It's not so much a hoax as just bad science, the result of which has been popularised (through references in fiction, for example) and taken (by too many) as being true, despite the reality. Even the author of the study said that many more such tests would need to be done before any conclusion could be reasonably reached. There has been no deliberate effort to hoodwink the public, so no hoax. Just Joe Public not fact-checking what they are otherwise happy to spread. Maybe next time you should check such claims before claiming them as truth? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, that is a "sort of" option when it comes to the inefficiency of ordinary language, where a word or symbol often has multiple meanings attached to it that are context dependent. In contrast to the specialized nomenclature of a discipline or sub-discipline, where _X_ usually signifies one thing only. soul: 2. A human being; person ... (WordWeb) 3. a person's total self (Merriam-Webster) 5. a human being; person. (Dictionary) 10. a person; individual (Collins)_
I suggest that we are living souls, and I also suggested that we are temporal. Take that for what it's worth.
Perhaps in the context of radical egalitarianism. For instance: well in advance, academic scholars have been exploring arguments and treatises for granting future rights of personhood to animals, robots, etc. [i..e, that optional definition of "soul" designating a status of "person"]. In contrast, the early roots or precursors of corporate [legal] personhood purely fell out of entrepreneurial interests and related philosophy, rather than the left intellectual community. (Obviously the effects of the French Revolution, Marx's Das Kapital, etc only became applicable in the 19th-century.) However, US federal statutes featuring it date to the mid-20th century, when admittedly progressivism had become an established influence on politics and policymaking.[1] - - - footnote - - - [1] Yet note that any literal "southpaw" footprint would still be superfluous. Since progressives are actually capitalists who merely opportunistically mimic (parallel) and appropriate concepts of the left narrative for political strategy, career advancement, and profit -- i.e., tactical approaches heavily reliant on public image. Also, this "camouflage" is vastly more benign and less sinister than the original National Socialist German Workers’ Party directly parasitizing on the "socialist" label as part of its own [initial] "do-gooder" facade (socioeconomic virtue posturing). _
I am on a religious forum using the word "soul" in a spiritual context and you don't understand? How about debating?
This is just a word game. If you use the word soul/immortal it isn't temporal. In other words I'm using the word "soul" as a description for the immortal aspect of a human being. Now I've forgot what we were talking about...
And by all means continue to do so. Do you not understand it was a reply to ThazzarBaal, and not you? IOW, a non-militant attempt to fathom or explore what else he could be alluding to? _
Well, let's clear up the blurriness. Are we habitually projecting a supernatural "soul" belief on you (ThazzarBaal) that you don't actually adhere to, as in the case of Nancey Murphy (at bottom of this post)? Are you one of several contingent exceptions or departures from mainstream rote? That seems to be what you are indicating in the quote above, something partly akin to Murphy's school of thought, albeit there's still fuzziness with respect to what "we are temporal" means. Does the latter signify no afterlife at all (dead perpetually), or instead that the original body dies and then the person's information configuration[1] is installed in a new (non-decaying) physical body? - - - footnote - - - [1] I.e., a "material" version, or perhaps via our being in a simulated reality, should that be the only way to explain the digital preservation and retention of one's physical identity for later restoration? - - - end of footnote - - - From the transcript of an old CLOSER TO TRUTH EPISODE titled "Can Web Believe in Both Science and Religion?": NANCEY MURPHY: Believing in not just a body, but some other component, generally called the soul, but the concept of soul at certain points in history is equivalent to the concept of mind. So a dualist is a person has been thought to be essential to Christianity. Now it looks as though the neuroscientists are coming along and they’re saying, ah, there is no soul, in fact there is no substantial mind. It’s actually the brain or the nervous system that does all of the things that were once attributed to soul or mind. So it looks like yet another place where science encroaches and religion has to step back. But in the, in the liberal half of Christianity, those who have a higher degree in theology are almost all phsyicalists. MICHAEL SCHERMER: Really? ROBERT KUHN: Physicalist meaning that there is no… NANCEY MURPHY: We’re just bodies. ROBERT KUHN: There is no non-physical element required to make us human beings. NANCEY MURPHY: We’re just bodies. That’s right. _
Souls . We were speaking about souls. I suggested that we are and that we are temporal. We are " living souls" . That's what we are. I asked about dogs, and C.C spilled out some academic irrelevancies, but I suggest that dogs are also souls because they are alive. I might suggest that there are various types of " souls" present on earth. Cats, dogs, deer, giraffes, elephants, etc. What is the relevance to immortal aspects of people? I don't know. Maybe that has to do with procreation and multiplying or maybe it doesn't. I would t know how to answer for someone else. I will state that I am part of the procreation being the immortal aspect of souls, if immortality is even relevant at all. Only religion teaches new life beyond this world after dying, and I'm fairly sure most scientist reject the possibility of evolving and adapting to far distant changes in our atmosphere. I myself think or believe we will continue to evolve, but I'm not a scientist. So, for now we are souls that live. In the future we will be souls that once lived, the ongoing life part is beyond my knowing, so take that for what it's worth.
DNA, and genetics may give an opportunity to be recreated, but I'm not sure that we'll keep our memories. We may have life ongoing through DNA and genetics, but we'll be different than we are today. I'm not opposed to this line of reasoning. Brain matter is no less temporal than flesh and blood. I wouldn't want my memories anyway.
If you're happy with living soul go for it. The relevance of the word "soul" in this context, is to refer to the part of you, the you in you, what makes you you, uniquely, like it or not; The you that doesn't die. That is what I used the word for, hence the cross wires. You could be right. Can you expand on this? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well put! I think most scientists are Atheists, they close their mind off(after many years for some) and concentrate on reality. You don't have to be a scientist to witness evolution! A new born baby has evolved, in some ways, past its parents. I see what you mean, what properties does your soul have?
Evolving human life being ongoing and never ending, complete with balance between life and death and new beginnings. It could go on also as we venture into DNA and genetics contributing to re-creations without memories of past lives. I wouldn't know, but it is something that has been a subject of interest for a very long time now.
I guess for the coding and inherited instinct from the motor skill adaptations among other things. These things get coded into our genetics. You can self manipulate them over time via repetition. Yes, there have been studies to suggest this. No memories would be a natural part of the live die process, given our memories are more brain oriented than genetic code. It's like becoming new creations, the true blue born again aspect of what the religious types call the resurrection. New creations, complete with adapted genetic coding from a life lived or many lives lived. I still favor the procreation part of being a living soul, but that's part of it too.
That sounds like something straight out of the sci-fi movie THX 1138! Cloning basically. Maybe it is the future, if people decide to not want babies anymore. It's about space.
It may be. It's possible. I prefer intanglement as one therapy myself, but at 52 the prospect of creating new creations isn't very likely. Clones ... Well, I'm too poor to consider it, but who knows a few centuries down the road? People are crazy. I wonder what the finder fees might be? I lived Is that enough?
