Soulless ones

[Sinjob]

Originally Posted by Xenophile

I don't believe all humans are born with souls. I think some people are just empty inside, never had or never will have a soul. Do you think this is possible, that there are only so many souls available?

Generally it's placed like an all or nothing statment. It's unrealistic if you're gonna say some people aren't born with souls, when the bigger question is if they exist or not.

[Xenophile]

Originally Posted by Sinjob

Generally it's placed like an all or nothing statment. It's unrealistic if you're gonna say some people aren't born with souls, when the bigger question is if they exist or not.

Well, that's the thing. I'm asking based on the assumption there is such a thing as a human soul, for you to entertain the possibility, then consider that some people lack them. That is, not lost their souls, just never had one "issued" to them, so to speak, then to consider the implications, if any.

[Mir]

Why would you make such an assumption?

[Sinjob]

Originally Posted by Xenophile

Well, that's the thing. I'm asking based on the assumption there is such a thing as a human soul, for you to entertain the possibility, then consider that some people lack them. That is, not lost their souls, just never had one "issued" to them, so to speak, then to consider the implications, if any.

You didn't phrase it that way. And if you had it would have saved a shitload of threadspace ;P

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Xenophile

Well, that's the thing. I'm asking based on the assumption there is such a thing as a human soul, for you to entertain the possibility, then consider that some people lack them. That is, not lost their souls, just never had one "issued" to them, so to speak, then to consider the implications, if any.

It's no more than idle talk unless you can define this "soul" thing and identify some way to detect them. What we would need to establish that any such thing exists in the first place is, not cooincidentally, exactly what we would need to be able to go around establishing that this person has one, and that person doesn't. And it should go without saying that it's meaningless to talk about the "implications" of something without having some clue what that thing is to begin with.

The only things in the real world I can think of that you might be talking about are personality and conscience. Everybody has a personality, even if it's not one that turns you on. For a person to call another "souless" because they lack affinity probably reflects more negatively on the first person than the second.

If the popular accounts are to be believed, there is indeed such a thing as a person with no conscience (many famous serial killers being examples). And if they're as common as we hear, it shouldn't be surprising that you have met them here and there.

[Xenophile]

Based on your first paragraph, would you say it's idle talk to discuss such things as dark energy, or dark matter or meaningless to discuss its implications?

Actually I have met two people diagnosed with Anti-Social personality disorder. That's what sociopaths (no conscience) are now called in the DSM IV. And yes, I would say they qualified to me as "soulless" and also as "evil" in terms of harm they did to others and why. I also agree, lacking affinity could reflect on the first person. I have never said that lacking a soul, or affinity, is necessarily a negative thing. Do you think it is?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Xenophile

Based on your first paragraph, would you say it's idle talk to discuss such things as dark energy, or dark matter or meaningless to discuss its implications?

Actually I have met two people diagnosed with Anti-Social personality disorder. That's what sociopaths (no conscience) are now called in the DSM IV. And yes, I would say they qualified to me as "soulless" and also as "evil" in terms of harm they did to others and why. I also agree, lacking affinity could reflect on the first person. I have never said that lacking a soul, or affinity, is necessarily a negative thing. Do you think it is?

Then none of us have "souls". Do you know anyone who has never felt apathy? Do you know anyone who hasn't done an evil? If a person is mentally ill, they are mentally ill, ultimately responsible for their actions but there is reason behind their madness, which is more than a lot of other people can say, when they hurry past an arguing couple in the street who sound like they might get violent or shrug off a news report on mass genocide in a far away continent. Their disorder is our own disorder amplified.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Xenophile

Somehow I doubt that. Feeling apart from and not wanting to be part of the rest of the human race doesn't completely qualify one, at least I hope not. Do you feel pain when children suffer, get pissed off when others don't seem to care?

You may be talking about people who doesn't have feelings, which is quite possible.

Originally Posted by Xenophile

Based on your first paragraph, would you say it's idle talk to discuss such things as dark energy, or dark matter or meaningless to discuss its implications?

Dark energy? Dark matter? What do they have to do with this?

[the-nihilist]

He's asking that since it's pointless to talk about souls since we don't know if they exist, that the same could be said of dark matter and dark energy.

[Saya]

I didn't see any discussions bout dark matter and dark energy.

[Mir]

That's cause you ain't gawficks enough.

[the-nihilist]

Your brain is composed of grey matter. Grey matter is part normal matter and part dark matter. Like black and white.

[Cyntrox]

Oh, damn... It seems the thread started is right. There is indeed soulless ones. I guess they are in hiding, waiting for the zombie acocalypse.

[the-nihilist]

In my opinion, everyone else on the planet is being controlled by aliens and I'm the only one left with free will. I will have to tread carefully if I want to survive.

[Xenophile]

Originally Posted by Saya

Then none of us have "souls". Do you know anyone who has never felt apathy? Do you know anyone who hasn't done an evil? If a person is mentally ill, they are mentally ill, ultimately responsible for their actions but there is reason behind their madness, which is more than a lot of other people can say, when they hurry past an arguing couple in the street who sound like they might get violent or shrug off a news report on mass genocide in a far away continent. Their disorder is our own disorder amplified.

Good point. But I would contend that feeling apathy, or doing an "evil" is necessary to having a soul. How else would you understand what empathy and "good" are?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Xenophile

Good point. But I would contend that feeling apathy, or doing an "evil" is necessary to having a soul. How else would you understand what empathy and "good" are?

Then there are no "soulless" people as the people you describe as "soulless" just seem to be people who are apathetic or have no desire to mingle with others.

Much of our morality is taught to us, if I grew up as a feral child I doubt I would have a notion of empathy or "goodness". I think I would have a general sense of other and self and how what I do affect others, and how I act towards others will be determined by these learning experiences as a lot of animals seem to understand "Okay when I bite her she gets upset, I shouldn't bite her anymore." It does not necessitate the existence of a soul.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Xenophile

Based on your first paragraph, would you say it's idle talk to discuss such things as dark energy, or dark matter or meaningless to discuss its implications?

That's not quite right. You should ask me a more specific question, like whether I think it's idle talk to discuss the proposition that some dark energy is negatively charged, and some dark energy is positively charged. The answer to that question is "Yes". Until we're sure that the stuff even exists and have some notion of what it is, it's silly to talk about nitty gritty details.

It's an interesting choice of analogy though. Our reasons for supposing that dark energy and dark matter exist, if my understanding of cosmology is correct, are purely inferential. That still makes puts them on a little better footing than something like souls or ghosts, but it's pretty thin. I feel some trepidation saying this, since I'm way out of my field, but dark energy and dark matter do rub me wrong, philosophically. They have the look of theoretical bandaids. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went the way of luminiferous aether and the cosmological constant at some point.

I have never said that lacking a soul, or affinity, is necessarily a negative thing. Do you think it is?

The idea of lacking a soul is pretty much meaningless to me. For people to lack affinity with each other does seem a bit of a shame. Not a moral failure on anyone's part, necessarily, but unfortunate. People tend to treat each other better when they can relate to at least a certain extent.

[Raptor]

The cosmological constant isn't gone...

And dark matter is a term used because of gravitational effects that can't be attributed to observable matter in the universe. Something is causing it, even if it's exact nature is unknown, like an unknown in an equation. Some minor contributions have been observed more directly from faint objects, but the majority is unseen and assumed to be non-baryonic. Rotation rates of spiral galaxies and lensing effects are the kind of observations that detect gravitational effects.

[Mr E Nigma]

Yeah... Dark matter has nothing to do with grey matter or white matter (What you refer to as "normal" matter") And the only difference in color is what the matter is made up of.

Originally Posted by Xenophile

Good point. But I would contend that feeling apathy, or doing an "evil" is necessary to having a soul. How else would you understand what empathy and "good" are?

Xenophile this thread is pointless because you stated in the beginning this was going on the assumption of something. Assumptions are absolutely meaningless and are no basis for anything one would contend as 'significant'.

You can talk back and forth all day about 'ifs' but in the end no one is right or wrong it's a matter of opinion so anything you say to tell someone else they're wrong about something is also pointless because there is no right or wrong. You can contend all you want but it really doesn't matter.

And as a highly apathetic and empathetic person (I have the emotional expression of a rock, yet I know how everyone else around me feels. If you were wondering how that might work. Took me a good year and a half to figure out. Also helped me learn why my psychologist was confused when I turned up negative for bipolarity.) Due to certain life experiences it is quite hard for me to feel emotions towards things. It's why I'm a bit better at thinking logically and reasoning things out in my head. But, when I'm near someone who is horrible sad or in an extremely giddy mood, I sort of emulate the same feelings. On occasion, without knowing someone was in another room crying I all of a sudden burst into tears due to some overwhelming sadness that hit me out of nowhere. Tears were pouring down my face and people looked at me quite shocked (Unlike my crying friend I wasn't in a room where I was alone) and I had no idea what was going on with me, when I met some other people and did some online/library research I figured out what was going on.

Point is, I know apathy to a horribly extreme degree. But, just because a person has never felt something doesn't mean they know it exists. There are plenty of cases where a person could be horrible and treat other people like shit and have no idea what their doing is wrong.

And who said an apathetic person had to know what empathy was. Unless experienced or shown what it was they very well can go through life having no idea what empathy is.

The thought is that good can't exist without evil and vice versa. But, that doesn't mean a "good" person has to know what "evil" is. Monks sheltered their whole lives might have absolutely no concept of good or evil, but based on what they do you would judge them, most likely as good people. Good and evil is all perception and opinions.... And just because you sense "nothing" in a person, if you do want to get supernatural and get into souls, etc... Who's to say they don't just have an extremely small aura? Some people just fly under the radar. There just there... chillin' or whatever you want to call it.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Raptor

The cosmological constant isn't gone...

Last I had heard, it was basically in the theoretical rubbish bin. I wasn't aware that the concept has been revived until your post prompted me to go look it up. I guess that puts me about a decade behind the times, but like I said it's not my field. Thanks for the correction.

And dark matter is a term used because of gravitational effects that can't be attributed to observable matter in the universe. Something is causing it, even if it's exact nature is unknown, like an unknown in an equation. Some minor contributions have been observed more directly from faint objects, but the majority is unseen and assumed to be non-baryonic. Rotation rates of spiral galaxies and lensing effects are the kind of observations that detect gravitational effects.

I don't have time to educate myself on these things properly ATM, but I also skimmed some stuff on dark matter etc. online and got the impression that it's on much more solid ground than I was aware. So I was probably just plain wrong on that point too. I should have given science the same level of trust that I usually do.

Let me see if I can salvage a point though. I'd say that when you have a model which makes prediction X, and your observations are telling you not X but Y, you're on very thin ice if your answer is to invent out of whole cloth entity Z such that X + Z = Y, until such time as you have independant lines of evidence for Z. This is the boat I thought we were in with dark matter until today.

To bring that back around to the original topic, if it's the case, for example, that our only reason for supposing that dark energy exists is as a kludge to bridge the gap between our predicted value for the rate of expansion of the universe and our observed value for that rate, then I would regard dark energy with almost the same suspicion that I direct at the idea of "souls". The fact that the former comes from a scientific context and the latter from a context of superstition is basically beside the point.

[Mr E Nigma]

The context of one being scientific and one being superstitious is the point.

And you're X+Z=Y reference doesn't really work well with that analogy, although it'd probably be spot on with goat/spider silk and that cloth being able to stop bullets. Whoever thought to put the protein from spider silk in a goat.. to produce goat/spider milk and extract the silky threads... genius.

[Drake Dun]

I'm not following you, and I think it's because we're not talking about the same thing. What I'm saying is that propositions are to be accepted or rejected in accordance with the same standards regardless of the circumstances surrounding their formulation.

The X+Y=Z shpeel has no direct relevance to the analogy between souls and dark matter, as such (is that the one you were referring to?). It's just there to show you one way you can wind up with a proposition as vacuous as the claim that people have souls even though your context is that you're attacking a basically scientific problem. So if you have an equation describing some real world phenomenon, and your equation is broken, and you just inject a magic number chosen on no basis other than your own desire to fudge the equation, you're already halfway to claiming that bread turns into Jesus giblets even though it keeps having all the physical characteristics of bread.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

To bring that back around to the original topic, if it's the case, for example, that our only reason for supposing that dark energy exists is as a kludge to bridge the gap between our predicted value for the rate of expansion of the universe and our observed value for that rate, then I would regard dark energy with almost the same suspicion that I direct at the idea of "souls". The fact that the former comes from a scientific context and the latter from a context of superstition is basically beside the point.

It's not that there is expansion, it's that there's an accelerating expansion and that requires a source of pressure or force. The nuclear and electromagnetic forces aren't causing it, and gravity though it does work on large scale is attractive only. So there must be another force that acts on large (as in between galaxies size) scales and provides a repulsive force enabling acceleration. As it turned out, the cosmological constant mathematically suggests that such a thing exists. So it wasn't really injected, that equation existed before the acceleration was discovered.