The Soul and the 21 Grams Experiment

[jgh7]

Duncan MacDougall did a study in 1901 to see if the human body loses weight when it dies and the soul leaves. Of his 6 test subjects, one was found to lose 21.3 grams upon death.

For obvious reasons (tiny sample size and only 1 of 6 subjects satisfying the hypothesis), this experiment was highly criticized by the scientific community. But at the same time it has garnered a lot of interest from people curious on the matter.

Have there been further scientific studies on this? What are your thoughts on the soul possibly having weight to it?

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by Kenisaw]

Why would we assume that a soul should weigh anything?

We shouldn't. We should first show that such a thing is remotely plausible before debating what the characteristics are of the thing.

When has this ever stopped anyone from debating philosophical ideas? The characteristics of consciousness is an interesting topic.

Sure. Molecules (chemicals) and electrons (electrical impulse) do have mass, although we don't have a scale sensitive enough to reach an accurate result.

You are conflating the idea of consciousness with chemicals and electrons. It is unknown that consciousness is derived from such activity or that such activity is able to be observed due to consciousness interacting with the physical environment - thus the physical environment may act as an interface

We can, of course, surmise one or the other but that is where science stops and philosophy continues.

Philosophically speaking, it is indeed 'remotely plausible' that consciousness exists independent of the brain, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 9 by Kenisaw]

Why would we assume that a soul should weigh anything?

We shouldn't. We should first show that such a thing is remotely plausible before debating what the characteristics are of the thing.

When has this ever stopped anyone from debating philosophical ideas? The characteristics of consciousness is an interesting topic.

Consciousness is an interesting topic. I was commenting on souls, which is a different topic in my mind. May I assume you see them as one in the same?

Sure. Molecules (chemicals) and electrons (electrical impulse) do have mass, although we don't have a scale sensitive enough to reach an accurate result.

You are conflating the idea of consciousness with chemicals and electrons. It is unknown that consciousness is derived from such activity or that such activity is able to be observed due to consciousness interacting with the physical environment - thus the physical environment may act as an interface

I disagree. There is zero evidence that consciousness is separate from the brain. Zilch. Zero. Nada. We have countlesss examples of minds that don't work as well when physical parts are damaged. We have countless scans and measurements that show what areas are active during different mental and physical processes. When chemical and electrical activity ceases, there is no evidence that the mind continues.

I realize that your worldview requires a pre-existing consciousness to exist, and that we somehow tap into that (or it taps into us), but I've yet to see any evidence for that consciousness. There are several billion different brains that this consciousness supposedly connects with, and this consciousness actually helped life arise, yet it can't manifest itself in kids with Downs Syndrome nearly as well as it can with me or Vladimir Putin? It's nonsensical to me.

We can, of course, surmise one or the other but that is where science stops and philosophy continues.

What philosophy? All I've seen from your Members Notes pages is a lot of assumptions. I've seen no detailed philosophical arguments listed with premises and arguments.

Philosophically speaking, it is indeed 'remotely plausible' that consciousness exists independent of the brain, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Until I actually see an argument presented that shows plausibility, I see no foundation for you to make that statement.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 5 by William]

If the soul weights nothing then it is nothing. What you are saying is that the soul is non existing.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 5 by William]

If the soul weights nothing then it is nothing.

Not for that reason alone, but yes, the soul is nothing but a fantasy.

What you are saying is that the soul is non existing.

Given that the only support for it is fantasy stories, of course it is non-existent. It exists only in the minds of those who for some odd reason need protection from reality. They favor comfort in spite of the fact that comfort is gained from irrationality.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by Kenisaw]

Consciousness is an interesting topic. I was commenting on souls, which is a different topic in my mind. May I assume you see them as one in the same?

Yes you may.

The soul is an aspect of the human consciousness. It is the recipient and storage facility of the individuals total Data of Experience (DoE)

I disagree.

Of course you do.

There is zero evidence that consciousness is separate from the brain. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

You are conflating the idea of consciousness with chemicals and electrons. It is unknown that consciousness is derived from such activity. It might appear to be the case, but like I said, such activity is able to be observed due to consciousness interacting with the physical environment - thus the physical environment may act as an interface.
In that i wasn't saying that "consciousness is separate from the brain".

I realize that your worldview requires a pre-existing consciousness to exist, and that we somehow tap into that (or it taps into us),

That is an incorrect interpretation of my theology. ALL consciousness is from the same source, so there is no 'tapping into us', because 'us' is the consciousness.
Rather - 'we' are using the physical reality (bodies etc) and are 'tapping into' those.

but I've yet to see any evidence for that consciousness.

You conflate science with philosophical reasoning. Science identifies the human body as who 'we' are and interprets that the brain is what creates consciousness.

Science will continue to do this because 'there is no evidence to say otherwise', but the evidence we do have can be interpreted the way I do anyway. The evidence is the same, but is interpreted differently. That is why you 'see no evidence' because you accept the interpretation of science but you should realize that you might be wrong about that.

I can admit that i might be wrong about the way I interpret what is seen. Can you?

I don't think you can because you strike me as someone who either can't or won't go there because it would mean having to think outside the parameters of what science is so far able to show you, and you are only interested in what you can be shown in that objectified manner.

There are several billion different brains that this consciousness supposedly connects with, and this consciousness actually helped life arise, yet it can't manifest itself in kids with Downs Syndrome nearly as well as it can with me or Vladimir Putin? It's nonsensical to me.

Consciousness is LIFE. You speak of the bodies which are alive. Some are, in your opinion, 'imperfect' and you cannot understand why an entity would create imperfect bodies in which to experience and learn through.

Science can explain the in's and out's of why not all bodies are 'perfect'. It is just the way things are and the Earth Entity deals with that. The more incredible the variations, the more things one can collective learn through that process. That is the nature of the circumstance 'we' all share.

Sincerely, it is not that consciousness is lacking, but the container brings its own challenges.

What philosophy? All I've seen from your Members Notes pages is a lot of assumptions. I've seen no detailed philosophical arguments listed with premises and arguments.

The devil is in the details. Even in my replies I give philosophical arguments with premises and arguments.

Philosophically speaking, it is indeed 'remotely plausible' that consciousness exists independent of the brain, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Until I actually see an argument presented that shows plausibility, I see no foundation for you to make that statement.

The premise in this case was already given. You simply rejected it - not because it is actually nonsensical, but because you prefer to accept the interpretation of science re the brain and consciousness rather than accept it is just as plausible an interpretation that consciousness uses form to compile through DoE.

[William]

[Replying to post 14 by Tcg]

If the soul weights nothing then it is nothing. What you are saying is that the soul is non existing.

Consciousness exists and yet weighs nothing, so your argument is erroneous.

[Replying to post 13 by Donray]

Not for that reason alone, but yes, the soul is nothing but a fantasy.

Or is it? Just because one's world view is attached to the idea that something cannot exist unless it is shown to exist, does not equal that it therefore is fantasy.

Given that the only support for it is fantasy stories, of course it is non-existent. It exists only in the minds of those who for some odd reason need protection from reality. They favor comfort in spite of the fact that comfort is gained from irrationality.

The statement is erroneous in that it is far too sweeping because it assumes that as this is the case for some, then it must be the case for all.

[Kenisaw]

There is zero evidence that consciousness is separate from the brain. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

You are conflating the idea of consciousness with chemicals and electrons. It is unknown that consciousness is derived from such activity. It might appear to be the case, but like I said, such activity is able to be observed due to consciousness interacting with the physical environment - thus the physical environment may act as an interface.
In that i wasn't saying that "consciousness is separate from the brain".

I don't think conflating is an accurate term. When we study conscious brains, we know there are physical structures, chemical interactions, and electrical energy present. We know that when the brain is altered physically, chemically, or electrically, consciousness is affected. I don't think this is even debatable.

When a brain dies, there is no conscious present that anyone can detect. The physical and chemical elements are still present, and electrical impulses can still pulse through, yet this interface isn't interfacing anymore. If some creator consciousness exists, why does it matter if someone is alive or dead? There's no difference between a dead brain and a live one physically. Dead people have been on respirators with oxygenated blood pumping through them and they aren't conscious in any way, shape, or form.

The same sourced consciousness presents uniquely in every single different human on the planet, all 7 billion of them. If the physical doesn't matter, why is this so?

Everything points to consciousness being related to the physical structures of the brain being chemically and electrically active with the body in order for consciousness to exist. Your claimed default position that it "appears" to be the case is because all the empirical evidence points to that actually being the case. There is no data supporting the claim that consciousness exists outside the physical, or that the planet itself is conscious.

I realize that your worldview requires a pre-existing consciousness to exist, and that we somehow tap into that (or it taps into us),

That is an incorrect interpretation of my theology. ALL consciousness is from the same source, so there is no 'tapping into us', because 'us' is the consciousness.
Rather - 'we' are using the physical reality (bodies etc) and are 'tapping into' those.

My apologies for misrepresenting your statements.

but I've yet to see any evidence for that consciousness.

You conflate science with philosophical reasoning.

You conflate philosophy with facts and data.

Science identifies the human body as who 'we' are and interprets that the brain is what creates consciousness.

And it does so because of the totally of evidence that points to exactly that, and the complete lack of data that suggests anything else, including self-existing consciousness that uses humans to express itself.

Science will continue to do this because 'there is no evidence to say otherwise', but the evidence we do have can be interpreted the way I do anyway. The evidence is the same, but is interpreted differently. That is why you 'see no evidence' because you accept the interpretation of science but you should realize that you might be wrong about that.

I can admit that i might be wrong about the way I interpret what is seen. Can you?

I can absolutely admit that I might be wrong. Science is a path, not a destination, and I never claim that I know anything for sure.

But just because we could both be wrong doesn't mean our positions are on equal footing. The evidence of brains and the activity within them are the data and evidence. My conclusion is based on that data and evidence ONLY. I do not presuppose or claim something else FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE is involved. You do. Your interpretation of the data includes specific claims about specific things (self existing consciousness) for which there is no empirical support. It's a god of the gaps move. You've reached a conclusion that there is consciousness, but claim this other thing somewhere else is responsible for it.

My conclusion is limited to the data and evidence, and assumes nothing.

I don't think you can because you strike me as someone who either can't or won't go there because it would mean having to think outside the parameters of what science is so far able to show you, and you are only interested in what you can be shown in that objectified manner.

This is the crux of the whole thing really. You've basically just admitted that you have to go outside the logical conclusions that the data presents in order to reach your end game. If you have to think outside the box and go beyond what can be considered scientifically valid, you aren't actually considering just the data anymore, are you? You are assuming more than the data, more than the evidence. Which means you've already made up your mind about the final answer. At least I limit my conclusions to what we know now and await further discovery...

There are several billion different brains that this consciousness supposedly connects with, and this consciousness actually helped life arise, yet it can't manifest itself in kids with Downs Syndrome nearly as well as it can with me or Vladimir Putin? It's nonsensical to me.

Consciousness is LIFE. You speak of the bodies which are alive. Some are, in your opinion, 'imperfect' and you cannot understand why an entity would create imperfect bodies in which to experience and learn through.

Science can explain the in's and out's of why not all bodies are 'perfect'. It is just the way things are and the Earth Entity deals with that. The more incredible the variations, the more things one can collective learn through that process. That is the nature of the circumstance 'we' all share.

Sincerely, it is not that consciousness is lacking, but the container brings its own challenges.

So why would the creator of the containers create imperfect ones? And what does the creator need to learn in the first place?

What philosophy? All I've seen from your Members Notes pages is a lot of assumptions. I've seen no detailed philosophical arguments listed with premises and arguments.

The devil is in the details. Even in my replies I give philosophical arguments with premises and arguments.

Humbly, I've seen assumptions (call them premises if you will) that seem pulled out of thin air and have no logical backing to them whatsoever.

Philosophically speaking, it is indeed 'remotely plausible' that consciousness exists independent of the brain, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Until I actually see an argument presented that shows plausibility, I see no foundation for you to make that statement.

The premise in this case was already given. You simply rejected it - not because it is actually nonsensical, but because you prefer to accept the interpretation of science re the brain and consciousness rather than accept it is just as plausible an interpretation that consciousness uses form to compile through DoE.

The premise is unsupported conjecture. There's no reason to think it's accurate or logical, unless it is required to reach a predetermined end game.

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by Kenisaw]

I don't think conflating is an accurate term. When we study conscious brains, we know there are physical structures, chemical interactions, and electrical energy present. We know that when the brain is altered physically, chemically, or electrically, consciousness is affected. I don't think this is even debatable.

Of course that is not debatable. I am not arguing anything contrary to that fact.

When a brain dies, there is no conscious present that anyone can detect.

Why would there be? How is consciousness detected in the first place, in relation to the living brain? Why would one suppose that a dead brain could be used to detect consciousness?

The physical and chemical elements are still present, and electrical impulses can still pulse through, yet this interface isn't interfacing anymore.

Which would signify that consciousness is no longer using that brain. It has departed.

If some creator consciousness exists, why does it matter if someone is alive or dead?

It doesn't because consciousness cannot 'die'. That is a central element of my theology. There is nothing for First Source to be concerned about, in that it should 'matter'.

There's no difference between a dead brain and a live one physically. Dead people have been on respirators with oxygenated blood pumping through them and they aren't conscious in any way, shape, or form.

There is a difference between being 'conscious' and being consciousness.

The same sourced consciousness presents uniquely in every single different human on the planet, all 7 billion of them. If the physical doesn't matter, why is this so?

Who said 'the physical doesn't matter'? Have I not said that every brain is unique? Sure, they share similar properties physically, but like the grains of sand or the galaxies, these appear physically similar - enough so for us to group them under headings - "Sand" "Galaxies" "Brains" but examine these in more detail and we find each one is unique - so unique that an exact replica of one cannot be found in another.

Now in relation to 'the same consciousness' (in relation to my theology, the Earth Entities consciousness) this presents itself 'uniquely in every single different human on the planet, all 7 billion of them' because the forms being occupied are unique.

Everything points to consciousness being related to the physical structures of the brain being chemically and electrically active with the body in order for consciousness to exist.

No it does not. That is simple how an observation is interpreted by the observer. In your case, you interpret it in this manner because you choose not to think of it in any other way, due to your particular chosen position, which you believe is entirely justified.

Your claimed default position that it "appears" to be the case is because all the empirical evidence points to that actually being the case.

Nope. My position clearly is one that understands that the observed is interpreted as one which 'is actually the case' when in FACT, the evidence is not nearly enough to come to that conclusion.

There is no data supporting the claim that consciousness exists outside the physical, or that the planet itself is conscious.

There you go leaning toward science/scientific method as the means in which such claims should be able to be verified, forgetting that philosophical ideas continue to be relevant whilst science continues to draw blanks on how to proceed in that undertaking. Meantime the jury has not even been selected let alone come to any definitive conclusion based on the evidence. You believe your interpretation as being the one which is truth. In that, you conflate.

My apologies for misrepresenting your statements.

It happens. We live within complexity so I don't expect people to understand the complexity of my theology right off the bat. I do expect that if they want to argue against it, that they at least make the effort to try and understand it, and for my part I have to make the effort to correct them when they get it wrong.

You conflate philosophy with facts and data.

My theology accepts the facts and data and incorporates these into the philosophy.
My theology also allows for subjective experience to be facts and data, even that science cannot do so, and some scientists even try to write those off as 'tricks of the brain' etc.

And it does so because of the totally of evidence that points to exactly that, and the complete lack of data that suggests anything else, including self-existing consciousness that uses humans to express itself.

Circular argument Ken. If you cannot bring yourself to accept that there are places science cannot yet go, and in this conclude that where it cannot go must be seen as an indication that where it can go is the only evidence that matters to you, and thus draw your conclusions from that position, that is your call but please don't insult my own intelligence by continuing to use it as a somehow relevant rebuttal. All you are doing really, is stating why you believe what you do, and conflating what you believe as being the truth of the matter.

I can absolutely admit that I might be wrong. Science is a path, not a destination, and I never claim that I know anything for sure.

Considering your answers above, I am sure you can forgive me if I say I don't believe you Ken.
You 'know for sure' that when your brain dies, that will be the end of you, right? That is what you have been arguing, based on your interpretation of what science has so far unveiled, right?
Or are you willing to concede that the interpretation may not be correct?
Help me out here Ken. Which is it? Are you absolutely certain you can admit that you 'might be wrong'?

But just because we could both be wrong doesn't mean our positions are on equal footing.

To be fair Ken, it isn't a competition mate. Your 'footing' is focused only on the material, and in that we do not share the same 'footing'. I take a step into the philosophical possibilities whereas you see no personal reason to do so, 'tis all.

The evidence of brains and the activity within them are the data and evidence. My conclusion is based on that data and evidence ONLY. I do not presuppose or claim something else FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE is involved. You do. Your interpretation of the data includes specific claims about specific things (self existing consciousness) for which there is no empirical support. It's a god of the gaps move. You've reached a conclusion that there is consciousness, but claim this other thing somewhere else is responsible for it.

My conclusion is limited to the data and evidence, and assumes nothing.

Yes Ken. Why would you think this is even news to me mate. I have been saying as much all along, with the exception of claiming that subjective experience is NOT of itself, evidence. It is simply not scientific evidence, 'tis all.

My subjective experience is what allows for me to explore philosophical ideas and your saying 'the way some of us interpret the brain is a good enough explanation to do away with the idea that consciousness is the reason everything exists' is simply hand-waving, and if I were to adopt such a position, that is all I would be doing. It is not a good enough argument for me to abandon philosophical ideas and the data of subjective experience.

I don't think you can because you strike me as someone who either can't or won't go there because it would mean having to think outside the parameters of what science is so far able to show you, and you are only interested in what you can be shown in that objectified manner.

This is the crux of the whole thing really.

Is this going to get circular again Ken?

You've basically just admitted that you have to go outside the logical conclusions that the data presents in order to reach your end game.

But Ken, may I remind you that the bulk of my theology does this! I have been 'admitting it' all along mate. I have NOT been saying anything to the contrary! You replying in this fashion - as if I have somehow stumbled inadvertently into some hole I have dug for myself - is laughable Ken. It is actually very funny! 'The crux of the matter' is that we interpret our life experience in different ways, but I have never said otherwise! Indeed I have stated this as a matter of fact on many occasions!

This is predominantly the reason our interaction is circular, or indeed the interactions between theists and atheists are circular and have been for thousands of years!

Atheists have jumped upon the science bandwagon and attempted to use this as a means of substantiating their lack of belief in GODs! As if! It is all about INTERPRETATION Ken. No more and no less. In your case, the Jury has deliberated and reached its conclusion. In my case it has not even been to court yet, let alone any Jury been selected!

If you have to think outside the box and go beyond what can be considered scientifically valid, you aren't actually considering just the data anymore, are you? You are assuming more than the data, more than the evidence. Which means you've already made up your mind about the final answer. At least I limit my conclusions to what we know now and await further discovery...

Rather than me repeating myself yet again Ken, I have already answered this accusation of yours throughout this and other posts.

So why would the creator of the containers create imperfect ones?

Now this shows me you are still curious Ken. It is the kind of question I can delight in trying to answer.

And what does the creator need to learn in the first place?

Well in the case of our experience within this universe, I could give many answers, but for now I will give just the one. the creator wanted to know what it was like to have a beginning.

As to your first question, 'imperfect' is in the eye of the beholder anyway - and the instruments 'imperfections' may be perfect for the job at hand.

Obviously the creator does not want to assume the role of some type of idea of GOD which breastfeeds its 'babies' forever in the fluffy warmth of the cradle compartment.

IT... is also It's children. That is just the way of it. It can create situations where this becomes less apparent in order that it effectively 'loses' Itself within its creation knowing that eventually in doing so It (as Its creation - the 'aspects' of Its consciousness divested into said creation) will all eventually one by one regain that knowledge WHILE within the creation!

Hey! It are an eternal being with no time limits. Why would it be strange to contemplate that such a being would create situations where time becomes a limit and situations are not 'perfect'? Especially if ultimately everything returns to that default setting eventually - in its own time and space.

We do have to remember we in these 'monkey suits' within this explosion of creativity, are more near the beginning of all this than the end Ken. It is good to remember that in the grand scheme of things mate.

The devil is in the details. Even in my replies I give philosophical arguments with premises and arguments.

Humbly, I've seen assumptions (call them premises if you will) that seem pulled out of thin air and have no logical backing to them whatsoever.

Humbly (in return) if you see in my theology such things, I am sure you will point them out Ken.

The premise in this case was already given. You simply rejected it - not because it is actually nonsensical, but because you prefer to accept the interpretation of science re the brain and consciousness rather than accept it is just as plausible an interpretation that consciousness uses form to compile through DoE.

The premise is unsupported conjecture.

That is harsh in it's inaccuracy Ken.

There's no reason to think it's accurate or logical, unless it is required to reach a predetermined end game.

Oh - there is an end game Ken. My theology details this as well.

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

From that link;

This can be observed in the nature of our experience in the universe as well as the nature of the universe itself.
The understanding re the notion of former simulations which enable pure evil and malcontent to be explored by consciousness is based upon the mathematical notion (QP) that multi-universes may well exist.The design of our universe in relation to consciousness clearly shows that both evil and good can coexist and that helps form understanding as to what good is, as evil has opportunity to learn.
This is why morality and ethics are necessary components to successful species development/evolution - the nature of the universe itself dictates the conditions in which consciousness (which is what acts out good and evil) can self evaluate and change course as necessary.

and;

This involves notions of afterlife experience based upon the understanding that consciousness is eternal (as per First Source) and thus can never be destroyed (only transformed) and because one life time cannot ordinarily supply the opportunity for an individual to achieve the state of GOD-Head in relation to self realization and ceasing the support of false idolic symbols of GOD which do not support the reintegration process.

The individual consciousness carries on with the evolution of its own journey even after dying from this experience in this universe. There is no other choice, due to the the eternal nature of consciousness.

The expression I have bolded clearly point to the 'end game' Ken.