A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
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 ?
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.
There is no such animal.
No, I believe we are just pieces of meat with enough nureons to be capable of abstract concepts. However currently the existence of a soil is unfalsifiable, so I wouldn't be able to prove or disprove my clain.
the existence of a soil is unfalsifiable, so I wouldn't be able to prove or disprove my clain.
As is the existence of the great juju on top of the mountain or the existence of goglack the toenail king who lives under your bathroom sink. The unfalsifiable nature of a claim doesn't warrant it any extra consideration.
Is your soul a good fertilizer?
Yes, though when I use it to grow plants I can not provide any evidence that it is effective, so just like with my other claim you just have to take my word for it.
i took a wet crap in gods mouth
Not anymore, the demon reached up my ass and stole the bead that contains it. I wonder what he’s doing with it now.
Probably a weird sex thing.
Most new actions are weird sex things.
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.
I wish there was an active philosophy community on lemmy. I kinda miss r/Askphilosophy and r/askhistorians.
And to answer your question -
I don't really know. I guess people belive in souls so as to eternalize themselves and thereby reducing their fear of death, knowing that their soul will be out somewhere instead of the idea that they will return to a state of nothing.
Yeah, I'd also really like a active philosophy community. The ones I found around here also didn't seam to do question asking, more "hey, here is a interesting read".
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).
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.
People got it wrong in believing that souls are eternal or something. Souls are actually ephemeral.
I hope I do, I hope we all do
If you were literally the only person in the history of all people, to have a soul... would it suck? And if all that happens to a soul is that it fades away after death, like a ghost, would that make having a soul better, or worse?
There's zero evidence for a soul
I would say look into near death experiences. Now i understand most think that these experiences are just DMT trips the brain takes, which is why I recommend looking into the case of Dr. Eben Alexander, specifically, a neuro surgeon that had a highly documented near death experience. He had a near death experience while his brain was non functioning and non responsive, monitored by his fellow neurosurgeons, his brain wasn't functioning to release the DMT, and shouldn't have been able to retain any memory at all, and yet had a near death experience that he remembered during the time of documented brain death.
Also, there are quite a few videos on YouTube interviewing him.
Isn't it funny that people always see their own depictions of idols, afterlifes, etc?
If you see it as a depiction of what you are familiar with is presented to you to ease the transition, then it's funny, comforting, and understandable. What would be hilarious, is that I was huge fan of Gilbert Gottfried, and if I'm greeted by him, that would be so damn funny and surreal.
What i also think is funny is when athiests see Jesus. Because if it's just a DMT trip, then they are hallucinating the very figure they don't believe exists, and bring him to life, for themselves. And if it's not a DMT trip then Jesus exists. It's a conundrum either way.
What's also funny is the other side of the coin, when Christians meet Jesus, and experience their version of the afterlife, and neither match up with what their religion taught them. Often many religious folks turn away from religion after a near death experience.
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.
OBE?
Out of the Body Experiences?
Out of body experience, the illusory perception that you're hanging outside of your body, people that have NDEs (near death experiences) report it a lot but you can trip that sensation while very alive, people with hard core dissociation type conditions for example, other more boring things like sleep deprivation, trauma and stress, or simple meditation and perception games.
Do we have a sentient soul? I would say no, and as proof I point to those suffering from Alzheimer's. That disease robs a person of their memory, so by the time of death they have lost much of who they were. If the sentient soul exists, it must be able to remember, otherwise it cannot retain the traits that make the individual unique. It should retain all the memories of our life. Yet those with Alzheimer's forget who they are. How is this possible if we possess a sentient soul? If we cannot retain memories in this life, how will we do so in the next?
What about those with major brain damage from stroke or mishap? Part of their brain died, and whatever that part contained, it's now gone. Is their soul now split? Did part of it "move on" with the dead part of the brain?
Part of the problem with the analysis is that under the influences of Western Christianity the term 'soul' has become a very specific configuration of properties.
For example, in ancient Egypt there were over seven different types of what we consider 'soul' with biographical memory as only one type.
The ren was the name and identity of a person, the ba their personality, the ka as their "life force" of sorts.
Conversations like this one might be better served by a more nuanced vocabulary in its discussion.
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.
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
Well, it would be you, from every perspective except your own. The schism would be (non)experienced at conception, imo.
Like if this replica were created in another room, another planet, whatever, without your knowledge, you wouldn't be aware of it, despite this new entity being you, for all intents and purposes.
I know I've already replied to you once here, but I've thought more since I wrote that. However, I'm going to keep it shorter this time (:
You and the person you will be tomorrow are not identical (you will have gained some experiencs and forgeten some things). But I still think that those two individuals are the same person, because you spring from the same person (more specifically; you, the one you are right know). The same thing would be true for a clone, your just separated by space instead of time.
The key to the thought experiment is perspective: we make everything identical materially to try to isolate a conceptual difference. We make the two clones identical in every way, and from nearly all perspectives they are identical (but distinct) entities. The sole difference in this scenario is the perspective of the clones, who have two distinct consciousnesses. Looking at your clone, you don't see yourself, you see someone who looks like you. Because when we distill it to its pure essence, the one thing that is uniquely you is your perspective, your present conscious experience. You are looking through your eyes, thinking your thoughts, as is this entity materially identical to you. But it's not seeing and thinking as you, thus it is something different.
There's something that ties your pure essence to its material composition, such that even a molecularly identical entity wouldn't have your consciousness (just an identical consciousness, removed from your own).
We can explore the bounds of this experiment by tweaking variables: you teleport a la star Trek, whereby your old body is disintegrated and a new identical one is immediately constructed. Or maybe you upload your consciousness when you die, so the list of variables that in theory comprise you are preserved. But in all cases, the essence that is you, your continuity of perspective, doesn't transfer over. When you die, everything goes black, and that's it. It's only from external perspectives that "you" continue. But the you that is you, you as you experience yourself, is gone.
for all intents and purposes
That's good enough for me. That I'm not aware of my clones existence doesn't really change anything for me. We're (me and my clone) are both just meat robots doing our thing so even if we're not aware of one another we would be the same in the way that two identical rocks are the same.
I guess that "be" is the wrong term here. Once that clone is created were two separate objects, just identical and both without a soul described fully as the sum of our parts.
No, I think that's an abstract concept of a consciousness invented by religion to transcend death. It's a comforting thought, but that's really it.
No. It's religious quackery.
No. It's more religion inspired fairy tale magic.
And yet religion inspired fairy tale magic has gone on to inspire science and technology that enable that idea.
We're literally talking as a society about resurrection consent directives but people are still spouting the age old "there's no soul or afterlife" without regard for emerging science and technology just as the religious are committed to the belief in magic over reinterpreting their beliefs in the context of science.
You, right now, are in a world experimentally proven for nearly a century now not to be observably real ("a quantity that can be expressed as an infinite decimal expansion") and instead is one only observably digital ("of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units").
And while you're alive you are producing massive amounts of data being harvested up by algorithms simulating the world while some of those technologies are being put to recreating the deceased at such increasing scale that as mentioned, we're starting to discuss if that's okay to do retroactively without consent.
I'm not a betting person, but the intersection of those two things (that our universe behaves in a way that seems to track stateful interactions with a conversion to discrete units and that we're leaving behind data in a world increasingly simulating itself and especially its dead) would at very least give me pause before dismissing certain notions even if the original concept inspiring the latter trend was originally dreamt up by superstition and wishful thinking.
That's a very broad question that can mean different things to different people. Answering it and understanding each other is hard due to the semantic complexity. It also contains an emotional dimension that cannot be described analytically.
Here's my take: Yes I do believe that everyone has a soul and it comes in two intertwined flavors; the nonlocal and the local soul.
The local soul is local in space and time. It's what makes you unique. For example your beliefs, thoughts, actions and so on.
The nonlocal soul isn't localized in space or time, but rather exists on a fundament level just like say quantum fields seem to do.
Within all of us exists a dynamic between the two, from rejection to enlightenment. One isn't better than the other, it is simply a duality that exists and that is meaningful to all of us in some way.
I also believe that time and space are an illusion. Our perception is supervenient on entropy. For example when someone dies they seem to be gone, but they are actually still alive in the past. And so this unifies the local with the non local.
Looking forward to replies.
Do you believe that we all share one nonlocal soul? Also the terms local and nonlocal doesn't really make sense if you don't believe in space and time, but it doesn't really matter (:
Your first question is intriguing. The short answer is yes, but maybe not the way you imagine.
Imagine you could instantly copy yourself. Since there are two people now each with their own subjective experience, which is changing them over time, you can say that there are now two local souls. If one dies, something is lost, even if the other keeps living. That what is shared between them is the non local soul. It isn't really a thing, but rather the quality of awareness.
That's spatial locality and it's the same for temporal locality. Say the current you vs the you 5 minutes ago. They both have different local souls in a certain sense, and their own subjective experience.
You could also imagine that with the multiverse, where every possibility splits off like branches on a giant tree, and so you are constantly split off into countless versions of yourself.
So space and time exist and introduce locality. However at the end of the day it all comes from the same fountain, and each droplet just lives in its own grand illusion. That is not to say that it has no meaning, mind you.
Nothing suggesting the primacy of metaphysical stuff, but in the same way its fine to talk about the soul of a nation, it's fine to talk about my soul. I don't think its magic, I just think there's a connection with the rest of the universe and other conscious people that is healthy to cultivate, and the effects I have on those relationships will continue after I die (likewise, other people's relationships have affected my life even after they've died). I don't think there's any reward of doing so outside of the health of those relationships. I do think certain behaviours and beliefs are poisonous to this "soul", but we can also talk about mental health and how we should be emphasising community etc.
But it's all just physical stuff in the end, and if a meteor hit Earth tomorrow and scattered our material there isn't anything left over like a bunch of angry ghosts floating around. Not even anyone to mourn what could have been.