Do you believe in a soul?

[Kai]

If I found myself in a boat with Dawkins I'd argue with him just for the hell of seeing that smarmy look drop off his face when I proved him wrong 

Sounds like a plan. 

[Cain]

Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!

[Faust]

Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!

thats a lie and you know it.
quantum proves nothing.

[Payne]

Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!

[Cainad (dec.)]

Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!

Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!

As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.

No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!

Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!

As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.

No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.

Well, you both have a soul and don't have a soul... UNTIL YOU LOOK.

Then you have a dead cat in a box...

[Manta Obscura]

Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!

Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!

As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.

No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.

Aw, you let the cat out of the bag with that revelation, Cainad.  

Get it? We were talking about quantum mechanics, and I referenced a cat, which is sort of a nod to Schrodinger . . .

Yeah, I'll shut up now.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!

Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!

As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.

No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.

Aw, you let the cat out of the bag with that revelation, Cainad.  

Get it? We were talking about quantum mechanics, and I referenced a cat, which is sort of a nod to Schrodinger . . .

Yeah, I'll shut up now.

Rat already did it. However, you should know for future reference that when you leave a joke un-examined, it is simultaneously funny and unfunny. If you examine it, however, the Humor Police will teargas your house and say very rude things to you, thus making it appear as if you are weeping like a little sissy at their insults.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!

Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!

As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.

No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.

Well, you both have a soul and don't have a soul... UNTIL YOU LOOK.

Then you have a dead cat in a box...

You're telling me I have to learn the morse code for S.O.D.C.I.A.B now, in order to call for help in an emergency? 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hey guys, I proved I have a soul with quantum mechanics!

Hey guys, I proved I DON'T have a soul with quantum mechanics!

As long as you don't engage in any actual observations for verification, both these statements are simultaneously true and false.

No, really. You both have and don't have an immortal soul, thanks to quantum mechanics.

Well, you both have a soul and don't have a soul... UNTIL YOU LOOK.

Then you have a dead cat in a box...

You're telling me I have to learn the morse code for S.O.D.C.I.A.B now, in order to call for help in an emergency? 

... / --- / -.. / -.-. / .. / .- / -...

[Manta Obscura]

... / --- / -.. / -.-. / .. / .- / -...

Your-mamma-is-so-fat-that-

Hey! That's not the right message at all!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

... / --- / -.. / -.-. / .. / .- / -...

Your-mamma-is-so-fat-that-

Hey! That's not the right message at all!

-.-- --- ..- .-. / -- --- -- -- .- / .. ... / ... --- / ..-. .- - / - .... .- - / -.-- --- ..- / -.-. .- -. -. --- - / -.. . ... -.-. .-. .. -... . / .... . .-. / .. -. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .

[Revenant]

To begin, understand you can't make me go away.  It is not going to happen.  I will just take a breather re-read everything while gathering ammo to return fire.

Which is more likely, the existence of a soul which we cannot measure, or the existence of physical laws which we can consistently measure?

By your statement here, you are saying if you cannot measure it, it does not exist?  By that token then we should remove all forms of measurement than all the problems of the world would cease to exist as we could no longer quantify them. 

There is a such thing as Occam's Razor.

As with arguments, Occam's Razor can be used to defend or condemn anything.  It is all in the phrasing of the question, therefore it does not apply.

There are things we can consistently measure. We can build upon those measurements with more measurements.

What you are saying is that the measurements are shit and we should just reside in ignorance of reality.

You're a fucking idiot.

This seems to be the real issue with your argument.  You feel because I choose not to uphold these laws as fact that I hold no faith in them.  This is clearly not the case. I place faith in these as much as I place faith in my chair to not break when I sit in it.  However, I do not hold blind faith is said things.  This is the same for my beliefs and my chair.  I view them as having the possibility to fail me.  You see I regularly kick my foundations to make sure they are still solid.

....

You really DON'T know anything about the scientific method do you?

I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you either.

1) Have some sort of measurement, some sort of basal information, or from earlier experiments. The universe supplies more than enough of this.

2) Ask a question about said information. If you can't come up with any questions then you don't have enough curiosity to do scientific work.

3) Determine possible answers to said question. Formulate a hypothesis (which is not a guess, btw) based on previous data as an answer to said question.

4) Formulate and run an experiment to test said hypothesis.

5) Examine the results of the experiment, and determine whether the hypothesis is supported, or rejected.

repetio ad infinitum


If it doesn't follow the scientific method in some form, meaning, if it doesn't use physical data to form and test hypotheses through experiments that generate meaningful results which either support or reject said hypotheses, its not science.

And its not very realistic or useful either.

I have read through your explanation of the scientific method and the only real difference I could see is you feel there has to be a reason to ask the question. 

Since you can't test it, measure it, quantify it, or even qualify it by measuring its interaction with something else, the whole concept is meaningless and useless and masturbatory.

Because it can not be measured, it is useless.  Obviously, this cannot be the case, otherwise no one would have taken the time to create measurements.  They would have obviously considered everything useless and masturbatory.  Ever consider there may still be things we simply have not created the measurements to quantify it yet?

Thanks. I don't really think he is dumb as shit, btw, I just think he has brain addled himself so far from reality that hes encroaching on insanity.

I don't have time to explain basic physics or biology to the insane either.

Thank you for the complement, I guess you should look back on history at some of the greatest minds.  Most were labeled as borderline insane by those around them.

Except that one set of labels and understandings lead to modern medicine(weakened immune system), physics(most modern weaponry), and chemistry(Mustard gas flamethrowers, napalm and chemical showers), while the other lead to...what? (Guess you will never know.)

There is a point where you say, "which model is more useful?", and then stick with it. Or maybe you don't, being one of those model agnostics.

I tell you neither is more useful.  The both have their uses and place.  There are a few of us, however, who believe the two can co-exist and even come to help explain the other.  Enjoy your box.

[Vene]

By your statement here, you are saying if you cannot measure it, it does not exist?  By that token then we should remove all forms of measurement than all the problems of the world would cease to exist as we could no longer quantify them. 

How about that if we can't measure it, we have NO reason to think it exists.  Especially when the idea came from superstitious apes.

There is a such thing as Occam's Razor.

As with arguments, Occam's Razor can be used to defend or condemn anything.  It is all in the phrasing of the question, therefore it does not apply.

You mean if it's misused.  Just like any tool Occam's Razor can be misapplied, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.  I can use a hammer to smash somebody's skull in, but that doesn't mean it's not a tool for construction.

This seems to be the real issue with your argument.  You feel because I choose not to uphold these laws as fact that I hold no faith in them.  This is clearly not the case. I place faith in these as much as I place faith in my chair to not break when I sit in it.  However, I do not hold blind faith is said things.  This is the same for my beliefs and my chair.  I view them as having the possibility to fail me.  You see I regularly kick my foundations to make sure they are still solid.

What makes your belief solid?  I don't think you've ever provided any reasoning for it.  I can provide reasoning for why I don't think there is a soul.  Mostly that thought processes can be explained using chemistry and invoking the supernatural doesn't actually add anything to the explanation.

I have read through your explanation of the scientific method and the only real difference I could see is you feel there has to be a reason to ask the question. 

Then follow it and show us the data.

Because it can not be measured, it is useless.  Obviously, this cannot be the case, otherwise no one would have taken the time to create measurements.  They would have obviously considered everything useless and masturbatory.  Ever consider there may still be things we simply have not created the measurements to quantify it yet?

Burden of proof asswipe.  Logically we don't assume that something exists until it is evidence (or measured).

I tell you neither is more useful.  The both have their uses and place.  There are a few of us, however, who believe the two can co-exist and even come to help explain the other.  Enjoy your box.

When is your model useful?  What has your model accomplished?  There's a lot of bullshit out there and you seem to be spouting it.

[Revenant]

Nope. That's one of the benefits of being a Right Reverend.

But seriously, I chose to attack your post because it seemed based on pseudoscience. I didn't elaborate on the contradiction because I had to go to class.

And of fucking course nothing is an immutable law. Gravity is examined just like any other phenomenon, but to talk about the "energy" of a person's living body persevering as a "soul," based on some claim that people lose 21 grams of mass after death, is more or less equivalent to postulating that we are all being controlled by the psionic powers of a godlike being living in Arizona because someone, somewhere, claims to have produced evidence that telepathy is possible.

It's a hell of a jump. Even if human bodies lose 21 grams after death (and I would have no objections to performing a series of rigorous tests to observe what happens immediately after death), it's pure mental fappery to claim that these 21 grams are soulstuff and therefore a living personality perseveres in some form after death. What evidence is there that it doesn't dissipate into the surrounding environment?

I don't hate wild speculation of this sort, but I have a personal distaste for it and I will strongly support my opinion that it's a waste of time in many cases. If there's one thing human minds are incredibly good at, it's making stuff up to explain phenomena that in turn requires no explanation (see: all mythology ever). I see no value in fabricating new "boxes of perspective" out of whole cloth for anything other than creative or artistic ends. Do it if you want, but don't expect me to see it as anything other than making shit up.

H.P. Lovecraft imagined creatures in his stories that could fly through the medium of "aether," in keeping with the science of the times. That doesn't mean he actually believed such creatures existed or tried to push the idea as anything other than a imaginative story.

See here is where the confusion in what I stated seems to be getting to people.  I stated I believe there is a soul, but it was not until far along that it was really dragged into the thought.  I was speculating that the loss could a loss of potential and kinetic energy.  If the body does lose mass upon death, what is it and where does it go?  Is it the human soul, honestly, I don't care.  Any finding in this will neither confirm nor disprove what I believe.  If I was able to I would fund your tests simply so we could get a more credible answer.  We sure as hell have more ways of measuring things now-a-days than back in 1907.  Perhaps one of these new methods can shred some illumination on the whole thing.  I would prefer some more credible and less public than the Mythbusters.  I have seen far too many of their experiments have flaws at a base level even with my limited knowledge to have faith they would get it right.