If we are just physical bodies as biological science suggest, why...?

Question

do we even think of killing ourselves. If we are so simple as just bodies why do we even get a thought of killing our bodies? When we say kill ourSELVES who is that we are trying to kill. In fact WHO is suggesting u to kill ur own SELF? Is it ur body? Is it your brain? Brain is just like a computer and nothing else? Doesn't that prove existence of things other body with in us? When U say to urself I want to walk don't we realiaze there is a different character there other than our body whom WE are COMMANDING to walk? If we say that it is our mind that decides every thing. What is mind then. Medical science in the first step doesn't accept anything that is not visible including mind. Doesn't that prove we are souls. Atleast it proves we are not bodies. Then why are scientists trying to deny the soul so easily?

My dear foormorebeers ur answer is no where near to what the ACTUAL question is. What is instinct? Does biological science accept it true sense? It likes to not believe what ever that cannit be perceived by 5 senses. I don't know which sense does instinct come under. Have some more beer. U may get more good thoughts.

Answer 1

Science describes in detail the mechanism and function of the body, but it does not describe anything to do with emotion. Even psychology only describes the different functions of the brain, not how to control emotions. When you produce a thought of suicide, it is the Self that produces the thought, which uses the mind and goes into the brain. In reality, all you could really do was kill the body. The self is a seperate vessel that is apart from the body and brain which controls the mind. The self (soul) can never be destroyed. Learn the truth through meditation and you will know that who you are is really not your body, but instead you are spiritually interwoven with your body and mind by the power of your soul.

Remember, Soul is above mind which is above body. The body dies, the mind is extinguished upon not thinking of anything, but the soul lives on from life to life. Learn the truth, know the truth, make a better life for yourself. Do it now.

Answer 2

Well, your question has been argued throughout philosophy for thousands of years, and there are too important schools of thought that have developed (among others). There are some people that are empiricists, which are like the scientists that you describe. They only want to describe things in a manner that is based on observational reality. Then there are the rationalists, who allow things that are non-physical. A famous rationalist is Aristotle and a famous empiricist would be Plato. Science's main driving force is observational truth, they conduct experiments to prove that things are as they think that they are, thus a scientist will always throw out ideas that are inherently unprovable. What you seem to be suggesting is that there are two different modes to reality, one physical (our bodies) and one non-physical (the mind and soul). This view was first suggested (popularly) by Rene Descartes, and is called dualism. The problem with dualism (for a scientist) is that is presumes that there are things that we can know that are not physically provable, which a scientist cannot accept. Thus, scientists look at things from an empirical perspective, they only rely on observational knowledge and will not stop trying to explain something on this level until they have done so. This is an epistemelogical difference between scientists and rationalists. They hve different requirements for what they consider "knowable." If you believe that there is something besides the brain which does your thinking then, if you accept science, you have a burden of proof that you must answer. A scientist wants physical proof of a soul, especially considering that they have proof of thinking without it. From your question I take it that you think that the soul really is a non-physical entity and you are happy leaving it at that, and you would claim that some of your questions prove that it is so. Basically, you are not wrong logically, but you are arguing about something different than a true scientist. A true scientist cannot rule out a mind, or a soul, but they will search for a provable version of that idea, that is the idea of science. Of course, to lend some help to your idea, David Hume (an empiricist philosopher) stated that we cannot expect the future to resemble the past. This idea of scepticism has caused a lot of grief for the scientific method and scientific thought, but they have largely ignored it. Of course, there are those who have tried to solve this "problem of induction" most notably Karl Popper. If you don't like science's view about this issue you can ignore it, but you must also keep up with the advances that are made in scientific thought, because for all intents and purposes they have been proven experimentally.

Answer 3

Oh boy. The human brain is wonderful, but yes, it is a computer of sorts. But it is a computer that can think in abstraction, use language, feel emotions, plan the future, invent gods, get depressed, become overloaded, etc - you name it, human minds can do it. When it comes to killing oneself, of course we would be using our brain firing on all cylinders, but clouded by immediate stress, anguish or other emotions. The whole point of human art, culture, etc, - the whole glory of man - is that we are more than the some of our parts, unlike other animals - mainly bacause we have language and abstract thought. If you think about it, there is no need to see "something else " going on i.e. a soul or god. we are the supreme organism. What you may call soul, most scientists would agree doesn't fall into their field of study at all. Philosophers and artists (of all kinds) are better placed to explore this. The human "soul" is actually all those things that go beyond the sum of our organic parts. But there is no need to see a god or soul there.

Answer 4

Actually the survival instinct is extremely strong and suggests an evolutionary reason. Those without it would not pass on their genes. Those not blinded by a religious hypothesis can conclude this in a couple of minutes reasoning.

Edit:

My dear fellow, maybe you should try some beer, it might straighten out your thinking or at least your grammer.

Answer 5

When the chemicals in the brain go awry, thought processes, reasoning and perception do also. That is why these distorted thoughts (but very real for the person concerned), can make an individual want to commit suicide. Were the chemicals behaving those thoughts are less likely to come.

Answer 6

When you see a dog chase its tail, you immeditaely understand that the dog is just too stupid to know that the tail belongs to him.

When the dog eventually realizes it has a tail, it doesn't mean that somehow, at that exact moment of self-awareness, it developed a soul. It just means it learned. Humans are simply smarter and learn that lesson earlier.

Killing oneself is rarely about killing "the self," it is usually about ending some kind of pain, mental or physical.

Julian, below, is simply incorrect. Science has enormous understanding of the mechanism behind emotions, which is how they are able to develop anti-depressant and other -mood/emotion enhancing drugs, including those that help prevent suicide.

Answer 7

I suggest you look deeper into modern science than you have, for it has by necessity become much more metaphysical than you realize. Science has learned that everything is interconnected and quite alive, including the planet, and that we are much more than just a physical body. Reluctant though scientists are to give a name to what they are discovering, what their observations reveal is a reality that is extraordinarily beautiful and infinitely complex. It is not that science wishes to deny the "soul," but that what is being discovered might be suggesting something that the word soul is inadequate to apply. Science is not there to come to conclusions, but rather its there to reveal, and it is still in its infancy. Science leaves it up to the observer to come to whatever conclusion he wishes to, but as the revelations keep coming so fast and furious, conclusions keep being shown to be obsolete almost as fast as they are made. I find this to be spiritually uplifting as the more the is revealed, the more beautiful it becomes.

Answer 8

You almost sound like a Buddhist. You can't find a self either huh? We don't call it "soul", we believe the MIND is what exists in tandem with the physical attributes conglomerated together which we label as an "I" or "me". However we must understand that some people can't grasp the concept of a lack of an inherent "self" and be patient with them.

Self hatred is a poor self-concept and to kill one's self is tragic and evidence of a very low self-concept and very bad karma.

Ego is an inflated self-concept and very bad karma.

_()_

Answer 9

The lack of understanding of the nature of the 'self' does not prove anything at all. Lack of understanding is never a form of evidence and can not be used to support any theory.

Answer 10

Oh please. Does that mean that a flea has a soul because when he "decides" to jump, he jumps? Is that all you got?
When I say "I want to kill myself" I mean I want the biological processes of my body to cease. Nothing mystical about it.