The Soul

[Cassiopia]

Wiki is your friend. Look up particle physics and the big bang for starters. In the big bang take note of what the state of the universe was in the first few milliseconds. Then look deeper into particle physics.

This does not cut it. Do you know what you are talking about? Show us. Where's the beef?

Why doesn't it cut it? Because you are too lazy to do any research for yourself? Do you think that by making aggressive sounding comments people are going to be fooled into thinking that you know what you are talking about? You have made several pseudo-scientific claims in this thread which are factually false, but rather than provide your own "beef" you jump on everything that I say and demand I do your thinking for you. That's a bit lame.

I do not claim to be a proficient scientist; I am just reasonably well read. I will admit my knowledge of particle physics and the nature of matter and energy are patchy at best. However, the statements I have made in this thread are correct (I wouldn't have made them otherwise), and most of yours are false.

No I am not going to provide an essay on the latest scientific understanding of the nature of energy for you (I have a life!). However if you are seriously interested here is a useful link. And then you might explore the wiki topics I suggested earlier.

 

[1137]

It's a misconception that energy must have a material form.
It wouldn't be energy if it was so.

What? Define energy.

 

[George-ananda]

I want to keep this short to maximize responses. What exactly is the soul? I've been considering that maybe we do have a soul, though it is preceded by the physical brain and still ceases after death. Just our deepest self perhaps. Emotions are non-physical and caused by the brain, yet we accept they exist. Maybe it's the same with the soul?

Thoughts?

I don't like your use of the word 'Soul'.

In an atheist-materialist framework, all such things are ultimately nothing more than bio-chemical activity in the physical brain. What else is there in this world-view? So this 'Soul' would just be the name given to a certain type of bio-chemical activity.

Use of the term 'Soul' should imply a spiritualistic entity (not physical). To use the term 'Soul' as you did, just begs the question, which type of soul are you referring to. Another term like ego, will, drive, etc. should be used to better clarify what you mean,

 

[Thief]

What? Define energy.

Check Webster's.
I like the part...'independent of matter'....

 

[Thief]

I don't think we'll get very far discussing the soul as anything physical.

Spiritual life doesn't appear to have a great deal of 'interaction' with this life.
When it does, the event is often dismissed as illusion.

Still it remains....death is a threshold we all must cross.
If you deny the afterlife....your last breath could prove true.
Your last breath.

I suspect only a positive and reasonable effort, to understand and to anticipate, could bring the event to occurrence.

 

[Straw Dog]

I want to keep this short to maximize responses. What exactly is the soul? I've been considering that maybe we do have a soul, though it is preceded by the physical brain and still ceases after death. Just our deepest self perhaps. Emotions are non-physical and caused by the brain, yet we accept they exist. Maybe it's the same with the soul?

Thoughts?

Even if there were a soul, as in a human element that goes on beyond physical death, it wouldn't really be that person it was supposedly housed in. We are composed of many different elements and processes functioning simultaneously as a whole system. Without the brain and without the body, I am no longer myself. Some may say the soul is the real self, but then where does the complexity of the human being come from? Why have a brain if memories, thoughts, etc. are actually attributes of this extra non-material element? If there is a soul, it seems as if it would only be the mere shade of a full person and almost nothing without the biological system it was housed in. It seems redundant.

 

[George-ananda]

Even if there were a soul, as in a human element that goes on beyond physical death, it wouldn't really be that person it was supposedly housed in. We are composed of many different elements and processes functioning simultaneously as a whole system. Without the brain and without the body, I am no longer myself. Some may say the soul is the real self, but then where does the complexity of the human being come from? Why have a brain if memories, thoughts, etc. are actually attributes of this extra non-material element? If there is a soul, it seems as if it would only be the mere shade of a full person and almost nothing without the biological system it was housed in. It seems redundant.

The best analogy is that imagine yourself with multiple layers of clothes on. You take off the outer layer and you're still as much you as you always were.

The subtle mental body and astral body interpenetrate the physical body and are what you actually think and feel with. When the physical body dies, you still have a continuation of the same thinking and feeling processes you always had as these processes never did 'originate' in the physical body.

You'll still be you but with a little lighter feeling with the densest level removed. Thinking and feeling will be more acute. Kind of like writing with gloves and then without gloves.

 

[George-ananda]

Why have a brain if memories, thoughts, etc. are actually attributes of this extra non-material element?

The physical body and brain allow a soul to have experiences in the physical world.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Our soul is our sentience. You can't have one without the other.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I would assume most people are more willing to link the concept of a soul with the characteristic of sapience rather then sentience.

 

[Penumbra]

I would assume most people are more willing to link the concept of a soul with the characteristic of sapience rather then sentience.

Why is that?

The hard part about sapience seems to be the sentience.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Because IME most people seem to believe that the capacity for understanding a situation, being able to formulate reactions and instigate actions appropriately is more central to the idea of an intelligent Agent at the core of the 'soul' concept than is the ability to perceive the situation (though admittedly, the concept of sentience does include a rather robust perspective on such perception, including qualitative experience).

Now perhaps that is solely within my experience, however the idea of agency is extremely important for the concept of a soul.

 

[Thief]

Why is that?

The hard part about sapience seems to be the sentience.

Spot on!

Here in this life we respond to our senses (sentient).
But we also discern our thoughts (sapient).

Death takes away the senses...all at once.

If you have the will to live....
You enter the next world naked....as a newborn.
You will be at the mercy of whatever is standing over you.

I suspect...what you become in mind and heart (sapient) will make all the difference.

In this life you were taken by the arms of someone who cared.

Whatever you have become, could make a difference....
as to whether.... anyone cares.

 

[Looncall]

The best analogy is that imagine yourself with multiple layers of clothes on. You take off the outer layer and you're still as much you as you always were.

The subtle mental body and astral body interpenetrate the physical body and are what you actually think and feel with. When the physical body dies, you still have a continuation of the same thinking and feeling processes you always had as these processes never did 'originate' in the physical body.

You'll still be you but with a little lighter feeling with the densest level removed. Thinking and feeling will be more acute. Kind of like writing with gloves and then without gloves.

What evidence do you have that this is true?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would assume most people are more willing to link the concept of a soul with the characteristic of sapience rather then sentience.

I'm not sure that there is any sapient life on the planet. We'll have to look elsewhere for that.

 

[chinu]

I want to keep this short to maximize responses. What exactly is the soul?

"Soul" is the name of emotion due to which one is always helpless to find the permanent state of Joy/happiness.

Q: Why this is the habit of soul ?
Ans: Because truely soul is the citizen of country where Joy/happiness remains in permanent state of affair, Nothing else is there.

 

[PolyHedral]

Wiki is your friend. Look up particle physics and the big bang for starters. In the big bang take note of what the state of the universe was in the first few milliseconds. Then look deeper into particle physics.

The universe is made of quark-gluon soup milliseconds after the Big Bang. (And cools into a conventional ion plasma within the next second.) As mentioned, energy is a property of fields; it does not exist on its own.

IME, what people normally call the soul is actually the information that constitutes a person's mind. This is technically immortal, by Plato-esque logic, but mutates so rapidly it might as well not be.

 

[John Boanerges]

The best description that have heard is that the soul is our mind, will and emotions.

We are a spirit, we possess a soul and these two entities dwell in a body.

From his teachings:

"The soul constitutes the inner 'life' of man and comprises the intellect (mind), which aids us in this present state of existence; the emotions, which proceed from our innermost senses (feelings), and our will (volition), which allows us to 'discern and decide' how we live. Since the soul belongs to our own 'self' and reveals our 'personality' it is termed the part of self-consciousness.

"The spirit is that part by which we commune with God and by which alone we are able to come in contact with and commune with, Him. Because it tells us of our relationship with God, the spirit is called the element of God-consciousness.

"God dwells in the 'spirit'; self dwells in the 'soul'; while senses dwell in the 'body'.

"What a person 'IS' depends on how their soul 'IS'. The soul represents us and expresses our 'individuality'. It is the organ of our free will, the organ in which the 'spirit and body' are completely merged. If our 'soul' wills to obey God, it will allow the 'spirit' to rule over us. The 'soul', if itchooses, can suppress the 'spirit' and take some 'other delight', as 'lord' of the man."

So...

When we are "born again", we take on God's Holy Spirit, which brings to life the spirit that has died to sin, just as occurred in the Garden with Adam and Eve. When God said that by eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree, that they would surely die, he didn't mean physical death...He meant spiritual death. When we accept the Holy Spirit, we are reborn spiritually.

This is by no means the end of the problems as there is friction between His Spirit and our soul (which is not replaced and includes our free will). We must choose to align our (free) will with His in order to accomplish His will here on earth.

This is the (never-ending) process of sanctification (becoming more Christ-like) and why most Christians are FAR from perfect. There is still a war going on between our soul (mind, will, emotions) and our reborn Spirit. Therefore, Christianity is not a "crutch", as it's opponents would say, but rather one of the most rewarding challenges that we can take on as human beings.

 

[George-ananda]

What evidence do you have that this is true?

The evidence for this view starts with Eastern (Indian) philosophy (Vedic Science). The science describes in detail the construction of the universe beyond our known physical plane/dimensions/level. This science was formulated by the saints/sages/mystics of the eastern world.

I've heard it said that Western Science concerns itself with the external world (like going to the moon) while Eastern Science concerns itself with the internal world (Who am I?).

The sages/mystics found after years and lifetimes of introspection that all is part of the one great conciousness.

Next question should be, why should we accept anything these sages/mystics tell us. First of all the consistancy of their testimony. But secondly, they would say don't take our word for it, explore your own conciousness and determine the validity of our teachings yourself. Now, us novices want the answer in under an hour but the exploration may take years or lifetimes.

Getting back to your original question, I would also add the evidence the westerners mis-label 'paranormal phenomena' including near-death experiences, reincarnational memories, ghosts, spirit correspondences, etc.. In Vedic Science the word 'paranormal' would not really make sense as these phenomenas are normal in the universe-construct they present (with many planes/levels/dimensions beyond this physical one).

 

[Looncall]

The evidence for this view starts with Eastern (Indian) philosophy (Vedic Science). The science describes in detail the construction of the universe beyond our known physical plane/dimensions/level. This science was formulated by the saints/sages/mystics of the eastern world.

I've heard it said that Western Science concerns itself with the external world (like going to the moon) while Eastern Science concerns itself with the internal world (Who am I?).

The sages/mystics found after years and lifetimes of introspection that all is part of the one great conciousness.

Next question should be, why should we accept anything these sages/mystics tell us. First of all the consistancy of their testimony. But secondly, they would say don't take our word for it, explore your own conciousness and determine the validity of our teachings yourself. Now, us novices want the answer in under an hour but the exploration may take years or lifetimes.

Getting back to your original question, I would also add the evidence the westerners mis-label 'paranormal phenomena' including near-death experiences, reincarnational memories, ghosts, spirit correspondences, etc.. In Vedic Science the word 'paranormal' would not really make sense as these phenomenas are normal in the universe-construct they present (with many planes/levels/dimensions beyond this physical one).

Do you really think that information about reality (other than about human psychology) can be obtained by introspection?