Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[psycho]

It seems that the idea of the 'soul' has been replaced by that of the 'self' in philosophy and psychology. This may be partly a reflection of the transition from religious thinking to secular humanism. However, as well as having a bearing on aspects of the philosophy of religion it is also an issue relating to the the way in which 'mind' is understood.

I was reading R Swinburne's entry in the 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy', which includes the following,
'The human soul is that which gives life to the human being. For Aristotle, the soul was simply the form of the body, i.e. the way the body behaved, and thus not capable of existing separate from it; plants and animals also had souls of their kinds.'
He also says,
'Most modern philosophers deny the existence of an immaterial soul.'

I find these considerations extremely difficult for thinking about the nature of life, consciousness and life and death. There may have been problems arising from seeing souls as immaterial as opposed to imminent or as a separate entity, and it may have led to the classic mind-body problem, as the concepts of soul and mind include a fuzzy overlap.

The idea is the self may be seen as being about subjectivity and the seat of consciousness. However, in a way it may be dismissive of the reality and importance of conscious experience, and the 'spark of consciousness'.

It also is important to consider that the idea of a soul may be applicable to animals and all living forms. This may also be applicable to issues of systems, including the ecosystem, with some nodding towards the concept of panpsychism in its soft form. It may be useful for thinking of the planet and the 'world soul', and James Lovelock's concept of Gaia may capture this. The idea of the soul may be important in issue of 'deep ecology' and respect for the 'sacred' aspects of 'nature' and what Fritjof Capra describes as 'the web of life'.

My own understanding of the soul, especially in its use amongst transpersonal writers, such as Thomas Moore, is that it gives value to the importance of the cultivation of the inner world, in his books, 'The Care of the Soul', and, 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. He is not necessarily speaking about the disembodied idea of the soul but about the value of inner aspects of questing. Within many philosophy discussions there often seems to be a tendency to try to pin down the nature of reality to appearances.

In understanding the experiential aspects of consciousness and the appreciation of the value of life, I see the idea of 'soul' as being a term which still has relevance. Of course, it is ambiguous, but so are the terms body, mind, self and consciousness. What do you think about the idea of soul as a concept and in relation to terms such as mind and self? Of course, some of it comes down to definitions but such words are important as tools for philosophical constructs. What are your thoughts? Also, if you are opposed to the notion of the soul, why?

For me, assuming the existence of the soul as a spiritual entity, independent of the physical world, that is not affected by time or space, that arises from a supernatural creation and is of a different substance from the rest of reality, is an idea Very harmful.

The idealistic interpretation of reality and the assumption that there are ideal beings is a heavy baggage that disorients and delays a clear view of reality.

The soul is not replaced by the self or consciousness. Those are different types of entities. Self and consciousness are processes in a physical entity. They are a part of an individual biological being.

In the case of the soul, it is neither affected by the circumstances of the world nor does it depend on the physical in any way, including its body.

In the case of the self or consciousness, the dependence on the world and the body is paramount.

Thinking that we are spirits results in a negative interpretation of our relationship with reality. It is easy to be indifferent to the physical. This is not useful to humanity.

My opinion is that the drive to understand the world is best oriented when one does not believe that one is a spirit soul.
All the learning, growing, cultural and social development, the gratification of being alive and experiencing this enormous puzzle, is not distracted by fanciful interpretations.

It does seem that people got carried away with belief in the soul and spirits in the past or possibly extremely confused. This was in certain ideas about the afterlife. In Christianity, there is a mixture of belief in an immortal soul derived from Plato and this was sometimes juxtaposed by the idea of a resurrection of the body at the end of the world. There was some uncertainty about whether the resurrection body is a physical or spiritual one. Some religions speak of the idea of the reincarnation of the soul, with periods in between in bardo, as dimensions of heavens and hells, such as in.'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'.

The belief in the concept of the soul was a way of thinking about such possibilities. While I keep a fairly open mind about the posibilitities of some form of existence beyond this life, to some extent, the various forms of such lives and the eternal soul may be symbolic of the continuity of life in the grand picture.

It does seem that the dogmatic teaching of the soul was used and abused to the point where this life was not seen as important. It was possible or permissible to see the physical body and the natural world as less important than the physical. It may have contributed to the current ecological crisis and have been used to justify inequalities on the basis that it would all be rectified in a future afterlife. Of course, belief that there is no soul or spirit can be abused too with people and living beings being seen as equal to objects rather than being seen as having any 'sacred' value. It is not as if materialism will translate into a basis for ethics automatically. In this sense, it may not be belief in or lack of belief in the concept of a soul may be applied to a picture of how one should live in various, arbitrary ways in religious and secular philosophies.

It is my impression that idealism does not exist without the idea of the soul.

In my opinion, since the mind is a functioning human brain, for the brain to disintegrate means that the mind disintegrates together.

The common idea of the "soul" is that of a spiritual being that lacks all the characteristics of physical things.

By definition, the soul is an untenable concept that only derives from the subjective interpretation of consciousness.

[Belindi]

It depends on the context. Sometimes soul means immortal soul. Sometimes soul means an individual. Sometimes soul means an individual who should be pitied or aided.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is easy to be indifferent to the physical. This is not useful to humanity.

It is easy to be indifferent to the mental, and the spiritual too. This is not useful to humanity.

What would it be like to be indifferent to the mental?

You ask me that question? Many of your posts seem to reflect a physicalist-only view of reality. By "physicalist" I mean non-mental, and non-spiritual too, as well as a focus that looks only upon the physical. I can only imagine an answer to your question, as it is not a mental () position that I occupy. Not even close.

[Pattern-chaser]

The common idea of the "soul" is that of a spiritual being that lacks all the characteristics of physical things.

And yet, the "common idea" of the soul is also of something that is an intimate and indivisible part of the human being, at least for the lifetime of their physical body? I think it's important to remember, here, that body, mind, and soul are all one, and not in any sense separate or independent things that are merely, er, associated.

[psycho]

You ask me that question? Many of your posts seem to reflect a physicalist-only view of reality. By "physicalist" I mean non-mental, and non-spiritual too, as well as a focus that looks only upon the physical. I can only imagine an answer to your question, as it is not a mental () position that I occupy. Not even close.

It is not possible to be indifferent to the mental. In any kind of interpretation.

And yet, the "common idea" of the soul is also of something that is an intimate and indivisible part of the human being, at least for the lifetime of their physical body? I think it's important to remember, here, that body, mind, and soul are all one, and not in any sense separate or independent things that are merely, er, associated.

A common part of life for individuals is that the sun rises each morning and sweeps across the sky until it sets at sunset.

But that is just an intuitive interpretation that does not correspond to reality.

[JackDaydream]

It depends on the context. Sometimes soul means immortal soul. Sometimes soul means an individual. Sometimes soul means an individual who should be pitied or aided.

It definitely makes a difference how the soul is understood, whether it is immortal or a way of seeing a person. It may be important as a basis of compassion for another or for other sentient beings in the latter sense, whether taken as a metaphorical construct or as something more.

In philosophy it is probably more a question of what is a soul? This is bound up with the question of whether it is immortal. The idea of a literal soul goes back to Plato's, 'Phaedo' and, taken in the most literal way as a life of disembodied existence until the end of the world. I remember having a philosophy tutor who maintained that.

Some other thinkers hold onto belief in the soul as being a basis for forms of existence, as if the consciousness which is emergent in the physical dimension itself.
I have met a few Buddhists who don't believe that there is a literal reincarnation but that the lives of present beings influence the future forms. There are also various ideas about the connections between living souls, even the idea of 'soul mates' and a 'soul contract' prior to birth. These often go into the territory of 'new age' thinking though and may be believed, are often hard to back up with evidence, with the stories of past life memories being as far as such empirical validation can go.

[JackDaydream]

It seems that the idea of the 'soul' has been replaced by that of the 'self' in philosophy and psychology. This may be partly a reflection of the transition from religious thinking to secular humanism. However, as well as having a bearing on aspects of the philosophy of religion it is also an issue relating to the the way in which 'mind' is understood.

I was reading R Swinburne's entry in the 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy', which includes the following,
'The human soul is that which gives life to the human being. For Aristotle, the soul was simply the form of the body, i.e. the way the body behaved, and thus not capable of existing separate from it; plants and animals also had souls of their kinds.'
He also says,
'Most modern philosophers deny the existence of an immaterial soul.'

I find these considerations extremely difficult for thinking about the nature of life, consciousness and life and death. There may have been problems arising from seeing souls as immaterial as opposed to imminent or as a separate entity, and it may have led to the classic mind-body problem, as the concepts of soul and mind include a fuzzy overlap.

The idea is the self may be seen as being about subjectivity and the seat of consciousness. However, in a way it may be dismissive of the reality and importance of conscious experience, and the 'spark of consciousness'.

It also is important to consider that the idea of a soul may be applicable to animals and all living forms. This may also be applicable to issues of systems, including the ecosystem, with some nodding towards the concept of panpsychism in its soft form. It may be useful for thinking of the planet and the 'world soul', and James Lovelock's concept of Gaia may capture this. The idea of the soul may be important in issue of 'deep ecology' and respect for the 'sacred' aspects of 'nature' and what Fritjof Capra describes as 'the web of life'.

My own understanding of the soul, especially in its use amongst transpersonal writers, such as Thomas Moore, is that it gives value to the importance of the cultivation of the inner world, in his books, 'The Care of the Soul', and, 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. He is not necessarily speaking about the disembodied idea of the soul but about the value of inner aspects of questing. Within many philosophy discussions there often seems to be a tendency to try to pin down the nature of reality to appearances.

In understanding the experiential aspects of consciousness and the appreciation of the value of life, I see the idea of 'soul' as being a term which still has relevance. Of course, it is ambiguous, but so are the terms body, mind, self and consciousness. What do you think about the idea of soul as a concept and in relation to terms such as mind and self? Of course, some of it comes down to definitions but such words are important as tools for philosophical constructs. What are your thoughts? Also, if you are opposed to the notion of the soul, why?

For me, assuming the existence of the soul as a spiritual entity, independent of the physical world, that is not affected by time or space, that arises from a supernatural creation and is of a different substance from the rest of reality, is an idea Very harmful.

The idealistic interpretation of reality and the assumption that there are ideal beings is a heavy baggage that disorients and delays a clear view of reality.

The soul is not replaced by the self or consciousness. Those are different types of entities. Self and consciousness are processes in a physical entity. They are a part of an individual biological being.

In the case of the soul, it is neither affected by the circumstances of the world nor does it depend on the physical in any way, including its body.

In the case of the self or consciousness, the dependence on the world and the body is paramount.

Thinking that we are spirits results in a negative interpretation of our relationship with reality. It is easy to be indifferent to the physical. This is not useful to humanity.

My opinion is that the drive to understand the world is best oriented when one does not believe that one is a spirit soul.
All the learning, growing, cultural and social development, the gratification of being alive and experiencing this enormous puzzle, is not distracted by fanciful interpretations.

It does seem that people got carried away with belief in the soul and spirits in the past or possibly extremely confused. This was in certain ideas about the afterlife. In Christianity, there is a mixture of belief in an immortal soul derived from Plato and this was sometimes juxtaposed by the idea of a resurrection of the body at the end of the world. There was some uncertainty about whether the resurrection body is a physical or spiritual one. Some religions speak of the idea of the reincarnation of the soul, with periods in between in bardo, as dimensions of heavens and hells, such as in.'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'.

The belief in the concept of the soul was a way of thinking about such possibilities. While I keep a fairly open mind about the posibilitities of some form of existence beyond this life, to some extent, the various forms of such lives and the eternal soul may be symbolic of the continuity of life in the grand picture.

It does seem that the dogmatic teaching of the soul was used and abused to the point where this life was not seen as important. It was possible or permissible to see the physical body and the natural world as less important than the physical. It may have contributed to the current ecological crisis and have been used to justify inequalities on the basis that it would all be rectified in a future afterlife. Of course, belief that there is no soul or spirit can be abused too with people and living beings being seen as equal to objects rather than being seen as having any 'sacred' value. It is not as if materialism will translate into a basis for ethics automatically. In this sense, it may not be belief in or lack of belief in the concept of a soul may be applied to a picture of how one should live in various, arbitrary ways in religious and secular philosophies.

It is my impression that idealism does not exist without the idea of the soul.

In my opinion, since the mind is a functioning human brain, for the brain to disintegrate means that the mind disintegrates together.

The common idea of the "soul" is that of a spiritual being that lacks all the characteristics of physical things.

By definition, the soul is an untenable concept that only derives from the subjective interpretation of consciousness.

Yes, it does seem that the idea of the soul is connected to a basis for idealism. Also, it is often linked to more esoteric systems of thought, ranging from Hinduism to the development of theosophy in the West.

I am not sure what it would mean for the 'mind' to disintegrate at death and whether that would mean that it vanishes. Even amongst those who believe that death is the ultimate end it is unknown at what point all consciousness exists and whether this is at brain death itself. To think that this would be the point would signify that consciousness is located in the brain rather than distributed throughout the body, including the heart. Of course, the death of the body occurs in gradual way with the death of significant organs. Also, there may be disintegration of the mind in times leading up to death, such as the loss of memory in forms of dementia.

Even within Eastern thought there are a mixture of views. Apart from the idea of reincarnation there is the concept of Nirvana, which means 'snuffing out', like blowing out a candle. I have heard discussion as to whether this is a permanent or temporary process of departure from the wheel of rebirth.

Some thinkers in the East and West have suggested that people's souls live on in the evolutionary process, such as in becoming spiritual beings, such as Ascended Masters. This would include Jesus, the Buddha and St Germain. Within esoteric Christianity, there is the idea that the risen Christ who appeared after the resurrection there is the idea that Christ appeared in that kind of body before ascending into heaven.

As for the idea of the soul being an untenable concept, even the idea of the mind and self are open to question. Dennett and the behaviorist, BF Skinner, have seen consciousness as an illusion, even though most people think that they have a mind. Even the idea of the self, which is viewed to be the starting point of subjective awareness is open to query, but this may be about it as a process rather than an entity and it is possible to see the concepts of mind and soul as processes too.

[JackDaydream]

I see the soul as a collection of particular attributes. The kind of being you are. I don't think these traits persist after death but similar collections of traits will be found in others, but obviously not exactly the same. Those differences hardly seems an issue since there are many adults alive who have more in common with me today that I have in common with my child self. Even those who claim reincarnation don't posit that the reincarnation will be exactly the same.

Moral of the story is to not get too attached to what you are, because that configuration will surely die, either in your lifetime or at its conclusion.

It does seem that there is a lot in common amongst individuals and this may be due to the basic aspects of what a human being is. In some ways, each person is unique and part of the collective blueprint of being a human being. Attachment to other people, material objects, one's own body and to anything is problematic as nothing is permanent.

One idea which I have come across is the idea that homosexuality and transsexualism occur because people have experienced of different lives in both genders. That would mean that the soul itself is not any specific gender but has trace memories from previous lives, based on attachments in a former lifetime. Some have argued that ties between individuals go back to previous lifetimes at the level of soul connections. I have met people who view some of their relationships, especially ones in the family, in such a way. If I think about my own family experience, I would probably say that it would probably be my mother who I would see as the one who stands out in that way, but this may be down to me being an only child. It is hard to know how much is flights of fantasy.

[psycho]

For me, assuming the existence of the soul as a spiritual entity, independent of the physical world, that is not affected by time or space, that arises from a supernatural creation and is of a different substance from the rest of reality, is an idea Very harmful.

The idealistic interpretation of reality and the assumption that there are ideal beings is a heavy baggage that disorients and delays a clear view of reality.

The soul is not replaced by the self or consciousness. Those are different types of entities. Self and consciousness are processes in a physical entity. They are a part of an individual biological being.

In the case of the soul, it is neither affected by the circumstances of the world nor does it depend on the physical in any way, including its body.

In the case of the self or consciousness, the dependence on the world and the body is paramount.

Thinking that we are spirits results in a negative interpretation of our relationship with reality. It is easy to be indifferent to the physical. This is not useful to humanity.

My opinion is that the drive to understand the world is best oriented when one does not believe that one is a spirit soul.
All the learning, growing, cultural and social development, the gratification of being alive and experiencing this enormous puzzle, is not distracted by fanciful interpretations.

It does seem that people got carried away with belief in the soul and spirits in the past or possibly extremely confused. This was in certain ideas about the afterlife. In Christianity, there is a mixture of belief in an immortal soul derived from Plato and this was sometimes juxtaposed by the idea of a resurrection of the body at the end of the world. There was some uncertainty about whether the resurrection body is a physical or spiritual one. Some religions speak of the idea of the reincarnation of the soul, with periods in between in bardo, as dimensions of heavens and hells, such as in.'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'.

The belief in the concept of the soul was a way of thinking about such possibilities. While I keep a fairly open mind about the posibilitities of some form of existence beyond this life, to some extent, the various forms of such lives and the eternal soul may be symbolic of the continuity of life in the grand picture.

It does seem that the dogmatic teaching of the soul was used and abused to the point where this life was not seen as important. It was possible or permissible to see the physical body and the natural world as less important than the physical. It may have contributed to the current ecological crisis and have been used to justify inequalities on the basis that it would all be rectified in a future afterlife. Of course, belief that there is no soul or spirit can be abused too with people and living beings being seen as equal to objects rather than being seen as having any 'sacred' value. It is not as if materialism will translate into a basis for ethics automatically. In this sense, it may not be belief in or lack of belief in the concept of a soul may be applied to a picture of how one should live in various, arbitrary ways in religious and secular philosophies.

It is my impression that idealism does not exist without the idea of the soul.

In my opinion, since the mind is a functioning human brain, for the brain to disintegrate means that the mind disintegrates together.

The common idea of the "soul" is that of a spiritual being that lacks all the characteristics of physical things.

By definition, the soul is an untenable concept that only derives from the subjective interpretation of consciousness.

Yes, it does seem that the idea of the soul is connected to a basis for idealism. Also, it is often linked to more esoteric systems of thought, ranging from Hinduism to the development of theosophy in the West.

I am not sure what it would mean for the 'mind' to disintegrate at death and whether that would mean that it vanishes. Even amongst those who believe that death is the ultimate end it is unknown at what point all consciousness exists and whether this is at brain death itself. To think that this would be the point would signify that consciousness is located in the brain rather than distributed throughout the body, including the heart. Of course, the death of the body occurs in gradual way with the death of significant organs. Also, there may be disintegration of the mind in times leading up to death, such as the loss of memory in forms of dementia.

Even within Eastern thought there are a mixture of views. Apart from the idea of reincarnation there is the concept of Nirvana, which means 'snuffing out', like blowing out a candle. I have heard discussion as to whether this is a permanent or temporary process of departure from the wheel of rebirth.

Some thinkers in the East and West have suggested that people's souls live on in the evolutionary process, such as in becoming spiritual beings, such as Ascended Masters. This would include Jesus, the Buddha and St Germain. Within esoteric Christianity, there is the idea that the risen Christ who appeared after the resurrection there is the idea that Christ appeared in that kind of body before ascending into heaven.

As for the idea of the soul being an untenable concept, even the idea of the mind and self are open to question. Dennett and the behaviorist, BF Skinner, have seen consciousness as an illusion, even though most people think that they have a mind. Even the idea of the self, which is viewed to be the starting point of subjective awareness is open to query, but this may be about it as a process rather than an entity and it is possible to see the concepts of mind and soul as processes too.

Even before death, there is destruction of the brain in accidents, degenerative diseases, etc. In all cases the causal relationship between the neurological system and the mind can be seen. The destruction of the neurological system results in the destruction of the mind.

Consciousness is one of the modes of functioning of the brain. The one in which the data from the environment, the neural connection that corresponds to what is perceived and the physiological reactions that correspond according to the structure of the individual and according to previous experiences are superimposed in real time.

All this only happens in the brain and is completely dependent on that neurological structure.

The corruption of that structure means the impossibility for these processes to occur.

I do not find good reasons to consider the possibility of the existence of spiritual planes and their implications.

What is the structure of the soul? Where does the soul keep what it has learned? What changes in the soul? In which part of the soul does this evolution occur? How is it that the soul, of a nature other than the mundane, the opposite of the impermanent of physical reality, evolves?

There is a problem with concepts with interchangeable definitions.

Saying that consciousness is an illusion must be preceded by a clarification of what kind of consciousness one is referring to.

It is logical that people think that they have a mind. If mind is an activity of the brain, when one thinks one cannot think that one has not thought.

It is a different thing to think that consciousness is the subjective experience of the "I" and not what is experienced. This is complicated but I suppose it would be a little clearer if you yourself tried to see if, when you refer to experiencing your "I", you are experiencing the "I" or something other than that "I".

[Gertie]

It seems that the idea of the 'soul' has been replaced by that of the 'self' in philosophy and psychology. This may be partly a reflection of the transition from religious thinking to secular humanism. However, as well as having a bearing on aspects of the philosophy of religion it is also an issue relating to the the way in which 'mind' is understood.

I was reading R Swinburne's entry in the 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy', which includes the following,
'The human soul is that which gives life to the human being. For Aristotle, the soul was simply the form of the body, i.e. the way the body behaved, and thus not capable of existing separate from it; plants and animals also had souls of their kinds.'
He also says,
'Most modern philosophers deny the existence of an immaterial soul.'

I find these considerations extremely difficult for thinking about the nature of life, consciousness and life and death. There may have been problems arising from seeing souls as immaterial as opposed to imminent or as a separate entity, and it may have led to the classic mind-body problem, as the concepts of soul and mind include a fuzzy overlap.

The idea is the self may be seen as being about subjectivity and the seat of consciousness. However, in a way it may be dismissive of the reality and importance of conscious experience, and the 'spark of consciousness'.

It also is important to consider that the idea of a soul may be applicable to animals and all living forms. This may also be applicable to issues of systems, including the ecosystem, with some nodding towards the concept of panpsychism in its soft form. It may be useful for thinking of the planet and the 'world soul', and James Lovelock's concept of Gaia may capture this. The idea of the soul may be important in issue of 'deep ecology' and respect for the 'sacred' aspects of 'nature' and what Fritjof Capra describes as 'the web of life'.

My own understanding of the soul, especially in its use amongst transpersonal writers, such as Thomas Moore, is that it gives value to the importance of the cultivation of the inner world, in his books, 'The Care of the Soul', and, 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. He is not necessarily speaking about the disembodied idea of the soul but about the value of inner aspects of questing. Within many philosophy discussions there often seems to be a tendency to try to pin down the nature of reality to appearances.

In understanding the experiential aspects of consciousness and the appreciation of the value of life, I see the idea of 'soul' as being a term which still has relevance. Of course, it is ambiguous, but so are the terms body, mind, self and consciousness. What do you think about the idea of soul as a concept and in relation to terms such as mind and self? Of course, some of it comes down to definitions but such words are important as tools for philosophical constructs. What are your thoughts? Also, if you are opposed to the notion of the soul, why?

I think it's a word which carries unnecessary baggage because it's associated with a religious view as somehow connected with god and eternal life. So I don't use it, because I don't believe that.

I don't think we need a special word to understand the meaning and importance of being an experiencing subject. It's what brings meaning, purpose, value, interests, mattering, morality and everything worth having into the universe. In my view, if we could concentrate on that a bit more, our shared humanity, we might do a bit better at being humans in this world. And treat other experiencing species better too, based on what we can scientifically understand about what it means to be them, rather than worrying about whether they have god-given souls.

There are potential pros and cons associated with serious belief in an afterlife with an immortal soul which will be judged according to some religious teaching. It can bring hope and comfort, and motivate believers to do good. But it can also motivate people to do awful things, with little concerns for consequences in this world. A lot of that is down to the individual, and the culture I think. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing, it can be both. I wouldn't want to take the good stuff away from people who benefit from it, but I def wouldn't want to live in a theocracy - the public square should be run on a secular basis.

[Sy Borg]

I see the soul as a collection of particular attributes. The kind of being you are. I don't think these traits persist after death but similar collections of traits will be found in others, but obviously not exactly the same. Those differences hardly seems an issue since there are many adults alive who have more in common with me today that I have in common with my child self. Even those who claim reincarnation don't posit that the reincarnation will be exactly the same.

Moral of the story is to not get too attached to what you are, because that configuration will surely die, either in your lifetime or at its conclusion.

It does seem that there is a lot in common amongst individuals and this may be due to the basic aspects of what a human being is. In some ways, each person is unique and part of the collective blueprint of being a human being. Attachment to other people, material objects, one's own body and to anything is problematic as nothing is permanent.

The commonality is, in part, being human, but it's mostly just natural variation. Some people will be more alike than others and some, by small chance, will be remarkably alike. I worked in personnel for a long time and met many, many people. Every now and then you would run into someone who would be remarkably like someone you know, to the point where it can be difficult at first not to treat them like that other person.

Out of eight billion, chances are that we all have some mental "clones" somewhere.

One idea which I have come across is the idea that homosexuality and transsexualism occur because people have experienced of different lives in both genders. That would mean that the soul itself is not any specific gender but has trace memories from previous lives, based on attachments in a former lifetime. Some have argued that ties between individuals go back to previous lifetimes at the level of soul connections. I have met people who view some of their relationships, especially ones in the family, in such a way. If I think about my own family experience, I would probably say that it would probably be my mother who I would see as the one who stands out in that way, but this may be down to me being an only child. It is hard to know how much is flights of fantasy.

How would that work? Do we exist in a dimension that we didn't know existed? It's speculative. I would not even bet my car on that, let alone my life, and I drive an ancient Corolla from the 20th century.

[Consul]

The concept of a soul has gone a long way from being used to refer to a kind of material thing or stuff that is both spatially extended and spatially located, to being used to refer to a totally immaterial thing (substance) that is both spatially unextended and spatially unlocated (= Cartesian souls).

"Like many (or indeed all) sixth and fifth century thinkers who expressed views on the nature or or constitution of the soul, Heraclitus thought that the soul was bodily, but composed of an unusually fine or rare kind of matter, e.g. air or fire. (A possible exception is the Pythagorean Philolaus, who may have held that the soul is an 'attunement' of the body.) The prevalence of the idea that the soul is bodily explains the absence of problems about the relation between soul and body. Soul and body were not thought to be radically different in kind; their difference seemed just to consist in a difference in degree of properties such as fineness and mobility.
…
Coming from the theories of Plato and Aristotle, the first thing that might strike us about the theories of soul adopted by the two dominant Hellenistic schools, Epicurus' Garden and the Stoa, is the doctrine, shared by both, that the soul is corporeal. A number of Stoic arguments for the claim that the soul is a body have come down to us (see Annas 1992, 39-41). The best one of these is that the soul is a body because (roughly) only bodies affect one another, and soul and body do affect one another, for instance in cases of bodily damage and emotion. Epicurus employs the same argument in his Letter to Herodotus, which provides an outline of his physical doctrines (Long & Sedley 1987 [in what follows L&S] 14A7). In a way that reminds one of Presocratic theories, both Epicurus and the Stoics hold that the soul is a particularly fine kind of body, diffused all the way through the perceptible (flesh-and-blood) body of the animate organism. As if echoing the view of the soul that Simmias in the Phaedo presents as the majority view, Epicurus thinks that the soul is dispersed at death along with its constituent atoms, losing the powers that it has while it is contained by the body of the organism that it ensouls (L&S 14A6).
…
Epicurus is an atomist, and in accordance with his atomism he takes the soul, like everything else that there is except for the void, to be ultimately composed of atoms. Our sources are somewhat unclear as to exactly which kinds of materials he took to be involved in the composition of soul. It is very probable, though, that in addition to some relatively familiar materials—such as fire-like and wind-like stuffs, or rather the atoms making up such stuffs —the soul, on Epicurus' view, also includes, in fact as a key ingredient, atoms of a nameless kind of substance, which is responsible for sense-perception.
...
Stoic physics allows for three different kinds of pneuma (lit. ‘breath’), a breath-like material compound of two of the four Stoic elements, fire and air."

Ancient Theories of Soul: http: //plato.stanford. edu/entries/ancient-soul/

[Gertie]

Jack

As for the idea of the soul being an untenable concept, even the idea of the mind and self are open to question. Dennett and the behaviorist, BF Skinner, have seen consciousness as an illusion, even though most people think that they have a mind. Even the idea of the self, which is viewed to be the starting point of subjective awareness is open to query, but this may be about it as a process rather than an entity and it is possible to see the concepts of mind and soul as processes too.

Dennett dazzles with convoluted dancing around his flashy claims. Ultimately he relies on functionalism, which doesn't address whether conscious experience is 'real' vs an 'illusion', but that doesn't sell books because most people would agree conscious experience is not a perfect representation of reality. The 'user interface' analogy works well enough, but it dodges the Hard Question while pretending to make it dissolve by being ambiguous.

I think he's right about dismissing the notion of the Cartesian Theatre tho, with 'the self' as a mini me watching it all play out and issuing commands. It seems more likely to me that a sense of being a unified self emerges from the mechanisms which filter and focus the cacophany of input to create a coherent, unified field of consciousness. That's Me, I think. Which manifests as an embodied agent with a first person pov, located in specific space and time, navigating the world 'out there'. An ongoing, moment to moment process, with a backstory and congruent thread of identity. Where the priority is utility and coherence, with built-in 'good enough' short cuts. So whatever my conscious experience is up to at any given time, is Me.

Neural correlation strongly suggests that when my physical brain processes cease, so does my experience. All the empirical evidence points that way too. And that's a tough thing to contemplate, for yourself and your loved ones. So it's not hard to see the motivation for believing we somehow go on, in some idealised form without the mundane irritations and suffering of being a physical human. Who knows, maybe, but it seems a lot like wishful thinking. And if the people you hate get to burn for eternity, well that's divine justice innit.

If there is 'something' after death, panpsychism looks like a contender. A reincarnation of sorts, but not as this Me - my proto-sentient particles will be scattered and might end up in worms or tree roots, stream sedimentation, star dust - nothing like the human Me.

[Sy Borg]

When it comes down to it, we are a highly integrated system of microbial communities, consisting of myriad types of cells, bacteria, fungi and even some archaea.

We are each a little world, within the larger world of humanity, which is within the larger world of biology, which is within, well, the world. What I wonder is, if we are worlds within ourselves and we are conscious, and we exist as merely a system of the world, akin to the Earth's cortex, well, the Earth is logically far more sentient than any human individual.

When we die, we return to the Earth. Thus, we remain within this larger conscious entity, so in that sense we do not die. However, I doubt that our sense of identity continues after death, that "souls" are immortal beyond collections of qualities sometimes being reiterated. Since one's sense of identity can be destroyed by much less damage than death, eg. brain damage, I can't see a great future for the dead, other than as memories, fossils and compost - which perhaps not such a bad fate, to help future life.

[Belindi]

When it comes down to it, we are a highly integrated system of microbial communities, consisting of myriad types of cells, bacteria, fungi and even some archaea.

We are each a little world, within the larger world of humanity, which is within the larger world of biology, which is within, well, the world. What I wonder is, if we are worlds within ourselves and we are conscious, and we exist as merely a system of the world, akin to the Earth's cortex, well, the Earth is logically far more sentient than any human individual.

When we die, we return to the Earth. Thus, we remain within this larger conscious entity, so in that sense we do not die. However, I doubt that our sense of identity continues after death, that "souls" are immortal beyond collections of qualities sometimes being reiterated. Since one's sense of identity can be destroyed by much less damage than death, eg. brain damage, I can't see a great future for the dead, other than as memories, fossils and compost - which perhaps not such a bad fate, to help future life.

Do large communities of organisms such as living animals have more claim to being souls while the communities are alive? I mean "more claim" than for instance one liver cell within the community of living organisms.

The sense of self or identifying as a self may be an aberration that religious mystics and virgin forests don't have. Does a peak experience include loss of sense of self?


Does a living organism for instance a virgin forest on Earth have more merit as a soul than a range of mountains on Mars?