My primary question about the soul is when exactly does it "start" or enter the body? For those who believe in this concept it is an important concept because of the discoveries in stem cell research and cloning. If a soul enters the zygote and then splits into identical twins what happens to the soul? Does each have half a soul, or what if two fertilized eggs meld together forming a single zygote?


If there is such a thing as a soul when does it begin, if ever, and how does it come into control of our bodies?

Some supplemental questions:  since the soul 'loses' its individuality when the body dies, and since it cannot haqve one before it is individuated in a body, why and HOW does it change from its non-corporeal state on incorporation?   How does it interact with the extensive physical processes that constitute the workings of the mind?  Why do different religions have different sorts of souls (or if they haven't why do the religions imply they don't)?

Assuming that a soul exists eternally, please define what you mean by 'eternally' and how the idea of existence fits with this.  As far as our normal usage and beliefs (ie everyday acceptance of the world, not Beliefs) existence applies to the actual world of space and time...  so what is soul-existence?   If the soul does not 'control' our bodies or have any causal effect on our actions or thoughts, what does it do?


Yea, I have problems trying to use words to talk about an imaginary idea.  However, as far as I can see, souls may well be individuated by the bodies they inhabit, but after death they no longer have any connection with the body, they have no human traits whatsoever, they all think feel and 'do' the same, so how are they individuated?


So what does a soul actually DO?  How does it come to have an influence on what we are observed to do?


Ducking the rhetorical bits... (a) we can account for differences in political parties, genders, classes, cultures in purely naturalistic ways.  (b)  Different systems of philosophy certainly vary in their explanations of the world, but all (respectable ones!) accept they may be wrong.  However, religion claims The Truth.  Yet a Muslim soul is inferior to a Christian one to a Christian, and Vice versa.  How is this so?  (c) I think that all of mankind agrees that there is a physical world with which we interact, that time is unidirectional as we apprehend it, that objects are composed of smaller objects down to a certain level, that certain wavelengths of light are viewed as certain colours (ALL mankind has only a small range of agreement here), that things fall to earth when dropped relatively close to the earth, etc.

I am grateful for your critiques of my questions, but how about trying to give some account of what this strange entity, that you believe exists, in fact is and does?

Thanks for having a go at enlarging on a definition.  Lets hope we can now do a bit of philosophy without either of us falling back into our 'crusty old man' personas!



Obscurantum per obscurantiorem - explaining the obscure by the more obscure.  A state without time is as the dear departed RF would have explained is one without change.  Souls (and God) therefore do not change in any way....?  Which means they do not act, think, feel etc.

[/quote]
Provides the root of our conscience and contributes to everything that makes you uniquely you (not materially)[/quote]

But I am uniquely me in a very material sense.  Including my personality which is instantiated in my physical brain.  As a medical man you know full well that damge to the brain can damage ALL parts of ones personality - INCLUDING the conscience - whatever that may be in terms of this discussion.   I understand ones conscience to be the underlying set of values that have some bearing upon how one acts: these can be phylogenetic - inherited in you will - in that humans are social animals and have a disposition to act co-operatively, thus roviding a framework for detailed behaviour; or ontogenetic - 'culturally acquired' if you will.

You claim not to know about a hierarchy of souls, but IF the mysterious inhabitation of a foetus by something that will become its conscience is effected by something that is outwith that foetus' DNA and human environment and IF that thing is somehow imbued with an eternal 'true' set of values, why then do people of different religions act differently?  We cannot deny a difference in values between say Jew and Christian, so presumably we must deny one of the conditionals....



You asked (rhetorically) 'what does humanity agree on?'  I answered.  I presume your rhetorical point is that since there are topics that humanity disagrees on, then the subjects on these topics are real.  That is not a very good argument... which is possibly why it was phrased only as a rhetorical question?

It works both ways, BTW, subparticles are not directly observable, nor are numbers, physical laws, and abstractions of all kinds.  Yet humanity agrees on a great deal of these too.  I would not deduce from this that EVERYTHING abstract is non-existent.

I thought we were here to exchange opinions and points of view to foster an honest, forthright and mature attempt at having a greater understanding of where we come from.....if we want to digress to backhanded sarcasm then I see no point at even trying.

Indeed, my point, in case you missed it, was that the concept of the soul is not based on any evidence whatsoever. Hence all of this debate is pointless since you (Patton) don't have to deal with evidence from reality.

Than you Patton.   So I can expect some sort of reply to the rather longer post concerning your points?