• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can Soul, Ghosts Exist?

Interesting Ian said:
So you claim, but you have neither explained what "structure" means in this context, nor why it is needed. Until you explain this I think people should be advised to take your unwarranted assertions with a huge sack of salt.
Click to expand...

So now the brain is not a structure that supports a self. Do yourself a favor, next time you try to be agressive, make at the same time some intelligent comment.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Have you located a video of a meteorite falling down?
Click to expand...

Here you go

You can click on the video link and have to watch a stupid commercial first, but it is indeed a video of a meteor falling from the sky. And that's just the one I could find quickly, I have seen other videos of falling meteors before. In this day of camcorders, such footage isn't hard to come by.

So what about some footage of a stigmata now?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
So now the brain is not a structure that supports a self. Do yourself a favor, next time you try to be agressive, make at the same time some intelligent comment.
Click to expand...

That's correct, I don't think it is. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. If you think the soul is unintelligible, then you need to supply some arguments, not just give insist it needs a "structure" (whatever that might mean in this context).
 
Interesting Ian said:
If you think the soul is unintelligible, then you need to supply some arguments...
Click to expand...

I have. See my signature for your "rebuttal."

But we’re the stupid ones, correct?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
So now the brain is not a structure that supports a self. Do yourself a favor, next time you try to be agressive, make at the same time some intelligent comment.
Click to expand...

BTW I'm not being aggressive. You're not like most people around here who are totally idiotic. But you do need to justify your assertions.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Correct.
Click to expand...

And I assume my signature is still your official explanation for how the non-physical affects the physical world?

And again, we're stupid?

I'm now of the opinion that you're a 16 year old troll pulling everyone's chain. You can't be real. No one is this retarded without actually having Down syndrome.
 
TLN said:
And I assume my signature is still your official explanation for how the non-physical affects the physical world?

And again, we're stupid?

I'm now of the opinion that you're a 16 year old troll pulling everyone's chain. You can't be real. No one is this retarded without actually having Down syndrome.
Click to expand...

Even when I agree with this guy, he still spoils for a fight :rolleyes:

So! You've managed to work out that I necessarily have Down syndrome! Anyone who disagrees with sKeptics on here must have! That's sKeptic logic for ya! ;)
 
Interesting Ian said:
If you think the soul is unintelligible, then you need to supply some arguments, not just give insist it needs a "structure" (whatever that might mean in this context).
Click to expand...

Asking for this structure (check here) is, precisely, pointing out to something needed to hold something as complex as a "self".

Take a human self, for example, it requires the most complex structure in the universe (the brain) to exist. Or in your ideas, to manifest itself.

Now (talking still in your terms), if a brain is needed for the manifestation of this immaterial being called "self", then some other structure most "hold it", as a differentiated being, when it is not in a physical body.

The proposed "soul = energy" does not meet this requirement as all kinds of pure energy are very simple, like the photons Kumar mentions.

Now, read my answers in this thread with this in mind. You will see that I was being clear since the beginning. Or so I think.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Even when I agree with this guy, he still spoils for a fight :rolleyes:

So! You've managed to work out that I necessarily have Down syndrome! Anyone who disagrees with sKeptics on here must have! That's sKeptic logic for ya! ;)
Click to expand...

Well, God allows it, so it's all logically consistent. Prove me wrong.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Even when I agree with this guy, he still spoils for a fight :rolleyes:

So! You've managed to work out that I necessarily have Down syndrome! Anyone who disagrees with sKeptics on here must have! That's sKeptic logic for ya! ;)
Click to expand...
Now you've done it. You malign people with trisomy 21. YOU hoorrrible person!
In no way would I ever compare you with those people. They are so much nicer.
 
Bodhi,

Why do soul, ghosts in their soul & ghost form need any structure(matter) to hold these? Can't energetic form of anything exist as 'sunlight & other multi-wavelengths can exist' alike 'associated/groupped entity?

Moreover, prime source & cause of all our activities, functions, memory etc. should be some kind of energy only. We may be showing interactions & inter-relations with differant people/substances by the reason & pursuance of some energy only. So I do not feel some structure is required it to exist. Specific/chractristic energies effects people specifically. If reflected/emitted energy from any person is specific/characteristic to that person then it can behave similarily if it could interact with anyone/anything corresponding to this energy.

Vikram,

It is sensitive because these can be very strong & highly complexed froces. You can judge it by 'moving of this topic from Science forum to here' & started some flame war there--as these may not be allowing to be discussed & known in science & bit annoyed from me--so creating some paranormal effects.:D
 
IIRichard said:
Kumar there is no "science" of this. The existence of the soul cannot be proved or disproved. Your use of the word "science" in this context is an oxymoron.

The existence of ghosts cannot be reliably demonstrated. All rational people who have investigated ghosts believe that no such thing exits. However, it is possible, no matter how unlikely (approaching zero as close as you care to go), that a ghost might be found. Since the phenomenon appears not to exist, there is currently no science.
Click to expand...

It is & can be there in present understadings but we can think bit differantly. Scientifically, I think, only remains after death can be ashes/decomposed body or shedded skin particles(cells minus water) on matter level.On energy level there can be emitted/reflected wavelengths in some specific spectrum as per our cellular/molecular composition. All the wavelengts from all our atoms,molecules,cells & body can remain & move together(as sunlight moves) to maintain line & direction of emission/reflection.

It would be somewhat our energy form. So why it can be thought as our soul or ghost?
 
Re: Re: Can Soul, Ghosts Exist?

Vikram said:
...
Why is this a sensitive issue?
Click to expand...
Ghosts are sensitive. They don't always know they're dead, but usually have an inkling. Being pretty much invisible can be very lonely, like an afterlife anomie. If they could hear how so many of you callous inlife souls berate and humiliate them with your sKepticism and Thomastic doubting, you'd be sure to be more sensitive too.
 
Kumar said:
Bodhi,

Why do soul, ghosts in their soul & ghost form need any structure(matter) to hold these? Can't energetic form of anything exist as 'sunlight & other multi-wavelengths can exist' alike 'associated/groupped entity?
Click to expand...

Sunlight is a product and does have "structure" as a wavelength. Why would a spirit or ghost not be required to have some type of structure? It wouldn't be anything without some type of form, that would make it not physical; and in that sense I would say it wouldn't exist; except maybe as a concept.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Asking for this structure (check here) is, precisely, pointing out to something needed to hold something as complex as a "self".
Click to expand...


Again I say I am not remotely interested in your unsubstantiated assertions.

Take a human self, for example, it requires the most complex structure in the universe (the brain) to exist. Or in your ideas, to manifest itself.
Click to expand...

Does it indeed. So you claim. Why don't you give any evidence/reasons to supposrt your claim??

Now (talking still in your terms), if a brain is needed for the manifestation of this immaterial being called "self", then some other structure most "hold it", as a differentiated being, when it is not in a physical body.
Click to expand...

"If a brain is needed" i.e if the self is ontologically dependent upon the brain, then the soul doesn't exist. A more blatently circular argument would be hard to imagine :rolleyes:

The proposed "soul = energy" does not meet this requirement as all kinds of pure energy are very simple, like the photons Kumar mentions.
Click to expand...

Soul = energy?? :rolleyes:
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen,

Try to understand that the brain is not a structure that supports a self. The self is not literally located within the brain. Indeed it is not located anywhere. Think of the following thought experiment. Suppose your sensory information is transmitted directly to your brain from a robot located at a distant place. Your brain also controls the motions of the robot. Thus, you would see what the robot "sees," and when you command your own arm to move, the robot arm would move instead. Assuming that your brain has been "unplugged" from your own sensory organs, there is no doubt that you would experience yourself as located in the body of the robot. This is essentially a description of what I believe to be the case in relationship to our own brains with the brain standing for the robot. But what you're saying is effectively that the self can only subsist whilst the robot is in a working state. But this is clearly false.

Now I hate using analogies because you lot always take them too seriously and don't seem to understand their purpose. But since you're not really a member of the sKeptics club I'll take that risk on this occasion.

And remember (and this goes for everyone), there's no point in saying "ah yes, but in the robot analogy you still have a brain". My argument is not that I can prove that the self does not need a structure in order to exist, but rather that the contention that we do need a structure simply cannot be substantiated (and in fact you haven't even bothered to try and substantiate it anyway).

Look, consciousness is mysterious. Nobody has a clue how it fits into the rest of our scientific picture of reality and why we need brains etc. To make an assertion that souls are logically impossible is therefore ludicrous! Hell, you haven't even attempted to justify this ridiculous statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom