SCEPCOP Forum

Physiology gives the indication that their is no soul, only mind and brain. This mind being a process of the brain. However, once you step outside conventional wisdom that their is no soul when it comes to neuroscience then you start to see that the conventional wisdom may not be correct. Evidence for survival of bodily death and psi phenomena indicate strongly, that the view that mind is a process of the brain ignores any evidence to the contrary. This is a easy way to avoid the possible conclusion itself.


It is said by a large number of neuroscientists that mind is a process of the brain and that evidence has been dramatically increases more and more as time goes on. Especially in the advent of fmri's. The problem is their is obviously more than one way to look at the evidence accumulated. The materialist will say that the theory that mind is filter, received by the brain instead of produced by the brain can be shaved off. That the view that mind is produced by the brain is simpler way of looking at the very strong correlations of mind and brain. True it's simpler, but does it account for all phenomena. A good theory should not just account for what it can account for but should be able to cover all well attested phenomena.


If you assume that psi phenomena and survival evidence doesn't exist or is very weak then it's easy of course to accept that mind is produced by the brain. However if you accept the evidence for survival and psi [which has been shown to exist by conventional scientific standards] then the theory that mind is filter and received by the brain is the simplest theory to take. Now when a materialist admits that yes psi phenomena has been shown to exist by scientific standards, they will a lot of the time fall back by saying well "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. This is a complete cop out because first of all what would create such extraordinary evidence. Replicated repeatable results yes? apparently not, it seems that this statement keeps the skeptics safe to the point of when their is very strong evidence for survival and psi they come up with this statement.


So are materialists really looking for the truth here?. I would say they could be, if they could gives us what they mean by extraordinary evidence. After many decades and centuries it seems as though its becoming very apparent what they mean by it. Its a way to ignore and avoid opposing data that doesn't fit into their materialistic worldview. So where is the soul? well i would say by looking at the evidence from survival that it's in the body. When death happens the soul leaves the physical body and takes a life of its own. The soul is a duplicate of the physical body but made of different kind of energy and matter.

For an examle of a skeptic admitting that remote viewing has been shown to exist by the scientific method.

Go here

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/ ... -that.html

The problem with neuroscientists is that they have a very naive idea of the soul. They think if it exists, then it must be consciousness, but their experiments have shown that mind is merely an illusion of neuro-electrical activity, therefore no soul and no afterlife. My take is that neuroscience is right on many things, BUT still there are many phenomena like NDEs and OBEs which provide evidence of the contrary. The only logical implication is there has to be a golden path between neuroscience and the paranormal.

Maybe you will like this book: http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Brain-N ... pd_sim_b_1

I've posted a video series on YouTube that strongly indicates the existence of the soul. I invite everybody to watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1RZRh8w ... annel_page

I suppose the corresponding question is "If there is a fixed entity called a 'self,' where is it?"

I'm still learning about these things, but I think Buddhism says that our mind is always changing and is more like a continuum of states rather than some fixed, solid thing which can always be labeled. I think the mind just continues on without the body. So no "soul" or extra metaphysical part is needed; all that is needed is the assumption that the mind can function independently of the body.

I believe that Hinduism believes in a fixed entity called an "atman" which is like a soul. Maybe if some Hindus join the board, they could explain their position.

The soul is in the non-physical plane of reality. Thus by defnition, it cannot be found
anywhere in the physical plane of reality. However, it's effects can be found, and that
that effect is the substantiality you perceive. There is no such thing as substance in
reality because it a process of flux, but this flux only ever gains form when it is under
the view of the soul. As the soul is not a physical thing to be examined, the only way
to know the soul is to experience it through pure experience.

The materialists are trying to look for the "soul" in the brain because they do not admit
that any non-physical plane exists. Unfortunately for them, one cannot deny the fact that
non-physical things do indeed exist such as space, time, mind and consciousness. Thus
the materialist is simply in denial that there is more to life than the physical plane of
reality and thus will will forever be confronted by the hard problem of consciousness. We
are now in the process of rejecting materialism, simply because it cannont account for the
most basic phenomena of reality: the undeniable life itself.

If it's Soul you're looking for, go check out some Barry White, Marvin Gaye, or Etta James...