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.
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.
A doctrine, meaning principles. If you woke up tomorrow with a different body, do you still exist? You are the soul, the observer. 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. 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, 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? 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? 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. 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? 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 that is false. Unless you can show that souls exists the concept of the soul is an imaginative fiction. That is simple fact.
source? well then what is it? "the observer"? could you possibly be more vague than that? if the soul doesn't depend on the brain, then how come if you damage the brain your personality changes, memories disappear, etc? then WHAT does it do? c'mon, we first need to know what the hell the soul is! you need to be specific. 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!
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, 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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). 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.
it was just a random seletion of zero's. the real number would be a lot closer to (if not) infinity. i'm not arguing with you there.
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.
