Can you prove or disprove the existence of the soul or spirit?

[Petite Elite]

By soul or spirit, I mean ghostly apparition or being that you continue to live as after your death. 

If this is your definition, then I think it is a pretty definitive "no". 

"Being that you continue to live as after your death" is incredibly vague. I don't mean to discourage you in your belief or anything like that, but what is it that you mean by this definition? Do you keep the shape of your body as this "ghostly apparition" or can you change it to your whim? But more importantly, do you keep your personality?

I think that most people would agree that your personality is defined by the experiences you have; your memories. However, memories can be altered and fake ones can be implanted. Also, most of the "memories" people have are entirely made up by themselves. Do you expect people to believe that their "spirit" which supposedly transcends their physical body, is so fundamentally dictated by it? How is that even possible? Unless, of course, the physical body interacts with the spirit in some way, but my first post pretty clearly explains why that idea is far-fetched.

So, sorry, but I think that that definition of a spirit is impossible. Yes, there's the argument that we may just not be able to perceive spirits, but come on. How irrational does something have to be before we can definitively say that it's not possible?

But then again, I'm just one person. There's no difference in "correctness" between my beliefs and yours. I do not know anything relating to this, this is merely my opinion.

 

[Imploded Tomato]

If this is your definition, then I think it is a pretty definitive "no". 

"Being that you continue to live as after your death" is incredibly vague. I don't mean to discourage you in your belief or anything like that, but what is it that you mean by this definition? Do you keep the shape of your body as this "ghostly apparition" or can you change it to your whim? But more importantly, do you keep your personality?

I think that most people would agree that your personality is defined by the experiences you have; your memories. However, memories can be altered and fake ones can be implanted. Also, most of the "memories" people have are entirely made up by themselves. Do you expect people to believe that their "spirit" which supposedly transcends their physical body, is so fundamentally dictated by it? How is that even possible? Unless, of course, the physical body interacts with the spirit in some way, but my first post pretty clearly explains why that idea is far-fetched.

So, sorry, but I think that that definition of a spirit is impossible. Yes, there's the argument that we may just not be able to perceive spirits, but come on. How irrational does something have to be before we can definitively say that it's not possible?

"How irrational does something have to be before we can definitively say that it's not possible?" That is not relevant at all and regardless, irrational is your opinion and your belief because of your perception which is not necessarily how other people reading this topic feel.

 

[Tsukihime]

So, sorry, but I think that that definition of a spirit is impossible. Yes, there's the argument that we may just not be able to perceive spirits, but come on. How irrational does something have to be before we can definitively say that it's not possible?

There is no reason why a ghastly apparition of any sort (whether it looks like you, acts like you, etc) cannot exist.


To say something does not exist without any real evidence (or to argue that something cannot exist because there is no evidence, or because you feel it is "irrational") would be plain wrong.


Many things do not currently exist for many reasons, the top being money and politics. Religious likely falls somewhere around there as well.


Most of us also do not have the free time to ponder such things because we likely do not get paid for it. If you were paid to research the existence of ghosts I'm sure some people would not mind doing it.


Even now, there are probably plenty of people that think life on other planets, or even intergalactic travel, is completely irrational and not possible.

 

[Petite Elite]

 

But then again, I'm just one person. There's no difference in "correctness" between my beliefs and yours. I do not know anything relating to this, this is merely my opinion.

I can not stress this point enough.

However, the original post said to not discuss anything to do with religion. I thought the OP posted that but I now see it was added by a moderator or something. Hence, I thought this was going to be a purely scientific discussion.

That being said, if you're talking about what you "believe" in, there is no discussion to be had. It so very difficult to disprove something, to the extent where it could be said that it's impossible - and I know that the term "impossible" is pretty much a swear when it comes to a debate about beliefs.

Hence, every belief is just as valid as the next, meaning everyone has the right to believe what they do (granted that the belief doesn't result in the harming of another person, etc) without having to question or justify yourselves. However, you should be aware that in a debate or discussion, there are going to be points for both sides and I feel that the sudden disregard of my comments because they don't coincide with your beliefs is highly unjustified. 

There is no reason why a ghastly apparition of any sort (whether it looks like you, acts like you, etc) cannot exist.

To say something does not exist without any real evidence (or to argue that something cannot exist because there is no evidence, or because you feel it is "irrational") would be plain wrong.

It's just as wrong as saying something is real without any real evidence.

 

Basically, there can be no discussion of beliefs if you're not willing to consider and respect others' opinions.

 

-edit-

Although, I do see how strongly I seem to dismiss your beliefs in my posts and I am genuinely sorry if I have offended anyone; it was not my intent. 

 

[Simon D. Aelsi]

Without delving into even MORE touchy territory, people are believed to INSTANTLY lose a couple lbs when they die. Instantaneously...

 

[Imploded Tomato]

Without delving into even MORE touchy territory, people are believed to INSTANTLY lose a couple lbs when they die. Instantaneously...

21 grams to be exact.

 

[Petite Elite]

A quick google search seems to show that the physician who carried out this experiment 100 years ago (1907) undertook a few experiments under pretty sketchy conditions, resulting in very sketchy results.

Snopes have done an article about it.

 

[supercow]

If you can't imagine what a spirit is then I'm sorry, I cannot help you and this topic is not for you.

so you want to talk about soul/spirit but dont want to explain what you want to talk about , make claim i lack imagination , and say that you cannot help me (?) and claim the topic is not for me.

thank you

ill leave.

 

[Imploded Tomato]

so you want to talk about soul/spirit but dont want to explain what you want to talk about , make claim i lack imagination , and say that you cannot help me (?) and claim the topic is not for me.

thank you

ill leave.

I've already explained it, and I'm not trying to be mean but, you know what a ghost is don't you?

 

[Milena]

For everyone asking what I mean by spirit or soul, I mean ghost or : an apparition of a dead person that is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image.

It is only your imagination. If it was taken from a camera, I'd say it is some photoshop / graphic editor edit, a camera fault / trick, some lens effect or flare, or anything that can be explained scientifically, that would prove that these ghosts or whatever apparition of the dead is just BS.

 

[Diretooth]

As I do not follow any religion, this should not be much trouble. If the staff does not want this post, feel free to delete it.

Anyway, I follow my own spiritual path which meshes with science a bit. All of matter is energy, as each atom is made of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it simply exists in various forms, whether purely physical or non-physical. (In the sense of physical matter and non-physical such as electricity) I believe that the soul/spirit is an energy construct that is part of the body that leaves when the body dies, and moves on to the next life.

Now, you cannot prove or disprove based on evidence, simply because there is no evidence that can state 100% whether real or not. Ghost photos can be explained as hoaxes, double exposures, and other naturally occurring phenomena. However, a lot of scientists and scientifically minded people believe there is no spirit or soul because it cannot be measured, in spite of the fact that a lack of measurement does not mean lack of existence. (We can measure the gravitational pull of an object based on its weight and mass. We can't directly measure gravity, only indirectly via objects effected by it.)

 

[Alexander Amnell]

Considering that I believe I had a lengthy conversation with my father at his own funeral... I'd say I personally have little choice but to believe in some form of consciousness after death. Can I prove that they exist? No. One personal experience isn't enough to convince anyone outside of themselves, to many ways to dismiss them. Maybe I was just a grief-stricken kid who had no grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy, maybe I spoke to one of my uncles and got confused by family resemblances, or maybe I've just been lying to people for 20 years.

Nothing like getting admitted for psychiatric evaluation to show you just how muh personal experience really counts for. If such a manifestation turns out to be reality, then someone at some time will find a way to prove it under the scientific method. Until then I'm just another basket case/committed hoaxer.

 

[Dalph]

You actually lose 21 grams when you die because your body lose liquids and all the air out of its lungs, this isn't the soul.

It would make no sense for the soul to be material or have a mass, you can't really measure it in any way, we're talking about a pure spirit here. Saying this, I believe in ghosts...I actually dreamed about my dead grandmother time ago, and she even teached me something about my family tradition. I also did a seance (wrongly) and summoned a monster(?) inside my house, a thing that scared to death me and my mother for a few days, it was a true nightmare but thank God we managed to get out of it.

Can we really prove their existence though? Nope, we can't.

1) Science can verify only what is observable and measurable in the physical universe.

2) Individual testimonies of their existence are not proofs.

 

[whitesphere]

I have experienced far too many strange coincidences in my life NOT to believe there is a significant part of us which exists after death.   

I believe the physical body is like the interface.  If, say, someone gets Alzheimer's, while their soul is still intact, the interface between that and the physical world is damaged or degraded so the communication doesn't get across.

It is a very hard thing to prove objectively though.  That's why it's called faith.

As for science, I think it's a powerful and useful tool.  I don't consider it by itself a remotely complete way to view the world, any more than I think you can build a house with JUST a hammer.    

So, can I prove a soul exists?  Not in a way which will satisfy a skeptic, but I learned years ago it's pointless to try to convince someone with such different views.  All that happens is an increase in anger and no increase in understanding.

 

[hian]

I disagree as this is indeed relevant and on topic regardless of being accurate or not. Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWkJnS8RHyE&list=UUzWQYUVCpZqtN93H8RR44Qw

Whether you disagree or not is also irrelevant, and this reply just demonstrates why exactly your first reply was irrelevant.


The video you now link simply goes into what I was just trying to say with my entire post - namely that the damage to the brain effects the conscious experience of the person with the damage.


I never said it's impossible to live with a damaged brain, in fact I explicitly stated that it was possible, but that damages to the brain CAN have lasting effects on memory and personality, and if the brain is completely broken down, then memory and personality too is completely broken down.


This video has no bearing on that argument except pointing out how missing a piece of your brain can effect your life.


The reason your first post was irrelevant is because you try to make the argument "scientists don't know everything about the brain, therefore you(hian) can't say that personality and memory breaks down at the level of the brain", even though that's one of the things scientists do know about the brain.


That's a fallacy of irrelevancy. Get it?


Not knowing everything about something does not mean that we can't know constituent parts of the larger unknown.

This is not entirely true, experience and knowledge can exist to a certain extent through natural instincts passed down through genetics.

That's a very problematic use of experience and knowledge and borders on the fallacy of equivocation. No, genetics do not pass down experience and knowledge - they pass down, as you just say, natural instincts and physical/psychological traits that have been selected for by environmental pressures.


This is not knowledge nor experience, as these two words general refer to data acquired through sensory input, and conscious thought.


There is a difference between genetic information, and the information stored at the level of the brain. Besides, this too is an irrelevant argument. Genetic information dies when the body containing that information is destroyed in the very same way as consciousness dies at the destruction of the brain.


Saying that information can exist in genes, is not an argument that the information of the brain can survive the destruction of the brain.

Highly unlikely, maybe; but not impossible as we live in a universe filled with infinite possibilities that go beyond human comprehension. For all we know the neurons within our brains could break down after our deaths into smaller pieces and still communicate with one another continuing our conscious reality, another theory to consider.

No it isn't. Or rather, that's an argument from ignorance again. We don't know everything about the universe - however, we do know a lot about it, and there certainly aren't infinite possibilities going beyond human comprehension though. That's an extremely odd assumption to make, seeing as human continually comprehend new things every day, including things that only a few years ago would seem "incomprehensible".


As for neurons communicating after breaking down - no. That's not a theory, that's a wild idea that directly contradicts physical evidence about decomposition.


Once your body dies and starts to rot, so does your brain, and its neurons.


Your argument is no different than saying "What if my computer breaks down, and all the circuit-boards and hard-drive is broken beyond repair, will the data live on in another form?"


It's a pointless argument.


When a computer stops running, the data is inaccessible and/or lost. The data is only "tangible" as long as the computer is running and the hard-drive is working.


And again, as I tried to say earlier - if by your definition, a soul or spirit is simply our data so to speak, then yeah, sure that's a good working definition. By that definition, spirits and souls exist - but by that definition, as far as we know, spirit and souls die with the body.


(unless we're all data in a larger simulation that stores all our data, like how the cloud on the internet can store your computers data externally)


At the end of the day though - we don't know, except what we do know - which is the functioning of the body and the brain, and what results in human consciousness.


We call that spirit or soul? Why not just call it consciousness?


If we're talking about ghosts etc, then that's a different issue altogether...

 

[Touchfuzzy]

Why is it that when a person dies, a small percentage of their weight is lost in the process.

This is blatantly false. The experiments done that support this were idiotic and unscientific.

 

[Tsukihime]

It's just as wrong as saying something is real without any real evidence.

The most accurate answer would likely be "we simply don't know with our current knowledge", unless there have been breakthroughs in this field.

 

[Imploded Tomato]

Whether you disagree or not is also irrelevant, and this reply just demonstrates why exactly your first reply was irrelevant.

The video you now link simply goes into what I was just trying to say with my entire post - namely that the damage to the brain effects the conscious experience of the person with the damage.

I never said it's impossible to live with a damaged brain, in fact I explicitly stated that it was possible, but that damages to the brain CAN have lasting effects on memory and personality, and if the brain is completely broken down, then memory and personality too is completely broken down.

This video has no bearing on that argument except pointing out how missing a piece of your brain can effect your life.

The reason your first post was irrelevant is because you try to make the argument "scientists don't know everything about the brain, therefore you(hian) can't say that personality and memory breaks down at the level of the brain", even though that's one of the things scientists do know about the brain.

That's a fallacy of irrelevancy. Get it?

She was born without a cerebellum! Her Brain wasn't damaged, it was fully functional which means science does not understand everything there is to know about the brain which was relevant to what you and I were talking about earlier. 

"This is not entirely true, experience and knowledge can exist to a certain extent through natural instincts passed down through genetics."

"That's a very problematic use of experience and knowledge and borders on the fallacy of equivocation. No, genetics do not pass down experience and knowledge - they pass down, as you just say, natural instincts and physical/psychological traits that have been selected for by environmental pressures.

This is not knowledge nor experience, as these two words general refer to data acquired through sensory input, and conscious thought.

There is a difference between genetic information, and the information stored at the level of the brain. Besides, this too is an irrelevant argument. Genetic information dies when the body containing that information is destroyed in the very same way as consciousness dies at the destruction of the brain."

Our genetics carry knowledge which are cells can experience and grow from which effects are human nature.

"Saying that information can exist in genes, is not an argument that the information of the brain can survive the destruction of the brain."

Unless some of the information in the brain is shared with the spirit, then the information can survive. Past lives is another theory to consider.

"Highly unlikely, maybe; but not impossible as we live in a universe filled with infinite possibilities that go beyond human comprehension. For all we know the neurons within our brains could break down after our deaths into smaller pieces and still communicate with one another continuing our conscious reality, another theory to consider.

No it isn't. Or rather, that's an argument from ignorance again. We don't know everything about the universe - however, we do know a lot about it, and there certainly aren't infinite possibilities going beyond human comprehension though. That's an extremely odd assumption to make, seeing as human continually comprehend new things every day, including things that only a few years ago would seem "incomprehensible".

As for neurons communicating after breaking down - no. That's not a theory, that's a wild idea that directly contradicts physical evidence about decomposition."

Do you know what neurons do as they slowly degrade to the atomic level (If they even degrade that far naturally)? What's so funny is that this idea came from a neurosurgeon during an interview on a television show called "Weird or What" with William Shatner.

"an argument from ignorance again." Reread some of your own posts...

You don't seam to be entirely open to new ideas and instead tries to degrade them with personal opinions and feelings. This has clearly turned into a debate, lets not turn it into an argument. I started this topic to discuss the possibilities of whether or not we can prove or disprove the existence of the soul or spirit, I'd like to see you create your own answer or redefine the question itself by defining the variables involved in the question. You could give a simple answer like "no", the existence of the soul or spirit cannot be determined because of the lack of evidence pertaining to it. Or you could be like me and think of improbable/unlikely but possible ways on how humanity can redefine what a spirit is and try to figure out any way to prove whether it exits or doesn't exist.

 

[doncht]

Just being blunt here, I don't believe in Spirit. Just probably mainly because I base things on science and there's no evidence shown yet regarding its existence. 

 

[Dragonspeech]

Every way I an think of describing spirit and soul constitutes a 'religious statement'. You are trying to marriage faith and science with this. A soul or spirit means you believe in such or usually is linked to some sort of 'religion' and that's as far as I suppose I can go with being as universal as possible and staying within guidelines. What I think I can safely say additionally is that humanity in itself has not been able to reach the tools needed to scientifically identify what it is - if believed in. The same way that we discovered fire. At first it couldn't even be fathomed, then when found it was a mysterious hostile sparked, and after we reached for grasped the tools of fire. In time learned how to use it, identify it, quantify it and even change it to suit our needs.

It could be that souls and spirits live in a 7th dimension or something, a layer that is so close that we don't even realize that we are touching it yet it permeates everything, and since they actively live on that dimension they can reach back into the other dimensions, much like how we are able to walk linearly, left and right plane, up and down, etc. This last idea is as pure as possibly I can equate to a scientific speculation, barring the above explanations.