What's a soul?

[Denode]

Ask anyone what a soul is and, typically, the question will render them inarticulate. If as soul is so hard to explain, why is it generally accepted that it exists at all? Religious or not, what is this mysterious soul, and how does it serve a human?

Ask anyone what a neutrino is and, typically, the question will render them inarticulate. If as neutrino is so hard to explain, why is it generally accepted that it exists at all?

I'm sorry, I'm not making a case for or against the existence of souls, but this is an extremely weak way to start a debate thread.

 

[Romperin]

Okay, let's sum it up here.
A 'soul' is a fragment of a dumbasses imagination.
Every thing I've heard about what a soul does is what the brain can do.
We have no proof of a aura/presense in the body. Therefore why bother to argue it.

 

[Spinney]

Ask anyone what a neutrino is and, typically, the question will render them inarticulate. If as neutrino is so hard to explain, why is it generally accepted that it exists at all?

I'm sorry, I'm not making a case for or against the existence of souls, but this is an extremely weak way to start a debate thread.

The difference between a neutrino and a soul is that everyone knows what soul is. If all you can do is criticize me, then get out. I've had enough of that already. Also, this isn't about debate. If it were, I wouldn't bother making the thread in the first place.

Okay, let's sum it up here.
A 'soul' is a fragment of a dumbasses imagination.
Every thing I've heard about what a soul does is what the brain can do.
We have no proof of a aura/presense in the body. Therefore why bother to argue it.

No need to sum it up, that's not why we're here. It's not proven, many people can argue many different things. Who says what a soul does? How do they know, and who are they to make such claims? Maybe that's not the purpose of a soul.

 

[Denode]

The difference between a neutrino and a soul is that everyone knows what soul is. If all you can do is criticize me, then get out. I've had enough of that already.

If I wanted to demean you, I would've said pathetic. Instead I said weak.

I was pointing out the fact that the sentence in use was heavily fallacious. A layman's ability to define or explain something is not a measure of its truth.

Next time someone criticizes you on this forum, instead of locking up and whining, consider the possibility that they were trying to help you.

 

[Herman Li]

I consider a soul, consciousness. What separates us from inanimate objects or even things that cannot "know they exist because they think".

 

[Denode]

I consider a soul, consciousness. What separates us from inanimate objects or even things that cannot "know they exist because they think".

Do you mean solely that it allows for the existential identification of self, or that a soul allows for depth of thought beyond the immediate and present (which would include consciousness)?

However, consider also that consciousness or depth of thought might very easily be a combination of the intelligence we have compared to other species and the abundance of free time provided by civilization (making the dedication of thought towards basic survival unnecessary).

 

[blazinfasstt]

Let's please not take this much further, this wasn't about debating, this was about letting people share their opinions.

you obviously do not understand the theory of long term potentiation.
also, i find it discouraging that you do not even try to do any research on it before discrediting a very very brief description of it.

if you meant for this to be a sharing of opinions, you chose the wrong section to post in.

read the forum rules before posting



also, I urge you to learn how to argue formally before seriously delving into this forum

 

[Spinney]

you obviously do not understand the theory of long term potentiation.
also, i find it discouraging that you do not even try to do any research on it before discrediting a very very brief description of it.

if you meant for this to be a sharing of opinions, you chose the wrong section to post in.

read the forum rules before posting



also, I urge you to learn how to argue formally before seriously delving into this forum

Your quote was extremely irrelevant Just sayin'. Explain LTP for me then, tell me why I'm wrong. I'm sorry, I didn't know that "Something For All" didn't include me. My bad. Please, redirect me to where I could have posted this. I'm relatively sure it doesn't belong in spam.. I've learned something from this, and enjoyed it. I read the forum rules as well, for the second time actually. I think that you're trying to be intelligent enough for everyone, so that's not a problem. I've never heard of formally arguing before.. does that mean I'm not allowed to express my opinions? Thanks.

If I wanted to demean you, I would've said pathetic. Instead I said weak.

I was pointing out the fact that the sentence in use was heavily fallacious. A layman's ability to define or explain something is not a measure of its truth.

Next time someone criticizes you on this forum, instead of locking up and whining, consider the possibility that they were trying to help you.

Well, you were definitely demeaning by, basically "making fun" of my first post. I felt like that was meant to demean me, and an extremely lame way of doing so at that. I can take criticism well enough, but not so much when it's meant to offend. I'm sure you'd agree with me in saying that there were better, more effective ways of criticizing my post?

Also, I believe that fallacies are intended to deceive, no? How was my sentence fallacious in anyway? Name a fallacy and I'll be more then happy to compare. If we were looking for the truth, then 90% of the posts in this forum would be spam. I want people to think a little deeper about what their soul is, that their ideas, when posted (often in layman's terms) can then be overturned a little to provide a deeper way of thinking, or maybe a whole new idea completely (such as the nonexistence of souls, etc.)

 

[Romperin]

No need to sum it up, that's not why we're here. It's not proven, many people can argue many different things. Who says what a soul does? How do they know, and who are they to make such claims? Maybe that's not the purpose of a soul.

Anyone who's posted affirmative has said the following, or said something following up with religion.

 

[Noam]

First of all, Somebody define "Potentiation" both in the long term, and in the short term, and all that shit

Second of all: I want to ask you, Where is a computer's soul? Those of you who have built a computer know exactly what is inside.Notice that the cold steel and silicon on the inside cannot possibly match up to the power of modern computing.

 

[Herman Li]

First of all, Somebody define "Potentiation" both in the long term, and in the short term, and all that shit

Second of all: I want to ask you, Where is a computer's soul? Those of you who have built a computer know exactly what is inside.Notice that the cold steel and silicon on the inside cannot possibly match up to the power of modern computing.

I dunno. Our senses operate based on electrical impulses. Computers operate on operating systems and electricity. Our is organic, one isn't.

 

[x339]

I thought about this a lot the other day. I came to the conclusion that we don't have souls. Our brain runs on electrical impulses that affect the way we feels and act, and our environment and things that happen around us affect those electrical impulses. And when you take away those impulses, we have nothing.

 

[MicroScan]

Honestly, I don't believe there is physically a soul. But people in general believe that its something spiritual generally between their chests which is released when they die. It is usually tied to some cultures.

 

[JIGL0JAY]

Just inputting my opinion, sir.

I re-assert my belief that souls do not exist, and that defining a soul would be a waste of one's time, seeing as it is a non-existent thing.

This is essentially the same argument as the God threads, as well as the Illuminati thread. A soul is an unmeasurable thing. The existence of a soul could be essentially the life inside of us.

For some people, the soul is metaphorical. We could interpret the fact that our heart beats as a representation of our soul, because our heart allows our other organs and body parts to function, allowing us to be animate objects. For others, such as those in religious institutions, a soul is a sum of one's existence. Not truly "real", but one's existence as a person becomes them as a soul. Much like a ghost, in a way. Supernatural spirit of one's self. Which is why they believe that "saving one's soul" by purifying one's life choices, is important to them.

However, as I have stated before, a "soul" is unmeasurable. It is not a tangible item. We have no way of measuring it, and therefore the existence of such would have to be asserted through proof by those who say it does exist.

Edit: Ignorance on my part that I didn't see that there were 3 pages of this.

 

[blazinfasstt]

I thought about this a lot the other day. I came to the conclusion that we don't have souls. Our brain runs on electrical impulses that affect the way we feels and act, and our environment and things that happen around us affect those electrical impulses. And when you take away those impulses, we have nothing.

just want to clear up something quickly

the different neurons in our brain communicate with eachother using ELECTRO-CHEMICAL impulses.

that is, neurotransmitters release at the site of the synapse and attach to specialized areas of the soma. these neurotransmitters cause either an increase or decrease in the neurons potential. that is, either inhibitory or excitatory post synaptic potentials can occur. the excitatory potentials increase the chances that the neurons electrical impulse will be carried along the axon to repeat the process.

 

[So.Cal Life]

Your soul is,simply put, your existence. the fact that you ARE in existence at all means you 'possess a soul'. You are existing, therefore you are experience what it is like to be using said soul.