Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Marc9595

The reality of soul

52 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Marc9595

The soul exists and is eternal, science is proving it (https://newsinstact.com/science/quantum-physicists-proved-that-human-has-an-immortal-soul/), science is even interested in reincarnation (https://ideapod.com/scientists-examine-2500-cases-reincarnation-reveal-common-previously-realized/) a thing i believe to be true and amazing, but to be not the only possibility of afterlife. Some religions claim the soul to be mortal, but this is not true and it's due to a very bad contact with some evil members of an alien race, mistaken for god,

In fact even if (I don't know current Theosophy thoughts, I'm talking about the early Theosophy History) Theosophy believe the spirit to be eternal, it did believe the individual soul (another part of the individual being), to be mortal, because they gave account to a biblical passage when it's said (the soul that sins has to die) The word was nephesh, but nephesh means living being, and so the correct meaning is (the living being that disobeys has to die) and it's just the will of an evil alien Jawe. The egyptian religion did believe the soul to be immortal but believed that very evil people's soul was condemned to eternal loneliness and fear after the heart was eaten. The Chaldean Oracles did believe everything was written in the eternal tables of astral light. The astral light tables are sometimes considered like the Akasha Records, (that according to experts have the history of every single being from the separation to the reunion with the Source, the Supreme being) but some consider the book of life of the bible to be the same thing. This is not the case. The book of life is just a book where people who are faithfull to Jawe are accounted for being reanimated with alien technology, with their dna or body parts. That's why if a dead body was burned was consider two times dead.

I also think that since for Parmenides The Being is what it is and it can't not being, the Counciousness is the reality of both god and the individual souls. The shape of water is one of the things that relate to the more importance of the subject over the obect. (or maybe water and every single particle and energy is alive too in someway) Descartes said Cogito ergo sum, Leibniz said even more and talked that we can say to objects of thoughts are differents (A and b) according to him the first assyome should considers firstly the subject that discerns. Before a thought object there's a thinking subject. 

Soul is information, and it does exists after Death, it's not only the product of the brain. Plato p ilosopher talked about the hyperouranius (literally over the sky), a place of perfect ideas, where the soul should stay, but amused by matter falls from the heaven. He was the first  who conceive scientific speculated topics such as other dimentions. He tried to exlain the immortality of soul because the soul was as immortal as the ideas itould contemplate, since she has got the same origin. Science of aesthetic for example confirms the appeal of artficial composed picture that are closed to glden ratio wich is something based on a irrational number. Art and music are useless form a evolutionary point of view, but they are important for us, (and even animals and plants react positively to good music, is it,auniversal reality. oher cultures exposed to classical music usually like it. It looks like indipendently from culture some words are mentally related to different shapes, (search for Takete and Maluma). The ideas, archetips and symbols are significative and they belong to the perception of the mind soul that recognizes something as Plato said?

In latin amor means love and can mean without death, Something without  death (the Being and souls, instead of the matrix and physical bodies) is eternal, and the ultimate eternal reality is love

 

 

 

Edited by Marc9595
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595

They are real scientists, what do you study/ work for? They do the so called pseudoscience but they are graduated in scientific matters

Edited by Marc9595
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595

You are only insulting people who have different views from you. But i know for sure most of you know science only from Facebook skeptics. I don't pretend to be a scientist as you do, I'm doing a philosophical, metaphisical and numerological approach, I dont pretend it to be the truth but i think its more useful to have differnt point of views with mutual respect. That sites is not the best but its the first i found the news in english and not Italian, my native Language and so i posted it, and still that news and the researchers are truth. One is academic, the other a scientist. If you think materialsm is the only possibility and that if a scientist tell something you don't like you think its not science then this is not scientific, especially if you are not graduated in the sciences fields. I've got a female friend who's graduated in maths, its not that hard as physics but she's still more able insciensces than most of you and she believes in these so called by you "pseudocience things"

Edited by Marc9595
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
29 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Pseudoscience -> 

Pseudoskeptic ^

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595

Some atheist not only for spiritual things but even for the possibility of alien form of life insulted me  but Stephen Hawking believed them (although he believed they were only aggressive, but I thinks many are good too, especially Pleyadians, and the good part of eloim / deva)

Edited by Marc9595
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1

@Marc9595  I hold that the Theosophical/Vedic (Hindu) view of the soul is the deepest understanding.

Consciousness/God/Brahman is eternal and infinite. A spark of this eternal Consciousness incarnates all living things. In the case of humans this consciousness animates a soul (a subtle body itself on a higher plane of reality) which then incarnates our progressively denser mental, astral and physical bodies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595
49 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

@Marc9595  I hold that the Theosophical/Vedic (Hindu) view of the soul is the deepest understanding.

Consciousness/God/Brahman is eternal and infinite. A spark of this eternal Consciousness incarnates all living things. In the case of humans this consciousness animates a soul (a subtle body itself on a higher plane of reality) which then incarnates our progressively denser mental, astral and physical bodies.

I like that Theosophy now is based more on Vedas that believe in an immortal soul and that are far more spiritually oriented than the bible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595

The numerological is used just for christianity, although i don't think numerology to be as important as philosophy, metaphysics, spirituality, but, since for fundamental christians is important I use it to disprove it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
3 hours ago, Marc9595 said:

The soul exists and is eternal, science is proving it (https://newsinstact.com/science/quantum-physicists-proved-that-human-has-an-immortal-soul/), science is even interested in reincarnation (https://ideapod.com/scientists-examine-2500-cases-reincarnation-reveal-common-previously-realized/) a thing i believe to be true and amazing, but to be not the only possibility of afterlife. Some religions claim the soul to be mortal, but this is not true and it's due to a very bad contact with some evil members of an alien race, mistaken for god,

Orchestrated Objective Reduction is a hypothesis with a host of issues. Quantum coherence in the brain would break down almost immediately, leaving no time for any neural processing. Not to mention all the microtubules structures that the hypothesis requires don't even exist in an adult brain. So, as was previously mentioned: Pseudoscience. 

 

The rest of the post isn't worth addressing and holds no interest for me,

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595

Einstein believed in the music of the spheres (i don't know if that is true but a real man of science believed it), Kant used the metaphor of the pink glasses (that sounds funny but it's true) to explain how human perceptions are limited and biased, that idea of enistein sounds pseudo scientific to you and Kant a buffoon according to entitled keyboard "scientists"  For Kant we only experience phenomenon (5 senses reality) but noumenon is real and can be intuited. Do keyboard fervent materialists hooligans have done anything for science? Nothing but insulting Others, beliving without offering proves in the Fake Quote "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and the highest form of intelligence"  lol Materialists usually thank and praise sharks (that are even cannibal, so that a shark is a danger even for other sharks and it's wonderful for them lol) when they eat surfers because "sharks are marvellous and its their territory" demonstrating zero compassion humanity while still eating fish and chips from not dangerous fishes fished with ships that invade their territory, the sea

Edited by Marc9595
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
30 minutes ago, Marc9595 said:

Einstein believed in the music of the spheres (i don't know if that is true but a real man of science believed it), Kant used the metaphor of the pink glasses (that sounds funny but it's true) to explain how human perceptions are limited and biased, that idea of enistein sounds pseudo scientific to you and Kant a buffoon according to entitled keyboard "scientists"  For Kant we only experience phenomenon (5 senses reality) but noumenon is real and can be intuited. Do keyboard fervent materialists hooligans have done anything for science? Nothing but insulting Others, beliving without offering proves in the Fake Quote "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and the highest form of intelligence"  lol Materialists usually thank and praise sharks (that are even cannibal, so that a shark is a danger even for other sharks and it's wonderful for them lol) when they eat surfers because "sharks are marvellous and its their territory" demonstrating zero compassion humanity while still eating fish and chips from not dangerous fishes fished with ships that invade their territory, the sea

Very entertaining post. It is a fact that the keyboard "scientists" here who scoff at the unknown "beyond", are not a good comparison with the real titans of science, who were much less dogmatic, and in fact some were almost "madly" religious, two that come readily to mind being the great Newton, and some might say, the equally great, James Clerk Maxwell.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
6 hours ago, Marc9595 said:

That's not even close to being true. Orch OR is a pet belief of Hameroff and Penrose, but as has been mentioned it has little going for it in the way of support and has been criticised heavily both by physicists and neuroscientists. Apart from the physics and neuroscience problems, it has never been demonstrated that quantum effects are relevant to the function of the brain to begin with or why any explanation requires it. It seems the very strong belief of Hameroff and Penrose that the mind can leave the brain is about the only reason for considering it at this stage. Something that has also never been demonstrated scientifically either, as yet. Though at least Penrose does understand the subject unlike some other proponents of "quantum consciousness", he also readily agrees his idea has more holes than a sieve.

Quote

Descartes said Cogito ergo sum

Which sadly still colours the view of many researchers who start from this pov and never get anywhere (particularly philosophers), because they look at "consciousness" as a "thing" in and of itself.

Neuroscience is finding that the "conscious self" is simply an illusion. Something is there, but it isn't a little "self" running things. In fact this "self" is intermittent and more of a post hoc "rationaliser" for the thoughts and feelings that arise from the brain (those that it is aware of at least, which probably isn't that much anyway). Particularly from the limbic system of which it has little to no control.

Quote

In latin amor means love and can mean without death, Something without  death (the Being and souls, instead of the matrix and physical bodies) is eternal, and the ultimate eternal reality is love

Never heard that translation, only ones suggesting love and/or friendship as in "omnia vincit amor" (love conquers all). It is quite a claim of knowledge that, to claim to know what ultimate reality consists of. Firstly love is a very ill defined word to begin with. How have you reached this conclusion? Surely that deserves an explanation at least, if it anything other than an idle airy fairy or poetic sentiment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jypsijemini

I doubt that even if this were true, and even if real, reputable scientists were able to find proof for the supernatural, spiritual and soulful nature of life, that you'd be able to convince half of the UM community to believe it.

Even if cold hard evidence, facts and proof were finally thrust in their faces - they'd still find a way to berate, insult and belittle what you're presenting.

Imagine back when everybody was CERTAIN that the world was flat - and how impossible the claims would have seemed that it was anything but...

It's the same here. It'll take probably an entire century to get most people to accept it if it could ever be undoubtedly, completely proven by science.

Think of all the religions that have holes in their core belief structure and yet their followers would happily die martyrs just to defend their claims.

People don't like change.

And they like being wrong even LESS.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
44 minutes ago, jypsijemini said:

I doubt that even if this were true, and even if real, reputable scientists were able to find proof for the supernatural, spiritual and soulful nature of life, that you'd be able to convince half of the UM community to believe it.

Even if cold hard evidence, facts and proof were finally thrust in their faces - they'd still find a way to berate, insult and belittle what you're presenting.

Imagine back when everybody was CERTAIN that the world was flat - and how impossible the claims would have seemed that it was anything but...

It's the same here. It'll take probably an entire century to get most people to accept it if it could ever be undoubtedly, completely proven by science.

Think of all the religions that have holes in their core belief structure and yet their followers would happily die martyrs just to defend their claims.

People don't like change.

And they like being wrong even LESS.

Could be worth taking your own advice and pondering that last part.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jypsijemini
13 minutes ago, Horta said:
59 minutes ago, jypsijemini said:

And they like being wrong even LESS.

Could be worth taking your own advice and pondering that last part.

Difference is: I'm open to the idea that I could very well be wrong.

In fact, in all actuality, I base my beliefs off opinions, accepted ideas and intuition. I trust that the information I've been told by people who say they've researched things is true.

As I get older, some things I previously believed have changed - and newer information has told me that those things were myths.

I think ultimately, the majority of us aren't actually the ones doing the research. We're just sitting back assessing and observing the efforts of others, we're waiting for patterns and agreeing statements to come in from several sources, and then we make a decision that a certain idea or statement is true.

Don't you see? Most of us are just basing our understanding of 'reality' on beliefs too!

None of us have the opportunities, resources or time to master and understand everything there is to know - so we're reliant on the work and claims of others who say they've done the research, they've understood it, they've used the work of other scientists and researchers before them and they've come to an understanding and conclusion.

It's a big web of trust - and sure, a lot of it is reliable. There'd be holes everywhere and not a lot of agreement if it wasn't reliable.

But getting back to your statement - I know I'm not a researcher - I'm an observer. Every day I'm absorbing new information.

I could be wasting my time in thinking that life has a spiritual nature to it. That's fine by me. I could be wrong. There could be absolutely nothing after life, and no reason to become a better person.

But I like the way I live.

And if science is wrong and I'm right, then I've covered all my bases and I'll have myself prepared for the next level.

If science is right and I'm wrong, what does it matter anyway? ;) :D

Edited by jypsijemini
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
Just now, jypsijemini said:

Difference is: I'm open to the idea that I could very well be wrong.

So am I, and in fact can see certain possibilities (though not in the normal folkloric/religious version of a "soul"). Though with all due respect, I'm not convinced that you are. To what extent have you researched both sides of this topic yourself? 

When someone opens a thread with a claim that is clearly and unequivocally wrong (that science is proving that the soul exists), why shouldn't it be pointed out? It shouldn't be taken as a personal slight, after all, we are all wrong at times and discussion is what forums are about.

It's really more the opposite in truth. The idea of a mind/body duality has lost favour with academics for a century or more, for good reason. Modern neuroscience certainly doesn't support it. More recent science has left us with a very good idea of  the "standard model" ie. what forces and particles could interact at the scale of the neural processes in the brain. There isn't anything that could amount to a separate "consciousness" or "soul"... at least nothing that isn't found in the atomic structure of all other matter. Which also means that the mind has plain old ordinary physical matter as its basis.

Science could be wrong of course (it's basic to science to leave that possibility open) and it's fine to believe that you have a soul, if that takes your fancy. In fact, most people on earth simply assume they have such a thing and never look into it further or doubt it. That's up to them, but why would you expect everyone else to believe it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595
4 hours ago, Horta said:

That's not even close to being true. Orch OR is a pet belief of Hameroff and Penrose, but as has been mentioned it has little going for it in the way of support and has been criticised heavily both by physicists and neuroscientists. Apart from the physics and neuroscience problems, it has never been demonstrated that quantum effects are relevant to the function of the brain to begin with or why any explanation requires it. It seems the very strong belief of Hameroff and Penrose that the mind can leave the brain is about the only reason for considering it at this stage. Something that has also never been demonstrated scientifically either, as yet. Though at least Penrose does understand the subject unlike some other proponents of "quantum consciousness", he also readily agrees his idea has more holes than a sieve.

Which sadly still colours the view of many researchers who start from this pov and never get anywhere (particularly philosophers), because they look at "consciousness" as a "thing" in and of itself.

Neuroscience is finding that the "conscious self" is simply an illusion. Something is there, but it isn't a little "self" running things. In fact this "self" is intermittent and more of a post hoc "rationaliser" for the thoughts and feelings that arise from the brain (those that it is aware of at least, which probably isn't that much anyway). Particularly from the limbic system of which it has little to no control.

Never heard that translation, only ones suggesting love and/or friendship as in "omnia vincit amor" (love conquers all). It is quite a claim of knowledge that, to claim to know what ultimate reality consists of. Firstly love is a very ill defined word to begin with. How have you reached this conclusion? Surely that deserves an explanation at least, if it anything other than an idle airy fairy or poetic sentiment?

Amor can be viewed as a shortened version of A-mors, without death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595
7 hours ago, Habitat said:

Very entertaining post. It is a fact that the keyboard "scientists" here who scoff at the unknown "beyond", are not a good comparison with the real titans of science, who were much less dogmatic, and in fact some were almost "madly" religious, two that come readily to mind being the great Newton, and some might say, the equally great, James Clerk Maxwell.

Yes, Newton was a very obsessed believer in the doctrine of arianism (Not a nazi thing fortunately, the name it comes from Arius an heretic priest of Alexandria, but a christian doctrine far  less judgmental and discriminatory than average (for mainstream churches heretic) it separates Jesus from the trinity and regards Jesus as a man, not god) and he even have had in his collection of tests egyptian esoteric books (I don't know if they were original ancient egyptian, ancient greek, coptic or latin papyres or they were re more probably copied medieval greek or arabic, more recent versions similar to modern books). He was the last of alchemists and the first of modern (real, not wannabe scientist materialists) scientists

Edited by Marc9595

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jypsijemini
1 hour ago, Horta said:

To what extent have you researched both sides of this topic yourself? 

2 hours ago, jypsijemini said:

In fact, in all actuality, I base my beliefs off opinions, accepted ideas and intuition. I trust that the information I've been told by people who say they've researched things is true.

2 hours ago, jypsijemini said:

But getting back to your statement - I know I'm not a researcher - I'm an observer.

I have this really weird feeling like I've already answered your question somehow... :rofl:

In fact, it looks to me like I answered your question before you even asked it!

 

OMG I knew it.

 

 

I'm psychic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
7 hours ago, Marc9595 said:

Einstein believed in the music of the spheres (i don't know if that is true but a real man of science believed it), Kant used the metaphor of the pink glasses (that sounds funny but it's true) to explain how human perceptions are limited and biased, that idea of enistein sounds pseudo scientific to you and Kant a buffoon according to entitled keyboard "scientists"  For Kant we only experience phenomenon (5 senses reality) but noumenon is real and can be intuited. Do keyboard fervent materialists hooligans have done anything for science? Nothing but insulting Others, beliving without offering proves in the Fake Quote "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and the highest form of intelligence"  lol Materialists usually thank and praise sharks (that are even cannibal, so that a shark is a danger even for other sharks and it's wonderful for them lol) when they eat surfers because "sharks are marvellous and its their territory" demonstrating zero compassion humanity while still eating fish and chips from not dangerous fishes fished with ships that invade their territory, the sea

Kant was basically say we have a reality tunnel. I think Plato's cave is also another way of saying this. 

From the looks of it your reality tunnel looks for insults, to be offended for whatever reason. 

You also attack "materialist" which is all to familiar around here. Then you wonder why people attack you back...

Edited by XenoFish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595
47 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Kant was basically say we have a reality tunnel. I think Plato's cave is also another way of saying this. 

From the looks of it your reality tunnel looks for insults, to be offended for whatever reason. 

You also attack "materialist" which is all to familiar around here. Then you wonder why people attack you back...

Rliey, that called me uneducated and that i reported, you and one other (sci nerd) started, it was not me. Now I'm faithful to my words and I will really stop to answer directly to these provocations. I use the word materialist and without "..." because you are not scientists and the word materialist wich is not an insult but your philosophical adress suits you

Edited by Marc9595

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
8 minutes ago, Marc9595 said:

Rliey, that called me uneducated and that i reported, you and one other (sci nerd) started, it was not me. Now I'm faithful to my words and I will really stop to answer directly to these provocations. I use the word materialist and without "..." because you are not scientists and the word materialist suits you

Maybe I find being called being a materialist insulting?

Perhaps you do not wish for an open discussion and from your own admittance report anything and anyone who doesn't see things your way. 

How thick is your skin? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc9595

Pythagoras believed in reincarnation, was he stupid? Plato believed in god and so aristotle (the first unomving motor) Plato even believed in magic (as Newton maybe believed, but fors sure he read about it) made a distinction between white magic (Mageia) and black magic (Goethia) though he didn't actually like even white magic because some greeks though magic was not important (if magic exists, I don't know since I've never tried it) Socrates believed good people would go in the elysian fields heaven, paradesha (garden) and very evil in tartarus hell. It's a metter of good deeds and evil deeds, not aboutfaith obedience and privation as in christianity. 

Edited by Marc9595

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
22 minutes ago, jypsijemini said:

I have this really weird feeling like I've already answered your question somehow... :rofl:

In fact, it looks to me like I answered your question before you even asked it!

Fair enough. Though it seems difficult to reconcile the fact that you haven't learned much about this topic directly for yourself, with the militant dislike of opinion of some who do at least make an effort, as displayed in your first response. 

Quote

I trust that the information I've been told by people who say they've researched things is true.

There are people on this thread who do research on this topic and to the extent they can, have offered critique of the material in the op. Your response to this has been somewhat denigrating and fallacy ridden. Or do you only accept such from non science based researchers, or those who reinforce your beliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.