jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (111 posts)

Do you believe that your soul resides in your brain or talks to it?

  1. ptosis profile image80
    ptosisposted 5 years ago

    The soul, by definition, is meta-physical and is thought that the soul would be connected to the brain, not within the brain.

    It used to be thought that the soul resided in your heart - but getting a heart transplant doesn't make you into a different person. So  - if some time in the future - if had a brain transplant  - does your personaility go with the original brain?

    Is consciousness the soul, or is it simply a receptor of it? Is the mind used by the soul that is consciously expressed through our physical body?

    I'm using the word 'spirit' and 'soul' to mean the same thing - please explain the difference.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I always equated the term soul with the essence of who you were. An integral part of the whole. That's kind of an odd thought; where you ask if the soul talks to the brain. I certainly hope not. If it started, I might worry about being schizophrenic.

    2. Lenore Robinson profile image61
      Lenore Robinsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting question. Personally, I wonder if the soul/spirit may be an entity in itself that frequently resides in a living body to experience the physical world.
        For example: There are many documented cases about reincarnation. One case in particular about a young American boy.   His parents documented his experiences from the beginning, as a baby.  I’m not exactly sure of the age but around 8(?)  the parents discovered the boy was “channeling?” a WWII pilot who was killed in action.  The boy was aware of himself but also the family, life and tradgic death of the pilot.  There is a documentary about all of this but I don’t remember the name. Maybe someone who knows will comment.  It was very fascinating.

    3. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Neither of those have ever been shown to exist, connected to the brain, the heart or the kitchen sink.

      There is no difference between two things that don't exist. smile

      1. mathsciguy profile image60
        mathsciguyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, but Beelzedad, I disagree with you here.
        I think Aristotle had a good definition of "soul."  He said that the soul was the defining aspect of an entity.  For example, my soul would be whatever it is that makes me uniquely and distinctly ME.  But, the soul is not its own separate thing, just a label for an abstract concept.  So, of course, it won't ever be proven to exist empirically or anything because it's an idea.

        But, in the meaning that seems to be used by the OP, you are correct.

    4. jacharless profile image80
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Consider this:

      The soul/spirit, the brain, the body.

      The soul/spirit is projective energy that resides throughout the individual. Some ancients believed it rested near the belly-button or womb -some the gonads. Because it is from here life comes.

      The brain, surrounded and active with magnetic electricity, shows it is a processor between spirit and body. Of itself the brain cannot produce or emit energy, as it is magnetic -absorptive by its very makeup. The mind/memory have four unique and distinctive frequencies or pitches used to filter that energy from the spirit into the body.

      The body is the reflective energy is the soul. It is to a small degree inward-projective as it can take in light, air, sound -all components of light.



      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm having a real hard time getting through the jargon to something I can understand. 

        What is "projective" energy?  I am familiar with the electro-magnetic spectrun (light), chemical energy, nuclear energy, etc., but whatever is projective energy?

        The brain does produce energy - it causes electrons to move down neurons - in the form of electricity.

        Memory resides in the brain, not an immaterial mind.  It is a function of the neurons and, more importantly, the interconnection between these neurons.  But what are the frequencies you mention?  That term is generally associated with waves of some kind, but I know of no waves in the brain, memory, mind or spirit.  What are the four frequencies? 1Kz, 100Mz, what?

        Again, what is reflective energy?  I have never heard that term and have no idea what it refers to.  Energy of all kinds can be reflected from an appropriate surface - is this what you refer to?

        What is inward-projective? Do you mean that our physical cells and chemicals are actually energy and is sent inside itself?

        Help me out, James - I am really poor at understanding meta-physical philosophical terms that do not have a concrete relationship with reality.

        1. jacharless profile image80
          jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          projective = proto(n) = positive
          absorptive = neutron/neural = magnetic
          reflective = electron = negative

          The brain (mind) does not produce its own energy the same as a processor cannot. It only draws on input/output circuit -amp/ohm.

          Alpha, Beta (immediate consciousness), Delta, Theta are the four frequencies of the brain/mind (the brain/mind are the same thing).

          Cells made of chemicals, chemicals made of molecules, molecules made of atomic fields, fields made of sub atomic frequencies, frequencies made of ultra-sub atomic ones, with properties of dominant, equi and subi, as well as properties of pro, neural and negate. Energy is everything. Everything is light.

          I can't divulge too much, as this is in my forthcoming book, The Ism...


          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            OK, I'm getting there.  Nevertheless,

            Protons are indeed energy, as all matter is.  It even carries a positive electrical charge.  In spite of that calling a proton positive energy doesn't indicate anything; energy is not actually positive and negative in spite of that when in the form of matter it can and does carry an electrical charge.  Some physicists have postulated a universe of "dark energy" or "dark matter" but it is at this point only imagination and not even described.  It is not considered either positive nor negative energy.  It is not even anti-energy (another possible concept with no known connection to reality).

            Neutrons play no part in magnetism or magnetic fields and cannot be considered any part of magnetism. 

            Nerves most definitely produce electricity through chemical action.  Nerve cells produce ions (notably potassium, sodium, chlorine and calcium) which free up an electron to be used as electricity.

            Naming the four frequencies does not describe them.  The wave action is carried in?? Blood, light, solid material vibration, what?  What are the frequencies - these are measured in cycles per time unit - but what are the numbers?

            Energy=everything=light.  Complete falsehood outside of the meta-physical or philosophical world.  A cell is neither light in the wave form (travelling at C) nor a photon (light in the solid form).  Again, the jargon completely leaves me at a loss.

            Your last paragraph is semi correct, up until atomic (force) fields are made of frequencies.  Again, a frequency is a number assigned by humans to describe a vibration.  Do you mean that atomic fields are composed solely of vibrations?  No energy, no matter, nothing but a vibration of a nonexistent thing in a nonexistent medium?

            1. jacharless profile image80
              jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Energy=everything=light.  Complete falsehood outside of the meta-physical or philosophical world

              Actually, it is not false.
              "meta physics" is not the spiritual consideration but a physic stasis encompassed on a more, how do I say this, unified field, between tangible and intangible.

              As for everything being light, I disagree. Everything is light. Alll the elements of the universe are made from smaller units called atoms. Those atoms made from even smaller units called sub atomic. Go even smaller to the ultra subatomic level and you'll see how the wave is identical to light in its three varying forms (mentioned).

              Electro magnetic radiation = light.
              Reflective absorptive projective.
              Electron Neutron, Proton.
              Wave, Optic, Ray.

              Consider the view as eith concave or convex, which is simply reversing the field of observation within the optic parameter.

              Everything is light by its very nature.
              As some even claim, we are 'star dust'. That dust they refer to is light fragments beginning at the "pure" energy form level or at least ultra-subatomic level...


              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, still false.  "physic stasis encompassed on a more, how do I say this, unified field, between tangible and intangible".  Assuming a type and you meant "physical" rather than "physic" (physic is a undefined collection of letters, not a word), a physical stasis is the complete halt of all motion.  No waves, no heat, no light, no energy at all.  Even brownian motion ceases in the atomic structures. 

                Beyond the subatomic level there is no indication that there is no matter; that is merely a definition of sub-subatomic.  At that level there is no indication there is any vibration, either.

                Paraphrasing, using your definitions:
                Electro magnetic radiation = (heat rays, microwaves, radar waves, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays, gamma rays - all the various wavelengths of light.  Yes.

                negative magnetic positive.  Three unconnected words that describe three different things and has nothing to do with light.

                major parts of an atom - no connection to light.

                Three words used in the study of light.  All three have different meanings, but only one (wave) is an attribute of light.  Optic has various meanings, but none mean light or describes light.  Ray is a common misnomer for light; usually used when referring to a group of photons traveling a common path.

                Star dust is a combination of all the different elements used to construct a star and we are indeed made of it.  It is not light at all (I except the term when used by poetry to evoke an emotional response) - it is solid matter thrown off by the star.  The early universe consisted of only energy and hydrogen - burning stars have produced all the other elements in the form of stardust.  Iron, for instance, comes from the core of a star but it is not composed of photons; it is solid matter.

                1. jacharless profile image80
                  jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So, that means nothing in the universe exists??

                  But, we know, NOTHING is completely still in the universe. Everything is constantly vibrating, even lead and even the dead.

                  At the intangible level, particles are moving at speeds unimaginable -and 'invisible' - that some believe they are going in reverse, meaning past present and future -simultaneously.
                  Such particles with said motion are the fundamental building blocks of every single thing in existence from stars to single celled organics.


                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    IF the universe was in stasis you might have an argument.  It is not - there is nothing in a complete physical stasis.  While we have reduced temperature in small locals to near absolute zero (an arguable definition of stasis), we haven't reached it yet, and may never actually reach it.  You are correct, everything is moving, although vibrating might not be the correct term.

                    Mathematically, particles moving at +C speeds could have a reversed time measurement.  It has never been observed and to the best of our knowledge is impossible. 

                    As there are no particles observed at +C velocity (even in theory) they cannot be the building blocks of anything.  Remember that at C, a particle will have an infinite mass, instantly collapsing the universe into itself.

                  2. Jerami profile image77
                    Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It is amazing that science is now prooving things that a child can imagine.
                      And children have been doing for eons!

                2. jacharless profile image80
                  jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Really? What are the three symbols used to identify the properties of atomic particles: positive, negative, neutral. Proton, electron, neutron.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, those three symbols refer to particular attributes of the primary particles in an atom.  There are other attributes as well, such as spin and mass.

                    You lost me here, though - I don't understand what part of my post you are replying to.

              2. ptosis profile image80
                ptosisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                atoms = protons, neutrons, electrons (remember these names are not particles per se - it's just that the math is easier than defining them as matrixes)
                "The word particle is used in everyday language rather than tensor because then would have to explain what is a tensor."

                Protons and neutrons are made up of Quarks for instance, The proton is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two up quarks and one down quark. Leptons are electrons, muons, taus, and neutrinos

                The quarks are called up/down(or top/bottom) strange and charm are just asmbolic names like x,y,z.

                Then the spin is also a symbolic name - it's confusing using words that mean one thing for most and a math symbol for scientists.

                Fermions make up leptons and quarks. The pion is made up of an antiquark and a quark but quarks and anti quarks are fermions.

                OUCH my head hurts. - I think this is why vibrating string theory became popular - up to 23 dimensions - BOOM - my brain just exploded.

            2. jacharless profile image80
              jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Blood, light is the carrier, yes.

              Blood is the life to the body. Light (meaning electro magnetic radiation) is the life of the spirit.

              Both are required to keep the brain 'alive'.
              That liveliness is often noted by the 'firing' of synapses, or arcing.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If light is the life of an immaterial spirit, we would detect dark spots where the light was absorbed or in some method used by the spirit.  There are no dark spots surrounding each of us.

                Nor is light required to maintain brain life.  There are many organisms that live in the total absense of light yet maintain brain activity.  In addition, light cannot be detected nor used by brain tissue - while the body may use it for life and a body is required for a brain, it is not used directly by the brain.  Keep in mind that the motion of an electron down a synapse is electricity, not light.  The two are NOT synonymous>

                1. jacharless profile image80
                  jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What do you think electricity is? It is one of the three parts of light. I think you are judging light based on optic view and not what light actually is?? Remember, like the entire universe, 90% of light is non-optic/unobservable using electron microscopes and such. Using electricity to view neutral energy or even projective energy is nearly impossible with present technologies.


                  1. psycheskinner profile image82
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, you actually have no idea what you are taking about.

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Electricity is the movement of electrons down a conductor, usually metallic.  It is not light.  It is not even one part of light.

                    Electricity can be used to produce a magnetic field, but electricity is not magnetism and neither is light.  Neither will light produce a magnetic field such as electricity does.

                    Do you know how an electron microscope works, what it does?  There aren't even any light receptors in an electron microscope - it uses a flood of electrons to "observe" an object instead of light and that flow of electrons is not light as electrons are not light.

                    Nor is there either neutral or projective light.  One (according to your definition above) would be a collection of neutrons; the closest that can come to light is to call it radiation, but it is particle radiation not electromagnetic.  There is a difference.

                    Positive energy would imply negative energy - the closest we can come to that is a bunch or protons as opposed to electrons.  While either can produce energy, both are particles and not energy.

      2. Beelzedad profile image59
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Like, where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up as you go along? It's hilarious. lol

    5. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My soul is that part of me that keeps my body in tune with my spirit and my spirit is in direct contact with my mind and organs.

    6. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Soul and Spirit, are descriptive words to describe people's actions, and nothing more.

      Soul and Spirit are religious theology with nothing to support it.

  2. 0
    Valemanposted 5 years ago

    When people talk about the soul, they usually mean the mind, and the mind is created by the electo-chemical reactions within the brain.  So, if by soul you mean mind, then it can be said to reside in the brain.  However, because it is the creation of the brain, it cannot exist once the brain has ceased to function.

    1. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      that's my take on it too

  3. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    For any reasonable answer, you must define what you mean by "soul".  To mention that it is metaphysical is not a definition; it merely (comes close) to saying that it is imaginary.

    Some here have said it is the mind, some say it is personality, some say it is spirit (without defining spirit, either) some say that it is the same as (somehow) God but without being God.  Some say the soul drives and activates the brain and will exist forever, others say the brain activates the soul and it will die with the brain.

    What do you mean by the word "soul"?  Or are you really asking for different definitions of that word, according to individual religious beliefs?

    1. ptosis profile image80
      ptosisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know what I mean by soul - is it being concious? How do I know I am concious? Am I a zombie? unaware of determinism from biological processes with an illusion of 'free-choice'.

      1. Greg Sage profile image60
        Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        2.3cm behind the hypothalamus.

        ... assuming room temperature and sea-level.

        1. ptosis profile image80
          ptosisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ????????2.3cm behind the hypothalamus.

          ... assuming room temperature and sea-level.???????

          If referring to a part of the brain then please tell me the name of the part. Thanks!

          1. Greg Sage profile image60
            Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this


  4. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    It's a spiritual question. Outside of your ability to follow.

  5. brotheryochanan profile image61
    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago

    the soul many people believe in today: an entity almost indistinguishable from spirit; was invented by Plato and embellished by many other thinkers of the next centuries. Christians adopted this invented belief and added that with the soul and spirit and body there is evidence for the trinity of God.'

    The soul to the Hebrews was the flesh, the body. That was the soul. The animal animate.

    genesis 2:7 And the Self existent One formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul.

    Soul - nephesh H5315
    properly a breathing creature, that is animal.

    Up until Christ, humankind has been spiritually dead, especially as far as God, who is spirit, is concerned. Joel 2:23 says that in the latter days, (new dispensation - or Jesus) God will pour out his spirit. When humankind receive this spirit of God from God they then have become spiritual. Having now a spirit in their soul.

    Much intellectualizing about soul and spirit has come from the greek and roman 'think camps', but much, much indeed is far from Hebrew Scripture. Dante's inferno, shows many levels in Hell, this is not scriptural.

    1. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      a live animal as opposed to a dead one.  They didn't know what made it 'alive' so they called it the soul

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Matthew 22:37   Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

        Mark 14:34   And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

        Luke 12:19   And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.

        Luke 12:19   And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          not sure what the distinction between heart, soul & mind is. If 'soul' is personality, emotions, will etc then soul is heart (metaphor for emotions - but they did literally believe the emotions were in the organ heart) and mind. 
          A soul being sorrowful/merry = emotions

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            often i find a difference between the OT and the NT.  I find that the hebrew perspective on a word is not hellenized or, it is different than my north american interpretation. In order to understand and keep the scriptures unbroken i like to discover the Hebrew understanding of a word and i apply it to the NT.


            The immortality of the soul is foundational in Western thought, both philosophical and religious. Belief in going to heaven or hell depends on it (or does it? If the soul is immortal, cannot god unmake what He has made?)
            Notice in rev    "where the beast and false prophet are. The word are is italicized in the king james meaning that word does not appear in the original. Indeed we do not hear about the beast and false prophet again. Death and hell are thrown in here too and again we do not hear about either afterward.
            But does the Bible teach that death is the separation of body and soul or that the soul is immortal?
            The Hebrew Understanding of the Soul is a bit different from our understanding

            The Hebrew word translated "soul" in the Old Testament is nephesh, which simply means "a breathing creature." Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines nephesh as "the essence of life, the act of breathing, taking breath ... The problem with the English term 'soul' is that no actual equivalent of the term or the idea behind it is represented in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew system of thought does not include the combination or opposition of the 'body' and 'soul' which are really Greek and Latin in origin".

            The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible makes this comment on nephesh: "The word 'soul' in English, though it has to some extent naturalized the Hebrew idiom, frequently carries with it overtones, ultimately coming from philosophical Greek (Platonism) and from Orphism and Gnosticism which are absent in 'nephesh.' In the OT it never means the immortal soul, but it is essentially the life principle, or the living being, or the self as the subject of appetite, and emotion, occasionally of volition".

            That nephesh doesn't refer to an immortal soul can be seen in the way the word is used in the Old Testament. It is translated "soul" or "being" in reference to man in Genesis 2:7, but also to animals by being translated "creature" in Genesis 1:24. Nephesh is translated "body" in Leviticus 21:11 in reference to a human corpse.
            The Hebrew Scriptures state plainly that, rather than possess immortality, the soul can and does die. "The soul [nephesh] who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4, 20).

            Brief and short, in a sense, but I can see no attachment of immortality to the soul, indeed the soul seems to have an end to it, although not a specific length of time is mentioned I can see nowhere in the Hebrew OT thoughts about a soul that is immortal, living forever and ever.

  6. OutWest profile image60
    OutWestposted 5 years ago

    If you accept that we are spiritual beings then the soul could be that intangible part of ourselves that is somewhere between the flesh and spirit.  As for spirit I mean the part that lives on forever and doesn't need a phyical body. And the flesh being our phyical part that will die and has all the phyical needs like living, breathing and eating. And things like love and affection can touch both our physical and spiritual.  In other words our soul.

  7. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I don't believe in the soul as something that is literally in or connected to a specific place.

  8. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Alpha, beta etc are names we give for certain amplitudes and waveforms or electrical activity, not distinct frequencies.  They basically mean, "lots", "not so much" and "rhythmic" but of basically the same stuff.  More like the different melodies coming across the radio than different radio stations.  And the EM field of a brain is puny, a clock radio is more impressive in that sense.

    I would also note that the activities of neurons is not caused by electrons going down them but by chemical gradients moving across am membrane.  Specifically changes in the amount of sodium and potassium in or outside of the cell.

    What this has to do with the notion of the soul eludes me.

    1. jacharless profile image80
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The soul is generally termed the spirit, which would respectively be the projective force of the human being. The body being the reflective and the brain the processor (or magnetic/absorptive).


      1. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I can only assume you are speaking metaphorically, because that doesn't seem to make a lot of literal sense.

        The only thing projecting for the body is a weak electro-magnetic field and the brain itself is not magnetic in any meaningful way.

        1. TMMason profile image75
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We can measure the chi of buddist monks as they expel it for quite some distance and impact a target or person, Psyche. So?...

          1. psycheskinner profile image82
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Measure it how?  I would love to see that data.

            Generally what we project sucks so much we need gelled electrodes to even detect it.

            1. TMMason profile image75
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I will look for the studies and see if I can find them online, Psyche. I have never sought them on line, alot of other things, but not them. So I will look and post them when I do find them, if. Might take a while I am messin around with some other stuff first. The thread will be here though.

          2. earnestshub profile image86
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I for the most part agree with psycheskinner, but what you have said is interesting. smile
            which took the form of a huge lump the size of an orange protruding from my back.

            After several incisional biopsy's My doctor sent me to a Chines Doctor. I am used to going to doctors of all races performing western medicine so assumed he was just another western Doctor.

            He gave the lump chi. He then told me he could do no more to have me, and that I had cancer.

            Two things that interest me greatly.

            1. How did he know I had cancer when the biopsy's were clean. Lucky guess? Had he recognised something about the lump he had seen before that my doctor missed? I would think not, as the cancer is one that is difficult to find,, and the specialist had no idea until they found it in surgery.

            2. Within 12 hours, the lump had reduced considerably in size.
            Whatever he did or did not do, he was grey looking and exhausted after half an hour.
            Do you have a source? smile

            1. TMMason profile image75
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There is more to us, and this world, than we can see, E. I know this.

              1. 0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                know this or believe this?

              2. psycheskinner profile image82
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Of course there is, but when discussing what is thought to be in a specific place in the physical world--we generally have to use physical data.

                1. earnestshub profile image86
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  My data is certainly not proof of anything, but I am curious to know a bit more about the possibility of Chi.

                  The Chinese doctor I went to has an office that is better than most homes, down-town where the rent would keep six families! Maybe he does Western medicine to pay the bills.

                  He looked pretty crook after our chi session, so surely he wouldn't do that all day!
                  I'm going that way next week, so I may go to his office and look at his qualifications again, but as I recall he had quite a few letters after his name, and a wall covered in medical fame and glory.

                  I have no idea about the amount of reduction in size, I did not measure it.

                  1. Greg Sage profile image60
                    Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I studied Kung Fu for 12 years.  I've known dozens of instructors personally, and met hundreds.  I have never once known a singe person to master any martial art without not only an absolute belief in chi, and it's extension beyond the physical body... but specific expertise in it's manipulation.

                    I have had in-depth discussions with practitioners who in their retirement years are regularly attacked by multiple assailants simultaneously, yet never even break a sweat.  Their attackers, on the other hand, are tossed through the air like confetti at speeds too dizzying to comprehend.

                    Along the way, I have also had conversations with hundreds who know nothing of the subject, have never studied, and yet summarily dismiss those who have and do as delusional.

                    Such is the curse of the full vessel... unable to receive.  Wisdom and ego cannot occupy the same space.

                    Choose wisely, Grasshopper.

            2. TMMason profile image75
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I will try to find one. I told Psyche I would also. But am  lil busy right now... so be patient with me guys. I am having one of those nites.

        2. jacharless profile image80
          jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Quite literally in fact.

          The body does not normally project, it mostly reflects. Although it can project energy from within. The internal human projects more than anything. A simple example is heat. More complex projections are fluids from sweat, odor. Even more complex projections are emotions, strength and sexuality. And the highest projective -so far- is words, literally, in the form of singing and speaking. Not surprisingly, some sounds from stars and asteroid rings measure the same pitch and frequency of projection as the human voice, so does sand.

          The human being radiates outwardly.

          The brain is highly absorptive/magnetic as it takes in exterior data/optics, sound (all of which are products of light) as well as internal data, speed lined through the neural network and blood.


          fun stuff below.

          pulsar beat
          Singing Sand
          Sounds of Ur An Us

  9. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Did you all see that through the wormhole... the guy who states he found the soul in the Neural-tubules in the brain?

    I believe in the soul, as to where it resides?... Don't know. But that show was pretty interesting, cannot think of the guys name... mental block... damn!

  10. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    So you are saying our soul is heat, sweat and a weak EM field?

    Based on that a microwave oven has a soul?

  11. platinumOwl4 profile image45
    platinumOwl4posted 5 years ago

    I think there is a level of communication between the brain,soul and the universe.

    1. KyleBear profile image61
      KyleBearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I couldn't agree more wink

  12. Majah profile image61
    Majahposted 5 years ago

    The soul resides right beside the heart, it actually has weight, has mass, about 13 to 17 ounces.

  13. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    No matter how cutting edge science is (and I suspect that of the two of us I am the only working scientist) it deals with the measurable.  To study chi within science you would need to posit a method for measuring it.  You don't just get to call untested philosophizing science, it has to be testable to even be a hypothesis--(and a hypothesis is not in itself scientific, just an occasion to begin to do science).

    1. Greg Sage profile image60
      Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You're completely missing my point.

      If someone seeks a more scientific definition, chi is life-force.

      We do not see magnetism, yet we see two magnets move together.

      We do not see chi, yet...

      ... we plainly see every day that cells reproduce, flowers reach for the sun, and birds and bees engage in a timeless dance.  One might say that evolution is one facet of this fundamental self-organizing principle.

      It is beyond ubiquitous.  It is literally everywhere.

      Frankly, the acceptance by old-guard scientists of entropy as fact coupled with the blind eye toward being literally surrounded by things that behave in the exact opposite fashion is a comical juxtaposition.

      Life is everywhere.  Things that have live behave differently than those who don't.  Far from simply enacting pre-determined sequences of actions through electromagnetic impulses and the like, life evolves.  It creates.  We paint.  We dance.  WE ORGANIZE the world to fit our abstract concepts.

      It's literally everywhere if your eyes are open.

      It's growing on your shoe right now.

      We all see it.  I'm just giving it a name.

      We all see the magnets move.  You're just giving it a name.

      Yours is no more valid.

  14. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Life force is not a scientific concept, and things that cannot be seen even indirectly cannot be scientifically studied.

    Nor do they necessarily need to be. Science is just one way of exploring the world.

    1. Greg Sage profile image60
      Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am looking out my window and see it literally millions of times over.

      When's the last time you saw gravity?

      Yet you see things fall.

      I look out my window, and I see giant trees that formed from a tiny nut.  I see animals that formed complex systems from a tiny cell.

      You may as well be saying gravity doesn't exist.

      Your blind eye to the obvious does not negate it's existence.  The only purpose of defining chi as such is to strip the religious and scientific dogma from the subject long enough to be able to take a look at something that is axiomatic to our very existence.

      The entire REASON for such a description is to allow those who's minds are too full for their own good to allow a new concept to be seen.  If someone is so hung up on reflexively defining God as the purpose, creator, and mover of all things, most people don't have to attempt such a conversation too many times before they begin to understand what it is to be a full vessel.

      There is no point discussing anything at all with someone who is fundamentally incapable of embracing anything beyond a paradigm set in stone.

      The funny thing is, we seem programmed to recognize that in everyone but ourselves.  Looking out, we easily see it in others.  People often look at religious zealots and give up even attempting communication because the preset answer to everything is something they see as a cop-out.

      Yes, but what IS God?  How can I see him?  How can I measure him?

      It's a pointless conversation if you're talking to someone who is incapable of seeing their own paradigm limitations.

      The funny thing is, of course, that it's just the same going the other way.  Old guard scientists are truly some of the dullest and least illuminated people I know. 

      They just have a DIFFERENT set answer for everything.  Whether their crutch is "random mutation" or "the big bang" or whether they've chased their own tail down the rabbit hole so as to have a crutch who's description is so archaic that they are unable to even describe it in common sense terms, they ALL have it.

      I once asked a research geneticist about his views on the origin of life, I was shocked at the stupidity of what I heard.  Ultimately, scientists whose paradigm extends no further are no different than a 5 year old describing how a toaster works.

      Eventually, he just gets down to a catch-all buzzword.

      For a 5 year old, the rabbit hole likely ends with the word "electricity".  He thinks he's explained it.

      He hasn't.

      Why do things fall?


      Is it explained?  Is it seen?  No on all counts.

      Can we develop a theory to predict it's effects?  Yes.

      Can we develop a theory to predict cell division?  Yes.

      Can we develop a theory to predict tree growth?  Yes

      Are we literally surrounded by things that CREATE order out of chaos?  Yes.

      Does a typical old-school 9th grade science teacher have any rational explanation for that?  No.

      Does he endlessly catalog the particular ways in which it flourishes and multiplies?  Yes.

      Does he UNDERSTAND it?  No

      Yet when it is named simply for the purpose of allowing a discussion of it's existence, he proclaims "pseudoscience" as if we are the fools.

    2. Greg Sage profile image60
      Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thought I'd thank you for this nugget of sanity before letting the intellectual snobs have their dogmatic pissing contest.

      A scientist with a sense of perspective is rare these days.  It is, in my opinion, what took Einstein from good to great.

      One of the great minds I was able to sit down with in my youth was author Douglas Hofstadter.  His father was a Nobel prize winning physicist, and he was the Pulitzer prize winning author of Godel, Escher, Bach.  He was also a quite liberated thinker, and it is what fueled his creativity and made him a pioneer.  It is just such conversations that freed me from the intellectual prison I experienced as I took college level biology courses at age 11.

      I hope that others might find balance in their own lives as well.


      1. 0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Einstein was an alchemist & so was Newton.  If you look at the history of science, it has origins in alchemy (the philosophy of a dual physical-spiritual universe), departs from alchemy (by focusing on just the physical world) and in part comes back to alchemy (mainly physics eg energy, light- wave-particle duality, etc).

        Clearly, the alchemist mindset holds more meaning for you. I'm a skeptic, but I do get what you're saying.
        I would propose that religion including paganism, and any form of spirituality (including chi)  & quantum physics is alchemy at the core - the belief/philosophy that there is more to life than the physical, and that one can transform to become something better or eternal.   They all give it different names for the 'magical' thing that they don't understand.
        I researched alchemy because I was curious as to it's origins and relationship to religion & science. Even psychology & business management uses alchemy principals. 
        My rational brain says it's a load of rubbish, but I'm not too arrogant to admit that maybe there's something to it.

      2. Beelzedad profile image59
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That would certainly diminish your credibility.

        So what? Where is your "chi" science? Got any? Nada? Zilch? smile

  15. Greg Sage profile image60
    Greg Sageposted 5 years ago

    You see a motor spin.

    You say there is a force that moves it.

    You see a child dance.

    You say there is no force that moves it.

    And I'm delusional?  Your paradigm's gotta have lead walls if you can't see that SOMETHING is at work.  This is precisely what's wrong with so many so called "scientists."  All they are mentally capable of is cataloging facts.  They have no better understanding of WHY anything works than anyone else.  The only difference is that they have convinced themselves otherwise.

    A reasonably prudent person may, throughout life, try on several different philosophies as they explore spirituality, and their role in the cosimic scope of things.  The fact that a "scientist" scoffs at such a notion does not make them intelligent.  It makes them closed-minded.  The result is not knowledge, it is a lack of perspective and enlightenment.

    All too often, the terminology itself is more than enough to shut their brains off and render them incapable of learning anything new.  Whether it is the mention of God, or of spirituality, of energy...

    If you are incapable of taking a step back and seeing that this is, in fact, identical to the problem with trying to communicate with a religious zealot, then you lack the mental capacity to comprehend your own intellectual prison.

    Knee-jerk reactions to terminology only show conditioned response and an unwillingness to even attempt to move beyond semantics. 

    A child grows from a single cell, builds a company, and they build a skyscraper.

    Untold tons of raw material have now been organized to serve a higher purpose.  A single cell has now created a heat signature, and a physical structure that can be seen from space.

    The ability to measure such things from afar did not exist whatsoever just decades ago.

    Worship at the alter of science all you like, SOMETHING is happening whether you choose to recognize it or not. 

    Believe me, I get it (I wrote a hub about it) People will fight to the death to defend their dogma when it comes to religion.  The fact that many "scientists" fail to recognize the exact same behavior in themselves does not make them exempt.  It only makes them unaware.

    So... let's not call it God.  Already, the zealots will shout it down.  Of course it's God.  God alone created the world and explains our nature and purpose.

    Try this.  Take any rant where a zealot goes off, and replace the word God with the word science.  Does this start to make sense?  If not, you're not paying attention.

    What did I ACTUALLY say?

    That there EXISTS a self-organizing principle.  This is perhaps one of the most self-evident truths we could ever hope to encounter.  We cannot leave the house without seeing thousands of times over things that take disorder and turn it into order.

    One's paradigms is screwed on way too tight when one makes the jump from simply having a knee-jerk reaction every time they hear the word chi or life force or spirituality...

    ... and leaps into denying the very existence of a self-organizational principle.

    This is not prudence.  It is blindness.

    If one is lucid enough to at least open their eyes and see that there are contradictory forces... entropy and extropy if you like, then all I have done is to help the spiritually bankrupt among us by using terms they can comprehend.

    I am giving extropy a name.  I am naming it "chi."  If you are so academically minded that you are incapable of viewing the world through any other lens, then this should help.  Science for all but the cutting edge researchers is essentially cataloging.  Most scientist are nothing more than glorified librarians.  They sift through the papers of those who were able to look beyond their own nose.

    Einstein wasn't a genius because he shared these pedantic views.  He was a genius because he DIDN'T.

    You have never seen gravity.  You have never seen magnetism.  You believe the because you can see that they have an effect in the world.  A single cell that builds a skyscraper is a heck of a lot more measurable than some moving iron shavings.

    Or... go through life seeing literally every living thing around you exert an ever-present upward push toward evolution and order... toward an ever higher and more organized purpose.

    ... and say it doesn't exist.

    This is no different than seeing a rock fall to the ground thousands of times over, and denying the EXISTENCE of gravity. You may not like the WORD gravity.  You may disagree about HOW it works.  You might disagree about WHY it exists.  What would you say about someone who denies that it exists at all, however?

    Sounds like a few on here are beyond semantic filter issues, though.  This is not mere knee-jerk reaction to terminology.  There's a bigger wall obstructing the view.

    Life has a distinct, measurable, and repeatable tendency to seek and evolve towards order and self-organization.

    If the above is not patently obvious to anyone, then they are so blind to the world that any discussion is pointless.  One cannot fill an airtight vessel any more than one can teach algebra to a dog.

    If it sounds like religion to anyone then they must REALLY have deep seated issue with religion.  If it sounds like spiritual mumbo-jumbo, then ask yourself what part exactly isn't true.

    For those who are not incapable of seeing any vantage point but their own, try forgetting all of your preconceived notions of chi, and just trying on for the heck of it... that chi IS this tendency.  All I am doing is NAMING something we all see and can measure in thousands of ways all around us every day.

    1. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      the scientist would say forces & energy are involved in a dancing child - originating from chemical reactions within the child from the food they eat etc

    2. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Exceptionally well said.

      1. Beelzedad profile image59
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So, how does that "Exceptionally well said" post support his argument for chi? smile

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The well said was in support of his lambasting of the fuddy duddy inability to attempt to interpret information available.

          1. Beelzedad profile image59
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But, it was nothing but logical fallacies, strawman arguments. Do you support logical fallacies? smile

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No I do not. And I'm highly suspicious of anything I've read on chi. However, I still think what he said was well said. There are those among us who don't have their eyes opened wide enough. I was supporting him as he bemoaned the fact.

              1. Beelzedad profile image59
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps, here on these forums there are but certainly what he's claiming about scientists isn't correct at all. In fact, that kind of reasoning is exactly what we read on many science forums from crackpots and cranks who fantasize all sorts of speculations expecting others to accept them as fact, especially when they haven't got a shred of evidence to support them, like the concept of chi, for example.

                It's a philosophical argument, at best, and has little to do with science.  smile

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That argument yes, but many times I wonder if it isn't more the way the argument is presented. Some things bear more study, and can't be ruled out; no matter how far someone might go beyond the boundaries of what is fact in defense of it.

                  To scoff at anything and everything doesn't leave much room for research.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image59
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't really agree with that, especially when it comes to speculations about "unknown or unseen" forces that can't be detected or measured in any way, yet those who believe they exist continuously berate science and scientists for not taking them seriously.

                    And, it isn't a matter of just 'ruling it out' it's more of a matter of presenting evidence for the claims. If one cannot support what they believe, why should anyone take them seriously. Of course, they are free to present hard evidence, if they can. No one will deny them of that and it will be taken quite seriously.

                    To pull concepts out of thin air expecting others to take you seriously doesn't leave much room for wanting to research. Anyone can make stuff up and wrap it in a nice package. smile

    3. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Everything up to this point is nothing but strawman arguments, a complete waste of your time as it does nothing to support your case. Ranting against science and scientists only serves to remove credibility.

      Entropy has a name and it is understood, and it has nothing to do with what is defined as chi. Nice try, but completely wrong.

      And, everything else beyond that statement is just more strawman arguments and fallacies. Pointless and useless for supporting your case. smile

  16. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    You are putting a straw men.  Science can explain how a person moves without reference to chi.  Digestion, ATP, muscle fibrils.  We know how that works.

    All I am asking is that if you want to use science to add some kind of materialistic authority what you call chi, tell me how to measure it.

    If you don't want to reduce it to something measurable, you are not using it as a scientific concept, which is fine because as of now it--um--isn't one. 

    A scientific concept is one being studied by scientists.  If any scientists are in fact doing this, they would be able to tell me how the are measuring it.

    1. Greg Sage profile image60
      Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ... said the child of the toaster.

      No, in fact, we do NOT know how that works.

      I'm sorry.  Are you insinuating that science explains the drive toward order to create all of those things.

      The existence of mankind, the great pyramids, our space exploration, and you honestly believe that by breaking these things down into smaller components that we can simply use the names we've made up for those components to explain the whole?  Do you believe that the story-arc of our existence will be described by examining ever-smaller sub-atomic particles

      This is the central fallacy of science.

      Sounds just like the common misconceptions about Darwin.  Seems very few people realize he never said anything about why we evolve (not in Origin of Species anyway... he later flatly said he was being interpreted incorrectly by those looking to use natural selection as a cause rather than a process).  People's false belief that everything can be explained by science has filled in the gaps for them with technical jargon... just as God has filled it in for the religious zealots.

      They are no different.  They are no better.  They are no smarter.  They are equally closed.  They are equally blinded.

      On second thought, I stick to my original answer.  It summed up rather neatly the fact that the question itself is moot, and a mere lightening rod for equal but oppositely daft zealots.

      So here you go:

      The soul is...    2.3cm behind the hypothalamus.

      ... assuming room temperature and sea-level.

      1. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, we do know how it works.
        Drive toward order to create all of those things? Do you even understand what you meant? In other words, explain?
        Do you know how to put together a puzzle? It's the same thing, but done through structured thought, known to some people as knowledge.
        No fallacy in science. Mistakes are man made. The scientific method works and that cannot be denied.
        Your statement here shows a lack of understanding. The reason was establish as natural selection. Which means, in the natural order of things, the human species would exist.

        Why YOU exist? Is another story altogether.

      2. 0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Darwin didn't attempt to answer why, but how

  17. Greg Sage profile image60
    Greg Sageposted 5 years ago

    No, actually, I didn't it is one filled with extrapolation of scientific circular thinking gone mad.  He has done nothing but attempt to answer a philosophical question by using jargon to describe processes.  This is an answer befitting a robot, not a rational being. 

    You have completely failed to notice that he never even ADDRESSED the question, let alone answered it.  I had no doubt you would.

    Which makes my point in spades, frankly.  I had no doubt you would.

    Isn't it?

    I mean it's really mind-boggling... and predictable.

    I am neither religious nor a scientist.

    On the science side, however, I have accumulated multiple degrees, been raised in a family by two research scientists who's friends and coworkers ranged from theoretical physicists to molecular researchers.

    I've met some pretty closed minded zealots along that path.

    On the religion side, I've read nearly every holy book from nearly every religion known.  Tens of thousands of pages.  I've attended services in Catholic, Baptist, and Mormon Churches, Synagogues, and Temples.  I've meditated with Buddhists, danced with the Whirling Dervishes, discussed philosophy with Sufis, and had all- night long theology discussions with Hindus and Muslims.

    I've met some pretty closed minded zealots along that path.

    The common thread, among the zealots, however, is that they truly believe that theirs is the only truth and everyone else is deluded... and they are TRULY not only unwilling, but INCAPABLE of setting the zealotry aside even for a moment just to try on another hat momentarily... and attempt to see the world from the perspective of another.

    It's just funny, really.  Scientific and religious zealots stare each other down like enemies and are oblivious to the fact that they're staring into a mirror.

  18. Ismail Tariq profile image60
    Ismail Tariqposted 14 months ago

    Greg You're the Man. And there was one more above can't remember his name and can't go back to previous page either. Apologies.

    I'm a Muslim and after reading the entire thread,
    I've come to a layman conclusion,
    that no matter how far we can go into argument of the Existence, and non-existence of the soul,
    OR where it resides in the human being,
    It will remain a question of belief, whether or not.

    Because if we knew it, the brain might take control over in some point later.
    I don't know it sounds funny but maybe.

    So If both existence & non-existence have equal and opposite effects, go with any.
    But if we believe it exists, it seems applied in our lives,
    and we can use it to recognize a new world outside the reality-science-box.

    And if we don't believe God or Soul's existence, there might be no God/Soul working with us.

    But if we reject any independent life-force, and believe it all comes from its predetermined existence. Like it had to be. Then only we can remain in the world of our limited science.

    As a believer, I question myself sometimes, that the books from different religions
    preached about PRAYER. You pray to Lord, and it will be fulfilled.
    How advanced of a technology that a prayer would be, which originates as a wish, a non-existent material, just a command as an input data to the brain, to create its image and materialize, how it is transformed into a frequency into the universe and returned with new possibilities created out of the science.

    For Eg. It takes me rounded off 28 minutes to reach my office from home daily. And some day, an unwanted, unasked, unwished traffic block can change the timing and occurrences of my life. And so many other experiences tell me, there is an outside force which can change the rules on the planet Earth. When I pray, which is believing the unseen, my possibilities change.

    Just like that.... I believe the soul is not about being intelligent or wise or a cool personality by default. It is the same for everyone but with an ability to DECIDE a YES or NO out of a situation, a good and bad, a right or wrong, whether to be kind or rude, feeling LOVE to receive, create and share, etc. If there is any connection of an energy form (say Soul) inject into a mass (human body) and take control over the whole body including the brain, only then it would be able to Take Full Control. Otherwise, it might just be "seeing is believing".

    And question of its location in the body, it would be somewhere inside the heart or nearby, which contains blood to reach every part of the body, to-and-fro all the time, delivering so many other food contents, energy, messages, etc.   

    Although our brain takes decisions too on our conscious, but when its about the subconscious, I feel my brain is always aided by an idea or a perspective or a decision to go forward or not. That's where my brain has to take a risk WHETHER OR NOT. Maybe the soul is a chip inside the subconscious. Where is the subconscious located? I think its my heart.

    P.S. Please do not rely on the idea I just shared above, It's my own little mind, beliefs and perspective. Always curious to learn more.

  19. Ismail Tariq profile image60
    Ismail Tariqposted 14 months ago

    This might be one Islamic interpretation by Sheikh Suhaib Hassan, which also confirms some of Greg's ideas...