Does the Soul Exist?

[TruePathFinder]

You really don't sound like you want an answer to any of your questions.

The existence of the "mind or soul" can't possibly be evaluated by science because it isn't material. Philosophy, theology, and metaphysics are the only academic disciplines that can be used to evaluate the existence of the mind, soul, and / or the spirit.

I am going to give you one more post to show that you have an open mind and are willing to follow the evidence where ever it leads. Philosophy stand in judgment of science but science does not bind philosophy.

I am not interested in philosophy, theology, or metaphysics. If there is a spirit, mind or soul, why wouldn't science be able to measure it? Science gives a realistic picture. You can dwell for ever in speculation, but I prefer reality. Theology is fake bs. No offence, I just speak truth. Keep on believing in supernatural nonsense if you want. I focus on reality. The mind is created by the brain.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The question here is really about the self. If, via meditative insight, you come to realize that there is no self, it will then become clear to you that consciousness is not 'my' consciousness, but a universal consciousness that has been sculpted into an illusory and personal view of reality called 'I'. 'I' is the ego, and it wants to go on in perpetuity after death. That is what religion is for; to reinforce the idea of an eternal soul that is the self that must be saved. OTOH, there is the purely materialist view which says 'when you're dead, you're dead!'. (The Buddha, BTW, considered both views to be extreme views, and a view was eventually developed called 'The Middle Path'.) So without a self, and consciousness always present, it must mean that consciousness is already present at birth and after death, as it is not dependent upon the presence of a self, or a brain. Consciousness has been likened to the TV signal, present before the TV set is turned on and after being turned off, or becoming non-functional. But it is more than just signal; it is what actually manifests this material world. Who you really are is what Universal Consciousness is, playing itself as 'I', 'self', and 'soul' named 'Jane/John Doe', this state of personal consciousness being called 'Identification', from which man must awaken to his true nature. This awakening to true Reality in the present moment is what the Middle Path leads to. It is beyond birth and death, and therefore, beyond Time, Space, and Causation.

It is the realization of the individual wave that it is none other than the entire ocean.

For me it makes more sense to see life as being born and then dying - hence we should make the most of what we have in this short time - and being responsible for it all. All the rest just confuses and makes for the likelihood of messier lives, and expectations. To each his own, as they say.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I was wondering what happened to you... I was worried when I did not see you for a while.

I am at least glad to hear you are okay but sorry to hear about your accident... No gardening for me, the extent of my physical exercise consists of walking 2 hours a day and biking 3 hours a day, on my four work days.

Yes, these things are called "tests and difficulties" in Baha'i parlance... Right now my test is this one atheist on that other forum and of course my roof project and other home repairs and tenants...

Ah well - best get on with it.

 

[godnotgod]

For me it makes more sense to see life as being born and then dying - hence we should make the most of what we have in this short time - and being responsible for it all. All the rest just confuses and makes for the likelihood of messier lives, and expectations. To each his own, as they say.

OK. But my question in that case is: who, or what, is it that is 'born' or 'dies'?

For one thing, child psychologists tell us that a sense of 'self' does not develop until around 14 months. There is obviously consciousness present, but no self. So who is that, really?

And how is it that much earlier, the baby knows the game of Peek-A-Boo without ever having been taught?

The Human Route


Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed – that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.
Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

Zen source

"To each his own" does not really address the issue. It only buries it deeper.

 

[godnotgod]

Dreams certainly exist and are part of our reality regardless of labelling them an "illusion" or not. Either waking or dreaming, our reality is a model created from sensory data gathered from limited senses and filtered through a discriminating mind. It is, and we agree here, a part of the Absolute: the sum total of all things.

Dreams are more than a label; they are illusions, and not 'part of the Absolute'.

But our minds, like razors, slice this Absolute into palatable chunks to be digested. Or like composers selecting particular notes, timbre, rhythm, to create new songs. Kingdoms within kingdoms. Two sides of a coin.

Your analogy is flawed; unlike notes in the context of a song, the mind slicing chunks of information from the Absolute does not know about the Absolute from which it is taking it's information. That is the error of science. To disassociate the information from context is to completely misunderstand the data. We now know, for example, that what has been called 'a particle' is the result of energy fluctuations in the particle's surrounding field. There are no such material particles; they are now understood as standing waves created by their respective fields. Hence, 'field theory'. But it goes further than that; some now understand that The Unified Field is actually Pure Abstract Intelligence, out of which all universes emerge.

If the self is an illusion, then it is as illusory as the phone I am typing on, this post I am responding to, or the table my beer is sitting on. In this life, does it matter? The nature of reality appears to be dynamic. For us as perceiving beings, perception (with relationship at its core) would be our best definition for it, maybe? It is our basis for reality and beyond it is the infinity of the undefined.

I am afraid you are confusing form for things.

The nature of Reality is actually changeless, out of which something emerges that appears to be changing, or 'dynamic'. Perception is a faulty basis for determining the nature of Reality. The senses are limited within a certain range and designed for navigation within a limited environment. In order to get in touch with That which is creating the environment we need to go beyond perception.

 

[Mock Turtle]

OK. But my question in that case is: who, or what, is it that is 'born' or 'dies'?

For one thing, child psychologists tell us that a sense of 'self' does not develop until around 14 months. There is obviously consciousness present, but no self. So who is that, really?

And how is it that much earlier, the baby knows the game of Peek-A-Boo without ever having been taught?

The Human Route


Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed – that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.
Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

Zen source

"To each his own" does not really address the issue. It only buries it deeper.

I think this has more to do with language acquisition, and a baby will not pass the mirror test until a certain age. Things seem to affect a baby whilst still in the womb, so consciousness is there to some extent no doubt - awareness, not so much. Some primates apparently will pass the mirror test when younger but lose it when they age. What does that mean?

 

[1robin]

I am not interested in philosophy, theology, or metaphysics. If there is a spirit, mind or soul, why wouldn't science be able to measure it? Science gives a realistic picture. You can dwell for ever in speculation, but I prefer reality. Theology is fake bs. No offence, I just speak truth. Keep on believing in supernatural nonsense if you want. I focus on reality. The mind is created by the brain.

Then you are not interested in getting to the bottom of the metaphysical questions you asked. The soul is a supernatural "or spiritual" concept so you literally can't use natural science to discuss it's existence. Philosophy however is the primary academic discipline used to discuss supernatural concepts. However you do not seem to sincerely want to discuss the questions you asked.

 

[godnotgod]

I am not interested in philosophy, theology, or metaphysics. If there is a spirit, mind or soul, why wouldn't science be able to measure it? Science gives a realistic picture. You can dwell for ever in speculation, but I prefer reality. Theology is fake bs. No offence, I just speak truth. Keep on believing in supernatural nonsense if you want. I focus on reality. The mind is created by the brain.

We know, via science, that the brain, which you claim creates the mind, can make mistakes in perception. It may be, then, that what you perceive as being 'reality', may, in fact, be an illusion. We also know, for example, that during sleep-dreaming, the dream world is every bit as real to you as the 'reality' you perceive when awake. The problem in both cases is that you are using perception to tell you what reality is, a perception that is many times faulty.

Science cannot tell you what the nature of reality is; it can only tell you how the phenomenal world behaves, and make predictions based on the data from that behavior. Extrapolations from the evidence gives a picture of what science thinks is reality, but then along comes another discovery that upsets that apple cart, for example, what Quantum Physics did to Newtonian Physics and to Relativity. Science, therefore, is a shifting paradigm.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then you are not interested in getting to the bottom of the metaphysical questions you asked. The soul is a supernatural "or spiritual" concept so you literally can't use natural science to discuss it's existence. Philosophy however is the primary academic discipline used to discuss supernatural concepts. However you do not seem to sincerely want to discuss the questions you asked.

If souls really did exist as real phenomena, why wouldn't science be the correct way to examine them? What about them would make them necessarily not natural?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some primates apparently will pass the mirror test when younger but lose it when they age. What does that mean?

That they get jaded and sick of being messed with by behavioural researchers?

 

[godnotgod]

If souls really did exist as real phenomena, why wouldn't science be the correct way to examine them? What about them would make them necessarily not natural?

'Soul', or 'spirit', is natural, but science is a highly controlled and conditioned methodology, geared to just one way of looking at nature, and that is via conceptual tools called Reason, Logic, and Analysis. IOW, the view of science is not a naturally occurring unconditioned view. Additionally, it is always the conditioned view of subject and object, while the view, or rather the experience, of 'soul' is direct and unconditioned. IOW, you cannot make soul an object of itself. Science, it appears, is attempting to make a clinical analysis of 'soul' via a clinical version of soul. Such a soul is a dead soul. Put it in a virtual, digital jar of formaldehyde, label it, and put on lab shelf.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That they get jaded and sick of being messed with by behavioural researchers?

Probably.

 

[1robin]

If souls really did exist as real phenomena, why wouldn't science be the correct way to examine them? What about them would make them necessarily not natural?

You can worship at the alter of scientism if you want but science is the study of nature. Souls are by definitions supernatural or transcendent are science is impotent in this situation. What part of science do you mean, calculus, Euclidian geometry, or physics?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can worship at the alter of scientism if you want but science is the study of nature.

And you can engage in sour grapes all you want, but it isn’t a substitute for actually backing up your claims.

Souls are by definitions supernatural or transcendent are science is impotent in this situation.

Then how would you go about demonstrating their existence? What tool of inquiry do you suggest using?

What part of science do you mean, calculus, Euclidian geometry, or physics?

I think a Steven Novella quote is appropriate here:

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”

 

[1robin]

And you can engage in sour grapes all you want, but it isn’t a substitute for actually backing up your claims.

What grapes is it exactly that are sour? Scientism is a all too real thing. Your the one trying to use science where it does not belong.

Then how would you go about demonstrating their existence? What tool of inquiry do you suggest using?

For the most part we use philosophy and theology along with a good deal of basic reasoning.

I think a Steven Novella quote is appropriate here:

Ok.

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results.

As long as you recognize the bolded limits of science I have no problem with this.

Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”

I don't disagree with any of it because it limits science to exactly what I said it's limits are. We are discussing the soul. The soul is a supernatural concept and therefor not natural science so science has an extremely limited roll to play. What about this is so complicated? You find a scientific instrument or a mathematical equation which applies to the soul and then science might be relevant.