I don't know it. But, in my thinking about a soul - if there is such a thing - it would exhibit behaviors similar to Energy. This isn't something I'm saying is absolutely certain and must be true. Instead, it's just me describing what I think a soul, if it is, could be. But, as I've said, other than the weak proof of "introspection" I am at a loss to show you a soul exists. Truly, it is - as you suggest - making it up.Brewtus;1126325; said:
Well, again, if we assume a soul then any action I take in nature is a manifestation of that Soul's interaction with nature. I guess that doesn't imply a soul being "required." But, I guess I don't understand why something has to be "required" in order to be real. I'm probably focusing on the wrong word.
Not sure I agree with the suggestion that "we don't have any reason to believe in a soul because there is no observation that requires an explanation" Ultimately, the question is "why (or how) are we here?" But, even more simply - and you bring it up in what I quoted of you below... why do we have a sense of self at all? Doesn't that require an explanation? Where is this idea of "self" coming from? Do Dogs have it? Fish? Spiders?
Looked at another way - what are the evolutionary consequences of "self" What is the selective advantage of a being becoming aware of his "self" Why would nature "select for" sentience?
Now, there may be reasons/answers for these issues which do not include the soul. Again, my position is hardly that there is such a thing, but only that I believe there is such a thing, it's not forbidden by reality, and if there is such a thing, here's some ideas on how it might "work."
I can't speak for the traditional Christian view.
With regard to my conception of a soul and your inability to argue against it - and Muffler hit on this idea earlier - do you leave room for the fact that a soul may well be but that we do not have the equipment to measure it yet? It seems to me this is not so hard to believe. I mean, moons around Jupiter existed LONG before our ability to see them, right? Neutrinos were shooting through our bodies long before quantum physics went looking for them. Maybe a soul is a form of high energy... which we cannot measure "YET"
Again, I don't know... just offering the suggestion. It's fair to say there's no reason to believe in such a thing. Indeed, if this were 30 BCE the idea that some point of light in the heavens would be like our sun if viewed from a closer perspective would be equally as unsupported and ridiculous... but... true.
Or... here's an example from a book I've been reading which may be insightful in this discussion... The rule that "An object in motion tends to stay in motion" is - on it's face - patently absurd by observation. Every object I see in motion has always stopped. Always. And the rule says the precise opposite. Now, of course, we know friction and counterforces are what stop an object from continuing motion. But... if we were to test this rule in our reality, we would find "an object in motion tends to stop" Furthermore, with Ocam's Razor in mind, how is that Rule the simplest solution? A more "self explanatory" rule is "an object in motion tends to come to rest" since that's precisely what always happens in observation. Instead, we've "created" this idea that an object in motion really behaves completley unlike our observation, and the only reason it behaves as we observe is because of other things that probably also exist - things like friction and so on. Of course, I agree that these ideas are correct in nature -that is the rule is correct, and friction exists, etc.. but.. it's hardly the simpelest answer to the problem, and again, seems contrary to every real world trial we would conduct.
I quite agree with that last sentence. Reality behaves as it does regardless of what we might know about it.. or think we know about it. Truth is out there to be discovered, and a fantasy cannot be made "true" simply be believing it is true. For me, I look to see if reality as I understand it forbids or permits a thing to be. If it's permitted, I leave open the possibility that such a thing is. If it's forbidden, then I call it impossible.
If I told you I had a dream last night that Thad Matta was in my kitchen brewing coffee and seeking investment advice would you dismiss the chances of this being true on objections of "hearsay and fuzzy pictures?" I either did dream that or I did not. You cannot know and I cannot prove it to you, right? Suppose you were inclined to not believe dreams existed... how could I possibly prove to you that they do? If we hooked me up to a machine to record brain activity, what's to prevent you from making the determination that cyclical brainwave activity is indicative of the brain making sure I'm breathing correctly and not evidence of dreaming? As, the bottom line is, you can't ever observe my dream.... Whatever physical evidence I might set before you need not speak towards whether or not I'm dreaming. Whatever testimony I give you is "hearsay" It really comes down to whether you're willing to leave room for the possibility or if you've detemined such a thing is impossible.Hearsay and fuzzy pictures are not proof. The brain still functions for a while after the heart stops. And with the billions of cameras in the world, why hasn't anyone taken a clear photo of a ghost like this?
It's fine that you think a soul is impossible. It doesn't matter, really. I mean, let's assume there is a soul even though you don't believe in one -and for valid reasons. Let us also assume that the soul continues on in existence even after this "life" ends. What choice do you have? It either is, or it is not. Our belief in favor of, or against, is irrelevant. Right?
Fair enough. My null would be "Something must exist." My proof would be - here I am thinking about the question in the first place. It's easy enough, I suppose, to start with : there must be nothing. But, I'm here, so there is at least one something.. and go from there. I haven't given it much thought as to which is more "sound" if either is. But, we both arrive at: I think, therefore I am.... I'm just not sure if that's an "argument" or a premise. I think of it as a premise, beause thinking about nothing establishes that nothing is impossible in the first instance.. that is to say, starting with "there is nothing" is patently incorrect. So, why begin in error? I mean think about that for a second. You're admitting to starting off wrong about something, and then arguing what follows must therefore be true. That's not logically sound, is it? (I realize I'm playing a little fast and loose with concepts here, but just sorta conceptualizing things in a different way to illustrate a point)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
