In researching further in an attempt to make a decision on the matter I have discovered that a personal year's subscription to the online OED is $295.00 (or if you'd prefer, a low monthly rate of $29.95).
That was pretty much my first answer but I wanted a better definition of supernatural. My thought was that if it was intrinsic (as a soul is generally considered to be) it was natural.
According to the definitions I've found so far it has to do with observability and/or connection to a deity/magical entity/magical experience. Hence I'm now leaning towards supernatural but I'm still digging so I haven't answered yet.
I strongly believe that all magical phenomena are natural, but not always independently observable due to the sensory and neurological filters that we tend to apply on our surroundings.
I think, in order to make this poll answerable, I'd need specific contextual definitions of "supernatural", "natural" and "soul". I'm assuming that soul means a person which transcends the body, but then how do we define person in that context? Thoughts and memories, inclinations and personality traits?
Using Carrier's definition of "supernaturalism" as believing that there are are ontologically basic mental things (that is, those that don't rely on non-mental things for their operation). A soul is usually one of those mental things, as far as I can tell. Some people use it to mean "mind", in which it's not supernatural, assuming materialists are right.
Oh ok. In which case that which you call conciousness I would probably call the soul - or I that's what I would understand it to mean in most contexts. (not that I could tell you what is MRI-able but I suspect that most things are, if not now then in theory).
According to most major religions, the Soul continues to exist beyond the death of the body. MRI-able conciousness ceases to exist at the point of death.
Hmm yes this is kind of like 'do you believe in god'; there are really too many questions that spring from it for an a/b answer.
I answered natural because that's more true than the other option and also I wanted to see the results. To me, your soul is your inner sense of being, mixed with your personality, your nature, your thoughts, your behaviours, your dreams (day- and night-) and all that area of the human condition that cannot accurately be written down - such as the reason you love someone is because of their 'soul'; you can't really logically explain it. All of this blatently exists or we would not be able to have this discussion. Therefore I wouldn't call it supernatural.
Belief in a soul which transcends and out/prelives the physical body, however, I suppose I would call supernatural in the sense that I think you mean it.
Sounds about right to me - It does depend very much on what people mean by "soul".
You might be interest to know that there's now a half-decent understanding of how attraction/love works - including some fascinating results from brainscans of people who are in love.
I've read various theories of how it works - generally Metro-lite type articles. Not sure if they're the same ones but I have a distant memory of reading them from one of your links to begin with. That may be inaccurate thought, if you want to repost?
There are lots of _theories_ about how it's advantageous to have long-term mates for raising children, especially when human babies are very "expensive" to raise compared to (say) kittens.
Imagine that there's a genetic disposition to go "Awwww, it's so cute! I wanna baby too!"
Imagine that you have it, but I don't.
I don't have any kids, because to me they're just little goblins. You think they're amazing and smell lovely, so you have three of them.
The end result is that the gene for wanting kids is passed onto the new generation, while the gene for not wanting kids vanishes into the mists of time, never to be seen again.
Obviously this is a vast oversimplification - but you can see the mechanism there, yes?
There's very unlikely to be one gene for it - and cultural things come into it a lot too.
Mind you, cultural stuff can work in the same way - if your culture believes that children are icky and should be avoided then you'll be outbred by neighbouring ones sharpish.
Anyway - I've read a bunch of stuff about child-rearing, etc. but not seen anything definitive. Not surprising at this point in our understanding of the human brain. Another 10-20 years I suspect for this kind of thing to be nailed down.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
According to the definitions I've found so far it has to do with observability and/or connection to a deity/magical entity/magical experience. Hence I'm now leaning towards supernatural but I'm still digging so I haven't answered yet.
no subject
I think I'm mapping metaphysical -> supernatural. If it's not metaphysical, it's not a soul.
no subject
If it is merely metaphysical it doesnt really exist and therfore cannot be either natural or supernatural.
no subject
By Definition
2 Aretha is the Queen Of Soul
3 Do i need to go on?
no subject
no subject
I think, in order to make this poll answerable, I'd need specific contextual definitions of "supernatural", "natural" and "soul". I'm assuming that soul means a person which transcends the body, but then how do we define person in that context? Thoughts and memories, inclinations and personality traits?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
MRI-able conciousness ceases to exist at the point of death.
no subject
I answered natural because that's more true than the other option and also I wanted to see the results. To me, your soul is your inner sense of being, mixed with your personality, your nature, your thoughts, your behaviours, your dreams (day- and night-) and all that area of the human condition that cannot accurately be written down - such as the reason you love someone is because of their 'soul'; you can't really logically explain it. All of this blatently exists or we would not be able to have this discussion. Therefore I wouldn't call it supernatural.
Belief in a soul which transcends and out/prelives the physical body, however, I suppose I would call supernatural in the sense that I think you mean it.
Lxx
no subject
You might be interest to know that there's now a half-decent understanding of how attraction/love works - including some fascinating results from brainscans of people who are in love.
no subject
Are there any articles on why, as opposed to how?
no subject
There are lots of _theories_ about how it's advantageous to have long-term mates for raising children, especially when human babies are very "expensive" to raise compared to (say) kittens.
no subject
no subject
Imagine that there's a genetic disposition to go "Awwww, it's so cute! I wanna baby too!"
Imagine that you have it, but I don't.
I don't have any kids, because to me they're just little goblins. You think they're amazing and smell lovely, so you have three of them.
The end result is that the gene for wanting kids is passed onto the new generation, while the gene for not wanting kids vanishes into the mists of time, never to be seen again.
Obviously this is a vast oversimplification - but you can see the mechanism there, yes?
no subject
no subject
Mind you, cultural stuff can work in the same way - if your culture believes that children are icky and should be avoided then you'll be outbred by neighbouring ones sharpish.
Anyway - I've read a bunch of stuff about child-rearing, etc. but not seen anything definitive. Not surprising at this point in our understanding of the human brain. Another 10-20 years I suspect for this kind of thing to be nailed down.
no subject
no subject
-- Steve'd change his vote if there was some way to detect them other than by hand-waving means.