Discussion The 'Soul'

[kane]

A large part of me seems to be convinced that the self, this conscious 'I', will somehow survive death. I'm not sure there's any rational basis for such a belief. Most of what I've observed suggests that individual identity is a transitory construct, produced within the brain, and that as the brain degrades, so does a sense of self. And yet if I had to bet on whether or not it would continue beyond death, I would have to say yes. This suggests either that my perception is being distorted by emotion, or there is some valid reason for such a belief which I'm not conscious of.

The idea of continuing existence beyond death terrifies me. I have an extremely guilty conscience, so the thought of just having to sit with that on my own with no earthly distractions seems pretty hellish, even without the punishments preached by most religions.

On the other hand, the complete extinction of self can also seem pretty terrifying. Again, I can't see any rational basis for this. If we come from nothing, and return to nothing, what is lost? But despite constantly thinking 'I want this to end', on some level I very much don't want to die.

Perhaps the conclusion is that my perceptions of reality are not based on reason or evidence but blind instinct. This would however make it rather difficult to make sensible decisions on life and death issues, especially when the immortality of self and the extinction of self are both equally terrifying.

 

[MindFrog]

If I really had to choose, I'd go with not existing beyond death just out of fear. There's this thought in my brain that tells me there will be consequences for my choice to ctb if my soul persists. I cannot stand the shame of it either.

Maybe if the soul doesnt have no memory of its life on earth, i'd accept the former outcome more.

 

[kane]

If I really had to choose, I'd go with not existing beyond death just out of fear. There's this thought in my brain that tells me there will be consequences for my choice to ctb if my soul persists. I cannot stand the shame of it either.

Maybe if the soul doesnt have no memory of its life on earth, i'd accept the former outcome more.

Do you mean you think it would be worse after ctbing than dying some other way? I tend to assume it would be the same either way. I suppose my concern is maybe if I delay death there's something I could do to alter whatever came after. That if I could somehow get myself to a state where I'm not consumed by shame and regret, that might carry over beyond death.

But I don't know if any of that is worth enduring my present suffering for.

 

[MindFrog]

Do you mean you think it would be worse after ctbing than dying some other way?

Yes, somehow. There's a prideful part of me that thinks its just a way to get out of my problems, even if that's not the case. Maybe I still have some of that christian guilt in me. I also don't want to remember my past after death, since it means my emotions would still be with me too.

Sometimes the things the tether you in this world aren't the people/things that exist but the feelings you have for them. The soul me would still want to go back just to check everything.

 

[kane]

Yes, somehow. There's a prideful part of me that thinks its just a way to get out of my problems, even if that's not the case. Maybe I still have some of that christian guilt in me. I also don't want to remember my past after death, since it means my emotions would still be with me too.

Sometimes the things the tether you in this world aren't the people/things that exist but the feelings you have for them. The soul me would still want to go back just to check everything.

I think christian thinking may play a large role in my feelings too. I'm not a believer, but I was raised on christian stories. Charles Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol' always stuck in my mind - the idea of being trapped as a spirit beyond death, tormented by the way you lived in life. And the thought of maybe only having this one brief window to change and avoid that fate.

I wonder if my memories and emotions were stripped away, to what extent it would still be 'me'. If it's just this blank canvas of consciousness or 'soul-stuff', do I identify with it more strongly than with any other random being?

 

[MindFrog]

I wonder if my memories and emotions were stripped away, to what extent it would still be 'me'.

I'd think it'll be the same as meeting the "new born" you, someone with the same genetic make up and some predisposition you have but still with child like innocence. If this scenario happens to me, i'll still look at this being with familiarity since I was the newborn before. You'll still be able to relate to this "you".

Although if you get your memories get wiped, it'll mean your suffering is pointless.. or is it? Is maturity a good outcome from the pain?

 

[kane]

I'd think it'll be the same as meeting the "new born" you, someone with the same genetic make up and some predisposition you have but still with child like innocence. If this scenario happens to me, i'll still look at this being with familiarity since I was the newborn before. You'll still be able to relate to this "you".

Although if you get your memories get wiped, it'll mean your suffering is pointless.. or is it? Is maturity a good outcome from the pain?

Although presumably if it was just your immaterial 'soul', there wouldn't be any genetics involved. Innocence sounds nice, but without memory I'm not sure there'd be any sense of comparison to relate to.

I'm not so worried about my suffering being pointless, as long as it was over. I don't think it was a price worth paying for the things I've learned in life. But I'm not sure I'd want my memories wiped, even if it meant I could be happy. I suppose I identify too strongly with them, and with the dysfunction they've produced. If I lost them, I don't feel it would really be me somehow. Which is pretty messed up.

 

[Naufrago]

The soul is a counterpartite of the individual being, which survives the death of the individual. It is like a usb stick or a 'backup' of the human being, whose body can no longer exist in the animal material body. Example: when you change your headset or outdated computer, on this new device, you download everything that is useful and good. What no longer serves you delete. In the soul, anything that is evil, mistakes, sad memories and pains are not filed.

 

[kane]

The soul is a counterpartite of the individual being, which survives the death of the individual. It is like a usb stick or a 'backup' of the human being, whose body can no longer exist in the animal material body. Example: when you change your headset or outdated computer, on this new device, you download everything that is useful and good. What no longer serves you delete. In the soul, anything that is evil, mistakes, sad memories and pains are not filed.

So would that make it a copy? In which case, would it really be 'me'? That's a nice idea, that all that is evil and painful is left behind (very different to the idea of hell.) What would existence consist of for such a being?

 

[Naufrago]

So would that make it a copy? In which case, would it really be 'me'? That's a nice idea, that all that is evil and painful is left behind (very different to the idea of hell.) What would existence consist of for such a being?

The being is a set of unique characteristics added to the lived experiences. We are of animal origin, but in childhood, when we become aware of moral decision (something good), begins the process of birth of the soul.
During life as a rational animal, anything of value is kept in the soul and then introduced into a new body, in another world.
We call it the resurrection of the individual. This is not out of merit, but out of mercy.

 

[mousebot]

A large part of me seems to be convinced that the self, this conscious 'I', will somehow survive death. I'm not sure there's any rational basis for such a belief. Most of what I've observed suggests that individual identity is a transitory construct, produced within the brain, and that as the brain degrades, so does a sense of self. And yet if I had to bet on whether or not it would continue beyond death, I would have to say yes. This suggests either that my perception is being distorted by emotion, or there is some valid reason for such a belief which I'm not conscious of.

The idea of continuing existence beyond death terrifies me. I have an extremely guilty conscience, so the thought of just having to sit with that on my own with no earthly distractions seems pretty hellish, even without the punishments preached by most religions.

On the other hand, the complete extinction of self can also seem pretty terrifying. Again, I can't see any rational basis for this. If we come from nothing, and return to nothing, what is lost? But despite constantly thinking 'I want this to end', on some level I very much don't want to die.

Perhaps the conclusion is that my perceptions of reality are not based on reason or evidence but blind instinct. This would however make it rather difficult to make sensible decisions on life and death issues, especially when the immortality of self and the extinction of self are both equally terrifying.

we'll never truly know why we're conscious but i get the same feeling as you. When i feel emotions like rage, hate, self loathing etc i just "know" theres no way those emotions will disappear after death. Whether or not thats true of course i dont know

 

[kane]

The being is a set of unique characteristics added to the lived experiences. We are of animal origin, but in childhood, when we become aware of moral decision (something good), begins the process of birth of the soul.
During life as a rational animal, anything of value is kept in the soul and then introduced into a new body, in another world.
We call it the resurrection of the individual. This is not out of merit, but out of mercy.

How does this valuable soul stuff get from one body (and one world) to the next? Is it truly the resurrection of the individual, if only what is good is resurrected? What if there is only a tiny amount of good, is that really any different from a completely new person? Mercy would imply that it's someone's decision? Meaning that they could've chosen to do otherwise?

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

The brain is what affects the mind, not the other way around. Drink alcohol, brain changes and then the mind. Get bonked with baseball bat, brain changes and then the mind. I have not come across any real evidence for the existence of a soul or a mind that is not wholly produced by the brain.

I have had some subjective garbage, like having mundane memories from long ago pop up during meditation. This is better explained by thinking of meditation as half-dreaming and the brain getting to process things and re-structure stuff than my previous guesses.

 

[TheAmazingCriswell]

The brain is what affects the mind, not the other way around. Drink alcohol, brain changes and then the mind. Get bonked with baseball bat, brain changes and then the mind.

Another example: Alzheimer's.

 

[Naufrago]

How does this valuable soul stuff get from one body (and one world) to the next? Is it truly the resurrection of the individual, if only what is good is resurrected? What if there is only a tiny amount of good, is that really any different from a completely new person? Mercy would imply that it's someone's decision? Meaning that they could've chosen to do otherwise?

The records are made constantly, daily, moment by moment. Even if Alzheimer's, a brain injury removes the individual's ability to choose, the "backup" has already been done. In each of us there is a spirit responsible for these records (without interfering in the choice of good or evil), there are also,and the ones (which religions call the guardian angel) these celestial personalities are misinterpreted as protectors of accidents, but not, are angels of the soul guard after death. and they record important values and characteristics, even if there is little good, it will never be ignored.

 

[kane]

The records are made constantly, daily, moment by moment. Even if Alzheimer's, a brain injury removes the individual's ability to choose, the "backup" has already been done. In each of us there is a spirit responsible for these records (without interfering in the choice of good or evil), there are also,and the ones (which religions call the guardian angel) these celestial personalities are misinterpreted as protectors of accidents, but not, are angels of the soul guard after death. and they record important values and characteristics, even if there is little good, it will never be ignored.

So it's a kind of copy that is constantly updated? So it exists independently of us - we can decline into dementia, but it remains pristine? So is it really 'you'? If I create a backup copy of you, but you go on existing and degenerating, is the copy 'you'? If the 'you' that you feel yourself to be then ceases to exist, and all that is left is the copy, does that somehow become you?

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

The records are made constantly, daily, moment by moment. Even if Alzheimer's, a brain injury removes the individual's ability to choose, the "backup" has already been done. In each of us there is a spirit responsible for these records (without interfering in the choice of good or evil), there are also,and the ones (which religions call the guardian angel) these celestial personalities are misinterpreted as protectors of accidents, but not, are angels of the soul guard after death. and they record important values and characteristics, even if there is little good, it will never be ignored.

How are you able to just make this shit up?

 

[NaughtyGirl]

A large part of me seems to be convinced that the self, this conscious 'I', will somehow survive death. I'm not sure there's any rational basis for such a belief. Most of what I've observed suggests that individual identity is a transitory construct, produced within the brain, and that as the brain degrades, so does a sense of self. And yet if I had to bet on whether or not it would continue beyond death, I would have to say yes. This suggests either that my perception is being distorted by emotion, or there is some valid reason for such a belief which I'm not conscious of.

Think about this:

Your biological body is not separate from the outside world. There is no outside world. Everything is like the ocean and things that appear separate are like waves. From a material point of view, you're just as much your hands, your torso and your brain, as you're the Earth, the Sun and the entire Universe. From our point of view it may seem like separate things and exist and that they merely touch each other, but on the atomic scale things do not touch and they're not fundamentally separate. There are just atoms interacting with each other and the interactions within your brain are of the same nature as the interactions between your brain and the fluid around it or between your skin and the air.

Next, life is not magic. Life force is not a thing. Life is just a name for a particular configuration of matter and for a particular set of physical processes. But these process do not change in nature when the moment we call death happens. Instead life is continuous with death and fundamentally there is nothing that separates them.

But if life is just an emergent property and not something fundamental that means that we're quite literally a system consisting of dead matter that experiences time. But the system is not limited to just our body. It's not limited by the boundaries of your skin. It comprises of everything that exists.

Also notice how we're neither our memories, nor our body nor our personality. All these things could be changed. If someone kept rewiring your brain, do you think there would be any point at which you'd cease to exist and someone else would replace you? That one neuron in either way would be the difference between whether you're alive or dead? That sounds ridiculous.

We're like waves on the ocean.

The idea of continuing existence beyond death terrifies me. I have an extremely guilty conscience, so the thought of just having to sit with that on my own with no earthly distractions seems pretty hellish, even without the punishments preached by most religions.

You're not going to disappear from this world just as a wave doesn't stop being a part of the ocean. In fact, if waves were conscious they could claim to be the entire ocean. The same is true for conscious creatures and the entire Universe.

On the other hand, the complete extinction of self can also seem pretty terrifying. Again, I can't see any rational basis for this. If we come from nothing, and return to nothing, what is lost? But despite constantly thinking 'I want this to end', on some level I very much don't want to die.

But we're not souls with a unique ID assigned to it by the ruler of the Universe. We do not get erased from the database of the Universe by the said ruler once he determines that we died in a hypothetical objective sense. We're much more dispersed than we tend to think.

And as far as we know the Universe extends infinitely into the future so there will always be place for consciousness.

I wonder if my memories and emotions were stripped away, to what extent it would still be 'me'. If it's just this blank canvas of consciousness or 'soul-stuff', do I identify with it more strongly than with any other random being?

This problem kinda disappears when you notice that the distinction between you and other random beings isn't as fundamental as we tend to think. It's like a wave thinking it's separate from all the other waves.

The soul is a counterpartite of the individual being, which survives the death of the individual. It is like a usb stick or a 'backup' of the human being, whose body can no longer exist in the animal material body. Example: when you change your headset or outdated computer, on this new device, you download everything that is useful and good. What no longer serves you delete. In the soul, anything that is evil, mistakes, sad memories and pains are not filed.

I don't think there are good reasons to believe that souls exist.

we'll never truly know why we're conscious but i get the same feeling as you. When i feel emotions like rage, hate, self loathing etc i just "know" theres no way those emotions will disappear after death. Whether or not thats true of course i dont know

This doesn't make sense. We know that minds and matter are connected. Unless you believe that brain is just a filter of some sort for an extracorporeal consciousness then when your brain dies the emotions and memories that it stored disappear. After all, you do forget things and your emotions change, don't you?

 

[Naufrago]

So it's a kind of copy that is constantly updated? So it exists independently of us - we can decline into dementia, but it remains pristine? So is it really 'you'? If I create a backup copy of you, but you go on existing and degenerating, is the copy 'you'? If the 'you' that you feel yourself to be then ceases to exist, and all that is left is the copy, does that somehow become you?

During life and the brain is relatively normal there will be record. In dementia, the being does not answer for itself, there is no choice between right and wrong. Records happen when there's goodwill.
For example, if I have 30 years of "normal" life, there were records. Tomorrow I have brain damage and I'm not able to make decisions between "right" and "wrong", the records stop there. even with other motor functions running.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

You're all wrong, there's increasing evidence that a lot of our conscious and subconscious thoughts and traits are also majorly controlled by our gut microbiome independently from our brains. Therefore the soul must be in our guts. Kinda gross if you think about it though.

 

[Sakura94]

You're all wrong, there's increasing evidence that a lot of our conscious and subconscious thoughts and traits are also majorly controlled by our gut microbiome independently from our brains. Therefore the soul must be in our guts. Kinda gross if you think about it though.

Well the thoughts still come together in the brain.
But you just made me think of something. People who believe in a soul have always argued that the soul is a radio signal and the brain is a receiver and the neurons are compiling the signal. Isn't the gut to brain basically an iteration of this?
Someone might argue: Why do the thoughts change so rapidly with dementia if the microbiome is intact? And the answer is the receiver is mutated with dementia ect.
Not saying I believe in souls, but that seems to be a good argument to counter brain=mental identity.

 

[Naufrago]

Think about this:

Your biological body is not separate from the outside world. There is no outside world. Everything is like the ocean and things that appear separate are like waves. From a material point of view, you're just as much your hands, your torso and your brain, as you're the Earth, the Sun and the entire Universe. From our point of view it may seem like separate things and exist and that they merely touch each other, but on the atomic scale things do not touch and they're not fundamentally separate. There are just atoms interacting with each other and the interactions within your brain are of the same nature as the interactions between your brain and the fluid around it or between your skin and the air.

Next, life is not magic. Life force is not a thing. Life is just a name for a particular configuration of matter and for a particular set of physical processes. But these process do not change in nature when the moment we call death happens. Instead life is continuous with death and fundamentally there is nothing that separates them.

But if life is just an emergent property and not something fundamental that means that we're quite literally a system consisting of dead matter that experiences time. But the system is not limited to just our body. It's not limited by the boundaries of your skin. It comprises of everything that exists.

Also notice how we're neither our memories, nor our body nor our personality. All these things could be changed. If someone kept rewiring your brain, do you think there would be any point at which you'd cease to exist and someone else would replace you? That one neuron in either way would be the difference between whether you're alive or dead? That sounds ridiculous.

We're like waves on the ocean.


You're not going to disappear from this world just as a wave doesn't stop being a part of the ocean. In fact, if waves were conscious they could claim to be the entire ocean. The same is true for conscious creatures and the entire Universe.

But we're not souls with a unique ID assigned to it by the ruler of the Universe. We do not get erased from the database of the Universe by the said ruler once he determines that we died in a hypothetical objective sense. We're much more dispersed than we tend to think.

And as far as we know the Universe extends infinitely into the future so there will always be place for consciousness.

This problem kinda disappears when you notice that the distinction between you and other random beings isn't as fundamental as we tend to think. It's like a wave thinking it's separate from all the other waves.

I don't think there are good reasons to believe that souls exist.

This doesn't make sense. We know that minds and matter are connected. Unless you believe that brain is just a filter of some sort for an extracorporeal consciousness then when your brain dies the emotions and memories that it stored disappear. After all, you do forget things and your emotions change, don't you?

Good description, Respect that. Is that the idea of microcosm and macrocosm?

 

[Naufrago]

The finite mind cannot think of a truth or a fact in such an absolute way.
"Human things must be known, to be loved, but spiritual things must be loved, to be known."

 

[NaughtyGirl]

Good description, Respect that. Is that the idea of microcosm and macrocosm?

I don't know what you mean.

I think what I'm describing is closely related to the idea of panpsychism, in that consciousness isn't really tied to any particular spot in space-time like a balloon that bursts when a plump of matter associated with it is deemed dead by the government of the Universe, and is instead much more dispersed and fluid.

I've struggled with this as well. My logic tells me that the brain is what produces consciousness and once the brain is dead, so is this thing we call consciousness.

I once read this on Reddit and wanted to share:

" I'd say the odds of postmortem nothingness are highly in your favor.
We can all accept uncontroversially that when certain parts of the brain are damaged, they go offline.
Sever the optic nerves, you go blind.
Sever the acoustic nerves, you go deaf.
Destroy Broca's region, and you won't be able to generate speech.

But when you take this argument to its logical extreme (i.e., total obliteration of the brain), suddenly people have a hard time accepting that all conscious experience goes offline along with it.

Why?
Do you really believe that blind people's vision just goes to a better place? Or that a deaf person's hearing is indeed intact, just in some other dimension?
If these suggestions sound patently absurd, then so should the notion of the self surviving death." - u/josenros

The answer is very simple. If you serve the optic nerves, there is nothing in the fundamental laws of nature that prevents you from repairing them

The same goes for every other part of the brain.

And if we push it to extreme we arrive at the conclusion that there is no damage that could be ever done to the brain that wouldn't be reversible.

But the biggest realization comes when we notice that we don't need to repair the brain perfectly. Otherwise, whenever there is any change to the brain, in particular, a sudden and big one, we'd have to conclude that one person died and now someone else is living inside that body so to speak.

And then you realize that since there are no sharp cut-offs every consciousness can be viewed as imperfect copy of another consciousness. Space and time don't matter.

So unless each consciousness has actually a soul behind it with a unique ID, then we should expect that upon death we just become conscious once again. Not necessarily as a baby even, I see no reason why we wouldn't just become someone else who is already an adult. We know for a fact that we could rewrite people's memories and change their personality. But there is no magical moment at which the original person suddenly dies and someone else is being born which, if pushed to extremum, means that it doesn't matter how much we change someone's mind, it's still the same individual. Combined with the fact that our sense of self is not bound by our physical bodies either, and the prospect of death becomes even stranger.

and to me it really makes sense. I've lost part of my self/ consciousness due to brain damage and those parts aren't part of myself anyone. I imagine that once everything is damaged or dead, then everything is simply gone.

Yep, but for death to be permanent and final like most people imagine there must exists some sort of essence with a unique ID that is attached to each and every conscious individual and the self must be clearly defined, with sharp boundaries. There also must be some sort of divine authority which decides in an objective way, when an individual dies. This authority would for example count how much the content of someone's mind was changed and then determine precisely when the moment of death occurs. When it determines that someone died, it would forever erase that person's ID from the database of the Universe.

Otherwise, we seem way too continuous with everything for death to be anything but an illusion.

now I also accept that I am way too ignorant to be 100% sure. There's so much I don't know. So I can't be completely sure death is the end. But with the information I have now, I do think dead is the end.

It seems to be the end for us in the same sense in which hitting back the surface of the ocean is the end for waves.

 

[dysthimia_king]

A large part of me seems to be convinced that the self, this conscious 'I', will somehow survive death. I'm not sure there's any rational basis for such a belief. Most of what I've observed suggests that individual identity is a transitory construct, produced within the brain, and that as the brain degrades, so does a sense of self. And yet if I had to bet on whether or not it would continue beyond death, I would have to say yes. This suggests either that my perception is being distorted by emotion, or there is some valid reason for such a belief which I'm not conscious of.

The idea of continuing existence beyond death terrifies me. I have an extremely guilty conscience, so the thought of just having to sit with that on my own with no earthly distractions seems pretty hellish, even without the punishments preached by most religions.

On the other hand, the complete extinction of self can also seem pretty terrifying. Again, I can't see any rational basis for this. If we come from nothing, and return to nothing, what is lost? But despite constantly thinking 'I want this to end', on some level I very much don't want to die.

Perhaps the conclusion is that my perceptions of reality are not based on reason or evidence but blind instinct. This would however make it rather difficult to make sensible decisions on life and death issues, especially when the immortality of self and the extinction of self are both equally terrifying.

I think consciousness is complex, but biological. Once the body ceases to exist the projection of consciousness fades away. My "two cents" on the issue...

Well the thoughts still come together in the brain.
But you just made me think of something. People who believe in a soul have always argued that the soul is a radio signal and the brain is a receiver and the neurons are compiling the signal. Isn't the gut to brain basically an iteration of this?
Someone might argue: Why do the thoughts change so rapidly with dementia if the microbiome is intact? And the answer is the receiver is mutated with dementia ect.
Not saying I believe in souls, but that seems to be a good argument to counter brain=mental identity.

I don't think about or believe in souls anymore... It's more like wishful thinking and the idea that there is something better or a better experience after this life is just a coping mechanism.

 

[kane]

During life and the brain is relatively normal there will be record. In dementia, the being does not answer for itself, there is no choice between right and wrong. Records happen when there's goodwill.
For example, if I have 30 years of "normal" life, there were records. Tomorrow I have brain damage and I'm not able to make decisions between "right" and "wrong", the records stop there. even with other motor functions running.

Cognitive decline is not a binary thing - it's gradual. Even those with severe dementia have lucid moments. People are still constantly making choices - it's just that the information they use to make those choices is often more muddled.

The finite mind cannot think of a truth or a fact in such an absolute way.
"Human things must be known, to be loved, but spiritual things must be loved, to be known."

I think that's just a fundamental disagreement about what it means to understand or know. If I strongly feel something is true (I 'love' it), does that mean I have good reason for believing it to be the case? Or do I need to understand how it works and fits into a general picture of reality? For me, I know from experience that things I once strongly felt to be true (I 'loved'), I no longer feel to be true. This suggests to me that such emotional convictions are not a reliable guide to understanding reality. Which unfortunately leaves me trying to wrap my finite mind around a reality that may be far beyond it's comprehension.

 

[Naufrago]

I agree with you, Kane. I'm referring to serious damage.