Really, because Russell himself divided the verb "is" into submeanings including statements of existence, and therein divides the sentence in question into three separate existential assertions.

Your statement about unicorns contains an assertion that unicorns exist, see point 1 (there is an x such that x is a unicorn). This has nothing to do with whether you believe it or not. But the crux of the problem is that Rich's statements about the soul ALSO contain this point -- and the entire ensuing conversation is entirely contingent upon that point 1 (there is an x such that x is a soul).

Well, Russell asks what that statement means if there in truth is no king of France. I more or less asked Rich what the thread means if there is no such thing as a soul. And now I'm asking you what your statement means if there's no such thing as a unicorn.

So, according to Russell's theory, my unicorn statement is false. Yours is the right answer, but for the wrong reason.

So this is why I asked Rich to support the existence of a soul in a way that a non-believer or a skeptic could go along with.

... and the evidence that I have presented are skills that appear to evolve as a species (instincts)
Rich

Hi, Rich.

I would use an analogy comparing the entire human body to a book.

If we were to examine a good book empirically, through a scientific microscope, and not see or understand the meanings of the sentences, of the paragraphs, of the chapters or indeed of the whole volume in its singular entirety, then we could never come to understand or to grasp the beauty and mystique of all of its wonderful meanings all in its marvelous pages. The leaves or pages of a great book are, in point of fact, living, breathing, "psychological" and non-empirical. But the scientific eye doesn't understand any of that.

So too with the human body. The body houses things which can not be understood without the dynamic force of life that has been lived and experienced. For example, you can't know how much that new red bike that I got on my fifth birthday meant to me just by examining the structure of my brain.

Human meanings exist as potential interpretations of experiences. This "potential" is something like a soul.

So human meaning is transportable (transcendent) as well as hidden from the surface of reality. This is reason to believe in the "soul". Soul that is universal and non-empirical.

Things such as beauty and evil are things that can't be explained by the employment of merely physical formulations. Science will never explain things like friendship or music and without these things there can't be any real nations or peoples worth while.

The cosmos is not a physics lab but rather the human sciences have grown out of hidden, historical human values. Scientific facts are dependent upon the human soul.

Again, however you look at instincts, rationally, they connect you to a past and future devoid of your particular physical body.

Good Discussion here, Thanks to Rich for sharing his thoughts...

The idea that there is a soul separate from the physical body/brain is an old one that's not likely to ever go away, no matter how much we understand about the human brain.

My opinion is that it's a natural permutation of a being that is aware of its own existence and is intelligent enough to comprehend its own death. We see death and we're disturbed; as well we should be. But whether fear-based or otherwise, on the whole, I don't think many of us are ready to accept that this is all that we are, despite the fact all we can reasonably claim as knowledge know points to it.

I'm also struck again by this propensity to equate continuance to meaning, worth and/or value. Why is it that so many of us find the human being to be bereft of purpose and value unless we can come up with a basis, no matter how spurious, to buy-in that we somehow continue?

Isn't the intelligent-yet-corporeal nature of our existence justification, itself, to imbue our lives with the richest and most precious worth there is? How is it that non-continuance (as enunciated here) robs us of meaning? Or conversely, how is it that continuance, of any kind, gives such value and meaning?

that discusses and delineates the vast cache of knowledge we do have on how the mind operates - likely you still would remain unconvinced; no matter what.

There is no fact, no theory and no hypothesis that can't be refuted away.

So too, with the workings of the brain: As long as it remains, to any extent, a gestalt, folks will come with with something, anything to buy into that which re-mystifies the processes.

Even then, once the electro-chemical code has been broken, mapped and perfected, many won't buy into it -

genetic memory and instinct, rather than label them soul.

So no, I'm not really on board with this, but there's a ton that I don't know or myself, misunderstand. It's always a good move, I think, to accept the possibility. I do; however, worry about what it means to buy into such notions (that one must have a continuing component to have any meaning). But I can understand this belief system and don't think it completely impossible -it just doesn't work for me.

I believe that the answers to most of our most deeply-held questions about continuance, the soul, the mind and nature of our existence are right in front of us; that accepting ourselves, as we are on face-value, is the most authentic and 'true' stance we can take.

Thanks again to Rich for sharing and apologies for the length of this post.

I don't think you can teach somebody something they don't already know. All you can do is refer to common experience. Sorry if seem to be rambling.

... Sometimes I ask myself why we do not fear sleep as we fear death. Can we be confident that we will wake up from sleep? We think we can. Can we be confident that we will wake up from death? This is the question.

The idea that there is a soul separate from the physical body/brain is an old one that's not likely to ever go away, no matter how much we understand about the human brain. My opinion is that it's a natural permutation of a being that is aware of its own existence and is intelligent enough to comprehend its own death.

We see death and we're disturbed; as well we should be.

But whether fear-based or otherwise, on the whole, I don't think many of us are ready to accept that this is all that we are, despite the fact all we can reasonably claim as knowledge now points to it.

I think soul is a projection of mind, a very powerful concept but a concept only at last.

I think soul is a projection of mind, a very powerful concept but a concept only at last.

I suggest it is very much there, we just can't see it and those that say it is not is because they can't see it yet we are all it's manifestations. In other words we ARE THE SOUL and we do continue; it's just we do not understand or see "all" the soul represents. It's like offering a cell phone to Constantine and trying to explain all it implications and knowledge that created it. Good Luck? It's like someone coming back from the distant future and telling us how ignorant we truly are. Do you think they would marvel at our brilliance of laugh at our stupidity? Would they say thank you or burn us at the stake, Ha!

William

Yes, this is what I mean by clues. There are clues all around us, and it is a matter of becoming more aware of them. For example:

Listen to someone criticize someone else. It happens all the time. And then reflect on whether that person is not saying something about himself/herself. This is a clue. This is something that the soul is telling itself about what it needs to change.

There are many of these little clues and mysteries that we encounter everyday. And slowly we become more and more aware of them. It is really a game of Where's Waldo? The Soul is searching and evolving along with the physical body which it is.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-09-2009 at 09:32 AM ----------



Yes, we are all looking at the Soul every time we look into the mirror as it observes itself. It is that which is observing.

Rich

Hey William,

Thanks for responding.

I never cease to be amazed at the diversity with which we can view, see and have access to the same information and phenomena, yet come up with such vastly divergent conclusions.

After reading your response a couple of times, I can only conclude that we're talking about very different concepts.

Thanks for sharing and Good luck

We use less then 10 percent of our mind.. yet so powerful. What about the 90 percent. Isnt it possible that we r refering soul to the 10 +90.. totality of our psyche.. and not a separate entity?

We use less then 10 percent of our mind.. yet so powerful. What about the 90 percent. Isnt it possible that we r refering soul to the 10 +90.. totality of our psyche.. and not a separate entity?

Hi onehorn,

It is just the transcendental aspect that keeps evolving and learning.

Hi richrf,
In what sense the word transcendental is used?U seem to believe that soul exist even if the physical body dont but the physical body has no existence without soul, right?