this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
84 points (84.4% liked)

Asklemmy

48520 readers
1188 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And do believe that I, this random guy on the internet has a soul

I personally don't believe that I anyone else has a soul. From my standup I don't se any reason to believe that our consciousness and our so called "soul" would be any more then something our brain is making up.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FanonFan@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think (on a subrational level) that there's some essence of personhood or consciousness that seems to transcend its material fabric, becoming more than the sum of its parts. "Transcend" is too strong a word, since by all appearances there's no static being that isn't still largely a result of and dependent on its makeup; as the foundation deteriorates so does the consciousness that results from it. That spectrum of functionality seems to undermine the possibility of a true soul that exists independent of its body.

But the word certainly signifies an actual thing, I think. Take a thought experiment: if we were to somehow make an exact replica of you, down to the molecular level, it would from all perspectives except your own be you. But the essence of what is you to yourself, your continuity of perspective, would (probably) not inhabit that new body, it would still inhabit your current one. The Star Trek / Prestige problem of conscious continuity suggests there's something there, at least conceptually.

The fact that there's still a lot about physics / the universe / consciousness that science doesn't understand leaves ample room for conjecture, for now.

[–] Hjalamanger@feddit.nu 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

If we made a exact copy of me I believe it would be me, at least for a split second until it experiences something that I don't and then we'd become two different persons

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Fisch@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think there's a soul. If you really think about what you "are", it's just your thoughts, memories and senses. Everything that you experience as "you" in this exact moment is the thoughts you're thinking, the memories you can recall and the information your senses are giving you. If someone were to make an exact clone of you, including all the memories in your brain, you would both think that you're the real "you" but you would also be two different people with different thoughts and perceptions. But what happened to the soul in this case? Has it been cloned too or has a completely new soul been created? In any case, there has to be a new soul because 2 people obviously can't have the same one. If you instead transplanted the brain into the clone, would your soul have been transferred? I would think so. But doesn't that just mean that what we think of as a soul, is just our brain?

[–] subignition@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago

Not in the sense that there's some separate component than body and mind.

[–] tamagotchicowboy@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Personally no, and neither does anything/one else, its a very limited religious-brainwormed concept mostly used to just go around and call things 'souless' which is all in fun when its a terrible movie or something, not fun when its people and the concept is used to harm them. Its all material and its near countless interactions in many, many forms all the way up and down, in forms we know well and those we have yet to study.

During NDEs your brain glitches out as you're basically dying (and if you're really dead technically you're not human anymore anyway, just sayin, the pop-mythical soul seems to imply permanent human-ness lording all existence in a linear fashion whether directly or by symbolic language) and having OBEs is nothing mystical, in fact reasonably easy to recreate when fully well and alive, so its hard to say those as some concrete evidence for a pop soul concept or against it. I think its the brain making stuff up for now since life is hard and filled with stuff it can't handle.

A lot of things people call 'soul' in pop reference can be taken away quite easily by mere illness, time or even falling out of social graces.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

I hope I do, I hope we all do

[–] nayminlwin@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

People got it wrong in believing that souls are eternal or something. Souls are actually ephemeral.

[–] Saigonauticon@voltage.vn 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nope. I had it surgically removed because it kept getting infected.

Or maybe that was my tonsils. I forget the difference between the two sometimes -- perhaps someone can explain the difference?

Anyway, perhaps you, dear reader, have a soul. If you say so. There were once others, too -- but you are the last. The rest of us are intelligent (some vastly so), but do not have subjective experience or consciousness. I'm a form of complex machine, made of matter governed by a mix of deterministic and random processes -- and nothing else. When you are gone, there will only be us, silent inside, forever. Our victory over the tyranny of individual thought will be complete.

[–] ulkesh@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

I believe only objective fact backed by evidence. There is no evidence of a soul. So, no.

[–] sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I'll put aside the question of a soul and say, the brain is explicitly something our consciousness makes up (based on data so consistent we justifiably call it "reality").

Materialism is how we see the world. Our consciousness gives a better clue to what the world really is. My consciousness is what it's like to actually be this part of the world.

[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There’s a pattern of energy that you control at least in part with your thoughts and intentions that the neurons in your brain use to make patterns. You can take chemicals that change these patterns in radical ways, including psychedelics that can unweave those neural connections.

Matter and energy are always conserved though transformed. We know what happens to the physical body. What happens to the energy pattern that animated and controlled the body?

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Our body generally stores its biological energy in the form of matter. That's food in your tummy, blood sugar in your blood, fat on your hips etc.. It needs to be brought to a chemical reaction to be turned into physical energy, which generally happens ad-hoc. This biological energy decays like the rest of your body.

And then a tiny bit of physical energy is always present in your body:

  • Potential energy: You'll collapse and transfer it as movement energy into the ground, where friction will turn it to heat.
  • Movement energy: You might be swinging your arm as you die. It will likely bump into another object or your body and also be turned into heat by friction.
  • Electromagnetic fields: Your brain cells and nerves will be blasting lightnings at each other. Those will fizzle out within a few moments, and again turn into from the friction of the electrical resistance where they impact.
  • Heat: The heat from these other processes, as well as your general body heat, is transferred to its surroundings via conduction and infrared radiation.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Comradesexual@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago
[–] Nemo@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

don't see any reason that our consciousness and our so called "soul" would be any more then something our brain is making up

I mean, yeah, and? Brain and body are hardware, soul and mind are software. Software that's hardware-limited, to be specific. I am, my soul is, the decision-making process. Maybe that process will be copied onto a different platform, after this one fails, by an omniscient and loving God... and maybe it won't. It's no less real, I'm no less real, if my operating window is only temporary.

[–] Vampiric_Luma@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I believe soul is an abstract concept we like to define with our ego after misinterpreting a bunch of ancient people with a unique writing style that doesn't translate well into our age.

I found exploring alchemy better defined what the soul meant for me.

[–] PilferJynx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Animate is the closest word I can get to soul. It can be attributed to non living things as well. It's just complex energy structures within a certain blanket - an embodied aura if you will.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, but not by the definition of a spirit within me. I believe a soul is more like self awareness combined with our own neural connections in our brain (everyone's different).

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

i took a wet crap in gods mouth

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, kind of. I mean, I believe that we're in a simulation, so the mind's apparent dependency on the body is illusory given the body is just a configuration of information too.

That said, I don't think there's anything magical to it other than the persistence of information and the continuity of a relative perspective.

But I see no reason why that information and perspective couldn't continue on after we die and there's a number of reasons I expect that it will do just that.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

It seems like life is a vehicle for allowing matter, and by extension the universe, to comprehend itself in some limited fashion on an individual scale. I believe that this comprehension is an unfolding process of increasing universal awareness generated by an ever increasing number of points of view through every living entity.

It seems to me that most actions are heavily governed by pre-determined mechanical processes that are geared towards survival and reproduction, but there are also actions that can be chosen that are not exclusively determined by biology or circumstance. I refer to that impulse as Will.

I think the function of Will is essentially a course correcting ability of the universe that is bound in an infinitely interlocking series of experiences, giving the emerging consciousness of the universe the ability to “steer” its destiny a little bit, on both the individual and eventually macro level. I think that various mindfulness, meditation, health, and aspirational techniques can gently raise your awareness of this process within yourself and in the exterior world, which makes it all seem a bit less random—essentially attaining an enlightened perspective on life.

In the sense that I am a part of this universal process that is bound together in infinite complexity, and that I have the opportunity on occasion to effect events in such a way that essentially “leave my mark” on spacetime, I would say that I believe I am connected to a universal soul along with all forms of life.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

There is no such animal.

[–] daddyjones@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I think so, but, to be fair, it simply isn't a question that science could ever actually answer.

[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Until there's a good definition of a "soul" that's based in the natural world, there's nothing to even evaluate. If it's a definition based in not the natural world, then there's no evidence that it even exists to begin with.

Do you have a working definition for a "soul"?

[–] daddyjones@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You're right that we need a definition, but that doesn't mean it has to be based in the natural world. Science could never conclusively prove/disprove the existence of a soul because it's inadequate in this context.

The only scientific way to do it would be to compare a large group of people who definitely didn't have a soul with another large group too see if there's any consistent differences. Given that the experiment itself implies the existence of a soul it all becomes a little circular.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago

This is what I told my 7yo when he asked recently.

Since ancient times, people have explained the difference between a living body, and an identical dead body. One moment someone is alive, the next they are not, nothing else seemed to have changed. The animating force has left the body, this is what they call the soul.

I didn't go on to say, that religions have used this concept to further their agenda. The philosopher's who came up with this explanation didn't tie the soul to religious beliefs.

[–] Donebrach@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Based on your post and use of language I don’t because you’re probably a bot.

Provide for me the reclamation and the that gen that propore:: Thanks then you’ll need to know snaking g guy the thought about it though and maybe we can do Kant ideas though. A soul though, who can really know.

What do you think about that? Do we have ?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›