Can Atma be killed?

[Diplomat]

Currently on a quest to figure out if Atma can be killed or not. Because if atma can be killed then there are no chances of rebirth, paying for sins, etc

[Mallu Rider]

Y u want to kill amtha?

Mazak ki bhi hadd hoti hai. R u put of your mind, atupid.

[Diplomat]

Nope. This is just like trying to find out how the universe was created.

[sunnykode]

What makes you believe that that is atma to begin with?
Do you have any proof? theory??

[Origmos]

No, the soul cannot be killed because the soul as a concept rises above death.

Consciousness dies, but the soul lives on forever. Your soul is the same as the day you were born or on the day you died.

[PeaceSeeker]

No, the soul cannot be killed because the soul as a concept rises above death.

Consciousness dies, but the soul lives on forever. Your soul is the same as the day you were born or on the day you died.
Atma is like Mahadev. Without beginning and end.

What makes you believe that that is atma to begin with?
Do you have any proof? theory??

I dont understand how can logic deny Atma's existence.
Sunny, u r a medical professional right?

If a limb is amputated, it can be replaced and the living being is back to work.

Similarly, a heart or even a brain can be replaced. But why a dead person cannot be brought back to life by replacing whatever that is missing?
lot of intelligent ppl compare the body of a living being with a machine. what bull is that. a machine can be made up&running even if its engine (or any core component) needs replacement. but not a body which is dead.

of course atma exists and the science cannot replant atma bcoz, to begin with, it denies its existense:rolleyes:

I am sorry if the above logic is fundamentally flawed:hide:

[Budmaas]

Currently on a quest to figure out if Atma can be killed or not. Because if atma can be killed then there are no chances of rebirth, paying for sins, etc


No
Never possible
He is moderator here. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[sunnykode]

Atma is like Mahadev. Without beginning and end.

I dont understand how can logic deny Atma's existence.
Sunny, u r a medical professional right?

If a limb is amputated, it can be replaced and the living being is back to work.

Similarly, a heart or even a brain can be replaced.

Brain Transplantation :dontknow:.
My friend we are couple of years away from the brain transplantation. There are studies currently done on rats, but humans will still have to wait:D

But why a dead person cannot be brought back to life by replacing whatever that is missing?

I can argue that nothing is missing. Person dies and he is gone. Ppl like to believe that there is soul and blah blah and that there is after life. I think it is all made up so that ppl will have good morals and not do wrong things in this life fearing the outcome in the after life.

lot of intelligent ppl compare the body of a living being with a machine. what bull is that. a machine can be made up&running even if its engine (or any core component) needs replacement. but not a body which is dead.

We are machines, my brother. A good oiled machine runs longer than others :D.

of course atma exists and the science cannot replant atma bcoz, to begin with, it denies its existense:rolleyes:

Science respects proff's. And sadly religious ppl will never have any proofs. They are just believes past on from generation to generation.
Answer this, if there is soul. Then why does some lives are shorter than others? Why are some souls weak? Cause if there are souls, then all should have same life.
Now do not tell me that some souls are bored :D.
Also if atma leaves the body on its wish, why does it not enter at wish?
It would be cool to have dead ppl walking around, don't you think :D

I am sorry if the above logic is fundamentally flawed:hide:
[/quote]

Yes brother, atma logic is fundamentally flawed :D

[PeaceSeeker]

I can argue that nothing is missing. Person dies and he is gone.

i will give a detailed reply later.
when you say "person dies & he is gone", what is this "he"? the person is right there no? with all the body parts, internal & external. the heart, brain, limbs, veins & arteries (& even genes)? so what is gone when you say "he is gone"?

[Origmos]

When a person is physically gone, his internal rhythm of biochemical chemistry is disrupted for good.

We may know everything about biology. But I doubt we will ever know the mechanism to kickstart the internal biochemistry of any organism once it has collapsed. So far we have not done this to one bacteria or virus. I doubt if this would be possible for us.

[Origmos]

Sunnykode, it does not matter how short a person lives.

[Diplomat]

No, the soul cannot be killed because the soul as a concept rises above death.

Consciousness dies, but the soul lives on forever. Your soul is the same as the day you were born or on the day you died.

That is the concept we have been living with for centuries. Just like every other concept, I think it is not true and that what comes into existence can be taken out of existence too.

[Origmos]

That is the concept we have been living with for centuries. Just like every other concept, I think it is not true and that what comes into existence can be taken out of existence too.

Let me define the soul for good here.

The soul is the structural truth of a system bound by its past, present and future.

The soul is not just the person and the individual, it is his karma too and all its consequences. Our lives are the cumulatives of all the choices taken in the past. No matter how shortlived a person, the actions he/she took in their lives still affect the world in a general sense, no matter how minute. This is also more common with people with great karma. They affect us much. So they can be called great souls.

[sunnykode]

i will give a detailed reply later.
when you say "person dies & he is gone", what is this "he"? the person is right there no? with all the body parts, internal & external. the heart, brain, limbs, veins & arteries (& even genes)? so what is gone when you say "he is gone"?

when a human dies, life is over. There is no after life.
Same as your car, once it stops working, it is junked. There is no soul in car either, so we cannot say that initially I was a Ford car, now I am a BMW:D

[sunnykode]

When a person is physically gone, his internal rhythm of biochemical chemistry is disrupted for good.
this proves that it is all science and there can be no atma.


We may know everything about biology. But I doubt we will ever know the mechanism to kickstart the internal biochemistry of any organism once it has collapsed. So far we have not done this to one bacteria or virus. I doubt if this would be possible for us.

we are aware of the central nervous system and there is brain to process all the information. Once the brain is dead, a person is dead by all means. So yes, Science does have answers, what about religion? Does it?

[sunnykode]

Sunnykode, it does not matter how short a person lives.

Why does it not matter. Why don't all souls enjoy same life span? I will even give you the reasoning that some souls are superior to others. Okay, but then still the remaining ones should have the same life span. :dontknow:

[sunnykode]

Let me define the soul for good here.

The soul is the structural truth of a system bound by its past, present and future.

The soul is not just the person and the individual, it is his karma too and all its consequences. Our lives are the cumulatives of all the choices taken in the past. No matter how shortlived a person, the actions he/she took in their lives still affect the world in a general sense, no matter how minute. This is also more common with people with great karma. They affect us much. So they can be called great souls.

So how many souls are there? Because for all i see is the human population on Earth is increasing day by day.
Are you going to tell me now, that God is still generating souls separately? :)

[badriprasad]

Don't know if can be kelled but you must have come across many who never had any to begin with ...

[Budmaas]

Don't know if can be kelled but you must have come across many who never had any to begin with ...

In the memory of Vanilla flavor.
Suppose you got right to kill him............Now tell me how do you SOFT people kill a soul ............???? by flower or by kiss..... :rolleyes:;)

& where do you hit first......? ;)

:dontknow:;)

[Origmos]

Why does it not matter. Why don't all souls enjoy same life span? I will even give you the reasoning that some souls are superior to others. Okay, but then still the remaining ones should have the same life span. :dontknow:

Time is a human perspective. For the soul, there is nothing called a past, present and future. It is as it is and it will remain unchanged forever.

[Origmos]

So how many souls are there? Because for all i see is the human population on Earth is increasing day by day.
Are you going to tell me now, that God is still generating souls separately? :)

Are you claiming just humans have souls? :D

[Origmos]

this proves that it is all science and there can be no atma.



we are aware of the central nervous system and there is brain to process all the information. Once the brain is dead, a person is dead by all means. So yes, Science does have answers, what about religion? Does it?

The current religions do not have a satisfactory answer. But I can attempt to explain using what I have observed so far in life.

A person even in a physical sense is immortal. A person does not need a soul to be immortal, he is already so by the virtue of his course of actions in this universe.

What is the necessity for the soul? The answer is this.

We as a person are made of atoms and molecules making up our cells and the cells being organized into ourselves. If there is a way, you add up all the actions of all the atoms and molecules within your body, you will still have information missing from your calculations. Remember the person is always greater than the summation of all the atoms and molecules composing him.

[smellyfinger]

Currently on a quest to figure out if Atma can be killed or not. Because if atma can be killed then there are no chances of rebirth, paying for sins, etc


No. It cannot be killed. Just like Superman. Cannot be killed.

[Premi]

it can not be killed or created. just changing bodies like changing clothes. Thats what we have heard. right?

now more n more souls are taking human beings bodies as now we are 7 billions+ earlier we had more animals. now animal's souls are being converted into human being's souls so we see more animal nature acts from people. :D

[Origmos]

The whole is always greater than the sum of parts,

[Sane Less]

The whole is always greater than the sum of parts,

Kaun puraane sakool ke ho:confused: That was all the old classical theories of physics. Now with all the new theories... what all... wave theory... string theory... sunny leone's undie theory... god's particle... they have almost proved that the whole is always the same as the sum of parts:D

[Origmos]

Kaun puraane sakool ke ho:confused: That was all the old classical theories of physics. Now with all the new theories... what all... wave theory... string theory... sunny leone's undie theory... god's particle... they have almost proved that the whole is always the same as the sum of parts:D

They inferred Higgs boson by its characteristics in the data, I do not think they observed it by itself.

[Sane Less]

They inferred Higgs boson by its characteristics in the data, I do not think they observed it by itself.
Are you saying your inference is better than their inference:D

[sunnykode]

Time is a human perspective. For the soul, there is nothing called a past, present and future. It is as it is and it will remain unchanged forever.
So no present no future.....so how does soul get in the body? Now are you claiming that souls have a mind of their own?

Are you claiming just humans have souls? :D

No I am saying there are no souls :)

[sunnykode]

The current religions do not have a satisfactory answer. But I can attempt to explain using what I have observed so far in life.

A person even in a physical sense is immortal. A person does not need a soul to be immortal, he is already so by the virtue of his course of actions in this universe.


Okay....so you are aware that ppl want to hold on to memories, and soul is nothing else but another name to memories.


What is the necessity for the soul? The answer is this.

We as a person are made of atoms and molecules making up our cells and the cells being organized into ourselves. If there is a way, you add up all the actions of all the atoms and molecules within your body, you will still have information missing from your calculations. Remember the person is always greater than the summation of all the atoms and molecules composing him.
Why is there information missing? And who says it is?
Science answers how a human body works. There are some diseases are in-curable, but at least science has cured many diseases.
So you tell me, what does religion have to offer. Everything in religion is psychological, and even for that science has answers.

[sanjayt]

Kaun puraane sakool ke ho:confused: That was all the old classical theories of physics. Now with all the new theories... what all... wave theory... string theory... sunny leone's undie theory... god's particle... they have almost proved that the whole is always the same as the sum of parts:D

Aap ki i-schooling hui kahan se? Wave theory, string theory, Sunny Leone undie theory ... sab kuch sikha diye.

Chhoti si umar mein yeh sab. Bahut precocious ho aap.

:D

[Origmos]

Okay....so you are aware that ppl want to hold on to memories, and soul is nothing else but another name to memories.


Why is there information missing? And who says it is?
Science answers how a human body works. There are some diseases are in-curable, but at least science has cured many diseases.
So you tell me, what does religion have to offer. Everything in religion is psychological, and even for that science has answers.

No, the soul is not just memories, I said previously it includes Karma too.

If you consider a person as a collection of organized atoms and molecules, it misses out a lot of information because there is both an external and an internal universe to all of us. Our internal universe is indeed organized atoms and molecules, but our external universe is not. To the external universe, you are one single significant entity, so no matter what your limbs do, it is your responsibility unless one is ruled clinically insane. This is how we are also recognized in a legal sense.

Also I believe our brains process information at a higher order than the neurons themselves. Each neuron is a microscopic cell, yet it computes a neural calculation at a higher level than itself i.e at the level of the entire organism. All of these normal mental problems are solved at one single perspective of the individual. If the brain tries to do this in terms more than one such perspective, it is called multiple personality disorder.

The point what I'm trying to make is that there are certain kinds of calculations which require a higher perspective on the collective multicellular self. Unless the being in question has the required mechanism to acquire this perspective, it will not possess higher cognitive functions. The concept of the soul is ingrained into the body itself.

Regarding religion, there is saying that religion was the ancient man's science and science is the modern man's religion. Ancient religion was the cradle of civilization as it gave men the first moral and social values. I

[Origmos]

nevermind...

[PeaceSeeker]

when a human dies, life is over. There is no after life.
Same as your car, once it stops working, it is junked. There is no soul in car either, so we cannot say that initially I was a Ford car, now I am a BMW:D

sunny, dont mix words & things unnecessarily.

u said "when a human dies, he is gone"? did you mean "he is gone" is same is "life is over"? so you meant to say that "nothing is gone as such but life is over"?

i can prove atma exists. logically. if you remain on one track.

do you have any comment to offer on bolded portions below? you agree with them? or its bullshit? or something in between?

When a person is physically gone, his internal rhythm of biochemical chemistry is disrupted for good.

We may know everything about biology. But I doubt we will ever know the mechanism to kickstart the internal biochemistry of any organism once it has collapsed. So far we have not done this to one bacteria or virus. I doubt if this would be possible for us.

[Origmos]

Peaceseeker bhau,

I was wrong, they observed some kind of boson they think it is Higgs because it meets the characteristics

sorry for my choice of words. I conveyed a wrong impression there.

[Origmos]

I apologize to all.

[sunnykode]

sunny, dont mix words & things unnecessarily.

u said "when a human dies, he is gone"? did you mean "he is gone" is same is "life is over"? so you meant to say that "nothing is gone as such but life is over"?

i can prove atma exists. logically. if you remain on one track.

do you have any comment to offer on bolded portions below? you agree with them? or its bullshit? or something in between?
Okay let me be sure.
Once a human dies, he is dead. There is no atma, ready to jump bodies.

You can prove atma exists, bring it on.

As for biochemical chemistry, you are just proving that there is science and nothing else. Once the body system is out of sync, body fails. Now do not try and but the soul logic here, body fails and science can explain.

[sunnykode]

No, the soul is not just memories, I said previously it includes Karma too.

Karma is something no one can prove. So no point talking about it.



If you consider a person as a collection of organized atoms and molecules, it misses out a lot of information because there is both an external and an internal universe to all of us. Our internal universe is indeed organized atoms and molecules, but our external universe is not. To the external universe, you are one single significant entity, so no matter what your limbs do, it is your responsibility unless one is ruled clinically insane. This is how we are also recognized in a legal sense.

OKay you talk about missing information. I think the easy way to go by this is me asking you " What is this missing information?"
Answer this and we will take it from there.


Also I believe our brains process information at a higher order than the neurons themselves. Each neuron is a microscopic cell, yet it computes a neural calculation at a higher level than itself i.e at the level of the entire organism. All of these normal mental problems are solved at one single perspective of the individual. If the brain tries to do this in terms more than one such perspective, it is called multiple personality disorder.

Again this would be your belief system. I cannot argue with beliefs. Some beleive there are virgins waiting for them :dontknow:

The point what I'm trying to make is that there are certain kinds of calculations which require a higher perspective on the collective multicellular self. Unless the being in question has the required mechanism to acquire this perspective, it will not possess higher cognitive functions. The concept of the soul is ingrained into the body itself.

There are many things which cannot be answered, but that just means we need to look harder. Over the years humans have always relied on religion to answer questions we have no answers too. Do not think that is a wise decision anymore.

Regarding religion, there is saying that religion was the ancient man's science and science is the modern man's religion. Ancient religion was the cradle of civilization as it gave men the first moral and social values. I
Religion was science because we did not know much at the time. As for science, i will repeat, science has answered more questions, religion could ever.

[badriprasad]

Religion was science because we did not know much at the time.

You refer to Sanatan Dhama? There is no word for science in Sanatan dictionary or is there? All and everything scientific has been kind courtesy of Gods and higher beings ... aliens. Ramayana and Mahabharata wars? Latest weapons were gifts of Brahma. Pushpak Vimana flight ... one Lord Rama took from Sri Lanka back home to Ayodhya? Gift of Gods ... Brahma. Where does it say Brahma owned a factory?

As for science, i will repeat, science has answered more questions, religion could ever.

Religion provides answers to questions which science cannot handle. Science needs proof ... all that religion demands is blind faith.



You're all fired up Sunny Sahib ... ;)

[sunnykode]

You're all fired up Sunny Sahib ... ;)

Science provides answer to questions to which religion has no clue to. I can give you many many examples.

Why is one life shorter than other.
Why are there abnormalities in life.
Why do some ppl die from a particular disease , while others in a different place with better equipment survive.

[PeaceSeeker]

Okay let me be sure.
Once a human dies, he is dead. There is no atma, ready to jump bodies.

You can prove atma exists, bring it on.

As for biochemical chemistry, you are just proving that there is science and nothing else. Once the body system is out of sync, body fails. Now do not try and but the soul logic here, body fails and science can explain.

do you agree that what you call as 'sync' above is same as what the below post calls 'internal rhythm' or 'mechanism which keeps internal biochemistry running'?

When a person is physically gone, his internal rhythm of biochemical chemistry is disrupted for good.

We may know everything about biology. But I doubt we will ever know the mechanism to kickstart the internal biochemistry of any organism once it has collapsed. So far we have not done this to one bacteria or virus. I doubt if this would be possible for us.

[Diplomat]

No. It cannot be killed. Just like Superman. Cannot be killed.

LOL...smelly, as always. Miss Big-G and Lal-Langot. You 3 made it fun :)


I believe the concept of soul is the one that learns each time it takes birth with a human. Souls do not reside with animals. That is why human beings evolve. Each new generation is forward thinking than ones before. My soul is learning from my experiences, enhancing the human program over my lifetime. When I die, the next human being it is assigned to will be starting off much ahead in life. So if this is the case, there should be a way to terminate this program from progressing further. This has happened with animals. That is why they are not evolving. They still behave like they did centuries ago. The same cannot be said for humans.

[smellyfinger]

LOL...smelly, as always. Miss Big-G and Lal-Langot. You 3 made it fun :)


I am glad someone got it!! Congrats!


I believe the concept of soul is the one that learns each time it takes birth with a human. Souls do not reside with animals. That is why human beings evolve. Each new generation is forward thinking than ones before. My soul is learning from my experiences, enhancing the human program over my lifetime. When I die, the next human being it is assigned to will be starting off much ahead in life. So if this is the case, there should be a way to terminate this program from progressing further. This has happened with animals. That is why they are not evolving. They still behave like they did centuries ago. The same cannot be said for humans.

Not true - animals evolve all the time and continue to evolve. Dogs, for example. They used to be wild. They are domesticated now and their behavior is completely different from what they were. In fact, all domestic animals - cows, horses even cats.

What you are describing is not advancement of the soul - it is due to documented learning. Where children start from a learning platform established over the course of many generations. If a human child was born and brought up in the wild, he would be no different than a wild animal - or a human from 5000 years ago. If your concept of soul was true, then isolated tribes in the Amazon would not continue to live/behave the way they do. Unless you are positing that a soul is local and will reincarnate only locally.

Even if it existed, a soul cannot learn. it has no brain. It has no heart. It has no memory cells. Just like a ghost cant talk. Where would the sound come from?

Bottom line is that soul is like superman. Great to read about in comics/books and watch in movies, nowhere to be found in the real world. The real world is the real world. This is all there is. You die, you die - all of you. The only thing that survives you is your legacy, not your soul. Humans try to increase their importance with this concept of soul. It is an overt proclamation of a god, but intrinsically it is a ploy of self aggrandization. No god created man. Man created god so man can feel more important than he actually is. God is just a ruse created by an insignificant man to hide his own insignificance.

[sunnykode]

do you agree that what you call as 'sync' above is same as what the below post calls 'internal rhythm' or 'mechanism which keeps internal biochemistry running'?

So you are using Science to describe and defend soul logic :dontknow:

As for atma proof I am still waiting.

[Diplomat]

No. It cannot be killed. Just like Superman. Cannot be killed.

LOL...smelly, as always. Miss Big-G and Lal-Langot. You 3 made it fun :)



I am glad someone got it!! Congrats!




Thank you :)


Not true - animals evolve all the time and continue to evolve. Dogs, for example. They used to be wild. They are domesticated now and their behavior is completely different from what they were. In fact, all domestic animals - cows, horses even cats.



The evolution of animals is happening due to humans. Animals that interact with Humans are the ones that are changing (or forced to change)due to human need.
Ifyou go to a jungle, the lion has not evolved, nor has the giraffe, nor the bison into something more intelligent or behaving differently from their previous generations.


What you are describing is not advancement of the soul - it is due to documented learning. Where children start from a learning platform established over the course of many generations. If a human child was born and brought up in the wild, he would be no different than a wild animal - or a human from 5000 years ago. If your concept of soul was true, then isolated tribes in the Amazon would not continue to live/behave the way they do. Unless you are positing that a soul is local and will reincarnate only locally.

Even if it existed, a soul cannot learn. it has no brain. It has no heart. It has no memory cells. Just like a ghost cant talk. Where would the sound come from?


I am not going after document learning i.e sciences. I am talking about learning as in evolved human behaviour. It keeps changing, generation to generation.
The souls with the most experience are the ones that come across as the Avatars, or prophets of God.




Bottom line is that soul is like superman. Great to read about in comics/books and watch in movies, nowhere to be found in the real world. The real world is the real world. This is all there is. You die, you die - all of you. The only thing that survives you is your legacy, not your soul. Humans try to increase their importance with this concept of soul. It is an overt proclamation of a god, but intrinsically it is a ploy of self aggrandization. No god created man. Man created god so man can feel more important than he actually is. God is just a ruse created by an insignificant man to hide his own insignificance.
I am open to this viewpoint and have not written it off. Not yet. I do believe somebody created us, just as we create machines, computers, cars, etc. Call them God, call them scientists. Doesn't matter.

[Sane Less]

...
The evolution of animals is happening due to humans. Animals that interact with Humans are the ones that are changing (or forced to change)due to human need.
Ifyou go to a jungle, the lion has not evolved, nor has the giraffe, nor the bison into something more intelligent or behaving differently from their previous generations.

...

Ever heard of the monkeys in the wild trying to catch fish with sticks:dontknow: Nope, no human interaction there...

As for lions, they have a whole family living together and the males have learned the art of making the females work for them. Even humans have not evolved to that stage yet:D

[smellyfinger]

I am not going after document learning i.e sciences. I am talking about learning as in evolved human behaviour. It keeps changing, generation to generation.
The souls with the most experience are the ones that come across as the Avatars, or prophets of God.

.


Whoa! Back that train up.

Now you are making even less sense, if that was possible. By your logic (I know, duh!! :D) every generation we should have a more evolved prophet/avatar!! Where are they? The last supposed one was Mohammed. Unless .. unless ... unless you believe that, as he said, he was the last prophet of God, and then God retired the prophet program. In that case Allah hu akbar!

Evolved souls = evolved behavior?? How? Are you saying now that souls determine our behavior? So did people like Hitler and Pol Pot get retarded souls? Do you really think that human behavior is "evolving"? Take away the long arm of the law and neo-societal stigmas, and humans will behave just as they did a thousand years ago. If anything, Hindu mythology is that human behavior has denigrated and not evolved since the Satayuga or whatever.

Ok, so you claim that only humans have souls. What about the billion years or more of life on earth before humans came into existence? The souls were in a factory? Were souls created because humans were about to evolve, or did humans evolve to create a vessel for the soul, or was it a happy coincidence? I got some unused souls .. you got some soulless humans .. lets have some soul food and strike a deal. Supply and demand. Question is did the demand create the supply, or did the supply necessitate the demand?

Points to ponder. No real answers other than "but thats what I believe".

[Diplomat]

Yup. No real answers. Only questions. Maybe one of them will be the right question.

[PeaceSeeker]

So you are using Science to describe and defend soul logic :dontknow:

As for atma proof I am still waiting.

take it easy man. i cannot prove or disprove it in one post:doh:
answer what i asked. 'sync' = 'internal rhythm'? yes or no?

[smellyfinger]

take it easy man. i cannot prove or disprove it in one post:doh:
answer what i asked. 'sync' = 'internal rhythm'? yes or no?

No - in biological entities (plants, animals etc) it is not so much as internal rhythm as biodegradation or cellular degradation. Once a cell is dead its basic structure breaks down and it cannot be put together again without extensive scientific reconstruction (currently research and prototypes are being done for this).

A rose plant has no soul - right? But you still cannot rejuvenate a wilted rose past a certain point. Until it is just dehydrated, a little water may perk it up. Once the basic cellular structure starts breaking down, its beyond repair. Same thing with the human body. Humans have been brought back from the dead. People have been dead for an hour and then revived by restarting the heart and/or reinitiating the circulation. But once the internal cells, especially organs, start to break down, this will not work. Maybe some future technology will be able to take the basic essence of a human - like a preserved brain - and recreate a person from it. Maybe different physical characteristics, but same brain, so same thoughts, experiences and knowledge.

So what you are calling "soul" is just the sum of the parts of the brain. Thoughts, memories, experiences are all stored in memory cells. If these cells die, the "soul" dies.

[PeaceSeeker]

No - in biological entities (plants, animals etc) it is not so much as internal rhythm as biodegradation or cellular degradation. Once a cell is dead its basic structure breaks down and it cannot be put together again without extensive scientific reconstruction (currently research and prototypes are being done for this).

A rose plant has no soul - right? But you still cannot rejuvenate a wilted rose past a certain point. Until it is just dehydrated, a little water may perk it up. Once the basic cellular structure starts breaking down, its beyond repair. Same thing with the human body. Humans have been brought back from the dead. People have been dead for an hour and then revived by restarting the heart and/or reinitiating the circulation. But once the internal cells, especially organs, start to break down, this will not work. Maybe some future technology will be able to take the basic essence of a human - like a preserved brain - and recreate a person from it. Maybe different physical characteristics, but same brain, so same thoughts, experiences and knowledge.

So what you are calling "soul" is just the sum of the parts of the brain. Thoughts, memories, experiences are all stored in memory cells. If these cells die, the "soul" dies.
i did not call anything as 'soul'. at least not yet.
good that we agree that there is some 'basic essence of human'. whether a preserved brain can be it, i will let some medical professional answer that.

[Origmos]

Karma is something no one can prove. So no point talking about it.


OKay you talk about missing information. I think the easy way to go by this is me asking you " What is this missing information?"
Answer this and we will take it from there.


Again this would be your belief system. I cannot argue with beliefs. Some beleive there are virgins waiting for them :dontknow:

There are many things which cannot be answered, but that just means we need to look harder. Over the years humans have always relied on religion to answer questions we have no answers too. Do not think that is a wise decision anymore.

Religion was science because we did not know much at the time. As for science, i will repeat, science has answered more questions, religion could ever.

Karma is something no one can prove. So no point talking about it.

There is nothing wrong with Karma. Karma in essence will remain as the impact of actions of this universe with reciprocal. It forces av Individual in many ways through his journey in life. If there aresome expectations of behavior and standards and if this individual excels at this, it is his good physical Karma. It has a good impact on his own physical self. So karma works in a physical self. You want a taste of this mystical non existent karma, go break the law and you will find out first hand.

Karma is how the entire legal apparatus of the world works and none of us have the right to deny this. Now I will explain how it will continue through our lives and that of our children. Do you deny that whatever we do or don't do will have an impact on our children's life? If my family was respectable, I could expect general good treatment from the people who knew my family. Thats how it goes and the point is whether we live at this moment or not , our physical karma still continues to impact our descendants and the image of our ancestors whether you or I exist or not. This Karma will continue until the consequences of your actions, your name and memory vanishes from the memories of all humans.


OKay you talk about missing information. I think the easy way to go by this is me asking you " What is this missing information?"
Answer this and we will take it from there.

I explained to you before, the concept of the Individual self of the collective whole, consciousness. In no book or religion or theory, has consciousness even been defined. So here, the issue that even if you sum up all of the chemical events in the brain, you will still not be able to explain yourself.

The following thing have no definition by themselves i.e. they cannot be explained by themselves, so far no logic has worked describe the very essence of them. The surprising thing is that these qualias are very familiar to us, they make up what we really are. These are color, light, sound, sensation, emotions i.e conscious experience.

Sure, chemical A does this and that neurotransmitter fires and some other chemical in someother neuron processes that making that cell fire in turn. But how does all connect together in your head. How do the different neurons through time and space causes you to collectively experience that emotion, that feeling of being you in that moment? Granted the brain is chemical consistent with that function of being you, but even so, why should it give rise to you at all? It could perfectly work without the feeling of you needed inside it. Just groups of chemical going about on one big rock of chemical around another big flaming one. If we deny this concept of the individual, we deny this ourselves.

Also here is another aspect why our bodies are incomplete express ourselves.



Nature Cannot Explain Itself

March 31, 2012 by Kristor

In his brilliant, aphoristic demolition of the modern, Pure: Modernity, Philosophy and the One, philosopher Mark Anderson explains in a few short paragraphs why nature cannot explain nature:

A particle of matter is because of an act of existence for which it itself is not responsible. It is what it is because of its microstructure, the specific and stable organization of its constitutive elements – in a word, its form, which it itself does not produce. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of forces and laws of nature, which neither bring themselves into being nor cause their specific and essential character.


The materialist would like to explain the world in full by means of the attributes and arrangements of material particles in conjunction with natural forces and the laws that determine their appearance and application. But any such explanation necessarily presupposes the existence and ordered constitution of the particles, the forces, and the laws themselves. Matter and its properties, natural forces and the laws that govern them, are neither self-generating nor self-explanatory; they depend utterly upon the ontologically prior acts of existence and form. Without these metaphysical principles there can be no physical reality.

Moral: physics, being derivative, will never provide the fundamental explanation of reality. [p. 37 ff.]

JR Lucas argues that this incapacity of natural history to explain itself is entailed by Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Gödel showed that every consistent formal system or logical calculus that is adequate at least to simple arithmetic (that, i.e., contains the natural numbers and the operations of addition and subtraction), is capable of generating true statements that cannot be demonstrated in the terms of the calculus. Thus no formal system is capable of demonstrating all the truths that it can express; formal systems are all therefore incomplete.

[Gödel has proved] that a human being cannot produce a formal proof of the consistency of a logistic calculus inside the calculus itself: but there is no objection to going outside the logistic calculus and no objection to producing informal arguments for the consistency either of a logistic calculus or of something less formal and less systematized. Such informal arguments will not be able to be completely formalised: but then the whole tenor of Gödel’s results is that we ought not to ask, and cannot obtain, complete formalisation. [The Freedom of the Will, p. 162]

Lucas then cashes out his argument:

If we are consistent and can say that we are, it follows without more ado from Gödel’s second theorem that we cannot be completely described as physical systems instantiating some logistic calculus. [ibid]



Again this would be your belief system. I cannot argue with beliefs. Some beleive there are virgins waiting for them :dontknow:

There are many things which cannot be answered, but that just means we need to look harder. Over the years humans have always relied on religion to answer questions we have no answers too. Do not think that is a wise decision anymore.

Religion was science because we did not know much at the time. As for science, i will repeat, science has answered more questions, religion could ever.

The above made it clear why we are incomplete. So here is thing, as a person you are more than you are and this effect is measurable too. Our very existence confirms it.

You are right about looking for facts harder. But that is always not possible. Science is the preserve of the elite. Not every man has the capacity to apply logic or science consistently, he is just human. Science needs a lot of cash and so it is beliefs which rule in real life. Most average man last brush with science just in his school or college.

But what are beliefs actually? A belief is what assume you to be a fact and there are lot of these facts when you look from the perspective of humanity.

Nearly all such beliefs will always have a confirmation of actual behavior behind them and they could be equally true or false, but it does not matter. They cause you to change your behavior when the moment comes to apply them.

Now lets take our belief in science. I love science myself and when science runs out of things to explain, we can speculate on this with the people here. Believe me when the day comes to explain these things, we will be dead and you might be right, there was never a soul in the place. That would suck.

But one thing science is all about proof. Only when you have express proof of the existence or absence of something, then your contribution shall enter into its existence. Anyone who disputes that should have proof of incorrectness of the previous solution or they will be termed wrong.

About facts science does not still know about, there is no harm in anyone speculating facts so long they do not deviate from general logic. Science is a belief and a good one. But pure science is facts and not assumptions whether it is mine or yours.

In private, a scientist can be an theist or atheist. But so long he does not facts in his favor, he will never choose any official position on things he does not know. If he does so without proof, it could prove harmful to him.

We can dispute whatever it like in terms of reason, about things we do not know and care about. Science is a rationale belief, it has no room for fanaticism and that is about respecting things we do not know about. So unless we have proof, no one's word is better than anyone here.

[Origmos]

http://orthosphere.org/2012/03/31/nature-cannot-explain-itself/



« Reactionary Composer of the WeekYou Can’t Even Get Nothing from Nothing »
Nature Cannot Explain Itself
March 31, 2012 by Kristor
In his brilliant, aphoristic demolition of the modern, Pure: Modernity, Philosophy and the One, philosopher Mark Anderson explains in a few short paragraphs why nature cannot explain nature:

A particle of matter is because of an act of existence for which it itself is not responsible. It is what it is because of its microstructure, the specific and stable organization of its constitutive elements – in a word, its form, which it itself does not produce. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of forces and laws of nature, which neither bring themselves into being nor cause their specific and essential character.


The materialist would like to explain the world in full by means of the attributes and arrangements of material particles in conjunction with natural forces and the laws that determine their appearance and application. But any such explanation necessarily presupposes the existence and ordered constitution of the particles, the forces, and the laws themselves. Matter and its properties, natural forces and the laws that govern them, are neither self-generating nor self-explanatory; they depend utterly upon the ontologically prior acts of existence and form. Without these metaphysical principles there can be no physical reality.

Moral: physics, being derivative, will never provide the fundamental explanation of reality. [p. 37 ff.]

JR Lucas argues that this incapacity of natural history to explain itself is entailed by Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Gödel showed that every consistent formal system or logical calculus that is adequate at least to simple arithmetic (that, i.e., contains the natural numbers and the operations of addition and subtraction), is capable of generating true statements that cannot be demonstrated in the terms of the calculus. Thus no formal system is capable of demonstrating all the truths that it can express; formal systems are all therefore incomplete.

[Gödel has proved] that a human being cannot produce a formal proof of the consistency of a logistic calculus inside the calculus itself: but there is no objection to going outside the logistic calculus and no objection to producing informal arguments for the consistency either of a logistic calculus or of something less formal and less systematized. Such informal arguments will not be able to be completely formalised: but then the whole tenor of Gödel’s results is that we ought not to ask, and cannot obtain, complete formalisation. [The Freedom of the Will, p. 162]

Lucas then cashes out his argument:

If we are consistent and can say that we are, it follows without more ado from Gödel’s second theorem that we cannot be completely described as physical systems instantiating some logistic calculus. [ibid]

In proposing this argument, Lucas was concerned primarily to demonstrate the freedom of the human will. If no formal system can completely describe us, then no logic – such as the logic and order concretely embodied in, and expressed by, the past – can completely determine us. But it is easy to see, as Lucas certainly did, how this argument applies likewise equally for any system of concrete actualities, whether physically implemented or purely immaterial. No consistent logical calculus can be completed. But then, any system of concrete actualities that instantiates a consistent logical calculus – which is to say, any system of things, any world, or any portion of any world, that is either causally coherent and orderly on the one hand, or intelligible on the other – can complete its own description.

To say that no world’s logic can fully account for itself is just to say that that no world can cadge together a complete causal account of itself. But note then that to say that a world cannot wholly account for itself causally is ipso facto just to say that it cannot wholly cause itself. Worlds as such, then, stand in need of creators.

Thus not only is it impossible for science to explain or justify science, but it is impossible to complete the scientific formalisation – that is to say, the rigorous scientific understanding – of the world, or for that matter any portion of any world. So, science begins in mystery, issues from and proceeds in mystery, and must always point to mystery.

[sunnykode]

So if soul has no end and our soul is learning each time, what happens in cases where people have "multiple personality disorder". There has been a case where a person has reported 68 personalities. And each has its own characteristics, one is blind, other has a perfect vision, one is 4 year old whereas other is well read.
So now are we to assume that in this individual there are several souls residing :dontknow:.

As for last two posts by Origomos...... Did not understand them at all :D.
More tomorrow...time to sleep :o

[Diplomat]

Soul has a start, so it has an end. There is no doubt about it.
Question is: Can one get to the end ala fast pass?

http://i.imgur.com/alLfY.jpg

[Origmos]

Soul has a start, so it has an end. There is no doubt about it.
Question is: Can one get to the end ala fast pass?

http://i.imgur.com/alLfY.jpg

Your soul is eternal. It never changes because it is some kind of summation of your life from birth to death.

Your soul existed before you were even born and it will do so after your death. It never changes. Time is a perspective of the living. The soul as a concept belongs to the universe or maybe even beyond it, not to us ourselves.

Your soul was the same as the day as this universe began as the day you were born to the same the day you died and as well as the end of the universe itself. Please disregard time, do not get awed by it.

[Origmos]

So if soul has no end and our soul is learning each time, what happens in cases where people have "multiple personality disorder". There has been a case where a person has reported 68 personalities. And each has its own characteristics, one is blind, other has a perfect vision, one is 4 year old whereas other is well read.
So now are we to assume that in this individual there are several souls residing :dontknow:.

As for last two posts by Origomos...... Did not understand them at all :D.
More tomorrow...time to sleep :o

There might be many personalities, but so long there is only one body and brain, it is safe to assume that it is just one person and soul. This multiple personality aspect is a medical disorder, not a spiritual aspect.

This particular person with 68 personalities still had the effect of just one person afterall in real life. If he did otherwise, I do not know. But so long he did not do so i.e. his actions affecting the universe as not more than one person, he can be effective considered to be just one soul and person.

[Sane Less]

....

Your soul was the same as the day as this universe began as the day you were born to the same the day you died and as well as the end of the universe itself. Please disregard time, do not get awed by it.

So when I missed the train... is it me who missed the train or was it my soul that missed the train:confused: Since the soul is something separate from my body, should they now be treated as separate entities? Like me and my vehicle... my vehicle would not drive itself, it is just a piece of junk... but the moment I sit in there, we become one... man and machine. Two separate entities. Is it the same with soul and body:dontknow:

And the the soul just keeps changing cars every two years, like the americans. And sometimes it gets a lemon and changes it as soon as it occupies it... like when a baby dies. As I said, if you have a theory about bodies and souls then that theory should be able to explain every aspect of evidence. You still haven't give a good explanation as to why a soul will occupy a body and immediately leave it? Sometimes prematurely... why:dontknow: Explain this and maybe your theory will have some weight.

[PeaceSeeker]

looks like sunny does not want to discuss any further.
i will give it another try: is there something which can be called 'sync' or 'rhythm' or 'basic essence' of human life? (I aint giving it any name yet. so pls hold on.)

[sunnykode]

There might be many personalities, but so long there is only one body and brain, it is safe to assume that it is just one person and soul. This multiple personality aspect is a medical disorder, not a spiritual aspect.

You realize you are using science don't you? :P
As for multiple personalities, one brain can harbors different personalities. It is explained by science, so one brain , one body, but there can be different persons. And in this case 68:D.

This particular person with 68 personalities still had the effect of just one person afterall in real life. If he did otherwise, I do not know. But so long he did not do so i.e. his actions affecting the universe as not more than one person, he can be effective considered to be just one soul and person.
No this individual, does not have one person. Like I said there are 68 individuals and none can be said as dominating. So one person , one brain and many persons. Something soul system can never understand. :D

[Origmos]

So when I missed the train... is it me who missed the train or was it my soul that missed the train:confused: Since the soul is something separate from my body, should they now be treated as separate entities? Like me and my vehicle... my vehicle would not drive itself, it is just a piece of junk... but the moment I sit in there, we become one... man and machine. Two separate entities. Is it the same with soul and body:dontknow:

And the the soul just keeps changing cars every two years, like the americans. And sometimes it gets a lemon and changes it as soon as it occupies it... like when a baby dies. As I said, if you have a theory about bodies and souls then that theory should be able to explain every aspect of evidence. You still haven't give a good explanation as to why a soul will occupy a body and immediately leave it? Sometimes prematurely... why:dontknow: Explain this and maybe your theory will have some weight.

When you missed the train, your physical self experienced that moment in its own time and place. From the perspective of the soul, it will be as if you missed it already even before you make the decision to take it (and miss it subsequently.) For the soul there is no before or after, it is as it is and it will remain that way forever.

[Origmos]

You realize you are using science don't you? :P
As for multiple personalities, one brain can harbors different personalities. It is explained by science, so one brain , one body, but there can be different persons. And in this case 68:D.

No this individual, does not have one person. Like I said there are 68 individuals and none can be said as dominating. So one person , one brain and many persons. Something soul system can never understand. :D

It is very simple actually.

There is only one soul behind these 68 personalities because this person's actions cannot be functionally consistent across each other, no matter under the influence of which personality he committed them under.

If personality A is an athletic and personality B is a cripple, then this person may run a kilometer under five minutes under personality A and can barely stand up under the influence of Personality B. But both of these distinct actions have one base physical truth i.e the true state of the body this person possesses.

Since this person ran a kilometer under five minutes, the objective truth is that he is in fine physical shape, but something is blocking this body function under the influence of personality B.

So here Personality A is consistent with his true body and Personality B is somekind of disorder preventing him reaching that physical potential under Personality B despite his fine physical state. So here Personality A is more truthful for this person than Personality B which is some kind of mental block preventing him from using his body. So there is major inconsistency here in his actions ignoring physical reality i.e his own body. Unless these inconsistencies are resolved, this person is just one body and soul with a severe psychological problem (personality B)

In your case about the person with 68 personalities. I believe there will be many inconsistencies between them, canceling each other out until there is only one true person behind them all. If he blind and has perfect vision at the same time, this is fundamentally inconsistent with each other. There is only one physical truth, this person has perfect vision, but also a mental disorder inhibiting his sight at certain moments.

If he acts like a four year old at times and well read at other times, then there is a mental block within him that prevents him from accessing his knowledge when under the influence of the 4 year old personality. Again this is a medical disorder, not a spiritual aspect.

Maybe he is suffering this because of bad karma. :D

[Origmos]

Whoa! Back that train up.

Now you are making even less sense, if that was possible. By your logic (I know, duh!! :D) every generation we should have a more evolved prophet/avatar!! Where are they? The last supposed one was Mohammed. Unless .. unless ... unless you believe that, as he said, he was the last prophet of God, and then God retired the prophet program. In that case Allah hu akbar!

Evolved souls = evolved behavior?? How? Are you saying now that souls determine our behavior? So did people like Hitler and Pol Pot get retarded souls? Do you really think that human behavior is "evolving"? Take away the long arm of the law and neo-societal stigmas, and humans will behave just as they did a thousand years ago. If anything, Hindu mythology is that human behavior has denigrated and not evolved since the Satayuga or whatever.

Ok, so you claim that only humans have souls. What about the billion years or more of life on earth before humans came into existence? The souls were in a factory? Were souls created because humans were about to evolve, or did humans evolve to create a vessel for the soul, or was it a happy coincidence? I got some unused souls .. you got some soulless humans .. lets have some soul food and strike a deal. Supply and demand. Question is did the demand create the supply, or did the supply necessitate the demand?

Points to ponder. No real answers other than "but thats what I believe".

I will give my view on this later.