- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If we talk about empirical evidence for the existence of the soul, then it is obvious that they do not exist, and it is unlikely that they can be based on the very definition of the soul as something immaterial.�
And if we talk about philosophical ones, then any such proof is based on the denial of the extremely unpleasant and difficult to perceive statement by a person that he is just a collection of atoms and particles that make up him.
So the existence of the soul is proved, as they say, “from the opposite.” If there is no soul, then a person is just such a complex mechanism with a complete lack of free will. However, we feel with all our being that we still have true freedom, and therefore there is something that gives it to us.
Before proving that an entity or phenomenon actually exists, it is necessary to specifically determine what this entity or phenomenon actually is.
Attention question: What is the soul?�
In fact, there are a lot of options.
A soul in the form of a semi-transparent silhouette of a person with the ability to see, hear, and move in a reflective reality? It is unlikely that such objects exist, otherwise they would have already been found.
Or the totality of the brain's thought processes? Well, these processes definitely exist and are being diligently studied.
Some entity that retains the consciousness of the individual after its death? Who knows? Technically, if there is a certain carrier, then the information (which is essentially a person – a complement of information) can somehow be saved. But so far, no media capable of storing this information has been detected. And without a carrier, according to the current ideas of science, information objectively does not exist.
No, of course not. simply because it is impossible to prove the existence of something immaterial. and philosophical “proofs” are inevitably logically defective, an example of this is in the thread.
Intangible and (potentially) the immortal basis of a person's personality from the point of view of science, of course, exists-it is his culture and genotype. They are immaterial (like any information) , but they define a person's life.
The immortality of the “soul” in this sense is also quite obvious from a scientific point of view: we, together with our loved ones, reproduce our culture and genes in our descendants.
Yes, and many religious requirements “love your neighbor as yourself and save your soul” are also quite justified from this point of view, since the “neighbor” genotype coincides by 99.9%, and the cultural code (language, traditions, education) is usually not less than half.
As Clive Lewis said, ” You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body ” (you have no soul, you are the soul. You have a body ). In general, there is a brain that gives signals to our limbs, thanks to which we carry out all actions. All chemical reactions that occur in the brain and are our feelings, experiences, thoughts, etc. In fact, some people call it the soul.
But there is no scientific proof like this.
As soon as we clearly define what we are looking for, we will immediately be able to formulate a proof with mathematical rigor.
And the philosophical-dialectical definition of the soul is an ever-self-moving principle.
“Mythological passions make us rage around the problem of the “soul”and”body. From a life point of view, it would seem that everything is completely clear. Only a madman can mistake a chair for a living thing, and a living thing for an inanimate object. Nevertheless, many people really want there to be no soul in anything anywhere.
The body is inanimate, but it lives and moves. The question is: why does this thing or process A move? They will say: because it is driven by another thing or process B. Good. But why is B moving? Because it's driven by C. But how long do we have to reduce one movement to another? It can be reduced either infinitely or a finite number of times. Let's assume that is infinite. In this case, obviously, we will never get to the source of the movement, and not only will we not answer the question about this source, but we will also recognize in principle that there can be no such answer (because, in the very sense of infinity, we and no one else can ever make an infinite amount of information from one movement to another). However, let's assume that it is necessary to reduce one movement to another a certain finite number of times in order to get the true source of movement. We reduced A to B, B to C, and so on up to X. In X, we assume that we have found a sufficient explanation for the motion of A. What does it mean? This means that X no longer gets a push to move from anywhere, and that it, therefore,�moves itself. But that which moves itself, which is always self-moving, is the soul. Therefore, either you preach absolute agnosticism and do not know how to explain the movement of a thing; or you know how to explain a given movement, but then somewhere, sometime, somehow you have recognized the existence of the soul. Denying the existence of the soul is, therefore, just dialectical nonsense. “(Losev A., Dialectics of myth)
There is also experimental evidence, which consists in the fact that the body is perceived in a living experience as an object of knowledge. But it is impossible to see the binoculars themselves with binoculars. And it is impossible to be a subject who perceives the body (soul) how to reduce” mine ” to an object that it owns and looks at as if from the outside. Subject and object are different entities. If we call the object the body, then the subject is the soul.