The Science Establishing the Existence of a Life Force

originally posted by: Protector
academictree.org...

The source is unreliable:

a reply to: artistpoet

Prove to me the soul does not exist if you wish ...

You’d have to tell me what you thought a soul was first. Since you won’t explain, I can’t oblige you.

a reply to: Astyanax

You’d have to tell me what you thought a soul was first. Since you won’t explain, I can’t oblige you.

Thank you for challenging me to explain my belief regarding the soul
Put simply It is the part that conciously lives on when the body dies.

Now my original question to you ... Can you disprove the souls exists?

a reply to: solargeddon

To be honest, We don't know yet the answers to those questions.

But in my opinion, I think you actually have a rather good understanding of the matter, more than you realise. To all your your questions I would answer, "quite possible".

a reply to: artistpoet

It is the part that conciously lives on when the body dies.

As far as I know there is no such part. Earlier you said,

Everything is made of something even anti matter

If it’s made of matter, it ought to be detectable in some way.

Look, the question I’m asking is not naive. If you want to believe in something that’s fine, but for the sake of your belief it helps if your beliefs are consistent. You say there is a part of the human organism that is conscious and lives on after the death of the body. And you say it is made of something — which means it must be material in some way. But nothing material is known to survive after death. It seems to me that if souls exist, they must be immaterial — not made out of matter.

So I would conclude, from the absence of evidence in the face of thousands of years of diligent search, that material souls don’t exist.

I happen not to believe in immaterial souls either, but that isn’t what we were talking about, is it?

a reply to: Astyanax

Apparently, you made an assumption that "something" has to be matter:



In my opinion, space, including the space within the majority of the atom, is filled with something that is quite powerful, but it isn't matter.

a reply to: ConnectDots

In my opinion, space, including the space within the majority of the atom, is filled with something that is quite powerful, but it isn't matter.

Well, artistpoet disagreed, and it was to him or her I addressed my post.

But out of curiosity, what is this ‘something that isn’t matter’ you believe in?

a reply to: Astyanax

But nothing material is known to survive after death.

Exactly ... Science does not know all that exists
Everything is made of something as is the soul

a reply to: ConnectDots

Great thread and the study of the non physical will occur via information. For instance, here's a paper that says the wave function is real but nonphysical.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

What this says is information was passed between Alice and Bob without a physical medium. There wasn't the physical transmision of a particle to transmit information between Alice and Bob.

If the soul is n-dimensional like the wave function, then we will see it as ghosts or hear disembodied voices. This is because information can be transmitted from other dimensions and will be nonphysical from our point of view.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Well, artistpoet disagreed . . .

How so?

a reply to: ConnectDots

I believe everything is made of something even what is perceived as nothing
Nothing in a way exists it is the unkown

Please consider this

"Every way you turn you are seeing your soul...
For when you look at your fellow man, he is also part of your own soul
Doing as his thoughts tell him to do, without realising he has the choice of two alternative ways.

Thought is your means of communication whilst on Earth
In the realms of Soul you have no requirement for such a way
For as it is, so you immediatly understand and prepare yourself to cope with all in a caring way.

Thought is only, as you might say, an idea put to words
But I say that it is your life-line with your Soul
For as the thought is withdrawn so the body ceases to be"

Dorothy

a reply to: artistpoet

Are you saying you disagree with something I've posted?

If you do, please quote me.

a reply to: ConnectDots

It was Astyanax who said I disagreed with you in her post to you "Well artistpoet disagreed ..."
You said "How so"

Rather than use the word disagree I choose to use the word differ
I think all points are valid ... yours and also Astyanax's

We all have different ways of explaining our understanding, different ways of seeing
We can all learn from one another are my thoughts

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
it's a pity that changing the science requires buying his book.

interesting points to start your own research though.

Its not a shame and even more, its not a suprise. Just one more charlatan making money from the gullible masses. I dont recall Einstein, Feynman, Maxwell, Curie, Boltzhman, Mendelev et al only giving their research to those that bought their book.

Its easy to come up with ideas that go against the hundreds of years of well established, tested and proven science. Its another to prove your ideas are right. As of now, the science all you guys are speaking against have given you everything you have in your daily life, including transport, the computer you are using, the phones you use to speak to people, medicine, education and countless other things.

Of course science is changing, thats what it does. And one final thing to bear in mind: Science is open to anyone. You think Einsteins theories are a crock of sh*t...then prove it. Its open to you. SHow us. Otherwise this is all just silly.

Buy his book..what a joke

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Astyanax

No. But I'm open to being convinced.

So your answer to if you believe in the soul is No
So why should I attempt to convince you of something you do not believe in

Because he, and i are happy for you to be right and for souls to exist. How amazing would it be to have proof of this? It would be life changing for billions of people like me. There is absolutely no reason for us to not want you to be right.

We are open to new ideas, no matter what they are. But we need proof. Thats it. Nothing more complicated or personal or negative than that. Who would have believed in quantum tunneling or partcles appearing from nothing or the weird properties of superconductors. No one, but we can prove these strange things do happen. Thats how it works.

originally posted by: artistpoet
Rather than use the word disagree I choose to use the word differ

Do you prefer not to use the word "space" in relation to the life force?

Or, do you prefer not to use the term "life force"?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

HI ...

I am not a scientist ... I am an artist
I take an intertest in sciences and also astronomy, mythology history philosophy etc etc
I am somewhat of an adherent to Adam Weishaupt's philosphy ... (he was the founder of the Bavarian Illuminati)
and I also have studied the Hermetica

But my main influence is some one I can not disclose ... no real mystery for this just loyalty
Though ultimately I consider myself a Free Thinker
As such I try to be open minded to all ideas and so doing test them out through mental verification which comes in many ways

In saying all this ... I can not offer any conclusive scientific proof my belief in the Soul existance

a reply to: ConnectDots

Do you prefer not to use the word "space" in relation to the life force? Or, do you prefer not to use the term "life force"?

I know our use of words can be misleading
Often the intention is lost depending on how they are inteperated

In answer to your question ... I would say that Space is permeated with Life Force

originally posted by: artistpoet
In answer to your question ... I would say that Space is permeated with Life Force

Bingo.

In my opinion, we do not disagree.