Not everybody has to have a soul

originally posted by: SourceTruth
[...]

The idea that everyone has a soul is not rooted in any rigorous reasoning. Because of this, it should not be accepted as fact that everyone has a soul.

It actually stands to reason that every living thing has a soul, humans, animals, and maybe lower life forms. If some beings have it, what's the reason the others don't have it?!

The soul is the captain of the being, it's the "I". The soul animates the body, a body without a soul just vegetates and for a short time, if it lives at all.

Interesting post.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
It seems like we all assume that everyone has a soul.
But if we are to really understand what the matrix is about then we cannot assume that everyone has a soul.

The idea that everyone has a soul is not rooted in any rigorous reasoning. Because of this, it should not be accepted as fact that everyone has a soul.

Your thread thesis lacks any logic, making a reasonable response to it almost impossible. But I will try.....

Why cannot we assume that everyone has a soul if we want to understand what the 'matrix' is? The notion of a soul is totally independent of whether physical reality is some kind of cosmic computer simulation. The latter notion was only applied to the physical body as possibly unreal. It was never extended to the human soul. Therefore, whether it exists or not, the 'matrix' has nothing to say about the reality of the soul and your reference to it is superfluous. Just ask the question: does the soul exist or not? And then, if yes, can some people have no soul? It has nothing to do with the 'matrix' notion.
(By the way, what is the matrix? I mean other than the name of a sci-fi film? The assumption that the "matrix" - a concept born out of a popular film - exists seems for you to take ontological priority over a concept thousands of years old, discussed in depth in Buddhist and yogic literature and by philosophers but of course rubbished by western medical science because it has no room for it, believing (wrongly) that the brain is all that is needed to account for all experiences. Even the Hindu equivalent of the 'matrix' - maya - never denied the illusion of the soul as well as the illusion of the body and material world).

What do you mean by "rigorous reasoning"? That the soul exists is not a mathematical proposition and cannot therefore be treated as though it should be as provable as one. Because science denies its existence, there is no scientific definition or description of it. We have to rely on metaphysical ideas. Your mistake is in thinking that such alternative formulations cannot be made as rigorous as scientific definitions. They can. They just cannot be put into scientific language because science does not recognise its existence. So YOU (yes- little YOU) has never encountered such expositions and have been unimpressed by what you have found claiming to be explanations of the soul. Well, hard cheese. But perhaps you have not looked in the right directions. Ever thought of that? Or do you just think you know better than the greatest philosophers and mystics who have ever lived?

a reply to: khnum

You say it should be considered. OK, I have considered it. I first began considering it over fifty years ago when this possibility first came to my attention. in my consideration, one of the first things I did was to study other people who might have thought this, either as individuals, groups or even religions.

What i found right off the bat was that this ''theory'' was always directed at other people who were considered to have no soul by people who considered that they themselves do. This division of our species has led those who think they do to treat those they think do not as second class humans. Indeed this theory has led to thinking that other humans WERE NOT HUMAN...

So you can go on and consider it all you want to but i can tell you that what I just laid out is where that thinking will get you.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
a reply to: Spacespider

When we define something we define it based on its properties. A soul has the property that it can exist within a human. A soul is the thing that is connected to the body that experiences what the body is experiencing. I am experiencing this body, but that is only because I am connected to this body. My soul is what the information from my body is feeding into.

A soul is having an experience based on the information it is receiving from a body. This means that a soul must exist by being connected to a body. But the problem is that we assume that the reverse is true. A body does not have to be connected to a soul, but a soul has to be connected to a body. So it doesn't have to be true that all people have a soul, because they could just be bodies without feeding information to a soul that is having the experience of a body.

Well okay.. I knew that.. but you did not answer my question.. What kind of material is the soul made of ? magic ?

a reply to: miri2019

If you can include your definition of a soul to include every living thing than your definition is not strict enough.

The soul can only be defined as the information receiver and not the animator. While a soul can animate a body, a body could be animated without requiring a soul to operate it.

a reply to: SourceTruth

Do you have a soul SourceTruth? x

a reply to: SourceTruth

" what the matrix is about "


Stated in a Way to Imply a FACT . ........Duh , No , your Fantasy Sucks .........

a reply to: andy06shake

I can tell you I have a soul, but it is up for you to decide for yourself.

Maybe you might believe that have a soul if I show you that I am not like the soulless ones out there. It doesn't prove I have a soul, but you might believe I do because of it.

a reply to: SourceTruth

Proof might be nice for us all.

I think you are confusing a soul with heart and gumption.

a reply to: andy06shake

The Matrix is an Illusion .....Oh , Wait ............

a reply to: Spacespider

You say my post lacks logic, but you don't acknowledge how it lacks logic to assume that everyone has a soul.

When I say reasoning I mean that there is no solid philosophical basis for it.

And no, the idea of a soul is not independent of the idea of reality being a stimulation. I don't mean a computer stimulation, I mean a dream state. But it can be compared to a computer stimulation.

Think of it. When you log onto the server of the game you have all of these non playable characters. That is what the soulless ones would be like. They look like you within the game, but there is nobody that is logged in to experience that character. Your soul is just logged in to experience the person that you experience in this reality. And there are other bodies in the game but there is nobody logged into that body.

a reply to: andy06shake

No, I am not confusing it.

I can only show you that I am able to do all of the things that you can do within this reality.

Think of it like you think of the non playable characters of a video game. The non playable character can do all of the things that you can do within the limits of the game, except that there is nobody logged onto the character.

a reply to: SourceTruth

Show me, please.

You do realize that more often than not, circumstance and geography dictate one's station in this verse.

You allude to the holographic principle, lets see you bend reality?

a reply to: SourceTruth

Where did you get this knowledge ?

a reply to: Spacespider

A few places... each is a piece of the puzzle.

a reply to: SourceTruth

This is what "Links" are for mate.

a reply to: andy06shake

I don't think you understood me clearly enough.

When I said I am able to do all of the things that you can do, it means that we are both equal within this game experience, because we are both human. But if you compare this reality to a stimulation or a video game, you can compare the soulless people to the non playable characters in the game.
Within the game, they look just like you and can do all the things you can do within the game. The only difference is that there is nobody logged into that character, although that character can still act like you within the limits of the game.
To you, I look like another non playable character.

a reply to: andy06shake

You want links?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: SourceTruth

If you really believe people are equal mate your maw has been telling you porkies pies.

Not that we should not aspire to such.

But the world ain't built that way.

The game is the game, top or bottom you ether f**k or get f****d.

The paradigm has remained the same or very similar throughout recorded history, no matrix required just control constructs and slight of hand tricks.

Just don't hate the players, nor think you are anything other than just that.

a reply to: SourceTruth

Credible links, please. LoL

Some peer revied data might be nice, or is that to matrix to ask? x