My problem is I cannot grasp the difference, the border between the two. From where I'm standing, my whole existence seems like a unity. The body doesn't seem to be separate from the soul. Without a body, there would be no soul, it seems.

If someone removed my brain, piece by piece, I suppose my self-awareness would fade away (or die, if I hit a particularly sensitive spot). If there is a soul separate from my body, I should somehow remain conscious during this process - as that soul - shouldn't I? Or wake up as that "other", a "higher-dimensional being" in the instant the dying process becomes irreversible. Well, I experienced this on LSD - it seems there is a trigger which is activated when that "something" decides that the body will die and this causes a flood of information related to the dying process (how it works, how to separate, how to get out). But this is difficult to verify and even harder to replicate (I had this experience only once). As my body didn't die then, this is no proof about the existence of a soul.

Nice points.

I happen to think we are entirely explaniable as material beings with no unmaterial soul.

Afterlife yea I also was forced to come to accept my passing. One time on mushrooms I was going around in circles and circles of living and dieing and then I was finally able to accept death and I was free from that trap. It was interesting.

Does anyone know any scientific theories for reincarnation? I mean, reincarnation is not a proven thing or even anything beyond a shadow of a dream, but if we found out some way or another that this was indeed happening, where would science look first to explain that?

Maybe start another thread? Or is this relevant here?

In The Holographic Universe there are several instances cited where a hypnotherapist was able to hypnotize people and they would have past life regression. Sounds like bullshit naturally, but some of these people (many of them very young, less than 10 years old) were able to tell the therapist how they died, where their body was buried and details about who they were.

Then based on what the patient had told the therapist (location of the deceased included), they would track down a matching deceased person. In several cases they had tracked down deceased people who had mortal wounds that matched the birthmarks of patients who could give very specific details on how they died BEFORE the details were confirmed by family members or things that were written about them. All these are cited.

I don't believe that I will be reincarnated, but I certainly don't know that I won't. It would be interesting to know if any leads have been found in science though.

As far as my opinion on the soul, I just don't know. I certainly don't FEEL like eyeballs, brain cells, synapses, and DNA. It seems that neuroscience is still at a loss when they try to explain how such things turn into an EXPERIENCE (correct me if I'd wrong). Makes me wonder if a tree EXPERIENCES photosynthesis?

There are some convincing stories that include people leaving their bodies and giving accurate descriptions of far away places which they've never been. For example a man went into a trance and described a shoe that lie on a ledge outside the window of a tall hospital building, IN ANOTHER STATE. When he came out of the trance they traveled to the hospital and to everyone's amazement, there was a shoe in the exact location with it's shoelaces in exactly the way he described them. Did he leave his body? I'm guessing HE's pretty convinced.

Perhaps we do have a soul and it is completely natural (not SUPERnatural). But, of course, science would need to have its way with it, and by the definition of a soul, that would be impossible.

As for death... I don't know. I hope I get to see my brother again. I think this debate enters the realm of pure philosophy (not to mention hopes and dreams). Are there any actual scientific theories on death and it's nature? Burnt, you ought to know, if there are such theories.

On a related note, I have read of a few occasions of shamans able to percieve parts of concensus reality across large distances - e.g. shamans drinking ayahuasca while holding a retreat were shown that a relative of one of the group members had died. a few days later the news was confirmed to be true.

also, what about those experiments done by the CIA on remote viewing? saw a documentary on that a few years ago, seemed pretty convincing..

stuff like this goes on a lot, it is just hard to prove, so often stays as stories and anecdotes.

That is the nature of consciousness, balaganist. I used to think it was hard to prove until I started focusing and making these things happen.
It's all the proof I need.

making what things happen?





So what these instances are suggesting is that external knowledge can be acquired by altered states of consciousness. I think this type of phenomenon is subject to scientific analysis.

I think psychedelics give you intelligence enhancing capability but I am not sure they can help you acquire knowledge that is otherwise impossible to get such as knowing whats number is on a card written in another room.

Perhaps the shamans knew there friend had a sick relative and they assumed felt she had passed and she did the night they were tripping. That doesn't confirm that they acquired the knowledge in the same way you can know a number behind a card in another room. Stories about people seeing shoes down the road from a hospital could be explained by a guy already knowing the shoe was there and just lieing about it. As far as I know some studies have been done on people having near death experiences and they were unable to acquire information about something that was always in a room where people who were really sick or whatever were placed in a hospital. I forget the exact details however.

I can't just accept these anectodal experiences as proof of soul or spirits because in principle there should be a naturalist explanation for them.



You don't have to feel like eyeballs brain cells and synapses to be made up of them. You feel the way you do and experience the way you do because of the properties of your nervous system. A tree doesn't experience photosynthesis in that way. It doesn't have any way to do that. Much like we don't feel the sugar metabolism going on within cells.

Cheers - had a fabulous time, six days straight trad and sports climbing - have to admit, after a week of camping I do appreciate being able to sleep in a proper bed again though (and have a hot shower...).

Burnt, you should get into modern philosophy, it'll blow your mind!

I wonder if a proper philosopher may laugh at these books I love, and I know I've suggested these books before, but they're great primers for those of use that have only an amateur interest and don't have time to read an entire library of philosophical waffle. They're basically philosophical comic books. The series is called 'Introducing...' then the subject of the primer, by Icon or Totem books depending on your location, and I recommend these titles for psychenauts:

Introducing...
Philosophy, Postmodernism, Consciousness, Existentialism, Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, Quantum Theory, Chaos...
(and also Nietsche, Foucault, Freud, Jung, Chomsky etc if you can)

Reading these gives you an overview of a whole field, so if you decide to start reading the actual texts of an area that interests you then you won't find yourself swallowing only what a few authors tell you, which can be a real danger in complicated fields. Please tell me if anyone else likes this series, because I'm starting to feel like an unpaid marketer for Icon books and that'd suck if no-one else is benefiting from my doing so.

As for the arguments over quantum, even the experts don't agree so no-one can say what is and isn't happening there. The important thing is that the experts do not condone any new-agey pseudoscientific claims (I assume) and it's good for people like Burnt to expose those who claim as true what cannot be known to be true (even what is known not to be true)... but make sure your own house is clean first!


No they may not be as real- I may be perceiving incorrectly. Different people interpret events and things differently. I would say they are AT MOST as real as my own existence, not at least- my perception that I exist being one which is definitely as real as my own existence. This is reminding me of Kant's 'a priori' stuff, which I admit I didn't pay enough attention to because I found my Kant book very boring.


I believe that everything we perceive is a product of matter in some way, yes, because consciousness is a product of matter, electrical impulses or whatever (actually that is an assumption, we don't know this to be true). Biological CGI mapping in the case of vision.

I was misundertood here.
I meant for the perceptions themselves, not the stuff that's being perceived.
The perceptions are at least as real as your existence. I would say that every awareness of existence that doesn't coincide with perceptions of objects, is only theoretical.

The thing is that perceptions are not the same as the objects of perception. This conclusion is inevitable.
That would then at the end lead to the conclusion that there must be something that causes the perception, wich can be some substance in the brain or a real object or an evil demon trying to delude you.

But the nature of your own existence must be compatible with the source of this perception.
So it must be compatible with the stuff of wich you exist.

Therefore eveything is material. Because it falls within the range of the stuff of wich you exist.
So even if we would be a computer simulation, this would be true, because everything of wich existence that computer generated counsciousness could become aware, would be tangible within that same program...it would be made out of the same 0's and 1's on the harddisk.

So this leaves open many possible explanations for what matter is; it could be the stuff god dreams about when he sleeps, it may be god himself, or soulles, spiritless buildingblocks, or densely concentrated energy.

Yes I agree, I would also include thought in a definition of matter, just as I would include gravity and electromagentism as matter because they are products of matter. Everything in existence is matter as far as I'm concerned, but that's just my definition.

Other people might say that no, matter is only things/atoms/ subatomic particles, and that products of matter such as gravity and electromagnetism and consciousness are outside of the definition. Maybe? My understanding of physics is not deep enough here...

I thought I would add the video link below to this thread for the quatum physics laymen (such as myself).

Quatum Physics