I guess this is more for athiests than anyone, but feel free to comment regardless of your religious belief.
I was thinking that the notion of the soul came about before people knew that our brain was responsible for emotions, attitude, outlook, personality, creativity, etc. (Not to take anything away from personal experience). Even once we knew that the brain was responsible for intelligence/memory, I think for a long time we used “heart” and “soul” as terms regarding our emotion, creativity, spirit, etc.
We still use soul in that sense (e.g. Bob Dylan- “it pierced me to my soul.”). I don’t believe I or anyone else has a soul. I think it all comes from the brain. So, is the use of ‘soul’ outdated in this sense? If so, do you have a problem with the term ‘soul’ used in this sense? Or is soul just a great way to describe that part of our brain and ourselves, and thus still has relevance and importance in our language?
Does the notion of “red” (a human invention) become outdated when we consider scarlet, rose, maroon, burgundy, pink, and cardinal are really the results of light waves hitting human eyeballs at specific frequencies? Of course not.
Like “red,” “soul” is a term used to describe a whole gamut of human behaviors. I would contend that the notion of a soul is not outdated.
On a different note, I cannot fathom how sentience (a la Descartes) can arrive from a complex set of chemical reactions in the brain. Until we figure out that mechanism, I believe that the notion of a soul is very relevent.
----On a different note, I cannot fathom how sentience (a la Descartes) can arrive from a complex set of chemical reactions in the brain. Until we figure out that mechanism, I believe that the notion of a soul is very relevent.—
But how could you possibly know what you are trying to fathom, since we have no idea what “sentience” is exactly, other than how it feels?
Obviously the soul seems more free of possible contradiction and problems as a concept than does chemistry: “the soul” is almost devoid of any substantive meaning that could cause contradiction! But that’s backwards.
If we can’t even envision a material mechanism for something (which I agree, we can’t currently, we have only an inkling of what it could be, if it worked, as of now), it should be even HARDER for us to envision some other mechanism for it, not easier, esepcially if we think that “the soul” is of a class of beings that we know almost NOTHING about the nature or functioning of.
I cannot fathom how sentience is any more fantastic than oscillation, nuclear fusion, or a host of other natural phenomena. I think we will find, in our quest to understand intelligence and consciousness, that there will be nothing there.
Like a person who takes apart a car and then wonders why it won’t go.
Ah, but there’s the rub! We do not know (yet) what sentience is, if it is, or where it comes from. The notion of a soul might very well be outdated in the future, but it certainly isn’t now.
anyone that says that is not really thinking. it always makes me laugh. when people are like “sentience is just an illusion! its just my brain tricking me”
first it makes me say “well darn, sorry about that… but I know darn well that I am sentient… shame your not” then gotta ask “who exactly is it an illusion to? you say your brain is tricking you into thinking your aware… who is you?”
Oh, bloody hell. Sentience is what happens when you have a system for getting and processing data that can modify its enviornment and has a survival instinct.
—The notion of a soul might very well be outdated in the future, but it certainly isn’t now.—
It was outdated the second it was invented, because like most metaphysical monsters, it reffers to a list of lacks, not a list of characteristics.
I’ve never understood how anyone could possibly think that the fact that we do not know what sentience even is (i.e. what there is, if anything, that we need to explain) leads directly to the claim that we know what it is: a soul. Ignorance + ignorance = knowledge?
If I am going to discuss astronomy I study astronomy an the same would go for phisics,evolution,geography,astronomy,chemsitry and so forth.what most people ignore is that there is a science that is the study of conciousness and the soul and it has been around longer than any science,but before you begin studying it, be warned.unlike the others,this science will change you completly yet you will remain exactly the same.
I think that the notion of a soul is certainly not out-dated.
I don’t think it is something that can be “scientifically explained” YET, but I do believe that everyone has a soul. I really began thinking about this, when a member of my family was in the hospital, dying. He had recently come out of surgery, and his blood just couldn’t clot. After a couple of days, the doctors informed us that there was nothing they could do to help him, he was going to die. I remember going in to his bedside, and looking at him, and I could tell that he was still alive and aware. When I approached his side, and said his name he actually turned his face to me (though he couldn’t open his eyes). No more than 5 minutes later, though I could tell he was gone… even though his heart was still beating, and the respirator was still operating-- you could still tell something was missing. Something that you just couldn’t describe.
I have since then put a lot of thought into the matter, and have concluded that that “something” that was missing could be described as his soul. The hospital could have very well kept him on all those different machines, making his heart beat, and making his lungs take in air for a couple more days, but it wouldn’t have mattered-- I had the same feeling, looking at him during his funeral, as I did when he was in that bed… I can’t describe it any other way, except that “something was missing”.
I would like to think that sentience is the ability to share, through some language or symbol-system, private phenomena.
Still no comment on the soul. I don’t think there is such a thing that isn’t already explained by consciousness, intelligence, identity. And those three things are each a thread in themselves!
To answer the OP: no, I do not think the notion of the soul is outdated. Whether a metaphor (model, concept, etc.) is literally true or “scientifically” demonstrable does not change the value of the metaphor itself. To say otherwise is like suggesting that fantasy and science fiction have no value because they do not describe people, places and events which have/had actual, provable existence.
As for whether the metaphor of soul is literally true: I am strongly inclined to say yes. I think there is more to us than what derives from the physical (genes and environment), and that the concepts of consciousness, sentience, intelligence, identity, etc. are not satisfactorily or entirely explained by these physical roots.
Is the existence of soul “scientifically” demonstrable? Probably not right now, maybe not ever. But I’m not going to say, because or while it cannot be described by “science” (or scientific metaphor), that soul does not exist. It’s a big Universe; it is arrogant to think that everything out there could or even should yield itself to our “science”, that we could expect to wrap our human intellect around it all.
—I think there is more to us than what derives from the physical (genes and environment), and that the concepts of consciousness, sentience, intelligence, identity, etc. are not satisfactorily or entirely explained by these physical roots.—
Ok, but then what other “roots” is it then explained by? If there are any, why is that any more satisfying than physical roots? If there aren’t, well then there aren’t.
—It’s a big Universe; it is arrogant to think that everything out there could or even should yield itself to our “science”, that we could expect to wrap our human intellect around it all.—
Then why isn’t it just as arrogant to claim you’ve wrapped that intellect around a concept called “soul” that you yourself admit you don’t know WHAT is.
As far as I am aware (and please point me in the appropriate direction if I am wrong), there is not yet a complete model, based solely on genes and environment, which sufficiently explains every aspect of the human psyche and personality and thought. Does that mean the model is all wrong? No, not necessarily. It may be that this “physical” model doesn’t work because we don’t yet have sufficient understanding of all the mechanisms involved. On the other hand, it may be that it doesn’t work because it’s missing some fundamental element – something which is not a manifestation of a chemical genetic code, or the biochemical effect of experience on the brain. At this point we don’t know exactly what pieces we’re missing. But I am not allowed to express doubts about the workability of current models? I am not allowed to speculate?
As erislover has reason to know, and for reasons I do not care to go into in this thread, I do think the current self-defined “scientific paradigm” is limited. According to that paradigm, I speculate the notion of soul may not be provable or demonstrable. But that’s the genius about this particular self-defining paradigm: it has taken such hold in our culture that anything which does not fit into it is necessarily false or non-existent.
That is not quite what I said. What I said was that it is arrogant to dismiss something as impossible, just because I/you/we can’t imagine how it is possible within the confines of “scientific paradigm”.
I am not offering this as an argument for the existence of “soul”. I am not even trying to prove that it does exist; I have only expressed my personal opinion that it might, due to what I perceive as gaps in the “physical” model (as I have called it). What I am offering is an argument for keeping an open mind until, at the very least, the “physical” model can be shown to explain everything sufficiently. Yes, to do less – to assume that you know the full and final answer before you actually have it – is arrogant.
To be sure, even philosophical models which deny some notion of “mind” like physicalism do run into their own sorts of problems. I’m of the mind that consciousness is more or less an epiphenomenon, and largely inconsequential except for some sort of internal feedback system. But, as I’ve noted above, I also suspect that any reductionist attempt is going to be left wanting the forest for the trees. Like trying to argue over the meaning of “m” in the word “meaning”.
And, indeed, Jerevan, I do recall, and have in fact noticed our relative absence in the same threads since the lively instrument debate. Good to know you haven’t gone anywhere.
I certainly empathize with your loss; I’m sure it was hard just being there for something like that.
But… your story doesn’t exactly convince me that we have a soul. There might have been something missing, but it could have been consciousness, cognitive thought, the operation of the brain itself…
I don’t mind that you see it as the ‘soul,’ but I’d like you to realize that your feelings in a very difficult, sad moment are not exactly proof, and that perhaps you were guided by prior notions of a soul, and despite how perceptive you were at the moment, there are several options that have much more basis in fact.
To move on to other things:
I don’t believe we have a soul, but I would never say I know for a fact that we don’t. Also, I do not think the notion of the soul is outdated- I was putting it out there to see what you guys thought. As a poet I like the word ‘soul’ as sort of that creative, deep, intuitive part of ourselves.
I actually brought this up to my co-worker and friend (who haunts the Darwin Awards mb) and he (who is much more well-versed in philosophy than I) responded the same way that many of you did- there are different definitions of what a soul is- DesCartes, Plato, etc.
so I guess my question was a bit too general considering…
