Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The soul -- does it exist?
hoostino
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 15 (2726)
01-24-2002 4:29 PM


The vast majority of humans believes in the concept of a spirit or soul belonging to each individual. This entity is often considered an extension of the human body, and many consider it as real as their anatomical and psychological selves. Obviously, no empirical evidence supports its existence. And personally, I think it's obvious that what we consider "spiritual" is merely misidentified elements of our psychology. What do you think?

  
keenanvin
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 15 (2738)
01-24-2002 10:41 PM


Consciousness, memory and personality are consequences of the biochemical and electrical processes of the brain. These properties are dictated by genes, environment, and health, and require a supply of oxygen and energy (ATP). If the brain is changed - injured by trauma or stroke for example, or stricken with cancer - cells die, synaptic pathways are disrupted, energy metabolism can be drastically skewed. These disruptions at the cellular level mean that memories can be lost, personality changed, consciousness ended. Death is a permanent extension of this end of consciousness, and once those cellular changes occur there really is no going back. There is no magick entity of "consciousness", soul or spirit that exists apart from or longer than the biochemical workings of the brain.
_kV

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by joz, posted 01-25-2002 8:56 AM keenanvin has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 15 (2745)
01-25-2002 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by keenanvin
01-24-2002 10:41 PM


Ah dualism what a load of steaming bovine excrement.......
There is no ghost in the machine folks.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by keenanvin, posted 01-24-2002 10:41 PM keenanvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 1:29 AM joz has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 4 of 15 (4361)
02-13-2002 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by joz
01-25-2002 8:56 AM


this is what you atheists and evolutionists could use to prove their is no god. a conscience and a personality is what defines a person and without this ghost in the shell i think that we would be entirely impulse based like animals. this also means that a computer could possibly develop a personality of its own, if its as simple as it seems. how would explain emotions though? there is nothing gained from love other than maybe satisfaction and a reason to aspire to something, but why waste time like that if you dont need to and if its not helping you survive. why would we develop something that makes us worse and more dependent on others. i dont know any man that doesnt want a girl very badly or that wants to die alone. why would we need to do anything other than work if it didnt help us progress our species, the developement of emotions just doesnt need to be.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joz, posted 01-25-2002 8:56 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 02-13-2002 6:11 AM KingPenguin has replied
 Message 8 by GregP618, posted 03-19-2002 5:48 PM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 03-20-2002 10:20 AM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 14 by Xombie, posted 03-21-2002 12:49 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 15 (4373)
02-13-2002 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 1:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
this is what you atheists and evolutionists could use to prove their is no god. a conscience and a personality is what defines a person and without this ghost in the shell i think that we would be entirely impulse based like animals.

As keenanvin pointed out, any brain damage changes behaviour, ergo behaviour is a physical function of the brain. I know you believe otherwise, but can you show it?
We are impulse based animals, across the globe men & women are shagging like bunnies, christian or not. Our inherited territorialism is translated into terrible wars.
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

there is nothing gained from love other than maybe satisfaction and a reason to aspire to something, but why waste time like that if you dont need to and if its not helping you survive. why would we develop something that makes us worse and more dependent on others. i dont know any man that doesnt want a girl very badly or that wants to die alone. why would we need to do anything other than work if it didnt help us progress our species, the developement of emotions just doesnt need to be.

Love does help us to survive. It allows mating & other non sexual bonds. It helps cement & reinforce social structure. A tribe is greater than the sum of its parts.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 1:29 AM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 3:34 PM mark24 has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 6 of 15 (4402)
02-13-2002 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24
02-13-2002 6:11 AM


can you show that it effects there personality? i know that theyre behavior and methods of thinking change but i still think its the same person in there.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 02-13-2002 6:11 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 02-13-2002 5:30 PM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 10 by nator, posted 03-20-2002 7:22 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 15 (4429)
02-13-2002 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 3:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
can you show that it effects there personality? i know that theyre behavior and methods of thinking change but i still think its the same person in there.

Well, if it's the same person in there, why does their behaviour change? Wouldn't the soul override the brain & shine through?
Can I show it affects personality? Yes. People with progressive diseases that affect the brain are excellent case studies. People who are un-artistic become artistic, as the dominant "maths" (for example) part of the brain is destroyed, for example. Agressive people become unaggressive & vice versa, depending on where the damage occurs.
The point is, our behaviour & personality are SOLELY the result of our brains processes. Change the brain, you change the behaviour. Which begs the question, if we DO have a soul, is there any reason to believe it thinks & acts like us anyway?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 3:34 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
GregP618
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 15 (7339)
03-19-2002 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 1:29 AM


It would appear that the general concensus of opinion is that animals act entirely based on primeaval instincts. Their instinct being to survive, and this being displayed in them protecting their territory, developing defence mechanisms against potential predators, developing ways to catch their prey etc. The big question appears to be whether the same can be applied to man?!
It would appear that some distinction has been made (and rightly so) between humans and animals. It's true that animals CAN be said to have a personality, perhaps in a similar way to humans, and this can, along with emotions, be termed a "soul". The soul and the physical body are what we use to relate to what we see around us in the physical world. The thing that sets animals apart from humans is that they have no God concious. This is the part of you that relates in the supernatural realm as opposed to the natural, and would be termed a "spirit". This is the part of you that is eternal and will go on after the physical body dies and can exist without the need for a physical form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 1:29 AM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 03-20-2002 7:10 AM GregP618 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 9 of 15 (7382)
03-20-2002 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by GregP618
03-19-2002 5:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by GregP618:
It would appear that the general concensus of opinion is that animals act entirely based on primeaval instincts. Their instinct being to survive, and this being displayed in them protecting their territory, developing defence mechanisms against potential predators, developing ways to catch their prey etc. The big question appears to be whether the same can be applied to man?!
It would appear that some distinction has been made (and rightly so) between humans and animals. It's true that animals CAN be said to have a personality, perhaps in a similar way to humans, and this can, along with emotions, be termed a "soul". The soul and the physical body are what we use to relate to what we see around us in the physical world. The thing that sets animals apart from humans is that they have no God concious. This is the part of you that relates in the supernatural realm as opposed to the natural, and would be termed a "spirit". This is the part of you that is eternal and will go on after the physical body dies and can exist without the need for a physical form.

Well, that's a great theology and all, but it's still not based upon evidence of any kind.
I think one of the major things that sets humans apart from the rest of the animals is self-awareness, and the ability to conceptualize far into the future. The part of self-awareness that religion has grown out of is that we are the only animal that knows ahead of time that we are going to die.
The invention of a non-corporeal soul was a way for early people to explain why we had emotions and thoughts. Remember, for quite a long time, people thought that all thought and emotion resided in the heart, not the brain. People thought the brain existed to cool the blood. People also fear(ed) death, so the invention of a soul which lived on for all of eternity, beyond the death of the corporeal body, was a way to feel comforted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by GregP618, posted 03-19-2002 5:48 PM GregP618 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 15 (7383)
03-20-2002 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 3:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
can you show that it effects there personality? i know that theyre behavior and methods of thinking change but i still think its the same person in there.

How do you define "same person"? What defines a person, other than their personality?
There is a wonderful book I am reccomending to you called "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Oliver Sachs, which would help you understand a little better about neuroscience and the brain. It is a sensitive and intriguing collection of unusual case studies of people with different kinds of brain damage which explores what their lives and personalities were like and how they changed because of illness or trauma.
Also consider the famous story of Phineas Gage:
http://www-instruct.nmu.edu/psychology/mmacmill/gage_page/PGSTORY.HTM
'Phineas Gage is probably the most famous patient to have survived severe damage to the brain. He is also the first patient from whom we learned something about he relation between personality and the function of the front parts of the brain.
Phineas Gage was the foreman of a railway construction gang working for the contractors preparing the bed for the Rutland and Burlington Rail Road when, on 13th. September, 1848, an accidental explosion of a charge he had set blew his tamping iron through his head. The tamping iron (pictured below) was 3 feet 7 inches long, weighed 13 1/2 pounds, and was 1 1/4 inches in diameter at one end, tapering over a distance of about 1 foot to a diameter of 1/4 inch at the other.
The tamping iron went in point first under his left cheek bone and out through the top of his head, landing about 25 to 30 yards behind him. Phineas was knocked over but may not have lost consciousness even though most of the front part of the left side of his brain was destroyed. He was treated by Dr. Harlow, the young physician of
Cavendish, with such success that he returned home to Lebanon, New Hampshire 10 weeks later.
Some time later, Phineas felt strong enough to resume work. But because his personality had changed so much, the contractors who had employed him would not give him his place again. Before the accident he had been their most capable and efficient foreman, one with a well-balanced mind, and who was looked on as a shrewd smart business man. He was now fitful, irreverent, and grossly profane, showing little deference for his fellows. He was also impatient and obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, unable to settle on any of the plans he devised for future action. His friends said he was "No longer Gage."'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 3:34 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 11 of 15 (7396)
03-20-2002 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 1:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
this is what you atheists and evolutionists could use to prove their is no god. a conscience and a personality is what defines a person and without this ghost in the shell i think that we would be entirely impulse based like animals. this also means that a computer could possibly develop a personality of its own, if its as simple as it seems. how would explain emotions though? there is nothing gained from love other than maybe satisfaction and a reason to aspire to something, but why waste time like that if you dont need to and if its not helping you survive. why would we develop something that makes us worse and more dependent on others. i dont know any man that doesnt want a girl very badly or that wants to die alone. why would we need to do anything other than work if it didnt help us progress our species, the developement of emotions just doesnt need to be.

What about lobotomy and electro-shock techniques ?
They mangle the brain, and produce meek and mild individuals
from dangerously agressive ones ... by removing parts of the
brain responsible for these behaviour patterns.
Personality traits can be REMOVED by excising parts of the
brain.
I would contend that we are (OOps) NOT ANY different from any other animal
though. Would anyone care to show eveidence for the lack of
self-awareness in other animals or of their inability to reason
about the consequences of their actions ?
How would you be able to hunt in organised groups without some
planning ability and communication system ? Have you ever
watched lionesses hunt (on TV anyhow) ... can you really believe
that such co-operation could be instinctive ?? A hunt
is an incredibly dynamic activity after all.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 1:29 AM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 03-21-2002 7:37 AM Peter has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 15 (7468)
03-21-2002 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peter
03-20-2002 10:20 AM


quote:
Would anyone care to show eveidence for the lack of
self-awareness in other animals or of their inability to reason
about the consequences of their actions ?
Uh, sure, I can show that. It's the "dot on the forehead" test.
Take an animal, put a dot on their forehead, and have them look in a mirror. The ONLY animals that reach to their foreheads instead of the mirror are chimps and humans.
"Learning" about the consequences of actions (cause and effect) is a lot different from "reasoning" (using logic) about the consequences of actions.
quote:
How would you be able to hunt in organised groups without some
planning ability and communication system ? Have you ever
watched lionesses hunt (on TV anyhow) ... can you really believe
that such co-operation could be instinctive ?? A hunt
is an incredibly dynamic activity after all.
Yes, I really can accept that much of that cooperation could be instinctive, the same way that I accept that birds build nests without being taught, and a housecat who has never hunted a live animal in its life will still stalk and kill a toy mouse exactly like a feral cat does.
Animals, such as lions, hunting in groups are using both instinct and learned behaviors, but not reason as I have defined it.[/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 03-20-2002 10:20 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by joz, posted 03-21-2002 8:14 AM nator has not replied
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 03-25-2002 10:39 AM nator has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 15 (7472)
03-21-2002 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
03-21-2002 7:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Take an animal, put a dot on their forehead, and have them look in a mirror. The ONLY animals that reach to their foreheads instead of the mirror are chimps and humans.
Um Schraf I think dolphins pass the (probably modified) dot test.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 03-21-2002 7:37 AM nator has not replied

  
Xombie
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 15 (7501)
03-21-2002 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 1:29 AM


quote:
i think that we would be entirely impulse based like
Actually, we are. Rather, we WOULD be, if it werent' for our Frontal Association Area.
The Frontal Association Area is the front part of the human brain, that controls personality, associations, and complex thought. It is said that the intelligence of a species lies in how large this part of their brain is. Ours is (I think; correct me if I'm wrong) the largest of all animals. We are thus separated from animalistic behavior.
A great example of how important the frontal association area is, would be the case of Phineas Gage, a railroad worker in the 1840's. While packing dynamite into a hole (I assume to clear some rock) with a long, thin steel rod, the dynamite accidentally went off. The rod was shot straight up through his chin, and out the top of his skull, clear through He survived because the parts of his brain that control bodily functions (breathing, movement, physical control) were still intact; however, the connection between his frontal association area and the rest of his brain was severed.
The injury resulted in him becoming animalistic in his actions. A man who used to be friendly, polite, etc. now swore constantly, undressed in inappropriate places, urinated anywhere in public, and had temper tantrums.
Reference: 'Psychology And You' 2nd Edition (textbook)
So as you can see, what you attribute to the soul IS, in fact, part of our brai

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 1:29 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 15 of 15 (7799)
03-25-2002 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
03-21-2002 7:37 AM


quote:
Peter::
Would anyone care to show eveidence for the lack of
self-awareness in other animals or of their inability to reason
about the consequences of their actions ?
Schraf::
Uh, sure, I can show that. It's the "dot on the forehead" test.
Take an animal, put a dot on their forehead, and have them look in a mirror. The ONLY animals that reach to
their foreheads instead of the mirror are chimps and humans.
Peter::
Human babies fail that test until they are several months old, and
primitive cultures when shown photographs of themselves fail to
recognise that the image is of them.
That test shows nothing about self awareness, only of an inability
to comprehend mirrors (or at least the result is inconclusive
either way).
(Western at least) humans are inundated from an early age
with images of themselves, and are TAUGHT that the image is
themself.
quote:
Schraf::
"Learning" about the consequences of actions (cause and effect) is a lot different from "reasoning" (using logic) about the consequences of actions.
What about creatures like squirrels and crows, who 'figure out'
how to solve succesively difficult problems in obtaining food
rewards. Crows are particularly good at it, and abilities
learned by parents have been seen to be passed on to offspring.
Even better are the monkeys who wash their sweet potatoes
and use the sea to separate grain from sand. One monkey
worked out how to do it, and others copied. How did the
first monkey find this out ? By accident perhaps, but then
why repeat the process another time if there is not some
form of reasoning like 'It worked last time I'll try again' ?
quote:
Peter::
How would you be able to hunt in organised groups without some
planning ability and communication system ? Have you ever
watched lionesses hunt (on TV anyhow) ... can you really believe
that such co-operation could be instinctive ?? A hunt
is an incredibly dynamic activity after all.
Schraf::
Yes, I really can accept that much of that cooperation could be instinctive, the same way that I accept that
birds build nests without being taught, and a housecat who has never hunted a live animal in its life will still
stalk and kill a toy mouse exactly like a feral cat does.
My cat was taken away from it's mother very young ... and
it DOES NOT stalk at all. Sure it'll chase shiny/moving objects,
but it doesn't stalk, because it has never been shown how.
Hunting is an ACQUIRED skill, not an instinctive activity.
quote:
Schraf::
Animals, such as lions, hunting in groups are using both instinct and learned behaviors, but not reason as I have defined it.
I cannot imagine how an ambush (which lionesses
employ with great success) can be imprinted from instinct, nor
co-ordinated without some rudimentary communication technique.
I've seen film of lionesses hunting where the lionesses (two of
them) walk side by side, heads close together, then one sneaks
around the edge of a heard and the other waits till it is in
position before startling the heard toward the now hidden
hunting partner. That seems pretty complicated pattern to be just
instinct ... and if it's learned, how did they learn it in the first
place ?
[added by edit]
I think I meant herd
[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 03-21-2002 7:37 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024