Source
r/DebateReligion•
Def-Star

What Is The Supposed Function of a Soul?

[Feel free to substitute soul with immaterial mind] Does brain damage mean the soul is also damaged? If you lose the ability to feel physical or mental pleasure or pain, is the soul no longer able to feel those things? If one loses sight or hearing, can the soul can no longer see or hear? If the amygdala is damaged or undeveloped causing problems with empathy and emotion control, is the soul also unable to empathize or emotion control (to the extent that one can normally control emotional states)?

Or Does the soul not have any part in any of this? What is the point of it?

Posted Nov 10, 2011, 6:23 PM UTC

1284
tripleatheisthelp not wanted for atheist downvote brigade•

Deus ex machina for qualia.

11
stillnotkingatheist|buddhist•
  1. Invent a problem
  2. Invent a solution
  3. Use each to justify the other
  4. Profit!
10
[deleted]•

By misunderstanding something, you can disprove anything!

If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

5
LeviathonIpastafarian•

Umm...we didnt come from monkeys...monkeys and humans evolved from a single species, but not one from the other.

7
[deleted]•

What the fuck?

Seriously, you guys don't understand how to do anything besides have the same arguments you've had a thousand times.

You really don't notice the point of that sentence?

3
SMCinPDXatheist•

Only according to a limited interpretation of Linnaean classification. To be a real hair-splitter about it, we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, which evolved from a common ancestor with other apes, which evolved from a common ancestor with ancient monkeys. Cladistically, we didn't just come from monkeys, we are monkeys.

2
inyouraeroplanechristian•

Dude, he knows. He was making the point that calling a soul "deus ex machina for qualia" is oversimplifying the whole thing.

2
[deleted]•

The word "soul" has various definitions.

The first is your "inner being." It goes far beyond thoughts, sensations, etc. Many anti-spiritualists don't seem to be aware of this, for some strange reason. I guess they just aren't alive enough.

Many believe we have a spiritual body (a "soul") superimposed with our physical body. They do not have an exact mechanistic picture of how it functions, and may not believe that such a picture is possible.

There is the idea of the "oversoul," of which our earthly incarnation is a mere filtered version of. This greater being may be one of various spiritual entities, or ultimately the entirety of reality.

The soul is usually taken by Christians to be a perfect spiritual clone of ourselves that will go on to heaven/be resurrected. This makes no difference to us while alive.

These are just a few examples. There are quite a few others.

As for your questions about brain damage, etc.:

The idea that our personality persists for eternity is not entertained much at all in internet circles related to the afterlife. In NDE accounts, for example, experiencers often speak of casting off their Earthly being, or it being destroyed. The idea that brain damage and other personality alteration is a "serious problem" for the soul is rather silly, and shows that anyone who asserts this doesn't know what he's talking about.

6
Def-StarOP•

The first is your "inner being." It goes far beyond thoughts, sensations, etc. Many anti-spiritualists don't seem to be aware of this, for some strange reason. I guess they just aren't alive enough.

What is your innerbeing? How do you know you have one?

Many believe we have a spiritual body (a "soul") superimposed with our physical body. They do not have an exact mechanistic picture of how it functions, and may not believe that such a picture is possible.

What is its purpose? Is it separate entirely separate? Does it communicate, signal, react to, or affect anything?

There is the idea of the "oversoul," of which our earthly incarnation is a mere filtered version of. This greater being may be one of various spiritual entities, or ultimately the entirety of reality.

And what does it do, this übersoul? Introducing this concept does not answer any questions. It just requires me to restate the question.

The soul is usually taken by Christians to be a perfect spiritual clone of ourselves that will go on to heaven/be resurrected. This makes no difference to us while alive.

Then the soul is not us and we don't go to heaven? Then the soul is entirely irrelevant? But that's not what christians believe. And it still doesn't answer the question.

These are just a few examples. There are quite a few others.

I'm sure there are as many examples as one can make up.

The idea that our personality persists for eternity is not entertained much at all in internet circles related to the afterlife.

That's fine, but doesn't actually answer the question. What is the function of a soul? How does the soul relate to anything about you and your conscious experiences, subconscious experiences?

In NDE accounts, for example, experiencers often speak of casting off their Earthly being, or it being destroyed.

And what does it mean for you to have a soul while you are alive? So far, the soul seems to be completely irrelevant. It's there whether you are here or not does not experience what you experience, will not represent you when you die, and is just along for the ride'

The idea that brain damage and other personality alteration is a "serious problem" for the soul is rather silly, and shows that anyone who asserts this doesn't know what he's talking about.

You are asserting, as I've shown above, that the soul essentially doesn't exist, and if it does, is less relevant than your brand of shoelaces.

5
[deleted]•

Then the soul is not us and we don't go to heaven? Then the soul is entirely irrelevant? But that's not what christians believe. And it still doesn't answer the question.

By "clone" I mean it's you, just like on Earth, only in the afterlife!

As for the rest, I can't explain spiritualist philosophy in a single comment.

3
Def-StarOP•

You said that the state of the soul in the afterlife is not affected by what it does on earth. That's an interesting theology, but is not what Christians believe. See "Hell."

3
wotan343Stoic | Without Faith•

You keep abbreviating "near death experience" (I presume) as if you expect people to know what you mean.

3
themuffins•

if my soul wants to 'cast me off' in the afterlife it can enjoy hell for all I care. fuck that guy.

3
warmandfuzzy•

I don't know what any of this means.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

5
Rohasfinpagan•

Who said the soul / immaterial mind is supposed to have a purpose?

2
Def-StarOP•

Christians, etc... I could be mistaken. Maybe the theology is that the soul serves no purpose? Kind of just there?

4
DumDumDog•

they are always asking me where i get my purpose ..... as theirs is all worked out by god ... and i have none and i might as well be dead than alive according to them ... ye;p

3
namer98Orthodox Jew|תורה עם דרך ארץ|mod/r/Judaism | ★ •

It is the part of us that goes to the afterlife.

Beyond that, I really do not know much else.

2
Def-StarOP•

Is there any part of the soul that is not a brain function?

4
namer98Orthodox Jew|תורה עם דרך ארץ|mod/r/Judaism | ★ •

No clue. I tend to learn subjects that are more grounded in real life, so metaphysical questions are really a very weak point for me.

1
UnderTrutheastern orthodox•

Going with "immaterial mind" (I distinguish "soul", which animals have, and even plants to an extent, in the Aristotelian sense, from "spirit", which is what I would call the thinking and willing capacity in humans, which is unique among animals), I would say the function is just that; to think and will. The ultimate goal of this is Theosis, where we become like God.

If the brain is damaged, given the distinction between soul (the phenomena arising from the brain) and spirit (Descartes's kind of notion), I would say that yes, the soul is damaged, but not the spirit. I would take issue with the pleasure/pain question because the mind and body both seem to made subject to the soul, which does not seem right to me--what then would the soul be? As for sensation, it would be like a computer, fully capable of processing, not receiving any data from the physical world. I do think there are other spirits, and believe in an afterlife, but would not say that the spirit (I'm assuming this is the corresponding notion for me and you) can physically sense anything. The emotional question would again cause issues with the soul, but not the spirit. I think it would primarily result in faulty data input to the spirit, &/or inability to accurately produce responses. I could develop the distinction for you, if you'd like.

2
Def-StarOP•

If the brain is damaged, given the distinction between soul (the phenomena arising from the brain) and spirit (Descartes's kind of notion), I would say that yes, the soul is damaged, but not the spirit.

If the spirit is the thinking and willing aspect, why is it not damaged, being that the seat of thought is the brain? And why would the soul be damaged? And you think plants also have souls without having brains?

I would take issue with the pleasure/pain question because the mind and body both seem to made subject to the soul, which does not seem right to me--what then would the soul be?

Pleasure and pain centers are fairly well defined areas of the brain. Physical, chemical, an electromagnetic changes in the brain can enhance, decrease or entirely inhibit sensations of pain or pleasure, as well as emotion.

As for sensation, it would be like a computer, fully capable of processing, not receiving any data from the physical world. I do think there are other spirits, and believe in an afterlife, but would not say that the spirit (I'm assuming this is the corresponding notion for me and you) can physically sense anything.

The emotional question would again cause issues with the soul, but not the spirit. I think it would primarily result in faulty data input to the spirit, &/or inability to accurately produce responses. I could develop the distinction for you, if you'd like.

Where you say, "I think it would result in faulty data input to the spirit," how is the spirit communicating with the brain and why does it need to?

3
UnderTrutheastern orthodox•

Ahh, but I am a dualist, so I would consider the brain to be more like where our mind interacts with our body, but it is the mind which is where thought occurs, not the brain. The idea is that the phenomena arising out of the brain (material) is what we call the soul. This even animals have, and plants have somewhat, according to the ancient definitions of people like Aristotle. Is the brain/soul/spirit distinction still not making sense?

I know pain and pleasure have associated brain areas, it was just that the question seemed wrong to me because it made the soul distinct from both the brain and the mind, and I wasn't sure what to make of it.

The problem of interaction is a long-discussed one, and I'm not sure about that yet, but I think it might be something to do with the notion of spirit as "hyper-substance" rather than simply a different substance. It's kind of like the idea of an immaterial God interacting with the universe; there's something about spirit being prior to matter which might give it the ability to interact. As for why, it would be to control the body, and beyond this, you'd have to be more specific as to what you mean.

1
Def-StarOP•

Ahh, but I am a dualist, so I would consider the brain to be more like where our mind interacts with our body, but it is the mind which is where thought occurs, not the brain. The idea is that the phenomena arising out of the brain (material) is what we call the soul. This even animals have, and plants have somewhat, according to the ancient definitions of people like Aristotle. Is the brain/soul/spirit distinction still not making sense?

The mind is the workings of the brain, which is still materialistic and still requires a functioning brain.

The problem of interaction is a long-discussed one, and I'm not sure about that yet, but I think it might be something to do with the notion of spirit as "hyper-substance" rather than simply a different substance.

The question isn't really why or how a soul interacts with the brain, so much as what it is doing? Thoughts, feelings, and experiences are all associated with the brain, and affecting areas of the brain causes those thoughts, feelings, and experiences to change, and drastically so. The soul is divorced from this picture. What is the purpose of the soul?

2
UnderTrutheastern orthodox•

But that's what it means to be a dualist; I disagree that the mind is the workings of the brain, and would instead call the phenomena of the brain "soul", and say the mind is separate.

Those areas are associated with those things, but they can't be reduced to them. Just like people have long had the idea that the head is where the soul and spirit interact with the body, but still believed in them, locating more precisely where it interacts is not the same as eliminating the need for it.

1
develdevilnihilist•

This whole thread is filled with shootin' from the hip. Bravo.

2
Coraonpagan•

My faith tends to subscribe to the thought process that the soul represents that witch makes us more then the sum of our parts/what makes us unique among others of our species. We believe that this uniqueness is represented in the scientific world as the electrical charge in the brain and can exist without the body as energy can be created but cannot be destroyed, thus when our bodies cease to function we return to the energy of the earth, are reorganized and return.

1
Def-StarOP•

The kind of energy you are talking about is random IR photons which are constantly radiating from you into your surroundings. The difference is that when you die, you aren't radiating anymore electromagnetic energy anymore. That energy is not special and doesn't carry any information that identified you as you.

8
Coraonpagan•

Random is just another way of saying we haven't found a pattern yet. My theory is that it isn't random, I just don't have the funding to hire enough math grad students to prove it. The thing is we have proven that patterns exist where we thought they didn't.

1
Def-StarOP•

Random is just another way of saying we haven't found a pattern yet. My theory is that it isn't random, I just don't have the funding to hire enough math grad students to prove it.

That's an unsupported hypothesis, not a theory.

The thing is we have proven that patterns exist where we thought they didn't.

You are about to turn thermodynamics on its head. Exciting times we live in.

6
Coraonpagan•

Not just my theory, others have said the same thing, feel free to look them up on your own time.

^ Johnjoe McFadden (2002). "Synchronous Firing and Its Influence on the Brain's Electromagnetic Field: Evidence for an Electromagnetic Field Theory of Consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (4): 23–50. ^ Johnjoe McFadden (2006). "12. The CEMI Field Theory: Seven Clues to the Nature of Consciousness". In Jack A. Tuszynski. The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. Berlin: Springer. pp. 385–404. ISBN 3540238905.

1
themuffins•

it's not a "theory" btw, it's a random guess that makes you feel good. Humans are also exceptional at finding patterns where none exist.

5
Coraonpagan•

ah the anti-theist troll patrol, missed you guys.

1
Pastasky•

You might want to study some physics.

We believe that this uniqueness is represented in the scientific world as the electrical charge in the brain and can exist without the body as energy

First of all you can't just have "energy." Energy always comes in some form.

What electrical charge are you talking about? Ions in neurons?

energy can be created but cannot be destroyed

No. It can't be created.

energy of the earth

And what energy is this? The kinetic energy as it rotates and fly's through space? The thermal energy? The energy stored in earth's magnetic field?

2
warmandfuzzy•

What does any of this even mean?

2
Denny_CraineDiscordian•

energy can be created

no it cannot

1
FreshlyMintedgnostic theist•

It's that part that tells you what you SHOULD be doing in a larger context than just acquire food fuck bitches/blokes. It's an input into your conscious so yes, if part of your conscious gets damaged then perhaps you are not as acutely aware of the inputs that the soul is making but the soul is not damaged through brain damage. Rather it's damaged by ignoring its inputs, but even then perhaps it's not damaged, it's just the brain rewiring connections since you weren't using the physical link ups to the soul anyway

1
Def-StarOP•

It's that part that tells you what you SHOULD be doing in a larger context than just acquire food fuck bitches/blokes.

Like, should I or should I not be studying for a midterm? I'm not certain I understand. And why should the soul be necessary for that and not for sex and hunger? That is an arbitrary demarcation.

It's an input into your conscious so yes, if part of your conscious gets damaged then perhaps you are not as acutely aware of the inputs that the soul is making but the soul is not damaged through brain damage.

Setting aside how the soul goes about doing this, how does a soul know how to behave in difference contexts? You learn how to behave through social interaction: it is direct input into the brain from the environment and there is no need here to invoke a soul. And once you do, the soul is an external thing that has nothing to do with you. You don't have the soul's experience, the soul doesn't have your experience, and it seems to be superfluous.

Rather it's damaged by ignoring its inputs, but even then perhaps it's not damaged, it's just the brain rewiring connections since you weren't using the physical link ups to the soul anyway.

The physical link ups to the soul? And what might they be?

5
FreshlyMintedgnostic theist•

And why should the soul be necessary for that and not for sex and hunger?

Because those are often conflicting forces. Think id and superego, but not exactly.

Don't really know how to cut up the rest of your post into a Q&A in a way that makes cohesive sense. So here goes nothing.

I'm saying the soul is that part of your mind(?) that knows what right and wrong are and tells you to act accordingly. So yeah, should you study for the midterm, should you give that hobo a dollar, etc. I see it as different than learning because when you hear what the right thing is to do, you know it to be right. Maybe you don't act the right way all of the time and perhaps it's because your conscious hasn't been taught what the soul knows. People who are taught obviously backwards (like people who have parents who abuse them) don't know that that kind of behavior is wrong until they are exposed to right behavior. Then they know it as wrong (although sometimes there is some conflict). So it's that part of you that can instinctually evaluate one set of beliefs/actions as better than others regardless of what your parents taught you. Now maybe that's just "society" and I admit that it is very difficult to tease apart, but there are certain things that society accepts (like unreasonably skinny almost prepubescent models as the feminine standard of beauty) that my parents would not and that I do not. And there are certain things that my parents accept (like not being okay with gay marriage) that society seems to largely accept and that I do as well. There's just inherent rightness to it. Basically it's what you'd believe if had to make an ethical decision without any ego invested in the decision (largely atheists have religious people beat on making ethical decisions without ego btw).

TL;DR: The soul is that part of you that lets you know which decision is right given all that you know about the situation and stripped away of all egotistical factors

The physical link ups to the soul? And what might they be?

Totally, I don't know the physical structures specifically but it's whatever releases the feel-good chemicals (dopamine? serotonin?) when you do the morally right thing and what causes the feel-bad chemicals when you do the morally wrong thing.

1
Def-StarOP•

Because those are often conflicting forces. Think id and superego, but not exactly.

They are not forces so much as they are biologically derived feelings and saying that the soul is not responsible for this but is responsible for other feelings or drives or compulsions is an artificial demarcation. There is as much biological evidence for feeling sexual pleasure and for hunger as there are for anything.

I'm saying the soul is that part of your mind(?) that knows what right and wrong are and tells you to act accordingly. So yeah, should you study for the midterm, should you give that hobo a dollar, etc. I see it as different than learning because when you hear what the right thing is to do, you know it to be right.

All of that can neatly be explained biologically without the need to invoke a soul or spirit, of which there we have no evidence for.

Maybe you don't act the right way all of the time and perhaps it's because your conscious hasn't been taught what the soul knows.

If the soul already knows and can communicate these things to you, then you don't need to learn them and everyone is born knowing exactly how to behave. We don't see this, however, but quite the opposite, that behavior in children is learned and reinforced by environmental pressures.

People who are taught obviously backwards (like people who have parents who abuse them) don't know that that kind of behavior is wrong until they are exposed to right behavior. Then they know it as wrong (although sometimes there is some conflict). So it's that part of you that can instinctually evaluate one set of beliefs/actions as better than others regardless of what your parents taught you.

Instinctively knowing right behavior from wrong behavior contradicts the notion that it is a soul that contains this information or necessitates its existence. Or do you mean the soul is instinct? But then so is sexual desire.

Now maybe that's just "society" and I admit that it is very difficult to tease apart, but there are certain things that society accepts (like unreasonably skinny almost prepubescent models as the feminine standard of beauty) that my parents would not and that I do not. And there are certain things that my parents accept (like not being okay with gay marriage) that society seems to largely accept and that I do as well. There's just inherent rightness to it.

The very fact that standards of beauty and morality are variable within and between cultures contradicts your belief that one is inherently right and another inherently wrong.

There is nothing inherently right about anything. Right and wrong are constructed and overlaid by observers, whether consciously or not. The only question is, "what behaviors benefit you socially?" and "what behaviors benefit the self that can be gotten away with?" These things are learned and are not necessarily innate. The fact that these things can vary culturally means that a soul, if it exists, cannot be general purpose.

Basically it's what you'd believe if had to make an ethical decision without any ego invested in the decision (largely atheists have religious people beat on making ethical decisions without ego btw).

I definitely much prefer the term ethics over morals.

Totally, I don't know the physical structures specifically but it's whatever releases the feel-good chemicals (dopamine? serotonin?) when you do the morally right thing and what causes the feel-bad chemicals when you do the morally wrong thing.

It sounds like you are you saying that a soul to you is a metaphor for certain aspects of a personality. Otherwise, you are claiming that souls have dopamine and seratonin receptors and that some of hormones are received by the brain and some by the soul. All these things are explained perfectly well without souls or spirits.

2
FreshlyMintedgnostic theist•

I feel that I'm not making myself clear so I'll explain more, but first: you talk of absolute moral relativism, but that's simply not the case. You will not find a culture in which "do not murder the innocent" is accepted. You will find variation in what "murder" and "innocent" mean but never a complete rejection of that and many more central tendencies. Basically, a culture will always frame itself as being in the moral right by justifying its actions and redefining the meanings of the words in these central tendencies. You do not find a culture that calls itself evil and revels in this evil, inventing new ways to be evil.

The soul is some central template against which all of your learned moralities are compared. You experience the messages of the soul as neurotransmitter release, so obviously it has some physical link up. You might say that there is, logically, a better set of ethics. It's the thing that tells you that this is a better set of ethics and rewards you for following those ethical practices/punishes you for not.

1
nigglereddit•

You don't have a soul.

You are a soul.

You have a body.

1
Def-StarOP•

Source?

1
nigglereddit•

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Oh wait, you weren't serious were you?

1
Def-StarOP•

Of course I'm serious. What is your source for this bit o' fascinating information?

1