h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Some people believe that man is immortal. Even after our physical body dies and decays, our soul still lives on forever. Plato once related our soul with "ideas" or the "true form". For those who believe we have an immortal soul, just how far can we trust out beliefs? Can you prove the existence of an immortal soul? As for those who don't believe that man has an immortal soul, why do you believe so? I'm just posting this as food for thought. As for me, I'm neutral; neither a believer or otherwise. An immortal soul does not concern me. I just want to know what other people think on the subject.

Quick and unoriginal response:

If there is some "thing" called a soul which in some way influences our physical body then there must be some detectable means by which that body is influenced by that soul. (Since the soul's influence is "detected" by the physical body it influences, some sort of physical device must be possible which would also detect that influence.)


I've seen no reports of the construction of a device which is able to detect the "soul"'s influence.


I've also seen no evidence of any events which require an hypothesised "soul" to explain them. It really seems that there is no real need for such an hypothesis in a model of the real world.


It does seem to me that the idea of an Immortal Soul is a comfort to many (and a terror to many as well). The idea may serve a useful purpose, but I don't see it as helpful in understanding the world.

Regarding the question as posed:

Does Woman Have an Immortal Soul???

The somewhat irreverent thought I occasionally have on the subject is that if we don't return, i.e. reincarnated, then there must be one huge storage facility somewhere to take the ever increasing immortal souls .

I like to think that my trials and tribulations are not for nothing, otherwise it seems such a waste just to be snuffed out like a candle's flame when we die. It would be comforting to think that we do go on to something better, but I'm not sure that we do.

soul = consciousness?

Immortal? Well, if we believe our consciousness can exist without the body. . .


az

"As for life after death we just have to wait and see. Or not see, as the case may be."
C. Broad

Live this life as if it's the only one. Then if there is another one you'll be ready for it.

Noggin

'The somewhat irreverent thought I occasionally have on the subject is that if we don't return, i.e. reincarnated, then there must be one huge storage facility somewhere to take the ever increasing immortal souls'

Some religious traditions postulate more than one.

If the consciousness countinues after death, what does it do when we're unconscious, or having a general anaesthetic?

I'm trying to visualise the application of general anaesthetic to a disembodied consciousness...

Z, RFJS,

So where do we go when we are 'unconscious'? Not dead, but not here.

If our consciousness supposedly resides in the brain, then what happens during surgery on the brain - the head is cut open, the surgeon is cutting into the meat of the brain . . . where is the person?

az

Having attended several funerals in my life, it still shocks me somewhat that the deceased never really looks like themselves.

Of course they *do* look like themselves, but not really. I was always told as a child "Don't they look like they're just sleeping?" I always wanted to say, no they really don't.

What I mean is that *something* is missing, that something being the true person that I knew... The soul of that person. To me, the body is clearly only a shell which houses the soul while the body inhabits this world.

To me the body is just a lump, part of which is a pretty complicated information processing unit (the brain) which fools itself into feeling that it's more than just a part of the lump.

Again, if there is some sort of immortal soul that is temporarily housed within the physical body, what is the relationship between the two? How does the body know what the soul wants it to do? How does the soul find out what the body is doing? How is the information transferred between the two? If the soul has some means of producing physical change in the body, a device capable of detecting that causative agent should be possible.

I simply have never seen an explanation (with any rigour) of how something as intangible as a soul can have any sort of physical effect on something as concrete as a body. If it is going to have a physical effect, the force producing the effect must be detectable and measurable, and so, the soul would have to be detectable, measurable, and, indeed, capturable (in a jar, or something).

As far as carrying on after death, I can't see it. My "identity" quite clearly floats on the substrate of my neurons, etc., like the pattern floats on the pixels on the screen. If I turn of the monitor (go to sleep) or turn off the computer (go in for surgery) the pattern stops being there. It doesn't "go" somewhere else, it just stops. When I wake up (turn things back on) the pattern comes back. If, however, I reformat my harddrive, the pattern vanishes and doesn't "go" anywhere else: It just ceases to exist.

I think that if there is a soul then it isn't something that we are concious of. Do you remember before you are born?

I believe in soul. And blues, and funk, and all those other great musical genres. But I can't believe that there is anything beyond this, and the sooner we can all accept that, the sooner we can try to make this a world fit to live in, and keep everyone alive as long as possible.

Just to be even more irreverent than Caerwynn...

No, Man does not have an immortal soul. Although you will find that you can get one heck of a lot of mileage out of a good pair of Doc Martens

While I don't propose to defend either possibility to the bitter end, I think some of this is worthy of a deeper analysis...

'how something as intangible as a soul can have any sort of physical effect on something as concrete as a body'

Leaving aside the fact that, so I'm told, the body is in fact some 'wave-particles' and a lot of empty space, why should it be axiomatic that the intangible cannot affect the tangible? If I postulate a substance 'ectoplasm', intangible but capable of affecting physical matter by means x, why should this be a priori impossible?

'If the soul has some means of producing physical change in the body, a device capable of detecting that causative agent should be possible'

It should be possible to detect the (physical) effect, but, again, why should it necessarily be possible to build a device that can detect the causative agent? If the agent can affect bodies, it doesn'y follow that it will affect the detector; and if you were asked to build an ectoplasm detector, where could you start but with the effects on matter?

'temporarily housed within the physical body'

Or at any rate causally linked to it. 'Housed within' implies a physical location, but we haven't established that the soul, if it exists, has a location in space-time.

'My "identity" quite clearly floats on the substrate of my neurons, etc., like the pattern floats on the pixels on the screen.'

Unless there is a soul, in which case it doesn't; and in any case, you seem to be using 'identity' in quite a restricted, and not in an entirely clear, sense. Are you using 'floats' to refer to emergence?

Perhaps I should have said "To me, my "identity" quite clearly floats on the substrate of my neurons, etc."

As far as whether consciousness is an "emergent" property of the brain or not, I've still not convinced myself. I waffle between "yes, it is an emergent property", "no, it's an epiphenomenon", and "no, consciousness doesn't exist; it is just an illusion."

I didn't actually rule out an "intangible" having an effect on a "tangible", but I'll do so now: If it has an effect, it is, by (my personal) definition, tangible rather than intangible.

The point about the detector is, if you can detect the effect on the body, I would think you could then at least pursue a course of experiment leading to an understanding of who the effects are produced by the soul and, hopefully, leading to the construction of a device that is effected by the soul in a manner similar to that in which the body is efected by the soul.

But, seriously, this sort of strikes me, personally, like a discussion of how much phlogiston it takes to burn a pound of coal. (In the presence of oxygen, none.)

Well, I guess believing in having had at least *one* previous life (if not more) means I believe in having an immortal soul?

I can't see what other part of myself that would be able to start anew, if not the soul...

And the belief in 'previous life' comes from having had way too many so called 'deja vus' that aren't quite covered by the deja-vu theory...

I believe and I don't believe.

If there is a life beyond this one, then reincarnation makes more sense to me than the idea of heaven and hell. We experience a little of everything there is to experience through a large number of lives then merge with the Godhead and lose all individual identity.

I guess what I'm saying - badly - is that the person I am now will die when my body dies. Even if there is a continuing spiritual exsistence or future physical exsistence, I will never live again. And the person I am now is all I know and can experience. So whether the spirit lives on or not is immaterial to my exsistence. This is it, folks. Make the best of it.

Q Does man have an immortal soul?
A Does it matter


I either have or do not have a sould
If I do not have a soul:
It does not matter.
If I have a soul:
It is either having an impact upon my thinking and behviour
which can be studied or it has no such impact.
If it can be studied:
Then it is just another influence on behvaiour, like a
drug or a form of conditioning or whatever.
Thus it does not matter.
If it cannot be studied:
Then it has no impact.
Thus it does not matter.
If I have a sould which is either having an impact upon my
thinking and behviour which can be studied or if I have a
soul which has no such impact it does not matter.
If I have a soul it does not matter.
If I do not have a soul it does not matter.
If I have or do not have a soul it does not matter.

Q Does it matter
A No

It could matter to someone fascinated by the question. Philosophers can be like that, you know...

Regarding reinacarnation -- does anyone have a view on the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth? That there's no self (and hence no soul) at all, even during life, but that there can be a causal connection between x and y such that y can be said to be 'x reborn'?