Can anyone prove the existence of "The Human Soul"

You should look into the theory of the Bicameral mind. This explains the difference in answer from the right and left hemisphere.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
What about this discovery? Is that enough evidence that the mind is independent of the brain?

EEG only assesses the surface activity of the brain, he had no way of knowing these people were brain dead. Lots of activity could have been happening in the subcortical regions. Many studies show that isoelectric EEG is only suggestive of brain death.

He also says that the physiological explanation should show 100% NDEs, but only 18% did show them. Therefore concluding that it wasn't a physiological process. Why would it predict that? Wouldn't the woo explanation expect the same? Why does only the physiological explanation become laden with this problem?



[edit on 6-5-2007 by melatonin]

Your word against his. He is certain that the people had no brain activity whatsoever. And because his article was published in the Lancet and peer reviewed, other scientists would've already debunked his experiments based on the criteria you're giving here. They didn't.

There was no brainwave activity in these subjects and yet they were able to experience things that they could not have experienced. Due to a lack of brainwave activity and/or lack of physical proximity to that that was observed. These patients were all clinically dead at the time.

From these studies we know that in our prospective study of patients that have been clinically dead (VF on the ECG) no electric activity of the cortex of the brain (flat EEG) must have been possible, but also the abolition of brain stem activity like the loss of the corneareflex, fixed dilated pupils and the loss of the gag reflex is a clinical finding in those patients. However, patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their “dead” body. Because of the sometimes reported and verifiable out-of -body experiences, like the case of the dentures reported in our study, we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last second of this period.

So we have to conclude that NDE in our study was experienced during a transient functional loss of all functions of the cortex and of the brainstem. It is important to mention that there is a [well documented report of a patient with constant registration of the EEG during cerebral surgery for an gigantic cerebral aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees, she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. (8)

(emphasis mine)

With the physiological process he means that it would be hallucination (caused by the brain) which would happen at all times in these conditions. In other words because it happened only 18% of the time, the chance that the physical brain is causing the experiences is slim to none. There is a factor outside of the human brain which has an influence.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Your word against his. He is certain that the people had no brain activity whatsoever. And because his article was published in the Lancet and peer reviewed, other scientists would've already debunked his experiments based on the criteria you're giving here. They didn't.

There was no brainwave activity in these subjects and yet they were able to experience things that they could not have experienced. Due to a lack of brainwave activity and/or lack of physical proximity to that that was observed. These patients were all clinically dead at the time.

Eur J Emerg Med. 2003 Sep;10(3):241-3. Related Articles, Links

Electrocerebral silence with preserved but reduced cortical brain perfusion.

Heckmann JG, Lang CJ, Pfau M, Neundorfer B.

Department of Neurology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. [email protected]

Isoelectric electroencephalogram in conformance with clinical findings is strongly suggestive of brain death. In clinical practice, isoelectric electroencephalogram in not-brain-dead patients is rarely seen. We report on a 53-year-old patient who suffered ischaemic encephalopathy after cardiopulmonary arrest. He had residual brainstem function with sufficient spontaneous breathing and evidence of cerebral blood flow on single photon emission computed tomography scan, but his electroencephalogram was isoelectric. He survived this condition for more than 7 weeks. This case demonstrates that isoelectric electroencephalogram can not be equated with brain death, and that in prognostic assessment both clinical findings and supportive technical methods are mandatory.

Nihon Hoigaku Zasshi. 1996 Apr;50(2):57-62. Related Articles, Links


Analysis and classification of nasopharyngeal electroencephalogram in "brain death" patients.

Okii Y, Akane A, Kawamoto K, Saito M.

Department of Legal Medicine, Kansai Medical University, Moriguchi, Japan.

Nasopharyngeally-derived electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded and digitized in 12 "brain death" subjects with flat-line scalp EEG and loss of auditory brain stem response. The nasopharyngeal EEGs of these cases were classified into three types: Type Ia with complete flat-line, Type Ib with almost but incomplete flat-line EEG, and Type II with low-amplitude slow fluctuations. Digitization of the nasopharyngeal EEG showed that equivalent electric potentials in low frequency bands (delta and/or theta 1) remained within the values of healthy volunteers in Types Ib and II. These results suggested that the tissue in or around the brain stem still functioned in Type 1b and II "brain death" patients. The origin of nasopharyngeal EEG was also discussed in this paper.

These people were 'brain dead' for a matter of minutes. How does he know that no residual activity was present? The studies above show that normal surface EEG is not perfect, activity can still be present.

With the physiological process he means that it would be hallucination (caused by the brain) which would happen at all times in these conditions. In other words because it happened only 18% of the time, the chance that the physical brain is causing the experiences is slim to none. There is a factor outside of the human brain which has an influence.

And if this is some woo-consciousness thing, then why is 18% consistent? If all the patients were brain-dead, then why did only 18% suffer an NDE? Does the soul only bother existing in this other worldly realm for this proportion? By what mechanism does this happen? Who's selected, who's not? With the physiological explanation I could easily state that like dreams, not all are remembered, or maybe residual activity in certain areas is required. If the soul exists in all people, and these people did truly die, then they all should suffer an NDE, no?

So, in essence, the question I'm asking is why is only the physiological explanation shackled with this problem of 100% of 'brain-dead' patients reporting NDEs?

Experience and recollection of that experience are two different things entirely.

Their are countless well documented cases where these two observations are juxtaposed. Amnesia is one end of the scale, the other end would be recalling events that you were not part of.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Experience and recollection of that experience are two different things entirely.

So, you agree that Van Lommel's inference that physiological explanations are insufficient is wrong?

As far as I know, the physiological explanation never has said that 100% will suffer an NDE, or that 100% will remember an NDE when under conditions of anoxia. The physiological explanation actually supposes these people are not dead and that varying levels of activity remains, lots of room for non-experiences, experiences with no memory, experiences with memory, experiences that have no correlation to the period of minimal brain activity.

It actually seems more a problem for a Van Lommel's disembodied soul explanation. If they were all truly dead, then why did only a proportion actually report an NDE? Where did their souls go of those non-reporters? Or is he going to depend on some physiological process for this, heh.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by melatonin]

Hard science will never be able to prove the existence of a soul.

The reason is because physical instrumentation is inherently limited and can never be attuned to measure or validate the energy of discarnate consciousness.

The soul is comprised of energy that, when free of embodiment, transcends the material spectrum of energy.

A form of energy that transcends the material spectrum cannot be measured by physical instruments, regardless of how technically advanced the devices

So evidence supportive of the existence of the soul must be gained through other means.

Evidence For The Survival Of Consciousness After Death

The field of parapsychology has always had this problem. The instruments used to "sense ghosts" don't really detect the energy of discarnate consciousness. Rather, they measure the effect or influence of those energies from the Other Side. Like for example, electromagnetic differences and fluctuations in room temperature.

But the actual energy of discarnates or disembodied consciousness is beyond the scope of their electronic detection devices.

And always will be.

Because you cannot measure transcendent energy with material instrumentation.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
A form of energy that transcends the material spectrum cannot be measured by physical instruments, regardless of how technically advanced the devices

So how come we can measure and store energy?

Remember energy is interchangeable with matter.

Originally posted by DarkSide
So how come we can measure and store energy?

Because the energy measured and stored (that you are referring to) is in the physical, not discarnate spectrum of energies

We are not bodies that have developed consciousness. We are spirits who are temporarily experiencing a Homo sapien condition.

Well...for most of us in here anyway.

The laws of physics, or rather metaphysics in this case, are different for the vibration of the soul and the energy on the Other Side. You can't store discarnate energies in physical machines, with the obvious exception of embodiment.

Orgone and pyramid-shaped batteries are not an exception to this metaphysical principle as they are still tapping into the material realm of energy.

The reason why you cannot store discarnate energies in physical devices (outside of bodies) is because souls are not made up of the same energy as the material universe. Although our bodies are made up of "star stuff" (to borrow a well-known phrase from the late Carl Sagan), our actual souls are not. Our consciousness, which transcends the flesh after death and existed before birth, is made up of a form of energy that is separate and different from that found in the material realm.

Which is why it is impossible to physically hurt someone on the Other Side.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Because the energy measured and stored (that you are referring to) is in the physical, not discarnate spectrum of energies

If this metaphysical does not exist in our reality how are you supposed to know it even exists?

We are not bodies that have developed consciousness. We are spirits who are temporarily experiencing a Homo sapien condition.

So where was I 10 billion years ago? I have no memories of that era.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by DarkSide
If this metaphysical [principle] does not exist in our reality how are you supposed to know it even exists?

Through first-hand experience, not through laboratory analysis.

Originally posted by DarkSide
So where was I 10 billion years ago? I have no memories of that era.

Actually you have many memories. We all do. The problem that all of us face in various degrees is the amnesia we experience from lowering our vibration and incarnating.

Here's a suggestion...

Get yourself a referral to a good hypnotherapist who specializes in past-life regression therapy. Then you can get glimpses of your former lives and even more importantly - your Interlife - or period in-between your physical incarnations; this is when you saw things the most clearly and remembered the most.

One caveat...

Be careful what you wish for.

You may get it.

Many of you require evidence that does not exist. I say, quit thinking in black and white. Consider that there is light grey, and really light grey, but not white.

To require "concrete" evidence is a ridiculously high standard. There exists no such thing. I say that something is red. You can either agree or disagree, but other than being able to see it, we have no "proof" that it is red. Since I know what i see but not you, then i have no point of reference to even think that it is red to you. You may agree it is red, even...but that is not "concrete", it is just corroboration by an uncalibrated measurement device (the eye's).

To say that something seems logical to you is another odd excuse. The most logical thing to me may or may not be true...but to say that its the "most" logical and therefore warrants exclusion of other less logical ideas betrays a tint of egocentrism. No offense intended,as it is a natural and human trait. However...consider it. The "logic" you apply refers entirely to your individual points of reference. Things that seem illogical may only be so because you do not understand them properly to see the logic lying therein.

Example: to John Lear is it logical that there is life on the moon. he see's things up there, hears stories...it meets his level of logic. yfxxx, however, doesn't see it the same way. he is a physicist, thus his point of reference is completely different. His logic is different.

So, what you get left with is belief? I dunno...seems to be logical, huh?

To answer, in my version, what some of you have discussed above:

Darkside:

So how come we can measure and store energy?

Remember energy is interchangeable with matter.

Matter and energy are theoretically interchangable, yes. Nothing "concrete" yet, is there? All possibilities have yet to be exhausted, and we have not been able to directly measure the conversion of energy into matter, have we? I may not have seen it, or comprehended it as what it was if we have. But, i would say that without showing it in reverse, i am unsure that you can say it with such certainty.

I will say that i do believe that you are likely right, though.

Regardless, how long have we been able to measure XRays or Gamma Rays? This is energy, yes? When was plasma realized for what it was (a close "cousin" to lightning)? Do not think that we are at the pinnacle of achievement...that egocentric human penchant popping up again.

All that you prove is that we, as a race, are confounded by compound ignorance. That is, we are ignorant of just what it is that we are ignorant of. There is no proof in the human race's mismanagement of comprehension, on the whole. Even the best of our minds was baffled by currently more mundance topics (Einstein).

Melatonin:

So, you agree that Van Lommel's inference that physiological explanations are insufficient is wrong?

No, i don't. It seems a little misconcieved but the topic you discuss seems more or less accurate.

What i mean is that often our recollection of events is skewed. Our brains fill in gaps with logic. COnsider the stroke victim with a hemorrage in the corpus collosum region...they are prone to refusing to recognize one side of their body. I have seen little old ladies who will not admit that the hand in their lap is theirs, due to cognitive issues within the hemispherical communications system.

Experience and recollection of experience are two different things.

Darkside again:

If this metaphysical does not exist in our reality how are you supposed to know it even exists?

So, what is your take on dark energy, dark matter? How about the Higgs Boson?

So where was I 10 billion years ago? I have no memories of that era.

Can you slam dunk a basketball? How about do a handstand? Could you set up an OLAP cube server? How about perform a surgery?

Every person has different abilities, gifts. Your lack of such is not evidence. Once again, i mean no insult, if i come across that way.

I myself can only remember back to when i was about 1 year old (the car in my memory was sold when i was about 1 year old, in January of 1973, i was born in November of 72).

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
No, i don't. It seems a little misconcieved but the topic you discuss seems more or less accurate.

So, you agree with Van Lommel that his study rules out physiological explanations because only 18% recalled an NDE?

But you just said that experience and recollection are different things. I agree. We can experience and not be able to recall an event. It is quite possible that some of his sample actually did experience an NDE, but for some physiological reason (maybe poor encoding and/or consolidation, or rapid decay under conditions of anoxia) could not recall.

What i mean is that often our recollection of events is skewed. Our brains fill in gaps with logic. COnsider the stroke victim with a hemorrage in the corpus collosum region...they are prone to refusing to recognize one side of their body. I have seen little old ladies who will not admit that the hand in their lap is theirs, due to cognitive issues within the hemispherical communications system.

Actually sounds like you are talking about Anosognosia here, if so, it is associated with various brain injuries. Vuilleumier's cortex article is worth a read.

labnic.unige.ch...

[edit on 9-5-2007 by melatonin]

Van Lommel is not the only sceintist to come to these conclusions.

Dr. Ian Stevenson has come to similar conclusions based on his studies at the University of Virgina

www.healthsystem.virginia.edu...

Dr. Gary E. Schwartz has also done research in triple blind peer reviewed studies at the University of Arizona.

veritas.arizona.edu...

Dr. John Mack was also seeing similar results in his research before his life abruptly ended.

www.johnemackinstitute.org...

You can also add:

Dr. Brian Weiss

www.brianweiss.com...

Dr. Raymond A. Moody, Jr.

www.lifeafterlife.com...

I can appreciate that these universities are investigating these sorts of things.

I would hope that agenda driven science doesn't push them in the wrong direction.

Religion preloads us with all sorts of baggage that skews our analysis of this very subject.

Don't think of a soul in biblical terms. Think of it as being another facet of life that you have. I play Grand Theft Auto quite a bit, but I am not a mobster....i just play one on TV.

It is all so "M.C. Escher"esque, isn't it?

[edit on 9-5-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
To require "concrete" evidence is a ridiculously high standard. There exists no such thing. I say that something is red. You can either agree or disagree, but other than being able to see it, we have no "proof" that it is red. Since I know what i see but not you, then i have no point of reference to even think that it is red to you. You may agree it is red, even...but that is not "concrete", it is just corroboration by an uncalibrated measurement device (the eye's).

But we know that different colors are just different representation by the brain of different wavelenghts of light. A 700nm wavelenght would definitaly look red to 99% of humans.

Example: to John Lear is it logical that there is life on the moon. he see's things up there, hears stories...it meets his level of logic. yfxxx, however, doesn't see it the same way. he is a physicist, thus his point of reference is completely different. His logic is different.

John Lear is a test pilot not a physicist. Maybe there is life on the moon, but if it's the case they must have underground bases and be at least as intelligent as us .

Matter and energy are theoretically interchangable, yes. Nothing "concrete" yet, is there? All possibilities have yet to be exhausted, and we have not been able to directly measure the conversion of energy into matter, have we? I may not have seen it, or comprehended it as what it was if we have. But, i would say that without showing it in reverse, i am unsure that you can say it with such certainty.

Einstein did, it's the familiar e = mc² equation.

Regardless, how long have we been able to measure XRays or Gamma Rays? This is energy, yes? When was plasma realized for what it was (a close "cousin" to lightning)?

X rays and such are forms of EM radiation, and carry energy, yes. They've been known since a bit more than a century i'd say, and some physicists at the time said they were a hoax and were impossible.

Plasma is another state of matter, where some of the electrons are free to move creating an electric field..

Do not think that we are at the pinnacle of achievement...that egocentric human penchant popping up again.

I do not believe we are at the pinnacle of achievement, I think this is only the beginning

All that you prove is that we, as a race, are confounded by compound ignorance. That is, we are ignorant of just what it is that we are ignorant of. There is no proof in the human race's mismanagement of comprehension, on the whole.

Altough I agree that we still don't know much, it does not make our current knowledge untrue.

Even the best of our minds was baffled by currently more mundance topics (Einstein).

Do you have any examples? I'm just curious about it

So, what is your take on dark energy, dark matter? How about the Higgs Boson?

As far as I know they are hypothetical and their properties would explain certain aspects of the universe (for example why it's expanding and why this expansion is accelerating). They may or may not be confirmed by future discoveries. But altough they are hypothetical and we have no conclusive evidence that they exist, our theories predict their existance. There is nothing metaphysical about dark energy or the higgs boson.

Can you slam dunk a basketball? How about do a handstand? Could you set up an OLAP cube server? How about perform a surgery?

Every person has different abilities, gifts. Your lack of such is not evidence. Once again, i mean no insult, if i come across that way.

With practice you can learn to play basketball, do a handstand and with lots of studies you can remove a brain tumor. However no matter how had I try to remember what it was like 10 billion years ago I can't seem to :p

I myself can only remember back to when i was about 1 year old (the car in my memory was sold when i was about 1 year old, in January of 1973, i was born in November of 72).

That's impressive :p I can't remember anything before 3 I think.

I have nothing against the soul, reincarnation, karma, or anything of the kind. However it just doesn't add up. If the earth was in the center of the universe it would make sense.

But here we are, on a basic planet, orbiting an average star, that is one of 200 - 400 billion stars of the milky way, that is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies of the visible universe. There might be trillions and trillions more.

And what about other lifeforms? does my cat have a soul? if humans have one then cats also should. We are but one species among others, and latecommers too.

Originally posted by DarkSide

But we know that different colors are just different representation by the brain of different wavelenghts of light. A 700nm wavelenght would definitaly look red to 99% of humans.

We assume that this is the case, correct.

John Lear is a test pilot not a physicist. Maybe there is life on the moon, but if it's the case they must have underground bases and be at least as intelligent as us

.

Once again, one can assume. But, the assumption could be based on ill conceived empiricals.


Einstein did, it's the familiar e = mc² equation.

Einstein did little more than create the equation that supposes it is true. I would like to hold the piece of matter that was created by us in a lab using nothing but pure energy.

Altough I agree that we still don't know much, it does not make our current knowledge untrue.

Untrue? Possibly, but unproven. However, "suspect" is a word that really hits me when i ponder it. I am a business man...i look for flawless execution or I have doubts.


Do you have any examples? I'm just curious about it

Bound photons. The splitting of the electron under high pressure. Dark matter/energy. We may not understand them now, but there are people who will talk like they do.

Einstein called it "spooky" when referring to these sorts of subjects.

Still, don't forget about the concept of Spontaneous Generation.

As far as I know they are hypothetical and their properties would explain certain aspects of the universe (for example why it's expanding and why this expansion is accelerating). They may or may not be confirmed by future discoveries. But altough they are hypothetical and we have no conclusive evidence that they exist, our theories predict their existance. There is nothing metaphysical about dark energy or the higgs boson.

There isn't? Open your mind, step to the side a little, and look again with a new perspective.

With practice you can learn to play basketball, do a handstand and with lots of studies you can remove a brain tumor. However no matter how had I try to remember what it was like 10 billion years ago I can't seem to :p

How do you know you are even "exercising" the right body part? I mean, i can't be a better swimmer by practicing my Tuba playing, right?

As well, no matter how much practice they recieve, I still cannot envision how we would get someone who is unable to play basketball (such as quadraplegia) to actually do it successfully. Maybe I am wrong.

I have nothing against the soul, reincarnation, karma, or anything of the kind. However it just doesn't add up. If the earth was in the center of the universe it would make sense.

But here we are, on a basic planet, orbiting an average star, that is one of 200 - 400 billion stars of the milky way, that is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies of the visible universe. There might be trillions and trillions more.

And what about other lifeforms? does my cat have a soul? if humans have one then cats also should. We are but one species among others, and latecommers too.


yes, your cat could very well have a soul. This differentiates creatures from beings: the "spark of life". Don't think of "soul" metaphysically, think of it as a tangible part of you, the real you. The world is like Everquest, and you are a character.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

[edit on 10-5-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Einstein did little more than create the equation that supposes it is true. I would like to hold the piece of matter that was created by us in a lab using nothing but pure energy.

www.worsleyschool.net...

Untrue? Possibly, but unproven. However, "suspect" is a word that really hits me when i ponder it. I am a business man...i look for flawless execution or I have doubts.

And how is general relativity unproven for example?

Don't think of "soul" metaphysically, think of it as a tangible part of you, the real you.

After 4 million years, I'd think we'd know about it if the soul was a tangible part of us ie: not a concept ilagined by man and implented into religion to suppress the fear of death.

The link didn't work, got the "Page Cannot Be Displayed".

And how is general relativity unproven for example?

General relativity seems to work well when isolated. But then again, so does Newtonian physics. How does it explain the whole?

After 4 million years, I'd think we'd know about it if the soul was a tangible part of us ie: not a concept ilagined by man and implented into religion to suppress the fear of death.

Possibly. Do you assume that we are only 4 million years old as a race? Perhaps the concept of soul came first? Religion, then, could be an additional tool of political pressure that borrowed the concept of afterlife as a logical accompanyment of divinity?

Have you spent much time studying matters of spirituality, and its history? You should look into the Buddha, and the history of the religious ideals he was familiar with in his youth.

I would once again caution people against thinking we are at the pinnacle. We aren't even starting to climb yet, let alone be at the pinnacle.

Who knows what our body contains. There are portions that are still being discovered. Organs that were previously unknown. Interactions chemically that have yet to be explained. The presence of monoatomic gold and other metals in microtubules is one such mystery.

How about the VNO and its pheromones reception capability?

www.blackwell-synergy.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

This accounts, to some degree, for a sixth sense. There are likely other receptive capabilities dealing with RF waves or something that allow us to pick up on various latent energies or something.

My premise is that there is a scientific explanation for everything...but we yet have a clue on how to adequately evaluate our surroundings and start formulating reasonable hypothesis. We are too mired in religion and politics to really get to the root matter.

The soul is not some Godly creation (or, not only such, anyway). It is who we really are. It is not some supernatural phenomenon. It is the true nature of reality, with our presence here being either a superfluous distraction or a learning process.

General relativity seems to work well when isolated. But then again, so does Newtonian physics. How does it explain the whole?

What do you mean by the whole? and by isolated?

Relativity is true anywhere in the universe.

Possibly. Do you assume that we are only 4 million years old as a race?

As a genus to be precise, our species would be much younger.

Perhaps the concept of soul came first?

I think the concept of an afterlife came first. For example most animals don't seem to be bothered when they see a member of their species dead. Most likely because they don't grasp the idea of death. But as the human brain developped it incorporated emotions and understanding, and I believe that's how men first became aware of death, and that the dead don't usually come back. They also had dreams, and were aware afterwards of these dreams. Maybe they dreamt about people that were dead, and thought these were visions of "other side"

Religion, then, could be an additional tool of political pressure that borrowed the concept of afterlife as a logical accompanyment of divinity?

Of course. When civilisation appeared along with writing people started to write down their beliefs.

Have you spent much time studying matters of spirituality, and its history? You should look into the Buddha, and the history of the religious ideals he was familiar with in his youth.

I used to be a christian, and I'm kind of familiar with buddhism but that's all.

This accounts, to some degree, for a sixth sense. There are likely other receptive capabilities dealing with RF waves or something that allow us to pick up on various latent energies or something.

If I have a sixth sense why can't I use it like the 5 others? Those organs are vestigial in human beings.

The soul is not some Godly creation (or, not only such, anyway). It is who we really are. It is not some supernatural phenomenon. It is the true nature of reality, with our presence here being either a superfluous distraction or a learning process.

Then why is there still a debate over it after so long if it's a true nature of reality? just as real as my eyeballs?