This question has been bothering me for a while,I can't come up with a logical explanation heres both of my theries. Theory 1.Souls are born thru human beings and other animals,everybody creates souls,I don't know how often,but everybody does it.I guess once you hit puberty you get soul making abilities,cause with overy overworld theres a underworld right!!Souls are then transfered into new born babies when fertilization of the egg begins.The physical aspects of the child are of course are present and represented physically,but the mental and spiritual(sub consious) shows characteristics of the donor host or maker,therefore good and evil people make more good or evil people. Theory 2. Souls are reincarnated from the afterlife,no souls ever die,the cycle never ends.... Both of these theories do not involve a god-like entity,not saying she does'nt exist,but that mofo has better things to do,therefore saying that we control our own planets.If we let bad or corrupt souls enter our newborns then they will only produce bad people. The battle of good and Evil never Ends,it's fuckin everywhere!!!!!! Keep it positive,the positive souls must take back the earth,if the negative souls win there is no hell,just a big KABOOOM!!!! edit:with theory one souls die at the end of there cycle,only make sense right....To think there is an actually heaven is not following the rules of the universe.....Cause everything dies,even God For the reincarnation theory I could easily follow Newtons law of energy"energy never dies out, it is simply tranfered,never destroyed"
I think in fact there is no such thing as a soul and our consciousness is simply a product of mechanism. We're machines of physics.
Both, on the surface people are born, live and die. Underneath the energy is just recycled. From what we understand from Physics our energy cannot be created or destroyed which essentially means it's all a cycle in balance that may go on forever. This is the underneath. On the surface we are born and while it is parallel to a cycle in balance it is not so easily percieved that way. In my opinion it's just to see something different other than a cycle in balance that goes on forever. It's both but we can perceive them as seperate. You have to tie them together and not think it's one or the other.
e=mc^2 i would think these 'souls' are energy and since it cant be created or destroyed, it can only be recycled.
I'm hoping in the near future we can gain the insight or technology to either mainpulate spirit energy or control it.Cause I do belive it exist,cause how the hell do we charge back up every night,there has to be a charge station or some sort of transmitter we put out while in Rem that attracts the so called bio chemical energy.
Soul is to wide a definition. I mean, we all have a concept of what a soul is, especially our own, but I doubt we'd agree on any given definition. Personally I have to agree with Rasta on this. To me soul is just another word for self. I know I am, and I know my experiences and values, whilst unique to me, are the sum of me, but all got the their own experience, their own nature. It is certainly different than mine, but just as valuable. All this stored in that jelly mass we call the brain. I don't need a metaphysical concept of souls. Why bother about anything except the here and now. How to build a better future for me, my community, the young. Those that shall inheret the earth after we unfortunately (we really need to get some "eternal life" program going ASAP ) wane off... Who cares about mystic souls, it seems rather indulgent when one instead can find a good purpose for ones own brief visit to this wonderful place we call existence. Isn't it wonderful? I love it
There is several parts to a soul. When a human is born they are able to receive the smallest particle of God, and intrusted to use that particle to benifit other people, in order to grow the soul, so that it will be able to escape the material world and achieve immortality. Animals cannot achieve this because their bodies are not built in a way that allows them to receive a soul. Sort of like the difference between a satellite receiver and a FM radio, they can only receive a certain type, and amount of information, and become limited at that. However the interesting thing about our design is that as we use our soul it acts as any other muscle in our body, and the pathways that allow us to receive this energy grows. As this energy pathway grows we become more and more like God.
Soul=human awareness(observation/interpretation, intelligence?)+life force( bio-chemical energy, or homeostasis) IMHO, it would take the presence of these factors to create anything worthy of the title of soul. The problem with using the word soul, is that it has been misused and artificially adorned to the point that the people who use it to the point of abuse, no longer remember what it means. Is it possible for energy to transmute, while abandoning the body it's animated? Of course! Is it possible to achieve awareness without energy? I doubt it.
Soul = Care / Skills / Competence Care: You will notice there is only one animal on the earth that is capable of caring for anything. Animals cannot care for humans, humans can only care for animals. Skills: Only Humans have the capacity for skills, animals do no possess this quality. Wether your skill is for abstract thought, carpentry or writing. All of the skills which we are given are a part of our soul. Competence: The ability to be a leader and to predict and analyse information. This is the third part of our soul and allows us to better the environment for people around us. It could be interpreted that competence is the ability to recognize the skills that you posses, and the skills of the people around you, coupled with the ability to use them. So is it possible to achieve awareness without competence / Skills / and Care? No, actually without these three aspects you loose everything that makes us human. Edit: I should also mention (with regards to the OP question), in this way you can see that souls are both born and recycled, like a star in the sky, when a human's biological structure (brain wavelength/frequency) is in tune with the everlasting collective conciousness (God) a soul is born. This attachment is never lost, and echos like resonce through time. In this way your conciousness is absorbed into the greater conciousness, and you exist for eternity. However, as your body is able to tune into the collective conciousness, other peoples bodies are able to tune into the same collective conciousness, and like fields in a database, specific pieces of your soul existed before and will exist again. So this is where it becomes interesting, because as our soul exists as an echo through eternity, one could say that it would be impossible for that sould to continue to grow or change once life is over. Because as you may notice without external stimuli it is impossible for change to happen; like a reflection in a mirror. However, if during this journy that we have on the earth, you are able to reach spiritual conciousness you will then be able to maintain a conciousness for eternity. However, if you were never able to achieve spiritual conciousness, you will continue to exist in a never ending, or growing, reflection though time and space, until your reflection becomes to small to notice and all of your energy has been absorbed into the greater collective conciousness.
I love how humans make up this idea of a soul without any sort of proof and then claim only humans have one and animals do not. We're such egotistical creatures.
Uhhh what? What about paternal and maternal relationships in the animal kingdom? What about colonies in the biosphere? There are many animals that are incredibly social and indeed "care" for eachother. And what's this about animals cannot care for humans? Do you have proof of this assertion? Seems to me, that lots of pets quite like their owners. Uh what? Haven't you ever seen dolphins jump through hoops? seen a dancing bear? Go to the circus man! Or how about this skateboarding dog? <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQzUsTFqtW0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQzUsTFqtW0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> Even animals in nature have skills. Like raccoons posses the ability to cleverly manipulate man-made contraptions. Or certain types of crows have learned to crack nuts open by dropping them under tires of a car. That's a brain function. I'm not sure what your own definition of a soul is, but cognition is definitively a brain function. Is somebody with moderate brain damage without a soul? How about an infant? How about a quadriplegic who cannot exhibit cognition? Pseudoscience -- I would like to see where this is documentary in any academic source. What precisley to you mean by "in tune"? And whats an everlasting collective consciousness? Oh and by the way, you should know that 'brain waves' actually do not broadcast any electromagnetic energy. Not to mention that the wavelengths recorded in Electroencephalography are highly variable and never actually remain constant. What 'attatchment'? and via was mechanism? What? Your analogies don't even make sense. You've totally lost me. This kind of sound likes handwaving to me. You through out some scientific terms which are not even compatible with what you're claiming.
I've been arguing with my uncle over the existence of an immortal soul. I claim that it doesn't exist, he claims it must. I like Hume and Bergson's ideas on the subject though... A immortal soul (or a "permanent ego") isn't very plausible. . As Hume said: "There are some philosophers," he says, "who imagine we are every moment conscious of what we call 'ourself,' that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence and so we are certain, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call 'myself' I always stumble on some particular perception or other - of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never catch myself... and never can observe anything but the perception... nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity." Bergson says, "All consciousness is time existence; and a conscious state is not a state that endures without changing. It is a change without ceasing, when change ceases it ceases; it is itself nothing but change."</pre> Also, HighGrowMan, I'm very appalled by your statements. It shows a lack of understanding of the animal kingdom. Animals certainly care for each other. If this wasn't the case--certainly mothers could not raise young and thusly their children would die. In regards to skills--what about the Bonobos monkeys, using tools? And what about when a chimpanzee uses a leaf to shelter themselves in the rain? What about woodpeckers? What about a squirrel, capable of cracking an acorn? In regards to competence, and "to be a leader". What about the social classes groups of animals exhibit? There is certainly a social order and ability to predict information. As Rasta said, it's a brain function. Every animal exhibits it. A mouse runs away from a cat because it predicted the cat would kill it if it did not move. And what's this about a brain frequency in tune with an everlasting consciousness? There is no everlasting consciousness, as we must be conscious to know what is going on. When we're no longer conscious (dead), we can't perceive anything.
autopoiesis dude. autopoiesis. waken to what that means. please do. there's a point in the developement of the foetus when the cerebral cortex is being made and the brain kinda switches on. if you're gonna say about the soul being put into ya early on, it would be then, not just when the egg starts to divide into cells. oh man.. theres too many cans of worms to bother opening in this thread. i'll leave yas seperationists to your confusion.
If we see the soul as an energy, then it must have some physical structure and recording mechanism. Yet, despite attempts, no evidence for the 'mass' of this soul has been found An object cannot be mass-free and physical, it cannot react with energy without having energy. In order to react with the brain it must have mass, but in order to be invisible it must be mass free - on death - the soul - would always survive body death and therefore would create a huge amount of energy build up of these slightly-physical energies in the cosmos. With billions upon billions of them each using up slight amounts of energy each, we would experience a literal fog of souls covering the whole planet. We would have to say that the soul decays over time, that eventually it does break up: or maybe its final resting place is to another dimension, or just maybe ultimately the whole idea of a 'soul' is simply misguided. The fact that all the individual parts of the brain obey normal biological and chemical rules. A network of neurological networks is telling that "life", or a soul is just a result of neurological activity withing the brain, Evolution on the soul is a problem, the fact that animals evolve through complex statistics and simple biochemical change ... there is no part of evolution from one species to us that requires the addition of a soul along the way and the other doesn't. The soul in itself must have evolved with us, within us. Growing with us from birth. It is as if our 'soul' is our brains, and nothing more. We may all have souls - but there would be no difference between a person with one and without one. The soul would be a sort of invisible observer, a-moral and ineffective. It is impossible to resolve these contradictions... if souls exist, they are not part of us. If they exist, they are not souls as we think of them. In short my only conclusion is: Souls do not exist. The soul is just the central processing unit of our biological machines, like the intelligent-like life of a CPU processor within a computer.
It would be an assumption to claim it is a fact there is no such thing as a soul. I'd say non-sequitor on that one Rasta. There are many different definitions of soul and we would need to address which one we are discussing first. Your conclusion is very valid. I just don't want to argue anything without clear premise anymore. I think I know where you are coming from, but those assumptions have cost me quite the battles before, so I'll just say I don't completely know yet but the conclusion is sound. My definition of soul- I believe in a soul in a sense that our energy never stops existing in death, it only changes phase and transfers around. Concerning the universe, We allow it to be observed and it allows us to observe is about as far as I've got. That's the relationship between the universe and what is contained in the universe to me. In math, numbers make up a system and are the possibilities of the system. So the answer is also formed out of what composed the question. (numbers) That has always amazed me about math.
From reading your responces to what i said I believe I will change the way I explained the soul. The only difference between a human soul, and an animals soul is that they do not posess a dualistic nature; And as such they are not able to complete the task of working with their mind, or working with their hands because by defenition work must have a resistance, and without a dualistic nature they have no resistance and therefore cannot work against evil. Without work their can be no growth in their soul, however humans are able to grow their soul, because they have the capacity for dualistic thought. In this way we are capable of becoming more like God, and increasing our tallents (the measure of a soul) by working against our evil nature. We are also capable of not working against our evil nature which produces no results in our soul; and ensures that whatever tallents that you do have will be taken from you and given to somebody that has many.