And do believe that I, this random guy on the internet has a soul
I personally don’t believe that I anyone else has a soul. From my standup I don’t se any reason to believe that our consciousness and our so called “soul” would be any more then something our brain is making up.
I believe that my consciousness is a thing I can point to as being my essence. You could maybe call that a soul, or you could maybe not. Either way, my consciousness is the collective consciousness of countless single-celled organisms all working to make my singular self function. You could maybe call the manifestation of all these processes into a greater thinking singularity as a “soul”, more akin to the way in which a city might have a “soul” made up by the people that live in it. I don’t believe I have a ghost, and I believe that my consciousness is conditional, derived from my biology, but consciousness itself is as good as anything to call a soul
So I guess, in short, no XD
my consciousness is the collective consciousness
THE UNENLIGHTENED MASSES
I would never buy a Kia.
Most wrong take here. The Soul is an underrated vehicle.
It is. I had one. The problem was they didn’t bother installing an immobilizer on them, hence the kiaboyz viral trend. I had to let go of my Soul because of that.
I did not know about the TikTok thing.
Historically, people just think they look dumb and boxy, but they actually can hold a lot of stuff as a result, while still being small and zippy.
There is at least as much evidence for dragons and magic and Greek gods as there is for a soul, so no.
It boggles my mind that out of the two options, someone would choose to believe in none of these when you could just as easily believe in all of them.
Much as I would love to believe in dragons, belief is not usually a choice.
I mean dragons did exist. We just call them dinosaurs.
Nah, I’m just a flesh computer.
Whenever I listen to that old-time 'a rock and roll I feel soothed, so I must.
Define “soul” or the answer is entirely meaningless. I’m pretty sure I’m sentient and can feel emotions and think and reason.
No. It’s more religion inspired fairy tale magic.
And yet religion inspired fairy tale magic has gone on to inspire science and technology that enable that idea.
We’re literally talking as a society about resurrection consent directives but people are still spouting the age old “there’s no soul or afterlife” without regard for emerging science and technology just as the religious are committed to the belief in magic over reinterpreting their beliefs in the context of science.
You, right now, are in a world experimentally proven for nearly a century now not to be observably real (“a quantity that can be expressed as an infinite decimal expansion”) and instead is one only observably digital (“of, relating to, or using calculation by numerical methods or by discrete units”).
And while you’re alive you are producing massive amounts of data being harvested up by algorithms simulating the world while some of those technologies are being put to recreating the deceased at such increasing scale that as mentioned, we’re starting to discuss if that’s okay to do retroactively without consent.
I’m not a betting person, but the intersection of those two things (that our universe behaves in a way that seems to track stateful interactions with a conversion to discrete units and that we’re leaving behind data in a world increasingly simulating itself and especially its dead) would at very least give me pause before dismissing certain notions even if the original concept inspiring the latter trend was originally dreamt up by superstition and wishful thinking.
Define to me concretely what constitutes a soul, and I will tell you. Do cats have souls? What about frogs? Snails? Amoebas? Trees? Or people on life support?
I have a self-aware consciousness. If that’s what counts, then yes. However, this means that many people by the same definition don’t.
Only correct answer here. First define “soul”. So far no human has ever been able to define it, so how do we know if we have one?
No, I think that’s an abstract concept of a consciousness invented by religion to transcend death. It’s a comforting thought, but that’s really it.
No. It’s religious quackery.
Souls are just faerie tales people tell themselves to avoid feeling angst around death. There is absolutely no evidence they exist and plenty of evidence they don’t.
No.
I self-evidently have a consciousness (cogito ergo sum), but logic, reason and the available evidence all point to that consciousness being a manifestation of brain activity and shaped by my genetics, environment and experiences, as opposed to an entity unto itself.
While I agree with you generally, “I think therefore I am” isn’t the big hitter it’s made out to be. I think it’s even followed in the original by a qualifier (don’t quote me though), and not as self evident as generally accepted.
It’s to do with there being no real way to determine if we are what we think we are. We could be a computer generated entity that’s programmed to experience.
Or we could be a brain in a vat, being fed computer generated experiences. There really is no way of knowing if we are actually humans experiencing life as we appear to be.
I expect that many here are aware of this concept, but my reason for laying it all out is for context of the rather succinct way it was once put to me -
“I think, therefore there is…something.”
Many think that cogito ergo sum somehow says or at least implies something about the nature of existence, when it in fact does not. So in that sense, it’s not the “big hitter it’s made out to be,” but that’s not a failure of the principle, but a failure of people to understand what it in fact says, or more precisely, does not say.
I suspect that the problem is that when people consider “I think, therefore I am,” they think that that “I” refers to the entirety of their self-image, and therefore says that the entirety of their self-image, in all its details, objectively exists.
That’s very much not what it means or even implies. It never did and was never intended to stipulate anything at all about the nature of this entity I call “I.” Not one single thing. All it ever said or intended to say was simply that whatever it is that “I” am, “I” self evidently exist, as demonstrated by the fact that “I” - whatever “I” might be - think I do.
It’s not a coincidence that Descartes himself formulated the original version of the brain-in-a-vat - the “evil demon.” He was not simply aware of the sorts of possibilities you mention - of the ramifications of the fact that we exist behind a veil of perception - he actually originated much of the thinking on that very topic. He was a pioneer in that exact field.
Cogito ergo sum doesn’t fail to account for those sorts of possibilities - it was explicitly formulated with those sorts of possibilities not only in mind, but at the forefront. And that’s exactly why it only stipulates the one and only thing that an individual can know for certain - that some entity that I think of as “I” self evidently exists, as demonstrated by the simple fact that “I” think I do, since if “I” didn’t exist, there would be no “I” thinking I do.
And more to the point, that’s exactly why it very deliberately says absolutely nothing about the nature of that existence.
Thank you for clarifying my clumsy attempt to lay this out, its great when I get a reply from someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.
I think the concept of a soul is too vague for that question to really mean anything
You’d have to define soul first. I definitely have a subjective experience/consciousness however.
deleted by creator
