@Abaddon_ire - calm down bro, it's just a conversation and just a theory, I'll share my snack pack with you if you'll stop jumping to assumptions, and hate blasting anyone with an opinion different than yours, if you can. Not that I think NDE's are super important, but since you've had one please share with the class.
@Gae Bolga - I don't know you have a soul Gae. I surmise you probably have a soul because, as a believer in souls, and speaking with other soul believers, it seems universal enough that all people (at least) have souls. Serial killers have souls... so souls can't be morality. We're classifying soul as different from the mind, so soul can't be mind. I guess the definition of soul lies somewhere outside those two things (at least).
To answer your very specific question: If you don't have a soul, but have a mind and moral sense, the common explanations are that soul is either non-existent, or not based on mind or moral sense, or definitions are incompatible.
To answer a question you didn't ask. If you do have a soul and a mind and moral sense, but denied your soul exists, the common explanation is it's not meaningful enough to impact your current processing as a materialist, which would fit because it's immaterial.
I perceive in my mind that I have a soul. It is informed by the present, past and actions of my body and thoughts. It inspires, it focuses, it records when the brain is off, it holds the essence of the I that observes my world. I don't "know" that the soul exists beyond death. It would make sense of NDE's and apparitions, objective morality, qualia, etc. and explain things like blindsense (basically seeing without visual cortex at a higher statistical rate than probability) among other things. I suppose fairies sprinkling sight dust on blind people, or mass group hallucinations could explain at least some of those things. Whatever you attribute it to doesn't really matter though, as those things do happen. My white privilege, Christian, North American theological predisposition very well could be just as wrong as fairies. Just as a predisposition of epistemological materialism would by definition assume nothing immaterial could exist.
Apparently discussing it calmly is upsetting to some people but I'm willing to continue for the sake of proving that a discussion can be had without the world ending.
@Gae Bolga - I don't know you have a soul Gae. I surmise you probably have a soul because, as a believer in souls, and speaking with other soul believers, it seems universal enough that all people (at least) have souls. Serial killers have souls... so souls can't be morality. We're classifying soul as different from the mind, so soul can't be mind. I guess the definition of soul lies somewhere outside those two things (at least).
To answer your very specific question: If you don't have a soul, but have a mind and moral sense, the common explanations are that soul is either non-existent, or not based on mind or moral sense, or definitions are incompatible.
To answer a question you didn't ask. If you do have a soul and a mind and moral sense, but denied your soul exists, the common explanation is it's not meaningful enough to impact your current processing as a materialist, which would fit because it's immaterial.
I perceive in my mind that I have a soul. It is informed by the present, past and actions of my body and thoughts. It inspires, it focuses, it records when the brain is off, it holds the essence of the I that observes my world. I don't "know" that the soul exists beyond death. It would make sense of NDE's and apparitions, objective morality, qualia, etc. and explain things like blindsense (basically seeing without visual cortex at a higher statistical rate than probability) among other things. I suppose fairies sprinkling sight dust on blind people, or mass group hallucinations could explain at least some of those things. Whatever you attribute it to doesn't really matter though, as those things do happen. My white privilege, Christian, North American theological predisposition very well could be just as wrong as fairies. Just as a predisposition of epistemological materialism would by definition assume nothing immaterial could exist.
Apparently discussing it calmly is upsetting to some people but I'm willing to continue for the sake of proving that a discussion can be had without the world ending.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
