ChatterBank0 min ago
Soul man?
88 Answers
Who came up with the idea that each of us possesses a soul, is it just a christian thing or does it go way back BC?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by oldnitro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry Naomi - I must have missed it.
Physicality is anything we can detect. What we can either touch or see directly or what we can measure or detect.
Emotions are a part of that, you can put someone in a in a brain scanner and show them highly emotive pictures and see those same parts of the brain light up - areas like the amygdala
Thoughts similarly are brain activity
All of these things can also be seen to be impared when people have damage to these parts of the brain.
We can debate what is meant by the soul but mostly it seems to be thoughts, personality, memories.
All of these things are manifested by brain activities.
You may not be able to hold a thought any more than you can hold a computer program but in essense it's just an abstraction of the underlying hardware.
No Brain - No soul
Physicality is anything we can detect. What we can either touch or see directly or what we can measure or detect.
Emotions are a part of that, you can put someone in a in a brain scanner and show them highly emotive pictures and see those same parts of the brain light up - areas like the amygdala
Thoughts similarly are brain activity
All of these things can also be seen to be impared when people have damage to these parts of the brain.
We can debate what is meant by the soul but mostly it seems to be thoughts, personality, memories.
All of these things are manifested by brain activities.
You may not be able to hold a thought any more than you can hold a computer program but in essense it's just an abstraction of the underlying hardware.
No Brain - No soul
Your reasoning, naomi, is awry.
The 1st Law deals with energy. Therefore it has nothing to do with the soul - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that the soul is a form of energy, which you haven't and obviously can't.
If your argument is that the soul COULD (oh, for those lost italics) be a form of energy then so could angels, planetary influence on our destinies, the power of magic wands - in fact, anything at all.
Just because you have decided to believe in the soul without any evidence is no qualification for praying science in your aid. That's an attempt at intellectual cheating which is unworthy of you.
The 1st Law deals with energy. Therefore it has nothing to do with the soul - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that the soul is a form of energy, which you haven't and obviously can't.
If your argument is that the soul COULD (oh, for those lost italics) be a form of energy then so could angels, planetary influence on our destinies, the power of magic wands - in fact, anything at all.
Just because you have decided to believe in the soul without any evidence is no qualification for praying science in your aid. That's an attempt at intellectual cheating which is unworthy of you.
Jake, no problem.
//All of these things are manifested by brain activities.//
I know that, but take love for example - or hate - or grief - or anger. All of those things exist and have the power to cause very real physical pain - and in some instances very real physical strength - but we can't grasp those emotions and examine them under a microscope. We know what they result from, and the effect they have on the human body, so what can they possibly be composed of if not some form of energy?
Chakka, my reasoning is awry in your opinion. Not in mine. I can't demonstrate that the soul is a form of energy any more than you can demonstrate it isn't - and yes, I know the get out clause so no need to repeat it. I always thought that it, just like the principle of Occam's Razor, was a cop out that actually undermines what I feel ought to be the continually enquiring mind of science.
//That's an attempt at intellectual cheating which is unworthy of you.//
And that is blatant intellectual dishonesty and as such, unworthy of you, because you know me better than that - or you should! When did genuine curiosity and an attempt to offer possible answers become 'intellectual cheating'? Just as well the innovative minds of the past didn't take your attitude. The sun would still be orbiting the earth!
I know how difficult it is for you to say you don't know - but the 'fact' remains you don't - and nothing - not even insults - will change that.
//All of these things are manifested by brain activities.//
I know that, but take love for example - or hate - or grief - or anger. All of those things exist and have the power to cause very real physical pain - and in some instances very real physical strength - but we can't grasp those emotions and examine them under a microscope. We know what they result from, and the effect they have on the human body, so what can they possibly be composed of if not some form of energy?
Chakka, my reasoning is awry in your opinion. Not in mine. I can't demonstrate that the soul is a form of energy any more than you can demonstrate it isn't - and yes, I know the get out clause so no need to repeat it. I always thought that it, just like the principle of Occam's Razor, was a cop out that actually undermines what I feel ought to be the continually enquiring mind of science.
//That's an attempt at intellectual cheating which is unworthy of you.//
And that is blatant intellectual dishonesty and as such, unworthy of you, because you know me better than that - or you should! When did genuine curiosity and an attempt to offer possible answers become 'intellectual cheating'? Just as well the innovative minds of the past didn't take your attitude. The sun would still be orbiting the earth!
I know how difficult it is for you to say you don't know - but the 'fact' remains you don't - and nothing - not even insults - will change that.
//but we can't grasp those emotions and examine them under a microscope//
No we need an MRI scanner
http://www.sensualism.com/love/brain.html
http://articles.cnn.c...amygdala?_s=PM:HEALTH
amoungst others
No we need an MRI scanner
http://www.sensualism.com/love/brain.html
http://articles.cnn.c...amygdala?_s=PM:HEALTH
amoungst others
(Naomi, you might as well skip this post because it implies the possibility that someone might actually know something about that which you do not and therefore have precluded is not possible. It is submitted not for your sake but for the consideration of those who remain willing to entertain that possibility and retain a mind still open and available to reason.)
Anything which can be imagined, in the absence of a prerequisite knowledge of why some things in contradiction to that which exists can not exist, does not give rise to that which by virtue of the nature of reality is impossible. Reality does not bend to ones own ignorance of what is or is not possible within the realm, framework and confines of reality.
It is only by virtue of an understanding of the means and process by which consciousness and understanding are achieved that one can come to understand and appreciate why consciousness and understanding can not be achieved apart from and inherently rely upon the existence of the sentient and reasoning entity that possesses the means and process by which consciousness and understanding arise and become manifest. The benefits of consciousness can never be fully realised by those who deny that as living physical entities having the faculties of perception and the potential for rational thought, they alone are in possession of the means for their own awareness and understanding. Consciousness is meaningless and without purpose other than to maintain and promote the existence of those in possession of the faculties they rely on for the mutual survival and well being of both.
Once one has arrived at and grasps a fundamental understanding of the means and process by which consciousness arises, one is then in a position to realise and discount the absurdity of any assertions of consciousness existing apart from the reality it perceives by virtue of the means and process by which it is perceived. In having grasped a fundamental understanding of the nature and means of conscious one opens a window through which one can clearly perceive and understand the true nature and beauty of the reality we inhabit and are so fortunate to possess the capacity to enjoy.
But then the prospect of such a vision might not necessarily appeal to everyone, least of all to those who have not gained the wisdom of knowing the dangers and futility of turning a blind eye to a vision of and appreciation for what is real. The fear of discovering that reality is limited to what is real is no reason to build imaginary walls within ones own mind that deprive you of an awareness of what is possible in that reality. Such is their loss, not mine. All the same, I would not object to their company should they choose to join those of us who do enjoy the benefits and appreciate the treasures of discovering, learning about and knowing what is real for as long as the potential for that capacity remains.
Only when you realise what it was you didn’t know about what you didn’t know will you begin to marvel at how foolish you have been to accept no explanations for why you didn’t know it. Such are the rewards of barking up a hollow tree. Consciousness arose in this universe with the arrival of a highly evolved living species capable of sensing and perceiving their reality and ends with those same beings when upon the cessation of function they are no longer capable of sensing, perceiving, or thinking about themselves and the world around them. We owe it to those same beings to learn how we know what we know and thereby gain the ability to distinguish between the real and the impossible.
Failure to appreciate that you as a living sentient being are the provider of your own consciousness leads to a failure to use it for the purpose for which it evolved, for sustaining and promoting the life and well being of the entity in which it arose and became manifest. Just this once, don’t be afraid to say, “Hello” to yourself . . . and “Thank You!” while you’re at it.
Anything which can be imagined, in the absence of a prerequisite knowledge of why some things in contradiction to that which exists can not exist, does not give rise to that which by virtue of the nature of reality is impossible. Reality does not bend to ones own ignorance of what is or is not possible within the realm, framework and confines of reality.
It is only by virtue of an understanding of the means and process by which consciousness and understanding are achieved that one can come to understand and appreciate why consciousness and understanding can not be achieved apart from and inherently rely upon the existence of the sentient and reasoning entity that possesses the means and process by which consciousness and understanding arise and become manifest. The benefits of consciousness can never be fully realised by those who deny that as living physical entities having the faculties of perception and the potential for rational thought, they alone are in possession of the means for their own awareness and understanding. Consciousness is meaningless and without purpose other than to maintain and promote the existence of those in possession of the faculties they rely on for the mutual survival and well being of both.
Once one has arrived at and grasps a fundamental understanding of the means and process by which consciousness arises, one is then in a position to realise and discount the absurdity of any assertions of consciousness existing apart from the reality it perceives by virtue of the means and process by which it is perceived. In having grasped a fundamental understanding of the nature and means of conscious one opens a window through which one can clearly perceive and understand the true nature and beauty of the reality we inhabit and are so fortunate to possess the capacity to enjoy.
But then the prospect of such a vision might not necessarily appeal to everyone, least of all to those who have not gained the wisdom of knowing the dangers and futility of turning a blind eye to a vision of and appreciation for what is real. The fear of discovering that reality is limited to what is real is no reason to build imaginary walls within ones own mind that deprive you of an awareness of what is possible in that reality. Such is their loss, not mine. All the same, I would not object to their company should they choose to join those of us who do enjoy the benefits and appreciate the treasures of discovering, learning about and knowing what is real for as long as the potential for that capacity remains.
Only when you realise what it was you didn’t know about what you didn’t know will you begin to marvel at how foolish you have been to accept no explanations for why you didn’t know it. Such are the rewards of barking up a hollow tree. Consciousness arose in this universe with the arrival of a highly evolved living species capable of sensing and perceiving their reality and ends with those same beings when upon the cessation of function they are no longer capable of sensing, perceiving, or thinking about themselves and the world around them. We owe it to those same beings to learn how we know what we know and thereby gain the ability to distinguish between the real and the impossible.
Failure to appreciate that you as a living sentient being are the provider of your own consciousness leads to a failure to use it for the purpose for which it evolved, for sustaining and promoting the life and well being of the entity in which it arose and became manifest. Just this once, don’t be afraid to say, “Hello” to yourself . . . and “Thank You!” while you’re at it.
I know many of you will pounce on me because once again I shall refer to that Book many disregard.
The Soul – is not a separate entity that floats away after death. The soul is you the person, the individual. No doubt many of you have said the words, “Poor old soul”, “the deluded soul”, or something similar.
The Hebrew word ne′phesh, translated “soul,” means ‘a creature that breathes.’ When God created the first man, Adam, He did not infuse into him an immortal soul but the life force that is maintained by breathing. Therefore, “soul” in the Biblical sense refers to the entire living being. If separated from the life force originally given by God, the soul dies.
Why, then, do we find the churches of Christendom teaching, not the resurrection, but the immortality of the human soul?.
About the middle of the 2nd century AD Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms, in order to convert educated pagans. The philosophy that suited them best was Platonism. So these early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of the soul’s immortality. Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the immortal-soul doctrine incorporates “theories of certain schools of Greek philosophy.” But accepting theories of Greek philosophy meant that Christendom had abandoned the simple truth expressed at Genesis 2:7: “Man came to be a living soul.
So the church did just what the Jews had done centuries earlier! They forsook Biblical teachings in favour of Greek philosophy.
The Soul – is not a separate entity that floats away after death. The soul is you the person, the individual. No doubt many of you have said the words, “Poor old soul”, “the deluded soul”, or something similar.
The Hebrew word ne′phesh, translated “soul,” means ‘a creature that breathes.’ When God created the first man, Adam, He did not infuse into him an immortal soul but the life force that is maintained by breathing. Therefore, “soul” in the Biblical sense refers to the entire living being. If separated from the life force originally given by God, the soul dies.
Why, then, do we find the churches of Christendom teaching, not the resurrection, but the immortality of the human soul?.
About the middle of the 2nd century AD Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms, in order to convert educated pagans. The philosophy that suited them best was Platonism. So these early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of the soul’s immortality. Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the immortal-soul doctrine incorporates “theories of certain schools of Greek philosophy.” But accepting theories of Greek philosophy meant that Christendom had abandoned the simple truth expressed at Genesis 2:7: “Man came to be a living soul.
So the church did just what the Jews had done centuries earlier! They forsook Biblical teachings in favour of Greek philosophy.
Mibs, //Naomi, you might as well skip this post because it implies the possibility that someone might actually know something about that which you do not and therefore have precluded is not possible. //
Having taken the trouble to write all of that, it surely cannot have escaped your notice that it's not I who claims special knowledge or insight. That said, I'll bear the sentiment in mind.
Having taken the trouble to write all of that, it surely cannot have escaped your notice that it's not I who claims special knowledge or insight. That said, I'll bear the sentiment in mind.
Truthabounds -
“... I know many of you will pounce on me because once again I shall refer to that Book many disregard...”. You left out the words, 'because it's a load of all made up nonsense' at the end of that sentence.
“... no doubt many of you have said the words, “Poor old soul”, “the deluded soul”, or something similar...”
Indeed I have. So what? This does not imply belief in a soul. I've hit my thumb with a hammer before now and shouted, “Bloody hell!”. Does that mean that I believe in the existence of hell or that I believe there to be blood in such a place? Of course not. What you're talking about is linguistics – not belief.
“... Christendom had abandoned the simple truth expressed at Genesis 2:7: Man came to be a living soul... ”. Ahh. You see, what you're doing is using the word 'truth' when referring to the book of Genesis. This is erroneous and a trap many Christians fall into. This is the book that confidently states that god made the entire universe in six days and then had a day off. The entire universe consists of approximately 1.0 × 10^24 stars; or a septillion stars (long hand, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Not a bad week's work. Strange that after creating all these stars, he chose to focus his attention on a tiny, insignificant ball of rock orbiting a small insignificant star which drifts along the outer spiral arm of a quite unremarkable galaxy.
Genesis is also the book that says that Noah built an Ark so that he and his family and every single animal on the planet could survive a flood that was sent to wipe out the human race because they had all become bad. Even the new born babies. So much for god's love and compassion.
I hate to ask this, but do you actually believe this utter nonsense? Do you honestly think that 'god' sent a flood to kill everything on earth and yet spared Noah and his family by getting him to construct a big boat (which god could have provided for him, if he chose to do so) into which he was to place every living animal on the planet? Apart from the immense practicalities of rounding up animals from all corners of the globe, we are asked to believe that he could then successfully house, feed and clean them out for over a month.
Does this sound even vaguely plausible to you?
“... I know many of you will pounce on me because once again I shall refer to that Book many disregard...”. You left out the words, 'because it's a load of all made up nonsense' at the end of that sentence.
“... no doubt many of you have said the words, “Poor old soul”, “the deluded soul”, or something similar...”
Indeed I have. So what? This does not imply belief in a soul. I've hit my thumb with a hammer before now and shouted, “Bloody hell!”. Does that mean that I believe in the existence of hell or that I believe there to be blood in such a place? Of course not. What you're talking about is linguistics – not belief.
“... Christendom had abandoned the simple truth expressed at Genesis 2:7: Man came to be a living soul... ”. Ahh. You see, what you're doing is using the word 'truth' when referring to the book of Genesis. This is erroneous and a trap many Christians fall into. This is the book that confidently states that god made the entire universe in six days and then had a day off. The entire universe consists of approximately 1.0 × 10^24 stars; or a septillion stars (long hand, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Not a bad week's work. Strange that after creating all these stars, he chose to focus his attention on a tiny, insignificant ball of rock orbiting a small insignificant star which drifts along the outer spiral arm of a quite unremarkable galaxy.
Genesis is also the book that says that Noah built an Ark so that he and his family and every single animal on the planet could survive a flood that was sent to wipe out the human race because they had all become bad. Even the new born babies. So much for god's love and compassion.
I hate to ask this, but do you actually believe this utter nonsense? Do you honestly think that 'god' sent a flood to kill everything on earth and yet spared Noah and his family by getting him to construct a big boat (which god could have provided for him, if he chose to do so) into which he was to place every living animal on the planet? Apart from the immense practicalities of rounding up animals from all corners of the globe, we are asked to believe that he could then successfully house, feed and clean them out for over a month.
Does this sound even vaguely plausible to you?
so you believe in a thing which controls our body and brain and we cannot see it. theres not really a lot to come back with other than i think overwise....that we are just body and brain, and thats it.
any invisible force is just voodoo to me, and since there is no evidence to suggest it exists other than 'hope' (as with belief in any gods) i'll err to my side of thinking.
any invisible force is just voodoo to me, and since there is no evidence to suggest it exists other than 'hope' (as with belief in any gods) i'll err to my side of thinking.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Enigmatic Variations N0 1643- Career
Crosswords22 mins ago
What Worries You Most Should Labour Win...
News31 mins ago
