whats a soulmate?

well that's because your brain works as a processor, and if your processor is lost you can no longer process any more info, I've heard of it like that, it's kind of like a computer, I don't like to be compared to a computer, it creeps me out.

But causes the brain to function anyway?
And what causes that other function to function?
I'm no science wizz, in fact, I'm a very very stupid person when it comes to science, but isn't there somewhere an empty space of thought that science hasn't solved yet? and probably never will?

I'm not a spiritual guru by any means, but I like to question both sides equally.

Yeah the brain is basically an enourmously complex machine (it has been said to be the most complex thing in the entire universe) and it does function very similar to a computer. As we get older and develop concious critical faculties we can run our own "computers", to a point. The childs brain is exactly like a computer however, and this is one of the reason put forth by scientists for the ubiquitis nature of religion. For very good Darwinian reasons the childs brain is preprogrammed to believe everything it's told by it's elders. If a child were to apply a sceptical, scientific mindset to advice like "Don't play in the river, there's crocodiles" or "Don't go too near the cliff edge, it's dangerous", the child wouldn't be long for this world. However, because it's brain works exactly like that of a computer it's susceptible to infection by a virus. It can't tell between good advice such as the above and useless advice like "You must do a particular dance to make the rain come" or dangerous advice like "You have a soul which means you will survive your own death. Your religion is the only true religion and everybody else will go to hell and if you kill in defence of your religion you will be fast-tracked to Paradise".


I ain't no nueroscientist so I can't give you a full answer off the top of my head but it's basically the interactions of neurons firing back and forth.

What other function?

There's lots of things science hasn't explained and maybe never will be able to explain. We didn't evolve to understand things like quantum mechanics and there may be things we will never (or atleast for a very long time) be able to comprehend but if you want to get to the real answers science is your only hope. Scientist exhault in ignorance because it gives them something to do, it's challenges them to understand and discover the true workings of the universe. Mystics, religious people and superstitious people exhault in it for comepletely different reasons. They have no desire to understand or unlock the mysteries of the universe. Rather the revel in mystery, the more the better for them.

Think of it this way. Why if science can't explain something do so many jump to the supernatural as an explanation. It's like, "We have to solve the problem of "A". Now theory X has proved extremely useful in explaining alot of things but we're having difficulty explaining this. Right so, let's throw theory X out the window and simply by default we'll go with theory Y. Of course, it should be said that theory Y is no better at explaining the mystery of A and there is absolutely no evidence that theory Y can explain anything but lets go with it anyway." Utter nonsense.

Absolutely. Question everything. The questions that can be answered with good evidence and sound, logical reasoning should be believed, while always accepting that new evidence could come in and change everything, and the answers to questions where people use nothing other then faith should be ignored.

What if the "Soul" needed a physical support, and one in good condition to express itself in a way that we can see/feel it?
What if the support being damaged made the soul appear sort of like our image in a broken mirror?

Some very serious scientists have not given up on that question of the Soul (or Spirit). Some actually believe there is spirit everywhere, even in electrons.
It may sound crazy said like that, but if you are interested in such a topic and have a bit of scientific knowledge, I recommend the book "The Spirit - that stranger inside us" from Jean Emile Charon, a reknowned nuclear physicist.

http://www.jeanemilecharon.com/biography.html


Ponrauil

You beat me to it!!!


My answer is: Ponrauil and Spunkywho.


'nuff said......

Even if that were true (and one should always keep an open mind), it would be nothing like the soul that theistic people speak of. I'm not sure if Jean is trying to find the "theistis soul" or not without having read his work but the theistic soul refers to a particular theory of life. It's the theory that there is something non-material about life, some non-physical vital principle. It's the theory according to which a body has to be animated by some anima. Vitalized by a vital force. Energized by some mysterious energy. Spiritualized by some mysterious spirit. Made conscious by some mysterious thing or substance called consciousness. You'll notice that all those definitions of a soul are circular and non-productive. It's no accident. Julian Huxley once satirically likened vitalism to the theory that a railway engine works by "force-locomotif." I don't always agree with Julian Huxley, but here he hit the nail beautifully. In the senseof such a soul, science has either killed the soul or is in the process of doing so. If this "soul" that Jean is talking about is does exist then it would have to be a naturally occuring phenomenon.

Personally that sort of reasoning does nothing for me because it's just not logical and there's absolutely no reason to believe that it is the case. As always, the onus is on the person arguing for such a thing to prove he is correct rather then everyone else having to prove he is wrong.

look just before everything gets ouyt of hand,

no-one can prove that there is a soul and no-one can prove there is. Different people will try the arguement but the other side will just produce something to contracdict that! its a no win situation

Why does it have to get out of hand? It's an interesting discussion.

I presume what you meant to say is no-one can prove that there is a soul and no-one can prove there isN'T. If so, then you're both right and wrong. If a soul existed inside our bodies it should be detectable and therfore provable. If you want to talk about a soul as something immaterial then you've undermined your whole argument because that which is not made of matter, cannot exist, obviously. You are completely right in saying that one could never disprove the existence of a soul, but there are an infinite number of things we can't disprove, from fairies, to hob-goblons, to leprachauns, to celestial tea-pots, to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and every god man has ever created. The very fact that you can't disprove something does not in anyway suggest that that thing exists or that the likelyhood of it existing or not existing is 50/50. You can put a probability factor on it and the probability of a soul existing, and the supernatural creator and imbuer of a soul existing, is so unlikely that you could have begun writing 0's since the beginning of the universe 14 billion years ago and you still wouldn't have written enough 0's to get to the likelyhood of such things existing. That's why the onus is on the person making such a claim to provide evidence for his or her claims.

But think about how the myth of the soul goes. It is said that God implants the soul at the moment of conception and that is the basis for Christians stance against abortion. But this protrays a complete ignorance of biology. Firstly, such a notion is fundamentally un-evolutionary. At what point in the line of descent from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, was the divine essence first injected? Secondly, if the soul is injected at the moment of coception what happens when the zygote splits to form an identical twin? Is one left soulless? Or what about a chimera where two zygotes form into one? What happens to the soul left over, perhaps a mystical explanation for schizophrenia? Also it has been estimated that 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortions without the mother knowing and 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. As Sam Harris wrote: There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgement: if God exists He is the most prolific abortionist of all. So even the religious folks can't get their own story straight.

Who says it isn't? Maybe it's just us that don't have the technology or ability to do detect it and prove it. We've been able to prove the Earth was round just a few centuries ago, yet it's always been round.

Not being able to see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The possibility is still there.


I agree to an extent. There is matter, and what can emerge from a certain "organisation" of matter. For example, Life is not material, but is possible only if matter is "organised" in a very specific way, inside and outside the living body, and supplied in energy.

The Soul (or Spirit) could emerge from the same organisation, or more complex ones, and also evolve with nurture.


Actually I'm sure it would be very easy to prove these cannot exist.
The conditions for life to happen are very precise and specific. They are also pretty much the same anywhere in the Universe, as the same fundamental forces apply everywhere. Astrophysicians and biologists could very easily demonstrate the impossibility of such life forms to occur.


There are too many things yet to discover and understand to be able to put a credible probability factor on the existence of a Soul.


This doesn't have to become a Christian vs Non-Christian debate. There are probably hundreds of different definitions of what the Soul could be, religious ones, scientific ones, metaphysical ones etc...
If you want to be open-minded you can't take one of the less credible definitions to discredit all others and the concept itself.


Ponrauil

That was like when Whittgenstein (sp?) asked his friend why everybody on earth thought everything revolved around it and his friend answered, "Well because it just looks as if everything does" and Whittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it looked as if the earth was rotating in orbit?"

Yes it is, as I said. You cannot prove the non-existence of something, it's an impossibility, all you can do in the absence of any evidence in favour of that things existence is to put a probability factor on it, and the probability of a soul existing is staggeringly low.


Possibly yes. I personally don't believe that is the case as there's no evidence for it, but as I said before, that interpretation of the sould would be completely different from the widely understood meaning of a soul as it would have a natural origin rather then a supernatural origin.


Well how do you prove that the Flying Spghetti Monster doesn't exist. How do you prove that he didn't exist before time, and he was the one who created the entire universe with his infinite power and knowledge or that he doesn't reach down and touch people's lives with his noodly appendage? In every case whether it's the FSM or fairies ir celestial teapots, you cannot prove their non-existence, you can only show how vanishingly unlikely they are to exist.


It depends on what soul you are talking about. The theistic sould rest on the idea of a supernatural, superhuman, creator of the universe and one can very easily put a probability on the existence of such a thing, and as I pointed out in my earlier post, it's astronomically improbable.

I wasn't trying to do that. I was addressing cuchulainn who (I presume) was talking about the religious soul, which is the most commonly understood definition of the word. Obviously, your definition of a soul is vastly more sophisticated and hopefully I addressed that differently. It's like, if were to be shocked in the future that a God did in fact exist, you could be absolutely sure it would have nothing to do with the bronze age, parochial, ramblings of a bunch of camel herders who lived two thousand years ago. The truth would be a million times more sophisticated then any religious leader could ever imagine.

so i take it from that answer that you have read every relgious argument on the soul from every religion in the world? the fact that you dont accept religions version on the soul doesnt mean that it is not right. just because someone does accept doesnt mean they are right either. while some relgions are based on ramblings of a bunch of camel herders there are some that are a lot more complicated. Does God exist? i dnt know i believe he does. You dont so maybe you can explain to me where matter comes and how it came into exisitence because science sure cant. again people can answer one thing and give another in re-turn. simple fact is ull find out when you die.

this was a light hearted thread on 2 ppl getting it on and now it has turned religious lol.