Reading Philosophy

I shall warn you before you read this that its random thoughts of my head playing about at the moment and I shall not be held responsible if it doesn't make too much sense. But ... hear me out if you will.

The Heart.

The heart is a hollow, muscular organ in vertebrates responsible for pumping blood through the blood vessels by repeated, rhythmic contractions

- wikipedia -

So we agree that its just a muscle that pumps blood to all the parts of your body. It's the most crucial part of your body, your whole life and being depends on it.

Then why exaclty is it that when you hurt emotionally, you have this excruciating pain in your chest like some one is squeezing your heart.

It's said by a friend of mine (and correct me if I'm wrong) that when your upset or depressed that your heart will be faster than it normally does which causes the pain. But then again it will just make your heart beat faster. Where exaclty is that pain coming from?

Yes, you do hurt. It's like some one is crunching your soul inside.

Soul.

Now here is the other thing.

What exaclty is your soul? Yes I do know and have had lengthy talks about what is good for your soul, your feeling. Spirituality and happiness of one person.

BUT Still we cant see the soul, its something that is given that everyone has one. And to my knowledge, the soul is a part of your concience. It will keep you doing right from wrong. The soul is what makes you feel.

Soul food Sundays they call it. Where the family gathers around and actually makes and effort to come together.

Food for the soul they call it. When an act of unselfishness is performed. When mercy is given to someone who does/doesnt deserve it.

So when people say "Oh, that man has no soul" translates, to that man is heartless. No not literally speaking that he doesnt have a heart. He would obviously be dead if he didnt. The real meaning behind that would be that he has killed his capability for feeling - for him or for others.
The man doesn't feel, cannot perform acts of mercy or unselfshiness and therefore has no soul, has no heart.

So would he feel that pain that you get when your depressed? The crunching lonelyness where literally your chests hurts?

But Then - (i'm Backtracking - forgive me) if your heart is just a muscle that pumps blood, and your soul is something of no substancial existance. Then where exactly is it from where you feel?

Is it your mind?
But your mind knows and works in logic. The heart doesn't.

So does that mean that we have two minds. One that is goverened by logic and one that is governed by feeling. Where does the heart come into play in all this if its all the minds doing.

And if it is all the minds doing of feeling then we as humans should know that right from wrong, love from hate. Know when to love a person or when not to when the love isnt returned. Yet we fail do to so.

Where is that point in us that our brains fail to listen to the logic and truth in front of us and we are helpless to our feelings, governed by it if you will.

Still if you think of it more, if we are purely goverened by logic then we would practically be machines. What seperates us from it is our feelings.

So my question to you would be this.

Where exaclty is it that we feel from? Heart? Mind? Or Soul?

I do have more ideas, but when I can put it down without people reading and saying "?!?....what?" I will wait and listen to what you have to say.

Thank you for reading my mindless babble.. =)

Foosh... Aaughh!!... Foosh... Aauuggghh!! - Cold spray deodorant

This post was edited by jael on Apr 16, 2006.

its something that is given that everyone has one.

I don't see that as a given. Far from it infact.

And to my knowledge, the soul is a part of your concience.

What's wrong with the brain doing this?

It will keep you doing right from wrong. The soul is what makes you feel.

What's wrong with the brain doing this?

But your mind knows and works in logic. The heart doesn't.

Emotions have their own logic. The mind cannot be considered a single centre but rather the consequence of several brain areas operating in parallel with their own particular influences summing to the phenomena we regard as consciousness.

And if it is all the minds doing of feeling then we as humans should know that right from wrong, love from hate. Know when to love a person or when not to when the love isnt returned. Yet we fail do to so.

That doesn't follow from your premise that the mind is logical.

Logical systems can only produce totally rational conclusions when all information is known about a problem domain. Clearly it cannot be said that in most situations regarding social interactions we ever have anything approaching a complete knowledge about the problem we may be engaging in.

Besides your premise of a mind as logical, or rather rational as you are using the word, isn't borne out by reality.

Where exaclty is it that we feel from? Heart? Mind? Or Soul?

Brain.

Souls don't have any evidence for their existence. Do you ascribe souls to every other animal? If not why not? The soul seems to be a totally unnecessary fiction conjured up by those who wish to explain where precisely the non-physical essenece that's going to occupy an afterlife comes from.

What people call the mind is the sum total of the interaction of neurons in the brain. It is an abstraction.

The heart, as you state, is just a pump. It is the secondary effects of stress and such that have led to people mistakenly ascribing it as the centre of emotions. Science shows us better. (Never trust your subjective conclusions). People used to do the same thing for the kidneys and other organs, but people don't think about them in this way anymore. That the heart persists is lamentable.

-Souls don't have any evidence for their existence

Also you can`t prove that it doesn't exist... as an open minded person i try to see the reality from every posible angle so i think is up to us decide if it exist or don`t.

-The mind cannot be considered a single centre but rather the consequence of several brain areas operating in parallel with their own particular influences summing to the phenomena we regard as consciousness.

good answer... it was hard to get it but i think you are right in the basic cientific way of thinking that i see you are using to explain logics and reality... but see beyon that... try to get the abstract of the things they art, they love, philosofy isn't just logical and racional... it's also a door to our mind... or whatever you call it... so be open minded not just a cold computer that thinks that was the whole true in theyr data base...

And to Everyone... JUST TRY TO BE HAPPY

Also you can`t prove that it doesn't exist...

Can't prove a lot of things don't exist. I wonder just how many of them you'd be open minded about?

as an open minded person i try to see the reality from every posible angle so i think is up to us decide if it exist or don`t.

Well no, it's not up to us to decide whether or not souls exist.

We do not get to dictate reality.

good answer... it was hard to get it but i think you are right in the basic cientific way of thinking that i see you are using to explain logics and reality... but see beyon that... try to get the abstract of the things they art, they love, philosofy isn't just logical and racional...

You seem to be taking the rather rash conclusion that it is not possible to have abstract thought and irrational behaviour arising from a system that is purely chemical.

Who's not being open minded now? Your description of 'cold computer' seems to imply that you are emotionally attached to your viewpoint - it is important to you that things such as love and art and philsophy come from some special immaterial and magical location that cannot be described by science.

You may choose to deny reality if you wish. Billions do.

-We do not get to dictate reality.

Before dictate reality we have to know what reality is… and what is reality? I think that everything is up to us… and I really admire your way of thinking because is very concrete and you can easily prove it… so that’s your reality of things as you keep thinking this way, because we can change in a blink of an eye (I had change a lot of times, I don’t know if you had) and how can I prove that reality is different to everyone?… because what is the reality for a deaf person (born this way)… his reality don’t include sounds even when our does… this is as equal for a blind person or someone in this kind of situation… also by our believes as the religion… let’s say that God doesn’t exist… even then the effect placebo still exist and a lot of times biological miracles are made… so by this I think that reality is totally personal not general as a total true.

-Can't prove a lot of things don't exist. I wonder just how many of them you'd be open minded about?

I think almost to everything (sorry if it was a sarcastic question) from faries to religion... everything is welcome... i just decide what should matter in my life... like... is there exist faries... then what??? my life continiues... is jesus was married??? then what??? he keep as holy as he was (not going to get deep in that)if sould exist or not??? then what... i know there is something that we can call by a lot of way in us. if soul dies??? then i will try to live happy like buddha in life... this really matter to me... so i decide what matter or what doesn't...

-You seem to be taking the rather rash conclusion that it is not possible to have abstract thought and irrational behaviour arising from a system that is purely chemical. Who's not being open minded now? Your description of 'cold computer' seems to imply that you are emotionally attached to your viewpoint - it is important to you that things such as love and art and philsophy come from some special immaterial and magical location that cannot be described by science.

ok don't get angry... try to be happy ^_^...
Sure i'm attached to my viewpoint because is mine and personal and sorry if i attaked your viewpoint of your reality (as i call it) but i prefer just as you said "that things such as love and art and philsophy come from some special immaterial and magical location that cannot be described by science" ok not magical... but immaterial i do... i don´t know why but as i just said... if it is just chemical proces in my brain??? it still exist and is unique so... i love to have this complex biological action on my brain.

And to everyone:
"Don`t be too busy hoping for the future that you miss the present"

I don't see that as a given. Far from it infact.

Explain.

Because as I see it, and I do believe, that rocks, plants, humans and animals have souls. There must be a reason why Native Americans, South Americans and great philosophers such as Herclitus, Permanides only to name a few have stated that there is something above us.

Again it is also in us to conform to authority to belive in something bigger than us. Two thirds of the world believe in a higher being, whether you want to call it Shiva, Christ, Buddha or Gaya.
If they are deluding themselves then I'd rather be deluding myself as well because if I didn't and this is the only life I had, there is no soul, there is no god, there hell or even heaven, then I would come to your village kill your kids, steal your money and burn your village down to the ground and maybe, choose to keep you alive so I can choose to do it again. I need not have to live to aspire to be a better person, neither do I have to fear heaven or hell.

What's wrong with the brain doing this?

Your brain doesn't feel, it has neurons, and synapses it will allow us to think and reason. And we know how bad it can get.
Think about it, A man steels bread and butter. Would you send him to jail. Cause the brain says he's a criminal and he commited a crime. Then what if you find out that after sending him to jail, you killed his three children he was providing for.
Is that still worth putting the brain in charge.

Emotions have their own logic. The mind cannot be considered a single centre but rather the consequence of several brain areas operating in parallel with their own particular influences summing to the phenomena we regard as consciousness.

Explains to me how can an emotion have their own logic.

Emotions are concluding product to situations and circumstances.
Watching some one die, like say in a war or something you would feel sad. There is no logical reason why you would feel sad as that person ins't related to you in any particular way but you would feel sad.

If you dont agree with me there. Please watch any of the following and tell me if it didn't stir up emotions.

Schindler's List
The Pianist
The thin red line
The green mile.

To your other part.

What you said about about certain parts of the brain summing up a characteristic of a person, is forgive my language my friend - is bullshit.

You are talking of Fruedian times when they believed that a certain part of the brain made a person a criminal, or a for sex, for for happiness.

What we know understand after extensive research is that, only physical aspects of your body are controlled by certain parts of the brain. Sight as we all know is located at the back of our head on the lower side.

How can you say that when you feel happy its the lower side its the top left corner of your brain.
And when you feel sad its the lower left corner.

Souls don't have any evidence for their existence. Do you ascribe souls to every other animal? If not why not? The soul seems to be a totally unnecessary fiction conjured up by those who wish to explain where precisely the non-physical essenece that's going to occupy an afterlife comes from.

I’m a guessing you are one of those people who rely on perceptions of your senses. What you touch, see, hear, taste and smell is what is real to you.
Have you ever heard of the phrase

“what you see is what you get?”

Well, this is to do with sight. Sight is just a visual sense that allows us to identify objects, near and far in our consciousness, but the world we are allowed to see is merely an illusion though we all share the same internal perception of the world outside of us which makes this particular sense so well developed that when we see an object we already know what is feels like.
The truth is we see through our brains. Not our eyes.
I can give you a whole scientific theory how this works but I'm sure I dont have to.

So... that phrase that I said.

What you see is what you get.... think about it ... its merely an illusion.

comming back to the point about souls.

I do believe in souls. I do believe that there is something binding all of us together, I do believe that we are more than mere flesh and bones.
SO when you say that the soul doesnt have any evidence of existance, I can say what you see is merely an illusion, all because you cannot touch it or see it doesn't mean its not there.

The heart, as you state, is just a pump. It is the secondary effects of stress and such that have led to people mistakenly ascribing it as the centre of emotions. Science shows us better. (Never trust your subjective conclusions). People used to do the same thing for the kidneys and other organs, but people don't think about them in this way anymore. That the heart persists is lamentable.

I agree with you there. The heart is just a pump...

Then why.... why does your chest hurt when you are emotionally in pain. There really is physical pain there, the brain cannot just conjure this kind of pain up...

why do you feel pain right there in the middle of your chest a little toward the left when you know for a fact, that its just a muscle that pumps blood....

Foosh... Aaughh!!... Foosh... Aauuggghh!! - Cold spray deodorant

This post was edited by jael on Apr 19, 2006.

Because as I see it, and I do believe, that rocks, plants, humans and animals have souls.

You believe *rocks* have souls? I could just about stretch to seeing why people would believe the others but believing rocks have an immaterial spirit responsible for its properties?

There must be a reason why Native Americans, South Americans and great philosophers such as Herclitus, Permanides only to name a few have stated that there is something above us.

That reason doesn't necessarially have to do with an actual soul does it though?

People have believe a whole slew of things that were very popular and also wrong.

Again it is also in us to conform to authority to belive in something bigger than us. Two thirds of the world believe in a higher being, whether you want to call it Shiva, Christ, Buddha or Gaya.

And again the fact that we may (at least some of us, I feel no such compunction) desire to believe in higher powers doesn't mean higher powers actually exist. If anything the great diversity of dieties would seem to indicate that if people do indeed have this desire they create their own gods to fill the gap, i.e. no actual dieties required.

If they are deluding themselves then I'd rather be deluding myself as well because if I didn't and this is the only life I had, there is no soul, there is no god, there hell or even heaven, then I would come to your village kill your kids, steal your money and burn your village down to the ground and maybe, choose to keep you alive so I can choose to do it again.

That is a rather tired ethical argument: that there can be no morality with divinity.

Not least because you might well be compelled to do PRECISELY those things if you have the right set of religious beliefs (check out the Old Testament sometime eh?).

In reality people have strong social cohesion instincts that limit such destructive behaviour. We have empathy towards other people that balances our ability to inflict pain on others. There are costs to your proposed plan as well - people tend to fight back.

Your brain doesn't feel,

If I prick you, do not neurons fire in response to pain signals in your brain?

Think about it, A man steels bread and butter. Would you send him to jail. Cause the brain says he's a criminal and he commited a crime. Then what if you find out that after sending him to jail, you killed his three children he was providing for.
Is that still worth putting the brain in charge.

Try to understand this: your brain does lots of different things! You have a rather simplistic view of brain = logic. In the moral situation you describe if I have an sympathetic emotional response to the situation where do you think it comes from? There are specific centres of the brain that deal specifically with this type of empathatic emotional response - i.e. that is being able to understand the emotions of others. Clearly this part of the brain can affect other parts and hence change any moral decision I may reach.

Explains to me how can an emotion have their own logic.

Emotions are concluding product to situations and circumstances.

You answered your own question.

Watching some one die, like say in a war or something you would feel sad. There is no logical reason why you would feel sad as that person ins't related to you in any particular way but you would feel sad.

Sure, there's a perfectly logical reason - you have an empathetic reaction. Normal functional people have the ability to relate to the emotional states of other people and react to them. It's a vital part of achieving social cohesion.

What you said about about certain parts of the brain summing up a characteristic of a person, is forgive my language my friend - is bullshit.

Sure that would be, that's phrenology. However it's not what I said.

I said there are different parts of your brain which operate independently of each other, operating in parallel, with the combined output being regarded as the phenomena we perceive as being conscious. This view is certainly supported by some of the research on stroke victims and how very definite brain regions can cause drastic changes in personality and perception when damaged. These effects include: increased religiousness, inability to differentiate faces, inability to differentiate animals, inability to grasp concept of a mirror image and phantom limbs.

What we know understand after extensive research is that, only physical aspects of your body are controlled by certain parts of the brain.

That I'm afraid is just not true. I have no idea where you got that from. MRIs can show quite positive results for experiments realted to emotional stimuli. Under your assumption of a immaterial emotional component one should expect absolutely nothing - that would certainly be a stunning scientific discovery. It is however one that is not forthcoming.

I’m a guessing you are one of those people who rely on perceptions of your senses.

No. That would be relying on equpiment that has been shown to be deceptive and inaccurate. I prefer to rely on numerous such pieces of equipment working to negate their errors through collaboration.

What you touch, see, hear, taste and smell is what is real to you.

What else, precisely, could be?

The truth is we see through our brains. Not our eyes.

No, we see through our eyes, our brains interpret the signals to construct a model from this information.

What you see is what you get.... think about it ... its merely an illusion.

No, it's a model. An illusion is something else.

I do believe in souls. I do believe that there is something binding all of us together, I do believe that we are more than mere flesh and bones.

Because mere flesh and bones are inadequate to describe all that we see or because you really don't want them to be adequate?

SO when you say that the soul doesnt have any evidence of existance, I can say what you see is merely an illusion, all because you cannot touch it or see it doesn't mean its not there.

So I will simply say again; many things that cannot be shown to exist, any you would not care to accept?

Then why.... why does your chest hurt when you are emotionally in pain.

It's a SECONDARY effect.

Jeeze.

the brain cannot just conjure this kind of pain up...

Wrong. So very wrong.

I don't see that as a given. Far from it infact.

I'm an atheist and man of science, and I still believe that people have a soul. To me 'soul' is an abstractum derived from somebody's personality (which is an abstractum itself). It not having a physical presence doesn't mean the idea of it is dead wrong.

"God is dead." - Nietzsche, 1882 "Nietzsche is dead." - God, 1900

I'm an atheist and man of science, and I still believe that people have a soul. To me 'soul' is an abstractum derived from somebody's personality (which is an abstractum itself). It not having a physical presence doesn't mean the idea of it is dead wrong.

Yes but if you go around talking about souls most people aren't going to think you're talking about some abstraction for personality. This doesn't really mean you believe people have a soul - you can just ascribe certain things to the concept of a soul. You can't say you believe or not in an abstraction - since abstractions don't require belief!

Yes you may well understand that the common parlance uses a lot of metaphors that you do not consider literally but in this discussion here precision is necessary. If people are talking about souls as having a concrete existence and as having a definitive influence on the physical world I'm going to question that.

If people are talking about souls as having a concrete existence and as having a definitive influence on the physical world I'm going to question that.

Well that's your right. But you can't prove your point any more than those people can prove theirs, so it all boils down to a question of personal beliefs.

"God is dead." - Nietzsche, 1882 "Nietzsche is dead." - God, 1900