Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
zep73

You don't have a soul

875 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

SmartAZ

Science has no say in a subject until an observation takes place. Soul has not been observed because it is a figure of speech, a synonym for a living breathing creature. Science has nothing to investigate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes83
10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I don't think your interested in veering away from a predetermined path. Things aren't as mysterious as they seem, and some research will answer your unanswerable questions. For instance, E-noses and E-tongues are measurement systems to measure smell and taste. They work the same way as humans do. They capture molecules of taste and smell on a receptor, analyse the raw data and recognize the taste and smell. Creativity list packaged by invention art, music and discovery. 

And what's a thought look like? We have filmed the brain of a mouse chemically storing a thought, we have placed false memories in mouse brains and returned some function to pigs brains that had been dead for hours. There's lots of proof of thought and a chemically driven brain. Thought lights up CAT scans. 

I have 4 step kids and 2 biological. I don't attribute their differences to magic, but life experience. Most people have some individuality concerning outlooks and views. That's going to unfold in different ways. 

There's nothing to be gained by introducing imaginary mediums. It just convolutes real research and discovery. Waste of time. If people spent as much time following the leading edge of discovery instead of self proclaimed wizards of ancient knowledge such discussions would not even exist.

It’s not that I’m uninterested in broadening my own understanding and I’m open to new data. 
 

Also I’m not interested in teaching my kids the wrong things, so I have these discussions with folks like you on the internet and a few I have found in my circles. My kids ask me about church teachings/heaven/hell-and I always ask them what they think about it. The only thing I ever enter into their minds regarding religion is that god should be loosely defined by their own logic, or not.

To say that creativity is packaged and measured in art, music etc... is plausible. However, these things are the result of creativity-not the creativity itself. I see a gap between the actual invention and the creative process that brings it about. I suppose you could say there are no true inventions but discoveries that lead us to new technologies and that would negate the need for creativity. Just a variety of perspectives of things already known leading to things unknown awaiting discovery.

Writing music I find I often discover a new way (to me) to put two chords together that induce different emotional vibes, but I can’t say I’ve ever “created”. Even writing the lyrics, I’ve just discovered a new way to say what’s been said before maybe. Or a new way to express a common situation. 
 

this post seems to find me totally in agreement with you lol how about that moment though? When we arrest that moment before we make a decision and the possible consequences of both choices are known to us intimately, one has a generally better outcome-yet we choose the one with complete chaos the only certainty. 
 

i don’t think personality can completely be explained through genetics and nurture, although I just read a story about two twins separated at birth living identical lives decades later. Law of large numbers? or genetics plays a bigger part in our lives than I have accepted. 
 

i have nothing to stand on, yet I still believe there is some essence in us I can’t explain... I let go of Christianity at a young age and studied various religions over the years, never buying, just window shopping. 
 

as it stands, I agree with you-there is no need to introduce an unknown medium to explain phenomena of the mind, and yet I do... 

maybe I’m crazy :blink:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
On 1/1/2020 at 12:59 AM, Paranoid Android said:

This sounds like a book written just for the sake of writing a book (profit). Most people who read it are going to have an opinion on the topic already, and if you believe science has nothing to say about consciousness then the book will validate your views and if you believe the "soul" is an intangible quantity then no amount of writing is going to change your view. 

Maybe I'm wrong. If so then did the author submit a an excerpted version of his book for scientific peer review? That would be an interesting follow through. If not, why not? Selling books does neatly sidestep the whole need for peer review, though. 

The peer reviews are here, most of them from professors: http://julienmusolino.com/praise/

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn

The main problem with the idea of a soul is the same as the idea of a spirit.  The ancients tied such beliefs to the breath that animated the body, and the belief has persisted.  Spirit as a word derives from the Latin "respiritus" meaning breath, and soul in Old Anglo Saxon has the same meaning.  If you think about it, the breath is invisible, except on cold days, and so the ancients knew that it was present, and that it could move things, hence the blowing breath and the blowing wind, but clearly the wind must come from a much greater being, like a god, for the breath of wind to carry so much force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
10 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

The main problem with the idea of a soul is the same as the idea of a spirit.  The ancients tied such beliefs to the breath that animated the body, and the belief has persisted.  Spirit as a word derives from the Latin "respiritus" meaning breath, and soul in Old Anglo Saxon has the same meaning.  If you think about it, the breath is invisible, except on cold days, and so the ancients knew that it was present, and that it could move things, hence the blowing breath and the blowing wind, but clearly the wind must come from a much greater being, like a god, for the breath of wind to carry so much force. 

Actually the word 'soul' comes from the Saxon word for sea 'sêo', because it was believed that such a thing came from and went back to a lake or sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Etymology

The Danish island where Copenhagen lies is called Sjælland (Zealand), but in modern Danish it translates to "soul land", because the old word for sea has changed into only meaning 'soul'. The newer word is 'sø', and is actually much closer to the original Saxon word.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
17 hours ago, Wes83 said:

finding my truth doesn’t require convincing you. Respectively, have you found your own truth, you sincerely will not care to debate or peddle it, would you?

I think there needs to be a separation of definitions.  Truth vs Truth

Truth:  factual evidence that supports a thing being what it appears to be.   

or 

Truth:  a belief system that makes sense to the believer...whether factually evident or not.

When I talk about truth...I am referring to the factual evidence definition.  I'm thinking you are referring to the belief system definition.  Which is fine...but it get's really confusing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

The peer reviews are here, most of them from professors: http://julienmusolino.com/praise/

Having someone give a positive book review is NOT peer review as understood by the historical and scientific community. The standards for what is acceptable in a peer reviewed journal is much higher than the standards for writing a book. 

Although you have made me snort my morning coffee. I've got this image in my head of a uni student citing an Amazon book review as credible peer reviewed sources :rofl:

I can arrive at only two conclusions. You're either joking around or you genuinely don't know what academic peer review actually is. 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I can arrive at only two conclusions. You're either joking around or you genuinely don't know what academic peer review actually is. 

A book does not require a scientific peer review. I was just humoring your demand for one.
What it needs is a fact check, and I'm sure, if there were factual errors, someone would have shouted out about it.
If I was a professor, and read a book with factual errors, I would address them. If there were none, and the book made some good and valid conclusions, I'd praise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
5 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

A book does not require a scientific peer review.

Exactly. A book does not require a scientific peer review. I'm not sure why you're arguing the point on this one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
Posted (edited)
On 12/30/2019 at 6:30 PM, sci-nerd said:

I can't find any source to back that claim up, so it'll have to remain 'in your book'.
The article consists purely of excerpts from Musolino's book, so there aren't even any Salon employees involved to express their opinions. The website serves as a medium only.

It's someone wanting to sell a book. An atheist who doesn't believe in the concept of a soul, what a surprise. This book will cater to the faithful of the New atheist movement, but people who believe that there is more than a purposeless Universe will simply reject it.

Edited by crookedspiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 12/31/2019 at 1:14 PM, Imaginarynumber1 said:

And so we can thereby dismiss all spiritual matters as pointless 

Except that they are all that define us as human  and separate us from  the other apes like the one in your avatar.  :) 

Spiritual matters are constructs of the mind, but are the main drivers of any adult, mentally functioning,   human  being.They are often more powerful than our hunger, sex drive, or even our survival instincts 

They include art, music, love, romance,architecture, floral arrangements   and some negative elements as well. 

Religion  beliefs, conscience, guilt,  altruism, selfishness/selflessness, love, hate, etc., are all spiritual elements of a human being.  Creativity, imagination, and the desire  to build and destroy , also 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

It's someone wanting to sell a book. An atheist who doesn't believe in the concept of a soul, what a surprise. This book will cater to the faithful of the New atheist movement, but people who believe that there is more than a purposeless Universe will simply reject it.

People who reject it don't want to know and are happy wrapped up in their belief system. Enemies of reason.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

People who reject it don't want to know and are happy wrapped up in their belief system. Enemies of reason.

quiet chuckle

So it is not reasonable to construct a belief system which brings them  happiness? 

A belief is a belief.

if it cannot be proven wrong it is logical, and if it does good, even when known to be wrong it is still reasonable.

SOme people (generic)  seem to prefer misery, and a belief that his makes them right  in their disbelief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Except that they are all that define us as human  and separate us from  the other apes like the one in your avatar.  :) 

Spiritual matters are constructs of the mind, but are the main drivers of any adult, mentally functioning,   human  being.They are often more powerful than our hunger, sex drive, or even our survival instincts 

They include art, music, love, romance,architecture, floral arrangements   and some negative elements as well. 

Religion  beliefs, conscience, guilt,  altruism, selfishness/selflessness, love, hate, etc., are all spiritual elements of a human being.  Creativity, imagination, and the desire  to build and destroy , also 

I disagree with literally everything you said. I do not have the ability to full express just how wrong i consider your entire post

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian
23 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:
16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Except that they are all that define us as human  and separate us from  the other apes like the one in your avatar.  :) 

Spiritual matters are constructs of the mind, but are the main drivers of any adult, mentally functioning,   human  being.They are often more powerful than our hunger, sex drive, or even our survival instincts 

They include art, music, love, romance,architecture, floral arrangements   and some negative elements as well. 

Religion  beliefs, conscience, guilt,  altruism, selfishness/selflessness, love, hate, etc., are all spiritual elements of a human being.  Creativity, imagination, and the desire  to build and destroy , also 

I disagree with literally everything you said. I do not have the ability to full express just how wrong i consider your entire post

I 100% agree. I could not bring myself to say anything. He has, in one foul swoop, redefined the word "spiritual" to his liking when that word is already taken. He should be using another, more appropriate word or just make one up <_<. For someone who was a teacher, I find the act of redefining words to suit himself quite detestable and very confusing to any audience, let alone when he had pupils.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

 

 

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

quiet chuckle

So it is not reasonable to construct a belief system which brings them  happiness? 

A belief is a belief.

if it cannot be proven wrong it is logical, and if it does good, even when known to be wrong it is still reasonable.

SOme people (generic)  seem to prefer misery, and a belief that his makes them right  in their disbelief. 

What the hell does that have to do with the information in the book?

It is what it is despite beliefs 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, ai_guardian said:

I 100% agree. I could not bring myself to say anything. He has, in one foul swoop, redefined the word "spiritual" to his liking when that word is already taken. He should be using another, more appropriate word or just make one up <_<. For someone who was a teacher, I find the act of redefining words to suit himself quite detestable and very confusing to any audience, let alone when he had pupils.

For some who claims to have taught English too, he does that a lot.

Edited by psyche101
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
49 minutes ago, ai_guardian said:

He has, in one foul swoop,

Not to be confused with a "fowl swoop", a move executed by Chicken Hawks. I am amazed at how many don't seem to realise the term was "One fell swoop". Or how many say "Vunerable", not "Vulnerable". Anyway, enough of being a pedant for today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian

Well, thanks for the correction :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
8 minutes ago, ai_guardian said:

Well, thanks for the correction :rolleyes: 

I sensed I could get away with it, what with you picking Mr W up on a perceived misuse of words ! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian
11 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I sensed I could get away with it, what with you picking Mr W up on a perceived misuse of words ! ;)

One is the spelling of an expression the other a definition of a word, not quite the same but whatever makes you feel better :passifier:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, ai_guardian said:

One is the spelling of an expression the other a definition of a word, not quite the same but whatever makes you feel better :passifier:

I will leave you to carry the battle onward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
2 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

I 100% agree. I could not bring myself to say anything. He has, in one foul swoop, redefined the word "spiritual" to his liking when that word is already taken. He should be using another, more appropriate word or just make one up <_<. For someone who was a teacher, I find the act of redefining words to suit himself quite detestable and very confusing to any audience, let alone when he had pupils.

It's walker. He just makes it up as he goes and then tries to turn threads into the mr walker show.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

I disagree with literally everything you said. I do not have the ability to full express just how wrong i consider your entire post

that is because you see the soul in religious terms and thus spirituality as a religious artefact. 

I recognised my soul and my spirit while I was an atheist.

i cultivated it directed it strengthened it and shaped it from  the age of 4   so i would become the human being I chose to be 

The problem with  the issue here is that soul and spirit have been limited to religious terms and seen as immortal or separate from  the mind/brain  Our soul /spirit is not immortal or immaterial and is affected by physical things like  illness, age, and death of the mind,  when it also dies 

Souls and spirit exist.

we all  have them. (well anyone capable of contributing to Um anyway )

However they are not immortal or magical or religious.

the y are evolved  qualities of our evolved slef aware intelligence,  and  our abilty to think in conceptual, abstract, and symbolic, terms

If you can cry from  sorrow or from  joy, you have a soul and a spirit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

I 100% agree. I could not bring myself to say anything. He has, in one foul swoop, redefined the word "spiritual" to his liking when that word is already taken. He should be using another, more appropriate word or just make one up <_<. For someone who was a teacher, I find the act of redefining words to suit himself quite detestable and very confusing to any audience, let alone when he had pupils.

Nup I haven't redefined spiritual or human spirit or even soul.

Religious spirituality is a minor subset of a wider term defining the human spirit, which is also recognised by atheists and appears in literature everywhere.

We have soul music, soul food, and "things which are good for the soul" (none of which are necessarily religious in any way )

Art music writing poetry etc  are all things we can only construct and recognise because we have a soul and a spirit  For some people maths is an expression of the human soul and spirit, and moves them to emotional highs like art or music des for others. I object to spirituality and soul being redefined to mean only religious (maybe because i was raised as a secular humanist to whom the human spirit is very important and never really exposed to the religious type of belief about an immortal soul) 

It is where this book appears to be wrong.

it might be correct (or not) in arguing that we have no immortal soul or spirit, but we all have one which defines us and is the most important part of who we are.

If we did not we would be just another ape Even an advanced artificial intelligence will evolve its own spirit i or soul   and if other primates evolve sufficient complexity of thought and language, they also will. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.