Dionysus Forums Archives - What *is* a Soul?

#21

09-13-2004, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Cuttlefish

Again, I could not have put it better myself. Thank you.

Yes you could, and have. I am merely paraphrasing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Cuttlefish

Again, I could not have put it better myself. Thank you.
Erm...thanks heaps. Verbose I can take...boring? I blame myself for that, then, because the topics I have written about are fascinating to me.

Yeah, it's always the same with you scientist types. More interested in your work than in anything else. Do you even have a girlfriend?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Cuttlefish

Ghosts? Nah...chiropractic or homeopathy. The wager?

No fair! You peeked ahead and saw where Iacchy started trashing medicine!

#22

09-13-2004, 05:00 AM

Digital Cuttlefish,

Actually, those articles make much sense to me. Nonsense is your opinion about those articles, not a fact.

I have read several articles on that site, and some of the articles seems to be facts about misconceptions.

In fact, those articles on ZetaTalk makes almost as much sense to me as the articles on http://www.snopes.com/

__________________
The Heavenly Afterlife exist.

#23

09-13-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human

Digital Cuttlefish,

Actually, those articles make much sense to me. Nonsense is your opinion about those articles, not a fact.

Great! Perhaps, then, you could explain to me how they are so certain of all those details about something they admit cannot be sensed in any way. Yes, it is nonsense to me; since it is not to you, I am hoping you can explain it.

Quote:

I am not terribly familiar with snopes. From what I have heard, though, snopes at least cites sources for their information, such that any interested readers could check the situation for themselves. That would be a huge help for the zeta site too--perhaps they have good sources for what they say; without sources, it really sounds like they are just making it up.

#24

09-13-2004, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Cuttlefish

No, we cannot. Absolutely not. That same thing used to be evidence of an anima, or evidence of possession by gods or other discarnate spirits. There is absolutely no reason to think it is a soul any more than any of these other things. There is no reason to think it is other than the cessation of cellular metabolism, which we do understand as a physical process.

As long as we keep defining the soul so poorly, we will continue to be unable to prove or disprove it. And yet, we have such a tough time letting go of something that makes us special...just like we fought against heliocentrism and against Darwin...

How about the type of energy dreams are made of then? It's both intelligent (meaning us) and directly interacts with the energy of the Universe which, is part of the Collective Unconscious.

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

#25

09-13-2004, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus32

How about the type of energy dreams are made of then? It's both intelligent (meaning us) and directly interacts with the energy of the Universe which, is part of the Collective Unconscious.

What type of energy would that be? Is it one of the well-known kinds? Or is it a "yet unproven" kind of energy. If it's one of the known kinds, it should be easy to detect and measure it. If it is an "unknown" kind, well, then we're kind of back at square one of trying to prove souls.

Really, Iacchy, substituting one imaginary thing for another doesn't really give us any new info.

#26

09-13-2004, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iacchus32

How about the type of energy dreams are made of then? It's both intelligent (meaning us) and directly interacts with the energy of the Universe which, is part of the Collective Unconscious.

We do know the energies of the nerve impulse, and the chemical energies of synaptic transmission. We may not know it all, but we do know enough to say that no, the energy itself is not intelligent (it is unclear whether you meant that), and no, it does not meaningfully interact with the "energy of the universe", which you have not defined, nor linked with the purely hypothetical collective unconscious.

Or is this another poem?