What do you make of Near death experiences/ out of body...

[Achronos]

Firstly I am not a scientist and so I'm not in any position to say, "Look, here are the details of the explanation." Of course there will be more scientific evidence (or should I say the more persuasive argument) that favors a materialist viewpoint, however it hasn't been proven nor disproven if a soul actually exists. The short answer is, we just don't know. Like I said, we have to view the arguments for and against it. What is more plausible? Is viewing the soul in the realm of science possible? Is it more of a metaphysical tendency?

[LegendarySandwich]

Firstly I am not a scientist and so I'm not in any position to say, "Look, here are the details of the explanation." Of course there will be more scientific evidence (or should I say the more persuasive argument) that favors a materialist viewpoint, however it hasn't been proven nor disproven if a soul actually exists. The short answer is, we just don't know. Like I said, we have to view the arguments for and against it. What is more plausible? Is viewing the soul in the realm of science possible? Is it more of a metaphysical tendency?

You keeping saying to review the arguments for and against it, but I don't see any arguments for the existence of the soul.

[Achronos]

Let me ask you this question, you say there are no arguments for the existence of the soul, what leads you to this conclusion?

[LegendarySandwich]

Let me ask you this question, you say there are no arguments for the existence of the soul, what leads you to this conclusion?

That's a straw man, as I didn't say that -- what I said was that I know of no arguments for it. Do you know of any arguments for it, that don't involve your god?

[Achronos]

Let me ask you this question, you say there are no arguments for the existence of the soul, what leads you to this conclusion?

That's a straw man, as I didn't say that -- what I said was that I know of no arguments for it. Do you know of any arguments for it, that don't involve your god?

There's a difference in not knowing of any arguments, and saying as you did "I don't see any arguments..." because you would have some knowledge that would draw the conclsuion of not seeing the arguments for the existence of a soul.

But taking it as you are asking me what kind of arguments do we have for the existence of a soul. Now remember I am not saying in any way these are good arguments, but just arguments. It is up to you to draw the conclusion on if it's persuasive or not.

You say that can I draw arguments for the existence of a soul without appealing to God. The issue of whether souls exist or not is an essential consideration for theism, since if souls do not exist then an afterlife does not exist which is the domain for theism to reward or punish. I.e. without an afterlife who cares whether gods exist or not.

Let's define some terms:

[li]materialism: the belief that the physical world is the only reality. Thus, things if incorporeal substance (such as the soul) do not exist.
[li]physicalism: the belief that we have physical bodies but no nonphysical minds or souls.
Technically, one can believe in physicalism but not materialism. For instance, it is logically possible for one to believe in an incorporeal God, but purely physical humans. Nonetheless, many physicalists are also materialists.
[li]determinism: the belief that all effects (including our actions) are determined by prior causes.
metaphysical freedom: the belief that we can choose among genuine alternatives (what many think of when they read the term “free will”).
[li]libertarianism: belief that we have metaphysical freedom, and thus rejects determinism. Libertarianism comes in two forms: agency theory and indeterminism.
[li]indeterminism: sometimes called simple indeterminism, this theory defines free will as “an effect without a cause” and that we have such free will.
One criticism of this belief is that it seems to violate ex nihilo nihil fit.
[li]agency theory: the belief that free will is an act of agent-causation, whereby an agent (person, self) causes an event to happen.

1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3).
5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal)
6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists

While the argument may seem sound, especially if free will exists, there are a few points that could be disputed. The argument could still be rejected if free will does not exist. Does human volition exist? Are the arguments for lines 4 and 5 sufficient rational grounds for accepting them as true?

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammer ... /soul.html

From a dualistic standpoint, I'll quote Jeffery Schwartz, a neuroscientist and researcher of “neuroplasticity” at UCLA:

"But it [epiphenomenalism] denies that the awareness of a conscious experience can alter the physical brain activity that gives rise to it. As a result, it seemed to me, epiphenomenalism fails woefully to account for the results I was getting: namely, that a change in the valuation a person ascribes to a bunch of those electrochemical signals can not only alter them in the moment [mental forces or active power] but lead to such enduring changes in cerebral metabolic activity that the brain's circuits are essentially remodeled. That, of course, is what PET scans of OCD patients showed."

That's from his book: http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neurop ... 0060393556

If you haven't already, I think it might be advisable to read Plato's Phaedo, where Plato discusses on the immortality of the soul.

Those are just a few arguments I have seen for the soul without appealing towards a theistic bias, but I'll look up some more if I find some this evening. But I think it may be impossible to divorce the soul from God or a god.

Also I'm not somebody who wants to say we can disprove the existence of souls. I don't think we can disprove them. I don't think the idea of a soul is in any way incoherent. But look at the arguments and draw your own conclusions to them.

[LegendarySandwich]

Let me ask you this question, you say there are no arguments for the existence of the soul, what leads you to this conclusion?

That's a straw man, as I didn't say that -- what I said was that I know of no arguments for it. Do you know of any arguments for it, that don't involve your god?

There's a difference in not knowing of any arguments, and saying as you did "I don't see any arguments..." because you would have some knowledge that would draw the conclsuion of not seeing the arguments for the existence of a soul.

But taking it as you are asking me what kind of arguments do we have for the existence of a soul. Now remember I am not saying in any way these are good arguments, but just arguments. It is up to you to draw the conclusion on if it's persuasive or not.

You say that can I draw arguments for the existence of a soul without appealing to God. The issue of whether souls exist or not is an essential consideration for theism, since if souls do not exist then an afterlife does not exist which is the domain for theism to reward or punish. I.e. without an afterlife who cares whether gods exist or not.

Let's define some terms:

[li]materialism: the belief that the physical world is the only reality. Thus, things if incorporeal substance (such as the soul) do not exist.
[li]physicalism: the belief that we have physical bodies but no nonphysical minds or souls.
Technically, one can believe in physicalism but not materialism. For instance, it is logically possible for one to believe in an incorporeal God, but purely physical humans. Nonetheless, many physicalists are also materialists.
[li]determinism: the belief that all effects (including our actions) are determined by prior causes.
metaphysical freedom: the belief that we can choose among genuine alternatives (what many think of when they read the term “free will”).
[li]libertarianism: belief that we have metaphysical freedom, and thus rejects determinism. Libertarianism comes in two forms: agency theory and indeterminism.
[li]indeterminism: sometimes called simple indeterminism, this theory defines free will as “an effect without a cause” and that we have such free will.
One criticism of this belief is that it seems to violate ex nihilo nihil fit.
[li]agency theory: the belief that free will is an act of agent-causation, whereby an agent (person, self) causes an event to happen.

1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3).
5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal)
6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists

While the argument may seem sound, especially if free will exists, there are a few points that could be disputed. The argument could still be rejected if free will does not exist. Does human volition exist? Are the arguments for lines 4 and 5 sufficient rational grounds for accepting them as true?

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammer ... /soul.html

From a dualistic standpoint, I'll quote Jeffery Schwartz, a neuroscientist and researcher of “neuroplasticity” at UCLA:

"But it [epiphenomenalism] denies that the awareness of a conscious experience can alter the physical brain activity that gives rise to it. As a result, it seemed to me, epiphenomenalism fails woefully to account for the results I was getting: namely, that a change in the valuation a person ascribes to a bunch of those electrochemical signals can not only alter them in the moment [mental forces or active power] but lead to such enduring changes in cerebral metabolic activity that the brain's circuits are essentially remodeled. That, of course, is what PET scans of OCD patients showed."

That's from his book: http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neurop ... 0060393556

If you haven't already, I think it might be advisable to read Plato's Phaedo, where Plato discusses on the immortality of the soul.

Those are just a few arguments I have seen for the soul without appealing towards a theistic bias, but I'll look up some more if I find some this evening. But I think it may be impossible to divorce the soul from God or a god.

Also I'm not somebody who wants to say we can disprove the existence of souls. I don't think we can disprove them. I don't think the idea of a soul is in any way incoherent. But look at the arguments and draw your own conclusions to them.

Interesting, but as you can see in this thread, I don't even believe in free will, so that argument falls flat for me from the beginning.

And of course the ideas of souls can't be disproven, in much the same way as the idea of invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I don't think it's an incoherent idea; just primitive, and extremely unnecessary.

[Achronos]

And of course the ideas of souls can't be disproven, in much the same way as the idea of invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I don't think it's an incoherent idea; just primitive, and extremely unnecessary.

What is unnecessary about a soul?

 The idea of invisible unicorns is unnecessary because it serves no purpose. However when discussing the soul, and if the soul is immortal, then there is a purpose because it indicates an afterlife. So is the idea of a soul necessary for an afterlife? Yes.

[McQ]

And of course the ideas of souls can't be disproven, in much the same way as the idea of invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I don't think it's an incoherent idea; just primitive, and extremely unnecessary.

What is unnecessary about a soul?

 The idea of invisible unicorns is unnecessary because it serves no purpose. However when discussing the soul, and if the soul is immortal, then there is a purpose because it indicates an afterlife. So is the idea of a soul necessary for an afterlife? Yes.

You're kidding, right? You just compared the "idea of invisible unicorns" to the soul. Note that you didn't also write, "the idea of an invisible, never-seen, never-witnessed, never-proven, only-hypothesized-by-some-religions soul". Instead, you changed the comparator to assume the existence of a soul, as defined by your specific religion.

The proper comparison would then be to assume the existence of unicorns, or to not assume the existence of a soul.

By the way, as anyone knows, unicorns do exist. Not only that, but unicorns are absolutely essential to an afterlife, because they are the mode of transport in the afterlife. They serve a vital purpose. So not only do unicorns indicate an afterlife, they keep it running smoothly.

[Achronos]

I wanted to make an observation LS, regarding your beliefs that you have no free will. Do you yourself have a purpose in life?

You're kidding, right? You just compared the "idea of invisible unicorns" to the soul. Note that you didn't also write, "the idea of an invisible, never-seen, never-witnessed, never-proven, only-hypothesized-by-some-religions soul". Instead, you changed the comparator to assume the existence of a soul, as defined by your specific religion.

Not quite. LS brought up that souls can't be disproven in much a way that invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I can imagine that the flying spaghetti monster exists, but that is not proof he exists. Just so much as it is purposeless to suppose that invisible unicorns exist however something that if a soul does exist, and is inside each human being and let's suppose this soul is immortal, than it's purpose is one that our souls will be joined into an afterlife. That's why there is the distinction between both ideas.

By the way, as anyone knows, unicorns do exist. Not only that, but unicorns are absolutely essential to an afterlife, because they are the mode of transport in the afterlife. They serve a vital purpose. So not only do unicorns indicate an afterlife, they keep it running smoothly.

That's fascinating, I'd love for you to prove it.

[McQ]

Not quite. LS brought up that souls can't be disproven in much a way that invisible unicorns can't be disproven. I can imagine that the flying spaghetti monster exists, but that is not proof he exists. Just so much as it is purposeless to suppose that invisible unicorns exist however something that if a soul does exist, and is inside each human being and let's suppose this soul is immortal, than it's purpose is one that our souls will be joined into an afterlife. That's why there is the distinction between both ideas.

You still don't understand your mistake. You pre-supposed, as if it were fact, that a soul does exist. You then tried to compare that to an entity that you pre-supposed does not exist, in order to set up your argument. You altered the starting point of your argument in order to tilt the debate in your favor. You made invalid comparisons to start your argument. Get it?


By the way, as anyone knows, unicorns do exist. Not only that, but unicorns are absolutely essential to an afterlife, because they are the mode of transport in the afterlife. They serve a vital purpose. So not only do unicorns indicate an afterlife, they keep it running smoothly.

That's fascinating, I'd love for you to prove it.

You just have to accept it on faith.

[Achronos]

You still don't understand your mistake. You pre-supposed, as if it were fact, that a soul does exist. You then tried to compare that to an entity that you pre-supposed does not exist, in order to set up your argument. You altered the starting point of your argument in order to tilt the debate in your favor. You made invalid comparisons to start your argument. Get it?

Again I'm pointing out that since LS stated that invisible unicorns and souls cannot be disproven, thus they could very well exist. I'm illustrating why invisible unicorns have no merit versus why having a soul would have some merit in believing such could possibly exist. The problem though, as I mentioned earlier, is that having a soul realms in the belief of a deity; the soul entirely depends on a theistic argument doesn't it? Because if God doesn't exist, there is no point having the idea of a living soul.

You just have to accept it on faith.

Which is not reasonable to do so, only that you made the claim. So you are on faith yourself then?

[McQ]

You still don't understand your mistake. You pre-supposed, as if it were fact, that a soul does exist. You then tried to compare that to an entity that you pre-supposed does not exist, in order to set up your argument. You altered the starting point of your argument in order to tilt the debate in your favor. You made invalid comparisons to start your argument. Get it?

You continue to ignore the point that your entire case rests on you setting the rules of the discussion with "ifs" that support only your pre-supposed soul. There's more to this than whether or not an alleged soul has merit in an alleged afterlife. It's that you pre-suppose a soul to begin with, yet do not allow for the pre-supposition of unicorns.

Again I'm pointing out that since LS stated that invisible unicorns and souls cannot be disproven, thus they could very well exist. I'm illustrating why invisible unicorns have no merit versus why having a soul would have some merit in believing such could possibly exist. The problem though, as I mentioned earlier, is that having a soul realms in the belief of a deity; the soul entirely depends on a theistic argument doesn't it? Because if God doesn't exist, there is no point having the idea of a living soul.

Again, not only do you pre-suppose alleged soul existence, you also pre-suppose that they have merit in an alleged afterlife. I can play your "what if" games too, but those types of arguments have no value. I can say "what if" there are such things as souls, but souls are not what you think they are, but are instead, simply piles of mysterious energy, without consciousness? Or that souls are actually my unicorns. What if, when you die, all that you are becomes a unicorn, but has no knowledge of your life on Earth?

"What if?", can be played all day long.

You just have to accept it on faith.

Which is not reasonable to do so, only that you made the claim. So you are on faith yourself then?

Just pointing out that you would have to believe in a unicorn the same way you would believe in a soul. No evidence for either means you have to accept either on faith only.

[Sophus]

I think that the scientific explanation may be more compelling in this regard, however, for example, how can it explain séances?

Séances need verification before explanation. There's nothing to explain other than why some person with a wallet is gullible enough to ay for one.

[Davin]

I think that the scientific explanation may be more compelling in this regard, however, for example, how can it explain séances?

Séances need verification before explanation. There's nothing to explain other than why some person with a wallet is gullible enough to ay for one.

Didn't Houdini issue a challenge for someone to communicate with him for him to give a secret password that would have provided some positive evidence for seances? Ten attempts and no winners.

[Sophus]

I think that the scientific explanation may be more compelling in this regard, however, for example, how can it explain séances?

Séances need verification before explanation. There's nothing to explain other than why some person with a wallet is gullible enough to ay for one.

Didn't Houdini issue a challenge for someone to communicate with him for him to give a secret password that would have provided some positive evidence for seances? Ten attempts and no winners.

Ha! I did a :shake:

The Houdini séance has been a Halloween tradition since the first anniversary of his death. The magician died at the age of 52 on October 31, 1926 from peritonitis - an internal infection - as the result of a ruptured appendix....

Oddly enough, Harry Houdini did not necessarily believe that spirits of the dead could be contacted. Aside from his fame as a stage magician and astonishing escape artist, Houdini was just as well known - especially in the later part of his career - as a debunker of spirit mediums and phony séances. He felt, however, that if it were possible for anyone to come back, he would find a way to do it.