3 ms·

I think many religious people would disagree with your definition. That's the problem with any discussions of the "soul". It is poorly defined.

• swayvil 5y ago
  Better to refer to an observation than a definition, when discussing real stuff. It's the more solid reference. We can observe attention. Can we observe this alternative to which you refer?
  • mbfg 5y ago
    No of course not. However, changing a definition away from what billions of people believe doesn't seem productive. If you want to talk about attention, cool, but call it attention. Most religious people don't consider the soul to be a synonym for attention. It's similar to how some people want to redefine god as the universe. Ok, then just call it the universe, doing otherwise drags all kinds of assumptions and presuppositions that muddy the waters.
    • swayvil 5y ago
      Then you refer to a fantasy. Billions are immersed in fantasy. One might call that a classically religious debacle.
      • mbfg 5y ago
        I'm not saying that's what i believe. I don't believe a soul exists, or could exist. But I'm saying that's what billions of people believe. It doesn't help to redefine away a problem.
        • swayvil 5y ago
          I think "attention" fits pretty well. I think the general population waves its hands and calls it a unicorn. So fuck em. And you might be surprised at how centrally attention figures into the human experience