The meaning of the term "soul" is somewhat variable.  In the ancients, it is the same as mind, the part of you that thinks and feels.  Combining that with modern science, the soul is some of the processes of the brain.  This makes the soul like the "harmony" that is discussed in Plato's Phaedo.  And, generally, it dies before some other parts of you die, before all of the cells of your body are each individually dead, your mind is gone.

Any other story you are going to hear about the "soul" is likely to be bullshit.

(August 27, 2015 at 8:48 am)lkingpinl Wrote:  No clue how to define it.  I believe that Soul and Body are separate and that we don't "have" a soul, but "are" a soul and have a body.

So, do you believe the soul is the center of our personality, kind of a "who we are" thing?

(August 27, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Even if a person isn't religious he will usually believe in the idea of a soul by saying something like "go to hell".

Yeah, because the casual use of a colloquialism is indicative of a person's beliefs. So, I guess if someone claims they got "shanghaid" that means they were physically subdued, placed on a boat and taken to Shanghai for the purposes of forced labor on other boats.

(August 27, 2015 at 7:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(August 27, 2015 at 7:01 am)Lucanus Wrote: This is a series of questions I always ask when people start talking about souls. I'd like to collect the local soul-believers' answers on this topic, but if you don't believe in souls, feel free to add more questions.

The soul is made of information that exerts downward causation on matter and energy. Information isn't matter, but matter embodies information. Information isn't energy, but energy can transfer information. The idea of a 'materialist' solution is just so 19th century.

Independent of energy or matter, is there such a thing as information?  Not saying there isn't in the sense that information could be stored in numerous matter and energy combinations.  But is it possible for information to exist without matter or energy?  And is there any information that is not about matter or energy?

It's that green stuff that Shang Tsung sucks out of you when he kills you. Once he has it, he can take on your form and exploit your identity and abilities against those you care about.

(August 27, 2015 at 7:01 am)Lucanus Wrote: This is a series of questions I always ask when people start talking about souls. I'd like to collect the local soul-believers' answers on this topic, but if you don't believe in souls, feel free to add more questions.

Quote:What is a soul?

What is it made of?

Does it interact with the material world?

If it does, how can we measure its activity based on its interactions with the material world?

If it doesn't, what does it explain that can't be better explained by a materialist solution?

Agnostic and Anti-Theist, replying, here:

I have occasionally pointed out to Theists that because none of the religious dogmas of the world can be proven,
that doesn't mean that there necessarily isn't a god, out there....which, of course, they're always delighted to hear me acknowledge....

...but I then point out that while I am willing to allow for the possibility that god exists,
I refuse to assume anything about the nature of that god,
and assert that we should not rule out any possibility...

one of which,
is the possibility that God may indeed exist,
and he may indeed be Eternal, without beginning and without end,

however,
that, by no means whatsoever, automatically equates into humans ALSO having eternal souls.

It may be that god lives forever,
and we don't.

For some reason, it usually transpires that this possibility never even crossed their minds.

Anyway...

to hazard a guess at the rest of your questions:

1. what is a soul?
and 2.   what is it made of?

A:  If a soul exists at all, and can be defined,
I imagine it as being another word for "the breath of life" described in the Bible.

For example, I find it very scientifically intriguing
that while mankind has succeeded in cloning entire animals, like sheep,
it is noteworthy that these clones don't tend to live very long.

it's like they have "imitation life" rather than the authentic "breath of life".

Like making a dead frog's leg twitch with a zap of electricity,
but starting with new tissue....not tissues already deceased.

Maybe the cloned sheep's fresh new tissues have energy,
and do what new tissues with energy, do,

but the cloned sheep itself has no real "life".

Don't get me wrong...this doesn't make me believe in "souls" per se,

but in trying to describe exactly what a "soul" might be,
it is probably "life-stuff" ...which mankind has yet to strictly define,
but which I do not doubt we will succeed in defining, some day.

questions 3. Does it interact with the material world?

and 4. If it does, how can we measure its activity based on its interactions with the material world?

A:  My preferred theory is that if there IS such a thing as God, or human souls, at all,
that they are not simply the "magical" things that religion describes them as being,
but are, if they exist at all, probably quite real, indeed, having matter like everything else,
but matter of a type we do not yet understand.  Like Dark Matter, for example.
But if they're there, they have Science to them.  it's just a science we don't know, yet.

so, that in mind, does a soul interact with the material world?

maybe, but again, in such a subtle way that it's exceptionally difficult to detect.
Like what happens inside black holes.

Maybe souls, for the most part, are comprised from a type of matter that flows right through other things, with no discernible interaction at all, until we discover the right variable to change;

much like neutrinos slice right through our Earth by the countless trillions upon trillions, every second,
without even slowing down
....yet someone finally figured out that they can get "caught" in tetrachloroethylene....dry-cleaning fluid.

Maybe neutrinos are soul-particles, who knows.  lol

they say we are, after all, made of star-dust.

How are souls supposed to work with split-brain patients? Does each half of the brain have half a soul each? Or its own soul?

http://youtu.be/PFJPtVRlI64

(August 27, 2015 at 7:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(August 27, 2015 at 7:01 am)Lucanus Wrote: This is a series of questions I always ask when people start talking about souls. I'd like to collect the local soul-believers' answers on this topic, but if you don't believe in souls, feel free to add more questions.

The soul is made of information that exerts downward causation on matter and energy. Information isn't matter, but matter embodies information. Information isn't energy, but energy can transfer information. The idea of a 'materialist' solution is just so 19th century.

So information cannot be associated with a particular state of matter and energy?

And how would you go about testing this assertion? If it can't be verified then, as Kitan said, it's woo-ey word salad.

ETA: What about computers, CDs, VHS tapes? They store information, so do they have a soul?

Guys, ancient culture invents the concept of the "soul" and here we are trying to "explain it or at least give it some credence.
It's a piece of silly woo like a million other ancient stories ...enough already...

And Pool, please give us a break and don't even start with the fucking algebra on this one!
Please!

(August 28, 2015 at 2:29 am)Lucanus Wrote: [quote='ChadWooters' pid='1033301' dateline='1440719041']The soul is made of information that exerts downward causation on matter and energy. Information isn't matter, but matter embodies information. Information isn't energy, but energy can transfer information. The idea of a 'materialist' solution is just so 19th century.

(August 28, 2015 at 2:29 am)Lucanus Wrote: So information cannot be associated with a particular state of matter and energy?

If you were not so hopelessly ignorant you would know that some things can be distinct without being alienable. For example, a purely material explaination of a book says absolutely nothing about its content and people can discuss the content of a book without making any reference to its material. Moreover the contents of the book are not bound to a particular material, the content could take the material form of an audio recording or a film or a memorization. The material of the book can support a wide variety of content from David Foster Wallace to a Chinese phone book.

(August 28, 2015 at 2:29 am)Lucanus Wrote: And how would you go about testing this assertion? If it can't be verified then, as Kitan said, it's woo-ey word salad.

It’s call information theory. But I can understand how people like you and Kitan, being stuck in 19th century science think of it as woo. I find it continually amusing how supposedly ‘logical and scientific’ atheists cling to their irrational dogma even as modern natural science has started to come full circle, albeit with using different nomenclature. Information is just a reincarnation and extension of Aquinas’s moderate realism. The notion of ‘emergent properties’ (the atheists undefined mind-brain theory) is a watered down version of essentialism. Atheist dogmatic thinking prevents them from noticing that the nominalism/conceptualism they embrace is incompatible with emergent properties.

(August 28, 2015 at 2:29 am)Lucanus Wrote: ETA: What about computers, CDs, VHS tapes? They store information, so do they have a soul?

’Estimated Time of Arrival’? When it comes to inanimate things, we usually substitute the words ‘function’ for Final End and content for Formal Cause.

The fact that you call ideas beyond the comprehention of your narrow dogmatic worldview 'word salad' only shows the ignorance and stupidity of the person making the accusation.