Russian scientist photographs souls leaving body at death.

page: 5
72
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by diakrite
 




The fact that the "I" can even ponder the existence of a soul, or the non-existence of it, is proof enough for me there is indeed a "soul"


The curious case of the corpus callosum, and split brain patients.. The corpus callosum is a structure in the brain which connects the left and right hemispheres. Splitting this structure (rarely done for cases of extreme intractable epilepsy) literally cleaves the "soul" in twain.



In one of their patients, "Paul S." his right hemisphere was more developed in language ability before the operation. This is uncommon but does sometimes happen. The fact that Paul's right hemisphere was developed in verbal response enabled Sperry and Gazzaniga to interview both sides of the split brain. When the researchers asked the right side what he wanted to be, he answered an automobile racer while his left side stated he wanted to be a draftsman. Paul was asked other similar questions, which gave the researchers insight on the hidden differences between the hemispheres. Another patient also exhibited strange behaviors with his right and left hands. His right hand was trying to pull up his pants while the left hand was trying to pull then down. A similar incident occurred when a split-brain patient was having an argument with his wife. The patient was attacking his wife with his left hand while his right hand was defending her(5).




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
As interesting as it would be the images posted look like thermal images, and it would be fairly easy to doctor a photo like that. The story that was linked at first also has no photos that are shown with it. Now assuming auras and souls are real how is it that some kind of camera can capture the color of this aura, and what gives it it's specific color? This all seems like a hoax to me.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981
Some of you are being taken for a ride. That image of the supposed soul leaving the body is, oddly enough, also used in an ad for the "Evergain Portable FarInfraRed Health Sauna"

Evergain Portable FarInfraRed Health Sauna

Scroll down half the page. In fact, it appears that the image used in this thread is even cropped from the one used to sell this health sauna.

People should be a bit more skeptical.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Speakeasy1981]

Dito I agree that the photos could be the ones on the website you have pasted as they do look identical. Apart from that I do believe that an entity does leave the body when it dies. My sister works in an old people's home where death is frequent. She recalled to me that she saw a spirit leave a man's body from his bed. She stood aside to let him pass and followed him to his wife's bedside in another room up the corridor. The next morning the wife was found dead as well. She said he looked like a white shadow of the man without any features but had arms and legs but he floated down the corridor as in like a spirit.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jinx880101
Does your soul then stay in 'limbo' for those 49 days?


I'm thinking that 49 days in "our" knowledge or how time works is much, much different from "time" on the other side. From my understanding what would be 49 days to would be much less beyond the "veil."



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalenga
Apart from that I do believe that an entity does leave the body when it dies. My sister works in an old people's home where death is frequent. She recalled to me that she saw a spirit leave a man's body from his bed. She stood aside to let him pass and followed him to his wife's bedside in another room up the corridor. The next morning the wife was found dead as well. She said he looked like a white shadow of the man without any features but had arms and legs but he floated down the corridor as in like a spirit.


I've never had any esoteric experiences, except, when my mother passed away, that same night, I was staying at my dad's house - that night I had a very real sensation of someone lying down in my bed beside me. There was no one there by my elderly dad and I. The next morning he asked me if I came to his bedroom doorway the night before and call him honey? I told him no way - he said that he knew I'd never used that term (my mom called him that) but he said he definitely heard it.

This is just to say that I guess the spirit does leave the body and sort of visit around before it takes off to where ever it goes. I've heard similar stories before also.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 




The merge of spiritually and science is inevitable and accelerating.


Right, which is why scientists are overwhelmingly spiritual and religious people. Oh wait, flip that, they're not. Nor is spirituality on the rise in academic circles.

I think it's more accurate to say that misunderstandings of science by spiritual people thinking it confirms their biases is on the rise. Half of America can't even seem to grasp something as simple as "Reproduction with variation checked against natural selection = evolution" - have absolutely zero concept of complexity or emergence outside "that guy from Jurassic Park" - yet they think quantum and theoretical physics positively confirm their spiritual/religious assumptions.

I call BS.



What does cognitive neuroscience have to do with the soul? You confusing software for hardware.


No, I'm not.

Quotes below come from Time Magazines recent publication "Your Brain: A User's Guide"



The brain, like it or not, is a machine. Scientists have come to that conclusion not because they are mechanistic killjoys but because they have amassed evidence that every aspect of consciousness can be tied to the brain. Using functional MRI, they can almost read people's thoughts from the blood flow in their brains. They can tell, for instance, whether a person is thinking about a face or a place or whether a picture the person is looking at is of a bottle or a shoe.

And consciousness can be pushed around by physical manipulations. Electrical stimulation of the brain during surgery can cause a person to have hallucinations that are indistinguishable from reality, such as a song playing in the room or a childhood birthday party. ~ Steven Pinker: Department of Psychology Harvard University.




The topic of consciousness is much like sex was in the Victorian age. Scientifically, sex is just another part of biology, but in many societies, studying it violates a stern taboo. Once we begin to observe sexuality - or consciousness - a lot of the clouds of mystery seem to drift away. That isn't to say that consciousness doesn't come with a great many stubborn mysteries. The topic of gravity, after all, is still mysterious four centuries after Issac Newton first described it. But the difference is, there is no taboo about trying to understand gravity. ~ Bernard Baars, Neuroscience Institute.





Consciousness is an emergent property and not a process in and of itself. Our cognitive capacities, memories and dreams reflect distributed processes throughout the brain. The thousand conscious moments we have in a given day reflect one of our networks being up for duty. When it finishes, the next one pops up, and the pipe-organ-like device plays it's tune all day long. What makes emergent human consciousness so vibrant is that the human pipe organ has lots of tunes to play, whereas the rat's has a few. And the more we know, the richer the concert. ~ Michael Gazzaniga: SAGE Center for the study of Mind - University of California.





There appears to be what Wittgenstein called an "unbridgeable gulf" between the brain and the conscious mind. The paradox of the mind-body problem is that the cause of consciousness in the brain is not discoverable by inspecting the brain. Nevertheless, consciousness is surely a natural biological product, as devoid of the otherworldly as digestion. So why is it so hard to fathom? The answer lies in ourselves: our brains have not evolved the equipment to resolve this mystery. They go blank when they try to understand how they produce the awareness that is our prized essence. ~ Colin McGinn: Professor of Philosophy @ University of Miami


(Note: I don't agree with McGinn's assessment that the brain is not powerful enough to comprehend the depths of the brain. Alone, yes, but not when you add in the augmentation to human thought that computers have allowed.)




The trouble wit this hypothesis (the hard problem of consciousness) is that it declares it's untestability at the outset. There is nothing Steve (Pinker) could do or say under any circumstances that would provide the slightest grounds for either dismissing or confirming the reality of his experience. There could not be an objective test to distinguish a clever robot from a conscious person. Now you have a choice: you can either cling to the Hard Problem, or you can shake your head in wonder and dismiss it. We've learned to do this before: it still seems that the sun goes around the earth, be we know better. It's not all that difficult, now that we've made so much progress on the Easy Problems. Just let go. ~ Daniel Dennett.








The Brain uses the mind/soul like the lungs use oxygen... ...you wouldn't say that our lungs create oxygen.


No, nor would I suggest that our eyes emit "vision" - but rather they receive input from the environment, as Alhazen demonstrated in the 9th century. The thing is... we can isolate the oxygen atom. We can isolate photons. We can interact with them. We can model their interactions with the body and the environment.

Are you seriously suggesting that the "Soul" is an environmental stimulus that our bodies absorb and process? Be that the case, then were is the evidence for such a phenomena? How do you propose the mechanism for interaction with our brain operates? What observable influence does the "soul" particle have on other environmental factors? Can a non-homogeneous reservoir of "soul" in the local environment affect weather patterns? Does it react or catalyze with elements to produce effects similar to luminescence or oxidation?

If it only affects our brains, then what - exactly - is so unique about the composition of our neurons which allow it to sequester or catalyze the "soul" from the environment?

Do you propose mechanisms such as those proposed by Robert Fludd or Gregor Reisch?

If your understanding of consciousness hasn't progressed past a 17th century understanding, that might suggest why you think Rene Descartes was correct.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jinx880101
 

seems like this was already posted before on ats!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

guess we had problems with the search engine did we?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
Half of America can't even seem to grasp something as simple as "Reproduction with variation checked against natural selection = evolution" -




Well I believe in evolution, the leading mechanism being observer response to reality. It may be a flower leaning towards the sun or a monkey's decision to run or fight a predator.


Originally posted by Lasheic
Quotes below come from Time Magazines recent publication "Your Brain: A User's Guide"

"And consciousness can be pushed around by physical manipulations."


Of course it can.

Consciousness is simply what we call the soul's interaction with the complex physical brain. The brain manipulates the mind's perception.

If the brain is damaged the mind tries to compensate by using other parts of the brain. For example if you damage the left hemisphere of your brain young enough your mind will try to use the right hemisphere for speech.



Consciousness is an emergent property and not a process in and of itself. Our cognitive capacities, memories and dreams reflect distributed processes throughout the brain. The thousand conscious moments we have in a given day reflect one of our networks being up for duty. When it finishes, the next one pops up, and the pipe-organ-like device plays it's tune all day long.


The soul is being "poured" through the brain. That is why we are constantly perceiving the immediate now.

Our observation is what allows us to perceive time. The mind is distinct from the physical brain but it certainly responds to it.



Are you seriously suggesting that the "Soul" is an environmental stimulus that our bodies absorb and process? Be that the case, then were is the evidence for such a phenomena? How do you propose the mechanism for interaction with our brain operates?

If it only affects our brains, then what - exactly - is so unique about the composition of our neurons which allow it to sequester or catalyze the "soul" from the environment?


Those are all good questions...

Check out this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



The answer lies in ourselves: our brains have not evolved the equipment to resolve this mystery.

(Note: I don't agree with McGinn's assessment that the brain is not powerful enough to comprehend the depths of the brain. Alone, yes, but not when you add in the augmentation to human thought that computers have allowed.)


I'm glad your hopeful we will one day have the answers


[edit on 27-8-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic & post by Jezus
 

Person A (Jezus) lives in a world that is defined by the fact that the soul exists.
Person B (Lasheic) lives in a world that is defined by the fact that the soul does not exist.

Person A can prove within his own world, without a doubt, that the soul exists.
Person B can prove within his own world, without a doubt, that the soul does not exist.

When Person A crosses into Person B's world he is no longer able to prove that the soul exists.
Likewise, when Person B crosses into Person A's world, he is no longer able to prove that the soul does not exist.

This is because each world has been specifically created by very different fundamental laws that cannot be broken.

To even begin trying to prove that the soul exists in Person B's world would break the fundamental laws (of that world) straight away.
Likewise, to even begin proving that the soul does not exist in Person A's world would break the fundamental laws straight away.

The laws on which these two world's are based on, are only valid within their own world.

In light of these facts -- and with our limited knowledge, on both world's, the question that should be asked is not whether or not the soul exists... but rather, which world is the closest to the big picture? ...to the truth?

We will probably never know the answer to this question for many lifetimes to come... and until that time finally arrives, the best we can do is choose which side to put our faith in.

It'd do us great good (on both world's) to acknowledge that we really don't know anything for certain -- and we should be equally respectful/open minded of whatever "world" someone decides to place their faith.

[edit on 27/8/09 by Navieko]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


I agree with that because I can never really prove that any other observers exist besides myself.

I assume that other people are not biological robots but for all I know the very "person" I am having this debate with is just a brain responding to stimulation.

I can only prove definitively with my own consciousness that I have a "mind".

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 




The soul is being "poured" through the brain. That is why we are constantly perceiving the immediate now.


As I said, you're still stuck in a 17th century understanding of consciousness.



(The above is actually from the 14th century.)


Here's a slight primer on a more 21st century understanding.








Check out this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...


As I mentioned about misconceptions of science being promoted to validate biased positions on spirituality, that thread is four excruciating pages of people's continual string of misconceptions and projection futilely being parried away by the OP.

From that thread:



No, this is incorrect, although a theory of quantum gravity is to be hoped for at some point in the future. Please read the paper. If you have not even grasped what it is about, how likely is it that your speculations about what it means are correct? ~ Astyanax in response to BadMedia




Looks like this thread is going to die of God suffocation. What could well be a watershed in our understanding of the physical world, and nobody here seems to care because they're too busy plugging their own tunnelvision line. ~ Astyanax in response to YOU.


Further, Tim Palmer (the author of the subject paper) says nothing at all about souls, god, or the metaphysical. His Email is provided on the site. If you're confused, ask HIM if your speculations are correct. I have a feeling I know what the response will be, if there even is one.

Invariant Set Postulate

Further, BadMedia and I already went round and round on this subject. In the end, he couldn't provide anything empirical, and his entire basis for argument on the subject of true consciousness as it applies to machines is based on his experience as an AI programmer. Apparently, if he can't do it... it can't be done. Not because he's not doing it right or that consciousness is (as mentioned above) an emergent concert of various cognitive processes... but because it's somehow metaphysically impossible.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
you can get those pictures for 10 quid here in UK ,

google karma photography



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
This topic and the youtube video you posted was interesting, thanks jinx880101. I didn't see any pictures in the link you gave but I saw the one you added in reply. Are these the only photos? I found the youtube video to be contradicting itself. In the part where we were seeing the auras change in real time, the scientist describes them as reflecting an emotional state, while the woman who reads the auras say they show a person's personality. I would lean more towards the former since we could see the auras changing on cue with the couple kissing and the scientist's other experiments.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


That's just evidence of the brain's manipulation of consciousness.

Consciousness is not a synonym for soul.

Consciousness is the expression of the soul using the vehicle of the brain...

You are not the first person to respond to this with information about the brain's physical manipulation of the mind's perception and reaction to environment but it doesn't negate the point.

In fact it actually reinforces it.

The inner monologue you call your consciousness is simply the mind observing itself through the brain.


Originally posted by Jezus
Who’s Minding the Mind?
www.nytimes.com...

"The students who held a cup of iced coffee rated a hypothetical person they later read about as being much colder, less social and more selfish than did their fellow students, who had momentarily held a cup of hot java."

“Well, we’re finding that we have these unconscious behavioral guidance systems that are continually furnishing suggestions through the day about what to do next, and the brain is considering and often acting on those, all before conscious awareness...

Dr. Bargh added: “Sometimes those goals are in line with our conscious intentions and purposes, and sometimes they’re not.” "

"The brain appears to use the very same neural circuits to execute an unconscious act as it does a conscious one. In a study that appeared in the journal Science in May, a team of English and French neuroscientists performed brain imaging on 18 men and women who were playing a computer game for money. The players held a handgrip and were told that the tighter they squeezed when an image of money flashed on the screen, the more of the loot they could keep.

As expected, the players squeezed harder when the image of a British pound flashed by than when the image of a penny did — regardless of whether they consciously perceived the pictures, many of which flew by subliminally. But the circuits activated in their brains were similar as well: an area called the ventral pallidum was particularly active whenever the participants responded.

“This area is located in what used to be called the reptilian brain, well below the conscious areas of the brain,” said the study’s senior author, Chris Frith, a professor in neuropsychology at University College London who wrote the book “Making Up The Mind: How the Brain Creates our Mental World.”

The results suggest a “bottom-up” decision-making process, in which the ventral pallidum is part of a circuit that first weighs the reward and decides, then interacts with the higher-level, conscious regions later, if at all, Dr. Frith said.

"Scientists have spent years trying to pinpoint the exact neural regions that support conscious awareness, so far in vain"

"Yet the new research on priming makes it clear that we are not alone in our own consciousness. We have company, an invisible partner who has strong reactions about the world that don’t always agree with our own, but whose instincts, these studies clearly show, are at least as likely to be helpful, and attentive to others, as they are to be disruptive."


Ironically when you respond to this with information by the brain's physical systems it is almost like claiming to be a robot that doesn't observe or feel.


Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Navieko
 

I agree with that because I can never really prove that any other observers exist besides myself.

I assume that other people are not biological robots but for all I know the very "person" I am having this debate with is just a brain responding to stimulation.

I can only prove definitively with my own consciousness that I have a "mind".

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
No pictures no proof. I don't believe in souls. :\



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Interesting study and thread....


It's been my understanding that when the person dies, they imediately leave the body. The notion that it takes longer as if to disapate, sounds more like what scientists might suggest as if the energy ( or soul) just vaporizes to nothingness.

If these studies were more precise, I would think they would show a persons spirit or soul, leaving the body shortly if not imediately after death. The body, has supposedly been suggested by aliens or whomever, to be a 'container' or energy source for power. So, I think they are likely confusing the two with this study.

It's been my understanding that the spirit would be more like what we see in an MRI from the outer skin. Just like some spirits have been reported or suggested in some movies.

The programs such as Ghosthunters, supposedly also have sensitive devices that can pick up voices in some energy form. We need to focus on these as well. ( it's that time of year again)

People who die, may actually be in a state where the body is burning up or hot. When my father died, his body was still extremely warm 20 minutes after death, especially his hands.

I think people who die like this for science, should have several tests for sensitvity, such as being surrounded by sensitive photography film. or an MRI or FMRI.

It would be interesting to hear and see what other tests they've done like this with different equipment.

Satellites might use sensitive equipment that might help with this also.

The video above that mentions negative ions and moisture, does seem related in some form when ghosts are most active, like maybe in the fall?


Psychic vampires etc.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 




This is because each world has been specifically created by very different fundamental laws that cannot be broken.


Reality is objective, regardless of your subjective perceptions of it. Two or more subjective observations can a verify an objective fact. The two are NOT equally valid when it comes to describing reality. This is why science is a "tyranny of evidence", not a "democracy of postulation".

This is why knowledge is power, because knowledge of the objective reality outside and beyond the subjective perception can be used to make modifications to the subjective perception. The very fact that we can communicate at all over these distances is because of an understanding of objective reality. In fact, I can END (if I so chose) your subjective reality by an understanding of objective reality. At the low end, I can pick up a rock and bludgeon you. With a slightly greater understanding of reality, I can sharpen that rock and attach it to a spear to throw at you. With an even greater understanding, I can build a gun to shoot you.... or a bomb or a missile. Whatever.

I suggest watching Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon".



we should be equally respectful/open minded of whatever "world" someone decides to place their faith.


Absolutely not. Faith is nothing to be respected or praised. It is self-imposed blind ignorance. Period. It is ignoring the questions, out of incapacity or fear of it's conclusions, not answering them. While some may claim I have "faith" in science, I assure you I don't. I judge science by the preponderance of evidence... and the evidence suggests that it works. Not perfectly, but it works... and is a work in progress.

And I do, however, have a faith in god. I'm not sure about the existence of a soul. However, I fully recognize that either of my personal positions on these subjects are without evidence and as such are by no means any position to argue a point from.

As for open mindedness, it is only a virtue when complimented by reason. Without reason, open mindedness becomes gullibility.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
This stuff is old hat and humbug. I suggest reading this link for more intelligent info



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 




Consciousness is not a synonym for soul.


Thesaurus.com


Main Entry: soul
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: psyche, inspiration, energy
Synonyms: anima, animating principle, animation, animus, ardor, bosom, bottom, breast, breath of life, cause, conscience, courage, disposition, ego, elan vital, essence, feeling, fervor, force, genius, heart, individuality, intellect, intelligence, life, marrow, mind, nobility, noumenon, personality, pith, pneuma, principle, quintessence, reason, recesses of heart, secret self, spirit, spiritual being, stuff, substance, thought, vital force, vitality, vivacity


Microsoft Encarta Thesaurus


soul (n)
Synonyms: spirit, consciousness, psyche, will, essence, being


Thinkmap Visual Thesaurus

Evidently, it is. Another common synonym for soul is Psyche.



* Main Entry: psy·che
* Pronunciation: \ˈsī-kē\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Latin, from Greek psychē soul
* Date: 1590
1 capitalized : a princess loved by Cupid
2 [Greek psychē] a : soul, personality b : mind 2

Merriam-Webster



psy·che 1 (sk) n. 1. The spirit or soul. 2. Psychiatry The mind functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and behavior and consciously or unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body's responses to the social and physical environment.

The Free Dictionary


Evidently, you're not understanding the basic definitions of that which you're arguing. I think you're just making up your own unique definitions in an attempt to obfuscate the issue into something inarguable. You don't want to face the conclusions of the evidence, and cling to flimsy justifications and apologetics. I think you're afraid of the implications of the de-mystification of the soul, of the mind.

As I explained to BadMedia:



I am of the mind to consider the line between soul and mental faculty as so narrow of margin that there is essentially no soul at all. If the "soul" being that which merely experiences passively with little else to it's regard, then what is the point. Who "I" am would then, not be defined by the soul at all - but by those mental facilities aforementioned. When my body passes, who "I" am would die as well - leaving only as an untethered soul to flee away as much a stranger to who "I" was upon exiting my frame as it was a stranger when supposedly entering.


Even if the soul were to exist as flowing input to our brains, cognitive neuroscience and our increasing understanding of the human mind have reduced the importance of the "soul" to YOU and YOUR personal identity to essentially nothingness. It would be little more than a passive component, as integral to defining who YOU are as the oxygen you breath which you referenced earlier. Less important even, than the electricity firing across your synapse.

When you die, YOU die. Any supposed consequences for a poorly led life as espoused by some religions rendered as meaningless as threatening hellfire against the air you breath for the decisions you made in life.





top topics
 
72
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join