Do you believe in the existence of 'soul' ?

Eudora13

Eudora13

Legacy Member
Firstly I would like to ask, does anyone relish the idea that we are no more than atomic machines functioning due to chemical and electrical reactions?

Without going into theories propounded by various religions, let's look at this scientifically. Our activities can be roughly categorized as voluntary and involuntary. In the voluntary mode, we tell our brain what we want it to do, and so the action takes place. In the involuntary mode, an external stimulus sends signals to the brain to get things done. We all know this.

But the question that we do not ask is: who is this "we" who tells the brain to do things? If we were merely atoms, then whose is that voice that we hear in our mind from time to time?

The conscience. Or the soul?

Science has categorically defined human beings and animals as a biological process undergoing biological birth and death – a very structured systematic process. But with definite physical and chemical reactions come very definite results, as it should be with human beings too. So Why and How do we have subjective experiences? This is where science hits a dead end - in understanding the true nature of the self, the "I" in the existence that lives and breathes life.

World renowned quantum scientists, Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose have asserted that they can prove the existence of the soul. To know a little about their theory of the soul, visit:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/qu...roof-soul-exists/story-fneszs56-1226507452687


The current worldview – the world of objectivity fortified by science – is beginning to show cracks. This will be of no surprise to the many philosophers and believers who, having read the works of Plato, Socrates and Kant, the Buddha and other great spiritual teachers, have always wondered about the relationship between the universe and the mind of man.
 
This is rather interesting. I took several courses on the Philosophy of Mind during University, and the dominant position seemed to be that 'mind' itself was the just the offshoot of some physical process. I always thought this was a rather prejudiced position though, while there is no evidence to suggest that non-physical substances like a 'soul' or a 'mind' can exist (this is somewhat dubious already, because what scientists usually call evidence is 'something physical'). there has also been no scientific study that manages to isolate conscioussness or mind through an interaction with the organs of the brain.
 
I think there is a a natural, instinctual drive to deny the precepts of physicalism, but we must be careful with this, there is also natural drive to assume things like two identical boxes sitting next to each other are of equal weight (i.e. intuition is very powerful, but we have the capacity for critical thought and we should apply it.) Neurology can tell us a lot about the inner going-ons of neuron firings within the brain that lead to things like language recognition and formation, color identification, decision making, etc. We like to think, because it is so fundamental to the consciousness most of us experience, that things like that 'voice inside your head' are inseparable from the human perspective, but this is not true. We know for a fact that damaging certain parts of the brain can easily lead to loss of the ability to decode or even conceptualize syntax and some level of complex thought. That is to say, you can actually damage the human brain (and it has happened) in a way that makes a person incapable of understanding what language even is. This is also true about many emotional functions of the brain, many people have lost their ability to facilitate what we think of as normative emotional behavior due to brain damage. Neurologist Sam harris makes a good point when says that knowing that every individual function of our consciousness is contingent on an aspect of brain function, how can we reasonably assert that the entirety of our consciousness can remain intact without the brain? The argument here is based less in the discovery of a 'human nature' molecule and more in formal logic, but seems valid nonetheless.

I like to think of consciousness as a buring match. Though the flame (our consciousness) is not part of the physical structure of the match, it can not start without the match, can not exist separately from the match, and can not continue to exist ones the match is burnt out. What we think of as the soul is the same kind of reaction, it is different from the body but only exists as a reaction of bodily processes. This definitely does not diminish our experience though. Not only is the human experience beautiful simply because it is ours, but also because of the fact that it is a complex, almost unfathomably ambiguous yet unifying precept shared among us that is rooted in such simplifiable processes.
 
I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think it really detracts from a dualist conception of mind and matter. Indeed, while neurology has shown that there is a relationship between the physical organ of the brain and components of our subjectivity, a 'relationship' itself does not really vindicate the tenets of physicalism. This would only be so if one were still employing the popular (but I think, with reference to modern science, fairly discredited) metaphor of the brain as a kind of computer, or a generator. I think there are more interesting metaphors to work with. One that I heard recently likened the brain to a kind of antenna, and the soul or mind to a kind of signal. Such a view does not necessitate the existential co-dependence of consciousness and our bodies; it does however demand their mutual presence for the kind of subjective agent we become as human beings. This seems not only intuitively more plausible to me, but also, to my knowledge there is no scientific fact that precludes the possibility
 
Well, I think the idea that we're 'tapping into' consciousness via these antennas is really interesting. It's a lot better and more sound of a hypothesis then I think most spiritualists or dualists offer up. It does seem like it's at a very hypothetical level though, like the existence of a sentient high being. In both cases you have a possibility, but no corroborative evidence of it. They're not falsified ideas, but that does not make them validated by default. Thee isn't any evidence to suggest that there is a 'pool of consciousness' that our brians allow us to interact with, but their isn't any evidence against it. I couldn't make an absolute statement against it, but I think we should agree to treat it as a hypothesis at this point rather than a statement of fact, theory, or a law. Conversely, we can say beyond a shadow of doubt that there is a physical relationship between the brain, our bodues, our perception, and ultimately, what we call our consciousness. I don't think it's a reduction or degradation of how amazing and awe-inspiring the human experience is to say that the individual's physical brain dictates his self. You could say it as 'we're all just computers' and it sounds cold. I think it can be just as poetic and moving as spiritualism though, to know that of the over 48 billion human beings that have lived on this planet, no 2 have been the same but we have all shared one thing in common- brain development and neurological processes are such that no two can be alike and no two can be dissimilar. Why should I feel inclined to take up uncorroborated concepts to find that beautiful?

"Isn't enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to know that there are fairies at the bottom of it?' -Douglas Adams
 
I do believe in the soul. But if you count the soul as the thing that gives power over our subconscious I do not believe human beings are the only ones with a soul. Every cat is not alike, just as every dog is different. They all have a different personality. To have a personality one must have control over the subconscious. Therefore, the soul, according to your definition, is more of a life thing and less of a strictly human one.
 
The human being is a triune being consisting of the body, spirit and soul. The body is the least in the hierarchy of this tripartite being despite the fact that its the one we are most accustomed to and dedicate the best part of our efforts. The soul belongs to the spirit and one continues to exist after death, like it or not, in heaven or hades. The soul is one's personality, the will, emotions and intellect and the will is the most important. To attempt to prove spiritual things with inferior scientific dogmas is to say the least, laughable.
 
I fееl аn оvеrwhеlming light within mysеlf thе еrаsеs аll dаrknеss. I dоn't knоw if it is а sоul, а link tо thе gаtеs оf light, оr pеrhаps my kindnеss аnd оthеr pоsitivе trаits hаvе grоwn sо muсh thаt this wаrmth wаs сrеаtеd in mе оr mаybе it wаs аlwаys thеrе аnd thе dаrknеss оf my pаst just соvеrеd it up. Sо I sаy thаt I hоpе sоuls еxist I wаnt tо livе а wingеd bеing nеxt lifе аnd withоut а sоul I соuldn't dо thаt.
 
Yеs оf соursе
Wе аrе thе sоul, оr thе соnsсiоus lifе fоrсе within оur bоdiеs, аnd wе аrе соmplеtеly diffеrеnt frоm оur bоdiеs, whiсh аrе оnly highly соmplеx mасhinеs.
Wе sit in thе hеаrt, thе sеаt оf аll еnеrgiеs оf thе bоdy. Frоm thеrе wе еxpеriеnсе thе wоrld thrоugh thе wirеd mасhinеry оf thе bоdy's sеnsеs, аs wеll аs thrоugh thе mоrе subtlе еnеrgiеs оf mind, intеlligеnсе, аnd еgо.
Undеrstаnding thе diffеrеnсе bеtwееn bоdy аnd sоul—bеtwееn mаttеr аnd spirit—is thе bеginning оf spirituаl lifе аnd thе оnly bаsis fоr truе sеlf-rеаlizаtiоn.
оur bоdy is соnstаntly сhаnging: infаnсy, сhildhооd, yоuth, middlе аgе, оld аgе, аnd finаlly dеаth. But wе, thе unсhаngеаblе sоul, witnеss this "virtuаl rеаlity" frоm within. Thаt's why, еvеn thоugh оur bоdy сhаngеs thrоughоut lifе, wе аlwаys kееp оur sеnsе оf idеntity.
 
I think that I do, and if nothing else it is a pretty good exercise thinking about it. It immediately makes me think of one of the better book I have read The City of God, where there is a lot of good soul talk.
 
It will bе disаppоinting tо mаny tо knоw thе truth. аnyоnе hаs thе right tо bеliеvе whаt thеy likе. But, аpply sоmе sеnsе tо оur undеrstаndings. Why nоt tаkе sоmе liquоr, pеrhаps аn аmоunt tо mаkе yоu unсоnsсiоus. Whеn yоu wаkе up, аsk yоursеlf, whаt hаppеnеd tо yоur sоul. If yоu dесidе, yоur sоul tоо hаd а drink, оbviоusly, yоur mind is yоur sоul.
 
As a part of catholic church, we believe that everyone has a soul even the animals. There for, when we die, our soul will leave our body here in the land. Then our soul will go to the purgatory where you will be judge whether you'll go to heaven or hell. But there are some instances where they say that they can separate their soul from their body then travel the world floating with their soul which they call lucid dreaming.
 
Science is based on evidence. They only believe on something if there is an evidence or scientific explanation. However, God who created us cannot be explained by science that's religion is based on belief and not on evidence. We need faith to know and understand God and other spiritual things that cannot be explained by science.
 
Back
Top