Well done, Irish.
QUOTE
The work of Albert Einstein is still not fully understood and much is still theory and yet to be approved or perhaps discredited. However by accepting that the theories are viable, than we at leased have a template with witch to work with.
Subsequent research and experimentation has shown that Einstein was on the right track. His theories are considered viable because he used existing knowledge and tested scientific principles, and took them further. Many of his theories were so advanced they still cannot be fully tested.
But, Einstein dealt in physics, the way the universe around us works, and how we interact with it. His template still deals with the reality of our world, and not those things that are intangible abstracts.
QUOTE
The most common error in scientific research is creating the mold before the prototype. Than scraping the prototype because it no longer fits the mold.
There was a time, far back in our collective history, when the most learned and respected minds still believed the world was flat, and the universe revolved around us. When new thinkers came around, and
through questioning the world around them and experimenting, much of what the scientific world considered reliable and true was turned on its head. When the mold no longer fit, the mold was broken. New knowledge replaces the old all the time, science is an ever changing, ever evolving field.
As little as fifty years ago, dinosaurs were considered slow, lumbering, uncaring behemoths. As new discoveries were made, and paleontologists studied the subject from different angles, our perception has changed. Dinosaurs are now dynamic, complex animals that cared for their young and had intricate social structures. All this came about by studying the fossil record, what was already there in front of them, it just needed to be seen from all the right angles.
In science, the object is to find the truth, not to fit the mold. I'd say the mold is constantly being reshaped, as new knowledge is gained.
QUOTE
How many pharmaceutical discoveries never leave the lab duo to the product not being lucrative enough to pursue further.
I have to agree with you on this one, as sad as it is, it is a fact. However, a simple book on home remedies can give you a good deal of insight on treating minor ailments. But, this fact is due to the greed of big drug companies, and not of the researchers who toil away, searching for cures to the diseases that plague us.
QUOTE
Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th edition:
Soul: an immaterial principle or aspect that, with the body, constitutes the human person.
The soul has also been conceived as the very essence of a thing and not a mere aspect or part.
True. Our soul is what makes us what we are. Art, literature, music, love, unity, all these are aspects of the soul. The soul is that uniqueness that makes us human, and separates us from the rest on the animal kingdom. I agree with the point you're trying to make here, that the soul is the intangible property that sets us apart from our fellow beings.
QUOTE
the basic connotation of soul in ancient and primitive societies was life.
It is also interesting to note that, until the ancient Egyptians arrived on the scene, primitive humans had no real concept of an afterlife at all. They worshipped simple elemental spirits, who controlled the rising of the sun, the seasons, and the availability of food. It isn't until the advent of civilization, and man having more time to focus on things other than simply surviving, that people began looking at the soul as something that goes on after our physical body ceases to function.
The ancient Egyptian myth of the death and rebirth of Osiris gives us a good example of how mankind's ideas of the afterlife arose. The ancient Egyptians, from the Pharoah himself down to the lowliest peasant, hoped to join Osiris in the underworld after they died. The soul became not just life itself, or the unique qualities that make us individuals, but something more tangible, that needed to be nurtured and cared for, so that it may make it to the other side and take its place with Osiris. This concept led to elaborate burial rituals, much of Egyptian spiritual life revolved around making a succesfull journey into the afterlife. This concept is still with us in many of the religions we have today.
The soul as something wholly separate and independent of the body itself did not exist until civilization gave mankind time to organize a structured spiritual life.
QUOTE
Plato identifies the soul as unchanging and resembling the divine while the body resembles the mortal: “The soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintelligible, and, and multiform, and dissoluble, and changeable.”
The body is pre-destined for dissolution (death) while the soul remains immortal.
I believe Plato was able to grasp the concept of immortality of the soul without excuse of religious bias.
I think that what Plato is referring to here is the quality that sets us apart as individuals, and how that leaves its mark on those we know and love, rather than an entity in and of itself. How we get along in this world, and how our actions affect others, indeed lives on beyond our own self awareness. I don't believe he is talking about something that is conscious of itself. And this is the measuring stick for whether or not the soul survives the dissolution of the body.
QUOTE
I think that a true scientist must analyze without preconceptions the experimental data, and try to understand whether such data are compatible with our scientific theories or not. A true scientist cannot exclude the possibility of the existence of supernatural phenomena; this would be a preconception.
This is true to a point. But if, after experimentation and examination, a phenomenon is found to contradict accepted and proven theories without evidence to back up its existence, then said phenomenon must be discarded as a myth. The possibility of the supernatural is perfectly acceptable, but confirmation of a phenomenon is subject to its ability to be tested and verified. If an anomaly can't be tested, it's veracity is cast into doubt.
QUOTE
Science by itself cannot prove the existence of the soul or the existence of God,
Neither can it disprove them. Hence the debate. It is ultimately up to us as individuals to choose the theory that best fits our understanding, and to follow it in peace.
Consciousness proves itself by its very nature. The fact that I'm sitting here typing this reply is evidence of my consciousness. While it is a fleeting, intangible thing, the very act of reading my post, as you are now, proves it's reality.
QUOTE
Actually, the crucial point is the fact that in the laws of physics, consciousness is not present, neither as a property of matter, nor of any physical, chemical or biological process.
Consciousness is not present because many of these processes do not occur as a result of it, but consciousness occurs as a result of them acting together. My eyes, fingers, and brain all combine input to provide a picture of what is going on around me. Without the biological processes and electical synapses happening in my brain right now, I could not construct this reply, and my very awareness would be affected. Awareness is the core component of consciousness, and we rely on the impulses sent to our brain, all biological and chemical responses to stimuli, to create our awareness, which in turn creates consciousness.
In conclusion, while it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of the soul using scientific means, we can be reasonably certain that consciousness as we understand it, which is awareness of ourselves and the world around us, ceases to exist as our body and the systems with which we experience the universe break down. Whether something of us moves on, to be reincarnated in a new body, or makes a journey to some other realm of reality, cannot be proven, or even tested.