You are a conscience, you are not you

Posted on Updated on

Neurons, atoms, chemicals that’s what makes up the earth, the universe, the sun, the stars but do they make up us? The idea of a soul or some kind of ghost like self within our physical body of mass, is not a new one, nor is it dismissed as insane. But I just can’t believe it. I mean looking from a realism perspective I must assume that everything in existence is observable, in some sense. Now I don’t mean that everything that exists can be seen by the naked eye, in fact I am not discriminating against the other senses at all. As smell and touch are equally as ‘true’ as site. What I mean is what is deemed true in existence is what has sensory observability, e.g planes, birds, stars and pasta. Arguably various scientific theories such as the multiple universe theory suggest that our finite senses don’t allow us access to observation of everything, I mean I can’t ‘see’ numerous universes, but if enough substantial evidence was posed in favour of such a theory then I would consider it potentially correct.

So back to the original preposition, do we have a soul? When looking at ourselves in a materialist sense, I.e a bundle of biology, it proves no more ludicrous to assert ourselves to obtaining a ‘soul’ than to conclude that my radiator has a soul since both objects are no more than a combination of atoms functioning in a specific way. Of course our brains are far more complex than a radiator but does that really progress to the resultant conclusion of a soul? Of course not, where is the evidence that complexity evokes the need for a soul? Well I guess our ‘conscience’ our dillusioned sense of free will and ‘spirit’ I shan’t discuss free will, as I have in a previous post. But the concept of a soul, to me, comes under the same category as the sense of free will that is that they are both ‘illusions’ our conscience or moreover just ‘conscience’ is as a result of billions of neurons and the atoms they are made up of creating a persistent illusion of ‘self’ I am no more a being than a radiator. Infact ‘I’ do not exist. No one does. We are all just complex constructions.

That may sound somber but surprisingly it isn’t all doom and gloom, it means we can never die because there is no ‘we’ and any sense of ‘death’ is just a break down in the atoms and neurons that have created the embodiment of a highly complex structure. It also means that the possibility of existence is almost infinite as it relies on no more than a collection of substances. For example if programmed correctly, with the right atoms and components it would be possible to make a fully functioning ‘human’ with just as much rights as any other natural biological person. To conclude we are no more advanced than artificial intelligence, and we have no say, in anything, even the perception of a ‘self’ is formed from biology. We are not. But conscience is.

3 thoughts on “You are a conscience, you are not you

    Whittlin Rich said:
    October 16, 2013 at 1:12 am

    Just adding some debate if you’re interested:

    You state that everything in existence must be observable, by some mechanism, in order to be considered real. You also state that the universe is comprised of neurons, atoms, and chemicals. Have you personally observed that everything in the universe is comprised of neurons, atoms, and chemicals?

    If you haven’t made these observations yourself, how do you know they’re true? It sounds like you’re basing these assumptions on faith — faith that society teaches absolute truth. Historically, didn’t past-society teach things that are opposed to our current understanding? This being the case, it seems a bit shortsighted to assume that current-society knows the absolute truth about the universe. It may very well turn out that future civilizations laugh at our current understanding of the universe.

    Also, it seems like you agree with the idea of a “soul” in the sense that lifeforms never completely end — they just continue in some form forever. Also, not everyone defines “soul” in the same way, perhaps there are other definitions you agree with.

      Mental Pixelation said:
      October 17, 2013 at 12:24 am

      I haven’t seen every of anything.. i dont think. So of course, no i haven’t observed the neurons, atoms and chemicals of everything in the universe, but similarly i’ve NEVER seen a ‘soul’, ever. I’m not basing my assumptions on faith per-say but on realist truth ideas. I have had the chance to view first hand the neurons within a brain through a scanner, and to investigate cells under microscopes so it is from experience and observation that I derive the idea of everything having these qualities (neurons atoms and chemicals). I mean it would make no sense to for some reason assume that two identical objects would have different properties. For example it is almost objectively considered that humans are immortal, but not one person making that claim has any personal proof, just logical reasoning. It happened to all other humans that have existed before me, so it is unnecessary to assume it’ll be different for me. So i feel confident in assigning what I have witnessed with regards to atoms within certain objects to other objects in the universe, why wouldn’t I?

      I dont agree with the idea of a soul in any sense. I believe matter is energy, and energy cant disappear, it cant. so since we are made up of energy from atoms, when the functioning and co-ordination of these atoms stop, we ciese to exist as ‘humans’ anymore. the components that were once combined to create us are now separated. If for example an ice cube melted, its atoms of h20 would remain in existence, but in a different form, this isnt the ice cubes soul, this is h20. words such as ‘human’ ‘dog’ or ‘sock’ are just labels of collections of atoms.

        Whittlin Rich said:
        October 17, 2013 at 1:21 am

        You have faith in a belief that your senses are accurate and capable of perceiving an absolute truth. And, you have faith in a belief that your logical assumptions are in fact logical.

        But wouldn’t you agree that our senses are suboptimal at perceiving the totality of what’s out there? And wouldn’t you agree that our senses are often fooled (optical illusions and such)? And wouldn’t you agree that you’ve made logic errors at some point in your life? What this means is, that you cannot be sure of anything — so your confidence is in itself a logic error.

        In regards to a “soul”, you’ve already stated that you believe the elements of the body exist before and after a body lives within the world. In other words, the body is comprised of eternal components. In that sense, it appears that you align with some aspects of a “soul”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s