[Alwin]

Αs you said just partially, in the next years fully, just because the gnostic level of humanity is not enough yet to prove the existence of soul does it mean it does not exist?? Before we discover electricity, electrism did not exist??

Thank you for reinforcing my argument.

You don't understand one thing, the body is something like the prison of soul which for some philosophers is one together with might, the spiritural world prevails from material. Your fantasy knows that, in your dreams your might is totally free. Comparing soul with religion(which of course you will mean christianity) is a comparison that doesn't suit, christianity just has dogmatic contradictory teachings, soul is a term used since very ancient times through experience of people and search, also you automatically underestimate sciencies like psychology by saying that!!!

This does not answer the questions I asked in that paragraph. Also, what is that about my dreams and fantasy? Psychology doesn't deal with souls, it deals with how our brains work.

You mean you just wait and see until a scientific discovery about it is out?? Let me tell you one thing though, there would never be sciencie without philosophy, cause it's philosophy that gave to people the willing to think, question, discover and experience. And it's not about pure fantasy as you actually seem to believe. It's your option not to care but you shouldn't call fantasy maniacs those who are actually searching about it

Yes, I do. If I were a scientist, I'd try to find the reason myself, of course.

Point out where I called anyone a "fantasy maniac".

Philosophy did that, yes. That's because philosophy isn't meant to give us answers, it's meant to ask questions. When it comes to answers, science is what matters.

[Bastardo]

Are you people talking about those ancient times when "soul" meant "breath" (almost literally), heartbeat, life essentially? Since then we have found out how such components/functions of the body work. The only reason the soul is now simply considered as some kind of essence of our consciousness, and pretty much nothing else, is because the brain is the single component of our body that still baffles us (quite ironic). The soul is an argument from incredulity in disguise.

If you start from the evidence and let it lead you, there is no escaping the fact that our stream of thoughts originates from the brain. The thing is, we lack an accurate interpreter. Once we have one, I'm looking forward to where the soul will be stuffed next, but moreso to the transhumanist future such advances will bring. We could even be able to artificially think faster, so to speak. Not to mention truly transcend death. Right here in physical reality. Experience the afterlife from the comfort of your own universe!

Ok your option but it's still scientifical fact that anything material is consulted by atoms That's exactly what I meant. Ok forget about relativety, it's a long story and was just an example about dividing, About the atoms I made a comparison between material and antimmater(which soul is consider in), check the link I posted about the Cern experiment!!!

How can everything be made of atoms when atoms themselves are made of smaller components? You have already agreed to this, you are even trying to pimp CERN!

What are protons, electrons and neutrons? Are they nothing?

[Hellbilly]

Are you people talking about those ancient times when "soul" meant "breath" (almost literally), heartbeat, life essentially?

The problem with the concept of "soul", like "god", is that nowadays the term is used to describe all similar concepts in all religions. This means there's a huge range of concepts one single term covers. With some fundamental differences, like the amount of souls people have! It was once upon a time pretty common belief that humans had at least two souls (a waking soul and a dream soul, or an "above soul" and a "below soul" for the two spirit realms), and I think some belief held that people had 40+ souls. And a lot of other stuff, such as the immortality/mortality and immateriality/materiality of the soul, is also far from universally common. I think it was in the notes to the Bhagavad Gita that His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (there's a mouthful for a name!) explained that the soul is smaller than the smallest existing thing (e.g. sub-sub-sub atomic) but nonetheless a material component. And I'm sure most of us have heard about the olden belief that the soul weighed 21 grams. And what things have souls (everything? Just living things? Only humans? Only christians? etc), and so on practically ad infinitum.

What I'm saying here is that even if we'd admit that OK, some sort of "soul"-thing exists, how the Hell do we know what ancient belief, or combination of them, has the correct definition of the soul thing? So talking about "souls" as something existing without elaborating a lot is pointless as it really doesn't mean anything. Often today it seems to be used as a slightly more lyrical but still very secular synonym to "mind", nothing more.

And that's why I was asking foris to define his understanding of a "soul", which he sadly was very reluctant to do even in a basic matter such as either equating or differentiating it conclusively from the mind.

[foris]

Yes. It's a circle. I have never denied that. However, the nature of this circle and process is that better understanding leads to increased knowledge, which leads to advances in technology, which periodically leads to the re-evaluation of previous understanding, correction of it and, sometimes, wholesale dismissal of it.

Sure modern technology helps a lot in better search but basement is basement, people like them were ages front!!!!

That's what I said before, also if their theories were wrong, we simply wouldn't have this technology.

Hence, just because someone said or thought something ages ago and happened to be a scientist, doesn't mean it's still automatically valid.

But that's only once they are PROVED wrong, they aren't, instead...

I didn't say it's a soul. So no, still no dice. You may equate it to a soul, but I don't.

Well I said what you mean, but if it's the name that is the problem...

Now that's a wonderful stretch with no basis in scientific research - your argument is still "we have souls because souls must exist"; that's pretty circular. The thing is, the construction of our brain is what gives us our personality. That's what makes us. Material is just material, and that material in its incredibly complex and nuanced structure and functionality makes us the individuals we are - that is what science currently tells us, and it tells us so with far more gravitas and sensible backing than any religion or pseudo-mystical explanation.

There are scientists who totally dissagree with that, you just say that cause you consider it ''logical'' and nothing, more. If you want some scientific study and proof on it, I reccomend you to study the book Principia Metaphysica of Edward Salta of Stanford University, in which he actually proves many metaphysical subjects, you can also see the studies in Department of Personal studies in California University(in which is Ian Stevenson), with 2500 case studies with memories from previous lives.

Seriously, I would like to see a proper counter-argument to what I've been saying.

I shall give you bibliography now, think it's the better proper counter- argument than just saying ''everything is about brain cause I say so and you can't prove the opposite''.

Like I said. You do not understand. Software is not immaterial. It exists in a very real sense on a piece of persistent memory somewhere; ROM, conventional transistor-based hard drive technology, solid state hard drive. For example in a transistor based hard drive which, to my knowledge, most desktops and tower computers still use, if you destroy a transistor, you destroy the TRUE/FALSE-state information that transistor contained and as such, have destroyed that bit of information. Now, if not too many bits have been lost, error detection mechanisms in the information encoding may be able to reconstruct the bit sequence, but if a certain amount or more are destroyed (say, hammering on the hard drive or blowing it up), then too much data is lost to be able to use error correcting mechanisms such as CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check) and the data is permanently lost from that hard drive.

Once again you count everything in a materialist way, it's much more behind just software(numbers, mathematics etc) and I think I mentioned already 3 times that both ''body and soul'' affect each other in the material world, but in idealistic it already exists.

The simple point anyone with a rudimentary understanding of hardware technology knows, being: the software existing on a specific computer does exist physically there as well.

It's just expressed in this dimension in a speccific computer and nothing more!!!

If an "idea" is enough for something to exist, then I guess everything exists. Cure for AIDS, software that can correct bugs in code by itself in perfection, time machines, age-reversal drugs, and so on. If that's the idea you're expounding then I must consider this fruitless - as I do not, and will never, agree.

Now look what are you doing, you eventually confuse idealistic world with material, which of course as comparison doesn't suit, when you are dreaming you actually are in the world of ideas, that means you are partly dead. There all your ideas can be true just with clear focus, there isn't the word ''Impossible'' in dreams, that's how it works with the world of ideas, in the material world it works differently, everything here is done with materials(which one of them is your body, hands etc), that's the greatest difference. You feel the idealistic world partly when you are thinking, imagining or knowing yourself as a personality. But think, even in material world ideas play an important role. There wouldn't be aeroplanes if someone didn't have the ''idea'' for a machine that can fly with people, there wouldn't be houses if men didn't have the ''idea'' for a place to stay, there wouldn't be atomic bombs even people didn't have the ''idea'' about a bomb that can destroy everything, same goes for what you said above about things that do not exist(yet). The only difference is, is that in the material world you have to achieve this thing with your material body which is weak compared to strong might where in the world of ideas can do everything.

Umm, no. Hardware is like the pieces that make up the human body, it exists to serve a purpose, in the case of hardware tasks such as doing arithmetic calculations, muxing/demuxing, amplifying, splitting, dampening, etc. In itself, a single piece of hardware often does a simple, "dumb" task. A system of the correct configuration is capable of executing, not expressing a piece of software. But in any case, hardware of various kinds existed way before anyone dreamed of the concept of even a "computing device", let alone "software".

Yes but that's only in the material world, in the 3rd Dimension to help you in a better way!!!

Also, here you again make a divison between soul and mind. You seem to fluctuate between the two a lot. Again, you are equating it with the mind, which certainly is not immaterial or immortal.

Other scientists have different opinion, you can study the last book of the great mathematican-philosopher R. Penrose about that.

No, they do not. "Immaterial" and "immortal" certainly qualify something as a "mystical element" to me. Spiritual world - there, now that's "mystical", y'see.

You can call it metaphysical in a better way, which is extension of the physical world.

As said, if you think an "idea" is equal to existence, then I guess my lunch for tomorrow exists since I can have an "idea" of it.

I already replied to this, in the world of ideas(you can even say dreams), just by focusing and thinking of it with a strong might you can make it real, in the material world you will have to create it with your material body in which might and soul are expressed, in others words you will have to make the lunch with your hands and not with your might.

The heart just pumps blood, really.

No my dear friend, you should study some of the books I told you, if you understand them as well as you can study some philosophers like Aristotle(in his book ''about Soul'') then we will be talking differently, I am sure of that.

Yes, exactly. No need for a soul, a "spiritual world" or something "immaterial" and "immortal" here then, when the mind, being a function of the brain and as such ultimately entirely physical, explains it all.

Psychlologists do not even mention the word ''brain'' with patients!!!

Rudimentary, really. Science is more than any single man (woman) or theory; in part it is the self-correcting process, in part it is the peer review, in part it is the requirements on what a model should look like. Science, or the scientific view of the world, is the accumulated whole created by all those (and more). It is a rigorous thing that has a very high standard of demand for something to be accepted, and every theory and proposition is sure to be picked apart and studied microscopically, and discarded if it doesn't hold up. The fact that great luminaries of science such as Hawking and Einstein have had their ideas discarded by posteriority when they no longer held up to scrutiny is testament to what I say; basically, nobody's done that to the words of (or attributed to) Jesus, or Mohammed, or Ron L Hubbard... in "their own camp"!

I actually didn't ask you to tell me what sciencie is, I asked you to tell me why do you continuesly stuck up with the ''word''!!! My opinion for sciencie is actually that it is the search for the truth and the details about the world that surrounds us, just like philosophy, in sciencie you express different opinions on it, you doubt, you seek, you discover, every scientist looks upon the world different than others, and that is the biggest difference with religions, where there, things are dogmatic which means you have to accept them no matter what or the whole religion is wrong. In sciencie you must never be dogmatic, that means you have to revise anything all the time in what you knew or even seek for more clues and knowledge.

That's what I mean when I say it's the only thing approaching objectivity.

The only thing that is approaching objectivity for me is the actual seeking in truth, if sciencie is dogmatic, it stops being objective and sciencie in general.

Your loss, I guess. Everyone could benefit from a bout of agnosticism from time to time.

As as I said, it depends on what you mean with ''agnosticism'', if you mean with word pure ''atheism'', I don't think you could benefit anything different than religion from it since atheism is somehow a ''dogma'' too, but if you say it with the meaning of ''skepticism'' then I can say that all people who are restless spirits are thinking over and over again what they know or learnt, I don't have to name myself like that to say what I am, I am a free man and that's enough for me!!!

Read that too, already. I do have some interest in these matters.

But tell me the train of thought here; so there is matter and antimatter. OK, fair enough. But why should the existence of antimatter mean that, a) there is a soul and, b) the soul is made of antimatter? The word "soul" appears exactly zero times in the CERN press release. If anything, that press release confirms my point - it's all in the physics.

Ok that was actually a thinking I made, having been affected by the news and articles and also Cern scientists themselves calling antimatter ''god particle'', http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/higgs.html having studied some Plato I was just skeptic about it, but of course I am never sure.

But it was a faulty parallell. The "harmony" is a harmonic vibration on a certain frequency in the air (or some other material) which eventually dissipates. The "harmony" eg. sound is created by a string with certain qualities (thickness, material, etc.) vibrating on a certain frequency. You can create a boundless amount of replicas of this same harmonic vibration with string that match those qualities, but they are not the same "harmony", as that one "harmony" has already dissipated. Therefore, it is an invalid parallell for there being something "immaterial" and "immortal" in a human.

Also - did you know that this harmony is not immaterial to begin with? Sound does not travel in vacuum; a vibration needs some material (particles) through which it is propagated and as such, this "harmony" is actually a movement in material. So you actually need both a generating and transmitting material to create this harmonious vibration... and, arguably, a material construction able to interpret this vibration in the transmitting material as a sound (eg. an ear).

I replied to this many times, you just look upon it differently than me and consider your materialistic opinions irrefutable facts, I never said if you are wrong or right for sure but look things a little differently for a while, and I already told you some books that can help you understand, if you study them probably we can discuss again, or else we will reply the same and the same all over again.

Cheers mate.

Antimatter therefore soul? I think I'm gonna take a break...

Chech my post about it.

One of the best essays written about the soul myth and it's relation to brain-activities. Check it out. And here it is in Greek for foris.

Woohoo 4000

Lazor, my friend(συμπατριώτης ) thank you for the article, checked it a little(not the whole, cause I don't have much time, and I have to reply to like pages excluding the too long posts in this thread), however, the article is not actually convincing, the guy looks like he is complaining more about religions about how they don't explain about the soul ''element'' rather than proving the opposite, he just sits and analyzes what happens when brain is damaged, like anyone said that body works without brain, brain is just an organ nothing more. When the right hand is missing you can't catch anything with it, athlough you have the willing to do so. The same goes for brain, willing exists but has no way of expression. I reccomend you to study the books I posted above!!!
Also how does the guy explain the fact that Carl Sugan says clearly in his book ''The Demon-Haunted'' world (in which he also criticizes many metaphysical opinions) the needness to pay for searches for memories of previous lives.

Thank you for reinforcing my argument.

And how exactly did I do that??

This does not answer the questions I asked in that paragraph. Also, what is that about my dreams and fantasy?

Read my posts again, or better the one I posted now.

Psychology doesn't deal with souls, it deals with how our brains work.

Right now you convinced me it's the first time you hear about psychology, psycho comes the greek word ''psychi''(ψυχη) which actually means soul, that means that it is a sciencie that deals with soul, and tell me something if it's actually about brain, why don't psychologists even mention the word ''brain'' anywhere?? Why when I went to a psychologist, she didn't even check my brain but was asking me questions about personal matters(which personality is soul, which means you) and was just telling me things to make me feel better in emotions???

Yes, I do. If I were a scientist, I'd try to find the reason myself, of course.

Point out where I called anyone a "fantasy maniac".

Philosophy did that, yes. That's because philosophy isn't meant to give us answers, it's meant to ask questions. When it comes to answers, science is what matters.

You didn't call fantasy maniacs, you just said it with the way: ''I don't have an opinion cause I think only sciencie is right and I don't want to live in fantasy unlike others''.

Philosophy is meant to give both questions and answers, philosophy is searching for the truth too, but in a more general way,
For the friends of spirit, the lovers of actual sciencie, the queen of sciencies, philosophy, dialect which is its material has proved a long time now that soul exists

You can study some philosophers like Proclus if you want, and ''if'' you understand him, you will see that like the expression ''the sun shines'' is logical, then the proposal ''soul is immortal'' is also logical.

Are you people talking about those ancient times when "soul" meant "breath" (almost literally), heartbeat, life essentially? Since then we have found out how such components/functions of the body work. The only reason the soul is now simply considered as some kind of essence of our consciousness, and pretty much nothing else, is because the brain is the single component of our body that still baffles us (quite ironic). The soul is an argument from incredulity in disguise.

I have studied ancient cultures so much, but I have never found any philosopher or any religion saying that ''breath is soul'', do you have any source about that??

Not to mention truly transcend death. Right here in physical reality. Experience the afterlife from the comfort of your own universe!How can everything be made of atoms when atoms themselves are made of smaller components? You have already agreed to this, you are even trying to pimp CERN!

What are protons, electrons and neutrons? Are they nothing?

Actually I said that anything material like yourself, your pc, your TV and anything material is ''Consulted'' by atoms, not that it is made by atoms. Which means that everything you see has atoms.

P.S: Phew, finally replied after 2 hours of writing.

[Bastardo]

I have studied ancient cultures so much, but I have never found any philosopher or any religion saying that ''breath is soul'', do you have any source about that??

No, just talking out of... off the top of my head.
Look up the words "spiritus" and "anima" on Google and you'll get an idea of the definitions of soul I was referencing.

Actually I said that anything material like yourself, your pc, your TV and anything material is ''Consulted'' by atoms, not that it is made by atoms. Which means that everything you see has atoms.

I don't understand then, can you rephrase and use a different word instead of consulted?

[Hellbilly]

Well I said what you mean, but if it's the name that is the problem...

No, you said what you mean, not me. For the umpteenth time.

There are scientists who totally dissagree with that, you just say that cause you consider it ''logical'' and nothing, more.

No, I say that because real scientists and experts on medicine say that.

with 2500 case studies with memories from previous lives.

If that's what you call credible sources then I, I'm sorry to say, must sneer a bit. I read up a bit about this Ian Stevenson and his theories about reincarnation and souls, and they seem like a prime example of pseudo-science with little actual foundation in reality, and considering a part of his dualism is based on LSD hallucinations, his credibility as a scientist with an unbiased approach isn't very high. In fact, this article on Stevenson details enough of dubious methods, unwarranted assumptions and just plain bad practice in Stevensons' work to expose him as, at worst, a complete charlatan and at best, a bad scientist. Either way, his research and conclusions do not hold water well because of that.

''everything is about brain cause I say so and you can't prove the opposite''.

I never said that; I must apologize if you didn't understand what I wrote.

Once again you count everything in a materialist way, it's much more behind just software(numbers, mathematics etc) and I think I mentioned already 3 times that both ''body and soul'' affect each other in the material world, but in idealistic it already exists.

Right. Again, empty words that say "It's so because it must be so" without any proof or proper arguments for it. Unlike what I've provided.

It's just expressed in this dimension in a speccific computer and nothing more!!!

This statement is like lifted directly from the worst kind of shallow new age pseudo-science.

By the way, try to get the name right; it's Zalta, not Salta, and quickly skimming through his work, I find little to substantiate what you say. To summarize what I presume is the reason you mentioned Zalta, I quoth Wikipedia about the man when it says that, according to Zalta, "some objects (the ordinary concrete ones around us, like tables and chairs) "exemplify" properties, while others (abstract objects like numbers, and what others would call "non-existent objects", like the round square, and the mountain made entirely of gold) merely "encode" them."; now, you do realize that this doesn't mean necessarily mean that Zalta is saying there is some sci-fi like parallell universe of pure ideal that stands separated from ours but communicates with it, but as an abstraction.

Also, still: a philospher isn't a scientist proper. As Alwin said, philosophy troubles itself with asking questions and pondering imponderables, so to speak. A philosophers' musings are not on the same line as rigorously tested scientific models when it comes to actually explaining how the world we live in works. Science explains the mechanisms, the causes and the reasons, the laws, probabilities and regularities (and irregularities), whilst philosophy concentrates on abstract musing. So calling the writings of a philosopher "scientific fact" is to make a fundamental misunderstanding.

Now look what are you doing, you eventually confuse idealistic world with material

How about you start with conclusively proving the existence of this supposed "idealistic world"?

which of course as comparison doesn't suit, when you are dreaming you actually are in the world of ideas

Prime examples of that "mystical" stuff I was talking about. You are in the realm of pure unsubstantiated belief here. It has nothing to do with the "scientific facts" you so stressed in your opening post. Like I already said (I think?), belief is fine, but when you're engaged in discourse with someone of an opposing opinion, you should be able to bring something more than "This is what I believe" to the table, which is what you're doing (beside mentioning some para-science which I, and most others, consider scarcely reliable).

To express it plainly: you speak of this "idealistic world" as if its existence were a necessity. It isn't. Nothing says it must exists, nothing even says it might exist from an unbiased standpoint; some things only point to its existence (and even then, vaguely) if you start out from the assumption that it exists and then try to find evidence for it. But as an agnostic, I do not start out from that standpoint.

There wouldn't be aeroplanes if someone didn't have the ''idea'' for a machine that can fly with people

You do realize that this does in no way prove the existence of some "idealistic world" at all? Because it doesn't. It just proves men can think about abstract things and plan. It doesn't necessitate some mysterious "idealistic world". Again, evolutionary biologists have, I gather, a whole lot to say about this that doesn't involve anything "immaterial and immortal" at all.

Yes but that's only in the material world, in the 3rd Dimension to help you in a better way!!!

Sorry, but I must ask you to clarify this a bit; usually somewhat broken English doesn't really obstruct understanding a sentence, but here it does.

Other scientists have different opinion, you can study the last book of the great mathematican-philosopher R. Penrose about that.

So scientists have differing opinions from yours (as it was your to-and-fro'ing I was summarizing there)? Yes, I know...

You can call it metaphysical in a better way, which is extension of the physical world.

Using another word for it doesn't mean it exists any more than it does with some other name. Again and still, nothing says such an "idealistic world" exists.

No my dear friend, you should study some of the books I told you, if you understand them as well as you can study some philosophers like Aristotle(in his book ''about Soul'') then we will be talking differently, I am sure of that.

Well, I think I'll rather stick to credible stuff instead of people trying to pass off "past life experiences" as is, as bona fide proof of souls and, I guess, reincarnation, for serious scientific studies.

Because everyone knows the soul lives in the liver as already the ancient Babylonians taught.

Psychlologists do not even mention the word ''brain'' with patients!!!

OK. And I gather you have comprehensive understanding of methodology and treatment? Like, rudimentary really, people don't want to hear doc lingo, they want a cure. Also, psychiatrists are not experts on biology or chemistry, so the detailed biological and chemical reasons behind mental disorders are not their field, though their field certainly touch with these.

I do remember my psychology textbooks were full of stuff about the brain and how its evolution affect the mental evolution.

I actually didn't ask you to tell me what sciencie is

No, but you needed it anyhow.

Ok that was actually a thinking I made, having been affected by the news and articles and also Cern scientists themselves calling antimatter ''god particle'', http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/higgs.html having studied some Plato I was just skeptic about it, but of course I am never sure.

So they call it the "god particle". Well, hey: a) God != soul, b) they don't really mean it's God. You berate me for being so stuck up about words; but you do it all the more severely, going after a cute nickname above what stuff really is...

I replied to this many times, you just look upon it differently than me and consider your materialistic opinions irrefutable facts, I never said if you are wrong or right for sure but look things a little differently for a while, and I already told you some books that can help you understand, if you study them probably we can discuss again, or else we will reply the same and the same all over again.

Yes. I look upon it how it really is, you look upon it as some weird fantasy unrooted from reality. That's why your parallell is, was and forever will be: faulty.

---

Like I already said, belief is fine. Believe in what you want to. Just don't go around and throw blatantly erroneous statements about "scientific facts" to lend some credibility to your beliefs when there are no such scientific facts behind it. That's all I'm saying, and all I've been wanting from you is these things:
a) Clear definition of what a soul is, without serious contradictions (of which you've had a few); read my post about the problems related to the concept of "soul". This is necessary for fruitful discussion.
b) This supposed "scientific fact" that backs you up; you do realize that just because some academic study or publication says something doesn't mean it's a "scientific fact" or even an accepted theory, right? Because if you don't, then you truly don't understand how science works. This is necessary so I know on what grounds you make your claims for "scientific facts"; right now it mostly seems like new age pseudo-science.

EDIT: also, I suppose you realize that when you mention in your opening post, that every living organism is consisted by source of energy that we can easily call it ''soul'' (notwithstanding that it certainly is a stretch to equate it with the concept of "soul"), you instantly become an animist? Because this energy that our body consists of is also in rocks and all other inanimate objects; this means that if this energy is a soul, then human-built automations (robot, assembly line machinery etc.) also have souls, as they consist of the same energy!

[Bastardo]

For another example of cute nicknaming in science, see Mitochondrial Eve.

Isn't the God Particle known as such because it creates mass, and hence is fundamental to all things that have mass, like everything we observe directly?
Or is there another reason for the name?

[Omid-]

Isn't the God Particle known as such because it creates mass, and hence is fundamental to all things that have mass, like everything we observe directly?
Or is there another reason for the name?

The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" by individuals outside the scientific community, after the title of Leon Lederman's popular science book on particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? Lederman said he gave it the nickname "the God particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive," but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."

That was all Wikipedia, just because I wanted to say something. Wait... this reminds me of a certain quote.

[Nisarg]

συμπατριώτης

Is that (sympatriotes?) the Greek word for compatriot?

Right now you convinced me it's the first time you hear about psychology, psycho comes the greek word ''psychi''(ψυχη) which actually means soul, that means that it is a sciencie that deals with soul

Video games also have sound (audio). Computers are often used for stuff other than calculating (computing) things.

[foris]

No, you said what you mean, not me. For the umpteenth time.

Ok whatever you say, I am not in your mind anyway to know what you are saying.

If that's what you call credible sources then I, I'm sorry to say, must sneer a bit. I read up a bit about this Ian Stevenson and his theories about reincarnation and souls, and they seem like a prime example of pseudo-science with little actual foundation in reality, and considering a part of his dualism is based on LSD hallucinations, his credibility as a scientist with an unbiased approach isn't very high. In fact, this article on Stevenson details enough of dubious methods, unwarranted assumptions and just plain bad practice in Stevensons' work to expose him as, at worst, a complete charlatan and at best, a bad scientist. Either way, his research and conclusions do not hold water well because of that.

This statement is like lifted directly from the worst kind of shallow new age pseudo-science.

First of all do not post rediculous pages that just have nothing to do with reality and are just making fun of a man they don't know and do not respect the fact that he is dead, you should study Tucker's book who accepted Stevenson, just to see what he is saying!!! Stevenson's methodology is not pseudo-sciencie and it's a GREAT LIE saying that he was based on LSD Hallucinations!!! To whom they gave LSD exactly?? To 2500 people that have crosschecked that their sayings are agreed for being past life memories of man?? And what do you say about Carl Sagan with his saying that ''we must spend money for the subject about soul reincarnation''??? Is he a charlatan too?? You got to be joking. I have studied Ian's book, there is absolutely nothing anti-scientific in there.

Check over here http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/cli...lications-page
This page has a great number of announcements in national conferences, sciencie magazines and so on. If it's bad sciencie as you say, why do they continue accepting such articles/announcements?? Do you have any idea of how easily a scientific work can be rejected if there is no basement or proof for their sayings??

In any case IMO you should speak a little better about a man where you know absolutely nothing of!!! Stevenson spent his whole life, he is dead now, in the subject of reincarnation, he risked his scientific fame while he could have a calm life without risk or anything, with innocent publishments with the stature of a simple director!!! He was considered as genious in his 35 years age in the place of psychiatric studies, he gained a title too fast and while he could have everything, he threw them all away, cause he saw something that other stucked up brains weren't seeing. And you come up with a page, posted by internet trolls and you call that a serious source??
Also let me remind you that ''Galileo's'' fame was much worse then!!!

By the way, try to get the name right; it's Zalta, not Salta, and quickly skimming through his work, I find little to substantiate what you say. To summarize what I presume is the reason you mentioned Zalta, I quoth Wikipedia about the man when it says that, according to Zalta, "some objects (the ordinary concrete ones around us, like tables and chairs) "exemplify" properties, while others (abstract objects like numbers, and what others would call "non-existent objects", like the round square, and the mountain made entirely of gold) merely "encode" them."; now, you do realize that this doesn't mean necessarily mean that Zalta is saying there is some sci-fi like parallell universe of pure ideal that stands separated from ours but communicates with it, but as an abstraction.

Type mistake with Zalta word!!!
Seriously once again, c/p Wikipedia, how many times do I have to say to people that Wikipedia is not scientific page but it's just a page where anyone can write whatever he wants if he has account in there(I have and I have already written). Just to let you know Zalta has done one of the biggest researches about metaphysical subjects in Stanford university!!! And yes that's exactly what Zalta proved with his maths, that Plato's world of ideas is totally feasible.

How about you start with conclusively proving the existence of this supposed "idealistic world"?

What Zalta proved with his maths, is that noone can say just because he wants to that there is no cosmic level which our consciousness can't realize!!!!

Also, still: a philospher isn't a scientist proper. As Alwin said, philosophy troubles itself with asking questions and pondering imponderables, so to speak. A philosophers' musings are not on the same line as rigorously tested scientific models when it comes to actually explaining how the world we live in works. Science explains the mechanisms, the causes and the reasons, the laws, probabilities and regularities (and irregularities), whilst philosophy concentrates on abstract musing. So calling the writings of a philosopher "scientific fact" is to make a fundamental misunderstanding.

Aristotle(who as I think you know) was one of the biggest scientists(astronomists etc) was considered as philosopher, same as Plato, same with Aristarch of Samos who was Copernicus source for heliocentrism and so on..
A scientist can't be a real scientist if he is not a philosopher first(warning I am not talking about scientists just in the paper).

So scientists have differing opinions from yours (as it was your to-and-fro'ing I was summarizing there)? Yes, I know...

Pretty much the opposite I said

Well, I think I'll rather stick to credible stuff instead of people trying to pass off "past life experiences" as is, as bona fide proof of souls and, I guess, reincarnation, for serious scientific studies.

First you ask me for scientific proof and then you say no and that you will stich with ''credible'' stuff, that makes some sense!!! Also my sources are 10 times with more info, the thing with past life experiences goes last.

Because everyone knows the soul lives in the liver as already the ancient Babylonians taught.

Ι know what Babylonians were saying, in addition incantations, black magic etc started from Mesopotamia!!!

I do remember my psychology textbooks were full of stuff about the brain and how its evolution affect the mental evolution.

Psychology has absolutely nothing to do with biology, mathematics etc, cureness comes out with clear speech!!!

No, but you needed it anyhow.

To see what it meant to you specifically?? That's for sure!!!

So they call it the "god particle". Well, hey: a) God != soul, b) they don't really mean it's God. You berate me for being so stuck up about words; but you do it all the more severely, going after a cute nickname above what stuff really is...

Soul is often mentioned as ''divine'' element, but in any case forget about it, that was just a suggestion of mine!!!


Ok now dude, if you want to believe that materialism and atheism is right and that there is no other world or something more than that it's your option, and don't come up and saying things like '' You have no proof, your belief is wrong'' etc while I already gave you 5 books and on about or say that ''Your source is pseudosciencie'' while you don't even know what these books say. Don't you think that this is dogmatic mate?? How does that differ from religious persons who decline listening or thinking about other opinions and just see other people with an underestimating way like you do with me??

In any case if you wanted sources for my belief I already gave to you books, it's your option if you want to read them or not, decline them or accept them, but PLEASE don't just come back like that without having done so and give such replies, cause I am telling you there is absolutely no point in doing so, it just gets reapitive and tiring.

Is that (sympatriotes?) the Greek word for compatriot?

Yep.

Video games also have sound (audio). Computers are often used for stuff other than calculating (computing) things.

But that doesn't work for psychology!!!

[Hellbilly]

First of all do not post rediculous pages that just have nothing to do with reality and are just making fun of a man they don't know and do not respect the fact that he is dead, you should study Tucker's book who accepted Stevenson, just to see what he is saying!!! Stevenson's methodology is not pseudo-sciencie and it's a GREAT LIE saying that he was based on LSD Hallucinations!!! To whom they gave LSD exactly?? To 2500 people that have crosschecked that their sayings are agreed for being past life memories of man?? And what do you say about Carl Sagan with his saying that ''we must spend money for the subject about soul reincarnation''??? Is he a charlatan too?? You got to be joking. I have studied Ian's book, there is absolutely nothing anti-scientific in there.

I'm sorry if it offends you, but what that article outlined clearly showed the flaws in his approach. Also, I'd much sooner trust a skeptic who gives the man a fair chance, as this article did (it even acknowledged the good things about Stevensons' studies and theories), than a blind convert. You obviously trust the latter more, which is both obvious from your uncritical approach, and descriptive of a lot of what you've explained as your opinion.

By the way, that thing about LSD affecting his dualism: it's something he himself said. So much for you knowing jack about your source, eh?

In any case IMO you should speak a little better about a man where you know absolutely nothing of!!!

Obviously, I know enough: his approach was flawed in many ways, rendering his research flawed. Just doing something "risky" doesn't elevate you or make you a better person.

And you come up with a page, posted by internet trolls and you call that a serious source??

Actually, I come up with a page that has studied his writings, gives them an analytic and critical review, goes through both pro's and con's, and takes an impassioned approach. Quite unlike you, who swallow the stuff hook, line and sinker without a trace of criticism and start acting up when the views of this "scientific fact"-source of yours are called out as unreliable. I'm sorry, but if anyone comes across as the troll here, it is you with this little outburst.

Seriously once again, c/p Wikipedia, how many times do I have to say to people that Wikipedia is not scientific page but it's just a page where anyone can write whatever he wants if he has account in there(I have and I have already written). Just to let you know Zalta has done one of the biggest researches about metaphysical subjects in Stanford university!!! And yes that's exactly what Zalta proved with his maths, that Plato's world of ideas is totally feasible.

Why don't you read what I wrote before you flame? I said I did peruse the text you mentioned, but only quoted Wikipedia as it provided a compact summation of what I figured was the reason why you brought up Zalta. But since you apparently couldn't refute or even argue against my commentary on Zalta and this topic, I guess you chose to flame? Please, why don't you try commenting on what I said instead of pulling the lame ass crybaby "bohoo, Wikipedia"-card?

What Zalta proved with his maths, is that noone can say just because he wants to that there is no cosmic level which our consciousness can't realize!!!!

Right. Scifi fantasy land, here we come. Why don't you read what I commented about Zalta and then come back. I found nothing in his text to say there is some weirdo parallell universe that is a de facto alternate/parallell reality to ours, but an abstract conceptual realm; in other words, not a "real reality". And certainly no "spiritual plane" that is the home of the "immortal and immaterial" souls.

A scientist can't be a real scientist if he is not a philosopher first(warning I am not talking about scientists just in the paper).

Sure he can. That's why we have two separate terms: philosopher and scientist.

First you ask me for scientific proof and then you say no and that you will stich with ''credible'' stuff, that makes some sense!!! Also my sources are 10 times with more info, the thing with past life experiences goes last.

Yes. Like I said, not any academic publication or study is valid scientific proof. Just because a PHD writes down something on paper and someone publishes it doesn't make it part of the "scientific truth"; that is only the first step. Obviously, your understanding of the whole scientific process is flawed. And, the sources you have mentioned are either unreliable through their flaws (Stevenson) or don't come with any real "proof" for the case you argue (Zalta).

Ι know what Babylonians were saying, in addition incantations, black magic etc started from Mesopotamia!!!

So why are their views then inferior to whatever hat you pulled the "heart rabbit" out of?

Psychology has absolutely nothing to do with biology, mathematics etc, cureness comes out with clear speech!!!

Right. Obviously, you have no clue.

You know what? The last two years, I've been reading a lot of stuff in the field of child psychology and the psychological evolution of a child. Do you know what's one of the most significant themes brought up in it? Biology. The physical development of a child and the child's brain.

Ok now dude, if you want to believe that materialism and atheism is right and that there is no other world or something more than that it's your option, and don't come up and saying things like '' You have no proof, your belief is wrong'' etc while I already gave you 5 books and on about or say that ''Your source is pseudosciencie'' while you don't even know what these books say.

First of all, your reading comprehension is abominable; I said it's OK to believe whatever you want. I just wanted you to bring up this "scientific fact" you claimed to support your view in the opening post; you provided me with works that are simply put "bad science" through flawed methods or beside the point. Then you ignore valid criticism, instead claiming I say you can't believe in what you want to (totally contrary to what I really said) and ignore entirely relevant questions I ask.

In essence, you have failed to do every thing you could do to resolve the conflicts in what you say, provide the proof you claim to have, and in general just argue your point.

In any case if you wanted sources for my belief I already gave to you books, it's your option if you want to read them or not, decline them or accept them, but PLEASE don't just come back like that without having done so and give such replies, cause I am telling you there is absolutely no point in doing so, it just gets reapitive and tiring.

Like I said, I did peruse Zalta's works, and read enough about Stevensons' methodology to know that his work is made with such dubious methods that it cannot be seen to held any real gravity by an unbiased mind. If it offends you that I am less easily convinced than you are, then so be it. I guess it's a thing to feel pride in, that people are aggravated by your high demands for a "convincing theory" or "convincing proof".

But that doesn't work for psychology!!!

Why? Because you don't want it to? You are way too stuck up on words - something you accused me of just yesterday.

Also, nothing of what you've posted indicates in any way that souls are anti-matter as you claim them to be. Nor that this supposed "ideal realm" of yours is anti-matter. It would also be nice if you bothered to address all the other questions I've asked you and address the manifold problematics your statements give rise to.

[Bastardo]

By the way foris, are you arguing for the soul as a scientific theory, hypotesis, fact, prediction or what? You did use the words "scientific fact" earlier, but I'm curious if you really meant that. It's hard to tell.

[foris]

I'm sorry if it offends you, but what that article outlined clearly showed the flaws in his approach. Also, I'd much sooner trust a skeptic who gives the man a fair chance, as this article did (it even acknowledged the good things about Stevensons' studies and theories), than a blind convert. You obviously trust the latter more, which is both obvious from your uncritical approach, and descriptive of a lot of what you've explained as your opinion. Obviously, I know enough: his approach was flawed in many ways, rendering his research flawed. Just doing something "risky" doesn't elevate you or make you a better person.
Actually, I come up with a page that has studied his writings, gives them an analytic and critical review, goes through both pro's and con's, and takes an impassioned approach. Quite unlike you, who swallow the stuff hook, line and sinker without a trace of criticism and start acting up when the views of this "scientific fact"-source of yours are called out as unreliable. I'm sorry, but if anyone comes across as the troll here, it is you with this little outburst.

First of all about Stevenson, what you say is 100% wrong!!! His methodology was like that: Ηe was recording in the world incidents of children who were saying that they were remembering their past lives. He was just going there with his team, he was writing the case, testing the case of lying, or impact from third persons, he was confirming the reference( we got case of where a child recogniseing a city unbelievably far away from his, all the members of a family with their names as well), and then if there was a case, he was passing it as a case of memory. Everything was unbelievably strictly done, I could tell you more cases but I guess there is no point.
IF you haven't studied his books, you simply can't judge, cause the source you are using of course comes second, and has negative disposition. Do you understand that?? It's just common logic, I swallow the stuff hook?? Is that a hint of resentment I'm detecting?? I would say it's you who swallow anything you hear from any random site if you are willing to fly off the handle like that. Dude, if you are willing to judge a scientist you actually know nothing of(but you think you do), you have to learn his work and achievements first, I have been studying Ian's work for about 6 whole months and I still think I should learn much more about him, and you are coming up with 5 mins of google search with a site that has the intention to make fun of his work(with many false information) and think you have learnt enough about him?? Seriously some mediocrity would really not hurt, and that's really not words of a skeptic person as you actually name yourself!!! You call me a troll just because I consider and accept the opinion of some universities that study metaphysical subjects?? (Like Division of Personality Studies, University of Virginia etc), also I think ''troll'' actually has the meaning of the annoying one or the one who insults with intention, I don't think I actually bugged you or insulted you, afaik not once, instead I respected your sayings opinions until the last word of yours. Also you still avoid replying about Tucker or Carl Sagan, and about the page I gave you.

By the way, that thing about LSD affecting his dualism: it's something he himself said. So much for you knowing jack about your source, eh?

Αnd here is where misinformation and sciolism are having a rave party!!! Man are you serious???? What the hell has memory recording got to do with LSD?? You actually think he would give LSD to children and he would still have psychiatric diploma?? He was just TESTING the possibility of using LSD in his early studies as cureness, that's all!!!



About Zalta I think it's more than clear that you can't get the Greatness of his work through wikipedia, as you can't get the theory of ideas of Plato( through the same page. If it was like that, encyclopedic knowledge would replace search. Zalta in no way ends up in such simple conclusion as you said, as Platonic ideas are not part of any <<sci-fi parallel universe>>!!! Man I am simply not going to post 20 pages of his work from his book, if you think I am a liar just read his book '' Principia Metaphysica'', the point is he is giving mathematical background for acceptance for the theory of the world of ideas. Either you study his book, or there simply is no point for discussion!!!

Sure he can. That's why we have two separate terms: philosopher and scientist.

(warning I am not talking about scientists just in the paper)

Also, nothing of what you've posted indicates in any way that souls are anti-matter as you claim them to be.

Ok that was actually a thinking I made, having been affected by the news and articles and also Cern scientists themselves calling antimatter ''god particle'', http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/higgs.html having studied some Plato I was just skeptic about it, but of course I am never sure.

Seriously and then you acuse me for my reading comprehension being abominable!!!

Right. Obviously, you have no clue.

You know what? The last two years, I've been reading a lot of stuff in the field of child psychology and the psychological evolution of a child. Do you know what's one of the most significant themes brought up in it? Biology. The physical development of a child and the child's brain.

Seriously have you studied about cognitive psychology και psychology of development before saying these?? You are 100% materialist, not agnostic or skeptikist as you mentioned to be earlier, when you say that biology plays one of the most important roles in evolution of a child, you are right and wrong at the same time. You are right, cause yes intrinsic characteristics are always important. You are wrong, cause obviously you say that this comes first for evolution and you ignore for the most important clue which is education!!!

You, right now just mentioned something that NO synchronized sciencie would, that biology plays the most important role!!! If I become a great guitar player, I got it inside me biologically, if I become a kind character I got it inside me. Seriously It's just so simple the way you say these that I just have a headchace right now.

Why? Because you don't want it to? You are way too stuck up on words - something you accused me of just yesterday.

Simply because even if psychologic books mention some physics, maths inside, even my dog knows that psychology was, is and will always be a humanitarian sciencie.


Ok I shall repeat it one last time, since I find absolutely no point in continuing, I have actually replied and gave you answers for all your questions and books to answer much more, you don't accept them just because you don't want to bother?? No problem, but just don't come back with your continuous offending, pretending that you know everything with 2 mins of search in google, it's just sad mate!!! And please DO not reply again like that if you can, I won't be here anyway to talk since I am leaving tommorow for holidays.
Once you find the appetite and willing to study what I told you fine, for I don't think there is a point to reply again to pointless posts.
Have fun with your life, with health and more learning!!!

By the way foris, are you arguing for the soul as a scientific theory, hypotesis, fact, prediction or what? You did use the words "scientific fact" earlier, but I'm curious if you really meant that. It's hard to tell.

I was arguing about mentioning my scientific source from serious universities which I have been studying for more than 2 years, but who knows maybe Hellbilly has learnt more than them with 2 mins of search in google!!!

Even scientific opinions/ facts doesn't mean they are 100% confirmed, they can be proved wrong anytime!!!!

[Nisarg]

While I do agree with the notion that a soul must exist, I cannot really express what convinces me about that. However, I feel that the soul is not related in any way with the memory or the psychology of any being. Those are biological (and consequently, chemical and physical) functions of the brain itself (and whatever glands or drugs influence them). For me, the soul is something that does absolutely nothing except reside in the body. Every though, every action, everything is related to the body itself and not the soul.

Also, about children - I'm still a minor (for a few months more anyhow), and no one would imagine that I know about 40% of what I know. And it has been like that even when I was a little kid of four. So, it's quite possible that cases like children recognising people or buildings they're not supposed to tell us nothing because the child in question may have seen them earlier, if only as a photograph.

[Bastardo]

I was arguing about mentioning my scientific source from serious universities which I have been studying for more than 2 years, but who knows maybe Hellbilly has learnt more than them with 2 mins of search in google!!!

Even scientific opinions/ facts doesn't mean they are 100% confirmed, they can be proved wrong anytime!!!!

Of course, I was just wondering what is a soul according to science.

Seriously and then you acuse me for my reading comprehension being abominable!!!

Maybe if you bothered to explain HOW does the Higgs Boson lead to the conclusion that a soul exists, Hellbilly might appear to have better "comprehension skills".

[Dove the Crusader]

What happens after death?
It's what you make of it. I honestly believe that. Every individual person chooses what will happen. For most people the choice is forced to them through religion (eg. going to hell, reincarnating as an animal, burning in hell) but I do believe that the spirit free of it's body is able to shape it's destiny through will power alone. Because when you are in your earthly body there is a limit to your will. Sometimes you can overcome it to do almost amazing things but there are always limits and natural laws that get in your way. While the spirit is free of any such things.

PS: If the choice was not force fed to a lot of people through religious institutions it would be better. They are playing on our fears but I do not think that even they believe anything different will happen.

[Hellbilly]

Preamble: if you want to, foris, we can just end this discussion about Stevenson, Zalta and psychology etc., and concentrate on the essence of consciousness, souls and what they are, eg. jump to the questions I ask of you. I would very much like to continue that line of discussion even if you do not want to continue with the rest; I will even edit all of the stuff up until the five questions away if you so desire. (hope you see this before typing an answer)

First of all about Stevenson, what you say is 100% wrong!!! His methodology was like that: Ηe was recording in the world incidents of children who were saying that they were remembering their past lives. He was just going there with his team, he was writing the case, testing the case of lying, or impact from third persons, he was confirming the reference( we got case of where a child recogniseing a city unbelievably far away from his, all the members of a family with their names as well), and then if there was a case, he was passing it as a case of memory. Everything was unbelievably strictly done, I could tell you more cases but I guess there is no point.

Righty-o. Apparently you haven't been very critical, and didn't really read any of the criticism directed towards his methods. It's OK, I'm not the one to say low standards for convincing proof are wrong, really, but I do consider myself to have pretty high standards. But if his methods were so strict, I guess you can point by point go through and refute the criticism directed towards his methods in the article. Please, the floor is yours.

IF you haven't studied his books, you simply can't judge, cause the source you are using of course comes second

Actually, no. Rudimentary logic, really: if the methodology is flawed, the results of them are flawed as well, and as such invalidating flaws in methodology come before a persuasive looking work.

Do you understand that?? It's just common logic

Actually, it's backwards logic.

I would say it's you who swallow anything you hear from any random site if you are willing to fly off the handle like that.

Actually no; I have a consistent view of the world with a logical construction. You, on the other hand, have merely presented two for different reasons dubious sources that as is don't go well together without proving virtually anything in the way of bridging the gaps. That site was only one of many mentioning flaws in Stevensons' methodology, and obviously written by a person who's studied his works, and who furthermore gave it a fair appraisal; I wanted to discover how credible Stevensons' work would be as if it were credible, it would constitute a conflict towards what other scientific research and the scientific model teaches, and my view on the world, and the criticism of the methodology was enough to clearly show that his credibility is not high.

The overall idea of his theory (reincarnation & souls) is nothing new to me, so in this case it's not a case of an alien concept introduced to my view of the world that either needs to be assimilated or rejected, but of new evidence to an old concept. In this case, when the evidence has been attained by dubious methodology, I just cannot consider it to be convincing - evidence must be acquired with respectable, unflawed methods.

But please, again: go ahead, meticulously disprove the criticism towards his methods. Saying "it was very strict" means jack, I'm sure you realize that, if you can't come up with proper evidence. The article I presented doesn't only presents the flaws as a list, but greatly elaborates on them explaining the terminology and the flaw to satisfactory detail, as well as bringing up several examples directly from Stevensons' work.

and you are coming up with 5 mins of google search with a site that has the intention to make fun of his work(with many false information)

Why don't you read the site? If it's only 5 mins of work, why don't you? Because you obviously haven't. It doesn't make fun of his work. It gives it a fair appraisal. But I guess perhaps it's hard for you to accept that somebody might come to a different conclusion than you've done? Your inability to treat the negative review with anything but childish hating would seem to indicate that. I would be pleased to find out you're capable of more mature commentary than this.

Also you still avoid replying about Tucker or Carl Sagan, and about the page I gave you.

I did reply about the opinions of scientists. I'm sorry if your ability to apply knowledge is limited. Also, what page? The list of publications? Already replied about that, too; again, you need to learn to apply information.

Αnd here is where misinformation and sciolism are having a rave party!!! Man are you serious???? What the hell has memory recording got to do with LSD?? You actually think he would give LSD to children and he would still have psychiatric diploma?? He was just TESTING the possibility of using LSD in his early studies as cureness, that's all!!!

Why don't you read the site? You are coming across like a rather stupid person right now. Go on, read the site. Read what it says about his dualism and drug use. You accuse me of not getting acquainted with your oh-so-infallible source, but are just as much guilty of doing the same; even more so, since it apparently only takes "5 mins" to read through that.

Hint: the site doesn't claim he gave LSD to children.

About Zalta I think it's more than clear that you can't get the Greatness of his work through wikipedia

I'm sorry, but do you read English very well at all? I said I read his work. I - the person that I am - read - eg. looked at the words in his text and the sentences those words make up, and the paragraphs those sentences make up - his - that being Zalta - work - that being the text in question you mentioned.

Please read what I write before you answer, because you look sort of stupid when you after several posts don't understand a simple thing like that I actually took the time to study the text you mentioned. If I am to understand that this is how much effort you put into all of your reading then, well, I'm sorry to say, but it does not paint a flattering picture of you.

Zalta in no way ends up in such simple conclusion as you said

I didn't say it's simple. But nowhere did he speak of a "spiritual plane" where "immortal and immaterial" souls exist, and that this plane is antimatter. In fact, from reading his text, I would say what I put forth sounds more like what Zalta is saying, than your decidedly imaginative conclusions.

Seriously and then you acuse me for my reading comprehension being abominable!!!

Nothing about the Higgs Boson says it's the soul. Like I said many times, you can believe whatever you want, but in your opening post you claim to have a "scientific fact" that back you up - and have failed to produce such a fact thus far.

Seriously have you studied about cognitive psychology και psychology of development before saying these?? You are 100% materialist, not agnostic or skeptikist as you mentioned to be earlier

You are so rash to judge and condemn people that you come across as a fanatic of a rather sad kind. And your understanding of concepts seems to be quite limited.

when you say that biology plays one of the most important roles in evolution of a child, you are right and wrong at the same time. You are right, cause yes intrinsic characteristics are always important. You are wrong, cause obviously you say that this comes first for evolution and you ignore for the most important clue which is education!!!

Well, apparently, children over there are born as adults. And you have a very different kind of psychology from the western psychology practised here.

You, right now just mentioned something that NO synchronized sciencie would, that biology plays the most important role!!!

Please read again what you just quoted. I didn't say it plays the "most important role!!!", I said it's "one of the most significant themes" in them. The difference is huge, and your failure to comprehend that leads to you making monumentally flawed assumptions.

If I become a great guitar player, I got it inside me biologically, if I become a kind character I got it inside me. Seriously It's just so simple the way you say these that I just have a headchace right now.

Nope. Genetics plays a role certainly (again, no need for some mysterious soul here), but both the phenotype and the genotype play a huge role in how we turn out. I can only assume you fail to understand the rather simple point I have been putting forth all along - why don't you read the link Lazor posted a second time, won't you?

Simply because even if psychologic books mention some physics, maths inside, even my dog knows that psychology was, is and will always be a humanitarian sciencie.

Again, this shows that you haven't even begun to comprehend the point of view I have been putting forth from the first post. I'll re-iterate it: that the mind is a feature of the brain, that there is no "immaterial and immortal" element that gives us personality; the scientific community agrees with me on this, at least insofar that there is no indication of this "mystical" element existing, but there is plenty of proof for the point I am arguing despite there still also being unknown things. The view may change in the future, granted, but the long-term development has for centuries been away from the esoteric and mysterious towards a neurological explanation of the personality, so it would seem unlikely to me that science will do a U-turn on this. And what's more, the general model presented by science makes sense, much more than throwing in some "mystical" element into it.

The funny thing is, this is in no way tied to my theistic/atheistic leanings, beliefs and musings. It's by no means so simple that soul existing means god existing, or the converse; I think I could almost pity people who're prone to such simplistic generalizations.

Ok I shall repeat it one last time, since I find absolutely no point in continuing, I have actually replied and gave you answers for all your questions

No you haven't. Please answer these:
- You say the heart does more than pump blood; then why do you dismiss the Babylonian belief of the soul residing in the liver? On what grounds?
- You say there is an energy in all organisms that can be called a soul; but the energy in living things is the same energy in inanimate things; are you an animist?
- What is the exact definition of a soul? And how do we know that differing definitions are wrong?
- What is the "scientific fact" for the theories you have presented, mainly that this "energy" in living things can be equated with a soul; because even if we accept Stevensons' work (which I still don't, but let's assume for a moment that I do) and your interpretation of Zalta, this is still a stretch.
- And if the "soul" is this "energy" in all living things, how does Higgs Boson and antimatter fit into this model? From my understanding, there is no antimatter in the human body (because AFAIK, both matter and antimatter are annihilated if they come into contact with each other).

Those are just a few. But start by answering those.

No problem, but just don't come back with your continuous offending

I'm so sorry, but I didn't offend you, except if being of a different opinion is to offend. You're the one who started being offensive with this post of yours.

I was arguing about mentioning my scientific source from serious universities which I have been studying for more than 2 years, but who knows maybe Hellbilly has learnt more than them with 2 mins of search in google!!!

Yes, act butthurt. But please, present your "scientific fact". Because so far, you haven't presented anything in that way for your "model", even if we accept Stevensons' work totally, and your interpretation of Zalta, as I already mentioned.

Seriously; when your "theory with scientific facts as backing" appears to be nothing but a combination of a few dubious sources, some obvious mis-comprehensions, several assumptions not supported by said sources, and a continuous unwillingness to address problematic issues in said theory, the only way to gain clarity is by confronting you. It would help if you actually answered the questions instead of making angry replies without even reading texts you're replying to (as is obvious from how you've totally misunderstood many sections and/or claimed sources/people have said things they really haven't).

[foris]

Preamble: if you want to, foris, we can just end this discussion about Stevenson, Zalta and psychology etc., and concentrate on the essence of consciousness, souls and what they are, eg. jump to the questions I ask of you. I would very much like to continue that line of discussion even if you do not want to continue with the rest; I will even edit all of the stuff up until the five questions away if you so desire. (hope you see this before typing an answer)

Whatever you want my friend, I have no problem, of course I want discussion, I can still give you reply to what you said about them, and reply each ''sentence'' of the site about stevenson you asked me, it's just that I lack a lot of time!!! I still would want to continue, even if we talk about the scientists or not(though I don't know if I will have computer), but Please let's make it more calm and I ask you to erase some pointless offends(like you sound ''stupid'' etc). It just makes no sense, and believe me I never was angry, I was totally calm from the beggining to the end.
I just reply you to this for now:

Actually no; I have a consistent view of the world with a logical construction.

What do you mean with ''logical'' construction?? Probably with ''logical'' you mean what can be seen by you, but it's not like that my friend, if we are to recognise the endless universe, the word ''impossible'' must actually stop existing in our vocabulary. Let's say someone stays at his home, and has never seen environment in his life, he will be thinking let's say that ''sea'' does not exist, but he will be wrong, the actual ''definition'' of logic from our side of view, is just the meaning of ignorance of humanity for the universe that surrounds us!!!!

[Hellbilly]

What do you mean with ''logical'' construction?? Probably with ''logical'' you mean what can be seen by you, but it's not like that my friend, if we are to recognise the endless universe, the word ''impossible'' must actually stop existing in our vocabulary. Let's say someone stays at his home, and has never seen environment in his life, he will be thinking let's say that ''sea'' does not exist, but he will be wrong, the actual ''definition'' of logic from our side of view, is just the meaning of ignorance of humanity for the universe that surrounds us!!!!

Nope, it is by no means constructed out of just "a posteriori" personal experience (although obviously to a considerable part of that, as all our world views & beliefs are), but from reading, studying, musing over etc. books of philosophy, religion, science, folklore, the occult, mythology, mysticism and magic, as well as many long and winding discussion (both "virtual" and "real") with people; such are a great "sounding board" even if neither changes opinion one bit. And not just theoretical studies at that, either, but in some cases even actual practising during the course of the last, oh I guess 15+ years. By logical I mean that it is construed from all of these sources by accepting and rejecting things, actively striving to eliminate contradictions, always being ready to question and, when there is reason to, abandon, parts of it (or even all of it); so logical in the sense that there are no glaring contradictions or elements founded on pure imagination or wishful thinking.

But I would really like you to answer those five questions; as a starting point for a new discussion, if you so want to.