|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 03/02/2009 : 05:20:10
|
I recall that as a young man, already an agnostic for a decade, I was very resistant to the idea that the "soul" was a made-up artifice. That's because I identified the term and concept with consciousness, which I "knew" damned well existed.
I now easily separate the religious and spiritual concept of soul from that of a self-aware conscious brain. But tonight, as I was reading The Human Soul: An Ancient Idea at LiveScience, I recalled my earlier reluctance to abandon the soul.
The conflation of consciousness with the soul may be one of the biggest obstacles to overcome when discussing spiritualism and religion with believers. It is easy to imagine that this conflation has been going on since time immemorial. From the article:| It's hard to say exactly when the idea of a second self came into play. Presumably the recognition of a soul appeared hand-in-hand with human consciousness, and it was probably voiced when we had language to put the idea of a soul into words. That would place the time frame for a soul around 200,000 years ago, when humans experienced a cultural explosion which they expressed in art, clothing, and evidence of religion. |
According to the "Soul" article in Wikipedia:| Daniel Dennett has championed the idea that the human survival strategy depends heavily on adoption of the intentional stance, a behavioral strategy that predicts the actions of others based on the expectation that they have a mind like one's own (see theory of mind). Mirror neurons in brain regions such as Broca's area may facilitate this behavioral strategy. The intentional stance, Dennett suggests, has proven so successful that people tend to apply it to all aspects of human experience, thus leading to animism and to other conceptualizations of soul. |
It seems to me that the concept of a soul is entirely spiritualist, and is central to woo of many kinds, from animism to formal religion. Because of its common conflation with consciousness, it's a rather tough nut to crack. But it's very important to exorcise this particular ancient spirit, if we want to have any discussion involving critical reasoning.
Rather than try to expound on some wonderful new hypothesis (and I have none), I'd like to throw the discussion open to the ideas of others.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/02/2009 05:37:12
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 09:07:13 [Permalink]
|
The best proofs I can see against this conflagration are in the many instance were conciousness is directly being affected by exterior factors.
Drugs as simple as antidepressant can change somebody's personality drastically, so can hormones and other factors of brain biochemistry. Damage to the brain (after a car accident and through a tumour) have also been reported to modify a person's personality/conciousness.
This all suggests that persona are very much grounded in the physical rather than a magical transcendental product. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 11:45:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
The best proofs I can see against this conflagration are in the many instance were conciousness is directly being affected by exterior factors.
Drugs as simple as antidepressant can change somebody's personality drastically, so can hormones and other factors of brain biochemistry. Damage to the brain (after a car accident and through a tumour) have also been reported to modify a person's personality/conciousness.
This all suggests that persona are very much grounded in the physical rather than a magical transcendental product.
|
I agree with all that.
What do you think of the importance of the issue of the soul in discussions with believers of all sorts? My impression is that this is an issue so basic that it often comes in under the radar. But soul belief seems to be universal among people, aside from most skeptical materialists. Should this matter be considered the primary ingredient of religion and spiritualism, and the primary impediment to rational discussion?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 12:13:41 [Permalink]
|
Well...
Most people are probably unaware of all the informations about the plasticity of conscience and/or do not think about it too much (maybe partly because the idea that their own personality could be flimsy makes people ill at ease).
On the other hand, the conflagration of conscience and soul is pretty prevalent in our society. I think, one could even consider the concept of 'soul' to be an early definition for the idea of conscience.
Of course, as you mentioned, there is also a very strong religious aspect to it. Rejecting the concept of souls means rejecting a central aspect of most religions, so rejecting the concept of soul automatically makes you in the minority of atheists. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 12:27:38 [Permalink]
|
Another thought, brought on by your last comments:
Many people go into automatic close-minded defensive mode whenever one attacks their cherished god(s).
Perhaps instead starting a discussion with the (relatively) innocuous and less emotionally charged issue of the existence or nonexistence of the soul would be a good opening move in an argument against religion, theism, or spiritualism. I can't recall seeing this tactic used by atheists, but it seems reasonable and possibly effective. If you cut the soul from their beliefs, all the rest, including their gods, should fall like flies.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/02/2009 12:28:31 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 13:02:47 [Permalink]
|
When I was in high school, the best argument I heard against the existence of souls was pertaining to certain forms of amnesia. I remember hearing about some young woman who (if I recall correctly) was in a car accident and suffered severe brain damage. She recovered physically, but with severe amnesia, and was unable to recall even her immediately family members. She accepted proof that they were her family, and moved back in with them while they cared for her, but she never regained her past memories.
But perhaps most astonishing was that she seemed like an entirely new person. Her family members reported that she didn't act like her old self. Her personality and tastes had changed. She liked different kinds of music. She even threw away all her old clothes because they no longer appealed to her sense of fashion and purchased an entirely new wardrobe. In short, she was so different from her old self that, aside from her physical appearance, she could be called a completely new person.
Most people conceive of souls as our "essential self," the part of us that makes us unique and individual--our consciousness, our memories and subjective inclinations. It is this part of us that is supposed to live on for eternity. But what is a religious person to make of someone like this woman? Where did her "original self" go? Did her old soul get knocked out of her body to be replaced by a new one? Was she "possessed?" I just couldn't find any theological explanation that made sense.
Some have responded by saying that she was still the same person in essence, and that the behavioral changes and changes to her sense of ascetics don't alter or affect that. But I reject this explanation. If we aren't the sum of our tastes, beliefs, and experience, then what are we? The explanation seems to be based on the same tortured logic that allows Catholics to maintain a belief in transubstantiation. The host remains physically the same, has all the same properties, yet Catholics insist that it has been transformed in essence--a nebulous concept that seems to exist apart from any perceived reality. The defense I heard for the existence of souls was just this same argument reversed. In the case of the host, it is outwardly the same while it's essence had changed. In the case of the woman, she was outwardly different while her essence had remained the same.
I just didn't buy it. It wasn't based on any sort of compelling logic, it was just a statement of faith with nothing to back it up. I decided that if our "souls" had nothing to do with who were are as people, then they weren't a very useful concept. My soul--if I had one--had nothing to do with me. And so even if my soul survived death, I wouldn't. Just my "essential essence" (whatever that was) would live on, and I can't say I found that remotely interesting.
So with even the paltry psychological comfort that religion supposedly provides gone, it didn't take long before I rejected the entire business as needless mental gymnastics that didn't provide any satisfying answers anyway.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/02/2009 13:05:27 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 14:32:51 [Permalink]
|
I haven't yet found any articles on the woman I was remembering (it was 15 years ago, at least), but I did find this news story about a woman, Emily Upp, who suffered from a rare form of amnesia called a Fugue state. Emily basically forgot who she was and lost a full three weeks of her life as she wandered (aimlessly?) about New York City. She eventually recovered her memories, but had absolutely no recollection of her "missing time."
| "It's weird," Upp said a few weeks ago over a cup of tea in a Hell's Kitchen café, the first time in the five months since her rescue that she had talked publicly about her experience. "How do you feel guilty for something you didn't even know you did? It's not your fault, but it's still somehow you. So it's definitely made me reconsider everything. Who was I before? Who was I then — is that part of me? Who am I now?" |
Indeed, who was that person wandering NYC if it wasn't Emily?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/02/2009 14:59:26 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 15:27:34 [Permalink]
|
| Yes, our conscience is much more thinner varnish than many people would feel comfortable thinking. Certainly not some monolithic 'soul' entity. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
| Edited by - Simon on 03/02/2009 15:29:33 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 15:42:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Yes, our conscience is much more thinner varnish than many people would feel comfortable thinking. Certainly not some monolithic 'soul' entity.
|
Gods, but does all that stuff (including H.H.'s stories) creep me out, even though I fancy myself a critical thinker. Truths about how our brains work are usually like that.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/02/2009 15:46:37 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 19:31:08 [Permalink]
|
It does for a lot of people, I think, and I sorta can see why... after all, it makes you wonder about your most precious thing, what is really you, and even if there, indeed, such a thing as you.
But then, here is my point, who cares?
Your self might just be the by-product of multiple neural processes coming together, a thin layer of interface on the top of much deeper neurochemistry.
But what does it change?
Your tastes, your likes and dislikes and your feelings are still real, as long as you still ressent them... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 21:13:11 [Permalink]
|
OK. Herein lies the basic problems.
1) Existentialism. To a point all religions require a modicum of existentialism to allow the suspension of rational belief (much like getting sucked into a movie by it's plot).
2) The soul construct is core to the belief systems. Attacking the core belief, while the most direct, is not likely to be effective as the person being lobbied will tend to discard as false the premise that there is no soul.
3) Proving a negative. While it is possible to prove that the probability of the existance of such a thing as a soul is extremely remote, you cannot prove empirically that such a thing does not exist.
4) Emotional and spiritual investment within the God(dess)/soul construct. Religion is mostly emotional and spiritual in nature. Appeals to straight logic gives highly probable suggestions that the God(dess)/soul construct is false. However, the adherent is emotionally and spiritually invested in those constructs. Movement over time is possible, but not immediate.
Just this lil ol' adherents $.02 ($.02 Canadian) worth. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2009 : 15:41:26 [Permalink]
|
| I think the primary purpose of belief in a soul is to provide an explanation of an afterlife or a reincarnation. If you don't believe in either of those things, what purpose does belief in a soul serve? |
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Soulful thoughts
