Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

It seems like you are convincing yourself that your dog has a soul too.   

Exactly the opposite Alan.

That's the bit you're not getting.

[torridon]

Len, the point I am making is that to see anything at all, the entity which sees will need to perceive the content of many brain cells at any moment in time.  The materialist argument is that there is no need for this entity because the brain itself is an entity.  But the brain is just a collection of atomic particles.  The atomic particles can be organised to react to the sensory inputs, but where are you in all of this?

I AM my brain, Alan, just as you are yours and everybody else is, too. It is WE (our brains) that feel the sensory inputs, not some other self inside our bodies.

Sorry, Len, but as I have said, your brain is just a complex arrangement of basic atomic particles.  You are much, much more that that.

And so is my dog.

My dog is made of billions of particles of matter, none of which are alive, and yet this barky, hairy, slobbering, stick-chasing thing emerges somehow out of all that. Basically it's the same with us except I don't like chasing sticks so much.

It seems like you are convincing yourself that your dog has a soul too.   

Just pointing out the inconsistency in your position. If my dog can see and hear and bark and slobber without the need for a soul, then I can too. Slobber slobber. Base cognitive and motor functions are going to be similar because humans have inherited a mammalian brain. The difference with humans is the enlarged frontal cortex which helps support human specialisations - language, abstract modelling and so forth.

[Leonard James]

The difference with humans is the enlarged frontal cortex which helps support human specialisations - language, abstract modelling and so forth.

And inventing god stories, of course! 

[BashfulAnthony]

The word 'soul' is only another name for the part of the brain which makes us who we are, it doesn't exist in another part of the body like a separate entity!

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Sebastian Toe]

What computer like analysis is going on here then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EjukzL-bJc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYU1eayaXs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

The reactions of elephants, apes and dolphins in these videos are open to interpretation.  Some people may well interpret these reactions as demonstrating a form of self awareness, but they could also be generated by complex combinations of instinct and learnt behaviour.

Which could also be a good way of describing self-awareness, in us!

[Rhiannon]

Doesn't this discussion depend very much on what we think the 'soul' is? I don't see how anyone can look into the eyes of their child or their beloved - or indeed their dog's - and not see a soul - that spark that makes him or her beautifully unique, the 'Light' within. The question is whether that 'soul' is anything other than the product of biology and our environment, and whether it is something that continues beyond life.

Disputing whether we are in possession of a soul seems baffling to me.

[Shaker]

Disputing whether we are in possession of a soul seems baffling to me.

Not really that baffling once you recognise that the word has different meanings to different people, and that if everybody isn't on the same page with regard to usage then confusion is bound to reign.

[torridon]

Doesn't this discussion depend very much on what we think the 'soul' is? I don't see how anyone can look into the eyes of their child or their beloved - or indeed their dog's - and not see a soul - that spark that makes him or her beautifully unique, the 'Light' within. The question is whether that 'soul' is anything other than the product of biology and our environment, and whether it is something that continues beyond life.

Disputing whether we are in possession of a soul seems baffling to me.

Alan uses 'soul' to posit a fundamental difference between humans and other creatures and this notion that we are somehow different to or separate from nature is not just wrong, this disconnectedness is harmful ultimately. Anything that diminishes our sense of relatedness to other creatures increases our capacity to abuse them.

[Rhiannon]

Doesn't this discussion depend very much on what we think the 'soul' is? I don't see how anyone can look into the eyes of their child or their beloved - or indeed their dog's - and not see a soul - that spark that makes him or her beautifully unique, the 'Light' within. The question is whether that 'soul' is anything other than the product of biology and our environment, and whether it is something that continues beyond life.

Disputing whether we are in possession of a soul seems baffling to me.

Alan uses 'soul' to posit a fundamental difference between humans and other creatures and this notion that we are somehow different to or separate from nature is not just wrong, this disconnectedness is harmful ultimately. Anything that diminishes our sense of relatedness to other creatures increases our capacity to abuse them.

I agree. Which is why it seems to me to be more beneficial -as well as self-evident, at least in my world - to acknowledge that animals and humans alike possess souls. We can argue what that means in terms of religion and an afterlife but disputing its existence just makes everything into a machine, and ultimately expendable.

[Shaker]

I don't see how you can agree that human and non-human animals possess souls until and unless you decide what the word means, otherwise, what are you agreeing on?

[BeRational]

I don't see how you can agree that human and non-human animals possess souls until and unless you decide what the word means, otherwise, what are you agreeing on?

Exactly, can we all agree that humans and other animals all have weffdsdfghh?

If not, why not?

[ippy]

I don't see how you can agree that human and non-human animals possess souls until and unless you decide what the word means, otherwise, what are you agreeing on?

Exactly, can we all agree that humans and other animals all have weffdsdfghh?

If not, why not?

Now, how would you define this weffdsdfghh B R?

ippy

[ekim]

If you look at my reply, I said 'many religious people'.  It was not an attack upon your integrity.  However, in many of your replies you do use the jargon of the church to support your claims.  If through your pondering you have arrived at some truth, wouldn't it be better to use a language better suited to the age in which we live and for instance, answer my question what do you mean by 'spiritual consciousness' without using the words 'spirit' or 'soul'.

The term 'spiritual consciousness' is just to distinguish from the material consciousness which can be demonstrated with computerised artificial intelligence.  Material consciousness is generated purely by material entities reacting to their immediate environment, and is not really consciouness at all but a series of physical reactions with nothing actually being perceived.  The spiritual consciousness involves perception as well as reaction, but the question I pose to you is "What is it that perceives?".

I perceive, I am being aware, I am being conscious.  You are trying to create an object 'it', 'soul', 'spiritual consciousness' which naturally invites the mental faculties to carry out an objective analysis.  'Be still and 'know' that I am' is an invitation of another kind.
I managed to resurrect something I posted some time ago .....
Soul is a word which leads to much confusion.  I believe it has its origins in a Germanic word which meant 'life'.  In the Bible it was used to cover a number of Hebrew words with various meanings e.g. yachiyd - uniqueness, tselem - a kind of self image, nephesh - instincts, appetites, drives which we share with the animal world, and - neshama - human mind but with divine inspirational qualities.  The latter is similar in concept to the Greek word 'psyche' used in the New Testament. To add to the confusion, I believe the 'mind' in those days was more, or at least as much, associated with the heart (the individual's centre) as the head, with the idea that only the pure of heart could unite with the Divine i.e. a 'soul' purified of its animal behaviour patterns and human egotism, or in some religions, a consciousness which has transcended its attachments to those same patterns.

[torridon]

Doesn't this discussion depend very much on what we think the 'soul' is? I don't see how anyone can look into the eyes of their child or their beloved - or indeed their dog's - and not see a soul - that spark that makes him or her beautifully unique, the 'Light' within. The question is whether that 'soul' is anything other than the product of biology and our environment, and whether it is something that continues beyond life.

Disputing whether we are in possession of a soul seems baffling to me.

Alan uses 'soul' to posit a fundamental difference between humans and other creatures and this notion that we are somehow different to or separate from nature is not just wrong, this disconnectedness is harmful ultimately. Anything that diminishes our sense of relatedness to other creatures increases our capacity to abuse them.

I agree. Which is why it seems to me to be more beneficial -as well as self-evident, at least in my world - to acknowledge that animals and humans alike possess souls. We can argue what that means in terms of religion and an afterlife but disputing its existence just makes everything into a machine, and ultimately expendable.

I would dispute any notion of souls in the sense of some internally resident supernatural entity as that is grade A woo without any real justification; it diminishes us all to suffer such superstition in a public space; unreason and dishonesty should always be given no quarter imv.

[BashfulAnthony]

Doesn't this discussion depend very much on what we think the 'soul' is? I don't see how anyone can look into the eyes of their child or their beloved - or indeed their dog's - and not see a soul - that spark that makes him or her beautifully unique, the 'Light' within. The question is whether that 'soul' is anything other than the product of biology and our environment, and whether it is something that continues beyond life.

Disputing whether we are in possession of a soul seems baffling to me.

Absolutely!

[BeRational]

I don't see how you can agree that human and non-human animals possess souls until and unless you decide what the word means, otherwise, what are you agreeing on?

Exactly, can we all agree that humans and other animals all have weffdsdfghh?

If not, why not?

Now, how would you define this weffdsdfghh B R?

ippy

That's the point. Unless what you are talking about is well defined, there is nothing to discuss.

What is a soul?

[Ricky Spanish]

The bottom of your feet, which you cannot see when you are stood up; which if that is the case may, or may not, exist depending on how you define to sole of your foot??

[Leonard James]

I would dispute any notion of souls in the sense of some internally resident supernatural entity as that is grade A woo without any real justification; it diminishes us all to suffer such superstition in a public space; unreason and dishonesty should always be given no quarter imv.

As it should be in any intelligent person's view. Sadly, not all intelligent people are immune to religious indoctrination.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems many antitheists have a soul through which they respond.....let's call it the Response soul or R soul for short.

[Rhiannon]

I would dispute any notion of souls in the sense of some internally resident supernatural entity as that is grade A woo without any real justification; it diminishes us all to suffer such superstition in a public space; unreason and dishonesty should always be given no quarter imv.

As it should be in any intelligent person's view. Sadly, not all intelligent people are immune to religious indoctrination.

And if the 'soul' defines something that isn't woo?

[floo]

I don't see how you can agree that human and non-human animals possess souls until and unless you decide what the word means, otherwise, what are you agreeing on?

It appears some seem to think the 'soul' has an existence of its own, not part of the human brain, which is a crazy notion, imo!

[Leonard James]

I would dispute any notion of souls in the sense of some internally resident supernatural entity as that is grade A woo without any real justification; it diminishes us all to suffer such superstition in a public space; unreason and dishonesty should always be given no quarter imv.

As it should be in any intelligent person's view. Sadly, not all intelligent people are immune to religious indoctrination.

And if the 'soul' defines something that isn't woo?

Well, I confess I don't know what "woo" means, but assume it refers to the supernatural.

What do you have in mind?

[BashfulAnthony]

I would dispute any notion of souls in the sense of some internally resident supernatural entity as that is grade A woo without any real justification; it diminishes us all to suffer such superstition in a public space; unreason and dishonesty should always be given no quarter imv.

As it should be in any intelligent person's view. Sadly, not all intelligent people are immune to religious indoctrination.

Just a tiny bit condescending!

[Alan Burns]

The difference with humans is the enlarged frontal cortex which helps support human specialisations - language, abstract modelling and so forth.

And inventing god stories, of course! 

Is it not truly amazing what an enlarged frontal cortex can do!

[Alan Burns]

The difference with humans is the enlarged frontal cortex which helps support human specialisations - language, abstract modelling and so forth.

And inventing god stories, of course! 

Is it not truly amazing what an enlarged frontal cortex can do!

The brain is amazing.

And the soul is even more amazing.