I recon souls do not exist.
I also recon there is no god.
I recon that our notion of humans having a \"soul\" is just our inability to admit that we are just incredibly complex automatons, like self-programming evolving computers.
Consciousness is just an illusion, a side-effect. Still, enjoy it all the same!
When people say they have a soul - my question is \"where is it stored in the body?\". If it's in the brain, then it's just a pattern of neurons right?
I think a robot with a human brain is still human, and still has just as much a soul. What do you think?
I think if you added a bit to your brain, like a memory unit thingy to help you remember and recall better - you're still you. Just with better memory. Just like a man with a club is still a man, even though he can now hurt people much better. It's just a tool.
Now what if you damaged a section of your brain, are you still human? Do you still have a soul?
What if you were able to repair that section of your brain, replace it with an identical copy. Perhaps biological, and atom for atom identical to your undamaged original. Are you still human? Do you still have a soul?
What if you replaced that damaged section of your brain with a technological replacement, like a chip, or artificial neurons? And you couldn't tell, coz it was perfect copy of your original function. Would you still be human, and would you have a soul?
What if they replaced your entire brain with a chip, or artificial neurons, and you couldn't tell - maybe you didn't even know (they did it in your sleep). Would you still be human? Would you still have a soul?
What if you created - from scratch - a chip that could think just like a human, but it wasn't based on any human original brain. It was just a chip, a thinking chip. In every way identical to the previous example of a human brain replacement chip only it's entirely original and not based on any existing human mind.
Would it be human? Would it have a soul?
Would intelligent robots be like people?
Or would they be people?
What if you put your brain in a cows body? Since many fuel their body with cow body; then is not their body intrinsically linked to cow body? So wouldn't a cow body with a human brain, be more pure, then a human body with a human brain--that is fueled by a cow body? Since we have essentially, even literally, eliminated the middle man?
So to avoid this inevitable preference of nature, shouldn't we all become vegetarians?
Watch Ghost Hunters. That'll be the answer to your questions!
I admit, I believe we all have a soul within us, and if you want to be technical as to where a soul would be located... I'd say it's in the brain. I go with the saying in this topic that our eyes are the gateway to our soul and I hold that to be true.
Gooberman wrote:What if you put your brain in a cows body? Since many fuel their body with cow body; then is not their body intrinsically linked to cow body? So wouldn't a cow body with a human brain, be more pure, then a human body with a human brain--that is fueled by a cow body? Since we have essentially, even literally, eliminated the middle man?
So to avoid this inevitable preference of nature, shouldn't we all become vegetarians?
wow good point. I wonder how cow/human metabolism compares, and if humans would need to be as big as a cow for it to work (ie: to contain those many stomachs).
(and some ppl already are that big, roofles)
next step again from that:
some have also wondered about injecting/adding chloroplasts into their skin - but we would need to walk around naked in full sun all day, with over 20x as much skin surface area as we already have, for us to get enough energy .
However, if we provided additional energy for extra light, like from a fusion reactor, then we could theoretically reduce the needed surface area.
But then, since we arn't harvesting the sunlight anymore anyway - the whole system could just be internal and doesn't need to be in your skin at all.
Either that or live 20x closer to the sun (0.05AU distance). That's 8x closer to the sun than even Mercury, the closest planet to the sun.
I'm like Roid. There is no \"soul\" in the biblical sense but I also like what Techpro said. So,if you want to call your \"spirit\" your soul, then thats ok in that definition.
To me, your body is what people initially see, while your spirit (soul) is only revealed by what you say and do in life. People may forget what you looked like, but they always remember what you were.
We're talking about the biblical view here. Just replacing words like 'person' and 'personality' with 'soul' and 'spirit' isn't going to get you anywhere.
The Dalai Lama, in a talk about the Buddhist principal of essential existence, put it this way. I paraphrase:
Here is a table. It exists of course since you can touch it. But where does \"table\" exist. Take it apart and you cannot find a part that is table, only wood. Does wood then have essential existence? Well take wood apart and you have tree cells, take tree cells apart and you have cellulose, cellulose apart and you have carbon and other elements, take the elements apart and you have protons,electrons,neutrons, take those apart and you have quarks and other sub-atomic particles until there is only bundles of energy that happen to be there because it is the most logical place for them to be at that moment.
So there is no table in physical existence only in a concept contained in the physical parts assembled and described by us as a table. It is the concept that has the essential existence, any collection of parts can hold the concept of \"table\". So any living thing can hold the concept of \"spirit\" or \"soul\".
Was The Buddha right? Modern physics agrees with his 2,400 year old concept but I haven't a clue if it is the \"truth\" or not.
I guess I have to mark off \"exists\" on the pole but I don't know what that means any more than I understand why those little bundles of energy want to be where they are.
Clothes may make the man
But all a girl needs is a tan
Ford, it's something called perception. The closer you look, the bigger things get. Eventually, they get so big you can not see the whole any longer and in Buddah's case, you dismiss it.
\"table\" is a label we give to an object that does indeed exists which as pointed out is a collective of many smaller subsets. To see/ identify those smaller set does not negate the larger whole. He used a micro-analogy. I guess you could say the same of the Macro. The Buddist looks to Nirvana, which incidentally, is supposed to be a collective of \"all\". With Buddah's same analogy, you can dismiss Nirvana as the Universe (the largest whole) falls apart under scrutiny of the smaller sub set (galaxies ans star systems etc.) as does each in its own turn under closer examination of its smaller components.
The cycle is self consuming and really you end up with a form or existentialism. ..it's only there because I perceive it to be.
roid wrote:I recon souls do not exist.
I also recon there is no god.
I recon that our notion of humans having a "soul" is just our inability to admit that we are just incredibly complex automatons, like self-programming evolving computers.
that probably hits the nail on the head, but the conclusion scares me. that would mean that any given system if reaching a certain level of complexity would develop some kind of intelligence. i wonder how far away our current computer systems are from this level of complexity.
(oh, did i mention that sometimes i think, the ccd-sensor in the built-in webcam from my notebook starts to glow darkred... well maybe its just imagination )
DigiJo wrote:that probably hits the nail on the head, but the conclusion scares me. that would mean that any given system if reaching a certain level of complexity would develop some kind of intelligence. i wonder how far away our current computer systems are from this level of complexity.
We're already at that point. Hence the term 'artificial intelligence'.
If you're thinking about how long it'll be before it's like a human brain, then you may as well stop there: we define a brain by it's physicality, not by it's functionality. You can't say that all brains work the same way.
roid wrote:What if you created - from scratch - a chip that could think just like a human, but it wasn't based on any human original brain. It was just a chip, a thinking chip. In every way identical to the previous example of a human brain replacement chip only it's entirely original and not based on any existing human mind.
Would it be human? Would it have a soul?
I'm not necessarily convinced that this is possible. Can we reproduce water with technology? Can we invent something that freezes like water, flows like water, evaporates like water, etc.? Probably not, not without just using water. This is because the properties of water that we want to emulate are too fundamental to be emulated with technology. If we wanted to reinvent water, we'd have to just use water.
I think that "thinking" might be something similar. It might depend on properties that are fundamental to the stuff brains are made of such that it cannot be reproduced without just using the stuff that brains are made of and then ending up with a brain.
Jeff250 wrote:Can we reproduce water with technology? Can we invent something that freezes like water, flows like water, evaporates like water, etc.? Probably not, not without just using water. This is because the properties of water that we want to emulate are too fundamental to be emulated with technology. If we wanted to reinvent water, we'd have to just use water.
Why the hell not? We can synthesize a lot of elements, and we can cause reactions. That's all that is necessary.
Sure, it might be wasteful to synthesize water, but nothing prevents it from being done.
Right: If you wanted to emulate water, you'd just end up synthesizing water itself. There is no other kind of \"artificial water\" possible with technology. Emulating \"thinking\" I suspect might be the same way: we won't be able to emulate it without just synthesizing brains themselves, since no other kind of \"artificial brain\" that would produce thinking would be possible.
Water is a very basic substance. Intelligence is not; there are many ways to do it.
If you want to reproduce every single feature of water, yes, you might as well use it. If you want to reproduce every single facet of human intelligence, you might as well use a human brain as well. But what if you don't? What if some parts of human intelligence are irrelevant to the exercise? In reality, there usually are such parts.
The one catch is in making computers really \"think\" for themselves, rather than merely doing what they're told... but if what roid postulates (and he's far from the first, believe me) is true, then there is no such thing; even humans don't do it.
The problem is we still don't know exactly how the brain works. Or what consciousness is. Or even if we really have a free will, or merely think we do (or are we really thinking we do or is it just an illusion)?
Personally, I do believe in an immaterial soul; it sounds ridiculous, but trying to argue some kind of emergent consciousness out of the sheer complexity of the brain is equally - if not more - ridiculous. The only real alternative in my mind is simple materialism, which doesn't mesh very well with human experience; one might claim it's all an illusion but how can you prove an illusion can replicate the results?
Sirius wrote:Or even if we really have a free will, or merely think we do (or are we really thinking we do or is it just an illusion)?
Any argument saying that 'if X is true, then we don't have free will' falls down just as soon as someone reminds them that their brain isnt's controlling them, but their brain is them.
The cycle is self consuming and really you end up with a form or existentialism. ..it's only there because I perceive it to be.
Well that is one way to look at one of the basic tenets of Buddhism. To them the physical world exists only because our \"spirit\" or \"soul\" or whatever has become focused on material things. We were distracted from the true existence, Nirvana, and became trapped in the cycle of birth, suffering and death. It is only our focus on the material that gives it existence to us. However to the Buddhist that does not negate the existence of Nirvana which can be confirmed through the practice of meditation. Existentialism would have you reject Nirvana as well as just a self created delusion where The Buddha would have you believe that it's existence can be proved but not described clearly with words based in a material existence.
At least that, in my limited understanding, is the comparison.
Clothes may make the man
But all a girl needs is a tan
Sirius wrote:Water is a very basic substance. Intelligence is not; there are many ways to do it.
Are you using "intelligence" synonymously with "thinking" here? I've been referring to "thinking" consistently in my posts, more or less the same way you have set out the term later in your post. If you are confident that there are other ways of doing thinking, then I'd like to see demonstrations of them.
Sirius wrote:If you want to reproduce every single feature of water, yes, you might as well use it. If you want to reproduce every single facet of human intelligence, you might as well use a human brain as well. But what if you don't? What if some parts of human intelligence are irrelevant to the exercise?
The OP's thought experiment had a person's brain replaced with a chip that perfectly reproduced the functionality of a human brain. I suspect that that will never be possible. If we were willing to sacrifice some aspects of human thinking to still emulate the fundamentals of thinking (whatever they are) using technology, it might be possible, but it would still depend on how much these fundamental qualities are tied to the particles and structures that make up our brain.
I didn't think I'd get so much negative response to my thoughts on this, but I don't see why everyone is so against even that this idea might prove to be the case. Since some of the theories of thinking involve electromagnetic fields and quantum mechanics, I don't find it implausible that the fundamentals of thinking might somehow be invariably tied to the characteristics that make a brain a brain and not a chip.
well if the chip analogy is troublesome, how about a brain made of artificial neurons.
ok, i guess i'd have to suggest how an artificial neuron is different to a human one:
It would function as a normal neuron, interact with other neurons the same, but it would not use chemicals internally for signalling. Instead it will \"read\" chemical signals which will trigger an internal mechnical or electrical-computerised response, and it will emulate chemical signals as output as well (perhaps it will keep a storehouse of relevant chemicals just for the purpose of communication with other cells).
It would not feed on glucose.
Or perhaps it will directly attach to it's surrounding neurons and bypass the chemical signaling process. This would be the case if the WHOLE BRAIN was made of these neurons. Releases of chemicals would still \"happen\" but it would be entirely simulated, no actual chemicals would be released.
OR
The whole neuron could be simulated inside a computer. And all surrounding Neurons as well. It's just limited by computational power.
I do personally think that we'd have to concentrate on Neurons if we are to simulate our thinking processes. So if a chip is simulating a brain - the chip is interally simulating Neurons and their interactions.
To an extent, The chemical is like a set of instructions for the neuron to know what to do with the accompanying electrical signal received.
The electrical signal is independant of neurotransmitters, More like the precursor to the secretion of it actually.
Which is why some thought's and/or memories can cause a certain response such as, Excitation(Dopamine/Norepinephrine response), Emotions (Serotonin response) or other biological responses to the relevant chemical.
SOUL
The original-language terms (Heb., ne´phesh [נפ?]; Gr., psy·khe´ [ψυχή]) as used in the Scriptures show “soul” to be a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal enjoys.
The connotations that the English “soul” commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words as used by the Bible writers. This fact has steadily gained wider acknowledgment. Back in 1897, in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30), Professor C. A. Briggs, as a result of detailed analysis of the use of ne´phesh, observed: “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne´phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”
More recently, due to the modern interpretation of the English word “soul,” when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, the editor-in-chief, H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word “soul” had been virtually eliminated from this translation because, “the Hebrew word in question here is ‘Nefesh.’” He added: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”—The New York Times, October 12, 1962.
What is the origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal?
The difficulty lies in the fact that the meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” stem primarily, not from the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures, but from ancient Greek philosophy, actually pagan religious thought. Greek philosopher Plato, for example, quotes Socrates as saying: “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.”—Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.
In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·khe´ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·khe´ and ne´phesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [ne´phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.
The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”—Edition published by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.
Ne´phesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense ne´phesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”
As for the Greek word psy·khe´, Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as “life,” and “the conscious self or personality as centre of emotions, desires, and affections,” “a living being,” and they show that even in non-Biblical Greek works the term was used “of animals.” Of course, such sources, treating as they do primarily of classical Greek writings, include all the meanings that the pagan Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of “departed spirit,” “the immaterial and immortal soul,” “the spirit of the universe,” and “the immaterial principle of movement and life.” Evidently because some of the pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death, the term psy·khe´ was also applied to the “butterfly or moth,” which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from caterpillar to winged creature.—Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.
The ancient Greek writers applied psy·khe´ in various ways and were not consistent, their personal and religious philosophies influencing their use of the term. Of Plato, to whose philosophy the common ideas about the English “soul” may be attributed (as is generally acknowledged), it is stated: “While he sometimes speaks of one of [the alleged] three parts of the soul, the ‘intelligible,’ as necessarily immortal, while the other two parts are mortal, he also speaks as if there were two souls in one body, one immortal and divine, the other mortal.”—The Evangelical Quarterly, London, 1931, Vol. III, p. 121, “Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature,” by A. McCaig.
In view of such inconsistency in non-Biblical writings, it is essential to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, showing what the inspired writers meant by their use of the term psy·khe´, as well as by ne´phesh. Ne´phesh occurs 754 times in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures, while psy·khe´ appears by itself 102 times in the Westcott and Hort text of the New Testament, giving a total of 856 occurrences. This frequency of occurrence makes possible a clear concept of the sense that these terms conveyed to the minds of the inspired Bible writers and the sense their writings should convey to our mind. An examination shows that, while the sense of these terms is broad, with different shades of meaning, among the Bible writers there was no inconsistency, confusion, or disharmony as to man’s nature, as existed among the Grecian philosophers of the so-called Classical Period.
Earth’s First Souls. The initial occurrences of ne´phesh are found at Genesis 1:20-23. On the fifth creative “day” God said: “‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls [ne´phesh] and let flying creatures fly over the earth . . . ’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul [ne´phesh] that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” Similarly on the sixth creative “day” ne´phesh is applied to the “domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth” as “living souls.”—Ge 1:24.
After man’s creation, God’s instruction to him again used the term ne´phesh with regard to the animal creation, “everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul [literally, in which there is living soul (ne´phesh)].” (Ge 1:30) Other examples of animals being so designated are found at Genesis 2:19; 9:10-16; Leviticus 11:10, 46; 24:18; Numbers 31:28; Ezekiel 47:9. Notably, the Christian Greek Scriptures coincide in applying the Greek psy·khe´ to animals, as at Revelation 8:9; 16:3, where it is used of creatures in the sea.
Thus, the Scriptures clearly show that ne´phesh and psy·khe´ are used to designate the animal creation lower than man. The same terms apply to man.
The Human Soul. Precisely the same Hebrew phrase used of the animal creation, namely, ne´phesh chai·yah´ (living soul), is applied to Adam, when, after God formed man out of dust from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, “the man came to be a living soul.” (Ge 2:7) Man was distinct from the animal creation, but that distinction was not because he was a ne´phesh (soul) and they were not. Rather, the record shows that it was because man alone was created “in God’s image.” (Ge 1:26, 27) He was created with moral qualities like those of God, with power and wisdom far superior to the animals; hence he could have in subjection all the lower forms of creature life. (Ge 1:26, 28) Man’s organism was more complex, as well as more versatile, than that of the animals. (Compare 1Co 15:39.) Likewise, Adam had, but lost, the prospect of eternal life; this is never stated with regard to the creatures lower than man.—Ge 2:15-17; 3:22-24.
It is true that the account says that ‘God proceeded to blow into the man’s nostrils the breath [form of nesha·mah´] of life,’ whereas this is not stated in the account of the animal creation. Clearly, however, the account of the creation of man is much more detailed than that of the creation of animals. Moreover, Genesis 7:21-23, in describing the Flood’s destruction of “all flesh” outside the ark, lists the animal creatures along with mankind and says: “Everything in which the breath [form of nesha·mah´] of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died.” Obviously, the breath of life of the animal creatures also originally came from the Creator, Almighty God.
So, too, the “spirit” (Heb., ru´ach; Gr., pneu´ma), or life-force, of man is not distinct from the life-force in animals, as is shown by Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, which states that “they all have but one spirit [u·ru´ach].”
Soul—A Living Creature. As stated, man “came to be a living soul”; hence man was a soul, he did not have a soul as something immaterial, invisible, and intangible residing inside him. The apostle Paul shows that the Christian teaching did not differ from the earlier Hebrew teaching, for he quotes Genesis 2:7 in saying: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul [psy·khen´ zo´san].’ . . . The first man is out of the earth and made of dust.”—1Co 15:45-47.
The Genesis account shows that a living soul results from the combination of the earthly body with the breath of life. The expression “breath of the force of life [literally, breath of the spirit, or active force (ru´ach), of life]” (Ge 7:22) indicates that it is by breathing air (with its oxygen) that the life-force, or “spirit,” in all creatures, man and animals, is sustained. This life-force is found in every cell of the creature’s body.
Since the term ne´phesh refers to the creature itself, we should expect to find the normal physical functions or characteristics of fleshly creatures attributed to it. This is exactly the case. Ne´phesh (soul) is spoken of as eating flesh, fat, blood, or similar material things (Le 7:18, 20, 25, 27; 17:10, 12, 15; De 23:24); being hungry for or craving food and drink (De 12:15, 20, 21; Ps 107:9; Pr 19:15; 27:7; Isa 29:8; 32:6; Mic 7:1); being made fat (Pr 11:25); fasting (Ps 35:13); touching unclean things, such as a dead body (Le 5:2; 7:21; 17:15; 22:6; Nu 19:13); being ‘seized as a pledge’ or being ‘kidnapped’ (De 24:6, 7); doing work (Le 23:30); being refreshed by cold water when tired (Pr 25:25); being purchased (Le 22:11; Eze 27:13); being given as a vow offering (Le 27:2); being put in irons (Ps 105:18); being sleepless (Ps 119:28); and struggling for breath (Jer 15:9).
It may be noted that in many texts reference is made to “my soul,” “his [or her] soul,” “your soul,” and so forth. This is because ne´phesh and psy·khe´ can mean one’s own self as a soul. The sense of the term can therefore often be expressed in English by use of personal pronouns. Thus Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (p. 627) shows that “my ne´phesh” means “I” (Ge 27:4, 25; Isa 1:14); “your [singular] ne´phesh” means “thou” or “you” (Ge 27:19, 31; Isa 43:4; 51:23); “his ne´phesh” means “he, himself” (Nu 30:2; Isa 53:10); “her ne´phesh” means “she, herself” (Nu 30:5-12), and so forth.
The Greek term psy·khe´ is used similarly. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 4, p. 54) says it may be used as “the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect:—1st person, John 10:24 (‘us’); Heb. 10:38; cp. [compare] Gen. 12:13; Num. 23:10; Jud. 16:30; Ps. 120:2 (‘me’); 2nd person, 2 Cor. 12:15; Heb. 13:17,” and so forth.
Represents life as a creature. Both ne´phesh and psy·khe´ are also used to mean life—not merely as an abstract force or principle—but life as a creature, human or animal.
Thus when Rachel was giving birth to Benjamin, her ne´phesh (“soul,” or life as a creature) went out from her and she died. (Ge 35:16-19) She ceased to be a living creature. Similarly, when the prophet Elijah performed a miracle regarding the dead son of the widow of Zarephath, the child’s ne´phesh (“soul,” or life as a creature) came back into him and “he came to life,” was again a living creature.—1Ki 17:17-23.
Because the creature’s life is so inseparably connected with and dependent on blood (shed blood standing for the life of the person or creature [Ge 4:10; 2Ki 9:26; Ps 9:12; Isa 26:21]), the Scriptures speak of the ne´phesh (soul) as being “in the blood.” (Ge 9:4; Le 17:11, 14; De 12:23) This is, obviously, not meant literally, inasmuch as the Scriptures also speak of the “blood of your souls” (Ge 9:5; compare Jer 2:34) and the many references already considered could not reasonably be applied solely to the blood or its life-supporting qualities. Ne´phesh (soul) is not used with reference to the creation of vegetable life on the third creative “day” (Ge 1:11-13) or thereafter, since vegetation is bloodless.
Examples of the use of the Greek psy·khe´ to mean “life as a creature” may be found at Matthew 6:25; 10:39; 16:25, 26; Luke 12:20; John 10:11, 15; 13:37, 38; 15:13; Acts 20:10. Since God’s servants have the hope of a resurrection in the event of death, they have the hope of living again as “souls,” or living creatures. For that reason Jesus could say that “whoever loses his soul [his life as a creature] for the sake of me and the good news will save it. Really, of what benefit is it for a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his soul? What, really, would a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mr 8:35-37) Similarly, he stated: “He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.” (Joh 12:25) These texts, and others like them, show the correct understanding of Jesus’ words at Matthew 10:28: “Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” While men can kill the body, they cannot kill the person for all time, inasmuch as he lives in God’s purpose (compare Lu 20:37, 38) and God can and will restore such faithful one to life as a creature by means of a resurrection. For God’s servants, the loss of their “soul,” or life as a creature, is only temporary, not permanent.—Compare Re 12:11.
Mortal and destructible.On the other hand, Matthew 10:28 states that God “can destroy both soul [psy·khen´] and body in Gehenna.” This shows that psy·khe´ does not refer to something immortal or indestructible. There is, in fact, not one case in the entire Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, in which the words ne´phesh or psy·khe´ are modified by terms such as immortal, indestructible, imperishable, deathless, or the like. On the other hand, there are scores of texts in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that speak of the ne´phesh or psy·khe´ (soul) as mortal and subject to death (Ge 19:19, 20; Nu 23:10; Jos 2:13, 14; Jg 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1Ki 20:31, 32; Ps 22:29; Eze 18:4, 20; Mt 2:20; 26:38; Mr 3:4; Heb 10:39; Jas 5:20); as dying, being “cut off” or destroyed (Ge 17:14; Ex 12:15; Le 7:20; 23:29; Jos 10:28-39; Ps 78:50; Eze 13:19; 22:27; Ac 3:23; Re 8:9; 16:3), whether by sword (Jos 10:37; Eze 33:6) or by suffocation (Job 7:15), or being in danger of death due to drowning (Jon 2:5); and also as going down into the pit or into Sheol (Job 33:22; Ps 89:48) or being delivered therefrom (Ps 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; Pr 23:14).
Dead soul. The expression ‘deceased or dead soul’ also appears a number of times, meaning simply “a dead person.”—Le 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4; Nu 5:2; 6:6; Hag 2:13; compare Nu 19:11, 13.
Desire. At times the word ne´phesh is used to express the desire of the individual, one that fills him and then occupies him in achieving its goal. Proverbs 13:2, for example, says of those dealing treacherously that ‘their very soul is violence,’ that is, that they are ‘all out’ for violence, in effect, become violence personified. (Compare Ge 34:3, ftn; Ps 27:12; 35:25; 41:2.) Israel’s false shepherds are called “dogs strong in soul[ful desire],” who have known no satisfaction.—Isa 56:11, 12; compare Pr 23:1-3; Hab 2:5.
Serving With One’s Whole Soul. The “soul” basically means the entire person, as has been shown. Yet certain texts exhort us to seek for, love, and serve God with ‘all our heart and all our soul’ (De 4:29; 11:13, 18), while Deuteronomy 6:5 says: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.” Jesus said it was necessary to serve with one’s whole soul and strength and, additionally, “with your whole mind.” (Mr 12:30; Lu 10:27) The question arises as to why these other things are mentioned with the soul, since it embraces them all. To illustrate the probable meaning: A person might sell himself (his soul) into slavery to another, thereby becoming the possession of his owner and master. Yet he might not serve his master wholeheartedly, with full motivation and desire to please him, and thus he might not use his full strength or his full mental capacity to advance his master’s interests. (Compare Eph 6:5; Col 3:22.) Hence these other facets are evidently mentioned to focus attention on them so that we do not fail to remember and consider them in our service to God, to whom we belong, and to his Son, whose life was the ransom price that bought us. “Whole-souled” service to God involves the entire person, no bodily part, function, capacity, or desire being left out.—Compare Mt 5:28-30; Lu 21:34-36; Eph 6:6-9; Php 3:19; Col 3:23, 24.
Soul and Spirit Are Distinct. The “spirit” (Heb., ru´ach; Gr., pneu´ma) should not be confused with the “soul” (Heb., ne´phesh; Gr., psy·khe´), for they refer to different things. Thus, Hebrews 4:12 speaks of the Word of God as ‘piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow.’ (Compare also Php 1:27; 1Th 5:23.) As has been shown, the soul (ne´phesh; psy·khe´) is the creature itself. The spirit (ru´ach; pneu´ma) generally refers to the life-force of the living creature or soul, though the original-language terms may also have other meanings.
Illustrating further the distinction between the Greek psy·khe´ and pneu´ma is the apostle Paul’s discussion, in his first letter to the Corinthians, of the resurrection of Christians to spirit life. Here he contrasts “that which is physical [psy·khi·kon´, literally, soulical]” with “that which is spiritual [pneu·ma·ti·kon´].” Thus, he shows that Christians until the time of their death have a “soulical” body, even as did the first man Adam; whereas, in their resurrection such anointed Christians receive a spiritual body like that of the glorified Jesus Christ. (1Co 15:42-49) Jude makes a somewhat similar comparison in speaking of “animalistic men [psy·khi·koi´, literally, soulical (men)], not having spirituality [literally, not having spirit (pneu´ma)].”—Jude 19.
God as Having Soul. In view of the foregoing, it appears that the scriptures in which God speaks of “my soul” (Le 26:11, 30; Ps 24:4; Isa 42:1) are yet another instance of an anthropomorphic usage, that is, the attributing of physical and human characteristics to God to facilitate understanding, as when God is spoken of as having eyes, hands, and so forth. By speaking of ‘my ne´phesh,’ God clearly means “myself” or “my person.” “God is a Spirit [Pneu´ma].”—Joh 4:24
please no Jehovah's Witness Watchtower Bible and Tract Society copypasta.
But from your JW lexography, is it possible for a machine to be a soul (ie: a living being and/or the life that it enjoys)?
I mean, God breathed LIFE into Adam, making him a Soul. So this indicates that even the JW lexography of LIFE or SOUL has a special supernatural source.
Can it have a non-supernatural source? Can a machine be made to have this supernatural \"essense\" or \"quality\" just as biologicla beings do?
ie: can you answer the questions and issues raised in my original post.
Perhaps an easy religious definition of a Soul would be to see how God reacts to it, ie: can this lifeform fit into God's plan? If yes then it has a soul, if not then it doesn't.
Can a clone inherit God's Kingdom?
Can a machine inherit God's Kingdom?
etcetcetc
roid wrote:please no Jehovah's Witness Watchtower Bible and Tract Society copypasta.
You asked "what is a soul." The above info answers that question. Instead of fuming slander, try actually reading it (and all the scriptural references it contains) and you will see what the Bible reveals about the soul - which is independent of any religious group.
So for the common concept of \"soul\" Shoku you would substitute the word \"spirit\". The ne'phesh or \"soul\" being the life of any creature and the ru´ach or pneu´ma as \"spirit\" is the indestructible part gifted to man by God.
Did I get that right?
So this is your typical semantics discussion where one side is claiming certain characteristics of a thing and calling it a \"soul\" and you quote a bunch of stuff that shows that the bible refers to the indestructible part of a creatures being as a \"spirit\".
What did we gain from that?
Do you believe in the existence of a spirit?
Clothes may make the man
But all a girl needs is a tan
Shoku my original post was more than just \"what is a soul?\"
... what fuming slander?
just don't give me copypasta. when you ask a question i don't hand you a bible and walk off, i don't want to talk to a religious text i want to talk to a person
First point, the JW's are not the only group to hold that the soul is mortal.
Roid wrote:just don't give me copypasta. when you ask a question i don't hand you a bible and walk off, i don't want to talk to a religious text i want to talk to a person
Secont point, When you ask a religious question of a Christian, you should not be surprised when the answer references the Bible.
Otherwise it's like asking a question about physics and saying "But don't quote Newton, Einstein, Hooke, Bernoulli or any of those other boring physics guys"
Third point, even when I disagree with him (and I don't happen to in this case) Shoku's posts are never cut and paste.
In English, soul and spirit can generally be used interchangeably and either can mean life force or immortal thingamajig, depending on the context. I don't know what you can learn about English semantics from a book written in Hebrew and Greek almost 2000 years before modern English existed. It would seem more sensible to appeal to an English dictionary instead.
Kilarin wrote:First point, the JW's are not the only group to hold that the soul is mortal.
Roid wrote:just don't give me copypasta. when you ask a question i don't hand you a bible and walk off, i don't want to talk to a religious text i want to talk to a person
Secont point, When you ask a religious question of a Christian, you should not be surprised when the answer references the Bible.
Otherwise it's like asking a question about physics and saying "But don't quote Newton, Einstein, Hooke, Bernoulli or any of those other boring physics guys"
Third point, even when I disagree with him (and I don't happen to in this case) Shoku's posts are never cut and paste.
As an ex-JW i recognised what i was reading as very familure. I copy pasted many segments of his post into google and it gave me back webpages discussing JW theology.
He did not answer any questions, the whole thing read like a copy-pasted book chapter written to answer the question "Does the Bible say the soul is immortal?".
Read my original post, then read Shuku's post (imagining it as a reply). It's not a reply at all, it's irrelevant "The Bible says the soul is mortal" copypasta.
His post did not only reference the Bible, i say the whole thing was WTBTS copypasta and he didn't even write it. Look at how perfectly everything is referenced in perfect WTBTS style. The post even starts with an encyclopaedic chapter heading, wtf mate.
update: i just checked... the whole thing was lifted word for word from the WTBTS publication "Insight on the Scriptures" Chapter: Soul
roid wrote:the whole thing was lifted word for word from the WTBTS publication "Insight on the Scriptures" Chapter: Soul
ON that point I stand corrected. Not that it's necessarily bad to copy an argument from somewhere else.
roid wrote:He did not answer any questions, the whole thing read like a copy-pasted book chapter written to answer the question "Does the Bible say the soul is immortal?".
But the question of "do we have a soul" is intimately related to the question of "what is a soul?"
I think I'm with Roid here. The point of the thread is to express your opinion as to the existence or non-existence of a \"soul\". There is no opinion belonging to Shoku in the post. If he had used the information posted as a reference to support his opinion, that would be different. Besides it is just niggling about soul vs spirit.
Clothes may make the man
But all a girl needs is a tan
Ya
If i ask what you think, and you just quote some book to me. That's lazy, coz it implies to me that you don't even comprehend the book's information, coz you arn't answering in your own words. It's also rude, because it implies that you can't be bothered comprehending what the book says and formulating an answer in your own words coz i'm not worth your time.
I'm not asking for a perfect worthy preacher to show me the path here, i'm just asking for conversation.
A mere book does not contain the sheer amount of complex logic and rationalisation that our living brains contain. I cannot ask a book a question that hasn't already been written into it. Books make terrible conversationalists
----------
If the word \"soul\" is giving people grief. What i'm talking about is that \"special something\", that \"devine spark\", the thing that we inhereted from God, the thing that seperates us from animals.
it's that thing that gets reincarnated, or transported to heaven or god's kingdom, or the thing that gets resurrected to a new perfect body even after your original body has turned to dust hundreds of years ago. Maybe it contains your consciousness maybe it doesn't, it differs throughout religions.
Or it's the life force that was breathed into Adam by God.
It's likely to be to you: what defines you as you in the eyes of God. It's your ticket to being a part of God's plan, because animals and machines don't goto heaven, or arn't resurrected... right?
So what is that devine \"thing\" we have as humans, and when is it lost? When do we become incapable of containing the devine \"thing\" anymore? reffering to my original post: When do we become \"just machines\"
What separation from animals? My dog is affectionate, knows when I'm sick, and stays by my side until I get better. A mouse nurses and feeds its young. It has emotion.
"Soul" is just another of many words to describe a persons morals, ethics, inner self, what you reveal when you act or speak, and on and on, none of which lives on past death.
What separation from animals? My dog is affectionate, knows when I'm sick, and stays by my side until I get better. A mouse nurses and feeds its young. It has emotion.
oh... ya that was just for other ppl who think otherwise (i don't personally think we are any different to animals , but the "soul" or "spirit" is a way that perhaps a lot of people in this forum may define themselves as seperate to the animal kingdom)
Bet51987 wrote:"Soul" is just another of many words to describe a persons morals, ethics, inner self, what you reveal when you act or speak, and on and on, none of which lives on past death.
When you lose your emotions, then your a machine.
Bettina
hehe, to use SOUL as an acronym to personality ie: "oh yeah that singer has soul" makes it more confusing . Coz we all consider animals to have personality - yet few people here would consider them to have souls from the common Abrahamic standpoint. ie: they inheret nothing from God, no heaven, no resurrection, no 72 virgins. But i guess from a reincarnation standpoint they are no different to us, we share the same reincarnatable spark of divine life "thing" from a Hindu standpoint. Doubt there's any Hindus here though, maybe some New Agers if i'm lucky .
Same with Buddhism. The animals share the same reincarnated life spark with humans. What animal you come back as(including the human one)is influenced by the level of understanding of the nature of the universe you attained in your previous life.
Clothes may make the man
But all a girl needs is a tan
Everybody has interesting ideas about what a soul is but we really won't ever know, will we. If there are souls, they aren't telling us.
However, there was a study done a few years ago, concerning 'out of body experiences' people were claiming they had. This tested a subject's claim that during sleep, they could float around or hover over their bodies at times. They tried testing this out by installing a shelf high above the bed and placing a card on the top surface with a number or symbol facing up and that could only be seen from ABOVE the shelf. The top of the shelf could not be seen or reached from the floor or bed. The subject's activities were constantly monitored while in the room and they were never told that anything had been placed on the shelf.
Predictably, most of the subjects didn't report about anything that they hadn't already seen in the room. However, there were TWO people that actually told the researchers about the card and what they saw on it! That would mean that they either cheated somehow or they actually DID float out of their bodies and viewed what was on the top of the shelf.
I don't know if they tried repeating the experiment, but if it can be confirmed in the future, it would give credence to the possible existence of some form of energy that can be separate from the body, a 'soul' maybe?
That'll be the answer to your questions!
.
)
.
