I think it comes from the desire to survive and the fear of death. If the soul survives death it’s a win-win.
No doubt you are right, but some pretty smart people believe they have souls, although as I just pointed out there is no soul to survive anything. We are process – like an electromagnetic wave (actually two waves, one magnetic and one electric, that constantly propagate each other).
Ah, all right, I misunderstood you then. But in that case, the obvious question becomes : how could you tell ? Sure, the “you” of this morning is sure/assures you it’s the same “you” as yesterday. But maybe it’s a new “you” that’s bullshitting you. The new you. Semantics is hard. So, yeah, Last Thurdayism as applied to one’s sense of self basically, as has been mentioned upthread.
Although even if your assertion was 100% true for all “normal” people, there aredocumented cases of people with a specific form of brain damage as well as a subset of people who suffer from DID (the Hollywood-beloved “multiple personalities” mental disorder, though it’s actually more varied and more complex than that) who basically tell their doctors “I’m not my real self” or “this body’s not mine, they must have switched it while I slept”. Other dissociative symptoms involve the feeling of being possessed by some form of non-self entity nevertheless controlling or influencing one’s actions, thoughts or impulses ; or being a “passenger” behind someone else’s eyes.
There’s a similar condition where the person still knows who they are and so on, know their relatives and so on, but are adamant that said relatives aren’t the real ones but identical doubles. Completely rational in every other respect, can tell with no doubt whatsoever that it’s their mother speaking to them on the phone. But because a specific bit of their brain was damaged when they see their mother it doesn’t trigger the normal and expected physiological emotional response (which *does *get triggered by auditory stimuli, hence the phone part being normal) and their brain tells them “shit ain’t right !” before proceeding to fill the blanks from there. Even if the person rationally realizes exactly how silly and, well, insane “my mother has been abducted and replaced with a perfectly identical body double” is.
And then you get to the really freaky, fascinating stuff like Alien Hand Syndrome, phantom limbs and how they respond to mind trickery…
My point is, your meatware plays tricks on ya. Which is *very *cool.
If I did, I don’t remember. Not unusual - I hardly ever remember my dreams, except the ones that happen during (or possibly drag on through) the half-asleep, half-awakening part of a sleep cycle.
I expect if I had it would have made the “lost time” aspect of it all the more confusing though - “But I just went under ! And I… also dreamt forever ? What’s going on here !?” 
God dammit, we *told *you about the brown acid !
I did mention the possibility of it arising from people having dreams about deceased loved ones. Such dreams have very much the feeling of the loved ones “coming back” somehow, as if they weren’t really gone, but just somewhere else. I’d guess such dreams are almost universal, and have been for as long as we’ve been human.
So, when grampaw comes back in a dream, and talks to you, that could (possibly) be (part of) the origin of the belief in something (the soul) that survives after death.
I think this is also tied in with the idea of ghosts.
Strawman…you ignored this portion of my statement.
Please refrain from making claims that I am discouraging free thought. Also please quit changing my words.
I said:
Anecdotal evidence is, by definition, evidence. However many anecdotes do not prove anything and are useless for anything but forming a proposed explanation or in other words a hypothesis.
That said your post is a good example of cognitive bias and demonstrates my original point.
Wow…talk about issues with perception, I missed that gem of a claim.
If you think that reproducibility is not one of the most important in aspects of valid scientific studies you may want to google the term science. (remember cold fusion?)
Otherwise it is probably best to not use the word “science” as it has a very specific meaning and becomes useless if you decided to only accept some non-standard connotative meaning of the word.
Sure, in that sense souls exist. I don’t think that’s what the OP meant though, and I’m sure you know that.
I suspect there are any number of fairy tale concepts that science hasn’t adequately, precisely and (above all) accurately defined. Why would science bother? If you or anyone else proposes the actual existence of souls, feel free to define. I expect science to spend as much time on it as they do looking for the tooth fairy.
“Fairy tale concept…” Goddammit, where’s that original rolleyes smiley when you need it?!?
May as well just end this debate, if science refuses to take this matter seriously. Good thing science didn’t dismiss those “fairy tales” about antibiotics & heavier-than-air flying machines, eh? //rolleyes//
If a claim cannot be reproduced, it is likely to be dismissed, unless there is some good reason it cannot be reproduced.
I’ve seen cases of people claiming they can’t reproduce something when they set it up wrong. There are also phenomena that are by their nature one-off, so that one needs to take a different approach. Just saying “it isn’t science” is simplistic and dogmatic.
You do realize that the idea that magnetic and electric waves being separate forces was dismissed around the time of the US civil war? Einstein put the final nail in the coffin with general relativity in 1905.
Classical electro and magnetic waves only differ due to the state of the observer and are not independent items.
There is a certain type of personality (I think of them as “sophomores” – people who think they know but really only get part of the picture) who often end up positivists or some similar nonsense from early in the last century, or, even worse, materialists from the eighteenth.
There is however a certain scientific mind set that is necessary to keep one from going off after every bit of woo that comes along.
There is no doubt a proper balance, but I don’t think any of us know what that balance might be. One thing, I don’t think we have souls. Now science tells us nothing on the subject except there is no evidence of one, and that is a rather empty claim as lots of evidence is really there, if not of a soul at least of mind being something more than brain.
However, I think introspection (“watching” your mind function) is sufficient to persuade the reasonable that mind is not a material or physical or any kind of object bu is a process such as an energy wave or flame on a candle.
Propose a testable hypnosis and test it. I promise you if you can you will have the nobel prize.
Note that the reason we have antibiotics and heavier-than-air flying machines is due to people doing exactly that. They did not accomplish any of those tasks by steadfastly sticking to fanciful thoughts alone.
Science did exactly that, until the technology caught up with the fairy tales.
Flying machines were impossible…until you had high efficiency engines. Antibiotics didn’t exist until a fortunate discovery. Anyone, before then, who tried to sell such an idea would rightly be dismissed as a lunatic alchemist.
Maybe some day the technology will catch up – like Ghostbusters’ spirit traps – and demonstrate the existence of souls. Until then, the idea is dismissed. Rightly.
Otherwise, you have to be open to any idea. Fairies. Ghosts. Gods. ESP. FTL. BYOB.
How do I know you can back up that promise? Are you on the Nobel Prize Committee or something?
Penicillin existed long before mammals, let alone humans, evolved. There were folk remedies involving moldy bread that were “rightly” :dubious: dismissed as lunacy, until an enterprising soul in the 20th century discovered (by accident, no less) how to harness the power of bread mold effectively and repeatedly. Historians in the future may wonder why it took us so friggin’ long to accomplish that, but then again, the progress of technology has been like that from the very beginning.
This board does appear to be a board of nit-pickers. KISS. Your nit would be relevant if it rendered my point wrong. As it is you just confuse things.
It pains me to say this, but rat avatar is indeed correct – electric “waves” and magnetic “waves” are indeed one and the same thing.
As for nit-picking…you’re new, aren’t you? This ain’t nothin’ man…stick around, you’ll see.
(bolding mine. MINE ! You can’t have any !) :dubious: Such as ?
It is only viewed as nitpicking because you were incorrect.
It also demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of how quantum mechanics works. Anyone who has tried to seriously educate themselves about the nature of the quantum world would realize how poor our mind is at grasping the concepts. I have been studying it for years and would never even claim an intuitive understanding of the simplest concepts like the wave function let alone suggest an overarching theory that others are expected to accept with no evidence outside of a “hunch”
You have failed to provide a single iota of “evidence” for your baseless claims outside of some introspective musings and thus your presented ideas are little more than cargo culting.
Your arguments seem to be based in dogma and not based in reason. I could as well argue that there is a giant tea pot orbiting the sun between the earth and mars and it would be as valid if I demanded the same respect for unsubstantiated baseless claims as you have.
But let us be completely clear. Science knows exactly how brain cells function at a molecular level. We understand many of the chemicals that affect the ion channels that result in a change of membrane potential, heck we even produce complex drugs to interact with them so our knowledge is practical and not just theory. None of those actions depend on the supernatural. Sure we may not fully understand the brain but if you are going to propose some mythical quantum force it is up to you to provide a method of action and a way to observe those actions.
So either start providing cites and data or admit that you have no evidence to back you claims. It is not even fair to even call your claims pseudoscience without something besides internal mental wrangling. Don’t get me wrong, I am not claiming there is not a value in that form of exercise but this forum is called “Great Debates” and the topic is about the scientific perspective on the “soul”. This is not IMHO.
Well I understood a small part of that: obviously you are on some sort of rant and think yourself quite intelligent.
Some of your assertions (such as science knows exactly how mind works at the cellular level) approach incredulity. Do a little research on the qualia issue.