souls...................oh Boris


If the idea is not at first absurd, then there is no hope for it.
A. Einstein

Ah, but what are we to regard as absurd, and what are we to discount as merely impossible? Einstein's ideas may have been absurd in his day, but they were self-consistent. Your "theory", on the other hand, has yet to become a clean story.

My views may seem absurd to you. Does that mean that there is hope for them, then?

what's another word for a half baked idea that you can't really explain but which goes to making some sense to you?

Well, that's exactly what I would call it -- a half-baked idea. Or maybe, just "idea" for short.

As to your fishy analogy ( ;)), there is no argument that we do not know everything. However, that's no excuse to turn away in dissatisfaction from what we do know.

I am; therefore I think.

... but the bacterium and I share something that an android never will - a common lineage.

Oh? But all three of you are made of the same stuff, which was cooked in the same set of stars, and coalesced into the same solar system. And if you consider yourself to be a descendant of bacteria, then why not consider the android to be a descendant of you?

Going backwards...bacterium are just snazzy viruses. Okay. So? So are we, right? To a greater degree, definitely, but we're just built out of those same elements and molecules too.

Well, yes indeed, that's my argument precisely. Glad to see you understand where I'm trying to go with all of this...

To my mind, there's going to be a line drawn somewhere between animate organic 'things' and animate organic 'beings'. Organisms above this line are alive, organisms below this line are not. Are you just objecting to where I'm drawing the line? Perhaps I don't know enough about biology to draw the line, but I feel there is a line there somewhere.

Well, first of all it's a bit odd to call something an organism when it's not alive... But besides picking on your language, I object not to just where you draw the line, but that you draw the line at all. <u>There is no line.</u> And the more biology you learn, the more clearly you will understand that.

Life is a process that exhibits certain properties; it is not an organism, it is not a particular chemical composition, it is not something that's necessarily terrestrial, or even directly composed out of atoms. Life is a special kind of process in the same way that the operating system in your computer is a special kind of process -- each possess their distinguishing attributes, but either can potentially occur in different kinds hardware, under different conditions, and even possessing some differing surface features across incarnations. Life is a process in the same way that digestion is a process, or that oxidation is a process, or that convection is a process. Life is just a little more complicated and abstract as a process than most of the other processes we normally encounter -- and thus many people have difficulty understanding that life is only different in degree, not in kind.

I am; therefore I think.
Dogs wag their tails for hours after their dead I'm tired of this conversation let's talk about something else I'm going home!!!
DR. Gary Schwartz Author of the Book: "The Living Energy Universe" : Dr. Schwartz believes that the consciousness survives death. Gary E.R. Schwartz, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology, medicine neurology, psychiatry, and surgery at the University of Arizona; director of the UA Human Energy Systems Laboratory; and director of the Bioenergy Core at the UA Pediatric Alternative Medicine Research Center. Dr. Schwartz has published more than 300 scientific papers, including six paper in the journal Science, co-edited 11 academic books, and written, "The Living Energy Universe" and "Discovering the Living Soul" with his research partner and wife Linda Russek, Ph.D.
Time, the web site you quote seems to be no more than a shop window. Unfortunately it did not offer any insights into its methods or proofs for its claims. A short excerpt from the book would have been a good idea to give some credance to the claims. As it is we have to take their word for it and buy the book.

On that basis this looks like a pure profit making venture that depends on the current 'new age' fashion to attract its dupes.

I'd like to see an independent review of the book before I buy.
And if they truly had a new scientific breakthrough that shows that souls exist then I am sure they would flaunt it everywhere they could. Since they don't emphasize anything in particular I can only assume they have nothing new. This sounds like nothing more than a call to faith, again.
Chris, as you said..."I can only assume they have nothing new. This sounds like nothing more than a call to faith, again."

I have no intention to glean any asumptions here, for to "ASS-U-ME" leaves way too much room for unpleasent unceartainty.
(Read between the lines.)

Look, I only presented something here for review, it is up to your own perceptions, to decipher the translation of the author's works, but if you take in account for the credentials & experience of the Author, it must lend to some degree of "Credibility" as to what the Author was intending to describe, in relation to finding the seat of the soul, and proof of it's existence, based on his research, and the colleages & associates delegated to assist with this research, and it's findings.

How do you compete with that?
what credentials, and background experiences do you, or anyone else, have to offer up here, to lend support to research that counters this Authour's Research?

(Any Takers?)

Thanks for the references. I don't know if you are anti or pro this material and my comments were my impressions I received from the website and not aimed at you.

Most of the website is still under construction. Their first aim seems to be sell the book first. I.e. get money. Bad first impression.

A list of their papers and online documents would have been nice, but whatever. I couldn't find any links from his personal web page but I did find a number of other references to various research projects.

Here is one that looks interesting -

I cannot determine whether he is truly objective in his research or has a subjective philosophical mission. I must give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

As for me, I am certainly not qualified to judge the scientific merits of his work, but I beleive I can detect a charlatan when I meet one, and that is not my claim here.

This needs further review.

Take care