proof of the soul

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Dear ILPers,

         Here is a proof of the soul that I have written for a hindu forum. I show it for you to test it.

Let’s begin by distinguishing between mind and soul. Mind is the sum of subjective phenomena that we perceive within our body, and especially within our heads. These phenomena include pleasure, pain, memories, wills, reasonings, etc. Soul is the subject that perceives it. Soul is the inner witness. Soul is Purusha, as taught by Sâmkhya philosophy (which is not hopelessly false, upon some reflection).

It is a fact that each person has a unique viewpoint on the world. Each person witnesses the world and its own body and mind in a unique way.

And this unique viewpoint each person has goes on existing even if the body undergoes radical changes.

What I want to know is: is the brain the support, the base of soul? If the brain is the support of soul, what in the brain gives rise to soul? Is it merely the components of the brains (atoms, molecules, cells) or is it the relationship between all these components?

It can’t be merely the components, because in a corpse, there are exactly the same components as in a living body, but there is no soul in the corpse. If the components alone gave rise to the soul, it would give rise to it as long as the components are together. But it does not happen.

Beside, the matter out of which the body is made in the youth is not the same as that out of which the old body is made. But the witness, the unique viewpoint on the world, has remained the same. If the components of the brain gave rise to the soul, there would be a different woul in the youth and in the old age.

So it can’t be just the components that give rise to the soul. Is it the relationship between the components? For instance, communications between brain cells?

But the problem is that, if it is this relationship, it can be duplicated. It can be reproduced, multiplied. It can be in a thought experiment at least.

Here is an analogy: suppose I draw a circle with a chalk. I tell you that the chalk out of which the circle is made does not matter. What matters is the relationship between the parts of the circle: the center and the bend (the perimeter). What matter is that each point on the perimeter is at the same distance from the same. Bearing this in mind, you can pick up your own chalk and draw another circle. You can also draw a circle with a pencil, and so on.

Here we are saying something similar with respect to the brain: what matter is how the parts interact. Therefore, there can be many instances of a given pattern of interactions.

But the problem is that the unique viewpoint a person has on the world can’t be multiplied. It is unique. I can’t conceive of seeing me from the inside and from the outside at the same time. I cannot conceive of dreaming and not dreaming at the same time. Such absurdities would happen if my viewpoint were multiplied. We can’t conceive of many viewpoints on the world that would be, at the same time, a unique viewpoint.

Therefore, the relationship between the components of the brain does not account for the viewpoint or witness being unique.

Therefore neither the mere components of the brain, nor the relationship between them can be the support of the soul.

Therefore, the soul does not come from the brain. The soul is an independent part of the person.

2

What about people with physical head injuries, that result in, say, amnesia? That means that because of something being wrong physically with the brain, something mental is no longer functional, operational, accessible, etc.

Also, a brain of a cadaver is not bio-chemically the same as of a live individual. There are little things like, not having any blood being pumped through the veins, et cetra et certra…

3

If you cut off your hand would it get up and crawl away?
Each part of the bodily system is needed by and needs the rest.
We are wholistic beings.

The main reason why theories of the immortal soul exist is:

[size=75]And thats the bottom line, because Dan said so![/size] :smiley:

4

hi,

I don’t claim to prove that all that makes personal identity survives bodily death. Even during one’s life, sometimes a person’s identity is destroyed (cf: Phineas Gage). It is reasonable to think that mental phenomena (phenomena of the mind) hinge on the brain, but I made a distinction in the beginning between the mind and the soul.

Suppose that I am speaking of a corpse one instant after death: there is still blood in the brain.

5

This is a faulty argument!

(tries to find lost matieral)
Damnit, i had with me a description of the part of the mind/physical brain that is responsable for self image and awareness of beings. The way that we can view the world can change. We can become more like someone else if we spend enough time around them and absorb thier views. Our body is made of matter and energy, and the “soul” is just a peace of the whole. Each part needs and effects the other.

I wish i had that material, i cant quote it. :confused:

6

subjective phonemona are just a reitireation of cartesian metaphors. Cartesian metaphors are just wrong, so there is no self in the cartesian model witnessing ‘thoughts’. Your whole basis is just wrong.

7

I am not sure to understand you :confused:

The soul, to speak properly, is not a “phenomenon”. It is what witnesses phenomena.

It is necessary to distinguish between the soul and how the soul perceives itself through the brain.

8

You call that a soul, I call that, nothingness. An empty observer – you can’t make any claims as to the persistence of whatever you want to call it, beyond death. I’ll give you a hint: because you do not know what happenes 10 yrs, one minute, or 5 seconds, after death.

Here’s another thing you don’t know, but claim to: "It can’t be merely the components, because in a corpse, there are exactly the same components as in a living body, but there is no soul in the corpse. "

How would you know?

9

edited

10

Of course, no one knows what happens after death. But what I claim is that the soul has no more reason to pass away at the bodily death than at any other moment.

The problem is that the components of the dead body form no longer a real whole. I don’t see how they could give rise to a unitary soul.

11

So, where is your disproof?

12

You do have a point…
The unique view of the individual will still exist throughout the life time and the changes… But the physical body is also unique, Sâmkhya. Each physical body of each individual is also unique, not just the view is unique. These unique and mortal bodies can die.

Can we really ID uniqueness with the “soul” label?

→

There have been near death experiences in which the person who was clinically dead or close to being dead, actually saw what was in the room, but then the person revived or the soul came back, and later on when the person was conscious he recited what he saw, and it was accurate.

Why would this soul feel as if it were being pulled up, or floating out of the body during death? One person I knew, “Dona” had “inner vision” and when her brother died she could “see” his essence leaving his body. What is this “leaving?” that the “soul” does?

→

[And from a less ordinary angle]:

Enigma:
“Hello.”
Dan:
“Can you tell me about the soul?”
Enigma:
“Yes. It is a non-physical structure that is even more complex then the entire genetic code. It is relative to physical reality, but it cannot die and is not limited to 3 dimensional space. Within physical reality things can be changed, and either you are here or you are there. In the physical reality it takes time to move from place to place. In the dimension of the spirits: Motion is instant, and all invincible creatures simply “are” at a certain place in a certain way. The dimension of the spirits there is infinite “space” and there is no limit as to how much can be in one ‘place’.”
Dan:
“???.. “
Enigma:
“The ‘dimension’ of the physical universe is like a sheet of paper. The ‘Master Reality’ is like a book full of pages. All matter and energy in our universe is all part of the ‘Phsygen’ dimension. ‘Phsygen’ is relative to ‘Spirus’ in a most mysterious way. God and all spirit life exist within ‘Spirus’. Within ‘Spirus’ the majority of all things are animate and alive. Within ‘Phsygen’ [our physical dimention] the majority of all things are inanimate and most energy/matter is not alive.”
Dan:
“How did you know this!?”
Enigma:
“Because I am part of you Dan, and I am the part that is relative to/connected to ‘Spirus’. I am your soul. Science can never touch, use or know ‘Spirus’.”
:astonished:

13

This is the classic recursive deferrel of the “perceiver” in us. If the soul is effectively a little man in our heads, then does he have an even smaller man in his head? If yes, then it goes on forever and is meaningless, and if no, then we don’t need the original little man at all because the logic behind him being the end-of-the-line can be used to show that the original brain was the end of the line.

I don’t think it’s possible to prove the existence of the soul, or even to show that it’s likely to exist :slight_smile:

14

Why to say that the soul has a little man in its head? I don’t see why it would be necessary…

Perhaps you should know that I think that mental events, such as feelings and memories are part of the objective world (though only one soul can experience them), whereas the soul is subjectivity.

15

This is the bit I was referring to:

I’ve always thought that the soul was supposed to be the entity that perceived the sensations in consciousness. This includes the feeling of “looking out” into the world. That is, the mind = the soul. In your division, you seem to have taken the “looking out” bit out of the mind and given it to what you’ve called the soul. My question is: what are the grounds for this split?

16

Well, you are right to say that the soul is what perceives sensations. It is the witness of sensations as well as of other things. But I am a little puzzled with your feeling of “looking out”. Looking out is what the soul does. Feelings are what is manifested to the soul. They are “phenomena” in the etymological sense of the word.

But can’t what I call the soul be just the body? It is the aim of my proof to prove that it can’t.

17

I wouldn’t equate the body and the soul either.

IMO, there’s no soul - all there is is a mind which arises from the brain. Can you elaborate on the type of soul you’re trying to prove exists?

18

Well, I could tell you that the existence of a witness is self-evident, but it would not do. So I have worked out an argument:

What is the difference between what is known and what is not known? It is the presence or not of a witness. When we say that something is unknown, it is because no one (no witness) perceived or understood it. But mental events are known, as I realize when I reflect upon them. Therefore there is a witness of mental events.

19

Why can’t this ‘Witness’ witness anything when we have painkillers in our system? Our sensation is biochemical, and neurological. If the soul was anti-physical, it could not actually be altered or effected by the chemical and the neurological, could it?

We dream and want to make things happen that currently don’t exist.
I now believe that humans [often] actually literally need “religious” beliefs.

I am now judging myself, and how I speak to Christians, for example.
Would killing a persons faith and dreams of life/justice not be an extreme cruelty?

20

The mind is not the witness. It is part of what is witnessed, though it feels closer than external things.

But we can say that mind is a part of the soul, though it must not be confused with the witness. The dependence of the mind upon the body can be explained by the soul wrongly identifying itself with the body.