When does a baby recieve it's soul?

[exarch]

Just a little thought on souls. I don't believe souls exist in the religious sense, ie something to go to heaven and hell or to come back and haunt people. But I guess I do sort of think of the soul as sentience, and in that respect I believe it. I do believe there is "something" that makes us more then animals, and that is basically self-awareness I guess.
But as far as debates with woos, I don't even bother explaining that, because they will jump on the word "soul" and twist it to what they want it to mean.

I think I'm siding with Sam on this. There's no such thing as "soul", just like there's no such thing as "energy" in Martial arts. It's just a term to describe somethig we experience but don't exactly know how it works. 1000 years ago, people didn't know an awful lot about body mechanics, muscle placement, leverage, etc... All they knew was that if they punched a person in a certain way, and in a certain spot, he'd go down much quicker than if you just punched him randomly.

Similarly, we can't fully explain consciousness and self awareness yet, or how it works, so we resort to such terms as "soul", trying to describe the feeling of detachment from the physical body (which is just a feeling).

We also have this cocky feeling of being better, more developed than other animals (indeed, I'm sure deep down everyone even has the feeling they're better or more important than everyone else too). It's yet another feeling we can't really comprehend or describe, so we've called it self awareness, and assume animals don't have it, then search for ways of proving this assumption.

But Sam is right, it's all just chemicals coursing through our bodies, affecting the electrical signals in our brain. Pretty fascinating really, and much more interesting than just a soul ...

 

[wtslim]

It's clear that some living things behave in ways very different from inert matter...On the other hand, to embrace it as "spirit" or "soul" is to give up at the first hurdle. We need to understand how brains create minds. It's something to do with chemistry and we know how chemistry works. We'll get there.

I want to make it clear that I absolutely did *not* state that the phenomenon some people call "soul" is purely mystical, and thereby unable to be observed or studied. Also, I never used the word "spirit," which to me implies something more overtly religious (though it does have other definitions). I was merely trying to clarify the definition of "soul." In order to categorically deny that such a thing as "soul" exists, it first needs to be defined.

Obviously there are human processes going on that we are pretty far off from understanding. It may be just a metaphysical splitting of hairs, but I don't believe there is a scientist on the planet yet who is able to say with absolute certainty that "brain chemistry creates mind," as Soapy Sam asserts. The statement begs the question, "what exactly is 'mind'?" Again, that's not to say that anything we might refer to as "mind" is beyond human comprehension, only that a whole lot of other stuff will likely need to be uncovered before we can get around to determining what mechanism provides humans these traits. My question is, what should we call these mysteries?

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't find the word "soul" to be a dirty word, even to a skeptic. Yes, it does have some religious/spiritual connotations (e.g. "eternal soul"), but it also has some use in describing something that's pretty vague to us at this time. I prefer it over "brain chemistry" which is more absolute, and perhaps inaccurate in some cases.

 

[exarch]

I think the best way to get serious discussion in a thread is to make a spelling mistake in the title.

The best way to get discussion going is to actually stay to the point of the thread.

And that's TWO mistakes actually ...

 

[Rasmus]

I don't believe there is a scientist on the planet yet who is able to say with absolute certainty that "brain chemistry creates mind," as Soapy Sam asserts.

There is nothing else there other than "brain chemistry". How certain do you need to be?

The statement begs the question, "what exactly is 'mind'?" Again, that's not to say that anything we might refer to as "mind" is beyond human comprehension, only that a whole lot of other stuff will likely need to be uncovered before we can get around to determining what mechanism provides humans these traits.

I don't think we need to know everything before we can announce certain facts. There never is 100% certainty - but so what? That doesn't give us an excuse to discard what we're 99,99% certain about in favour of the tenth of promille of uncertainty.

My question is, what should we call these mysteries?

We should them call by labels that are as clearly defined as possible, and that are as non-ambigious as they get.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't find the word "soul" to be a dirty word, even to a skeptic.

It is a useless word. People either use it without knowing what they are talking about, or they are using it because they think "brain", "conciousness", "psyche" or whatnot aren't mysterious enough.

Yes, it does have some religious/spiritual connotations (e.g. "eternal soul"), but it also has some use in describing something that's pretty vague to us at this time.

The term is too ambigious to be useful in describing anything. It just creates confusion. If I say "soul" you have no idea whatsoever what I am talking about. When you say "soul" I haven't got a clue what you're going on about.

We might dissagree on the exact defintions of "psyche", "brain, "conciousness" and other words - but if we use those at least the general idea can be communicated.

I prefer it over "brain chemistry" which is more absolute, and perhaps inaccurate in some cases.

I like precise language. I like absolute words.

If a word I use is anacurate, I made a mistake. I should look for a better fitting word. I shouldn't look for a word that is so vague that nobody can ever know what I wanted to say and that therefore cannot be said to be innacurate.

Rasmus.

 

[jj]

First, we have to confirm the existance of a soul.

 

[exarch]

The term is too ambigious to be useful in describing anything. It just creates confusion. If I say "soul" you have no idea whatsoever what I am talking about. When you say "soul" I haven't got a clue what you're going on about.

Exactly. Look what the term "theory" did for evolution, and that's actually an accepted scientific term. Now imagine trying to discuss brain mechanics and principles using emotionally charged words like "soul" or "spirit" and you're getting yourself into a mess so deep you'll never get out of it.

 

[wtslim]

There is nothing else there other than "brain chemistry". How certain do you need to be?

Do brain researchers generally agree that "there is nothing else other than brain chemistry"? Or do they keep looking for more answers? It seems at this point there are many unanswered questions regarding the mind/brain dichotomy.

I'm not advocating anything mystical, mind you. Prior to our present knowledge of brain chemistry scientists didn't say, "there is nothing more than what we already know." That wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

I like precise language. I like absolute words.

I agree that clear definitions are most useful. However, they're also rather cumbersome at times, e.g. attempting to describe how it is that someone seems to be able to learn to play music with absolute ease. I'm a musician/instructor, not a physician. It would require quite a bit of research on my part just to begin to say this in an precise manner, and even then I wouldn't be truly qualified.

I consider myself a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, but I still much prefer "she seems to have music in her soul." I don't think that rhetoric would be overly-vague or confusing to anyone. If you disagree, that's your choice.

 

[CurtC]

Do brain researchers generally agree that "there is nothing else other than brain chemistry"? Or do they keep looking for more answers?

Both, I'd say.

 

[exarch]

Do brain researchers generally agree that "there is nothing else other than brain chemistry"? Or do they keep looking for more answers? It seems at this point there are many unanswered questions regarding the mind/brain dichotomy.

I'm not advocating anything mystical, mind you. Prior to our present knowledge of brain chemistry scientists didn't say, "there is nothing more than what we already know." That wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

You assume they are still researching the dichotomy between brain and mind. I think they are mostly just trying to gain more insight into the workings of the brain. How it functions, which parts do what. No metaphysical thought exercises. That's what philosophy is for.

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

Oi.
I am the high priest of the 'First Church of the Jumping Purple Kangaroo of north east Minnesota'.

So if ANYONE are too dress up as a Purple Kangaroo too aquire virgins it should be me

Well I and my minions (my cat) have nailed a list of protestations to a tree in a forest in north east Minnesota, and we are forthwith seceding from the 'First Church of the Jumping Purple Kangaroo of north east Minnesota' and establishing our own church, henceforth known as the 'Reformed United First Church of the Latter Day Jumping Purple Kangaroo of north east Minnesota (south western Ontario branch) and Friends', and as such, we reserve the right to keep any virgins we might happen upon all to ourselves (so long as they do not object). Donations gratefully accepted.

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

Just a little thought on souls. I don't believe souls exist in the religious sense, ie something to go to heaven and hell or to come back and haunt people. But I guess I do sort of think of the soul as sentience, and in that respect I believe it. I do believe there is "something" that makes us more then animals, and that is basically self-awareness I guess.
But as far as debates with woos, I don't even bother explaining that, because they will jump on the word "soul" and twist it to what they want it to mean.

I wouldn't be so sure that humans are the only animals that are 'self-aware'. Elephants, for one example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/302feature1.shtml

 

[wtslim]

You assume they are still researching the dichotomy between brain and mind. I think they are mostly just trying to gain more insight into the workings of the brain. How it functions, which parts do what. No metaphysical thought exercises. That's what philosophy is for.

This is why I'm a musician, not a scientist.

Seriously, though - I'm guessing that research is being done to understand what it is within the brain that makes something such as "prodigious musical ability" possible. Until there is a precise, simple way for a layman like myself to describe it, I'll stick to my present rhetorical choice.

And if a better description does already exist, I'm open to suggestions. A good skeptic should never be close-minded, right?

 

[hellaeon]

I agree that clear definitions are most useful. However, they're also rather cumbersome at times, e.g. attempting to describe how it is that someone seems to be able to learn to play music with absolute ease. I'm a musician/instructor, not a physician. It would require quite a bit of research on my part just to begin to say this in an precise manner, and even then I wouldn't be truly qualified.

I think the soul is just a nice word, and people dont like the cold hard facts over something with warmth and colour, no matter how obvious or truthful. I saw a recent show where NDE people expressed their amazing religious journey. When they got shown a simple scientific reason and actual (by accident) proof of why their brain did it and that they did not see what they thought was god, they resorted to selfish babble unable to acknowledge a simple but colder reason, that perhaps, just perhaps the brain and body goes into an emergency kind of mechanism under duress such as death! They were like "I know what I experienced'. The cold scientific unemotional reason destroyed the warmth of what they felt. The science was cumbersome.


my two cents

 

[Outhere]

Half-Souled, Re-Souled, Fillet of Soul

Let's see-the Pope has said that a clone would have no soul. Don't the Muslims believe that women have no souls, or is that just infidel propaganda? What about chimeras who apparently have the DNA of an absorbed twin? Do they have two souls? And babies born with extra body parts, part of a head, an extra limb or two--

If I remember my catechism correctly, the soul resides in every part of the body while at the same time being in no specific part.

The lesson must be not to argue with fools.

 

[Admiral]

Well, for everyone who says "It's nothing but brain chemistry," I want you to think about something.

There are, I believe, somewhere around 50 billion neurons in the brain (this is a thought experiment, so hear me out even if I'm off.) Each one is connected to 10,000 others or so. So imagine that you got 50 billion hamsters and connected them all, each one to about 10,000 others, in a gigantic mess of string, and trained every one to act as a neuron would. In this way, you build a gigantic model of the brain.

You start this creation running. All the same processes that we learn about in biology- the loops and branches and chain reactions and so on- is all occuring in this giant model.

So here's the question- if this mess of hamsters is acting exactly like a brain, is there someone who is experiencing what the hamsters are processing? In other words, is someone born once those hamsters start tugging on those strings? What right does a little wrinkly lump have to be conscious that the grand hamster experiment doesn't?

If the stupid hamsters are throwing you off, imagine you create a computer program with all the interactions of neurons in the human brain. Is is conscious? What's the difference between that and the human brain?

I'm simply saying that I can explain how Timmy's brain functions, with it's inputs and outputs and processes, or how Johnny's brain does- but I can't explain how my brain does. What turns a mess of chemical reactions and electrical potentials into consciousness?

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

Let's see-the Pope has said that a clone would have no soul. Don't the Muslims believe that women have no souls, or is that just infidel propaganda? What about chimeras who apparently have the DNA of an absorbed twin? Do they have two souls? And babies born with extra body parts, part of a head, an extra limb or two--

If I remember my catechism correctly, the soul resides in every part of the body while at the same time being in no specific part.

The lesson must be not to argue with fools.

Hey, yeah! Maybe the soul is like a hologram. If you smash a hologram to bits, each piece retains the entire image. Wow.......

 

[Flange Desire]

So this soul thingamagig is selectively handed out only to deserving parties,
and like a coupon, allows big discounts at participating supermarkets.

Chorus: We don need your steenking souls!

 

[Jeff Corey]

...I'm simply saying that I can explain how Timmy's brain functions, with it's inputs and outputs and processes, or how Johnny's brain does- but I can't explain how my brain does. What turns a mess of chemical reactions and electrical potentials into consciousness?

You're way ahead of me friend. I couldn't even begin to explain how Timmy's brain functions, except by talking about neurons and neurotransmitters and all that textbook stuff. Consciousness is another story. Steven Pinker can't even explain it. Try reading his "Consciousness explained".

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does that mean baby Jeebus didn't have a soul when he was in Mary's tummy?

 

[Rasmus]

Do brain researchers generally agree that "there is nothing else other than brain chemistry"?

I am by far no expert - but since there is nothing in the brain but the chemistry (including the electricity, of course) it just cannot be anything else.

Or do they keep looking for more answers? It seems at this point there are many unanswered questions regarding the mind/brain dichotomy.

To suggest that the mind comes from anything other than the brain seems silly to me. As others have pointed out, that is hardly a complete answer to all of our questions and a lot remains to be learned and discovered.

I'm not advocating anything mystical, mind you.

So what kind of thing (or non-thing?) are you advocating? What would go beyond brain chemistry?

Prior to our present knowledge of brain chemistry scientists didn't say, "there is nothing more than what we already know." That wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

no, of course not. And nobody is saying that now. But whatever new answers there will be, they will all somehow boil down to what the brain chemistry is doing.

I agree that clear definitions are most useful. However, they're also rather cumbersome at times, e.g. attempting to describe how it is that someone seems to be able to learn to play music with absolute ease.

If you are using unclear definitions, how can you be good at describing anything?

I'm a musician/instructor, not a physician. It would require quite a bit of research on my part just to begin to say this in an precise manner, and even then I wouldn't be truly qualified.

That happens a lot, since people tend to not be omniscient.

I consider myself a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, but I still much prefer "she seems to have music in her soul." I don't think that rhetoric would be overly-vague or confusing to anyone. If you disagree, that's your choice.

I do dissagree. The above sentence doesn't actually tell me anything. There's a dozen ways of interpreting it. It does in no way tell me why that person is able to learn to play music with absolute ease.

One of understanding that sentence is that she finds it easy to learn how to play music. (You might have also said that she loves music, no matter how good or bad she is at playing it. Or you could be saying that she understands a lot about musical theory. Or you could have been saying that she's just a cheerful person. Or you could have been saying that she doesn't give a damn about anything besides music, even though she might still be horrible bad at it.)

If you tell me that she has music in her soul, I am nowhere nearer to understamding why she finds it easy to learn how to play music. What you are saying doesn't mean anything.

Rasmus.