Does "Ross Macintosh" have a soul?

[Ross Macintosh]

The real question should be do people have souls? It's not like I don't have one while everyone else does! I'm not Satan's little helper.

While some are convinced they do have a soul I think its only because they have been conditioned to believe that through a lifetime of religious teaching and cultural bias. In the past it used to be believed that the mental activity we now ascribe to our brains, were functions performed by our hearts. (They didn't know or worry what brains were for -- perhaps some kind of blood filter thingie). In those times virtually everyone thought the heart organ did their thinking. Most would have believed the thinking heart 'reality' just as passionately as you good folks who believe in souls. They would have learned the idea the same way you learned to believe in souls.

[handrawn]

First 'no such thing as talent' now 'no such thing as soul'

its all words - never find reality just poring over words

[covoxer]

The real question should be do people have souls?

I think the question is actually what we call a "Soul"?
Obviously any individuum possesses personality, which is not material nevertheless it's existence is scientifically proven.
Now take a look at all possible definitions of the soul, what they have in common? Right, first of all it's the fact that any soul is unique for every person and it is not material. Call it what you want, but it exists.
The mystical aspects of the soul are not about it's existence, it's about it's immortality, or travels between bodies e.t.c. We obviously can only believe or not believe in these, but we can't prove them neither right nor wrong as for now.

It's a common mistake to substitute existence with materiality. Keep in mind, the software, the art, the knowledge, all your designs and drawings, all inventions and finally all the intellectual property is not material, but I guess no one doubt it exists. It even costs money... which, by the way, are not material too.

[Ross Macintosh]

I don't equate "soul" with "personality". The soul I refered to was more in the biblical sense. If I'm not mistaken the Bible only ascribes souls to people, (Sorry folks you aren't going to be reunited in Heaven or Hell with all your pets or favorite bovines). Anyone who's ever had a pet (or a favorite bovine) knows that animals can also have individual personalities.

I agree that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of a biblical type soul. I expect that when any of die we'll just be dead but hopefully remembered fondly by those lives we touched and by our decendants & ancestors. I don't expect any of us become ghosts or be playing cards together in gilded palaces in Heaven while we wait for our wings or for our 20 virgins. What I find odd is the unbounded faith many have that they indeed have "souls" and their reluctance to see that perhaps it is just wishful thinking.

[handrawn]

What I find odd is the unbounded faith many have that they indeed have "souls" and their reluctance to see that perhaps it is just wishful thinking.

a human trait that, not limited to theological matters

[kinetica]

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of a biblical type soul.

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of an invisible tree troll at the bottom of my garden.

The two above statements are virtually identical. However, vehemently disputing the former gets you labelled as an agent provocateur and banned from forums, whilst vehemently insisting on the latter gets you labelled as a nutcase

[covoxer]

I don't equate "soul" with "personality". The soul I refered to was more in the biblical sense.

Why not? Can you find any differences between biblical soul and personality, or software as I suggest?

If I'm not mistaken the Bible only ascribes souls to people

This is true. Let's say, that the biblical "Soul" is a name of the particular kind of sofware that runs only on human hardware and is generally compatible. Animals have software too, but it is not compatible with human.

I agree that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of a biblical type soul.

And here you are wrong. It's existence, as long as we follow definition of waht it is and not what can happen with it, is long since proven. Even more, the soul concept in all religions and philosophies came from real life practical experience. Note that we are talking about existance, not myths regarding how it is created, or the purpose of it or it's out of the hardware capabilities.

I expect that when any of die we'll just be dead but hopefully remembered fondly by those lives we touched and by our decendants & ancestors.

So you don't expect your soul can exist when your body stop functioning. Just like software. But still this does not mean that your soul does not exist while your body is alive. Does it?

What I find odd is the unbounded faith many have that they indeed have "souls" and their reluctance to see that perhaps it is just wishful thinking.

No, they don't believe that they have souls, they believe in their immortality. These are quite different things.

[morphonius_821]

In the past it used to be believed that the mental activity we now ascribe to our brains, were functions performed by our hearts.

People who have organ transplants (particularly but not only the heart) not uncommonly receive some character traits or dispositions etc of the host....
You may scoff but tell that to the recipients who report such things quite regularly and sometimes with no idea where these things have come from only to be later confirmed....

And if you do reject these direct assertions by quite a large group of individuals out of hand (because it flies in the face of convention) then where may i ask is the science in that?
Instead of trying to disprove things that don't agree with one's pet theories...more enlightened scientists actually look for possible machinisms that might support observations and postulate theories ETC (wait isn't that the scientific method? pity not all scientists perscribe to it.)
And consequently it has also been shown that some kind of "neural tissue" does exist in the heart. (shock horror......you mean looking is better than assuming....)

The current state of science now will be voodoo in 100 years and much of what is now taken as fact will be just a curiosity of more ignorant times.
Such is life.
And again I'm not saying this proves anything but I think it is foolish for people to assume that even well established and quite workable ideas are the be all and end all...
And because something works generally and is useful does not mean it is the whole story or even that ones assumptions are 100% correct even if the underlying theory (for all intentions purposes) appears 100% correct.



P.S... Don't take this as being directed at you so much (you can believe what you like of course)... i'm referring more generally to science as a whole and to human nature.

[kinetica]

Whatever you're smoking, John, pass it in. That's powerful stuff and I could use some.

[handrawn]

I'm assuming you mean Morph and not John - John is making a good case - Morph on the other hand is being Morph ..