Many religions tell us that the soul is infinite - unbounded. It can comprehend all time and space.

Most humans would agree that, as far as we're aware, we're extremely limited. I, at least, can't read and discuss an unrelated topic at the same time; I can't even remember the details of something that was in front of my eyes a few seconds ago. The idea of knowing everything seems laughable.

Hope would say a soul exists and at some point these limitations will fall away. Scepticism would say, if you're limited now - don't expect it to get any better. Objectivism would say that this is beyond the bounds of our knowledge, even more so because it is so limited.

What do you think?

What does it mean to comprehend something? To form an extraneous symbol of it in your mind? Symbols by their very nature are abstractions of reality. The limitations of your mind can be rather easily experienced in the psychedelic state. Informed by this experience, I can say that we are already inherently unbounded, but the boundries are what let us think. To know everything is to be everything, and no thinking is possible. Thinking requires something known, and other things as yet unknown. Between the two there is a movement.

I think the thing you are referring to is possible, but it will happen with our conscious minds, connected to computers, where our thoughts can be made symbolically real. Once all minds are connected in virtual reality, this will be the heaven and hell of mythology, a place where all our dreams and fantasies will manifest, all ideas shared with all conscious beings, a playground of the mind.

I think the thing you are referring to is possible, but it will happen with our conscious minds, connected to computers, where our thoughts can be made symbolically real. Once all minds are connected in virtual reality, this will be the heaven and hell of mythology, a place where all our dreams and fantasies will manifest, all ideas shared with all conscious beings, a playground of the mind.

It amazes me that the secular mind can reject the 'illusions' and spiritual realities that form the subject of religion, and then seemingly feel compelled to offer a secular version of the same 'myths'.

The problem with the argument for a soul is that these are the same people that say the world was flat, is 6,000 years old, that the universe was created in 7 days, and of course that evolution is 'fantasy' because God of course created Humans overnight fully formed.

You wanna listen to people who say the soul exists?

i think that our physical bodies limit us to our individual abilities and that in dying, one is no longer limited physically so that consciousness as well as the physical chemicals that make up our bodies are released into the universe. one has free will during life because of their ignorance, not despite it. one can no longer retain free will after death because one loses ignorance and therefore loses the ability to act without knowing the infinite (or nearly so) effects of their actions.

The problem with the argument for a soul is that these are the same people that say the world was flat, is 6,000 years old, that the universe was created in 7 days, and of course that evolution is 'fantasy' because God of course created Humans overnight fully formed.

You wanna listen to people who say the soul exists?
thats a rather extreme stereotype. i know christians are not the only people who believe in a soul. and i doubt that all christians believe everything you said, even though the majority would.

and i doubt that all christians believe everything you said

Of course they wouldn't. Anyone who agree's with anything I say can not be a 'proper' Christian as Adster would say.

Einstuck,

It amazes me that the secular mind Reading one person's opinion and speculation doesn't in anyway describe the secular mind.

can reject the 'illusions' and spiritual realities that form the subject of religion,What are spiritual realities? Don't you mean religious fantasies?

of course they are fantasies....but that doesnt make them untrue. to make a broad, sweeping statement about the truthfullness of a religion (pro or con) is idiocy. there is no way you can know what is true, and what is false.

so yes, by reading one opinion of one person (you), i can form a pretty good description of "the secular mind".

of course they are fantasies....but that doesnt make them untrue. to make a broad, sweeping statement about the truthfullness of a religion (pro or con) is idiocy. there is no way you can know what is true, and what is false.

Do you realize the odds of one religion even having half of the things it claims to be true? And that is if there is a God...

Do you realize the odds of one religion even having half of the things it claims to be true? And that is if there is a God...
extremely bad. but that doesn't make it untrue. it just makes it improbable.

the devil Inside,

so yes, by reading one opinion of one person (you), i can form a pretty good description of "the secular mind". But the opinion was from 'spidergoat' with which I disagree. The term 'secular mind' is taken in this context to apply to everyone with a secular worldview. Since I am secular but disagree with that opinion then your conclusion becomes invalid.

Secular people have vastly varying views on what brought them to their stance. My point is that you cannot classify them neatly as a group by examining the opinion of one of them.

It amazes me that the secular mind can reject the 'illusions' and spiritual realities that form the subject of religion, and then seemingly feel compelled to offer a secular version of the same 'myths'.
what does this say for religion? why does society have a need for this stuff?

actually the soul may exist

Why? Well for one thing scientists haven't even found out exactly how we gain consciousness. "There are many blank areas in understanding the brain dynamics and especially how it gives rise to consciousness". I don't know why people seem to find it so unbelievable that there is something separate from our body, the soul, that always exists. It doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

It doesn't seem unreasonable at all

So because we do not yet understand the complex workings of the brain, that means something outside our brain gives rise to conciousness? It is totally unreasonable, and you are using your bias to look for mystical evidence for a creator which simply doesn't exist.

All the evidence points to the fact that personality, thought, memories and all other mundane functions which form complex life are within the brain. Until we discover otherwise, your wishful thinking is wholly unreasonable.

So because we do not yet understand the complex workings of the brain, that means something outside our brain gives rise to conciousness? It is totally unreasonable, and you are using your bias to look for mystical evidence for a creator which simply doesn't exist.

All the evidence points to the fact that personality, thought, memories and all other mundane functions which form complex life are within the brain.

Don't get so defensive. I never mentioned a creator, nor mystical evidence. You know it's not unreasonable or irrational.

Personality, thought, memory, and other mundane functions should be within the brain according to some doctrines, it's the material mind. However, the same doctrines also state that you are not your thoughts, nor your personality, and that you actually do nothing, it is your material body acting, not you, you are actually just the observer over these things.


Until we discover otherwise, your wishful thinking is wholly unreasonable.

So until someone discovered the Earth was round, the Earth being flat is totally rational, and the Earth being round is totally irrational? Without complete knowledge on the subject, you can't exclude either from being true, nor can you accept one to be completely true, as you are doing.

the soul just doesn't add up.
first off, WHAT is a soul? what does it do? does it keep your emotions, thoughts, etc? where is it?
If the soul is this immortal immaterial thing with no substance or anything, then how does it affect the brain? as KennyJC said, personality, thought, memories, emotions, etc. are in the brain. Something immaterial cannot influence something material. For souls to be true the brain would have to completely ignore physics/chemistry.
and why does the soul completely depend upon the brain anyway? what is it about the brain? if there really WAS something immaterial that affected the material world, why does it ONLY affect the brain? it would be a much better design if the soul affected the muscles and everything else instead of the brain, as the brain takes up a lot of the body's energy and is easily damaged. If the soul directly controled the body, there would be no need for a brain, and we could save energy, etc. Heck, why does it even have to be confined to the body? if in essence we ARE just some ghost thing that controls the material world, why even bother somehow controling the brain so that it tells nerves to tell the muscles in my arms/hands to press the stupid buttons that in turn do something I'm not aware of that does some other things that ultimately end up posting the patterns of my muscle contractions/neurons firing on the internet? it just seems so stupid.
How does the brain affect the soul? something material cannot influence something immaterial. How do your thoughts or whatever go to your soul? do they get stored there? why? how?

and why is it that if you damage say the hippocampus of a person, their memories fail? surely a soul shouldn't be affected by the state of the brain. If the memories are stored in the soul, then the soul could just tell the other parts of the brain to act on those memories.
and say you have alzheimer's... and you die... do you still have alzheimer's? is your poor soul somewhere out there trying to figure out what it is because it forgot? I can just see it now... a poor lonely soul traveling the universe in search for something... what? it forgot.

and speaking of forgetting, I forgot what I was going to say next. lol. Stupid "soul".

oh yeah, I was going to reply to Why? Well for one thing scientists haven't even found out exactly how we gain consciousness.

True, we're not EXACTLY sure how we gain consciousness, but we are sure that it's not in one magical step... you don't have it now, now you do!
it's in many steps. At first everything you do is mechanical, then you start being able to act not on instinct, but out of experience, at first you're not conscious, you're just a stupid cell. at first children are not able to recognize themselves in the mirror, then when they are able to they're not able to recognize themselves on tape (video), then blah blah blah.
stages of development. Don't ask me about details, ask a child psychologist or something.
They seem to go agaist the concept of a soul don't they? you either have a soul, or you don't. You don't just "grow a soul" do you?

yet think about this... the brain does develop. You DO grow a brain.

the brain IS the soul... there's no external ghost entity. You're just body/brain.

Vitalone,

Personality, thought, memory, and other mundane functions should be within the brain according to some doctrines, it's the material mind.Well it isn’t a doctrine since there does appear to be massive and extensive clinical evidence to support this as actuality.

However, the same doctrines also state that you are not your thoughts, nor your personality, and that you actually do nothing, it is your material body acting, not you, you are actually just the observer over these things.Then that would need a strange definition of “you”, since without memory, personality, emotions, and thoughts, what is left? Let’s imagine it is some form of eternal mystical energy, if so then without any of those real factors its existence is essentially meaningless, it may as well not exist for all practical purposes. And how would something without any senses observe what the material body is doing? How would it remember anything without memory?

The most rational conclusion is that you are your mind since there is nothing to indicate otherwise and no reason to consider anything else.

So until someone discovered the Earth was round, the Earth being flat is totally rational, and the Earth being round is totally irrational? Ok so using that analogy we should proceed with what we perceive until we know better, i.e. you are your mind. Much like Newton’s laws of motion seemed fine until Einstein updated them.

Without complete knowledge on the subject, you can't exclude either from being true, nor can you accept one to be completely true, as you are doing. But here the issue is presented as if there was a clear credible choice, but that isn’t so. The soul concept was derived from incredible ignorance of how the brain operated and when superstitions were rife. We now know there is a direct correlation between brain activity and memory, thoughts, personality, and emotions; traits that were once thought to be the realm of a mystical soul. Why then, in the light of these scientific facts, should we continue with the redundant concept of a soul and assign it even more mystical redundant properties?

The only reason it would seem to propagate the meaningless of a soul is to support ancient institutionalized religions that depend on a soul being true.

The soul is a fiction – let’s move on.

All the evidence points to the fact that personality, thought, memories and all other mundane functions which form complex life are within the brain.
Are you so sure about that? I'm not advocating what people usually describe as a 'soul', but recent studies have shown otherwise. The electromagnetic field created by (or perhaps part of) the brain is not confined to the brain.

This field forms when an embryo's brain has developed to a certain point. The energy that makes up this field has no determined source (meaning, it could come from the apple you eat or it could come from something else, it could come from practically anywhere). Studies show evidence that this EM field is at least as individualistic as the owner's personality (this field could possibly describe a person more accurately than any other aspect of their being).

One abstract claims that their experiment showed that this EM field has some affect on the mind through a kind of feedback system. This would mean that a person's [being; consciousness; soul; personality; psyche; mind; etc.] is not completely limited to their brain and body. This does not mean that it is not physical, though. It could be explained by physics, or perhaps a more advanced version of our physics.

the soul just doesn't add up.
first off, WHAT is a soul? what does it do? does it keep your emotions, thoughts, etc? where is it?
If the soul is this immortal immaterial thing with no substance or anything, then how does it affect the brain? as KennyJC said, personality, thought, memories, emotions, etc. are in the brain. Something immaterial cannot influence something material. For souls to be true the brain would have to completely ignore physics/chemistry.
and why does the soul completely depend upon the brain anyway? what is it about the brain? if there really WAS something immaterial that affected the material world, why does it ONLY affect the brain? it would be a much better design if the soul affected the muscles and everything else instead of the brain, as the brain takes up a lot of the body's energy and is easily damaged. If the soul directly controled the body, there would be no need for a brain, and we could save energy, etc. Heck, why does it even have to be confined to the body? if in essence we ARE just some ghost thing that controls the material world, why even bother somehow controling the brain so that it tells nerves to tell the muscles in my arms/hands to press the stupid buttons that in turn do something I'm not aware of that does some other things that ultimately end up posting the patterns of my muscle contractions/neurons firing on the internet? it just seems so stupid.
How does the brain affect the soul? something material cannot influence something immaterial. How do your thoughts or whatever go to your soul? do they get stored there? why? how?

and why is it that if you damage say the hippocampus of a person, their memories fail? surely a soul shouldn't be affected by the state of the brain. If the memories are stored in the soul, then the soul could just tell the other parts of the brain to act on those memories.
and say you have alzheimer's... and you die... do you still have alzheimer's? is your poor soul somewhere out there trying to figure out what it is because it forgot? I can just see it now... a poor lonely soul traveling the universe in search for something... what? it forgot.

and speaking of forgetting, I forgot what I was going to say next. lol. Stupid "soul".
You watch too much TV. I never implied the soul is a ghost thing.
The soul doesn't ignore physics. Ever heard of vacuum energy? It's energy that exists even when there is no matter. The soul doesn't depend on the brain, its vice-versa, the brain depends on the soul. The soul doesn't control the body, the brain, or material mind does. Maybe it's like Descartes says, the brain is the physical link with the soul.

oh yeah, I was going to reply to

True, we're not EXACTLY sure how we gain consciousness, but we are sure that it's not in one magical step... you don't have it now, now you do!
it's in many steps. At first everything you do is mechanical, then you start being able to act not on instinct, but out of experience, at first you're not conscious, you're just a stupid cell. at first children are not able to recognize themselves in the mirror, then when they are able to they're not able to recognize themselves on tape (video), then blah blah blah.
stages of development. Don't ask me about details, ask a child psychologist or something.
They seem to go agaist the concept of a soul don't they? you either have a soul, or you don't. You don't just "grow a soul" do you?

yet think about this... the brain does develop. You DO grow a brain.

the brain IS the soul... there's no external ghost entity. You're just body/brain.
Where do you get this ghost entity idea from? Like I said, you watch too much TV. You are the soul, that occupies a body, the soul is ever-lasting and is not made of matter.

How does your example go against the idea of a soul? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Vitalone,

Well it isn’t a doctrine since there does appear to be massive and extensive clinical evidence to support this as actuality.

A doctrine, meaning principles.


Then that would need a strange definition of “you”, since without memory, personality, emotions, and thoughts, what is left? Let’s imagine it is some form of eternal mystical energy, if so then without any of those real factors its existence is essentially meaningless, it may as well not exist for all practical purposes. And how would something without any senses observe what the material body is doing? How would it remember anything without memory?

If you woke up tomorrow with a different body, do you still exist? You are the soul, the observer.


The most rational conclusion is that you are your mind since there is nothing to indicate otherwise and no reason to consider anything else.

This is incorrect. Not everything can be accounted for by the brain, that is why there are so many blank areas on how we gain consciousness.


But here the issue is presented as if there was a clear credible choice, but that isn’t so. The soul concept was derived from incredible ignorance of how the brain operated and when superstitions were rife. We now know there is a direct correlation between brain activity and memory, thoughts, personality, and emotions; traits that were once thought to be the realm of a mystical soul. Why then, in the light of these scientific facts, should we continue with the redundant concept of a soul and assign it even more mystical redundant properties?

The only reason it would seem to propagate the meaningless of a soul is to support ancient institutionalized religions that depend on a soul being true.

The soul is a fiction – let’s move on.
The soul isn't a ghost body, its you, the observer, that always exists.

There are a lot of blank areas, scientists can't figure out why the brain doesn't account for everything like personality, memory, thoughts, etc...or how we gain consciousness from the brain. To say that the soul is fiction is ignorant.

Vitalone,

If you woke up tomorrow with a different body, do you still exist? What is the value of such a baseless speculation? Surely to demonstrate a point you would need a real world example? Do you actually have a real example of someone waking up in a different body?

You are the soul, the observer.But again what does this mean? Without senses how would such a thing observe and if it could observe what could it do with the information without memory?


“ The most rational conclusion is that you are your mind since there is nothing to indicate otherwise and no reason to consider anything else.
”

… Not everything can be accounted for by the brain, that is why there are so many blank areas on how we gain consciousness.Surely you mean we don’t know HOW the brain does these things not that it doesn’t do them – you can’t conclude that it doesn’t do them.

The soul isn't a ghost body, its you, the observer, that always exists. Why and what role would it play? Without personality, memory, emotions, or thoughts, it is a null entity- equivalent to something that doesn’t exist.

Why do you think it needs to exist?

There are a lot of blank areas, scientists can't figure out why the brain doesn't account for everything like personality, memory, thoughts, etc...or how we gain consciousness from the brain.That’s false. We do know the brain accounts for all these things through endless clinical studies especially on brain damaged patients. I hope what you mean is that scientists have yet to figure out exactly how the brain achieves these properties. Why make any assumptions about fantasy supernatural entities when we have not come close to exhausting the natural yet, especially when there is no precedent for anything supernatural?

To say that the soul is fiction is ignorant. No that is false. Unless you can show that souls exists the concept of the soul is an imaginative fiction. That is simple fact.

Are you so sure about that? I'm not advocating what people usually describe as a 'soul', but recent studies have shown otherwise.
source?
I never implied the soul is a ghost thing.
well then what is it? "the observer"? could you possibly be more vague than that?
The soul doesn't depend on the brain, its vice-versa, the brain depends on the soul.
if the soul doesn't depend on the brain, then how come if you damage the brain your personality changes, memories disappear, etc?
The soul doesn't control the body, the brain, or material mind does. Maybe it's like Descartes says, the brain is the physical link with the soul.
then WHAT does it do? c'mon, we first need to know what the hell the soul is! you need to be specific.
How does your example go against the idea of a soul? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
ok, does your soul grow? does your "observer" become more observant as you grow up or something?


and again, WHAT is the soul and what does it do? where is it? what's the purpose of the soul?

we have to know what you're talking about when you say soul. We can't argue against it if we don't know what it is!

source?
http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=0595122159&page=fm3

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

Roy

From your first link, Susan Pockett is a well known woo-woo. Her so-called hypothesis states, "consciousness is identical with certain spatiotemporal patterns in the electromagnetic field." She also states in the preface that no one other than herself recognizes the hypothesis as valid, and then goes on to complain that scientists won't take here seriously.

In the second link, we have another woo-woo, McFadden, who has yet another theory along the same principles, but cannot objectively provide anything credible to support it.

Roy,

Are you so sure about that? I'm not advocating what people usually describe as a 'soul', but recent studies have shown otherwise. The electromagnetic field created by (or perhaps part of) the brain is not confined to the brain. I think you are reading too much into the current hypotheses. The EM fields are generated by brain activity - i.e. they are dependent on the brain actually functioning. So yes these EM fields are confined to the brain.

Of course when the brain stops functioning then the EM fields stop as well. EM or CEMI fields really do not come close to the eternal soul concept espoused by religionists.

As a scientifc hypothesis it will be interesting to see how these fields interact with the underlying massive complex of neurons that still form the basis of brain activity.

Note that these hypotheses have yet to be accepted by any current serious researchers in the field.

ah, well. I wasn't really trying to give evidence for "the eternal soul concept espoused by religionists" but it was an interesting concept. I admit I don't really know anything about the authors of those articles. What they do for me is to spur me to learn more about the human mind. I wasn't thinking something like this EM field controls the mind, but is rather in a sort of symbiotic relationship. Do you guys know if there are any other studies showing how this EM field creates a feedback into the brain and can actually affect the thought process? I would be very interested if so, I believe I've read it in more reliable articles that these, but I'm not sure.

Start here:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/J002952F/interest.htm

Roy,

No, I couldn't find anything that goes any further than the concept at this point. But I wouldn't rule out an impact of EM fields. But while the references here propose a positive aspect I could argue that EM effects might be detrimental. Certainly in circuit board design there is a serious effort to place components so that EM interferences does not occur. Perhaps the human brain would be far more efficient without EM effects.

Note that the synapses - the connections between neurons - are not electrical. Perhaps they evolved that way because unwanted EM effects made a purely electrical brain unworkable - pure specualtion that.

Start here:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/J002952F/interest.htm
You're a testament to maturity Q. I applaud your thorough and valiant effort to aid me in my learning process. Those sources you gave me are in-depth, completely reliable and up to date. I now completely refute my childish ponderings that we still have almost no clue how consciousness works. Apparently I am 100% wrong and should just bite my tongue.

Roy,

No, I couldn't find anything that goes any further than the concept at this point. But I wouldn't rule out an impact of EM fields. But while the references here propose a positive aspect I could argue that EM effects might be detrimental. Certainly in circuit board design there is a serious effort to place components so that EM interferences does not occur. Perhaps the human brain would be far more efficient without EM effects.

Note that the synapses - the connections between neurons - are not electrical. Perhaps they evolved that way because unwanted EM effects made a purely electrical brain unworkable - pure specualtion that.
would the EM field be seperate, or just a side effect of, the actual electricity being sent through neurons. I'm don't really know much about the physiology of the brain. Is this EM field like a static amidst the pathways that are sending signals? I just thought that the electricity used to send signals was what formed the EM field.

Whats your problem Roy? First you admit not knowing anything about the brain and then complain when sources of information are given to you.

I suppose you'd much rather just read the sources in which no one knows what they're talking about?

Whats your problem Roy? First you admit not knowing anything about the brain and then complain when sources of information are given to you.

I suppose you'd much rather just read the sources in which no one knows what they're talking about?
you sent me two generalized sources aimed at kids. The second one is filled with stuff i learned in high school. After looking over the first one again, I found it does actually show a lot of information, though. Thanks, I guess. It just seemed to me like you were being very condescending.

Do you realize the odds of one religion even having half of the things it claims to be true? And that is if there is a God...

well, if odds are a factor...why dont you tell me the odds on life creating itself?

no matter what we say about odds, the fact is there is still a chance that it could happen and we could be that miniscule chance. even if the odds are 100000000000 to 1 against, there is still that chance that it could happen. life in this universe--even the very existence of this universe--could have hinged upon odds like that. it doesnt matter. what matters is that it did happen.

well, if odds are a factor...why dont you tell me the odds on life creating itself?

Better than that of God creating itself then creating our universe.

Anyway, that is not the point I was making. The point is, even if there is a 'God', religions past, present, future and even the ones that won't be created, only one can be true of a possible infinite amount. How's your luck? Science has already proved parts of your religion wrong (I assume you're Christian).

no matter what we say about odds, the fact is there is still a chance that it could happen and we could be that miniscule chance. even if the odds are 100000000000 to 1 against, there is still that chance that it could happen. life in this universe--even the very existence of this universe--could have hinged upon odds like that. it doesnt matter. what matters is that it did happen.

Firstly, I think your being generous with odds of 10000000000 to 1.

Secondly, having a world were violence and conflict root from all different religions and that non-secular countries have an unhealthy social problem... all just because they hope their religion is that lucky infinite number to 1... Then I'm more inclined we should learn to bet wiseley and just not be religious at all, for the sake of us all.

Firstly, I think your being generous with odds of 10000000000 to 1.

it was just a random seletion of zero's. the real number would be a lot closer to (if not) infinity.

Secondly, having a world were violence and conflict root from all different religions and that non-secular countries have an unhealthy social problem... all just because they hope their religion is that lucky infinite number to 1... Then I'm more inclined we should learn to bet wiseley and just not be religious at all, for the sake of us all.
i'm not arguing with you there.

well, if odds are a factor...why dont you tell me the odds on life creating itself?
100%. Look all around you, life creates life. it's call reproduction.
lol.
Life didn't create itself (not counting reproduction), that's impossible. Only religious people say things can create themselves (god)... or at least somehow existed ...forever in the past and forever in the future.
chemicals created life... which IS a bunch of chemicals... but ... yeah... you know what i mean.

Vitalone,

What is the value of such a baseless speculation? Surely to demonstrate a point you would need a real world example? Do you actually have a real example of someone waking up in a different body?

The value is clearly to show you that you aren't your body.


But again what does this mean? Without senses how would such a thing observe and if it could observe what could it do with the information without memory?

When you are angry, are you your anger? Are you what you see, hear, touch, taste, and feel? Are you your thoughts? The soul, is the thing behind these things - you. That's what I'mt rying to say.


Surely you mean we don’t know HOW the brain does these things not that it doesn’t do them – you can’t conclude that it doesn’t do them.

Ok, so you are concluding that the brain does do these things when there's no evidence that they do.


Why and what role would it play? Without personality, memory, emotions, or thoughts, it is a null entity- equivalent to something that doesn’t exist.

Why do you think it needs to exist?

If you act a different way, assuming a different personality, does that mean that you no longer exist? It's not null, it's like the director or observer, without it none would exist.

It doesn't need to exist, I'm just shining light on a big possibility.


That’s false. We do know the brain accounts for all these things through endless clinical studies especially on brain damaged patients. I hope what you mean is that scientists have yet to figure out exactly how the brain achieves these properties. Why make any assumptions about fantasy supernatural entities when we have not come close to exhausting the natural yet, especially when there is no precedent for anything supernatural?

No, you're wrong, I've taken a psychology course. There's lots of loopholes in neuroscience.

It's only supernatural if you're a fool. It's like showing a caveman a TV and him saying it's magic. You being the complete fool, assuming something like a soul is supernatural and fantasy-like simply because you don't know how it works.

There's nothing supernatural about it. There's nothing irrational about it.


No that is false. Unless you can show that souls exists the concept of the soul is an imaginative fiction. That is simple fact.

Well, I guess that means the superstring theory is also imaginative fiction, and so is a large area of physics, cosmology, etc...yet people like you don't regard it as such. This is because of your cynical anti-religious views

Well, how can I prove it exist? What type of experiment would work? If you can't prove something exist, that doesn't mean it doesn't, that means you can't prove it exist.

well then what is it? "the observer"? could you possibly be more vague than that?

Here you go, have fun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul


if the soul doesn't depend on the brain, then how come if you damage the brain your personality changes, memories disappear, etc?

Because your brain is damaged. How many times do I have to say the brain and soul are separate. The soul comes first, it always exists. The brain depends on the soul.


then WHAT does it do? c'mon, we first need to know what the hell the soul is! you need to be specific.

It causes everything to occur, without it, no pheonomenon could happen.


ok, does your soul grow? does your "observer" become more observant as you grow up or something?


The soul changes, but it doesn't "grow" as in expand or physically gain anything. Again...how does this go against the idea of a soul?


and again, WHAT is the soul and what does it do? where is it? what's the purpose of the soul?

we have to know what you're talking about when you say soul. We can't argue against it if we don't know what it is!

The soul is you. It has no material existence. It's the cause of material existence. It does not really do anything, when you say that you make it seem as if it's separate from yourself, like a material body. The soul is really the only thing that actually exists.

Vitalone,

When you are angry, are you your anger? Are you what you see, hear, touch, taste, and feel? Are you your thoughts? The soul, is the thing behind these things - you. That's what I'mt rying to say. Yes OK I understand. And this might be achieved through a part of the brain, would you agree?

Ok, so you are concluding that the brain does do these things when there's no evidence that they do.There is no other bodily organ that can come close other than the brain. I.e. there are no other candidates, where else would you suggest we look?

If you act a different way, assuming a different personality, does that mean that you no longer exist?That’s another hypothetical that doesn’t seem to make any sense.

It's not null, it's like the director or observer, without it none would exist.That’s fine if I view the function as just another operation performed by the brain – but wouldn’t call it soul.

It's only supernatural if you're a fool. It's like showing a caveman a TV and him saying it's magic.So we agree that the soul is just part of normal brain function, is that correct?

You being the complete fool, assuming something like a soul is supernatural and fantasy-like simply because you don't know how it works.That’s something of a confused perspective. I’ve assumed you consider the soul is something supernatural because more scientists haven’t shown how the brain can do it.

There's nothing supernatural about it. That’s fine but that’s not how religionists see it. Wouldn’t it be safer if you referred to this idea as consciousness and that we don’t know yet quite how the brain maintains that?

There's nothing irrational about it. Not if you agree it isn’t supernatural.

Well, I guess that means the superstring theory is also imaginative fiction, and so is a large area of physics, cosmology, etc...yet people like you don't regard it as such.Almost, but those leading edge hypotheses do have significant inductive evidence behind them, but the scientists do not claim them as truth unlike religionists who do assert that souls exist but without any evidence. And yes most of science is inductive and that means there is always a possibility that those theories are wrong. The difference between fantasy, fiction, speculations, hypotheses, and induction, is perhaps nothing than a matter of degree. How do we decide which – how much evidence is available, precedent, and an evaluation of credibility? Note that a fantasy might become a truth in the future.

This is because of your cynical anti-religious viewsOr a matter of carefully considered perspective and credibility.

Well, how can I prove it exist? What type of experiment would work? If you can't prove something exist, that doesn't mean it doesn't, that means you can't prove it exist.Exactly, so you have no basis on which to assert the claims as truth. We can admit we simply do not know and agree the ideas are speculative until evidence is uncovered, if ever, although I am no longer clear on whether you have a religionist slant here or not.

Vitalone,

How many times do I have to say the brain and soul are separate. The soul comes first, it always exists. The brain depends on the soul.Where does the soul reside? You said in the previous post that it isn’t supernatural so it must be material. So where is it?

It causes everything to occur, without it, no pheonomenon could happen.Phenomenon? What? We are still discussing duality here, right?

The soul is you.I.e. the mind, right?

It has no material existence.Then it is either supernatural but you claim it isn’t or it is the emergent property of brain complexity which is an established position. Do you want to offer a different option?

It's the cause of material existence. If it isn’t material how does it create material components?

It does not really do anything, when you say that you make it seem as if it's separate from yourself, like a material body. The soul is really the only thing that actually exists.And your body doesn’t? This looks like gibberish.

Better than that of God creating itself then creating our universe.

Anyway, that is not the point I was making. The point is, even if there is a 'God', religions past, present, future and even the ones that won't be created, only one can be true of a possible infinite amount. How's your luck? Science has already proved parts of your religion wrong (I assume you're Christian).


wrong, i am Jewish. AND i believe in the validity of science.

the problem is this: faaaaar too many people take what is written in the Torah and the NT literally, at face value. i personally believe that the Torah and science can harmoniously exist, and that it is a matter of time. just because science has yet to prove something, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist, right? the whole purpose of science as i understand it, is to explain the unexplained through the means we have available to us (and to look for alternative method as well), according to secular criteria.

G-d, the soul, and creationism will all be proven through science....given the time, resources, and interest necessary. to be blind to possibility is the most un-scientific thing i have ever heard of.

The soul is you. It has no material existence. It's the cause of material existence. It does not really do anything, when you say that you make it seem as if it's separate from yourself, like a material body. The soul is really the only thing that actually exists.If the soul is not material - what is it? How can it interract with the material plane of existence? How does it influence us?

A non-material item MIGHT indeed exist....
But it would be logically identical to something that doesn't.

The problem with understanding the self is that most people think everything is material. In reality, everything is mental. All apparent "physical matter" is made of "mind". Mind creates magnetism, which creates electricity and the illusion of an outside.

Matter is the feeling of a barrier or a frontier between what I think I am, and what I think I am not. The feeling of matter (or of atomic particles) comes from the meeting of two opposite wills: the will to be infinite struggling against the will to reject infinity. Where these two necessities are in opposition, a wall of resistance is felt.

So, when you understand what matter and mind is, they are completely united, the same thing.

The problem with understanding the self is that most people think everything is material. In reality, everything is mental.Evidence please?

All apparent "physical matter" is made of "mind". Mind creates magnetism, which creates electricity and the illusion of an outside.Evidence please?

Matter is the feeling of a barrier or a frontier between what I think I am, and what I think I am not. The feeling of matter (or of atomic particles) comes from the meeting of two opposite wills: the will to be infinite struggling against the will to reject infinity. Where these two necessities are in opposition, a wall of resistance is felt.Evidence please?

(Are you a solipsist, by any chance?)

The trouble with your view, c7ityi_, is that it is logically the same as anything that doesn't exist.
That's not to say it isn't so - but there is no way to prove it, as there is no evidence, and thus irrelevant beyond an intellectual possibility - along with the infinite other logical possibilities. No one can prove what you say isn't true, nor can anyone prove it is.

If the soul is not material - what is it? How can it interract with the material plane of existence? How does it influence us?

A non-material item MIGHT indeed exist....
But it would be logically identical to something that doesn't.
the soul, or some aspect of it, must be material. It must be because it acts on the material world. You consciously affect the world around you, therefore if there is a 'soul' then it must be part of this universe. This does not mean the soul doesn't exist, but it does mean that if it does exist, then it probably exists in a manner unlike that which many people belive it does.

When you are angry, are you your anger? Are you what you see, hear, touch, taste, and feel? Are you your thoughts? The soul, is the thing behind these things - you. That's what I'mt rying to say
when you're angry, see, feel, hear, touch, taste... they're all functions by the brain. You can stimulate certain areas of the brain and cause say a taste of lemon in your mouth. I don't know specifically about anger, but we do know that fear is in the amygdala, and we've identified brain areas associated with pleasure, etc. We also know their cause and everything (all that endorphin stuff, etc.)
it's CHEMICALS. That's why you can take a stupid pill and get depressed or NOT depressed, etc.
as for thoughts... I'm not aware of any research indicating there is a specific region of the brain for "thoughts" (besides the cerebral cortex), but we do know that face recognition for example is in a specific area of the brain. There are people who cannot recognize faces, not even their own... as a result of damage to that part of the brain. (I believe it's called... paragnosia?) As for other thoughts, they are related to certain parts of the brain, as you can tell people to think of say... their boyfriend and you know what areas of the brain they are using, etc.
... the thing behind these things- brain. That's what I'm trying to say.
Ok, so you are concluding that the brain does do these things when there's no evidence that they do.
there's plenty of evidence. MRI scans, brain damaged patients (like that face recognition disorder, that guy who got a steel bar through his head and his personality ... yes, personality changed, alzheimer's patients, etc), electrodes used to stimulate the brain (they recall things, they feel, hear, taste, things)
there's overwhelming evidence.
YOU are the one believing things with no evidence whatsoever.
No, you're wrong, I've taken a psychology course. There's lots of loopholes in neuroscience.
what kinds of loopholes? when did you take that psychology course?
I've taken a psychology course (this semester... it's still very fresh in my mind... and not to brag or anything but i have pretty damn good grades :P), anatomy course (last year, also good grades), read magazines (like that national geographic article about the brain and such), read the news, etc.
... to be continued... i'm scared of windows crashing or something...

Here you go, have fun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
oh great, could you be even MORE vague?... again? I don't want to know what buddhists, christians, etc. believe the soul is, I don't want to know every possible meaning for a soul, I want to know what YOU mean when you say "soul". You've clarified it more... as being thoughts and stuff, but that link doesn't help any.
Because your brain is damaged. How many times do I have to say the brain and soul are separate. The soul comes first, it always exists. The brain depends on the soul.
... yes, the brain is damaged...meaning the brain does those things. It's a very simple concept. You damage something, and what it does is damaged. You damage the brain, and your thoughts, feelings, everything you are is damaged.
where is the soul in all of this?
if the soul and the brain are separate, damaging the brain shouldn't have anything to do with what the soul does. you say the soul is your thoughts and whatever, but those are controlled by your brain.
It causes everything to occur, without it, no pheonomenon could happen.
does it cause rain? (lol... i'm just joking I know what you mean)
so you're saying the soul controls the brain? ... um... talk about no evidence.




if there is a perfectly natural, "mundane", explanation, why resort to the supernatural? (messed up "quote" from "is it real" in NGC)
everything you claim the soul is is actually the brain doing things. The brain is a physical entity and it acts like one... meaning it abides by the "laws" of physics. There's no room for the soul controling it.

If the soul is not material - what is it? How can it interract with the material plane of existence? How does it influence us?

A non-material item MIGHT indeed exist....
But it would be logically identical to something that doesn't.
The soul comes first, then the material world. The soul does not depend on the material world, the material world is not the cause of the soul existing, it is the soul that is the cause of the material world.

And vacuum energy technically has no "material" existence, but it can interact with the material plane.

And vacuum energy technically has no "material" existence, but it can interact with the material plane.I suggest you do some more research on "Vacuum Energy". :rolleyes:

the soul, or some aspect of it, must be material. It must be because it acts on the material world. You consciously affect the world around you, therefore if there is a 'soul' then it must be part of this universe. This does not mean the soul doesn't exist, but it does mean that if it does exist, then it probably exists in a manner unlike that which many people belive it does.No - if it exists it MUST be material - and as such is just another name for a (definable) material process. Nothing exists that is not material.
If the soul is "immaterial" it is logically similar to something that doesn't exist.
If the soul is material - please explain how it can be identified and where the evidence for its existence lies.

No - if it exists it MUST be material - and as such is just another name for a (definable) material process. Nothing exists that is not material.
If the soul is "immaterial" it is logically similar to something that doesn't exist.
If the soul is material - please explain how it can be identified and where the evidence for its existence lies.
I don't know that a soul exists. But I also don't know that it doesn't exist, and neither should you. I think we might someday discover that there comes a point at which forces acting on our universe become almost unnoticable. And that perhaps what people call 'God' or 'soul' is just one of these forces from outside of our universe. There are many things that we cannot detect and which are therefore 'immaterial' to us because of that (I say this because science discovers things everyday, and will find them, though it hasn't yet). It does not mean that they might not become material once we have found them. I am not talking of an imaginary force becoming real, but a real force which we deem imaginary, becomes real in how we think of it. Perhaps the 'soul' is like the quantum probability wave, which collapses upon observation.

I don't know that a soul exists. But I also don't know that it doesn't exist, and neither should you. I think we might someday discover that there comes a point at which forces acting on our universe become almost unnoticable. And that perhaps what people call 'God' or 'soul' is just one of these forces from outside of our universe. There are many things that we cannot detect and which are therefore 'immaterial' to us because of that (I say this because science discovers things everyday, and will find them, though it hasn't yet). It does not mean that they might not become material once we have found them. I am not talking of an imaginary force becoming real, but a real force which we deem imaginary, becomes real in how we think of it. Perhaps the 'soul' is like the quantum probability wave, which collapses upon observation.I certainly don't know that a soul doesn't exist - much like I certainly don't know that a God doesn't exist.

But why choose to believe in something, and make claims of something, for which there is no evidence?

And this is why we ask for definitions of something before assessing the puported evidence of its existence.
I could define "soul" as the chair on which I sit. I have evidence of its existence and can spout what I like about it that fits the evidence.

But if you define the "soul" as immaterial, which it seems most do, then you are already on troublesome ground with regard to evidence, as there can be no evidence of something that is truly "immaterial".
I'm not talking about something that is only immaterial because it hasn't been identified yet - but something truly immaterial - i.e. something that can not react/interact in any way with the material universe - because then it is logically consistent with everything else that doesn't exist.
I'm not saying that the truly immaterial doesn't exist - but that it its existence is logically irrelevant.

As soon as you define the "soul" as material then you fall into two categories:
(a) those that claim it is an already evidenced material process/item;
(b) those that claim it is a material process/item that will one day be discovered.

In the former you are merely defining the "soul" as something already known - like me defining it as my chair. That's okay - but why not refer to it as what it is already known as instead of invoking ideas of spiritualism and religion?!

In the latter case, all I ask for is evidence of the existence.
Until then I certainly will not believe in its existence, as it is as likely as any other infinite number of possible as-yet-undiscovered things for which there is currently no evidence, and unless you have evidence of something it is absurd to make claims of anything about them.

So basically - unless you have evidence to support the claims you make, those claims will only be subjective speculation / imagination and nothing else. Much like a fairy story - but with less plot. :)

I suggest you do some more research on "Vacuum Energy". :rolleyes:

"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Material existence requires matter, therefore by definition vacuum energy technically doesn't materially exist. :rolleyes:

"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Material existence requires matter, therefore by definition vacuum energy technically doesn't materially exist. :rolleyes:I don't want to divert this to a technical argument - but Vaccum Energy is only "devoid of matter" due to the existence of the particle/anti-particle pairing - that cancel each other out - hence zero sum. Both, independently, have mass (or anti-mass).
Or are you now going to say that if you have a lump of matter, and an equal and opposite lump of anti-matter, then the lump of matter doesn't exist?

As I said - read up on the subject.

I don't want to divert this to a technical argument - but Vaccum Energy is only "devoid of matter" due to the existence of the particle/anti-particle pairing - that cancel each other out - hence zero sum. Both, independently, have mass (or anti-mass).
Or are you now going to say that if you have a lump of matter, and an equal and opposite lump of anti-matter, then the lump of matter doesn't exist?

As I said - read up on the subject.

I am aware of the anti-particle/particle pairing. The actual vacuum energy is not pairing itself, it is the result of the two cancelling each other out. The actual energy is not the particles nor their pairing.