Eternal Soul

[Seanchaidh]

Now I know this is gonna sound cliched but I've always wondered other people's views on life after death. Personally I think when we die we are automatically reborn into another being be it human, animal etc. You know the light at the end of the tunnel could be the light a newborn sees when they are pushed out the womb.

[drewmandan]

Wrong forum is wrong forum.

[Neruo]

This topic might be for the religion/spiritually topic. Reincarnation is quite unlikely since it presupposes a soul that can exist apart from the body (apart from the physical brain). Besides the concept of a soul not being compatible with evolution, also cases like personality-change when certain types of brain-damage occur, make an eternal non-physical soul kind of unlikely. The concept of an eternal soul is made up, as is the concept of an afterlife, as is the concept of reincarnation. Tunnel-of-light stuff can also be explained by neurological events that take place in the brain when it doesn't get enough oxygen and when it almost shuts down when you are about to die.

[Sisyphus50]

The tunnel of light can be experienced in sensory deprivation chambers, and during some WILDs as well.

[SomeDreamer]

Souls are silly It's quite simple really, when you die you cease to exit ^^ Nothing more to it so might aswell make the best of what you got!

[Invader]

Besides the concept of a soul not being compatible with evolution... Elaborate on that please.

[Sisyphus50]

Elaborate on that please. Aside from the fact that you can't prove a non-tangible energetic entity survives the death of a physical body and continues to exist in another plane of existence.... When you are looking back through an evolutionary tree, there really is no such thing as 'species'. This is just a term we give to a specific animal in a given time frame that has changed significantly enough to not be able to breed with someone else in its evolutionary line a few hundred thousand years in either direction. If you took every 'being' that had to exist in order for you to be born from 'you' all the way back to the chimp-like creatures in Africa 5 million years ago, obviously each one of them is capable of breeding with the next one in line (or else you wouldn't be here), but you would never be able to breed with one that is say, 500,000 years in the past. That would not be homo-sapien-sapien, a member of your species. The hardline stance of the Catholic Church states, that only human beings have souls. So at what point do you argue that the soul enters the equation? Since 'species' are more of a notion than an actual 'thing', where do you draw the line between 'human' and 'animal'? The problem is, you can't. Because we ARE animals. We just have over-sized/over-developed brains for our size, and hands that are able to make tools to shape our environment. But we're still an animal.

[Neruo]

Elaborate on that please. Alextanium already very well explained it pretty much. (Thanks) edit: okay, what I did was basically list a few problems that exist with the concept of soul, not strictly evolution-related problems. Enjoy. For instance the problematic question about at what point the human soul 'attached' or 'was created in' to a certain evolving primate, and why exactly that happened. Or why would any soul rise from the matter of (early) animals at all? In the end, everything that evolved is just still purely material. How could that matter moving around 'create' a soul? Why would that soul even want to go places? Why would there be places for a soul to go? Do note that some people kind of use 'mind' and 'soul' and 'conciousness' interchangeably, this is however not the case here. 'Soul' is here as in the immortal entity that in a way is the essence of the person, and that can, without losing any of its features can leave a body, and go places. Like most Christians see it. There is of course a mind, but that is something that in the end is caused by nothing but matter, in a direct relation, so that without the brain working, there is no mind at all. Also, problem with the whole soul-thing are the clear empirical evidence how the material brain is truly what makes us up as persons. One of the oldest and well-know examples of this is Phineas Gage. After getting a piece of his brain blown away by an iron rod launched by an explosion, Phineas suddenly had a drastic change in personality. He became quite the asshole, for instance. If personality isn't in the soul, but in the mind, what then is 'left over' for the soul to be? The same goes for memory. Lose a part of your brain, and you might not remember certain things. A 'soul' in 'heaven' would be a drooling vegetable, since all our mental capacities can be traced back to our physical brain (with some exceptions/things we don't yet know). Also, lets look at the case of a boy losing half his brain and surviving. The poor kid actually lost exactly one half of his brain, pretty much along that dividing line between left and right brain-half. In theory, this means, with some diabolical surgery, you could take half a persons brain, and implant it into a body of which you removed the brain, and end up with two living individuals, both functioning with one brain-half. I said 'in theory' But really, now what? Are there suddenly two souls? Do they share a soul? Would one drag another down to 'hell' with him? Another 'thought experiment' (something that is valid to think about, but almost impossible to actually do) is the idea that in theory, there is no problem replacing one single neuron of a human brain with some sort of mechanical or electrical 'switch'. We know pretty much how neurons work, and we certainly could produce something that would give the exact same output with the same input as an actual neuron would. In theory, this then means that the entire human brain could be replaced, -one by one would take quite some time-, by these mechanical or electrical switching devices. Is the soul then transferred to the 'machine' consisting of all the neuron-replacing 'switches'? Anyhow, I can go on, but the point is that from an evolutionary perspective, and a lot of other perspectives (I didn't really stick with evolutionary in this post, I guess), the soul is quite a problematic fantasy. (About the personality changed hole-in-head-dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage) (About the boy missing one brain-half and surviving http://www.unbelievablefacts.info/20...alf-brain.html)

[StonedApe]

Absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Just because you and I don't understand exactly how the soul functions doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However I will agree that the catholic church is probubly wrong on the matter. They can't even get Jesus' message right. How/why did we evolve consciousness if there is no soul? Emotions are too complex to be just a bunch of switches.

[really]

When you identify with the world, you cannot expect to reveal what is beyond it.

[drewmandan]

Absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Just because you and I don't understand exactly how the soul functions doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However I will agree that the catholic church is probubly wrong on the matter. They can't even get Jesus' message right. How/why did we evolve consciousness if there is no soul? Emotions are too complex to be just a bunch of switches. Claim CB430: Evolution does not explain human personality, emotions, and the human mind in general, which make man distinct from animals. Source: Morris, John D., 2003. Is man a "higher" animal? Acts & Facts 32(7) (July), d. Response: 1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid. 2. People who have had pets know that cats, dogs, even birds also exhibit emotions and personality. Further Reading: Konner, Melvin, 2002. The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit, New York: Henry Holt and Co.

[Neruo]

Absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Just because you and I don't understand exactly how the soul functions doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However I will agree that the catholic church is probubly wrong on the matter. They can't even get Jesus' message right. How/why did we evolve consciousness if there is no soul? Emotions are too complex to be just a bunch of switches. Drewmandan already gave a nice reply (from a book that sounds pretty interesting to read). You are right that something for which there is no evidence could still be true. However, it might also just be true that there is a tiny porcelain goldfish behind Mars. If I went around believing that as something that is (certainly) true, I would rightfully so be frowned upon. Your claim about emotions that are too complex to be just a bunch of switches is a claim not very much unlike the porcelain goldfish. Maybe it's more like a rainbow-coloured meteor behind Mars, because it isn't all that unlikely, especially at first sight. However, it is also rather likely that our brain can in fact be explained perfectly in a purely materialistic fashion. We can not be certain about the existence of the soul, however if you look at what we today know about evolution, neuroscience, physiology and all that, it look more likely we in fact have no immortal, immaterial soul. Still, with the discussion still going on, I am highly sceptical of some fancy-pants that goes around telling 'absolute truths' of how our soul and it's energy is in contact with the universe that is perfect and blah blah blah. It are ridiculous claims, since they lean for the most part on things he can not be certain of, namely the existence of the human soul. - edit/addition: about the post from Stonedape above this post I am glad you added that last part. Why wouldn't the pineal gland be just that, a glad? Did you know it was actually the 17th century French philosopher Descartes that started the idea that the soul communicates with the body through the pineal gland? However, he was a Christian, and probably wouldn't call it a '3rd eye'. Also, no one really like that explanation, since it was based on "hey man, I don't know what this gland does, it must connect the body and the soul!". I posted some stuff about how unlikely the soul is in some other topic, i'll post the link in a minute. edit2: lol it was in This topic a few posts ago, that's why I couldn't find it.

[Dreamworld]

Now I know this is gonna sound cliched but I've always wondered other people's views on life after death. Personally I think when we die we are automatically reborn into another being be it human, animal etc. You know the light at the end of the tunnel could be the light a newborn sees when they are pushed out the womb. If thats true, why don't people feel two people in their head..

[drewmandan]

If thats true, why don't people feel two people in their head.. Actually, that's a very good question. Because the fact that we don't feel two people in our heads shows that the theory of reincarnation is unfalsifiable.

[StonedApe]

When you die a large amount DMT is released into your brain through your pineal gland(third eye). Prsonally I think that this causes the soul to leave the body. Either that or it causes the most amazing(or horrific) hallucination possible. This is what people mean when they say that you have a dream when you die. Like in Waking Life.

[MrDoom]

No one has any idea what happens to the ego upon death; and anyone who claims to know or have even the slightest clue (be they atheist, theist, or otherwise) is a liar.

[♥Mark]

The tunnel of light can be experienced in sensory deprivation chambers, and during some WILDs as well. As well as on a clear day. If thats true, why don't people feel two people in their head.. I don't follow.