Logically, you do not describe words - words, on the other hand, describe phenomena. So it gets a bit hairy: the correct description of the “SOUL” is that it is a word used primarily by religious people to refer to something which can not be described empirically. There’s a tongue-twister for ya.
I suspect the question goes to the matter of a correct description of what some - in some cultures, most - people call the soul. I’ll have to assume a lot about how different people use the word soul, but here we go:
- There is no duality of existence. Soul is not something separate from the flesh.
- Complex information processors - the fleshy brains - produce consciousness, quora, Toyota, and minds.
- The soul is the conscious mind (mind, though, is not necessarily well-defined, either)
- The soul does not survive the death of the brain.
Much more interesting than any old religious view, this implies that any sufficiently complex system can embody a soul. AI’s can have souls. Some animals certainly do. Historically, many people have to the contrary thought that “soul” was what separated man from animals - that humans have a fast-lane into eternity by being equipped with a bit of eternity to begin with. There is no evidence for this, however. It’s merely a play on words.
Replace “soul” with “arrg” and consider the following:
- Humans possess an eternal arrg.
- The potato man cares about your eternal arrg.
- I must save your arrg.
- Southern arrg-food is delicious.
What is the correct description of the ARRG? That some people find the word important because it crops up in important-sounding sentences.
The soul is an imagined/hypothesised component of humans that is thought to carry/be their life-force.
In some cultures it is thought of as also carrying their identity and memories and exist after their death by (normally) going to some kind of afterlife. Though some people claim they can sometimes remain on Earth after death (e.g. ghosts).
In some cultures they may carry identity but not memories (in any coherent way) and be reincarnated.
Many cultures carry some notion of a life-force that animates humans. It’s actually a remnant of a long abandoned notion called “essentialism”. This is the idea that things have an essence the precedes their existence and the physical object we see is the extension of that essence into the physical world.
It’s a long abandoned idea in science but persists in the popular imagination for people (and to an extent some animals) in part fostered by religion.
Good one. The answer, depending on who you ask, is often very vague.
I tend to refer to it as “consciousness” - as in the awareness that exists behind your eyes that experiences things.
No comments:
Post a Comment