Does a life force or 'soul' exist?

quote Bridget: Emergent properties are existent because of other properties

So these existences (existents) are caused (because of) by other properties.
Reflect on that for a minute. You are saying existence is the result of cause and effect. How can you justify that?
In order to change or be changed, something must exist. Cause and effect is a function of existence - not the opposite.

Are these existences added to the set of all things (universe) thus increasing it - or by integration does the set of all things decrease by the number of entities integrated into a 'new unit'?

If the set of all things remains the same - the same number of entities exist before and after - then definitively only a condition has changed. Which means that which is YOUR BEING due to 'emergent properties' is an occurrence, not an existence.

You seem to be claiming that by stirring the cauldron REALLY hard, organisms conjure new existences (existents, not conditions) that last a few years and then 'go out of' existence. Conditions begin and end, processes start and stop. Existences do not pop into and out of existence because existence is not a 'condition' caused by a process.

quote Bill: Life cannot be initiated by elemental particles that have the attribute of animation, because having the attribute of animation means that the particles would already be alive, in which case, life could not then be initiated by them.

Even inorganic elements react to their environment (iron rusts when exposed to oxygen). When an element encounters another element which compliments its properties, it reacts - and a positive charge seeks a negative charge. I define life as the reaction between an animating force and the elements of the planet. So do you when you think about it. But you seem to believe the animating force is, itself, the elements of the planet - purely chemical in nature (and why chemicals would care to create something like Hillary Clinton is beyond me - but that's another thread). On the other hand I am convinced that the animating force is - well - ME. I compile and compel my corporal shell. I exist and I am not a condition - I am a being (with or without this shell which qualifies my being as 'human'). I can only be one existence - which is why I don't call myself 'we'.

I once believed as Bridget - that life was a chemical soup. But after just a bit of thought, the incongruity of believing that a composite could be one existence changed my mind. I actually didn't - and don't - want to believe I am an elemental particle - there is a certain comfort in thinking death is the end of being - but it just doesn't wash. I have condemned myself to exist forever - alive or dead or various stages in between - which is scarey. What happens when the sun goes red giant? Oh well, I guess it's nothing I haven't encountered before....

SUMMARY:
The Universe is comprised of elemental particles which - though they may be profoundly small in nature - are not infinitely divisible.

An elemental particle is a single being - not comprised of independent parts. Things comprised of independent parts are composites.

Elemental particles behave differently when they become part of a composite, but each element retains its individual identity and unique history.

The behaviours of a complex composite are referred to as emergent properties. Emergent properties depend upon the properties of the elements within the composite - hence they are conditional.

When the composite is dissolved, each elemental particle still maintains its identity and history.

Elements are what they are. They always will be what they are. Only how they are (condition) can change.

You will never be what you are not. and that which is not you can never become what you are.

What you eat is not you. What you eat becomes your body.

Are you your body?
Are you a condition?
Or do you exist?

Every cell in your body changes out every 7 years. If you are a composite and your brain (old hard drive) has been replaced by a new one - you should not be the same identity. It is existence that creates identity, not information.

(Edited by Jack (THoR) McNally on 9/29, 9:33am)

Post 21

Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 10:56am

I once believed as Bridget - that life was a chemical soup. But after just a bit of thought, the incongruity of believing that a composite could be one existence changed my mind. I actually didn't - and don't - want to believe I am an elemental particle - there is a certain comfort in thinking death is the end of being - but it just doesn't wash.

What do you mean, it doesn't wash? Death is the end of life and consciousness. That is obvious. There is no evidence whatsoever that the 'soul' survives the death of the body, any more than there is that life itself survives death. Death is . . . death; it is not another form of life!

and I have condemned myself to exist forever - alive or dead or various stages in between - which is scarey.

What are you talking about?? YOU don't exist forever, even if the atoms that compose your body do.

Every cell in your body changes out every 7 years. If you are a composite and your brain (old hard drive) has been replaced by a new one - you should not be the same identity.

This is the old philosophical conundrum exemplified by Theseus' ship, Heraclitus' river, Locke's socks, Grandfather's old axe and other similar examples that every philosophy student is confronted with as paradoxes of identity. But observe that these examples have nothing to do with an enduring soul. There is no mystical spirit that inhabits the ship of Theseus while each of its planks is replaced by a new one, or endures throughout the patches to Locke's socks. Nor is there an indwelling soul that persists throughout the changes to Grandfather's axe from the handle to the head. Yes, things change, but as Aristotle pointed out to Heraclitus, in order for something to change it has to possess an identity, which persists throughout the process of change. Otherwise, you could not say that "it" has changed (from something to something). There would be nothing that underwent the change. Change is an action, and every action presupposes an entity that acts.

It is existence that creates identity, not information.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Existence does not create identity. Existence IS identity. Existence and identity are inseparable.

- Bill

Post 22

Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 12:53pm

Bill said:

There is no evidence whatsoever that the 'soul' survives the death of the body, ...

Bill; you're such a pessimist. Let's suppose the 'soul' does survive the death of the body. What should we expect? Well, it's not a pretty picture. Here is what the evidence we actually have would predict.

Suppose that a person is at ground zero of a hydrogen bomb blast, just to ensure that his body is completely annihilated. And, suppose his soul survives. Well, we know that if you are alive and are blinded, you no longer get any visual experiences; if you go deaf, you no longer hear things. So, without your body your soul no longer experiences anything from the 'outside world'.

But, you'll "always have Paris", right? Wrong; we know that if you have certain brain damage while you're still alive, your memories will disappear. So, I think we can be sure that if the brain is annihilated, your memories will disappear with it. So, your soul will no longer have any memories.

Therefore, if your soul survives your death, it will be floating nowhere and nowhen, experiencing and remembering nothing. So, for those who hope that their souls survive the death of the body: have fun.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 23

Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 6:49pm

Glenn,

If I could sanction you twice, I would. If I could sanction you thrice, I would. In fact, if I could sanction you posthumously, I would, but you've convinced me that posthumous accolades would fall on a blind, deaf, dumb and entirely vacuous soul -- a soulless soul -- and who wants to sanction that?!

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, my good Catholic buddy, are you listening? No, I'm sure he isn't; GWL is almost certainly gone for good. I suppose I should say "good riddance," although I did enjoy sparring with him.

Glenn, did you happen to read any of our dialogue? I would have welcomed your always succinct and insightful input. That guy was a master of the evasive maneuver -- slippery as an eel on ice. In his parting post, he said that he believed in God, because most people in the world did, and because his parents told him it was true -- a comment which surprised me just a little, given his other more academic arguments, like those from Aquinas and Aristotle. But I suppose that if everything else fails, there's nothing like a good argument from authority. But . . . his PARENTS?? If his parents told him that was a Santa Claus, would he believe them?? I always had the feeling that GWL was Leonard Peikoff having fun under a pseudonym, since Herr Leibniz did know a lot of philosophy.

But then Jon Trager got fed up with my unrelenting tolerance of the guy and called me down for continuing to debate him. I think that was one of the reasons Jon left the list. He'd had it with some of the posters. I'll have to say, I miss his input though. Jon, are you out there?

And Glenn, you too should post more often! I always appreciate your comments.

- Bill

Post 24

Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 8:26pm

L'�lan Vital Est Mort

I'm not sure whether the opinion of biologists has any weight around here, but the idea of an �lan vital lost all currency about a century ago, and was credited only by quacks in the 1950's. There are no biological processes known which defy physio-chemical analysis, no evidence for inexplicable or supernatural or intelligent teleological causes. I'm even surprised to see the issue brought up, with all but the "Intelligent Designers," the Gaians, and Lovelock (who still seek to cloak their thought in the mantle of science) this is a dead issue.

Ted Keer

Post 25

Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:46am

quote Bill: "...in order for something to change it has to possess an identity, which persists throughout the process of change. Otherwise, you could not say that "it" has changed (from something to something). There would be nothing that underwent the change. Change is an action, and every action presupposes an entity that acts. "

Only an elemental particle has true identity. WHAT it is will never change, although its condition may be dynamic. The pseudo-identity you arbitrarily assign to a composite is simply a label - giving a name to a set. If I took half of the elemental particles in each of your organs and exchanged them for half of the particles in Bridget's organs - and visa versa - who would you be? Bill? Bridget? Brillget? Brindlefly? Hillary?

quote Glenn "Suppose that a person is at ground zero of a hydrogen bomb blast, just to ensure that his body is completely annihilated. And, suppose his soul survives. Well, we know that if you are alive and are blinded, you no longer get any visual experiences; if you go deaf, you no longer hear things. So, without your body your soul no longer experiences anything from the 'outside world'."

I keep forgetting addicts of the conventional wisdom are probably still mired in the concept that elemental particles are homogeneous and structureless. If that were the case they would be indifferentiable, static and changeless...but that's another thread. (Yes, I know....it is against the dogma of particle physics to believe otherwise. And the world is flat if they say so.)

I would hope everyone understands that the only thing you experience is yourself - your own being. When you - the elemental particle - encounter another element there is a change in condition at the point or area of contact - a stimulus which you experience internally as sight, sound, heat, pain, etc..When you are alive, the stimulus is filtered through a protective layer: the body - lets say amplified, turbo charged and pre-sorted. When you are dead you do not cease to experience, but you no longer have the benefit of that magnificent machine you once wore. You would still react to stimulus, but you would not have consciousness as we know wakeful consciousness - or even a dream state. And to top it all off, I would presume your elemental being is probably about the size of an atom....so get used to taking LONG walks. (OK you can LYAO now....... : )

Can this be proven - Yeah, right. Gimme a few $bil and a horde of scholarly pundits with high tech toys and I could probably get them on the right track, but at humanity's current stage of evolution it would be like trying to teach calculus to a cow. This is, of course, pure conjecture and although it goes against conventional thinking I have encountered nothing believable that DISproves it - and a lot of good old common sense principles that support it. But this is a philosophical forum - the place to kick around such ideas. And besides, I find it fascinating just to sit around and think..... Of course if I am boring or insulting you I can tickle the old imagination in private.

Oh, and Ted, the only thing that is dead around here is only deceased from the neck up.

(Edited by Jack (THoR) McNally on 9/30, 9:06am)

Post 26

Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 7:19am

quote Bill: "What are you talking about?? YOU don't exist forever, even if the atoms that compose your body do. "

Let's see. We have two contentions:

You contend that YOU, yourself, are a condition, a collection - an emergent property comprised of a set of 'real' things (elemental particles) which have a physical presence in the cosmos - things that have "selves that are not sets" and that have an actual permanent identity instead of just a temporary label. You claim that you occurred when a cauldron of elements was stirred really really hard, and you will vanish when the stuff all settles out.

I contend that I am an existence (elemental particle) which has the propensity to manipulate the resources of the environment in such a way as to propagate my nature (impose my will - in human terms). I exist. I have always existed. I will always continue to exist because existence is not a condition - it doesn't start or stop.

Is it not unusual to find elements that react in such a way as to propagate their attributes.

There is no law of nature that precludes the existence of an element with an exotic propensity for animation.

Particle physicists will be the first to tell you what they perceive to be elemental particles are theoretical. They cannot prove they have no substructure and many of them were wholely invented because they handily satisfied the calculations.

(PS: elemental particles do have substructure - but don't tell anyone, the scholarly pundits are having SO much fun finding this out it would be a shame to spoil it all - but that, too is another thread)

(Edited by Jack (THoR) McNally on 9/30, 9:08am)

Post 27

Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 12:54pm

I wrote, "...in order for something to change it has to possess an identity, which persists throughout the process of change. Otherwise, you could not say that "it" has changed (from something to something). There would be nothing that underwent the change. Change is an action, and every action presupposes an entity that acts. " Jack replied,

Only an elemental particle has true identity. WHAT it is will never change, although its condition may be dynamic.

This is the Heraclitean fallacy that change is inconsistent with identity, which Aristotle refuted. So how would you answer Aristotle, as I presented his argument? Instead of addressing his refutation, all you've done is make a counter assertion. This is not the way to argue philosophy.

The pseudo-identity you arbitrarily assign to a composite is simply a label - giving a name to a set. If I took half of the elemental particles in each of your organs and exchanged them for half of the particles in Bridget's organs - and visa versa - who would you be? Bill? Bridget? Brillget? Brindlefly? Hillary?

I'd be the same person in one respect, but not in another. However, what is necessary for any obvious change to take place is not simply an exchange of elemental particles, but an exchange of different organizations of these particles. At any rate, unless our respective identities remained the same throughout the process of change, you couldn't say that "I" had received Bridget's particles, nor that "she" had received mine. There would be no "I" or "she" that existed as recipients of the exchange.

You quoted Glenn Fletcher, "Suppose that a person is at ground zero of a hydrogen bomb blast, just to ensure that his body is completely annihilated. And, suppose his soul survives. Well, we know that if you are alive and are blinded, you no longer get any visual experiences; if you go deaf, you no longer hear things. So, without your body your soul no longer experiences anything from the 'outside world'." And replied:

I keep forgetting addicts of the conventional wisdom are probably still mired in the concept that elemental particles are homogeneous and structureless. If that were the case they would be indifferentiable, static and changeless...
Why?
but that's another thread. (Yes, I know....it is against the dogma of particle physics to believe otherwise. And the world is flat if they say so.)

In what way is this statement a response to the passage from Glenn Fletcher that you just quoted?

I would hope everyone understands that the only thing you experience is yourself - your own being.

If the only thing people experience is themselves, then how are they able to interact with each other? How are they able to experience the external world and the reality of other people? As Rand put it, "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identity itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." (AS, p. 1015 )

When you - the elemental particle - encounter another element there is a change in condition at the point or area of contact - a stimulus which you experience internally as sight, sound, heat, pain, etc..
Jack, this is silly. You're not an elemental particle; you're a human being.
When you are alive, the stimulus is filtered through a protective layer: the body - lets say amplified, turbo charged and pre-sorted. When you are dead you do not cease to experience, but you no longer have the benefit of that magnificent machine you once wore. You would still react to stimulus, but you would not have consciousness as we know wakeful consciousness - or even a dream state. And to top it all off, I would presume your elemental being is probably about the size of an atom....so get used to taking LONG walks. (OK you can LYAO now....... : )

Are you serious? As Glenn and I have pointed out, without sense organs and a brain, there is no consciousness. Besides, if we do not have consciousness "as we know it," then what does it mean to say that when we are dead we do not cease to "experience"? What could "experience" possibly mean in that case, if it doesn't mean consciousness? Consciousness "as we know it" is all that we mean by "experience." If there is no consciousness "as we know it," then there is no experience.

Can this be proven - Yeah, right. Gimme a few $bil and a horde of scholarly pundits with high tech toys and I could probably get them on the right track, but at humanity's current stage of evolution it would be like trying to teach calculus to a cow.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! And then you say:

This is, of course, pure conjecture and although it goes against conventional thinking I have encountered nothing believable that DISproves it - and a lot of good old common sense principles that support it.

Give me a break! What you are advocating is anything but common sense, and let me remind you that the onus or proof is on you to defend your position; it is not on us to disprove it, unless you offer at least some evidence that is capable of being refuted. Besides, we have already provided evidence that invalidates the idea that experience, which requires a brain and nervous system, survives death. If you want to contest this, then it is up to you to offer counter-evidence disproving it. And that, you have yet to do.

But this is a philosophical forum - the place to kick around such ideas. And besides, I find it fascinating just to sit around and think.....

Spoken like a true rationalist with no respect for empirical evidence.

I wrote, "What are you talking about?? YOU don't exist forever, even if the atoms that compose your body do. "

Let's see. We have two contentions:

You contend that YOU, yourself, are a condition, a collection - an emergent property comprised of a set of 'real' things (elemental particles) which have a physical presence in the cosmos - things that have "selves that are not sets" and that have an actual permanent identity instead of just a temporary label. You claim that you occurred when a cauldron of elements was stirred really really hard, and you will vanish when the stuff all settles out.

I contend no such thing. I am not a collection, but an integration of elements. Nor am I an emergent property. I am an entity -- a person -- not a property. Apparently, you don't understand the difference.

I contend that I am an existence (elemental particle) which has the propensity to manipulate the resources of the environment in such a way as to propagate my nature (impose my will - in human terms). I exist. I have always existed. I will always continue to exist because existence is not a condition - it doesn't start or stop.

Existence as such doesn't start or stop, but that doesn't mean that particular forms of existence -- particular things in existence -- don't start or stop. You have not always existed. You did not exist before you were born, and you will not exist after you die. I would not have thought that facts this simple and obvious would ever be contested by anyone on this forum. Would you also say that my cat existed before she was born and will continue to exist after she dies?

- Bill

Post 28

Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 1:49pm

Bill:

Not to worry. In 7-yrs time 'Thor' will have a different identity ergo will see things (and argue them) differently; ergo, he'll probably agree with your present views. Now, how *you* will be then, he may have a prob with.

:)

LLAP
J:D

Post 29

Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 5:08pm

quote Bill: I contend no such thing. I am not a collection, but an integration of elements. Nor am I an emergent property. I am an entity -- a person -- not a property. Apparently, you don't understand the difference.

To integrate fundamental particles - or even NON fundamental particles is to cause the elements in question to coalesce. By stirring the cauldron REALLY REALLY hard, you can form subatomic, atomic and molecular bonds which hold those elements close together - forming chemical, electro-chemical and even bio-mechanical systems which may include remarkable synergies and astounding compound properties. But all you have really done is to change the location and environment of the individual elements - you haven't created anything but a condition.

Bill -
The most basic unit of existence is the fundamental particle Fundamental particles are, themselves, individual existences. They aren't composed of other independent existences. They all have three basic attributes, quality (its nature), quantity (how large it is) and location in the cosmos (position or configuration). The existence of a particle doesn't start or stop. It's identity is unique and constant. A fundamental particle may change in condition, but not in content.

quote Bill: Existence as such doesn't start or stop, but that doesn't mean that particular forms of existence -- particular things in existence -- don't start or stop.

Conditions start. They stop. They change, They wriggle on their bellies like a reptile. But they are not existences.
A composite can - and frequently does - change in both condition AND content. At the risk of offending Mr. Aristotle I must point out that instead of having a permanent identity it only has a temporary label arbitrarily assigned to it by whoever might care to define it. But this is just a semantical difference that I will work out with Ari the next time I see him. : )

quote Bill: You have not always existed. You did not exist before you were born, and you will not exist after you die. I would not have thought that facts this simple and obvious would ever be contested by anyone on this forum. Would you also say that my cat existed before she was born and will continue to exist after she dies?

LOL - It appears I am an existence and I am here to stay. YOU on the other hand are a condition and will likely go away eventually. Guess I win the debate by default. (howcome they don't have smilies??)

Seriously, semantics gets involved here. If you think I believe a life force is a mini-man capable of consciousness as we know it you misread me. I am an elemental particle which has always existed and everything that exists experiences changes in environment, location - stimulus of one sort or another - and the way a life force reacts when it is not 'wearing the mud' is vastly different from it's life state. Chances are it is a sub-microscopic, dormant kind of critter - with or without the property of mass (and mass is JUST a property - ask Al Thebeermug)I - Jack the-almost-human has not always existed, but I - the spark of life which compiled and compells this corpse - will always be around somewhere.

I understand you find my way of thinking incredible - and I find your inability to recognize the existence of your own essence likewise incredible.

Have we beat this horse to death yet?
*mine will be back shortly but yours may loose the race....

Post 30

Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:14pm

Nothing like a died-in-the-wool mystic, however covered in primordial slime...

Post 31

Monday, October 1, 2007 - 6:33am

Bill,
Thanks for the kind words in post #23. As far as your discussions with Leibniz, you did an excellent job of debating him. But, there comes a point of diminishing returns where there seems to be no basis for further discussion. People like him just won't believe the evidence of their senses. [Hey, what a great title for a book!] He chose an appropriate pseudonym, Leibniz being one of the great rationalists of all time.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 32

Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:20am

quote Robert: Nothing like a died-in-the-wool mystic, however covered in primordial slime...

Robert, don't be TOO hard on Bill. It's the standard "Pinnocchio" mentality. It's easy to fall for the voodoo that Geppetto can turn 6.423333 x 10^26 independent fundamental particles into a single "thing" with a single set of experiences and a single consciousness. I know it sounds silly, but some people think that way.

Every time Bill looks in the mirror he sees what he is wearing and thinks it is him. And he bandies about the term integration like it is some magical incantation. To integrate is simply to change the arrangement of things that exist to form a composite - to which a label is applied to identify it.. He does not realize that nothing 'came into being' except a condition. Existences don't start and stop - only conditions do that.

He apparently thinks he is a machine on auto pilot and doesn't recognize that something which actually exists is driving. So give Bill a break, willya...

(Edited by Jack (THoR) McNally on 10/01, 7:57am)

Post 33

Monday, October 1, 2007 - 10:15am

Jack,

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that when I look in the mirror, I don't see me, because I am not my physical body; I am my soul or spirit. "I" am what is directing my physical body, and the "I" which is the director is an "elemental particle." Furthermore, you're saying that my physical body is not an entity or a thing, but a composite of things -- a "condition" as you put it. Have I captured the essence of your position? If so, then let me respond as follows:

My soul or spirit is my consciousness, and my consciousness is simply the subjective manifestation of my physical body -- of my sensory organs, brain and nervous system. Without the integration of these sensory and neurological organs, there would be no consciousness; the "I" that you are referring to would not exist. So in that respect, the mind is part of the body, not separate from it.

You say that the "I" -- or consciousness -- is an elemental particle, which continues to exist after the disintegration of the body, but you provide no evidence for that assertion, and as far as I am aware, there is none. In fact, the empirical evidence contradicts it, because without sense organs, a brain and nervous system, there is no perception, memory or cognition, which are required for consciousness or any kind of experience.

You refer to the body as a "composite" of elemental particles. If by that, you simply mean that it is "composed" of elemental particles, then you are certainly correct. But it is more than a composite; it is an integration of its constituent elements. You balk at the term "integration." But it is important in this context, because while every integration is, in a sense, a composite, not every composite is an integration. A loose collection of things can be described as a "composite," but it is not an integration of the things composing it. Surely, you understand the relevance of this distinction.

Man is an organism that needs to perform certain actions in order to stay in existence -- in order to remain alive and functional. His bodily organs and their processes are "integrated" towards that end or goal. As psychologist Nathaniel Branden puts it, "an organism maintains itself by taking materials which exist in its environment, transforming or rearranging them, and thereby converting them into the means of its own survival." When it ceases to perform the actions needed to maintain its structural integrity, it dies. Death can thus be described as disintegration, because what is left is simply a collection of decomposing chemical compounds.

You also describe the human organism simply as a "condition." A condition is that on which other things depend. So to say that man is a condition is to say nothing more than that there are other things that depend upon him for their existence -- other things whose existence is conditional upon his. But, if I understand you correctly, that is not what you want to say. "Condition" is not the right word here. It is not synonymous with "composite," much less with "integration."

You need to give your ideas a lot more thought and, if nothing else, improve the precision with which you are trying to express them. If you do, I think you'll find that they lack evidential support. As you've stated them here, they are simply a loose, unintegrated collection of floating abstractions.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/01, 10:26am)

Post 34

Monday, October 1, 2007 - 2:10pm

Bill -

Although I am far from racist - I seem to have a MAJOR problem with integration.

Let us call fundamental particles ELEMENTS - existences which are not comprised of other independent existences.

ELEMENTS react to themselves as well as their environment.
When you put two together, you have a set. Each ELEMENT reacts to itself, the other and the ambient environment.
If a stimulus is applied to the set the ELEMENTS do not react independently as if they were suspended in space. Because they are reacting to the other, they react as part of a set.

Before I go off on a tangent, let me know if you agree so far - is this your concept of integration?

Post 35

Monday, October 1, 2007 - 4:53pm

More seriously, presuming agreement that there is 'identity' within an entity which shows change (ie: no debates in this thread with Thor), and getting back to the original subject as to there being anything worth calling a 'soul' (aka: "Does a 'soul' exist?") I'd say "yes," but, so far, only for humans...and not all of them at that.

However, the thread's original question is a bit of a mixup in assumptions: I would not call it a 'life force.' The subject of vitalism is a whole separate question, for a whole separate thread.

2Bcont
LLAP
J:D

Post 36

Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:09pm

My idea of the usefulness of the term 'soul', for humans, requires that there be some consistent set of...values. 'Consistent' here, doesn't imply 'never-to-be-changed', however. And 'values' doesn't imply "whatever I want for which I act to gain or keep."

2Bcont
LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/01, 6:21pm)

Post 37

Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:10pm

Some humans have no 'values.' They're motivated by whatever random whims hit them at the moment, resulting in nothing but 'self' (ahem!) gratification of-the-moment. Others have some values which result in producing an improvement to their lives (continuance or flourishing thereof), which includes adding to the set of values they have. Think adolescence (and think too many allow themselves to stay stuck there). These 'sets' may, or may not, become made 'hierarchical.'

2Bcont
LLAP
J:D

Post 38

Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:17pm

~ Here, one distinguishes between one's wants and one's needs. Volitionally chosen attention (necessary at this point) to one's needs form one's value-hierarchy. All else is emotionally based (aka: 'animal-driven') trivia...re human 'souls.'
~ If the needs be made hierarchilized by the 'valuer', here there be 'soul-making.' One's hierarchy of values is one's...'soul.' It's the only thing worth calling such. (I'll not get into 'animal personality difference' aspects here re dogs, cats, etc. -- a subject unto itself.)
~ However, if the needs be not, no 'soul' (human, that is) yet exists; at best, a pre-'soul' does. Think spiritual fetus.

2Bcont
LLAP
J:D

Post 39

Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:32pm