If you do, then what exactly defines a soul in your view?

  • Midas@ymmel.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I do not. When the brain stops working it’s just the end. I wasn’t raised religious and I’ve never ‘felt’ anything spiritual. I respect people who do, but I just don’t - it doesn’t make sense to me.

    Not that I’ve a choice but I do feel a sense of calm in the fact that when I die there’s nothing. We’re just a blip in a never ending universe.

    • ConditionOverload@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was here long before us and it’ll continue to exist long after us. It’s initially a very terrifying truth but eventually it becomes our most comforting truth.

    • cpoc@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The brain is literally powered by electricity. Like any device, it stops working once the power turns off. Some people have a problem facing this mortality, but I think accepting it allows you to be more present in life.

  • ByDarwinsBeard@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be honest, I’m not even sure what “soul” is supposed to mean. If your definition of soul is an ethereal consciousness separate from your physical body than I can honestly say that i believe that doesn’t exist. We have plenty of evidence that your consciousness is a function of your brain, we can see this when people experience personality changes as a result of chemical influence or damage to the brain. Someone suffering a stroke can come out of it with changes to their temperment, tastes, even interests. Anyone who’s suffered chemical depression should be familiar with the way their neurochemistry effects their personally, and the effects of drugs on people is well known.

    I’ve seen no useful evidence that a soul, based on that definition, does or even can exist. The evidence I do have looks very much like no such thing is happening.

  • Kissaki@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. Soul is an imaginary concept for ideas and claims. And people think of different things when they think of it.

    We are an inherently physical entity. A vastly complex system that very interestingly enables consciousness to arise from it.

    But when you remove the body it lives in there is nothing left of it. Other than the influences it had in its past.

  • 211@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It comes down to how you define “soul”.

    Do I believe there’s a consciousness that transcends death or exists separately from our physical existence, no.

    But if you start talking of ship of Theseus/transponder incident/mind upload -type mental exercises, then yes, I believe “self” is an evolving pattern and a collection of experiences that could theoretically be replicated in another physical manifestation or even in a completely different medium. You could call that, too, “soul”.

  • juliebean@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    if someone can give me a good definition of what they think a soul is or does, maybe i’ll have a response, but quite often, i find the concept less false, and more just ill-defined.

    • fuck reddit@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I believe in anything that can be proven scientifically to actually exist. Show me evidence, not anecdotal stories which further an idea of “just believe me.”

    • Kissaki@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death, capable of moral judgment, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

      • juliebean@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        considering many non-humans seem perfectly capable of making moral judgements, and feeling happiness or misery (all actions which appear to be explicable by purely material means), a ‘soul’ seems unnecessary to explain such things in humans. and it seems the very height of anthropocentrism to say that humans are immortal (despite all evidence to the contrary) while everything else just dies. why would just humans have these souls instead of, say, dolphins, or wild boars, or rattlesnakes, or coastal redwoods?

  • czarrie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    A soul is at best a description of the electrical and quantum interactions that take place in our brain, a personified phenotype of the sum of these things occurring in our head (and to a degree our eyes, mouth, ears, and skin).

    I don’t believe in the soul in the traditional sense as it implies that there is one version of me – is my soul my 9yo self, my 20-something alcoholic self, the self as of this moment, or my Alzheimer’s-ridden self when I die? If it’s supposed to be a “perfect” version of me when I pass, then it’s kind of funny, because my spirit is, in a sense, a version of me that I’ve never actually met and wouldn’t recognize.

  • morgan423@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Something I take some comfort in is that regardless of what your soul does upon death in the short term (whether it’s an afterlife of some sort that we don’t understand, a nihilistic void of nothingness, reincarnation as the soul attaches to a newly created body somewhere else in the world… whatever, no one alive truly knows or could ever know), science believes in a sort of reincarnation.

    Where eventually as step one, everything that ever was ends up in black holes, and those black holes eventually decay until the universe is nothing but a uniform background of unchanging radiation, referred to as the heat death of the universe (because nothing can really physically change on macroscopic scales anymore, in order to convert energy into new heat).

    And then, after ridiculously long time periods, quantum fluctuations cause the machinery of the universe to start back up again, everything re-forms, and eventually our universe ends up back where it started at the beginning of your life.

    So it’s possible that you will live again, and again, and again, forever, just with no ability to remember how it went down last time. And an incredibly long wait between lifetimes (though, to be fair, if death is a nihilistic void for each person, that wait is only going to feel like two seconds and bam, you’re right back in the womb).

    So if nothing else, at least there’s that.

      • morgan423@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s still an exact arrangement of matter that’s identical to your original configuration. So one would think that all the properties arising from it (such as consciousness) would be the same. So it’s You Part 2 (or Part two quintillion, there’s really no way to know which loop we’re on).

  • sotolf@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s kind of really hard to say if I belive in something or not when you don’t offer a definition, I don’t believe in anything outside of the brain, consiousness and what makes me me, which could be a definition of soul, I do believe in, but again, that’s just a result of my brain braining.

  • funnyletter@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I slid gently into atheism and my total failure to believe in souls was the way I realized I was in fact an atheist.

    I was reading something that was discussing something about souls and I thought, pfft, there’s no such thing as souls.

    I think we’re made out of meat. The thing that makes me me is a series of electrical impulses in (mostly?) my brain meat. That’s why I find sports that involve repeated head trauma (football, boxing, etc) viscerally upsetting: by getting concussed a bunch of times you are, in my view, literally risking obliteration of the self.

  • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was raised Roman Catholic.

    A soul is a concept to make death less scary.

    All life is an organic computer. When something dies, the computer is off, never to be rebooted again. That’s ok though.

  • Atemu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m agnostic, so obviously my view on that is that we simply don’t know.

  • Jongaros@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. I believe soul is a human construct that is meant to be self defense mechanism to feel like we are special instead of bunch of meat with chemicals.

    • Chufi@lemmy.oneB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Richard Dawkins said something along the lines of : "You have a brain that works by nerve impulses, and when that decays, what could possibly be left "

  • TokyoCalling@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No.

    I think that people are attracted to the idea of a soul because they would like to think that there is something unchanging about them. A desire for constancy in an inconstant world.

    What I have experienced is wild changes in my own behavior, thoughts, desires, fears, drives, and whatever-might-have-you. Certainly, I am not the same person I was when I was an infant or when I was a child or when I was a young man or - I suppose in a more subtle way - I will be after I finish posting this and get some lunch.

    I argue with myself. Blame myself. Bargain with myself. Pump myself up. All as though there are different selves within me at all times. By this I conclude that I don’t really have a self, but more of a collection of personalities, characteristics, and traits that are more or less dominant at any given moment. I am large, I contain (thank you Walt) multitudes.

    I am comfortable with my inconstancy and inconsistencies. Generally at peace about having selves rather than a self.

    I see no evidence of a soul. And I haven’t the need for one that would drive me to delude myself into thinking I have one nonetheless.