24 Apr 06
I have never really understood the concept of the soul. I would like to know from people who think that such a thing exists, whether human memories are recorded with the soul. I know that the human brain stores memory. I know that that memory can be erased or lost during a persons lifetime, sometimes, in the case of cirtain diseases, a large part of the memory is lost. When a person dies, does the soul contain all memories or does it only contain memories available at the time of death? Is it copying memories from the brain or does it actually remember more than is actually stored in the brain?
To what extent are we the sum of our memories? If the souls recollection of memories is different from that of our conciousness then can we consider it a seperate entity? If the soul is vastly different from our conciousness then why would we have any incentive to get our soul into heaven?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Apr 06
No no no no! Science is wrong. Consciousness is not chemical. Memories are the pictures on our souls. The soul is true. Evolution is wrong. Science is wrong (have I said that yet?). God exists. Dont be sacrireligious. What do you have against religious people? Heaven is for christians, all muslims will go to hell. 😛
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI give your sarcasm a meager 2/10 for complete lack of whit. Nice attempt though.
No no no no! Science is wrong. Consciousness is not chemical. Memories are the pictures on our souls. The soul is true. Evolution is wrong. Science is wrong (have I said that yet?). God exists. Dont be sacrireligious. What do you have against religious people? Heaven is for christians, all muslims will go to hell. 😛
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI'm sorry. I failed to appreciate the originality in the content of your post. No one ever speaks sarcastically about religion in here. My bad.
And who exactly gives you the credentials to judge my "whit"?
You could also lighten up rather then blasting everyone else like a complete F__wit.
If you would be kind enough as to let me know the prerequistes for my PHD in whit evaluation, I will apply immediately. Hopefully, my ability to "blast everyone else like a complet F___wit" with my first post in months will assist me in this endeavor.
Your time and assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated, as well as your kindness in putting up with my inflammatory remarks.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KIt seems to me that he said nothing about religious people. Before you go off understand what the poster posts.
No no no no! Science is wrong. Consciousness is not chemical. Memories are the pictures on our souls. The soul is true. Evolution is wrong. Science is wrong (have I said that yet?). God exists. Dont be sacrireligious. What do you have against religious people? Heaven is for christians, all muslims will go to hell. 😛
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe notion of a soul separate from the mind or consciousness is distinctly post-Cartesian, and very hard to conceptually defend. If you read Aquinas or Augustine, you can see what they mean by soul is something very akin to mind or consciousness, but also something which is additionally presumed to ensure after death. However, modern neurobiology overwhelmingly implies that such a "soul" undergoes at least a temporary total dissolution at death.
I have never really understood the concept of the soul. I would like to know from people who think that such a thing exists, whether human memories are recorded with the soul. I know that the human brain stores memory. I know that that memory can be erased or lost during a persons lifetime, sometimes, in the case of cirtain diseases, a large part of the m ...[text shortened]... ifferent from our conciousness then why would we have any incentive to get our soul into heaven?
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholetemporary total dissolution at death.
The notion of a soul separate from the mind or consciousness is distinctly post-Cartesian, and very hard to conceptually defend. If you read Aquinas or Augustine, you can see what they mean by soul is something very akin to mind or consciousness, but also something which is additionally presumed to ensure after death. However, modern neurobiology overwhelmingly implies that such a "soul" undergoes at least a temporary total dissolution at death.
Are you attempting to live up to your self-proclaimed title of "Krackpot Kibitzer," or are you merely at odds with the accepted definition of words?
I know, I know: it's all just in fun; nothing serious here. Go ahead and continue your silly blatherings.
24 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeNo - what you're describing is the Cartesian notion of soul.
The notion of a soul separate from the mind or consciousness is distinctly post-Cartesian, and very hard to conceptually defend. If you read Aquinas or Augustine, you can see what they mean by soul is something very akin to mind or consciousness, but also something which is additionally presumed to ensure after death.
The Thomistic relation between soul and human being is that between essence and being. I presume the Augustinian conception was that of form (idea) and object. The soul is simply the essence/form of a living being.
It follows, then, that all living beings have a soul. The only question is whether that soul is immortal.
EDIT: To put it another way, what Aquinas meant by soul was something more like a person's DNA plus all his/her life-experiences plus his/her personality plus his/her physical attributes. In other words, the essence of the person.
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerNone of which actually proves anything, they are just words describing what attributes mankind WISHES to ascribe to what they would, in their vanity about some inherent superiority to the other life forms on this planet. The thought that only humans have souls is the most arrogant supposition the human race has invented yet. If humans have souls, there is nothing inherently superior enough to prevent ROCKS from having souls much less monkeys.
No - what you're describing is the Cartesian notion of soul.
The Thomistic relation between soul and human being is that between essence and being. I presume the Augustinian conception was that of form (idea) and object. The soul is simply the essence/form of a living being.
It follows, then, that all living beings have a soul. The only q ...[text shortened]... ersonality plus his/her physical attributes. In other words, the essence of the person.
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by sonhouseIf this is the sum total of your reasoning powers, bring some justice to the world and refrain from procreation upon reaching adulthood in the next ten (or so) years.
None of which actually proves anything, they are just words describing what attributes mankind WISHES to ascribe to what they would, in their vanity about some inherent superiority to the other life forms on this planet. The thought that only humans have souls is the most arrogant supposition the human race has invented yet. If humans have souls, there is nothing inherently superior enough to prevent ROCKS from having souls much less monkeys.
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI suggest you read Christian theologian Richard Swinburne's book "The evolution of the soul" (1987) for a modern construal of the soul identical to that contained in my silly blatherings.
[b]temporary total dissolution at death.
Are you attempting to live up to your self-proclaimed title of "Krackpot Kibitzer," or are you merely at odds with the accepted definition of words?
I know, I know: it's all just in fun; nothing serious here. Go ahead and continue your silly blatherings.[/b]
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAfter re-reading my references, and thinking about it, I think I was wrong, and you are correct.
No - what you're describing is the Cartesian notion of soul.
The Thomistic relation between soul and human being is that between essence and being. I presume the Augustinian conception was that of form (idea) and object. The soul is simply the essence/form of a living being.
It follows, then, that all living beings have a soul. The only q ...[text shortened]... ersonality plus his/her physical attributes. In other words, the essence of the person.
How often do you hear that in these forums? 🙂
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by sonhouseYou're still talking from the Cartesian frame. In Thomistic philosophy, what we call form in rocks is called soul in living beings. It's just a matter of terminology. It says nothing about "inherent superiority".
None of which actually proves anything, they are just words describing what attributes mankind WISHES to ascribe to what they would, in their vanity about some inherent superiority to the other life forms on this planet. The thought that only humans have souls is the most arrogant supposition the human race has invented yet. If humans have souls, there is nothing inherently superior enough to prevent ROCKS from having souls much less monkeys.