Towards A Theory Of Souls: An Intellectual Challenge

[Jeff Corkern]

I have observed in this forum a certain interest in what might, or might not, happen when people die. :) Some of the Million-Dollar Challenges revolve around this.

It occured to me those Challenges were, in essence, an attempt to EXPERIMENTALLY prove, or disprove---in a completely scientific fashion---the existence of the soul.

Well and good.

However, it also occurred to me there is another approach to determining the existence of the soul that is not being used.

The theoretical.

Science has always been a dance between the theoretical and the experimental. Sometimes the experimental advances the theoretical, sometimes it's the other way around.

By way of historical precedent, I cite the prediction of the existence of electromagnetic waves by James Clerk Maxwell, a result of his famed Maxwell's Equations, a prediction confirmed experimentally by Heinrich Hertz some twenty years later.

I propose considering the question of the existence of souls from an entirely theoretical standpoint.

In order to do this, I must define PRECISELY what I mean by "soul."

SOUL: An ETERNALLY EXISTING, THINKING and FEELING structure that can exist WITH or WITHOUT a physical body. They can and do exist in physical bodies from time to time, but don't require one.

As simply as possible, a soul is a person, just without a body, and its existence can NOT be terminated by any means whatsoever.

For the purposes of this thread, I ask that all posters use this definition without modification. If you disagree with my definition of a soul, fine, but please post your own arguments/definitions in another thread.

Using this definition, predict what the observable effects would be on human behavior.(I say it this way because science is about observables.) Explain your chain of logic, why you have reached the conclusion you have.

How would somebody with a soul behave?

Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?

You might consider these questions from the following angle:

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't?

This is a VERY good way to approach this question because intelligence is THE dominating factor in human behavior, and it's only going to get stronger and stronger as time goes on. Basically, as evolution does its thing, humanity gets smarter.

Or, in abstract theoretical terms, as evolution progresses, sentient behavior tends toward the rational.

And finally:

Applying the answers you come up with to the preceding questions to the real world around you, do human beings act like they have souls? Or not?

[Jeff Corey]

This is a long thing that is very confusing to read. Please, take mercy on me and any innocent buystanders and get to the point.

[Complexity]

You speak of 'soul', which is an unnecessary and silly bit of woo.

Please stop.

[Roboramma]

Using your definition of a soul, can a soul that exists in a body have any effect on the behaviour of that body? What are those effects?

[writerdd]

"How would somebody with a soul behave?
Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?
You might consider these questions from the following angle:
What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?
What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't?"

You could ask the same questions about consciousness, and the answer is that there is no difference. You cannot tell from behavior whether or not an individual is conscious or merely a "zombie" who can sense the world but has no awareness--making the questions meaningless. There may be ways to tell if a being is conscious or not (or has a soul or not) but the questions you've asked will not reveal the answer.

[Bronze Dog]

How would somebody with a soul behave?
Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?
You're working backwards in these questions. First we have to establish the existence of the soul, and then observe the difference in behaviors.

[Pup]

We can see that people's thoughts and feelings change based on cumulative experiences. A baby behaves differently than someone who has had more experiences and learned from them.

If a "soul" is eternal, that means it existed for an infinite amount of time prior to the point it got a body, and was thinking and feeling all that time. So why does it appear to start out so inexperienced, emotionally and intellectually, when a body is born? Why didn't it learn anything over all those infinite years, except the most basic instincts (sucking, etc.) and why does it suddenly change and start learning when it gets a body?

The most obvious answer is because there was no consciousness prior to the creation of that particular body.

[JohnF_73]

I think we can (for the puposes of the thread) assume 'infinite' means infinite in one direction only, and thus the alleged soul is born or created or grown, or whatever, in a person....

[JohnF_73]

Using this definition, predict what the observable effects would be on human behavior.
You have not provided all the relevant information to answer this question.
1) Are people aware they have souls? (Since knowledge of an eternal sense of self would doubtless affect human behaviour)
2) Can the soul affect the body? And if so, how?

How would somebody with a soul behave?
Until you say otherwise, I'm assuming the soul is the sole motive force for the body. In which case, they act like any individual.

Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?
They would be inert and begin to decompose.

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?
If you know you have a soul? Kill lots of unhappy people and then yourself. This world is a world of potential pain and suffering, frustrations and all sorts. An eternal consciousness on the other hand, seems like a much easier option. So kill yourself, but before you do, kill a bunch of unhappy people as well. They'll probably thank you when they're eternal.

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't {have a soul}?
Live a long and happy life, and enjoy as much of it as you can, and contribute in a postive way to the society in which you live.


This is a VERY good way to approach this question because intelligence is THE dominating factor in human behavior,
I don't think it's a good way to approach this question. And I don't think intelligence is the dominating factor. Survival instinct might be the dominating factor, maybe.

The average human today is just as much an idiot as the average human 2000 years ago. If we do more, it is because we collectively stand on the shoulders of random mutations which produced civilised and genius level individuals. A pitiful few of them.


Applying the answers you come up with to the preceding questions to the real world around you, do human beings act like they have souls? Or not?

Can't say. But certainly some act as though they BELIEVE they do. And some don't.

[Suezoled]

In "A Dirty Job" by Chris Moore, you can get your soul at a local pawn shop when you purchase something such as a pair of used Nikes.... if you're mature enough as a soulless person, you can find a soul that's mature enough for you.
Remember: local pawn shop. If you feel the urge to buy something you usually don't need or want, it could be a signal that you're buying something that contains your new soul. Or old soul*



*yes, Chris Moore has shown that humans are only being used for their bodies: souls can ascend to the next level, but when you die, the soul goes to the next body that can accept it, but you're left to rot. And maybe be eaten by demons from who hang out in the sewer.

[Gr8wight]

Science has always been a dance between the theoretical and the experimental. Sometimes the experimental advances the theoretical, sometimes it's the other way around.

In real science, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the theoretical cannot be supported by the experimental, it is abandoned.

[RandFan]

I have no problem whatsoever to consider the idea of a soul. I take exception to Complexity's admonition to stop. JREF (AFAIK) isn't about telling people they can't explore certain things including woo. Having read many of Randi's commentaries and having been to TAM to hear him speak I'm confident in saying that he is not at all opposed to such discussions.

That being said, there is nothing in your post that is even remotely similar to Maxwell's equations. Your questions are non-starters for the reasons stated. You can't start with the assumption that a person with a soul behaves in a given way and a person without a soul behaves in a different way because we can't test for a soul. If we have a soul we act like we do. If we don't have a soul we act like we do.

Find someone who you know does or doesn't have a soul and we will compare. I dout that would change anything but at least you would have someone that you knew or didn't know had a soul and in which case one would have to ask, what's the point?

[Jeff Corkern]

You're working backwards in these questions. First we have to establish the existence of the soul, and then observe the difference in behaviors.

Not at all. Inference, working backwards, is a perfectly valid scientific method.

For example, the existence of the planet Pluto was inferred by perturbations in the orbit of Neptune. The existence of the neutrino was inferred by Hideo Yukawa from the failure of the mass-energy to balance from particle collisions.

In fact, if you do particle physics, you don't do anything else EXCEPT infer. All you can directly measure are the decay particles of the decay particles of the decay particles.

The process I'm suggesting is valid, and works.

What would it mean in practical terms, to have a soul?

[Jeff Corkern]

Using this definition, predict what the observable effects would be on human behavior.
You have not provided all the relevant information to answer this question.
1) Are people aware they have souls? (Since knowledge of an eternal sense of self would doubtless affect human behaviour)

This is a GREAT question. Okay, that's a flaw in my challenge and something that needs to be defined more precisely.

The overall purpose of my little challenge is to see if people in the real world today are acting like they have souls.

So, for the purposes of the challenge, in order to reflect the real world---people have souls, but have not yet become aware of it. Souls are affecting their behavior but they haven't truly realized why they do certain things.

To put it in one sentence, people know they have souls---but on the unconscious level only. At least, so far.


2) Can the soul affect the body? And if so, how?

That's certainly a very good question, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking how souls would affect human action, not how it would affect the human body.


How would somebody with a soul behave?
Until you say otherwise, I'm assuming the soul is the sole motive force for the body. In which case, they act like any individual.

Vague. This is no answer.

Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?[/b]
They would be inert and begin to decompose.

I suspect you are right, but you have pointed out how I phrased the question imprecisely.

I shall re-phrase the question more precisely.

How should somebody who THINKS he doesn't have a soul behave?


What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?
If you know you have a soul? Kill lots of unhappy people and then yourself. This world is a world of potential pain and suffering, frustrations and all sorts. An eternal consciousness on the other hand, seems like a much easier option. So kill yourself, but before you do, kill a bunch of unhappy people as well. They'll probably thank you when they're eternal.

You're assuming the afterlife is BETTER. I don't say that. For all I know, the afterlife (assuming it exists---I'm trying to be as neutral as possible) is filled with just as much frustration, pain, and suffering.

But man, you're sniffing around the right trail, with that comment about unhappiness, i.e. seeking to achieve certain emotional states.

Just for the record, I have solved that challenge I posted. But it took me ten years.

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't {have a soul}?
Live a long and happy life, and enjoy as much of it as you can, and contribute in a postive way to the society in which you live.

Incorrect. Not rational. I won't explain why. But again that comment on achieving emotional states, not only you but everybody else.




This is a VERY good way to approach this question because intelligence is THE dominating factor in human behavior,
I don't think it's a good way to approach this question. And I don't think intelligence is the dominating factor. Survival instinct might be the dominating factor, maybe.

The average human today is just as much an idiot as the average human 2000 years ago. If we do more, it is because we collectively stand on the shoulders of random mutations which produced civilised and genius level individuals. A pitiful few of them.

A bit of a side issue, but:

I will grant you that intelligence may currently NOT be the dominating factor influencing human behavior today. I am unable to prove that it is.

However, it is GOING to be. If not now, it will be true one day.

In fact, it will be fairly soon.

Because the human race knows about genes and DNA now and will therefore soon be in total control of its genes. Evolution will no longer be random, but self-directed.

When they find the genes that set human intelligence, surely they will be set as high as possible----and THEN intelligence will be the dominating factor on human behavior.

So I'm asking the question of that future, highly intelligent, genius-level human: What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?



Applying the answers you come up with to the preceding questions to the real world around you, do human beings act like they have souls? Or not?

Can't say. But certainly some act as though they BELIEVE they do. And some don't.

So what do people who act as if they BELIEVE they do act like?

And some don't? What do they act like?

[Jeff Corkern]

Using your definition of a soul, can a soul that exists in a body have any effect on the behaviour of that body? What are those effects?

That's what I'm asking YOU.:D

I am approaching the existence of souls from a totally objective, scientific viewpoint.

What would be the observable effects of such a thing on a human being?

There MUST be observable effects in order for the problem to be solved scientifically. Something that has no observable effect does not exist from a scientific standpoint.

If souls exist as real, physical entities----like the planet Pluto, like the neutrino---their existence should be inferrable from their effects on the behavior of human beings.

This can actually be done. This problem can be solved. I solved it. But it took me ten years.

[Trifikas]

Originally Posted by JohnF_73 :
What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't {have a soul}?
Live a long and happy life, and enjoy as much of it as you can, and contribute in a postive way to the society in which you live.


Incorrect. Not rational. I won't explain why. But again that comment on achieving emotional states, not only you but everybody else.





Er, hold on. This is correct, based on how I see a majority of forum members act. Many of them profess to not believing in having a soul, and belive in living a happy life, etc. Why do you say it is incorrect?

Trifikas

[Jeff Corkern]

We can see that people's thoughts and feelings change based on cumulative experiences. A baby behaves differently than someone who has had more experiences and learned from them.

Okay.

If a "soul" is eternal, that means it existed for an infinite amount of time prior to the point it got a body, and was thinking and feeling all that time.

Okay, this is a reasonable observation. A bit more definition of terms is required.

ETERNAL: Incapable of having its existence terminated.

This does NOT say it has existed eternally, just that, once created, it cannot be destroyed.

So, applying this to souls, let me add the folllowing about my definition of a soul:

Souls can be created---but not destroyed.


So why does it appear to start out so inexperienced, emotionally and intellectually, when a body is born? Why didn't it learn anything over all those infinite years, except the most basic instincts (sucking, etc.) and why does it suddenly change and start learning when it gets a body?

Well, a baby is a baby because its organs are undeveloped. The eyes can't see, the limbs can't co-ordinate, and most importantly, the brain hasn't developed certain structures. I mean, if YOU woke up suddenly turned into a newly born baby, you would be unable to communicate that a fully developed person was in there. Remember, you wouldn't even have language.

Why didn't it learn anything in all its previous years? (Not necessarily infinite---see above.)

How do you know it hasn't? Have you ever seen two people grow up together in the same atrocious circumstances, and the life of one is a total disaster while the other somehow seems to rise above it?

[Jeff Corkern]

In real science, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the theoretical cannot be supported by the experimental, it is abandoned.

True. And the point is?

[Jeff Corkern]

Er, hold on. This is correct, based on how I see a majority of forum members act. Many of them profess to not believing in having a soul, and belive in living a happy life, etc. Why do you say it is incorrect?

Trifikas

Okay.

Let's examine this question.

Hmmm.

As John has implied, repeatedly, people do what they do in order to be happy, in order to achieve a certain emotional state.

Let me drag it out and make it more plain.

PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY DO IN ORDER TO TRY TO BE HAPPY.

All right.

Let us say a man who believes he has no soul has a family.

Why does he have a family?

Because they make him happy, of course. (It ain't because he's controlled by his genes. I have been reading about people who are changing their genes. If you can change your genes, you are controlling your genes, they are NOT controlling you.)

However, if this man who believes he has no soul wants to be happy, there's a faster, easier, cheaper way.

Drugs.

Emotion drugs. Drugs whose sole purpose is the inducement of certain emotional states in the brain. Pot, meth, smack, LSD, alcohol, Ecstasy(note the revealing name), the list goes on and on and gets longer on a daily basis.

Some will argue all these drugs have side-effects, i.e. will make their user unhappy in the long run. True enough, but this is strictly a technological problem and as such, can be eliminated totally.

By, let us say, running a tiny little wire into his brain and directly stimulating his emotion centers. Bingo, no more nasty side-effects. Instant Nirvana at the snap of a switch.

A timing circuit so he will remember to eat, sleep, and bathe on occasion, and he's done.

The man has a family because they make him happy. Well, there's a great deal of expense associated with doing it the old-fashioned way. There's a great deal of pain and aggravation that comes with the package, too. There's even a good chance his family will make him more unhappy than happy.

Isn't that wire the RATIONAL thing to do? Isn't it cheaper, faster, less messy, more certain?

The logical thing for that man to do is boot his family out the door and use the money saved to hook himself up.

Isn't he living a happy life now? You bet he is, stoned out of his head happy.

Without an immortal soul, there is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to be concerned with the happiness of others. The only desires he should be concerned with are his, and his alone. There is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to "contribute in a positive way" to society. It is irrational for him to do so.

If you believe you have no soul, the only thing you should rationally be doing is getting stoned all the time. What's the physical difference between achieving an emotional state using drugs and doing it the old-fashioned way? Drugs are CHEAPER!

But back to our subject.

Not having an immortal soul makes it theoretically possible for him to escape the consequences of his actions, you see. The fact that his wife and children wind up destitute and starving on the streets has had no physical effect on him, if he dies first AND HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL.

But having an immortal soul changes this equation. It is now impossible for him to escape the consequences of his actions.

Now, THERE IS A PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE.

Somewhere, somehow, his wife and children can theoretically catch up to him and MAKE HIM PAY. (If husband has an immortal soul, SO DO THEY.)

Through the nose, one hopes.

[Trifikas]

Sorry, Your hypothetical wire-in-the-brain loses to the the very real fact that there are forumites who don't believe they have souls, aren't on drugs, probably have families, and are striving to be happy, if not already are. Even if it's not a logical response, people are like that. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Now, that's not to say the hard-wire to the pleasure center of the brain wouldn't entice people. Might even entice a lot. But it will get people who think they have a soul as much as not - it would be an addiction, catching a pretty general cross section.

Drug use today crosses pretty much all demographics. You can't just say agnostics or athiests would be the only ones who take them.

Trifikas

[Roboramma]

As John has implied, repeatedly, people do what they do in order to be happy, in order to achieve a certain emotional state.

I think that's close to the truth but not exactly. Sometimes people have that motivation. Other times they just do what feels right. When I'm pissed off about something I just do what my anger says, not what my reason suggests I should do.
We are very emotional beings, and that emotion is a large part of our intelligence. I don't see us escaping it any time soon.
Happiness isn't the only motivation. But I will agree that our emotions set our goals.

Even from an emotionless place of contemplation, I don't attempt to lead my life toward greatest possible happiness, though that's certainly a part of it. I try to lead my life in a way that I am happy, fulfilled, and feel that I have accomplished something. I don't say that's any more rational than a life dedicated only to my happiness, but it's certainly an option that I and many others take.
I think it's my emotional responses that have led to me want this. I also don't think I would want anything without those emotions.

Leaving that point aside to respond to the rest of your post...

However, if this man who believes he has no soul wants to be happy, there's a faster, easier, cheaper way.

Drugs.

Emotion drugs. Drugs whose sole purpose is the inducement of certain emotional states in the brain. Pot, meth, smack, LSD, alcohol, Ecstasy(note the revealing name), the list goes on and on and gets longer on a daily basis.
Well, I've seen the effects of drugs first hand on long time users, and let me tell you, they were not happy with their choise. I've watched a man struggle with his addiction and hate himself for it. He was anything but happy, beleive me.

Even I smoked a lot of pot for a while when I was in india. It didn't take me long to realise it just wasn't worth it.

<SNIP>
Isn't that wire the RATIONAL thing to do? Isn't it cheaper, faster, less messy, more certain?
If the state he's in with the wire in his brain is his ideal state, then of course it's the rational thing to do. But for many people perfect happiness is not the ideal state.
I would be tempted by that offer, and if things were going really badly for me, I'd probably take it, but I can think of better lives. Lives I'd rather live. So clearly for me, that isn't the ideal state.

There is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to "contribute in a positive way" to society. It is irrational for him to do so.
Only if happiness is the only thing he wants. If "contriubting in a positive way" is one of his goals, then he clearly does have a reason to do it.
Now, I will admit that there is no physical reason to prefer any one goal over any other, except for the make up of the brain which influences what those goals will be.
And because that makeup influences our goals, it will also influence the changes we make to the brain. Few people will want "designer babies" who don't care about anything but their own happiness, for instance.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY DO IN ORDER TO TRY TO BE HAPPY.

You're begging the question. People do a lot of things for different reasons other than "being happy." We are hard-wired to want to procreate, for example. We have emotions like anger, frustration, fear, sadness, etc. and we often act out of those emotions, which have nothing to do with a desire to be happy. It is rather silly to break down a single person, let alone every person into a single motivation. We are more complex creatures than that.

Moreover, you have a very narrow definition of the word "happy." Being in a constant state of drug-induced bliss may be some people's definition of the word happy, but I doubt it would be for everybody. I am sure there would be plenty of people using your "Happy Wire" who would opt-out after a while. The problem with this hypothesis is what Robo said -- paradoxically, many people would find constant "happiness" to not be happiness at all.

Isn't that wire the RATIONAL thing to do? Isn't it cheaper, faster, less messy, more certain?

Only if you accept that a person's only motivation in life is to pursue happiness (which I don't), and that happiness is a very simple emotional state (which I also don't accept).

Without an immortal soul, there is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to be concerned with the happiness of others. The only desires he should be concerned with are his, and his alone. There is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to "contribute in a positive way" to society. It is irrational for him to do so.

Nonsense. People contribute to society for a variety of reasons, almost all of which have nothing to do with having a soul. The simple, RATIONAL reason for people to contribute is that if nobody contributes, everything will fall apart. Your Super Happy Family Smile Wire factory would shut down, food production and distribution would cease, and we'd all starve to death or die of disease. People also contribute in the hopes of encouraging others to do the same -- reciprocity. Treat others how you would like to be treated. This leads to the very RATIONAL and PRACTICAL notion of stability.

You also seem to be completely ignoring the very, very obvious reason people contribute -- or at least, don't do bad things: punishment in this life. That deterrent is enough for plenty of people. In fact, you could just as easily argue that people's notion of having a soul can encourage them to do bad things, whereas not having a soul can make you much more careful. After all, if you believe that being a suicide bomber and killing dozens of people will bring you reward in the afterlife, it will make you much more likely to do it. If, however, you believe that this is your only shot at life, it may make you a lot more cautious about doing something that will land you in prison for your whole (and only) life, or worse.

Not having an immortal soul makes it theoretically possible for him to escape the consequences of his actions, you see. The fact that his wife and children wind up destitute and starving on the streets has had no physical effect on him, if he dies first AND HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL.

If he dies first. That is a rather big if. What you are saying is, "Not having an immortal soul means that if we do something bad, and evade justice until the day we die, then there will never be justice." Well, no kidding. So what's your point? That not having a soul means you are only concerned with what occurs on this world? I am sure most agnostics and atheists would agree.

But having an immortal soul changes this equation. It is now impossible for him to escape the consequences of his actions.

Now, THERE IS A PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE.

Somewhere, somehow, his wife and children can theoretically catch up to him and MAKE HIM PAY. (If husband has an immortal soul, SO DO THEY.)

So. It is possible somewhere, somehow, that they could do that on Earth too. And it is also possible his "soul" could evade justice just as he did on Earth. Having a soul doesn't seem to be much different than having a body.

[Piggy]

How would somebody with a soul behave?
A person with a soul, being eternal, would have a lot of time on his hands.

And since there was nothing really to strive for, he would lose interest in those things which are given meaning and urgency by mortality.

He would not be concerned about how others feel about mortality, or these urgent and meaningful things, especially since they're wrong about their beliefs, and everyone has infinite time, anway.

He would therefore become a general pest to everyone around him, engaging almost obsessively in unending sophomoric debates in which he repeatedly drags out shards of long-debunked metaphysics, vague and unsubstantiated claims, and a dizzying assortment of non-sequiturs, misreadings, tangents, red herrings, and other rhetorical irrelevancies.

That's how someone with a soul would behave.

[Rasmus]

SOUL: An ETERNALLY EXISTING, THINKING and FEELING structure that can exist WITH or WITHOUT a physical body. They can and do exist in physical bodies from time to time, but don't require one.

As simply as possible, a soul is a person, just without a body, and its existence can NOT be terminated by any means whatsoever.


Emphasis mine. Case closed, as per your definition.

[CurtC]

It seems to me that the realities of how personality is dependent on the physical brain, is pretty strong evidence against the usual idea of a "soul." If a soul is "who the person is," and it's just inhabiting the physical body for some reason, wouldn't you expect that this same personality and thought process would be consistent regardless of changes to the brain in the material world?

But psychotropic drugs, brain damage, brain cancer, hormones, etc., all have observable effects on personality and the thought process. Doesn't this pretty much prove that what we think of as a soul is really just an electrochemical process going on in the physical brain?

[voidx]

SOUL: An ETERNALLY EXISTING, THINKING and FEELING structure that can exist WITH or WITHOUT a physical body. They can and do exist in physical bodies from time to time, but don't require one.

You're missing an aspect here. Souls can exist irregardless of a physical body. Can a physical body then exist without requiring a soul? Do you believe in some form of p-zombie? This makes a rather bold assumption, that physical bodies are simply hosts for Souls, should they decide to inhabit one. In which case...how did the origin of this process take place? If there is no concept of a physical body without a soul, how can we differentiate behaviour of physical bodies that do have "souls"?

[Roboramma]

You're missing an aspect here. Souls can exist irregardless of a physical body. Can a physical body then exist without requiring a soul? Do you believe in some form of p-zombie? This makes a rather bold assumption, that physical bodies are simply hosts for Souls, should they decide to inhabit one. In which case...how did the origin of this process take place? If there is no concept of a physical body without a soul, how can we differentiate behaviour of physical bodies that do have "souls"?

Not only that, but if the behavior of physical bodies can be explained without souls (and it can by modern neuroscience, though like all science, it is not yet complete), then one wonders what souls that are in bodies are actually doing.

Do they just sit there and watch things unfold? If they aren't necessary to explain the person's actions, then we have no reason to believe that they have any impact on his behavior. And if they don't, they either don't exist, or are living a horrible life, watching the world, experiencing it, but incapable of affecting any change.

If you don't accept that possition, read curtc's post that refutes the other alternative.

[voidx]

Not only that, but if the behavior of physical bodies can be explained without souls (and it can by modern neuroscience, though like all science, it is not yet complete), then one wonders what souls that are in bodies are actually doing.

Do they just sit there and watch things unfold? If they aren't necessary to explain the person's actions, then we have no reason to believe that they have any impact on his behavior. And if they don't, they either don't exist, or are living a horrible life, watching the world, experiencing it, but incapable of affecting any change.

If you don't accept that possition, read curtc's post that refutes the other alternative.
I assume this last part was meant for Jeff :). I quite agree with CurtC, was just prompting Jeff to clarify some more.

I often find that many people miss the aspect of "Physical bodies without souls" when they go into explaining that "Souls can inhabit, but do not require physical bodies." To have one, is to have the other. And what use is a process that creates physical bodies without souls, if indeed souls exist are are external? A question without an answer I often find. Well unless you consider that brain thinga ma jiggy.

It leads to whether or not they believe in some form of p-zombie, a concept I think is really very useless and circular. And as you mentioned completely unnecessary given the many mundane explanations hinted at by CurtC

[Roboramma]

I assume this last part was meant for Jeff :).

Don't worry, it was :).

And I agree completely with the above post.

[AgingYoung]

Jeff Corkern,

How would somebody with a soul behave?
Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?

Someone with a soul (as you define it) yet not knowing they had one would act like someone that didn't have a soul and knew they didn't. I think your question is vague and that you're beating around the bush.

If I accept your definition of a soul:
As simply as possible, a soul is a person, just without a body, and its existence can NOT be terminated by any means whatsoever.and my soul isn't held accountable once it leaves this body why should having a soul matter?

I do agree that there is a soul and it is the real you. Your body is just where you are at the moment. The real you is complex yet not infinite in complexity. That real you that is stored in your brain could also be a neural network on a very large computer. Or, for example, the information of a novel could be a computer file or printed into a book or recorded on a cd as an audio book. There are 3 different media yet the same information. The body we have is the media.

There are no examples of life that we have that are eternal. Even if there were examples we couldn't know it since we can't see its beginning or end. The boundaries of infinity are beyond a person's ability to know. Your conjecture of an eternal soul is outside the realm of scientific discovery; it's not observable. I do believe in an eternal soul though but as you can see it's a matter of faith.

Gene

[c4ts]

It occured to me those Challenges were, in essence, an attempt to EXPERIMENTALLY prove, or disprove---in a completely scientific fashion---the existence of the soul.
Then you need data, not speeches or explanations. What are your procedures?


Science has always been a dance between the theoretical and the experimental. Sometimes the experimental advances the theoretical, sometimes it's the other way around.
The theoretical arises from experimental results, and then it is tested through additional experiments. There is no "dance" since you cannot have one without the other.


SOUL: An ETERNALLY EXISTING, THINKING and FEELING structure that can exist WITH or WITHOUT a physical body.
This definition is not helpful. How do you measure if something is "thinking" or "feeling?" A rock might think or feel but you would never know. It's unlikely that you have based this information on results that you already observed.

ETERNALLY EXISTING
"ETERNITY" is unfalsifiable. If you intend to prove or disprove anything, get rid of it.

They can and do exist in physical bodies from time to time, but don't require one.
This is a statement of observation. What is this doing in your definition?


I propose considering the question of the existence of souls from an entirely theoretical standpoint.

In order to do this, I must define PRECISELY what I mean by "soul."

"An entirely theoretical standpoint" the way you have constructed it is entirely speculative, therefore unproductive. No ammount of argumentation can stand up to evidence produced through objective observation. All the sceintific theory in the world will fail you if you cannot produce results, so you might as well test it. This is true for ALL science, and when you operate outside of it, you must stop call what you do "scientific." If you are abandoning scientific method just to argue a point, you abandon science.

[chance]

If souls exist as real, physical entities----like the planet Pluto, like the neutrino---their existence should be inferrable from their effects on the behavior of human beings.

Your assumption is flawed - i.e. that souls affect human behaviour, because you have no way to discriminate between, the difference on behaviour caused by a soul and the difference in behaviour from those that believe they have a soul!

This can actually be done. This problem can be solved. I solved it. But it took me ten years. I afraid it’s garbage in garbage out unless you have considered the flaw above.

[AgingYoung]

I think in theory a person's entire personality could exist outside their body; if you could write it on to a hard drive. Some people would need a cray to hold their personality or soul and some could scrape by with a 486 and a two gig hard drive. A few could exist in the two states of a single transistor.

The technology to 'photo copy' an integrated circuit has been around since the 70's. Nano technology has advanced quite a bit since then. I think I've heard where they can scan something element by element or atom by atom. If you scanned a person's brain and used that scan to replicate with nano technology you could in theory replicate the brain and in the state that existed while you had scanned it. The replicated brain's state would be a function of it's physical configuration.

I don't think it would be necessary for the replicated brain to be of the same material as an actual brain. The material would only have to function similarly; not be identical. I think a replicated brain could have a shelf life of 100's of years. Less if you used it a lot. :eye-poppi

The idea that a soul could not be destroyed: I think (if that characteristic is intrinsic to the soul) it's possible for the soul to be destroyed. Consider this idea: If you do your backup on a partition of your hard drive and your hard drive crashes can you reboot from that backup? You need quite a bit of skill to do that. Most people would be buying a new operating system.

Gene

[aggle-rithm]

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't?



Another way to put it:

What is the meaning of life if you have a soul?

What is the meaning of life if you don't have a soul?

For both your questions and mine, the answer is the same.

[Thing]

I am reminded of the words of that wacky funster J. B. S. Haldane when he wrote

"There are a number of arguments which seem to prove that my soul is eternal and indestructible. Unfortunately, they also prove that it has existed from all eternity. And, though I am quite willing to believe that ten years after my death I shall be as I was ten years before my birth, the prospect cannot be said to thrill me."

[AgingYoung]

I think there are infinite subsets of infinity. An infinite set may or may not have a beginning. The idea of a soul as it's postulated by Jeff Corkern is an infinte set of experiences that has a beginning; just no end.

To have soul or not to have soul; that is not the question. There is an image of your personality that is manifested with your body. It's theoretically possible to copy that image of you (your soul).

I think the single most important thing that shapes a person is what they've experienced. Everyone changes with time and experience. There are some experiences that are pertainent with some applications but not others. The experiences that led you to be able to slam dunk are irrelevent if you're trying to read a book and get an understanding of it. These are two seperate applications.

Both of those applications do have some things in common. They're both a result of your experience and shape you over time but more importantly they run on a particular system. That I think is the curx of the question. What operating system are you using or what is your spirit?

Some operating systems or spirit are given freely (linux) and some require you to pay thru the nose (you know who) every time you turn around. The 'pay thru the nose' sort want to 'help' you but they're just acting like they're helping. They're actually paying attention to your every move to see what you're up to. If you try to do something they don't approve of they're right there to stop you. Linux has the philosophy that it's your hardware and applications and you have a right to do with them as you see fit.

I share that philosopy with linux. You don't have to but I'd suggest you change your spirit. It's your choice.


format c:/s<linux>
get a new spirit; choose free


Gene

[Outhere]

The Pope has declared that human cloning is wrong because the clone would have no soul. He didn't explain his rationale for this. My guess is that despite having such a down on sex, the Catholic Church believes that it is a necessary activity in order for God to implant a soul in the embryo. No sex, no soul. Interesting thought.

The church also teaches that the soul inhabits and animates (anima = soul) the body, in every part of it without being in any specific part. More doublethink? But that is why you can lose a limb without losing a part of your soul. Yet when Pope John Paul was shot by a would-be assassin, surgeons saved the intestines they removed from him until they could be buried with him.

Doesn't this sound like pretty primitive woo?

A teacher, trying to convert a crowd, described the soul as having no size, shape, color, weight, nor does it occupy space. A heckler called out, "That's the best definition of nothing I ever heard."

[Bikewer]

Hmmm...Angel, without a soul, was murderous and depraved, but enjoyed himself immensely.
With a soul, he was morose and brooding, constantly trying to make amends for his numerous misdeeds.

Difficult to choose.

[AgingYoung]

Etymologies
The current English word "soul" may have originated from Old English sawol, documented in 970 AD, which has possible etymological links with a Germanic root from which we also get the word "sea". The old German word is called 'se(u)la', which means: belonging to the sea (ancient Germanic conceptions involved the souls of the unborn and of the dead "living" being part of a medium, similar to water), or perhaps, "living water".
Ancient Greeks sometimes referred to the soul as psyche (as in modern English psychology). Aristotle's works in Latin translation, used the word anima (as in animated), which also means "breath". In the New Testament, the original word may sometimes better translate as "life", as in :
"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26)
If you exchange the word "soul" for "life" in the sentence above, the statement may seem less profound. Also, Jesus said, "He who saves his life will lose it", which means that a faithful believer must be ready to sacrifice his life in order to preserve his soul.
The Latin root of the related word spirit, like anima, also expresses the idea of "breath". Likewise, the Biblical Hebrew word for 'soul' is nefesh, meaning life, or vital breath.
The various origins and usages demonstrate not only that what people call "soul" today has varied in meaning during history, but that the word and concept themselves have changed in their implications.

That is probably why Jeff Corkern wanted to stick to a particular definition.
The church also teaches that the soul inhabits and animates (anima = soul) the body, in every part of it without being in any specific part.
There is a holographic nature to the brain. You can remove parts of it yet not change the person or their memories.

Individual neurons in the brain make thousands of connections, inevitably scrambling all of the information. The article deals with this problem by examining other systems where information is scrambled and later recovered, by applying those methods to the brain.That you or the information that is your soul is distributed in different places in your brain and are interconnected by quite a few different paths. Your soul is a distributed data base but I don't think any of it is distributed in your intestines. Tripe for brains?

Gene

[Flange Desire]

Re OP:

Unfortunately your definition of a soul does not describe in any way how such a soul would interact with the real world, so therefore your first 4 questions are unanswerable.

Your assumption that there is an evolutionary drive towards higher intelligence may be incorrect. Evolution only drives towards fitness for reproductive success. Smartness may be of some value in propagating your genes today, but in some future time and place a short purple warty spade shaped digit may be much more fashionable and useful.

As for your last question 'do human beings act like they have souls' -
No such thing is indicated by the available evidence.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In order to do this, I must define PRECISELY what I mean by "soul."

Your definition is fine. I can do the same PRECISE definition about "Santa". Is there a difference?

[Gr8wight]

In real science, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the theoretical cannot be supported by the experimental, it is abandoned.

True. And the point is?

Your theoretical cannot be supported by anyone's experimental.

There is no way to experimentally support the existence of a soul. Therefore your theorizing leads exactly nowhere. You either believe or you don't, and neither of us will find out this side of death's door. This discussion is entirely pointless.

[Dr Adequate]

JC --- there seem to be several bits missing in your thesis.

First, you have not defined the word "rational".

Second, you have not explained why we should expect people to behave in a way that is "rational" according to your definition.

Finally, I have a very simple way to test your proposition concerning the soul. If people's thinking and feeling is being done by an invisible intangible entity ("the soul") then it follows that injuries to the brain should not impair these faculties. This is false, refuting the soul hypothesis.

[pmckean]

Whilst it's true that theres no known devisable test for verifiying the existence of the soul, I would never want to categorise any kind of theorising as pointless. Who's to say that there won't be a way of checking the existence of eternal, non-corporeal personalities in the future, as problematic, unlikely and difficult to imagine as that is?

With regard to Jeff's interesting original question, I think it's possible that someone could look at the behaviour of people with antisocial personality disorders versus the average person and derive a theory that the sociopaths were soulless and the normal guy's ensouled. Of course, it's much easier to test for some physical abnormality in our brain tissue, and that would probably invalidate any soul-based hypothesis, but I can see no reason not to propose the theory.

Sociopaths can be charming, helpful. non-violent members of society, but have a complete and utter lack of empathy for others. They are prone to "selfish, callous and remorseless use of others". Have you ever had a boss take credit for your efforts at work? It's a potential sociopathic tendency. Many sociopaths are likely to know they have this serious lack of empathy, and masquerade as caring people. They are without conscience.

Sociopaths can be diagnosed, though. The standard clinical test for sociopathy is Robert Hare's PCL-R.

Could it be that ensouled bodies are subconsciously aware of their divine origin, and having BEEN many other people in past lives are likely to encourage empathy for others in their fleshy hosts? Whereas souless sociopaths, no more than remorseless machines, do everything for their own selfish ends?

I could even propose, anecdotally, that some self-aware sociopaths with a religious background may even *believe* they have no soul. Er, got no proof, though.

(It's worth reminding readers at this point that I'm suggesting a thought process that others might arrive at; not one that I share. I believe that antisocial personality disorders are mundane malfunctions of the brain, and nothing else. I don't believe in souls.)

One final thought, though... if the body is subconsciously aware of the soul's existence, and the soul is a divine entity, then ensouled beings are sunbconsciously aware of the divine and presumably more likely to go to church. It follows, therefore, that soulless human automatons will have no awareness of a higher plain, and are much more likely to be skeptics!

We're all psychopaths!

[telepathy]

A amazing phenomena might uncover the mystery of spirit, please read the link below.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54779
This is worthy your investigation if you truly interest in developing your theory. Don't confused by others words which are the strategies of somebody to prevent truly paranormal phenomena to be published.

[Hellbound]

JC --- there seem to be several bits missing in your thesis.

First, you have not defined the word "rational".

Second, you have not explained why we should expect people to behave in a way that is "rational" according to your definition.

Finally, I have a very simple way to test your proposition concerning the soul. If people's thinking and feeling is being done by an invisible intangible entity ("the soul") then it follows that injuries to the brain should not impair these faculties. This is false, refuting the soul hypothesis.

Good point. To carry this further...

Even the existence of a soul would not provide any means of consequences after death. We have very good evidence that thinking and feeling are done by the brain (with influences from the body), and that the brain function, memory, and structure forms personality. Thus, the immortal soul contains neither your personality or your memories, and is incapable of thought. And threfore, experimental evidence disproves your definition, and your theory is falsified.

Next?

[kieran]

Okay.
...
Let us say a man who believes he has no soul has a family.
...
Without an immortal soul, there is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to be concerned with the happiness of others. The only desires he should be concerned with are his, and his alone. There is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to "contribute in a positive way" to society. It is irrational for him to do so.
...
Not having an immortal soul makes it theoretically possible for him to escape the consequences of his actions, you see. The fact that his wife and children wind up destitute and starving on the streets has had no physical effect on him, if he dies first AND HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL.


Jeff - if this is your viewpoint on life then you need to meet some normal people. They might surprise you.

Altruism exists - get over it.

If you want to claim that you believe that that the only "rational behavior in a life without a soul" is "pure selfishness" then just come out with it. (It is a lot less verbose than your waffling posts.)

I don't live my life that way - if you want to use it to justify your behavior or personal moral code, that's entirely up to you.

If the only reason you would choose to act in a non-selfish way is that you are afraid of the consequences, then you are quite a pathetic individual.

[AgingYoung]

kieran,

Altruism describes a behavior but it doesn't explain the motivation. What would you say are reasons to be altruistic?

Altruism exists - get over it.

Gene

[Bronze Dog]

The motivation for altruism is selfishness. (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=49196900&blogID=87372763&MyToken=112ca2b6-aa08-4313-9e20-427a8130c67a) :)

[kieran]

kieran,

Altruism describes a behavior but it doesn't explain the motivation. What would you say are reasons to be altruistic?

Gene

{Pulling dictionary off shelf in case memory of definition has faded ... ah yes, here it is ... :book:

(Collins English Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1991) altruism n. 1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others. 2. the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.

That seems to cover both behavior (practice) and motivation (principle/doctrine). Why would I do something altruistic - for the general principle that you should do onto others as you would have them do onto you? Just because its biblical, and I am not religious, doesn't mean its not a good idea.


Do I want everyone to crap on me? - No.
Why shouldn't they? - Because I don't crap on them.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The motivation for altruism is selfishness. (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=49196900&blogID=87372763&MyToken=112ca2b6-aa08-4313-9e20-427a8130c67a) :)


mm its more than a joke, well, the link is for the joke but the frase is real. Mother Theresa couldnt help it, it was her way of feeling right with herself. BTW, "altruism" is so full of religion that its also becoming an obsolete term.}

oh, and to think that it is related to anything called "a soul" is certainly another joke! ;)

[pmckean]

Not having an immortal soul makes it theoretically possible for him to escape the consequences of his actions, you see.


Doesn't Catholicism, which certainly includes the notion of souls in its doctrines, allow you to repent all of your sins and wipe the slate clean - as long as you genuinely repent? In fact, don't most major religions have some notion of divine forgiveness?

The notion of the soul cannot be separated from faith. People gain the belief that they have a soul through their acceptance of a religious worldview. It seems to me that religion provides *exactly* the mechanisms to wash a guilty conscience clean.

Without acceptance of all the supernatural frippery, you will be left with the consequences of your actions playing on your conscience forever - and no way to magically wipe the slate clean. Ample incentive not to do them in the first place...

[AgingYoung]

kieran,
So selfishness is a motivation for being altruistic (so people won't dump on you). You were right BronzeDog. That sucker was selfish. When I looked it up in webster's they didn't mention the second definition you posted.

the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.

So with that, the motivation for altruism has a basis in philosophy. Given different people have different philosophies I'd say that puts it on the level of opinion as to what's right or wrong and the reasoning (for what's right/wrong).

Gene

[kieran]

kieran,
So selfishness is a motivation for being altruistic (so people won't dump on you). You were right BronzeDog. That sucker was selfish. When I looked it up in webster's they didn't mention the second definition you posted.

the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.

So with that, the motivation for altruism has a basis in philosophy. Given different people have different philosophies I'd say that puts it on the level of opinion as to what's right or wrong and the reasoning (for what's right/wrong).

Gene

Couldn't agree more - different people have different personal philosophies. I pay my taxes and drive carefully, the tosser that lives next door to me does neither. I hope that there are more people like me out there than there are like him, otherwise the government will run out of money (or chanrge me even higher taxes) and it won't be safe on the roads.

I can see a lot going for that concept of selfishness being at the root of altruism ...

[AgingYoung]

pmckean,

I think that catholicism teaches that you can be forgiven but it's an on going thing. You have to come to church to continually receive communion. I agree with Martin Luther that grace is a gift with no strings attached. You don't have to buy indulgences or continually eat supper at church.

Whatever a person's reason I think being benevolent is good and the right thing to do. From a logical point of view it keeps society orderly. The more people that believe it's right to be kind the more likely you'll run into someone in case you need a little help. The more likely you can get help the less likely you're apt to do something that would hurt others. I saw your point, kieran.

From a christian perspective I don't think the motivation is the selfish escape from hell. When you believe you've escaped that. A christian attempts to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do also.

Gene

[Bronze Dog]

Bing. (http://hokum-balderdash.blogspot.com/2006/03/even-without-god-we-dont-permit.html)

[AgingYoung]

BronzeDog,

That was good reading but I don't think it's a doctrine with biblical support...

Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation

Luther taught the doctrine of justification by faith alone and that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith. The work that a christian does is to believe. His arguments are from the new testament and seem clear enough to me.

Gene

edit: The idea of fulfilling God's will is correct and is in the same context as obeying any authority. God for the christian is the final authority.

[AgingYoung]

Jeff Corkern,

Sorry to get your thread of topic. pmckean mentioned , 'The notion of the soul cannot be separated from faith.' The greeks had the idea of soul but on the most part I think it's something that is considered a religious topic. It's kind of hard to keep it within the narrow constraints you suggested at the beginning. Christianese terms like sanctification, redemption, justification, etc. are in my opinion precise legal terms and aren't well understood by the secular world. I was trying to add some clarity. As Abraham Lincoln said when he was practicing speeches in the cornfield, 'if you have ears to hear....' Well, maybe no one is too interested in the nuances.

Gene

[kieran]

Jeff Corkern - I see you've been posting on the "And Nothing Heard My Scream" thread which is intrinsically related to this one, but you haven't posted on this thread for a while. Is there any chance of you coming back to this thread and responding to the points raised since your last post? :con2: