A good old Debate!

[Seniosh]

Hope i don't accidentally make this thread close with this post-

The concept of a soul is very interesting and fascinating, and i think completely explainable by the insecurities of the human mind. As humans, one of our greatest fears is naturally death. Some go to it in peace, but i think the majority of us would have to come to the consensus that death sucks a bit.

Now almost all religions have some kind of "soul" concept, whether it be the human consciousness, some more vague collection of attributes, a means of eternal life, whatever. I think it's almost entirely due to human insecurity of death. What better way to meet and beat death than by denying that we, in fact, die? It's a sort of security blanket, and a way to explain why humans are thinking beings, when other species rely on instinct alone. Of course, souls carry the consciousness, differentiating us from animals, and allowing us to be reborn in some capacity.

I would have to agree with DA that a soul is entirely unnecessary. The brain is amazing enough on it's own, and human scientists don't understand a tenth of a percent of it.

Believing in the non-existence of the soul is probably quite healthy. I've always myself thought that a belief in a finite existence would drive one to make life matter, because once is all you get. There's no soul to carry on your legacy after death. One shot. If people feel less special because of the non-existence of souls, well maybe they'll stop killing chimps and dolphins and whales, because we're all related.

Not quite sure exactly what i was arguing for or against there, but have fun, and please don't close the thread, as i would like to point out how i mentioned no belief systems, and the only assaulting done was the discussion of how souls are a manifestation of insecurity, and that argument was *i think* put forwards in a generally non-aggressive and peaceful manor.

[DarkAsmodeous]

I have to agree, though there is a certain level of socialy ingrained narcisisim with regard to the human race.

I think that was done respectfuly and from the standpoint of personal beliefs, so its fine.

However, let's stay on topic here, in my experience tangents tend to lead to bad places.

[llamaranger]

We still on proving our own existence then?

Righto, here's something to ponder:

Even if we can prove our own existence, which as we have seen is difficult and most methods are pretty sketchy at best. Consider for a moment the significance of our existance. There is a highly scientific equation that predicts the existance of extra-terrestrial life. Using average figures it nnormally comes out at about 300 million other possible sentient species in the known universe. You are one person, out of 6 billion people on a planet out of 300 million predicted to be capable of supporting life.

Most people don't find that a particularly comforting thought, as it tends to remind them of their own insignificance, and is a bit of a blow to the human ego. But I ook at it from the other end. Even if I completely f*** things up it don't make an iota of difference to the universe.

Of course one could argue that we can't know our own significance, and sure as hell shouldn't predict it based soley on the vastness of the universe.

Enjoy

Edd

[DarkAsmodeous]

Well, if you consider that the universe doesn't have two shits to give, pardon the language, we don't make any difference other than to ourselves, our "effect" on anything is from a subjective point of you. even the concept existence has no wait without something to observe it, so one could say that we do exist subjectively, because nothing is objective. But then again, when you seek the truth, you admit the truth is out there, and so there must be SOME objectivity.

Ow.

[llamaranger]

yeh my brain hurts too. It's too early... Despite the fact that its afternoon.

On a more related note I read something recently that was pure scientific proof that stuff like gravity and mass only exist when you measure them. I can't remember how they did it, but it was complicated and there were lots of big fancy science words, but basically, it was failr yconclusive proof that the universe is only there when you're looking at it.

Edd

[DarkAsmodeous]

No... What you mean I think is that you can only observe position or velocity of particles, not both. This not however mean that it does not exist, only that it is not "rendered", much like a computer program that does not represent 3D objects too distant to be relevant, the universe may just be that way.

It is not proof that it is not there, it is merely proof that we can't see it all at once.

[cruxvader]

Yeah, the concept of time is said to govern these ulimatiums, such that it progresses steadily. Obviously everything exists at one time, as in a freezed frame.

But I observe the position and velocity of particles all the time. How? I look at the particles movement... The position is inherent thereof.