the soul is not dependent on brain activity

[Starlight]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

Any thoughts?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'd say consciousness is dependent on brain activity in general, and certain outside factors can affect it (illnesses, brain damage, etc).

As to whether there's a soul, I feel it's a question that for myself, I can only speculate on through philosophy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

Any thoughts?

Well, have you ever met a soul without a physical body? And if you have, could you describe the meeting?

 

[Quintessence]

So you'd describe yourself, perhaps, as a substance monist where "soul" is the fundamental substance underlying all reality? All else is derivative from soul?

 

[F1fan]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

That's a claim, where is the evidence and coherent explanation?

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

OK, show us a soul actually exists and it what the true self actually is.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

No, brains do. This is why we die when our brains die.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

If it is immaterial how do you know it actually exists? Immaterial is essentially the same as imaginary.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

Any thoughts?

So far, there have been no studies that document the existence of any soul apart from the Brain.

 

[F1fan]

I'd say consciousness is dependent on brain activity in general, and certain outside factors can affect it (illnesses, brain damage, etc).

Right. If your boyfriend is conscious and doesn't want to go to the restaurant that you really, really, really want to go to, and you bean him over the head with a frying pan, and he blacks out, I'd say that is pretty good evidence that brains cause consciousness. And I say dump his *** and go out with me, I'll take you to that restaurant.

As to whether there's a soul, I feel it's a question that for myself, I can only speculate on through philosophy.

I like the idea of a soul, but I haven't heard many descriptions that sound very plausible, or even useful. At best it is an animating essence of any living thing. I'm not sure how the idea is even useful were it to be a thing.

 

[Quintessence]

I like the idea of a soul, but I haven't heard many descriptions that sound very plausible, or even useful. At best it is an animating essence of any living thing. I'm not sure how the idea is even useful were it to be a thing.

If you like the idea of a soul - maybe it's an interesting or entertaining story, inspires the creative arts, or some such - doesn't that make it useful as an idea? Why or why not?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Right. If your boyfriend is conscious and doesn't want to go to the restaurant that you really, really, really want to go to, and you bean him over the head with a frying pan, and he blacks out, I'd say that is pretty good evidence that brains cause consciousness. And I say dump his *** and go out with me, I'll take you to that restaurant.

Hehe.

Aren't you married?

I like the idea of a soul, but I haven't heard many descriptions that sound very plausible, or even useful. At best it is an animating essence of any living thing. I'm not sure how the idea is even useful were it to be a thing.

The descriptions can be useful from a philosophy perspective. However, science trumps philosophical thought.

 

[Quintessence]

The descriptions can be useful from a philosophy perspective. However, science trumps philosophical thought.

Isn't that weird? Sciences depend on foundational assumptions (philosophies) to operate. I wonder why we might value the child of the parent over the parent? Then again, society these days seems rather infatuated with youth and newness and enjoys dismissing our roots and origins, so... maybe not so surprising.

 

[F1fan]

Hehe.

Aren't you married?

No. Engaged twice. The second one was fantastic until it became apparent she was an alcoholic with a very dark side. Alas. The secrets people keep.

The descriptions can be useful from a philosophy perspective. However, science trumps philosophical thought.

Yeah. I was very much into philosohy when i was younger and as I got older I realized there was no real truth to be had, not anything that wasn't arbitrary or attractive to personality traits. That's why I hear the word "soul" and I'm not sure how it is useful. Unless you're James Brown.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Isn't that weird? Sciences depend on foundational assumptions (philosophies) to operate. I wonder why we might value the child of the parent over the parent? Then again, society these days seems rather infatuated with youth and newness and enjoys dismissing our roots and origins, so... maybe not so surprising.

Yeah. To clarify, I even said what I said knowing that philosophers like Aristotle were useful to science. However, to compare philosophy and science - a bunch of philosophical ideas I come up with, for example for the OP of a thread, is far different and less effective than trusting in a verified scientific theory. I'd much rather everyone trusted in verified scientific theory.

This is just an example, of myself comparing philosophy to science.

 

[F1fan]

If you like the idea of a soul - maybe it's an interesting or entertaining story, inspires the creative arts, or some such - doesn't that make it useful as an idea? Why or why not?

I'm a songwriter and I don't really see how the idea of soul would help me create. To my mind it would be more distraction than help. If a soul is anything I would see it as an element of life, like DNA. I always wonder about motives when people believe in one thing or another and I always wondered what is so attractive about the idea of a soul. I see folks using the idea to help bolster religious belief, or ideas about the self which can be ironic since that can imply their ego, not soul. There is a lot to question about the many descriptions and how people use the idea for a variety of things.

I once wondered what it is about ourselves that bears the brunt of our suffering, and to my mind that could be what we call the soul, a certain state of sensitivity.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

No. Engaged twice. The second one was fantastic until it became apparent she was an alcoholic with a very dark side. Alas. The secrets people keep.

I see. I'm sorry to hear about that.

I won't keep secrets, and would say that I'm a bit of a difficult person, myself... I'm Gender Fluid, which can mean different things - but in my case, is a bit like non-binary (even in physical appearance, as of late). And I can be just a touch high maintenance.

As for relationships, I'm single, I was in a crazy relationship a few months ago. Guy reminded me of Winnie the Pooh. He was good to me, but a little bit vanilla, and would kind of go back and forth of being highly interested in me, to being hardly interested at all. In other words, "hot and cold".

I'm a songwriter and I don't really see how the idea of soul would help me create. To my mind it would be more distraction than help. If a soul is anything I would see it as an element of life, like DNA. I always wonder about motives when people believe in one thing or another and I always wondered what is so attractive about the idea of a soul. I see folks using the idea to help bolster religious belief, or ideas about the self which can be ironic since that can imply their ego, not soul. There is a lot to question about the many descriptions and how people use the idea for a variety of things.

I once wondered what it is about ourselves that bears the brunt of our suffering, and to my mind that could be what we call the soul, a certain state of sensitivity.

I'd say those are all good questions. Sometimes, I'll entertain ideas philosophically even if I don't think they're plausible. I feel it makes good practice of the mind, much like doing a crossword puzzle.

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah. To clarify, I even said what I said knowing that philosophers like Aristotle were useful to science. However, to compare philosophy and science - a bunch of philosophical ideas I come up with, for example for the OP of a thread, is far different and less effective than trusting in a verified scientific theory. I'd much rather everyone trusted in verified scientific theory.

Effectiveness of a particular tool - sciences, arts, whatever - depends on one's aims, methinks.

In many cases, the sciences are completely garbage at addressing existential questions of life and living - the bread and butter of metaphysical topics like the soil. In particular, sciences are descriptive, not prescriptive. The field I focused on - conservation biology - can describe the species richness of a particular bit of land, but it can't tell you if that's a "good" or a "bad" thing, much less whether or not humans "should" make changes to land management practices to increase species richness, for example. That's philosophy, politics, and practicality.

Science is an excellent tool for what it does, but has some fairly significant limitations. Given the naturalistic assumptions of the sciences, it's total rubbish at addressing a topic like the soul, most conceptions of which are non-naturalistic (mine isn't, but that's neither here nor there). It's kinda like walking into an art gallery and going "the most effective way to understand all these paintings is to scan them with a spectrophotometer!!"

 

[Brickjectivity]

Any thoughts?

I'm trying to see it from your point of view. I think that there is some truth to what you're saying, however only that which is most valuable can really be said to be independent of our brain activity. That would be a combination of things, such as your friendships and experiences. I don't think these can be confined to your brain, because they involve other people. Possibly these are part of reality itself, such as part of the time stream. A lot of times we try to bottle and summarize in order to feel like we understand, but some things cannot be easily understood. You may in fact sense something correct when you say that you don't think its all in our brains.

What happens when you're talking to a friend and tell them something they didn't know before? Is part of you now part of them? I don't think anyone can say no definitively. Its clear that what was part of you is now also part of them. You have become a little closer in more than just your feelings. You actually are a little bit more alike.

 

[Audie]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

Any thoughts?

I think anyone can just say things.
But why bother. Let alone take yourself seriously

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

Any thoughts?

There is no soul. It's a farce in light that each and every organism is just a composition of atoms. I'd say it's more a collective of living matter with an amazing ability of communicating to create the illusion of just a single mind controlling the body.

 

[osgart]

I believe consciousness (the soul) is not dependent on brain activity

I believe your soul is the real you. Your body is the vehicle that enables your soul to do its work in this world. Just as a driver controls a car through its control mechanisms while sitting in the driver's seat, the soul uses the brain to control the body.

the soul control the nervous system and, through it, various organs in the body.

Soul is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal and eternal. the body is only temporary

Any thoughts?

I would start with a question. How can persistent qualitative contents of being and experience in being be explained solely by physical processes and language? ( Reason, identity and its importance to us, character traits, qualia, understanding, will and volition, care, intentionality, having good will towards others, values, meaning content, personality, memory, )

No one has ever been able to do it. Correlations to brain have been discovered for some things. No one can go further then that.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm a songwriter and I don't really see how the idea of soul would help me create.

You mean you don't write soul music?