Where is the soul?

[KeithH]

Doppelganger:

Where? It is in the substratum that makes up the foundational rules of grammar.

So it is a concept, not a real entity?

What does it do? (1) It divides the neurological processes of "memory" from incoming sensory data. (2) It places the point of that division into social and cosmological context through symbolic forms.

I'm not sure I understand this, but it seems you're in agreement that the soul is soem sort of logical concept related to brain function. This would imply that it ceases to exist when our brains stop functioning at death. Is that correct?

 

[Breathe]

it most certainly seems to have the property of location.

How do you know?

but it clearly resides within a person's physical body. My soul is not currently in China, or Australia. It is here, in my body.

How do you know? How do you know your soul is within your body? Why not Australia? Why "here" at all?

Do you dispute this?

Yes, I do: the soul is not the self. The soul is not your discernment, your (little-c) consciousness, your form, your body.. these are not-self things, the mundane. I am not my self, but one shouldn't put words to what's indescribable.

Do you really understand what "neither here nor there" truly means?

I have an idea: you can't express it in words. To point at a thing and say, "This is my soul", or to point at a location of your body and say, "My soul resides in here", you are pointing out something physical, something functional, such consciousness, emotion, perceptions, and so on.

That's all most of us have.

 

[doppelganger]

Doppelganger:



So it is a concept, not a real entity?

What's the difference?

 

[doppelganger]

Let me ask you this, KeithH: Do you believe choices are a product of free will?

 

[KeithH]

Odion:

The reason I feel fairly safe concluding that my soul is not in China or Australia is because the only information about souls I have is from the Bible. And the Bible makes it pretty clear that the soul possesses the body.

For example:

"I well remember them, and my soul is downcast within me." (Lam. 3:20)

"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow" (Heb. 4:12)

About the most common word preceding "soul" in the Bible is "my", and it's often spoken of in conjunction with "heart" and "body". Clearly it is being described as something belonging to a person just as their heart and body belongs to them. There doesn't seem to be any scriptural support for the idea that the soul is not located within its owner, but at some arbitrary location.

Interestingly, the Bible never actually offers a definition of the soul, so one wonders if the Biblical writers even saw it as something real, rather than something purely metaphorical.



Doppelganger:

I'm not sure a discussion of free will is appropriate to this thread. Perhaps you could explain why you brought it up?

 

[doppelganger]

Doppelganger:

I'm not sure a discussion of free will is appropriate to this thread.

Perhaps it's extremely relevant. Humor me.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Odion:
The reason I feel fairly safe concluding that my soul is not in China or Australia is because the only information about souls I have is from the Bible. And the Bible makes it pretty clear that the soul possesses the body.
For example:
"I well remember them, and my soul is downcast within me." (Lam. 3:20)
"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow" (Heb. 4:12)
About the most common word preceding "soul" in the Bible is "my", and it's often spoken of in conjunction with "heart" and "body". Clearly it is being described as something belonging to a person just as their heart and body belongs to them. There doesn't seem to be any scriptural support for the idea that the soul is not located within its owner, but at some arbitrary location.
Interestingly, the Bible never actually offers a definition of the soul, so one wonders if the Biblical writers even saw it as something real, rather than something purely metaphorical.

Please notice Genesis 2v7.
Adam became a 'living soul' after he started to breathe.
So before receiving the breath of life Adam was a lifeless soul or person.

No where does it say Adam 'came to have' a soul, or Adam 'came to possess' a soul. Rather, Adam 'became' a living soul. At death Adam was a dead soul

 

[Blackheart]

Please notice Genesis 2v7.
Adam became a 'living soul' after he started to breathe.
So before receiving the breath of life Adam was a lifeless soul or person.

No where does it say Adam 'came to have' a soul, or Adam 'came to possess' a soul. Rather, Adam 'became' a living soul. At death Adam was a dead soul

So do you believe that when you die its all over? You do realise that Adam was not alive before the breathe of life was breathed into him, which to me means that a live human body always has a soul as opposed to a soul always having a live human body?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So do you believe that when you die its all over? You do realise that Adam was not alive before the breathe of life was breathed into him, which to me means that a live human body always has a soul as opposed to a soul always having a live human body?

Resurrection to life in heaven or life on earth means when you die it is not all over. -Acts 24v15

It's only all over for those of Matthew 12v32; Hebrews 6vs4-6; 10v26.
which includes those of Psalm 92v7.

According to Genesis 2v7 Adam 'became a living soul' only after Adam received the breath of life. So a live human body has soul but not 'a' separate soul. All of Adam was a living soul. Before physical creation only angelic creation existed and was created before the material/physical world.

So, at death Adam became the opposite. Adam became a dead soul.

How do you answer Ecclesiastes 3vs19-21?

 

[KeithH]

Uravip2me:

Rather, Adam 'became' a living soul. At death Adam was a dead soul

I'm happy to accept that. What I maintain, though, is that Adam's soul occupied the spatial location that his body occupied, while he was a living soul.



Doppelganger:

The difference between a concept and a real entity, is that a real entity occupies space in the 3-dimensional world we live in*. Importantly, it can be observed or measured, and it has a location.

A concept, on the other hand, cannot be observed or measured, and it occupies no space in the 3-dimensional world we live in. For instance, a three-legged purple unicorn with genuine china saucers for ears is a concept that has no existence in the real world. No such thing exists to be measured or observed. It is purely a concept, or thought.



Concerning free will:

There are different definitions for free will. The definition I use is the ability to make decisions without coercion. So, some choices are a product of free will, according to my definition, while some choices are not free, but coerced.

What I do not believe is that there exists some sort of contra-causal free will that allows us to make choices independently of the circumstances we find ourselves in.

---
* Space may, if string theory turns out to be correct, have more than 3 dimensions.

 

[KeithH]

Uravip2me:

All of Adam was a living soul.

Does this mean that the soul resided in every one of Adam's cells? Skin cells, liver cells, muscle cells, etc?

 

[Pegg]

Uravip2me:



Does this mean that the soul resided in every one of Adam's cells? Skin cells, liver cells, muscle cells, etc?

you are thinking of the soul as something separate from you

its not.

you are a soul. There is no 'it'... the soul is 'you'

 

[Breathe]

from the Bible.

I see. Then there is the problem within our discussion: I am not a Christian, nor do I hold the Bible in any especially high regard. Whilst I respect it as a scriptural text for those of Judaism and Christianity, it, like the Quran for those of Islam, has no special meaning to me, nor do I agree with its teachings.

My view of the soul is more in line with the atman of modern Hinduism, or the "Buddha-dhatu" (Buddha-nature) inherent in all beings, the way some Buddhists (myself included) see it, as one who does not believe in the doctrine of anatta (non-self) to be equivalent to no-soul (as modern atman (atta) of Hinduism is different to the way it was seen before).

If I suspend my own beliefs and answer within a more Judaeo-Christian mindset, I suppose I could say that the soul resides within the consciousness--or rather, the soul is the ability of the consciousness, perhaps the soul is the very idea of sentience and sapience.

This isn't my view though.

 

[atanu]

The soul is located behind the left knee. I'm sure of it.

I agree. Many souls are stolen during knee surgery etc. One should be careful.

...

 

[doppelganger]

The difference between a concept and a real entity, is that a real entity occupies space in the 3-dimensional world we live in*. Importantly, it can be observed or measured, and it has a location.

So love, color, sound, anger, taste, joy, despair . . . these aren't real?

It is purely a concept, or thought.

In which category would you put the common noun "chair"?

The definition I use is the ability to make decisions without coercion. So, some choices are a product of free will, according to my definition, while some choices are not free, but coerced.

What is a decision? What are the mechanics of a decision?

 

[Sunstone]

I agree. Many souls are stolen during knee surgery etc. One should be careful.

...

Unfortunately, my brother, no matter how often sane people like us considerately warn others to guard against their souls being stolen during knee surgery, people cannot bring themselves to think they could be the one to have their souls stolen. It is precisely such denial that makes the job of a soul thief all too easy.

 

[KeithH]

Odion:

I apologize for making assumptions about your religious identity. I think if I were ever to become a religious person again, I'd head straight for Buddhism (although I think I'd aim for the very earliest type of Buddhism that was a little less supernaturally inclined).



Doppelganger:

So love, color, sound, anger, taste, joy, despair . . . these aren't real?

Actually, those are all real. They can all be empirically observed; they all have physical manifestations.

In which category would you put the common noun "chair"?

Chairs are real, unless it is found that I am currently hovering in midair with no visible means of support.

What is a decision? What are the mechanics of a decision?

A decision is an operation (or algorithm, or recipe) that takes multiple inputs and produces one or more output.

 

[doppelganger]

you are thinking of the soul as something separate from you

its not.

you are a soul. There is no 'it'... the soul is 'you'

It's what is represented by the grammatical construct "I am." What is the function of "I am"? Why does conscious thought regard itself as having being as a thing separate from other things? What function might that serve? If it serves an observable function, does that make it "real"?

 

[doppelganger]

Actually, those are all real. They can all be empirically observed; they all have physical manifestations.

Really? You can measure light waves or sound waves, but you cannot measure sound or color and there is no place that either sound or color itself exists outside of its perception.

What instrument measures "taste" for example?

Chairs are real, unless it is found that I am currently hovering in midair with no visible means of support.

You're sure the common noun "chair" is not an abstraction? What is a common noun? What do common nouns do? By what process does something become signified by the classifier "chair"?

A decision is an operation (or algorithm, or recipe) that takes multiple inputs and produces one or more output.

So if a rock is on the edge of a cliff and the wind blows hard against it (input) and the rock begins rolling over the ledge (output), is that a "decision"?

 

[atanu]

Unfortunately, my brother, no matter how often sane people like us considerately warn others to guard against their souls being stolen during knee surgery, people cannot bring themselves to think they could be the one to have their souls stolen. It is precisely such denial that makes the job of a soul thief all too easy.

I was however told that the soul stealer likes stiff opposition. It seems that the soul tastes better then.

...