Questions on the Soul

[Nirvana-Eld]

Hi guys long time no see. (SAT's bogged me down )

When I first joined this site a while ago I made a similar topic. Now after reading butt-loads of books and with more knowledge (at least thats what I hope it is) and I feel that some real questions need to be posed towards theists.

First: What is the relationship between the mind and the conscious self?

Second: Is the soul synonymous with the conscious self?

Third: What is the purpose of this soul?

Fourth: What reasons is there for the soul to survive the body?

There are some more that I know I cannot think of now, but I'm sure that through the course of debate they will come to me. So for now this will do. Good to be back and with some free time for this.

[McCulloch]

Very Well. My apology.
I do hereby regress from this topic.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "regress from this topic" but I'm guessing that it means that you will selfishly not be sharing with us that which you know.
Damn! Another missed a chance at enlightenment!

[QED]

And there goes another opportunity for me to understand what is meant by soul I hope Segestan will return to explain his points though. If it is the "Real You; unalterable by mechanical problems" then what is going on when someones personality is dramatically altered by a mechanical problem. We like to bring up the case of Phineas Gage (probably the best known example of someone living through an extreme brain trauma) in debates such as this. I tend to think that the "real me" is the collection of memories and values I associate with things in this world. If these things can be erased, as evidenced by the likes of Mr. Gage then what essence of me is it that's protected behind this supposed fire-wall?

What I mean by Real Self is the essence of your whole body , as a cosmic unit of force, of usable energy in this life.

This just sounds like the potential EMF sitting idle in a battery. It only seems of interest when it's actually doing stuff; like powering a laptop on which I'm playing Tomb Raider. I'm sure it's a safe bet for hunches about what soul might be (energy which cannot be created or destroyed type of thing) but it doesn't come anywhere close to looking like the sort of thing that expresses each of us as individuals.

[harvey1]

And there goes another opportunity for me to understand what is meant by soul.

I think what Segestan was saying is that the soul is not like a particle which can be properly located in space-time. Perhaps a better way of thinking of an analogue which Hugh suggested is that it is more like a wave quality. For example, a particle in physics has a wave function whose amplitude squared describes/expresses the particle identity of the quantum field in a particular location. Perhaps similarly, the soul is the wave description of our identity which includes--but is not limited to--the physical bodily aspect of our existence.

[HughDP]

And there goes another opportunity for me to understand what is meant by soul.

I think what Segestan was saying is that the soul is not like a particle which can be properly located in space-time. Perhaps a better way of thinking of an analogue which Hugh suggested is that it is more like a wave quality. For example, a particle in physics has a wave function whose amplitude squared describes/expresses the particle identity of the quantum field in a particular location. Perhaps similarly, the soul is the wave description of our identity which includes--but is not limited to--the physical bodily aspect of our existence.

It's probably worth stressing that I don't actually see the soul as a separate entity at all. My water/wave description was just an analogy of how I see the human entity in relation to the 'whole'. We are a particular expression of that whole, but the 'we' that I'm talking about is not separated into soul, mind and body.

[harvey1]

It's probably worth stressing that I don't actually see the soul as a separate entity at all. My water/wave description was just an analogy of how I see the human entity in relation to the 'whole'. We are a particular expression of that whole, but the 'we' that I'm talking about is not separated into soul, mind and body.

Sure, I didn't mean to steal your metaphor, but I see the "whole" as extending beyond our physical presence.

[McCulloch]

I think what Segestan was saying is that the soul is not like a particle which can be properly located in space-time. Perhaps a better way of thinking of an analogue [perhaps you meant analogy ] which Hugh suggested is that it is more like a wave quality. For example, a particle in physics has a wave function whose amplitude squared describes/expresses the particle identity of the quantum field in a particular location. Perhaps similarly, the soul is the wave description of our identity which includes--but is not limited to--the physical bodily aspect of our existence.

Perhaps. But right now it is mere speculation. The wave particle duality in quantum physics has a great deal of evidence and mathematical analysis to validate it. The existence of soul has none.

[harvey1]

But right now it is mere speculation. The wave particle duality in quantum physics has a great deal of evidence and mathematical analysis to validate it. The existence of soul has none.

Well, there is evidence to suggest that multiple macro objects are describable using wave functions. So, the proof of concept has already been shown to be the case.

[McCulloch]

But right now it is mere speculation. The wave particle duality in quantum physics has a great deal of evidence and mathematical analysis to validate it. The existence of soul has none.

Well, there is evidence to suggest that multiple macro objects are describable using wave functions. So, the proof of concept has already been shown to be the case.

While fascinating, the existence of quantum entanglement at temperatures near absolute zero is still a very long way from any kind of practical definition of a human soul.

[harvey1]

While fascinating, the existence of quantum entanglement at temperatures near absolute zero is still a very long way from any kind of practical definition of a human soul.

That's true, however that might only mean that the quantum effects are suppressed by classical effects which, of course, involves the measurement problem. It seems to me, though, that it's difficult to believe that researchers are causing a probability amplitude to exist unless the macro object already has a wavefunction prior to when the experiment was conducted. I realize that's not proven, but I think quantum cosmology is a pretty good hypothesis.

[McCulloch]

That's true, however that might only mean that the quantum effects are suppressed by classical effects which, of course, involves the measurement problem. It seems to me, though, that it's difficult to believe that researchers are causing a probability amplitude to exist unless the macro object already has a wavefunction prior to when the experiment was conducted. I realize that's not proven, but I think quantum cosmology is a pretty good hypothesis.

So long as we are treating the existence of Soul, possibly related to quantum entanglement as hypothetical, I'm fine. However, I still think that we are a long way from explaining soul in terms of quantum entanglement. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is a promising hypothetical framework. Meanwhile, people are making unsupported and unwarranted assertions about the soul. Each human has one and only one. They exist eternally. They exist in God's image (now there is a doubly non-falsifiable claim). etc.