# Do you believe in the Human Soul?



## Cyclops Tremor

I consider myself an earth-worship NeoPagan as I believe nature is the closest thing we have to divinity and a deity. Nature is a superior organism and macrocosm which has created an immutable order and laws which cannot be broken. It is the cardiovascular system of all lower organisms.

I am also an agnostic because I realize as one human being with limited abilities I do not hold the golden key to the portals of secret truth. I do not have the necessary powers to see into possible realms beyond my consciousness. I believe it is the humble and honest stance to take.

I use to believe in the idea of an individual human soul. It sounded poetic and comforting. I also liked the idea of an individual human soul because it worked into the whole recycled energy after death, reincarnation idea. I know energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change forms but to think that the energy or "soul" would be revived into the consciousness of another living animal and not just sucked into the swirling black void is despicable and delusional wishful thinking.

The more I thought about it the more I realized that the idea of the human soul is just as supernatural and anti-scientific as the fantasy of heaven. I think our individual brains are the core and essence of what makes us who we are. Our brains are similar to computers and when they get too old and shut off that is lights out forever. I hate this idea and it causes me existential suffering and anxiety but this is what all the empirical evidence points toward so I would be a cowardly hypocrite not to believe it.

What is your opinion on the idea of the human soul? Do you think an individuals consciousness is destroyed forever at the moment of death?


----------



## ugh1979

Cyclops Tremor said:


> I consider myself an earth-worship NeoPagan as I believe nature is the closest thing we have to divinity and a deity. Nature is a superior organism and macrocosm which has created an immutable order and laws which cannot be broken. It is the cardiovascular system of all lower organisms.


Why stop at earth-worship for those reasons? Why not just go all the way and say universe worship? The earth is of course just a tiny cog in the grand cosmic machine that is the universe.



> I am also an agnostic because I realize as one human being with limited abilities I do not hold the golden key to the portals of secret truth. I do not have the necessary powers to see into possible realms beyond my consciousness. I believe it is the humble and honest stance to take.


Indeed, nobody can ever know the absolute truth about such an ambiguous subject, so any respectable person is agnostic in addition to their _beliefs _on related topics.



> I use to believe in the idea of an individual human soul. It sounded poetic and comforting. I also liked the idea of an individual human soul because it worked into the whole recycled energy after death, reincarnation idea. I know energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change forms but to think that the energy or "soul" would be revived into the consciousness of another living animal and not just sucked into the swirling black void is despicable and delusional wishful thinking.


I've never believed in souls. I absolutely agree about the idea that consciousness can exist outwith the framework of a physical brain to be delusional.



> The more I thought about it the more I realized that the idea of the human soul is just as supernatural and anti-scientific as the fantasy of heaven. I think our individual brains are the core and essence of what makes us who we are. Our brains are similar to computers and when they get too old and shut off that is lights out forever.


Exactly.



> I hate this idea and it causes me existential suffering and anxiety but this is what all the empirical evidence points toward so I would be a cowardly hypocrite not to believe it.


That's a shame it causes you existential suffering and anxiety. I have no issue with a temporal existence. As far as we can tell, everything comes to an end and nothing set is eternal. Entropy gets everything in the end.

What is it about "you" being transient that causes you such issue?



> What is your opinion on the idea of the human soul? Do you think an individuals consciousness is destroyed forever at the moment of death?


Yes I think consciousness ends when the system which hosted it (a mind) can no longer sustain it. It's clearly an energy hungry process, so without the energy to sustain a consciousness it ends, just like the software off a computer stops running when you turn it off.


----------



## Wagnerian

Yes, I think everything (not just humans) has an atemporal essence.....

The reasoning is the exact same as that which you would use to deduce that 2 +2 = 4......the only foundation reason/ logic has is self-evidence; things are self-evident because they intuitively make sense. Considering everything to have an essence is achieved through the same cognitive mechanism as the most obvious logical deductions......I think it might be a matter of in what direction and to what extent one's intuition is developing, as to whether or not this is apprehended.


----------



## ugh1979

Wagnerian said:


> Yes, I think everything (not just humans) has an atemporal essence.....


What do you mean by "essence"? It's such an ambiguous term it needs clarification.



> The reasoning is the exact same as that which you would use to deduce that 2 +2 = 4......the only foundation reason/ logic has is self-evidence; things are self-evident because they intuitively make sense. Considering everything to have an essence is achieved through the same cognitive mechanism as the most obvious logical deductions......I think it might be a matter of in what direction and to what extent one's intuition is developing, as to whether or not this is apprehended.


While it's true everything has an essence as per the definition, "The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.", only something which exists, be that physically or as a mental construct can be deemed to have an essence. Therefore, in the absence of the physical or mental construct, the essence of it doesn't exist IMO, and therefore can not be atemporal. Essence IMO is emergent and very much temporal.

For example, the essence of a dog didn't exist prior to a dog physically evolving or a mind coming in to existence that could imagine the concept of a theoretical dog.

I just can't accept the position that properties of the universe (i.e. everything) aren't emergent and temporal. If essence is atemporal then everything that could exist already exists and does so concurrently. There is no evidence that is the case.


----------



## Wagnerian

ugh1979 said:


> What do you mean by "essence"? It's such an ambiguous term it needs clarification.
> 
> While it's true everything has an essence as per the definition, "The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.", only something which exists, be that physically or as a mental construct can be deemed to have an essence. Therefore, in the absence of the physical or mental construct, the essence of it doesn't exist IMO, and therefore can not be atemporal. Essence IMO is emergent and very much temporal.
> 
> For example, the essence of a dog didn't exist prior to a dog physically evolving or a mind coming in to existence that could imagine the concept of a theoretical dog.
> 
> I just can't accept the position that properties of the universe (i.e. everything) aren't emergent and temporal. If essence is atemporal then everything that could exist already exists and does so concurrently. There is no evidence that is the case.


I would say everything that could exist already does so. Like reason and logic themselves, the foundation for an atemporal essence isn't empirical evidence or non-circular reasoning, it's just self-evidence or intuition.


----------



## ugh1979

Wagnerian said:


> I would say everything that could exist already does so. Like reason and logic themselves, the foundation for an atemporal essence isn't empirical evidence or non-circular reasoning, it's just self-evidence or intuition.


Can you provide your definitions of essence and existence? We can't have a discussion about them without discussing what they mean.

For example, I don't believe reason and logic exist without a mind capable of creating reason and logic.

You say the foundation for an atemporal essence is self-evidence or intuition. So how then can they exist if there is no self/mind?


----------



## Wagnerian

ugh1979 said:


> Can you provide your definitions of essence and existence? We can't have a discussion about them without discussing what they mean.
> 
> For example, I don't believe reason and logic exist without a mind capable of creating reason and logic.
> 
> You say the foundation for an atemporal essence is self-evidence or intuition. So how then can they exist if there is no self/mind?


I was using 'atemporal essence' to mean an eternal but (for all practical purposes) individual consciousness with unique, identifying attributes.

I'm not sure how to define existence, but what I do think is that a mind, self, or consciousness (I think those can all be used interchangeably) precedes everything we experience as existence.


----------



## ugh1979

Wagnerian said:


> I was using 'atemporal essence' to mean an eternal but (for all practical purposes) individual consciousness with unique, identifying attributes.


You said earlier that everything has an atemporal essence. Are you now saying it's only conscious entities that have an atemporal essence?

What kind of unique, identifying attributes? Personality, opinions, abilities?

Where does the essence of you or I fit in to your worldview? Are they also eternal, individual, unique and have identifying attributes?



> I'm not sure how to define existence, but what I do think is that a mind, self, or consciousness (I think those can all be used interchangeably) precedes everything we experience as existence.


So what you are essentially describing there is the existence of an eternal conscious deity that is the creator of everything else?


----------



## VictimEternal

I believe all dogs go to heaven


----------



## Wagnerian

ugh1979 said:


> You said earlier that everything has an atemporal essence. Are you now saying it's only conscious entities that have an atemporal essence?


Everything is a conscious entity.



> What kind of unique, identifying attributes? Personality, opinions, abilities?


I'm not exactly sure, but I think the things you mentioned (possibly) are outgrowths of whatever it is that is unique. If they are not unique (as I believe), it is at the very least individuated consciousness.



> Where does the essence of you or I fit in to your worldview? Are they also eternal, individual, unique and have identifying attributes?


I'd sure hope so 



> So what you are essentially describing there is the existence of an eternal conscious deity that is the creator of everything else?


If you want to look at it that way, sure. But I was also saying the individuated consciousness that is the essence/ soul of any given thing precedes its physical manifestation, i.e., the experience we have of life is the exteriorization of consciousness.


----------



## ugh1979

Wagnerian said:


> Everything is a conscious entity.


In what way is a rock conscious?



> I'm not exactly sure, but I think the things you mentioned (possibly) are outgrowths of whatever it is that is unique. If they are not unique (as I believe), it is at the very least individuated consciousness.


What is the reason for there to be individuated consciousness if there is no physical difference between them?



> I'd sure hope so


So do you believe you and I have always existed, and always will?



> If you want to look at it that way, sure. But I was also saying the individuated consciousness that is the essence/ soul of any given thing precedes its physical manifestation, i.e., the experience we have of life is the exteriorization of consciousness.


Are the individuated consciousness' that are "souls" created by the eternal conscious deity?


----------



## Wagnerian

ugh1979 said:


> In what way is a rock conscious?


It's conscious in that experiences life/ existence.



> What is the reason for there to be individuated consciousness if there is no physical difference between them?


I rarely bother to think about the extent to which things are material/ immaterial - as far as I can tell, there isn't any pragmatic value in determining that at this juncture. Personally, I'd reckon that everything but the 'Source' of creation/ experience is material, with varying degrees of subtlety. Not sure what bearing this has on whether there is a physical difference between the essence of each individual, but it seemed like the best way to answer your question.



> So do you believe you and I have always existed, and always will?


Yes.



> Are the individuated consciousness' that are "souls" created by the eternal conscious deity?


.......Not quite; that which transcends experience, comes into the experience of life as we know it each moment........by that I mean, God is becoming each individuated consciousness/ exploring infinite potential. Sorry if that doesn't make enough sense, but I thought it was the best way to answer the question.


----------



## ugh1979

Wagnerian said:


> It's conscious in that experiences life/ existence.


So you consider a rock to have life? I'm not sure how a rock can experience existence. I guess you are using non-dictionary definitions of the terms life and experience.

I guess you can say anything is anything when you use your own personal definitions of words.



> I rarely bother to think about the extent to which things are material/ immaterial - as far as I can tell, there isn't any pragmatic value in determining that at this juncture. Personally, I'd reckon that everything but the 'Source' of creation/ experience is material, with varying degrees of subtlety. Not sure what bearing this has on whether there is a physical difference between the essence of each individual, but it seemed like the best way to answer your question.


When trying to establish the possibility of individuality then the question is pertinent IMO. If something doesn't have boundaries then it's all just one entity.



> Yes.


So why aren't we aware of our existence prior to being babies?



> .......Not quite; that which transcends experience, comes into the experience of life as we know it each moment........by that I mean, God is becoming each individuated consciousness/ exploring infinite potential. Sorry if that doesn't make enough sense, but I thought it was the best way to answer the question.


So the consciousness we experience is in fact part of your gods? It sounds like you are saying we are just puppets for a puppet master deity who uses us for some reason to experience what it would have already experienced an infinite amount of times since you claim it's eternal.


----------



## Wagnerian

ugh1979 said:


> So you consider a rock to have life? I'm not sure how a rock can experience existence. I guess you are using non-dictionary definitions of the terms life and experience.
> 
> I guess you can say anything is anything when you use your own personal definitions of words.


Yes, I think a rock has an experience just as a human would, just as an animal, plant, or atom would. It probably is very different from an experience that involves eyes, a nose, a nervous system, etc., but it is an experience nonetheless, of a sort a non-rock can't really fathom. I'm using the normal, colloquial definition of experience and life that you could find among the first entries in any dictionary.

For all I know, you could be a soulless robot (though in this system, robots have souls just the same) - there is no way to objectively know whether something has consciousness/ the ability to observe, encounter or undergo phenomena. It's an assumption to think one way or another about what other beings do or don't experience (and I know that many science-types _hate _this fact of life).



> When trying to establish the possibility of individuality then the question is pertinent IMO. If something doesn't have boundaries then it's all just one entity.


But your question presumed I thought the individual essence was immaterial, when I made no statement one way or another about that, because I don't know the extent to which it is immaterial or material.

The reason for there to be individuated consciousness is to experience something other than pure consciousness, i.e, life as we experience it. You can consider the Universe to be a single entity, or an infinite amount of individuated egos; it's both, in my view.



> So why aren't we aware of our existence prior to being babies?


Well, I think we can be, it's just difficult, like recalling early childhood memories or dreams.



> So the consciousness we experience is in fact part of your gods? It sounds like you are saying we are just puppets for a puppet master deity who uses us for some reason to experience what it would have already experienced an infinite amount of times since you claim it's eternal.


No, it's not at all like that, and I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion based on what I said.


----------



## ugh1979

Wagnerian said:


> Yes, I think a rock has an experience just as a human would, just as an animal, plant, or atom would.


Well there is a key difference between animals and rocks. Animals have cognition and rocks don't.

I don't see how something can experience something without cognition.



> I'm using the normal, colloquial definition of experience and life that you could find among the first entries in any dictionary.


Can you quote one of those first entries? Saying rocks can have experiences isn't normal.



> For all I know, you could be a soulless robot (though in this system, robots have souls just the same) - there is no way to objectively know whether something has consciousness/ the ability to observe, encounter or undergo phenomena. It's an assumption to think one way or another about what other beings do or don't experience (and I know that many science-types _hate _this fact of life).


Indeed, this is the philosophical zombie issue. It's true we can't know with absolute certainty that everyone but oneself isn't a philosophical zombie, but I have no issue assuming with almost certainty that it's not the case. As someone who takes guidance from science my worldview is rarely one of absolutes and usually all approximations of the truth, as that's what science provides.



> But your question presumed I thought the individual essence was immaterial, when I made no statement one way or another about that, because I don't know the extent to which it is immaterial or material.


I'm just trying to establish what your ambiguous definition of essence/soul is. All I can do is ask if it's this or that since you aren't saying much. It's typical that people who believe in such things say they are immaterial, hence why I presumed you would.



> The reason for there to be individuated consciousness is to experience something other than pure consciousness, i.e, life as we experience it. You can consider the Universe to be a single entity, or an infinite amount of individuated egos; it's both, in my view.


What is "pure consciousness"?

It seems like everytime I have a discussion about the likes of "souls", it just ends with smoke and mirrors by proponents of the idea, and I hear no substance or logical integrity.



> Well, I think we can be, it's just difficult, like recalling early childhood memories or dreams.


What makes you think we can?



> No, it's not at all like that, and I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion based on what I said.


You said, "God is becoming each individuated consciousness/ exploring infinite potential", which I took to you saying God becomes us, so therefore we aren't individual minds, but in fact parts of the mind of god and its will and control.


----------



## Wagnerian

ugh1979 said:


> Well there is a key difference between animals and rocks. Animals have cognition and rocks don't.
> 
> I don't see how something can experience something without cognition.


As per the theoretical robot discussion, it's an assumption that rocks don't have the ability to sense and perceive things. They don't resemble animals/ humans, who we consider to be sentient, but it's a huge leap of faith to presume that the way we are constructed is what is responsible for consciousness - though I know this bugs the living daylights out of some people.



> Can you quote one of those first entries? Saying rocks can have experiences isn't normal.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/experience?s=t

The first three definitions would apply to 'inanimate objects', in my view.



> Indeed, this is the philosophical zombie issue. It's true we can't know with absolute certainty that everyone but oneself isn't a philosophical zombie, but I have no issue assuming with almost certainty that it's not the case. As someone who takes guidance from science my worldview is rarely one of absolutes and usually all approximations of the truth, as that's what science provides.


I don't have an issue with assuming you aren't a zombie either. The point is just to illustrate that anything you can say about another's experience is just a speculation - anything they say about it is hearsay. We're completely on our own with who or what we consider to be conscious or sentient.



> What is "pure consciousness"?
> 
> It seems like everytime I have a discussion about the likes of "souls", it just ends with smoke and mirrors by proponents of the idea, and I hear no substance or logical integrity.


Undifferentiated consciousness, i.e., individuated consciousness when not individuated.



> What makes you think we can?


What makes you think we can't? Plenty of people think they can, and it would be presumptive to immediately write them off as delusional. If someone is too lazy to consider things that might be at odds with the prevailing scientific paradigm of the day, they are just a poor thinker. Skepticism can sometimes be a poor man's intellectualism.



> You said, "God is becoming each individuated consciousness/ exploring infinite potential", which I took to you saying God becomes us, so therefore we aren't individual minds, but in fact parts of the mind of god and its will and control.


Well, we're both individuated minds and the cosmic mind at the same time. To me it seems silly to say God can control you, when you are God yourself.


----------



## ugh1979

Wagnerian said:


> As per the theoretical robot discussion, it's an assumption that rocks don't have the ability to sense and perceive things. They don't resemble animals/ humans, who we consider to be sentient, but it's a huge leap of faith to presume that the way we are constructed is what is responsible for consciousness - though I know this bugs the living daylights out of some people.


Well since there is no evidence that rocks are conscious and have the ability to sense and perceive things, then it's not a huge leap of faith to believe that they don't. You are the one making a huge leap of faith to infer that they do.

We know with a huge degree of certainly that at least certain animals are capable of consciousness, so of course we can assume there is something in the difference between us and a rock that makes us conscious, with that appearing to be having a mind of certain capability.

Somone saying rocks are conscious and have the ability to sense and perceive things is as absurd as saying cats can fly but only do so when we aren't looking.



> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/experience?s=t
> 
> The first three definitions would apply to 'inanimate objects', in my view.


Terms like "personally" and "observing" clearly infer an entity with cognition. Indeed on that very page, the definition of experience in the context we are talking about, i.e. philosophically is:



> the totality of the cognitions given by perception; all that is perceived, understood, and remembered.


I just can't accept that rocks have cognition.



> I don't have an issue with assuming you aren't a zombie either. The point is just to illustrate that anything you can say about another's experience is just a speculation - anything they say about it is hearsay. We're completely on our own with who or what we consider to be conscious or sentient.


There is little we know with absolute certainty, but that doesn't mean we can't make assessments of probability based on the evidence we have.

Surely you don't believe everything could be true just because you don't know with 100% certainty that it's wrong?



> Undifferentiated consciousness, i.e., individuated consciousness when not individuated.


Without being able to say what individuated consciousness is (which we know exists as we can perceive it) it's a huge leap of faith to say it comes from some ambiguous "pool" of "pure" "undifferentiated" consciousness.

I'm happy to just say we don't fully know how we are conscious yet, but won't entertain wild ideas like you propose until there is any evidence for it.

There is only evidence that consciousness exists in discrete pockets in the universe within minds like ours at the moment.



> What makes you think we can't? Plenty of people think they can, and it would be presumptive to immediately write them off as delusional. If someone is too lazy to consider things that might be at odds with the prevailing scientific paradigm of the day, they are just a poor thinker. Skepticism can sometimes be a poor man's intellectualism.


Absence of credible evidence makes me think we can't. Plenty of people think we didn't land on the moon either. New knowledge is always welcome, but it has to stand up to scrutiny, and the claim that we have always existed and can sometimes remember our existence prior to being babies doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Only a fool states something to be true in the absence of credible evidence.

Unfortunately it seems fantastical thinking replaces intellectualism in many people.



> Well, we're both individuated minds and the cosmic mind at the same time. To me it seems silly to say God can control you, when you are God yourself.


Why would the "cosmic mind" not be able to control our individuated minds if they are the same thing? How are they connected if they can't interact?

Your argument seems to be full of logical fallacies.


----------



## Wagnerian

ugh1979 said:


> Well since there is no evidence that rocks are conscious and have the ability to sense and perceive things, then it's not a huge leap of faith to believe that they don't. You are the one making a huge leap of faith to infer that they do.
> 
> We know with a huge degree of certainly that at least certain animals are capable of consciousness, so of course we can assume there is something in the difference between us and a rock that makes us conscious, with that appearing to be having a mind of certain capability.
> 
> Somone saying rocks are conscious and have the ability to sense and perceive things is as absurd as saying cats can fly but only do so when we aren't looking.


Explain to me then, how do you know with such certainty that humans and many animals are conscious, keeping in mind that, as much as you dislike it, the origination of consciousness eludes detection, and that therefore a particular neurological apparatus can't be said to produce it (at least not without making an assumption that would reek of conventional bias and positivism)?

If we can't identify what causes consciousness, what foundation is there for deciding who and who does not have it? Just the fact that we consider humans to have it, and humans do X, Y, and Z, and therefore other animals that do X, Y, and Z could also have it? Using a correlation like that to exclude the possibility of other things being conscious seems like weak thinking to me.



> Terms like "personally" and "observing" clearly infer an entity with cognition. Indeed on that very page, the definition of experience in the context we are talking about, i.e. philosophically is:
> 
> I just can't accept that rocks have cognition.


.....if experience is personally observing/ encountering phenomena, and cognition is (apparently, to you) the same thing, then yes, rocks have cognition. I didn't know that congition and experience were synonymous, but since that's how you're choosing to define them, then rocks have cognition, in my view.



> Without being able to say what individuated consciousness is (which we know exists as we can perceive it) it's a huge leap of faith to say it comes from some ambiguous "pool" of "pure" "undifferentiated" consciousness.
> 
> I'm happy to just say we don't fully know how we are conscious yet, but won't entertain wild ideas like you propose until there is any evidence for it.


The idea about undifferentiated consciousness is my speculation based on the self-evidence of an atemporal essence. My original comment was that the atemporal essence is not a leap of faith at all, but is self-evident.



> There is only evidence that consciousness exists in discrete pockets in the universe within minds like ours at the moment.
> 
> Absence of credible evidence makes me think we can't. Plenty of people think we didn't land on the moon either. New knowledge is always welcome, but it has to stand up to scrutiny, and the claim that we have always existed doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Only a fool states something to be true in the absence of credible evidence.


So what you're saying is, we should only consider those memories which match the reality as explained by convention to be valid, and everything that doesn't fit into this pre-conceived paradigm must necessarily be considered a delusion, for lack of its conformity to a notion broadly based on personal prejudice or so-called 'common sense'.



> Why would the "cosmic mind" not be able to control our individuated minds if they are the same thing? How are they connected if they can't interact?
> 
> Your argument seems to be full of logical fallacies.


If you can control your mind, then yes, by the transitive property, the cosmic mind can control your mind. It just seemed strange to consider it some kind of invasive control (as you suggested with the puppet analogy) when the controller is controlling itself.


----------



## ugh1979

Wagnerian said:


> Explain to me then, how do you know with such certainty that humans and many animals are conscious, keeping in mind that, as much as you dislike it, the origination of consciousness eludes detection, and that therefore a particular neurological apparatus can't be said to produce it (at least not without making an assumption that would reek of conventional bias and positivism)?
> 
> If we can't identify what causes consciousness, what foundation is there for deciding who and who does not have it? Just the fact that we consider humans to have it, and humans do X, Y, and Z, and therefore other animals that do X, Y, and Z could also have it? Using a correlation like that to exclude the possibility of other things being conscious seems like weak thinking to me.


I know I am conscious, therefore I can assume with high probability that things like me are also conscious.

I have no reason to think something like a rock is conscious, as it displays no behaviour which indicates it is conscious. If evidence emerges that rocks are conscious i'll change my views.

It's really quite basic rationality rather than making absurd claims based on what seems like nothing other than your fancy.

Making claims which there is no credible evidence for is weak thinking. People can claim cats can fly when no one is looking or that rocks are conscious all they want, but there is no reason to give such ideas any respect until they can provide a case for it to be plausible.



> .....if experience is personally observing/ encountering phenomena, and cognition is (apparently, to you) the same thing, then yes, rocks have cognition. I didn't know that congition and experience were synonymous, but since that's how you're choosing to define them, then rocks have cognition, in my view.


I inferred that cognition was required to have experience, not that they are synonymous.

Let's clarify what cognition means:



> *cognition *
> conscious mental activities : the activities of thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering


Of course since you think rocks have cognition this doesn't progress our discussion.



> The idea about undifferentiated consciousness is my speculation based on the self-evidence of an atemporal essence. My original comment was that the atemporal essence is not a leap of faith at all, but is self-evident.


What is this self-evidence? What have you experienced which has made you think there is an "atemporal essence" and all the other claims that have led on from that we have discussed such as conscious rocks?



> So what you're saying is, we should only consider those memories which match the reality as explained by convention to be valid, and everything that doesn't fit into this pre-conceived paradigm must necessarily be considered a delusion, for lack of its conformity to a notion broadly based on personal prejudice or so-called 'common sense'.


To the contrary, we can't progress if we stick to the conventional. New ideas and developments are always welcome, but they have to stand up to scrutiny to become respectable and rational. Don't confuse rejection of absurd ideas with no/poor evidence with always sticking to the conventional. Rejection of the absurd and improbable is called rational thinking.



> If you can control your mind, then yes, by the transitive property, the cosmic mind can control your mind. It just seemed strange to consider it some kind of invasive control (as you suggested with the puppet analogy) when the controller is controlling itself.


I don't see how what you are saying relates to there being one overarching deity like mind which also has individuality, as if it did, it would be able to control our minds, since our minds are part of its.

It's like saying the different parts of my mind can operate with individuality but my mind as a whole can't have any conscious control of them.


----------



## Znuffle

No spirits. No nothing. No to everything. Not because I know so. But because you don't know ****.. Your thought of making it seem real is beginning to end up as a claim to it being real.

Which means.. That who makes the claim has to provide facts about it.. And you never will.

So no. NO NO! sit down.. Stop the nonesense of stupid thoughts.

This is how I see you right now:

" So what if.... O_O I was put into this body for a very specific reason.. I mean I can feel things and all this other stuff " Yea we get it.. It's so crazy right? Did you wake up yesterday or something?


Short story told. There doesn't HAAAAAAAVE to be a reason for a conciousness controlling a body. Just because you know that you are exsperiencing things from this body you are in as a conciousness doesn't explain anything about what happens next.. You don't know you will never know.. and the more you'll think about posibilities the more stupid you'll get. cause you can't examine ANYTHING! So it's pointless effert and it's unlogical reasoning to even consider any form of possible explantion to the system of conciousness.


----------



## Cyclops Tremor

ugh1979 said:


> Why stop at earth-worship for those reasons? Why not just go all the way and say universe worship? The earth is of course just a tiny cog in the grand cosmic machine that is the universe.
> 
> Indeed, nobody can ever know the absolute truth about such an ambiguous subject, so any respectable person is agnostic in addition to their _beliefs _on related topics.
> 
> I've never believed in souls. I absolutely agree about the idea that consciousness can exist outwith the framework of a physical brain to be delusional.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> That's a shame it causes you existential suffering and anxiety. I have no issue with a temporal existence. As far as we can tell, everything comes to an end and nothing set is eternal. Entropy gets everything in the end.
> 
> What is it about "you" being transient that causes you such issue?
> 
> Yes I think consciousness ends when the system which hosted it (a mind) can no longer sustain it. It's clearly an energy hungry process, so without the energy to sustain a consciousness it ends, just like the software off a computer stops running when you turn it off.


I guess I would say that like most people I struggle with the idea of nothingness. The concept of non-existence is impossible to imagine and it freaks me out.

Although I find it interesting that the process of an organism being alive is actually the bizarre anomaly and the normal state is non-existence. The universe does not even blink it's eyes once and all living animals currently on the earth perish and turn to dust.

The fear of death is a natural animal instinct programmed into us to help us survive as long as possible. I've often asked myself the question why would this message to survive at all costs be hardwired so deeply and powerfully into our psyche if it wasn't a message and a warning to fight against the eternal grave.

If there was an afterlife of paradise or if death was some sort of new beginning and liberation from the prison of flesh and bone I do not see why our brains would contain such urgent alarms to avoid dangers that could destroy our consciousness.

I think most people including myself need the intoxicating fantasy of fairy-tales every now and then to serve as a temporary sanctuary from the cruel totalitarian order of nature.

The difference between religious people and rational thinkers is that the religious shield and blind themselves against information which could cause seeds of doubt to creep into their minds and poke holes in their imaginary bubbles of comfort and security whereas rational thinkers are curious about the truth and put effort and energy into the mission of hunting the truth down.

I fear death because I know it is the end but rationally I know I will just be returning to the normal state of nothingness that I was in for billions of years before my birth.

In my life the more I thought about it the more I realized that without the threat of death there is no reason to live at all.

The fantasy of being immortal seems appealing but if there is no vanishing timeline emotions would be meaningless. Memory would be meaningless without the haunting specter of your own mortality. It would be impossible to be sentimental about a life that is not disappearing.

Thank you for your thoughts and all your posts on this subject matter. They really made me think. Yes, now that you mention it universe worship would make more sense. I really like your quote by Richard Dawkins by the way.


----------



## Cyclops Tremor

Znuffle said:


> No spirits. No nothing. No to everything. Not because I know so. But because you don't know ****.. Your thought of making it seem real is beginning to end up as a claim to it being real.
> 
> Which means.. That who makes the claim has to provide facts about it.. And you never will.
> 
> So no. NO NO! sit down.. Stop the nonesense of stupid thoughts.
> 
> This is how I see you right now:
> 
> " So what if.... O_O I was put into this body for a very specific reason.. I mean I can feel things and all this other stuff " Yea we get it.. It's so crazy right? Did you wake up yesterday or something?
> 
> Short story told. There doesn't HAAAAAAAVE to be a reason for a conciousness controlling a body. Just because you know that you are exsperiencing things from this body you are in as a conciousness doesn't explain anything about what happens next.. You don't know you will never know.. and the more you'll think about posibilities the more stupid you'll get. cause you can't examine ANYTHING! So it's pointless effert and it's unlogical reasoning to even consider any form of possible explantion to the system of conciousness.


The point of my post was to explain the evolution of my thought process and why I no longer believe in the supernatural idea of the human soul.

Did you even read my whole post? I stated that I am an agnostic. I am in no way arguing about the possibility of the human soul existing or making claims about any forms of consciousness after death. (The brain shutting down)

So you have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously didn't read my post or didn't think about it hard enough.

I have no idea where all the disrespect and hostility is coming from and there is no reason for it.


----------



## ugh1979

Cyclops Tremor said:


> I guess I would say that like most people I struggle with the idea of nothingness. The concept of non-existence is impossible to imagine and it freaks me out.


Fair enough. I personally don't have an issue with it. I'm happy to accept at one time I didn't exist, then I did, and one day I won't, just as I accept everything else comes in and out of existence.



> The fear of death is a natural animal instinct programmed into us to help us survive as long as possible. I've often asked myself the question why would this message to survive at all costs be hardwired so deeply and powerfully into our psyche if it wasn't a message and a warning to fight against the eternal grave.


The instinct to survive has an obvious evolutionary answer. If we didn't have it we wouldn't be here as our species would never have evolved. That's why it's hardwired so deeply. This is no option for a species to not typically have it.



> If there was an afterlife of paradise or if death was some sort of new beginning and liberation from the prison of flesh and bone I do not see why our brains would contain such urgent alarms to avoid dangers that could destroy our consciousness.


That's an interesting point, but I know some afterlife believers state the purpose of life it to experience certain things that for some reason have to be done via physical bodies, and so the instinct to keep that physical body alive could be validated.



> I think most people including myself need the intoxicating fantasy of fairy-tales every now and then to serve as a temporary sanctuary from the cruel totalitarian order of nature.


Fair enough. I know I am perfectly accepting and content with how the universe works. It's awesome, and i'm happy to experience it on a temporary basis.



> The difference between religious people and rational thinkers is that the religious shield and blind themselves against information which could cause seeds of doubt to creep into their minds and poke holes in their imaginary bubbles of comfort and security whereas rational thinkers are curious about the truth and put effort and energy into the mission of hunting the truth down.


Indeed. I fully understand why many people prefer to live in ignorance. It can certainly be more comforting. It takes a certain amount of courage to reject easy religious ideas and form your own based on a multitude of often complicated and evolving secular sources.



> I fear death because I know it is the end but rationally I know I will just be returning to the normal state of nothingness that I was in for billions of years before my birth.
> 
> In my life the more I thought about it the more I realized that without the threat of death there is no reason to live at all.
> 
> The fantasy of being immortal seems appealing but if there is no vanishing timeline emotions would be meaningless. Memory would be meaningless without the haunting specter of your own mortality. It would be impossible to be sentimental about a life that is not disappearing.


Indeed, there are many issues with the idea of an eternal conscious existence.



> Thank you for your thoughts and all your posts on this subject matter. They really made me think. Yes, now that you mention it universe worship would make more sense. I really like your quote by Richard Dawkins by the way.


Thanks. Nice talking to you.


----------



## diamondheart89

I don't know. I think there is more to it than "nothing" but I'm not sure what.


----------



## Gamaur

diamondheart89 said:


> I don't know. I think there is more to it than "nothing" but I'm not sure what.


----------



## Znuffle

Cyclops Tremor said:


> The point of my post was to explain the evolution of my thought process and why I no longer believe in the supernatural idea of the human soul.
> 
> Did you even read my whole post? I stated that I am an agnostic. I am in no way arguing about the possibility of the human soul existing or making claims about any forms of consciousness after death. (The brain shutting down)
> 
> So you have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously didn't read my post or didn't think about it hard enough.
> 
> I have no idea where all the disrespect and hostility is coming from and there is no reason for it.


It was a jokeee  right? get it?... 
Hehe I thought it was fun ;D

(No you're right in every way.. I'm just lazy on this specific topic. ^.^)


----------



## Hikikomori2014

You do realize any scientist or even doctor could have already agreed with you that technically, what we call the soul is actually our brain



Cyclops Tremor said:


> I consider myself an earth-worship NeoPagan as I believe nature is the closest thing we have to divinity and a deity. Nature is a superior organism and macrocosm which has created an immutable order and laws which cannot be broken. It is the cardiovascular system of all lower organisms.
> 
> I am also an agnostic because I realize as one human being with limited abilities I do not hold the golden key to the portals of secret truth. I do not have the necessary powers to see into possible realms beyond my consciousness. I believe it is the humble and honest stance to take.
> 
> I use to believe in the idea of an individual human soul. It sounded poetic and comforting. I also liked the idea of an individual human soul because it worked into the whole recycled energy after death, reincarnation idea. I know energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only change forms but to think that the energy or "soul" would be revived into the consciousness of another living animal and not just sucked into the swirling black void is despicable and delusional wishful thinking.
> 
> The more I thought about it the more I realized that the idea of the human soul is just as supernatural and anti-scientific as the fantasy of heaven. I think our individual brains are the core and essence of what makes us who we are. Our brains are similar to computers and when they get too old and shut off that is lights out forever. I hate this idea and it causes me existential suffering and anxiety but this is what all the empirical evidence points toward so I would be a cowardly hypocrite not to believe it.
> 
> What is your opinion on the idea of the human soul? Do you think an individuals consciousness is destroyed forever at the moment of death?


----------



## diamondheart89

Hikikomori2014 said:


> You do realize any scientist or even doctor could have already agreed with you that technically, what we call the soul is actually our brain


This is not true. I personally know several doctors and researchers who believe in God. Some are even quite strictly religious.


----------



## CheezusCrust

No, because there isn't any evidence for a soul. I'm fine with people calling me souless.


----------



## CheezusCrust

diamondheart89 said:


> This is not true. I personally know several doctors and researchers who believe in God. Some are even quite strictly religious.


Same here. I live in one of the more liberal states, and I've had a doctor pray when I went to see him (wasn't an atheist at the time, though) and many others are Christians and/or believe in some sort of pseudoscience. Same with psychologists (I have yet to meet a local one that is nonreligious). Compartmentalization is a crazy thing.


----------



## CheezusCrust

Gamaur said:


>


Ancient Astronaut Theorists are right 99% of .01% of the time.


----------



## minimized

Hell no, humans don't have souls. They're just simplistic apes operating by the same rules that define animals. To believe that there is some little pearly sphere in the middle of their being, something beyond the confines of this pathetic skin suit...

It's wishful thinking.


----------



## Cyclops Tremor

minimized said:


> Hell no, humans don't have souls. They're just simplistic apes operating by the same rules that define animals. To believe that there is some little pearly sphere in the middle of their being, something beyond the confines of this pathetic skin suit...
> 
> It's wishful thinking.


Well said. I totally agree.


----------



## Hikikomori2014

Believing in God and realizing the soul is the brain is not mutually exclusive



diamondheart89 said:


> This is not true. I personally know several doctors and researchers who believe in God. Some are even quite strictly religious.


----------



## scott83

What I've always wondered is what is the purpose of the universe? I don't mean purpose as in it must have some clear objective, rather that I don't understand why any of it exists at all? 

One the one hand if God created the universe etc, then who created him? And on the other hand, if the universe was created by the big bang, then why did the cloud of interstellar dust and gas exist in the first place? It must have come from somewhere, things don't just come to be from nothingness.


----------



## SapphicDysphoria

The idea of a soul is weird to me. I'm one of those people who believes that if you can't find it by looking at the human body, then it isn't there. It's just the way our brains are wired that causes us to feel the way we do when it comes to things like morals.


----------



## ugh1979

scott83 said:


> What I've always wondered is what is the purpose of the universe? I don't mean purpose as in it must have some clear objective, rather that I don't understand why any of it exists at all?
> 
> One the one hand if God created the universe etc, then who created him? And on the other hand, if the universe was created by the big bang, then why did the cloud of interstellar dust and gas exist in the first place? It must have come from somewhere, things don't just come to be from nothingness.


Interstellar dust and gas need a universe to exist in, so they probably don't pre-date universes.

At the quantum mechanical scale, everything is very unstable, so a state of nothing is hard to achieve. In fact, we don't even know if it exists, as we've never found 'nothing'.

This article describes a hypothesis I currently subscribe to on the topic:









So, nothing needs to create this fundamental level of reality, as it's not a set state. It could well be that everything arises from the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum.


----------



## scott83

ugh1979 said:


> Interstellar dust and gas need a universe to exist in, so they probably don't pre-date universes.
> 
> At the quantum mechanical scale, everything is very unstable, so a state of nothing is hard to achieve. In fact, we don't even know if it exists, as we've never found 'nothing'.
> 
> So, nothing needs to create this fundamental level of reality, as it's not a set state. It could well be that everything arises from the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum.


That's quite a mind blowing thought to think that the universe might have started out as a bubble, really does sort of make you think just how insignificant our lives are. But even so, you would still have to question why does the vaccum exist? Perhaps the ultimate truth of existence is beyond comprehension?


----------



## purechaos

I told the wrong people at work I don't believe in souls. Meaning I told basically a bible study group, that I don't believe in souls. Because I don't believe in their concept of a soul.

One responded: that your soul carries weight,

so I get home and google and come up with this,

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

couldn't this be "energy" loss?


----------



## ugh1979

scott83 said:


> That's quite a mind blowing thought to think that the universe might have started out as a bubble, really does sort of make you think just how insignificant our lives are. But even so, you would still have to question why does the vaccum exist? Perhaps the ultimate truth of existence is beyond comprehension?


Well the point is that it is on the boundary between existence and non-existence. It's both, and therefore needs no cause and it's the source of anything which is capable of causality.


----------



## visualkeirockstar

No


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> couldn't this be "energy" loss?


What do you mean? No energy is being destroyed/lost.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> What do you mean? No energy is being destroyed/lost.


I dunno read that link and tell me what you think


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> I dunno read that link and tell me what you think


I think its nonsense based on poor science. Which is what the scopes page concludes.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> I think its nonsense based on poor science. Which is what the scopes page concludes.


 I agree still think it's an energy release though...


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> I agree still think it's an energy release though...


What do you mean by "energy release"?


----------



## wmu'14

diamondheart89 said:


> This is not true. I personally know several doctors and researchers who believe in God. Some are even quite strictly religious.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. :b


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> What do you mean by "energy release"?


Electrical impulses in the human body


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> Electrical impulses in the human body


Indeed they do stop on death, but that's because their power source is cut, just like if you turn off a computer.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed they do stop on death, but that's because their power source is cut, just like if you turn off a computer.


 right so I was thinking that's the weight drop he recorded


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> right so I was thinking that's the weight drop he recorded


Things don't weigh any less when you turn the power off.


----------



## xxGODDESSxx

I used to; though recently I've begun leaning more towards nothing at all. No god, no souls, no purpose to life beside procreating our species and continuing existence.

I would *love* to believe in something more than that, but I unfortunately see no other logical alternative.. :no


----------



## ugh1979

xxGODDESSxx said:


> I used to; though recently I've begun leaning more towards nothing at all. No god, no souls, no purpose to life beside procreating our species and continuing existence.
> 
> I would *love* to believe in something more than that, but I unfortunately see no other logical alternative.. :no


Subjective purpose can be just as fulfilling as objective purpose, so feel free to choose your own purpose to your life.


----------



## xxGODDESSxx

ugh1979 said:


> Subjective purpose can be just as fulfilling as objective purpose, so feel free to choose your own purpose to your life.


Oh, trust me, I do! But the objective purpose (or lack thereof) is truly haunting sometimes to think about. It's like watching a colony of ants run about, living their lives and thinking that their doing something worthwhile.... that's what I see when I look into the world and see us humans running amok, taking care of our own business. :lol

Ants do have a purpose in the eco-system, of course -- and so do we. But is there nothing more than that in the wider scope of things (beyond subjective purpose)? Honestly..? :sus It's baffling..


----------



## ugh1979

xxGODDESSxx said:


> Oh, trust me, I do! But the objective purpose (or lack thereof) is truly haunting sometimes to think about. It's like watching a colony of ants run about, living their lives and thinking that their doing something worthwhile.... that's what I see when I look into the world and see us humans running amok, taking care of our own business. :lol
> 
> Ants do have a purpose in the eco-system, of course -- and so do we. But is there nothing more than that in the wider scope of things (beyond subjective purpose)? Honestly..? :sus It's baffling..


I'm not sure why there not being an objective purpose makes many people uncomfortable.


----------



## scott83

xxGODDESSxx said:


> Ants do have a purpose in the eco-system, of course -- and so do we


What exactly do you feel our purpose in the eco system is? If anything we are doing more harm to it than good and our rate of population growth and consumption of raw materials is far out pacing the eco systems ability to cope. Personally I think that if the human race ceased to exist tomorrow, the eco system would be better for it.


----------



## scott83

ugh1979 said:


> Well the point is that it is on the boundary between existence and non-existence. It's both, and therefore needs no cause and it's the source of anything which is capable of causality.


So kinda similar to Schrodinger's famous Cat if I understand correctly?


----------



## ugh1979

scott83 said:


> So kinda similar to Schrodinger's famous Cat if I understand correctly?


Indeed. Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment that illustrates a facet of quantum theory.


----------



## xxGODDESSxx

scott83 said:


> What exactly do you feel our purpose in the eco system is? If anything we are doing more harm to it than good and our rate of population growth and consumption of raw materials is far out pacing the eco systems ability to cope. Personally I think that if the human race ceased to exist tomorrow, the eco system would be better for it.


Our purpose as a species, I think.. is manipulation.

We have the ability to manipulate almost any resource on earth. Through intelligence, machinery, technology, etc. Whether or not we take this seriously and manipulate for BETTERMENT is an entirely different story all together. Plenty of our resources are being used in a detrimental way to the eco system and the world at large.. now we are making strides into space exploration, and I fear it will be the same OUT THERE (in the universe at large) as it is on earth if we don't begin taking ourselves as seriously as we should. I don't disagree that we're a burden the the eco system right now; but we do not HAVE to be. That's the point.

What is your point of view? Obviously, humanity will likely NOT cease to exist tomorrow. So what do you think we are doing here? Why do you feel or think we are on this planet as a whole? (As a species; please forget the religious jargon.)


----------



## scott83

xxGODDESSxx said:


> Our purpose as a species, I think.. is manipulation.
> 
> We have the ability to manipulate almost any resource on earth. Through intelligence, machinery, technology, etc. Whether or not we take this seriously and manipulate for BETTERMENT is an entirely different story all together. Plenty of our resources are being used in a detrimental way to the eco system and the world at large.. now we are making strides into space exploration, and I fear it will be the same OUT THERE (in the universe at large) as it is on earth if we don't begin taking ourselves as seriously as we should. I don't disagree that we're a burden the the eco system right now; but we do not HAVE to be. That's the point.
> 
> What is your point of view? Obviously, humanity will likely NOT cease to exist tomorrow. So what do you think we are doing here? Why do you feel or think we are on this planet as a whole? (As a species; please forget the religious jargon.)


To be honest I've never thought too deeply about what our role in nature/the eco system might be, but I've had a bit of a think and one of the first thoughts that popped into my head just now is this;

Maybe we are similar to killer bees in the sense that they evolved in a certain area or eco system and they fit nicely into it, however should they move into a new area they can be very destructive to the eco system in that area. I think it's what is known commonly as an invasive species. So perhaps when human beings first evolved as hunter gatherers we were doing no damage but when we started migrating to other parts of the world and started building villages etc, that's when we started to become a pest of sorts.

I'm not saying that's 100% what I believe or anything, it's just a thought


----------



## VitaminD

no


----------



## bottleofblues

Yes and I do believe energy can be both created and destroyed, it happens at birth and death. The invention of the idea of life after death kind of struck me the other night when I was watching a tv programme. A character was saying that when we lose lost ones we like to believe they've gone to a better place. I think thats one of the main inventions of this myth, as well as trying to live a pious life and receiving your reward in the afterlife.
Can't help but wonder if a lot of it started was just wishful thinking with our ancestors when they were burying their dead.


----------



## ugh1979

bottleofblues said:


> Yes and I do believe energy can be both created and destroyed, it happens at birth and death.


No it can't. The energy that a person comprises of existed before they were born diluted in the universe, and will still exist after it, again diluted.

We are just temporary local arrangements of energy in the universe.



> The invention of the idea of life after death kind of struck me the other night when I was watching a tv programme. A character was saying that when we lose lost ones we like to believe they've gone to a better place. I think thats one of the main inventions of this myth, as well as trying to live a pious life and receiving your reward in the afterlife.
> Can't help but wonder if a lot of it started was just wishful thinking with our ancestors when they were burying their dead.


Indeed it's clearly a product of wishful thinking. A coping mechanism to help deal with grief.


----------



## xxGODDESSxx

scott83 said:


> To be honest I've never thought too deeply about what our role in nature/the eco system might be, but I've had a bit of a think and one of the first thoughts that popped into my head just now is this;
> 
> Maybe we are similar to killer bees in the sense that they evolved in a certain area or eco system and they fit nicely into it, however should they move into a new area they can be very destructive to the eco system in that area. I think it's what is known commonly as an invasive species. So perhaps when human beings first evolved as hunter gatherers we were doing no damage but when we started migrating to other parts of the world and started building villages etc, that's when we started to become a pest of sorts.
> 
> I'm not saying that's 100% what I believe or anything, it's just a thought


Plausible idea...


----------



## hoddesdon

Over a period of ten years every cell in the body is replaced. Yet you retain the memories formed when you were physically completely different. Your identity is the same. If you are just your brain, they should be progressively wiped, and you should have no memory of anything prior to a decade ago. If memory, consciousness etc is purely a matter of electricity within the brain, how are they inherited after each successive regeneration of the brain (?) It could also be asked how that happens when the electricity itself is being constantly generated and then fired.


----------



## xxGODDESSxx

hoddesdon said:


> Over a period of ten years every cell in the body is replaced. Yet you retain the memories formed when you were physically completely different. Your identity is the same. If you are just your brain, they should be progressively wiped, and you should have no memory of anything prior to a decade ago. If memory, consciousness etc is purely a matter of electricity within the brain, how are they inherited after each successive regeneration of the brain (?) It could also be asked how that happens when the electricity itself is being constantly generated and then fired.


Gorgeous.

THIS is truly mind-blowing! It would take a lifetime to contemplate..


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Over a period of ten years every cell in the body is replaced. Yet you retain the memories formed when you were physically completely different. Your identity is the same. If you are just your brain, they should be progressively wiped, and you should have no memory of anything prior to a decade ago. If memory, consciousness etc is purely a matter of electricity within the brain, how are they inherited after each successive regeneration of the brain (?) It could also be asked how that happens when the electricity itself is being constantly generated and then fired.


You're both wrong and confused.

The idea that every cell in the body is replaced over ten years (or seven years) is a myth.

Cells regenerate at different rates, some die and never regenerate, and some are part of us our entire lifes.

Most brain cells for example are never replaced, so there is no issue with continuity of consciousness and memory.

The idea you seem to be proposing that we suddenly get an entirely new physiology every 10 years is horribly wrong. For the elements that do regenerate its a very slow gradual process, so there is no point where for example is limb suddenly regenerates in its entirety.


----------



## ugh1979

xxGODDESSxx said:


> Gorgeous.
> 
> THIS is truly mind-blowing! It would take a lifetime to contemplate..


Well make sure you don't try and contemplate it as it's wrong.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> You're both wrong and confused.
> 
> The idea that every cell in the body is replaced over ten years (or seven years) is a myth.
> 
> Cells regenerate at different rates, some die and never regenerate, and some are part of us our entire lifes.
> 
> Most brain cells for example are never replaced, so there is no issue with continuity of consciousness and memory.
> 
> The idea you seem to be proposing that we suddenly get an entirely new physiology every 10 years is horribly wrong. For the elements that do regenerate its a very slow gradual process, so there is no point where for example is limb suddenly regenerates in its entirety.


 well your ask a naturalist better tell Stanford University

http://stemcell.stanford.edu/research/


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> You're both wrong and confused.
> 
> The idea that every cell in the body is replaced over ten years (or seven years) is a myth.
> 
> Cells regenerate at different rates, some die and never regenerate, and some are part of us our entire lifes.
> 
> Most brain cells for example are never replaced, so there is no issue with continuity of consciousness and memory.
> 
> The idea you seem to be proposing that we suddenly get an entirely new physiology every 10 years is horribly wrong. For the elements that do regenerate its a very slow gradual process, so there is no point where for example is limb suddenly regenerates in its entirety.


Your article states that glial cells *are *regenerated, and they are implicated in memory formation - see:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27913/title/Glial-cells-aid-memory-formation/

This comes from the New Scientist magazine, which presumably you accept as authoritative.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> well your ask a naturalist better tell Stanford University
> 
> http://stemcell.stanford.edu/research/


Can you quote the part you are talking about there. I don't see anything that states we regenerate all our cells every 7-10 years.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> Well make sure you don't try and contemplate it as it's wrong.


Really? This article refers to regeneration of brain cells in the hippocampus, which is also involved in memory formation - see:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...urons-found-in-human-brains.html#.VB0z2GOM3Is

(also from the New Scientist magazine)


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> Can you quote the part you are talking about there. I don't see anything that states we regenerate all our cells every 7-10 years.


"The future of medicine lies in understanding how the body creates itself out of a single cell and *the mechanisms by which it renews itself throughout life*."


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Your article states that glial cells *are *regenerated, and they are implicated in memory formation - see:
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27913/title/Glial-cells-aid-memory-formation/


What's your point? How do some cells regenerating mean our minds would be wiped as you stated?

Think about it this way, you can configure hard drives in a RAID configuration where the same data is on each of them, so if one dies, the data is still on the other one, and you can just replace the dead one with a new one and maintain the data.

In the brain, it's not like it's one memory per cell so if that cell dies the memory is lost.



> This comes from the New Scientist magazine, which presumably you accept as authoritative.


Wrong again. It comes from _The Scientist_ magazine.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> "The future of medicine lies in understanding how the body creates itself out of a single cell and *the mechanisms by which it renews itself throughout life*."


The body does renew itself throughout its life. But not all of it, as I said.

Just because they didn't include that detail doesn't mean they don't know it.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> What's your point? How do some cells regenerating mean our minds would be wiped as you stated?
> 
> Think about it this way, you can configure hard drives in a RAID configuration where the same data is on each of them, so if one dies, the data is still on the other one, and you can just replace the dead one with a new one and maintain the data.
> 
> In the brain, it's not like it's one memory per cell so if that cell dies the memory is lost.
> 
> Wrong again. It comes from _The Scientist_ magazine.


So how is the information transferred? Each new cell is a tabula rasa. Do brain cells say "I am about to die, so I have transfer my information to another cell?" If, as you stated, it is not a case of one memory - one cell, then if a memory is spread over multiple cells, it could only be transferred if they all die simultaneously. How would that transfer take place; how would the soon-to-be-departed cell know where to find a new cell. If part of a memory is transferred, how do the other surviving cells holding the other parts know where to find the transferred or copied part. Would not all of these exchanges of electricity disrupt the electrical patterns in the brain.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Really? This article refers to regeneration of brain cells in the hippocampus, which is also involved in memory formation - see:
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article...urons-found-in-human-brains.html#.VB0z2GOM3Is
> 
> (also from the New Scientist magazine)


I didn't say no brain cells are regenerated.


----------



## hoddesdon

"One of the landmark events of the past 25 years in neuroscience research was the establishment of neural stem cells (NSCs) as a life-long source of neurons and glia, a concept that shattered the dogma that the nervous system lacked regenerative power. Stem cells afford the plasticity to generate, repair, and change nervous system function. Combined with reprogramming technology, human somatic cell-derived NSCs and their progeny can model neurological diseases with improved accuracy. As technology advances, we anticipate further important discoveries and novel therapies based on the knowledge and application of these powerful cells."

source: http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(13)00989-6


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> Can you quote the part you are talking about there. I don't see anything that states we regenerate all our cells every 7-10 years.


"Every one of us completely regenerates our own skin every 7 days. A cut heals itself and disappears in a week or two. Every single cell in our skeleton is replaced every 7 years."

But really I'm just displaying that where there is scientific research that states one thing there is usually another one with a competing idea.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> So how is the information transferred? Each new cell is a tabula rasa. Do brain cells say "I am about to die, so I have transfer my information to another cell?" If, as you stated, it is not a case of one memory - one cell, then if a memory is spread over multiple cells, it could only be transferred if they all die simultaneously. How would that transfer take place; how would the soon-to-be-departed cell know where to find a new cell. If part of a memory is transferred, how do the other surviving cells holding the other parts know where to find the transferred or copied part. Would not all of these exchanges of electricity disrupt the electrical patterns in the brain.


If all the neurons that held a memory died at once the memory would be lost. We're not talking about them all dieing at once though are we? Unless you fallaciously think the whole body regenerates at once?

It's believed, if one neuron involved in memory dies, a regenerated one can take its place and part of a memory can be stored on it as copied from the neurons that it links to.

Of course if too many neurons die, or too many at once, then memories can be lost.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> "Every one of us completely regenerates our own skin every 7 days. A cut heals itself and disappears in a week or two. Every single cell in our skeleton is replaced every 7 years."
> 
> But really I'm just displaying that where there is scientific research that states one thing there is usually another one with a competing idea.


Can you explain what the competing idea is? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Nothing I said or cited negates the fact that skin and skeleton cells regenerate.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> "One of the landmark events of the past 25 years in neuroscience research was the establishment of neural stem cells (NSCs) as a life-long source of neurons and glia, a concept that shattered the dogma that the nervous system lacked regenerative power. Stem cells afford the plasticity to generate, repair, and change nervous system function. Combined with reprogramming technology, human somatic cell-derived NSCs and their progeny can model neurological diseases with improved accuracy. As technology advances, we anticipate further important discoveries and novel therapies based on the knowledge and application of these powerful cells."
> 
> source: http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(13)00989-6


I don't see how this supports your claim. If anything it supports mine. I've already explained to you how brain cells can be regenerated to make up for the loss of them which maintains things like memory.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> If all the neurons that held a memory died at once the memory would be lost. We're not talking about them all dieing at once though are we? Unless you fallaciously think the whole body regenerates at once?
> 
> It's believed, if one neuron involved in memory dies, a regenerated one can take its place and part of a memory can be stored on it as copied from the neurons that it links to.
> 
> Of course if too many neurons die, or too many at once, then memories can be lost.


 I don't think anyone implied that it happens all at once.... Just that every 7 to 10 years you could say hey all the cells are different in me now than they were 7 to 10 years ago. Not hey yesterday my cells were all the same and today they are all different


----------



## hoddesdon

Also see:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936455,00.html

"About 98% of the atoms in the human body are renewed each year. This surprising fact is discussed by Dr. Paul C. Aebersold of Oak Ridge in the latest Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution. Dr. Aebersold based his conclusion on experiments with radioisotopes, which trace the movements of chemical elements in and out of the body.The fastest-changing component, says Dr. Aebersold, is water. It forms about 70% of the body, and about half the water molecules are replaced every eight days. Other fleeting elements are carbon, sodium and potassium. The calcium and phosphorus in bones and teeth stay put longer,..."


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> I don't think anyone implied that it happens all at once.... Just that every 7 to 10 years you could say hey all the cells are different in me now than they were 7 to 10 years ago. Not hey yesterday my cells were all the same and today they are all different


But they aren't all different. Only most.

And as I've been speaking to Hoddeson about, there is no issue with all memories being lost due to the process of neuron regeneration.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Also see:
> 
> http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936455,00.html
> 
> "About 98% of the atoms in the human body are renewed each year. This surprising fact is discussed by Dr. Paul C. Aebersold of Oak Ridge in the latest Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution. Dr. Aebersold based his conclusion on experiments with radioisotopes, which trace the movements of chemical elements in and out of the body.The fastest-changing component, says Dr. Aebersold, is water. It forms about 70% of the body, and about half the water molecules are replaced every eight days. Other fleeting elements are carbon, sodium and potassium. The calcium and phosphorus in bones and teeth stay put longer,..."


Why are you citing articles for something i've I told you? :?


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> Why are you citing articles for something i've I told you? :?


Sometimes I think you just like to argue.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> Sometimes I think you just like to argue.


I like to debate.


----------



## Umpalumpa

bottleofblues said:


> Yes and I do believe energy can be both created and destroyed, it happens at birth and death. The invention of the idea of life after death kind of struck me the other night when I was watching a tv programme. A character was saying that when we lose lost ones we like to believe they've gone to a better place. I think thats one of the main inventions of this myth, as well as trying to live a pious life and receiving your reward in the afterlife.
> Can't help but wonder if a lot of it started was just wishful thinking with our ancestors when they were burying their dead.


Energy cant be created it already exists but energy shiftness is strong enough to "create"
I didnt understand the rest of your post but it sounds interesting


----------



## Azazello

Umpalumpa said:


> Energy cant be created it already exists but *energy shiftness is strong enough to "create"*


Hah!? What on earth is _energy shiftness_? And what is it supposed to create?


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> Hah!? What on earth is _energy shiftness_? And what is it supposed to create?


Haha, you just beat me to asking the same thing. :lol


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> Haha, you just beat me to asking the same thing. :lol


Yeah, it must've been covered in a physics lecture we both missed...


----------



## Umpalumpa

Azazello said:


> Hah!? What on earth is _energy shiftness_? And what is it supposed to create?


Depends on your definition of energy, creation, and movement...

Take time as a varaiable, add movement to it and it bounds to create something eventually.
What i meant was something more a long of cause and effect though.


----------



## Azazello

Umpalumpa said:


> Depends on your definition of energy, creation, and movement...
> 
> Take time as a varaiable, add movement to it and it bounds to create something eventually.
> What i meant was something more a long of cause and effect though.


You were the one who came up with "energy shiftness", surely you would have the definition for it and what it creates? Or were you just talking nonsense for the sake of it?


----------



## scott83

hoddesdon said:


> Over a period of ten years every cell in the body is replaced. Yet you retain the memories formed when you were physically completely different. Your identity is the same. If you are just your brain, they should be progressively wiped, and you should have no memory of anything prior to a decade ago. *If memory, consciousness etc is purely a matter of electricity within the brain, how are they inherited after each successive regeneration of the brain (?)* It could also be asked how that happens when the electricity itself is being constantly generated and then fired.


But if it isn't then how could one explain the memory loss associated with brain damage or brain diseases? And how come, when we go to sleep we aren't conciously aware that we are asleep? If our concious was not entirely neurologically related to brain activity then would perhaps be able to continue to be aware of our self even when our body and its brain were 'powered down' for the night?


----------



## purechaos

scott83 said:


> But if it isn't then how could one explain the memory loss associated with brain damage or brain diseases? And how come, when we go to sleep we aren't conciously aware that we are asleep? If our concious was not entirely neurologically related to brain activity then would perhaps be able to continue to be aware of our self even when our body and its brain were 'powered down' for the night?


 your brain is still active when you sleep. (brain waves) and it is possible to lucid dream (be awake in dreams and know you are sleeping).


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> I don't see how this supports your claim. If anything it supports mine. I've already explained to you how brain cells can be regenerated to make up for the loss of them which maintains things like memory.


"a concept that shattered the dogma that the nervous system lacked regenerative power"


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> "a concept that shattered the dogma that the nervous system lacked regenerative power"


I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make, as I didn't say no brain cells regenerate. The fact _some _do is well established in this day and age, a fact a backed up by your citations.

If you are going to try and debate with me, at least pay attention.

Your original fallacy remains in that you said _every _cell in the body regenerates every 10 years, and nothing you have cited backs that up.

You surely understand that "regenerative power" doesn't infer every cell regenerates don't you? Maybe you don't? :roll


----------



## scott83

purechaos said:


> your brain is still active when you sleep. (brain waves) and it is possible to lucid dream (be awake in dreams and know you are sleeping).


Well yes the brain is still active, hence the term 'powered down' rather than off, otherwise we would be brain dead. And since dreams are due to our brains then surely that proves my point, that one is not conciously aware of oneself without input from one's brain, there is in fact increased activity in certain areas of the brain during lucid dreaming.


----------



## purechaos

scott83 said:


> Well yes the brain is still active, hence the term 'powered down' rather than off, otherwise we would be brain dead. And since dreams are due to our brains then surely that proves my point, that one is not conciously aware of oneself without input from one's brain, there is in fact increased activity in certain areas of the brain during lucid dreaming.


 I took your statement as "powered down"... As off... Lol


----------



## scott83

purechaos said:


> I took your statement as "powered down"... As off... Lol


Nah I meant like a power saving mode, perhaps powered down was not the best description


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make, as I didn't say no brain cells regenerate. The fact _some _do is well established in this day and age, a fact a backed up by your citations.
> 
> If you are going to try and debate with me, at least pay attention.
> 
> Your original fallacy remains in that you said _every _cell in the body regenerates every 10 years, and nothing you have cited backs that up.
> 
> You surely understand that "regenerative power" doesn't infer every cell regenerates don't you? Maybe you don't? :roll


Actually, this article says that brain cells do regenerate, including the cerebral cortex:

http://biology.about.com/od/Brain/p/Regeneration-Of-Brain-Cells.htm

The article states that the view held for a hundred years that brain cells do not regenerate has been disproved. It also states that the cerebral cortex does regenerate. You seem to be anchoring your argument on that not taking place i.e. cerebral cortex cells do not regenerate, so there is no issue with losing memories. By making that your argument you are implicitly accepting the original proposition i.e. if brain cells do regenerate, then memories should be lost (but they are not lost, of course).


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Actually, this article says that brain cells do regenerate, including the cerebral cortex:
> 
> http://biology.about.com/od/Brain/p/Regeneration-Of-Brain-Cells.htm
> 
> The article states that the view held for a hundred years that brain cells do not regenerate has been disproved. It also states that the cerebral cortex does regenerate.


Nobody is arguing against some brain cells regenerating. The point is not all of them do, which is contrary to your original claim that every cell regenerates every ten years. You've already defeated your own argument there though by providing contrary evidence so i'm not sure why you keep going on about it.



> You seem to be anchoring your argument on that not taking place i.e. cerebral cortex cells do not regenerate, so there is no issue with losing memories. By making that your argument you are implicitly accepting the original proposition i.e. if brain cells do regenerate, then memories should be lost (but they are not lost, of course).


Where did I state no cerebral cortex cells regenerate? In fact to the contrary, I explained how memory could be preserved with gradual regeneration, so that nulls both your straw man arguments.

You really need to pay better attention.


----------



## the fella

No, I do not.


----------



## WalkingOnBothSides

Nope!


----------



## microbopeep

Yes. I believe everyone has a soul. I don't know what to call myself as I don't worship ANYTHING on the account that no God or deity has saved me in this hard life so I have given the finger to the very concept...


----------



## 0blank0

Yes every human being has a soul. But u decide where it goes, either heaven or hell.


----------



## Pennywise

Nope. I don't deny it exists either, just haven't seen evidence of its existence and consider it more of a romanticized idea than anything else.


----------



## Zizi

the soul cannot be scientifically(=physically) proven to exist because we don't have the senses to do so. As an example: if everyone and every living organism were colorblind we couldn't prove the existence of color because it couldn't be perceived. 
We are limited by our physical bodies, there are many things that we cannot perceive. So just because the soul cannot be seen, tasted, touched, smelt nor heard doesn't mean it cannot exist.


----------



## forgetmylife

no way jose, not in the traditional sense

all that "you are" your personality, everything you feel/see and how you perceive etc. resides in the brain/nervous system

simple as that really. and this is why drugs/medication/brain damage can literally change people (the way they perceive and react) and their values. it can all be traced back to physical changes in the brain...

for example: some people claim to have "spiritual" (even out-of-body) experiences while under the influence of certain drugs but all that's really happening is altered brain chemistry, and that is fact

we even know which receptors in the brain are responsible for such "spiritual" experiences. it's nothing mysterious/spiritual at all, it's science


----------



## Out of the Ashes

It is of course possible, because anything is possible. But I only have one reason for believing it is likely. I had a near death experience. Now I know that there is a scientific explanation for nde's, but if you had experienced it you would at least consider the possibility. Trust me.

All the lonely people
Riding the flattened sphere
In my dying dream dimension

Where do they all belong?
Living just to die
Then live again

And why did I feel so good?
And were they happy too?


----------



## ugh1979

Out of the Ashes said:


> It is of course possible, because anything is possible. But I only have one reason for believing it is likely. I had a near death experience. Now I know that there is a scientific explanation for nde's, but if you had experienced it you would at least consider the possibility. Trust me.
> 
> All the lonely people
> Riding the flattened sphere
> In my dying dream dimension
> 
> Where do they all belong?
> Living just to die
> Then live again
> 
> And why did I feel so good?
> And were they happy too?


I've had many OBEs, but don't believe NDEs/OBEs are an indication of an afterlife, since I am aware of the scientific reasoning behind them. Anecdotal personal experiences are notorious for people making cognitive bias errors which leads to delusional thinking. I'd need a lot higher standard of evidence before I believed what i've experienced during OBEs not to be all in my head rather than having any objective reality.

Saying "anything is possible" is a weak attempt to make things sound more likely than they are IMO. Someone could say the same thing about the existence of unicorns, but that shouldn't make anyone think there is more of a chance unicorns exist than there is.

Certain things are so unlikely that they can be considered to all practical purposes not to exist.


----------



## ugh1979

Zizi said:


> the soul cannot be scientifically(=physically) proven to exist because we don't have the senses to do so. As an example: if everyone and every living organism were colorblind we couldn't prove the existence of color because it couldn't be perceived.
> We are limited by our physical bodies, there are many things that we cannot perceive. So just because the soul cannot be seen, tasted, touched, smelt nor heard doesn't mean it cannot exist.


That line of reasoning also gives no reason to believe it exists. An analogy is that there could be invisible unicorns running around you right now that are unperceivable by any known means, but it would be foolish to believe that they might. Until shown otherwise, it makes sense to say they don't exist, even though you don't know with 100% certainty.

Certain people make the double standard of saying an afterlife might exist, or does exist, since they want it to be true, while rejecting the existence of things with the same lack of evidence they don't desire to be true or don't care about.


----------



## CWe

I believe we do


----------

