Why are we here?

[Love Rhombus]

I'm not sure how to word this, so I'm just gonna say it. What was the purpose behind our creation, if such an act occurred? As my understanding of it goes, God has a Great Plan for us. He created us with this plan in mind and loves us. Why? So he loved us even before he created us? He made up this plan and decided to make us, not out of any need but simply because he had a plan for us? In other words, what purpose do we serve for an allegedly Almighty deity?


I'm really sorry that this seems like a rant, I'm just curious if there's been any effort to "explain" our purpose here from this point of view (if one exists in the above paragraph).

[jacksen9]

As my understanding of it goes, God has a Great Plan for us.

My pesonal belief is that for a person to be fulfilled,they need to live with intention and purpose. I think a person could be happy, just living day to day and without care. But to reach a deeper and more meaningful place, a person needs to make some sort of contribution. The quality of our participation in life is in some way connected to purpose. It feels good to feel and think that you have a "mission" and that focus is what gives a sense of contentment, accomplishment, and energy. No cite. That is just my take.
As for why God created us? Dunno, but my bible says he created us in his image and that man should subdue the earth and increase in number.

[Calliope]

To experience the physical world.

[robinc308]

Relationship.

To know and to be known.

To know other people, and to be known by them. And to love them.

To know God, and to be known by Him. And to love Him.

We are here for relationship.

[Alessan]

Hell, there could be a trillion sentient races out there in the universe. As far as we know, we're a control group.

[kismet]

Why are we here?

[carlin voice] Plastic. Assholes.[/carlin voice]

[kismet]

All joking aside, I honestly think that we're here to eventually figure out why we're here. Doesn't exactly make sense, but that's just my version.

[AbbySthrnAccent]

LDS belief is that Heavenly Father (http://www.mormon.org/learn/1,8672,801-1,00.html) is the father of our spirits.

What is the purpose of my life? (http://www.mormon.org/learn/1,8672,1121-1,00.html)

Where did I come from? (http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1117-1,00.html)

Why am I here? (http://www.mormon.org/learn/1,8672,1120-1,00.html)

Where am I going? (http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1144-1,00.html)

[Earthworm Jim]

Originally posted by Sam Hell
In other words, what purpose do we serve for an allegedly Almighty deity?

My wife has some interesting thoughts on this, that I'm not sure where she got.

She says that after the Fall, God needed to replace Lucifer and the 1/3rd of the angels who were kicked out. Instead of making the same mistake twice, He decided he'd give potential candidates a test first (ie, life on earth).

It calls into question Gods omnipotence, but I thought it was an interesting theory.

[Dragline]

We're here because DNA is a self-replicating molecule that is programmed to continually preserve itself. Mutations on the replication process result in different ways of preservation. Out of the billions of experiments that DNA has tried, one became us. Bacteria and Insects seem to have worked out a little better, though.

[The Great Unwashed]

"Everybody's got to be somewhere" -- Eccles

[Olentzero]

Well, since we're throwing out quotes...

"Because we're here. Roll the bones."

[UDS]

This is not a question which science attempts to answer. What Dragline says about DNA may be true, but it is not the answer to why we are here. It begs the question as to why DNA is here, and why atoms and molecules are here, and why the big bang occurred, and why the universe exists rather than not existing. And science does not address this question; it starts from the premise that the universe does exist. All attempts to address the question of why it exists are philosophical or theological, not scientific. It is in the nature of a philosophical or theological answer that it will either appeal to you or it will not, but it is not susceptible of external "proof". And, if you're not satisified with a philosophical or theological answer, then I'm afraid there's no answer.

[Jenner]

It is my opinion that we are here for no reason whatsoever.

[Flamsterette_X]

I'd just like to add that the thread ID of this thread is #123456. :cool:

As to why we are here, let me roll out this classic exchange between a mother and her child:

Child: Why are we here, Mommy?
Mother: We were put on this earth to help others.
Child (in a confused voice): Then what are the others here for?

Seriously though, that's a question that could be answered on many levels. My personal belief is that we are here partly to fulfill God's plan for us as human beings. I have no idea what the other parts would be. We are here to bring joy and happiness in others' lives, and to touch them with out warmth and caring. (not sure what that says about old curmudgeons, though

We are also here to experience life to the fullest, and to hopefully leave our mark on this earth for the future generations to come. Also, I agree with what robinc308 said. Having relationships can be one of the most fulfilling dynamics on earth, if you let them take you to places you've never dreamed of.

I'm going to stop now, before I really don't know what I am talking about.

F_X

[Flamsterette_X]

Darn.. I really should have closed that parenthesis.

F_X

[Triskadecamus]

I think about it a lot.

You see, I believe in God. And I believe that He has power and perception so vast that the apprehension of my entire being is a minuscule instant in an infinite sea of being and knowing.

But after He made angels, who are but points of His own being, He still felt it important to make mortal beings, and into them he put a tiny spark of His own will, and power. He made them so that they could wield that will wherever they choose, knowing that many would take paths that led away from Him, and those precious souls would be lost. I think He did that because it was important. I think that He has need of those souls that take their own spark of divine will and seek Him, and His spirit.

I think that in the end, uncounted billions of souls, now grown beyond the mortal world, and gathered into His presence, and made into beings greater than angels, will gather. And from that moment beyond this world shall we begin His great work, for which all this is but the setting of the stage.

Infinite struggles, for infinite purposes, shared by all the hosts of Heaven, out of infinite love and joy. And such a thing shall be made which could not have been, but for the Love of God, AND MAN. What could such a glorious task be that God, who made the vast hall of space, and set the myriad suns blazing in it had first to pause, and call to His aid the souls of men, now made immortal? I tremble to even consider it. And if some small stone in that grand work has been moved forward by some tiny step, because I lived, and toiled, and learned to serve, then there is reason enough, and overflowing purpose for me to have been.

It's gonna be way cool. Don't miss it.

Tris

[Drastic]

No matter where we are, that's gonna be here.

That's a sort of anthropic principle answer. In the great marketplace of narratives, it's not particularly tasty, or filling, or at all satisfying--it's sort of like a plain rice cake. Not a big seller, but enough movement that it finds a place in the non-obvious shelves.

Here's another, perhaps a bit more tasty: the great wheel of reality begins and continues in nescience, in non-awareness. But formlessness, for all its inertia, holds within itself the yearning for form. Form holds within itself the yearning for life. Life holds within itself the yearning for awareness. Awareness, the yearning for knowing itself. And sentience...yearning for something we don't know a term for yet. We are here to bring that mystery into waking.

Not your product of choice? Here's another. Creation was, in many ways, a terrible mistake. The En Sof contracted to make void within Its own Limitlessness, to make a space for creation. The first vessels fashioned were not strong enough to contain and shape the pure radiance of divinity, and shattered. The shards fell in fragments, and those dead fragments of form hold trapped sparks of divine fire, and those sparks hunger desperately to reunite with their source. The next attempt at Creation went more smoothly, and we were brought here, to raise those infinity of sundered and separated sparks, to reunify the whole, to repair the terrible wound in the world.

Not sure you want to buy? No worries. There's plenty of products stocked. New ones being added all the time, old formulas being tweaked, flavors being combined. And it's an interesting place to browse through.

Which is yet another explanation, come to think of it.

[Dieter]

42

(sorry, someone had to say it)

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by Flamsterette_X
Darn.. I really should have closed that parenthesis.

F_X

I got your back: )


Now for the OP, why are we here? To Dance, Dance, Dance!!!!

::Boogies down, terrible dancing causes other posters to become ill::

[rjung]

Life is a party, and the purpose is to enjoy as much of it as we can before we pass out. ;)

[Urban Ranger]

Because we are not somewhere else.

In terms of Christian doctrines, there is no way of us knowing why we are here, because YHWH is ineffable. To find out why we are here is to try to understand His plans, which is utterly futile.

It's all a crock to me :D

[Henry B]

To make the next guy happy!

[CptHowdy65]

this is our "reward" for what we did in a past life.....

make of it what you will

[robertliguori]

Alright, then, why is God here?
Seriously, no rational answer can go back before the Big Bang, because there was no "before". Matter and energy are here because of the Big Bang. Here is here because of the Big Bang.
Attempts to push with "why is X here?" will be met with militant agnosticism (I don't know, and you don't either).

[Apos]

---All attempts to address the question of why it exists are philosophical or theological, not scientific.---

Why are they theological or philosophical even? These disciplines have even LESS ability to answer the question as far as I can tell.

The problem with the "Why" is that science DOES answer "whys": causal whys. To claim that there is a purposeful why is to get ahead of ourselves: it presumes an intentional mind, and there is no reason to presume that a priori. Worse, if there is no "why" behind that intentional mind, then we are just back where we started.

Regardless of whether there IS a intentional mind behind reality, it does not follow from that that the this will is of any direct relevance to an individual's sense of purpose. One could well find the plans of God quite pointless: and take great meaning in their own particular purposes: as they to are a mind.

[taklon]

we are all here because we are not all there.

[fluiddruid]

I personally believe that one of the purposes of life is to answer that very question.

[LonesomePolecat]

According to my landlord, the purpose of life is to pay rent.

[cainxinth]

At the moment and for the foreseeable future there is no way for any person on this planet, physicists and priests included, to know with any certainty why the universe exists. So, why does the vast majority of the planet fill in this huge gap in our understanding with an unverifiable belief, like the existence of a sentient supernatural being?

originally posted by jacksen9
It feels good to feel and think that you have a "mission" and that focus is what gives a sense of contentment, accomplishment, and energy.

I agree with jacksen9, it helps individuals and societies deal with and learn to enjoy life in this reality, which is a highly uncertain and dangerous place to live.

As for myself, I represent the growing minority of people who have accepted the reality of our lack of knowledge and set myself upon the task of ridding ourselves of it through, what else, the scientific method. And you don’t have to be a scientist to contribute to the cause, you just need to participate in any venture that furthers human understanding. So that’s my “mission” so to speak, but I haven’t relinquished the opportunity to experience our amazing world to it’s fullest. Nor have I forgotten the importance of the positive messages of religion. I stole these from AbbySthrnAccent’s LDS website: Love, Morality, Humility, Kindness, Devotion, and Faith. Not mentioned much by religion, but equally important to me are the more modern concepts of Humanism, Justice, Equality, Freedom, and Tolerance.

So to sum up, we can’t currently know why we’re here, so I’m using my time to help us find out, but along the way I’m going to enjoy myself and play fair …most of the time. Hey, I never said I was a saint in my un-religion.

[Nars Glinley]

I don't understand how anything can have "meaning" in the absence of a creator. If the universe "just happened", then everything in it is the simple result of cause and effect. If you don't believe that the universe was created, it makes no more sense to question our purpose as it does the sun's.

IMHO, without a creator, we are just a horribly inefficient means of turning matter into energy.

[dalovindj]

Because a rock took out the dinosaurs.

[Cervaise]

As I've said at length in other threads about atheism, I don't think there is a Great Why. I think it's an artifact of our overdeveloped brains. We ask "why?" to various events in order to survive, and once we get a handle on the day-to-day stuff, our restless intellects attempt, improperly, to apply the same "why?" reasoning to our very existence. It makes sense to ask "why?" if you get sick, because you can eventually figure out you shouldn't have drunk water from that particular stream, and that you should avoid it in the future. Asking "why?" about the universe in general -- I think it's a fool's game. And I'm perplexed (and not a little disappointed) by the vehemence with which people are willing to defend their absolute unknowables.

[owlofcreamcheese]

to build something... god needs us to build something excessively complex. something unimaginably important. we are well suited to technology. very useless bodys that force us to build. jesus was a carpender. he was to build things.

you might ask "what ever it is, why can't god just make it himself" and really thats a silly question. if I wanted to build a car, and I made myself some tools, before I did it... a screwdriver or something. would you say the screwdriver built the car!?

God is all powerful. but that doesn't mean he has every single power anyone can think of. he can create worlds and humans and apples and such directly. humans can go and create some grand project.

god has all the time in the world. so the fact its takeing a hundred billion years is nothing... to him... he went "poof" then stuff happened for a bit... and then whatever we humans will make... fell out.

I sorta suspect... after we become able to control time and space... and understand every single aspect of the universe... a future where star trek is like cave man days. we will find out that there is some sort of final project... one last cool thing we can do... and thats the meaning of life...

er... or something

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by KRM
I don't understand how anything can have "meaning" in the absence of a creator. If the universe "just happened", then everything in it is the simple result of cause and effect. If you don't believe that the universe was created, it makes no more sense to question our purpose as it does the sun's.

Who said atheists don't believe the universe was created? We simply don't believe it was created by what believers refer to as God. Hell, for all I (or you) know this universe is the plaything of beings of dimension X. Or perhaps there really is a god figure after all, but the simple truth is there is no way to know, at the moment at least. If a messiah shows up or we build a tunnel into dimension X then we can stop guessing, but until then I’ve chosen to keep my options open.

You seem to believe that it is impossible to have a life of meaning if you embrace our unavoidable unawareness in this particular question. I however, disagree. My life has plenty of meaning thank you very much.

[Nars Glinley]

Who said atheists don't believe the universe was created?

Not me. I divided the world into those who believe the universe was created and those who don't.

Although I don't try to get all of my information from cartoons, but I do remember one Bloom County where 2 of the kids are looking up at the stars trying to determine the cause of the universe. One decides that it was "created" and the other believes that it "just happened". To me, this represents a basic tenet of theistic and non-theistic philosophies.

You seem to believe that it is impossible to have a life of meaning if you embrace our unavoidable unawareness in this particular question. I however, disagree. My life has plenty of meaning thank you very much.

I don't believe that at all. And I'm glad that your life has meaning, I really am. But do I distinguish having "a life of meaning" and finding "the meaning of life".

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by KRM
Although I don't try to get all of my information from cartoons, but I do remember one Bloom County where 2 of the kids are looking up at the stars trying to determine the cause of the universe. One decides that it was "created" and the other believes that it "just happened". To me, this represents a basic tenet of theistic and non-theistic philosophies.

I think that dichotomy is faulty, because as I said I'm an atheist and I don't fit into either of those categories. I can no more say I know the universe “just happened” than I can say God exists. I acknowledge the fact that I just don't know the answer, and neither does anyone else. The real distinction between atheists and theists is that the latter group relies on faith to make their worldview whole. I’m fine with a big question mark in mine.

But do I distinguish having "a life of meaning" and finding "the meaning of life".

I mentioned my personal meaning of life earlier but I'll repost it:

Originally posted by Cainxinth
So to sum up, we can’t currently know why we’re here, so I’m using my time to help us find out, but along the way I’m going to enjoy myself and play fair ...most of the time.

For me, questions exist to be answered (with facts not faith) and life exits to be lived.

[Nars Glinley]

I think that dichotomy is faulty, because as I said I'm an atheist and I don't fit into either of those categories. I can no more say I know the universe “just happened” than I can say God exists. I acknowledge the fact that I just don't know the answer, and neither does anyone else. The real distinction between atheists and theists is that the latter group relies on faith to make their worldview whole. I’m fine with a big question mark in mine.

You sound more like an agnostic than an atheist but I concede your point. I guess that the Bloom County strip should have had a third kid who said, "who knows?". I still contend that if a person falls into the "just happened" group, then nothing has "meaning".

For me, questions exist to be answered (with facts not faith) and life exits to be lived.

I wouldn't totally discount faith and, by extension, beliefs. I believe that the killing of innocent people is wrong as I'm sure that you do. This is opinion is based totally on beliefs and not on facts. Also, "facts" can be more transitory than we would sometimes like.

[Broodha]

I proudly proclaim from the highest hills:

"I don't know!"

There's nothing wrong with that.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by KRM
You sound more like an agnostic than an atheist

You're right, by definition I am agnostic. I don’t pretend to know definitively that God doesn’t exist, but he reason I declare myself an atheist is because I think the possibly of God existing is so infinitesimally small. Study of the evolutionary and functional aspects of religion has led me to believe that the belief in the supernatural was an erroneous but ultimately necessary emergent property of the human species. That however is only my personal theory on the matter.

I still contend that if a person falls into the "just happened" group, then nothing has "meaning".

And I still ague that people who believe the universe just exists have their own "meaning a life," which might be for themselves to just exist as well, or maybe its too spread peace and love, who knows. And, who is to say that such a worldview is any more right or wrong than any other. In the absence of information we’re all stumbling around blindly, and there’s something to be said for the rare souls who buck the trends and strike off on a path of their own making.

I believe that the killing of innocent people is wrong as I'm sure that you do. This is opinion is based totally on beliefs and not on facts.

Well if you believe that morality and justice are necessary components of human life as so many do, then murder is factually a violation of that requirement. What’s more, complex societies have installed artificial social contracts to ensure that an anarchistic state of nature where indiscriminate killing is disallowed and punished.

Also, "facts" can be more transitory than we would sometimes like.

The alternative is dogmatic laws, which cannot be changed. Facts are open to continual reinterpretation. I wouldn’t have it any other way, because otherwise we would still think Galileo was a heretic.

[zeva4]

i would agree that our existence is the result of evolution and the nature of dna. HOWEVER, at some point in that evolution consciousness emerged. Animals began to have the instinctual desire to survive. As humans emerged this instinctual desire to survive became a fear of death, a fear of the unknown. As i see it humans created religion to deal with their fear of the unknown, that unknown of course being the meaning of their existence and if in fact there was more to their existence than their mortal lives. An examination of the evolution of religion in my opinion further supports this idea in that the egyptians, greeks, romans and other early civilizations fewed the cellestial bodies as gods, and derived their religion from stories about these gods which today we call myths. I find it hard to distinguish the difference between their "myths" and books such as the torah, bible or koran.

That said i would also say that i too after considering this question have only found myself with more questions and few definite answers. I have only been able to eliminate possibilities as very minute. I do not know what the higher meaning of life is, so as a result i am forced to live a pragmatic idealism devoted to the finding those answers.

Religion can be a wonderful thing, especially if it is able to instill in people the ideas of right from wrong, or put in another way just behavior and intentions. That is all we can ask from each other is that people be fair and just to one another and allow others to live.

Much of what i see people seeing as an answer to the question of why we are here are simply the result of social constructs that have survived many generations and the longer they have been around the more ingrained they are making the idea that they are nothing more than the creation of man harder and harder to accept. One could counter that argument that human thought is a social construct because our thoughts are expressed by way of language which was created by man. I say this because i dont immediately deny something as being valid or beneficial becuase it is a social or any other construct. I am simply saying that one must question everything especially those things which were created by people to solve their problems during the time they lived which may or may not apply any longer. IMHO, only by questioning everything can someone truly say they have a general answer to the question of why we are here.

[zeva4]

i thought these quotes from Albert Einstein were an interesting take on the question

http://stripe.colorado.edu/~judy/einstein/god.html

[dal_timgar]

to annoy other people as much as possible to help them loose bad karma from their previous lives.

since we a children of God. God had to come up with a really complicated method of reproduction. attaining nirvana is a bitch.

Dal Timgar

[Gelb]

What is north of the north pole?

The question may have no meaning...

[The Jabberwock]

The following explanations contain several philosophical/scientific points of which I am at least slightly uncertain, so please feel free to shoot them all to Bejesus and back. No offense will be taken. Also, these do not involve religious views of any sort, and thus the Creator is not taken into account but could still theoretically be present.

My explanation of the purpose of humans, as well as any other intelligent life, has been the following since I was 9 years old:
I'm sure you're all familiar with the idea that order (or law) and chaos must be balanced in the universe, because if one of them became dominant, everything would either be in constant change or never change. If you consider for a moment all things in the natural and non-living world, you may draw the conclusion that everything is very ordered and adheres to basic physical and natural laws. Most things are predictable; even those which are not immediately predictable follow a predictable set of patterns. Hence, the order. So whence cometh the chaos? Thought itself is the only thing which is not limited by physical means, and thus is totally unpredictable and capable of any and all things. Therefore *DING DING DING THE POINT IS APPROACHING* the purpose of human life is to maintain balance between order and chaos by creating the latter through thought and ideas.

Oh, and also, I've read in a few books that according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, every time a quantum event occurs, a new universe branches off to accomodate the change, and so there are an INFINITE number of universes in which every possible event or combination of events is happening. So basically, things had to pan out the way they did -- I mean with human life and earth and everything -- in an infinite number of universes. Might as well have been this one. In other words, WE ARE NOT SPECIAL!!! :eek:

[domesticatedjunglefowl]

42

[Sam Stone]

Okay, here's an interesting thought experiment:

It's the future, and they have developed a way to make artificial neurons that can be plugged into the brain in place of real ones. But these neurons are little computing devices, and can be replicated and report their state, etc.

So we sit you in a chair, remove the top of your skull, and start replacing neurons. You're awake through this entire process. Bit by bit, your brain is cut away and replaced by an exact functioning replica. When they are done, your original brain is in the trash, and you have a computer in your head. You never lost consciousness.

Are 'you' still 'you'? Do you still have a soul? How could you tell?

Now, we send a command to your brain to send back its state, so that we can make an identical copy. We store this so that you have a backup of 'you' in case something should happen. One day, you're walking down the street, and a bus squashes you flat. So they make a clone of you, and plop your backup brain in it. Let's say it had been a week since your last backup. Are 'you' STILL 'you'? Isn't this exactly the same as suffering blunt trauma to the head which destroys short-term memory? Wouldn't you just lose a week?

But wait! Someone has been archiving backups of 'you'. So they crank out another one from a week before that, and place it in another clone. NOW which one is 'you'? Wouldn't both of you have the same claim to being the 'real' person?

Would a backup copy essentially be a 'do-over'? Would people make a backup of themselves before doing something dangerous, so that if it went wrong and they were killed, they could be restored to the same state?

Here's yet another one - During the initial process of replacing your brain, they make TWO of them, both outside your body. You've been twinned, but you wouldn't know it. Both copies never lost consciousness, or so they think. Which one is the real 'you'?

To me, all of these thought experiments lead to one conclusion: There is no soul. 'You' are merely the expression of the complex calculations of the brain. If they made two of you, both of you would think you're the real one, and both of you would be alive and self-aware.

[Sam Stone]

Okay, here's an interesting thought experiment:

It's the future, and they have developed a way to make artificial neurons that can be plugged into the brain in place of real ones. But these neurons are little computing devices, and can be replicated and report their state, etc.

So we sit you in a chair, remove the top of your skull, and start replacing neurons. You're awake through this entire process. Bit by bit, your brain is cut away and replaced by an exact functioning replica. When they are done, your original brain is in the trash, and you have a computer in your head. You never lost consciousness.

Are 'you' still 'you'? Do you still have a soul? How could you tell?

Now, we send a command to your brain to send back its state, so that we can make an identical copy. We store this so that you have a backup of 'you' in case something should happen. One day, you're walking down the street, and a bus squashes you flat. So they make a clone of you, and plop your backup brain in it. Let's say it had been a week since your last backup. Are 'you' STILL 'you'? Isn't this exactly the same as suffering blunt trauma to the head which destroys short-term memory? Wouldn't you just lose a week?

But wait! Someone has been archiving backups of 'you'. So they crank out another one from a week before that, and place it in another clone. NOW which one is 'you'? Wouldn't both of you have the same claim to being the 'real' person?

Would a backup copy essentially be a 'do-over'? Would people make a backup of themselves before doing something dangerous, so that if it went wrong and they were killed, they could be restored to the same state?

Here's yet another one - During the initial process of replacing your brain, they make TWO of them, both outside your body. You've been twinned, but you wouldn't know it. Both copies never lost consciousness, or so they think. Which one is the real 'you'?

To me, all of these thought experiments lead to one conclusion: There is no soul. 'You' are merely the expression of the complex calculations of the brain. If they made two of you, both of you would think you're the real one, and both of you would be alive and self-aware.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
To me, all of these thought experiments lead to one conclusion: There is no soul. 'You' are merely the expression of the complex calculations of the brain. If they made two of you, both of you would think you're the real one, and both of you would be alive and self-aware.

Sam, I hate to be the one to break this but your basing your assumption that there is no soul on your thought experiments working out the way you intend them to. Unfortunately, as there is no good substitute for a neuron at the moment there is no way to know if in fact an artificial brain will function exactly the same as an organic one. We know a lot more about the heart than the brain and we still haven’t made a perfect replica of that organ.

Second, the soul and the mind are abstract concepts that don't exist in the physical plane of existence where we do. There is no way to 'sense' your mind other than with your mind itself. If you can't see, touch, hear, smell, or taste it how do you know it exists at all. Descartes said, "Cogito ergo sum," "I think therefore I am." I'll buy that, but it still doesn't resolve the mind/body problem, or how does our mind which exists in a non-physical, ethereal reality interact with our bodies that exist in this reality? Despite the continued efforts of philosophers, scientists, and various clergies that question is still as unanswered as, "why are we here." Therefore, until such technology as you describe is available, if ever, we won't know whether or not the soul exists. Personally I think it does; how else can you explain James Brown?