 Originally Posted by Radioshift
Let's assume for the sake of this post that souls are actual things that everybody has..
What is the purpose of a soul?
I think that it is quite possible that a soul does not have or need an exact purpose. It may be almost like saying "Evolutionarily speaking, what is the purpose of a webbed foot?" Well, technically, it has no PURPOSE, in that it was not CREATED for a purpose (Creationists need not hijack the thread in order to call me out on that. I merely said that it is possible, which it is.)
 Originally Posted by Radioshift
Why have a soul? Why not?
...is a very similar question, and again almost ultimately relies on a creator (otherwise the soul doesn't need a purpose), and requires a particular definition of the word "soul", as it seems to imply that we are separate from our souls, that we could detach. I ask you: What is a person without a soul? Is this possible?
Perhaps the soul itself can be described, scientifically, as what occurs when information is processed in such a way that the fact that information is being processed is also processed with that information. .. Did that make sense? (self awareness)
Or, perhaps the mind is a representation, or a manifestation, holographically, of that which is our soul, that may exist on another plane of reality, perhaps subatomic, universal, 10 dimensional, 0 dimensional, or made of marshmallow.
 Originally Posted by Radioshift
What range of life would souls inhabit? In other words, do just humans have souls, or all animals? What about plants or bacteria?
I think this also relies on assumptions. If the mind is, in fact, a manifestation of our soul, that exists in a manner unfamiliar to us, then it would only be the manifestation that is lost. The soul would still exist, and quite possibly more souls like it, or even a mixture of all emotion, thought, idea, and concept, as one mass of .. well.. soul soup?
If pantheists are correct, and the universe itself is conscious, then when our consciousness, as we know it, ends, the particles of our brains, that once processed information break down and become part of the earth, where they are a much smaller part of a must larger mind (though size, in this case, is probably irrelevant), and continue to experience things.
And I personally find this view to be very promising, in that it allows for the breakdown of what we think we know about "life", which I think needs to happen. We really can't define "life". Not really. Are blood cells alive? Are they aware? Sperm swim. That means that SOME kind of decision is made. Viruses are interesting. Sponges are my favorite. No thoughts. No movement. Yet, they are considered animal life. Funguses are interesting. They have more in common with animals than they do wiith plants. Is it possible to make a sentient computer? What would stop us? It should be possible, right? Then, what is the definition of life at that point?
I think that life can and probably does exist in ways that we cannot even imagine. Think of the weird types of life forms that exist on this planet, and this planet is one static place in the universe; one particular ecosystem/environment. Imagine what types of life may exist on other planets, or in space, or FROM space itself. Add almost a dozen dimensions and the possibilities are endless.
I think that whatever a soul is, if it exists, it could inhabit anything. I also think, however, that there may not be individual souls, but perhaps a blanket version of this concept, OR that the soul itself is an effect that stems from other factos. And I think that if a soul were to inhabit a rock, the level of consciuosness there would probably not be very high. I'm willing to bet that individual rocks are not very AWARE, or if they are they are extremely content, and have no motivation to better themselves. A whole lot of rocks may create a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, a cluster of galaxies, clusters of clusters of galaxies, and may eventually play a part in consciousness at another level.
OR we die and our "soul"s are worm food.
|
|
Bookmarks