EXACTLY, What Is The Soul?

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is a number?
What is an electron?
What is time?
What is energy?
What is anything?
The question What is X? for any kind of X is well nigh impossible to answer definitively, is it not?

No. There are reasonable answers to the questions you pose. These terms have unambigous definitions within well defined scope, so that when you use them, people know what you mean.

But ask 10 different people what a "soul" actually *is* and likely you'll get 10 different answers.

Not so much if you ask them what gravity is or magnetism or alike.

 

[LightofTruth]

The KJV translates the word psuchē as SOUL 39 times and the same word as LIFE 36 times.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

According to the KJV in the above passage, the SOUL and body can be destroyed in Gehenna (fire).. An immortal soul is a deathless soul and therefore can not be destroyed.

When correctly understood, the above passage is saying that God only can kill both your LIFE and body by casting you into Gehenna fire. Man, on the other hand, can only kill your body. God can raise up the LIFE of the body along with the body, which man cannot do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But the OP is asking about what a soul *is* not about how the experience of it feels like.

Yes, *is" is existence and that is ontology and philosophy and not science. Hence with science I can inform you about how the word works, it is a cognitive artifact, but not what it *is*! That is philosophy.

 

[Stevicus]

.

Consider.

soul
/sōl/

Learn to pronounce

noun
noun: soul; plural noun: souls
1.the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

​

Easily said, but just what is the nature of this immortal spiritual or immaterial part of a human being?

.

If human beings have a soul, my guess is that it would be located somewhere near the rectum.

 

[sayak83]

No. There are reasonable answers to the questions you pose. These terms have unambigous definitions within well defined scope, so that when you use them, people know what you mean.

But ask 10 different people what a "soul" actually *is* and likely you'll get 10 different answers.

Not so much if you ask them what gravity is or magnetism or alike.

Probably it's not well defined in Christianity. It's relatively well defined in Hinduism as the Jeeva-atman and is the set of conscious and unconscious habits, volitions, memories etc. with which the ego-self is constructed. Buddhism calls it the heap of Samkharas (mind-impressions) that move from one moment to the next creating an illusion of continuous existence as a "me".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

After your edit.

Sorry. I thought nobody would have replied yet as I added extra lines to clarify my post just seconds after the original posting.

My bad.

I don't know what the soul is! What the soul is(being), is metaphysics/ontology and what that is in positive as being or not, is unknown.
The soul is a word, some people believe in and others don't. What the soul is, as form of being, is unknown with science.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science can't do philosophy and religion as to what the soul is!
I can inform you with science, how the word "soul" works, but for its existence you can't use science.

If you can't explain what it is, if you don't know and even can't know, what it is....
Then what are you really talking about, really?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Probably it's not well defined in Christianity. It's relatively well defined in Hinduism as the Jeeva-atman and is the set of conscious and unconscious habits, volitions, memories etc. with which the ego-self is constructed. Buddhism calls it the heap of Samkharas (mind-impressions) that move from one moment to the next creating an illusion of continuous existence as a "me".

Isn't it curious that labels like "christian" or "hindu" or "muslim" etc don't make a difference when you ask people what something like gravity is?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, *is" is existence and that is ontology and philosophy and not science.

Why isn't it science?
After all, to make statements / claims about entities that exist and which have some kind of manifestation in reality ("animating bodies" sounds pretty manifesting to me, after all)... How are such claims not scientific claims? They are claims about the nature of reality that deal with manifestations in reality, right?

Hence with science I can inform you about how the word works, it is a cognitive artifact, but not what it *is*! That is philosophy.

It actually sounds more like a cop-out to avoid having to deal with a burden of proof that one wishes to avoid...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

If you can't explain what it is, if you don't know and even can't know, what it is....
Then what are you really talking about, really?

Start here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.

So if science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations, and the soul is a supernatural explanation, then I can't answer with science, what a soul *is*!
I can with science inform you how the word works as a human cognitive artifact, but I can't tell you with science, what a soul *is"!

Now my bet is that you use a different version of science!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why isn't it science?
After all, to make statements / claims about entities that exist and which have some kind of manifestation in reality ("animating bodies" sounds pretty manifesting to me, after all)... How are such claims not scientific claims? They are claims about the nature of reality that deal with manifestations in reality, right?



It actually sounds more like a cop-out to avoid having to deal with a burden of proof that one wishes to avoid...

Well, I don't believe in souls nor in supernatural beings, so this doesn't apply to me.
Religion:
religion | Definition & List of Religions

A religious person doesn't have to be a believer in the supernatural.

You don't care about this way of doing "understanding" that I do and I accept that. The problem is that you don't care, is not science.
You: You, Mikkel, must give positive proof for everything.
Me: No! I don't have to and I have just given proof of that.
You: ...
Me: We are playing cognitive relativism and we understand that differently.

That is the game we are playing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.

I'll assume that this implies that you labeled the "soul" as a supernatural thing.
Eventhough you just told me that you don't know what it is nore that you even can know what it is. Yet at the same time, you claim to know that it is supernatural.

So tell me, how have you determined that this thing of which you don't know what it is, is supernatural?

So if science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations, and the soul is a supernatural explanation, then I can't answer with science, what a soul *is*!

So now you are even calling the a soul an "explanation"? An "explanation" of what exactly? More things you don't know?

Let's leave that hanging there for the time being. Let's first start with you explain how you have determined that the soul, which is something of which you don't know what it is, is a supernatural thing?

Now my bet is that you use a different version of science!

My bet is that the hole you're currently digging is quickly going to become so deep that you will no longer be able to crawl out of it.


But first things first....
Please tell me how you have determined that the soul is a "supernatural thing", eventhough you don't know what it is..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I don't believe in souls nor in supernatural beings, so this doesn't apply to me.

Then why are you even replying?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Isn't it curious that labels like "christian" or "hindu" or "muslim" etc don't make a difference when you ask people what something like gravity is?

Well, reality is not just gravity, so that doesn't work!

You to the effect of your claim: Reality is everything and not anything else.
Me: No. That I can answer "no" is the proof that reality is not just gravity. Try harder next time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll assume that this implies that you labeled the "soul" as a supernatural thing.
Eventhough you just told me that you don't know what it is nore that you even can know what it is. Yet at the same time, you claim to know that it is supernatural.

So tell me, how have you determined that this thing of which you don't know what it is, is supernatural?



So now you are even calling the a soul an "explanation"? An "explanation" of what exactly? More things you don't know?

Let's leave that hanging there for the time being. Let's first start with you explain how you have determined that the soul, which is something of which you don't know what it is, is a supernatural thing?



My bet is that the hole you're currently digging is quickly going to become so deep that you will no longer be able to crawl out of it.


But first things first....
Please tell me how you have determined that the soul is a "supernatural thing", eventhough you don't know what it is..

What ever.
Start here: This is about science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

That educate yourself about how that is science!
Stop claiming I do it only as me. Educate yourself about methodological naturalism!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then why are you even replying?

Why are your answer my post, when it was an answer to the OP.

I answered using methodological naturalism. Start there!!!

 

[Twilight Hue]

How do you tell the difference between the "soul" and the physical brain?

Given that the fact that the 'soul' is 'imprisoned' should be a dead ringer that it's the physical brain that's responsible for the concept.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is what is written by Baha'u'llah;

"Thou hast asked Me whether man, as apart from the Prophets of God and His chosen ones, will retain, after his physical death, the self-same individuality, personality, consciousness, and understanding that characterize his life in this world. If this should be the case, how is it, thou hast observed, that whereas such slight injuries to his mental faculties as fainting and severe illness deprive him of his understanding and consciousness, his death, which must involve the decomposition of his body and the dissolution of its elements, is powerless to destroy that understanding and extinguish that consciousness? How can any one imagine that man’s consciousness and personality will be maintained, when the very instruments necessary to their existence and function will have completely disintegrated?

Thus there is a lot to consider. Personally I do not dwell on it, I have to much to do here, still much to change.

Regards Tony

Thanks for sharing that. I know very little about the teachings of your faith. The physical mind seems important to consider in relation to what the soul is or might be.

 

[Fool]

.

Consider.

soul
/sōl/

Learn to pronounce

noun
noun: soul; plural noun: souls
1.the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

​

Easily said, but just what is the nature of this immortal spiritual or immaterial part of a human being?

.

it's understood as a spirit; when not attached to the material form.

it's understood as the holy spirit, in fact.


in the ot the difference is made between the ruwach and the nephesh. before a form body, or chemical body, is taken it's called a ruwach. after a form body, or chemical body is taken its called nephesh.

 

[Fool]

Given that the fact that the 'soul' is 'imprisoned' should be a dead ringer that it's the physical brain that's responsible for the concept.

thats a veil. it's veiled. prison is again a state of mind. it's isn't a state of brain. you can imprison a body but you can't really imprison a mind.

one man's prison is another man's home.

 

[Revoltingest]

Easily said, but just what is the nature of this immortal spiritual or immaterial part of a human being?
.

I don't know, but it weighs....
21 grams experiment - Wikipedia

Btw, I found this excerpt from the article funny....

The experiment is widely regarded as flawed and unscientific due to the small sample size,
the methods used, as well as the fact only one of the six subjects met the hypothesis.

So that's why it's unscientific!