Science still doesn't know where the soul comes from.
True ✔️ False? ❌
@freeschool what is a soul and how do you measure it? If it has no effect on the observable world then the question is nonsense, like saying science doesn't know where pink unicorns come from.
The human soul like pink unicorns?...
@chiasm Ok just to get what you said and not spin it too much, does what you said mean you approximately equate the human soul to pink unicorns?
●The human soul (that many can say exist and measure in themselves)
and
●where pink unicorns come from
[I'm not sure anyone has seen or said they seen or experience their existance
The human soul like pink unicorns?...
@freeschool I do not know of anyone who has seen or experienced a soul either. Many people think they have them; some traditions say you have to grow one deliberately and not everyone does. It's like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if you prefer that metaphor. Angels may or may not exist, but they play no role in anything other than myth and belief structures.
The human soul is like pink unicorns?...
@chiasm Do you not feel like you have a soul?
The human soul is like pink unicorns?...
@freeschool I don't know what that feels like. I have hands, I know what that feels like. I have sight and internal thoughts, I know what that feels like. I don't know what it feels like to have your thoughts or perceptions, and I have no way of knowing if I have a soul or not.
Why do you think such a thing exists?
The human soul can be measured more than not?
@chiasm I think you are a measuring device of sorts- like sensors, eyes, ears, hands are for light, sound, heat, touch and in the same way some internal thoughts that to the best of our knowledge (and what everyone can confirm) are similar to the our other sensors of feeling but measurably different in those similarities and as a measurable constant between us all that we have something / something exists there.
Having internal thoughts and feelings is what we all seem to be able to measure and quantify as soul or another word like spirit which by various other tests, such as removing it in the equation, shows it is needed and we wouldn't be able to operate without it. Thus something is there, and it's not like it doesn't exist.
The sheer variation and somewhat confirmation in our own highly measurable personalities (already a lot of test for that) means otherwise we'd be more measurably just robots (which you or others might feel you are).
The similarities of soul or that feeling can be and are associable / measurable but as all that we feel x somewhere within us when show x, y, z pictures or can relate to each others similar past experiences and pain. That is a replicable experience and highly complex thing.
To say that soul or x definition doesn't exist (to the best of our knowledge and what we really see and could measure in lab) it's very difficult to refute that even from a sort of purely measurement / scientific test.
The human soul can be measured more than not?
@freeschool Oh sorry, I guess you were trying to say the soul is measurable in the personality and behavior of a person, so measuring the person's behavior or reports of their internal experiences is measuring evidence of their soul. Is that what you were saying?
If soul = internal experience then sure, it's equivalent to the mind or psyche, and brings with it all those issues. But then you don't need the concept of a soul separate from the mind.
The human soul can be measured more than not?
@chiasm Sounds about right though generally if we regard ourselves as real or not just "in the mind" then I put value on our observations and "to the best of our knowledge" while still being open to "it might be all in our mind or something above our range of understanding" so both could apply and be acceptable if and when we would know it... but right know our physicality and soul has connection even though it's a different thing altogether, so that is very unique so for now I would be more positive in saying "Yes" to having a soul since many thing point towards it while it could be "No" in the end if it's just in our head or if we're in some other construct.
The last sentence threw me a bit / I didn't get it. Could you mean it's similar to what I wrote above that it might be all in our head / mind... because as far as measurement I think can measure the mind but probably that's not exactly what you meant.
The human soul can be measured more than not?
@freeschool Sorry, character limit! 😁 We can't measure the mind directly: I can see what is happening in your brain when you are thinking or imagining, but I can't see your thoughts. There are debates about whether the "mind" exists and if so in what way, but in day to day research it's shorthand for all the cognitive processes like memory, etc. that we have indirect but useful measurements of (fMRI, cog tests, etc.).
If mind means ...
The human soul can be measured more than not?
@freeschool
If the mind can be defined as "the capacity to think" and "thinking" is defined as "behaving in certain ways" then any thingie which behaves in certain ways we infer has a mind. (That's what makes AI so tricky.)
If soul is defined as "that which survives after death" then there's no way we can infer whether someone has it or not. If soul is defined as "that which makes us each individual" then it's largely genetics and environment.
The human soul can be measured more than not?
@freeschool Yes, I'm thinking about what a soul means and how you know someone has got one. Your argument was that a soul is what drives individual differences, and our internal experiences, right?
I was basically saying that's generally the "mind" that is the internal experiences. The mind also doesn't have direct or indirect measures; it's just a handy shorthand to explain a bunch of behaviors and observables.