Does the Soul Exist?

[fuelair]

Many other people have not had that experience and can reasonably think you are imagining that.

But the phenomenon of actually being a conscious subject in a body is something that I think everyone has experienced and might relate to. I am looking to see how close I can come to proving or showing the existence of the soul.

I will take a flyer on this - you won't find any such proof or existence.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Dear Susan,

In case you don't agree with the statements, such as "I exist", and want to choose "No", for all of them, please select the last option, "None of the Above".

Would you like to say more what you mean by "the four letters forming a word soul are chosen by humans to talk about an aspect of ourselves"?

I don't think I can make it any clearer. What do you understand by the phrase 'aspect of ourselves'?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

No. That was easy.

 

[Donn]

Once the soul is accepted, the search for the soul of the soul must begin; whirl without end.

 

[MikeG]

No. That was easy.

Except there is no such poll option in this thread. You'll need to visit a properly worded poll on the subject to be able to vote "No".

 

[IanS]

As a result, "I" am not real, only my physical body is real?

Indeed - if your body does not exist, then you certainly won't exist.

And also – your own title asked Does The Soul Exist? ... so why doesn't your poll just ask that same question with the options Yes or No? (or if you want to be more scientifically cautious then the options probably should have been (1)Yes, I think so ... (2)No, I don't think so ... (3) No firm opinion.

 

[fuelair]

Gday



I understand my tales are unlikely to convince anyone.

I spoke openly and honestly,
of course posters should respond in kind

It's just a perennially interesting subject.

Kapyong

Given the topic only our resident Believers (thus not skeptics) will respond positively. The rest of us may respond, but there is no way we can respond positively as there is NO supporting evidence (belief is not evidence) ( quoting other believers is not evidence) (writings making such claims are not evidence). That is the facts.

 

[Myriad]

The pattern of movements.


It proves that the two are distinguishable.


The dance stops when the dancer stops dancing, since the dancer is a necessary component of a dance. A temporary end to the dancing that is later resumed means that the dance itself is ended and then resumed.

Okay, those are reasonable enough answers.

Now let's shift the analogy back to the topic at hand. The dance is the pattern of neural activity (or thoughts, if you will) that generate a sense of self-awareness and conscious experience. The brain does other things as well (just as a dancer can do other things than dance, such as breathe and sing, whether or not he or she is also dancing at the time).

The brain is a necessary component of awareness. Awareness stops when the brain stops generating it. A temporary end to the awareness that is later resumed means that the awareness itself is ended and then resumed.

(Unlike the dance, but like the forum being run by the server in jrhowell's analogy, your brain has memory. So the resumed "dance" remembers its previous movements and might even regard those remembered movements and the present dance joined together as one continuous ongoing event even though it was interrupted.)

That you can view a process (dance) as separate from the actor (dancer) means that if I refer to the brain's generated sense of conscious awareness as a soul (not the usual usage but as good a definition as any), then I can agree with your second, third, and fourth poll options without necessarily agreeing with any of the following additional notions:

- The "soul" can leave the body.

- The "soul" can continue to exist after the brain no longer functions or no longer exists.

- The "soul" exists before birth and joins up with the brain or body at some point in conception, prenatal development, birth, or postnatal development.

- Each person's "soul" is individual and distinct from everyone else's; after all if the "soul" is a process then other brains can be performing the same process at the same or different times, just as multiple dancers can do the same dance.

 

[fuelair]

Oops, forgot: being defined does not prove the existence of anything. Clearly being observed and verified by knowledgeable persons may do so for solid/identifiable things. Souls, meaningful "auras" and related do not prove anything as they have not/cannot be proven to have any function or usefulness or reality. If that ever changes, fine!!! Proof is really all we are looking for - but it has to be incontrovertible proof!!!!

 

[Steve]

rakovsky,

In your poll you use the term "I and my soul, as distinct from my physical body alone". This implies three entities "I', "my soul", "my physical body". Could you please describe the attributes of each of these entities so I can understand how you differentiate them.

You also, in several posts, refer to someone as "having a soul". Do you mean that a soul is merely a possession of a more primary entity?

Your terminology is not clear.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now we have court decisions claiming that the corporation is a legal person. This is an example of the concept of a person being a legal fiction. A corporation is not actually a real person.

Not disputed. But, (1) Where and in what legal code is the soul defined as a legal entity, and (2) given that you've admitted that legal fictions are not necessarily true outside the context of the law, can you not see that this would have no value whatsoever in determining whether souls actually exist?

Dave

 

[fibbermcgee]

I choose exist because I do. Now I'm told that is proof that I believe in a soul? I wish to retract my answer. This sounds like a Jabba. "So you guys all agree with me on that point."
When of course nobody did.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday MikeG,

When there is some testable, falsifiable and repeatable "evidence"of re-incarnation, Kapyong, let us know. Until then, your beliefs on the matter are just that.

Sure,
you can start here :
https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html

It appears you have not studied the evidence at all,
will you do so now ?

Or have you made up your mind already, without studying the evidence ?


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Thermal

Thanks for your polite questions.

Hi Kapyong:

I too have seen ghosts since I was a kid, and have had two out-of-body experiences. I attribute them to hallucinations/neural misfires/overactive imagination. What is it about your experiences that leads you to rule out these simpler explanations?

Well,
can you tell the difference between a dream/hallucination/imagination and physical reality ?
I can.

One of my experiences was confirmed objectively by a second person. Others have been confirmed by my studies and accounts of others.

But really, the answer amounts to : it happened to me, I was there.

My memory of seeing the latest thing in Paris 1894 or so is historically plausible (possibly a KinetamaScope.) One time Out-Of-Body I saw a black spot on the back of my physical body, so I saw the doctor who removed a benign tumour thingo. I've had a genuine future premonition ($24.75!), several peak experiences, the Cosmic Consciousness experience, astral travelled as far as Malaysia, been pressed all the way to the dark tunnel with that light at the end and fought my (our) way back, travelled a few metres in the etheric (or whatever) body, slid smoothly from a super-physical encounter back into the physical, being proportionally aware of both; and I have stood in the profoundly brilliant Christ Light from above, highlighting my human black spot, my thorn-in-my-side.

I am quite confident that had you had my experiences, you would almost certainly have come to a similar conclusion as I. Funny thing though, I am different to everyone else it seems - I have never met anyone like me, and everyone tells me they have never met anyone like me.

Of course it is entirely possible that I am simply insane / hallucinating / whatever. My sister would agree

Let me recap -
this is a discussion forum, and an interesting topic came up, so I added my opinions and experiences. I have no expectation of persuading anyone here, I understand my views are not mainstream.

Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

No. That was easy.

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you ?

 

[Oystein]

...
I remember an event from a previous life,
so do many others.
...

I remember events from this current life - which never happened.
so do many others.

I have a relatively easy explanation for this. How about you?


(The weirdest trick my memory has played on me was this:
I used to have a favourite childhood memory. I used to tell of it often, over the course of many years. Until I told it my oldest sister. She was able to prove to me that the people (myself included), events and places in my memory could not possibly have ever come together in a single event as I was remembering it. And now comes the weird part: Having this memory disproven, it almost completely vanished! I have a vague sense that is was probably something on vacation in a country south of Germany, and involved at least one person from my family - for those are elements involved of the refutation, but I have not the slightest idea what the story was!
I remember scenes from books and movies, and also scenes I merely dreamt, or that came to me as inspiration from music; scenes that are all fictitious. Why should I not get a feeling occasionally that some such memory is of me in a previous life? Or even a supernatural life?)

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Oystein

Thanks for your story,

I remember events from this current life - which never happened.
so do many others.
I have a relatively easy explanation for this. How about you?

Well, even human memories are suspect in many ways, as you pointed out.

(The weirdest trick my memory has played on me was this:
I used to have a favourite childhood memory. I used to tell of it often, over the course of many years. Until I told it my oldest sister. She was able to prove to me that the people (myself included), events and places in my memory could not possibly have ever come together in a single event as I was remembering it. And now comes the weird part: Having this memory disproven, it almost completely vanished!

Yes, human memories are nothing a tape recording or a disk file. We re-create memories from various types of mental sources. It is quite common to remember something that never happened.

But that is not the same thing as having an experience, considering it, discussing it with others, making notes about it; and continuing to remember having the experience - is it ?

I have a very rich dream life, and during the day I often recall a certain event with someone - and then realise it was a dream event from last night, not a physical world one. I also frequently remember dream experiences from years ago.

The thing is - I can always tell which is a dream experience and which isn't - they are different states of consciousness, and quite distinct. Normal dreams have a certain emotional heaviness to them, have irrational events, they occur within a limited 'instance', with a hard height limit.

Astral travel is quite distinct - no emotional heaviness, the whole globe is (potentially) accessible and layed out below one like a Google Earth VR, with no hard height limit.

The etheric body experience was a strange one - I had a subtle body that was glowing translucent blueish-white, had no mass at all, and had very little thinking power. I needed water, floated to the bathroom tap and tried to turn it on, but the shock of realising my body was not made of physical matter snapped me back in to my physical body (which frankly is a nasty horrible piece of meat seen from the outside.)

There is a higher place which is entirely mental in nature - museums, libraries etc. Clean and beautiful. No stress, no emotions, no limits, no weeds in the lovely lawns with classical statues. Only been there once.

I have touched higher sources and been transported by wonder - divine joy, transcendant bliss, infinite love.

My experiences are best explained by the Neo-Platonics or ancient Hindus or Qabbalists etc. - there are multiple planes or dimensions which we can experience in different states of consciousness (and different subtle bodies too.)

Our current state of debate on these issues is pretty much where we were near the end of the Rome. We have progressed little since the time of about Philo to Porphyry and their discussions on the soul etc.

The Christians made a grave mistake in rejecting the pre-existence of souls. Their view of these matters is obviously worthless, and now they are reduced to admitting "we won't really know what happens when we die, until we die". WTF ? The claim to know that kept them on top for nearly two millenia !

Now, in the West - everyone knows re-incarnation is not true. Why ? Because everyone else knows it is not true. No need to actually study the evidence at all.
"The Pope has declared there are no moons around Jupiter, so there is no need to look through a new-fangled telescope to confirm he is right".

Kapyong

 

[fuelair]

Gday MikeG,



Sure,
you can start here :
https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html

It appears you have not studied the evidence at all,
will you do so now ?

Or have you made up your mind already, without studying the evidence ?


Kapyong

Let me try this again in English. There is NO evidence of anything that matches the claimed soul. It is a fictitious idea/claim from a fictitious book based on borrowed/stolen ideas/stories and pushed together for propaganda purposes. If you can prove otherwise in a manner that leaves no opening for error and can be easily tested and, thus, proven or disproven clearly and understandably by people applying real science to it and including measurements of the energy it absorbs or transmits and the media it can or cannot pass/move through. There is not even a suggestion in the world of reality that such occurs/is real.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Except there is no such poll option in this thread. You'll need to visit a properly worded poll on the subject to be able to vote "No".

Betteridge's law of headlines

 

[Oystein]

Kapyong, there is a big fat problem with your alleged immaterial experiences: photons interact with matter. It is through optical focussing through the lens of thry eye, photo-chemical interaction with our retinas, and subsequent neural processing, that the image of your surroundings enters your mind. If you make an experience where you see what's around you, you either have a material apparatus to image things, or the visuals are conjured up in your mind.