A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
There’s a pattern of energy that you control at least in part with your thoughts and intentions that the neurons in your brain use to make patterns. You can take chemicals that change these patterns in radical ways, including psychedelics that can unweave those neural connections.
Matter and energy are always conserved though transformed. We know what happens to the physical body. What happens to the energy pattern that animated and controlled the body?
Our body generally stores its biological energy in the form of matter. That's food in your tummy, blood sugar in your blood, fat on your hips etc.. It needs to be brought to a chemical reaction to be turned into physical energy, which generally happens ad-hoc. This biological energy decays like the rest of your body.
And then a tiny bit of physical energy is always present in your body:
Yes, but not by the definition of a spirit within me. I believe a soul is more like self awareness combined with our own neural connections in our brain (everyone's different).
I would say look into near death experiences. Now i understand most think that these experiences are just DMT trips the brain takes, which is why I recommend looking into the case of Dr. Eben Alexander, specifically, a neuro surgeon that had a highly documented near death experience. He had a near death experience while his brain was non functioning and non responsive, monitored by his fellow neurosurgeons, his brain wasn't functioning to release the DMT, and shouldn't have been able to retain any memory at all, and yet had a near death experience that he remembered during the time of documented brain death.
Also, there are quite a few videos on YouTube interviewing him.
Isn't it funny that people always see their own depictions of idols, afterlifes, etc?
If you see it as a depiction of what you are familiar with is presented to you to ease the transition, then it's funny, comforting, and understandable. What would be hilarious, is that I was huge fan of Gilbert Gottfried, and if I'm greeted by him, that would be so damn funny and surreal.
What i also think is funny is when athiests see Jesus. Because if it's just a DMT trip, then they are hallucinating the very figure they don't believe exists, and bring him to life, for themselves. And if it's not a DMT trip then Jesus exists. It's a conundrum either way.
What's also funny is the other side of the coin, when Christians meet Jesus, and experience their version of the afterlife, and neither match up with what their religion taught them. Often many religious folks turn away from religion after a near death experience.
Yeah, kind of. I mean, I believe that we're in a simulation, so the mind's apparent dependency on the body is illusory given the body is just a configuration of information too.
That said, I don't think there's anything magical to it other than the persistence of information and the continuity of a relative perspective.
But I see no reason why that information and perspective couldn't continue on after we die and there's a number of reasons I expect that it will do just that.
No, I believe soul is an abstract concept we like to define with our ego after misinterpreting a bunch of ancient people with a unique writing style that doesn't translate well into our age.
I found exploring alchemy better defined what the soul meant for me.
Animate is the closest word I can get to soul. It can be attributed to non living things as well. It's just complex energy structures within a certain blanket - an embodied aura if you will.
don't see any reason that our consciousness and our so called "soul" would be any more then something our brain is making up
I mean, yeah, and? Brain and body are hardware, soul and mind are software. Software that's hardware-limited, to be specific. I am, my soul is, the decision-making process. Maybe that process will be copied onto a different platform, after this one fails, by an omniscient and loving God... and maybe it won't. It's no less real, I'm no less real, if my operating window is only temporary.
I'll put aside the question of a soul and say, the brain is explicitly something our consciousness makes up (based on data so consistent we justifiably call it "reality").
Materialism is how we see the world. Our consciousness gives a better clue to what the world really is. My consciousness is what it's like to actually be this part of the world.
No and no. Physics is pretty thoroughly buckled down at this point, leaving only some very extreme situations unaccounted for, and it doesn't really provide a way for us to not be made of meat.
That goes for any other form of mind-body duality and as a result any afterlife, as well.
This is what I told my 7yo when he asked recently.
Since ancient times, people have explained the difference between a living body, and an identical dead body. One moment someone is alive, the next they are not, nothing else seemed to have changed. The animating force has left the body, this is what they call the soul.
I didn't go on to say, that religions have used this concept to further their agenda. The philosopher's who came up with this explanation didn't tie the soul to religious beliefs.
I think so, but, to be fair, it simply isn't a question that science could ever actually answer.
My understanding is that there's our physical bodies and there is the lightning of spirit that is our divine selves and when the two are combined together we become a soul.
I don't envision the soul as something that is separate from the body. Just each of us are one.
Like if you were turned into a computer program and run on a universe computer, your soul would be whatever happens to actually be actively being computed by the CPU and existing in ram at the moment.
The hard data saved on the hard drive would be your body and the electricity coursing through the CPU would be your spirit but only what is actually happening when the two combine is a soul.
There's zero evidence for a soul
It seems like life is a vehicle for allowing matter, and by extension the universe, to comprehend itself in some limited fashion on an individual scale. I believe that this comprehension is an unfolding process of increasing universal awareness generated by an ever increasing number of points of view through every living entity.
It seems to me that most actions are heavily governed by pre-determined mechanical processes that are geared towards survival and reproduction, but there are also actions that can be chosen that are not exclusively determined by biology or circumstance. I refer to that impulse as Will.
I think the function of Will is essentially a course correcting ability of the universe that is bound in an infinitely interlocking series of experiences, giving the emerging consciousness of the universe the ability to “steer” its destiny a little bit, on both the individual and eventually macro level. I think that various mindfulness, meditation, health, and aspirational techniques can gently raise your awareness of this process within yourself and in the exterior world, which makes it all seem a bit less random—essentially attaining an enlightened perspective on life.
In the sense that I am a part of this universal process that is bound together in infinite complexity, and that I have the opportunity on occasion to effect events in such a way that essentially “leave my mark” on spacetime, I would say that I believe I am connected to a universal soul along with all forms of life.
If you were literally the only person in the history of all people, to have a soul... would it suck? And if all that happens to a soul is that it fades away after death, like a ghost, would that make having a soul better, or worse?
i took a wet crap in gods mouth
Based on your post and use of language I don’t because you’re probably a bot.
Provide for me the reclamation and the that gen that propore:: Thanks then you’ll need to know snaking g guy the thought about it though and maybe we can do Kant ideas though. A soul though, who can really know.
What do you think about that? Do we have ?
In the way that almost everyone uses that term, no, I don’t believe I or anyone else has a soul. Some people use it different, and in that case, I would withhold an answer until they explain what they mean by soul.
i like to think that consciousness is a necessary illusion similar to early 'parallel processing' solutions running on a single threaded processor.
If consciousness is an illusion, then what is it that's experiencing that illusion?
prolly the same thing listening to that tree fall in the forest
Yes, I believe humans and animals have a soul. Certainly believe so after reading books by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross.
I haven't read any of her works. Any recommendation on where to get started?
The book that inspired me a lot was a translation of On Life after Death by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross first published 1984. I've got another book by her but that is very different and more focused on research.
I like to see it as what we call a soul is simply the hashcode of our being. They're technically not unique, but as you're the only you they are. It's not some guiding spirit to your conciousness, it's who you are. The choices you make, the experiences you've had, the things you've thought and the conclusions you've reached, the sum of your being, encoded.
Ah, but don't you feel it? You have played this act before, and you will do it again. Like living fractals we rise again and again. Or perhaps we fall over and over.
Everyone believes that they have a soul, the contention is the nature of the soul. You have an intangible essence which inhabits your body, and you identify with your "self". Some people think it's some kind of immortal ghost that gets to live in the clouds with other immortal ghosts when the body dies, some people think it's an emergent phenomenon of some variety which disappears when the body dies. These are differences in explanation, secondary to the ontological question of existence.
The "I" in your statements is proof of your soul, any disagreement is really just pedantic quibbling over terminology because you believe the term has been tainted by explanations you don't agree with. Even if your brain is "making it up", it's still a phenomenon. Your subjective internal experience is made of "soul", your concept of self is made of "soul". The entity asking the question and reading the responses is your soul, simple as.
The "I" in your statements is proof of your soul
It's proof of consciousness. If you're using "soul" synonymously to "consciousness", well, certainly not everyone does so.
In the use of language I learned, "soul" is the superstitious concept that religious people use, and since I don't believe in superstitions, I certainly don't believe that I have a soul.
I definitely possess consciousness, though, in the sense that I recognize contiguous piles of atoms as "objects" and one such object is my own body.
In turn, I would not say that my consciousness asks questions and reads the responses. My body does that. My 'mind' and 'consciousness' are just characteristics of my body. And "I" is my body, too.
Of what substance is your consciousness composed? Certainly your body is made of chemical matter: proteins, lipids, water, etc. Is consciousness itself, the subjective experience you identify as yourself, made of matter? Perhaps there are regions of the brain which fire in conjunction with a sensation, but is the sensation synonymous with the meat in which it resides? I'm speaking internalistically, how "you" "feel" from the inside.
A computer program can be likened to the electrical activity in the hardware. It is not itself the hardware, though it's certainly linked. Your body is the hardware, your consciousness is the program. Are "you" also organized electricity, or something similar? Does that imply that electricity can have the same subjective experience as you?
I think you have it backwards. You're prescriptively deciding that souls are superstitions, so you don't believe in them. I think descriptively, that we certainly observe souls, and it merely falls to us to discover their nature. Certainly some people ascribe superstitions to them, but tying superstitions to the weather or the sea or salt doesn't make any of those things less real. Why subjugate your own fundamental observations to someone else's superstitions?
That's a weak argument. Using this, anything you can refer to has a soul, which is just the idea of that thing in your mind.
The idea of Ohio is intangible, but does Ohio have a soul? How about Clippy? Betelgeuse? Every self call ever made? That person who appeared in your dream once?
You've quibbled yourself out of meaning anything. The existence of intangible identities is related to what people would call a soul, but you've reduced the definition to be unreasonably broad. Your idea of soul is meaningless and isn't what the OP is talking about.
How did you come to that conclusion based on what I wrote? Nothing you've written bears any resemblance to what I said. The concept of Ohio does not inhabit your body, and you don't identify as it. A thought and a soul are not the same thing just because they're both intangible. Intangibility is necessary, but not sufficient.
Yes, when I meditate I can percive the soul of myself with my consciousness. This cannot be explained or thought, it can only be experienced. And as I am a typical human, I extrapolate that every human has a soul.