When does the soul enter a body?

[1969912 0]

Ask Mrs. Obama

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

I think that your question presupposes the "soul" exists. Something there is no evidence of at all.

Beat me to it.

We're just a bunch of chemical and electrical impulses. When we die, we're just dead, period. There is no soul left over to go to heaven or hell.

Prove to me or at least point me to even one scientific study proving/shows that the chemical and electrical impulses are NOT a mere representation of the state of your consciousness, which IS your driving force. Without it you don’t exist,

Let me ask you this...do you know exactly what consciousness is, and why you have it, or where it came from? What is itm exactly? Now if your answer to that is along the lines of Im not sure, I have some ideas, not rreally clear, but here is what I think it is, etc…then the picture is painted that is you don’t really know who you truly are. And if you dont know who you really are, then how can you claim that we are merely electrical/chemical impulses? Show me the data that says our consciousness is driven by chemicals/electricity and not vs versa.

If you know the answer to even one of these question, enlighten me please.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[SpeedRacer 1]

good points all around.

Just because A may be necessary for B to exist, does not mean that B = A.


For example, Matter, Energy, Space, and Time all depend on one another for their existences. That doesn't mean that one of them exists and the other one(s) don't.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

When does the soul enter a body?

First it has to drop the car keys off with the valet.

Then it has to talk its way past the bouncer.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

Prove to me or at least point me to even one scientific study proving/shows that the chemical and electrical impulses are NOT a mere representation of the state of your consciousness, which IS your driving force.

Are you familiar with the concept of attempting to prove a negative proposition?

It's a basic logic issue and essentially comes down to, "it can't be done".

For instance, if you ask me to PROVE that little green mean in UFOs have NEVER visited the planet earth, there's actually no way anyone can do that. Science can't "prove" something didn't happen, only something did happen. It does that by looking at evidence.

There is currently no evidence the soul exists. It can't be measured or tested for. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it is not something that science prove at this point, therefore most scientists would simply state that, there is no evidence to support any theory that a soul exists.

If you're a different kind of scientist and see the world with an alternative viewpoint, I would propose you design an experiment and see if you can define what a soul is and how to test for its existence. People have tried before. There is a fairly famous experiment where one scientist attempted to measure the "weight" of the soul as it leaves the body. It was pretty bogus but . . . hey . . . at least it was an attempt.

Check it out; http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

When does the soul enter a body?

First it has to drop the car keys off with the valet.

Then it has to talk its way past the bouncer.

As someone pointed out in a PM...The soul enters your body the first time you take a hit off a bong

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>I would say that your soul is your mind.

In that case around week 12.

Ironically around the end of the 1st trimester.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Prove to me or at least point me to even one scientific study proving/shows that the chemical and electrical impulses are NOT a mere representation of the state of your consciousness, which IS your driving force.

Are you familiar with the concept of attempting to prove a negative proposition?

It's a basic logic issue and essentially comes down to, "it can't be done".

For instance, if you ask me to PROVE that little green mean in UFOs have NEVER visited the planet earth, there's actually no way anyone can do that. Science can't "prove" something didn't happen, only something did happen. It does that by looking at evidence.

There is currently no evidence the soul exists. It can't be measured or tested for. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it is not something that science prove at this point, therefore most scientists would simply state that, there is no evidence to support any theory that a soul exists.

If you're a different kind of scientist and see the world with an alternative viewpoint, I would propose you design an experiment and see if you can define what a soul is and how to test for its existence. People have tried before. There is a fairly famous experiment where one scientist attempted to measure the "weight" of the soul as it leaves the body. It was pretty bogus but . . . hey . . . at least it was an attempt.

Check it out; http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

I'd say that brain injury is fairly good evidence against the idea of a soul. Significant brain damage definitely changes a persons personality, or even destroys it completely whereas damage to other parts of the body does not. Even an induced chemical imbalance in the brain can have a significant effect

[Leapinglizardto 0]

I'll let you know as soon as I get one!

It's pretty pathetic when you have to TELL people you're fucking cool Skymama «narrative»This thread will lock in 3..2.. What a load of narrow-minded Xenophobic Bullshit!-squeak

[Amazon 7]

Hmmmm soul entering body.......


I wonder who has been dating those ethnic guys... with a whole lotta "soul".....

[JSBIRD 1]

The soul enters the body as the first breath is taken.
It is also then that the veil of conciousness falls.

The soul then leaves the physical body, you guessed it, after the last breath is exhaled.

BASE359

"Now I've settled down,
in a quiet little town,
and forgot about everything"

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Prove to me or at least point me to even one scientific study proving/shows that the chemical and electrical impulses are NOT a mere representation of the state of your consciousness, which IS your driving force.

Are you familiar with the concept of attempting to prove a negative proposition?

It's a basic logic issue and essentially comes down to, "it can't be done".

For instance, if you ask me to PROVE that little green mean in UFOs have NEVER visited the planet earth, there's actually no way anyone can do that. Science can't "prove" something didn't happen, only something did happen. It does that by looking at evidence.

There is currently no evidence the soul exists. It can't be measured or tested for. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it is not something that science prove at this point, therefore most scientists would simply state that, there is no evidence to support any theory that a soul exists.

If you're a different kind of scientist and see the world with an alternative viewpoint, I would propose you design an experiment and see if you can define what a soul is and how to test for its existence. People have tried before. There is a fairly famous experiment where one scientist attempted to measure the "weight" of the soul as it leaves the body. It was pretty bogus but . . . hey . . . at least it was an attempt.

Check it out; http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

I'd say that brain injury is fairly good evidence against the idea of a soul. Significant brain damage definitely changes a persons personality, or even destroys it completely whereas damage to other parts of the body does not. Even an induced chemical imbalance in the brain can have a significant effect

Just because the vehicle is damaged does not mean there is anything wrong with the driver. Take Stephen Hawkins as an example. Thanks to technology we can bypass the physical, and get to the non-tangible aspect of a human.

Can you quantify origins of a thought? (no one has yet

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[JackC 0]

Quote

Just because the vehicle is damaged does not mean there is anything wrong with the driver. Take Stephen Hawkins as an example. Thanks to technology we can bypass the physical, and get to the non-tangible aspect of a human.

Motor Neurone Disease that Steven Hawking suffers from, destroys motor neurons which are the cells that control voluntary muscle activity and general movement of the body. If Steven Hawking had damage to other parts of his Cerebral Cortex instead of just his Motor Cortex, you would see a very different effect. That adds plenty of weight to the argument that certain parts of the brain are responsible for certain roles and adds absolutely no weight to the soul theory.

Quote

Can you quantify origins of a thought? (no one has yet

I don't know what you mean by quantify the origins of a thought so I can't answer but there was a recent discussion that you might find interesting. The links in there relate to a recent experiment where a subjects brain was monitored with an fMRI machine during a decision making process. The results were quite suprising.

But in general it seems that science does study conciousness and the mind quite a bit.

[Skwrl 56]

Thomas Acquinas argued that it was when quickening occurred.

But again, that presupposes a soul that there's no evidence of.

For those interested in the question, you may be interested in the following: http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

>So are neurons firing the same thing as having a "mind"?

Neurons firing in an organized fashion, yes.

What might you make of this?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,084]

>What might you make of this?

An attempt to use mammalian neurons to implement a computer neural network. The idea is nothing new; we've been using silicon-based neural networks for decades for various processes that require learning. Since they are based on biological neural networks, it doesn't surprise me much that real neurons can be used in the same way.

[PLFXpert 0]

More specifically, I was looking for whether or not such things fit your definition of having a mind.

Is a mind something that can be created (other than producing an infant, of course)?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 4]

Quote

More specifically, I was looking for whether or not such things fit your definition of having a mind.

Is a mind something that can be created (other than producing an infant, of course)?

I think we'll see something of that nature in the not too distant future. A computer that has enough connections that it becomes aware of itself. It's been a long time coming, but with biological computers and robots in their infancy right now, I don't think it will be too long.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

A computer that has enough connections that it becomes aware of itself.

So being aware of oneself constitues having a mind?

I'm just thinking out loud...

If we can create a mind, then all its processes would have to be known (i.e. able to be calculated), right? What about perception or instinct?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 4]

Both perception and instinct and ready exist in robotics. Perception is just sensor input and interpretation. Instict is software; if this happens, then do that. What we have yet to see is a machine that has learned, not via programming but by it's own independent processes, that of is an independent entity separate from the sensors or programming.

That would truly be something and yes I think we are on the verge of this happening. This will blow away a huge chunk in the concept of what constitutes a "mind" and "soul."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Both perception and instinct and ready exist in robotics. Perception is just sensor input and interpretation. Instict is software; if this happens, then do that.

To what extent, though? (I'm asking, not questioning.)

I can see what you mean as relative to robotics, but not to humans (which is what I'm talking about).

Perhaps that's what you mean by:

Quote

What we have yet to see is a machine that has learned, not via programming but by it's own independent processes, that of is an independent entity separate from the sensors or programming.

That would truly be something and yes I think we are on the verge of this happening. This will blow away a huge chunk in the concept of what constitutes a "mind" and "soul."

I would disagree we're "on the verge", but I do think it probable our minds' processes can be computed.

And by that I mean I think it probable we can deduce our minds' processes to mathematics and create a computer "mind" that thinks and "acts" just as a human would.

Having said that, I have trouble comprehending the "energy" aspect of the mind. I can't imagine a computer or other "non-living" thing ever having the energy potential that a human mind could/would have.

So the human mind would always be more powerful, imo



Oy vey. My head hurts. That's enough thinking for me for the moment.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 4]

Quote

Having said that, I have trouble comprehending the "energy" aspect of the mind. I can't imagine a computer or other "non-living" thing ever having the energy potential that a human mind could/would have.

I think you're getting into a completely metaphysical aspect with this that there is currently no proof exists at all.

The "mind," as far as we can currently tell, has no "energy" component. Pretty much every current model I've seen says it's simply a matter of connections. Have a large enough network of connections, give it enough input and let it work things out on its own.

The network does have to be set up correctly to begin with. Ours evolved over billions of years so I certainly wouldn't expect us to make one artificially overnight, but I do think we are close.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

The "mind," as far as we can currently tell, has no "energy" component.

Hmmm. You would probably know better than I, but I'm thinking physics. I'm thinking "imagination".

People can move artificial limbs with their mind--with their thoughts w/out moving muscles.

What am I missing?

If the mind has no energy to transfer, than why do "we" spend [a lot?] of money on studying moving objects with the mind?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

The "mind," as far as we can currently tell, has no "energy" component.

Hmmm. You would probably know better than I, but I'm thinking physics. I'm thinking "imagination".

People can move artificial limbs with their mind--with their thoughts w/out moving muscles.

What am I missing?

If the mind has no energy to transfer, than why do "we" spend [a lot?] of money on studying moving objects with the mind?

Imagination has nothing to do with the "energy" used to move muscles. To move a muscle is a simple electro-chemical process and a simple analog would be a motor moving because you turned on a switch.

As far as people moving artificial limbs with their thoughts, yes, that's possible, sort of, right now, but the brain has to be trained to do it and a computer is used to interpret the signals the brain puts out, but that is all still in its infancy.

BTW, robots are actually far more adept at turning a command into a motor movement than we are; currently

In your last sentence, you seem to be talking about telekinesis. While it makes for lovely parlor tricks and fantastical stories about Jedi, it simply doesn't happen in the real world.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JackC 0]

Quote

Having said that, I have trouble comprehending the "energy" aspect of the mind. I can't imagine a computer or other "non-living" thing ever having the energy potential that a human mind could/would have.

That sort of description frequently comes up in conversations like this. Unfortunately it seems to be virtually impossible to nail down what things like "energy aspect of the mind" means. Now energy potential has a specific scientific meaning, bit it's pretty ambiguous in the context you are using it and almost certainly not what you mean. The trouble is, you have to define very carefully what 'it' is and how to measure 'it' before you can figure out if you have replicated 'it'.