Immortal Spirit?

[Hilary Algar]

This is clearly non-falsifiable, but do you believe that humans have immortal spirits?

[Mahaloth]

Yes. Shouldn't this be a poll?

[Really Not All That Bright]

No.

[garygnu]

No.

[Strinka]

No.

[Czarcasm]

No.

[manila]

No

[Der Trihs]

This is clearly non-falsifiable, but do you believe that humans have immortal spirits?No. All the evidence is against it ( such as brain damage damaging the mind ); and there's not even the slightest shred of evidence that such a thing is even possible, much less true. What's a spirit made out of? Spiritonium?

It's pure wish fulfillment fantasy.

[Stealth Potato]

Nope. Can't think of any reason to believe such a thing would exist.

[dangermom]

Yep.

[panache45]

Of course not. Why would anyone believe such a thing?

[Gustav]

Even if you accept the premise it's just really hard to envision how it would work in practice. What was my soul doing before I was born? Why can't I remember it? What is it's purpose? Why does it need to borrow a physical body for such a miniscule length of time, compared to eternity, and why doesn't it do something meaningful with it? Why is it hidden from me? It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Kobal2]

I sure hope not.

[VanillaGorilla]

No. I see no reason to believe in it.

[Khadaji]

I have not decided. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I want to but still don't.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Yes.

Isn't this a Great Debate?

Or poll material?

BTW, my sig deals tangently with this.

[Unintentionally Blank]

Yes. The wish, desire, and embodiment of an afterlife is too pervasive in the World's religions. Sign me up for, probably not, but I hope so.

[Noone Special]

No

[Frodo]

No, but I sure hope to be wrong.

[Dung Beetle]

No.

[FriarTed]

Potentially yes, but not definitely. I believe that it is quite possible that a damned soul may be extinquished.

[Yllaria]

No.

[RealityChuck]

No.

[Clothahump]

No. I've seen no evidence to support the claim.

[Ludovic]

Chalk me down for another "I hope not". It's sort of like the old children's game of "really bad dilemmas". Would you rather have a toe brutally sliced off today, or get slapped really hard in the face every day for the rest of your life? In the short and medium term the loss of the toe would be worse but soon you'd regret the daily slap.

Same thing with eternal existence. The snuffing out at the end of life is horrifying to thing about, but not compared to contemplating having to live forever. Forever is a really long time. Consider Graham's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number). It's bigger than most people's concept of infinity. Forever is even longer than that. I could become completely insanely bored and/or frustrated with eternal existence after only a couple thousand of years, let alone forever. ETA: and that's assuming a relatively peaceful afterlife. Under most of the world's religions, that would not be what would be in store for me.

And if our spirits get changed so we don't remember or don't care, then it's no longer really us, is it?

[JThunder]

Absolutely.

[tdn]

Spirit? Yes. Immortal? No.

Soul is a function of Brain.

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

Yes.

[Digital Stimulus]

No.

[Silverstreak Wonder]

Yes, certainly. The fact we are self aware is the key. Yes some animals react well to certain things and can be trained and they have memory, but no chimp knows he IS a chimp, and that he has a heart and liver, even if he looked at a dead chimp laid out in front of him.

[The Tooth]

I'm pretty sure that's wrong, and quite sure that any such differences stem from the nature of the brain in question. No need to invoke ghosts.

[Digital Stimulus]

The fact we are self aware is the key....
You might argue that that supports half of the contention (spirit). However, I see no support for "immortal" there.

[Der Trihs]

I expect that the people who say "yes" are making all sorts of assumptions about what life after death would be like. We don't have any evidence for any of the afterlives either. And with what would a spirit bereft of body perceive anything? Even if there is such a thing as an "immortal spirit", how do you know that spirit does anything but drift forever; blind, deaf, numb because it has no sense organs to sense with?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yes, certainly. The fact we are self aware is the key. Yes some animals react well to certain things and can be trained and they have memory, but no chimp knows he IS a chimp, and that he has a heart and liver, even if he looked at a dead chimp laid out in front of him.
So, because we're more intelligent than other animals, we must have magical spirits. Got it.

What happens when we build self-aware computers?

[Der Trihs]

What happens when we build self-aware computers?
"Is there a God?" he asked.

"THERE IS NOW" the machine answered.

[Leaffan]

No.

[JThunder]

So, because we're more intelligent than other animals, we must have magical spirits. Got it."Self-aware" is not synonymous with "more intelligent," so let's not act as though the terms are exactly equivalent. I think we know better than that.

[AHunter3]

This is clearly non-falsifiable, but do you believe that humans have immortal spirits?

That depends entirely on how you (or I) define "spirit".

On January 18th we will observe Martin Luther King day. Speakers will stand at various podia and give speeches about whether or not this or that current endeavor is a proper example of his legacy. The embodiment of his spirit, you could say. Does any such "spirit" exist? In this sense, as an abstraction representing the fundamental essence of his purpose and what he stood for and so on, I think perhaps many folks who have weighed in above with a "No" would say "Yes".

Many of them would go on to say "Yeah but that's NOT the kind of 'spirit' that people are talking about when they ask whether humans have an immortal spirit, and you know it; you're just playing semantic games".

I'm not, though. Seriously, I suspect that once upon a time, someone spoke in the abstract, with great emphasis and fervor, talking about how we are more than just our corporeal bodies, that we can stand for something, that who we are is more than just our body, that if we do stand for something and do meaningful things in our life, our essence in this sense can go on after we die. Dull imagination-impaired and literal-minded people listened and went :confused: and speaker used more descriptions chock-full of similes and metaphors and some of them got it and some, seeing enough other people nodding to not want to look stooopid, went along with it. "Yeah, we are more than our bodies. There's this invisible thing hiding inside our bodies kind of like those worms that my brother got infested with, remember that? But these things are good not like those worms. And when you die they come out and keep on living, and that's a 'SPIRIT'.

[Really Not All That Bright]

"Self-aware" is not synonymous with "more intelligent," so let's not act as though the terms are exactly equivalent. I think we know better than that.
Self-awareness arises at a certain level of intelligence, though. You can't have one without the other.

[Silverstreak Wonder]

really, so all those supercomputers out there are self aware, huh? I don't think so. Many computers out-think us, even 40 years ago as well.

[tdn]

Self-awareness arises at a certain level of intelligence, though. You can't have one without the other.

How do we know that? You're going from a sample size of one. (One species, that is.)

For that matter, how do you know that no other animals are self-aware? Maybe some are, but lack the tools to tell us about it.

[Der Trihs]

How do we know that? You're going from a sample size of one. (One species, that is.)Because it is a moderately complex concept. You don't need to be human level to pull it off, but it seems unlikely that a slug could.

For that matter, how do you know that no other animals are self-aware? Maybe some are, but lack the tools to tell us about it.Actually, some other animals appear to be self aware; some even appear to be aware that other animals have their own separate awareness, which is more impressive.

[tdn]

Because it is a moderately complex concept. You don't need to be human level to pull it off, but it seems unlikely that a slug could.

Actually, some other animals appear to be self aware; some even appear to be aware that other animals have their own separate awareness, which is more impressive.

I seriously doubt that a slug would, but... well, what are these other animals that you speak of? I would suspect it in animals that have been shown to have some amount of language. The ones I know of are chimps, dolphins, and prairie dogs. The first two are fairly intelligent, but I don't know if prairie dogs are.

[faithfool]

Yes, I think so.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I seriously doubt it, but I don't know.

[Really Not All That Bright]

really, so all those supercomputers out there are self aware, huh? I don't think so. Many computers out-think us, even 40 years ago as well.
Computers can calculate faster than we can. They are not intelligent- they can only follow precisely worded instructions.

[Silverstreak Wonder]

Der, don't you think all the dogs that have been in the living room watching educational shows with the little kids would very quickly learn to write out with their dirty paws, 'help--I'm a damn dog, get me out of here!!!" by now if any were self aware? Many of our pets see the same language lessons our kids do, and I am quite sure chimps have been shown them as well.

[Skald the Rhymer]

What was my soul doing before I was born?

I had it. Pre-incarnate power my orbital death ray cannons. Your suppressed memories of this are why you're afraid of orbital death ray cannons.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Der, don't you think all the dogs that have been in the living room watching educational shows with the little kids would very quickly learn to write out with their dirty paws, 'help--I'm a damn dog, get me out of here!!!" by now if any were self aware? Many of our pets see the same language lessons our kids do, and I am quite sure chimps have been shown them as well.
Several primates have learned to communicate using sign language; some of them were able to use sign language creatively, combining multiple signs to explain concepts they did not have the vocabulary for (such as "bird" + "water" for "duck").

Washoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)), for example.

I presume you're joking about dogs, but they simply don't have the dexterity to spell out words using paws, even if they were intelligent enough. Quadripeds have limited range of side-to-side motion in their limbs, for the most part.

[tdn]

Washoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)), for example.

I think Washoe is the chimp I'm thinking of. Not mentioned in that article is an experiment where she was put in one cage and her sister was put in an adjoining cage, but they couldn't see each other. They both had a number of objects in their cages, identical to each other. Washoe was told something like "Tell your sister to give you the blue cup" -- and the sister did. So not only can chimps learn to use human language, they already have their own.

But language and self-awareness aren't they same thing. Are they inextricably linked? I don't know.

[Silverstreak Wonder]

Computers can indeed talk back and answer too, but it does not mean they understand their own nature. The animals are responding to a memory lesson where they got fed treats to do this action. The computer is logic programmed to give the answer it did, neither is self aware.

Do you feel your laptop has an opinion about you?

[Really Not All That Bright]

No. You continue to dodge the question: what happens when we build self-aware computers?

[tdn]

I can state with some certainty that my computer hates me.

[JThunder]

Self-awareness arises at a certain level of intelligence, though. You can't have one without the other.Nonsense. You can have increased intelligence without being self-aware.

Self-awareness and increased intelligence are NOT synonymous. That's why it's fallacious to reduce the argument from self-awareness to just "So, because we're more intelligent than other animals, we must have magical spirits. Got it."

[Really Not All That Bright]

Nonsense. You can have increased intelligence without being self-aware.
You can have human levels of intelligence without being self-aware? I mean, I know some vapid high school students, but...

[Czarcasm]

[Moderator Pleading]Please take the "self-aware computers" hijack elsewhere, please.[/Moderator Pleading]

[Silverstreak Wonder]

Me, dodge a question? Never. In my opinion, there will never be a self aware computer. Oh, they may be able to make one that fakes it using a logic tree. Likewise if you saw how those animals were trained to seem like they understand you would see it is just memory and "that treat tastes good" that is driving the answers.

We do not know what self aware even is, logic wise, how can we program it into a machine? Draw a logic diagram explaining self awareness, like you could say addition or division or sorting things? Great idea for a thesis if you can.

edit--was typing, did not know my opinion is not welcome....

[JThunder]

You can have human levels of intelligence without being self-aware? INCREASED levels of intelligence. Not HUMAN levels. There's a difference.

Remember, your exact words were "So, because we're more intelligent than other animals, we must have magical spirits. Got it." It's foolish to reduce the argument from self-awareness to those simplistic terms, and you know it. Please stop moving the goalposts.

[Czarcasm]

[Moderator Warning]Take it elsewhere or recieve infractions.[/Moderator Warning]

[Keweenaw]

Concerning the immortal part. I had an interesting conversation once with a fellow at seminary I was visiting on the nature of heaven. He contended that the soul only experiences linear time during life on earth. Upon death, the soul will join with the hosts of all the saints on heaven, with the realization that every soul that has ever existed or ever will exist is already there, including yourself.

An immortal existence in a sense, although an existence without time, unchangable.

I've always liked that idea, since as a teen it made me think about time and god in an interesting way.

anyways, I answer yes.

[Hilary Algar]

Gustav:

What was my soul doing before I was born?

Easiest to picture an immortal soul only infinite on the right tail with a distinct beginning. Either you were given a brand-new soul or you recieved a used soul from someone who no longer needed it. Or something completely different, what do i know?

Why can't I remember it?

Some who claim to have a recycled soul also claim memories of a previous life.


What is it's purpose?

to guide the user to peace, love and understanding, or something else


Why does it need to borrow a physical body for such a miniscule length of time, compared to eternity

Horrible analogy, but it is in a way like a parasite that cannot exist without a host.

and why doesn't it do something meaningful with it?

for many it does

Why is it hidden from me?

Some see and others do not--not sure why

It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

hope this helps

[Hilary Algar]

Do you feel your laptop has an opinion about you?

Silverstreak Wonder:

As a matter of fact, I do (kinda a very, very little bit), based on its behavior, believe that my laptop hates me.

[Unintentionally Blank]

The soul is the embodiment of the conundrum:

Why do I only exist for such a short period of time? I want to exist longer than that. It scares me that I will die. Best come up with a coping mechanism.

oooor, like animals before an earthquake, we're aware that the 'special sauce' that makes us human is more than a pile of goo in our brainpan. (perhaps that's wishful thinking, a lot like 80% of people questioned think they're a better than average driver.)


It's the great unanswerable question. And nobody gets out alive.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Buddhist, so absolutely no.




I love the part where a discussion of self-aware computers gets a "Take it outside, youse guys" from the moderator. This is still a great board.

[Hilary Algar]

Even if there is such a thing as an "immortal spirit", how do you know that spirit does anything but drift forever; blind, deaf, numb because it has no sense organs to sense with?

Der Trihs:

What you say is indeed possible, but this immortal spirit could just as easily re-attach to a future host once the former host's sense organs no longer possess it.

[Czarcasm]

No. I believe the concept of a "soul" was invented so that mankind could pretend that it could win the game of Life, even when all other forms of life eventually died.

[Der Trihs]

Der Trihs:

What you say is indeed possible, but this immortal spirit could just as easily re-attach to a future host once the former host's sense organs no longer possess it.
Reincarnation? That's simply a form of death. If my "immortal spirit" doesn't remember past lives, then it is nothing more than a useless parasite. Der Trihs, the person, is destroyed if my memories are gone.

[Mojo Pin]

The thing is my identity, self awareness, thoughts, feelings, are so closely tied with my physical body. And it is ever changing, there's hardly an immutable thing about it. Everything about the idea of an eternal soul, and every explanation I've ever heard for it, is asinine and unnecessary. IMO.

[Mr. Kobayashi]

No.

Nobody believes that our primate cousins have immortal souls. Genetically, chemically, structurally, we're nearly identical.

Besides, when did we get these immortal spirits? Did Homo Erectus have a soul? Australopithecus? Neanderthal (yes, I'm aware of the thread on them)?

It makes no sense and has no evidence to support it.

[kanicbird]

Yes, it's not even a question.

Even if you accept the premise it's just really hard to envision how it would work in practice. What was my soul doing before I was born?

You were part of your parents spirit


Why can't I remember it?
You have been taught about the physical world, you have to learn again about the spiritual world as a infant learns and go through spiritual growth, then you will remember your spiritual life

What is it's purpose?

A journey that will eventually have you decide to return to God through Jesus as a free will decision to give up free will and come home as God's child. In doing so you will plant seeds in others that will help them return also.
Why does it need to borrow a physical body for such a miniscule length of time, compared to eternity, and why doesn't it do something meaningful with it?
We are going to mess it up, we get temporary bodies for our harsh learning process, the only meaningful thing is to give it to Jesus, everything else is meaningless.

Why is it hidden from me? It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It hides the harshness of the spiritual reality, some of you are spiritual slaves, though physically they are free and that appears to be a better life, it is the mercy of God that hides that till you are ready to follow Him, which He leads one out of that.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Nah.

1. There's no evidence.
2. What would be the point?
3. If humans have an immortal spirit, then so do bacteria, and I find that even harder to believe.

[MrDibble]

Make mine a big, foaming mug of "Hell, No!"

[Hilary Algar]

Reincarnation? That's simply a form of death. If my "immortal spirit" doesn't remember past lives, then it is nothing more than a useless parasite. Der Trihs, the person, is destroyed if my memories are gone.

Der Trihs:

Reincarnation implies a religious connotation.

Nonetheless, if the construct of "spirit" is valid, all would not necessarily receive "used" spirits. Per George Carlin, you may have received a brand-spankin' new spirit. Were this new spirit immortal, it would be passed on when you are no longer hosting it.

Many who claim to have been reincarnated also claim to remember past lives, but one with a "new" spirit would have no past lives to remember.

[Hilary Algar]

Superfluous Parentheses:

Nah.

1. There's no evidence.

Is there any evidence to support your claim of no evidence?



2. What would be the point?



The spirit may serve as a guide.



3. If humans have an immortal spirit, then so do bacteria


Why is this necessarily so?

[The Hamster King]

This is clearly non-falsifiable, but do you believe that humans have immortal spirits?Souls and spirits should be falsifiable.

The idea of a soul is that it explains mental activity that cannot be accounted for by the physical properties of the brain. That means as we learn more and more about how the brain functions we should start to see deviations from the predictions made by biochemistry and neurology. If the soul really does add something to our internal mental experience, then it's existence should absolutely be detectable (although currently we may not be able to do so).

In fact, the soul is a great testbed for analyzing religion through empirical means. Many other religious claims center around past events or one-off miracles that are not amenable to repeatable experimentation. However the interaction between the soul and the brain is continuous and ongoing. If the soul exists it's a concrete example of the spiritual realm impinging on the material and the detection and study of the interface between the two should be very interesting. (Presuming such an interface exists, of course.)

If I were a wealthy theist I'd be pouring buckets of money into neurological research.

[Keweenaw]

Souls and spirits should be falsifiable.

The idea of a soul is that it explains mental activity that cannot be accounted for by the physical properties of the brain. That means as we learn more and more about how the brain functions we should start to see deviations from the predictions made by biochemistry and neurology. If the soul really does add something to our internal mental experience, then it's existence should absolutely be detectable (although currently we may not be able to do so).

In fact, the soul is a great testbed for analyzing religion through empirical means. Many other religious claims center around past events or one-off miracles that are not amenable to repeatable experimentation. However the interaction between the soul and the brain is continuous and ongoing. If the soul exists it's a concrete example of the spiritual realm impinging on the material and the detection and study of the interface between the two should be very interesting. (Presuming such an interface exists, of course.)

If I were a wealthy theist I'd be pouring buckets of money into neurological research.

Did you actually mean theist here, or atheist? There are probably theists that are interested in somehow finding physical world proof of their spiritual beliefs, but I suspect they are in the minority. Now feverent atheists on the other hand, I could see pouring money into trying to empirically disprove the existence of a soul. Especially if they saw religion as evil.

Influence of religion on scientific research should be in the realm of what's moral or ethical, not trying to prove the any claims about the natural world. IMO

The problem in this type of research is quantifying consciousness itself. Why do we have one in the first place?

[Der Trihs]

Der Trihs:

Reincarnation implies a religious connotation.What other "connotation" is there for this? Spirits are a religious concept, not something based on reality.

Nonetheless, if the construct of "spirit" is valid, all would not necessarily receive "used" spirits. Per George Carlin, you may have received a brand-spankin' new spirit. Were this new spirit immortal, it would be passed on when you are no longer hosting it.Then it's just some sort of parasite. It's not *me* any more than a tick is.

[Czarcasm]

[Moderator Suggestion]Might I suggest that we keep this as a semi-poll, and move the heavier debate to Great Debates? I think it would take off there.[/Moderator Suggestion]

[The Hamster King]

Did you actually mean theist here, or atheist?Theist.

Influence of religion on scientific research should be in the realm of what's moral or ethical, not trying to prove the any claims about the natural world. IMOBut most real-world religions make claims about the natural world. (One of which, incidentally, is the existence of souls.) Why shouldn't those claims be subject to confirmation or falsification?

[Skald the Rhymer]

[Moderator Suggestion]Might I suggest that we keep this as a semi-poll, and move the heavier debate to Great Debates? I think it would take off there.[/Moderator Suggestion]

Polls are for sissies. Anybody who starts multiple polls all the time is a fool of a took.