Alot of people always say that despite no evidence and religons apparent silliness that they still want or feel the need to believe, that they do believe they have a soul. What's your version of it?

Some dictionary definitions.

"The principle of life in man or animals -- animate existence."

"The principle of thought and action in man commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body, the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical."

"The spiritual part of man regarded as surviving after death, and as susceptible of happiness or misery in a future state."

"The disembodied spirit of a deceased person regarded as a separate entity and as invested with some amount of form and personality."

Or is simply this, (from a dictionary as well)

"Intellectual or spiritual power. High development of the mental faculties. Also, in somewhat weakened sense, deep feeling, sensitivity."

Science has advanced dramatically in the fields of nueroscience, behavioral genetics, and things like evolutionary pyshcology that science is quickly explaining away what is concsiousness. Medical tests like MRI's and PET's etc have also explained what is going with brain activity.

Is science eventually going to kill the soul?

An underrated excellent album by The Police

Feat. Spirits in the Material World and Invisible Sun

This album marked somewhat of a departure point for the Police, who left behind a formula for what were mostly catchy pop songs, delving into a deeper, darker moral complexity and social consciousness. It also marked the first time synthesizers were used by the group, to subtle and potent effect. This radical shift would lead them into the Synchronicity album, which truly broke them world-wide.

Sweet. I didn't know Patrick Bateman posted on FCP.

Yes!

The only album by the PoPo I can stand to listen to any more and I was a huge fan at one point, buying ROIOs etc.

Oh and to the OP, if there is a soul then imo it would be in the form of a sort of universal consciousness rather than some individually identifiable entity that survives the corporeal.

well said imo

Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.

So are there individual conciousnesses that are connected or just one big conciousness that infiltrates everyones minds? Does this entire universal conciousness go to heaven or some thereafter place? Does it just stay and linger here for eternity? Inquiring minds are interested.

Borg

One big cosmic "consciousness", of which an individual is a quantum level part before during and after his perception of his existence as a human being.

All parts (quanta) are interconnected to all other quanta, so there is no "infiltration". (Eg. an ocean doesnt infiltrate a molecule of water, but there is a path from every molecule of water to every other molecule. ) And since its a "quanta of soul", (singing to the tune of "Little Bit o Soul" by the Music Explosion), General Relativity applies and all quanta can interreact with all other quanta instantaneously. (as in "spooky action at a distance")

It doesnt go anywhere (at least until the end of "time").

That seems more of a physical thing or at least not any kind of a "consciousness" per se.

ulimately consciousness is a physical phenomenon, as is everything else.

Oh, then we agree.

do we? Your prior post made it seem like you were separating "consciousness" from "the physical"

Just a reminder, my comments were prefaced with "IF there is a soul". I'm not saying I necessarily believe this "cosmic consciousness" Michael Talbot line of thought, just that I see it as the most likely alternative that fits with the existence of something that might be called a soul.

My bad. I guess my intent was to start a thread about everyone's view of a soul. In my experience religous people have always bandied the term around loosely. I don't believe most of them have a clue what it is or at the very least most people have dramatically different ideas on what a soul is.

If you ask a typical responses would be,

Duh, it's invisible.

It's a like the part that goes to heaven.

It's the essence of our being.

I would bet very few would think of it as conciousness though in reality that's pretty much what Christianity says it is. I have always found that notion pretty silly since I can alter your conciousness and end it with the quick snap of a crowbar.

I wish I had thought to add the "quanta" theory of a soul as that fascinates me though it's probably a major leap over what the layman could grasp. Most wouldn't undertand that an athiest would view conciousness as physical, eg emotions, fears, humor etc.

I was surprised that not one Christian would even profer what his view of the soul was and I listed numerous definitions. I guess science has killed it.

i'm a materialist, personally, but i don't know that it's any more unreasonable to assume that there is a "soul" that is fundamentally immaterial than it is to assume that there is a way for purely physical things to give rise to whatever we call human consciousness.

descartes understood that pretty well, methinks.

it's worse than unreasonable to assume there is a soul. it's intellectually dishonest.



if descartes had knowledge of 21st century evidence he would have concluded that human philosophy by itself is useless for determining anything about objective reality.

Well, not really, since what you call "objective reality" is only a concept within the framework of your human philosophy.

Reason and logic must start with the human mind that is presuming to use reason and logic. Thought is necessary for any examination of "objective reality", therefore 21st century evidence must be examined with the same insturment Descarte used back in his olden-ass day.

It is exactly the opposite of your statement. 21st century evidence is usless without human philosophy.

ok if you want to put science in philosophical terms - a "fundamentally immaterial" soul is definitionally part of the philosophical concept of objective reality. it's a claim to truth that is external to and not dependant on human thought. there is nothing subjective involved. the only practical way to parse the claim is to examine it using external mutually verifiable evidence as a guide. the historical lesson is that trying to determine the truth of external claims using purely internal reasoning is just mentally whacking off.



it's not the opposite, it's both. evidence is useless without philosophy and philosophy is useless without evidence.

the point was anyone who is aware of the modern evidence tying all aspects of consciousness to the physical brain, but still uses some internal philosophy to justify the assumption consciousness is fundamentally immaterial, is being intellectually dishonest with themselves. again, we're talking about a claim that is definitionally external/objective (at least in the context of this thread).

crow, philosophy existed for a long time before karl popper codified what constitutes scientific evidence. and as i've noted before, that he did so in terms of evidence necessarily being falsifiable does set philosophical and logical boundaries on the reaches of scientific theory.

and just to preempt a response i'm pretty sure i'll get, phroensis has literally nothing to do with what we'd call scientific evidence today.


also, i really don't buy this "objective reality" shit at all. i'm of the firm conviction that any sort of human existence cannot but be experienced entirely subjectively, and this is precisely the point that descartes understood so well. if you're going to argue that consciousness can be reduced to to purely materialistic phenomena, you have to have a starting point other than cogito ergo sum. what's yours, crow?

Crow in your argument, what is your definition of "soul"?

to a reductionist the only boundaries to science are technological/practical, and not intrinsic. but whatever - i don't see the relevance. the nature of consciousness is definitionally within the boundaries of science by any practical philosophical standard.

phroensis? you mean aristotle's phronesis? i'd have to study that one : )



of course everyone experiences existence subjectively. that's why science is the only practical tool we have for determining what (for practical purposes, in terms of probabilities) is true about reality external to ourselves and what isn't.



obviously i'm assuming solipsism isn't valid, we aren't living in the matrix, etc., and we are all mutually experiencing the same actual external reality. the evidence seems consistent with that assumption and working from that starting point has certainly advanced humanity both technologically and in terms of social morality, so i don't see the practicality of assuming any other starting point.

when the OP asks if science is going to kill the soul he's talking about it in the religious sense, as in the former definitions he lists.


"The spiritual part of man regarded as surviving after death, and as susceptible of happiness or misery in a future state."

"The disembodied spirit of a deceased person regarded as a separate entity and as invested with some amount of form and personality."





this has nothing to do with "spirituality" in terms of human experience.

Ok, so just to be clear, you aren't addressing the other definitions he lists?

no. science nurtures most of the other ones, not kills.

Ok. That was kind of where I was going. You had my brain churning for a little while, but I will remove it now and go back to genpo.