The soul more or less means the totality of all emotions throughout life, as a whole. — Syamsu

Your definition of soul is quite different from what I found on the internet: 'the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.'

Perhaps you could call your 'totality of emotions .. etc' something else.

The heart is referred to as emotions now as a whole, the soul is referred to as all emotions throughout life as a whole.

The soul is indeed spiritual, and so are emotions too, spiritual. And indeed, no material law like aging applies to the soul. As I explained, you can have fear in the soul, for being frightened previously.

A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind.

The facts about planet X, are essentially a model of it. The planet is covered in ice. It is twice the size of earth. etc. And so on, to make a 1 to 1 exhaustive model of it in words, forced by the evidence of it.

Saying it again does not make it true.

I like the idea - I don't know where it originates, but it crops up here and there - of the soul as something you have a relationship with. It's like something you take care of, but which, in its turn, inspires and aids you. The soul is also you, or part of you, but you're also something in addition which tends to it. Not a philosophical definition, but I think its a nice one.

When you start to take subjective issues seriously, then obviously one would come think of all emotions you had in life as a whole. And as emotions are agency to choices, the soul also chooses. And in the end the soul is judged by God. It does not make any sense for God to judge the soul, if the soul does not choose.

then obviously one would come think of all emotions you had in life as a whole. — Syamsu

Why?

as emotions are agency to choices, the soul also chooses. — Syamsu

Then the soul is not just one's emotions, but also one's choices. Hence you will need to enlarge your definition.

And in the end the soul is judged by God. — Syamsu

Ah. So your real interest here is not in philosophy but the defence of your invisible friends.

Just what the forum needs - more theologians.

I like the idea - I don't know where it originates, but it crops up here and there - of the soul as something you have a relationship with. It's like something you take care of, but which, in its turn, inspires and aids you. The soul is also you, or part of you, but you're also something in addition which tends to it. Not a philosophical definition, but I think its a nice one. — csalisbury

In a way reminds me of the Golden Compass. Haven’t read the book but I liked the movie. It's why I mention it.

How do you feel about the Latin concept of anima as soul – in contrast to the animus as mind? The anima, to my understanding, is at least in part that which causes one to be endowed with breath, quite literally. It’s there even when you’re in dream-devoid sleep and hold no consciousness. Whereas animus, mind, tmk is at least in part that which deals with conflicts at a conscious level, as in conflicting ideas and drives that one as consciousness has to contend with.

Then again, there’s the Buddhist stance of no such thing as a permanent self, the stance of no-soul, as it’s sometimes translated. Still, in fairness to the Buddhist platform, here there’s still something of semi-permanence that persists lifetime to lifetime. I take it this up to the time Nirvana is obtained.

You show no comprehension whatsoever of subjectivity, emotions.

Without the underlying logic of the soul choosing, and it being a matter of chosen opinion what is in the soul, or if the soul is real, then the concept of the soul is arbitrary meaninglessness.

You show no comprehension whatsoever of subjectivity, emotions. — Syamsu

Really?

My guess about the start of someone's soul is when God first likes someone, — Syamsu

I guess it must be because God doesn't like me.

Is that your reply to everyone who disagrees with this stuff you have made up?

Sorry, I did not make up that the soul chooses, and God judges the soul. What is weird is that you do not come to the defense of your own understanding of how subjectivity functions. As if you have no critical understanding of subjectivity at all.

The argumentation is about whether agency can be established as fact forced by evidence, or if agency can only be identified with a chosen opinion. — Syamsu

What do you mean by "force"? If you mean evidence proves something (forces conclusions), you're simply mistaken. Evidence always suggests; it never proves. Nothing inferential in nature is ever certain. If we see evidence of choices, we have evidence of agency. I think you're confusing determinism with induction. We induced the Born Rule in Quantum Mechanics; now there are still deterministic interpretations of QM, but, this betrays your imagined rule that specific outcomes are the only thing evidence can suggest. So the rule is definitely not globally applicable; if you think it should still apply to agency, you're going to have to give a good argument for why. A sketch of what you're arguing isn't what I asked for... rather, I'm asking for the actual argument.

And then it is demonstrated that establishing agency as fact, leads to an error of contradiction. — Syamsu

There's nothing contradictory about this form of agency, though. You have possible alternatives (PAP), and original causation by an agent. Again, I think you're conflusing determinism with induction.

And then it is shown that identifying agency as a matter of chosen opinion works, it does not lead to error. — Syamsu

But if agents employ this non-contradictory mechanic (original causation selecting an outcome from alternate possibilities), then choice creates real effects in the world; namely, the actions taken as a result of choice. That's enough to possibly establish that choices are a thing using inference; for example, one may study all known effects and look at the residues, in a manner similar to how we discovered the Higgs Boson not too long ago. And if we establish that choices are being made, we can easily infer agency, since you're saying that agents are by definition what causes choices. The fact that this can possibly happen in a realistic manner conflicts with your assertion that logically it cannot. Because of this conflict, I'm afraid you're going to have to justify why you think logic dictates we cannot establish factually that agents exist.

Facts are 1 to 1 corresponding models (of creations) , that is how facts are forced.

You cannot make a model of agency, like for instance fear. It's just not factual.

I see your point that if it is established that a choice is made, then there would also be an agency of that choice.

Still, it is simply not factual, because agency cannot be modelled.

Facts are 1 to 1 corresponding models (of creations) , that is how facts are forced. — Syamsu

Facts are, as I understand it, bits of information we can consider to be true. I don't know what you mean by 1 to 1 corresponding models of creations. The Born Rule via Bell's Theorem, however, establishes a type of model... that predicts purely random results... which do not have counterfactual definiteness.

You cannot make a model of agency, like for instance fear. It's just not factual. — Syamsu

We can make models of pain, a subjective experience, using the Wong-Baker Pain scale and use it to perhaps measure the efficacy of pain medications. I don't know if this is a contradiction or not, because I still can't quite decode your words.

Still, it is simply not factual, because agency cannot be modelled. — Syamsu

Either I've rebutted this, or I have no idea what you mean by factual and modeled.

In a way reminds me of the Golden Compass. Haven’t read the book but I liked the movie. It's why I mention it.

How do you feel about the Latin concept of anima as soul – in contrast to the animus as mind? The anima, to my understanding, is at least in part that which causes one to be endowed with breath, quite literally. It’s there even when you’re in dream-devoid sleep and hold no consciousness. Whereas animus, mind, tmk is at least in part that which deals with conflicts at a conscious level, as in conflicting ideas and drives that one as consciousness has to contend with.

Then again, there’s the Buddhist stance of no such thing as a permanent self, the stance of no-soul, as it’s sometimes translated. Still, in fairness to the Buddhist platform, here there’s still something of semi-permanence that persists lifetime to lifetime. I take it this up to the time Nirvana is obtained. — javra

I devoured those books as a kid, and the daemon idea is, I agree, very much along these lines. I don't know very much about anima, but everything you've said feels very much aligned with the (admittedly only vaguely thought out) idea of a soul I'm interested in.

That the soul isn't equivalent to consciousness (or mind) especially seems important - there are constantly changes being wrought in us that we only become 'aware' of, after the fact. The process of becoming 'aware' of something some part of us already 'knows' (but 'know ' seems wrong, that part of us already 'is'?) is the source of dreams, spiritual growth, emotional maturation, 'epiphanies', artistic creation and so forth.

I think you could potentially square this with the buddhist 'no-soul' (I'm not sure, I know only the very basics of Buddhism) by seeing the soul less as a fixed thing (as the parameters of thought often our in our 'minds' if we've grown sclerotic) than a kind of ephemeral unfolding its own right - ephemeral, but with continuity

The anima, to my understanding, is at least in part that which causes one to be endowed with breath, — javra

Or the anima is the force that animates all things. For animals it sees, hears, and feels. For humans, it grieves and loves. So when you feel like crap, this is what the whole world feels, maybe.

The ego is a kind of psychic structure that emerges (?) from the world soul. It expresses the world's potential to cling protectively to a single vantage point.

Cubists thought that through art they could convey what's really happening.

Without the underlying logic of the soul choosing, and it being a matter of chosen opinion what is in the soul, or if the soul is real, then the concept of the soul is arbitrary meaninglessness. — Syamsu

I do find the notion of soul to be somewhat arbitrary when comparing different cultures, but not altogether meaningless. I’m guessing there might be something that, however imperfectly, is being referenced in all cultures by the notion of soul. As a very simplistic metaphor, that to which the conscious self is tethered across the timespan of an entire life as though by a rubber-band – such that one’s character can be more this or that but will always come back to some general, core attributes of character – could be likened to a person’s soul. Can’t currently think of an interpretation of soul where this wouldn’t be the case. Would be interested to find out about such.

As to the soul being that which makes choices, it might make choices, but even in common Christian theology it is held that the soul can be sold (and bought) by the choices of conscious selves. So, even here there is maintained a distinction between soul and the conscious self which chooses – although not necessarily one of otherness.

I think you could potentially square this with the buddhist 'no-soul' (I'm not sure, I know only the very basics of Buddhism) by seeing the soul less as a fixed thing (as the parameters of thought often our in our 'minds' if we've grown sclerotic) than a kind of ephemeral unfolding its own right - ephemeral, but with continuity — csalisbury

I like this interpretation. Likely because I happen to agree with it. :wink:

The ego is a kind of psychic structure that emerges (?) from the world soul. It expresses the world's potential to cling protectively to a single vantage point. — frank

I (too?) have an affinity to the world soul. On a more analytical note, this concept seems to me to then necessitate some form or other of panpsychism. But, while I like the concept of a world soul emotively, I can’t yet make heads or tails in relation to panpsychism intellectually – this once details are gotten into.

@frank@javra I've been thinking recently about the emergence of the ego as a sort of darwinian natural selection for : certain self-narratives, allowed emotions, means of expressing them, memories retained and so forth. At decisive moments in the development of the ego (crises, epiphanies, moments of resolve etc) certain things would be selected and strengthened. The soul would still contain everything that isn't selected. The ego's development would be both a progressive 'forgetting' and a creation of new capacities and ways to navigate the world.

So the ego develops, but after a while becomes limiting (evolved for old circumstances that no longer hold) and the only way forward is to 'remember' by making contact with the soul (for instance, how meditating will sometimes shake loose or let bubble up totally forgotten memories that tow with them whole lost worlds)

Or such is the idea, anyway.

Our souls occupy a space where everything is localized. We only appear to have separation in time and space. In fact you are already in the dimension of the soul; it's just that you're not conscious of it.

A crime takes place, the police question the witnesses in order to establish the facts of what happened. He came at her with a knife. He held the knife high.

It's basically making a 1 to 1 corresponding picture of what occurred. In pictures, words, mathematics, it is all about making a 1 to 1 corresponding model.

You cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of fear. You can make a painting to express what fear is. Not the same thing as a model.

To model decisionmaking or randomness, then the model would also have randomness at the same points, where the thing modelled has randomness. And then you would just have to record every decision made, and copy it to the model.

As to the soul being that which makes choices, it might make choices, but even in common Christian theology it is held that the soul can be sold (and bought) by the choices of conscious selves. So, even here there is maintained a distinction between soul and the conscious self which chooses – although not necessarily one of otherness — javra

Because the soul is all emotions throughout life, as distinct from emotions now, as being agency of a choice.

Meaningless for God to judge the soul, if the soul does not choose.

a metaphor of the soul...the soul is a young child struggling to build a fortress against the adversity of the sea. the soul seeks refuge in the flesh while seeking the path of humility. and while the soul struggles for understanding, wisdom touches the blade of flesh and it became inflamed. the soul cries in anguish, for it hungers not, for the vacuous kernels of substance. the soul dwells in the temple which glorifies it's existence and forgets the covenant it was given

The soul more or less means the totality of all emotions throughout life, as a whole. — Syamsu

I don't take issue with this definition, but is it meant as the working definition of "soul" for the rest of the post? It's difficult to see how one gets from this to judgement, or to union of "the totality of all emotions throughout life" through a ceremony. Other invisible characteristics seem to get bolted on ad hoc, which is not conducive to "understanding the soul".

In terms of the definition, which has a point of contact with my feeling of "me-ness" which I guess you would describe as the soul or its aspect, emotions are potent experiences, but there are others. I would probably agree that who I am owes more to my emotional history than anything else; nonetheless, however I responded to Schubert the first time I heard him, my direct experience of Schubert's music had some bearing. Music and smells are also potent experiences that impact my "me-ness". (Memories associated with emotions, music, and smell have been shown to be more easily retrievable by the brain than others, e.g. https://www.livescience.com/8426-brain-link-sounds-smells-memory-revealed.html .)

There is no soul. Not as a whole.
There is an life-energy, found in all living things, there is a There is a progressive state of memory and physiological states that together create 'self' or 'I'. This excludes plants.
There is intelligence (mental and emotional) and sensory perceptivness also found in all living things to varying degrees.
All three of these together are necessary for life, however remove either statement 2 or 3 and you do not necessarily negate statement one.
The closest to a soul I can think of is this life energy that I mention, but it is not a personal energy that constitutes you. How could it, it is energy, it could just have well randomly been light, gravity or sound, but the randomness of the universe meant that. energy in the form of 'life energy'.