Towards A Theory Of Souls: An Intellectual Challenge

[Jeff Corkern]

I have observed in this forum a certain interest in what might, or might not, happen when people die. Some of the Million-Dollar Challenges revolve around this.

It occured to me those Challenges were, in essence, an attempt to EXPERIMENTALLY prove, or disprove---in a completely scientific fashion---the existence of the soul.

Well and good.

However, it also occurred to me there is another approach to determining the existence of the soul that is not being used.

The theoretical.

Science has always been a dance between the theoretical and the experimental. Sometimes the experimental advances the theoretical, sometimes it's the other way around.

By way of historical precedent, I cite the prediction of the existence of electromagnetic waves by James Clerk Maxwell, a result of his famed Maxwell's Equations, a prediction confirmed experimentally by Heinrich Hertz some twenty years later.

I propose considering the question of the existence of souls from an entirely theoretical standpoint.

In order to do this, I must define PRECISELY what I mean by "soul."

SOUL: An ETERNALLY EXISTING, THINKING and FEELING structure that can exist WITH or WITHOUT a physical body. They can and do exist in physical bodies from time to time, but don't require one.

As simply as possible, a soul is a person, just without a body, and its existence can NOT be terminated by any means whatsoever.

For the purposes of this thread, I ask that all posters use this definition without modification. If you disagree with my definition of a soul, fine, but please post your own arguments/definitions in another thread.

Using this definition, predict what the observable effects would be on human behavior.(I say it this way because science is about observables.) Explain your chain of logic, why you have reached the conclusion you have.

How would somebody with a soul behave?

Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?

You might consider these questions from the following angle:

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't?

This is a VERY good way to approach this question because intelligence is THE dominating factor in human behavior, and it's only going to get stronger and stronger as time goes on. Basically, as evolution does its thing, humanity gets smarter.

Or, in abstract theoretical terms, as evolution progresses, sentient behavior tends toward the rational.

And finally:

Applying the answers you come up with to the preceding questions to the real world around you, do human beings act like they have souls? Or not?

 

[Jeff Corey]

This is a long thing that is very confusing to read. Please, take mercy on me and any innocent buystanders and get to the point.

 

[Complexity]

You speak of 'soul', which is an unnecessary and silly bit of woo.

Please stop.

 

[Roboramma]

Using your definition of a soul, can a soul that exists in a body have any effect on the behaviour of that body? What are those effects?

 

[writerdd]

"How would somebody with a soul behave?
Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?
You might consider these questions from the following angle:
What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?
What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't?"

You could ask the same questions about consciousness, and the answer is that there is no difference. You cannot tell from behavior whether or not an individual is conscious or merely a "zombie" who can sense the world but has no awareness--making the questions meaningless. There may be ways to tell if a being is conscious or not (or has a soul or not) but the questions you've asked will not reveal the answer.

 

[Bronze Dog]

How would somebody with a soul behave?
Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?

You're working backwards in these questions. First we have to establish the existence of the soul, and then observe the difference in behaviors.

 

[Pup]

We can see that people's thoughts and feelings change based on cumulative experiences. A baby behaves differently than someone who has had more experiences and learned from them.

If a "soul" is eternal, that means it existed for an infinite amount of time prior to the point it got a body, and was thinking and feeling all that time. So why does it appear to start out so inexperienced, emotionally and intellectually, when a body is born? Why didn't it learn anything over all those infinite years, except the most basic instincts (sucking, etc.) and why does it suddenly change and start learning when it gets a body?

The most obvious answer is because there was no consciousness prior to the creation of that particular body.

 

[JohnF_73]

I think we can (for the puposes of the thread) assume 'infinite' means infinite in one direction only, and thus the alleged soul is born or created or grown, or whatever, in a person....

 

[JohnF_73]

Using this definition, predict what the observable effects would be on human behavior.
You have not provided all the relevant information to answer this question.
1) Are people aware they have souls? (Since knowledge of an eternal sense of self would doubtless affect human behaviour)
2) Can the soul affect the body? And if so, how?

How would somebody with a soul behave?
Until you say otherwise, I'm assuming the soul is the sole motive force for the body. In which case, they act like any individual.

Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?
They would be inert and begin to decompose.

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?
If you know you have a soul? Kill lots of unhappy people and then yourself. This world is a world of potential pain and suffering, frustrations and all sorts. An eternal consciousness on the other hand, seems like a much easier option. So kill yourself, but before you do, kill a bunch of unhappy people as well. They'll probably thank you when they're eternal.

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't {have a soul}?
Live a long and happy life, and enjoy as much of it as you can, and contribute in a postive way to the society in which you live.


This is a VERY good way to approach this question because intelligence is THE dominating factor in human behavior,
I don't think it's a good way to approach this question. And I don't think intelligence is the dominating factor. Survival instinct might be the dominating factor, maybe.

The average human today is just as much an idiot as the average human 2000 years ago. If we do more, it is because we collectively stand on the shoulders of random mutations which produced civilised and genius level individuals. A pitiful few of them.


Applying the answers you come up with to the preceding questions to the real world around you, do human beings act like they have souls? Or not?

Can't say. But certainly some act as though they BELIEVE they do. And some don't.

 

[Suezoled]

In "A Dirty Job" by Chris Moore, you can get your soul at a local pawn shop when you purchase something such as a pair of used Nikes.... if you're mature enough as a soulless person, you can find a soul that's mature enough for you.
Remember: local pawn shop. If you feel the urge to buy something you usually don't need or want, it could be a signal that you're buying something that contains your new soul. Or old soul*



*yes, Chris Moore has shown that humans are only being used for their bodies: souls can ascend to the next level, but when you die, the soul goes to the next body that can accept it, but you're left to rot. And maybe be eaten by demons from who hang out in the sewer.

 

[Gr8wight]

Science has always been a dance between the theoretical and the experimental. Sometimes the experimental advances the theoretical, sometimes it's the other way around.

In real science, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the theoretical cannot be supported by the experimental, it is abandoned.

 

[RandFan]

I have no problem whatsoever to consider the idea of a soul. I take exception to Complexity's admonition to stop. JREF (AFAIK) isn't about telling people they can't explore certain things including woo. Having read many of Randi's commentaries and having been to TAM to hear him speak I'm confident in saying that he is not at all opposed to such discussions.

That being said, there is nothing in your post that is even remotely similar to Maxwell's equations. Your questions are non-starters for the reasons stated. You can't start with the assumption that a person with a soul behaves in a given way and a person without a soul behaves in a different way because we can't test for a soul. If we have a soul we act like we do. If we don't have a soul we act like we do.

Find someone who you know does or doesn't have a soul and we will compare. I dout that would change anything but at least you would have someone that you knew or didn't know had a soul and in which case one would have to ask, what's the point?

 

[Jeff Corkern]

You're working backwards in these questions. First we have to establish the existence of the soul, and then observe the difference in behaviors.

Not at all. Inference, working backwards, is a perfectly valid scientific method.

For example, the existence of the planet Pluto was inferred by perturbations in the orbit of Neptune. The existence of the neutrino was inferred by Hideo Yukawa from the failure of the mass-energy to balance from particle collisions.

In fact, if you do particle physics, you don't do anything else EXCEPT infer. All you can directly measure are the decay particles of the decay particles of the decay particles.

The process I'm suggesting is valid, and works.

What would it mean in practical terms, to have a soul?

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Using this definition, predict what the observable effects would be on human behavior.
You have not provided all the relevant information to answer this question.
1) Are people aware they have souls? (Since knowledge of an eternal sense of self would doubtless affect human behaviour)

This is a GREAT question. Okay, that's a flaw in my challenge and something that needs to be defined more precisely.

The overall purpose of my little challenge is to see if people in the real world today are acting like they have souls.

So, for the purposes of the challenge, in order to reflect the real world---people have souls, but have not yet become aware of it. Souls are affecting their behavior but they haven't truly realized why they do certain things.

To put it in one sentence, people know they have souls---but on the unconscious level only. At least, so far.

2) Can the soul affect the body? And if so, how?

That's certainly a very good question, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking how souls would affect human action, not how it would affect the human body.

How would somebody with a soul behave?
Until you say otherwise, I'm assuming the soul is the sole motive force for the body. In which case, they act like any individual.

Vague. This is no answer.

Conversely, how would somebody without a soul behave?[/b]
They would be inert and begin to decompose.

I suspect you are right, but you have pointed out how I phrased the question imprecisely.

I shall re-phrase the question more precisely.

How should somebody who THINKS he doesn't have a soul behave?

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?
If you know you have a soul? Kill lots of unhappy people and then yourself. This world is a world of potential pain and suffering, frustrations and all sorts. An eternal consciousness on the other hand, seems like a much easier option. So kill yourself, but before you do, kill a bunch of unhappy people as well. They'll probably thank you when they're eternal.

You're assuming the afterlife is BETTER. I don't say that. For all I know, the afterlife (assuming it exists---I'm trying to be as neutral as possible) is filled with just as much frustration, pain, and suffering.

But man, you're sniffing around the right trail, with that comment about unhappiness, i.e. seeking to achieve certain emotional states.

Just for the record, I have solved that challenge I posted. But it took me ten years.

What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't {have a soul}?
Live a long and happy life, and enjoy as much of it as you can, and contribute in a postive way to the society in which you live.

Incorrect. Not rational. I won't explain why. But again that comment on achieving emotional states, not only you but everybody else.

This is a VERY good way to approach this question because intelligence is THE dominating factor in human behavior,
I don't think it's a good way to approach this question. And I don't think intelligence is the dominating factor. Survival instinct might be the dominating factor, maybe.

The average human today is just as much an idiot as the average human 2000 years ago. If we do more, it is because we collectively stand on the shoulders of random mutations which produced civilised and genius level individuals. A pitiful few of them.

A bit of a side issue, but:

I will grant you that intelligence may currently NOT be the dominating factor influencing human behavior today. I am unable to prove that it is.

However, it is GOING to be. If not now, it will be true one day.

In fact, it will be fairly soon.

Because the human race knows about genes and DNA now and will therefore soon be in total control of its genes. Evolution will no longer be random, but self-directed.

When they find the genes that set human intelligence, surely they will be set as high as possible----and THEN intelligence will be the dominating factor on human behavior.

So I'm asking the question of that future, highly intelligent, genius-level human: What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you have a soul?

Applying the answers you come up with to the preceding questions to the real world around you, do human beings act like they have souls? Or not?

Can't say. But certainly some act as though they BELIEVE they do. And some don't.

So what do people who act as if they BELIEVE they do act like?

And some don't? What do they act like?

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Using your definition of a soul, can a soul that exists in a body have any effect on the behaviour of that body? What are those effects?

That's what I'm asking YOU.

I am approaching the existence of souls from a totally objective, scientific viewpoint.

What would be the observable effects of such a thing on a human being?

There MUST be observable effects in order for the problem to be solved scientifically. Something that has no observable effect does not exist from a scientific standpoint.

If souls exist as real, physical entities----like the planet Pluto, like the neutrino---their existence should be inferrable from their effects on the behavior of human beings.

This can actually be done. This problem can be solved. I solved it. But it took me ten years.

 

[Trifikas]

Originally Posted by JohnF_73 :
What's the SMART, RATIONAL way to act if you don't {have a soul}?
Live a long and happy life, and enjoy as much of it as you can, and contribute in a postive way to the society in which you live.


Incorrect. Not rational. I won't explain why. But again that comment on achieving emotional states, not only you but everybody else.

Er, hold on. This is correct, based on how I see a majority of forum members act. Many of them profess to not believing in having a soul, and belive in living a happy life, etc. Why do you say it is incorrect?

Trifikas

 

[Jeff Corkern]

We can see that people's thoughts and feelings change based on cumulative experiences. A baby behaves differently than someone who has had more experiences and learned from them.

Okay.

If a "soul" is eternal, that means it existed for an infinite amount of time prior to the point it got a body, and was thinking and feeling all that time.

Okay, this is a reasonable observation. A bit more definition of terms is required.

ETERNAL: Incapable of having its existence terminated.

This does NOT say it has existed eternally, just that, once created, it cannot be destroyed.

So, applying this to souls, let me add the folllowing about my definition of a soul:

Souls can be created---but not destroyed.

So why does it appear to start out so inexperienced, emotionally and intellectually, when a body is born? Why didn't it learn anything over all those infinite years, except the most basic instincts (sucking, etc.) and why does it suddenly change and start learning when it gets a body?

Well, a baby is a baby because its organs are undeveloped. The eyes can't see, the limbs can't co-ordinate, and most importantly, the brain hasn't developed certain structures. I mean, if YOU woke up suddenly turned into a newly born baby, you would be unable to communicate that a fully developed person was in there. Remember, you wouldn't even have language.

Why didn't it learn anything in all its previous years? (Not necessarily infinite---see above.)

How do you know it hasn't? Have you ever seen two people grow up together in the same atrocious circumstances, and the life of one is a total disaster while the other somehow seems to rise above it?

 

[Jeff Corkern]

In real science, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the theoretical cannot be supported by the experimental, it is abandoned.

True. And the point is?

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Er, hold on. This is correct, based on how I see a majority of forum members act. Many of them profess to not believing in having a soul, and belive in living a happy life, etc. Why do you say it is incorrect?

Trifikas

Okay.

Let's examine this question.

Hmmm.

As John has implied, repeatedly, people do what they do in order to be happy, in order to achieve a certain emotional state.

Let me drag it out and make it more plain.

PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY DO IN ORDER TO TRY TO BE HAPPY.

All right.

Let us say a man who believes he has no soul has a family.

Why does he have a family?

Because they make him happy, of course. (It ain't because he's controlled by his genes. I have been reading about people who are changing their genes. If you can change your genes, you are controlling your genes, they are NOT controlling you.)

However, if this man who believes he has no soul wants to be happy, there's a faster, easier, cheaper way.

Drugs.

Emotion drugs. Drugs whose sole purpose is the inducement of certain emotional states in the brain. Pot, meth, smack, LSD, alcohol, Ecstasy(note the revealing name), the list goes on and on and gets longer on a daily basis.

Some will argue all these drugs have side-effects, i.e. will make their user unhappy in the long run. True enough, but this is strictly a technological problem and as such, can be eliminated totally.

By, let us say, running a tiny little wire into his brain and directly stimulating his emotion centers. Bingo, no more nasty side-effects. Instant Nirvana at the snap of a switch.

A timing circuit so he will remember to eat, sleep, and bathe on occasion, and he's done.

The man has a family because they make him happy. Well, there's a great deal of expense associated with doing it the old-fashioned way. There's a great deal of pain and aggravation that comes with the package, too. There's even a good chance his family will make him more unhappy than happy.

Isn't that wire the RATIONAL thing to do? Isn't it cheaper, faster, less messy, more certain?

The logical thing for that man to do is boot his family out the door and use the money saved to hook himself up.

Isn't he living a happy life now? You bet he is, stoned out of his head happy.

Without an immortal soul, there is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to be concerned with the happiness of others. The only desires he should be concerned with are his, and his alone. There is NO PHYSICAL REASON for him to "contribute in a positive way" to society. It is irrational for him to do so.

If you believe you have no soul, the only thing you should rationally be doing is getting stoned all the time. What's the physical difference between achieving an emotional state using drugs and doing it the old-fashioned way? Drugs are CHEAPER!

But back to our subject.

Not having an immortal soul makes it theoretically possible for him to escape the consequences of his actions, you see. The fact that his wife and children wind up destitute and starving on the streets has had no physical effect on him, if he dies first AND HAS NO IMMORTAL SOUL.

But having an immortal soul changes this equation. It is now impossible for him to escape the consequences of his actions.

Now, THERE IS A PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE.

Somewhere, somehow, his wife and children can theoretically catch up to him and MAKE HIM PAY. (If husband has an immortal soul, SO DO THEY.)

Through the nose, one hopes.

 

[Trifikas]

Sorry, Your hypothetical wire-in-the-brain loses to the the very real fact that there are forumites who don't believe they have souls, aren't on drugs, probably have families, and are striving to be happy, if not already are. Even if it's not a logical response, people are like that. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Now, that's not to say the hard-wire to the pleasure center of the brain wouldn't entice people. Might even entice a lot. But it will get people who think they have a soul as much as not - it would be an addiction, catching a pretty general cross section.

Drug use today crosses pretty much all demographics. You can't just say agnostics or athiests would be the only ones who take them.

Trifikas