Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 39
How can you prove soul exists after death?Page 2 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

How can you prove (the) soul exists after death?

I think the trick is proving it BEFORE death; nobody's managed to yet.
After death it's pretty easy. All you gotta do is watch yourself being buried and you have sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
If, on the other hand you are unaware of the dirt being thrown on top of you...
 Twill348
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 40
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/20/2009 8:06:42 PM
You need to define life, then death, then soul.

But some reasoning can help.

For decades now, scientists have been trying to create life, by mixing up all the crap on the planet millions of years ago is a tube, then waiting for a politician to come crawling out.

It ain't worked.

It could be, that there is more to this life thing, than just chemistry. Something we don't know about. Just a thought.

You know, just because one may survive death, does not mean happy happy joy joy. All the communication with the dead so far, shows them to be in a state of brainless, babbling idiocy, and that's on a good day.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 41
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/20/2009 9:16:25 PM

For decades now, scientists have been trying to create life, by mixing up all the crap on the planet millions of years ago is a tube, then waiting for a politician to come crawling out.

It ain't worked.

Oh it worked all right; it just worked differently than expected. Once the scientists realized that the progression of evolution was toward higher forms of life, they started with politicians and watched them develop into primordial slime.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 48
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/24/2009 9:08:45 PM

assuming as you did that life does exist after death

That isn't what he assumed. His proof was how one could prove life after death IF there was any. It wasn't a proof that there was. It was a bit "loosey goosey" for a class in logic, but then he didn't get an A+ for it either, probably because of that.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 50
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/24/2009 9:44:20 PM

In other words, objectivity is an illusion, and only a shared subjectivty. There then is no need for a 'matrix' simply because reality is formed through our perception.

It can get a LOT wierder than that...
We have NO IDEA what "being alive" means. For all we know, we live as virtual software, running in the nth level of a series of nested virtual realities, each one being even less similar to "actual" reality than the next higher one up. Instead of asking ourselves what might not reflect the "real reality" we should be asking ourselves what does (if anything at all). If it is disconcerting to find that your entire illusion of life is just a series of sequentially executed instructions not unlike the apparent flow of marquee lights at a theatre, that have the (optical) illusion of movement, then welcome to the club. I have never been able to create an argument with sufficient force of reason to suggest the situation might be otherwise. The BEST I could ever do was "Nah...Can't be!"
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 52
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/25/2009 8:57:45 PM
they would have an objective view of our reality (more than we would) and be in a better place to define our reality in a more complete sense.

We are very near (or may have already arrived?) at a point where we could add several more levels to the "nested realities" conjecture. we may soon find ourselves int the position of the extra-dimensional aliens you mention. I confess I find it amusing that we think we exist in some "real" n dimensional space, when we may in fact be no more than dimensionless abstractions with only an illusion of the lives we seem to value so highly. Maybe we are just a fancy game of "life."
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 58
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/29/2009 3:31:57 AM
although everything still exists, it does not necessarily exist as a 'whole' unit

...Much as a raindrop "ceases to exist" when it falls back into the ocean.

Our biggest problem is knowing enough of ourselves to see ourselves as a drop falling toward a great ocean, but having no idea what happens when we hit except that we cease to be a drop. Since that's what we think we are, we make up myths of our "existence" continuing as drops of oil that won't mix with the water. I think we'd all be a lot better off if we could just admit that we are really just water waiting to be reclaimed by the ocean and scrap the "drop" stuff altogether.
 etjusticepourtous
Joined: 9/18/2009
Msg: 59
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/29/2009 3:46:18 AM
have you seen the anime evangelion? that happens in the end of the series the human race becomes one.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 60
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/29/2009 3:50:53 AM
the human race becomes one.

I'm hoping that we can find the presence of mind to realize that's what we are to begin with. We currently maintain an illusion of separateness.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 62
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/29/2009 2:12:48 PM
To quote a great comic: ( http://xkcd.com/659/ )

"When you take apart a Lego® house and mix it back into the bin, where does the house go?"
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 64
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/29/2009 8:20:28 PM
Did anyone else's head just explode with the hypocritical irony of Monalee's statement?

Sorry...I wasn't paying attention to it. I'm too preoccupied, waiting for the Big Macs to arrive.
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 69
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/30/2009 10:49:15 PM
You could prove that the soul exists before birth. Which, coincidentally, is also before death.

If the soul is created at birth, then what is it about birth that creates it?

I think that it is the idea that the soul begins its existence at birth, that creates the limiting parameters of the concept that the soul ends at death.

So that under this conception;
whatever is creating the sensation or feeling of a soul then must only exist when there is the total collection of whatever things that exist when a person is born to sense and feel having a soul.

Does the part of a person that can sense having a soul die with the body?

Is the part of a person that senses having a soul that person's imagination? Or if it isn't imagination, then what is it?

To whom are you proving this? To the person's body, or to the person's spirit? If you were to sense the person's spirit, and communicate to/with that, you might find a way to convince them that their spirit exists. Evoking a person's spirit is easier than proving something abstract to their sense of reason (thinking, logic.)

Geometry is abstract, but in use it is very practical. The center of a circle is a point....and need not actually exist objectively to be discussed, referred to, and utilized. A point can be infinitesimally small, since it really is only a location, not an object. If an abstraction that has no existence can have physical, practical utility nonetheless, then a soul can exist, too, no matter how abstract it may seem.

The center of a circle can also be the exact center of an infinite number of circles....and this is a description of the unity of all that is. It need not be a paradox. And yet it is.

So what if there is only one soul? And it is the exact "center" of a person's spirit?
Then the only way to perceive a soul is within, and not without. To go without a person would be to look away.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 71
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 11/30/2009 11:48:56 PM
Wrong. Follow the link, the comic explains it just fine.
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 74
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/1/2009 12:05:11 AM
I think that the -- all that is -- is perfect. The universe is perfect as it is and needs no changing. On one level. The universe is neutral, but we exist in a world that presumes limitations. A world that was created by limiting all that is. And so the parts seem incomplete. And good and evil swirl amongst the appearance of separateness we have agreed to participate in.

Young and old souls are neither young nor old. They are part of us and so are both. The universe is impartial and implacable. We are learning to create meaning and we are learning the meaning of values as we play out the scenarios we join like dances.

Its all very joyful if you realize that nothing can be created or destroyed. However, in this world of limitation and separateness everything "matters." And we must not take any-thing for granted. Since every-thing is a gift, and when we become aware that we have the option between every-thing and no-thing we realize this.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 75
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/1/2009 6:36:25 AM

you see, DR, the question being asked is not "where did the object go", but "where did the use go" ?
dwelling/dweller = housing/housed
Q/ where did the housing go ?
A/ into the bin

...it's not about the movement of molecules to the bin, but the disassembly

No, you don't "get" it.

Show me the house in the bin.

Show me the soul after death.

Try again... and definitely sign your organ donor card.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 77
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/1/2009 2:37:24 PM
RE Msg: 129 by VolcanoBoy:
..... lol.... see this is why I find it silly that science and religion forum is shared.
It's NOT. The Religion and Supernatural forum is HERE:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingForum12.aspx

It used to be on the main list of forums. But there were so many flame wars and insults in that forum, that the mods decided to hide it. I think it was to stop people from posting more about religion, to stop the insults. But instead, people are still posting about religion, only in this forum.

Please. Tell your friends. If you want to wax lyrical about religion, or astrology, or the soul, or anything religious or supernatural, then post in THAT forum, or don't post at all. That way, you can keep the Science and Philosophy forum about Science and Philosophy, and nothing else.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 79
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/1/2009 5:08:27 PM
RE Msg: 131 by VolcanoBoy:
... maybe it was different back when I was here last. Man there's quite a few off topic threads in here. Naw I guess it wasn't.... There's pretty much always been God / Religion threads in here though since it says philosophy I guess.
There was always a few, and people were apt to point out that it wasn't the right forum. But since the Religion forum was hidden, it's gone haywire. I've just given up reporting the threads for being in the wrong forum.

But you're quite welcome to report them.

Heck, maybe I should anyway.
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 83
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/2/2009 3:55:15 PM
Krebby

Suffering is not unique to those that we have defined as having a soul. The curse of this life is that we have to kill something living to eat to survive. This life is filled with paradox, enormous suffering, the appearance of good and evil show up quite clearly here.

In the case of the suicide, the photographer and the child are now both dead. Were their lives both meaningless because of how it played out? Did the photographer's death mean more or less than the child's? Both were unnecessary. I think that it is the understanding that the universe is OK and we don't have to fix it that might have allowed the photographer to think outside the "box" of his profession and allowed himself not to think of all the complications of taking the child with him and just to do it. Instead, he thought he had to follow a specific set of rigorous rules in order to survive and guarantee his next paycheck. And without the next paycheck, how would he have supported the child? So he did exactly the same thing the child's parents did. And do you think that the parents felt any less angst?

Decisions made under the strain of life and death circumstances highlight our values and put things into great contrast so that we can see our place in the world we all participate in to create. If the child had died by falling off a cliff, there would not have been the same emotions. The suffering is in the expectations of humanity that we have of each other. The potential for life to either continue or not to continue, when it is placed in our hands, is a great time to learn what really matters to us. The photographer, in his drinking and drugging ways, didn't really know what mattered to himself at the time he was presented with the child's plight. That is why I said that in this world every-thing matters. It matters a great deal. But only because there is both possibilities at each given moment. We live in a world of matter. Of positive and negative, up and down, past and present and future. In the larger context, all of this exists at once. It is all one thing, and all one now. Its all on a holographic disk, and when we play it out we get to see the movie, that changes as we participate. The separateness exists to help us to see ourselves and each other better, yet we are all connected, in infinitely complex ways, as the photographer was trying to understand, and ultimately his and the child's destinies were intertwined.

I've had to make life and death decisions nine times. I've seen death up close and personal. I can attest to this affect on myself and on those around me. It doesn't help to see life as a line with one beginning and one ending and nothing before and after it -- for me. But seeing life in new ways has allowed me to take extraordinary chances like saving the abandoned child...saving my child. It was not easy. It is never easy.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 84
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/3/2009 1:09:12 AM
RE Msg: 138 by Krebby2001:
On the topic of whether posts with a religious tone belong in a Science/Philosophy forum. First, Religious messages pop up ubiquitously on all of the forums that I've run across here on POF, usually posted by well known advocates of religion. We all know that, and so, why limit to reporting those instance on this thread alone?
Yes.But religious posts on a secular thread aren't really consistent at all with the topic of the thread. So they are an aberration.

If the topic of a thread touches upon religious issues, that doesn't make it a non-sciency thread. But many threads are clearly discussing theology rather than actual secular science, and that makes them part of the Religion / Supernatural forum.

You can blame me if you want. When the religion forum was hidden, I didn't make an issue of the many threads that were talking about G-d. But as Volcano Boy pointed out, they aren't really sciency at all, and really they have no place in a science forum, any more than creationism belongs in a science class. As they were really getting very flamy, and when there were quite a few in the Science forum, there wasn't much in the way of science being discussed, I reported them as being in the wrong forum. But if they get to be more fruitful and less argumentative as a result, and if the Science threads flourish as a result, I think that will be a good thing. Only time will tell.

Second, usage of the concept "soul" compels that you first define that concept, otherwise, the whole sense of discussing whether you can "prove" its existence after death is meaningless.
Yes. But the actual definition isn't about science. If you look at all the things we call science, and all the things we don't, there are plenty of things that cover the same topics, and both might have substantial empirical evidence confirming them. But the things we call science are simply things where we apply a scientific approach, which could equally be described by what used to be called the "natural philosophy of the sciences", and things which are approached in non-scientific approaches. IMHO, the scientific approach to the subject of a "soul" would be a hypothesis that humans have a physical body and a metaphysical body, and that when the physical body ceases to function, the metaphysical continues to function, and possibly even carries the consciousness of the body with it, without the need for the physical brain to sustain consciousness. From there, each part of the discussion must be formulated with possible theories, and each part of the overall hypothesis requires empirical experiments, if not to gain results, then at least to try. The non-scientific approach is just to state that we have a "soul" that continues after death, and then to have a pleasurable multi-page discussion on what it is, and if it can be proved. The scientific approach is rather more likely to get results. But it's a lot more dry, and not really going to be the kind of discussion we're looking for here. Religion may be a lot more nebulous than science, but on the whole, it's far more accessible, and it tends to be far more interesting, because you can just argue about anything in Religion any way you want. Much harder to argue about clear-cut stuff like science.
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 86
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/3/2009 11:15:39 PM
The only way to discuss the soul is to make an assumption and then follow that assumption for a while. Then make another assumption and follow that one for a while....etc....

I think we can assume that there is no way to scientifically define a soul.
I think that we can say that the soul is experiential in nature.
In the same way that everyone "knows" what love is (or if they've been so unfortunate as to not know what love is, then we can assume that they know what hate or fear is.) But we can't prove that love, hate, or fear exists except to describe their effects on our behavior. So then, we observe behavior and extrapolate from there what these experiences are. They exist, but they exist in un-measurable, unquantifiable ways. And so we have B.F. Skinner's black box. He said we cannot know or understand or really talk about what is inside a person's head, and so we can only observe, describe and try to manipulate behavior.
In this same way, physicists observe the effects of forces on sub-atomic particles, but we are at the point in physics that we seldom use direct observation anymore. We know that there are forces in existence that we can define and somewhat predict (with quantum physics it is probabilities, not certainties that we discuss) but cannot see.

I think that there is a probability that there is a force, an effect or a thing that is a soul because there is so much evidence for it in our behavior, and the experience is so often felt. But the only way to truly understand love, hate, fear or the soul is to feel it from the inside of our existences. We can take an arbitrary definition and use that to make a premise and use that premise to guide our actions so that we are more likely to experience the movement of the soul in our lives. The soul might be thought of as what animates our beingness, beyond merely automatic reactions to stimuli.

Let's say a soul is "feelable" under certain circumstances. Then this would need to be done in an aware fashion. An individual, in order to become aware of their soul, would need first to simply acknowledge that a soul might exist within themselves. This would be necessary in order for the experience to be discussed with others.

If you acknowledge the possible existence of a soul within yourself, I submit that this awareness, in itself, changes a being.

The reading I am doing now suggests that the thing that expands with the learning, with the making of meaning, with the experience of great contrast and great emotion, and the playing out of the use of values and qualities such as compassion, (both the use of compassion and the lack of it) is the soul.

The soul, then, in this conception, is the thing that expands. It is often likened to an awakening, as if the previous way of being in the world by comparison, was like being asleep.

So is the soul, then, the result of a certain level of awareness? Is it what happens when a person sensibilities begin to include the interplay of others based on a value system that includes abstract concepts like love and compassion? If we name some way of being present in this world, "compassion" and then begin to notice it and also become aware of the lack of it, or the necessity or need for it, then we have expanded our awareness, and become more "awake" in this world. But awake to nothing evidential materially. Awake to an abstraction.

I suggest that the awareness of this abstraction is in itself the expansion of us into something more, that didn't exist before, except as a potential. The soul itself.

This world then, with all its conflict and contrast, is the perfect generator of souls that didn't exist before.
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 87
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/3/2009 11:51:58 PM
I'm so sorry to hear of the death of your beloved dog, Krebby. I am glad to see how you still honor him and what he taught you about life. I really think dogs are here to teach us to live in the moment, and to love unconditionally (well, as long as you throw the ball) and many other things. Dogs are truly joyous. They enjoy every moment so deliciously, even though, as they say, they lead a "dogs life."

I really sense joy when I get to a level of understanding of things I cannot truly describe it to anyone. It has taken me many years to get to that place, and I often loose it again. The holidays can be the worst as they are so bittersweet. The holidays highlight the empty chairs of loved ones who used to occupy them. The silence where a dog's bark used to be...welcoming you home.

There is joy. It is like a great undercurrent. It is like looking at Mt. Everest, or being in the middle of the ocean on a sailboat. It is like a deep vibration, a sound, like music, and has magic and wonder in it. There is joy even in the midst of great suffering. It is somehow interconnected with it, but I am certainly not saying that suffering is necessary to it.

For instance, you could die painlessly in your sleep, and then review your life and pick a day to re-live...from the point of view of the other side...not being in pain or needing anything...just for the joy of it. I first got the inkling of this while watching the play "Our Town," by Thornton Wilder I think that's the name of it. Have you seen it? Where a girl dies and is given the chance to go back to watch her 12th birthday, I think. It was all about the poignancy of the little things...watching her mother prepare the meal, the sun shining through the window. From the perspective of death every thing takes on a new meaning. The play is about the meaning of the little ordinary events of everyday life.

The photographer comes into a war situation to look for the blood and the gore and the angst. He knows that "if it bleeds, it leads." His prize was based on the false premise that what is most important about a war (or about anything) is whatever grabs the attention of a reader away from his daily life. But all us readers know that sometimes the most meaningful things are the simplest acts...a hug from a grandchild. The photographer could have found numerous examples of heroism, kindness, strength, humility, compassion, and simple will to survive if he had looked for them. But they wouldn't have been so dramatic.

We all say we don't want drama (its on a ton of profiles here), and yet we pay money to see it, to document it, to send photographers over to slosh in it and get traumatized by it.

We may all slow down to rubberneck at an accident on the freeway, but really, was that the most meaningful thing that happened in our day? Really?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 88
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/4/2009 7:50:11 AM
RE Msg: 150 by NerdStatus:

But we can't prove that love, hate, or fear exists except to describe their effects on our behavior.
Actually science can, and has proved that love, hate and fear exist. This is why we have fields of science called “psychology” and “human development”. They study these things, and there's empirical evidence supporting the existence of these emotions.
You're confusing psychology with neurology. Neurology focusses on defining the physical entities of the brain. Psychology just looks at people, and works out what exists based on what they say. From the psychological POV, the soul is a perfectly valid phenomenon, that could be determined by psychology. That psychologists tend to avoid it, is mostly down that psychology is taught according to the opinion that all ideas that have any connection to religion are completely untrue, irrespective of the evidence. This is due to the fact that the founder of psychology, Freud, was a deeply non-religious man, and had little respect for the religion of his ancestors, as well as other religions. This is borne out by 2 facts:

1) That Jung and Freud split over the issue of whether or not religion and spirituality was beneficial or harmful. This isn't exactly clear, in that neither wished to make it so, as both regarded each other highly, and the issue of spirituality and religion being beneficial or harmful in general, covers so many different issues, that it made for almost entirely divergent weltanschauung. Jung is mostly on the side that spirituality and religion can be and is often beneficial, but doesn't always have to be. Freud was intractable, as he was about many things.

2) Freud wrote in his introduction to one of his books, I think it was the Interpretation of Dreams, that he had gone into psychology, because the Rabbis had seemingly never touched psychology, and it was too important a subject to not be addressed. However, the Talmud is full of psychology. In Yeshiva, the was a common expression, known by many: "if you want to study psychology, study (Tractate) Baba Basra". The reason for that was that even though ideas of psychology can be found all over the Talmud, the majority are in tractate Baba Basra. Yet, Freud's entire devotion to psychology is based on the ignorance of this.

Most people aren't aware of this. That's because 99% of psychology students never went to Yeshiva, and 99% of Yeshiva students don't study psychology. Still more, most people read introductions, and those that do, usually don't pay attention to them. Still, the majority of people don't put together facts from disparate subjects. The combination of those possibilities makes it highly unlikely for 99.999% of people in this world to have any clue of the contradiction of Freud's own views on the subject.



they exist in un-measurable, unquantifiable ways.
They're both measurable, and quantifiable. Think: lie detector, MRI, brain mapping & chemistry. Because these things are measurable & quantifiable, doctors are able to prescribe medications & other treatment to address mental illness.
Would that this were true. But mental patients in the 70s showed a far greater ability than doctors to detect mental illness in others. They've tried in the last year to test doctors's abilities in detecting mental illness, and even with extremely experienced top mental health professionals, they got the obvious ones right, like the guy with OCD who was obsessed with washing, and the not-so-obvious ones they got wrong repeatedly. Mental health at this point is still more of a hit and miss affair, both in diagnosis and in treatment, which is not great for sufferers of mental illness.

So no, these things are not measurable and quantifiable. I realise that this might have been glossed over. But it's not exactly comfortable for doctors to admit that the evidence they usually have for indications of depression, anxiety, and homicidal tendencies, is that the patient clearly tells the doctor that he has those tendencies, and without that, doctors usually have very little clue. It wouldn't be comfortable for doctors to admit that they really don't have any clue about much of mental illness, just like it wouldn't be comfortable for anyone in any profession to admit that there are lots of things that they are supposed to know about, but don't.

This is how scientists are able to say the bio-chemical reaction in the CNS is similar between love & eating chocolate.
Actually, that was identified way before any of those were used all that much, particularly the most reliable neurological tool we have, the MRI. It was identified in the same way that all mental illnesses and feelings are identified by psychology, by that when people imbibe chocolate, they show the same behavioural patterns as when they are in love. That was how we knew that chocoate did the same thing as being in love. The MRI tests and brain chemistry tests were not even considered to be required to prove it, as that was previously proved, just to study how chocolate worked to make the same reactions as being in love, but mainly to understand how being in love works, because that one baffles lots of psychologists.


And so we have B.F. Skinner's black box. He said we cannot know or understand or really talk about what is inside a person's head, and so we can only observe, describe and try to manipulate behavior.
The field of psychology has come a LONG way since Skinner (c1930's) and Freud (c1870's).
We really haven't. The proof is the most successful form of psychology we have at the moment, which is CBT. It only has a 30% success rate. But that still puts it way ahead of almost everything else in the psychologist's arsenal.

What's really interesting about CBT, is how it works. It tries to address behavioural patterns, without even trying to understand why or where they came from. It's like trying to use gravity on Earth, without having any interest in the theories of Newton or Einstein for it, and not even bothering to understand if it would even exist for anywhere other than on Earth. That's how un-scientific it is. It's a practical approach to mental health problems, with no regard at all for the theories of psychology. Why, it doesn't even say that religious visions are wrong, only that if they bother you, then there might be ways that might make them lessen of their own accord. Fundamentally, CBT assumes that all psychology is bunkum and guessing, or at least might be, and the only thing that matters, is that the patient has a complaint about their symptoms, and how to use basic knowledge of how patterns work with people, to increase or decrease those patterns.

That the most un-scientific of treatments in psychology seems to be the most successful by a wide margin, clearly suggests that we don't really have too much of a clue what's happening in the brain. That back in the 70s, mental patients did better at diagnosis than mental health professionals do today, tells us much the same.

That's not a criticism of us. Rome was not built in a day. Knowledge takes time, and this type of knowledge is taking a very long time. But it is a criticism of us assuming that we know about the brain, when we so clearly don't. We're still learning aour ABCs of the brain. If someone asks us the way to Manchester, we'd be better off telling him that we cannot yet read, rather than giving him directions to drive 400 miles in the opposite direction. What we are sure of, is worth doing. What we think is worth trying, is worth trying, but to bear in mind that we might get it seriously wrong. What we are not sure of, we are better off admitting, that we are out of our depth.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 89
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/4/2009 12:00:27 PM
RE Msg: 152 by NerdStatus:
Maybe in the UK the psychologists don't study neurology, but they definitely study it here.
But psychology and psychiatry is absolutely huge.

There are a huge number of patients with mental health issue. We have a public health system. So anyone with mental health issues gets treated on the NHS. So they have to have a high level of psychologists and psychiatrists, and they have to try to get them better ASAP, to stop the massive drain of having them on the NHS, because they don't pay for it.

This is literally psychology 101 stuff.
Psychology 100, before psychology 101, is to accept what you are told, and to never think things out for yourself. If you did, then if the evidence conflicted in some way, then you'd end up contradicting your professors in the middle of their classes. Mind you, if they didn't conflict, then you wouldn't get dozens on conflicting theories about the subject. The fact that there are so many clearly conflicting theories, that are all based on the same sets of evidence, should be enough to tell you that there is no reliable "psychology 101".


That psychologists tend to avoid it, is mostly down that psychology is taught according to the opinion that all ideas that have any connection to religion are completely untrue, irrespective of the evidence.
I couldn't disagree more. You've had seven pages to provide scientific evidence the soul exists.
I suggest that you read my posts on this thread. My first post, on page 1, stated clearly, that it's outside the province of modern Western science to even consider that the soul exists outside of the body and is provable, because the only way to prove it empirically, is to die and come back, and the belief of modern Western science, is that that is quite impossible, that if your heart stopped, and then re-started, then your consciousness was still in your brain, but that once your brain deteriorated to the point that it ceased to hold your consciousness, that it was gone forever. So the modern Western scientific view starts out from a position that it's impossible for there to be a soul in the first place.

You've failed to do so, and so has science in general.
I haven't tried. Neither has science, like I explained.

Science doesn't have a position on souls / the afterlife, other than it sees no evidence of it. Most of your discussion on this is ad homenim, and has nothing to do with providing scientific evidence for the existence of souls.
It depends on what you mean by science. If by science, you mean the laws of the universe, that doesn't have any opinion on it, and whether or not there is evidence of it, cannot be shown, because it's an abstract subject, that we don't know, and are merely trying to learn.

If by science, you mean the body of knowledge and research currently maintained and conducted by the group of people who belong to the modern Western scientific community, then they are merely trying to understand the laws of the universe, but are still a group of people who are, in our time, all employed in that community in scientific research, and are intending to be employed for either as long as possible in science, or until they get a better job or retire. Either way, they are no different than modern politicians in that regard, who intend to help humanity by their work, but still have the aim of making politics their career for as long as possible or until they get a better job or retire. They are subject to the same problems that we see in politics. Less so, because they tend to be less highly paid, and because they tend to be less in the public eye, but they have the same problems, all the same.

Verification comes down to Popper's criteria. To verify there is no soul, you need experiments that can be falsified, that is, experiments and observations within which there are situations in which one would conclude there is a soul, like people who've died. But there are no conditions for any experiment or any observation under which science would conclude that there must be a soul. So it fails Popper's criteria for verification.

It therefore remains an unknown that cannot be proved by the scientific community. That the scientific community refuses to accept that, means they accept Popper, but not when it shows they are wrong. That they do that, cannot be down to some rational reason, for none is given, other than the lack of physical evidence, which is impossible for them to accept anyway, according to Popper, even if it did exist, and that the default position should be that the soul doesn't exist until proved, which is only valid according to the philosophies of materialism and empiricism, and both of them have been shown faulty, Mill's materialism by much earlier scholars (I believe Kant was one of them), and empiricism by Ayer and Wittgenstein. That only leaves cognitive dissonance, and rationalisation by confirmation bias.

The question is therefore where the cognitive dissonance comes from, what exactly about the attitude of the members of the modern Western scientific community, make them uncomfortable to even say that the soul exists.




they exist in un-measurable, unquantifiable ways.
They're both measurable, and quantifiable. Think: lie detector, MRI, brain mapping & chemistry. Because these things are measurable & quantifiable, doctors are able to prescribe medications & other treatment to address mental illness.
So no, these things are not measurable and quantifiable.
Define "these things".The same definition you assumed when you wrote:
They're both measurable, and quantifiable
You used "they" before me. You define it. You want to claim that you didn't know what the meaning of the post you were referring to was, then fine. But don't expect me to define something if it's only vauge, because it was in response to something you never defined yourself.



They've tried in the last year to test doctors's abilities in detecting mental illness, and even with extremely experienced top mental health professionals, they got the obvious ones right, like the guy with OCD who was obsessed with washing, and the not-so-obvious ones they got wrong repeatedly.
This is evidence of:
1) Science can be used to correctly identify mental illness
If by science, you mean the laws of the universe, then it suggests that it might be able to predict mental illness. But that's hardly a revelation, because that was identified by the first person to use the word "crazy" to refer to a person, and that happened several thousands of years ago, before Western science existed.

If by science, you mean the body of knowledge and research maintained and conducted by the modern Western scientific community, then again that's not much more than anyone could do without science. It's no great revelation to say that someone who washes his hands for 10 minutes after getting the slightest bit of dirt on it, is wrong in the head. Scientific knowledge has revealed to us that schizophrenics are always apt to jump to firm conclusions on the basis of almost no evidence. Yet that in itself is a clear indication of mental illness in anyone's view, and since schizophrenia is such a broad term that it's very difficult to even say what it is, it doesn't really tell us more than the person is seriously mentally ill, and we knew that anyway.

2) The field of mental health is (allegedly) not as could as it could be
That's definite. The problem is not that mental health could advance, but that it was obvious 40 years ago, and we really haven't made major advances since then, that your grandma couldn't have told you.

Neither of these is refuting that certain emotions are measurable and quantifiable.
The problem again, is that even those who believe in a soul, could quantify and measure those emotions, even better than scientists can, without the aid of science at all.

The scientific community is not really adding much we don't already know about the state of the mind, apart from techniques that are used successfully in brainwashing, and yet it's trying to make authoritative claims about the mind that cannot be proved by themselves at all.


We really haven't.
I suppose this is subjective. The success rate may be low, but it's much higher than it was a couple generations ago. To me, that means we've come a long way. We'll have to agree to disagree perhaps?
I'd really like to agree with you that mental health is a lot better than it used to be. But it's really only made improvements in that scientists are finally starting to come around to the view that average people who've been pointing out all sorts of things about mental illness, might just be right, and that certain groups of people who have clear mental illness, but no support network for it, have found that sedative drugs have made their lives much more livable. Apart from that, things have got a lot worse, because what is very clear, is that people with a strong support network deal with mental illness much better, and we used to live in communities with strong support networks, but we don't anymore, largely because people believed that with the aid of science and governmental support, we wouldn't need them. So ironically, science has allowed us to become lax about the support of our communities, and that in turn has made mental illness much more prevalent, which has forced us to turn to science to solve that much higher rate of mental illness, and now, the lack of ability in our current scientific knowledge in treating mental illness, has been made that much clearer.

When we didn't rely on science to help with mental illness, we used community support. It didn't work all the time. But it did work for the majority of cases. Once we started relying on science to help with mental illness, then we abandoned community support, and it is skyrocketing. But modern scientists pretty much say that they are out of their depth, and the best cure is community support. But we knew that anyway, and we were doing it anyway. We only stopped because scientists started saying they could cure mental illness without the need of us to solve it ourselves with community support.

In this respect, we got too arrogant with science, to think that it could solve every problem. Science is a useful tool. But it's still a tool, and like any tool, it has its limits. We are not wise to say that we can build an entire house with only a hammer and some nails, until we've proved it could be done, time after time. Till then, we're just pushing our luck, and that's what we've been doing with science, pushing our luck.

We need to stop expecting the scientific community to tell us that the soul does or doesn't exist, and just face facts, that right now, it's impossible for the scientific community to say one way or the other. We need to realise that we are just passing the buck by relying on scientists, and in this case, we'll know more than they will.
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 90
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 12/14/2009 8:02:54 PM
If you're here.
It does.
If you aint.
It doesn't.

The part of you that knows you exist.
has always existed.
and always will.

Perhaps just a disturbance in the force if you're cynical.
But a vibration that aint going away.
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 91
view profile
History
How can you prove soul exists after death?
Posted: 2/21/2010 6:07:06 PM
You can't. You can't prove the existence of the soul, either. These are a matter of faith, not science. Science is about the natural, observable, measurable world. The soul, as defined by people of faith, does not exist in a manner observable or measurable by science. Don't look for scientific validation of matter of faith. You either believe or you don't.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >