Does the soul exist?

[articulett]

God is clearly indistinguishable from ~God (not God).

God like souls and all other invisible immeasurable entities is indistinguishable from schizophrenic delusions and myths of such entities.

There seems to be no logical reason to believe in one or some such entities and not others: demons, thetans, angels, incubi, fairies, Xenu, wormhole bigfoots, Emperor's who wear magical clothes that are visible only to the worthy, etc.

Clearly what you believe about such things is entirely dependent upon what you've been told is true by others who cannot know any more about the subject than anyone else-- (can anyone be an expert on invisible, immeasurable entities?)

Sure, I'd love to believe some of this stuff is real--but how would one go about distinguishing it from the stuff that isn't? Faith and feelings are poor tools for the job. There is no "differential diagnosis" between a "soul" and a "body thetan" is there?-- between a "god" and a "demon"? Between a real invisible entity and a delusion of such? If there's still no evidence despite eons of such beliefs and a clear desire for humans to "know" about such things-- then the only logical conclusion is that they are all delusions, myths, misperceptions, wishful thinking and so forth. Believing in something and wanting it to be true cannot make souls "real" nor "gods" nor any other such thing.

When I compare the evidence for a "soul" with the evidence for evolution (a much more recent understanding), I can't help but notice the astounding difference, and conclude that a soul is a dead end hypothesis. When we discover something true about the world, it leads to more and more understanding.

 

[Prometheus]

God is clearly indistinguishable from ~God (not God).

God like souls and all other invisible immeasurable entities is indistinguishable from schizophrenic delusions and myths of such entities.

<snip>

Devil's Advocate: "When schizophrenia patients who also happen to be theists are given medication that reduces/eliminates their delusions, do they also lose their god-beliefs?"

 

[articulett]

They are certainly less likely to believe they ARE god.

And there is a corresponding decrease in revelations and prophesy from gods in such patients as well. (Most god beliefs are based on someone else's revelations and prophesies.)

The same is true when temporal lobe epilepsy is treated.

I'm not saying believers in invisible entities are delusional any more than believers in urban legends are delusional-- I'm just saying that as far as measurable evidence goes, their gods are no more "real".

 

[gdnp]

He was obviously [to anyone understanding plain English] referring to area where the tooth was once it has healed totally.

I am confused with the argument that phantom limb syndrome is somehow evidence for the soul.

If feeling the presence of a missing limb or missing tooth implies that there is a soul, which has remained complete, does it not also follow that when someone suffers a stroke, and can no longer feel or move a limb, that part of their soul has died? There is even a condition called left neglect syndrome where stroke patients will ignore everything in the left side of their visual field, even the entire left side of their body.

This just reinforces what others have stated: that what people cite as evidence for the soul is entirely dependent on higher brain functions, and cannot be demonstrated in the absence of the brain. Entirely physical, not metaphysical.

 

[articulett]

V.S. Ramachandran, a neuroscientist, has done remarkable work with phantom limb patients and even wrote a book about it (Phantoms in the Brain). He's the guy that uses mirrors to cure phantom limb pain which is caused by nearby nerves invading the area of the brain once responsible for messages involving the missing body part. He most definitely does not believe in a soul, and he repeatedly devises and tests experiments that show how our brain gives rise to our perceptions.

He was featured in the CBS special Secrets of the Mind where many of the topics mentioned on this page are discussed and patient with such anomalies are featured. I highly recommend a Google search of either for anyone who really wishes to understand the subject. We've made some remarkable leaps in regards to understanding how the brain gives rise to consciousness in recent years and V.S. Ramachandran has been on the forefront of such discoveries. I don't think we could have made such discoveries by attributing what we didn't understand to some mysterious "soul". Attributing things to the supernatural is a way of saying "this stuff is beyond our knowledge"--and slams the door to further discovery as far as I can tell--all in order to keep the "mystery" (belief) alive.

 

[Perpetual Seeker]

Whoa, radrook is a Jehovah's Witness? Then, according to my experience of two years with them, he thinks edge is just as wrong as everyone else. Jehovah's Witnesses think they are the only true Christians.

Therein lies madness. That was the worst mistake of my life, wasting two years in that cult.

Better run, before radrook cites dozens of reasons why it is not a cult (they have several virtually scripted arguments for this).

I also never got how the Watchtower was such an authority, when they've gotten several predictions of the end of the world wrong now. It was supposed to happen in 1914. I don't remember the other dates; I think there was one in the 80's. Now they've given up and say it is any day now (basically, we don't know but probably pretty soon).

 

[Brian-M]

Therein lies madness. That was the worst mistake of my life, wasting two years in that cult.

It could have been worse. Some people waste their entire lives.

 

[edge]

That's alright then. There was me thinking you (either) must be a complete imbecile.

Name calling, I like how moderators almost never chastise skeptics.

As far as Rad and I, we are brothers in Christ and anything else that we interpret is really irrelevant.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

V.S. Ramachandran, a neuroscientist, has done remarkable work with phantom limb patients and even wrote a book about it (Phantoms in the Brain). He's the guy that uses mirrors to cure phantom limb pain which is caused by nearby nerves invading the area of the brain once responsible for messages involving the missing body part. He most definitely does not believe in a soul, and he repeatedly devises and tests experiments that show how our brain gives rise to our perceptions.

He was featured in the CBS special Secrets of the Mind where many of the topics mentioned on this page are discussed and patient with such anomalies are featured. I highly recommend a Google search of either for anyone who really wishes to understand the subject. We've made some remarkable leaps in regards to understanding how the brain gives rise to consciousness in recent years and V.S. Ramachandran has been on the forefront of such discoveries. I don't think we could have made such discoveries by attributing what we didn't understand to some mysterious "soul". Attributing things to the supernatural is a way of saying "this stuff is beyond our knowledge"--and slams the door to further discovery as far as I can tell--all in order to keep the "mystery" (belief) alive.

I've checked him out a little bit on youtube and I LIKE IT!

I think I'm adding him to my list of "really interesting people I really admire" (Along Dennett, Sagan, Shermer and Feynman):

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I also never got how the Watchtower was such an authority, when they've gotten several predictions of the end of the world wrong now. It was supposed to happen in 1914. I don't remember the other dates; I think there was one in the 80's. Now they've given up and say it is any day now (basically, we don't know but probably pretty soon).

Interestingly, failed predictions often strengthen the belief. The landmark work in "When Prophecies Fail" has some valuable insight into this cognitive dissonance.

When Prophecy Fails focuses on the failure of prophecies to come true, termed disconfirmation by Festinger, and the accompanied renewal of energy and faith in their source of divine guidance. His theory presupposes the cult having certain identifying features, such as: (a) belief held with deep conviction along with respective actions taken, (b) the belief or prediction must be specific enough to be disconfirmed (i.e., it didn't happen), (c) the believer is a member of a group of like-minded believers who support one another and even proselytize.

http://www.freeminds.org/psych/propfail.htm

Specific details of beliefs are interesting, but equally, if not more so is the unique cultural and evolutionary dispositions that resulted in hominids unique way of understanding the world through the woo viewpoint.

 

[Mark Felt]

For those who used to believe in such, how did you come to think that there is no soul?

Probably when I couldn't think of anything that it would be responsible for as far as personality and mind go.

 

[Prometheus]

....For those who used to believe in such, how did you come to think that there is no soul?....

Professor Dennett talked me out of it during discussion of the Mind-Body Problem in his Philosophy of Mind class, when I was in college.

 

[Lilith]

I've been becoming more skeptical lately, but one of those ideas I've been having trouble with letting go of is the soul, mostly because it is a really scary idea that there may be no soul.

No kidding - I can see how it would be scary, especially if you are on the fence about it. I'm not on a fence - I don't believe that there is such a thing as a soul, and it doesn't scare me. I may have believed in "souls" at one time, but I can't be certain - I know I followed a Christian practice for a while as a youngster and teen, but by age 16 I no longer did.

For those who used to believe in such, how did you come to think that there is no soul?

School, and studying the brain both from the biological and psychological side. I'm a neuroscience-geek.

I really have no argument right now to point to the possibility of there being a soul. But i'm curious how those who have previously believed in it, came to discard that belief, as well as some things that come with that belief, such as stories of hauntings, for example. These things can sound quite convincing sometimes if you don't know what can actually be happening.

I used to be fascinated reading about ESP, past lives, hauntings and the like - and this evolved into a fascination of the origins of folklore and an interest in why, biologically, people believe such things.

 

[articulett]

I've checked him out a little bit on youtube and I LIKE IT!

I think I'm adding him to my list of "really interesting people I really admire" (Along Dennett, Sagan, Shermer and Feynman):

Don't forget the Dawk:


(The clip you showed was from Beyond Belief... There are a lot of great clips from Beyond Belief and Beyond Belief 2.0 including Shermer and Dennett--

 

[Mashuna]

Don't forget the Dawk:

Now I've got the image of Dawkins entering a debate like a pro wrestler, with a laser show and entrance music. Possibly a modified version of 'Forgot about Dre'.

 

[John Freestone]

Thanks for the great vids, Ron T and articulett. I'm browsing through the similar ones at youtube. I don't want this to be taken as argument for religion, but I do think Dawkins either ignores or doesn't notice a problem with his skyhook-crane argument. He says that proposing God as an explanation for improbable or perplexing observations is the skyhook - a great hand came down and did it and the problem is solved, but only temporarily, since we now have to explain where God came from - natural selection is a crane-type of argument, since it explains improbable, perplexing observations by building from the simple to the complex. Of course, I am in general agreement to a degree that makes the following a footnote, but it is I think an important footnote: the simple ground from which the crane argument is building is also arguably rather improbable and perplexing, and it would be scientific hubris to pretend that shifting the explanation of life to the explanation of the way molecules and atoms behave, or shifting the explanation for the existence of the universe to the Big Bang, are not also temporary solutions and incomplete. Although it is stunningly clear that science explains a vast wealth of detail of how matter behaved and behaves, it seems to bring us not much nearer in ontological terms to understanding perhaps the most perplexing questions - why there is anything rather than nothing, for instance. Evolution may be like a crane within its limits, but cosmic and subatomic explanations all end in skyhooks.

 

[articulett]

emergent phenomenon is the norm when it comes to complexity in our universe... bottom up -- never top down.

Like the internet.

Big things start very humbly.

Top down is the "ultimate 747".

 

[John Freestone]

Name calling, I like how moderators almost never chastise skeptics.

To be fair, edge, I think it's possible you may have a point. Although my experimental database is very small, I do remember getting pounced on and warned for being disrespectful very early when I was just sharing my feelings that materialism left some important questions for me (and was, I think, immediately labeled as a woo-monger, told I had nothing useful to say, etc. - someone was even too bored by my discussion to take part, he said ) and I decided that I'd have to bite back fairly fiercely or go under. Now that I'm a self-proclaimed materialist, I do seem to be getting away with more personal close shaves than before, but as I say, this is anecdotal evidence.

A good question to ask would be did you or Radrook actually click the report link? I didn't get a warning. Presumably someone reported me before, and that was when I got a warning. Even so, the mod has to make a decision about it, and it is possible that that involves some bias. I tend to think that if you post religious dogma at a forum largely populated by skeptics and set up to support the work of a famous skeptic, you might expect some bias, since that is human nature. I post stuff at a woo site sometimes and don't expect a fair hearing.

Then there's the question of what is and what is not insulting. I could take exception to many of the accusations Radrook leveled at me, but since I think he or she has a rather low level of intelligence and is too deeply indoctrinated by religious dogma to be expected to argue sensibly about the 'soul' or anything else (and you too), I just summed it up by implying that you're both imbeciles. A quick surf confirms to me that the word is close enough. Statistically, I'm bound to come across people of 'subnormal intelligence' (onelook.com) from time to time, and the principle of freedom of speech would suggest that I might share that experience. Radrook himself says of me "he knows NOTHING", which presumably indicates that I have a lower intelligence than 'imbecile'. Radrook also said "I usually place such an approach as yours on my ignore list in order to avoid screen clutter and annoying distractions", so I imagine that he is out of range of my views on him anyway.

I think the whole of this thread may have been destined for the bin as soon as it was infiltrated by religious propagandists such as yourself and Radrook, who pretend to argue, but only post the opinions of their parents, church leaders and long-dead mystics and, when cornered on the point that believing arbitrary religious dogma is irrational, argue that rationality itself is suspect or of no consequence to them, and only the words of their 'good' book are pertinent. In essence, you don't acknowledge the basis of rational argument. You're like people standing in a court of law refusing to acknowledge its jurisdiction. Strange then to appeal for fair play on the moderation front. As I've said before, you are essentially trolling and could arguably be expected to be disciplined on those grounds. If I repeatedly interrupted discussion of the soul proposition with my Galactic Imperial Master's channelled teachings for planet earth on the subject, that would be trolling too.

As far as Rad and I, we are brothers in Christ and anything else that we interpret is really irrelevant.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[John Freestone]

emergent phenomenon is the norm when it comes to complexity in our universe... bottom up -- never top down.

Like the internet.

Big things start very humbly.

Top down is the "ultimate 747".

Yeah, but do you see my point? You can explain the internet very easily bottom up, but not quite so easily the existence of electrons. And 'big things start humbly' is questionable if we consider the universe, although you could argue that going from no matter, energy, space or time to these things existing is a very simple change, just the reversal of a few conditions. However, perhaps another word than 'humble' would be most people's choice for the immense explosion of the Big Bang. And my point stands - existence itself isn't a problem amenable to crane explanations, as far as I can see. Ever since the proposal of the atom, the problem was glaringly obvious. Building blocks isn't an answer, though of course they and theories regarding their interaction may explain everything bigger.

 

[articulett]

No, I don't see your point...

Yes, there are problems with what came before the big bang... but it's not likely to be anything more complex than the big bang. Something as small as an atom and as intangible as an idea can become an atomic bomb.

And it doesn't seem to have any relevance in regards to souls. Consciousness is very complex and evolved over time... in brains that also evolved over time from genomes that evolved over time. It didn't need consciousness to plan it's existence... it just needed to be an asset to the the organisms that had it.