Can Soul, Ghosts Exist?

[rppa]

Bodhi,

Why do soul, ghosts in their soul & ghost form need any structure(matter) to hold these? Can't energetic form of anything exist as 'sunlight & other multi-wavelengths can exist' alike 'associated/groupped entity?

Sunlight is not organized. It does not consist of an organized structure or bundle of anything traveling together. You can't look at a solar photon of wavelength 450 nm and tell it apart from any other photon of wavelength 450 nm. The solar spectrum does not mean that 450 nm photons are attached or bound in any way to photons of any other wavelength.

I'm having a strange feeling of deja vu, almost as if you'd proposed this theory before and had it rejected before, hundreds of times in the past...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Sunlight is a product and does have "structure" as a wavelength. Why would a spirit or ghost not be required to have some type of structure? It wouldn't be anything without some type of form, that would make it not physical; and in that sense I would say it wouldn't exist; except maybe as a concept.

The self/soul/consciousness/mind is emphatically not physical. The physical is defined by structure and function. Consciousness isn't and therefore one wouldn't expect it to be defined by any structure. This does not mean of course that consciousness could exist without a structure to bring it into being or sustain its existence. On the other hand neither is there any proof that such a structure is required.

 

[Harlequin]

Try to understand that the brain is not a structure that supports a self. The self is not literally located within the brain.

There is actually extensive research that demonstrates exactly the opposite. Specifically, well-documented incidents of damage to the brain that result in measurable changes to a person's behaviour and perception.

 

[Vortex]

The self is not literally located within the brain. Indeed it is not located anywhere.

So does that mean you don't exist or just that you haven't a self?

 

[Kumar]

Sunlight is a product and does have "structure" as a wavelength. Why would a spirit or ghost not be required to have some type of structure? It wouldn't be anything without some type of form, that would make it not physical; and in that sense I would say it wouldn't exist; except maybe as a concept.

If you consider 'wavelength' as structure then it is ok that soul can take form in this structure. Previously, in science forum, I thought prime energy/source of all energies can be alike a smallest dot/point--shortest wavelength so indefinite/maximum energy in all directions. Other wavelengths & other form of energies may just be an association/concentration of this prime enegy which can be so thought as a structure with potential energy. Since, we can't think soul/ghost as 'prime energy', it can exist as composite & complex wavelengths structure/s.

rppa,

How does then we recognize it as sunlight/ Is it not similar at all points? Is it not somewhat as a 'composite' form of several wavelengths?

 

[Kumar]

There is actually extensive research that demonstrates exactly the opposite. Specifically, well-documented incidents of damage to the brain that result in measurable changes to a person's behaviour and perception.

Sorry, but will it not be somewhat similar to 'any damage to any important body part'?

 

[Kumar]

Something is provoking my thoughts since the posting of this topic.

"Does Sun-light somewhat indicate alike "Soul" of Sun(can't say if dark is Ghost of Sun)?

I posted above question & "(can't say if dark is Ghost of Sun)" just as joke that time. But it is bit thought provoking. What is the darkness of night? Does it somewhat form any 'entity of sun'? Just look at our shadow in light. Probably, we reflect wavelengths related to our colour & absorb others. How these absorbed WLs can be related to our shadow? Few people can sometimes recognize shadow of any person...may it be by its dimentions. Still some entity of ourself is there in our shadow. Ghosts are also sometimes thought as shadows. We can think accordingly.

 

[Mojo]

I posted above question & "(can't say if dark is Ghost of Sun)" just as joke that time. But it is bit thought provoking. What is the darkness of night? Does it somewhat form any 'entity of sun'?

Darkness is just the absence of light. It cannot, therefore, carry any information.

Just look at our shadow in light. Probably, we reflect wavelengths related to our colour & absorb others. How these absorbed WLs can be related to our shadow?

Your shadow is just where light doesn't fall because, by one means or another, is has been stopped by your body. Whether the light has been absorbed or reflected is totally irrelevant.

 

[Kumar]

Darkness is just the absence of light. It cannot, therefore, carry any information.Your shadow is just where light doesn't fall because, by one means or another, is has been stopped by your body. Whether the light has been absorbed or reflected is totally irrelevant.

I am not very much prepared but how it is Black colour of darkness or shadow? What about dimentions of shadow?

 

[Mojo]

I am not very much prepared but how it is Black colour of darkness or shadow?

Black is how our brains interpret the absence of light.

What about dimentions of shadow?

I assume you're talking about the shadow you cast on a surface here. The length of the shadow you cast on a flat screen, for example, depends on the ratio of your distance from the light source to your distance from the screen, and also on the angle of the screen relative to the light source. But really, your shadow with respect to a particular light source is the volume into which light from that source cannot fall because it's been stopped by your body.

 

[Kumar]

Black is how our brains interpret the absence of light.

Yes, But I don't know- what are actual reflections or emissions from black colour? It may be something beyond capacity of our brain. Black colour is said to absorb all WLs-- This colour is not considered as blank space(you know about previous discussions) so absorption of all WLs should be there to declare something black. How we see red colour light coming through our hand when we block/cover any light from our hand? Why it is not black as you see with other blocking of light?


I assume you're talking about the shadow you cast on a surface here. The length of the shadow you cast on a flat screen, for example, depends on the ratio between your distance from the light source to your distance from the screen, and also on the angle of the screen relative to the light source. But really, your shadow with respect to a particular light source is the volume into which light from that source cannot fall because it's been stopped by your body.

It is yet to be understood by me bit dynamically.

Btw, what is so thought/commonly defined colour of soul & ghosts (good or bad)?

 

[Interesting Ian]

There is actually extensive research that demonstrates exactly the opposite. Specifically, well-documented incidents of damage to the brain that result in measurable changes to a person's behaviour and perception.

Yes, but this doesn't constitute proof. It is merely suggestive.

 

[Interesting Ian]

So does that mean you don't exist or just that you haven't a self?

If the self cannot be detected, then how can it have a location?

 

[TLN]

The self/soul/consciousness/mind is emphatically not physical.

Yes it is.

Go learn something instead of constantly making assumptions.

 

[Vortex]

If the self cannot be detected, then how can it have a location?

So you don't have a self then?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

... this is essentially a description of what I believe to be the case in relationship to our own brains with the brain standing for the robot. But what you're saying is effectively that the self can only subsist whilst the robot is in a working state. But this is clearly false.

You say it in the right way. You believe it. Yes, it is possible, strictly speaking, like it was possible that Descartes was deluded by a demon or that we all live inside a Matrix.

Yet, unless there is a way to pass to the next level, to "wake up from the Matrix" all you have is a belief. Would you agree on this? Furthermore, you cant "prove" others that what you say is true, even if one of us agree (like I just did) in that it is possible, it is not more reasonable or logical or believable than other similar ideas.

Zen, by the way, is a tool to show that the world is very different from what we think, it is something you can experience for yourself, not just believe. What Im saying is that to prove your ideas you need to do more than just trying to convince people using arguments.

My argument is not that I can prove that the self does not need a structure in order to exist, but rather that the contention that we do need a structure simply cannot be substantiated (and in fact you haven't even bothered to try and substantiate it anyway).

I do not follow, please explain why is not substantiated. If I see a hand moving I naturally asume some mechanism is moving it, I do not need to explain why, do I?

Look, consciousness is mysterious. Nobody has a clue how it fits into the rest of our scientific picture of reality and why we need brains etc. To make an assertion that souls are logically impossible is therefore ludicrous! Hell, you haven't even attempted to justify this ridiculous statement.

You jump from stating a fact about consciousness to propose a soul that "explains" it. Oh, and about my "ridiculous statement"... yeah... right

 

[Harlequin]

Yes, but this doesn't constitute proof. It is merely suggestive.

Sure, not "proof". Just evidence.
Now, how about some evidence that the mind is not connected to the brain?

 

[Interesting Ian]

You say it in the right way. You believe it. Yes, it is possible, strictly speaking, like it was possible that Descartes was deluded by a demon or that we all live inside a Matrix.

You really cannot make an appeal to common sense here since your position is less commonsensical than anything could conceivably be! (ie if mind states simply follow brain states) You cannot believe in an enduring self. You cannot even believe in free will if there is no self.

And my position is not like the Matrix or Descartes demon anyway. It is your position that is the uncommonsensical one.

Yet, unless there is a way to pass to the next level, to "wake up from the Matrix" all you have is a belief.

Mystical experiences. "Peak" experiences.

Would you agree on this?

Plus all the philosophical argumentation and all the evidence.

Zen, by the way, is a tool to show that the world is very different from what we think, it is something you can experience for yourself, not just believe. What Im saying is that to prove your ideas you need to do more than just trying to convince people using arguments.

I'm not interested in convincing people. I'm just interested in pointing out that you and others are in error in your belief that your worldview has been proved.

I do not follow, please explain why is not substantiated. If I see a hand moving I naturally asume some mechanism is moving it, I do not need to explain why, do I?

Natural? Do "natural" beliefs have more chance of being true than unnatural beliefs? Cannot the initial event resulting in the movement of your hand be initiated by the soul?

You jump from stating a fact about consciousness to propose a soul that "explains" it. Oh, and about my "ridiculous statement"... yeah... right [/B]

If you like substitute self for soul. I would assert we have an implicit recognition that we are selfs.

 

[TLN]

I'm not interested in convincing people. I'm just interested in pointing out that you and others are in error in your belief that your worldview has been proved.

Well, you can stop now. We're not in error, you are.

Furthermore, you've pointed out all you have a million times.

Ian, pay attention: you have nothing new or original to say. We've heard it all a million times. You can stop now.

You will never convince anyone here of anything, ever.

You're insane to keep trying. Just plain insane. Please get some help.

Now allow me to write your next post for you:

 

[voidx]

Try to understand that the brain is not a structure that supports a self. The self is not literally located within the brain.

This is of course your opinion. If we are not allowed to state it as fact, then that does not automatically allow you to state that it is definitively not fact.

Indeed it is not located anywhere. Think of the following thought experiment. Suppose your sensory information is transmitted directly to your brain from a robot located at a distant place. Your brain also controls the motions of the robot. Thus, you would see what the robot "sees," and when you command your own arm to move, the robot arm would move instead. Assuming that your brain has been "unplugged" from your own sensory organs, there is no doubt that you would experience yourself as located in the body of the robot. This is essentially a description of what I believe to be the case in relationship to our own brains with the brain standing for the robot.

Why not just put the brain in the robot and cut out all the baggage . Sorry, couldn't resist.

But what you're saying is effectively that the self can only subsist whilst the robot is in a working state. But this is clearly false.

Can you explain how this is clearly false? Even taking your analogy its impossible for anyone else to tell that the self continues to subsist once the robot becomes non-functional. And you'd have no way of demonstrating this for them, because all of your observable functionality is cut off with the loss of the Robot.

And remember (and this goes for everyone), there's no point in saying "ah yes, but in the robot analogy you still have a brain". My argument is not that I can prove that the self does not need a structure in order to exist, but rather that the contention that we do need a structure simply cannot be substantiated (and in fact you haven't even bothered to try and substantiate it anyway).

But if we insert the self/brain into the robot, which has structure and we base our observations on that, then even you can see how we can start to substantiate it. You simply load your analogy so that the self is outside the robot by definition and so cannot make use of its structure. Except that it does. The self in your example cannot observably express itself without the structure of the robot. And the reason for this is because you don't give your self any structure. Therefore you can give no definitive function to it. You need the Robot for that.

Look, consciousness is mysterious. Nobody has a clue how it fits into the rest of our scientific picture of reality and why we need brains etc. To make an assertion that souls are logically impossible is therefore ludicrous! Hell, you haven't even attempted to justify this ridiculous statement.

Depends on the definition of soul. I think we have the illusion of a soul/self as a result of brain process'. I know you disagree with that in principle, but it doesn't change the fact that your charaterization of all of us out-right denying the possibility of souls really relies on your specific definition of "soul".