Originally posted by MexicoIf you mean by tangible, "verifiable by experience", I would say the the existence of the soul is self-evident. I feel it, betcha you do too.
So this soul is a tangible thing then? It is well defined? Our will, emotions and mind, do dogs have souls? They have will, mind and emotions......
A child before a certain point of development has no mind, or will, or emotion since the brain doesn't exist thus the ball of cells doesn't have the capacity to have a mind or will power.
Its proven that ...[text shortened]... ntal conditions generally have different brain configurations to a "normal" (average) human.
Do all good dogs go to heaven? I suspect so, I will know for sure one way or the other when I get there.
Besides the higher functions, the soul has the "lower" quality of merely sustaining life. The soul is present in the undeveloped baby. I might add that ultrasounds scans of the unborn show they possess sentience, that is, awareness through the senses. They react to pain when torn apart in the womb.
I think I agree with you that the physical brain houses the supernatural mind. So, if you say that emotions are present in the brain, at this point I have no disagreement.
Yes, the soul does exist, the "fetus" is alive, and killing it is murder, i.e. the killing of an innocent human.
Originally posted by rhemalogosI see no way that the soul, as defined (one's mind, will and emotions), can be proved to be able, or unable, to exist apart from the body. It appears that we have no way of knowing (correct me if I'm wrong). All observations point out that the soul (as defined) can be explained by the workings of the brain alone, without needing "extra cerebral" part to exist.
Defining who we are;
The soul is made up of the mind, will and emotions. The soul also has lower functioning capacities such as sustaining the body.
The body contains the soul, which can exist apart from the body, but the body cannot exist without the soul.
The physical body contains the soul as the physical organ of the brain contains the supernatural mind.
Originally posted by RetrovirusWhat about memory?
I see no way that the soul, as defined (one's mind, will and emotions), can be proved to be able, or unable, to exist apart from the body. It appears that we have no way of knowing (correct me if I'm wrong). All observations point out that the soul (as defined) can be explained by the workings of the brain alone, without needing "extra cerebral" part to exist.
"Memory is indeed one of the great unsolved problems. How you or I remember what we did yesterday, or how we remember people's names, or how we recognize people
-- all the ordinary facts of ordinary, day-to-day memory are profoundly mysterious. It's usually assumed that all these things are stored inside our brains, as physical traces of some kind. Now, none of us has ever seen a physical trace inside our brains, and scientists who've spent many years looking for them inside the brains of people, and especially rats and monkeys, have failed to find them too." http://www.intuition.org/txt/sheldrak.htm
Is that true?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot really my forté , so I'll direct you to wiki:
What about memory?
"Memory is indeed one of the great unsolved problems. How you or I remember what we did yesterday, or how we remember people's names, or how we recognize people
-- all the ordinary facts of ordinary, day-to-day memory are profoundly mysterious. It's usually assumed that all these things are stored inside our brains, as physical ...[text shortened]... , have failed to find them too." http://www.intuition.org/txt/sheldrak.htm
Is that true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory#Physiology
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSheldrake as in Rupert Sheldrake?
Effectively, by omission, it supports what Sheldrake says.
I had to google that one.
He seems to support the notion of "morphic fields", " morphic resonance" and all sort of notions that seems to more belong to a scientology book rather than a science book.
I see now way in which his freakish notions are supported by neurology, through omission or otherwise.
Originally posted by RetrovirusI was referring to the specific quote about memory traces, not the merits of Sheldrake's work as a whole. I'm aware of his controversial reputation, so I don't take what he says at face value. However, your wikipedia extract seems to support his claim that memory is still something of a mystery. At least, I can't find anything in it to contradict it.
I see now way in which his freakish notions are supported by neurology, through omission or otherwise.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere is much to be researched in this field, yes.
I was referring to the specific quote about memory traces, not the merits of Sheldrake's work as a whole. I'm aware of his controversial reputation, so I don't take what he says at face value. However, your wikipedia extract seems to support his claim that memory is still something of a mystery. At least, I can't find anything in it to contradict it.
I wouldn't call it "his" claim.
Originally posted by RetrovirusWell, he made it in an interview, so in that context, it is his claim, unless somebody else made it.
There is much to be researched in this field, yes.
I wouldn't call it "his" claim.
Your hostility to Sheldrake is intriguing ... Do you consider acupuncture a valid form of medicine?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot even close to true. There has been plenty of research on memory and a lot is known about it. It is possible to essentially prove that memory is stored in the brain and in fact that has been done. (of course it depends on what you take as 'proof'😉.
"Memory is indeed one of the great unsolved problems. How you or I remember what we did yesterday, or how we remember people's names, or how we recognize people
-- all the ordinary facts of ordinary, day-to-day memory are profoundly mysterious. It's usually assumed that all these things are stored inside our brains, as physical traces of some kind. No ...[text shortened]... , have failed to find them too." http://www.intuition.org/txt/sheldrak.htm
Is that true?
It is even possible to read some of those memories with the right equipment.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-memory-code-extended
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's a fascinating article -- thanks. But I didn't see anything about physical traces in the brain. In fact the article seems to contradict the "memory 'trace' concept, some static, permanent, distinct storage form that each experience leaves in the organism" (Colville-Stewart 1975:402).
Not even close to true. There has been plenty of research on memory and a lot is known about it. It is possible to essentially prove that memory [b]is stored in the brain and in fact that has been done. (of course it depends on what you take as 'proof'😉.
It is even possible to read some of those memories with the right equipment.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-memory-code-extended[/b]
Wittgenstein: "nothing seems more possible to me than that people some day will come to the definite opinion that there is no copy in either the physiological or nervous systems which corresponds to a particular thought, or a particular idea, or memory" (quoted in Stern 1991:208).
The new research seems to bear this out, although not in a way that particularly supports Sheldrake's broader views.
(Interesting read here: http://www.phil.mq.edu.au/staff/jsutton/ECSmemory.htm).
Originally posted by rhemalogosActually no, I don't believe in any form of soul, or existence of humans outside the physical body. I also don't believe in any form of heaven or hell. Therefore no I don't see how a soul is self evident.
If you mean by tangible, "verifiable by experience", I would say the the existence of the soul is self-evident. I feel it, betcha you do too.
Do all good dogs go to heaven? I suspect so, I will know for sure one way or the other when I get there.
Besides the higher functions, the soul has the "lower" quality of merely sustaining life. The soul is ...[text shortened]... st, the "fetus" is alive, and killing it is murder, i.e. the killing of an innocent human.
So all dogs do, what about cats, rats, mice, insects all the way down to amoeba, do they all have souls?
But you defined the soul as the will mind and emotions, before the breain and CNS are developed a baby has none of these. In the womb a baby only shows awareness after a certain point of development. Before this its no more aware than the snot that flies out when I sneeze.
Originally posted by RetrovirusDoes the soul exist apart from the body? We are getting off subject. Does an unborn have a soul? Yes. Does ensoulment take place at birth? Yes.
I see no way that the soul, as defined (one's mind, will and emotions), can be proved to be able, or unable, to exist apart from the body. It appears that we have no way of knowing (correct me if I'm wrong). All observations point out that the soul (as defined) can be explained by the workings of the brain alone, without needing "extra cerebral" part to exist.
Our senses, and our senses "extended" by technology, are unable to observe everthing. Science is limited.
The brain is only matter without the vitalizing union with the mind.
Originally posted by RetrovirusRetrovirus, I am glad you believe that humans have souls. Can we stay on subject? The unborn baby in a mother's womb has a soul and the soul comes in union with the unborn at conception. Therefore, abortion is murder, the killing of an innocent human being.
A question for rhemalogos:
Are souls unique to humans?
Saying that all things go, in the name of art, is henious.