Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Trump
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 08:46am PT
|
“Vedanta philosophy teaches that the soul is uncaused, endless and beginningless, and its true nature is beyond all forms of human expression. Surrounding the soul is a casual matrix of 35 ideas, then an energy, or "astral" body, and then finally the gross physical form. At death the soul, the astral body, and the causal matrix all separate from the physical form.”
Mental speculators, one and all.
A theory by Anne Elk:
“All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end.”
Who is she kidding?! Brontosaurauses don’t exist outside of our heads any more.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 08:55am PT
|
If man has a soul that lives on after death
so does an ape
and so does a mouse, a bug, an amoeba
do these souls all live on as well?
Where do they go?
Why?
What is the purpose of soul w/o a body, what does it do?
how about this, nothing lives past death, just like the amoeba, when you die, your soul dies
That can be the only possible answer....
if you have evidence to prove otherwise, please, show it now.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 09:03am PT
|
knowing is possible
some people want to know
some people don't care but seem to want to insult people that do want to know or may already know
is not caring to know a real position to take?
The Skeptical Movement takes issue with these kinds of inquires, there are books and magazine articles galore targeting the existence of a soul, if a soul lives on, and what religions believe in the afterlife, and which do not
In the end, it's all about man's desire to be some how blessed by God and to live on past death, a reason for hope or salvation
and there is zero scientific evidence of any soul living past death
|
|
Roadie
Trad climber
moab UT
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 09:50am PT
|
Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.
If by soul we mean the thing that animates us then yes, obviously. If we mean a part of us that lives on after death then we will likely never know until we get there. Which is probably for the best.
I like to think the answer is yes. To take it further I think that part that lives on is probably a lot like compost, melding with other souls to help grow something new. That kind of bothers me on an aesthetic level. Maybe because I like myself so much and live under the delusion that I am in some way special.
I see a lot of people walking around obsessed with 'things' and 'status' and other such nonsense, they seem to put no value on experience or testing themselves physically or psychologically. Most don't seem happy or fulfilled. I wonder what happened to their souls.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 10:01am PT
|
One simple definition: soul=personality
It has an expiration date, unfortunately.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 10:34am PT
|
^^^ I was thinking of something a bit more terminal.
;>)
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 01:55pm PT
|
“Is pretending to know a real position to take?”
Sorry, but yea, I think that’s our birthright, and one of the most advantageous positions we’ve managed to take. Beats sitting in the corner twiddling our thumbs, waiting for surety, so we invent that surety to help motivate us to act.
We’ve only got so much real estate in this evolved brain apparatus - use it wisely and get up off that couch and wingsuit yourself into oblivion!, or wherever it is you’re headed.
Here we are humans when we could have been bird brains with a flittery fluttery soul. We hold all kinds of wacky positions, like that it doesn’t make sense for other people to hold the positions they hold. I guess holding our positions passes the time, or something like that.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Denver CO
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 02:51pm PT
|
The concept of a soul isn't the same as the concept of consciousness, which is called the "hard problem" by some philosophers, and admittedly, not well understood. The perspective you have, of being "you" all the time. It goes away when your brain stops functioning. The belief that your consciousness exists in some other space or dimension, apart from your brain is pure fantasy. The person promoting an idea has the burden to prove it, not the person who questioning it. As Carl Sagan once said, if there's no evidence to support a theory, you should just forget about it.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 04:41pm PT
|
No, pretending to know is not a position to take
The scientific method does not include pretend as a option
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 05:31pm PT
|
soul (spirit)
http://skepdic.com/soul.html
A soul or spirit is a non-physical entity capable of perception and self-awareness. Souls are often believed to be immortal.
If ever there were an entity invented for human wish-fulfillment, the soul is that entity. As Thomas Hobbes pointed out, the concept of a non-substantial substance is a contradiction. It is not possible to imagine a non-physical entity having life and perception. Even believers in souls always imagine them as being like human shaped clouds or fogs. It is a delusion to believe that the concept of soul is conceivable. Yet, billions of people have believed in a non-spatial perceiver which can travel through space and perceive and interpret vibrations and waves in the air without any sense organs.
Work done by philosophers and psychologists based on the assumption of a non-physical entity, which somehow inhabits and interacts with the human body, has not furthered human understanding of the working of the mind. Instead, it has furthered superstition and ignorance while hindering the development of any real and useful knowledge about the human mind. More promising is the work of those who see consciousness in terms of brain functioning and who try to treat 'mental' illness as primarily a physical problem. Two vast industries have been made both possible and lucrative by this belief in a non-entity in need of treatment from experts in non-entities: religion and psychology. A third industry, philosophy, also flourishes in great part due to the concept of soul: a good many philosophers write books and articles based on the assumption of the existence of spirits, while a good many others make a living writing refutations and criticisms of those books and articles.
See also astral projection, dualism, materialism, and mind.
from The Skeptic's Dictionary
http://skepdic.com/
under "S", for soul
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 05:47pm PT
|
soul isn't the same as the concept of consciousness
Soul and consciousness are one and same.
Psychologists and skeptics are worthless to understand the soul.
Academics like Craig fried are worthless to understand the soul, the living entity itself.
Academics can't even see their own selves .....
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 06:11pm PT
|
If only I knew what my dog tried to teach me
Don’t know if I have a soul
and haven’t a clue what god is
Lost and adrift
dazed and confused
Don’t know anything
‘bout life after death
When I die guess I’ll find out
or fade into the nothingness
That’s OK I’m alright with it
little time to learn the enth of it
But ‘least until my dyin’ breath
I’ll be asking questions and I won’t quit
-bushman
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 07:04pm PT
|
No idea.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 07:33pm PT
|
The person promoting an idea has the burden to prove it, not the person who questioning it.
Kant did a pretty bang-up job.
See, when empiricists request "proof," they are asking for a contradiction in terms. Nothing can be proved, in the really strict sense of that term, by empirical means. The long history of science has "proved" that fact.
"Proof" really means a deductive, not inductive, process. The scientific method is, by definition, inductive and so cannot in principle produce proofs. Thus, I find it entertaining when empiricists demand a level of evidence that they themselves never, ever produce.
And if what an empiricist means is "some reason to believe," it is very deeply question-begging to presume that that reason must necessarily be anchored in empirical evidence alone.
Kant employed deduction, so his account, unlike a scientific one, can in principle act as a proof.
In other words, there is a very good reason to believe in the Kantian "I think" that defies scientific "proof," because mind and all empirical data it perceives presupposes its action.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 08:40pm PT
|
Nothing can be proved, in the really strict sense of that term, by empirical means. The long history of science has "proved" that fact.
"Proof" really means a deductive, not inductive, process. The scientific method is, by definition, inductive and so cannot in principle produce proofs. Thus, I find it entertaining when empiricists demand a level of evidence that they themselves never, ever produce.
as I've stated elsewhere, this is a particular philosophical view of science which I'm not sure is correct.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 17, 2018 - 08:41pm PT
|
Soul music, soul food...pretty sure about them.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!