Does the Soul or Spirit Really Exist?

Post Reply New Topic

ska: let me turn it around, then: prove that everything is just the brain.

nah, seriously: as i said, its not as easy as to just proclaim that there isnt any evidence... that depends on definition. a more esoteric definition probably falls short of evidence thats quite sure... but what about a more up-to-date definition (which would use a not-so-modern word, but what the heck) that is about self-evidence. you might say that "in reality", all my self-feeling is just (=nothing but) a byproduct of my brain working - but that point is quite prone to formal weaknesses, AND even if that point were the case, that doesnt make my self less evident, hence it still exists.

When a human being dies it is often possible to attach machinery and restart it's physical functions, it 'appears' to be alive, the brain does not restart at any high level of function, however given the appropriate 'repairs' the human body should be able to heal and continue like a person awaking from a coma, however it will not, could this not be that the final vital ingredient for full animate life, is the life force itself, or that little breath of it that is the 'soul' or the 'soul experience' aspect of life.

I find the idea of 'a soul' hard to grasp, but then, when I try to consider my ceasing to exist, it seems odd to think that the aspects that make up 'me' existed at all if there is no better explanation than sentience 'made me up' out of necessity? What possible benefit is there in the attendant ego related 'disfunctions' that come about as a by product?

Which part of my meat is involved in this discussion?
Which part of Don Drummond's meat made him so wonderful on trombone? or Jackie Mittoo on keys?
Which part of me feels empathy for people I have no biological requirement to feel empathy for?

peace j

When computer suffers some basic software damage it might be possible to reboot it and regain some functions without the instrument being useful. Nothing mysterious about that.

there's more cases of brain damage than soul damage.

still stands and falls with the definition of soul. :p

Since no-one has ever seen or detected a soul in any way I wonder why people even bother to argue about it.

no one has ever seen or detected a number, too...

it doesnt stop at empirics, you know. people have evidence of their self, not of flying neurons. actually, the evidence of self is immediate whereas all empiric data is mediate, and hence, has a much lower "grade" of evidence.

It's easy to reboot a computer and restore some lost software or files, because there's a backup disk and a disk with your OS on it. But there isn't one for real people. There's no "file" or some sort of "database" you can "plug" your brain into and get back what you might have lost from brain damage--that's not even a guarantee, most likely because we understand little about the brain. Having said that, it might just mean that it's too early for us to determine whether or not the soul exists--so in a parsimonious way, science says it doesn't exist because there's no evidence. If the soul could explain some of the mysteries that we don't know about the brain, there would have to be evidence of it. To concede that the soul explains the mysteries of the brain is as fallacious as conceding God explains the things about the universe we don't understand. In that case, we couldn't have discovered the atom if that were true.

But what kind of a "soul" do I have, if I am insensitive and completely devote myself to logic like just about any other robot or computer?

All that we have for evidence of anything
are our own perceptions. These give us
some indication that there might be some
physical reality outside of ourselves. BUT,
our belief in our own reality seems even more
real than what is reflected in our perceptions.
Since our point of view is all that we really have,
we must take this into a deeper consideration,
and assign it greater value than we do the
supposed physical reality.

Thus yes. We must believe we have a soul,
even more than we must believe in an external
truth.

Our perceptions might also be delusions though that are different from reality. We may believe certain things and they may seem more real to us, if only through the placebo effect, and if things don't go our way, that's where we say that reality is harsh or cruel. But differences in reality and what we believe help us learn and change. If that could not exist, perhaps we would become trapped inside of our own delusions and our own worlds that don't exist outside of the brain. We would become lost, believing in the soul, believing in our own thoughts that do not accurately reflect reality. And that might just be dangerous in terms of survival.

well i cant see the wind, but the wind exists so its possible

Although the wind is invisible its effects are obvious. The soul is not so easily perceived and distinguished from brain cell action.

calandale: hell yeah! and well put, too.

angelus-mortis: there may be no scientific evidence... depending on the definition of soul, there is heavy evidence for its existence, its just not scientific evidence.
but since science is not a way of telling what really is, what truly has existence etcetera, the lack of scientific graspability doesnt really matter.

I'm down with Calendale and gekitsu so far...
peace j

people are suckers and believe whatever someone who claims to have a god says.

Does the Soul or Spirit Really Exist?

The Buddha expressed doubt.