When does a baby recieve it's soul?

[wtslim]

"I fear we're getting into off-topic territory a bit here. Apologies to those who were expecting to read about babies..." - wtslim

Don't worry about this . It happens in all interesting threads. There are lots of facets to the question and lots of opinions accordingly.

Thanks for the reassurance, SS. I appreciate it.

Mu own view is that the "soul" is there from the start. From the moment of fertilisation. Except of course, I don't think it's a soul. I think it's a process, namely life - which is chemistry at least as much as the moving picture on a TV screen is chemistry. Nothing nuclear going on inside a TV set , and everything else is chemistry. The outputs of chemical action get more complex as the chemistry does. In my view one such output is life and another is awareness, which is, I think what you mean by "soul" in this thread.

"Awareness," - yeah, that's essentially what I mean.

Prior to joining this discussion, I can't recollect the last time I actually used the word "soul" in a sentence (or at least one related to something other than Aretha Franklin). What actually compelled me to put my two cents in was something I'd recently read by an openly non-religious, naturalist author. This author's use of the word "soul" was something I'd grappled with for a while. Since I respect this person's views on many other topics, I found myself striving to understand their use of the term. I'll agree with Rasmus et. al. that it is a vague word. However, other secular scholars, authors, philosophers, etc. do seem to use the term, so I guess I decided not to let it bother me.

...I have been criticised in another thread because in my view awareness is an emergent property of life and can only be created by going through the process of ontogenic development.

I'd imagine the word "emergent" ruffles some feathers among the skeptical community as well. I remember first reading about "emergent properties" in some far-flung "psychology of education" class in grad school years ago. Can't remember the author, but I seem to recall it was in a borderline-mystical context (in retrospect, the whole class was), which is probably what caused me to file it away in the dark recesses of my memory. However, the term did come to mind previously as I thought about some of the issues brought up in this thread.

Accordingly, while I'm certain computers can eventually reproduce most complex behaviour currently seen as the sole ability of living things, I am far from convinced that they will ever produce a consciously aware entity. Some folk on the forum see this as quasi mysticism. So you see we are all different here. Vive la difference!

I'm sort of amused by this. I doubt anyone I presently hang out with would ever accuse me of being a "quasi-mystical" sort. Quite the contrary - they're probably all sick of hearing my anti-spiritual rants by now! I guess you can learn a bit about yourself on the JREF forum, eh?

I'll admit that I had to look up the word "ontogenic" in order to understand your viewpoint better. I'm not sure I'm with you 100 percent regarding exactly when the "process" begins, but your discussion of the topic has given me pause for further contemplation. Thank you!

 

[Godmode]

wtslim you mentioned: "No one has discovered yet what it is about the human condition that affords some people extreme talents in areas like music, while others who attempt the same, even with incredible effort, never achieve anything close. It's presently a mystery."

Its just the same as me trying to do advanced maths and I struggle with it, while someone else just gets it first go. Yet that same person struggles in the said bands to get anywhere and are amzing musos, yet I seem to get on the right bills, get geood crowds, know the right people etc etc and would readily admit my bands are not based in the complete high end of musicianship 100% of the time.

perhaps this is more an experience thing? But doesnt that come back to practice makes perfect?

thoughts

It's not just a matter of practice, some people have real talents that extend beyond what you'd expect just from practicing. I do think it's a brain thing, some people may have limited genius, where it's focused in one area. Nobody knows yet why this is. My brother has been able to do perfect perspective drawing since he was 3 years old. That didn't come from practice. Maybe it came from the way he looks at things, I have no idea. I don't have it though, I CAN draw perspective, but I had to learn it.

 

[brettDbass]

Well, it's nice to see a good discussion about the soul here.

I totally failed to get any believers to respond to my thread on (roughly) the same subject. I wonder why they seem so reluctant to talk about this?

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

It's not just a matter of practice, some people have real talents that extend beyond what you'd expect just from practicing. I do think it's a brain thing, some people may have limited genius, where it's focused in one area. Nobody knows yet why this is. My brother has been able to do perfect perspective drawing since he was 3 years old. That didn't come from practice. Maybe it came from the way he looks at things, I have no idea. I don't have it though, I CAN draw perspective, but I had to learn it.

Snap! Almost. My brother has also exhibited an amazing artistic talent from a very early age, yet I'm lucky if I can draw a paycheque! I've always been envious of his remarkable ability, and at one time I tried, unsuccessfully, to emulate his achievements. The best I could do was some vaguely interseting and convoluted doodlings that bore no resemblance to reality as anyone outside a mental health institute sees it. Such is the life I lead.

 

[Hellbound]

I always wanted to try drawing, but the nurses won't give me anything sharp to write with.

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

I always wanted to try drawing, but the nurses won't give me anything sharp to write with.

Try finger painting. On the walls. Using whatever smearable material is most readily available...Just be ready to wear the long sleeved jacket with buckled cuffs....

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm not sure I'm with you 100 percent regarding exactly when the "process" begins, but your discussion of the topic has given me pause for further contemplation. Thank you!

HAR! I'm even more radical than you might think.

I reckon there is only one continuous life process. It started some 3+ billion years ago and extends, unbroken to the present day. (Changing constantly of course and increasing the numbers of operating outlets. It's like a Universal McDonald's- n Gazillion served!).
Pick any organism, moneran, plant, animal- you'll do:
At no point in the last 3billion years has the thread of chemical activity (life) currently active in you been broken. Continuous process.Not a mystical view. Fact.
Now- when did the awareness process start? No idea. Yet.

Mind blowing, the real world, innit?

 

[Admiral]

I'm sure someone must have said this already, but I dind't read the entire thread.

There is no such thing as a soul.

I feel that this attitude is actually unscientific. While I agree that after death there is nothing left of one's conciousness, I can't agree that all of conciousness can be explained by neurochemistry.

My point is that from an external point of view, I could theoretically understand how all the inputs enter my brain, and then particular outputs emerge. In between, of course, there are complicated processes involving millions of neurons, but all follow physical laws.

The trouble I have is- why am I experiencing what I am experiencing? Does any set of neurons arranged into a particular pattern create its own conciousness? If so, we could call this conciousness a "soul," although I hesitate because the term may encourage fundamentalists to claim science has proven the existence of an afterlife, which is not what this is about.

My point is that every brain seems to have its own conciousness where this abstract conciousness believes it is making its own choices and experiencing its own sensations, when it is merely an observer to the workings of the brain. Why?

(Is this stuff cool or what?)

 

[PBTree]

It's not just a matter of practice, some people have real talents that extend beyond what you'd expect just from practicing. I do think it's a brain thing, some people may have limited genius, where it's focused in one area. Nobody knows yet why this is. My brother has been able to do perfect perspective drawing since he was 3 years old. That didn't come from practice. Maybe it came from the way he looks at things, I have no idea. I don't have it though, I CAN draw perspective, but I had to learn it.

get yourself a copy of "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards. amazing stuff. I couldn't draw a bath before i bought it, now i'm drawing all the time. Not bad either, if I do say so myself.

as for the soul nonsense. I have always agreed with the comedian Billy Connelly. His view of this is "you are what you are when you are alive. nothing special" and when you die, you go to the same place you were before you were born.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

when you die, you go to the same place you were before you were born.

That's been my philosophy for years. Rather comforting.

 

[DSE]

I feel that this attitude is actually unscientific. While I agree that after death there is nothing left of one's conciousness, I can't agree that all of conciousness can be explained by neurochemistry.

My point is that from an external point of view, I could theoretically understand how all the inputs enter my brain, and then particular outputs emerge. In between, of course, there are complicated processes involving millions of neurons, but all follow physical laws.

The trouble I have is- why am I experiencing what I am experiencing? Does any set of neurons arranged into a particular pattern create its own conciousness? If so, we could call this conciousness a "soul," although I hesitate because the term may encourage fundamentalists to claim science has proven the existence of an afterlife, which is not what this is about.

My point is that every brain seems to have its own conciousness where this abstract conciousness believes it is making its own choices and experiencing its own sensations, when it is merely an observer to the workings of the brain. Why?

(Is this stuff cool or what?)

I think what you're talking about is the mind--different from what people usually mean when they say soul.

 

[DSE]

There was one section of the circuit board which connected only to itself, not to anything else on the board. And you'd think... surely we can remove that bit. But if you did, then the circuit didn't work.

Maybe that bit was where the soul was.

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

....and when you die, you go to the same place you were before you were born.

Now that could pose a bit of a problem. My mum was cremated 6 years ago.

 

[Dcdrac]

....and when you die, you go to the same place you were before you were born.

You back to your mothers womb????????

Could be difficult for some people

 

[Suezoled]

I dunno if I missed this, but isn't it a bit disconcerting that you have to pass through someone's crotch to receive a soul? I mean, is it worth it? I'd rather use the window, thanks, not the front door.
And then, if you extrapolate off this, a soul isn't received until you go through the Rite of Crotchage. But if a guy is having sex with a girl, does that mean his soul has been sucked out in the same aperture?? And what about lesbians? And how many souls can a woman's crotch hold?

...I think I need to go lie down.

 

[exarch]

Based on that outburst, I'm not sure I want to know...

Comparing me to an <i>art critic</i>? C'mon, Exarch, I'm a reasonably congenial fellow. I never called you any dirty names!

What's down the slippery slope, "new ager?" "Closet fundamentalist?" "Intelligent design proponent," for cripes sake??

Let's agree to keep the pointed jabs to ourselves and stay on-topic, k?

Well, all I meant to say was that "having music on the soul" to me is just a similarly empty, meaningless statement, and yet can be interpreted to mean a lot of things. It's something a wannabe art critic would say because it leaves so much space for interpretation, it can -and will - be interpreted in so many ways it inevitably ends up being true for someone, if not everyone. But the fact remains the wannabe art critic basically didn't say anything meaningful, it's the listener who's doing all the thinking and interpreting and forming opinions. Basically, doing your thinking for you.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a phrase like "he's got music on the soul" seems like something you would say because you are too lazy to put the effort into actually figuring out precisely what it is you're talking about. And whoever is hearing you say that is bound to agree that, yes, music is an important part of their life, so you're probably right, but they're not quite 100% sure what exactly you were trying to say either.

It's like a phrase I read a while ago in some kind of horoscope-like thing:
You are unhappy with your emotions.
This statement can be interpreted in so many ways (Are you simply unhappy? Are you unhappy to often be frustrated? Etc...) that it's bound to be seen as correct by at least 90% of the people reading it.

"Soul" is just too fuzzy a concept to be meaningful for anything except to refer to this (supposed) supernatural energy thingy that survives after you die and goes to heaven.

 

[Rasmus]

Maybe that bit was where the soul was.

So if we scan a human brain, and find that bits of it are only connected to themselves .....






























... we've found Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Rasmus.

 

[exarch]

HAR! I'm even more radical than you might think.

I reckon there is only one continuous life process. It started some 3+ billion years ago and extends, unbroken to the present day. (Changing constantly of course and increasing the numbers of operating outlets. It's like a Universal McDonald's- n Gazillion served!).
Pick any organism, moneran, plant, animal- you'll do:
At no point in the last 3billion years has the thread of chemical activity (life) currently active in you been broken. Continuous process.Not a mystical view. Fact.
Now- when did the awareness process start? No idea. Yet.

Mind blowing, the real world, innit?

And that inevitably leads to the following question (one which the creationist fundies like asking):
If life sparked into existance all by itself, just once, why isn't life creating itself all the time?

And I think they've found evidence that it has (they found some sealed caves somewhere with lifeforms based on sulpher if I recall correctly).

So "life" is not just a continuous process, it's a multithreaded process too ...

 

[exarch]

But if a guy is having sex with a girl, does that mean his soul has been sucked out in the same aperture??

No, but you could say his apendage loses all its soul after a while ...

 

[AWPrime]

When does a baby recieve it's soul? -> Never