When I die, my soul will proceed to an afterlife? How will it see, or hear, or feel without my body? How will it think, or remember, or function if it leaves my brain behind?

Am I thinking too literally, and not connotatively enough to grasp the concept of a soul?

You don't have a soul, you ARE the soul. You are a piece of consciousness locked inside a body. Just like everybody else.

Without senses, all you have is imagination. It's a good idea to train your mind so that you have a positive imagination in the afterlife.

Do you currently use your imagination to think of positive loving things or negative fearful ones?

---Beany---: Without senses, all you have is imagination. It's a good idea to train your mind so that you have a positive imagination in the afterlife.

Do you currently use your imagination to think of positive loving things or negative fearful ones?

That would be a good point, except that you don't necessarily need a body in order to have senses. People who have OBEs can still see their surroundings (like people who lose consciousness during surgery sometimes may watch the surgical procedures done on them), and then you have remote viewing, which can utilize just about any of the senses. And what of ghosts? Although, it still may be the case that a lot of people are just lost in their imagination after their bodies die.

1)There are infinite possibilities for immaterial objects.

2)There is no evidence for any of the possibilities.

3)With infinite possibilities there will be contradictions.

4)With no evidence to decide which is the more likely option in the case of a contradiction we should believe neither option.

5)There will be infinite contradictions in the immaterial world.

Therefore: We should no believe in the immaterial world.

Your soul is an immaterial object...

when you dream, you see without using your eyes, right? can't it go the same with any other sense? besides that, i suppose it all depends on your beliefs about what happens to your soul when you die

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004293.html

http://www.paradigm-sys.com/display/ctt_articles2.cfm?ID=50

^ trippy

quote:Originally posted by joecaveman:

When I die, my soul will proceed to an afterlife? How will it see, or hear, or feel without my body? How will it think, or remember, or function if it leaves my brain behind?

Am I thinking too literally, and not connotatively enough to grasp the concept of a soul?

When you die and proceed to the afterlife your soul will not see, hear, or feel anything since those are all physical senses that are associated with your body and brain. Instead of using vision, hearing sounds, and touching material, you will be able to experience and express emotions that cannot be sensed. There are several emotions we cannot sense such as fear, sadness, pride, and guilt. These will be among the dominant emotions you will encounter when you proceed to the afterlife.

Try not to imagine your soul as an immaterial object like Daz describes. Your soul is more like the animating principle that allows you to experience emotions. Without your soul you would feel all the physical senses you currently have but would not be able to express your emotions since you would not have any. You would be like a robot that just takes in information but cannot judge them.

As for Daz's argument against immaterial objects in which he writes:

1)There are infinite possibilities for immaterial objects.

2)There is no evidence for any of the possibilities.

3)With infinite possibilities there will be contradictions.

4)With no evidence to decide which is the more likely option in the case of a contradiction we should believe neither option.

5)There will be infinite contradictions in the immaterial world.

Therefore: We should no believe in the immaterial world.

#1 Living in a finite Universe suggests that only so much is possible until it becomes unreasonable or illogical, be it a material or immaterial possibilty. So therefor out of the infinite possibilities for immaterial objects the majority of them can be discredited using reason and logic alone. Most of the rest can be proven or disproven using science.

#2 Your point here is simply incorrect. There are many forms of energy or forces considered not to be material such as light, radiation, and gravity with plenty of evidence to support them using present day science. So there actualy is evidence to support the possibilty of immaterial objects. Who knows, perhaps one day if we properly funded the research we could even prove the existence of souls but for now we will have to rely on faith which is enough for me.

#3 Of course there will be contradictions, but the question is do they have any credible evidence to support themselves. Just because there are infinite possibilities does not make every possibilty valid such as that of a contradiction. So in reply to this argument I will say it is possible that there will be contradictions but they must be validated. So far you have not shown any validation of contradiction saying that the soul does not exist. You basicaly don't literaly know if the soul exists or not so you are using your opinion based on reason and logic which I can do too to formulate my own contradiction against yours.

#4 Like I mentioned above, there has to be evidence to support a contradiction otherwise it cannot be valid. Therefor your contradiction without any validation becomes the unlikely option to disbelieve.

#5 All those infinite contradictions in the immaterial world must have evidence to support themselves as I've already mentioned. If there truly were infinite contradictions in the immaterial world then all we know about energy and forces in physics would be messed up don't you think?

quote:When you die and proceed to the afterlife your soul will not see, hear, or feel anything since those are all physical senses that are associated with your body and brain.

We know.

quote:Instead of using vision, hearing sounds, and touching material, you will be able to experience and express emotions that cannot be sensed.

Emotion is simply chemical reactions/releases in your brain.

quote:Try not to imagine your soul as an immaterial object like Daz describes

Why do we have to imagine what it will be like if it really exists??

quote:#1 Living in a finite Universe suggests that only so much is possible until it becomes unreasonable or illogical, be it a material or immaterial possibilty. So therefor out of the infinite possibilities for immaterial objects the majority of them can be discredited using reason and logic alone. Most of the rest can be proven or disproven using science.

Whether of not the universe is finite has absolutely nothing todo with immaterial objects - they take up no space...

You are also limiting immaterial objects by applying logic to them, yet logic would assume there are no immaterial objects to begin with.

quote:#2 Your point here is simply incorrect. There are many forms of energy or forces considered not to be material such as light, radiation, and gravity with plenty of evidence to support them using present day science. So there actualy is evidence to support the possibilty of immaterial objects. Who knows, perhaps one day if we properly funded the research we could even prove the existence of souls but for now we will have to rely on faith which is enough for me.

Energy is not immaterial, force is not an object, radiation is not immaterial, light is immaterial...so what was your point again? You refuted nothing and the point reamins:

2)There is no evidence for any of the possibilities.

quote:#3 Of course there will be contradictions, but the question is do they have any credible evidence to support themselves. Just because there are infinite possibilities does not make every possibilty valid such as that of a contradiction. So in reply to this argument I will say it is possible that there will be contradictions but they must be validated. So far you have not shown any validation of contradiction saying that the soul does not exist. You basicaly don't literaly know if the soul exists or not so you are using your opinion based on reason and logic which I can do too to formulate my own contradiction against yours.

The job of what you call a soul is actually performed by an immaterial pink elephant named George - this example directly contradicts what you call a soul and you can not disprove it nor prove that a soul is a more viable option - neither has any evidence for us to base our opinion on.

quote:#4 Like I mentioned above, there has to be evidence to support a contradiction otherwise it cannot be valid. Therefor your contradiction without any validation becomes the unlikely option to disbelieve

See above.

quote:#5 All those infinite contradictions in the immaterial world must have evidence to support themselves as I've already mentioned. If there truly were infinite contradictions in the immaterial world then all we know about energy and forces in physics would be messed up don't you think?

Haha - funny you ask for evidence for an immaterial contradiction, yet you assume that immaterial objects exist even without evidence. Energy is not immaterial, forces are not an object.

My argument stands.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Without senses, all you have is imagination. It's a good idea to train your mind so that you have a positive imagination in the afterlife.

Do you currently use your imagination to think of positive loving things or negative fearful ones?

nice theory.But if I believed in an afterlife especially yours I have nothing to look foward too http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Magnus_Ungermax:

nice theory.But if I believed in an afterlife especially yours I have nothing to look foward too http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

You don't think being able to experience anything you want through imagination sounds nice?

Daz writes: "Emotion is simply chemical reactions/releases in your brain."



I agree with your statement Daz about "how" an emotion is created but what you haven't explained is the reason "why" we can experience them without our senses. My theory is that the soul is the main cause which allows you to experience such chemical rections as emotions. The reason behind my theory is simple.

I'm pretty sure scientists could create an experiment that would simulate the same chemical process in a lab that occurs in your brain since emotions are simply chemical reactions right? Then wouldn't that mean that the inanimate chemical reaction in the lab would be able to experience those exact same emotions in your mind that have an identical chemical process? After all, it is the exact same chemical reaction/process. The difference between the lab experiment and your brain is that the former is inanimate while the latter is animate only because of a soul. It is the soul alone which allows you to make sense of your emotions as experience.

Also part of my theory is that other things not even human or living could have the possibility of experiencing an emotion on its most basic level should the same chemical reaction in your brain be associated in it's molecular structure perhaps by an external factor. However, such an inanimate object does not have any sense to understand its emotion. So basicaly you need your senses to make use of your emotions although it is possible to have emotions alone without any senses such as during your dreams or near-death experiences. When you wake up you try to understand your emotions by using or relating them to your senses. Once again this is only possible because of your soul. Without a soul you would have the same senses but you would not be able to have any emotions which would render your experience in sense useless.

Now before you start bashing me about thinking that inanimate objects have emotions you must consider that they are not "felt" or "sensed" but rather experienced. The whole Universe is part of the experience of reality. If it wasn't real then you would not be able to experience it. Thus anything that is part of reality can be experienced as an emotion and if whatever is experiencing that reality has a soul, it might then be able to relate or judge such a emotion to it's physical senses to explain its existance.

Daz writes: "Why do we have to imagine what (a soul) will be like if it really exists??"



The reason behind this is because the soul is not felt by senses but rather experienced by emotions. Can you tell somebody what an emotion is like any other way than by describing it using words? You can't make a diagram of an emotion just like you cannot make a physical model of a soul. So basicaly the reason why you have to imagine what your soul is like is because it is more of a concept or theory which can be better postulated using words and descriptions rather than diagrams. Although I have seen some very interesting diagrams of what the soul might look like, the best of which can be found in the book "Sacred Mirrors: The Visionary Art of Alex Grey"

Daz writes: "Whether of not the universe is finite has absolutely nothing todo with immaterial objects - they take up no space...

You are also limiting immaterial objects by applying logic to them, yet logic would assume there are no immaterial objects to begin with."



The Universe has everything to do with anything that is part of reality. Things that are immaterial are very real and are part of this Universe whether they take up space or not. Even time is finite which can be considered immaterial. So just because something is immaterial doesn't immediately mean that it is illogical.

I do limit immaterial objects by applying logic to them since that's what's called being rational. If there is reasonable and logical support to back a claim of an immaterial object then I don't immediately assume that it doesn't exist to begin with simply because it doesn't take up space like you assume. That's not enough evidence.

Daz writes: "Energy is not immaterial, force is not an object, radiation is not immaterial, light is immaterial...so what was your point again? You refuted nothing and the point reamins:

2)There is no evidence for any of the possibilities."



Actually anything on the subatomic level is considered energy and not considered physical matter. I never said force is an object like you state in your reply but instead was trying to explain the existance of immaterial possibilities such as those that I mentioned, force included. It's probably not the greatest example but force is immaterial yet there is evidence to support itself.

You seem to agree on light being an immaterial possibility which certainly has evidence to support itslef too. By doing so, you refute your own argument saying that light is immaterial, then posting your second point again which says "there is no evidence for any of the (immaterial) possibilities." Your argument contradicts itself.

Daz writes: "The job of what you call a soul is actually performed by an immaterial pink elephant named George - this example directly contradicts what you call a soul and you can not disprove it nor prove that a soul is a more viable option - neither has any evidence for us to base our opinion on."



Your opinion is simply based on disproving my theory without any evidence. I hope you don't literaly believe what you wrote about the pink elephant since the inteligence level and motive of your argument has dropped to a level of immaturity in order to try and discredit my own personal beliefs.

My opinion uses reason and logic not to disprove your contradiction against mine, but rather to postualte and support my own theory. There is no source for you to provide any evidence of an "...immaterial pink elephant called George." Therfor it is a very poor example to discredit my theory and should be the likely option to disbelieve without any source to back up it's validation.

In contrast I can provide many different sources of text that deal with or relate to spirituality and the soul although you seem likely to reject them all being a disbeliever that you are. This isn't the first time somebody has argued over the existance of a soul, however, I'm pretty sure you will not be able to provide any source to back up your claim of an immaterial pink elephant.

Daz writes: "...you ask for evidence for an immaterial contradiction, yet you assume that immaterial objects exist even without evidence. Energy is not immaterial, forces are not an object."



First of all I don't just assume that any immaterial object exists without evidence. To me reason and logic would qualify as evidence. So does common sense and rational thinking within a scenario that cannot be physicaly tested in a lab such as this one. So when you say that I believe in immaterial objects without evidence you are mistaken.

I'm not a physics expert by any means but I'm pretty sure there are at least some forms of energy such as light which are immaterial and are proven to exist. So asking for evidence be it reason, logic, rational thinking, or common sense, is the basis of proof when trying to explain and understand that which is immaterial. As for force not being an object I agree with you. I used the wrong example, but my point is still clear. There definitely is evidence to support some immaterial possibilities so they should not be disregarded immediately for being immaterial.

In my closing statement I'd like to repeat that your soul is what makes you an animate being that has a conscience. Without your soul you would be lifeless, emotionless, unable to associate any of your thought with your senses. There is more to life then just science and physics and it is only clear to those with a consience free of judgment. People who understand this are the ones who actually benifit from their wisdom and experience. Those who don't understand are the ones who judge and are constantly in search of that whch will never be explained to them.

Take things the way they are and accept reality. There is an afterlife and everybody has a soul both of which are eternal.

Kia: Why is the perception of thought and emotion is different fundamentally from perception of sight and sound?

In the third paragraph you assume cause and effect- that because you experience something that something must exist that causes that experience. You can't do that, because the whole idea of cause and effect comes from the idea that a world causing experience exists; the concept originates in examples from that world, and only by assuming that there is such a world that causes perception can cause and effect be assumed, but the existance of that world can only be assumed by assuming cause and effect. It's circular logic; it doesn't work on a fundamental basis. By my own reasoning, the previous statement does not follow, because it neccesarily uses cause and effect. Thus the whole thing is a paradox, and the whole idea that logic can lead to absolute truth is ultimately flawed.

Watching Daz and Kia Kordestani try to debate logically fills me with great despair. It also made me hungry for string cheese. Yummy!

I was going to totally pwn Kia, but his/her post is too long. I didn't read. >> Oh well, I'm sure Daz will.



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 08-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ChickenOfDoom:

Kia: Why is the perception of thought and emotion is different fundamentally from perception of sight and sound?

In the third paragraph you assume cause and effect- that because you experience something that something must exist that causes that experience. You can't do that, because the whole idea of cause and effect comes from the idea that a world causing experience exists; the concept originates in examples from that world, and only by assuming that there is such a world that causes perception can cause and effect be assumed, but the existance of that world can only be assumed by assuming cause and effect. It's circular logic; it doesn't work on a fundamental basis. By my own reasoning, the previous statement does not follow, because it neccesarily uses cause and effect. Thus the whole thing is a paradox, and the whole idea that logic can lead to absolute truth is ultimately flawed.



ChickenOfDoom, I know we talked about this a lot in the totse chat room and I'll just repeat what I told you earlier in regards to your first question and cause and effect.

Basicaly the reason why perception of thought and emotion are different then that of sight and sound is because the former can only be experienced internaly while the latter must be sensed by external stimuli which would give some credence to cause and effect. You can't use your senses without something physical in this world to cause it whereas external factors are not necessary for you to think and have emotions although they can play a role as I will describe further down.

If you want to feel a sense it requires something physical in this world to cause it. If you want to touch, you require physical matter, if you want to see it requires physical matter that reflects light waves, if you want to hear it requires something physical to make sound waves, if you want to smell it requires something physical to emit odor, and if you want to taste it requires something physical with flavour. You cannot use any of your senses without something physical to cause them.

On the other hand we have thoughts and emotions that require no external physical cause. However, external stimuli does have some influence on your thoughts and emotions although they are not literaly required in order for you to think or experience what's on your mind. You can easily think of anything you want without requiring a cause but since I believe in both souls, and cause and effect, my opinion is that the cause for you to be able to think of anything randomly is the effect of having a soul. So not only is cause and effect one of the principles behind your senses it also applies for your thoughts and emotions.

And as for the last reply from Twisted_Ferret, how do you expect to totally own me if your not going to put as much effort as for reading a dozen paragraphs in a few minutes. Your excuse to not read only shows off your laziness and then proves your arrogance in saying that you were going to totally own me. All you own is a broken soul and all you are owed is damnation in the afterlife. Prove me wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Kia Kordestani:

And as for the last reply from Twisted_Ferret, how do you expect to totally own me if your not going to put as much effort as for reading a dozen paragraphs in a few minutes. Your excuse to not read only shows off your laziness and then proves your arrogance in saying that you were going to totally own me. All you own is a broken soul and all you are owed is damnation in the afterlife. Prove me wrong.

Yeah, I know, I'm incredibly lazy. I just figured someone else was going to anyway.

And yes, I am an Evil Person. I'm going to damned to hell forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

but in my opinion

its more a case of giving in to wots within

Having read the latest two topics with 'soul' in the title, and thought about it, I've come to the conclusion that the soul is totally unecessary (not just on that basis, I've though about this for a while before now).

This is what I've learnt about souls, and why I think they're unnecessary.

1) Soul contains your personality.

Nope. It's a complicated load of neural connections.

2) The soul is eternal and cannot be destroyed.

Everything else can, what's so special about it?

3) The soul brings emotions, and allows us to experience them.

So do hormones.

4) Animals don't have one (may be based on catholiscism, I forget).

They've got a mind and body, and we supposedly couldn't function without a soul. Animals seem to do fine without one.

The soul, like god, is an abstraction made by people who can't explain things another way. It provides a way of answering awkward questions like 'why does red look like THAT?', or 'what came before the Big Bang?', without just saying "I don't know."

-------------

To Kia: When you touch something 'physical', you don't get close. The sensations you feel are a result of electromagnetic repulsion between the atoms of your skin and whatever you're touching. And electromagnetic fields are certainly immaterial (if by immaterial you mean 'has no mass' and 'has nothing to do with matter'). So you actually require both immaterial and material things to experience anything.

quote:Originally posted by NevTheUnfluffy:



To Kia: When you touch something 'physical', you don't get close. The sensations you feel are a result of electromagnetic repulsion between the atoms of your skin and whatever you're touching.

I'm sorry but when you physicaly touch something you have to "get close", otherwise it would be possible to touch something very distant from a remote location without any movement which is false. You have to move your hand closer towards the physcial object you want to touch in order for the electromagnetic repulsion to have any affect on your hand. Furthermore it is not the atoms of your skin but rather the electrons in your nerve endings that trigger sensory neurons by the electromagnetic repulsion between it and whatever you're touching.

This is only true for our five senses but emotions are different like I keep stating. You cannot sense an emotion such as fear but you sure can experience it.

quote:Originally posted by NevTheUnfluffy:



And electromagnetic fields are certainly immaterial (if by immaterial you mean 'has no mass' and 'has nothing to do with matter'). So you actually require both immaterial and material things to experience anything.



I agree with you that electromagnetic fields are immaterial. So does that not mean some possibilities of immaterial objects can be true? After all everything you can literaly see with your eyes is electromagnetic which would mean that everything physical has an electromagnetic field.

I personaly don't believe the soul to be physical, so in my opinion the soul is not bound by the laws of electromagnetism which is the main reason why we feel senses. Emotions are not sensed or felt, but rather experienced without the need of an electromagnetic field. Therefor you do not need anything physical to use your thought or to experience emotions. It is the immaterial, non-physical, soul that allows us to experience events.

The Universe itself is a series of events which describe a chain of physical matter that changes over time. You can make sense of that physical matter but when it comes to immaterial, non-physical matter such as a series of events the only way to describe it would be to experience it. Our soul is what allows us to experience those events. It's not just hormones and chemical reactions.

quote:Originally posted by Kia Kordestani:

Daz writes: "Emotion is simply chemical reactions/releases in your brain."......



feel sorry for these folk



http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sb397/anxiety.htm