Do you believe Animals have souls?

[Leosam096]

I Don't know if this is the correct section to put this thread.

Do you believe an animal has a soul?
What are you thoughts?

cheers!

[Neo]

I think something like this was brought not to long ago, it was a pretty interesting thread.

Personally? I believe that animals have souls... Do I believe every animal has a soul? I don't know. Do fish? Do insects? Do Mice?

A more interesting topic might be "do animals have feelings" since you can actually observe animals for that, but I don't think anyones ever seen a soul period.

Oh well. The reason I believe animals have souls is because of the attachment that people can create between themselves and their beloved animals -- and even after the passing of the animal some feel as if they are being visited by them (a stray breath, a dream, a comforting presence, etc...)

But I suppose now I am just moving right into metaphysics O_o

-Neo

[ScottieIWU]

But I suppose now I am just moving right into metaphysicsSouls are inherently metaphysical. The old thread, by the way, was about what separates animals from humans and it was brought up that the soul does.

I think a better question to begin with is simply does the soul exist? We cannot test so before asking if animals have souls it's almost requisite to ask if the soul is anything more than a concept that people created.

[Neo]

Souls are inherently metaphysical. The old thread, by the way, was about what separates animals from humans and it was brought up that the soul does.

Thats right, I was trying to remember specifically how that thread started... I think there might have even been an older thread on a similar topic.

I think a better question to begin with is simply does the soul exist? We cannot test so before asking if animals have souls it's almost requisite to ask if the soul is anything more than a concept that people created.
Isn't that why the concept of a soul (period) is considered metaphysical? And if souls do exist, do they only exist as part of the physical body, or are they a non-corporeal 'extension' of our being?

-Neo

[gatchaman]

I would assume the soul is just another attempt at human beings analysis of life. They feel something, something powerful, either caused by strong thought or sensation, and are moved to deduce a definition to 'better' understand it. Though, I believe defining it brings us no closer to the truth of the matter, in fact--putting the feeling into words distracts human being from the feeling.


Personally? I believe that animals have souls... Do I believe every animal has a soul? I don't know. Do fish? Do insects? Do Mice?

A more interesting topic might be "do animals have feelings" since you can actually observe animals for that, but I don't think anyones ever seen a soul period.

Oh well. The reason I believe animals have souls is because of the attachment that people can create between themselves and their beloved animals -- and even after the passing of the animal some feel as if they are being visited by them (a stray breath, a dream, a comforting presence, etc...)

An attachment? Well, truly, I can and have on several occasions made a loving attachment to plants and water. Not to say that disproves a soul's presence, but rather to point out the many facetts of life.

Neo, what do you mean by feeling? If you mean emotion--sure; if you mean sensation--of course.

If a soul were true I'm sure every life would be apart of one--in that all life "feels" in every way imaginable to us. All non-life, may feel also...I'm still thinking about this, though.

[Neo]

I would assume the soul is just another attempt at human beings analysis of life. They feel something, something powerful, either caused by strong thought or sensation, and are moved to deduce a definition to 'better' understand it. Though, I believe defining it brings us no closer to the truth of the matter, in fact--putting the feeling into words distracts human being from the feeling.



An attachment? Well, truly, I can and have on several occasions made a loving attachment to plants and water. Not to say that disproves a soul's presence, but rather to point out the many facetts of life.

Neo, what do you mean by feeling? If you mean emotion--sure; if you mean sensation--of course.

If a soul were true I'm sure every life would be apart of one--in that all life "feels" in every way imaginable to us. All non-life, may feel also...I'm still thinking about this, though.
I don't mean to sound harsh here -- but I've found that attachments that one feels for an animal friend in their life are as strong or stronger then any other attachments one might feel. Who knows, maybe my Aunt is just imagining her dog visiting her, but theres always a chance -- no matter how small.

Do you mean my question "do animals have feelings"? I think I meant to say emotions... I know my dog certainly feels emotions! Do cats? Sure. Do birds? well... maybe. Do snakes? (no idea) Do Insects? Eh, probably not. Do small rodents/Small animals like mice? Maybe, but then again, some seem little above insects in that most of their behavior is instinctual.

Thats another thing;

Can animals choose between insticts and feelings?

-Neo

[Dark_Magneto]

First thing we'd have to do is establish that this thing called a 'soul' actually does exist.

The fact that there is no corroborative evidence supporting this assertion is highly suspect. Since the claim arrived independent of the evidence, it demonstrates that it was not a product of it - which means that people made it up.

[Neo]

First thing we'd have to do is establish that this thing called a 'soul' actually does exist.

The fact that there is no corroborative evidence supporting this assertion is highly suspect. Since the claim arrived independent of the evidence, it demonstrates that it was not a product of it - which means that people made it up.
Isn't that why souls are considered a metaphysical topic?

People have faith in their religon, and thus, believe their god to be real. I have faith in my belief that we are something more then just a corporeal shell.

-Neo

[Weltall]

A soul is what makes my feelings not yours. A soul is basically the same thing as feeling, but the soul makes the feeling my feeling. Without a soul, what would stop me from feeling what you feel right now? Or everyone feeling what everyone else? A soul is basically my existance. It is feeling. It is what we are...

I don't know much about the specifics, sadly.

The argument that non-human animals don't have souls is pathetic. It's an argument totally based on a self-centered personality, meaning there's no other reason for it. Solipsism would be a much better argument.

[wa123]

I believe there are soul inside a forest, not sure where those souls belong to, may b to the trees, the plant or the animal...

have u wonder why wolf roar during full moon? where is all the black cat superedition come from? why dog roar like wolf when ambulance drive pass? what cause spider write english letter on the web...etc... are these somehow related to souls? I dunno...

Animal got a life, if souls exist in human, then it should exist fot animal as well.

I voted not sure.

[Modred]

Without a soul, what would stop me from feeling what you feel right now? Or everyone feeling what everyone else?
Physical proximity in combination with consciousness. If my consciousness does not extend into your being, then I cannot feel what you feel because I am not conscious of it. The soul has nothing to do with the equation.

what cause spider write english letter on the web
psst...that was a book...and later movie...Charlotte's Web....i.e: not reality...

Do animals have souls? If you mean souls in the sense of Christian souls, then I would say no. Some intuition of mine tells me that a soul, in the Christian sense, is tied to sin and redemption, and as far as I know, animals do not go through this process. However, if you simply ask if I believe animals have spirits, then I would say they do. As to what is in these spirits or what happens to them when the animal dies, I have no idea.

Assuming the existence of souls, I'm much more concerned with my own than an animal's.

[Weltall]

Physical proximity in combination with consciousness. If my consciousness does not extend into your being, then I cannot feel what you feel because I am not conscious of it. The soul has nothing to do with the equation. Yeah, well you'll never have anything on me.
I'm tired of arguing with people about consciousness actually being physical matter, which is what you're saying believe it or not.

Although feeling seems to be dependent on matter in a certain proximity, that doesn't at all argue what I said. If anything it helps it, probably, but I doubt it does anything to it since we don't understand how it works anyway.


Look, what you just said can confirm what I just said if you agree that life isn't a physical thing. The fact that we only feel feelings based on matter in certain proximities probably means that we do have a soul. A soul is an existence, an entity, something that separates us from others. If we didn't have an entity separate from others, then we may feel other's feelings.

Feelings are just feelings everyone. We need a soul. The feelings need a bound by a soul to actually become our feelings or even become feelings at all for that matter. In order for feelings to exist, someone must be them. Feeling and the synonyms for it are the only words in the English language which describe life. Feelings are life. Look, I'm not making sense with the whole feelings are just feelings without a soul, because they aren't, really. That was just a figure of speech.
Feeling implies at least one life, though. Feeling implies attachment to the person who is the feeling, to the person that is alive.

It's like this. Gatchaman feels one feeling. I feel a feeling that seems the same way. Where's the difference? It's because the feeling is alive. My feeling is not Gatchaman's. It is my own. It is my soul. It is different from everyone else's because it is a different soul.

It goes like this, you get two skittles with exactly the same physical composition. Are they the same? No, because there are two of them. They each exist separately from each other. The same thing goes for souls. I could feel the same thing as Gatchaman, but we would not be the same. We would each have our own entity.



I use a rather loose definition of the word soul. But the word is a loose word.

If you give me some "Christian" respones, I could care less about arguing with you after this.
Jesus may dislike you for degrading animals like that. He really was the environmentalist, you know. Christians are screwing up happiness. Jesus fucked up worse than any other man in history, if he even was one man.

[wa123]

psst...that was a book...and later movie...Charlotte's Web....i.e: not reality...
.

Dude, you need to observe a little bit more, I saw one with my bear eye, I found this spider on the web in my garden, I was about to kill it with insect spry, but I freaken saw there is English letter on the web, I scary that was some kind of sprite spider, I have to leave the spider to go away.

[Modred]

I'm tired of arguing with people about consciousness actually being physical matter, which is what you're saying believe it or not.
The point is it doesn't matter if a soul or physical matter constitutes consciousness. No matter which is the "substance" of consciousness, it is only through the extent of that consciousness that you have experience.

Look, what you just said can confirm what I just said if you agree that life isn't a physical thing. The fact that we only feel feelings based on matter in certain proximities probably means that we do have a soul.
You have yet to explain to me how a soul is necessary to be conscious. I'm not saying it isn't, but your argument can go either way. What makes my feelings mine is that I felt them; I was aware of them when they occurred; I remember them now that they have passed. If you were to assume, for a moment, that humans had no souls, that assumption makes no fundamental change to our emotions, experience, or other aspects of identity.

If the person is comprised of a soul, then the difference between us is that my soul experiences different things at different points in time than yours.

If the person is not comprised of a soul, then the difference between us is that my person, whatever that may be, experiences different things at different points in time than your person.

The existence of the soul is irrelevant to your argument.

The feelings need a bound by a soul to actually become our feelings or even become feelings at all for that matter. In order for feelings to exist, someone must be them.
But if consiousness exists, rather tied to a soul or not, then the consciousness is there to experience the feeling. If a soul is connected to consciousness, then all is fine and well. If not, then nothing is changed.

Yeah, well you'll never have anything on me.
I have not even begun to argue. I'm merely paraphrasing John Locke. And believe it or not, you have nothing on John Locke.

Dude, you need to observe a little bit more, I saw one with my bear eye
You have bear eyes? As in the large, woodland creatures that generally wreak havoc on the lunchboxes of campers in state parks? And what might I be observing?

I found this spider on the web in my garden, I was about to kill it with insect spry, but I freaken saw there is English letter on the web
It's called coincidence.

I scary that was some kind of sprite spider, I have to leave the spider to go away.
You were scared from killing a spider because you coincidentally saw a letter in the web. For some reason, that strikes me as silly.

[wa123]

child..u r very young eh?...Im telling u my real life experience and you give me this silly reply.
next time u saw a spider web, take a closer look u will found some written word on it, is not hard to spot and is offen written a few line on the web.

[SHISHKABOB]

I think that only Humans have souls because we were made by God in his image, but that is my opinion because I am a Christian. I don't think that animals have souls because if they did I think they would not follow our commands so closely I mean if you were an elephant and you had a completely conscious mind and a little human jumped on your back and kicked you in the neck would you just walk forward? If you guys are getting all technical about souls I lose you there because I have no idea what metaphysics are.


wa123: I can see amazing things in trees and bushes sometimes, once I saw in a large hedgerow an almost exact replica of Bespin from Star Wars the big floating city in episode 5 but no one else could see it.

[Weltall]

I have not even begun to argue. I'm merely paraphrasing John Locke. And believe it or not, you have nothing on John Locke. Then I'll just have to try to stop you in your tracks. But that won't happen, probably.
He has nothing on me, either.

You have yet to explain to me how a soul is necessary to be conscious. I'm not saying it isn't, but your argument can go either way. Life is the same thing as consciousness. I said that the soul is life. So, although it's hard to see, my argument can only go one way. I gave my explanation for a soul being life already. A soul, like life, is a unique identity. I give my explanation for the soul being a unique identity below. It's also in my other post.
What makes my feelings mine is that I felt them; I was aware of them when they occurred; I remember them now that they have passed. When you feel something, you become it.
Those feelings are you. What makes those feelings yours is that they are you, or that you felt them, either way.
The key to this is, is that those feelings are you. They are yours alone. Use the skittles example. A soul is an identity that is unique to you. It’s an identity that no one else can ever have. It's your being.


If you were to assume, for a moment, that humans had no souls, that assumption makes no fundamental change to our emotions, experience, or other aspects of identity. By what I'm saying, we can't live without souls.

If the person is comprised of a soul, then the difference between us is that my soul experiences different things at different points in time than yours. That’s true, but there's more. Look at the skittles example. It's different because your experiences are yours. I can't have the same experiences, because they wouldn't be yours. They would be mine.
Another example=
We have 1 and 1. Is the # 1 the same as another # 1 if there are two # 1s? No, because that # 1 is that one, and it will never be the same at the other one. In order to be the same as something, something must in reality actually be that other something. When you have two of something, they can never be the same thing. Yes, as I said before, I acknowledge that my feelings could come from physical proximities. But even so, those feelings would still be… mine…


My argument may seem like makeshift argument from other perspectives. But makeshift arguments can be right.

The existence of the soul is irrelevant to your argument. But that seems like it's impossible. My argument is about the existence of the soul. Or at least that's what I said/say it is about.

[Modred]

child..u r very young eh?...Im telling u my real life experience and you give me this silly reply.
Maybe if you tried to use real words (not "u" and "r") and made reasonably well structured sentences and didn't spew this crap about spiders being sprites because you coincidentally saw a letter in a spider web, I might listen.

My argument may seem like makeshift argument from other perspectives. But makeshift arguments can be right.
I never said this, and I see no indication you were meaning it sarcastically. So please, let's not go making up what other people said.

It's different because your experiences are yours. I can't have the same experiences, because they wouldn't be yours. They would be mine.
This example has no reference to the soul. It is irrlevant. What matters is that YOU or I experienced it, not where or when or what our souls are.

In order to be the same as something, something must in reality actually be that other something.
It's called Perfect Similarity, and it isn't given fact. It's a theory.

Life is the same thing as consciousness.
Agreed.

I said that the soul is life.
And I said that is not necessary. You have not yet made any sufficient defense with any logic besides this and "I'm not you" type of things. Why is the soul life? You are looking at this like life = consciousness = soul, but I can simply say life = consciousness and not care what causes consciousness and we have the same result. Comprende?

So, although it's hard to see, my argument can only go one way.
No, your argument isn't incredibly deep or hard to understand. We have almost the same point about consciousness, only you insist that consciousness cannot be separated from a soul. I see no reason it must be attached to a soul, but also no reason for it not to be. Either way, consciousness determines identity.

[Leosam096]

Look, what you just said can confirm what I just said if you agree that life isn't a physical thing. The fact that we only feel feelings based on matter in certain proximities probably means that we do have a soul. A soul is an existence, an entity, something that separates us from others. If we didn't have an entity separate from others, then we may feel other's feelings.
where were we that time?
i was asking if animals had souls...but aw well,i guess in your scientific explanation, you just had to make sure "humans have souls" first,huh?

cheers!

[Dark_Magneto]

Life is the same thing as consciousness.

All living things aren't conscious.

...the soul is life.

A soul is an identity...

...we can't live without souls.

My argument is about the existence of the soul.

It's long been known that specific types of brain damage can cause massive personality and mental changes. Granted, other parts of the brain can be removed without noticeable ill effect on the mind, but so can relatively unimportant parts of other systems be damaged--the knees, heart, etc.--without causing those to fail. And even those "unimportant" parts, when removed, often impair the system's function in more subtle ways than can be easily detected.

In general, the nervous system provides very strong evidence for complete mind-brain dependence (http://tinyurl.com/dtgny). Conditions like Alzheimer's disease and amnesia can damage or even destroy parts of the mind in perfect unison with the appropriate brain sections.

"This patient, who suffered damage to both his hippocampus and his temporal lobes (thought to be important for storing memories) at age 46, has total anterograde and near-total retrograde amnesia: he cannot form new memories or recall old ones. He is trapped in a permanent present, a void of consciousness without memory.

Indeed, he has no sense of time at all. He cannot tell us the date, and when asked to guess, his responses are wild--as disparate [as] 1942 and 2013.... This patient cannot state his age, either. He can guess, but the guess tends to be wrong. Two of the few specific things he knows for certain are that he was married and that he is the father of two children. But when did he get married? He cannot say. When were the children born? He does not know. He cannot place himself in the time line of his family life. (Damasio 2002, p. 69-71)
(As Dr. Damasio tells us, the patient's wife divorced him over 20 years ago, and his children are long since grown up and married.) Does this man still have a soul? In what sense is he conscious? He is adrift in a world of darkness, a blank void with neither past nor future, merely an ever-moving present that continually fades from sight."

Damage to the frontal lobes can produce massive changes in both personality and mental abilities. Brain damage can even produce a person who's incapable of acquiring new memories - in effect, a mind trapped in the same time and place, one which will revert to his or her old memories every 15 minutes and nonchalantly ask his loved ones why they've aged so much after 20 years of asking them the same question.

A young priest once suffered a stroke that rendered him incapable of feeling sadness. Formerly compassionate and empathetic to his leukemia-stricken sister, he now made jokes about it and didn't understand why he should feel guilty about it. As his father commented, "... He looks like our son and has the same voice as our son, but he is not the same person we knew and loved... He's not the same person he was before he had this stroke. Our son was a warm, caring, and sensitive person. All that is gone. He now sounds like a robot."

"This wrenching story illustrates how a human property as fundamental as compassion arises from the brain and can be destroyed by altering the brain. A warm, caring, intelligent young man of God, as the result of brain damage, underwent a complete and drastic personality change. He became indifferent to his duties, unconcerned about the potentially fatal illness of a loved one, even light-heartedly joking about it with his grief-stricken parents, who said that he was "not the same person [they] knew and loved", not the same person he had been before his stroke. "

The author of that article, which explains a mass of other difficulties and cites many case studies, closes with this apt statement:

"The materialist can explain the effects of frontotemporal dementia without difficulty. How does the dualist explain it? What is happening to these people's souls? Is the deterioration of the brain causing changes to the soul - or are personality traits a quality of the brain and not the soul? But that implies that these traits will be lost upon death. In that case, in what sense will the soul in the afterlife be the same person it was during life?"

Not only does brain damage harm the mind, but certain bizarre conditions can even produce, for all intents and purposes, two damaged minds for the price of one healthy one.

"Research shows that in such split-brain cases, the brain generates what seems to be two separate consciousnesses. Research on split-brain patients led brain scientist and Nobel laureate Roger Sperry to conclude, 'Everything we have seen indicates that the surgery has left these people with two separate minds, that is, two separate spheres of consciousness. What is experienced in the right hemisphere seems to lie entirely outside the realm of the left hemisphere.'"

I will expand on this particular point below.

Case studies in severed corpus callosum (the "split brain experiment" alluded to above) more or less spell the death knell for the soul. First, a bit of background on what we can learn from the different hemispheres in healthy people:

http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/Wonder/images/split2.gif
Left brain dominates for language, speech, and problem solving
Right brain dominates for visual-motor tasks

"1. Each hemisphere was presented a picture that related to one of four pictures placed in front of the split-brain subject.

2. The left and right hemispheres easily picked the right card. The left hand pointed to the right hemisphere's choice, and the right hand pointed to the left hemisphere's choice.

3. The patient was then asked why the left hand was pointing to the shovel. Only the left hemisphere can talk, and it did not know the answer because the decision to point to the shovel was made in the right hemisphere."

This experiment indicates both sides of the brain are capable of individual thought in some capacity, as if each one had an independent mind. Now we just need to find out whether this curious effect is merely an artifact of our consciousness, or really at odds with self-awareness being the result of a single, indivisible paranormal spirit.

Certain epileptic patients that don't respond to conventional treatment sometimes get the brain halves severed from each other. Amazingly, both halves can go on to develop unique tastes, preferences and beliefs. This indicates once the data link is cut, both can effectively function as "half a soul." In turn, this is quite difficult to reconcile with any remotely traditional model of dualism.

Courtesy of the Macalester College psychology department (http://tinyurl.com/ru6pw):

"Before the operation he integrated information between the two hemispheres freely, but after the operation he had two separate minds or mental systems, each with its own abilities to learn, remember, and experience emotion and behavior. Yet, WJ, was not completely aware of the changes in his brain. As Gazzaniga put it: "WJ lives happily in Downey, California, with no sense of the enormity of the findings or for that matter any awareness that he had changed." As previously explained (experiments), words flashed to the right field of vision of patients like WJ could be said and written with the right hand. In contrast, patients couldn't say or write words flashed to their left field of vision [even though they could pick out the object with their hand]."

One brain hemisphere is verbal but has difficulty with certain other functions, while the other can't really talk but has other traits that make up for it. Each of those can, in their own way, identify and describe reality around them, but neither hemisphere has access to the self-awareness or thoughts of the other. Splitting them produces all kinds of anomalous results, like this:

"The patients give evidence of having two differing minds. The best example of this is patient Paul S., whom you read about on the home page. Paul's right hemisphere developed considerable language ability sometime previous to the operation. Although it is uncommon, occasionally the right hemisphere may share substantial neural circuits with, or even dominate, the left hemisphere's centers for language comprehension and production. The fact that Paul's right hemisphere was so well developed in it's verbal capacity opened a closed door for researchers. For almost all split brain patients, the thoughts and perceptions of the right hemisphere are locked away from expression. Researchers were finally able to interview both hemispheres on their views about friendship, love, hate and aspirations.

Paul's right hemisphere stated that he wanted to be an automobile racer while his left hemisphere wanted to be a draftsman. Both hemispheres were asked to write whether they liked or disliked a series of items. The study was performed during the Watergate scandal, and one of the items was Richard Nixon. Paul's right hemisphere expressed 'dislike,' while his left expressed 'like.'"

In light of these and other facts, the existence of the soul is effectively falsified unless one postulates an enormous number of ad hoc hypotheses to salvage it from the data. A modus operandi that tells us nothing about truth, and in fact usually obscures it.

If the soul existed, people wouldn't suffer Alzheimer's disease, couldn't be anesthetized, wouldn't have radical personality changes caused by tumors, and would, if brain hemispheres were split, either die or show a mysterious, spooky data link was still operating at a distance to make both hemispheres consistent with a single mind.

The difference can best be described as thin-client/mainframe vs. personal computing. In one device, the "consciousness" would run on an inaccessible device some distance away from the client, getting its instructions from a network connection. Damaging the client (i.e. body) would leave the files and processes (consciousness) on the mainframe as safe as ever, but it would only produce erratic results in the client.

If a part of the client's processor was damaged, you would feel as fine and clear-headed as you usually would, but your sources of input from the physical world would progressively fail until the link was severed, at which point you would experience conscious, total sensory deprivation (assuming no other source of input was provided, this is a nightmarish scenario).

You couldn't lose any memories, personality and self-awareness, because it would be safe and indestructible on the server. At worst, you could only lose the ability to express it to others successfully as the body went, but it would affect all memories equally, not apparently destroy some while leaving others entirely untouched.

As a further analogy, you could destroy your client's ability to present Microsoft Word documents to others, but you could never find that a specific .DOC was missing on the mainframe from damage entirely limited to the client side.

This is not what occurs--in fact, the exact opposite is observed. People really forget things because of brain damage. Chemical changes in the brain can induce depression and other personality changes. Self-awareness itself goes bye-bye if you're knocked on the head, anesthetized or asleep. And, of course, the "soul" is somehow split in two, directly correlated with physical splits to the brain itself. Thus, there's only one conclusion you can honestly draw from the neurological evidence. You're not an indestructible entity using a fragile gateway to the physical world--you are the gateway, on which every single aspect of yourself is stored. Once it goes, so do "you." So enjoy it while it lasts.

[Weltall]

Excuse my grammar and spelling, but I'm not going to use much of those in a long argument. I dislike the English language so much.

Modred
So, although it's hard to see, my argument can only go one way.
No, your argument isn't incredibly deep or hard to understand. We have almost the same point about consciousness, only you insist that consciousness cannot be separated from a soul. I see no reason it must be attached to a soul, but also no reason for it not to be. Either way, consciousness determines identity. Look, my argument is my argument. It goes where ever the hell I want it to go. When I said it's hard to see, I mean it's hard to see where I want my argument to go. You don't have a grasp on my argument right now. That's obvious to me. I said that my argument probably seems like a makeshift argument. Like I pile of sticks glued together to barely work. To me, it seems simple.


I never said this, and I see no indication you were meaning it sarcastically. So please, let's not go making up what other people said. I never said you did. I don't know why you think I assumed you said it. I just said my argument probably seems like a makeshift argument. It should be obvious that I'm not putting words in your mouth.


And I said that is not necessary. You have not yet made any sufficient defense with any logic besides this and "I'm not you" type of things. Why is the soul life? You are looking at this like life = consciousness = soul, but I can simply say life = consciousness and not care what causes consciousness and we have the same result. Comprende?
I said, "Life is the same thing as consciousness. I said that the soul is life." I said that so you could replace the word soul with life in my previous arguments from the post before so it would make sense. But you never understood the previous arguments, the ones that I made in my last two posts.



It's called Perfect Similarity, and it isn't given fact. It's a theory. Maybe to you and others it's a theory. But I just gave an irrefutable explanation, two of them. It's been a fact for me for a long time.


This example has no reference to the soul. It is irrelevant. What matters is that YOU or I experienced it, not where or when or what our souls are. I realize I've been skipping over your questions in this post. I've just been answering the little side arguments or whatever you want to call them.

I've already given answers to your questions in my last posts. I will do it again in this one. I will explain it all in order. I'll bold it or something down below. I will try to answer your questions specifically.





DM
All living things aren't conscious. Whatever. The 1st definition of life is awareness. I'm talking about that definition.

Although plants may be living in a conscious sense, it doesn't look like it much. It seems the same way to you, also.

If it were up to me, I'd only use the first definition of life. Oh, wait, I do. In order for something to living by the first definition of life, it must be conscious or aware.

You, ughhhhhhh

now the grammar will get worse

you didn't have to go so far, you could've just mentioned proximity like Modred


In light of these and other facts, the existence of the soul is effectively falsified unless one postulates an enormous number of ad hoc hypotheses to salvage it from the data. A modus operandi that tells us nothing about truth, and in fact usually obscures it.
If the soul existed, people wouldn't suffer Alzheimer's disease, couldn't be anesthetized, wouldn't have radical personality changes caused by tumors, and would, if brain hemispheres were split, either die or show a mysterious, spooky data link was still operating at a distance to make both hemispheres consistent with a single mind. I am not my brain DM. I'm not sure exactly what you mean because you aren't giving much reasoning for this beyond acting like it should be obvious. If Alzheimer’s takes my brain, it will still not have taken me.
Yes, Alzheimer’s will affect what I feel. But my soul will never have Alzheimer’s.

Feeling and its synonyms are the only words in the English language to describe awareness, to describe life.

I've said this many times, but... I am what I feel.

Alzheimer’s can affect feelings. But feelings can never get Alzheimer’s.
I'll describe why I believe souls are feelings below.

, at which point you would experience conscious, total sensory deprivation This off topic, but once you have no senses you have no feeling. You die. Thought is a sense, too. If you look up the definition of sense, thought can fit there. But maybe "the experts" don't consider thought to be a sense. I dunno.

Senses don't need to be these complex things. It's really just vibrating matter being somehow and oddly taken in and changed into life. Moving matter could be described as a sense. You don't need eyes, ears, and all that shit. At least, I don't see why one would. But I think some kind of intelligence may be necessary. Maybe it would be necessary because we have to know logcially what something is before we take pain or pleasure from the idea of it. I'm not sure at all.

Moving back to the argument at hand, you don't need to write this crap about how shit affects the brain. I'm not that... well... unknowledgeable.


This is not what occurs--in fact, the exact opposite is observed. People really forget things because of brain damage.
That's not surprising, of course. When they try to recall matter for an inaccurate sensation of a memory, that matter is non-existent or damaged because of the brain damage so they can’t get it. Memory isn't the soul.

Chemical changes in the brain can induce depression and other personality changes.
It's a drug. People like this drug for no reason. But they want the drug because they like it.

Self-awareness itself goes bye-bye if you're knocked on the head, anesthetized or asleep.
Yes.

God damn I hate reading about the brain. It, sigh, makes me sad. I'm never going to forgive you for this.

I don't know how that works. But I can give you ideas of how it can work.

The left brain right brain makes the decision, and the patient can't but into words. The patient either A. the action wasn't stored into memory. B. the action was stored but can not be explained.
There' are probably more explanations than that. You can probably just assume I'll go with the scientific one. It makes me sick when I talk about the brain like that. I'd rather not do much thinking about it.

I don't know how the consciousness works with the brain. It seems fully impossible to me that something from two different realities could mix. So getting off topic, I conclude that: the physical reality is a fake, the physical reality doesn't affect the conscious reality and they run on parallel courses, the physical reality and the conscious reality are sone how the same reality in some twist of lies, or some super complicated explanation.


By two different realities I mean feeling(consciousness) and matter. They both seem to exist on different planes of reality, and if that is the case then one cannot possibly the other. But it does...

Consciousness tends to be all around the brain. When the back of the brain lights up, the consciousness is probably using the back of the brain to get feelings or something...


I'm going to give my whole argument again in order.

Feeling and its synonyms are the only words in the English language to describe awareness.

I conclude that I am feeling. I've come to this conclusion years ago, like some of the stuff I've mentioned. Consciousness is awareness. I conclude that consciousness is feeling.

A soul is... something... that is uniquely mine, something that no one can ever have. And, I am myself. No one can be the same as me because I am me;

It's the Perfect Similarity theory as Modred calls it. I'm not sure if that's really it, though.

c/ped from my earlier posts...:

Another example=
We have 1 and 1. Is the # 1 the same as another # 1 if there are two # 1s? No, because that # 1 is that one, and it will never be the same at the other one. In order to be the same as something, something must in reality actually be that other something. When you have two of something, they can never be the same thing. Yes, as I said before, I acknowledge that my feelings could come from physical proximities. But even so, those feelings would still be… mine…

It goes like this, you get two skittles with exactly the same physical composition. Are they the same? No, because there are two of them. They each exist separately from each other. The same thing goes for souls. I could feel the same thing as Gatchaman, but we would not be the same. We would each have our own entity.
And my reply to Modred's argument that it is just a theory:
Maybe to you and others it's a theory. But I just gave an irrefutable explanation, two of them. It's been a fact for me for a long time.

I am myself. You guys are you. My feeling is my soul. It is the part of me that will always be mine because of the perfect similarity theory.

Again, I use a rather loose definition of the word soul.

To answer some of Mod's questions, it must be attached to the soul because consciousness is always being felt by someone. The fact that it is that person's and that person's consciousness alone makes it his soul.
Because my life or consciousness is uniquely mine, then it is my soul.

DM, I may get back to your pm in future. I probably won't get you to agree with anything I say anyway.

[Modred]

To answer some of Mod's questions, it must be attached to the soul because consciousness is always being felt by someone. The fact that it is that person's and that person's consciousness alone makes it his soul.
Because my life or consciousness is uniquely mine, then it is my soul.
Here is a question: if the soul is immaterial, as I believe you have implied, how does this sensation of feeling fit the soul? Let me elaborate. All bits of tactile sensation, which you might mean by using the word "feel," are experienced by the body. Separate from the body, the sould would have no means by which to feel this feelings. How can the soul survive, being made of something that it cannot detect?

Of course, this is a slightly roundabout argument, since I believe you are using "feeling" to mean "experience." But I'd still like to hear your answer; I'm rather enjoying our discussion. Maybe we should ask a mod to split us off to another thread?

Oh, and the confusion about the makeshift argument was mine. I thought you were quoting me, rather than yourself.

[Dark_Magneto]

Whatever. The 1st definition of life is awareness. I'm talking about that definition.


Life (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=life)
n

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.


Although plants may be living in a conscious sense, it doesn't look like it much. It seems the same way to you, also.


Plants, bacteria, amoebas, mold, and fungus are all very much alive - but none of them posses consciousness.


If it were up to me, I'd only use the first definition of life. Oh, wait, I do. In order for something to living by the first definition of life, it must be conscious or aware.


Consciousness is not a requirement for life. If it was, we'd be considered dead every time we went to sleep.

At any rate, consciousness has never been a requirement for something to be classified as living. To be considered a higher life form, yeah, consciousness is required. But just to simply be a living thing, it is not required.

I am not my brain DM. I'm not sure exactly what you mean because you aren't giving much reasoning for this beyond acting like it should be obvious. If Alzheimer’s takes my brain, it will still not have taken me.

So what's the difference? What property do you posses that is independent of your mind, which is (as I have shown) intrinically linked to your brain?

Yes, Alzheimer’s will affect what I feel. But my soul will never have Alzheimer’s.

Your soul, if such a thing exists, is incapable of memory. Having no memories, it has nothing to lose.


Feeling and its synonyms are the only words in the English language to describe awareness, to describe life.

I've said this many times, but... I am what I feel.


You are making the mistake of taking sensory perception and declaring it a necessary condition for life. You can be alive and in a totally sensory-deprived state. It would be a horrible and inhuman existence, but you would be alive nontheless.


Alzheimer’s can affect feelings. But feelings can never get Alzheimer’s.


Feelings are biochemical reactions in the brain. Take chocolate, for instance. When people that like chocolate eat it, it triggers the opiate receptors in the brain and gives them a feeling of euphoria. Cocaine does the same thing with a much larger effect.

Some people have chemical imbalances in the brain and are incapable of feeling certain emotions. People that use cocaine too much eventually get to a point where they can't feel any enjoyment at all without using cocaine.

The reason for this is, all your emotions and feelings are the product of chemical reactions in the brain. When brain surgeons do brain surgery on people, they have to keep the person awake so they can know the status of the patient. The surgeons can poke sections of the brain responsible for certain things and trigger specific actions.

For instance, they can poke a part of your brain that has a certain memory on it and that memory will come to you. They can poke a part that is responsible for humor, and you will laugh. They can make you go through the entire range of human emotion just by physically prodding your brain. This demonstrates that feelings are very much a part of the human brain, and they are taken away when those parts are damaged/destroyed or the brain chemistry is interfered with - like the people who use cocaine too much or have chemical imbalances.


I'll describe why I believe souls are feelings below.

This off topic, but once you have no senses you have no feeling. You die. Thought is a sense, too. If you look up the definition of sense, thought can fit there. But maybe "the experts" don't consider thought to be a sense. I dunno.


You have 5 senses - taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing. Thinking isn't considered to be a sense.

You don't die when you lose all your senses. When you are put under heavy sedation, you lose all your senses. The only thing operating are your lower brain functions that keep you alive. Everything else is temporarily suspended. You don't even have any thoughts when in deep sedation.


Moving back to the argument at hand, you don't need to write this crap about how shit affects the brain. I'm not that... well... unknowledgeable.


I never said you were. But due to the fact that our personalities, memories, and all the distinguishing traits that make us unique individuals are all fully dependent on the brain and are properties of the brain, it is important to consider the brain when talking about individuality since, as the evidence clearly shows, as your brain goes - so goes everything that you could call "you".


That's not surprising, of course. When they try to recall matter for an inaccurate sensation of a memory, that matter is non-existent or damaged because of the brain damage so they can’t get it. Memory isn't the soul.


Then you won't have any memories after you are dead.

That means that some people have the wrong idea. They think that they will reunite with their loved ones after death in some etherial world after this one. But as we both realise, you have no memories after you are dead. How are you going to reunite with someone that you can't even remember?

Everything that makes us unique is on the brain. Without our brains, if we still somehow managed to exist, then we would all be the same since there is nothing to distinguish on person's soul from the next one.

Some people also think that those that have done great misdeeds will have their souls punished in the afterlife. of course, it would be for something they can't remember since they will have no memories. Also, how can you punish a soul? All your senses were physical mechanisms that were removed upon death. You shouldn't be able to taste, touch, smell, hear, or see after you die. You also shouldn't be able to think, as you need a brain for that.

I think people are really just complex, not completely understood, biological computers. What happens when you take the RAM out of your computer? It can't remembery anything. What happens when you take out the processor? It can't process any information.

After you strip everything down what are you left with? Nothing - which is the same state we were in before we were made. It makes sense that we would return to that same state of nothing after death takes everything away and returns us back to that state again.

God damn I hate reading about the brain. It, sigh, makes me sad. I'm never going to forgive you for this.

I don't know how that works. But I can give you ideas of how it can work.

The left brain right brain makes the decision, and the patient can't but into words. The patient either A. the action wasn't stored into memory. B. the action was stored but can not be explained.

There' are probably more explanations than that. You can probably just assume I'll go with the scientific one.

It makes me sick when I talk about the brain like that. I'd rather not do much thinking about it.


Cognitive dissonance (http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html) is a bitch.

This is important to think about and understand so you have a better grasp of reality and whether your ideas are right or not.

If you are right then you have no reason to avoid the scientific findings. If you are wrong, then the evidence will demonstrate that and you can revise your position to be more correct.

Either way, you want to know the truth, right? I know I want to know the truth. Even if it isn't what I want and it is harsh and cold, it is better to live in a hard truth than a comfortable illusion.

I don't know how the consciousness works with the brain. It seems fully impossible to me that something from two different realities could mix.


It is because, as the evidence clearly shows, there isn't any ghost in the machine. Something has to be physical to interact with something that is physical, and that is able to be detected. What we find is that your mind/brain/consciousnessl are all the same thing.

So getting off topic, I conclude that: the physical reality is a fake, the physical reality doesn't affect the conscious reality and they run on parallel courses, the physical reality and the conscious reality are sone how the same reality in some twist of lies, or some super complicated explanation.


This runs contrary to what the evidence shows.

H. L. Mencken observed that it was a fundament of the human psyche for people to reject that which is true but unpleasant, and accept that which is obviously false, yet comforting.

Sorry, but this is reality. If your ideas are inconsistent with what reality indicates then it is an sign, I apprehend, of them being wrong.

[Weltall]

Modred-, I'm not sure. I'll give a few theories for that at the end of this post. I may edit them in later. It's unavoidable. It may seem like a flaw in my theory or something, but that's the way it has to be.

DM-, I don't feel like writing a big argument over this.

Life is the opposite of death. If you look at what we really are, feeling, and that the opposite of that is death...

Alright, just pretend that when I say "life" I mean consciousness or awareness. It changes nothing of my argument. People, many people, do use life to define awareness. It was obvious that's what I meant.

I don't call a plants life. I thought the first definition was the state of being aware. I thought I remember looking at it months ago, and it being that.
As to why I don't call plants life? It's because I use the awareness thing to define life. And I don’t want society to lose the words that sometimes by definition mean “awareness”.

You are making the mistake of taking sensory perception and declaring it a necessary condition for life. You can be alive and in a totally sensory-deprived state. It would be a horrible and inhuman existence, but you would be alive nontheless.
Fine, I'll call it a necessary condition for awareness... It doesn’t matter. You’re just making this harder than it needs to be.

Feelings are biochemical reactions in the brain.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feelings
Feelings are not reactions of matter. It's life(awareness). It's everything you've ever felt.


You have 5 senses - taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing. Thinking isn't considered to be a sense. You have more than 5 real senses.


Using this definition several senses can be identified.


Based on this outline and depending on the chosen method of classification, somewhere between 9 and 21 human senses have been identified. In addition, there are some other candidate physiological experiences which may or may not fall within the above classification (for example the sensory awareness of hunger and thirst). Finally, some individuals report synesthesia, the "crossing-over" of one sense to another, or even of senses associated with certain pure concepts. For example, the letter "A" may appear "black," certain notes may seem "orange" or "blue," and so forth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses
Thought falls under the definition of “sense”.

it is important to consider the brain when talking about individuality since, as the evidence clearly shows, as your brain goes - so goes everything that you could call "you". So what? I am not my brain. We're talking about me, about awareness, not matter.


I think people are really just complex, not completely understood, biological computers.
You haven't taken the time to figure out what "you" really are. It's so annoying when people say "I am a system of biological processes." You wish you could write off the answer so easily.


Everything that makes us unique is on the brain. Without our brains, if we still somehow managed to exist, then we would all be the same since there is nothing to distinguish on person's soul from the next one. Perfect simplicity theory. It's what my whole argument is based on. I guess. My feeling is not yours.



You don't die when you lose all your senses. When you are put under heavy sedation, you lose all your senses. The only thing operating are your lower brain functions that keep you alive. Everything else is temporarily suspended. You don't even have any thoughts when in deep sedation.
When we sleep we:
A. We die and come back to life.
B. We always are alive but we just don't have any memories of it.
I've always thought it was B.


If you are right then you have no reason to avoid the scientific findings. If you are wrong, then the evidence will demonstrate that and you can revise your position to be more correct.
The whole argument about the brain was completely unnecessary. You didn't need to expand upon the proximity argument. I've already learned about that shit, and I don't want to go through it again.


It is because, as the evidence clearly shows, there isn't any ghost in the machine. Something has to be physical to interact with something that is physical, and that is able to be detected. What we find is that your mind/brain/consciousnessl are all the same thing. This argument is the equivalent of you being a Christian. My argument against this is the simplest shit you have ever seen. It's beyond simple. It's the first thing you learn, ever.

You've felt feelings, right? The stuff you see in front of your face? The smells? The thoughts? The ideas?

Matter is just matter. Matter isn't blue. Matter doesn't have a sound. Matter is just matter. It can never be colors, smells, or much more advanced feelings.
Feeling is awareness. Consciousness is awareness. Feeling and its synonyms are the only words in the English language which describe awareness and consciousness.




This runs contrary to what the evidence shows.

H. L. Mencken observed that it was a fundament of the human psyche for people to reject that which is true but unpleasant, and accept that which is obviously false, yet comforting.

Sorry, but this is reality. If your ideas are inconsistent with what reality indicates then it is an sign, I apprehend, of them being wrong. You probably didn't see the "OR" at the end. It's all just theory.



Modred-
DM quotes some of the possibilities I listed for that at the end of his last post.
If you can find the answer, that’s really great. I never really could for the most part, maybe.

Two more things that come to mind are:
Perhaps these realities (awareness and matter) stem from the same thing and therefore follow the same path except in different realities.



Another thing:
Life(awareness or feeling) and Matter in a way never affect each other. Matter does affect life, and life may affect matter. But just hear me out. I mean matter doesn't really force change on us, maybe. Our essences could essentially be like decoders. We can't physically move matter, and matter and matter can't really physically affect us because we're on another reality. But it either seems to or it does.

In some way we could be like an attachment, giving matter qualities of good and bad. Matter, essentially, isn't good or bad. It's just matter.

Matter to conscious things, like us, doesn't come out as matter. It's almost as if awareness just looks at matter differently, as good or bad instead of what it really is.
Matter may be in a different reality, but maybe it some how translates into our reality. Like joins into it or something.

In conclusion:
I don't know. I have no clue. But, someday soon, I hope to understand it perfectly. It's probably really simple whatever it is.

[Dark_Magneto]

You think souls exist. Ok, first I want what you think a soul is. It's useless if we're not talking about the same thing here, so what do you personally think that a soul is. If we have different ideas, then this discourse is evidently going to be confused.

Do you believe in an afterlife? Do you believe that you will get to see your deceased loved-ones again or anything along those lines?

You have to assign some retaining properties to this soul, or else it is a superfluous vestige. After all, if souls exist but they don't have your personality traits, mind, or retain any of your memories, then in what sense could this soul be considered "you"? Everything that comprises your personhood is rooted in natural explanations and stored in the brain.

How would the soul in that case be any more relevant than, say, your fingernail shaving?

[Weltall]

You have to assign some retaining properties to this soul, or else it is a superfluous vestige. After all, if souls exist but they don't have your personality traits, mind, or retain any of your memories, then in what sense could this soul be considered "you"? Everything that comprises your personhood is rooted in natural explanations and stored in the brain.

My personhood is what I feel. But that comes from my brain, yeah. My mind is my soul. Memories don't make me what I am. What I feel makes me what I am.
I am what I feel. And my soul is also that. I explained this two posts ago at the very end.
I always figured a soul was something that was uniquely mine that no one else could have, my essence.


I'm going to give my whole argument again in order.

Feeling and its synonyms are the only words in the English language to describe awareness.

I conclude that I am feeling. I've come to this conclusion years ago, like some of the stuff I've mentioned. Consciousness is awareness. I conclude that consciousness is feeling.

A soul is... something... that is uniquely mine, something that no one can ever have. And, I am myself. No one can be the same as me because I am me;

It's the Perfect Similarity theory as Modred calls it. I'm not sure if that's really it, though.

c/ped from my earlier posts...:


Quote:


Another example=
We have 1 and 1. Is the # 1 the same as another # 1 if there are two # 1s? No, because that # 1 is that one, and it will never be the same at the other one. In order to be the same as something, something must in reality actually be that other something. When you have two of something, they can never be the same thing. Yes, as I said before, I acknowledge that my feelings could come from physical proximities. But even so, those feelings would still be… mine…




Quote:


It goes like this, you get two skittles with exactly the same physical composition. Are they the same? No, because there are two of them. They each exist separately from each other. The same thing goes for souls. I could feel the same thing as Gatchaman, but we would not be the same. We would each have our own entity.


And my reply to Modred's argument that it is just a theory:

Quote:


Maybe to you and others it's a theory. But I just gave an irrefutable explanation, two of them. It's been a fact for me for a long time.



I am myself. You guys are you. My feeling is my soul. It is the part of me that will always be mine because of the perfect similarity theory.

Again, I use a rather loose definition of the word soul.

To answer some of Mod's questions, it must be attached to the soul because consciousness is always being felt by someone. The fact that it is that person's and that person's consciousness alone makes it his soul.
Because my life or consciousness is uniquely mine, then it is my soul.

[Dark_Magneto]

My mind is my soul.

Then how does the soul split in two when the brain is physically split itself?

It's already been demonstrated that when the brain splits, it creates 2 separate minds. So if the mind is the soul, then that would mean that these people have two souls. It would make it possible to damage the soul by changes in brain physiology. That has some dire implications reguarding what happens when the brain itself dies.

[Weltall]

I already explained this kinda. But this is completely unnecessary. Even if it did split into two souls, which I'm very sure it doesn't, you still wouldn't get anywhere. That doesn't affect my argument.

The two halves still have some type of connection below each cerebral hemisphere.
If you were right about this, it probably would be proven by now by the patients, and I would know about it.


This can prove you wrong, maybe.
A patient with a split brain, when shown an image in his or her left visual field (the left half of what each eye sees), will be unable to name what he or she has seen. This is because the speech control center is in the left side of the brain in most people and the image from the left visual field is sent only to the right side of the brain. Since the two sides of the brain cannot communicate, the patient can't name what he or she is seeing. The person can, however, pick up a corresponding object with their left hand, since that hand is controlled by the right side of their brain. The person can see with each eye even though it is split.
The soul is both. What about the ears?

I think my mind is myself, my feeling, my soul. Feeling cannot be damaged, really...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mind

It seems these days that live gives life.


So what if the otherside of the brain can't put it into words? The person still knows what he did. The person will be able to use both halves into his consciousness. He makes the decision to speak. He makes the decision to point. If someone with that condition said "I don't know why I said that," or something like that then it would be different. The boy in the example knew why he made the decision, he just couldn't put it into words.



Consciousness is thought to come from the thalamus by some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centromedian_nucleus
The thalamus gets information from both halves of the brain, probably. This consciousness has no existence in the physical world. If I made it seem like that in this post, it's just a figure of speech. But the consciousness when it gives matter bad and good connotations, does it within a certain radius of matter. I don't know what that radius is.


The corpus callosum connects the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Most (but certainly not all) communication between regions in different halves of the brain are carried over the corpus callosum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum

I'm seriously never going to forgive you for this...

Look, I could spend more time on this. But, for reasons I will not mention, it is not worth it.

This argument is completely unncessary.

If you're not satified with this brain argument, then that's fine with me. It's not like I'm ever going to change your mind anyway.