I am confused, was it a mistake of me to start this thread?

Not sure if I have understood it correct, but do some here think that I am unserious?
I am not. I am sorry if this thread has made any misconceptions.

BTW,- as I have mentioned before, I knew about that link long before I found this forum (from ILovePhilosophy).

If you don't believe it, see this thread:

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2515

Tread started by me.

Of course not! It is a perfectly good issue to start a thread on!

I simply had a few questions...such as...why you think the soul is physical? Why you think there is such a thing as a soul at all, what its characteristics and functions are, etc. Why just a few atoms? Why not more, or less? Why do you claim that the brain can't function without a soul? What is your evidence?

You are claiming something that flies in the face of what our current understanding of the brain tells us, and so I am merely curious to see what support you have for such a radical claim.

(BTW, I do not mean for this post to sound like an attack on you or your beliefs at all--I am seriously asking what it is that convinced you of this belief. I just broke it up into several questions so that you could see more aspects of your claim. My first post on this thread contains more questions I would love to see you answer. I am very happy that you started this thread, and would love to hear why you believe this. Frankly, though, Iacchus's first post on this thread puzzles me; I fail to see how it in any way addresses your opening post.)

Thanks, Digital That was a very positive reply.

I will try to answer your questions the best I can.
I have several times got the impression of the Soul as something physical around the brain we don't see. (i.e. atoms, etc.)
One of the reasons is that I have read in a norwegian science magazine that global human feelings may in fact be observed with technology.

The best english site I have to refer to, is:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html

However, I have noticed that this norwegian magazine often are writing about subjects that has been mentioned in "Scientific American".
Hence you can check out http://www.sciam.com and see if this subject is mentioned there, if you want more info about that subject.

Since I have read that global human feelings may be shown on technology gadgets, I find it likely that our Souls is physical, and that they send out energy in connection with very strong feelings.

A other reason I think the Soul is physical, is that some claim they have the ability to "share a dream".
That is often called mutual dreaming or shared dreaming.
It's of cousre many that don't believe shared dreaming is possible, but you may check out these links:

http://members.aol.com/dreampsi/arc...tualdream1.html

http://www.asdreams.org/telepathy/k...dream_event.htm

http://www.here-be-dreams.com/lucid/mutual.html

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk...description.htm

There is also done some anecdotal research on shared dreaming on som lucid dreaming forums.
I believe shared dreaming is possible, and I think they happen because 2 Souls are connected to the same realm.

If it's done scientifical research on shared dreaming, I don't know.
But for me, much anecdotal research can be almost as helpful than academic.
Intelligence doesn't only matter about education, but how a person think, and the way individuals think's.
There is a misconception that intelligence is just a person's ability to think logic and communicate.
Many scientists is convinced that intelligence is much more complex than that,- hence anecdotal research may be very relevant, not only academic.

To me, a human brain would not work with no Soul.
I think consciousness is the Soul who physically communicate with the brain.

Hope this post was more relevant.

This introspective understanding that you're referring to here is called the human experience by the way. Which, is an entirely different medium than the mechanics which allow for us to experience it. It's much like the music which is played back on a tape recorder. The music is an entirely separate medium than the tape recorder itself. In which case -- and this is the most important distinction to make -- what is the point in having a tape recorder, without any music to play back on it?

Indeed, what's the point of having a fully functional body, without a living entity to dwell inside? Or, what's the point in having a vacant apartment without someone to occupy it? This is what we refer to as the experience of life, of which the living entity can only comprehend. The brain does not comprehend it, but the living entity does.

And yet all you've done here, is taken the human mind which, was fully functional from its inception, out of its skull and handed it over to the experts who, have no idea of what consciousness entails.

Afraid not. I'm just not abouts to have Science tell me what I know and what I don't know. Because like I say, it's not the same medium.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

By the way, I just read about a movie I think has something to do with this subject:

http://www.21-grams.com/index.php

That's an interesting link. It looks like you've been doing a lot of research. Keep holding down the fort. The forum hasn't been very busy although there were about 25 users online one day last week (a record day).

You are correct, that little outburst of mine was unwarranted. My apologies, both of you. Carry on.

Have Digital Cuttlefish been here this last days?
I think he would find it interesting to read my most relevant post so far:

Feel free to comment.

I'll be checking out your links. Meanwhile, please tell me one thing:

Why do shared dreams indicate a "soul" to you at all, let alone a physical one? Why do you think a brain would not work with no soul? What mechanism do you propose by which a soul (physical or otherwise) would interact with the brain?

Seriously, it sounds to me like you (and Iacchus, for that matter) presuppose that a soul exists...then are convinced that the brain does have a connection to our behavior, and deduce that the brain must be where the soul interacts. Try going back a step and removing the soul from your equation altogether. What, now, is missing? What is it that your presupposition of a soul adds to the explanation of our behavior? Our brain interacts with the rest of our body, certainly, in a well-known and understood manner (perfectly understood? Of course not--but well understood, and better understood every year); we have no explanations whatsoever as to how a soul might interact with these known processes. If we know about local and action potentials (nerve impulses) and synaptic transmission via neurotransmitters (and we do know these things), and if in this nerve signal transmission there is no place left for a soul's influence to be had...then why suppose that the soul must have an influence at all?

If (and it is a huge if) there are shared dreams, why does that imply a soul? Explain this mechanism. If (again, a big if) there is an influence of our thinking on "gadgets", then I can see the argument for a physical connection between brain and gadgets, but I fail to see why it implies a "soul" has any impact whatsoever. Please tell me why it is that these phenomena, for you, imply (let alone require) a soul.

My viewpoint about shared dreams, is that 2 souls meet each other in the same realm, hence I can't see how this may happen if we don't have a Soul or a physical consciousness that in some cases are able to leave the brain for some time.
(Yes, I think's the Soul is leaving the brain during a shared dream, but not in a normal dream, even if the dream is lucid.)

As a result of reading different articles about the brain.
Here is a relevant quotation:

"Lead researcher Dr Sam Parnia, of Southampton General Hospital, said nobody fully understands how brain cells generate thoughts.

He said it might be that the mind or consciousness is independent of the brain.

He said: "When we examine brain cells we see that brain cells are like any other cells, they can produce proteins and chemicals, but they are not really capable of producing the subjective phenomenon of thought that we have.

"The brain is definitely needed to manifest the mind, a bit like how a television set can take what essentially are waves in the air and translate them into picture and sound."

The whole article is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/986177.stm

Subjective thoughts, but not major "thoughts" as heartbeats, etc, wich we don't have a conscious control of.

I understand that this is your belief--what I don't get is why. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a soul, but your belief is that a soul is necessary. The soul (which we have no evidence for) leaves the brain during some dreams, but not others...Do you see how remarkable a claim this is? Do you see that there is not a shred of evidence to support it? This is why I ask you why it is your belief. I honestly do not find it any more or less ridiculous than any number of other beliefs, so I do not intend to insult you or your beliefs or make fun of you...I honestly just want to know how you came to this extraordinary belief.LOL...2 thoughts on this. First, Dr. Parnia's mistake is a common and understandable one (and may, in fact, not be his mistake at all, but merely a misunderstanding on the part of the reporter) in presupposing that "thoughts" exist or are generated at all. Just as "a breath" does not exist separately from breathing, we search in vain for "a thought", whereas we are very good at studying thinking (from multiple perspectives, both physiological and psychological). "The mind" and "subjective phenomena" are both concepts which are defined as non-physical from the start, whether that is justified or not (and, indeed, it is not). Thus, any search for "how the brain produces the mind" is doomed to failure. It is not because we don't understand the brain (better and better all the time), but that "the mind" simply is not there to be found. Oh, and the television metaphor is extremely unfortunate, as it suggests, implicity, some form of mind signals...there is absolutely no evidence for anything of the sort, and quite a bit of evidence against it, so this one is a bad move.

Secondly...you jump from "nobody fully understands" to an explanation that involves a soul? Why? There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that explanation, so why go that direction? If the truth is "we do not understand", then that is the truth thus far, until we know better. But there is as much evidence that a soul causes dreaming (or some types) as there is that demons do, or that my cat whispers dreams into my ear at night, or that aliens project them, or that my furniture comes to life and acts out dreams just for me. So...I ask again....why jump to the "soul" explanation?

I think you misunderstood my question, because this does not answer it. Simply put, HOW does the soul interact with the brain? At the level of the neurotransmitter? If so, what initiates the chemical reaction? We understand a great deal about neural transmission, and thus far there is no place at all that requires us to fish about for an additional soul-based mechanism. So, what is the interface between the soul and the brain?