"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan. You are a collection of almost identical molecules with a different collective label." -- Carl Sagan, Scientist

There are many people who believe that they, real selves, are in fact their body. However, there have been other people that have suggested that you are actually not your body, but an eternal soul.

An analogy supporting this would be that we are to our bodies as people are to cars. A person drives a car, has to take care of the car, can decorate the car, but is in fact not the car itself.

Sound too supernatural to be for real? Discuss.

Well, since I'm a Christian I would fall into the catagory of not believing you are your "body". I believe that the true you would be your soul. Your body is only a temporary living place while you are here on earth. Even before I became a Christian I believed it is your soul that is truly you..so I guess it's kinda both my Christian beliefs but my personal beliefs too.

I believe that we do not have souls in the traditional sense, but that definitely have metaphysical features, or spirits. I believe that death is a constant out-of-body experience (to anyone who has ever had one, you know what I'm talking about), and that as we are, our metaphysical selves and our physical selves are working in a bit of a parasitic bond. The body strengthens from the spirit, while the spirit is constrained to our body's limitations.

Being pretty informed about and active in the world of psionics (similar to chakra and chi), my perspective is pretty different from an average person's.

Continuing from Sagan's quote, what should follow is that I am a different collection of empirical experiences, thus why I am a different person in essence.

I hope this topic keeps moving on. I will reserve part of my post for the occasion.

Right, but what I'm talking about is that you aren't the body at all, in any way; it's only yours for you to use. Also, that you don't just have soul/s or spiritual features, but that you are in fact the soul/spirit.

I'm interested in what you have to say Kurd Jam. (Sorry I can't recall your name.)

I apologize for my vagueness. I meant that I believe we are metaphysical bodies ecased in a physical body. This is somewhat related to the religious sense, but is in many aspects different. For example, I don't believe we go to a mutual heaven, and I don't believe we are all connected through a greater entity.

However, there is part of me that wonders if perspective itself is an elaborate illusion, beyond human comprehension. Though we can argue that our perspectives and spirits exist because we experience them, the fact that we directly think from our perspective doesn't necessarily mean that we're right. It could be the ridiculous assortment of neurons, and assortment so vast and complicated a human wouldn't be able to understand it. Then again, it may be impossible to understand whether or not perspective is real, because in order to you must completely unravel it. However, if our perspective does in fact follows the ultra-scientific view of being the function of our bodies, we may just be bodies, and not spirits. The spirit may be an unimaginable illusion played by our bodies to maximize efficiency.

Yeah, there are many signs that we are not the gross body (physical body) or even the subtle body (the "mind), but if then if that whole perspective thing is true, then I guess we very well could be our bodies.

But then there's also that whole reincarnation bit, which wouldn't really work out if we actually were the bodies.

Well, a body is just a shell. Supernatural or not, a body cannot live without a soul. A soul simply put is a presence of life. Soul=Life. When we die, the soul leaves the body. But in the spiritual sense, a soul is our eternal being. It carries on after we died.

I could almost agree with this, though, I'm not sure if you're saying that we are the soul or we have a soul.

I'm saying in a plain non spiritual way we have a soul. The presence of life. In a spiritual way, we have a soul(the presence of life) that continues on after our bodies die.

i agree with the car statement you made in your first post. i believe that you are your soul, not your body. what is a body w/o a soul to feel it? it is a mere corpse, which is in fact not living, so i don't really think it could be considered a person anymore. however, your body is existent in life, of course. it is just not a person. it makes up a person. the soul is the interior to actually complete a human.

No worries, the name's Jordi.

I was/am expecting on someone to bring the uniqueness of the individual into question.

If we agree that our bodies share the same "materials", and if as I said it's what we gather from our senses which makes us different from the rest; I was wondering if someone would ask what would happen if two persons with exact bodies were exposed to the same experiences.

Would the experiment create one individual but two bodies?

Well, as a heads up, I'm actually talking about a person actually being the soul.
I'm actually going to have to kind of disagree with this.

I'm going to say that the body doesn't even make up a person, and in fact, we, essentially, are not even human.

Because what about other animals such as cats, dogs, fish?

Oh, alright, nice to meet you Jordi.

That's a pretty good question. I'd like to see what someone who would say that they're the body would say to that.

This post has been edited by Arjuna Capulong: Mar 14 2007, 09:01 PM

Wow. Profound. But in order for that to happen they would have to be raised in the same place at the same time, and all that great stuff. Cause if their backgrounds were even slightly off, then the chances are so small that this would occur. The slightest thing could trigger something in the brain that they would then think differently and the experiences would have different outcomes on the two individuals.

But it's a really cool concept to think about. Haha.

Well, is anybody going to come in and challenge this? It seems that our ideas are practically similar so far.

What do you want challenged?

For the sake of this topic, I'm going to switch sides and provide a counter-argument.

There is no proof against my idea that our perspective may be nonexistant. Our personalities and thoughts may just be a complex system of neurons, an intangible algorithm from within our body. We have no proof that we are really sensing our environment through the spirit with the body as the window. Yet we believe it, because we cannot understand something we know to be true being wrong.

I say that if we are able to believe that we are spirits and souls, which we, being human, cannot fully understand, why can't the other extreme be possible? It is just as likely that we do not exist as spirits, but only as flesh. Neither of them have solid proof, so each are just as likely to be the case.

Besides, its not such a far-fetched idea. We may not understand how vast the algorithm of thought and perspective is, but we also do not understand how vast the universe is. We do not understand how vast God is. We do not understand much of anything. Does that mean its impossible?

I am somewhat arguing both sides. However, what I'd like to accomplish with this is to put them on an even plane. We will never truly know which is right, we can only guess. However, with this, I'd like the guesses to be even.

Also, religion is not solid proof. Please do not bring religion into this. Spirituality and religion are not the same thing. You may talk about souls if you wish, but please do not cite religious texts, as not all will accept them as proof. I honestly do not want to start debating about religion in this, as its a pretty interesting topic.

Also, as a request, can someone jump sides with me?

In my opinion you already have brought up religion when you mentioned God being too vast to understand.

Anyways yes just because something cannot be proven doesn't imply that it's fact or fiction. We just do not know why things are the way they are or if something is true or not.

It's intended as a purely theoretical exercise of course; I cross-posted it in here and in another thread in another forum. In that other case, the debate is centered on the identity of the self.


That has been my original intention so far, although it seems this debate has already established that we're not the body. >_>

What proof is there for it?

Well, if you look at the brains of animals the grey matter is significantly smaller compared to human brains. I think that the information we hold within our brains is purely knowledge. Just thinking about it does make sense to me. If knowledge is just information, then we base our morals off or knowledge. And the tower keeps getting taller. So, this is a good question.

Good point.



Not all debates need proof. Setting up a structure first is usually how it pans out. Then comes the proof. It's like testing a theory. There might not be proof at first, but the proof must be tested and observed.

You should read The Rupublic by Plato.

Exactly, my point was not that my idea is right, but that my idea is valid for consideration.

QUOTE(ermfermoo @ Mar 15 2007, 5:35 PM)

For the sake of this topic, I'm going to switch sides and provide a counter-argument.

There is no proof against my idea that our perspective may be nonexistant. Our personalities and thoughts may just be a complex system of neurons, an intangible algorithm from within our body. We have no proof that we are really sensing our environment through the spirit with the body as the window. Yet we believe it, because we cannot understand something we know to be true being wrong.

I say that if we are able to believe that we are spirits and souls, which we, being human, cannot fully understand, why can't the other extreme be possible? It is just as likely that we do not exist as spirits, but only as flesh. Neither of them have solid proof, so each are just as likely to be the case.

Besides, its not such a far-fetched idea. We may not understand how vast the algorithm of thought and perspective is, but we also do not understand how vast the universe is. We do not understand how vast God is. We do not understand much of anything. Does that mean its impossible?

I am somewhat arguing both sides. However, what I'd like to accomplish with this is to put them on an even plane. We will never truly know which is right, we can only guess. However, with this, I'd like the guesses to be even.

Also, religion is not solid proof. Please do not bring religion into this. Spirituality and religion are not the same thing. You may talk about souls if you wish, but please do not cite religious texts, as not all will accept them as proof. I honestly do not want to start debating about religion in this, as its a pretty interesting topic.

Also, as a request, can someone jump sides with me?

[b]http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/brain.html
Your personality is a direct product of that physical organ in your head, your brain. If your brain is altered, your personality (your "soul") is altered. When your brain dies, your soul dies with it.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/bjohnson.html
The Islamic view is that soul gives life to the body, which is also true of the Christian faith.

http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa040903-4.htm
2) Mind is in the head, sustained by the brain. That much we know from everyday experience. What modern science has taught us in addition is that mind and brain are intimately connected, anatomically, functionally, and historically, by linkages that are beginning to be understood. The two are indissolubly linked, leading to the notion that thoughts, feelings, and all other manifestations of the mind are products of the activities of neurons in the brain. The concept is not new. The same was said two centuries ago.

3) "The brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile." Thus declared the eighteenth-century French physician Pierre Jean Georges Cabanis (1757-1808). The German literature attributes a renal version of the saying to the nineteenth-century Dutch physiologist Jakob Moleschott (1822-1893), who is said to have written: "The brain secretes thought as the kidney secretes urine." In the climate of the times, these affirmations were meant as provocative attacks on the religious belief in an immortal soul. At present, the words have lost their incendiary character and their substance is accepted by most neurobiologists.

Ok, how about this. If we are not the bodies, but the eternal souls, how can we possibly go to a the heaven or the hell often described in Christianity? Or even how 70 virgins in Heaven makes any sense, as described in some Islamic?

To start of with, the Bible states:

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

Heaven and Hell in Christianity are often described as if they were material dimensions. (ex: "The fiery depths of Hell.") And I often hear from Christians that "Heaven is a paradise where you can receive whatever you desire," or something along those lines.

Though, how can it be logical that the spirit would go to any of these material dimensions?

So what if one would eternally burn in the fiery depths of Hell? There would be no medium to burn. So what if I could get anything I want in Heaven, including 70 so virgins? I would have no body to enjoy these sensual pleasures.

Or maybe those descriptions of Heaven and Hell are only metaphoric?

You do bring up some really good points. The problem is that you're viewing things within time restaints. Heaven and Hell are spiritual places within a timeless eternity. Beyond our universe is eternity. It only makes sense when viewing God. God is known to be all knowing, all powerful and everywhere at once. When time has no restriction of God, that makes sense. I'll show a little diagram to make it a little clearer.


Eternity |-------------------------------------------------------|TIME|--|

Eternity is basically a string or such that supports our world and time and everything involved. Our spirits are forever because we have a starting point and continue on forever.

If we have so many natural wonders and beauties on this earth, why wouldn't they be in Heaven? I mean, God made both places, so if He created something so wonderful and magnificent, whose to say that those things aren't in Heaven?

Considering you're talking about an all powerful God, He can make streets out of gold and and build countless mansions in Heaven.

Same goes for Hell.

There really will be no good answers for this topic because it's such a hard thing to answer if it can be answered at all.