This is a valid question, I think....

I have my own ideas, based on information I've gleaned from lectures, texts, and various literature on the topic, but also from my own experiences as well. I'll share them if this thread develops....

But what does everyone else think? Is the mind a mere collection of neurons that exist in the brain until the life is completely gone?

What if one dies and is then revived? Where did the mind go?

Could the mind be also in other areas of the body?

Is the mind separate from the soul? Does the concept of soul really exist or is this a construct of the mind?

If you haven't guessed by now... I'm attempting a revival of sorts here in the Senate :cool:

You know I'v been wondering about for quite a time, read some things here and there but never something implicit on the topic so it perhaps my own experience and intuition that makes me guess bout those things.

What is death?. It's when heart can no longer maintain it's function. Blood flow stops, brain therefore dies in minutes after that. What about neurons? No more impulses in brain. So death is a state of sensory isolation. After that we can think of nothing at the present moment (I mean something that is proven). There are hypotheis I like about quantum consciousness, but they need an implicit explanation. So how can we perceive afterdeath if it doesn't affect us in any way? Through soul?

What is soul? Peope like to believe in soul, but unfortunately for now such concept is invalid. I believe in no such thing, at least not the one that is in the bible. Soul is something of an intuition, but intuition can trick. In science now we have nothing that would demand the existence of such entity. Stil I would like to think some sort of soul to be needed later. Only my emotional thought

Could the mind be also in other areas of the body? If by mind consider the whole mechanism of perceiving reality, then mind is everywhere in the body. Only it's part controlling it's inner activity is in brain. A good definition of mind is self aware, but what is self aware without response of senses, with which we see, hear and touch. Would our mind stil be self aware with sensory isolation. the answer is simple: no. Imagine again a man placed in the dark room with no sounds with head phones so that he could not hear his screem. In such situation where he has the experience of reality that he can see hear and touch he'll go mad in minutes.

...until the life is completely gone? And what does that mean at all. What happens with the knowledge when someone dies? Physically it decays and reforms in something else. Maybe this is to be called revival then, then it's a common thing. If revival means reuse of organics then it happens all the time, but what about soul - I donno

Good thread, I'll start digging the web... already digging:p

Is the mind separate from the soul? Does the concept of soul really exist or is this a construct of the mind?

The mind and the soul are one in the same as far as I'm concerned, some people keep theirs in their brain others keep it in their arse. ;)

I really think that my mind is in my head, I certainly feel that the rest of the body is justa vessel in which it is carried, however, i also am not against the idea that the mind can leave the body. Out of body experience anyone?

Your mind is your entire body. Though your brain is the center, it needs the rest of you to function. Also, I believe the soul was indeed created by mans own mind. As genious of an idea it is. It doesn't make much sense. Being that there are no facts to back up the whole "soul" idea.

Now this question is one I find particularly interesting. ^_^

I think that humans have a mind and a soul. The mind being the collection of neurons and impulses we already know exists; the information in our brain; and the soul being something that exists in ourselves for some other unknown purpose. I'm a Christian, and I believe the soul goes on after the death of the body. But you don't need to believe that to see why the idea of a soul has merit...countless accounts of out-of-the-body experiences, astral projection, and the like.

Also: there is alot we don't know about reality itself. So saying that because science doesn't currently see a need for a soul, doesn't mean there isn't a need for one. I mean, a thousand years ago, what need would science have seen for a sun that revolves around the earth?

If you think there's nothing more for science to discover...well. That's what the scientific community thought one century ago. Can you imagine?

Redwing:
But you don't need to believe that to see why the idea of a soul has merit...countless accounts of out-of-the-body experiences, astral projection, and the like.

Also: there is alot we don't know about reality itself. So saying that because science doesn't currently see a need for a soul, doesn't mean there isn't a need for one. I mean, a thousand years ago, what need would science have seen for a sun that revolves around the earth?

If you think there's nothing more for science to discover...well. That's what the scientific community thought one century ago. Can you imagine?

Never ever anybody said that. What was ment that at present moment we feel pretty satisfyed without soul concept. We difine our reality the way we do and it's subjective, it doesn't mean at all that ultimate truth is that soul doesn't exist, furthermore maybe otherwise. But if such concept at all be considered it should be better explained at least. You propose biblical soul I guess which is out of any practical use either than discribing one's emotional state.

Countless accounts of people being in astral, bilocation and other places is just subjective observation without explanational background. For my part I belive that such things are byproducts of quantum computer called brain which is connected to the multiverse and gives such results thorugh quantum collapse of microtubule in neurons. Although I can't claim for such concept being "true" I can point that such concept discribes reality better than biblical soul and is more fundamental than one.

Best understanding of reality definitely says that we don't know many things about, but also it says that we know something and soul concept for now brings only complication to the reality we live in at present moment. It doesn't mean that i try only to simplify reality I live in, it's not that at all. It's just that with soul as understood through Bible leaves so many things unexplained, so many whys hows unanswered that it's invalid for now.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
This is a valid question, I think....

I have my own ideas, based on information I've gleaned from lectures, texts, and various literature on the topic, but also from my own experiences as well. I'll share them if this thread develops....

But what does everyone else think? Is the mind a mere collection of neurons that exist in the brain until the life is completely gone?

What if one dies and is then revived? Where did the mind go?

Could the mind be also in other areas of the body?

Is the mind separate from the soul? Does the concept of soul really exist or is this a construct of the mind?

If you haven't guessed by now... I'm attempting a revival of sorts here in the Senate :cool:


Sorry if I sound like I know what I am talking about.

The mind is the expression of desires and needs of the body.

1 cannot exist without the other. Neurons are nothing more than a vessle to transmit the minds desires and expressions.
If one dies and is revived before tissue begins deterioration then all systems can continue to function.

The Soul is as you say "a construct of the mind".

What happens to your mind and or soul when you die? The same thing that happened to the chicken I ate for dinner last night. Gone forever.

Sorry anyone if this dispassionate view insultes your ego. It insults mine too.

Originally posted by Redwing
I believe the soul goes on after the death of the body. But you don't need to believe that to see why the idea of a soul has merit...countless accounts of out-of-the-body experiences, astral projection, and the like.

Unfortunately, there is no indication that a "soul" is anything more separate from the neural consciousness of the mind. Many observations have been made to contridict the idea of a "soul" however. For instance, there was a time in which theologians attempted to weigh a body at the time of death in order to demonstrate the existance of a "soul" leaving the body, but there was no change in body weight or mass, which indicates that if a "soul" departed from it's shell, it had no mass.

There are such things in the universe, but their called photons. They perpetually move at the speed of light and have other ways of being measured... but certainly a soul moving at the speed of light would have difficulty remaining in a body!

As far as astral projection goes, there have been absolutely no studies that have confirmed this to be an actual phenomenon and it remains a part of human folklore along with tarot cards and astrology. It just doesn't happen for real.

There are people who are very sure that they've had Out-of-Body-Experiences (OBEs), but these are very easily explained. For example, if I stimulate your right parietal cortex with an electrode (you're conscious and awake) you will momentarily feel that you are floating near the ceiling watching your own body down below (Ramachandran, 2003). You will experience an OBE.

I think that the neural complexity of the brain is fascinating enough without needing the concept of a "soul."

As to the multiverse idea... it's all interesting, but there's currently no way to test the idea of a quantum computer. There is, however, ways of testing many of the aspects of consciousness and we are gaining true understanging of many things about the brain.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
As to the multiverse idea... it's all interesting, but there's currently no way to test the idea of a quantum computer. There is, however, ways of testing many of the aspects of consciousness and we are gaining true understanging of many things about the brain.


Yes, and who knows how many dimensions we may exist in? Maybe our physical deaths in this dimension have little or no effect on our existence in an other.

Or perhaps death is not unlike a singularity. At the moment of death as consciousness fades, the energy used to produce that consciousness is used up at a rate in proportion to the amount of energy needed for consciousness to perceive death. From the perspective of the dying, the closer it gets to the last moment of death the longer it takes.
This way the last moment of life would stretch to infinity.

Yes, and who knows how many dimensions we may exist in? Maybe our physical deaths in this dimension have little or no effect on our existence in an other.

This maybe trully so, but for now the most valid higher dimention theory explains nothing of the importance of death in such way.

Or perhaps death is not unlike a singularity. At the moment of death as consciousness fades, the energy used to produce that consciousness is used up at a rate in proportion to the amount of energy needed for consciousness to perceive death. From the perspective of the dying, the closer it gets to the last moment of death the longer it takes.
This way the last moment of life would stretch to infinity.

Funny you mentioned this cauze I remember reading Tipler's thoughts on possible end for humanity. He assumed that Big Crunch would happen and proposed that if human would advance themselves to become a single entity it would be possible for them ("it") to become like god to the universe and create Heavens. He became with simple assumptions that humans wouldf develop their technology, colonize other planets, inhabit the galaxy, then move to another galaxies. Their evolution and revlution would finally change then in to a single entity as the unverse gets thinner and thiner with time, in one moment close to big crunch "human" mind would have to achieve knew level of advancement every single moment. getting closer and closer to singularity the number of calculations "human quantum computer" can perform to the maximum. This point where the number of calculations grows to the maximum is called "amega point". So when the end of the universe comes, human mind will be able to live for ever. Imagine how many programs he could out perform?. For example he could render (like in VR) all possible invironments, all possible humans (including many different variations of you), he could render any invironment where you feel yourself happiness, love, sadness, he could attribute to you any possible property, for example there could be "you" not peferming like you or their can be you perfectly resembling you. This would be true Heavens then. Either way it's just that we could outlive their whatever we like.

But this is all long way to come...

mind and soul interact wiht each other, but are independent of each other. mind is dominant, soul is tucked away inside, but still existent.

when u die, mind sleeps, soul awakens. then, both are awakened.



and that's my theory shortened up.


'nuff said.

If that's your theory , do you mind proving it then? Or maybe you should call it belief and nothing more.

My definition of the self, or the consciousness, includes the body to a degree - not just the brain. I don't think that we'd think the same way if we only existed as a floating brain. Humans identify themselves with their body a lot. Furthermore, you can train your body to "remember" certain actions and excersises - I think this happens due to a specialization of muscular and spinal neurons, and while this has plenty to do with how we perceive the world, it doesn't have very much to do with how our brain alone works.

A horse, for example, uses 2/3 of its brain to control and coordinate its huge muscle mass. Is it very conscious compared to us? No. Is it just as aware of its own body as we are? You bet.

Now, if you will imagine that we could make an exact replica of your brain, take the old one out, and insert the new, exact same, into your skull - would it still be you? And what if we inserted the replica into another human's skull - would there now be 2 of you? And finally, if we let that brain float in a glass jar, would it then have a consciousness of its own (given that it could survive and work perfectly fine)?

I do not know the answers to the above questions.

Originally posted by C'jais
My definition of the self, or the consciousness, includes the body Humans identify themselves with their body a lot. .


According to Joseph Campbell (http://www.jcf.org/about_jc.php) the mind is an expression of the bodies desires and needs.


According to griff (http://www.griff.hu/griff/htm/club/club.asp) the mind comes in several versions. Like snowflakes & fingerprints, no 2 minds are alike. Some are rudimentary others advanced. But what makes them alike is, awarness of some kind.

C'Jais:
Furthermore, you can train your body to "remember" certain actions and excersises - I think this happens due to a specialization of muscular and spinal neurons, and while this has plenty to do with how we perceive the world, it doesn't have very much to do with how our brain alone works.

Good point. If a headless frog has a drop of acid on it's leg it would move it's other leg to neutralize the acid. It's possible also for a man (animals don't feel neccesity in it) to exercise the body to remember different set of reflexes. That's what we do in aikido first through hard training. The other thing is facing some emotional reflex (like fear and it's consequences), but it still can be execised.

Now, if you will imagine that we could make an exact replica of your brain, take the old one out, and insert the new, exact same, into your skull - would it still be you? And what if we inserted the replica into another human's skull - would there now be 2 of you? And finally, if we let that brain float in a glass jar, would it then have a consciousness of its own (given that it could survive and work perfectly fine)?

For the first question we have to consider what is exact replica. Cauze it's not really exact the moment it's turned on and further. Furthermore it's not exact even when we just made the replica and even turned it on, cauze the original brain has evolved since then. Still if we take as an abstraction: perfect sensory isolation for to identical brains, not interfering with each other in any way. Then we could possibly call it exact replica. With so many many multiplyers that we have to face in reality we could only say that it's approximately exact. And our present day technology difines how accurately could we replicate it.

As for the second question it's easy to say that one is him and the other is definitly not him. The more relevant question for us here is how can we say that one brain is exact (approximately exact) replica of another. It's obvious that we would have to test it. The main problem here is that it has to interactive. For example. If we have a russian rullet and we want to find out whether it's working properly. We have some experience with which our view on how rullet is working is formed. We remember that such and such numbers appeared. But if we get the same numbers can we in result say that it works properly. No, of course. We must first of all test it's iteractivity. We know that random numbers must appear. So we drop the ball for say 10 times and see that every time the same number appeared. then with great probability we can admit that this machine is not identical to what we know how a rulet must work. The same with brain we'd have to test it's interactivity, and probably with different methods with different brain to see that one is not just a machine pointlessly repeating what's the original said. But as soon as we try to test it, we find ourselves testing two different brains with two different experieneces from the moment one was replicated. If it passes the test we can say that 2 different minds exist now.

And for the third, assuming that replication ment recreation of interactivity, it follows that own consciousness is what necessarily it must possess. The other thing is his sensory isolation (in a glass jar), in which no human mind could outlive. Technologically I can't think of how we we can replicate human brain, but in principle those things are not that difficult to understand.

I think the mind is a facet of the brain. Since when the brain no longer functions we lose our mind. Also, we may lose our mind if we get brain damage.

Has anyone heard of phantom limbs? This is where people who have missing limbs still feel as if they are there. Thus, I think there is an amount of hard wiring in our brain. Like how animals may be hard wired for four legs, or having eyes on the sides of their heads.

I have also had experiences where I have seen something happening, or have had a feeling that something was happening or had happened. I felt more like I was been shown things rather than being present at the actual event. The things I have seen without being present do not occur exact, they contain symbolism and other things.

I was going to mention the phantom limb thing. I see this as good evidence that the mind is probably 100% in the brain.

If someone loses a limb, they often have phantom senses to the limb, say an arm.

Often this tactile sense is merely re-mapped to another area of the body. With arms, the face seems to be the likely re-mapping location. So if you touch someone on the face with a q-tip, they say, "you're touching my wrist." Move a bit, and they say, "that's my thumb."

Many people also feel phantom-limb paralysis or even extreme pain, especially if the limb was paralyzed or damaged prior to removal. The phantom limb is also paralyzed. but with therapy and stimulation of the re-mapped area, the phantom limb can re-gain it's "movement" and can even be "amputated."

We remember complex movements due to our brain's wiring.... if the sensory input is removed, the brain simply attempts to find new sensory input.