Soul

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

If someone talks of a 'soul' why is it treated as just a nonsensical religious belief?

Soul is just another word (albeit from religion) for Self, Subject and Consciousness. There is sufficient evidence  for a Subject and Consciousness. I am sure no one doubts the presence of Consciousness or the Self.

Maybe there are many hypotheses doing the rounds as to what Consciousness is and how it is generated. But no one has yet  proved with any certainty  as to what it is.

There are  in fact many recent philosophical ideas about Consciousness being external to the brain and even about it being something fundamental and universal (refer thread on Panpsychism). There are some recent scientific ideas (IIT, PAP) that also seem to corroborate this philosophical view.

Given this situation, why can't the idea of a soul (Consciousness) be taken as a valid hypothesis rather then be dismissed as a religious belief?!   

Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

If someone talks of a 'soul' why is it treated as just a nonsensical religious belief?

The word can be used in several ways and it isn't always treated as a nonsensical religious belief. For example, Richard Dawkins published a book called Science in the Soul and Douglas Hofstadter uses the term extensively in I Am a Strange Loop.

Given this situation, why can't the idea of a soul (Consciousness) be taken as a valid hypothesis rather then be dismissed as a religious belief?!   

Because it isn't a hypothesis, it's just a rather vague word that can refer to many different ideas.

[Roses]

Hi everyone,

If someone talks of a 'soul' why is it treated as just a nonsensical religious belief?

Soul is just another word (albeit from religion) for Self, Subject and Consciousness. There is sufficient evidence  for a Subject and Consciousness. I am sure no one doubts the presence of Consciousness or the Self.

Maybe there are many hypotheses doing the rounds as to what Consciousness is and how it is generated. But no one has yet  proved with any certainty  as to what it is.

There are  in fact many recent philosophical ideas about Consciousness being external to the brain and even about it being something fundamental and universal (refer thread on Panpsychism). There are some recent scientific ideas (IIT, PAP) that also seem to corroborate this philosophical view.

Given this situation, why can't the idea of a soul (Consciousness) be taken as a valid hypothesis rather then be dismissed as a religious belief?!   

Cheers.

Sriram

Whilst I am of the opinion the term 'soul' is just another name for consciousness, which is a constituent of the brain, religious people like Alan Burns think it is an entity in its own right, which continues to exist after death.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whilst I am of the opinion the term 'soul' is just another name for consciousness, which is a constituent of the brain, religious people like Alan Burns think it is an entity in its own right, which continues to exist after death.

The word soul is not a recognised term in science therefore we are entitled to ask why you are attempting to define it scientifically..

[Aruntraveller]

The word soul is not a recognised term in science therefore we are entitled to ask why you are attempting to define it scientifically..

Except that Sririam in his OP conflates consciousness with soul and then says this:

There are  in fact many recent philosophical ideas about Consciousness being external to the brain and even about it being something fundamental and universal (refer thread on Panpsychism). There are some recent scientific ideas (IIT, PAP) that also seem to corroborate this philosophical view.

So the OP has framed the discussion with reference to scientific terms. I presume LR was responding to the definition in the initial proposition.

[Roses]

The word soul is not a recognised term in science therefore we are entitled to ask why you are attempting to define it scientifically..

Where does science fit into my post?

[ekim]

I suspect that 'Soul' is another of those 'catch all' English words which has expanded beyond its origins.  I believe it has a Germanic source and meant 'life' or perhaps 'life force' as opposed to 'life forms'.  In the scriptures associated with the Abrahamic religions it is symbolised by 'air' (Hebrew... Ruwach, Greek... pneuma,  Latin.. spiritus) or' breath' when inside the body (Hebrew.. neshama, Greek .. psyche, Latin ... anima).  When the 'spirit' is invoked,  the life form becomes in-spired, enlivened, enthusiastic, blissful, loving.  When the 'spirit' leaves, the life form ex-spires.  From the religious angle, the question then is, has your consciousness identified with the disintegrating mind and body 'life form' or the integrating 'life eternal'.  Some believe that God is Life, and some God is Love.  Strangely, 'lief' in the word 'belief' is cognate with the words 'life' and 'love', so 'Belief in God' could be 'Be life in Life' or 'Be love in Love'.  I hope I haven't bored everybody.

[jeremyp]

The word soul is not a recognised term in science therefore we are entitled to ask why you are attempting to define it scientifically..

So you agree souls aren't real.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you agree souls aren't real.

What an arseclenchingly scientistical question.

[Sriram]

I suspect that 'Soul' is another of those 'catch all' English words which has expanded beyond its origins.  I believe it has a Germanic source and meant 'life' or perhaps 'life force' as opposed to 'life forms'.  In the scriptures associated with the Abrahamic religions it is symbolised by 'air' (Hebrew... Ruwach, Greek... pneuma,  Latin.. spiritus) or' breath' when inside the body (Hebrew.. neshama, Greek .. psyche, Latin ... anima).  When the 'spirit' is invoked,  the life form becomes in-spired, enlivened, enthusiastic, blissful, loving.  When the 'spirit' leaves, the life form ex-spires.  From the religious angle, the question then is, has your consciousness identified with the disintegrating mind and body 'life form' or the integrating 'life eternal'.  Some believe that God is Life, and some God is Love.  Strangely, 'lief' in the word 'belief' is cognate with the words 'life' and 'love', so 'Belief in God' could be 'Be life in Life' or 'Be love in Love'.  I hope I haven't bored everybody.

The etymology of words is a separate issue.   Generally when we refer to a soul we mean the 'person' who is within the body,experiencing life and who leaves the body after death.

The word Consciousness is used to mean the Self or Subject who experiences things. Consciousness refers to subjectivity. Therefore the two concepts 'soul' and 'Consciousness' refer to the same subject who experiences things.

When Chalmers talks of Panpsychism he is referring to a universal Consciousness that he thinks is fundamental to the universe. IIT and PAP also refer to similar concepts.

Consciousness is real and therefore soul is also real. As to what this, is is a matter of conjecture currently....but science may get there sooner than later.

The point being that the idea of a soul (as identical to Consciousness) is not just a religious belief. It is a fact and its nature as independent of the brain is a valid hypothesis. 

[torridon]

The etymology of words is a separate issue.   Generally when we refer to a soul we mean the 'person' who is within the body,experiencing life and who leaves the body after death.

The word Consciousness is used to mean the Self or Subject who experiences things. Consciousness refers to subjectivity. Therefore the two concepts 'soul' and 'Consciousness' refer to the same subject who experiences things.

When Chalmers talks of Panpsychism he is referring to a universal Consciousness that he thinks is fundamental to the universe. IIT and PAP also refer to similar concepts.

Consciousness is real and therefore soul is also real. As to what this, is is a matter of conjecture currently....but science may get there sooner than later.

The point being that the idea of a soul (as identical to Consciousness) is not just a religious belief. It is a fact and its nature as independent of the brain is a valid hypothesis.

If consciousness, or sentience, were to be a fundamental property of matter, that doesn't justify the claim that consciousness 'leaves the body after death'.  Leaving the body suggests that consciousness is a property of bodies, not a fundamental property of matter.  To run with the panpsychist claim, what brains do (when operating optimally) is procure a highly enriched focal point of that otherwise diffuse consciousness.   When the brain stops doing what brains do, that focal point of consciousness ceases, it dissipates, it doesn't go somewhere else and continue being a focal point somewhere else.  When a tropical storm makes landfall, the energy of the storm dissipates into the trees and houses and land and so ceases to exist as a tropical storm.

[Sriram]

If consciousness, or sentience, were to be a fundamental property of matter, that doesn't justify the claim that consciousness 'leaves the body after death'.  Leaving the body suggests that consciousness is a property of bodies, not a fundamental property of matter.  To run with the panpsychist claim, what brains do (when operating optimally) is procure a highly enriched focal point of that otherwise diffuse consciousness.   When the brain stops doing what brains do, that focal point of consciousness ceases, it dissipates, it doesn't go somewhere else and continue being a focal point somewhere else.  When a tropical storm makes landfall, the energy of the storm dissipates into the trees and houses and land and so ceases to exist as a tropical storm.

We are nowhere close to getting into the nitty gritty on Consciousness or soul at this point.

The point is that Consciousness is just another word for soul.  Existence of Consciousness as the subject cannot be denied. Which means the soul cannot be denied.

As to what the Consciousness or soul is and how it is generated is a matter of conjecture and philosophy. You have your hypothesis that it is generated by the brain. The other hypothesis is that it is independent of the brain.  This is also a valid hypothesis and not just a religious belief, which is my point. 

As to how Consciousness can be universal is a philosophical question and the answer is that it has many layers. As Chalmers says, Consciousness is about subjectivity and whether we will ever be able to know what it is objectively....is open to question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've yet to see a good argument for "the illusion of self"

[Roses]

What an arseclenchingly scientistical question.

You really have been overdoing your liquid refreshment over the festive season! 

[ekim]

The etymology of words is a separate issue.   Generally when we refer to a soul we mean the 'person' who is within the body,experiencing life and who leaves the body after death.

The word Consciousness is used to mean the Self or Subject who experiences things. Consciousness refers to subjectivity. Therefore the two concepts 'soul' and 'Consciousness' refer to the same subject who experiences things.

When Chalmers talks of Panpsychism he is referring to a universal Consciousness that he thinks is fundamental to the universe. IIT and PAP also refer to similar concepts.

Consciousness is real and therefore soul is also real. As to what this, is is a matter of conjecture currently....but science may get there sooner than later.

The point being that the idea of a soul (as identical to Consciousness) is not just a religious belief. It is a fact and its nature as independent of the brain is a valid hypothesis.

I think the etymology of the word 'soul' is relevant to the discussion particularly as the religions which use the associated words have their origins some two or three thousand years ago and language tends to become  corrupted over time.  Religious words are vague enough and lead to all sorts of meanderings unless there is at least some clarity.  The 'Searching for God' topic is a good example.  Judging by what you are saying above, it might have been better to call the topic 'Atman' rather than the Biblical word 'soul'.  I'm not sure that 'soul' is meant to be 'person' but it sometimes seems to suggest that when people talk of 'lost souls', 'evil spirits' etc. 

[SteveH]

I think the etymology of the word 'soul' is relevant to the discussion

No, it isn't: etymological fallacy.

[Sebastian Toe]

I've yet to see a good argument for "the illusion of self"

My guess is that you never will.
Probably because you are Illusion-of-self-dodging.
But you wont admit it.

[Roses]

My guess is that you never will.
Probably because you are Illusion-of-self-dodging.
But you wont admit it.

 

[torridon]

We are nowhere close to getting into the nitty gritty on Consciousness or soul at this point.

The point is that Consciousness is just another word for soul.  Existence of Consciousness as the subject cannot be denied. Which means the soul cannot be denied.

To equate 'soul' and 'consciousness' is somewhat sloppy reasoning given that 'soul' comes with lots of cultural baggage and therefore many shades of meaning.  We can get closer to the truth by eliminating layers of confusion introduced by use of imprecise or controversial terminology.  With 'consciousness', we have a concept that is fairly well defined, and being measurable by techniques such as those given by integrated information theory, we can do hard science with it, to help determine the boundaries of what it is and what it isn't. So, similarly we need to be careful not to conflate consciousness with any fundamental property of matter, such as Chalmers' proposal that all matter has a phenomenological aspect.  The consciousness produced in a working active brain is a different category of phenomenon to any diffuse sentience we might imagine operating at the level of matter.  To confuse the two would be lazy thinking, rather like not taking the care to differentiate between 'weather' and climate'.  The concepts might have a relation, but we shouldn't lose sight of the distinction.

[ekim]

No, it isn't: etymological fallacy.

Yes, it is relevant and is not an etymological fallacy, as I was not insisting that a present day meaning of 'soul' should be the same as a past meaning, just that there should be clarity over what the user of the word means.  If 'soul' = 'consciousness' then we can forget about the ancient religious connotations and discuss consciousness.  If the intention is to include the religious aspect then I would say that it is valid to include possible meanings associated with that religion's inception.  What often happens is that the definition is often fitted to a post physical death belief.  Those who believe in a Heaven or Hell have their idea,  those who believe in reincarnation have a different idea, and those who believe that death is the end, have no idea.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My guess is that you never will.
Probably because you are Illusion-of-self-dodging.
But you wont admit it.

Cack.

[Sebastian Toe]

Cack.

Poop.

[Sriram]

To equate 'soul' and 'consciousness' is somewhat sloppy reasoning given that 'soul' comes with lots of cultural baggage and therefore many shades of meaning.  We can get closer to the truth by eliminating layers of confusion introduced by use of imprecise or controversial terminology.  With 'consciousness', we have a concept that is fairly well defined, and being measurable by techniques such as those given by integrated information theory, we can do hard science with it, to help determine the boundaries of what it is and what it isn't. So, similarly we need to be careful not to conflate consciousness with any fundamental property of matter, such as Chalmers' proposal that all matter has a phenomenological aspect.  The consciousness produced in a working active brain is a different category of phenomenon to any diffuse sentience we might imagine operating at the level of matter.  To confuse the two would be lazy thinking, rather like not taking the care to differentiate between 'weather' and climate'.  The concepts might have a relation, but we shouldn't lose sight of the distinction.

This is where the idea of  Zoom-In and Zoom-out mind sets comes in handy. We have to make an attempt at integration not segregation. 

Consciousness is just a new word we are using to represent the Self that is experiencing the world behind all processes and mechanisms.  Soul also represents the Self.

Going into fine details doesn't make sense at this stage because there is a whole world behind all this.  Like talking of an atom. It seems simple enough, but there is a whole universe within the atom, depending on how far you want to go.

Philosophers and scientists are now talking of Consciousness being universal and fundamental. That is a good beginning. All this if viewed correctly, could tie in very well with ancient spiritual philosophies. 

The point being that, just because these new ideas could corroborate ancient spiritual philosophies, we should not develop a dismissive and negative attitude towards them.  They should in fact be welcomed because they provide a means of integrating different view points around the world and could finally do away with the rather dated Science VS Religion/Spirituality arguments. 

Everyone could then move in the same direction to understand the world and feel fulfilled. 

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

I've yet to see a good argument for "the illusion of self"

Could you tell us where your self is located, exactly ?

[Stranger]

Philosophers and scientists are now talking of Consciousness being universal and fundamental. That is a good beginning. All this if viewed correctly, could tie in very well with ancient spiritual philosophies. 

The point being that, just because these new ideas could corroborate ancient spiritual philosophies, we should not develop a dismissive and negative attitude towards them.  They should in fact be welcomed because they provide a means of integrating different view points around the world and could finally do away with the rather dated Science VS Religion/Spirituality arguments. 

Your contributions here illustrate exactly why the two must remain forever separate.

What you've done here is typical. You've picked up on some bits of philosophy and scientific speculation, not bothered to think much about it or understand them properly but nevertheless concluded that if you don't pay much attention, then they look a bit like your own religious views. Not so much zoom-out as out-of-focus.

Integrated information, for example, wouldn't give you any significant consciousness that is separate from complex information processing systems like the brain. It's a calculable property of systems, that can easily be equal to zero.

In short you typify religious thought in doing the opposite of thinking outside the box; you try desperately to stuff everything into the box of your religious views. It would be fascinating if one of these ideas turned out to be correct but you will never accept it unless it fits with your faith. We can see this in the way you are forever trying to drag intelligence into evolution and your refusal to try to properly understand natural selection. It doesn't fit with your faith so it can't be right or complete until it does.

That's why religion and science are fundamentally different and you can't do science properly if you insist on dragging religion into it.