EXACTLY, What Is The Soul?

[Ancient Soul]

The idea of a “you.”

Please define what you consider "you" in your above reply.

 

[sayak83]

Myeah, not really what I mean, off course.

I am saying that there are alternative systems which has very very different conceptions of terms than within that of science. Not saying they are true... but saying that scientific terms are commonly and unambiguosly understood in general among people the same way would be wrong imo.
So the relevant question is, whether a term ( gravity or energy or soul) is well defined within a given system of thought or not. How that tern is defined outside that system is irrelevant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am saying that there are alternative systems which has very very different conceptions of terms than within that of science. Not saying they are true... but saying that scientific terms are commonly and unambiguosly understood in general among people the same way would be wrong imo.
So the relevant question is, whether a term ( gravity or energy or soul) is well defined within a given system of thought or not. How that tern is defined outside that system is irrelevant.

My point was rather hinting towards the question: why is gravity properly defined and "soul" isn't?

The answer is rather simple: it's easier, to say the least, to agree on definitions of things that are actually observable... which can actually be distinguished from things that do NOT exist...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The mind is a function of the brain but the mind is not the brain.

But as a function, it is part of it.
So to say that the mind = the brain, doesn't seem entirely inaccurate.

In any case, to then say that the mind is an entity independent of the brain, is clearly wrong.

The difference is that that brain is pure matter with no identity whereas the soul is non-material and where you get your identity.

I disagree.
I'ld say all the evidence shows that the mind is "produced" by the material brain. It is only immaterial as a concept for us to talk about it as distinct from the material brain. But that concept doesn't exist in actual objective reality, independent from the brain. If the brain dies, the mind dies with it. It comes forth from the brain. It can not exist without the brain. And purely objectively, it doesn't actually exist at all.

The mind is the fruit of the soul. Mind is the light which shines from the soul.

“The human spirit which distinguishes man from the animal is the rational soul, and these two names—the human spirit and the rational soul—designate one thing. This spirit, which in the terminology of the philosophers is the rational soul, embraces all beings, and as far as human ability permits discovers the realities of things and becomes cognizant of their peculiarities and effects, and of the qualities and properties of beings………

But the mind is the power of the human spirit. Spirit is the lamp; mind is the light which shines from the lamp. Spirit is the tree, and the mind is the fruit. Mind is the perfection of the spirit and is its essential quality, as the sun’s rays are the essential necessity of the sun.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 208-209

All this is poetic conceptual talk.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would suggest that the soul is that part of a living being that is of God.
It is that part that connects us to God and through which the Holy Spirit communicates with us.
We have no control over it, and it, no control over us.
It does not have a physical presence but only a spiritual one.
It comes to us at birth and returns to God at our death.
It is uncomfortable and eternal
As being of God, like God it is always sinless.
There is nothing to suppose that it it retains any memory of Our existence after death.
However God would do so.

 

[viole]

In my view ... I think therefore I am. Consciousness.

Soul: you don’t think, therefore I am.

ciao

- viole

 

[dfnj]

Well the video did not prove it was more than a coincidence. The replies given by the parrot were individual extracts over a considerable period of time. The jury is out on any proof that video could offer.

You are just ignoring the evidence because it disagrees with your own personal dogma. To accept the evidence as true you would have to rethink your dogma which is very painful for most people.

Before you simply dismiss this effort out of hand based on your own personal prejudice, someone who is trying to do good science would be a little more objective and let the data speak for itself.

Here is a detailed summary of the methods used in the analysis:

Testing a Language-Using Parrot for Telepathy

"But even though our procedures probably underestimated N'kisi's performance, the results were highly significant statistically and imply that N'kisi was influenced by Aimée's mental activity while she was looking at particular pictures, even though he could not see her, hear her, or receive other normal sensory clues. N'kisi's very significant repetition of key words when they were hits adds to this conclusion.

The statistical significance of our results incidentally confirms N'kisi's meaningful use of spoken language. If N'kisi were incapable of using language appropriately, it would probably not have been possible to come up with any significant results in this series of tests. The ability of animals to use language, and what this may reveal about their cognitive abilities, is still being debated. These results raise issues relating to animal intelligence and interspecies communication with implications that extend beyond the scope of this paper."

You can always question someone's methods. But as you can see Sheldrake was trying to do real science.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You are just ignoring the evidence because it disagrees with your own personal dogma. To accept the evidence as true you would have to rethink your dogma which is very painful for most people.

Before you simply dismiss this effort out of hand based on your own personal prejudice, someone who is trying to do good science would be a little more objective and let the data speak for itself.

Here is a detailed summary of the methods used in the analysis:

Testing a Language-Using Parrot for Telepathy

"But even though our procedures probably underestimated N'kisi's performance, the results were highly significant statistically and imply that N'kisi was influenced by Aimée's mental activity while she was looking at particular pictures, even though he could not see her, hear her, or receive other normal sensory clues. N'kisi's very significant repetition of key words when they were hits adds to this conclusion.

The statistical significance of our results incidentally confirms N'kisi's meaningful use of spoken language. If N'kisi were incapable of using language appropriately, it would probably not have been possible to come up with any significant results in this series of tests. The ability of animals to use language, and what this may reveal about their cognitive abilities, is still being debated. These results raise issues relating to animal intelligence and interspecies communication with implications that extend beyond the scope of this paper."

You can always question someone's methods. But as you can see Sheldrake was trying to do real science.

I have no idea what you are offering and why. I can offer that your accusations are hollow, as you have no idea as to what I have read and understand about this subject.

Having read reviews on this video, I have taken the balanced approach and agree that with what was provided the evidence does not prove the case.

In saying that, that does not say what I beleive.

Peace be with you, Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

But as a function, it is part of it.
So to say that the mind = the brain, doesn't seem entirely inaccurate.

To say that the mind is “part” of the brain indicates the mind has physical properties, but the mind has no physical properties.

The mind is not the brain, according to scientists:

The Brain is not the Mind
Rebecca Saxe: The Brain vs. The Mind
Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body

In any case, to then say that the mind is an entity independent of the brain, is clearly wrong.

I did not say that the mind is independent of the brain. I believe the mind functions through the brain while we are alive in a physical body, but after we die and no longer have a physical body, the mind continues to exist independent of the physical body.

The human spirit means the same thing as the human soul.

The mind is the power of the human soul. The soul is like a lamp; mind is the light which shines from the lamp. The mind shines from the soul, just as the sun’s rays shine from the sun. Just as a tree bears fruits, a soul bears fruits and the mind is the fruit of the soul.

“But the mind is the power of the human spirit. Spirit is the lamp; mind is the light which shines from the lamp. Spirit is the tree, and the mind is the fruit. Mind is the perfection of the spirit and is its essential quality, as the sun’s rays are the essential necessity of the sun.” Some Answered Questions,pp. 209

I disagree.
I'd say all the evidence shows that the mind is "produced" by the material brain.

What evidence shows that?

It is only immaterial as a concept for us to talk about it as distinct from the material brain. But that concept doesn't exist in actual objective reality, independent from the brain.

If you mean the mind is not a physical reality I can agree with that.

If the brain dies, the mind dies with it. It comes forth from the brain. It can not exist without the brain. And purely objectively, it doesn't actually exist at all.

You have no proof that the mind cannot exist apart from the brain. Scientists have never proven that it can or cannot. Very little is known about the mind to date and research is ongoing.

 

[Ancient Soul]

I have no idea what you are offering and why. I can offer that your accusations are hollow, as you have no idea as to what I have read and understand about this subject.

Having read reviews on this video, I have taken the balanced approach and agree that with what was provided the evidence does not prove the case.

In saying that, that does not say what I beleive.

Peace be with you, Regards Tony

He made himself perfectly clear and to the point, so you come across as someone who just doesn't want to face what he stated because it shows how you deny facts that go against your mythology.