Is the concept of soul applicable to all things?

[prtcool]

I was a non believer of soul. The news that man is about to create life, tickled my senses and I was overjoyed that this might be the final blow to the concept of soul. So I began blogging. While I was blogging I was arguing that man can create soul, if he can create life. As soul can be created by man, then the very concept of the immortality of soul ends and thus to say that soul gets created is eqvivalent to saying that no soul exists.
But all this argument of mine was based on an assumption that only living beings have life.

If for a moment I considered that everything has a soul, or the soul, then we get a very startling result. As soul is everywhere(something like energy) man doesn't need to create it. As it is never created thus it can neither be destroyed(like conservation of energy). If this is true that soul exists, then all things whether it be a rock, a plant or a human, everything has soul. And thus everything has some life.

If everything has life then they might also have receptiveness to beauty, like living creatures have(plants have it!) So if non living things too have life(though inanimate) they too respond to the immeasurable quantities.

If one believes in a soul then either nothing as a soul(it can be man made) or else everything has a soul. Only two choices exist.

the big question is, if the second notion is true then science needs to give some space to aspects like aesthetics which have long been neglected.

 

[WARGREYMONKKTL]

My sincerity!

From: wargreymonkktl
To: prtcool
I have seen a little confusion in your perception about physical elements and metaphysical elements. Let me explain in just a minute!
1. First of all, it is not logically to tell that human can physically create souls since soul in a metaphysical form; in the other words, soul is not real matter. Whe we talk about creation of thing, we refer to a machanism of mentality-->physicality--> reality. For example, you think that you can create a house, you would first imagine the house in your mind (a mental process) and then you use pencil to draw the picture and then by using physical materials to built on a house. Finally, you get a house in your reality. The same is true when you plan to have a child (by any mean that you can think of), it is technically possible for you to have a girl and boy or not have at all at this time. If you are not a Chritian you could abandon the child or keep it. In this case you plan to have a child (boy or girl is at your choice), and you get marry (I encourage to not do something with a girl before giving a social status) and you come to a family doctor to have a child. Yeah! And after all the time, you could have the result that you have been waiting! And your wife would give you a child, regardless the what period of the emryo or zygot or whenever period ofter conception, you have create a child physically. And when the child grows up it would become a human being with its own soul. The emphasis here is that the child soul is only exist in its own mentality! You see the different between soul and physical body?
2. Logically, its is not sure to tell that whether an object's metaphysical matter exists or not! Soul is always covered in its metaphysical world and one can only tape or see in his or her meta-world. Many people think that they come to redeem others' souls but is it possible? The answers is no! Those people actually come to bring back others's realization of soul. In the other words, they come to remind others that each of them has a soul in its own realization, and only when the realization of a person act upon his or her awareness of his or her won soul, they would be glad since they THEMSELVES have get back their own "souls!"
3. We know that rock and other "non-living matters" is physicall matter; and they are just like us, we do not know wheter they hae soul or not. However, I have think of a principle of interconnection-of-metaphsycal mentalities. When people soul have the same "frequency" to others' soul (no matter rock or human) there would be a connection between the people and others' souls. However, the connection is only experienc by one side of the connection. For example, whe we raise a dog we love em, and we tend to think that they are own friend! I have raise dog how about you? We consider the dog has the soul itself. And more and more we can see the interconnection of "souls."
4. It is hard to identify soul but I am sure that soul is something other than energy! Energy is a physical thing and not a metaphysical thing. Sometimes, we think taht soul could give us energy. Actually, it just makes all of out metal process control to concentrate out physical energy to do what ever we are passionate about!
I am not a philosopher, I am a learner, and I have my ideas. Just like you I am wandering and have question, too! I give my idea wheter you consider or not, it is not important.THe important is that there are a real motivation of out mentality to find "the gate-of-metaphysical-physical world!" goodluck on your quest, my pilgrimate!
sincerely,
wargreymonkktl

 

[PFS]

Just a quick point to ponder,

Newtonian physics was based on the hypotheses that every action has an opposite or equal reaction, and it gave belief to the the (life is controlled by exteroir forces) train of thought, because everything is a direct result of something ells.

however the newer sciences such as quantum physics are proving that everything is interconnected, we all share the same "life line" and we are made up of, live in and exist because of", the same fabric of nature (Atoms)

when you go too far in quantum physics they refer to it as "going down the rabbit hole" and this is because quantum physics, (practically everything we know today physically is based on QP) if taken to its extremes cannot exist without "a greater mind/creator/God" so if this is then true, and we are creations if an Ultimate Creator and we are made of the same fabric of nature, could everything not be interconnect via a soul.

Just a thought,

 

[DaveC426913]

The news that man is about to create life

People do it every day, it's the most natural thing in the world. Can you be more specific?

I was arguing that man can create soul, if he can create life.As soul can be created by man, then...

I know of no principle or belief (except perhaps yours) whereby the creation of life automatically means the creation of a soul.

This seems fundamental to your argument, yet it's fundamentally flawed.

 

[minorwork]

I define Soul as, that which experiences. You are the only one that qualifies as the experiencer. You might think the rest of us act as if we experience, but you would be presumptuous.

Soul means to you what?

 

[minorwork]

There is a science devoted to transcendant experiences. Surat Shabd. A more western approach would be found in; Experiment in Depth, by P.W. Martin. Here is a little.


Quote:
Chapter X: Dangers and Destinations. First three paragraphs.

The experiment in depth concerns everyone, but it is not for everyone to undertake. The way is dangerous. It demands of a man that he obey the injunction 'Become what thou art'; and to this end leads him to his own encounter. What he will find there, no one can know in advance. This much, though, is reasonably certain. Wholeness has to proceed against the heaviest of odds: The values, habit-patterns, attitudes, laid down by earlier conditioning in a society where the creative contact has been to a great extent lost. Individuation does not begin with a tabula rasa, but with a personality more or less malformed.

Beyond lies the deep unconscious. Here, all is at the hazard. As Jung has said, there are those who go digging for an artesian well and come instead upon a volcano. Cumulated upon this uncertainty is the harsh fact that our knowledge of the other side of consciousness is still, for the most part, in the earliest stage of hypothesis. Much of it may be wide of the mark, some completely mistaken. It is not only that the beaten way does not as yet exist. Such track as there is may be deceptive. A man takes it at his peril. In making the experiment in depth there are bound to be casualties, casualties that could not reasonably be forseen. It is well to realize that one's own name may figure among them.

But there is also the positive side. The unconscious is not fundamentally a menace, a source of fear and misgiving. It is the wellspring of life, both for the individual and for the peoples of the world. At present we are cut off from it; and worse than cut off, exposed to the utmost peril. Little as we may like it, we of the present century have no choice but to live dangerously, the threat of mass destruction over all our heads. Those who have the psychological strength and stamina to undertake the withdrawal-and-return--to live dangerously to some purpose--are the fortunate ones. Whether or not a creative minority comes into existence as a result of their efforts, they live.


Write your visions, dreams. Interpret. Dictionary of Symbols by j.e. Cirlot.

Hone your abilities. Concentration; An Approach To Meditation by Ernest Wood.
Keep a written journal.

 

[prtcool]

Hi!

Thanks for your replies. First of all I will like to clarify my point.

The news I am talking about is the new claim of scientists that man will be able to fabricate artificial life anyday. They claim that the first multicellular organism is not for away.

I think th mthodology that they have suggested seems quiet acceptable. So the possibility of creating arificial life wery much there.

If we presume that a soul exists only in the living(animate matter) then man either manages to fit the soul in the body he has created, or else man doesn't need a soul(as there is no soul), as as scriptures say soul can neither be created nor can it be destroyed. The absence of soul is not possible as being in India, I am almost sure that there is life after death and then a rebirth(whch can not happen without a soul.)

But what if the soul always exists, in everything. In that case man doesn't need to create a soul as Soul is always there.

If everything has a soul, starting from the atoms to everything then probably they have a consciousness and an intelligence. So in one way even atoms have a life.

 

[PFS]

well think on this, if everything has a soul, and there is no singular soul for a singular person, what is the point of individuality... there would then be no soul progression...

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

when you go too far in quantum physics they refer to it as "going down the rabbit hole" and this is because quantum physics, (practically everything we know today physically is based on QP) if taken to its extremes cannot exist without "a greater mind/creator/God" so if this is then true, and we are creations if an Ultimate Creator and we are made of the same fabric of nature, could everything not be interconnect via a soul.

Just a thought,

This assumption is not true. Which empirical theory of quantum mechanics requires the necessity for a "greater mind/creator/God"?

 

[DaveC426913]

If everything has a soul, starting from the atoms to everything then probably they have a consciousness and an intelligence. So in one way even atoms have a life.

Well, if you've defined it that way then yes, in that way it is true.

I think we're having trouble with definitions here. This is not the common agreed-upon definition of a soul. Not that you can't define it whatever way suits you, but to do so turns this thread into an "In my opinion...", on which there is little grounds for debate.

 

[prtcool]

well think on this, if everything has a soul, and there is no singular soul for a singular person, what is the point of individuality... there would then be no soul progression...

If you read the Indian philosophy, all philosophies, whther it be the Buddhist, Jaina or the Vedantic, all accept one fact. The concept of atman and jiva. Atman and Jiva both mean the soul. Where atman refers to that one soul, jiva refers to the individual soul. It is something like a space in the house. The space is one and continuous. This is the atman. But the same space when makes a house it becomes the space of the house(Jiva). Both are correct. Space is one yet space is divided! Buddhism talks about nirvana. This nirvan as I perceive it, is the breaking up of this house, the ego.

What you have asked is the very basic question of indian philosophy and all Indian religions are centered around this basic question. The question of individuality.

 

[prtcool]

Just read some bit of indian philosophy on wikipedia, it might help you to answer this question. There are different traditions and thinkings in indian philosophy. Some say there is no soul(Charvaka), some say everyone has a separate soul, some say that there are two things in this universe(God and the soul(Dvaita)) and some talk about ust one singular soul(Advaita). If you ever get time just read on these topics. They are interesting!

 

[prtcool]

Well, if you've defined it that way then yes, in that way it is true.

I think we're having trouble with definitions here. This is not the common agreed-upon definition of a soul. Not that you can't define it whatever way suits you, but to do so turns this thread into an "In my opinion...", on which there is little grounds for debate.

Lets begin with the question, what is the soul. This question is as puzzling as what is life. Till now there exists no standard definition of life. Probably our differentiation of things in the living and non living is wrong due to which we have not yet come to a common definition of life.

Soul essentially refers to the consciousness. Moreover in Indian context it also is indestructible, and non creatable.
If you can create soul then it is equal to saying that no soul exists. Is soul a software, an operating system?
No it can't be, as softwares can be created.

 

[prtcool]

As my question is "Does everything have life?"

For me life means intelligence. So my question can be reframed as "Are electrons intelligent?"

Now the question comes "What is intelligence?"

Now I will like to ask from all of you what is intelligence. And thus are electrons intelligent?

 

[DaveC426913]

Soul essentially refers to the consciousness. Moreover in Indian context it also is indestructible, and non creatable.

But these are simply declarations; they're not properties.

We can't draw meaningful conclusions from labels we put on things ourselves.

 

[minorwork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

Here be a little about panpsychism. I identify with this and solipsism. Ingest food and take out of it the "mindstuff" somehow suited for my existence, then return by the various forms of elimination what's left for other stages of life. Maybe like the economy that thrives by keeping money in motion.

 

[prtcool]

I think I am ultimately coming to a kind of conclusion that everything really has life(consciousness) and that forces are merely an interaction between these conscious particles. There is only one force the force of intelligence. The way I influence someone else, it is the same way in which probably the sun influences the moon. Sun may be as conscious(or even more) as us. Probably th sun god whom many worship is not a mere symbolization but truth.

I love to write a self made quote:

"The whole universe is a society and science a mere sociology"

Comments invited on the statement.

 

[PeteKL]

Your question seems pointless. You know that no one can answer this question satisfactorily. If a rock has a soul..it has a soul, if a leaf has a soul..it also has a soul..if the stars above have souls then they have a soul, if the winds have souls so they have souls. What difference does it make to you or anyone else if they have souls or not? Pick up a rock and think to it "you look cute and I care for you" and bless its soul. That is a good deed.

 

[prtcool]

Your question seems pointless. You know that no one can answer this question satisfactorily. If a rock has a soul..it has a soul, if a leaf has a soul..it also has a soul..if the stars above have souls then they have a soul, if the winds have souls so they have souls. What difference does it make to you or anyone else if they have souls or not? Pick up a rock and think to it "you look cute and I care for you" and bless its soul. That is a good deed.

It makes a huge difference, whether everything has a soul or not. To say that everything has life means to say that the whole universe is conscious and intelligent. The universe is not accidental but rather intelligent. And if the universe is intelligent then the way the scientific enqiery is made needs to be changed...

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, perhaps it's me...

Can you just give me a recap of the logic that went into determiniing that lifeless objects have life and/or lifeless objects have souls?

 

[Evo]

Agreed, I don't see the point in continuing this.