I have a serious question for all of you. Yes I would LOVE some feedback opinions and even arguments as long as some information gets thrown around about this.

Part 1 you have to understand there are billions of wavelengths we as humans can't see hear touch taste or even use a device to locate it. Though they exist just as the ones we have found today use to be hidden.

Part 2 you have to understand this is to prove OR disprove something that right now is highly theoretical.

Ok now for the kicker. Let us say that the soul exists or that the mind is part of something other than your body. IF that is true there should be SOME physical evidence. Meaning energy transfer HAS to be happening in order for it to fall into or physical realm WHICH it does! If it did not than it would have no influence on our day to day life doing anything would not improve the soul.
So that means there is an energy that our "soul or mind" can manipulate that our BODY can actual translate into energy such as chemical, and electrical the primary energies our physical form uses. SO somewhere in our body we are able to translate whatever energy our soul can use into the energy we use that would be the only way they could communicate. Though if it dose not exist than the soul/mind is not real and if we die the only thing that gets to go on is our energy we hold within us. Making life only important to energy and not us as individuals.

what do you think?

sorry ahead of time for spelling and grammar I am extremely tired and just want this out there

As it goes with proofs, there is not a single experiment you can generally perform to disprove the existence of something. You just cannot prove a negative. Providing evidence supporting one or the other thesis is far easier and it is the common route for science, but is never unambiguously concluding.

Direct experience is the only varification, but then it's subjective. And tho subjective, everyone possesses equal individual potential

If you're asking for a scientific proof, you are asking for the wrong approach. At best, one can observe the "objectivity" of a subjective experience and make inferences, but there's always two sides to every argument so inferences are inconclusive.

I really agree with you there Infundibulum. My objective would be to prove it exists through tangible means.

I'm not really asking for proof broken, nor am I pointing to using experience.

The goal would be to find the translator of the energy. If the spirit has any contact with the human body other than observational it has a high chance of some kind of energy transfer. This leads me to believe if the soul existed there should be something in our body that translates the energy from the soul into tangible energy the body or brain can understand. Maybe whatever it is picks up a frequency that the soul sends out like a radio wave and a piece of the brain being a tower.

Thank you for the feedback though!

My real reason for putting this here is for thoughts, ideas, or just down right tossing this idea out the window and why. I wouldn't want to further my research if someone can easily tell me why it wouldn't work that way.

because you're trying to measure the intangible, through tangible means. All measurement, is of the tangible. You can't quantify the intangible, so how can you "prove" it? You can only make some valid inferences that seem to be suggestive or supportive of your assertion.

Then again, E=mc^2, so everthing is just energy in various forms. You're basically asking how do I prove consciousness? you can't. Here's a study done on tantra, and transcendental states of awareness during tantric experiences between couples. It's a scientific study, but ultimately is inconclusive on any kind of "soul connection in deep love" because it can only measure the objective observational stuff, and the experience itself is subjective.

http://www.scribd.com/do...ation-Patricia-Taylor-2


Also, why do you want to prove/disprove the soul exists in the first place? This is not an original idea, and has been debated for centuries. Any argument to prove will have an equal argument to disprove alongside it

Scientific method is only applicable to tangible stuff, the physical reality. I studied quantum physics/optics/calculus for 5 years in college, and can tell you that as far as energy measurement devices go, the smaller the energy, the less accurate the device


...that's like trying to define love, m'kay? you can't reduce that experience to definable parameters

You can discover your own soul (not with/through the mind), but then there will be no need to prove it or disprove it to anyone else, and the journey is individual.

That makes allot more sense thanks for the breakdown. My only debate is that your assuming we have proven it's intangible? Forgive my ignorance I just started my first quantum physics class this past month. I only see that if it does exist it is using an energy outlet we are simply not familiar with yet. That is my main reason for trying to figure it out.

I really do understand where you are coming from though. I use to be 100% proven science and only build off of that. Though have recently gone through quite a spiritual journey and I honestly don't think many other people have gone through it the same way. It is a unique experience that made me who I am.

I just want to understand the energy itself.

When we speak of physics, on the anatomical level, everything in a sense is bound by the uncertainty principle. So you can't really measure the nature of the atom, to the extent that if you know it's position, you cannot know it's velocity. If you are able to detect its position in two different spots, then you can ascertain its velocity, v=d/t (distance over time) but then you won't be able to predict its position, so some things in life are simply not reduce-able to physical measurements (and what to say of spontaneous quantum states?). Furthermore, look at emotion, hate, for example... or anger, let's take anger. Anger is something completely intangible, but we are aware of its existential validity. Yet, you can't reduce anger to a quantity, any quantitative discussion over the proportions of anger given certain situations will be relative at best; relative in the sense that you can only describe varying degrees within the relation of varying situations.

If you take all of those energies combined (because they really are not separate energies, at root base they are all one energy) from emotions, and sex, and the energy involved in mind, and whatever other bodily processes that you have which are consciously guided, (including whatever desires you have, and the energy that goes towards awareness and pursuit of those desires, and dreams in the night, what to say about those? how can you measure the energy involved in dreaming? you can only measure the brain function/activation of a specific physical area, but the energy invested in dreaming itself and the expression thereof is intangible) they basically make up the person. But you can't quantify that energy, it's intangible. Here's another tricky issue... that which is aware of all of these things and their functions within you, is your consciousness... but can you make any physical measurements on awareness? It's an intangible trait (tho you can effect it through physical means by messing with the physical mechanism, i.e. the brain, but both parts are of the same system. The brain is physical conscious mechanism, consciousness within the brain is the intangible conscious mechanism), so what to say about the soul? and what to say about love? when it comes to physically asserting its existence. It's not a physical thing, so how do you plan to prove it physically? Certain measurements can be made on the physical level, like done in that study on tantric orgasms, of the perceived effects which also express themselves through your physical being, which are objective, but no measurement can ever be made about the subjectivity of the experiencer, so you cannot know the true nature of transcendental states without direct experience thereof; and without direct and personal experience, it remains theoretical at best... you yourself can never truly be sure about its subjectivity.

here is how we can prove it:
i'll kill you.

then you will know if you have a soul or not

sound good?

LOL..

I'm going to enjoy your presence greatly. Thanks for this!
So the study should be changed to finding out when the actual energy comes into focus, like the beginning creation of a thought? I suppose measuring that would be difficult or there would be substantial studies on it by now. The rest is just personal belief in the soul causing it? Thank you again.

If your aim is on measuring and proving, I suspect you will never arrive to any conclusive end that would be undeniable, to yourself. The physical exists in duality. If your aim is personal soul-searching, then truth is possible (the difference between the two; one is of the outside (of the objective), and outer perceivable phenomenon, the other is of the inside. The inner forces at play within you, and your own subjectivity... the two approaches are diametrically opposite) Of course, you could do both, but only one approach can give you the answer for your soul. The other approach will simply give you energy measuring means. We already know that the body is like a bioelectric battery, it generates its own energy (via food intake and other things consumed, as well as other subtle energies consumed through daily life... words themselves contain a subtle form of energy, some can uplift you, others can bring you down, but I think part of that mechanism is own personal reaction as well (and the origin of the words, hateful words have different impacts than loving words for example, the same energy is used for both, and the same statement can be said under both conditions, but the originating state changes its quality)

In any case to sort of answer your actual question, from whence do thoughts arise? And where do they go? I'm not sure you can measure that emptiness. If your intent is to measure the energy, you can do that, but if your intent is to discover the soul, it would need a separate approach. Also this may help;

http://www.rexresearch.com/orgone/orgone1.htm

My reply to this would have to be as follows:
The energetic link between the soul and the body (or physical reality) is thought. Is thought physical? It doesn't appear to be...however, our thoughts initiate interaction within our physical reality.

Our thoughts have no limits, they're infinite and forever changing/morphing, true essence of the soul. They are completely non-physical. Isn't it bizarre that they effect matter, which is so limited and structured?

Have a good think about that. What is thought? Where does it stem from? You will begin to realize the very act of thinking or imagining is a miracle.

That's just my opinion anyway
Nothing is certain

Peace

P.S. Thought is frequency. Matter is frequency. Thought = matter at a fundamental level

I would say soul is beyond thought, thought is function of mind, tho everything else in the above is practically true

I'm not sure if we will ever be able to scientifically prove the human soul in the body.

I'm fine with that. I'm a bit of a mystic, so I tend to lean towards my personal subjective evidence on this matter.

Has anyone heard of the Russian scientist, Konstantin Korotkov? He supposedly used Kirlian photography to capture the image of the soul leaving the body at death.

I don't know if its legit, I haven't looked into it to much, but remember some videos, interviews and articles on it.

Just thought for anyone asking these questions, this might be worth a look into.

This was allot similar to my thinking on that last post. I agree with broken on the fact soul is beyond thought. The more I think about it though the more I wonder if the soul is just our ego trying to separate and define ourselves from just one larger entity being energy itself. Just a random thought.
I'm going to take more time thinking about what I say before I say it, and I'm happy for the criticism thank you all!