Is there scientific proof for a soul ?

is there scientific proof for a soul ?

or is there at least a way we could test for soul but haven't builded the necessary technology to carry out such experiments?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No you idiot.

Read Plato

>took philosphy 101

of course there is proof for a Seoul, not sure why you spelled it like this but here it is Seoul South Korea.

How can you prove not ?

scpecifically what works of plato?

/thread

Ok actual answer time, there was an experiment done in the early 1900s/late 1800s where a man put 5 or so people who were dieing on a scale. Then took their weights before and after there deaths. In each case (If i remember correctly) they had lost a small amount of weight and he decided this meant it was the weight of the human soul. However most scientists and skeptics alike disregard this claim as they have doubts about the method, as well as the accuracy of his instruments and the fact that body fluid is released in many deaths thus reducing the weight.

Google that shit
There are studies because you can capture images using some kind of special camera...
Also, this is new stuff, ask in 5 or 10 years and maybe you can get good discussion
For now, get outta here.

Also you may be better off by going to /x/

Oh, and this. Forgot this.

A soul as defined in the Black DeNan
>the energy encapsulated in a body of organic material, used to transmit thought to the brain, differentiated from the energy used by muscle for movement, is unique to complex life, and is best understood as the cloud of though within a person that allows for individuality

so basically the soul is synapses.

Probably any air that was in their lungs that exited upon the "last breath" was that weight difference.

Let's do some very very very basic deductive thought on this.
>weight loss at death = soul
>weight = physically exists
>physically exists = would be found in X-Ray's, sonograms, and/or dissection.
>No soul discovered upon X-Ray's, sonograms, and/or dissection = doesn't physically exist

debunked in 2 seconds using only logic.

There is no soul, end of discussion. Bring evidence or gtfo.

yes, i've thought about this, like, what if soul is what we consider scientifically consciousness; but where is our consciousness? is it only a manifestation of electrical impulses or does it change when we die ?

i heard about this; what if, the put the dying people inside an airtight coffin, then put the whole coffin+person on the scale, that way, all the fluids/gases escaping would remain inside the coffin and still be measured by the scale

i often wonder what kind of technology will be available in the future; will i be scared shitless like some old people today?

The soul as described by the uneducated, mentally deficient people who came up with the idea, is just the essence of the individual.
It's a just a simplification of an implied reality, that every person is unique in thought.
The soul, is just your biology, your genetics, the hormone/chemical cocktale in your body that makes you unique.
A soul as a thing bestowed upon you, that is separate from your body is a fucking stupid concept, grounded in religion.

An opponent to your argument would say that the soul could be a type of radiation that can't be detected by modern science yet.

Radiation that has weight?
So you're arguing a strawman?
I debunked a claim that noted a specific experiment that "verified" the existence of a soul that hinges on the soul having weight.
Radiation doesn't have weight. And consciousness being radiation that can leave it's source and remain radiation, is fucking ignorant, and just leads to more questions about heavy metals that emit radiation being soul creating gods.
An opponent who made that argument, would be so intellectually lazy that they could just be disregarded wholesale.

but particles that emit radiation lose energy, thus also mass; maybe, macroscopically, the weight coming from that mass is negligible

The immediate declaration as an "opponent" is also pretty telling about that person.
This isn't a person looking for truth, interested in a subject, open to ideas, who forms their opinions based in the verifiable information they see. That person would describe themselves as a peer, or member of a conversation.
An opponent is someone who has an attachment to an idea, is only willing to pay attention to things that reinforce their current opinion. They aren't interested in truth, they are interested in preserving an idea they're attached to.
A person who approached a conversation like this and described themselves as an opponent, is a lost cause, whos only value is to be used as an example to demonstrate ignorance to outsiders watching the exchange.

this has been disproven

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

"Researchers have revealed that MacDougall's experimental results were flawed, due to the limitations of the available equipment at the time, a lack of sufficient control over the experimental conditions, and the small sample size."

A soul weighs 21 grams, give or take.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

Already debunked.
Arguing a straw-man all day doesn't do anything positive.
If you're attached to your bronze age superstitions, great. But don't even bother trying to rationalize them.
All you end up doing is making your scientific illiteracy obvious.
Go read some Depac Chopra, alot of scientifically oblivious talk about energy and protons there, might be up your alley.
Also, I hear crystals are magic too, you might like reiki.
Don't breed.

I had a supernatural experience that was shared with another person. We talked about it afterwards and had the same observations. It wasn't life changing, it wasn't during a troubled time. It just happened, we observed it, we talked about it, and we went on our way.

And we can never prove this to anyone else.

But it happened, and I'll go through life wiser than people who need to have something replicated to believe it.

i'm just saying emmitting radiation causes loss in mass

You sure are special.
A very unique snowflake.
Very special.
You are on another level.
Just better than other people.
Man, it must be amazing to just be above everyone.
No one can possibly understand the incredible perspective you have, that they never will.

Narcissism sure is a curse.

I like how the hyper atheists get so heated about anything religious or spiritual and stick only to the "facts" we know. Don't know if you guys know this but every body used to believe the earth was flat and that the sun orbitted the earth. You can't really discredit anything until you truly know everything, anyone follow me?

>make a machine to prove something that is unprovable and must be taken on faith alone
You can't make a machine to prove to someone that magic isn't real. You can disprove bunk "evidence" they bring up, but If they want to believe in magic they'll believe in magic.
For fuck's sake, people like flat Earthers earnestly exist in these modern times.

>Just better than other people.

Exactly the opposite.
Most people have these kind of experiences at some time or another.
Which explains why so many people don't believe in science 100%.

I feel sorry for the people who believe in science 100%, because I know they're missing out on an important part of life.

ok, OP here
i really just started this thread to share a cool image i found

but then people started arguing, so thats nice; anyways, going to sleep byebye

>we thought the earth was flat
>but then we learned more and found the earth was round
>ancient people with no education thought souls existed
>a very few people still think they do
>so they do because we once thought the earth was flat

I see what you're saying there, that you're a fucking idiot that has a hard time with deduction.
What we learned from the earth being flat, is that we shouldn't assert details one way or the other until we verify those details, and things all assertions don't hold weight, the value of an assertion is directly relative to the observations that spawned that assertion.
Why? Because I can assert literally anything, and lending it credence just because would bog down everything.
But, if you want to try and shame people for being intelligent, rational thinkers, you go nuts.
I heard walmart has a sale on camping supplies right now, should be in your price range, maybe you can go find bigfoot!

greentext what happened to you and your friend

by that logic you can't discredit the idea of a purely natural universe. what do you know, your argument refutes itself. handy

well of course there is with our modern technology you can always measure things for instance kirlian photography takes picture of our souls you can buy a kirlian camera right now on eBay you can buy lots of things on eBay for instance you can buy beer or maybe even a slut but you can't buy cocoons because they are swinging on branches right now waiting to be devoured by wild pigeons or by Mao Zedong who's so hungry that he would eat even geckos alive as if nothing could make him more satisfied culinarily speaking but you know what I really do think you're intelligent but maybe not so much as my pet monkey Marky Guacamole he likes to be fondled in his balls I do that all the time but only with his consent that is important or else he would just poo on my rice and make me eat it and frankly I find that disgusting so I try to avoid that but sometimes my sister makes me undress in front of her it's so embarrassing he shows me her inappropriate parts just like uncle David used to do before he died in an Indian reserve anyway I do think souls are real life things you can see them in kirlian photographs

>don't believe in science

You're really dumb huh....
I look up, the sky is blue.
I just did science.
I touch water, it's wet.
I just did science.

Science is just observing the natural world, and making a note of it.
It isn;t something that can be believed in or not.
That's like saying you feel sorry for people who believe in food 100%, or Rain 100%, or trees 100%.
You're a fucking mongoloid.

This
Post
Made
My
Day

but what if the blue you see isn't the blue I see man. What if like, what you see as blue I see as red. Woah so far out

you're wasting your time on people whose brain has tweaked too much, weather by drugs or imagined mythical experiences.

>how can you prove not?
this is not how proof works. a claim needs substance, a denial of a claim without substance is valid by default.

I know, but maybe the shame will make them think twice about being so public with it.
IRL most people just smile and say "oh, wow, that happened to you? ya, that's crazy" while thinking "holy fuck, this guy is fucked".
Once in a while, these people need to be face with what polite people IRL are actually thinking, that they're fucking retarded.

checked. I get you, I used to do the same. But now I don't care anymore. Instead I laugh at the absurdity, puts me in a better mood. Look up the term "Amused mastery"

Bones didn't exist before x-rays.

just like people never broke their bones before xray

bones could be observed before x-rays. Find something completely unobservable in any way until we had the tech to. It isn't easy. terrible analogy, try again

Because retard you asked if there's scientific proof. There is none. Fuck off and die.

looking at what I just said, I guess you could say , I dunno, atoms?

Not proof in the scientific sense that you can observe, record and explain but try some DMT and you'll have enough proof for yourself.

>being this retarded

mate you actually trust the shit your brain bugged out and spit at you when you knew you were making it behave wrong?

Fuck I'm just gonna go with Pluto or some shit that had to wait untill telescopes were invented.

YOU don't have a soul, but you are the manifestation of nature, label you're presence and you elude yourself the joy of being one with all potential.

I think most of us here have potential, it's just that we're underachievers

Dude, you're ignorant and wasting your time.
I actually have a degree in science - from a technical university.

And I'm telling you, there is more to life than science and people who only believe what they can replicate are missing out. The scientific method is great for sending rockets to the moon, but it sucks for understanding the meaning of life.

Top zozzle m8

...

Tachyons. The Higgs particle, or any sub atomic particle for that matter. Been around forever, took building the world's largest machine to find.

You need to take a ggod long look at Clarke's Law and understand it works both ways, ie we might disparage, as magic, that which we do not have the tech to understand.

More people believe in souls than you think and that belief in "magic" does not automatically make them wrong or fools, just proponents of an as yet unproven theory. A true scientist would respect that, not belittle it.

that's pretty vague. What is the meaning of life then

this we can work with. Pluto is to the Romans as Souls are to us. Fair starting point. Besides the obvious point that this could be applied to literally anything, (flying spaghetti monster anyone?), aren't souls supposed to be definitionally unobservable?

the idea of a soul is just a coping mechanism to handle the idea of death. can't let go of your own ego, pretty shameful for a hippie

Same as I said here

nature is just a way of saying things are not controlled and everything in the world is chaotic how can you say that when you yourself is being that chaotic in a website that promotes everything but order. once there was a monk who said macaws didn't sing but you guess what they actually sing and they sing pretty well have you ever heard them? no, I don't think so because you can't hear shit even if I said they don't actually sing have you seen cocoons swinging back and forth? no, you haven't either because that never happens that is physically impossible unless there's wind and I guess you know that wind is a commodity in our days, capitalism is making everyone put their feet over their heads like we are retarded or something but we're actually not or maybe we are but we cannot know because if we knew we were retarded how could we be retarded or maybe our souls are retarded so that's the real question are souls retarded or just our physical bodies?

I'd say just retarded

>is there scientific proof for a soul ?
yes, doctors in the 18th century europe tested it. They weighed people once seconds before their death and again immediately after, and found the soul weighed an ounce or something like that

look it up, atheism was scientifically disproved centuries ago

5 bodies, with shitty equipment, with a bias

great research

just looked it up again, it wasn't the 18th century it was the 19th

the soul weighs about 3/4 of an ounce

atheists btfo, yet again

Maybe. But what if you're wrong?

Leaving all religious overtones out of this, what if the the essence of a person does continue after death of the body? What if the body is just a vessel, and when it breaks down and dies the essence of a person continues on to another plane of existance?

All we can say now, with any truth at least is that we don't know, yet.

You can not, logically, prove a negative. To assert that something does not, and has never existed when you have no more proof than your own belief makes you as much a fool as the people you rail against.

>we can never prove this to anyone else
anecdotal evidence, 0/10
dismissed

what if? what if there's a manhole cover orbiting Europa? I guess until you send a probe out to find it, we can presume it's there. You're a fool if you start in a place of acceptance on an idea and believe it until we find out otherwise.

Wrong? Do you not mean different?
Our whole entire existence is literally just a string of chemical reaction (that we experience in a "string" because of the physical bounds of our bodies). So why is it that when we momentarily increase or decrease a chemical and change the way we percieve any given moment classed as wrong?

I used to be pretty closed minded too.

are you high on manure right now? because you seem to be. soul doesn't weigh anything, soul is weightless. I do think they exist but they cannot make our bodies fatter, only Ronald McDonald can do that he's such a clown I hate him and I hate all the burgers that I've ever ate in my whole life they all tasted like zinc which is weird because zinc has a sausage texture to it and burger is more like a cow meat not exactly sausage which is pork and not haram my religion is not a popular one but I live pretty well with it even if I can't shit pretty good because my toilet is sacred and it's forbidden to shit in sacred grounds so I have to make new toilet for shitting or else my intestines are going to explode it's been 14 years I don't make poo it's not healthy I hope I can find a solution for that but I can't control my life I losing track of all things I love how can one control his life and still be able to do things one loves to do like myself I am a fan of baseball and also amateur radio so I can contact all the faggots with morse code and have a big orgy full of anal sex - my favorite - in my own house which incidentally houses a retirement home so the old people will have to see all of us making love by the pool with the sun reflected on the water and the crepuscular colors giving a purple tint to our promiscuous endeavours

Okay what about people with dimentia?

Is their soul leaving their body if suddenly they become a vegetable and don't know anything?

This is what I don't get about the soul.

You can have heart transplants from other people, have blood infusions etc. So the soul is therefore in the brain right?

The soul cannot be at all a part of your bones or your body because like I said transplants therefore technically mix your soul with another's soul (which is why Jehovah's Witnesses hate blood transfusions).

As for Ghosts... they are maybe Aliens or other entities/creatures that exist in this universe.

As for remembering previous lifes etc; that can be simply evolution i.e. small animals know how to live without being trained by their dog/cat/bear parents etc so technically reincarnation does exist in a sense that our survival instinct and past experiences of life are brought down in our genetics, DNA or some shit.

Someone help me out here

"You are a fool to believe such things."

So said the "wise men" of old when Copernicus told them that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

surely, this groundbreaking piece of research was peer reviewed, cited hundreds of times and replicated countless times, the results of which are aggregated into a meta-analysis? I'm sure any alternative explanations have been ruled out meticulously?

For the record, this made me think. I am trying to be open minded to your position. Because our bodies evolved to observe reality, we can assume that their default state is pretty close to a valid interpretation of reality. obviously there are illusions and we can't see everything, but DMT drastically changes your observations. Our brains produce DMT naturally. If it provided a closer look at reality, that would be evolutionarily beneficial and we would naturally produce more of it.

except copernicus didn't grab the idea out of thin air but deduced his findings from observations

A soul, if it exists, would be an emergent quality, much like concsiousness itself. Not something that you could point to a region of the brain and say "This is the soul node". A soul might be the result of life, or vise versa. We just don't know, and because so many "logical scientists" are unwilling to entertain the possibility, we may never know.

>Copernicus
Copernicus had evidence for his claim.

you raise a good point here but I am confused. What do you actually think a soul is/what does it do?

Should we fund research on unicorns and leprechauns as well?
What's stopping you from putting the work in yourself, gathering the evidence, and validating souls?

Yes and no. If you were to hypothetically translate a human mind into code or take an AI and duplicate it then activate while the original is still active the two individuals would have seperate thought processes. Additionally if you turned them off and on at the same time neither of them would have any confusion to who the original is.

Yes, observations his peers told him were wrong, his conclusions were wrong and if he continued with his heresy, that he would be (and was) punished for it.

He had the benefit of technology suitable for his research, as well. We can't even define what a soul is yet, beyond some kind of energy. If a soul exists, how do we find it? Where would you look?

These basic questions have not been addressed at all. At least Copernicus had a telescope.

Why can't you entertain the possibility saturn is exclusively inhabited by spongebob squarepants? Are you so close minded? You can't say it isn't untill you've been to saturn and ruled out that spongebob lives there. So untill you go to saturn to verify, we will assume spongebob lives on saturn. Close minded fool

My belief is that a soul is the essential essence of a being, that the body is just a vessel the soul inhabits and that when the body dies the soul moves on to another existance.

Why? Because information is not lost. Something must exist to carry this information. Beyond that, there are more questions than possible answers, chaos.

>some kind of energy
I hadn't gotten there yet, could you please explain what that means? Evidence? Energy can be observed as mass, so I don't think you are using that word correctly. Personally all I understand is that a soul is: "something everyone has. You can't observe it. but it's there, DMT told me so."

>eresy, that he would be (and was) punished for it.
Are you being persecuted user? Did your recent breakthrough in Soulology make the big bad atheist science club upset and now you're being imprisoned?
>Why can't we prove something we can't even define?
You need to look around. Look around you. See all that shit? Go get it all and put it in one place.That's right. Get your shit together.

>information is not lost
compelling. I have seen evidence that information is not lost, even in situations where it should be (Hawking radiation for example) and souls could be similar. If consciousness is actually a thing, and nothing can be destroyed, souls to consciousness at the time of brain death as Hawking radiation is to matter crossing the event horizon of a black hole. do I have that right? Definitely the best pro-soul argument in this thread IMO

The idea of a soul was based around the old constructs of 'good' and 'evil'.
That there is a heaven and hell.
Obviously, heaven and hell are fictional but the soul is simply; personality.

Energy can be observed as mass, but there would be damned little of it, if I understand the conversion math correctly.

Right now, I watch this area of study as an interested layman. I lack the formal education and resources to study this in depth myself. All I can do is try to encourage those people with the resources to look into it. There may be nothing there to find, or it may be that we just lack the ability to find it yet.

If we don't look, we'll never KNOW.

He observed something that directly challenged the status quo at that time, resulting in being called a heretic. Later on, his observations were replicated over and over again, establishing a new status quo
What you claim has never been seen
It has never been documented save for some vague, abstract anecdotes which can't be replicated because if you're a bit too skeptical and ask about the details you're "close minded, sometimes you just gotta believe stuff man"
On the flipside, science has progressed immensely in the field of consciousness in recent years, coming closer to a point of understanding every year, whereas the entire soul paradigm hasn't progressed 1 fuckbit since whenever the fuck humans first concocted the idea of a soul. Just read Susan Blackmore for some pretty basic summaries of recent consciousness researchi f you're interested

Yeah, that's as close as I can explain it. What happens after that? Your guess is as good as mine. There just hasn't been enough study to even guess.

>there would be dammned little of it

totally, if souls were a small amount of energy. but if they're supposed to store my consciousness? That's a lot of data, and therefore a ton of energy. Someone should redo the experiment mentioned earlier in a contemporary setting, with a very fine instrument. If We can detect gravitational waves, we can detect the mass of the energy of a soul, if it's there.

Such a closeminded post man. Just take DMT and *mumble mumble*

>Susan Blackmore, best known for her book "The Meme Machine"

I'm sold
(yes I know about memetics but found this funny)

Sure thing. You should volunteer yourself. That way no one of worth is lost.

consciousness, an introduction is a great book to start with

Good points. But I don't think I agree with the statement "that their default state is pretty close to a valid interpretation of reality".
To put it simply, nothing is certain and nothing is real. I know how far fetched and tin foil hat this sounds at a glance but it's far too simple to say that anyone's observations of reality are "valid". Human existence only gathers a tiny bit of information from the Universe, which is then filtered through a biased and habitual machine. We interpret but slivers of the visual and auditory spectrum's, seeing and feeling what is mostly made up of nothing (referring to the vacuum inside atoms). We can't even see or measure what we think may make up more than 90% of the universe. We have done tests that illustrate that nothing exists until we observe it. We have done tests that illustrate that time is non-linear, which is just inconceivable to our feeble brains. There is just too much unknown and too much that is incompatible with the thought that we are experiencing anything close to "the real thing".

Sorry, I diverted almost completely from your question... Basically, I have no fucking clue, just as every other life form does, as to what "reality" actually is. But in my experience with DMT I have been transported to an alien yet familiar place that isn't governed by the same senses or laws as our own. The only way I can justify it is being a plane of existence behind our own which somehow manifests this reality (among others).

wow. one minute a nice conversation in this thread, the next this. are you okay? im just trying to honestly discuss this really interesting topic. why are you so angry?

>I was having a nice conversation on Sup Forums and suddenly someone said something mean to me!

for the record I do know about the things you point out. I really don't have much of a counter to your points, though. you're right about how little people can experience, and stuff like quantum mechanics? Fascinating. I'm with you that we can't know the true nature of reality for certain.. But I can't see how DMT would help us get closer to the truth. My point was that if DMT brought us closer to the truth we would naturally produce it more.

>I believe the internet mustn't be allowed to harbor sincere conversation and whenever I see it I must interfere!

Phone is about to die so this has to be quick. You just made me frantically look through my cupboard for something I scribbled down.
Yes I was on drugs, and yes that says wheelchair guy instead of stephen hawking.

Divine spirit being the "soul".

Oh and yeah handwriting/10, I'm aware.

>You said something mean so my conversation is ruined! I better retreat to my safe space and gather my chakra. At least I acquired some persecution points like I wanted.
Cry about it faggot.