[appleiphoneees]

The belief that people have souls or spirits seems to have been very widespread, though in many cases the belief was that these spirits recycled.

I once read a set of explanations for how this belief may have arisen, and been reinforced.

One concerned women's experiences: they knew they were pregnant when menstruation ceased, but a few months later, they felt the child move in their womb, and this was explained by a spirit entering the developing child.

Two stemmed from vivid dreams: people sometimes dreamed that they did various things in some far away place that their body obviously hadn't been to in the night, so the explantion was that their spirit did those things while they were sleeping. The other was that people sometimes had a vivid dream in which a dead person being active featured: this was explained as the spirit of the dead person returning.

The final one concerned observing someone's death: the person was alive, and then they were dead. This was explained as the spirit leaving the body.

[envenonearo]

.
Learning to use the quote function?
-------------------------------

Yeah its like herding cats...

What makes you think your belief system superior to others?

Remember you have admitted to zero, zilch and nadda info.

[tobia]

.
Learning to use the quote function?
-------------------------------

Yeah its like herding cats...

What makes you think your belief system superior to others?

Remember you have admitted to zero, zilch and nadda info.

Some proof for your beliefs would be handy.

Oh, and learn to use the quote function.

[Indessasp]

.
Some proof for your beliefs would be handy.
-----------------------------------

I haven't stated any beliefs...You and yours has. Its not complicated.


Oh, and learn to use the quote function.
----------------------------------

lol. Everyone stand in line and get a number... FMD.

[tsaaapla]

.
Some proof for your beliefs would be handy.
-----------------------------------

I haven't stated any beliefs...You and yours has. Its not complicated.


Oh, and learn to use the quote function.
----------------------------------

lol. Everyone stand in line and get a number... FMD.

Machines can do the work so people have time to think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955dZpR7QwY

[cigattIcTot]

Souls don't exist.
------------------

Ref?

"Souls don't exist" is the null hypothesis.

Rationally, if you wish to question this hypothesis, it is up to you to provide evidence that souls do exist.

[Grenader]

.
Rationally, if you wish to question this hypothesis, it is up to you to provide evidence that souls do exist.
-------------------------------------------------

Not at all. But it is incidental to the fact that they are claiming an opposing position also without any facts.

At least a believer believes...

Does an unbeliver also believe in its unbelief...

I think this thunking is well and truely thunked...

[Kneedycrype]

.
Rationally, if you wish to question this hypothesis, it is up to you to provide evidence that souls do exist.
-------------------------------------------------

Does an unbeliver also believe in its unbelief...

In some cases, yes/possibly. But not in this case.

There's no more reason to believe in "souls" than there is to believe in "unicorns". Belief in either of these is credulous, and should be supported by evidence or argument if claimed as valid.

[Dertrioz]

.
There's no more reason to believe in "souls" than there is to believe in "unicorns"
-----------------------------------------

False.


. Belief in either of these is credulous, and should be supported by evidence or argument if claimed as valid.
------------------------------------------------

Seriously, you have missed the point.

[Caliwany]

.
Seriously, you have missed the point.

That's entirely possible.

What is the point I've missed?

[AK47rulz]

You have me stumped.

Or stumpifiyed...

It is a simple question. Which is more unbelievable, that which is denied with out proof or that what is claimed?

Spelling it out is so boringness...

[Reftsheette]

It is a simple question. Which is more unbelievable, that which is denied with out proof or that what is claimed?

Well, I'd say it's not a question of belief unless one is questioning beliefs. Beliefs are not being questioned in this thread... the existence of souls is.

[nTDsD0aU]

Next time you'll know better than to include the four letter "s" word, transition to formula ... it surely heads thing s along in formulaic lines
at you lot!

I'll stick with my formulaic lines ... said nicely here

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...400453796.html

[MizzDaizzy]

To get back to Watson and behaviourist psychologists, their argument was that we cannot observe the mind of anyone else directly, so we should explore what can be observed of human behaviours directly, much as we do with other animals, some of whom seem to learn from their experiences, others to act only on inborn reflexes.

One problem with this, of course, is that we cannot, ethically, spy on humans when they engage in various activities, deemed private, unless they volunteer to be spied on, and maybe those who volunteer are different from other people in important ways.

[Imagimifouxum]

I was wondering how this thread about the "self" got into a discussion about the "soul".

Then I re-read the OP which says:

To what extent could humans be said to have soul So fair enough, discussion about the "soul" is not even slightly off-topic.

But it also said:

a mind that is, not something supernatural, and regarding all that goes into mental states are feelings observer independent real things having a real existance? Which is why I started off asking what sort of a soul is it that some people are saying does not exist?

If we are talking about some supernatural entity that is separate from the body and continues to exist after the body dies, then I agree that those don't exist. In fact I'd say that supernatural things do not exist in the natural universe (i.e. this universe) by definition.

Even if we are talking about a natural entity that is separate from the body and continues to exist after the body dies, then it is very unlikely and there is no evidence that is not more simply explained without inventing that sort of soul.

But that isn't the sort of soul that the OP is talking about. It is talking about what I would prefer to call a "self".

If some or all the people who are saying that "souls" (i.e. "selfs") do not exist then I have to ask why they think that, because our entire waking lives suggest that such a thing does exist.

[Vokbeelllicky]

a mind that is, not something supernatural, and regarding all that goes into mental states are feelings observer independent real things having a real existance? In relation to the second part of the question, I interpret this as asking: are feelings the result of some identifiable interaction between physical entities in the brain, and possibly other parts of the body?

To which I would answer, undoubtedly, what else could they be?

[reaciciomarep]

oh, good on you xenes.
I was thinking I Might have not made clear that I was teasing ... :/

Have you read the story of the Dionne Quintuplets in ONtario Canada?

Psychology has a very "mixed" history wrt observing people, doesn't it ... but I take your points on board.
I REALLY like these exploratory threads, they throw up provocative ideas that I find challenging and interesting ... and I include in that the byways that I might have appeared to be criticising.

distinguishing the treatment of the Dionnes and the Sara Quads in Australia later is interesting too.

[gardeniyas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionne_quintuplets
I think this provides an excellent example of the crude ways that psychology (was) used to influence policies.
It doesn't happen so blatantly now of course, ... she says ... hopefully.

[bjacogaerllyo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionne_quintuplets
I think this provides an excellent example of the crude ways that psychology (was) used to influence policies.
It doesn't happen so blatantly now of course, ... she says ... hopefully.

Just read that jj, but don't quite see what you are getting at here.

[resegooredo]

oh, trust me Rev.
That those children had their lives taken away under the influence of the scientists' influence of the day ... that there wer good / better ways to raise children and that they provided a perfect way to study them ... the learning about them (without any informed consent) was meant to justify how they were treated.
The Sara Quads in Australia were the subject of big publicity but so far as I know the parents at least maintained control and (to the extent any parent can) the children's interests.

There have been many studies done on children (as observed subjects) by people subjecting them to what they believed "good practise".

This is different from the less intursive general "field studies" made possible these days with more intrusive tools.
Thos studies were the direct descendants of Dr Watson's work and continue even now in some oblique ways.
Those children had no hope of ever truly developing any kind of inner self, whatever we might wish to call it.