Soul?

Kumar said:
Hello,

Best season's greetings.
Pls tell me;
1.Whether soul exists?
2. Whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?
3. If so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can
have one soul?
Best wishes
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: What I call "soul" is nothing more than bioelectric energy. Bioelectric energy is what makes our heart tick, our brain think, and our muscles react. In death, our bioelectric energy dissapates. Our bioelectric field can be seen with the human eye. Some call it "aura," but it is simple electrical function. When we die, our bioelectric function ceases, but it is not destroyed. It simply returns to the whole. When we are borne, our bioelectric function is initiated. Well, it is initiated long before that in the womb.

There is no "soul" per se. It can be explained logically as bioelectricity.
 
cpt.scruffy said:
you should check out 'the christian soul' thread i made in this religion forum.
anyway. whether soul exists?

i can see that if it is a spirit, and has pretty much nothing to do with me, except that it has to do with carry- ing karma from past lives...
yes, i can accept the soul.
but in most cases, i really can't see the soul... simply because i can't see it with my current knowledge, and every else i learn.

2. whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?

3. if so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can have one soul?

i agree with you, it's kinda weird. i sorta mentioned that with my other thread.

i suppose i should ask the dalai lama.

ps im not buddhist, but to be frank, many parts of it seem to make sense to me. :)
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: The "soul" has no religious designation! It is simply bioelectric energy.
 
VitalOne said:
Actually the Quantum double-slit experiment does constitute as evidence...if the electron that makes up the brain is in superposition when not observed how can the brain be the cause?

The atheist can say nothing to this, they'll just say its BS or something speculative....many physcists support the many-minds intepretation and the consciousness causes collapse theory...both which require some type of immaterial mind.....the atheist is speechless and will try to deny this in order to hold on to their atheistic faith...because atheism requires sooo much faith...
Click to expand...
If you knew a damned thing about QM you'd know that particles in such a "noisy" environment as the brain can never be in superposition. It takes incredible finesse to get any particle to be in superposition in the presence of other influences. This is why getting a quantum computer to work is proving so difficult.

Most physicists still support the copenhagen interpretation BTW.

According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the Many-worlds interpretation.[1] Although current trends show substantial competition from alternative interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had strong acceptance among physicists.
Click to expand...
 
SkinWalker said:
There is no evidence of such a thing as a "soul." The religious will confidently say there is, see the post above, but will fail to provide any verifiable or testable evidence for one every time. Instead, they'll attempt to make speculative analogies of other things they can explain which work in their fallacious appeals to ignorance and personal incredulity. They may even use the word "quantum" since they expect that this means "that which cannot be explained" in science.

In the end, the religious will nearly always fall back to the position that the "soul" is just something that is outside of the ability for science to explain, and this is why they can offer no evidence that can be tested. But you can best believe, if science were able to offer some evidence, the religious wouldn't hesitate to wave it around like a banner.
Click to expand...

Yes, soul can be pseudoscience alike many other things. Still,

As per science, what is that comes out, when a lighted electric bulb fuses?
 
lightgigantic said:
It doesn't appear to be dissmilar from the eg of a person carrying a cage full of ten mice - obviously its just 11 individuals

the only difference, regarding the cellular situation, is that one living entity is carrying countless millions of living entities within their body - those millions of living entities regulate their bodies and the host living entity regulates their bodies requirements (we all put food in our mouth, or equivelant, try and avoid unfavourable circumstances, and life takes its course)
Click to expand...

I think, ll cells of body don't die on death of an individual?
 
Jan Ardena said:
Or another question could be; can the human body possess millions of trillions of separate lifeforms, each with an individual soul?

Jan.
Click to expand...

Yes. How can we consider an individual wavelength, a single spectrum and a bigger/multy spectrum of wavelenghs emitted fron one bosd--as one entity?
 
VitalOne said:
Actually the Quantum double-slit experiment does constitute as evidence...if the electron that makes up the brain is in superposition when not observed how can the brain be the cause?
Click to expand...

An 'observer' is the presence of something which the electron has a relationship with... its not just a person watching. What this means is that electrons in the brain arent superpositioned. They have a firm relationship with each other and all the biomass in your noodle (i.e. observers are quite abundant).
 
Kumar said:
I think, ll cells of body don't die on death of an individual?
Click to expand...

thats because they have an environmental dependence on what the host body offers. Just like if a rich man who is supporting 50 people suddenly becomes poverty stricken, so do the other 50 people
 
lightgigantic said:
thats because they have an environmental dependence on what the host body offers. Just like if a rich man who is supporting 50 people suddenly becomes poverty stricken, so do the other 50 people
Click to expand...

Then, when soul leaves the body--after initial death or after death of all cells?
 
Kumar said:
Then, when soul leaves the body--after initial death or after death of all cells?
Click to expand...
it can be either way
the soul leaves the body when the conditions make it uninhabitable - in the case of the host, upon leaving, things start to break down quite rapidly on a cellular level
 
lightgigantic said:
it can be either way
the soul leaves the body when the conditions make it uninhabitable - in the case of the host, upon leaving, things start to break down quite rapidly on a cellular level
Click to expand...

Whether those things/cells on cellular levels are not living when soul leaves the body?
 
Godless said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ


Nuf said!
Click to expand...
seems like they are deluded into thinking that the world's problems are caused by christianity

their argument about the mormons is basically this - since wonderful narratives exist in the form of fairy tales all incidents that are beyond current paradigms of understanding are fairy tales (its not clear how one could enable new knowledge to be assimilated under this general principle, since it would also appear wonderful)
-kind of a delusional argument, particularly with the added confidence statement "we all know it is true (that religion is a fairy tale)" which smacks of the same thing a philosophically limp religious fanatic might say ("we all know it is true")

seems like the makers of the film get painted by the same paint brush with their definiton of delusion, especially as the premises for "an actual fact" seems to be determined by the number of times per minute you can repeat the word "delusional" followed by confidence statements such as "we can all agree on this" (its not at all a philosophical presentation - its a persuasive one)

same with their assertions of "normal person" etc etc - they don't clearly establish why a theist exists in a bubble of delusion and they do not (except of course that because a theist has a different view than them they must obviously be delusional, which is itself a delusional concept)

and what is remarkable is that they use the same delusional argument regarding the muslims and christians - their general principle seems to be that if something is beyond the average person's scope as normal it can be labelled delusional - you could do a presentation on why physicists are also delusional in the same fashion ("Now do you believe that there are magical things which are invisible called electrons that make up the physical nature of existence. Physicists exist in a bubble of delusion and if they step outside that bubble they will find that it is only physicists that make these claims of electrons")

if you insist that the nature of reality can be determined by appealling to what the average joe can conceive of as believable, then I guess that leaves you with football stadiums, grunting, and turfing out over 90% of what we have in the way of advancement (and interestingly it is the upper 90% - how many people listen to classical music and how many listen to rap) and all that is left is sleeping, eating, mating and defending and other animal propensities that draw an equal consensus across the board - and its terrifying that the producers suggest that this is the platform of sanity

as for the 4 billion people being at odds with the christians or vice versa, that is not the case - its obvious to many that the many varieties of religion indicate different aspects of the absolute according to time place and circumstance.

as for their valid scientific study on the nature of prayer, I guess if we are willing to swallow their confidence statements we will swallow anything.

In short what is most tragic about the whole presentation, is that it doesn't actually inspire persons to be introspective by appealing to reason - I agree that there should be a means to inspect the claims of theism, but this production borrows from the saem tub of poison it is seeking to eliminate - it operates on the exact same principles that a suave charismatic pseudo religious leader would use to fleece persons of their money - its all persuasive and full of confidence statements
 
imaplanck. said:
LG are you a team of christians? You sure post a lot of long replies for just one person.
Click to expand...
wrong on both counts
I am not a team and I am not a christian - although there is something about an atheistic argument with holes big enough to drive a locomotive through that really increases my wpm
;)
 
lightgigantic said:
unfortunately its not evidenced by empirical knowledge though
Click to expand...

read a textbook,
i have right in front of me,
a physiology textbook, which discusses the consciousness and the awareness of oneself.
where in the brain this happens.
etc.
and how bioelectricity, if i used the term right, is the reason for MW's idea of the soul.

not evidenced by empirical?
it's right in front of me!
this is my major in school!
i undergo an ongoing attack of empirical evidence all year long.

you just speculated that i speculate.
i don't, and i acknowledge my speculation when i do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top