Is our soul,body and brain 3 different things?

Could you define “soul”?

Well if contemporary philosophy and stuff like this is your cup of tea, you should start with Rene Descartes and his six meditations (among other things). You’ll see how deep things can get when you start with something as simple as “Cogito Ergo Sum” (you might know that as “I think, therefore I am”.

After that, check out the book, The Mind Body Problem (a good dose of Descartes awaits therein as well).

But if I may foster a try at your question, the brain is part of the body, it is one of those “Organ” parts that fits into the “Organism” (you). So those are the same thing. As for the soul, it’s pretty open to interpretation and many would consider it synonymous with what we call our ‘mind’. Of course, the best example of separation of mind and body (or soul/body) is simply our dreams.

Anywho, check out that book and brush up on your Descartes, good luck!

My brain is connected to my body, but I see my “mind” as something somewhat separate, but not completely (as I do not think that my conscious or unconscious self can function outside of “me”.)

@muppetish I could explain by example what you mean when you say that you see your mind as something somewhat separate. Ex; a girl who find herself ugly or fat and doesnt like her body. Her body is hers and brain is connected but separate sin her mind dosent like the body that holds it.

@tom_g Defining the soul is something really complicated to do that i think everyone could have an explanation. Is something really deep that everyone has in them i think its kinda like an energy or a ______ that never dies ( sorry the word is out of my mind im trying to remember lol) but yea

@gambitking Thank you taking the time to answer and for the book suggestion I will look into it :)

Nope, they are all different aspects of an integrated person. And don’t forget the trillions of cells of your biome that affect your emotional and physical health.

No such thing as a soul. No such thing as a mind. There is only a body, of which the brain is part of.

All in one! Brain /general switch goes down, so does the rest!

@zenvelo: “And don’t forget the trillions of cells of your biome that affect your emotional and physical health.”

I was recently trying to describe to my kids how there are roughly 100 trillion bacteria within/on each of us, which outnumbers our own human cells, as well as estimates of the number of humans who have ever lived. They found it fascinating that we’re vehicles for bacteria.

@Mp123 – I don’t share your belief in the “soul”, and I agree with the others here regarding the brain as part of the body.

I believe that what is thought of as the soul is simply the activity in the brain that gives us a sense of self-identity. Without an active living brain, and a body to keep the brain nourished, there is no soul.

Yes, but they are connected.

Body and brain are the same, our minds may be somewhere else we don’t understand yet. I’m not religious but I’m not convinced that we don’t have something that resembles a soul. Our brains seem to be part of a telemetry system… AKA the mind not necessarily existing in this universe or dimension. That opens some interesting philosophical possibilities, such as life being a game for example. Food for thought anyway. Religion does not convince me, childlike thinking of physiology creating the seat of our mind inside our brain appears to be a form of religion itself and consequently does not convince me either. We simply don’t know but it’s fun as hell to think about.

Where I’ve landed is that the mind and body are projections of the soul. The common belief that we are the mind and body is more or less a necessary delusion. Further, the realization or understanding that this is the case is discerned primarily through experience and only in a minor way through the intellect.

See here:

http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/who_am_I.pdf

There is no evidence at all and ever for ” souls. ”

Body and brain are one and material.

There are three levels to existence, of which you are an exact representation.
The base, the intermediate and the upper.

The body is the the base, This give you the human form, but by itself it is useless(dead).

The soul is the intermediate, This give purpose to the body (quicken), and gives you a conscious temporal identity. so that you know that you are.

The Spirit is the upper. This give purpose to the soul (quicken). You are established in a permanent identity ( timeless). At that place you are made aware of the the three states of existence as it relate to yourself and how they seamlessly work together for the sake of existence itself. This is the end of all spiritual enquiries.

kess

Any evidence for that assertion?

How did we get anything done before the invention of scientism?

I’d say the soul shares the same relationship to the brain/body as the easter bunny does.

@Neodarwinian firstly it okay not to accept what I have said.. as you can see provision have been made for your type.

Next, what do you expect as evidence, how shall I present or deliver it,bottled, canned, rolled?
If offered do you know how to handle it?
I am not sure if you know what you are asking.

A person always have evidence of these things with them, but if do not recognise it now while it with you, you are obviously expecting something different.

And since it is different, you must tell me what it is that you are expecting as relating to this evidence.

Here’s Sam Harris explaining why it doesn’t make sense to believe a conscious soul survives death complete with all your memories and floats into some realm outside the physical universe.

Yes, they are 3 different things.

@jinghaoliu Welcome to Fluther. And I would agree if we define fairies, bodies and brains as three different things. There is an important distinction, though. Two of those things definitely exist. One almost certainly does not.

They are three different things, but they all be controlled by one thing: Brain.

How would you guys ( Who do not agree with the existence of the soul, the ones who does can answer too) would explain this quote ; Mind, body and Soul ?

@Mp123 If I heard someone say “Mind, body and soul”, I would understand that as a rhetorical device meaning “my whole being”. However you conceive what makes you “you”, that phrase is meant to sum it all up. Even though I don’t see it as a valid literal scheme for understanding myself, it makes sense on a rhetorical level.

I find it better to see my being in terms of intertwining processes. This body is a process that moves through the world sweeping up material, carrying it for awhile, then discarding it, like a little biological tornado. This particular process that I call my body is the outgrowth of so many other such processes stretching back through time that it seems rather arbitrary and myopic to single out this little local process for separate consideration. This body is just a tiny ripple on a huge ocean of life. Am I the ripple, or am I the ocean?

The brain is so fully integrated into that body process that, for all practical purposes the distinction between body and brain is meaningless.

Mind is an “emergent phenomenon”, a complex phenomenon that grows out of the interplay between lots of simpler phenomena. A brain/body can’t exist in isolation from the world at large, but even if it could, it wouldn’t produce this phenomenon we call mind. Mind is what happens when this local process of the body/brain interacts with the myriad other processes going on around it, and of which it’s an integral part. All of that together gives rise to what we call mind. You can say that the brain is a necessary part of that larger mind phenomenon, but so is the sidewalk, and so is your Aunt Francis.

“Soul” seems to me to be an unnecessary and self-serving concept, an effort to carve out an individual, personal niche in this vast intertwining dance of processes. I can’t relate it to anything real.

When I say “soul”, what I mean is “my deepest feelings/thoughts”...sort of the “inner me”. As an atheist, I don’t actually believe in souls. It’s just a handy shorthand expression, to me. So, my “soul”/mind, body and brain are all part of the same thing: me.

@Mp123 The concept of a soul is extremely seductive because it feels so much like “I” am something separate from brain or body. But our best research to date indicates that our sense of “I-ness” of of being a little homunculus sitting somewhere inside our head or heart, watching a viewscreen as if we are Captain Kirk at the con of the Starship Enterprise, is actually a very compelling illusion, and that our sense of self is an emergent phenomenon flowing from our neural network. Our brains boast 100 trillion synapses in our brains. That is 1,000 times more neural connections than there are stars in our Galaxy. And within that 100 trillion synapses there are numerous inference engines and self programming learning units that endow us with the ability to categorize things, learn language, recognize faces, etc.

@ serenade

The same way we got things done before the invention of made up words!

@ kess

Evidence is that which manifests itself in the world.

Obviously you have none of that, so we will see you dodging around the issue as per you last answer.

@ Mp123

The same way I would explain any made up thing.

@Neodarwinian
You seem to think that evidence can be found wandering around the park somewhere looking lost as you are.

The Evidence for anything can only be found within that particular thing…
Evidence of the world is in the world, and evidence for the soul is in the soul.

If you deny the the soul, what are you expecting of me as evidence?
You need to find the soul and there you will have all evidence you need.

Evidence is not lost, it is right where it has always been….
But obviously you are.

Regarding “emergent” phenomena:

0. The explanation of consciousness is one of the major unsolved problems of modern science. (Crick & Koch; Consciousness and Neuroscience, 50)

1. It’s in this no-man’s land between quantum and classical physics that a wide array of “emergent” phenomena reveal themselves. For example, superconductivity, in which electrons flow without resistance, arises only in large collections of atoms. Properties such as magnetism, rigidity, and melting are other collective behaviors that cannot be understood at the atomic level, says Robert Laughlin, a physicist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. Even life itself is considered an emergent phenomenon. “I know molecules and reactions are not alive. But I also know that collections of reacting molecules are alive. How does that happen? We have no clue,” says George Whitesides, a chemist at Harvard University. (Science, 9 March 2012, p.1167)

2. Consciousness is the most baffling problem in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, yet there is nothing that is harder to explain. (Chalmers; Problem of Consciousness, 5)

3. What Chalmers calls the “hard problem” of consciousness is the problem of explaining how subjectivity can arise from complexly organized material stuff. (Flanigan; Dissolution of hard problem, 148)

4. It is amazing that consciousness can emerge from brain processes. Explaining the mechanisms that give rise to the different types of waking consciousness, NREM, and REM mentation, is all there is to solving the “hard problem.” (Flanigan; Dissolution of hard problem, 148)

Yes, I am selectively pulling quotes from here.

Am I interpreting these statements wrong, or am I correct in understanding that science has no better answer than any other system or system of belief? Am I correct in understanding that science has no idea how the armies of synapses and subsystems add up to consciousness?

Naturally, I appreciate the honesty of these statements, but I fail to appreciate the effort involved in getting there.

@Neodarwinian, grown ups sometimes refer to “made up words” as “coined words,” because often the language is constantly evolving and words are added and subtracted from the lexicon. Scientism is one such word and has been used in print at least since the 60s.

@kess

” You need to find the soul and there you will have all evidence you need.”

Just one of your confused ramblings and logical fallacies. I think we all know who is lost here. We are through as you begin to bore me.

At least my “confusion” will not lead me to be demanding of answers about things which does not exist.

@serenade Science is very different from spiritualism and theism. Science freely admits what is doesn’t know, and waits for evidence to shine light on the hard problems. Theism and spiritualism claim absolute and infallible knowledge in the complete absence of evidence. Science is open to immediately dropping a pet theory if new evidence comes along discrediting it. Theism and spiritualism cling to pet beliefs regardless of how much concrete evidence mounts discrediting such a belief. The two could not be further apart.

@Neodarwinian Already been there and done that. You have my sympathies.

The problem with the soul theory is that it does not tell us anything. It is, as philosophers say, non-falsifiable. That is to say, it makes no predictions and does not allow us to do anything that we could not do otherwise, It is nothing but empty words and has no practical value other than creating warm fuzzy feelings in its believers.

@ETpro, your characterizations of science vs. theism/spiritual-ity are not quite that absolute. Science is presumably concerned with empirical, experimental and statistical evidence, but there are other categories of evidence and spirituality and theism instead rely primarily on authoritative and textual evidence. Personally, I think it’s acceptable to say that “religious” evidence is weaker, but to say “complete lack of evidence” is a gross mischaracterization.

The infallibility asserted by religion does not refer to knowledge as science might define it. Instead, it refers to the teaching of truth (doctrine) as revealed by God, and generally in Christianity the most important doctrines have built in wiggle room against “concrete facts” by being dogmatically codified as “mysteries.” So, if we are going to argue that theism and spirituality cling to something it should be that they cling to doctrine and base that doctrine on authoritative and textual evidence.

Then there is Buddhism, a major world religion replete with doctrine, albeit a functionally non-theistic one, which is actively cooperating with science and, according to the current Dalai Lama should change if science contradicts Buddhist tenets. In this case, science and religion are not far apart at all.

All that being said, I want to thank you for drawing my attention to the idea of emergence and the homunculus, since this prompted me to watch this lecture series on contemporary findings in neuroscience. Gazzaniga speaks about the perceptual subsystems like you mention and then talks in one lecture about the interpreter which I believe is the same sense of “I-ness” that you reference. It is eye-opening to see how unreliable this function can be and yet how effortlessly it presents as flawless, natural, and self assured. It is strange to think how we generally cling to this phenomena with such fervor for the bulk of our lives.

The remainder is not to argue my take on this question, but rather to explain it given these findings. It seems that what you cite as a sense of “I-ness” and what I say is the mind (not the physical brain, which I would relegate to the body) is described by neuroscience as “the interpreter.”

Here it’s necessary to parse words. I would rename “brain” in this question as “mind.” So, body, mind and soul. I think relegating brain to a body organ is sufficient. This allows for agreement (I hope) that “mind” is the emergent phenomenon.

The above is not contradicted by the belief in being a soul (or a spirit or a higher consciousness), and one can get there by asking the question, “To whom is this unreliable, illusory ‘I-ness’/interpreter/mind phenomena being revealed?” The corollary question is can you be that which you can observe? If you can observe “I-ness,” can you be that thing? If not, then what or who is the observer? My experience with this question comes primarily from Advaita Vedanta but there is also a similar idea resident in Buddhism. This line of inquiry is also not contradicted by the idea that we commonly mistake our existence as this sense of ‘I-ness’. Indeed, in both cases it is characterized as an illusion. The difference seems to be in the speculations of modes of beingness beyond that illusion for which there is no scientific conclusion as far as I can tell.

@ETpro For somebody who loves to post logical fallacies, and who likes to convey how theists tend to use them, you sure have a tendancy to use them yourself. Let’s look at one of your comments above when you state: “Here’s Sam Harris explaining why it doesn’t make sense to believe a conscious soul survives death complete with all your memories and floats into some realm outside the physical universe.” Now if that isn’t a strawman I don’t know what is, and it’s so obvious. There are several different theories as to how consciousness can be seperated from brain function, and the leading hypothesis so far according to most survival proponents is the universal consciousness model. As far as I know there’s nobody in my camp who believes that our ego with a soul floats away somewhere.

Another post riddled with fallacies and misrepresentations: “Science is very different from spiritualism and theism. Science freely admits what is doesn’t know, and waits for evidence to shine light on the hard problems. Theism and spiritualism claim absolute and infallible knowledge in the complete absence of evidence. Science is open to immediately dropping a pet theory if new evidence comes along discrediting it. Theism and spiritualism cling to pet beliefs regardless of how much concrete evidence mounts discrediting such a belief. The two could not be further apart” I’m not even sure where to start with this one. Theism is a position like atheism is. Theism, like atheism does not represent science by default, but rather each are positions that one holds whether they’re in relation to science or not. Spiritualism is another example here, most spiritualists are accepting of science. I’m not sure what you mean by beliefs being discredited. If this is so why are there a growing number of scientists embracing mediumship phenomena rather than criticizing it?

Why can’t theism be a sensible position? Reductionists cling to and seem willing to embrace string and multiverse theories. It seems to be sensible for the reductionist to believe (without evidence) that multiple universes with their unique laws of physics exist, devoid of any purpose. However, it appears to be unplausible for there to be any type of intelligent structure to the universe. Also, despite all of the evidence, anecdotals, cases, information theory, etc suggesting survival and/or an intelligent designer are disregarded? One belief gets posted in full vivid colorful detail on the covers of mainstream scientific magazines, despite the lack of evidence for these materialistic fantasies, but yet when something pertaining to survival of death or an intelligent designer makes the cover it’s always to debunk the latter entities/phenomena.

Sam Harris arguments, as well as the arguments of others have already been debunked concerning near death experiences. Personally I’m not a fan of using near death experiences myself to prove that mind is more than brain, but I already posted other articles, at the cost of a great deal of time to myself, to never have them read, and to have my responses countered with snide remarks without actually reading my material. Dr. Pin Van Pommel already counters the typical criticisms of near death experiences being more than hallucinations.. This journal explains in much more detail why near death experiences are likely more than a brain function. In fact there’s no one physiological or psychological model by itself which explains all the common features of NDE. Also, DMT and g-force induced experiences are far different according to anecdotal testimony than the subjective experiences of those who had experienced events near death. Hopefully you can address the concerns in those two links I’d provided before you respond to me.

Some basic questions. Of what use is the belief in a separate soul? What can you or anybody else do based on the belief? What do you in fact personally do based on your belief in a soul? Convince me that you are not just talking mumbo jumbo.

“Soul” is not the most accurate term and this doesn’t apply in the same way to Abrahamic religions, but recognizing oneself as a soul instead of a body-mind/ego-mind is a significant step along the way to a sense of enlightenment as well as a liberation from the suffering that arises due to identification with the body-mind/ego-mind and its requisite attachment to impermanent phenomena. From there, one can properly step into the spontaneous flow of life rather than struggle in spite of it.

“If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” – Albert Einstein

@ETpro
I see you are still under attack from people who do not understand that positive evidence is needed to support assertions and not the other way around; needing positive evidence to ” disprove ” some assertion,

PS: They sure are verbose with their argumentation, aren’t they?

@Neodarwinian Too verbose, at 1:35 AM, for an adequate response. Later, folks.

Being the first answerer, I missed a lot of this debate as I moved on having thought I gave a pretty decent and objective view. Since then its like things got crazy round here.

For the record, I have to say that I understand exactly what @kess is saying in response to being asked for evidence, and it doesn’t constitute a ‘rambling fallacy’. He is simply saying that there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of the soul if you believe in the soul. But because you don’t, you can’t see that evidence and that’s not his fault. How is that confusing? He’s also totally justified in redirecting the confusion claim at someone who is demanding evidence about something they believe not to exist.

Regarding the separation / distinction between science and theism/spirituality… I believe they are not mutually exclusive and they can co-exist. I have my own spiritual beliefs and faiths. I do believe in a soul and I do marvel at the philosophical questions and conundrums raised in context to this very discussion. But I also love science and I think it is important. Much of what we perceive is relative, open to interpretation and based on our beliefs and the influences of our lives. Realizing this, the idea of “certainty” tends to feel a bit weaker, and rightly so because there is really no such thing.

We could all be batteries in the matrix, after all. You disagree? You got evidence? Didn’t think so.

Nobody is answering my questions. Maybe they are too difficult, so I will make this as simple as possible. Consider it as a challenge, because I don’t think that you can give an answer.

What difference does it make whether or not the soul exists?

Please relate your answer to concrete objects in the real world.

The teacher may ask the question and dictates what and how his students should respond.
Without getting any responses it is safe to assume that the students are still unlearned and is worthy of the teachers sharp reprimand…or

The teacher and his question is grossly out of place and unworthy of the students’ respect.

You can’t answer the question. Here is my interpretation. It does not make the slightest bit of difference whether or not the soul exists. That is to say, that there are no consequences. Things without consequences are, by definition, inconsequential and things that are inconsequential are not worth serious consideration.

” What difference does it make whether or not the soul exists? ”

None. Until you act on that belief. The stem cell debate, for one.

@gambitking

There is a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

Affirming the consequent. perhaps.

” He is simply saying that there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of the soul if you believe in the soul. ”

Think about it.

I say you are not an atheist, since you talk about god all the time..

Can you provide me with evidence that you are what you believe yourself to be?

@kess

Obviously you do not know what atheism is or you would not make such a silly statement.

Talking about gods?

Not really as gods are imaginary. The talking is directed at their benighted and dangerous followers.

So then asking for evidence for your atheistic beliefs is silly…..got you?

@kess

Very silly.

Atheism is a lack of belief and does not require evidence. Obviously you are very confused and have got yourself.

I think based on your last comment that we are quite through here.

Yes you could not be more accurate..

To believe is the basic function of the mind.

Atheism has no belief ,Atheism require no evidence

Atheism then stands mindless….

@Neodarwinian Swami Guru Ohso Truth say, “Nothing more mindless than debate with nonsense.”

@ETpro

” To believe is the basic function of the mind.”

I see what you mean!