The Science Establishing the Existence of a Life Force

a reply to: Astyanax

Good question! I personally would define the soul as something that can survive brain death and carry information.

a reply to: swanne

That would be a diary.

a reply to: Astyanax

Lol

I've spit my coffee with laugher, now Ive got to wash my screen.

Good one

a reply to: Astyanax

Well, you could be very close to my own conclusion.

I've basically proposed that as the brain's cells are activated, they emit neutrinos which "writes" a snapshot of neural activity unto dark matter, effectively using dark matter like a giant storage system (your "diary") which can be re-accessed.

a reply to: swanne

A speculative bridge too far for me. No, an entire viaduct.

In my view this is an area in which too little data is available to permit the drawing of any conclusions at all.

Have at it, by all means; may your researches prosper. That very scarcity of data opens a wide field for hypothesizing. You may hit upon the right conclusion; then again, we’d have to be shown.

When I started at university, the first question they asked us was ‘do you want to be a theoretical physicist, or an experimental one?’ I’m guessing you’re with the theoretical tendency. But it might be worth your while, from time to time, to try to devise — not necessarily carry out, somebody else may be persuaded to do that — practical means by which your hypotheses can be verified. Concepts and even maths are all very well, but the gold standard is always, in science, empirical.

a reply to: Astyanax

Fair enough, good advice.

Does this Claude have a peer reviewed paper?

a reply to: osaitax

Peer reviewed papers is one of the causes of mainstream science being stuck where it is — denying that a life force exists.

Free-thinking, independent researchers have to write books to get their findings published.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Peer reviewed papers is one of the causes of mainstream science being stuck where it is — denying that a life force exists.

I have no doubt that you would prefer a world in which your favourite ideas were not subjected to close scrutiny.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: osaitax

Peer reviewed papers is one of the causes of mainstream science being stuck where it is — denying that a life force exists.

Please name the scientist or scientists who deny a life force exists.

Science doesn't work that way, in the same way science can't prove God doesn't exist. If a supernatural entity like God or some kind of supernatural life force exist, and operate outside of natural laws then how is science which measures natural laws going to measure God or this supernatural life force?

Let's see if the answer is in the book you mention in the OP:
Claude Swanson's book "Life Force..". on Amazon

Swanson diligently cites all of the source literature. He is also careful to note areas where instrumentation is not yet capable of capturing the information

Saying "instrumentation is not yet capable of capturing the information" is a euphemism for "lack of evidence".

Free-thinking, independent researchers have to write books to get their findings published.

So do people promoting completely speculative ideas that don't have a shred of evidence supporting them. If an idea sounds too far fetched to believe, stick the word "quantum" in front of it, that apparently makes anything believable to the naive.

Just because scientists can't prove there isn't a flying spaghetti monster, doesn't mean there is one. There could be I guess, but how likely is it? About as likely as a lot of that stuff Rupert Sheldrake made up being true, not very. Now a quantum flying spaghetti monster, that's a different story, since the word "quantum" implies anything is possible, because a lot of charlatans said so.

a reply to: Astyanax

Yes, but do souls exist? What the hell is a soul?

I believe the soul exists ...

Before I answer your second question ... I would like an honest answer from you to the question
... Do you believe in the existence of souls?

a reply to: artistpoet

No. But I'm open to being convinced.

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

a reply to: artistpoet

why should I attempt to convince you of something you do not believe in.

Well, the points you have been making in this thread are based on the assumption souls exist.

To one who does not make that assumption, your arguments are meaningless.

Since it is in your interest to convince us that you are right, I should think you’d want to convince us that souls exist.

If you don’t care either way, it suggests that you don’t really believe your own arguments.

a reply to: Astyanax

Well, the points you have been making in this thread are based on the assumption souls exist.

Yes I believe the soul exists

To one who does not make that assumption, your arguments are meaningless.

Yes my beliefs are meaningless to you... I have no problem with that being so

Since it is in your interest to convince us that you are right, I should think you’d want to convince us that souls exist.

Why would it be in my interest to convince you that my beliefs are true
You are mistaken if you thinkI want to convince you of the souls existence

If you don’t care either way, it suggests that you don’t really believe your own arguments.

It is you who does not believe me
I am not here to argue with you or try to convince any my beliefs are true for them
That would be a form of indoctrination
You have free choice to believe me or not and you have already stated your choice
By saying You do not believe in soul ... I do

You will not force my hand for the sake of petty arguement

My Belief is based on the open minded consideration of ideas and mental verification
Each are different in the way they come to understanding

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

Claude Swanson has a page on his website:

synchronizeduniverse.com...

a reply to: ConnectDots

Interesting ... these are thoughts your post sparked

It appears to be an established fact that "energy" permeates matter

And matter is transformed by energy also energy is affected by matter
The denser the matter the slower energy passes through it yet on passing through it returns to the same original impetus

In other words energy is slowed down by matter but returns to the speed when it has passed through

I believe there is a Universal "energy" that permeates everything
As such we are part of that energy or reality
Our link to reality is through thought ... thought transforms matter

Yet energy is not the be all and end all of all that is
There is another ingrediant I call Intelligence
Energy is power yet energy/power alone can be a destructive force if not tempered with Intelligence

originally posted by: artistpoet
Energy is power yet energy/power alone can be a destructive force if not tempered with Intelligence

I have been introduced briefly to talk about the heart as being an organ that contains information, and I can relate to that.

I also associate your statement about energy sometimes being destructive as caused by too much trust and reliance on the brain as an organ and not enough trust of the heart.

In my opinion, we need a balance of the influence of the brain and the heart in science.

I've basically proposed that as the brain's cells are activated, they emit neutrinos which "writes" a snapshot of neural activity unto dark matter, effectively using dark matter like a giant storage system (your "diary") which can be re-accessed.

a reply to: swanne

See, now I took it to mean...hardrive, perhaps this is where our memories go, everything we cannot retain in our physical selves for retrieval is stored?

Question is, upon passing does this mean we exist as dark matter?
Can we still interact, as in are we self aware in this form?

Could we almost conclude what we perceive as physical form be the simulation state...our avatar as it were, ergo our dark matter form be our controller, or non simulated state?

Or do I have it all completely round my ankles?

This guy is a fraud.

From: synchronizeduniverse.com...
"His Ph.D. thesis at Princeton was done in the 'Gravity Group,' which focuses on experimental cosmology and astronomy, and was headed by Dr. Robert Dicke. His thesis advisor was Prof. David Wilkinson, who later became chairman of the physics department."

Ph.Ds under David Wilkinson, of Princeton:
academictree.org...

PhDs under Robert Dicke, of Princeton:
academictree.org...

Claude Swanson is not a PhD from Princeton in Physics. Therefore, he is a fraud and should be ignored as any other liar.