It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


what's the difference between soul and conciousness?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 09:33 AM
Ive been hearing a lot of talk about souls- particularly in clone topics and i asked my science teacher if he thought clones would have a soul. he said "well, for a start, i dont beleive in souls" i said that theres more to a person than body and mind to which he replied "yes, theres conciousness"
are these two seperate things or are they referring to the same thing?

posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 03:05 PM
First, you have to ask yourself... What is a soul and what is consciousness...

Well...consciousness is something real...obviously....

A soul...well..wait till you die, then tell me if it's real or not...

posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 06:51 PM
Ok, firstly consciousness is fleeting, it is there when you are awake, or not in a coma, whilst soul is eternal.

Maybe consciousness is the eyes of the soul, by which the soul integrates and experiences the world.

I could imagine the body and the personality, as similar to the soul and consciousness...

posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 07:11 PM
If the soul is corporeal then it has the capacity to perceive and interact with reality. No one has ever claimed that this awareness is separate from the human but rather it is what gives the Human that quality which allows for existence after death.

Presumably, this way of existing includes information about its life (or for that matter lives). For the most part the soul is you at some level of orientation, the part of you which has the potential for access to higher states of awareness. that you cannot see it, hear it, smell it or touch it does not mean its not there. It is an aspect of every part of your body but not as apparent as the body parts you can see.

Another way of putting it is that the soul is the essence from which your being and capacity for awareness is derived.

posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 08:07 PM

It is relations like these that give the idea of a non-corporeal soul. The very essence of the afterlife for nearly most religions is non-physical. As is the soul...

Regardless, if the soul were corporeal, it would be composed of something physical and 'obtainable' by current scientific mean's. Just as every 'corporeal' object is...

posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 08:15 PM
Hey JamesG....

The Universe is a corporeal object science may have developed considerably more information on what it is, but we are far from understanding it completely.

posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 08:19 PM
Animals have a conciousness, yet, no matter how smart the animal, it is still not comparable to the human. We are obviously dstinct from animals, and comparing some patrol and sentry dogs that I've worked to a couple three posters that one might run into here (including me), it isn't intelligence that makes us different!

I think JamesG's primary post might be the closest we can get to the answer on this side of the grave as I haven't heard of any way of weighing it, as Toltec pointed out.

posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 10:53 PM
Phisical Evidence of the Soul

Personally I think we crossed a line and once we crossed it we became something very unique (That is in terms of the history of Earth). From a certain standpoint are the Fruit this Universe bears. On the other hand we never tried the above on Dolphins.

As far as I know Thomas the above (link at top) has never been repeated, that in so far as recent history. As always, would ask that if anyone has any information which refutes or supports the above link (or for that matter any indication it has been repeated) would like to hear about it. To date I can only account for what I know of this issue, in relation to ancient history.

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 3-12-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Dec, 3 2002 @ 12:35 PM

We may be different than animal's, but never forget...we are also animals. The only difference, at least with the more developed mutlicellular life on this planet, that I can see IS intelligence.

Most life, is self it or not... So what's left? Intelligence. Without intelligence, we would be no smarter than the great apes.


That link again?! That link is definatley NOT physical proof of a soul. It has all the signs of a hoax. I thought I already told you this...

posted on Dec, 3 2002 @ 05:34 PM
JamesG I have been hearing about this experiment since I was about 10 years old, its not a hoax.

Never remember you specifically saying that JamesG but do remember telling you that I have verified the article was submitted to a scientific periodical of the time. Would ask that you provide documentation of what evidence you have to support your point.

posted on Dec, 3 2002 @ 05:57 PM
Well...First of all, he refer's a lot about the ether. The ether, does not exist. It isn't something real. It was a theory once...WAS.

The other thing that sticks out... Just like psychic's have been found as hoax's... He has problem's when there are other's around him...

Let's not forget that he's the only one that we know of whom has even concieved and performed this experiment.

His statement here >>>> :

"If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life."

How can he say definatley proved, when he was the only experimenter known as of today? Unless it has been repeated, it isn't definatley proved. He's our only source, so what other info do we have to go on?

Just because it was submitted to a scientific periodical, doesn't make it fact. It mean's it was recognized, but not necisarily(SP?) something true. If that were the case, then many 'wrong' fact's printed in scientific journal's should all be true. The earth should be flat!

I'll use myself as an example for this part...

I've heard about god for many year's until I was stopped being forced to goto church by my mom. I still don't believe in god though. Why do you still believe the experiment and word of ONE guy? Despite all I was taught (most of it thankfully forgoten), I still never believed in some supernatural being who is flawed even more than man himself... Why should you believe the word of ONE man, who's experiment is flawed, his idea nothing more than a theory, and had problem's when people were around during the experiments?

If you look at how some psychic's have been found as hoax's. The simalarities(SP?) are too much to be discredited...

posted on Dec, 3 2002 @ 10:17 PM
OK to begin with I am not advocating the physics presented in the link (and have mentioned that in the past). James when I have surfed to find information on issues related to the paranormal. There is often some links debunking it and some backing it up, in this case there is nothing.

This is a simple experiment easy to reproduce and a good reason for bringing it up. Is no one has ever repeated the experiment to verify to findings. That is very odd because in fact it is so simple to reproduce.

Also, it has not been hidden in the 70's popularized a lot. Its one thing to say that something like this is a fake just because it seems strange; its another thing to say it is false because no one has ever tried to repeat it. It could very well mean that it works and no one wants to admit it.

Understand James in regard to this issue what I believe is that the experiment should have, in the last 85 years been repeated. And if it is wrong someone should very easily be able to prove it.

James, I am not asking you to believe in anything except that science is about the facts. Also, I have no problems with it being discredited. As long as the method applied incorporates the scientific method, as well as a person who is objective and moral enough to present the facts.

James, I have read enough of your posts to know how you feel about religion and God. And despite the fact I do believe in God. And practice a system of belief which corresponds to his existence, I have never rejected you (And this is because I understand how you feel and there are very good reasons for that).

The problem they may have had could be related to threats, because of what they were doing. James it is false big deal, but if it is true many things will change. Also 85 years is a long time to claim something is a hoax without so much as one effort to prove it wrong.

What are your thoughts?

posted on Dec, 3 2002 @ 10:38 PM
As there has been no effort to prove it wrong, it seems there is also very little effort to prove it right. Yet, it still exhibit's the same aspect of a hoax.

Look at how a psychic is proven to be a hoax. When people testing the validity of the psychic are around. Look at this guy...Had people around checking him out...He had problem's with the experiment. Why? Why is it that these people have problem's when under preasure? They are hoax's, that's why.

And the word of one man, without any additional backing behind his claims should never be taking as word of truth. This is one man by himself. Who had problem's when people were around. It breath's of hoax.

Perhap's your belief is getting in the way of these fact's.

posted on Dec, 3 2002 @ 11:21 PM
I think its the other way around James....

Its very simple James repeat it and provide the data to dispute it. Otherwise the Hoax is in suppressing whatever information supports it. As before, if it were a Hoax it could be very easily disproved an accurate scale underneath a person who is about to die. The moment they actually expire the scale registers the difference.

No big deal to repeat but never repeated in 85 years (those are the FACTS James). With todays technology what would it take as far as a monetary investment? James the hoax is that for about a $1000 dollars one could design a Bed, which is connected to a computer and provides the required results (despite your verbiage those are the facts).

Tell you what James provide me with one link on the Internet which presents the fact, that this experiment is a hoax?

The facts are that as far as I can tell. There is nothing, to deny or support this mans claim (and that is very strange). When those turkeys that presented Cold Fusion as a reality, made their claim. There were at least 5 facilities prepared to dispute it (and they did).

Why is no one prepared to dispute this?

Because its a Hoax?

Great dispute it with evidence that is based on repeating the experiment. To be honest one is just freaking around and trying to support the establishment (for whatever reasons they have).

posted on Dec, 4 2002 @ 05:20 AM
Think of it this way: if someone hits you on the head you may lose consciousness: be "unconscious" in fact.
You will not be "un-souled" or "lose" your soul- assuming that you have one to start with.
If we believe in a soul - we believe the perosn in a coma still has one, although by definition he/she is unconscious.
"Consciousness" is a loose term for a complex of physical conditions: largely states of brain activity.
"soul" is a metaphysical concept unconnected with the physical activity (or lack thereof) of the contents of one's skull.

posted on Dec, 4 2002 @ 05:33 AM

Your right, it's easy to reproduce the experiment. But it still befall's the same fate a hoaxed psychic does. Not to mention...Where in any scripture or doctorine in any religion, depicts the soul as having weight to it? As far as I know...none. That right there is odd... Not one doctorine teaches us that the soul has weight or is a physical object. Yet this ONE guy has his ONE theory all by his lonesome self? And you think he may be right? ONE guy Toltec....ONE.... Don't be so gullible.

I also noticed...The weight of the supposed soul varries from person to person... Yet he never investigated why this was so... Why?

posted on Dec, 4 2002 @ 03:57 PM
Actually several systems of understanding do imply that the soul has weight. James the point is mute either it works or it does not. If its a hoax then it does not work if it is not a Hoax then it does.

The idea that this experiment is invalid just because no one has ever repeated it is silly. Have you ever heard of an OBE or what are called Shadow Warrior's. Neither of these practices require a soul with mass James. But there are implications that because of what can happen during these experiences. Something involving mass is a valid hypothesis, to explain the phenomenon observed.

James look there are 100s of claims which are ruled out as hoaxes every day from UFO sightings to Yeti to demon foot prints. Everything that man have ever considered possible has been attacked debunked and or supported by others. This one does stands alone in that it has never been debunked, despite the fact that with 15 volunteers and about $1000 it can be repeated.

AS far as the issues of variances and perturbations in relation the experiment my advise is in order to make such a determination (as to what happened) the experiment has to be repeated.

posted on Dec, 4 2002 @ 04:21 PM
Yet you cannot deny the fact, that this one case exhibit's the same enigma as a fraudulent psychic. Problem's with other's around.

Now, how is it...that the fraudulent psychic can be considered a hoax and yet this one guy, is considered possibly right in his claims. When both exhibit similar problem's of other people around...?

Now...I can understand why you'd want this guy to be right, but your looking beyond certain thing's here...

posted on Dec, 4 2002 @ 08:01 PM
I can every easily deny any fact in response to this particular instance and again it is because the experiment has never been repeated.

He can be considered possibly right because he experiment has never been repeated.

The Wright Brother were accused of committing fraud until the experiment was repeated.

What I have sated clearly is that the experiment needs to be repeated so as to confirm or deny the results.

I have said its very strange that the experiment has not been repeated and that it lends credence to the idea that it may actually work.

There is many types of fraud James even amongst those who wish to suppress information. That is why no experiment can be treated as complete unless the experiment is repeated. I am not saying that the experiment has been repeated but I am saying that it is possible the experiment was repeated and the results are being suppressed. More than likely if this experiment was repeated it would be done so by a government agency. People who knew that it was repeated might even have permission to talk about it. But the data is classified so they cannot use it and so therefore cannot claim that in fact the experiment works. They could only advise other's in the private sector to repeat the experiment.

posted on Dec, 4 2002 @ 08:32 PM
link are still looking beyond...prolly purposfully not seeing the same problem with fraudulent psychics exist with this guy's experiment.

And to furthur not... If the government would, could, did repeat this and supressed the finding's.... The church itself, would have taken it's shot at reproducing the experiment, as it verfies some of thier claim's. They would not supress thier finding's if it came out as there being a soul. I'd bet, the first mention of this guy to them would have sparked a very quick investigation into the matter at once.

But as you've pointed one we know of has reproduced the experiment in the last 85 year's. In the last 85 year's the church has never once made any claims to reproducing this thing. Or maybe they did reproduce it, and are supressing thier finding's as it just might not fit thier doctorine... For soul... no loss of unaccountable weight...yada yada yada...

At any rate, you can't look beyond the similarities of a fraudulent psychic and this guy's experiment... It's to damned similar that thier is no denying it a hoax. That and considering the church, as far as we know, has never even tried once to reproduce this and settle the 'soul' issue once and for all... Odd...isn't it...

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in