I am Immortal because my soul is..

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



FistOfThe North
Sure my physical body will expire but my spirit will never die and i believe this about all of us.

The essence of me, of all of us, is more significant than the flesh and bones that imprison it.

I truly believe that.

Bardock42
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Sure my physical body will expire but my spirit will never die and i believe this about all of us.

The essence of me, of all of us, is more significant than the flesh and bones that imprison it.

I truly believe that.

Good for you. I do not though.

Lord Urizen
Me either

FistOfThe North
Demonic spirits do posses some individulas, mabye that's why the both of you think your mortal and will turn to ashes and that's it.

Gregory
Are you a troll? What sort of blithering lunatic would claim that people disagree with him because they're possessed by demons?

Kill yourself. Seriously. Take a shotgun, stick it in your mouth, and pull the trigger. If you're right, it won't matter.

FistOfThe North
I'd never kill myself. I'd kill you. With a smile,.. and then easily log onto K.M.C. with you user ID and password and have your ID banned for trolling the mod.

I'd want you to become a complete memory everywhere.

debbiejo
We are.

Fishy
Wow, great debate going on here smile

Storm
I think you interpreted the post in a way that may not have been FistOfThe North' s intent Gregory.

For centuries, people have tried to answer the question of an immortal soul through philosophy and religion, but a definitive answer has yet to arise.

Fishy
Originally posted by Storm
I think you interpreted the post in a way that may not have been FistOfThe North' s intent Gregory.

For centuries, people have tried to answer the question of an immortal soul through philosophy and religion, but a definitive answer has yet to arise.

And yet he says he is immortal and then continues to call those that do not believe the same thing possessed by demons. Which may of course be true, but it leaves little room for discussion.

Gregory
There's a limit to how much time I can bother to spend talking to someone like this (demon-possessed! My god!), but I've never understood the concept of the soul, and I never will. It's supposed to somehow be us, but it's noncorporal. A soul can't have memories, thoughts, or feelings by definition, because those are the product of our material brains. How can something without my memories, thoughts, or feelings be "me?"

It's a nonsensical concept, as far as I'm concerned.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Gregory
There's a limit to how much time I can bother to spend talking to someone like this (demon-possessed! My god!), but I've never understood the concept of the soul, and I never will. It's supposed to somehow be us, but it's noncorporal. A soul can't have memories, thoughts, or feelings by definition, because those are the product of our material brains. How can something without my memories, thoughts, or feelings be "me?"

It's a nonsensical concept, as far as I'm concerned.

Just as nonsensical as you sound to me, perhaps.

Do you have proof that souls can't have memories? That they are apart of our material brains, that souls have no memories, thoughts, or feelings.

I beg your pardon but the last time I looked, to have a soul, to be soulful, was to be all these things combined.

Gregory
If I sound nonsensical to you, there is something wrong with you. You can disagree with me if you want, but that's not the same thing.

Proof that souls have no memories: a being cannot have memories without a nervous system.
Proof that souls have no nervous system: If you think souls are material, you hold a weird fringe belief. And anyway, why has a soul never been detected, if they are physical beings with nervous systems? And, furthermore, if they are physical beings with nervous systems, then it's silly to suppose they are immortal.

quickshot
gregory use your imagination even if there isn't a soul its nice to think we'll live forever.I believe in a soul but people who don't AREN'T possesed by demons

~Forever*Alone~
maybe its like in the matrix where everybody is like a battery and thats what a soul is.... and our minds....

nah.

Symmetric Chaos
It might be the demons talking but I have never seen evidnce of a soul.

I don't just mean I've never literally seen a soul. I mean I've never heard of anything that would neccesitate me having a soul.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Just as nonsensical as you sound to me, perhaps.

Do you have proof that souls can't have memories? That they are apart of our material brains, that souls have no memories, thoughts, or feelings.

I beg your pardon but the last time I looked, to have a soul, to be soulful, was to be all these things combined.

Prove 1.) that things such as souls exist, and 2.) that you, indeed have one.

Fishy
Originally posted by Gregory
If I sound nonsensical to you, there is something wrong with you. You can disagree with me if you want, but that's not the same thing.

Proof that souls have no memories: a being cannot have memories without a nervous system.
Proof that souls have no nervous system: If you think souls are material, you hold a weird fringe belief. And anyway, why has a soul never been detected, if they are physical beings with nervous systems? And, furthermore, if they are physical beings with nervous systems, then it's silly to suppose they are immortal.

If souls really are some magical mystical being that connect us to heaven then it really can not be explained...

Not that it matters, the existence of a real soul is far less important then what we actually believe it represents. If you believe in a soul then that's fine, if you don't that's fine as well. But believing in one and trying to better your life to clear your soul makes you a better person. Something that can because of that be directly attributed to your soul, so even if the soul doesn't exist it still does a lot of good things.

It's like God, only without the bad things happening.

Storm
The concept of a soul itself is difficult to define, because there have been so many different ideas as to what it really is.

BlackC@
I also believe we are immortal.

Bardock42
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Demonic spirits do posses some individulas, mabye that's why the both of you think your mortal and will turn to ashes and that's it.

Could be. In the same sense you could obviously say that they might posses you and tell you that you are immortal.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Bardock42
Could be. In the same sense you could obviously say that they might posses you and tell you that you are immortal.

I highly doubt it. I'd know if evil were in me because i'd reflect it in my everyday life. I'd have a hate for life which is not the case now because I have a love for it.

Shakyamunison
FistOfThe North, before birth, did your immortal soul exist?

Marxman
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Sure my physical body will expire but my spirit will never die and i believe this about all of us.

The essence of me, of all of us, is more significant than the flesh and bones that imprison it.

I truly believe that.


"Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter." -Yoda in Empire Strikes Back

Marxman
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Prove 1.) that things such as souls exist, and 2.) that you, indeed have one.

I have addressed this type of debating in another thread. You asking someone to prove the existence of something, that by definition, is immeasurable, is the same as them saying "Your proof is in the Bible."

Its a stupid argument which only leading to a non-ending, cyclical argument which resembles a childish "Am not! - Are to!" argument.

I call you to give proof that there isn't such thing as a soul.

Bardock42
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I highly doubt it. I'd know if evil were in me because i'd reflect it in my everyday life. I'd have a hate for life which is not the case now because I have a love for it.

But you think people that do not believe in God have a hate for life?

W-why do you assume that?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Marxman
I have addressed this type of debating in another thread. You asking someone to prove the existence of something, that by definition, is immeasurable, is the same as them saying "Your proof is in the Bible."

Its a stupid argument which only leading to a non-ending, cyclical argument which resembles a childish "Am not! - Are to!" argument.

I call you to give proof that there isn't such thing as a soul.

I concur indeed.
Proof of a particular thing or a phenomenon can be only delivered if the evidence for such can be empirically collected.
To ask for a proof or soul (or god) is to ask for empirical evidence of something which cannot be empirically measured.

Pointless indeed.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I concur indeed.
Proof of a particular thing or a phenomenon can be only delivered if the evidence for such can be empirically collected.
To ask for a proof or soul (or god) is to ask for empirical evidence of something which cannot be empirically measured.

Pointless indeed.

Is it pointless to talk about something like what is inside of a black hole? No empirical data can ever be collected from inside a black hole, but scientists try to talk about it all the time. The real problem is emotions. We connect our beliefs to the beliefs of others. If we didn't do this, we would have no problem.

Fishy
Originally posted by Marxman
I have addressed this type of debating in another thread. You asking someone to prove the existence of something, that by definition, is immeasurable, is the same as them saying "Your proof is in the Bible."

Its a stupid argument which only leading to a non-ending, cyclical argument which resembles a childish "Am not! - Are to!" argument.

I call you to give proof that there isn't such thing as a soul.

That's funny...

You are claiming it exists when there is no evidence for it except for the bible and there is no evidence that the bible is real except for the bible.

It us up to you to prove that a soul exists, the easiest way to do that is to prove that a religious book like the bible the Koran or the Torah are real. So you have fun.

It's like somebody saying that the sun revolves around the earth and all evidence to the contrary is false but then delivers no evidence and asks the people who disagree with him to prove that the evidence of the earth revolving around the sun isn't fake at all. Which is impossible because all the evidence agreeing with them is according to the first person wrong.

That's not the way you should debate. You prove your statements, you don't ask others to prove them wrong.

Shakyamunison
^ Very true. The fact that you cannot prove a negative is not proof of anything.

Marxman
Originally posted by Fishy
That's funny...

You are claiming it exists when there is no evidence for it except for the bible and there is no evidence that the bible is real except for the bible.

It us up to you to prove that a soul exists, the easiest way to do that is to prove that a religious book like the bible the Koran or the Torah are real. So you have fun.

It's like somebody saying that the sun revolves around the earth and all evidence to the contrary is false but then delivers no evidence and asks the people who disagree with him to prove that the evidence of the earth revolving around the sun isn't fake at all. Which is impossible because all the evidence agreeing with them is according to the first person wrong.

That's not the way you should debate. You prove your statements, you don't ask others to prove them wrong.

If you actually read my post you will see that I didn't post my opinion on this issue either way. But my statement still stands. A soul is something that can't be measured. Therefore its unprovable by scientific standards.

The proof of a soul comes from the testimonies of others. Whether you want to believe these testimonies are up to you.

Fishy
Originally posted by Marxman
If you actually read my post you will see that I didn't post my opinion on this issue either way. But my statement still stands. A soul is something that can't be measured. Therefore its unprovable by scientific standards.

The proof of a soul comes from the testimonies of others. Whether you want to believe these testimonies are up to you.

I don't care what your believe on the matter is but sorry for assuming.

Still my point stands, you can't ask people to prove a negative. It's up to them it exists, and testimony's from people? What people, how do they know it was a soul, how do they know anything?

And if science can't prove it then there is no real good reason for accepting it as true, except for of course your own belief system, and that can hardly be seen as proof of anything.

Marxman
Originally posted by Fishy
I don't care what your believe on the matter is but sorry for assuming.

Still my point stands, you can't ask people to prove a negative. It's up to them it exists, and testimony's from people? What people, how do they know it was a soul, how do they know anything?

And if science can't prove it then there is no real good reason for accepting it as true, except for of course your own belief system, and that can hardly be seen as proof of anything.

You're arguing in circles. The point is don't ask someone to prove something that can't be proven to your liking. Its pointless, because it ends a debate that has potential to be a serious, thoughtful debate.

Fishy
Originally posted by Marxman
You're arguing in circles. The point is don't ask someone to prove something that can't be proven to your liking. Its pointless, because it ends a debate that has potential to be a serious, thoughtful debate.

How can you have a good debate when you can't prove anything, well you can but not in a thread where you want to prove something.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is it pointless to talk about something like what is inside of a black hole? No empirical data can ever be collected from inside a black hole, but scientists try to talk about it all the time. The real problem is emotions. We connect our beliefs to the beliefs of others. If we didn't do this, we would have no problem.

Scientist speculate, and are aware of lack of proof. Most are not arrogant as to demand proof of the things they know they cannot obtain.

You (not you personally, just generally) asking anyone for a proof of something you KNOW evidence cannot be collected for, then using that to claim lack of its existence is pointless.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Scientist speculate, and are aware of lack of proof. Most are not arrogant as to demand proof of the things they know they cannot obtain.

You (not you personally, just generally) asking anyone for a proof of something you KNOW evidence cannot be collected for, then using that to claim lack of its existence is pointless.

I agree, however, I think the logic they use is like this; if you cannot prove me wrong then that is proof I am right. It is realization to the extreme, and it is wrong.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Marxman
I have addressed this type of debating in another thread. You asking someone to prove the existence of something, that by definition, is immeasurable, is the same as them saying "Your proof is in the Bible."

Its a stupid argument which only leading to a non-ending, cyclical argument which resembles a childish "Am not! - Are to!" argument.

I call you to give proof that there isn't such thing as a soul.

A negation cannot be proven, therefore the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim to substantiate it.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Marxman
If you actually read my post you will see that I didn't post my opinion on this issue either way. But my statement still stands. A soul is something that can't be measured. Therefore its unprovable by scientific standards.

The proof of a soul comes from the testimonies of others. Whether you want to believe these testimonies are up to you.

If a soul cannot be observed, then how do you know that it exists?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a soul cannot be observed, then how do you know that it exists?

faith

although thats not exactly knowledge

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
faith

although thats not exactly knowledge

Not exactly? It's not the same ballfied, it's not even the same ****ing sport.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not exactly? It's not the same ballfied, it's not even the same ****ing sport.

more accurately in your analogy faith would hardly even be a sport

however scientific evidence of a soul is impossible due to its very nature

the only way you can believe in a soul is to have faith

Marxman
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a soul cannot be observed, then how do you know that it exists?

Well it is probably observed in one way or another, or else the idea would have never come into existence.

When I say testimonies of people I'm speaking of people who have had near death experiences which they claim to see some lady dressed in light beckoning them to golden gates or some ridiculous thing like that.

Or out of body experiences during major surgery.

Or visitations of deceased family or close friends in dreams.

These are the only evidence of souls we have and until we find another way to prove its existence, then that's what you have to deal with. Those who have experienced these things or similar things will believe in a non-corporal form we all have. People who believe these people's claims also believe.

However those of us who are skeptical and have not experienced something to change our minds will continue to think the opposite.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
however scientific evidence of a soul is impossible due to its very nature

How do you know that?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Marxman
Well it is probably observed in one way or another, or else the idea would have never come into existence.

If it is observable, it is quantifiable.




Originally posted by Marxman
When I say testimonies of people I'm speaking of people who have had near death experiences which they claim to see some lady dressed in light beckoning them to golden gates or some ridiculous thing like that.

Or out of body experiences during major surgery.

Or visitations of deceased family or close friends in dreams.

These are the only evidence of souls we have and until we find another way to prove its existence, then that's what you have to deal with. Those who have experienced these things or similar things will believe in a non-corporal form we all have. People who believe these people's claims also believe.

However those of us who are skeptical and have not experienced something to change our minds will continue to think the opposite.

How is that evidence of a soul, and not some other phenomena?

Lord Urizen
MY soul is corrupt

FeceMan
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How do you know that?
I'm not sure how a soul can be observed.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm not sure how a soul can be observed.

Marxman seems to think so.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How do you know that?

Yeah, people seem to think that there are somehow things that can not be found by scientific means. I don't understand that, though a concept like that might exist it can not be used in any debater. Why should god not be empirically observable?

People just use that to not have to support their bullshit views.

Storm
Back in 1907, Dr. Duncan MacDougall brought it upon himself to prove that a person' s soul could be measured, to the tune of approximately 21 grams lost at the moment of death. His results on changes in weight were far from consistent though.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Storm
Back in 1907, Dr. Duncan MacDougall brought it upon himself to prove that a person' s soul could be measured, to the tune of approximately 21 grams lost at the moment of death. His results on changes in weight were far from consistent though.


...and have been proven wrong. Just the other day I was watching a TV show on the History Channel, and they had a segment on Dr. Duncan MacDougall. They showed how his methods where flawed.

Storm
More precisely, MacDougall' s results were flawed because the sample size was far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight were less than precise. His experiments did not demonstrate any credible evidence about post-mortem weight loss.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
FistOfThe North, before birth, did your immortal soul exist?

Does it matter? Surely something that can never die or perish can have a beginning. For example the mind or space.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Does it matter? Surely something that can never die or perish can have a beginning. For example the mind or space.

But I don't believe that space has a beginning. If you live forever, it is only reasonable that forever means into the future and into the past.

Bardock42
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Does it matter? Surely something that can never die or perish can have a beginning. For example the mind or space.

The mind can perish.

Space most likely as well.

Marxman
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If it is observable, it is quantifiable.






How is that evidence of a soul, and not some other phenomena?

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that's what someone who believes that uses as proof. You're misunderstanding me here. I don't believe in something called a soul. I believe shit like that are simply the mind working, nuerons firing and such (as you can probably tell I'm no scientist). My only purpose in this thread is to try and stop the round about debating that continually happens on these forums when it comes to religious views.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Marxman
My only purpose in this thread is to try and stop the round about debating that continually happens on these forums when it comes to religious views.

Then you need to address those who do not understand that making an unsubstantiated claim is not the same as making a sound argument.

Marxman
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then you need to address those who do not understand that making an unsubstantiated claim is not the same as making a sound argument.

Hey but is either group going to stop doing it? I doubt it. I just wanted to make my point here because atheists seem to make a point of saying how Theists "evidence" is shit. I'm being the devil's advocate, so to speak.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Marxman
Hey but is either group going to stop doing it? I doubt it. I just wanted to make my point here because atheists seem to make a point of saying how Theists "evidence" is shit. I'm being the devil's advocate, so to speak.

That is because it is.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Storm
Back in 1907, Dr. Duncan MacDougall brought it upon himself to prove that a person' s soul could be measured, to the tune of approximately 21 grams lost at the moment of death. His results on changes in weight were far from consistent though.
Maybe he was measuring air in the lungs, 'cause I'm pretty sure the soul isn't substantial.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Gregory
Are you a troll? What sort of blithering lunatic would claim that people disagree with him because they're possessed by demons?

Kill yourself. Seriously. Take a shotgun, stick it in your mouth, and pull the trigger. If you're right, it won't matter. thumb up

debbiejo
IMO we all are immortal.......Bible says so and Quantum physics says so..

And in saying this, we are just what we are........It's only religion that put the curse on it.

FistOfThe North
I am immortal. Just not physically. Does that explain it better?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I am immortal. Just not physically. Does that explain it better?

When did you start?

Storm
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I am immortal. Just not physically. Does that explain it better?
You see the sould as an immaterial home for thoughts, emotions, beliefs and so on?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Storm
You see the sould as an immaterial home for thoughts, emotions, beliefs and so on?

"the sould"? laughing stick out tongue Now I don't feel so bad.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When did you start?

When did i start what.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
When did i start what.

Your immortality...doh

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your immortality...doh

When my soul became one with my body. Whenever that was. Sometime early on in my mamas belly.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
When my soul became one with my body. Whenever that was. Sometime early on in my mamas belly.

Then you are not immortal.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you are not immortal.

Not physically, no. I said that already.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Not physically, no. I said that already.

You are not immortal in any way. You have a beginning; Someone who is immortal would have not beginning or end.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are not immortal in any way. You have a beginning; Someone who is immortal would have not beginning or end.

I've been saying that. What don't you understand about it. Be logical. Who said anything about anyone, meaning a physical human, being immortal.

I when I speak of immortality, I speak of the soul, not of the body.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I've been saying that. What don't you understand about it. Be logical. Who said anything about anyone, meaning a physical human, being immortal.

I when I speak of immortality, I speak of the soul, not of the body.

You cannot prove that souls exist, let alone that you have one, or that they are immortal.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You cannot prove that souls exist, let alone that you have one, or that they are immortal.

Then I can say you have no proof that one doesn't exists or that I don't have one.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I've been saying that. What don't you understand about it. Be logical. Who said anything about anyone, meaning a physical human, being immortal.

I when I speak of immortality, I speak of the soul, not of the body.

OK, when did your soul begin?

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, when did your soul begin?

I don't know.. That's like asking when did the infinite universe begin. But we do know that it'll be around forever. Even after we physically die, of course.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I don't know.. That's like asking when did the infinite universe begin. But we do know that it'll be around forever. Even after we physically die, of course.

I don't believe in a creation of the universe. There is no beginning to the energy that is you and I. The energy I will call an entity, for lack of a better word: The entity that is you is eternal, however, you are physical, and will one day die. My point is, you are the incarnation of your entity (or soul), not the other way around.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Then I can say you have no proof that one doesn't exists or that I don't have one.

That is problem for your argument, not mine.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is problem for your argument, not mine.

1st of all are you Russian? 2nd of all, i hardly see a problem. And 3rd of all, what is you argument?

Make sense the next time, I'm allergic to irrelevance.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
1st of all are you Russian? 2nd of all, i hardly see a problem. And 3rd of all, what is you argument?

Make sense the next time, I'm allergic to irrelevance.

Wow! that was messy and disrespectful.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
1st of all are you Russian? 2nd of all, i hardly see a problem. And 3rd of all, what is you argument?

Make sense the next time, I'm allergic to irrelevance.

How is whether or not I am Russian relevant to whether or not souls exist?

Since a positive claim can be proved, the inability to substantiate a positive claim results in an argument that is not sound.

Since a negative claim cannot be proved, the inability to substantiate a negative claim does not affect whether or not the argument is sound.

Souls do not exist.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How is whether or not I am Russian relevant to whether or not souls exist?

Since a positive claim can be proved, the inability to substantiate a positive claim results in an argument that is not sound.

Since a negative claim cannot be proved, the inability to substantiate a negative claim does not affect whether or not the argument is sound.

Souls do not exist.

I was being humorous. It seems you don't believe that exists either.

However, I'll have you know that such a thing exists as an unproven positive claim that can equally result in arguments of no sound.

Your saying that souls don't exist is merely your opinion. That they do exist is my belief in which I don't consider it opinion.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I was being humorous. It seems you don't believe that exists either.


humor exists, it merely escapes you

Originally posted by FistOfThe North

Your saying that souls don't exist is merely your opinion. That they do exist is my belief in which I don't consider it opinion.

and yet it is an opinoin

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
However, I'll have you know that such a thing exists as an unproven positive claim that can equally result in arguments of no sound.

Your saying that souls don't exist is merely your opinion. That they do exist is my belief in which I don't consider it opinion.

Again, my inability to prove a negative claim does not affect the soundness of my argument, but your inabilitity to prove a positive claim does affect the soundness of yours. Try again.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, my inability to prove a negative claim does not affect the soundness of my argument, but your inabilitity to prove a positive claim does affect the soundness of yours. Try again.

Try to make you understand it again. Sure. I'll try and simplify to make it easier for you, k?

smile

My belief that I have a soul makes it a fact in itself, to me. And fact is fact. It's definitely not an opinion because my faith tells me that i certainly have a soul because an opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, while totally killing the soundness of your argument and claim, which is that a soul doesn't exist. So you try again.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Try to make you understand it again. Sure. I'll try and simplify to make it easier for you, k?

smile

My belief that I have a soul makes it a fact in itself, to me. And fact is fact. It's definitely not an opinion because my faith tells me that i certainly have a soul because an opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, while totally killing the soundness of your argument and claim, which is that a soul doesn't exist. So you try again.

If it is a fact only to you then no matter how much faith you have it is still an opinion.

For example if a shitzophrenic is convinced that there is arsenic in his coffe that doesn't make it true even if he is absolutely certain.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If it is a fact only to you then no matter how much faith you have it is still an opinion.

For example if a shitzophrenic is convinced that there is arsenic in his coffe that doesn't make it true even if he is absolutely certain.

The thing is, is if the scizophrenc is absolutely certain that there is arsnic in his coffee, who's to say it isn't true and what effects do we have to say he's lying. On top of which, on a hunch and on the contrary, there are millions of schizophrenics who are productive citizens.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The thing is, is if the scizophrenc is absolutely certain that there is arsnic in his coffee, who's to say it isn't true and what effects do we have to say he's lying. On top of which, on a hunch and on the contrary, there are millions of schizophrenics who are productive citizens.

There certainly could be arsenic in his coffe but the conviction that it is there doesn't make it a factual truth.

I never said the people with schizophrenia were all delusional or nonproductive (hell not all of them even hear voices) I merely used a well known disorder to make the point clearer.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The thing is, is if the scizophrenc is absolutely certain that there is arsnic in his coffee, who's to say it isn't true and what effects do we have to say he's lying.

Anyone who questions the schizophrenic and determines that there is no rational reason for him to believe that his coffee is poisoned, anyone who observes the coffee and determines that it is not poisoned, etc.

In this case, the schizophrenic is not lying, because he sincerely believes that his coffee is poisoned. However, his belief that his coffee is poisoned is a delusion, it is simply not true.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Anyone who questions the schizophrenic and determines that there is no rational reason for him to believe that his coffee is poisoned, anyone who observes the coffee and determines that it is not poisoned, etc.

In this case, the schizophrenic is not lying, because he sincerely believes that his coffee is poisoned. However, his belief that his coffee is poisoned is a delusion, it is simply not true.

However, it could make him sick if he drank the coffee. The power of belief is amazing.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, it could make him sick if he drank the coffee. The power of belief is amazing.

true but within certain limits

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, it could make him sick if he drank the coffee. The power of belief is amazing.

That does not make his coffee poisoned.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That does not make his coffee poisoned.

No, his coffee is not poisoned; however, someone who saw him drink it might begin to believe that the coffee is poisoned. A person sees a sick person get better after an exorcism, and then believes that the person was possessed.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, his coffee is not poisoned; however, someone who saw him drink it might begin to believe that the coffee is poisoned. A person sees a sick person get better after an exorcism, and then believes that the person was possessed.

If one determines that the coffee is not poisoned and witnesses the schizophrenic drink the coffee and react as if he is poisoned, he will believe that this behavior is an extention of the delusion of the schizophrenic. The same is true of exorcising the posessed.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If one determines that the coffee is not poisoned and witnesses the schizophrenic drink the coffee and react as if he is poisoned, he will believe that this behavior is an extention of the delusion of the schizophrenic. The same is true of exorcising the posessed.

I never said that the other person knew that the coffee was not poisoned. That would have a different result. I'm trying to illustrate the reason people sometimes come to incorrect conclusions. They listen to what is in their head instead of looking at the information dispassionately. I have come across this over and over again.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never said that the other person knew that the coffee was not poisoned. That would have a different result. I'm trying to illustrate the reason people sometimes come to incorrect conclusions. They listen to what is in their head instead of looking at the information dispassionately. I have come across this over and over again.

The reason one comes to incorrect conclusions is because he believes that an opinion becomes a fact if he believes it enough.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The reason one comes to incorrect conclusions is because he believes that an opinion becomes a fact if he believes it enough.

What? We are talking past each other.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? We are talking past each other.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Try to make you understand it again. Sure. I'll try and simplify to make it easier for you, k?

smile

My belief that I have a soul makes it a fact in itself, to me. And fact is fact. It's definitely not an opinion because my faith tells me that i certainly have a soul because an opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, while totally killing the soundness of your argument and claim, which is that a soul doesn't exist. So you try again.

Atlantis001

Storm
If they can' t be proven, then there is no rational reason to believe they would exist.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
My belief that I have a soul makes it a fact in itself, to me. And fact is fact. It's definitely not an opinion because my faith tells me that i certainly have a soul because an opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, while totally killing the soundness of your argument and claim, which is that a soul doesn't exist. So you try again.



That makes absolutely no sense thumb down




You are arguing that your opinion is fact, because you believe it is fact, and since "fact is fact", your opinion is not opinion.

Then you argue that you have evidense to back up your opinion, but do provide it....

As Adam Poe said, Try again






Originally posted by Storm
If they can' t be proven, then there is no rational reason to believe they would exist.



Not necessarily.....since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is logical to beleive that we don't simply cease to be once we die.


Ask yourself...

What is your most purest being ? Are you actually your body ? Are you actually your mind ?



Or are you the composition of everything that makes you exist ?



If so, then that means the food you eat is also "you", and the thoughts you think are also "you"



Does that sound plausible ?



Some people resort to the beleif in a soul, because it's difficult to imagine that we can still exist after death, independent of our bodies and thoughts, without some other enduring substance.

And it's even more difficult to beleive that we simply cease to be, since nothing in science truly "ceases to be"


I don't personally find it irrational to beleive in a soul.

Atlantis001

Mindship
I don't know about an immortal soul, but this thread seems to be hangin' on pretty good.

Lord Urizen
According to Buddhism, there is no "me" to be immortal. You will always exist, but not as yourself.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
According to Buddhism, there is no "me" to be immortal. You will always exist, but not as yourself.

You are not the center of your own existence. wink

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are not the center of your own existence. wink


Then what am I ? confused

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then what am I ? confused

a vessel with an undying spirit in it.

Tangible God
I am not immortal because my mind will die with body.

Depressing, huh?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
a vessel with an undying spirit in it.

Exactly where inside of you is this spirit? To the right of the heart, behind the kidneys, where?

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Exactly where inside of you is this spirit? To the right of the heart, behind the kidneys, where?

Mine is split with the Heart and Brain.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Exactly where inside of you is this spirit? To the right of the heart, behind the kidneys, where?

The spirit permeates the whole of one's body.

Darth Zedster
Although if we are vessels with spirits in then what is the point of a body?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Mine is split with the Heart and Brain.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The spirit permeates the whole of one's body.

If your spirit is non-physical, then how does it stay with your physical body?

Magee
Magic.

Rogue Jedi
riddikulus.

Tangible God
Crucio.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If your spirit is non-physical, then how does it stay with your physical body?

Not sure...prolly the same way as my thinking and ideas and memory and etc...those are not physical...but somehow they stick to my physical brain.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Not sure...prolly the same way as my thinking and ideas and memory and etc...those are not physical...but somehow they stick to my physical brain.

The mind is an evanescent biproduct of brain functioning. That is how thoughts, memories, and ideas "stick to physical brain." roll eyes (sarcastic)

WrathfulDwarf
I understand that...I also know that inspiration, will, thinking, and reasoning come from the same place. I wouldn't discard the idea that the soul is somewhere in the line.

And if you knew that why did you even ask me?

Seraphim XIII
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The mind is an evanescent byproduct of brain functioning. That is how thoughts, memories, and ideas "stick to physical brain." roll eyes (sarcastic)

Can you prove this? You did ask for proof as to how a spirit sticks inside of someone.

So, do you have proof as to how thoughts and ideas are a byproduct of the brain's overall function, or what?

Shakyamunison
Our body is like a computer. The soul is the program that is running on the computer. Does the computer program run when the computer brakes?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I understand that...I also know that inspiration, will, thinking, and reasoning come from the same place. I wouldn't discard the idea that the soul is somewhere in the line.

And if you knew that why did you even ask me?

If you understand that the mind is an evanescent biproduct of brain functioning, then you should understand that the mind is attached to the body by nature of being a biproduct of biological functions.

I am asking you to explain how a spirit or a soul is attached to a body since it is not a biproduct of biological functions.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Seraphim XIII
Can you prove this? You did ask for proof as to how a spirit sticks inside of someone.

So, do you have proof as to how thoughts and ideas are a byproduct of the brain's overall function, or what?

All persons with minds have brains, but not all persons with brains have minds.

Seraphim XIII
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
All persons with minds have brains, but not all persons with brains have minds.


Yeah, that's pretty much a wrap up. laughing

inamilist
Originally posted by Seraphim XIII
Can you prove this? You did ask for proof as to how a spirit sticks inside of someone.

So, do you have proof as to how thoughts and ideas are a byproduct of the brain's overall function, or what?

It depends on what you mean by "thought" and how specific of an answer you want.

To begin with, there is not yet a human action or function or behaviour that has been found to be inexplicable through neuroscience. Everything we have observed has supported the idea that thought originates in the brain.

To begin with, "thoughts" is not a scientific or provable concept, so I will abandon it right now. However, there are many cognitive processes that amount to what we would consider to be "thoughts". For instance, all of our sensory organs relay information to our brain, which is then assembled by various regions into our general perception. Yes, there is proof that this is how our senses work, it is a massively robust field of psychology and biology. Pick up a biopsychology and sensation & perception textbook, the specifics of this type of "thought" are gone into in GREAT detail.

Well, what about knowledge? Sure, the brain can explain how the light from my computer screen gets into my eye and I become aware of it, but how do I know what is in that light? Well, thats simple. Every time stimuli hits a sensory organ, it elicits a pattern of responses that goes from the receptors to the cortex by way of the thalamus (smelling is a little different, but not enough so to throw off this point). From the cortex, the information travels to the infotemporal cortex and the amygdala (this is specific for sight, I will be honest in saying I don't know where emotional processing of other senses occurs), where semantic and emotional identification of the stimuli occurs. This all happens well before you become conscious of an object. For instance, there is a disorder known as agnosia, which is a disconnection between the amygdala and the hypothalamus (oh man, i think thats the one...). In this disorder, people are able to recognize and interact with everything, except they are unable to retrieve emotional memories for the purpose of identification. For instance, an agnosia patient who sees their father would describe them as "A person who looks exactly like my father, though clearly not them". The reason that the person cannot identify their father is because their brain is not sending the proper father signal. The information never makes it to the hypothalamus, so it can never be emotionally processed. This proof is two fold. To begin with, it shows that parts of the brain are specifically responsible for attributing information to certain aspects of perception. Why would your soul not be able to identify your father just because some brain thing is messed up? The second point is that conscious perception is completely dependent on subconscious processing. Before you become consciously aware of an item, your brain has already decided what it is, how you feel about it, and what you need to do to deal with it.

Well, what about "consciousness". To begin with, I hate the term. It is misleading in the first place, because asking about consciousness supposes that there is a consciousness to look for. The western philosophical and religious traditions basically named and defined the mental process we would term "consciousness" long before science had a chance to look at it. Now that we have things like EEGs and fMRIs, we find that "consciousness" is really diaphanous. For instance, there are things called brainwaves that are the byproduct of electrical charge in active neurons and things called glial cells which create synchronization in neuron activation. Some of these brainwaves, when they occur in certain parts of the brain, can be associated with certain patterns of neural activation, which can be used to determine what people are "thinking". Now, in an experiment, people were asked to move their hand and say when they become consciously aware of their intention to move their hand. What was found, when measuring brainwave activity from the motor cortex (the place responsible for movement) was activation much sooner than the person indicated awareness of the conscious intent to move. This means that people do not become aware of what they are going to do until after their brain has prepared to make that movement. This is a very standard result in cognitive neuroscience.

There is also the existence of something called, by Dr. Gazzaniga, the interpreter. It is within the left side of the brain, and all information must pass through it in order to be included in our interpretation of reality. For instance, a cure for some types of Epilepsy is to cut the corpus callosum, a nerve that connects the left and right sides of the brain. Once this is done, certain types of information can no longer pass from one side to the other. While this is ok in normal conditions, it can be manipulated in experimental conditions to show the inability of the brain to account for all stimuli. A person's left eye sends information to the right side of the brain, and vica versa. So, if a subject with their callosum cut is presented a ball in their left eye and a bike in the other, they will ONLY be aware of the bike (the ball is being sent to the right side of the brain which cannot communicate with the interpreter). Well, you say, thats because they are ignoring the ball (or some other argument that still supports some type of dualism) but wait, if after showing them those images you were to show them a page consisting of 4 images, say a horn, a baseball bat, a birdhouse and a bike helmet, they are most likely to pick something like the baseball bat because it is associated with the ball on the right side of the brain (although they are only consciously aware that they have seen the bike). When asked WHY they pointed to the bat, they will come up with a story like, "oh, well, i used to play baseball as a kid and sometimes my brother would bike up to see me play". This is because the "interpreter" is there, it can see you are pointing at the bat and you saw a bike, now it is looking for the rational explanation. Since it is unable to get the information from the left eye, it can not attribute the selection of the bat to the ball. And yes, this experiment was done with controls. People without a cut in the callosum will generally be able to justify what they selected. There are many, many, MANY experiments like these, many dealing with things like morality or more existential concerns. The have all uniformly shown us that our own beliefs and perceptions are directly related to mental processes, and can be subject to predictable error under experimental conditions. I can't imagine a definition of a "soul" that allows for this type of error.

Similar things can be said about the conception of self, the way we attribute cause to events, and our ability (or inability) to properly remember situations. Hell, the fact that we can trick our perceptive system with optical illusions even when we know how they work seems to indicate that there is nothing inside of us watching through our eyes and making our decisions. Probably the best evidence for this is that there is no place where the "soul" or "self" would be located. For the soul to be sending thoughts and actions to the brain it would need a direct connection. This connection does not exist. Not to mention that you would need to suppose a new type of communication between neurons other than neurotransmitters that allows for "spirit energy" to become electro-chemical energy.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Adam_PoE


I am asking you to explain how a spirit or a soul is attached to a body since it is not a biproduct of biological functions.

The best explaination I can give you is a Philosophical one. If you're a man of science then stop reading right here...but if you're willing to discuss this in a philosophical manner keep reading.


Let me introduce you first to my friend Plato. In the Republic, Plato describes the soul as having three parts, which he calls a) reason b)spirit c) appetite. He derived this tripatite conception of the soul from the common experience of internal confusion and conflict all humans share. When he analyzed the nature of this conflict, he discovered that there are three different kinds of activity going on in a person. First, there is an awreness of a goal or a value, and this is the act of reason. Secondly, there is the drive toward action, the spirit which is neutral at first but responds to the direction of reason. Last, there is the desire for things of the body, which are the appetites.

In his philosophy he also mentions two worlds. The world in which you, I, and everyone else sees..which is the physical world. This world can be seen by the physical body. The other, is a world of ideas, thoughts, imagination, and this one can be seen by our mind which I think is the translator for the soul.

The mechanics of how the soul is attached to body is rather difficult to explain. I have my own idea of how it works, but it doesn't come from Plato. It comes from the chinese philosophy call "Chi" (or as we know it in the west "Life Energy"wink in which is believe humans as they grow gain energy. This energy forms what we call the soul. Once the soul is form in a human, the energy is then regulated to the capacity best fitted for the indiviual. Once the soul is formed from the life energy it cannot be destroyed nor lost.

Thus, the body dies...and this life energy product (i.e. soul) goes into the world which Plato mentions.

That's how I think it works.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The best explaination I can give you is a Philosophical one. If you're a man of science then stop reading right here...but if you're willing to discuss this in a philosophical manner keep reading.


Let me introduce you first to my friend Plato. In the Republic, Plato describes the soul as having three parts, which he calls a) reason b)spirit c) appetite. He derived this tripatite conception of the soul from the common experience of internal confusion and conflict all humans share. When he analyzed the nature of this conflict, he discovered that there are three different kinds of activity going on in a person. First, there is an awreness of a goal or a value, and this is the act of reason. Secondly, there is the drive toward action, the spirit which is neutral at first but responds to the direction of reason. Last, there is the desire for things of the body, which are the appetites.

In his philosophy he also mentions two worlds. The world in which you, I, and everyone else sees..which is the physical world. This world can be seen by the physical body. The other, is a world of ideas, thoughts, imagination, and this one can be seen by our mind which I think is the translator for the soul.

The mechanics of how the soul is attached to body is rather difficult to explain. I have my own idea of how it works, but it doesn't come from Plato. It comes from the chinese philosophy call "Chi" (or as we know it in the west "Life Energy"wink in which is believe humans as they grow gain energy. This energy forms what we call the soul. Once the soul is form in a human, the energy is then regulated to the capacity best fitted for the indiviual. Once the soul is formed from the life energy it cannot be destroyed nor lost.

Thus, the body dies...and this life energy product (i.e. soul) goes into the world which Plato mentions.

That's how I think it works.

Life energy is not incorpeal, nor is it a manifestation of the non-physical characteristics of a person; quite different than a spirit or soul.

DarkRaven
no matter what explaination you give or you take.. there is only one.

As humans, we die because we lose the will to live. We could live forever and be immortal.

do we die because it is time for our bodies to rest? Do we die because of illness? Do we die because since the day we were born we were meant to die?

Is it that we lose the WILL to live?

There are many theories as to why humans die,scientific, biological, relegious beliefs and many others.

The reason why which I believe that we die is that written above.

We die becuase we as huamans lose the WILL to LIVE.

ofcourse sometimes our lives are taken from us. But apart from murder and "accidents" we lose our Will to live.

Why is it that the healthiest old man dies of old age? man loses his will. Man loses his will of anything. The WILL to stay young and eventually.... the will to live....
--Valery

that is the only explantion to your question...."I am asking you to explain how a spirit or a soul is attached to a body since it is not a biproduct of biological functions."

the spirit is the master to the body and if the spirit dies then the body dies... They are not attached they are one alone.

inamilist
Originally posted by DarkRaven
no matter what explaination you give or you take.. there is only one.

As humans, we die because we lose the will to live. We could live forever and be immortal.

do we die because it is time for our bodies to rest? Do we die because of illness? Do we die because since the day we were born we were meant to die?

Is it that we lose the WILL to live?

There are many theories as to why humans die,scientific, biological, relegious beliefs and many others.

The reason why which I believe that we die is that written above.

We die becuase we as huamans lose the WILL to LIVE.

ofcourse sometimes our lives are taken from us. But apart from murder and "accidents" we lose our Will to live.

Why is it that the healthiest old man dies of old age? man loses his will. Man loses his will of anything. The WILL to stay young and eventually.... the will to live....
--Valery

that is the only explantion to your question...."I am asking you to explain how a spirit or a soul is attached to a body since it is not a biproduct of biological functions."

the spirit is the master to the body and if the spirit dies then the body dies... They are not attached they are one alone.

alright, there are three experiments that could be done to prove what you are saying.

1) get a gun, 100 people and maybe a few more than that many bullets. Now, 50 of these people need to "have the will to not die" and 50 need to be of a differant mind. Give them each what would be a fatal gunshot wound

2) same experiment only give them aids instead of shooting them

3) same experiment only this time lock them in a room with no food or water

so ya...

not to say that the answer should be self evident, but....

Tangible God
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it... as an inevitability."

"So Frank, how did you die and end up in Hell?"
"Well Joe, I was in my bed, deep in sleep, dreaming of the eternal life I knew I'd have since I cannot accept death, when my house exploded and incinerated me."

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Tangible God
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it... as an inevitability."

"So Frank, how did you die and end up in Hell?"
"Well Joe, I was in my bed, deep in sleep, dreaming of the eternal life I knew I'd have since I cannot accept death, when my house exploded and incinerated me."

This post sends me to hell. roll eyes (sarcastic)

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Sure my physical body will expire but my spirit will never die and i believe this about all of us.

The essence of me, of all of us, is more significant than the flesh and bones that imprison it.

I truly believe that.

there is no such thing as a spirit or soul. It is just an idea that is apart of religion, and religion is nothing more than a scam put forth to creat order and power for those smart enough to use it to their will. sure, your energy will live on for ever, but electricity is not aware because it has no brain. Once your brain stops functioning, the only thing left of you is your corpse and energy. this is what they tell us right? istead of being ridiculed for believing in something, believe what everyone else believes. There is no creationism only evolution, and energy

LordFear
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Just as nonsensical as you sound to me, perhaps.

Do you have proof that souls can't have memories? That they are apart of our material brains, that souls have no memories, thoughts, or feelings.

I beg your pardon but the last time I looked, to have a soul, to be soulful, was to be all these things combined.


actually if you are looking for proof. Just refer to the good old Bible. It states somewhere in there how souls do not have recollections of their earthly lives once they depart the body. You essentially will not have any memory of who you where and families and friends. Look it up if you are skeptical

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by LordFear
actually if you are looking for proof. Just refer to the good old Bible. It states somewhere in there how souls do not have recollections of their earthly lives once they depart the body. You essentially will not have any memory of who you where and families and friends. Look it up if you are skeptical

Had the Bible been as easy to look things up as it is with a dictionary, especially for someone like myself who doesn't read it that often, i would've looked it up.

How about shooting me some scriptures or verse numbers since the Bible is pretty extensive on top of i don't know where to look for that info.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
It depends on what you mean by "thought" and how specific of an answer you want.

To begin with, there is not yet a human action or function or behaviour that has been found to be inexplicable through neuroscience. Everything we have observed has supported the idea that thought originates in the brain.

To begin with, "thoughts" is not a scientific or provable concept, so I will abandon it right now. However, there are many cognitive processes that amount to what we would consider to be "thoughts". For instance, all of our sensory organs relay information to our brain, which is then assembled by various regions into our general perception. Yes, there is proof that this is how our senses work, it is a massively robust field of psychology and biology. Pick up a biopsychology and sensation & perception textbook, the specifics of this type of "thought" are gone into in GREAT detail.

Well, what about knowledge? Sure, the brain can explain how the light from my computer screen gets into my eye and I become aware of it, but how do I know what is in that light? Well, thats simple. Every time stimuli hits a sensory organ, it elicits a pattern of responses that goes from the receptors to the cortex by way of the thalamus (smelling is a little different, but not enough so to throw off this point). From the cortex, the information travels to the infotemporal cortex and the amygdala (this is specific for sight, I will be honest in saying I don't know where emotional processing of other senses occurs), where semantic and emotional identification of the stimuli occurs. This all happens well before you become conscious of an object. For instance, there is a disorder known as agnosia, which is a disconnection between the amygdala and the hypothalamus (oh man, i think thats the one...). In this disorder, people are able to recognize and interact with everything, except they are unable to retrieve emotional memories for the purpose of identification. For instance, an agnosia patient who sees their father would describe them as "A person who looks exactly like my father, though clearly not them". The reason that the person cannot identify their father is because their brain is not sending the proper father signal. The information never makes it to the hypothalamus, so it can never be emotionally processed. This proof is two fold. To begin with, it shows that parts of the brain are specifically responsible for attributing information to certain aspects of perception. Why would your soul not be able to identify your father just because some brain thing is messed up? The second point is that conscious perception is completely dependent on subconscious processing. Before you become consciously aware of an item, your brain has already decided what it is, how you feel about it, and what you need to do to deal with it.

Well, what about "consciousness". To begin with, I hate the term. It is misleading in the first place, because asking about consciousness supposes that there is a consciousness to look for. The western philosophical and religious traditions basically named and defined the mental process we would term "consciousness" long before science had a chance to look at it. Now that we have things like EEGs and fMRIs, we find that "consciousness" is really diaphanous. For instance, there are things called brainwaves that are the byproduct of electrical charge in active neurons and things called glial cells which create synchronization in neuron activation. Some of these brainwaves, when they occur in certain parts of the brain, can be associated with certain patterns of neural activation, which can be used to determine what people are "thinking". Now, in an experiment, people were asked to move their hand and say when they become consciously aware of their intention to move their hand. What was found, when measuring brainwave activity from the motor cortex (the place responsible for movement) was activation much sooner than the person indicated awareness of the conscious intent to move. This means that people do not become aware of what they are going to do until after their brain has prepared to make that movement. This is a very standard result in cognitive neuroscience.

There is also the existence of something called, by Dr. Gazzaniga, the interpreter. It is within the left side of the brain, and all information must pass through it in order to be included in our interpretation of reality. For instance, a cure for some types of Epilepsy is to cut the corpus callosum, a nerve that connects the left and right sides of the brain. Once this is done, certain types of information can no longer pass from one side to the other. While this is ok in normal conditions, it can be manipulated in experimental conditions to show the inability of the brain to account for all stimuli. A person's left eye sends information to the right side of the brain, and vica versa. So, if a subject with their callosum cut is presented a ball in their left eye and a bike in the other, they will ONLY be aware of the bike (the ball is being sent to the right side of the brain which cannot communicate with the interpreter). Well, you say, thats because they are ignoring the ball (or some other argument that still supports some type of dualism) but wait, if after showing them those images you were to show them a page consisting of 4 images, say a horn, a baseball bat, a birdhouse and a bike helmet, they are most likely to pick something like the baseball bat because it is associated with the ball on the right side of the brain (although they are only consciously aware that they have seen the bike). When asked WHY they pointed to the bat, they will come up with a story like, "oh, well, i used to play baseball as a kid and sometimes my brother would bike up to see me play". This is because the "interpreter" is there, it can see you are pointing at the bat and you saw a bike, now it is looking for the rational explanation. Since it is unable to get the information from the left eye, it can not attribute the selection of the bat to the ball. And yes, this experiment was done with controls. People without a cut in the callosum will generally be able to justify what they selected. There are many, many, MANY experiments like these, many dealing with things like morality or more existential concerns. The have all uniformly shown us that our own beliefs and perceptions are directly related to mental processes, and can be subject to predictable error under experimental conditions. I can't imagine a definition of a "soul" that allows for this type of error.

Similar things can be said about the conception of self, the way we attribute cause to events, and our ability (or inability) to properly remember situations. Hell, the fact that we can trick our perceptive system with optical illusions even when we know how they work seems to indicate that there is nothing inside of us watching through our eyes and making our decisions. Probably the best evidence for this is that there is no place where the "soul" or "self" would be located. For the soul to be sending thoughts and actions to the brain it would need a direct connection. This connection does not exist. Not to mention that you would need to suppose a new type of communication between neurons other than neurotransmitters that allows for "spirit energy" to become electro-chemical energy.

How do you know that no connection between the soul and the brain exists?

Goddess Kali
How do you know there is a soul ?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.