Three questions....for whomever happens upon this

[shadowkat]

Bored. Beyond bored at work. Then I came home to well a virtual waterfall outside my kitchen window - it was so bad, water leaked in my window and all the windows underneath it - apparently the water overflowed the gutters. What happened? The sky opened up and dumped buckets of water on us in the space of an hour - 4.5 inches to be exact. Never seen anything quite like it. Was drenched to the bone running, with an umbrella, under trees, the two blocks from my bodega to my house - a scant five minute walk. Yikes.

Ugh. Can't think of a dang thing to write about. You ever feel as if all your words have been pulled out of your skull? OR rather all the nice words, leaving only the angsty bitchy ones? What can I say, it's been one of those...weeks? days? The future feels grim. And I really wouldn't have minded all that much if the bus hurtling down the street in the drenching rain had hit me and knocked me out of me misery (and hopefully not to one of the 20 hells - according to a guy at work - the Chinese believe there are 20 different hells, hmmm maybe this is one of them? That would explain a lot come to think of it...or just one of the purgatories?) - but no such luck - best it did was throw a bunch of dirty water at me.

I'd do a meme but meme's rarely get responses they just breed new memes on others journals.
Not that this will get a response. People, I've discovered, respond to the oddest things. I can't predict it. I've given up. Okay not true. My analytical brain analyzes human behavior whether I want it to or not. It can't help itself. Even if it is wrong 80% of the time.

Anywho...I'll just ask questions....about stuff I've been pondering and would like to hear a voice outside of my own internal one contemplate for a while.

1. Nature or nuture? I love this debate - mostly because I think it's both not one or the other. You can make a valid argument both ways. ie. That human personality is based on DNA and biology. Or that human personality is developed by experience and environment.
This brings up another question, I've been pondering - why do people think it has to be one or the other? Why not both? Come to think of it, why do we, not all of us, but a lot of us, tend to well...drift to extremes? Or broad generalizations? Categorizing stuff constantly.
Is it a desire to understand? OR rather to make sense out of something?

2. Do you believe in souls? That humans have them? If so, why. If not, why. (Actually, I should ask how do you define souls - because not everyone defines it in the same way and that does make a huge difference. You can after all be an athesist and still believe in souls - you just may not define them in a religious context. Semantics give me headache sometimes.)

And more to the point - how do you handle literature, television shows, and films in which the writer clearly does believe in souls and it is a main ingredient of the story? Do you ignore it? Accept it as part of that universe? Question it? Or go find something else?

What if the writer's or artist's definition of a soul is different than yours?

This is a huge thing in fantasy stories that involve vampires and creatures who are separated from humans based on whether or not they have a soul. The book I'm currently reading (Kim Harrison's Rachel Morgan novels) really uses souls as an ingredient. But it is not necessarily defined in a religious context. The soul is defined as the energy that holds the mind and body together, keeps the mind sane. Without it, the mind doesn't care and tries to convince the body to kill itself. In fact the mind doesn't care about much of anything - it just craves it's lost soul - and undead vampires who are soulless take a bit of someone else's aura/soul when they take blood in order to stay sane. To keep the intergrity of their mind. It's an illusion but it keeps them together. In this book, people give a portion of their soul to another person when they make love or share a part of themselve, whether in a kiss, a hug, an act of compassion, or exchange of blood. It's not a big deal. You get it back. It regrows. The only religious bit is that you can't find your way into the afterlife without your soul - the mind requires it to hold it together and show it the way. If your mind doesn't go with your soul, the soul dissolves and is gone.

In Whedon's fantasy series - soul was more or less another word for conscience. That voice inside that told people the difference between right and wrong - or more to the point made them care about the difference. It's a dicey question. People think a sociopathic personality is someone who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. Not true.
They know the difference. They just don't care. The television series Dexter actually did a marvelous job of examining that. It's a story about a serial killer who kills serial killers to avoid killing nice people because he's been taught it was wrong. (Dexter really examines the degree in which nurture can effect human behavior. Can change it. In the series - it's indicated that Dexter's environment as a small child caused him to become a sociopathic personality (something happened to him), but his foster father was able to train him to harness those impulses and use them in another way.)

At any rate - in Buffy and Angel - a creature without a soul - knew the difference between right and wrong but did not care. It did not matter to them. Spike was an anamoly of sorts because he did show remorse for attempting to rape the heroine. Something a soulless creature shouldn't have felt. The reason he did - was well - the writers take on a psychological and philosophical debate - which the tv series Dexter is examining and the novel A ClockWork Orange examined - which is - can we teach a sociopathic personality who does not care about the difference between right and wrong to care? Can we change the sociopath? Is it possible? OR should we just kill them for the betterment of society because they are a lost cause? It is biologically impossible for them to change?

In A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess believed it is possible for someone to change, that while state behavioral conditioning was inherently wrong, the sociopathic tendencies of the street punk would change once he learned there was more to life - or that life itself had meaning. Stanely Kubrick disagreed and stated that the punk could not change and would revert back to form once the conditioning was removed.

Whedon takes the middle ground. Stating that the sociopathic personality can be taught to feel remorse, but, that will not mean that they won't do the act. Won't hurt someone.
But once they feel the emotional pain of doing the act - it may motivate them to seek change in themselves. Or not as the case may be. He explores two characters in this regard.
Spike and Angel. But does not really answer the question - leaving fans somewhat frustrated. But I'm not sure the question can be answered. I'm not sure we know. Psychologists have done studies, sure, but nothing that conclusive. People tend to be pretty complex and had to categorize.

But if you don't buy that souls exist - I wonder if the metaphor may have given you difficulty??

Which actually brings up a much broader issues or question, how do you handle a work of art in which you do not believe or support certain parts of the premise or world?

3. Memory loss - to what degree does memory loss or the loss of memory affect personality?
This fascinates me to no end and is a personal kink, I guess. I'm a sucker for a *good* amensia story. But it has to be one that shows how the character has changed and explores this question.

Does the person who lost their memory become someone else? Or are they just forgetful?
Does their entire life change?

If I for example forgot what happened between 2000 and 2007, how would that change me?

There's apparently a new drug out that can erase a victim's memories of an assualt or bad experiences - saw it talked about in the news and on Boston Legal of all places. So if a child is molested/sexually abused by a parent and takes this ruthie like drug - what does that mean - does it mean it never happened?

And can you erase just one memory without erasing all of them? There's an Alfred Bester novel called Demolished Man - where they erase certain aspects of criminals in order to rehabilitate them. Reminds me of lobotomies - which were quite the rage back when Bester wrote the novel. Along with shock therapy.

In the flick Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - bits of a guy's memories are removed - or rather just all traces of this girl he loved. After the flick, a friend and I had a lengthy discussion on whether this was possible. He stated it wasn't - you can't remove one memory without affecting all the others - it would be like pulling a thread out of a tapestry, the memories would unravel.

Emotions are based on memory. How we feel. How we love. How we relate. Our defenses. If I didn't remember people throwing spiders at me, would I still be afraid of spiders or would I be afraid and just not know why? Does the body retain memory as well as the mind? Can our body remember something, our nerves, that our mind forgets? Like walking. When I think about walking - I can't walk. It's the oddest thing. Like when I think about writing I can't write, have to focus on something else...And when I focus on a memory like the name of a song, a person, or a lyric - it often does not come.

What do you think?

Comments

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I didn't really understand your post last night...it seemed to start in one place and moved to another, leaving me a mite confused....
But tonight's is very evocative:
I'm not sure I believe in the memory erasing drug, I think the memory might still be there and they have only erased the connectors accessing the memory, and eventually the brain may find the memories again.
When my Mother had a brain injury they had to cut into her skull to remove the blood clot, and they removed all kinds of 'connectors' (I don't know how this works) but for 6 weeks she remember a few things but had forgotten many more.... And then one morning she actually woke up to find all her memories flooding back. It was kind of amazing.
Of course I'm no brain surgeon and I don't know how these things work (but IMO the brain surgeons are working pretty much in the dark too).

3. I'm not sure if memory really defines who we are, when you see someone w/Alzheimer's they don't remember a lot, but they still seem to be the same person (maybe they aren't the same if you are the one forgotten...).

2. I think I believe that the soul is the eternal infinite aspect of your Self which transcends all the rest. The mind is more subtle than the body, but it (IMO) is still part of the relative material world....
But my definition didn't stop me from appreciating what Joss was saying (I agree w/you I think Joss did kind of equate the soul with the conscience).

Different writers use the soul as a devise in their stories, and they use it in different ways, but the reader (viewer) can pretty easily get the drift of where they are going with it.... It is like any metaphor, you get some percentage of what the writer means mixed in with your own beliefs and experiences.

1. Nature or Nurture? How about neither one? How about Fate? I know, people hate that answer, fate sounds like pre-destination (which is kinda what I mean). It seems to imply a lack of self-determination, but of course DNA implies a certanly lack of self-determination too... wait: so does nurture (it isn't like we have any control over how we were nurtured! LOL).

It is all moot. We have to do the best we can with the lives we lead, it doesn't matter if we believe in God or if we are existentialists or atheists or whatever.... We still have to take it one day at a time, there isn't anyway to skip ahead and check out the ending of the story.

But I'm not sure my thoughts are very organized or well thought out.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I didn't really understand your post last night...it seemed to start in one place and moved to another, leaving me a mite confused....

Yeah, I know. I had troubles clarifying my thoughts in that one.
So I finally just deleted it.

I'm not sure I believe in the memory erasing drug, I think the memory might still be there and they have only erased the connectors accessing the memory, and eventually the brain may find the memories again.

Interesting. That may be what it does - if so, it's not all that different from how the body protects the victim - often repressing or making a painful memory we can't handle inaccessible until someone helps us access it and deal with it.

There's two schools of thought on this - 1)That you should focus on the horrible thing that happened on you, analyze it, come up with a means of coping and understand it. 2) that you should let it go, forget it, and not focus too much on it. It happened. It is over. There's little that you can do regarding it.

I think it depends on the person. The mistake I think people sometimes make is they think one approach or one size fits all. When of course it doesn't. What might have worked for one person most likely won't work for another.

I'm not sure if memory really defines who we are, when you see someone w/Alzheimer's they don't remember a lot, but they still seem to be the same person (maybe they aren't the same if you are the one forgotten...).

Actually they are quite different. Have had two grandparents who have had troubles with memory - not due to Altzeimers but other causes. My grandfather lost most of his memory due to brain tumors - he could remember basic things - like who people were, his name, speaking, stuff like that, but he couldn't handle complex thoughts and no longer remembered certain events. He was confused and very different than the man we'd known. In some ways he was a bit like a child, a toddler. The same thing with my grandmother - her laspes in memory, mostly short term memory, have made her act a lot like a small child. Altzheimers does much the same thing - the person is no longer who you knew, they have bits of their personality - but they are lacking other bits. At least that's been my experience.

I more or less Agree with your take on souls. I believe in them and have ever since I saw my grandmother's dead body about ten years ago. I could tell just by looking at it that it was an empty husk, a shell, which meant she had a soul and her soul had passed on. I wonder if everyone can sense this? I'm guessing not? Or maybe they just think of it/explain it differently? Which is why I really wish people would explain why they don't believe in souls as opposed to just stating they don't as if it were an obvious. Give me a reason.

After I saw my grandmother's body, I did not understand why anyone could not believe in a soul, particularly those who had seen dead bodies. They seem to equate it with believing in God. And I don't think having a soul necessarily means there's a God (although I do believe in God in the general sense). Or an after-life in the terms most religions believe in an after-life. I see a soul as an aura or the energy that gives us life, that makes us who and what we are. When it is gone, we are little more than organic material, a shell. Empty. I can sense it - that's why I believe this - I felt it. It's not a philosophical belief so much as a gut one, if that makes sense. Don't know quite how to explain it without it all sounding nutty as hell.

I assumed everyone could sense it, now beginning to believe maybe not? People are odd - if they can't sense it, see it, feel it, touch it for themselves than it is not real or does not exist. Which may be no different in my certainity that it does based on my experience of it? Although to be honest, I'm not completely certain about anything at the moment. Part of me is waiting for the boring scientific explanation - although the one's I've heard to date I don't find that convincing and just science BS.

My sister-inlaw can see spirtual entities as well as sense them. I just sense it, but luckily can't see it. Thank god. Don't envy people who can see them.

So why do you believe in souls?

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I went through a 'I don't believe in anything' existential/atheist stage when I was in High School, and then in my Freshman year of college I started Transcendental Meditation and I had some experiences of my infinite light that were powerful enough to completely alter my view of everything. Since then I've studied a lot of Eastern philosophy and I kind of subscribe to my own individualized mish-mash of that (a little Buddhism with touches of Hinduism and a lot of the ancient Yoga taught by Parashara).

I did have an experience like yours once: I had read as a child that Louisa May Alcott could see her sister Beth's soul leave her body, and when I was at the bedside of my college friend Bill (who died of AIDS in 1987) I experienced a very strong and tangible sense of Bill's soul expanding to fill the room with his release from the body and his joy.... I knew for certain the exact moment he died, but his Mother and Sister had evidently not noticed anything at all... I was stunned, how could they not have witness what I had? But instead I had to point out that I could no longer get a pulse, so we called in the doctor.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I did have an experience like yours once: I had read as a child that Louisa May Alcott could see her sister Beth's soul leave her body, and when I was at the bedside of my college friend Bill (who died of AIDS in 1987) I experienced a very strong and tangible sense of Bill's soul expanding to fill the room with his release from the body and his joy.... I knew for certain the exact moment he died, but his Mother and Sister had evidently not noticed anything at all... I was stunned, how could they not have witness what I had? But instead I had to point out that I could no longer get a pulse, so we called in the doctor.

I've come to the conclusion that not everyone can see it or experience it.
We're all wired differently - so makes sense. Some are more sensitive to their external enviroment than others or perhaps I should state sensitive to it in a different way?

Don't know.

I went through a 'I don't believe in anything' existential/atheist stage when I was in High School, and then in my Freshman year of college I started Transcendental Meditation and I had some experiences of my infinite light that were powerful enough to completely alter my view of everything.

Have had similar types of experiences - nothing concrete, but enough to make me uncertain. I believe in God, because I've seen evidence of the existence of some entity beyond my comprehension that cannot be explained by logic. And I believe a lot of things are just inexplainable.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

"I've come to the conclusion that not everyone can see it or experience it.
We're all wired differently - so makes sense. Some are more sensitive to their external enviroment than others or perhaps I should state sensitive to it in a different way?"
I think that everyone sees life through a slightly different filter, sensing different things, experiencing the same things differently, and believing in their own experiences (as you said "wired differently". I think that this is why different religions come about, everyone is so sure that their experience is right and that others would benefit from sharing it.
The huge problems arise when trying to impose one belief system on another person, because one size does definitely NOT fit all!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agree.

everyone is so sure that their experience is right and that others would benefit from sharing it.
The huge problems arise when trying to impose one belief system on another person, because one size does definitely NOT fit all!

It's hard to avoid doing that, I think. It's like well...my grandmother used to state that my brother and I had arguments over whether the wall was white or off-white. He'd see white and I'd see off-white and we could not understand why the other didn't see what we did.

Sometimes I think it would be great if everyone experienced the world in the same way. Saw it the same way. But it would also make life incredibly boring and we would get nothing accomplished.

One of the things I enjoyed most about the first, original Star Trek series, was how they explored the different ways people saw things. Spock saw everything logically. Bones emotionally. Same with Buffy - each character brought their own interpretation to the proceedings based on their issues. Willow clearly believed in a god or goddess or sorts, while Buffy was agnostic. Their abilities to see different angles to the same situation made it possible for them to solve it.

I think sharing the information is important. The tough part is trying not to impose your opinion or view onto someone else. I was taught in law school to be persuasive to act like my opinion was gospel or the truth - as a litigator, I struggle not to do that. But it's not easy.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree: that is how a really good ensemble should work, not just being diverse w/age or sex or race, but really diverse in POV.

"The tough part is trying not to impose your opinion or view onto someone else."
My biggest fault is in judging or dismissing other people's arguments or opinions as being their ignorance. It is easy to think 'oh they can't actually BELIEVE that!'.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

My biggest fault is in judging or dismissing other people's arguments or opinions as being their ignorance. It is easy to think 'oh they can't actually BELIEVE that!'.

Mine too. But I think, at least in my case, it is often an expression of frustration.

There's nothing worse than trying to have a discussion with a friend about something you care about and having them interrupt you half-way through with either:

I don't believe in ___.

I don't like ___.

As if everything you've said or felt is completely unimportant and irrelevelant because they just don't care about it enough to discuss.
They don't say why. It's not - oh I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe in that because...or I can't agree with that because...

People...sigh. Can't live with them, can't live without them. And sometimes I feel lonlier surrounded by them or with people than alone in a pine forest with just myself. Lately, very much so.

[fidhle.livejournal.com]

1. I think it is both. Nature provides a basic set of abilities,limitations, and so forth, but the abilities have to be nurtured. No one is born knowing how to do math, or write, or play music.
A person could have the genetic basis to be a great whatever, but if that person never has the ability nurtured, it won't come to pass. Further, some research would indicate that certain abilities have to be nurtured at specific times in the development of the child, or the ability is lost.

2. While I am officially agnostic, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist and don't believe in a soul. I appreciate Joss Whedon's use of soul in Buffy and Angel, and can relate to that as soul equals conscience. One of the great things Whedon did was to avoid the dualistic sense of soulless, and have some creatures without souls who, none the less, were not simply sociopaths. Angel illustrates the dualistic nature of soul vs soulless, while Spike, though soulless, still retains some humanity and thus comes to love and support Buffy over time. Remember when the Judge said that Spike and Dru reeked of humanity while Angelus was clean.

As to how other writers use the term soul, I try to relate to it as they mean it. If I'm watching a play or show written from a Christian viewpoint, I will take that viewpoint into account. As I said, I am officially agnostic and will not say that someone is wrong to believe in either God or a soul, even though I doubt both and live my life without much reference to either. My sense of morality is based on philosophy, not religion, though I grew up in a Christian setting and I certainly won't say that that hasn't influenced my thoughts. Kinda agnostic with a Christian bent.

3. I think memories are an essential part of a persons background. I have no opinion as to whether certain memories could be erased without damaging the essential person. It is true that the erasing of certain memories could produce a situation where there are holes in the person's experience that then may have to be explained, so I would think that to erase memories might require implanting alternate memories.

Don't know if this helps much. It's getting late and I'm almost ready for bed so I probably shouldn't be writing heavy stuff right now, but interesting questions and I hope it helps some.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No one is born knowing how to do math, or write, or play music.
A person could have the genetic basis to be a great whatever, but if that person never has the ability nurtured, it won't come to pass. Further, some research would indicate that certain abilities have to be nurtured at specific times in the development of the child, or the ability is lost.

I agree. While the ability to tell stories or create something artistic - a creative imagination - may be genetic. The knowledge is not. That has to be learned. It's the distinction between learned behavior and innate behavior. Even walking, talking, and eating are learned behaviors. We are born with the ability to do them, but we have to be taught how. Education is not so much about the teaching of *information* as the teaching of how to learn, how to disseminate information, analyze it, apply it. Once you learn how to do those things - you can pretty much teach yourself.

2. Thanks for defining what you think a soul is.

Whedon was an interesting writer, because he used the soul as a metaphor but did not believe in the religious connotation of souls (he's an athesist or agnostic). So in his series - he defined them outside of the religious context. More as the essence of a human being, their conscience,
the part of them that cares about others.

One of the great things Whedon did was to avoid the dualistic sense of soulless, and have some creatures without souls who, none the less, were not simply sociopaths. Angel illustrates the dualistic nature of soul vs soulless, while Spike, though soulless, still retains some humanity and thus comes to love and support Buffy over time. Remember when the Judge said that Spike and Dru reeked of humanity while Angelus was clean.

Agreed. What he did was explore two perceptions. One - the rigid black and white or dualistic perception - of what a sociopath or soulless creature is. Good with/Bad without. Angel/Angelus. And this exploration took place during the early seasons of the series - when Buffy and her friends were still adolescents and saw the world in extremes - it's either white or black. When they began to grow up and started to realize the world couldn't be neatly divided in good vs. evil - Spike was introduced - a character who was far more ambiguous. Angel likewise became less dualistic in his own show, the character of Angelus seeping in more and more. And note when we see Angelus on Angel's series, his not the all-powerful/sexy and deeply evil big bad he was on Buffy.

With the vampires - Whedon explored the spectrum of behavior, and did not supply a rigid adherence to one rule or definition. Which frustrated a lot of fans who prefer that and want a clear consistent rule. This is defined as _. And there's no room for argument. Whedon seemed to invite argument and discussion. The show was deliberately ambiguous at times.

Anyways, thanks for responding, sorry took so long for me to answer.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

1. Both count but nurture more than nature. That's the Histroian in me answering of course!

2. No, I don't "really believe" in souls, except poetically and metaphorically. And if the word soul is used to define a certain mind (functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and behavior and consciously or unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body's responses to the social and physical environment)that is a certain psyché(like in a "borken soul") there's no reason to think that only human beings would have souls. Ctas obviously have souls too! *g*

But I don't think there's more than what we are here and now, and I don't think there's something that remains after the body dies. I didn't have any problems with souls in Buffyverse because I took them as metaphors and plot devices.

3. I understand your kink on that. I do think that our memories mostly make us the way we are. It's nurture vs nature again.

On BTVS the Dawn case played on that idea. The memories were fake, experiences prior to season 5 never happened, yet the characters remembered them and because they remembered them Dawn was a human being and Buffy's sister instead of being a Key.

On "Blade Runner" fake memories are also the key element to make the repicant Rachel, more human to the point that she's convinced that she can't be a replicant.

The shape can be an illusion but the memories are identity. If there's something that has always intriguided me in Dune, it's the matter of the memories that Reverend Mothers of the Bene Gesserit shared, or the fact that Paul's children did have the memories of their ancestors in their memory. Thus some characters still lived within other characters through their own memories which implied a risk of possession, a problem of identity.

But sorry I'm digressing.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm curious to know why - and not just you but about four or five others who responded - don't believe in souls or equate the existence of a soul with an after-life or a god?

I believe in them but remain uncertain about the whole after-life bit. I really don't think there is anything after this to be honest. But I do still believe in a soul. Perhaps I define it differently? fresen more less defined how I see a soul in her response. It's an indescrible thing - a spark - the thing that makes us more than just a machine. Not necessarily just the self-awareness, but the energy. And I think the energy does live on but not in a heaven or hell, I think it just goes back into the universe and it is what attaches us to the universe, to living things. The reason I believe this is it is the only way I can think of to explain things I've sensed. Spirits or entities in places. My grandmother's body, being nothing more than a shell. Empty. Sensing it was gone. I remember looking at my friend's cat, Oscar, and my friend kept asking if he was dead, wanting some proof. I knew immediately. I sensed it. I saw the energy leave. I didn't need someone to check for a pulse.
I assumed everyone could sense this - but my friend couldn't, the doctor didn't, and my family didn't see it with my grandmother. I don't talk about it much - because it's like, well, being able to do complex mathematical equations in your head - you don't understand why someone else can't. You see it clearly. Or creating music, hearing it inside your mind. Being able to sense the spark in other's is like that - some people see it and call it an aura, I guess. I don't see it. I feel it and I can't articulate or explain that without it sounding nutty. Which this probably does.

I've read a couple of books that played with the idea of the soul determining the personality of a person. His Dark Materials - by Philip Pullman discusses the soul as more an ineffable non-religious aspect. Separating the person from their soul (or metaphorically their daemon) cripples them, they become a ghost of their former self. And I remember reading something, not sure what it was, damn memory, about how they were hunting scientific evidence of the soul in the brain - seeing it as an illusion or an entity or an electrical spasm. I didn't find the study convincing - because it was basically the arguement that people believe in things to make themselves happy or explain the world - which isn't necessarily true.

The shape can be an illusion but the memories are identity.

I like that.

But I don't think babies are blank slates. They have distinct personalities before memories are even imprinted on them. And I've met people who have lost a good percentage of their memories...yet are still on some level distinctly themselves.

I do, however, equate memory largely with identity. I think I would be a different person if I did not have certain memories. I'd reacte differently. Yet, I also think other undefinable factors come into play.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

I think that the word soul is still religiously connoted, hence the answers you got.

I understand what you mean about having sensed things that couldn't be explained without a sort of energy. I had similar experiences but I don't necessarily connect them to individual souls.

the thing that makes us more than machines

Now you have me thinking of Sci-Fi and of many machines that developped something that could be called a soul!

;- )

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think that the word soul is still religiously connoted, hence the answers you got.

Makes sense because everything who didn't believe in them, prefaces it with I'm an athesist or an agnostic. Which sort of boggles my mind, because I don't just equate a soul with being an athesist or agnostic.

Yes, I see it as belonging to the universe or an entity outside, the connecting force, but I don't necessarily see that entity as GOD. And I also see it as being individual the spark that makes us who we are, the energy that leaves when we are dead. I call that a soul. What do others call it? Energy? Spark? Something else?

If so, how are they defining a soul? I guess I should ask for a definition from people - so we don't get lost in translation.

Now you have me thinking of Sci-Fi and of many machines that developped something that could be called a soul!

A lot of Japanese anime deals with this concept. Most notably - Ghost in the Shell. Another film that played with it was AI by Stephen Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick.

STar Trek The Next Generation also addressed it - with Commander Data.

[jgracio.livejournal.com]

1 - It's both, but people tend to prefer neat, simple answers, so it's much "easier" to prefer the simpler one or the other answer.

2 - Nope, don't really believe in them. Don't have a problem with it in works of fiction, after all, I also don't believe in magic, and that doesn't keep me from enjoying books about it.

And I don't really agree with your definition of vampires in the Buffyverse. It's not that they didn't care about right or wrong, but that as demons, they liked to do wrong. And what you see as Spike showing remorse for trying to rape the heroine, I see as something else. In fact, the Buffyverse is a bad universe to draw this sort of comparisons from, because the writers never really defined what these things meant, and instead used them to mean whatever they wanted at the time.

As for changing a sociopath, that's really not something I have a clue about. And it's not something people without specific training will have any chance of having meaningful conversations about, because unless you really know what you're talking about, the conversation will only be about your own personal beliefs, reflecting what you think should happen, and not what really is (general you, of course).

3 - Depends on the memory, doesn't it. We are our memories to a large extent.

And the drug, if it's the same I saw, doesn't really erase memories, just erases the connections between the memory and your feelings at the time or something like that. So, you still remember, it's just that the memory doesn't trigger the same emotions and responses it used to. So a traumatic memory loses it's impact, and allows you to live with it. OTOH, if you're a criminal filled with remorse, the same drug would allow you to feel peachy (and who knows what impact that might have).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

After reading some of these responses - I guess I should have explained the reason behind the question regarding souls and how people define them and whether it gets in the way of your appreciation for something that uses that metaphor. But this is live journal not an academic discussion board where people need to be somewhat pedantic in what they are writing. Heck - I'm writing under the name shadowkat...and I've called my journal "spontaneous musings". So half this stuff is just off the top of my head. ;-)

Nope, don't really believe in them. Don't have a problem with it in works of fiction, after all, I also don't believe in magic, and that doesn't keep me from enjoying books about it.

I know people who believe in magic but not souls. And I've met people who don't necessarily believe in either but struggle more with the use of souls in the series and literature. Possibly because of it's religious connotation? I don't know. But I have two friends who had difficulty discussing Buffy and the novel I mentioned above because both used a soul as a plot point. It was a sticking point for them.

So my question still stands - how to handle a work of art that contains something that you don't believe in, understand, like, or consider beyond your ability to suspend disbelief?

I know for example people who do not like fantasy stories because - they don't believe in magic so they cannot watch or read a story about it. They don't buy the premise. Granted it is a metaphor, but not everything thinks metaphorically - a lot of people think literally.

And it's not something people without specific training will have any chance of having meaningful conversations about, because unless you really know what you're talking about, the conversation will only be about your own personal beliefs, reflecting what you think should happen, and not what really is (general you, of course).

Ouch.

Well, the same can be said about discussing anything - can't it? Are you saying only experts should discuss certain topics? How limiting. I mean I can see that if this were a discussion board with therapists or scholars, but it's a live journal for crying out loud. Sort of goes without saying that the discussion won't necessarily be accurate. It's all opinion.

Unless of course someone throws in scientific tests and studies to support themselves - but on lj, I take everything with a grain of salt even from the so-called experts.

Certainly it's true about discussing tv shows. So why do you bother discussing Buffy? It's meaningless right? Who cares? Why bother?

Because it is fun. To share opinions and points of view. At least that's why I do it. And it tells me something about the person I'm talking to.
I might even learn something. See a new angle or perspective. No discussion is meaningless. Except maybe about the weather...although I've had interesting discussions about that.

Agree on the bit about the drug. From what I've read it, which is admittedly very little - it acts like a ruthie.

[jgracio.livejournal.com]

So my question still stands - how to handle a work of art that contains something that you don't believe in, understand, like, or consider beyond your ability to suspend disbelief?

For me, personally, I try to ignore what I dislike or what bothers me about the work, if I enjoy the rest enough.

If you're religious, or the question of the soul poses a problem, then, I think it's perfectly okay for you to dislike or avoid works that bother you. For me, it's not a sticking point, so writers can use souls, not use them, have them mean pretty much whatever they want.

But it's pretty common for people not to be able to enjoy something because of sticking points. Religious motifs, a writer shoving a different political opinion down your throat, technical innacuracies...

Ouch.

I didn't mean to hurt anyone. :(

Well, the same can be said about discussing anything - can't it?

No, not really. Look, it's like, I'm a sci-fi fan. Time travel stories? I love them. I've gotten in several discussions over time travel theories, some over time travel movies, others over scientific theories.

So, for instance, if I say that I don't believe that theory that for each and every decision someone makes an alternate universe is formed, since I really don't know what I'm talking about, all that means is that I don't like to think that individual choice is meaningless.

Which, is something, but since the discussion is about time travel, not very relevant. :)

See my point?

So, the discussion of "Can sociopaths be cured?" will only yeld results on how each person sees the world, on what you wish the world to be, not really on the subject of the discussion.

Now, "Should sociopaths be cured?" that's a discussion that's meaningful, IMO.

And while it's true that I do believe that some things should only be discussed by people who know what they're talking about, far from me to try and stop people from talking.

And if all you're looking for from the discussion is some fun, and to get to know the other person a little better, then, it's all good.

As for why I discuss Buffy? Truthfully? Mostly it's because I hate how from the same canon, from what we all saw on the screen, we all came away with very different interpretations, and it bothers me that if people can't agree on what they saw on a TV Show they how can we ever agree on the big things in life?

Hmm... that got longer than intended. Sorry. :)

And I don't really know you, apart from the fact that you're on Liz Marc's list. :)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the clarification. :-)

(Emoticons really are necessary sometimes, aren't they.)

No, not really. Look, it's like, I'm a sci-fi fan. Time travel stories? I love them. I've gotten in several discussions over time travel theories, some over time travel movies, others over scientific theories.

Enjoy them as well, although I think Star Trek has soured me on it - I've begun to have issues with the fact that people go back in time but don't change the timeline, don't screw it up. One of the best Time Travel Stories I've seen has to be The Butterfly Effect - not a great movie, but it did address one of my issues with time travel stories. The other one that plays with that is the Ray Bradbury short story about the guy who goes back to the prehistoric age on a tour and accidentally kills a bug changing human history in the process.

So, for instance, if I say that I don't believe that theory that for each and every decision someone makes an alternate universe is formed, since I really don't know what I'm talking about, all that means is that I don't like to think that individual choice is meaningless.

Which, is something, but since the discussion is about time travel, not very relevant. :)

See my point?

So, the discussion of "Can sociopaths be cured?" will only yeld results on how each person sees the world, on what you wish the world to be, not really on the subject of the discussion.

Now, "Should sociopaths be cured?" that's a discussion that's meaningful, IMO.

Oh. Okay. That's makes sense. I'm not sure either question can answered in a meaningful way. But, like you are a fan of time travel stories, I'm a bit of a fan of psychological stories - or stories that deal with how people change. Or if they can change. And to what degree does our environment or external forces have an effect. It's a bullet-proof kink.
Like memory loss.

And if all you're looking for from the discussion is some fun, and to get to know the other person a little better, then, it's all good.

Yeah that's more or less all it is. I like to play with the ideas. Explore them. If they interest me a great deal? I go take a class or read a scientific journal on them. Recently took a class in social psyche because I'd become fascinated with how people interact with one another and why people like certain things and not others. I played with the idea first, then went after more meaningful information.

But mostly, I'm just playing with ideas. Figuring out what I think about them, and using them as a way to get to know others. Find it a lot more interesting than discussing what I did that day or what they did.

Re Buffy

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

As for why I discuss Buffy? Truthfully? Mostly it's because I hate how from the same canon, from what we all saw on the screen, we all came away with very different interpretations, and it bothers me that if people can't agree on what they saw on a TV Show they how can we ever agree on the big things in life?

I'm afraid you're going to have to just sit back and accept that as a fact of life or at the very least part of human nature.

And it can be frustrating at times. There are days, weeks, much like this one, that I really wish everyone agreed with me on my views. And I certainly wish they saw the Buffyverse the same way I did. Got bloody tired of having the same arguments over and over and over again.

People don't even agree on what the important things in life are. Some think it is a spiritual connection to God or religion. Others believe it is family. Other's believe making a difference in the world. Other's believe it is a concept - love or emotion. Some don't know.

Heck - most of the people who responded to my post couldn't agree on what the definition of a soul was. And have you seen the arguments regarding whether or not comic books based on a tv series can be considered canon?

One of the reasons I think Buffy was so successful was because people were able to perceive it so differently. The shows that people argue about less, and appear to agree on the canon or basic messages, don't seem to have as much universial appeal.

Think about it. Buffy had multiple points of view and each character's pov was incredibly different the other ones. If for example - your predisposition was to identify with someone like Xander? You had Xander as character to follow, you could be in his pov. Or say, it was someone like Angel or Spike? You had that character. Or Willow? Or Giles? Or Buffy? So, many of the arguments you see about the show are depending on which character you identified the most with. Someone who identified a great deal with Xander is unlikely to understand someone who identified with Spike. Both pov's are valid. Both are interesting. Same deal with someone who identified with Buffy and someone who identified with Willow.

That is hard to do. It is really hard to write a series that can be looked at from multiple pov's, much easier to write one from one central pov. But a series that has multiple pov's is more likely to succeed for a longer period of time. Why? Because more people can identify with it.

While people do agree on certain things - main universial concepts - such as murder is wrong (depending on the situation - and well, whether or not it was in self-defense), killing children is bad, rape is horrendous (depending on the situation - we don't all agree on what signifies rape and a lot of our agreement or disagreement has a great deal to do with personal experience, perspective, education, environment, etc), war makes us unhappy, and we all want to be successful experience love and be safe. What we disagree on is who should be successful and what success means. We are, like or not, competitive and self-centered creatures - it is I believe our nature. We can be incredibly self-less at times, but overall pretty self-centered.

I'd love it if you agreed with me on all of that or even some of it or a portion. But I know that that is highly unlikely. 50/50 odds either way.

Buffy? Far as I could tell, the only thing fans of the show agreed on was that it was great and they adored it. Which I guess is something. But to be honest, that's more or less true about most works of art - look at Harry Potter - fans of that series mainly just agree that it is a great series, they appear to disagree on just about everything else. Same with Star Trek. And don't get me started on BattleStar Galatica or Doctor Who.
I've seen flame wars on those series.

Hmm... that got longer than intended. Sorry. :)

Not at all. Thanks for it. And thank you for taking the time to respond.
It's not easy responding to unknown journals, so I do appreciate it.

Some inadequate responses to big questions:

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

1. Both, of course. However, I believe most recent research is tending to support the idea that nature is predominant in developing personality and skills. In other words, the insane amount of detailed "enrichment" activities that parents lavish on their kids won't affect their long-term lives nearly as much as the genetically determined aspects of their personality. This is interesting to me since I've repeatedly seen examples of adopted kids or half-siblings who turn out dramatically different in terms of "life success" even though they were raised in the same circumstances as the rest of the family.

In the same vein, apparently issues of fetal nutrition and such play an enormous role as well. There's pretty good evidence that with identical twins, the larger twin (who hogged the nutrition in the womb) will be more "successful" in terms of athletics, education, earning power, etc.

Weird.

This would all break down, I would assume, once you bring traumatizing events in on the nuturing side, however. One or two extremely bad experiences could severely alter personality and prospects in many cases, I'd suspect. And of course, the opportunities to develop inherent skills are dependent on the nuture side of the equation.

So, both.

2. Souls. Hmmmm. I'm not sure that I believe in 'em. We're all a bunch of elements and electrical impulses. I guess if you defined "soul" as self-awareness I could get on board with that definition. So in a way, conscience would be part of a soul. That loss of self-awareness is the eerie thing about contemplating death, too, I think. Eh. Me and metaphysics are unmixy things.

3. Memory. Huge factor in shaping parts of personality; which is why Alzheimers is so terrifying, I guess. I have no direct experience with anyone losing their memory. I often have felt frustrated that with age comes an increasing load of negative memories (screw ups, guilt, disappointment) that for me, takes on more mental prominance than my many good memories of love, success, etc. So it's almost like as we age, our personalities get twisted out of shape. I really see this in some family members, too, who also have trouble "owning" the good things of their life.

I have no idea how selective erasure of memories would affect personality. Considering how beaten down and boxed in and terror-filled some of my relatives have become through years of financial hardship and bad decisions, I can see the temptation to remove selective memories in the hope that the struggling flower of their earlier personality would thrive again. Doubt it would ever work, though; the brain is too complicated an organ.

Re: Some inadequate responses to big questions:

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Not inadequate at all. Actually rather interesting.

Eh. Me and metaphysics are unmixy things.

Metaphysics is largely a grey area - unlike most dicplines it remains inexact, there is no proof either way. And most of the stuff, I believe, is beyond human comprehension. While I do believe in souls and a God, I believe in them as indefinable, ineffable things, that defy description.
I believe - I'm just not sure how to explain or define what it is I believe in.

I often have felt frustrated that with age comes an increasing load of negative memories (screw ups, guilt, disappointment) that for me, takes on more mental prominance than my many good memories of love, success, etc. So it's almost like as we age, our personalities get twisted out of shape. I really see this in some family members, too, who also have trouble "owning" the good things of their life.

Yes. I've been working hard to let go of negative memories and hold onto good ones. Because negative memories do create habits. I don't agree with the view that you should focus on a negative event, analyze it too death then figure it out. Better to let it go, move on. You can't change it. And while in some situations you can do things to prevent its reoccurence, the best thing you can do is not focus on it.

Re: Some inadequate responses to big questions:

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

I was looking through your replies and you did better define your idea of a soul, so I can answer that more specifically. We can currently measure at least some of the electrical impulses that drive the body, and this electricity dissapates when we die. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so it is obviously still present in the universe somewhere.

If that is what you are calling a "soul," then I think it isn't a matter of "belief." We know the energy is present in bodies, and we know it leaves when we die. No belief required. This would be true, to a greater or lesser extent, of ALL living organisms.

Now, if your definition included the stipulation that the self-aware consciousness part of that enrgy (your identity and personality) remain as part of that "spark" and drift away, I'm very skeptical of such. However, we haven't yet, and likely never will, devised a test for that hypothesis, so I don't "disbelieve" it. Just very skeptical. Show me the money, as it were.

Using this definition there's also evidence of a sort for reincarnation, since all matter and energy is eventually recycled. But again, there isn't any SCIENTIFIC evidence for the Shirley McClaine "I lived multiple lives with my soul (identity) intact" type of reincarnation.

Speaking as an agnostic, here.

Re: Some inadequate responses to big questions:

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I was looking through your replies and you did better define your idea of a soul, so I can answer that more specifically. We can currently measure at least some of the electrical impulses that drive the body, and this electricity dissapates when we die. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so it is obviously still present in the universe somewhere.

Yes and no.

I think the energy is connected. And has more to it than just an electrical impulse. But I don't know exactly what it contains. I don't know if it contains memories, intelligence, self-awareness or if it is just energy. I think science is limited. It's linear. It's so based on tangible. And doesn't handle the intangible - well it does, but the science that plays with the intangible is somewhat controversial and often dismissed - I'm thinking of some areas of quantum physics and experiments with the brain and psychology. That's why Psychology is such an inexact science. We can only test that which is well capable of being tested and can be ethically tested without hurting a living person.

It's sort of like the old argument - if I don't see aliens and see no evidence of life outside of humanity, does that mean there isn't any?
If we don't have the technology or capability to determine that - does that mean it doesn't exist?

I don't know what a soul is. I sense it is energy, the force that fills us, animates us, makes us more than just an organic machine. The thing that connects us. And when we die, the part of us that lives on. What it contains or what that means exactly or where it goes? I don't know.
It's hard to articulate. But no, I don't believe a soul is what most religions think it is.

Self-Awareness? Maybe. Don't know for certain.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Nature/nuture. As a geneticist it’s always been difficult to understand how people can think that it’s one or the other, it seems so obvious that they interact and the relative importance of one or the other depends on the trait and the context. If you compare identical twins almost all differences will be due to the environment (inculding womb environment), if you compare people raised in very similar environments most of the differences will be due to genetics.

I haven’t watched Dexter but from reading about it the most interesting part seems to be Harry, the father’s role. I don’t think Dexter can be completely sociopathic in the sense of being unable to empathise with others, if he were Harry wouldn’t have been able to exercise the kind of authority over him that he clearly did. I’m also very suspicious of the idea that killing is such a fixed and specific compulsion, my experience of the autistic obsessions of my children is that although intense they regularly change focus.

Souls. Don’t believe in them. Or rather can’t think of a definition that makes any more sense of the world than less theologically associated concepts like personality or consciousness and my gut feeling is that both of those things are in some sense illusions. That they don’t have an objective measurable existence but that our minds are wired in a way that makes them useful concepts, make it easier to understand the world and make predictions about it. In fiction souls can be whatever the writer wants I think it may be more difficult for religious people for whom the word has a meaning to adapt to that.

Memories. I can’t imagine being me without the memories I think I have but I know some of them are unreliable. It’s disconcerting already being unable to recall things I know I used to, I can’t imagine what Alzheimers would be like to go through.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

On the nature vs. nuture thing - I don't think people see it as one over the other so much as one having greater weight than the other. A concept that more than one science fiction novelist has played with. I vaguely remember seeing or reading one story in which the question was posed what would happen if we manipulated someone's genetic structure? Would that change who they are? How they think? Is there such a thing as a criminal gene?

I don't know. Hardly a scientist, am an artist - so tend to think more with my gut then my head, although I've been trained to think logically via law school or how to divorce my emotions from the situation - but it's a different process. One of the things I enjoyed most about the original Star Trek series - was how they explored the two extreems - Dr. Bones (who had been trained in science) was all emotion, while Spock (who was more spiritual and metaphysically trained) was all logic divorced from emotion and despised the emotion. Kirk used both to determine answers, often pitting the two against each other.

Neither extreme could come up with the correct answer. You had to through them together.

Sorry, sort of an aside.

On nature vs. nuture - I think it's impossible for it to be one or the other. Your environment must affect you and the body you've been given also would have an affect. Someone who has been born with dyslexia for example will handle the world very differently from someone who hasn't. They will also act differently depending on when and how it was diagnosed and what support they received. Also how the dyslexia manifests will be different for everyone - because it is based on how their brain was developed. There's a science fiction novel out that I don't remember the name of - that explores whether a child who spent more time in the womb would be smarter than one who spent less time...if they were given more time to develop - what would they be like?

Souls...the majority of the people who responded don't believe in them. But I'm not quite sure why? Is it because you think a soul is something religious? Like the holy spirit? That would make sense.

I don't see them that way. fresne states above pretty much how I view souls. As an indefinable, ineffable thing - the spark if you will - that makes us more than just a machine. And I believe in them because of my own experiences. I remember seeing my Grandmother's body and thinking even from a distance - did they put a wax dummy in her casket? It doesn't look real. I went up and yep, some response. I knew it was not her. I can't explain how I knew this. I just sensed that what made her who she was wasn't there anymore. And it was more than just personality. Hard to articulate. I've learned not everyone senses this. I was the only one in my family who did outside of my sisterinlaw. And I think if you haven't experienced it yourself it is difficult to understand. So my belief is based on my own gut feelings. Faith and belief tend to be. Not on logic.

I've learned certain things in life just can't be logically or scientifically explained. They exist outside of our ability to understand them.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I don't think people see it as one over the other so much as one having greater weight than the other.
Yes but generalizing it like that the question is unanswerable or rather the answer is it depends. It depends what trait you’re talking about, some things like fingerprint patterns are stochastic but with most the final form will reflect the *interaction* between genes and environment, they’re not in competition. Maybe where it gets confusing is that the question is really about variation not absolute values.

what would happen if we manipulated someone's genetic structure
We can do that now, gene therapy, although the side effects (cancer) make it impractical. So far it’s only been tried with single gene diseases like cystic fibrosis, the problem with genes for ‘criminality’ or ‘homosexuality’ or autism (even if you believe the data) is that these are quantitative traits affected by many genes of relatively small effect and that effect will vary in different genetic backgrounds. Over and above that the genes most likely work by affecting the developmental process so adding them back to an adult even if you could target them to the right part of the brain is unlikely to change things, it would be like closing the stable door after most of the horses have bolted.

So my belief is based on my own gut feelings.
I get that but so is my unbelief, my doubt. I don’t feel as if I have a soul or at all certain that my consciousness is anything more than an artifact of neuronal function. It’s like that thing where if you repeat a word often enough it becomes meaningless. I don’t know whether it’s the science training or started earlier than that but I don’t trust my senses or anyone else’s. It’s not logical but it’s how I seem to be wired.

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

You say it isn't logical that you don't trust your senses, but it IS perfectly logical (in a sense) if you've had scientific training.

One of the problems with the soul question is we haven't agreed on a definition. Also, even I used the term "believe in," which isn't a term I like since I am also a scientist by training. Typically, I don't believe or disbelieve in much of anything; instead, I'm interested in whether or not there is supporting evidence for things. Or not. If there is, I accept it (tentatively, sometimes). If not, I suspend judgement.

The reason you're likely uneasy with gut feelings (as am I) is that everyone's experience of the world is subjective and different in some areas. Science addresses things which can be measured and experienced the same way, repeatedly, by many different people regardless of the gut feeling.

[wenchsenior.livejournal.com]

More accurately, science measures things which are experienced the same way, repeatedly, by most EVERYONE...not "many different"...people.

Ack! need more coffee.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

More of a tea person, myself :-)

Scepticism and the need to figure out empirical tests for any given hypothesis is the USP of science but not all there is to it. For practitioners often the most rewarding part is coming up with those hypotheses, which involves as much gut feeling as any other creative activity. And we are human and limited, no-one sets out to test all possible theories we tend to focus on the ones we find most likely (or debunking those we find most unlikely) and which those are comes from the gut as much as the brain. My gut tells me that we’re biological machines but having not the time or ability to test all the other alternatives my holding to that idea that as the default is as much an aesthetic preference as a logical one.

[fresne.livejournal.com]

You ever feel as if all your words have been pulled out of your skull?

Frequently. Then everything I write comes out... hard. Harsh. Jaggeded and billeous. A strange pea green color writing that is best scrapped off the toast later.


1. Nature or nuture?
Like everyone else it seems, both. I'm naturally endowed with certain abilities, and lacks. By nurture's rights (and maternal efforts) I should have some aptitude for math, but my brain simply doesn't wrinkle that way. And yet, nurture, environment certain do inform how I respond to things. Shape my conception of the world. It's actually something I've been thinking about a lot recently with regards to generational behavior. Or even just how certain technologies that have molded how I conceive of things. Like this moment right now. Writing this post.


2. Do you believe in souls?
Yes. Um... how to define what I believe in. I believe in an eternal part of myself, that spark that makes me alive. There are machines that can keep one's organs going, but when the spark is gone, it's gone. I'm also the sort of person who believes that somethings are ineffable. Whether they will become effible in another state (nothing being lost merely changed) isn't for me to know right now.


3. Memory loss - to what degree does memory loss or the loss of memory affect personality?

Mind you, I am by no means convinced that that "spark" will be fundamentally me any more than a drop of water in the ocean. The soul being somewhat separate from memory (i.e., nurture/environment), which is like flavoring added to the soul's water and informing behavior. While Nature is the shape of the cup that holds the water. When evaporated, perhaps memories will be left behind. And my pesonality freed of both cup and flavoring memory may be something else entirely. Or if we're merely talking about filtering away memory (no change of state involved) then I think that loss would affect my personality, but the shape of my cup would remain the same.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you - you have managed to clearly articulate my own views on these things. Was struggling to find the right words last night.

Then everything I write comes out... hard. Harsh. Jaggeded and billeous. A strange pea green color writing that is best scrapped off the toast later.

Yes! That's the feeling exactly.

Um... how to define what I believe in. I believe in an eternal part of myself, that spark that makes me alive. There are machines that can keep one's organs going, but when the spark is gone, it's gone. I'm also the sort of person who believes that somethings are ineffable. Whether they will become effible in another state (nothing being lost merely changed) isn't for me to know right now.

This is what I believe as well - and it's more or less supported by my own experiences. I remember seeing my Grandmother's dead body - it was the first I'd seen outside of my cat's and the experience was innately different. Although I could tell seeing the cat's body that it was gone, that spark. Felt the same when I saw her's - it was obviously a shell - it looked and felt like a wax dummy, empty. So a soul is to me the spark, that thing which makes a person alive, who they are, and connected to well everything. It's not necessarially a religious view, it's like you put it - a machine can keep the body going, but it's nothing without that spark which isn't necessarily what keep the body alive. Without that spark the body is little more than a machine - it's what, I think separates us from things like computers. I don't think it is necessarily self-awareness, because I think animals have souls. But I'm also a person who believes things or some things are ineffable. That there can't be a scientific or logical explanation for some things. They are behind our ability to explain or reason. I think you said it better...thanks.

And my pesonality freed of both cup and flavoring memory may be something else entirely. Or if we're merely talking about filtering away memory (no change of state involved) then I think that loss would affect my personality, but the shape of my cup would remain the same.

It's an old debate - are we just a mix of environment and biological impulses? If you remove the personality - the memories - is the person a tabula rasa? Are babies blank slates? Is that what innocence means?

I think it's what you state...somewhat ineffable. Because I've met people children, adults, with little memory but yet are still themselves. They may be different, but the essence of who they are still remains.
It's why I think that even if you had identical twins, with identical DNA and raised identically - one would be different than the other - the essence of who they are remains different on some level.