svensky

Becasue firstly i'm curious to see if you can actually think outside the box (I guess not).

Secondly, if I have an idea of where you are coming from (which hopefully your thinking outside the box will give some evidence of, assuming you can do that) it makes meaningful discussion possible.

Don't you ever try to understand an opponents approach to a topic in an effort to better understand where they are coming from ? This is what I was trying to do.

Incidentally if you dont, may I suggest you try it.

Jason

John Page

Franc28:

Judging by the recent postings, looks as though I was right.

David Gould

I am still trying to think of a test.

I know a friend whose idea of the soul means that human clones will not function.

The test for his version of a soul is cloning a human and seeing if it functions.

However, I doubt that that is part of the package called 'soul' that most are using.

That is why we need a list of things that the soul causes and is dependant upon.

For example, is a soul created with the foetus or not? (my friend says that there is a pool of souls that are cycled through and when they attach is the time that the foetus becomes conscious.)

Does everyone have a soul?
Do all animals have souls?
If some do not, which ones and why?

Is there a way of detaching a soul? (for example, is someone in a coma still attached to their soul or not?)

Does the soul depart before death or after death?
Does the soul die with the body?

There are so many of these sorts of questions. I think that many dualists/spiritualist will have different answers to all of them, and so one experiment will be very difficult to formulate to disprove all versions or provide evidence for just one.

I think it is like a god concept - the Christian God concept can be disproved by logic; the Deist God is less easily disproved, if it is possible at all.

I will give my friend's definition of the soul and suggest the cloning of a human to disprove it or provide evidence for it.

If you can give me another definition of a soul, I might be able to formulate an experiment.

Amos

Dualism makes reference to our dual identity and prompts the question "who am I and what is my purpose here on earth". One is our ego identity (or persona), and the other is our True or God identity.

Our soul identity is the non-rational part of our mind from where illumination comes forth (our subconscious mind), and our ego identity is built on our conscious mind wherein we are illuminated. Our soul is the TOL and our persona is the TOK.

It is because we are "divided" in our own mind that we do not have a free will and it is because we can be of "singular" mind that free will is possible.

If we have the mind of God (and know who we "really" are), we no longer have a soul (because we are "one with" our soul), and will have a free will.

So the answer to the question "who am I and what is my purpose here on earth" is to "find out who we really are and have no purpose here on earth."

Amos

svensky

Excellent. Now this is turning into a discussion

I would agree with you here. This would imply that souls are preexistent, and that they are somehow coded to a persons DNA (or at least that is the way it appears).

I would say yes. Although one might wish to argue at what point it has a soul.

All human being would yes.

Here it might be worth having a division between spirit and soul. All animals have an animating principle (a spirit as it where) but only man has a soul (which implies obviously that souls are more than an animating principle. It also has aspects of mind). This would (I think) be the biblical take on soul vs spirit. Oh and plants dont have a spirit in the same sense as animals (I notice nobody has asked do plants have souls ).

On the assumption that someone without a soul is dead, then a coma patient does still have a soul.

Souls presumably can't be detached without killing the person.

That in a sense is the real question isn't. As we all seem to mostly agree that, if a soul animates the person they die without it, what happens to it.

On the current definition i'm not sure what test can be done (which was why I asked what would be evidence).

I look forward to seeing if you can come up with something.

Jason

Francois Tremblay

I feared this would happen. The dualists have taken over yet another thread.

I repeat once again.

This is not a challenge to materialism. This is a challenge to dualists to justify their position. I have put the work of defining and proof is strictly on the shoulder of the dualists, because their position is completely undefined and has no evidence whatsoever. Stop trying to shoulder your burden away, or ask us to provide evidence for you.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

svensky

Fine, the soul is the bit thats makes people go. When they dont have it they die. You can see the out workings of a soul by virtue of the fact that a person is alive.

Case made.

I thought this was supposed to be a discussion

Jason

Francois Tremblay

Fine then, but if you equate the "soul" with "what makes us work", then your position is compatible with materialism. This challenge is for dualists and supernaturalists to answer to their positions.

David Gould

Okay, if we have the soul being created at some point in the development of the foetus we thus may have a material cause for the creation of the soul.

Or does the creation of the soul cause the creation of the foetus? For example, if are foetuses only formed when a soul is created, that creation happening through some other mechanism?

Which way does the causal mechanism work in this regard?

I am looking at this because if souls cause material thing to act in certain ways and if certain material things cause souls to act in certain ways it may be possible to test for their existence by doing things to affect souls in a way that would in turn generate a material affect that could not have been caused through a direct material link.

I do not think you can prove the nonexistence of souls - people can just keep changing the definitions, after all.

However, i think it may be possible to prescribe certain limits to their possible function. Of course, if the theorised soul exists, it may be possible to test particular soul theories. If their predictions match with reality, then...

Okay, so now we need a hypothesis to test, so we need to keep defining.

Do we assume that there is only one soul per body?

Do we assume that there is only one body per soul?

Are there limits to a souls interaction with other souls? For example, if a person is conscious is it possible for their soul to communicate with another soul so that faster than light signalling between them is allowed?

Do souls operate in a similar space/time arrangement as we do? For example, can they only detect the material things we can detect?

Do souls communcate when the material body is dreaming? If so, are there limits on what they can communicate?

I am sure I will have more questions but that's just for starters. I think my material affecting the spiritual affecting the material idea is a good path to go down, however.


I also still hold to the idea that if there is no difference between the predictions for people having a soul and not having a soul then Occam's razor applies.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the asserter but I do not mind helping formulate some sort of testable hypothesis.
[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: David Gould ]

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: David Gould ]</p>

Christopher Lord

Alright, in the intrest of getting some dualist answers (something I have yet to see, btw), here are some things which would prove, for me, the existance of a soul.

* A Device which can interfere with the mind-brain link, causing brain death. This interferance can not cause material changes to the brain, and CAN NOT AFFECT ANIMALS IN THE SAME WAY.

* A device which can listen in on the mind-brain link in a verboose way, displaying all of my thoughts completely, and without any material link to my mind.

* Evidence of the realm the 'spirit' or 'soul' resides in, complete with a way to observe my soul in its native state.

* The material structure responsible for interfacing my brain with the spirit realm, which must originate ALL my thoughts after recieving input from the senses. Of course a verboose listing of my thoughts versus the thoughts going through this structure would help. Thoughts not going through this structure would have to be explained.

I could go on, but I dont see the point. I doubt we will see the dualists posit anything intresting here.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Christopher Lord ]</p>