Where is the soul?

[atanu]

How does Genesis define a soul?
At what point did Adam become a living soul?
-See Genesis 2v7
Adam, became a living soul, 'after' Adam received the breath of life.

Hello URAVIP2ME

From this, it seems to me that Adam was, but became living after receiving the breath of life.

Without breath Adam was not alive meaning Adam was not a living soul.
At death, without breath, Adam became a dead soul or lifeless soul or person.

Adam did not exist before he was created.
At death Adam ceased to exist.

I assume that Adam here represents an indidivual?

Life force is same for all beings. Do you see the breath as many?

But individualities are many -- or so it appears.

Thus, in addition to life breath, what else God gives Adam that makes Adam say "I am Adam and that is Eve and that is tree etc. etc."?

...

 

[Onlooker]

So, where is the soul, and what does it do?

IMO the soul is the consciousness of man and animals. Obviously that consciousness is not the same for a cognitive man compared to a squid, but they share consciousness.
The subconsciousness is also part of that "soul", but is often referred to as "heart" and other terms for emotions. The subconscious is on 24/7 and represents the limbic system for man and beast.
The brain is complex and the interplay is different for every person. Your soul/mind represents conscious and unconscious perceptions of "your" reality.
No group of people can watch a train wreck and give the exact same story, we perceive our realities differently, mostly due to unconscious filters we are not aware of.
What does this soul do? Lets you eat Taco Bell and get knee surgery when you wear your joints out (with soul stealing insurance paid in full prior to knife).

 

[astarath]

Bottom of my shoes did someone use that one already?

 

[Orias]

A core belief of many religions is that there exists some sort of spiritual entity in each living person, usually called a "soul".

Is spirit the same as having a soul?

My question to theists on this board, is where does this soul reside? And what does the soul do, exactly?

Spirit and matter are one

A straightforward look at the evidence does not bode well for the existence of the soul. We can eliminate possible locations of the soul by noticing that people still retain their personalities, beliefs, etc., when they lose limbs, or when certain organs are transplanted. Eventually, we are left with the conclusion that the only important location for personality, belief, etc., is the brain.

That makes perfect sense. It's psychology

So it appears that the soul must reside in the brain. However, it does not appear that the brain actually needs a "soul" to function. Indeed, the growing field of neuroscience has identified parts of the brain that are responsible for particular types of cognition, and there is a well-established model (i.e., the firing of interconnected neurons) that explains how such cognition takes place. In fact, such studies have even discovered parts of the brain responsible for moral judgments, and these judgments have been manipulated by such simple techniques as subjecting the relevant brain area to weak magnetic fields.

Isn't that enough to answer your question?

So, where is the soul, and what does it do?

Well from my personal view, spirit and matter are one, since we adhere to things that "uplift" us, you could just as much consider emotion "spirit" or the "soul".

I wouldn't consider it anything supernatural or "enigmatic", it's part of us, just like everything else.

You know, when you are about to walk on stage in front of thousands of people to perform a peice of art, or listening to some whoop arse black metal before your first MMA fight.

It's the kind of thing that pumps you up and boosts your confidence, like a general boosting moral for his troops.

Noris mythology is a great one for that, to get into Valhall you must die in violence, mostly by means of battle. And by sacrificing the blood of your enemies, Oden will take you home, there is never a retreat.

So what is spirit or the "soul"?

I guess you could just consider it human, since it exists because of us.

 

[KeithH]

Doppelganger:

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.

You can measure color in the sense that you can measure the wavelength of light. You can measure sound in the sense that you can measure the vibration of air particles. In other words it is possible to detect colors and sounds using instruments. Cameras and microphones are good at these things.


"What instrument measures "taste" for example?"

Taste is a combination of sensory molecules on the tongue and in the nose. If one could build a machine sensitive to the molecules that our tongues and noses can detect, then you could reconstruct taste. Some progress has been made in this regard (e.g., the OLFACT).



I rather get the feeling, though, that you aren't really talking about color, sound, and taste as they are commonly defined, but as the subjective human perception of these things. I would put subjective human perceptions in the same category as concepts: they are constructions of the mind that don't have any direct physical manifestation. In fact, they are symbols that represent reality, much like language, which I discuss further below.

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"?

Ah, my apologies. I misunderstood you. Language is a set of concepts, namely symbols that allow us to describe our surroundings, our feelings about them, etc. So no, the common noun "chair" has no physical existence. It is simply a symbol that is associated with a certain class of physical object.

I'm not a language expert, so I can't say too much about how something becomes signified by a particular symbol. I would imagine that the common experience (via the senses) of chairs by speaking humans, and the need of these humans to communicate about chairs, leads them to agree on verbal and written symbols that signify that object.

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"?

Yes. And you could say that the laws of physics provide the algorithm. The algorithm consists of Newton's laws of motion, and takes as input the position of the rock, it's weight, the speed of the wind, etc., and gives as output the trajectory of the rock.

Of course, in this case there is no intention involved: the decision is not being made according to some predetermined requirements, it is simply made as an inevitable unfolding of the laws of nature.

 

[Gharib]

A core belief of many religions is that there exists some sort of spiritual entity in each living person, usually called a "soul".

My question to theists on this board, is where does this soul reside? And what does the soul do, exactly?

A straightforward look at the evidence does not bode well for the existence of the soul. We can eliminate possible locations of the soul by noticing that people still retain their personalities, beliefs, etc., when they lose limbs, or when certain organs are transplanted. Eventually, we are left with the conclusion that the only important location for personality, belief, etc., is the brain.

So it appears that the soul must reside in the brain. However, it does not appear that the brain actually needs a "soul" to function. Indeed, the growing field of neuroscience has identified parts of the brain that are responsible for particular types of cognition, and there is a well-established model (i.e., the firing of interconnected neurons) that explains how such cognition takes place. In fact, such studies have even discovered parts of the brain responsible for moral judgments, and these judgments have been manipulated by such simple techniques as subjecting the relevant brain area to weak magnetic fields.

So, where is the soul, and what does it do?

sorry i didn't read throught the thread but here is my answer to you with some points taken from the following site:
What is soul? - Ask a question to us

to answer your question,

Is soul the same as life?

As mentioned before, soul has “life”, however soul and life do not come to the same meaning. For example, plants have “lives” while they don’t have “souls”.

What is soul like?

We can say that soul is like expanding matters. In Islamic books that the issue of soul is held, it is mentioned that soul expands. Let’s think about a good-smelling rose. Its odour spreads out and fills the room. Think about the air we breathe; it fills the volume of the place it enters. So does the steam. Light also enlightens the whole place it is situated. Similar to these samples, even soul expands and fills the body it is situated to its furthest point. Therefore, soul is in any point of body. If human body were so larger or so smaller than it is today, it would make no difference; soul would even expand or contract and fill the volume of that body also.


so from above my answers to your questions "So, where is the soul, and what does it do?" are:

1) the soul is in the whole body not in just one particular area of the body.
2) it expands, it keeps the human body going while in it, if it goes out, the body stops functioning.

i hope that answers your questions, Allah knows best.

 

[atanu]

--- would put subjective human perceptions in the same category as concepts: they are constructions of the mind that don't have any direct physical manifestation. In fact, they are symbols that represent reality, much like language, which I discuss further below.

But surely you will consider data provided by instruments and then known via human sense instruments as OBJECTIVE?
...

 

[atanu]

Is soul the same as life?
As mentioned before, soul has “life”, however soul and life do not come to the same meaning. For example, plants have “lives” while they don’t have “souls”.

How do we know that?

...

 

[doppelganger]

Doppelganger:



You can measure color in the sense that you can measure the wavelength of light.

But you still wouldn't be measuring color. You'd be measuring the wavelength. A person born blind would gain very little or no genuine insight from the product of that measurement from which he or she would now know the measurement of color itself.

I'm not a language expert, so I can't say too much about how something becomes signified by a particular symbol. I would imagine that the common experience (via the senses) of chairs by speaking humans, and the need of these humans to communicate about chairs, leads them to agree on verbal and written symbols that signify that object.

I would suggest that you'll find that the concept of a "soul" is intricately intertwined with how common nouns are used and their function. Symbolic language is only understood in terms of its psychological and social function, and not in terms of metaphysics or ontology. "Where is the soul?" cannot be answered without understanding the grammatical origin and psychological function of the thing meant to be signified by the classifier "soul."

Yes. And you could say that the laws of physics provide the algorithm. The algorithm consists of Newton's laws of motion, and takes as input the position of the rock, it's weight, the speed of the wind, etc., and gives as output the trajectory of the rock.

Of course, in this case there is no intention involved: the decision is not being made according to some predetermined requirements, it is simply made as an inevitable unfolding of the laws of nature.

Would you consider yourself a person who embraces the philosophy of strict "determinism"?

 

[KeithH]

Atanu:

"But surely you will consider data provided by instruments and then known via human sense instruments as OBJECTIVE?"

Only if they are corroborated according to the scientific method. The very purpose of the scientific method is to remove, as far as possible, the subjective biases that may influence any single measurement or any single scientist.

You might ask how we know the scientific method actually works: we know it works because it allows us to make predictions that can be confirmed. A sure fire way, for instance, of showing that Newton's second law works, is to predict ahead of time how long it will take for a particular object to reach the floor when released from a certain height. If we are successful at making predictions, then we know we are onto something real.



Doppelganger:

But you still wouldn't be measuring color. You'd be measuring the wavelength. A person born blind would gain very little or no genuine insight from the product of that measurement from which he or she would now know the measurement of color itself.

I agree. Which is why I went on to discuss the definition of color as you see it (no pun intended!), namely a subjective personal perception.

I would suggest that you'll find that the concept of a "soul" is intricately intertwined with how common nouns are used and their function. Symbolic language is only understood in terms of its psychological and social function, and not in terms of metaphysics or ontology. "Where is the soul?" cannot be answered without understanding the grammatical origin and psychological function of the thing meant to be signified by the classifier "soul."

I'm not sure I agree. All language is symbolic, but not all of it escapes issues of metaphysics or ontology. The reason I ask the question "where is the soul?", is to see whether theists have reached any sort of understanding of the thing to which the word "soul" refers (or at least, whether they've gained a deeper understanding than that offered by most religious texts, which usually just assume that the reader knows what a soul is).

 

[atanu]

Atanu:
"But surely you will consider data provided by instruments and then known via human sense instruments as OBJECTIVE?"

Only if they are corroborated according to the scientific method.

Hello KeithH

In other words, objectve truth is that which is corroborated by a second observer or a control.

Even in this the human apparatus cannot be bypassed.

Moreover, the observer of the original observation and observer of the corroborator are always one -- that is you. You may argue "--- sun is an objective truth since myself and Mr. XYZ both confirm it." But actually you alone are confirming the sun and Mr. XYZ.

You may think that the above is ridiculous but I am not arguing that there is no objective truth. I am saying that there is no way to prove that anyone's subjective truth can be proven as objective.
...

 

[Orias]

Hello KeithH

In other words, objectve truth is that which is corroborated by a second observer or a control.

Even in this the human apparatus cannot be bypassed.

Moreover, the observer of the original observation and observer of the corroborator are always one -- that is you. You may argue "--- sun is an objective truth since myself and Mr. XYZ both confirm it." But actually you alone are confirming the sun and Mr. XYZ.

You may think that the above is ridiculous but I am not arguing that there is no objective truth. I am saying that there is no way to prove that anyone's subjective truth can be proven as objective.
...

Lol that's why it's subjective.

There is already a thread for determining metaphysical truth, and it is pretty much dead.

 

[KeithH]

Atanu:

In other words, objectve truth is that which is corroborated by a second observer or a control.

Even in this the human apparatus cannot be bypassed.

That is quite true. The question is, do we need to completely bypass the human apparatus? I don't think we do. Our subjective experience is not entirely fabricated, unless you are of the solipsist persuasion. The key, then, is not to completely bypass the human apparatus, but simply reduce the influence of those parts of the apparatus that obstruct objectivity.

Moreover, the observer of the original observation and observer of the corroborator are always one -- that is you. You may argue "--- sun is an objective truth since myself and Mr. XYZ both confirm it." But actually you alone are confirming the sun and Mr. XYZ.

You may think that the above is ridiculous but I am not arguing that there is no objective truth. I am saying that there is no way to prove that anyone's subjective truth can be proven as objective.

Actually, this does sound solipsistic, in which case I must be a figment of your imagination, and I will happily say whatever you think me into saying

In other words, if you cannot accept that two individuals can corroborate an observation, then you also cannot accept that you and I are two individuals having a conversation, which renders the conversation useless, since neither of us will learn anything new (because we're both you, and we're not getting any new information from the outside world).

 

[doppelganger]

I'm not sure I agree. All language is symbolic, but not all of it escapes issues of metaphysics or ontology. The reason I ask the question "where is the soul?", is to see whether theists have reached any sort of understanding of the thing to which the word "soul" refers (or at least, whether they've gained a deeper understanding than that offered by most religious texts, which usually just assume that the reader knows what a soul is).

Then you are on a fool's errand (and perhaps so are most theists), because "soul" doesn't come from ontology or metaphysics. It's a shadow cast by a grammatical/social construct.

You think such grammatical constructs aren't "real," but if you think about it, I think you'll find that the entire metaphysics of the language you use (even when you are using a simple classifier like "chair") depends on assuming a reality of the self as a thing in itself - "I am."

So your problem remains: Classifiers come into use because they signify some experience or abstraction from experience (such as "chair") that is real. Or Korzybski put it: "In the rough, a symbol is a sign that stands for something… Before a noise, etc., may become a symbol, something must exist for the symbol to symbolize.”

So do you agree in principle with strict determinism?

 

[doppelganger]

Things "exist" and are "true" by virtue of their ability to consistently perform a function in a model of reality. When the purpose to which the model is being put changes, the reality and truth changes accordingly because propositions of ontological fact are at best only usefully true. This is the case as much with "chair" as it is with the soul. I daresay "I am" is more foundational to the practical use of our language than any other particular symbol.

"'Truth is simply a compliment paid to sentences seen to be paying their way." Richard Rorty

 

[Psychonaut]

The very next post to the OP answered this already the guy said "if you picture an image in your head where is it?"

The soul is you! It's everything! It's the body and mind that are the possessions of the soul, in your possession are eyes to see, a mind to think.

Without those things you are will, and our true will is often a terrifying thing to see.

Because it is so nothing like we are, that we only lament that we have ever been anything but our immortal soul.

 

[atanu]

Atanu:

That is quite true. -----

This is sufficient for the time being.

Actually, this does sound solipsistic, in which case I must be a figment of your imagination, and I will happily say whatever you think me into saying

In other words, if you cannot accept that two individuals can corroborate an observation, then you also cannot accept that you and I are two individuals having a conversation, which renders the conversation useless, since neither of us will learn anything new (because we're both you, and we're not getting any new information from the outside world).

It would be solipsistic if I were to claim that I knew that the soul-mind was a property of my material body that is seen. A material body does not know the knower. As someone has aptly said: It's the body and mind that are the possessions of the soul.

We are talking about Soul, which by definition, imparts knowledge principle to a body. I (as body-mind) do not know this knowledge principle and I have not created it. It was given from birth. I do not know whether it is located as a discrete entity in body or whether it is of continuous nature with local variances that make for individualities. And I am pretty sure that no one knows for sure else one would be immortal.

Thus the argument is not solipsistic. The argument does not refer to me or you but is much more general -- related to the knowledge principle itself.

The purpose is only to point out that in case of a sensual observation of an object and its verification through a third party, the locus of the knowedge principle that sees the object and also the third party verifier is one only.

This is not important for mundane affairs surely. But for understanding the nature of Soul-Self, this becomes important, since apriori we cannot assume anything.

To rephrase, the nature of Soul cannot be ascertained by senses-mind, since Mind-Senses cannot know theiir knower-seer.

...

 

[atanu]

The very next post to the OP answered this already the guy said "if you picture an image in your head where is it?"

The soul is you! It's everything! It's the body and mind that are the possessions of the soul, in your possession are eyes to see, a mind to think.

I agree that the answer is as close as possible. But I have a problem which is indicated in your post shown in red highlight. When the mind is the possession of soul (which I fully agree) then which is the seer and which is the seen?
...

 

[doppelganger]

To rephrase, the nature of Soul cannot be ascertained by senses-mind, since Mind-Senses cannot know theiir knower-seer.

...

Well put. It reminds me of a passage from Nietzsche:

One would have to know what being is, in order to decide whether this or that is real (e.g., "the facts of consciousness"); in the same way, what certainty is, what knowledge is, and the like.-- But since we do not know this, a critique of the faculty of knowledge is senseless: how should a tool be able to criticize itself when it can use only itself for the critique? It cannot even define itself!

 

[atanu]

Atanu:

Actually, this does sound solipsistic, in which case I must be a figment of your imagination, and I will happily say whatever you think me into saying

In other words, if you cannot accept that two individuals can corroborate an observation, then you also cannot accept that you and I are two individuals having a conversation, which renders the conversation useless, since neither of us will learn anything new (because we're both you, and we're not getting any new information from the outside world).

This confusion is only due to the difference in the hypothetical ground from which your and my arguments stem from. In short our hypotheses are opposite.

New York city is one yet there may be lighted areas and dark areas. It is wrong to say that since NY city is one you do not require more than one lamp.

1. Your hypothetical ground is that you are a living intelligent individual, separate from all other such individuals and non-living beings that comprise the universe (somewhat like Newtonian mechanics). Your hypothesis denies any common general aspect running through alkl phenomenon.

2. My hypothetical premise is that the knowledge principle (we call it Atma or Soul) is one indivisible sAmAnya (general) that runs through all phenomenon. The general is never born/manifest. The general is evident only in its vishesha (particulars or characteristics). The knowledge principle is thus manifested/reflected in its particular, the Mind, which again is indivisible one -- encompassing everything that can be known directly or through report (somewhat like wave mechanics). All sentient and non-sentient beings are in this Mind.

We can now examine as to which hypothetical ground gives to more correct predictions.

...