Is Personal Identity Grounded in the Soul?
 

(5) Some think that personal identity is grounded in the identity of the soul. Is this a sensible view?

Removed by request

You didn't include a Written By:

But, this is definitely a good work in describing the soul.

If you did write this, then bravo. It points out the clear differences between the soul and the mind/consciousness in an appealing way. It's a keeper. Should be the new way to describe words in a dictionary. Make like a revolutionized dictionary of ways of explaining shit just like the above.

Explaining one word with 4 titles and references lmfao. gate-way drug to more information and shit... But yes.. good job ..

Have anymore writings semi like this, or was this something written for special occasion?

This was an assessment I had to do a few weeks ago.

I've written other articles and shit but they aren't good... I could find the links if you want.

the soul is the seat of the mind

so, yes...



IT's that and your emotions

The first post in this thread is an attempt at explaining away that very misconception.

So I guess all those parts on the mind that produce emotions and all the chemicals are just a random light show in your mind and actually have nothing to do with it. Because that immeasurable thing inside of your body does it, right? Come on, Q, step off the fucking Dark Ages bullshit. It's like saying that emotions come straight from the heart. It's funny how you make claims to be a scientific christian only when it coincides with your beliefs. You'll look at science when it comes to evolution which is compatible with god, and you'll look at it when it says Jesus was black. But when you have something like the soul, which you take as anything more than a possible metaphor for the writers of the Bible to explain away the complexities of the human mind, you're just being a fucking dumbshit.

The reason the mind feels separate from the body is because the mind is the source of all mental reactions and the body is a complex mannequin that allows you to support the brain. It IS separate from the body, that's why when, say, you look out of your eyes you feel as if your 'soul' is trapped. The body is a car and the brain is the driver, and your eyes are the windshield.

Occam's Razor. There's no need whatsoever to introduce the soul, an untestable, unobservable and unnecessary thing people made up thousands of years ago when they thought the brain was a lump of grey intestines in your head. Staying on this shit is like refusing to believe in Copernicus and Galileo and saying that the sun revolves around the Earth because you're not being slung around when the Earth rotates, and the sun moves across the sky.

Robotic Waffle knows too much.

It was good, but I feel your argument was weak and based on assumptions at some points. If there was a soul, human logic couldn't completely grasp how it worked and everything, because we know nothing about it. It felt like you were saying since we don't know shit about the soul, it doesn't exist.

Other than that, it was cool.

Nah, that wasn't the point. It isn't about the existence of the Soul. All I'm saying is that IF the Soul exists, its purpose cannot have to do with our identities. Which parts were based on assumptions?

However, no proof of this exists, and what we know about the workings of the brain show that it is completely self-sufficient. For example, a certain part of the brain is responsible for memories, another area is responsible for different types of desire, etc. An external thing such as the soul does not appear to be needed for the brain functions that relate to identity.

At least I felt so. If anything, it was too weak of a way to put it to use it as part of an argument, you know what I'm saying? "Well, it SEEMS to function completely by itself, therefore it probably does and from here on the assumption that it does will be the basis for the rest of this argument."

Like I said, it was good, I'm just being picky.

And what is the point of introducing the soul if the mind is self-sufficient? Stop being stupid. You're probably just afraid that when you die, that's the end of you and all of your loves and ambitions.

I don't know what you mean... With that, I was saying that we know certain parts of the brain, the parts responsible for the aspects that make up our sense of self. Those parts, we know how they work and what their function is. There is no proof of the soul interfacing with the brain at all, but we do know what the different parts of the brain are doing and how they are physically doing it.

Are you saying that the argument is affected because I don't take into account something there is no proof of and there doesn't need to be proof of? It's like me saying that my computer working is the result of all of its parts working together performing their various functions, then you saying no, how can a bunch of plastic and metal do what a computer can do? Surely computers must work because of magic. It is possible that they do work because of all their components, but not taking into account the possibility of magic weakens what you are saying.

It's like putting legs on a snake. I think you value those illusory things that make up the sense of self too much and give them too much credit, when they are merely functions. To be honest, I know what the soul is, and it isn't the thing that makes you you. It isn't the cause of your personality, but it is the cause of you and your true self.

LOL @ the fact that me saying one point was weak led to you guys assuming I didn't agree.

Never fucking mind.

lol sorry about that. I assumed you didn't agree since you were saying that part didn't help the argument, when I thought it did.

Using the computer analogy, say I believe it IS run by magic, and a huge majority of people around think it is too. Saying, "No, trust me, it's not. Computer's run by themselves through various functions etc etc here's proof" isn't a good argument in convincing me and the people around me, even if you're right. If I believe magic has something to do with it, and you can't prove definitively that it doesn't, I, as someone who believes differently can EASILY say you're just making assumptions and you can't say that something doesn't happen just because it doesn't SEEM to happen. Catch my drift?

Personally, I know what you meant BUT when doing something like this, you can't assume everyone is going to think of examples and dig deeper into what you're saying, you have to fully analyze every aspect to the fullest, especially when trying to say that millions of people all over the world are wrong.

That's all. =/