The human soul - it's time to get to the bottom of this

[IIamaKing]

Saying that amino acids aren't life is like saying that a fetus is not alive.

No it isnt. Not even close. Instead of another baseless claim find something that says amino acids are ALIVE!

[Romeo83x]

And that would have taken a balance that would have been nearly impossible, but possible. The next step would have been impossible as far as accepted science is concerned, and that's the building of specific proteins. What should have happened, is that they remained isolated and alone in their setting (that's what we see now). But, they would have had to link into "specific" proteins instead (we see no proof of this). That's why many started looking into other avenues. Most "school" books are not updated, or have simply chosen one side or another.

If there's sulfur present, then amino acids form into peptides and higher structures naturally. The sequence of the amino acids in the peptide define it and it's basically a whole lot of random trial & error until you get a sequence that's stable and actually does something.

[Deleted]

scientists have been working on this for years. maybe longer.

maybe alien evolution theorists

[Symphonic]

A soul is a spirit body joined with a physical body. I would imagine dogs have souls - a spirit body that looks like a dog, and a physical body that looks like a dog.

Intelligence can't be created. Elements are eternal (every single element in the universe!) and somehow elements and spirits are connected. Perhaps a spirit is just organized intelligence. The intelligence is formed into a spirit which must be made of some matter, but we cannot see it. (Like the air we breathe, can't see it!)

[Dezerte]

The human soul only exists as an idea in some people's minds.

It gives them comfort and explains many things for them. They don't care that much if it's true or not, what is more important to them is finding a "truth" that they like.

Might the human soul exist? Sure.
Might an invisible pink dragon exist in my garage? Sure, just as plausable.

A soul is a spirit body joined with a physical body. I would imagine dogs have souls - a spirit body that looks like a dog, and a physical body that looks like a dog.

Intelligence can't be created. Elements are eternal (every single element in the universe!) and somehow elements and spirits are connected. Perhaps a spirit is just organized intelligence. The intelligence is formed into a spirit which must be made of some matter, but we cannot see it. (Like the air we breathe, can't see it!)

We can detect air...

This solar system could be the most super special snowflake in all the universe.

Have we done experiments where we have created life? I'm asking it as an honest question. This isn't a debate point. I'm asking. It just seems, if it were so easy that the systems can be piled together and arrange themselves by chance, that the guiding hand of a scientist should be able to do it.

But I still think that assuming just because we have only explored our solar system, every other solar system must be like it, is crazy foolish and arrogant.

Saying that there's life all over our galaxy is not a data based conclusion either.

Scientists have created life, a non-carbon based one even.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0915091625.htm

[Ghul]

i dont see why we should be wasting time on a topic like this(other than for the obvious lulz), because in the end its not really gonna affect anything. even if souls existed, what does that change? and if they dont exist, what does that change?

adding my personal opinion about the topic: the myth of "souls" has emerged way back in the medieval age or even earlier, when humans didnt know about the human brain and its general functions.
today we know how the brain works and we can pretty much conclude that in the case of your brain dying, your personality will be gone -> just like a tv going blank when you cut the power.

some people still find it hard to believe that theres simply "nothing" at the of their lives, because they cant accept that their lives were pretty much meaningless in the detailed view. in the bigger picture the meaning of our lives are being defined with what we do, what we create, and we leave behind after we are gone. i guess you could call these things ones "soul", but the definition would greatly differ from what you think what a "soul" is.

my 2 cents.

[Deleted]

Saying that amino acids aren't life is like saying that a fetus is not alive.

No, not really.
Actually, not at all.

[Dragonix80]

Scientists have created life, a non-carbon based one even.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0915091625.htm

That has yet to be determined.

[Sumatran]

A soul is a manifestation of religion, afterall you have to send something to the afterlife...

Since the world cannot agree on a religion it therefore cannot agree on the definition of a soul, and if you cannot define a soul you cannot study it.

/thread.

[Nos]

It sounds silly because you're making an entirely different logical statement. We have 8 cups and only 1 cup has some given attribute which is necessary for some other condition. We can see other cups far away that also have this attribute. We can't make any actual odds statements, because our observed sample size is way too small, but if we WERE to make a probability statement for some reason, it would be that the other far off cups may also have the condition of our special cup.

In other words, if you're going to make a data based probability statement, then the only statement you can rightfully draw is that life is common in the presence of liquid water, energy, and organic compounds, because that is the only conclusion that the data yields. Whether or not that statement is correct is simply an unknown at this point.

Whew. I think I'm going to eat breakfast.

Ok. So you're not trying to argue that it is fact, just saying that neither can be determined from what we have, but the only one we're allowed to make, is that it must be probable. I can see where you're coming from now, but those seem to be logical fallacies http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...cal-fallacies/

It seems to break several rules within the pink column.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 02:03 PM ----------

Scientists have created life, a non-carbon based one even.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0915091625.htm

Not arguing that they haven't done it, but /those/ scientists haven't done it as of that paper. Even the title says that they tried to take a first step /towards/ it. Not that they had done it. The article reveals their goals, not their accomplishments.

[Wildo]

You're going on the assumption that there is such a thing as a soul. That's -quite- the assumption. No one has a soul, you just believe what you want to believe.

Any you know this, how?

[Nos]

A soul is a manifestation of religion, afterall you have to send something to the afterlife...

Since the world cannot agree on a religion it therefore cannot agree on the definition of a soul, and if you cannot define a soul you cannot study it.

/thread.

#1) No. A soul does not necessarily have to have anything to do with a religion.

#2) Cannot study it if the world cannot agree on it? Does that mean that we can't study evolution because there are religions who do not agree with it?

[Luko]

I've always felt like the "Soul" is a community-friendly representation of the achievements that person has made in life, good or bad. It's kind of like a resume, but for every aspect of you, not just the professional kind. Like, if someone's in a gang, but really they're just there for the drug money to support a sick grandmother. Does that make them right? Of course not, but surely someone would say they have a "kind soul."

It's just an idea, really, but believe what you want. That's why it's a belief.

[Wikiy]

And that would have taken a balance that would have been nearly impossible, but possible. The next step would have been impossible as far as accepted science is concerned, and that's the building of specific proteins. What should have happened, is that they remained isolated and alone in their setting (that's what we see now). But, they would have had to link into "specific" proteins instead (we see no proof of this). That's why many started looking into other avenues. Most "school" books are not updated, or have simply chosen one side or another.

Chaos theory says that if you have billions upon billions of amino acids, some are randomly going to bind into proteins because of specific conditions. The same goes for lipids, carbohydrates and RNA. Once you get those 4 because of chaos theory, you still have billions upon billions of them. Chaos theory comes in again and they bind into something more complicated. Viola. People talking about something having an infinitesimally small chance of happening should realize the process was happening so often in so many samples that it was bound to happen, and very quickly after the Earth was formed.

[Wikiy]

Any you know this, how?

He doesn't have to know it. Science teaches us to act and assume things aren't true if there isn't any evidence for it. What you call the soul can be simply described as consciousness (the projection of the mind, IE, the brain).

[Velin]

Any you know this, how?

The burden of proof is on you to prove it exists, so until such a time we can say there's no such thing as a soul without having having to "prove" anything to you.

[Rocketsurgeon]

A soul is a spirit body joined with a physical body. I would imagine dogs have souls - a spirit body that looks like a dog, and a physical body that looks like a dog.

Intelligence can't be created. Elements are eternal (every single element in the universe!) and somehow elements and spirits are connected. Perhaps a spirit is just organized intelligence. The intelligence is formed into a spirit which must be made of some matter, but we cannot see it. (Like the air we breathe, can't see it!)

I've never heard of any evidence for a spirit either(why would spirits need bodies or have any necessary relationship to current physical shapes?). Intelligence can be created. Elements are not eternal. Air...I can't see flavors or smells or temperatures either. But these are all things that we can experience, define, and quantify.

[Lord Pebbleton]

The burden of proof is on you to prove it exists, so until such a time we can say there's no such thing as a soul without having having to "prove" anything to you.

May i buy your soul for 20 golds? Since it doesn't exist, you would just get some easy money. And i could use two souls for my nefarious purposes.


OT, i admire your courage for posting this thread on MMOChampion, but expect to be trolled by someone.

[Deleted]

Don't you lose just under an Oz. when you die?
I don't have a source as it's one of those facts that just float about (like no one dying from a weed OD).
I prefer the Buddhist belief that we don't have a soul that passes to our next incarnation instead there is a 'stream of consciousness' that passes to the next being. They have a karma belief where if you are good you will transcend and if you are bad you will descend. I know a lot of people say how can a fly or plant be inherently good? But I imagine it means good for their purpose rather than being a caring and nice plant.

[Dragonix80]

Chaos theory says that if you have billions upon billions of amino acids, some are randomly going to bind into proteins because of specific conditions. The same goes for lipids, carbohydrates and RNA. Once you get those 4 because of chaos theory, you still have billions upon billions of them. Chaos theory comes in again and they bind into something more complicated. Viola. People talking about something having an infinitesimally small chance of happening should realize the process was happening so often in so many samples that it was bound to happen, and very quickly after the Earth was formed.

Even if they successful formed into proper combination, it's still meangingless. It need information programmed in order for it to work. It's like making a computer from parts and it still will not work if you haven't input any programs inside it. There is more to it than just put right parts together.

Not only that, "You would have to get the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule - and that would still be a long way from a living cell. Then you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to create a living cell. The odds against this are astonishing. The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organism is absolutely tremendous." - Jonathan Wells, phd.

It can pretty much be summary into simple, "it's unlikely and impossible."

Anyway, how did we change our topic into this? We are suppose to focus on the human soul, not evolution. If we keep continue like this, this thread will get locked up.