HaysooChreesto!

I think the authoratative mind on "soul" would probably be James Brown and running a close second would be Little Richard.
They both have lots of soul.

sourdough

I don't believe there is such a thing.
the word soul,spirit comes from latin spiritus
which means breath,wind.
if you think soul is a form of energy that lives on after you die is fine with me,it just doesn't make much sense,if you realy think about it.
what would the soul exist on if your physical body dies?
for more info see <a href="http://www.AmericanAtheists.com" target="_blank">www.AmericanAtheists.com</a>

Taffy Lewis

sourdough,

It's perfectly consistent to claim that the soul is distinct from the brain and yet depends on the brain in order to exist and function.

Further, it seems that the theist should claim that our existing as souls depends upon the activity of the brain or some other contingent set of circumstances. The reason is that the theist should want to contrast our existence with God's in some respects. If our existence doesn't depend upon anything then we are naturally immortal. But to a theist, only God is supposed to be naturally immortal. Our continued existence is supposed to depend upon God intervening or overriding the normal course of events (ie. our inevitable destruction with the dissolution of our brains).

Dan_Leach

It seems to me that the only thing thats actually 'usefull' in having a soul is to have something that stores memory, feelings, personality and so on, so people can live on after they die. Lots of the explanations here seem to say the soul is just some form of non information holding energy. I for one cant see how or why something like that would ever exist.
Considering that things like memory, feelings, sense of self, use of emotions and spirituality seem to be things that are hard coded into the physical make up of the brain itself (which can be seen on various brain injury patients) what is left for the soul to do? if the soul cannot contain memory then what use could it possibly be?

abe smith

Like "god(s)" the "soul" is a human fiction, which has otherwise no existence, no reality, and until you can prove otherwise why discuss it?

Amos

Abe, your souls is the part of you that you do not know so how can we discuss 'it' with you?

It is an inspired concept and fiction only to humans who are not inspired. How's that?

Aerik Von

So I have to have an artistic "inspired" mind to see the soul?

I work proffessionally as an artist, and can see the art in the concept - but not the reality.

Fiach

I would agree that you could regard the biochemical processes of living cells, the electrochomical transmission of energy in the brain circuits, metabolism, chemically fueled chemical potential energy being converted into kinetic energy of movement, and all functions of the live animal (incl. human) body. You could call that sum of matter-energy interaction a "soul."

However energy is not immortal. It may well be converted into raising temperature, promoting the movement of matter (flexing your arm), and generating electical impulses on brain circuits similar to your personal computer. The energy does not remain intact, it is converted in the process of achieving its function. In the human being it is in the form of ATP (Adenosine Triphophate that is converted into ADP (diphosphate) in the process of flexing your arm, or thinking of Jennifer Lopez. Energy is consumed in matter by changing that matter.

When a ball is on a shelf, it has potential energy. When it falls, it is kinetic energy. But the floor and resistence bring it to a stop. Where did the kinetic energy go after the ball hit the floor?

When the human-animal body dies, the energy dies when metabolism ceases. Electromagnetic energy sent into space may persist as long as it doesn't interact with matter somewhere.

The Body's energy system or soul, is not projected elsewhere. It is maintained and recharged by cellular metabolism which when it ends, does not produce any more energy. The energy that it did produce has long since been dispersed and converted (not destroyed but converted).

The idea that ATP induced energy would preserve itself would require it to be frozen in time and inactive. A "soul" that is a being with consciousness would defy this process. Every thought would consume energy, which if limited and not renewable, would mean a very short life for that sould (milliseconds?)

Fiach

Amos

Then obviously you 'know' that you 'do not know' who you are.

Abe here does 'not know' that he 'does not know' who he really is.


I should add that the agnostic who can't see the concept has hyletic (obscured) vision, the artist who can see the concept but not the reality has lyrical vision, and the gnostic who can see both the concept and the relaity has noetic vision.

From the above follows that the agnostic doesn't have a soul to talk about, the artist can see the concept of his soul emerging in his work and the gnostic can tell the artist where it comes from.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

abe smith

Amos,1. I wasnae talking to you. 2. I don't think you know ANYTHING about me. 3. I reject your unsubstantiated (= junk) assertions about the alleged "soul", as I reject a large number of other junk assertions about non-existent human fictions. Cordially, Abe