Christ "blasphemed." Pilate was a loyal Roman; to him they accused Christ of "sedition." When the Pope had all power it was necessary to prove an enemy a "heretic." Advancing to-day towards a medical oligarchy, we try to prove that our opponents are "insane," and (in a Puritan country) to attack their "morals." We should then avoid all rhetoric, and try to investigate with perfect freedom from bias the phenomena which occurred to these great leaders of mankind.

There is no difficulty in our assuming that these men themselves did not understand clearly what happened to them. The only one who explains his system thoroughly is Buddha, and Buddha is the only one that is not dogmatic. We may also suppose that the others thought it inadvisable to explain too clearly to their followers; St. Paul evidently took this line.

And now we start to see some Reality Grid/BiP influence in Crowley's view. What the Thinker thought (Gabriel/YHVH/Power of the World etc) was proved by the Prover (Well, that was a weird experience, must have been Gabriel/YHVH/Power of the World!).

Example:

something happens whose nature may form the subject of a further discussion later on. For the moment let it suffice to say that this consciousness of the Ego and the non-Ego, the seer and the thing seen, the knower and the thing known, is blotted out.

There is usually an intense light, an intense sound, and a feeling of such overwhelming bliss that the resources of language have been exhausted again and again in the attempt to describe it.

It is an absolute knock-out blow to the mind. It is so vivid and tremendous that those who experience it are in the gravest danger of losing all sense of proportion.

By its light all other events of life are as darkness. Owing to this, people have utterly failed to analyse it or to estimate it. They are accurate enough in saying that, compared with this, all human life is absolutely dross; but they go further, and go wrong. They argue that "since this is that which transcends the terrestrial, it must be celestial." One of the tendencies in their minds has been the hope of a heaven such as their parents and teachers have described, or such as they have themselves pictured; and, without the slightest grounds for saying so, they make the assumption "This is That."

And their Reality Grid kicks in...

In the Bhagavadgita a vision of this class is naturally attributed to the apparation of Vishnu, who was the local god of the period.

Anna Kingsford, who had dabbled in Hebrew mysticism, and was a feminist, got an almost identical vision; but called the "divine" figure which she saw alternately "Adonai" and "Maria."
....
Somehow or another his [Muhammad's] phenomenon happened in his mind. More ignorant than Anna Kingsford, though, fortunately, more moral, he connected it with the story of the "Annunciation," which he had undoubtedly heard in his boyhood, and said "Gabriel appeared to me." But in spite of his ignorance, his total misconception of the truth, the power of the vision was such that he was enabled to persist through the usual persecution, and founded a religion to which even to-day one man in every eight belongs.

The history of Christianity shows precisely the same remarkable fact. Jesus Christ was brought up on the fables of the "Old Testament," and so was compelled to ascribe his experiences to "Jehovah," although his gentle spirit could have had nothing in common with the monster who was always commanding the rape of virgins and the murder of little children, and whose rites were then, and still are, celebrated by human sacrifice.

Similarly the visions of Joan of Arc were entirely Christian; but she, like all the others we have mentioned, found somewhere the force to do great things. Of course, it may be said that there is a fallacy in the argument; it may be true that all these great people "saw God," but it does not follow that every one who "sees God" will do great things.

Now, that's probably tl;dr for most people, if you're interested in the whole book, check it out http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/aba1.htm

However, I think Crowley's view here may be the most useful view to take. Almost every religion has claimed something about eternal life in some sense, trying to prove or disprove any particular dogma about the concept seems insane since no two seem to agree... but, what if we can find something that they hold in common, then examine that?

Seems like a far better option to me than arguing about how much a soul weighs or what religion or what scientific fact is or is not True.

Humans tend to see reality through a glass, darkly. So maybe they saw a smudge and called it soul, when it was just a smudge on the glass... or maybe they saw something and called it soul... because the glass is tinted by their BiP.

Also, I think that Book Four does a fine job of disproving any claim that Crowley believed in God in any normal sense. In fact, I think Dawkins would maybe do a better job writing his philosophy if he read some Crowley

[Bu🤠ns]

the soul, or our idea of it, comes from awareness of our subjectivity.





Edited for active voice.

[hooplala]

Now thats a thought.