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  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 21
view profile
History
The soul?Page 2 of 2    (1, 2)
your soul is you,

you are a living soul.

when you die, you are dead, no more a living soul.



you were made to live on earth, not to flap around somewhere after you die.
 Ingemouse
Joined: 2/29/2012
Msg: 22
The soul?
Posted: 3/4/2012 4:30:40 PM
Aremyself, so what makes you so sure you are right? Just curious.
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 24
The soul?
Posted: 3/8/2012 9:54:41 PM
I happen to think that we are projections of a superior Christ-like being, we are them and they are us, but they are our true, perfect selves and when we die we return to them/us. You might think of it as more than a guardian angel, but one that is both apart from us and also our true self, too. Confusing, I know.

It is like we are experiments, spirits having an earthly experience along a path to perfection.

That makes everything physical an illusion, it is all "thought" ...flesh, blood, bone....just thought projected from some other place, three-dimensional but illusion.

Hard to explain it...:-(.
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 25
The soul?
Posted: 3/8/2012 9:54:56 PM
I happen to think that we are projections of a superior Christ-like being, we are them and they are us, but they are our true, perfect selves and when we die we return to them/us. You might think of it as more than a guardian angel, but one that is both apart from us and also our true self, too. Confusing, I know.

It is like we are experiments, spirits having an earthly experience along a path to perfection.

That makes everything physical an illusion, it is all "thought" ...flesh, blood, bone....just thought projected from some other place, three-dimensional but illusion.

Hard to explain it...:-(.
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 26
The soul?
Posted: 3/8/2012 9:55:10 PM
I happen to think that we are projections of a superior Christ-like being, we are them and they are us, but they are our true, perfect selves and when we die we return to them/us. You might think of it as more than a guardian angel, but one that is both apart from us and also our true self, too. Confusing, I know.

It is like we are experiments, spirits having an earthly experience along a path to perfection.

That makes everything physical an illusion, it is all "thought" ...flesh, blood, bone....just thought projected from some other place, three-dimensional but illusion.

Hard to explain it...:-(.
 Ingemouse
Joined: 2/29/2012
Msg: 27
The soul?
Posted: 3/9/2012 9:39:47 AM
Balsamica, an illusion, as in the film the Matrix? Interesting. I'll take the red pill.
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 28
The soul?
Posted: 3/9/2012 10:39:45 AM
Ingemouse, I expressed my own belief but there was a wonderful program on PBS recently about the nature of the universe and time and a definate consensus that the three-dimensional reality we think we know is an illusion and rather a projection of a two dimensional reality where all knowledge and being are stored and emanate from.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 29
The soul?
Posted: 3/12/2012 1:13:12 PM
Here is why all questions about the esistence of a "soul" are bogus.

In science, the term "hydrogen" was not coined before it was used to label the eliment that previously had no name. Or maybe it did and we simply changed the name to better fit the definition. Point being, science doesnt decide ahead of time what they want to call something, then go find evidence for what they are looking for and when they can't find any, change the definition until they can justify the use of the term, with the intent of defending that they were right all along.

The moment you change the definition of "soul", the question wether one exists becomes meaningless. If you dont knwo what you're looking for. A word is only a short form of it's complete definition.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 30
The soul?
Posted: 3/12/2012 4:04:45 PM
Lets say we start with the word "apple". Without knowing anything about what we know as "apple" today, how can we prove or disprove the existence of an "apple". It needs definition.

We need to observe and start defining what we observe to the best of our ability before we simply create a label. Otherwise, we find ourselves questioning the existence or non existence of any word we can come up with. Lets say someone makes up the word "apple" without ever knowing anything about what we know as an "apple" today. How would one go about proving or disproving it's existence? According to some posts on this thread, just change the definition to something that sounds as if it exists to be able to wi an argument. Only some posts though. Most here see the problem. They realize that "apple" has a very thorough definition, even recognizing that it is so precise that with any slight change to the exact definition, a new word is needed such as "delicious", "granny smith" and so on. Notice how hard it is to find a forum discussing the existence of apples?

So far on this thread, those who entertain the existence of a "soul" are simply offering ideas of what a "soul" might be (trying to define it) but no one seems to share the same definition. Some tactics seem to imply that if they define it using a word for something that is known to exist, like "energy" or "vibrations" or "frequency of vibrations", etc, that they are helping to support the existence of it. Unfortunately, it's like saying "Warp drive (from star trek) exists because in the show, they use it in a metal ship.. and metal exists so it supports the idea of Warp Drive". It doesn't.

Before a discussion can be seriously had of wether something exists, one must properly define it. Thats why we have these arguments over not being able to prove a negative. It never comes up if we only label things that, by definition, exist.
 jaybee812
Joined: 10/25/2011
Msg: 31
The soul?
Posted: 3/17/2012 7:27:03 PM
just read something recently about an English doctor, i believe, who has witnessed and closely monitered hundreds, if not thousands of deaths. He claims that at the very moment of death, the body releases something that weighs around 22 grams. He has looked at all sorts of possibilities such as trapped gasses, water weight, ect, and has come to a conclusion that the soul has mass, and leaves when the body is expired. I'm a bit vague on the details, i think google will come up with something. It will also give you a B rated movie, a flick i found depressing and poorly made, but then again, i'm no movie critic.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 32
The soul?
Posted: 3/18/2012 1:12:17 AM
I guess the easiest claim to validate the first part of the claim would be to monitor the weight of a body as it dies while sealed in air tight plastic bag the whole time. If it still looses weight by 22 grams (which I'd wager quite highly that it wouldn't), then the next step would be to determine if souls DO in fact weigh 22 grams.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 33
view profile
History
The soul?
Posted: 3/18/2012 8:09:42 AM
MacDougall was an American Dr. His 1907 experiments have long since been discredited. He also maintained that the dogs he killed did not have souls.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-soul-weigh-21-grams.html

I'd like to see studies that show that women suddenly gain 21 grams as the soul comes into the fetus, or if a baby suddenly gains 21 grams. The 21 grams theory would also not be able to take into account the difference in weight in evil people and godly people...ie. Cheney vs. Gandhi. Would all souls be created equal, no matter age, size, or worldly manifestations of the soul's deeds?
 Kohavah
Joined: 3/14/2012
Msg: 34
The soul?
Posted: 3/18/2012 8:22:15 AM
Earthpuppy posted this:
I'd like to see studies that show that women suddenly gain 21 grams as the soul comes into the fetus, or if a baby suddenly gains 21 grams. The 21 grams theory would also not be able to take into account the difference in weight in evil people and godly people...ie. Cheney vs. Gandhi. Would all souls be created equal, no matter age, size, or worldly manifestations of the soul's deeds?

Kohavah replies with this:

 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 35
view profile
History
The soul?
Posted: 3/18/2012 9:31:07 AM
I'm sorry to say that even the Conservation of Energy idea of 'proving" that souls exist and continue after body death, doesn't help us get away from a pure faith/belief based idea of the existence of souls.

The problem is, that we do not yet have any way to measure the total energy content of an individual being. We therefore can't compare the energy content before and after death, to find out if the equation for the dead body, matches the calculation for the living one. As I suggested before, we ASSUME that the personality represents energy that is in addition to the chemistry of our bodies, because it's so unique and ever changing in response to the world, but there is no indication that it is.

As with lots of us, I really hope that I exist after I die, especially since I am such a slow learner in so many ways. I expect my greatest frustration on my deathbed, will be that I failed to get so many things done, and to correctly understand and communicate with those around me.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 36
The soul?
Posted: 3/18/2012 10:54:38 AM
I think a "like" button or other features like that would be cool. I'm equally guilty of mainly posting critical comments of others I disagree with but often write nothing because anything I could ever add has already been mentioned by many other well spoken individuals. I should spend more time supporting statements I agree with if I'm going to spend time arguing against points that I dont. Serves a similar purpose and comes off more positive. But its morning and I'm sure I'll get my smart ass streak back.
 musicfellow38
Joined: 2/17/2011
Msg: 38
The soul?
Posted: 3/19/2012 11:23:48 AM
RATHLINLIGHTHOUSE, I assume you're running with the joke... and good on ya!

Surely some sort of particle accelerator would be able to trap a soul to be studied, as long as we dont cross the accelerator's streams.
 Bukleigh
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 39
The soul?
Posted: 3/19/2012 12:55:34 PM
A soul ... to me ... is not something you possess ...

It is the part of you that exists in other people ... the mark you left.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 41
view profile
History
The soul?
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:57:33 PM
As for the 22 grams theory, movement of mass generates more mass. More than likely (meaning this is just my theory and I have not heard of it being tested or confirmed, but as I said "more than likely") what is being measured with this 22 gram loss at death is the cessation of the human circulatory system. More than likely.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 42
view profile
History
The soul?
Posted: 4/5/2012 3:38:22 PM
As to what the soul itself might be, if it exists. I have given the subject much consideration over the years, and, am leaning toward this idea. The human brain is designed to "concentrate" awareness in the form of time. You could think of it like this: the human brain is a machine capable of generating a temporal "gravity well" (for lack of a better term). Consciousness is naturally diffuse through out the entire universe, and acts as an "initial observer" for all physical interactions that occure in the universe. that is the short and sloppy version. The long version is not worth discussing because I cannot prove it yet, And since the topic is very sensitive, I would only be inviting ridicule, which is something I am not interested in at this point, in the development of this theory.
 mmadkins
Joined: 3/30/2012
Msg: 43
view profile
History
The soul?
Posted: 4/5/2012 5:52:40 PM
It seems that what some people refer to the "soul" is really the abstract concept of the mind. However, because they have a religious belief attached to it, they view it as something that is absolutely real and isn't something that requires something intelligent to observe it like you would an abstract object.

The mind, to me, is like software. It's common analogy but it works for the most part. Like with software on your computer, the mind's functionality can be affected by the hardware that it's kept on. Although, the changes are probably more noticeable with the mind than with software.
The soul?
Posted: 1/17/2014 3:53:06 AM
cress: Sorry I didn't get around to this thread sooner.

I still suspect that some religions or spiritualities intend(ed) the term "soul" a bit more rhetorically or allegorically in a certain way referring to how to adhere to some ethics or values, but I'm not going to get into that more right now.

I agree with igor's first post pretty much. And that it's very hard to not think that who we are is a holistic result of our accumulated knowledge, experiences, and brain activity.

But otherwise, when I try to think of this, one of the things I think about is a person's sense of awareness or consciousness from within their own head, behind their eyeballs, along the lines of people's idea of a transportation device that makes an exact perfect copy of someone...

We make an exact perfect copy of someone. We kill that original, disassemble them, at the same time as this copy is complete at another location.

The copy would of course feel in every way that it is the same person, having the same knowledge and memories, but just that it suddenly appeared in another location. Unless it was aware of what was done, and had enough common sense to understand it the way that I'm explaining, in which case it'd be honest enough to acknowledge that it may indeed not be the same person.

That copy would be conscious, and would have it's own identity. It would behave exactly the same way, and to both outside observers and to the copy itself, it would seem to be the same person. If the original was not killed or disassembled, they would both live on normally, but now with divergent experiences from that point on.

The glitch here that is sometimes not recognized, or is glossed over, is about an original's sense of being aware from within their own head - it wouldn't seem to be able to magically transfer over to the copy. It doesn't matter that the copy feels, thinks, and behaves in exactly the same way, and has their own sense of being aware from within...but would you, the one who is conscious within an original, magically become conscious within your copy? Ironically, the ones who believe that this would faithfully reproduce a person (including their consciousness changing places), and so instantly transport them, claim that there would have to be a soul for this to not work...but in order for your sense of being aware from within your original head to be transferred in this way to a copy, there would have to be something like a soul. No?

If we had a factory that could somehow make coffee cups that were truly identical in every way, down to the quantum level and every energy state...the coffee cup that I hold in my left hand, and the one that I hold in my right hand...are still two different coffee cups.

Your body, and brain, is always "replacing" parts of itself. On the one hand, I'd think that the fact that this happens a bit at a time is why you still remain you. But on the other hand, thinking of replacing larger and larger chunks of you at a time, it'd be interesting to know if there's a point where "you being you" is affected by how much of you is replaced at a time.

I'm tempted to think that it might be a matter of location in space - the one difference between the two coffee cups is their spatial location. The one difference between two perfect exact copies of a living organism is their locations in space. And therefore in both cases, also a difference in experiences, timeline. So, it might be that very large chunks of your brain could be replaced...perfectly, exactly, and instantly...and you'd still be you, consistently conscious and aware in the same way from within your own head. And even despite this fact, even though parts of your body and brain are replaced during your life, an exact and perfect copy of you would still not really be you, no matter that no one could tell the difference, and your sense of being aware would not be transferred over. It's only being replicated, but not transferred. In other words, even if that copy is aware, and would otherwise swear that it is you, and no one else could tell any difference...you would be dead and cease to be aware as soon as you were disassembled in such a transportation device.

Thoughts?


The moment you change the definition of "soul", the question wether one exists becomes meaningless. If you dont knwo what you're looking for. A word is only a short form of it's complete definition.

I think we’re generally trying to contemplate what would be called “soul” and if there is more than what’s produced and maintained by our physical processes.

As to what the soul itself might be, if it exists. I have given the subject much consideration over the years, and, am leaning toward this idea. The human brain is designed to "concentrate" awareness in the form of time. You could think of it like this: the human brain is a machine capable of generating a temporal "gravity well" (for lack of a better term). Consciousness is naturally diffuse through out the entire universe, and acts as an "initial observer" for all physical interactions that occure in the universe. that is the short and sloppy version. The long version is not worth discussing because I cannot prove it yet, And since the topic is very sensitive, I would only be inviting ridicule, which is something I am not interested in at this point, in the development of this theory.

I think this is interesting.

And finally, I think it interesting that when I think if reincarnation takes place, and I start life over as another baby human...thinking that who we are is generated by our brain and experiences, I'm not so concerned about keeping my personality or memories, but I find myself hoping that I don't develop, via that new person's experiences, into an azzhole or bad mean person.
The soul?
Posted: 1/22/2014 8:34:18 PM
^ This is an example of people sometimes getting vague with their usage of "illusion". You say that the pointer is there, therefore real, then you call it an illusion. You say that it disappears, then reappears unchanged...as if this has some bearing? This means what? What you mean by "illusion" would have to be clarified much more. I feel that somewhere in there is hidden a logic circle, if nothing else.
 Bachelorette.Number1
Joined: 4/18/2013
Msg: 47
The soul?
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:29:50 PM
At this point in discovery, the "soul" hasn't been scientifically proven to exist or not exist.
Simply because something hasn't been found yet doesn't mean it never will. Like the cure for pancreatic cancer or Jimmy Hoffa. Of course, maybe Jimmy Hoffa will never be found....
So it's all pure speculation, choice of decision at this point, belief, opinion.

I like to believe in a soul - a sort of guiding whisper in your life that always knows the way home. I personally don't think the soul is attached to a personality. I wouldn't guess it's shallow like that.
There are people who swear it exists, those who have death experiences that they were revived from and others who don't remember a dang thing....
I like to think my loved ones who have passed are still existent someplace other than here.
I like the idea of maybe coming across them again one day.
I get internal comfort from that because I once in awhile will have a worry for them. Like are they ok? I love them still.

If the lights truly do go out, and there's no afterlife, no soul to go here or there, but just dead, we won't know the difference anyway, right?
So I say, go with what makes you feel better which ever way it is, is what I vote for.
And I do think respect for others notions should be shown. It could be someones thread to hope. But hey that's just me.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >