Scientists talk about human soul

[Deleted]

Your post is just stupid. You instantly assume a soul is related to religion which shows a serious lack of spiritual understanding. Also, the bolded part. I fail to see where the problem is. How is it a problem for animals to have a soul?

Spiritualism = religion. Maybe it's not belief into god but it's still blind faith in some higher power or system that rewards or punishes you depending on your action with a better or worse afterlife.

How is my post stupid? If animals have souls, where does it stop? Does every living thing have a soul then? Bacteria, worms, snail.. Earth would be absolutely thick with souls in such case after billions of years..

And how is it stupid to ask where these souls go or how do they see or hear? You can't see without absorbing light (if your eyes were invisible, you couldnt see anything) so the spirits should cast at least eye shadows which could be seen or measured. Not only that but again the world would be full of floating ghostly eyes, ears and noses ..

[Dezerte]

No. Because most people in here are arguing against the existence of a soul purely on the basis that science says it doesn't exist.

Did anyone in here accept what those scientists said as the truth? No, the opposite.

So the issue is people are to pathetic to handle a word, and need it called something else before a full and open discussion can be had?

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? I never said it was pathetic, nor do I think it is. I'm saying the meaning of "a soul" if you take religion out of it really tells me nothing. I don't know what you are talking about any longer, hence why I suggest you use the words I listed.

[Hyve]

Spiritualism = religion.

No, this is just nonsense. I would consider myself rather spiritual, but I don't follow a faith. I actually disapprove of most religions, because they've taken ancient teachings and twisted their meanings.

How is my post stupid? If animals have souls, where does it stop? Does every living thing have a soul then? Bacteria, worms, snail.. Earth would be absolutely thick with souls in such case after billions of years..

Okay, this part makes you look even stupider, so let me clear up a point or two here.

1) My question was why are Humans so special as to have souls? If we don't, then there is no problem but if we do, why would it be a problem, as you stated, for animals to have souls? Why would there be a problem for every living thing to have a soul?

2) What on earth do you mean we'd be thick with souls after billions of years? Are you assuming that souls have a mass, that they're a physical object?

And how is it stupid to ask where these souls go or how do they see or hear? You can't see without absorbing light (if your eyes were invisible, you couldnt see anything) so the spirits should cast at least eye shadows which could be seen or measured. Not only that but again the world would be full of floating ghostly eyes, ears and noses ..

This part blew my mind man. Whatever you're sniffing, I want some.

---------- Post added 2013-01-30 at 07:26 PM ----------

Did anyone in here accept what those scientists said as the truth? No, the opposite.

You've clearly misunderstood what I mean, so let me clarify:

The general scientific community holds the belief that there is no such thing as souls. Because of this, everyone who blindly follows this belief has accepted that souls are an impossibility, or that they must be of something we can measure, or see, or control.

Perhaps, there are things in this Universe that operate, that work and function and have no physical form? I'm more then certain there are particles, or other constructs of our universe that we can't see, or study yet that are vital to the continuous progression of our planet and lives, yet we accept this as a possiblilty but not the concept of souls, purely because people associate it with a religion.

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? I never said it was pathetic, nor do I think it is. I'm saying the meaning of "a soul" if you take religion out of it really tells me nothing. I don't know what you are talking about any longer, hence why I suggest you use the words I listed.

I was merely saying that if it is the word soul people have a problem with, then they're rather sad people because they automatically reject any concept or theory if it is related to a religion even in the slightest degree.

Soul to me personally, is our personality. I could cut you up (Don't take that as a threat!), and look into you and find nothing different, except perhaps a few small environmental changes, to the next person. I wouldn't be able to find any of your memories, views, opinions, emotions. While we know where these things are processed in the brain, we've no idea how we store them.

Remember, it wasn't that long ago in our species existence that we thought the heart controlled the entire body, not the brain. We've only been able a scientific community at this level for a very, very short time, and what I don't like about it is that many people are claiming (and this includes scientists) that Science can, and will unlock all the secrets.

Because of it, people have put their blind faith in science, yet I feel there is so much to this universe, we as a species will never know all about ourselves.

[Dezerte]

2) What on earth do you mean we'd be thick with souls after billions of years? Are you assuming that souls have a mass, that they're a physical object?

Well, shouldn't they have mass or energy if they actually exist?

[Hyve]

Well, shouldn't they have mass or energy if they actually exist?

This is exactly what I mean though. A prime example!

We base this off what, our current knowledge of the universe and how things operate. What if it is possible that souls do not have a mass, but we refute their existence on the basis that we believe everything has to have a mass. You could go on to make any wild claims then of course, but I feel souls are a good place to start.

[Deleted]

*snip*

I call this picking a fight and baiting so there is no point in continuing this.

You only selectively pick out some parts while not addressing the whole point. Namely where do these souls go and what do near death experiences have to do with souls. They are basically described as floating above the body and seeing and hearing things. To see you need to absorb some light which could be measured and also casts a shadow. These shadows should be everywhere if there really are billions of souls floating around. The only way to explain it is that the souls use magic and dont have to follow the rules of physics or go to a better place soon after death (which is already religious).

Oh and PS.. yea, im a MAN called Lyzbeth lol

[derpkitteh]

i've heard of this theory before. kinda scares the shit out of me... the thought of existing after dying in any way just scares me. but, i agree with mister farengar secret-fire, "one sure mark of a fool is to dismiss anything that falls outside his experience as impossible".

[Hyve]

I call this picking a fight and baiting so there is no point in continuing this.

You only selectively pick out some parts while not addressing the whole point. Namely where do these souls go and what do near death experiences have to do with souls. They are basically described as floating above the body and seeing and hearing things. To see you need to absorb some light which could be measured and also casts a shadow. These shadows should be everywhere if there really are billions of souls floating around. The only way to explain it is that the souls use magic and dont have to follow the rules of physics or go to a better place soon after death (which is already religious).

Oh and PS.. yea, im a MAN called Lyzbeth lol

I agree, there is little point continuing to discuss this with you, purely because of the ignorance shown in the bold part. I'm sorry I asked you to think a little outside of the box, and consider something different.

[Dezerte]

You've clearly misunderstood what I mean, so let me clarify:

The general scientific community holds the belief that there is no such thing as souls. Because of this, everyone who blindly follows this belief has accepted that souls are an impossibility, or that they must be of something we can measure, or see, or control.

Perhaps, there are things in this Universe that operate, that work and function and have no physical form? I'm more then certain there are particles, or other constructs of our universe that we can't see, or study yet that are vital to the continuous progression of our planet and lives, yet we accept this as a possiblilty but not the concept of souls, purely because people associate it with a religion.

What do you mean by "no physical form"? Oxygen is invisible to our eyes, yet we know it's there. You can find millions of starts in the night sky that otherwise looked darked and empty.

Do some people accept science without thinking? Yes, and that shows a lack of thinking skills. But I think most people in this thread were actually exercising that ability.

I was merely saying that if it is the word soul people have a problem with, then they're rather sad people because they automatically reject any concept or theory if it is related to a religion even in the slightest degree.

Soul to me personally, is our personality. I could cut you up (Don't take that as a threat!), and look into you and find nothing different, except perhaps a few small environmental changes, to the next person. I wouldn't be able to find any of your memories, views, opinions, emotions. While we know where these things are processed in the brain, we've no idea how we store them.

Remember, it wasn't that long ago in our species existence that we thought the heart controlled the entire body, not the brain. We've only been able a scientific community at this level for a very, very short time, and what I don't like about it is that many people are claiming (and this includes scientists) that Science can, and will unlock all the secrets.

Because of it, people have put their blind faith in science, yet I feel there is so much to this universe, we as a species will never know all about ourselves.

Science is not a belief, but a method for obtaining the facts. It's the best method available. I touched on why it's bad to blindly believe in science in my previous comment.

We know quite a bit of memory though; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory , but we don't understand the most inner working of our brain yet. But we know enough to say that the "you" is your brain. I believe another poster gave some examples of persons with brain damage developing new personalities, which further proves that your brain is "you" and that's all there is (no extra metaphysical nonsense needed).

[Hyve]

We know quite a bit of memory though; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory , but we don't understand the most inner working of our brain yet. But we know enough to say that the "you" is your brain. I believe another poster gave some examples of persons with brain damage developing new personalities, which further proves that your brain is "you" and that's all there is (no extra metaphysical nonsense needed).

I disagree. We can't access the memories, feelings, emotions and more within the brain. Perhaps we simply don't have the technology and I am wrong, who knows! That is the great thing about my beliefs, if they're wrong, i'll adapt and accept where I've been mislead, but I also have good reasoning behind my views.

As for the personality issues after brain damage, that doesn't really prove anything, it could just be the brains interpretation of the person soul, in the case I was talking about, is now faulty. Who knows?!

[Dezerte]

This is exactly what I mean though. A prime example!

We base this off what, our current knowledge of the universe and how things operate. What if it is possible that souls do not have a mass, but we refute their existence on the basis that we believe everything has to have a mass. You could go on to make any wild claims then of course, but I feel souls are a good place to start.

So, are you saying that souls exists but we haven't figured out how to detect them yet, or souls exists but they are "non-physica"l and will thus never be detectable (this sentence doesn't even make sense to me as I'm writing it).

[Deleted]

I disagree. We can't access the memories, feelings, emotions and more within the brain. Perhaps we simply don't have the technology and I am wrong, who knows! That is the great thing about my beliefs, if they're wrong, i'll adapt and accept where I've been mislead, but I also have good reasoning behind my views.

As for the personality issues after brain damage, that doesn't really prove anything, it could just be the brains interpretation of the person soul, in the case I was talking about, is now faulty. Who knows?!

Riiight.. so people with head traumas who have amnesia actually got hit in their souls. That makes so much more sense..

Why don't you show us that reasoning then? So far you've only attacked people who disagree with you and don't provide any explanation or proof while others do.

[Arlon]

While im very sceptical of this hypothesis(And even if presented with the data/models they have i would be too uneducated to understand it for a good conclusion), i love scientists that take risks and challange the taboos of modern research. I feel as if some fields are too much plagued with conservativism, kinda like during Einsteins time when Newtonian models were the epitome of physics that few dared to challange. We need more people like Michio Kaku and this guy(Even if he sounds abit crazy).

[Dezerte]

I disagree. We can't access the memories, feelings, emotions and more within the brain. Perhaps we simply don't have the technology and I am wrong, who knows! That is the great thing about my beliefs, if they're wrong, i'll adapt and accept where I've been mislead, but I also have good reasoning behind my views.

As for the personality issues after brain damage, that doesn't really prove anything, it could just be the brains interpretation of the person soul, in the case I was talking about, is now faulty. Who knows?!

You may disagree, but the scientific community does not. But you're free to have your opinion, as long as you don't let it harm anyone. And I assume, (because you say you don't associate with any religious dogma) I believe it's safe to say you know you are not harming anyone.

And this is where our argument comes to a halt, or at least I feel that way.

[Hyve]

So, are you saying that souls exists but we haven't figured out how to detect them yet, or souls exists but they are "non-physica"l and will thus never be detectable (this sentence doesn't even make sense to me as I'm writing it).

Basically yes. I believe that we just can't find them, detect them, or perhaps it is impossible to. I'm totally open to the idea also, that they don't exist at all, but I have a feeling there is more to us then our physical being, and the best description I find of explaining that, is a soul.

Riiight.. so people with head traumas who have amnesia actually got hit in their souls. That makes so much more sense..

Why don't you show us that reasoning then? So far you've only attacked people who disagree with you and don't provide any explanation or proof while others do.

I've not attacked anyone, other then your lack of capability to read. I never said people get hit on their soul... Try reading what I write.

---------- Post added 2013-01-30 at 07:56 PM ----------

You may disagree, but the scientific community does not. But you're free to have your opinion, as long as you don't let it harm anyone. And I assume, (because you say you don't associate with any religious dogma) I believe it's safe to say you know you are not harming anyone.

And this is where our argument comes to a halt, or at least I feel that way.

I don't force anyone to share my views, and as I pointed out (and you) I don't consider myself religious at all, just spiritual.

[Deleted]

I don't force anyone to share my views, and as I pointed out (and you) I don't consider myself religious at all, just spiritual.

Belief into something without any proof is religion. There is no proof about souls or spirits or any of that. Just because you call your little "religion" special and not like other religions doesn't make it any different.

[Dezerte]

Just thought of something to add, our brains are pattern-recognition devices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern...8psychology%29

Our brains to this on auto-mode, you can't stop yourself from thinking a certain cloud in the sky looks like a cat (as example). So why on earth did our brains develop this nonsense-system? Well, in the good old caveman times (takes me back) surviving was a whole another affair. Was that rustle in the bush a lurking predator? Or was it just the wind? Rather be safe than sorry and not investigate. Those who did investigate might of learned something new, or they could of been eaten. Either way, the former was clearly the most advantageous for survival.

Enter modern times, are you obsessed with a certain set of numbers? Is the clock always 10:14 when you look at it (selective bias)? Does weird and mysterious things mean something? This is where superstition comes from. I'm sure you're familiar with optical illusions, they're a great example of showing you how your brain fools you; because it tries to make sense of a pattern.

I'm saying, don't let your brain fool you. You should question even your brain, take a backseat to your brain and analyze what it's doing.

---------- Post added 2013-01-30 at 09:03 PM ----------

Basically yes. I believe that we just can't find them, detect them, or perhaps it is impossible to. I'm totally open to the idea also, that they don't exist at all, but I have a feeling there is more to us then our physical being, and the best description I find of explaining that, is a soul.

I don't force anyone to share my views, and as I pointed out (and you) I don't consider myself religious at all, just spiritual.

As long as you're not hurting anyone because of your beliefs. Then it's okay.

[Hyve]

Belief into something without any proof is religion. There is no proof about souls or spirits or any of that. Just because you call your little "religion" special and not like other religions doesn't make it any different.

I .... Urh... *speechless*

[zorkuus]

The Orch-OR theory has come in for heavy criticism by more empirically minded thinkers and remains controversial among the scientific community.

There's no controversy if only a few hacks out of thousands upon thousands of scientists support it. This would be like saying gravity or evolution is controversial within the scientific community.

[Kurioxan]

Spiritualism = religion.

Not really, spiritualism can exist without religion and religion without spiritualism.

Would even argue that one is good for the mind while the other isnt.