Home Log In or Register Forums

Souls

'Souls'
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
online_again's user image
online_again
06.05.2003 - 13:15

Do you believe that we have a soul? What would you define it as?

Obviously, nobody has "seen" the soul, and hence it is not a biological body part... but nobody has "seen" common sense in people either.
richard's user image
richard
06.05.2003 - 20:26
forum administrator
I don't believe in souls. When I die, I expect nothingness ad infinitum!
online_again's user image
online_again
06.05.2003 - 22:39
Ok... not quite what I meant, I don't think of " the soul" as eternal or anything. More a concentration of... I don't know.. thoughts, creativity, the essence of one's personality.
deathjester's user image
deathjester
09.05.2003 - 15:06
forum administrator
Good topic :)

Havign though about this kind of thing a lot (esp with my interest in media liek Neon Genesis Evangelion/Ghost in the SHell/Matrix etc)
the soul is a primitive way of explaining away the issue of continuity with respect to conciousness and 'who/what am i ?'

My current thinking goes like this (as does most of the modern 'thinky culure' from what ive seen):

conciousness is merely the sum of its own self-awareness at any one given time.

there IS NO continutity ;)


the soul thing helps delusional primitives deal with the problems with 'beleiveing in' continutity (continuirty being essential for the concept of a consistent 'self') when u r faced with 'problems' such as "well, we cant define ourselves in terms of our physical nature cos im made from different stuff each second that goes by" and the more difficult "Well, it aint my database cos that changes too..."

Soul is an outdated concept to deal with 'self' etc.

/end tranmission
online_again's user image
online_again
12.05.2003 - 17:59
Pretty good thoughtline there.

So what would you call that thing that is not a soul? Can't it have a name?
deathjester's user image
deathjester
13.05.2003 - 16:30
forum administrator
im saying that that 'thing' doesnt exist, becasue moment to moment we are not the same entity we were in the previous moment.

there is not continuity :)

this actually relates to an article i read in New sceintist which discusses a recent book by a theroetical physics dude who can validate the conclusion that there is no time.

hmmm, u got me thinking now.......

i have a hard copy of that article soemwhere )i bought the mag) so ill try to link u to it :)
richard's user image
richard
17.05.2003 - 11:54
forum administrator
I've read that article before too and it does make a kind of sense, although I have to say I'm not 100% convinced that there's no such thing as time...

Speaking of which, this leads me on to another topic, which I will be posting shortly in this forum!
online_again's user image
online_again
17.05.2003 - 12:48
If there is no time, then what is it that make things change? Time is what prevent everything from happening at the same time....

It is a measure, but it is a rather useful one. (Rah, i wrote about the concept of time in my final year exam in English in school in Norway.)
richard's user image
richard
18.05.2003 - 11:52
forum administrator
Actually, the theory goes that nothing in fact *does* happen. Damned if I can remember the argument for it, though... Something about there being an infinite number of universes where all the atoms are in slightly different positions, and conciousness only believes itself to be passing through these.

Hopefully Andy can enlighten us when he finds that article!!
arun's user image
arun
18.05.2003 - 23:57
forum administrator
Cabbage
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

This discussion is now closed and you cannot add to it.

contact us © 2003, 2004 BurningHorizons.net