How are you doing?

293 תגובות

1. I don't know where your assumption comes from that the soul has a memory. If we assume that there is a soul - and I still remained skeptical - the soul is awareness, that elusive thing that still has no artificial imitation, awareness has no memory, no character, and no opinions, awareness is nothing but it is everything because without it all humans and animals would just be sophisticated computers.

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuYrnOVmfk

3. Fingback: Chapter 7: The secret of life, part XNUMX - test

4. Soul from the word breath - there is no breath, there is no soul.

5. And by the way, regarding the moral problem you raised at the end of the story,

   In my opinion, most of the moral problems begin precisely with a lack of belief in the survival of the soul, because if that is the case, a person can do what he wants here and does not have to give an account for his actions,
   There is no logical reason for him not to be a Nazi, after all, all human morality is actually something imagined and not binding,

   And in general, I think that revelations of the soul can be found mainly in things such as consciousness, free choice, morality, as I think you did not deal with that much in this article, the fact that in this world things work through the mind does not contradict the reality of the soul,

6. Michael, your claim is not necessary at all, it is clear that when the soul in the body is limited and subject to the body only when it leaves it is it freed and can experience itself in a tangible way,
   This is not an innovation, this is the very understanding of the relationship between the soul and the body,

7. Shmulik
   What are you talking about? I don't understand the concept of a seeing soul. What is the source of the story about the clinical death?

8. The premise that soul is not matter. But the very attachment to the material limits it. For example - a soul can see vast distances, 360 degrees, etc. The eye limits it. A blind person cannot see - even though the soul was not harmed. At the moment of death the ability returns, as was documented for example in the case of a congenitally blind woman who experienced clinical death. The same in Alzeheimer

9. The Oracle of Delphi is blowing gas... I wonder what Hagai is blowing

10. Miracles:
    After he wrote what he wrote, do you expect him to explain something?
    He merely recites meaningless sentences just like the oracle of Delphi.

11. Hagai
    So how do you explain stupid?

12. The soul is perfect because the breath of life is recorded and breathed in its nostrils and the Creator is perfect and everything He gives is perfect.
    The body is lacking and it is the one that limits the soul. The body is the clothing of the soul.
    The soul has the same number of organs and tendons but spiritually and the body wraps them physically.
    The body is lacking and limits the soul, for example a blind person and not a blind soul.

13. Joseph:
    I stand by every word I wrote in the previous comment which is completely coherent.
    The connection to our ancestor and mice is also well explained and if you read again I guess you will understand.

14. Michael - I'm sorry, I think you are not very concrete in your claims. You talk about "delusional arguments" but don't really give an explanation of what arguments you are talking about.

    You compare intelligence to human hair, as if hair can grow in a vacuum, which is actually as sad a joke as intelligence. And all this lowering of the universe downwards - the universe is just a kind of game of stupid atoms that happen to lead to such and such biological and chemical phenomena. Watts goes against all of this, because this attitude brings us to war with nature, which is our habitat, and to despise ourselves as human beings, because we feel that we are just coincidences in this stupid nature, and therefore we are alienated towards it.

    Again, Watts is not talking about any God and any religious doctrine from the minus 20th century but only about what is. And what there is is reason in humans(!) therefore he comes to the conclusion that this reason is a symptom of nature. Is this a fallacious argument? If so, what is your counterargument?

    Please try to be coherent because I really don't understand what ancestor and mice have to do with it.

15. Joseph:
    Watts is talking nonsense and his words are equivalent, as I said, to the claim that the fundamental essence of the universe is the growth of hair because in all his delusional arguments the word "hair" can replace the word "consciousness" or "intelligence" or whatever you want.
    It doesn't even tickle naturalism.
    By the way, don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to talk about the "fashion" prevalent today (today!) and come to the scientists claiming that it's a 19th century fashion (and with an exclamation mark!)?
    If this is the attitude of science today - why do you expect the scientists to change it? Twentieth century nonsense?
    I also suggest you update your breathing method as you must be ashamed of yourself for breathing exactly like the common ancestor of you and the mice(!). Don't you think it's shameful?

16. Michael,

    All Watts is saying is that intelligence can be found in humans. Therefore, if reason can be found in us, as human beings, this reason is a symptom of the whole pattern of things, that is, of the fundamental essence of nature. And this is in contrast to the fashion prevalent today in scientific circles which is based on the scientific naturalism of the 19th century(!) that the energy that is at the foundation of the universe is stupid. blind energy. Because according to Watts, blind nature or stupid nature, will not grow intelligent people.

    I recommend you listen to another of his lectures on the subject - the nature of consciousness:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTK4e7aa1cI

17. Joseph:
    Unfortunately I have been absent for a long time because my time has recently been devoted to other issues.
    It is not clear to me what you are trying to say and in my opinion - it is not clear to you either.

    Man grows hair, man is part of nature, therefore nature grows hair.
    It is a collection of tautologies that has no insight.
    It is also as far as the distance east from west from Watts' direction (because his words - unlike your words - have meaning and the problem with the meaning of his words is that it is a wrong and nonsense meaning)

18. point:
    You're right. I made the assumption that I was intelligent. It's not a fact - it's just the only starting point I'm able to start with. Because if I start from the assumption "I am not intelligent" then all my insights have no meaning in the first place. Even the assumption that I am not intelligent has no basis - because it comes from something non-intelligent. This is a deep philosophical problem from which there is no way out except by assuming the opposite. And the opposite assumption is "I am intelligent".

    I didn't mention a planner. This is again a separation that claims that there is an intelligent designer who is not nature but separate from nature. That is not Watts' claim. The claim is that nature is intelligent - and that's all. Humans are intelligent, and are a characteristic of that intelligent environment. And this environment is not only the earth, but the entire universe, because the earth itself is not separate from the solar galaxy and the other galaxies.

19. point
    Don't forget that both you and Yossi (and not only you) still survive.

20. And one more thing to Yossi, you forgot a very important detail, the sophistication that you praise so much, is the result of the war of survival at the level of the individual and at the level of the species.
    In short, that intelligence is the result of countless acts of murder over 4 billion years. So it is clear that the one who manages to survive (=evolve) will be a shrewd and inclusive creature who will be very expert in survival and in exploiting the environment to his advantage.

    Only you call them wise and I call them scoundrels.

21. Joseph? Who told you that you are smart? I think we are stupid. Hence the environment supports stupidity and hence the planner is stupid.

22. R.H.:

    If you look at your hand you can see 5 fingers, but you can also see one hand. So for example, you can say that I am the thumb and the monkey is the ring finger, but you have to remember that the hand is still one hand. By calling certain shapes by names, you did not really make a separation by hand - but only for the purpose of speaking. Depends on which focus you look at things. From a narrow perspective you see the fingers and forget the hand. From a less narrow point of view, you can see both the hand and the fingers. See - it's profit.

23. Joseph
    You didn't even recognize the mistakes I made in response to you, because from the beginning you were only looking for certain words, so you could use them for propaganda.
    From your logic I understand that you are no different from anything else. In other words, you can be said to be a monkey as well.

24. OK, R.H., slowly,

    So you accept that man is part of the environment.

    The thing is that the person is not really separated from the environment, just like the apple is not separated from the apple tree. Man is part of the environment and is in fact a symptom of the environment. That is, it is created from the existing conditions in the environment.

    The environment cannot be "in part" intelligent, because the environment does not come divided. We divide it into 'things': a person, a cat, a dog, a tree. But the environment is complete and can be divided into 'things' just to talk about it. That is, it is actually a complete and non-separated field.

    Therefore, by identifying an intelligent characteristic in the environment, the entire environment can be defined as patterned. Because there is no real separation in nature - everything is one.

    Hear Israel.... The name is one!

25. Joseph

    Your conclusions are wrong.
    You wrote: Man is part of the environment.
    Hence, the environment is not necessarily intelligent. Rather, the environment is partly intelligent. (in the same part where the person is).
    If the environment is partly intelligent, it cannot be only intelligent as you define it.
    And in that part of the environment where man is not, that part of the environment cannot be intelligent.
    That's why the rest of your words don't make sense either.

    (Just a question: if a tree falls in the forest, who will hear?
    Hint: Shema Israel).

26. Michael, see:

    First assumption: Man is intelligent.
    Another assumption: man is part of nature, part of the environment.
    Conclusion: The environment is intelligent.

    In order to show me that the environment is not intelligent, you have to prove to me that man is not part of the environment.

    If you accepted the assumption that man is part of nature, then reason is also part of nature because it is a characteristic that exists in man that belongs to nature.

27. Joseph:
    What are you talking about?!
    I don't know what a "supporter of reason" is, but Watts did not speak of a "supporter of reason" but of a "woman of reason" and I never said that the world does not "support reason".
    Although, according to almost every possible definition, he is a "supporter of rocks" rather than a "supporter of reason", but that does not make him a "non-supporter of reason" and I never said that he is not a supporter of reason.

28. Michael, regarding what the myth of the soul and the self published:
    You asked why, according to Alan Watts, it is not possible for an intelligent creature to grow in a world without intelligence?
    And I would like to try and clarify why he didn't say it just like that.
    If science starts at the zero point, and tries to describe things as they are, and based on them to base predictions towards the future, then Alan Watts starts from a scientific point of view. He observes and sees, for example, that biological life would not be possible without a life-supporting environment: let's say water, or an atmosphere. The same is the case with plants. After all, you cannot grow a flower from a seed, unless you place it in soil that will support its growth. After the plant blooms - you still can't take it out of the ground because it will rot.
    To the same extent, Watts claims, that if we start from the point that we, human beings, are rational beings and this is the point where he starts, to the same extent we can assume that we are in an environment that supports reason. Because not only are we intelligent, but we maintain our intelligence, another thing that indicates a supportive environment, or a field that allows intelligence. It is true that this is a hypothesis but is it not a hypothesis based on scientific observation?

    You also said that he ignores the whole idea of ​​evolution, but that is not accurate because he is simply saying that we have distorted the idea of ​​evolution. We watched and saw that in the beginning there was only gas and stones, then plants, then life, then intelligence. But Alan Watts treats it as one process, like a seed first needs to sprout, and only at the end of the process are there flowers or fruits from it. But already in the seed all the potential lies in it. Alan Watts also throws in here the evolution at the macro level and claims that our consciousness cannot be separated from the lower consciousness of the stones.
    And to be honest, all we know about the plant, or the animal world from a biological point of view, is that the potential that exists in the seed, or in the seed drop, will develop and grow based on the information that was present in it from the beginning. It will simply take a different form. And again, based on scientific observations.
    And in exactly the same way, he claims that reason evolved from information that existed at the beginning of the process. From the potential that still existed in gases and stones.
    In his words: "All I'm saying is that minerals are a basic form of consciousness, and what the other people are saying is that consciousness is a complex form of minerals."

29. An existing one:
    Obviously - I do not accept your words.
    You said that the soul is not this and it is not that, but you did not say what it is (to say that it is the "I" is to say nothing).
    I did not define what a soul is, but I said what is necessary for it to have value in my eyes, and I showed that all the things that could give a soul value do not exist in it.

30. I wrote my response before reading other responses and I see the need for an addition. First of all, my name is Michael, but I don't write the article, sorry.
    I addressed the well-known skepticism in my previous response.
    Let's take it one step further. After all, the skeptics can doubt that the events we remember never happened, and our memory is also an illusion (and there have already been things from the past). More than that, they can doubt, maybe a certain point in time is the beginning of our existence and we come into existence with planted memories. As a baby could be born with a brain that already has data in it. And these data would appear to him as memories even though he has no past at all, but an imagination of the past. (In short, to produce a computer with structured data in its memory). Thus those skeptics, would stand at a certain point in time while contenting themselves with the existence of a past. And basically being satisfied with the existence of nothing but a moment of consciousness in the present (we only know about the future from past experience...).

    This is a simple and obvious refinement of basic skepticism, and I don't have time right now to check which philosopher is sure to formulate the problem this way.
    However, we can also be satisfied with the existence of past and future and still the 'I' (soul) will have its existence clear to us and clean enough.

    In addition, to claim that there is no meaning to the existence of a soul without memory, because it has no past in its knowledge, is like claiming that there is no meaning to the present without a past. But the present is always a moment in itself where we can think about the past and we can also think about strawberries and yet any meaning that anything ever had was in the present.

    I read a book that presents a fictional story that could happen. The story is about a woman with severe amnesia. Every morning she got up without remembering any detail of her past. She learns from scratch who she is, that she has a loving husband and that she forgets everything every night. The development of the plot is when she discovers diaries that she herself wrote in the past (the day before, etc.). There it is written that the man who told her who she was when she got up in the morning (as he does every morning) and presented himself as her devoted husband is actually a violent and abusive man (every day) who is not her husband.
    Will you say that there is no meaning to the woman's existence? Or is she a different woman the next day? We all forget things.
    Our soul is our existence, it has meaning whether we connect all the moments or not.

    The reason I believe that the soul remains after the death of the body is that the body and consciousness are two different things and there is no reason to say that when one dies the other dies. A thing abstracted from the properties of matter is not subject to the destiny of the death of matter.
    And even matter never dies but simply changes its composition or configuration as we know. So the exact definition of death (again, beyond chemistry) is the separation of the mind and the body. If matter is incorruptible, will consciousness be?

    Michael Rothschild,
    As an ultra-Orthodox person, I was very impressed by you. You don't dodge and you don't look to round corners. There are few people who maintain integrity and honesty in such fundamental matters. I look at myself and hope that I am as objective as you. I wish both of us finding the truth.
    With the blessing of the Torah-Hamat
    'I am'

31. The article poses correct questions about the concept of soul and the need for it. The truth is that the soul is the only thing in our world that we can be certain of its existence.
    The soul is the self of man. It is not the memories, nor the thoughts, nor the emotions. It is the "I" who remembers and feels and experiences.
    This is what is called in modern language consciousness. René Descartes coined the sentence "I think therefore I exist" and stated that the existence of the self is the basis of all truths revealed to man.
    We all intuitively know that there is no problem with pressing enter on a computer, but there is a problem with hurting another person. I remind you that pain from a scientific point of view (Loli of awareness) is a sequence of electrical pulses and chemical actions in the brain. Even if we program the computer to scream and squirt water (sweating), and send electrical pulses at will everywhere and also assemble chemical substances similar to the brain, there will still be no problem here. The reason is that no one has experienced all of this.
    The pain beyond a chemical action (which from an empirical-scientific point of view is all it is and it's good that way) is an abstract thing that we feel, we can never define this experience abstracted from matter (a problem known as the 'philosophers' chestnut'), we can never bring the experience itself to the laboratory , but disbelief in it is a more fundamental error than disbelief in reality as a whole. The reason we cannot bring it to the laboratory is that it occurs towards the subject in man, towards our ego. And our self is a thing that is disconnected from time and place. As we were not asked where do you like? After all, love (the experience, not the chemical phenomenon that is its external expression) has no location, length, width or weight and yet it exists, as we exist.

    from another direction,
    The skeptics ask: maybe the whole reality is an illusion in our mind, how come we really have existence all around us. This is a well-known philosophical question. I am not here to answer it, but to illustrate something with it

    Why does the question that comes to negate the entire universe have to assume the existence of the 'illusion in our mind'. I will ask a better question, maybe nothing exists and we don't exist either and that's it...
    Everyone understands that there is no more room for philosophizing, man is aware of his existence in such a clear way that there is no possibility
    ask such a question. This existence is abstract from matter. After all, a moment ago we doubted the existence of matter, yet we continued to recognize the existence of the 'I'.
    We call this abstract thing that has no possibility of ever reaching the laboratory and yet its certainty stands above all other certainty - soul.

    We call this fascinating characterization, stripped of any material property and yet an unquestionable existence - spirituality. But that's another topic.

    Extreme materialism* then, is unequivocally philosophically, the biggest nonsense that has been said or will ever be said.

    With great respect to those who seek the truth,
    Michael
    mynameismichael@walla.co.il
    *Extreme materialism holds that all existence (including man) consists of matter and can be scientifically explained and analyzed.

32. The myth of the soul and the self:
    The guy in the movie starts out saying things that make sense but at some point he switches to baseless statements.
    Why, in his opinion, is it not possible for an intelligent creature to grow in a world without intelligence?
    Just because!
    He has no reason and is just stating.
    And in his statement he ignores the whole idea of ​​evolution and the fact that this idea produces intelligence in a world that lacks intelligence even in computer systems.
    Then he builds from this the idea that stones have consciousness.
    In my opinion, this is a stupid statement, it is a statement that empties the word "consciousness" from its meaning.
    It is enough to see the definition of the word "consciousness" (for example in Wikipedia) to know that he is simply trying to replace its meaning with meaninglessness.
    My personal conclusion is that he is not looking for the truth, but is only trying to impress his listeners by making provocative statements (which, as mentioned - if you look into them, you will see that they are simply wrong).
    I stopped listening at minute 24:30

33. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQHaM8ROl4g

    Michael, what do you think about the following video...
    I will ask you to listen to him and give me your scientific opinion.

34. You know the funniest thing to me is that people think that when they die, then their soul ascends to some place and they continue their life in some place. This is the most retarded thing there is and unfortunately most of the world thinks like that. The one who really dies is man's ego, all the illusions he has learned and everything he has learned. Man simply recycles and recycling is the essence of life! It's a fact that what we were before we were born is actually matter in a different form, that's all!!!

35. Great article, every word is right!!!!!!!!

36. I see I skipped over Chain That although he was a scientist and indeed spoke nonsense, but to his credit it can be said that he died already in 1979 and said the nonsense before his death - at a time when they knew much, much, much less than today.

37. "Truth":
    1. How exactly does your comment belong here?
    2. Why do you mention the Gold? He is a staunch evolutionist who opposes all the delusional theories you are trying to sell.
    3. The Yaya closet That you are relying on his book is one of the biggest idiots in Hald and by the way - he is also a holocaust denier.
    4. Nils Eldridge He also believes in evolution
    5. The rabbis who talk about science and oppose evolution are not making small mistakes but lying Huge lies.

    In short - you are in the good company of rabbis and pious Muslims who deny the Holocaust.
    You are trying to create a presentation as if scientists who disagree with you agree with you
    ....
    ....
    But you are looking for truth!!!!

    Ha!

38. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

39. http://www.harunyahya.com/il/books/fossil/fossil03.php

40. To Michael Rothschild:

    Stephen J. Gould: Gould served as a professor of geology, zoology and the history of science at Harvard University.

    Gould was one of the most important popularizers of the life sciences

    "The fragmented equilibrium"

    Prof. Niles Eldredge, Curator of the Natural History Museum:

    Ernest Chein, winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology from the University of Oxford, states: The idea of ​​survival of the fittest is a hypothesis that is not based on any evidence and is not in line with the facts (cited by Hsu page 281)

    By the way, I'm not pretending, and the truth is I don't care to believe in evolution, because it's really convenient, so if it really was, then I want to know and understand it.
    I agree about all kinds of small mistakes by rabbis who speak on the topic of science because it is not theirs, so it turns out that they are not too precise in conveying the message and I am also against this because it sometimes confuses the people, and in my opinion those who speak in public should do a lot of homework beforehand, so Let there be no such cases. But I'm not talking to you about the rabbis, I'm talking about evolution and proof of its existence, that's all! It's a shame to draw conclusions. I'm just a person who wants to know the truth with an unbiased eye (bribery = scientific motives and religious motives)

41. Moti:
    It is impossible to read what you wrote - everything is one long string.
    If you want a reference - rewrite it like a human being - with a division into paragraphs and the like.

    Although it is impossible to read your words in depth - one very important thing is evident in them and that is that you are referring to an unfounded response you wrote to Aryeh Seter's article.
    This comment was answered in the comment after it and if you had read the answer you would have realized that there is no truth in your comment.

    Like you, I will not repeat what I wrote there. Go there, read, internalize, and then we'll talk.

42. Michael See this is my response to the article https://www.hayadan.org.il/setter-on-soul-181102/#comment-294442 of Aryeh Seter and which is true to your response No. 247. Below is the response: "When you said replication, you did not refer to desire, which in my opinion is the key word that ran throughout evolution, it is not understandable that the collection of elements and atoms that reside in harmony side by side and that make up, for example, a certain virus, They will have a common desire to continue surviving, which a car does not have for example. Is this desire something external to the above collection or does it arise from the material itself and if so, to which force can it be attributed among the four fundamental forces of nature, i.e. is it a derivative of gravity or the weak force or etc. What do you think about this? After all, if there is no desire, there is also no desire to improve the ability to survive, that is, to improve the group, that is, to transform into another improved creature, that is, "evolution." It is true that you may say that the mutations in dna are random. The same mechanism created in our mind is evolutionarily correct since it helps to turn to it in overcoming diseases and in our survival, as the Holocaust author Franklin said: "If there is something for what you can bear no matter what" that is, each person has the right to choose what is the way to go, whether the desire is external or internal ? There is no scientific theory that does not involve intuition regarding the subject under investigation. Einstein did not have any logical or mathematical way to arrive at his well-known formula. He understood it intuitively and then proved it scientifically. I will refer you to your response #18, where you said that you also feel something, but it is subjective and not realistic, and in response 247 Gammer said that this thing exists somewhere in the brain of the helmet, etc. Our intuitions and imagination allow us to stand on the properties of reality that are not revealed and are hidden from us, see Newtonian physics versus relativity .

43. Amos, thanks to the rotten secular society, your life expectancy is approaching 80 years. When religion ruled the world, in the Middle Ages, it didn't go past 30.

44. 1. B.S.D
    A bunch of idiots and cowardly barbarians and cowards with no intelligence and worthless intelligence
    That the only driving force that drives you is pride. A consequence of the failed Zionist education as you know and agree as post Zionists.
    Israel has a Torah!!! You ignore it because you do not understand it as much as possible due to your impurity, as it is written. And you invent ideas and vanities out of your dangers, your stupidity and your shameful decay. Hiding behind technology and material and sanctifying the blood that oozes in the rotten society you created out of hatred for your brothers and your people and of course your ancestors and their ancestors. And for this it is said "there is no kind of animal allowed" to speak, even the blacks in Africa know and you are not much more than them, the difference between you is that your harm is as great as your stupidity
    Father, your cowardice will not allow you to publish these things, for me it is enough that you read these things, maybe you will wake up from your ignorance
    Good night
    Amos

45. BSD
    A bunch of idiots and cowardly barbarians and cowards with no intelligence and worthless intelligence
    That the only driving force that drives you is pride. A consequence of the failed Zionist education as you know and agree as post Zionists.
    Israel has a Torah!!! You ignore it because you do not understand it as much as possible due to your impurity, as it is written. And you invent ideas and vanities out of your dangers, your stupidity and your shameful decay. Hiding behind technology and material and sanctifying the blood that oozes in the rotten society you created out of hatred for your brothers and your people and of course your ancestors and their ancestors. And for this it is said "there is no kind of animal allowed" to speak, even the blacks in Africa know and you are not much more than them, the difference between you is that your harm is as great as your stupidity
    Father, your cowardice will not allow you to publish these things, for me it is enough that you read these things, maybe you will wake up from your ignorance
    Good night
    Amos

46. Watch an interesting link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

47. http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html

48. Although it does not belong to the topic, but my love for mathematics made me look for the golden ratio in an elaborate pentagon anyway.
    I found it in two places.
    One is the ratio between the length of the diagonal and the length of the side (as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_pentagon)
    The second is that if I didn't make a mistake in the calculation then the ratio between the radius of the circle blocked by a perfect pentagon and the radius of the circle blocking it is half of the golden ratio.
    Of course there is nothing mystical here and everything is the result of a simple mathematical calculation.

49. Daniel:
    Regarding what you defined as the "interesting part" of the response - I did not respond to it for two reasons:
    1. Because basically I agree with him and I have written similar things on different occasions.
    2. Because I am involved in more than enough "wars" on religious issues and my policy is to never be on the side that starts a war (I do not give up when the other side starts it, but I myself do not want to be a partner in initiating it)

    Planted:
    And the unknown "sources" will remain a secret? Do you want us to not even have the slightest chance to understand what you are talking about?

50. Machel
    Yes, a complete mistake and a waste of time to try to explain

51. Michael,

    You skipped the interesting part of my response so I allowed myself to ignore the endless discussion about soul, whether there is or not. I'm sure I didn't miss anything. I would give all my possessions on earth plus two kidneys and a liver as a bonus to someone who would convince me that existence does not end in death, but I'm afraid that's impossible.

    And in general, trying to reason with people of faith is pointless. In fact, the mistake is yours, Michael, that you even start this discussion. But if so, how about the other part of my previous comment?

52. I didn't really understand the connection between mathematical connections and the invention of a soul, after all if that is the meaning of a soul then there is no real need for it.

53. connoisseur:
    Since anyone can read what's there - I don't think it's appropriate to argue with you.
    Anyone interested is welcome to read and see for themselves.

54. It's hard to argue with an irrational person.

    You do not refute the studies he presented to you and the multitude of reliable testimonies.

    You just shut up

55. Planted:
    As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is over.
    No matter what you are trying to show. You don't show it.
    You don't seem to understand what I'm saying (the connection you pointed to between the numbers is as random as any other connection and what makes it unique is only the fact that you were referring to it).
    Anyway - things have nothing to do with the soul and you have not explained what you mean when you use this word.
    You also refuse to point to the "professional" literature and as I have already said - my time is being wasted.

56. Machel
    The scientist specifically referred to the existence or non-existence of private supervision according to his view.
    And that's what I was referring to.
    He did not address the matter of the soul as you present it. On the contrary, as far as I understand, he is looking for clues to the existence of a transcendent entity and how to understand the connection between it and what is happening in the brain.

57. Machel
    Of course you can provide endless micro contacts.
    In such a case it is no different from looking for ciphers in an encyclopedia.
    A random connection cannot account for an explanation of another connection that also seems to be random or random. The result is a tautology.
    I don't think you can provide a non-trivial formula or algorithm that matches any sequence of digits to the decimal part of an irrational number.
    As there is no non-trivial connection between the root of 5 and the pentagon.

58. connoisseur:
    You forgot to recommend to people to read the continuation of the discussion in which Moshe K's words are refuted.

59. Planted:
    How can you say that the relationship is permanent and monovalent when I tell you that I can create as many relationships as you want?!
    You think about a certain connection and you don't actually ask "What's the connection?" But "what is the connection I'm thinking about?"
    I admit that I am not equipped with the means to read minds.

    Mathematics has an answer to many questions, but it does not have an answer to questions like "What is Neta thinking?"

    Even the question with the root of five has many possible answers, but you again expect mathematics to read your mind.

    It will not happen.

    The conclusions of the religious neuroscientist (not the physicist) are that a soul that is not connected to the body does not exist.

    Why are you reluctant to mention your sources?

    Are you ashamed that we will see what it is about?

60. This is a CASH mechanism.

61. Avi Blizovsky:
    When I browsed the site from another computer that I did not comment through, I searched and did not find my comments, they were omitted.
    why?

62. Machel
    I meant the root 5 that appears in the calculation of the golden ratio
    (0.5^5 + 1)*0.5
    The question is whether it is possible to find what is the relationship of this to 1/5 radians that appears in all the geometric shapes pentagons and triangles in which the golden ratio appears again and again.
    The fact that connections are proven does not provide the big picture of the underlying cause.
    You will find a tangible example of this in the term "moonlight monster" coined by the English mathematician Conway who initiated the Sporadic Cluster Atlas. He thereby referred to the hypothesis of the existence of a "crazy" relationship between the largest group and the modular function. (which was finally proved by Borges using vertex algebra, for which he received the Fields Medal)
    To this day, Conway maintains that the causality of this relationship cannot be explained.

63. Yedan, Michal:
    Observations do not provide understanding or meaning. It seems to me that Machal also thinks that it is necessary to provide a plausible explanation for these observations.

64. Machel
    For response 227 continue-
    His opinion is very compatible with the direction I tried to present here.
    He gave two points that he believed in. I will refer to the first one who says that there is no supreme being who intervenes in my daily life and manages it. This is absolutely true.
    But it is not impossible that there is such an entity that manages all matters without being able to recognize that such management exists.
    That's why I brought the numerical example.
    Because this entity operates through misnumbers and connections of the above type on the fringes of the central order. That entity knows how to tie all those seemingly random things and cast them into the main and central constants without being able to feel how it did it.
    Because you don't have the methodology and thinking ability to solve such things.

65. Commentator Moshe K. Brought observations that refute the arguments of the above article

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/#comment-281990

    To continue dealing with such philosophical questions when there are findings in reality is like discussing the issue that the earth is flat. – interesting but not relevant

66. Machel
    The relationship between these half-numbers and constants is well defined and is one-valued.
    I brought this as an example of a type of relationship that cannot be developed to find the nature of the relationship.
    or in some other way you will not be able to provide a reason or understanding that will explain the essence of this relationship in a broad generalization.
    By the way, the connection is completely simple:
    Take the infinite open of each of the above constants and also pi (the golden ratio)
    Skip the first 2 characters, i.e. what is to the left of opening the decimal including the period.
    Skip 18 characters and extract the next 11 digits.
    Mathematics has no answer to questions of this kind.
    As well as to the question of what is the connection between root 5 and the fact that the golden ratio was created in pentacles.
    Can you explain causality or provide a formula that explains this identity.
    —> Back to the matter of the essence of the soul: according to the sources, it is one that provides solutions and connections of this kind.
    Regarding the conclusions of the religious physicist, this is definitely a start and definitely in the right direction in my humble opinion. But there is a continuation because this is a much more complex matter.

67. Regarding response 225:
    Did you see his conclusions at the end of the segment (when he was asked about "How does this fit with religion?")?

68. Planted:
    I must tell you that I observed that among the constants you refer to are also e and pi.
    I didn't even bother to think about the question and I won't bother either because, as mentioned, you can justify whatever you want.
    The most famous formula that connects mathematical constants connects e. Pi, i and 1 But as mentioned - you can tie anything you want, so the question (unlike the formula I'm talking about) is not interesting

69. Machel
    I watched this great episode

70. Machel
    The relationship is univalent.
    At your request.
    One of them is related to pie.
    the second to e
    the third ?
    But how?

71. Planted:
    And on occasion - you should watch the following link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page

72. Planted:
    I suggest that you mention the names of some of the books you are talking about because it seems to me that we are just wasting my time.

73. Planted:
    There is no problem deciding which natural constants you want and building a series in which the first member is the first constant, the second member is the second constant, the third member is the third constant, then the three numbers you gave and then the constants in reverse order.
    In short, you can justify anything you want in this way.

74. Machel
    To response 218
    That's why I try to explain it using the numerical example. By the way, number 2-18 is related to the above example.

75. Machel
    Although true but... these numbers are specifically related to three famous constants in nature.
    Can you find these too? Can you produce an algorithm that finds I don't think so.

76. And as for the "definition" from response 215:
    I must say that to me it is a meaningless word

77. The fact that there is an extensive literature pretending to be serious does not make it serious.
    All the serious literature I know denies the issue.
    This is scientific literature and in my opinion the only method by which we can identify true knowledge is the scientific method.
    Regarding the three numbers you gave - you will be surprised but I can decide that the next number is 1 and give you an algorithm that explains why and at the same time I can determine that the next number is 3.14 and give another algorithm that will justify it or determine that the next number is 123456 and give an algorithm that will justify it.
    None of these algorithms is more correct than the other and in fact the question "what is the next number" has any answer we want.

78. Machel
    The sources say that Anfa is seriously engaged in these areas.
    Unfortunately I had trouble explaining as you indicate.
    I will try another example. Let's say you look at the following numbers.
    20458683436
    36028747135
    46264338327
    Can you find the connection between them or the meaning of each such number.
    (Of course, there is such a clear connection. When you see the answer, you will be able to prove it)
    Even if I tell you the answer, in my humble opinion you will not be able to create an algorithm that will take numbers like these and find their relationship.
    The essence of the soul deals with the natural but hidden connection that is able to immediately see such kind of connections.
    Hope this explanation is a little better.

79. Machel
    In conclusion, the essence of the soul represents all types of experiences and insights that there is no way to generalize them and define them locally. Its level of complexity is beyond what can be represented through any symmetries. It represents what is outside the order, what binds together the symmetries and the orders.

80. Planted:
    Excellent explanation.
    It's a fact that I didn't understand anything.
    What are these "sources" that you draw your words from?

81. Machel
    Your explanation denies the existence of a soul and characterizes its existence as an effect of the complexity of the physical mind. That's how I understood your words.
    But the locality approach (as an effect of a physical part) does not correspond to the definition in the sources dealing with the subject.
    According to this the essence of the soul is a large-scale global assembly of the existence behind the physical existence. The reincarnations are not a transition from one state to another but a single assembly of all the reincarnations that take place at the same time.
    Furthermore, the use of the idea of ​​rolling is done to express the property of the relationship between randomness and an ordered system. Similar to a trajectory created by random movement on a painted surface. This approach means that it doesn't matter if the patterns on the surface are ordered or random, but when you check the overall trajectory of the random gear you will get meaning. You will get an order that has meaning. You will get an image that can be understood.
    Hope I explained the analogy well enough.

82. Daniel:
    I'm not sure you have to protest.
    one of the two:
    Or Tami is lying (and then - that's precisely what you must protest)
    Or she suffers from a mental illness (then it is true that she should be hospitalized. Many people's lives have been saved thanks to the fact that they were hospitalized or lunatics lived around them.)
    Besides - I guess you are willing to defend Raul's right to express his opinion as well, aren't you?

    I have already expressed in one of the comments in the past my opinion on mechanisms of the type you describe as a possible solution.
    These are not only unnecessary assumptions, but very unreasonable assumptions.
    Since specific memories can be erased - the meaning of these assumptions is that each specific memory has its own retrieval mechanism, or in other words, that the retrieval mechanism itself is another (third, according to you) expression of that memory.
    In any case - the physical memory develops as a result of life experience and is built in each person in a way that distinguishes his life experience. How can such a physical memory develop spontaneously in a person who has not experienced the things?
    In general, as I have already mentioned, any model proposed to solve this problem will, by simple translation, also be a model for the claim that genes do not carry the body's properties.

83. Peace,

    Raul - I have to protest. As a person who advocates for freedom, I am ready to fight for Tami's right to say all the crazy nonsense she wants as long as she does not interfere in my affairs, and I am against locking people in psychiatric institutions in general.

    Michael,

    I agree with what you are saying and your argument is very nice. I can of course propose a model that would solve the problem: suppose the soul has two parts, one "eternal" and one that merges with your physical body in this incarnation. The memory of this incarnation is stored in the body - in the brain or anywhere else - and damage to the body will destroy the memory but not its reflection in the soul, although the ability to retrieve it will be impaired, as long as the soul is bound to a damaged body.

    But of course, the model that proposes the existence of souls requires us to accept too many factors whose existence cannot be proven - God, the next world, souls - when there is an alternative model that is much simpler and cynical: eternal life is the lie that is sold to you so that you give up, in this world, the only one We once saw evidence of its existence, on parts of your freedom and individuality, so that it would be easier for you to come to terms with a binding reality. So what if it was written in books thousands of years ago? People lied even then, and these lies have very clear motives - power and spiritual control over people.

    Another interesting thing - it seems that this is how our civilization arose. The forces that drove people to unite into a social body much larger than the small tribal society to which they were genetically adapted were, on the one hand, necessity: the struggle for limited living spaces pushed groups of people to migrate to places that were not hospitable (one of the names of the Shomirs for their land was "the land that the gods forsaken"), and they developed the agriculture and established a complex social mechanism to enable the existence of intensive agriculture as a survival response. So, of course, a struggle began that intensified between such organizations for resources, while the evolutionary pressure caused the development of more and more complex mechanisms, and therefore stronger and larger. Those of him who stood in competition were expelled or, more often, subdued and assimilated. The second force, actually a tool, was religion. People invented deities to give them the authority to command and organize other people. And it is understood that such great beings needed ethos to show how mighty and important and benevolent they are, and that they would punish those who disobeyed them. The ancient Sumerian society was entirely religious. The high priest ruled the city and the lands. Even with the development of much more advanced societies that dared to even question the existence of gods, even nowadays, when it seems that there is no longer any reason to believe in God, it still seems that the majority of the human race believes in one god or another. Because religion is the greatest driving force of culture.

84. scion:
    Nice to meet you here.
    Again: I do not claim that there is a proof here in the mathematical sense of the word, but only a proof of the kind that the whole world is satisfied with when it recognizes the claim that the genes carry the properties of the body.
    We all know that there is no "proof" in any field of science and we have to make do with confirmations.
    After all, it can be equally argued that the other features of the body also require a corresponding feature in the soul and the genes are not enough.

85. Michael I guess you know I don't believe in souls and all.

    In my opinion, you did not contradict the assumption that souls are resurrected. I don't think it can or should be contradicted either.

    Again, let's examine all the reasons a person can have paralysis (in his hand, for example)

    Can he suffer from paralysis due to the amputation of his hand, due to muscle damage, due to neurological damage, due to brain damage, etc.

    That is, something like the movement of the right hand can require more than one body part.
    Why can't memory, for example, require a brain as well as a soul?

    (Regardless - we are discussing nonsense. It is also impossible to prove the non-existence of a pink elephant that looks flying and massless playing with a trombone the special song of each person that only pink elephants that look flying and massless can hear. The existence of souls is no different from their existence of flying elephants simply souls have better PR)

86. Tammy Goldstein, it's simply unbelievable that people like you are not hospitalized in an institution, you must be suffering
    from schizophrenia.

    And to the author of response 206, this is exactly where you were revealed to us [not before me, I grew up in an ultra-Orthodox home and hundreds of times
    The debate became emotional and personal, but I always brought the last logical argument in the debate]
    You are petty people, everything with you starts with emotion long before logic.
    Always but always in all debates, you say half a word here and a word there, without explanation but just an argument.
    You don't bother to go into detail, because in your world it's true and clear, you think half a word will explain everything
    You speak your own language, but with you it all started with emotion and not logic.

    And when they bring you proofs and explain to you that you are wrong, logic only later joined the thought
    leaving again And the part that pushed you to think that way in the first place feels threatened, and makes you deny the son
    A person you argue with.

    Hundreds of times I argued with rabbis in my life, and I was always right in the end, and a mutation always developed,
    that helped the Fatti side that in the first place helped them deceive themselves to survive.

    By the way Michael you sound very smart, keep giving them logic.

87. Spirit disturbed:
    I wouldn't even buy the spelling of my name from you.
    By the way - the fact that you don't understand the explanation is actually to his credit.

88. To Michael Rothschild:
    You've written a lot and still haven't explained anything. as usual.

    PS: How ugly you are, I wouldn't even buy a pack of cigarettes from you 🙂

89. Tammy:
    And how do you intend to convince us that you are not hallucinating?
    Do you know that if you prove it there is a million dollar reward waiting for you?
    http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

90. Peace
    I read the article and the comments and it is indeed interesting...
    I see souls, they talk to me.
    I don't know why they remember some things and not others.
    I don't know why they show me certain things and not others.
    I don't know why some of them come wrapped in light in different colors, some are so bright that my eyes hurt
    And another part appears as humans for everything.
    But one thing is clear beyond any doubt -
    I see souls when they want to be seen by me, and they converse with me.
    I have no explanation, and I suppose another logic is needed to understand it,
    And perhaps cannot be understood by human means.
    And by the way, 🙂 I am completely sane, intelligent and human just like the author of the article and his commenters.
    So what is there to say... and nevertheless, sob sob...

91. An act of a fisherman who catches fish with a strainer with millimeter-sized holes in it.
    A 'scientific' explanation - since we did not find any fish smaller than a millimeter in the basket, then there are no fish smaller than a millimeter in the world.
    The error - if you tested with the wrong tools, check where the strainer has narrower holes.

    In our case, beyond the fact that you took the example I threw aside, and ignored the analysis I gave to the objectivity of your article, you ignored the main content - you can't test something you don't know what it is with tools that aren't designed for that, claiming 'this is what I have'.

    It should be noted that your last paragraph implies that you did understand the correctness of my words and found a cultural way to escape.

92. Tzviki:
    Really cool.
    Our entire understanding of the world has been achieved by deciphering things we didn't understand before so what you say I can't do is all we've always done.
    If you say that the information in the right corner of the screen is lost and applies it to memory - this means that the same information is always displayed in the right corner and that this corner was built especially for that memory.
    abandoned.
    I will not continue to devote time to you.

93. Indeed, as you said, I do not know how to read a sentence that does not appear anywhere in the article.

    I expected you to come to the light of things,

    We will go with the second opinion which you called 'evasion' (by the way subjectively within an objective presentation).
    The opinion - the soul remembers, but the brain is used as a means of operation or presentation (something similar to a computer screen that reflects the box).

    And this is where his honor comes and wonders, if the soul remembers then how is it possible that an injury to place X in the brain will cause certain things to be forgotten.
    In this regard, I wondered how it is possible to discuss something that you do not know what it is (the soul), and the way it works (how exactly does the mind communicate and manipulate what is in the soul) from terms and concepts of things you know from the natural and scientific world?

    Just as an example we will use the example of the computer and the screen that I gave, if you remove the light bulb that illuminates the right corner of the screen (assume that the rest of the screen will work, this is a technical issue that is not relevant), then the information will remain stored on the computer and will not appear.

    Tzviki

94. Tzviki:
    mozar.
    There are people who can't read who still find it appropriate to respond.
    Indeed, amusing.
    Nowhere in the article does the sentence you are making fun of appear.

95. mozar.
    The respected writer does not know what a soul is and he wonders 'if there is a soul then how is it possible that....'
    Indeed, amusing.

96. https://www.hayadan.org.il/blood-is-the-soul-0808099/#comment-241389

97. I also recommend the book Time and Consciousness by Avshalom Elitzur, an excellent book, and I am not exaggerating. Those who haven't read should run to buy because the publishing house of the Ministry of Defense has closed and there won't be any more editions.
    And no I don't get percentages.

98. lion:
    I did'nt read.
    One of the things I like about the Broadcast University books is that they are short.
    I will buy the book at the first opportunity.
    Thanks for the recommendation.

99. Michael. Coming back to this article of yours, regarding the comments, I found here in one of your comments that you would not want to try teleportation. Have you read Avshalom Elitzur's book, published by the Broadcasting University, "Time and Consciousness" in which he links the puzzle of time with the puzzle of consciousness? If not, then it is recommended.
    There he also brings up the issue you brought up in teleportation, but in the context of a duplication offer - let's come and record your brain and memories, kill you, and become your duplicate, who will receive 10 million, ready? OK. He enters the laboratory and after being scanned, he is informed that his double is actually already ready in the other room... and then he is called...

100. To Aria, who secretly asked me:
     A) It's nice that you found out.
     b) Do you lightly doubt that the words that come out of my mouth are devoid of content, awareness, interest, correct intention, and truthfulness, presence and commitment?
     But, the main thing is that you know what mica is.
     And the recipient, for whom the matter was written, understands, also understands.

101. Hugin This is the anonymous me from above. I do not know what the meaning of the words in your response is, in any case I did not receive an answer to my question. But in the meantime I received from another source (Google) the answer: the mineral mica - mica is used as one of the spiritual crystals... I, on the other hand, know this mineral from technological pursuits. There is a type of capacitor (electrical component) whose insulation is made of this mineral.

102. The recipient understands the signs of interest and the spirit of things.
     The recipient: the subject 'Name' is impersonal and 'binding'.
     As a matter of fact: 'spirit' is the rule of truth.

103. It's nice that you know that mica is mica. Not many people know this and where are you from? And what does it matter?

104. Michael:
     I have sworn, and I have sworn enough, from the souls of fragments of Aloha/ where you are tangled and all the 'debris' from the lofty and living heavens, protect your 'name' from those who insult my spirit.
     The day is near when I *must* cast my turn, and turn away from here.
     Believe and believe yourself, for the good of the common good.
     Don't fall into the pitfalls, which are no longer useful.
     *mica*/mica

105. I think that today's article in the science about plasma-like shock waves emitted from a singular black hole is an outstanding illustration, a real gift, to explain the phenomenon of the breaking of the 'treasured soul memory' of a central 'being' in a state of gravitational collapse and the exit or emission of an 'ether' from him/her And further for the purpose of 'merging' with associated and possibly distant external factors in order to enable the continuity of the dance of life/universe.
     Again in the Haykish view: a black hole is similar to a 'black box' that stores all the information, knowledge, and scenarios that have passed through that 'gram' in his life.
     The survival of that 'gram' for its continuity is given to its ability to release the 'treasure embodied in it' which is the "essence of the soul" and take it out as a hose with all the information into a renewed mixing space mixed with a dash of 'primordial innocence' for the purpose of its regeneration and fusion with another living 'gram' or gram Being in a similar state in synchronic alignment creating a renewal of lives/universes/worlds/continuities wherever they are.
     *It is said about 'Adam' that he is a mirror of the entire universe.
     We wish the society the girls and renewal in preparation for our birthday: as a country also called: 'The Woman of the Nations', it is the 'State of Israel'.
     And to Michael: to you too, may you continue to philosophize high and low like the swings of the sky, the waves and the flags, with the dash of good mood necessary for that matter. :)

106. What has changed:
     As far as I'm concerned, nothing has changed here except the commenter's name.
     I did not find any real content in the words except a stupid attempt to claim that I am not a spiritual person.
     Of course, nothing will change by not "what will change" ordain spiritual people in our places.
     In addition to this, I will go back and state my opinion that the "humanities" are usually nonsense in disguise and only in them is the phenomenon of extorting a sexual bribe for Zion possible (well - with another word instead of "sexual bribe" a nice play on words is obtained here - something reminiscent of "go ahead" ).
     In real sciences there is no such possibility because in them science is truly science and does not admit or is a means of blackmail. If there is a dispute about the answer - there are objective ways to determine who is right.

107. In the context of the book: "An answer to every question" and the article 'What a Soul'.
     Paradoxically and perhaps regrettably, if the writer of the article had gotten to know the writer who passed away, he probably wouldn't have loved him.
     Sometimes, it is precisely the visual failure to recognize realities at a certain level of being that makes it the "holy of holies."
     It is possible that anything of eternal value, when proof is sought for it, 'diminishes' to a 'thing' or 'something' or 'gram' or 'nothing' is so weak, sensitive and vulnerable that its 'insignificance' is necessary in order for it to be cherished as the most precious or the "Holy of Holies" "Until those left behind, as living heirs continue and trace his disappearing footsteps.
     It is possible that this is how people full of awe and respect in every living thing see God's secret and thereby strengthen them.
     The eternal soul-spirit of God, as living memories, is the main essence that gives them power.
     The actual spirit of the 'walkers' even if unattainable to 'perception', nevertheless gives strength to those who believe in them (their lovers - in the heart).
     So is probably the Bible as the book of books (memories and commemorations).
     So is God.
     Thus his soul-as their eternal soul in our soul.
     In my opinion, the essence of the soul has its place in the humanities and to the extent that a judge is interested in investigating the matter, he must also be a real spiritual person in order to trace that mystery, otherwise he may miss the main point.
     And in general: the matters of the perception of the 'matter' are more related to the brain-head and the neurons and the matters of the 'rest of the spirit and soul' are related to the memory system of the cellular blood and the brain-heart center.
     The beauty in the heart of Judaism, all of Israel, that it touches both the material and the soul of the spirit (both the mind and especially the heart as the center, for the eternal wisdom and all the branches, like the rest of all the teachings of the peoples related to it with a hidden and sensitive affinity).

108. Samuel:
     Anyway - it sounds like just a story to me and the serious problem is that he is trying to sell himself as the truth.
     If it is possible to restore the memories in hypnosis in a new body - it should be possible in the same body as well.
     The fact is that this method does not work and therefore the whole story cannot be true.
     It is sometimes possible to restore a memory in hypnosis, but not a memory that was physically erased as a result of brain damage.

109. Michael
     The soul described in the books is not used as a backup device
     But I would certainly expect a person who has lost part of his memory to be able to tell under hypnosis some of his memories. And I'm not sure there aren't such cases.
     What is beautiful about the story is that it is completely opposite to the concept of Christianity, Islam and also Judaism
     A concept that puts our existence in the center, and it is our behavior in this world that will determine what our destiny will be in the future. In the book's view, life in this world is something marginal (a kind of summer camp with lots of adventures) in a much bigger and wider world.

110. Roy and Michael
     You may be right about hypnosis
     This is also why Newton does not pretend to present his books as scientific truth
     It's still worth reading the book (even if it's a fascinating sci-fi story)

111. Samuel:
     In relation to response 179.
     Of course there is a connection, but this connection bothers you and that's why you say it doesn't exist.
     After all, I did not intend to describe a connection that confirms your claims while I claim that they are wrong. I only intended to describe a real thing that for almost every need we identify with our soul that is indeed a "parasite" on our mind.
     Of course, the huge difference is between something that has many evidences and the logic behind it is solid and something else that has many refutations and no logic behind it.

112. Samuel:
     Indeed, as Roy wrote, it is known that hypnosis is not a reliable tool.
     Roy talks about the interesting tip of the iceberg that has much less sophisticated edges as well.
     For example, cases were also discovered where the hypnotist deliberately planted things in the hypnotized's memory.
     Beyond that - not only is the hypnotist sensitive to the will of the hypnotist - the book is literally enslaved to the will of the writer and if he wants to report on an event that did not happen there is nothing preventing him from doing so.
     I wonder if Michael Newton tells the names of his patients. Brian Weiss hides them - supposedly for reasons of medical confidentiality, although there is no shame in being the first discovered "proof" of reincarnation. I wonder if Michael Newton uses the same method to avoid peer review.

     When a person forgets things as a result of an accident, his memories cannot be restored through hypnosis.
     Doesn't that also seem to you to be in contradiction with Michael Newton's claim?
     I am indeed shooting at the darkness - probably because the darkness is the content of the book - but it seems to me that I am offending.

113. Shmuel,

     Are you aware that under hypnosis, the subject is particularly sensitive to the mood of the examiner, and in some cases tries to adapt his words to the will of the hypnotist?

     This is why evidence obtained from hypnosis is not usually accepted in court.

     Why, then, should we believe such testimonies in the book?

114. Just so you understand, he is talking about events that happen between incarnations.
     And apparently the connection under hypnosis is with the parasite who is experiencing the memories

115. Sorry, there is no connection between the memes and the mentioned soul

116. Thanks for the link
     Read the book
     You are literally shooting blind

117. Samuel:
     Something about memes you can read HERE:

118. Samuel:
     He says that he interrogates people with hypnosis. There's a difference. It may be true but then it's clear that they worked on him or he worked on himself because they told him what they remembered from previous incarnations - right? After all, it is not possible to remember previous incarnations using a mind that has not experienced them.
     I don't think you are even addressing the arguments I made.

119. Michael
     He interrogates people under hypnosis

120. Samuel:
     You can suck any story you want, but I'm sure that Michael Newton also bases his words on things that people supposedly remember from previous incarnations.
     This is also implied by the comments I read on Amazon about his book.
     If these are the findings on which it is based and if these findings are not possible, then it is a waste of time to spend reading the book more than it is a waste of time for the debate.

121. Michael
     Too bad to argue
     Read the book and then try to refute or try to prove that it is wrong
     Why is the nanny interview absurd?
     because you say so?
     Who says that when the soul is reincarnated into a different brain, memories from the previous incarnation are remembered? That's not what the book says.
     To take an interview from people you are fooling (I assume) and you are trying to disprove a theory that you previously decided was unfounded based on a very general description I gave, is not serious.
     The book claims that the "parasite" is connected to our brain, experiences our experiences and yes, reproduces our memories and when the brain of the animal (our body) is damaged the connection with the parasite can be damaged to the point of complete disconnection, and the animal can continue to live, a rather miserable life

     I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me on the topic of memes.
     Thanks in advance

122. Samuel:
     I will start with what seems to me to be wrong, which is the claim that memory is preserved in the soul.
     If it is preserved in the soul - how is it that an injury to the brain eliminates it?
     A brain injury can wipe out a specific memory and leave the others.
     This means that each specific memory has a corresponding unique structure in the brain.
     If you want to claim that the same memory is kept in two places (something that is very unthinkable in itself) you have to explain how it is that people whose soul was reincarnated and whose brain is completely different (because it was shaped by a completely different life) suddenly remember the same memory even though it is not in their mind No part that remembers him.
     You just have to decide: if the brain is not necessary for memory then the injured person should have remembered. If the brain is necessary for memory then the incarnation cannot remember. This is a contradiction that you do not answer.
     The idea of ​​the soul as a parasite is actually a twisted cycle of the correct and constructive idea of ​​memes - the collection of ideas that undergo evolution just like genes and all their "lives" exist in our minds, but while the idea of ​​memes describes an understandable, correct and proven situation, the idea of ​​the parasitic soul is absurd.

123. big time
     The soul is a kind of parasite that wears on the brain
     Part of the thought is ours and part is his, together it is us
     The parasite (which is us the wise) is aware of the animal's feelings
     Therefore damage to the animal's brain does not damage the parasite's knowledge at all, it can damage the relationship with the parasite
     The parasite is the one that goes on in incarnations.
     The whole business describes a kind of civilization (of the souls) very high and fascinating
     (Regarding the soul as a parasite was my experience when I read the book)
     There is also a clear statement that they are dealing with genetics on Earth
     Read the book. If you are convinced that the man is not a fraud, then there is a very interesting theory here.
     The man is a psychiatrist who treats hypnosis and he received the information from hundreds of patients
     and documented in detail the treatment of twenty or so cases. There is also a sequel

124. The English language is less of a joke because it can be argued that she says what she sees in the language in which she talks to the psychiatrist.
     It's different about the date because even if I took you in a time machine to that date - with all the knowledge you have today - and didn't tell you what date I brought you to - you wouldn't have any way of knowing that.
     Be that as it may - perhaps you could briefly explain how he envisions the survival of the soul without the survival of the memory, the attributes and all the things I pointed out being possible?
     Perhaps you could also briefly list the findings on which he bases his claim?

125. Michael
     You should also be amused by the fact that she spoke English, a language that did not exist then.
     Norton's books are more reliable and less in the direction of the romantic novel

126. Samuel:
     Maybe I will read or maybe not.
     It was torture enough to read Brian Weiss's nonsense.
     The funniest part of the book is the one where the lady (Kristina?) who returned to a previous incarnation says that the year was 1867 BC as if people of that time could have known that in 1867 years Jesus would be born.

127. Michael
     Read the book "Journey of Souls" by Dr. Michael Newton
     A very interesting theory, your arguments do not contradict it at all, on the contrary, they only strengthen it.
     If you are not convinced, you can enjoy the book as a fascinating science fiction,
     Dr. Brian Weiss also comes to the same theory in his books.

128. Hugin:
     So you provoked.
     When someone wakes up from a deep coma and even fainting - he does not remember anything from the period of unconsciousness.
     This is another example of damage to the brain that supposedly does not damage the soul and where the lack of activity of the brain actually raises any activity that could be attributed to the soul.
     I don't know why you connect it to particles and I don't know what you mean by your words.

129. Michael:
     I still want to raise the question in your article about people who are in a coma/coma: and why? Precisely because of the question of whether in the absence of so-called active activity of the brain are not all the senses and the internal cells/atoms in the body of the bones in a kind of 'consciousness and intelligence' that is constantly active, which has From the hidden 'watcher' within us who may be active after all in an endless sequence even in states of sleep called 'death' but then he disconnects from the 'cause' - the object holding him,,what is that process of 'detachment',,release,,what comes out there/ then out as a transparent hose and so on,,
     I still came back to this matter because of the questions that arise regarding the behavior of particles and energy that are brought up again and again following the process brewing for the experiment in the particle accelerator at Zern.
     These are essential questions,,,and for you,,essential and essential...:)

130. Okay, quiet now.

131. Bye Husham

132. Bye, Al-Khoushi.

133. Hugin:
     Apparently all your statements above are wrong

134. 1) Apparently there are 'phrases' that do not pass the virtual screen barrier.
     2) Apparently there are the 'senses' that this screen has deprived of and their understanding.
     3) Apparently there are senses that need to be actually lived and experienced in everyday life and there is no way to visualize them 'here' (in a conversation) and certainly not to prove the existence of additional senses that are able to 'identify' the 'disappeared' after the death of the physical body.
     4) Apparently in advance you have no intention of understanding, but only of arguing.
     5) In fact, you wrote your article in advance with a solid preconceived notion and excludes an extra soul, and in this case there is no point at all, as you mentioned, to waste 'pure time'.
     6) The duplication in the previous responses was due to the technical delay of the first response. (due to an attachment in the Double Icon interface)
     7) It remains for each and every one to research / experience / learn about the issue / by himself and according to his own way.

135. Hugin:
     You do not answer my questions and all this correspondence seems to me to be a pure waste of time.
     If I killed you and you still answer then you have proved that the soul remains after death.
     Since this is what you wanted then you can stop wasting time.

136. Now you really killed me!
     Do you really not realize that every comment is a continuation and detail of the previous comment, and so on?
     Well, now you will have to go into: 'Dante's Divine Comedy' and extract from there what you couldn't extract from here,,
     😕

137. Now you really killed me!
     Do you really not realize that every comment is a continuation and detail of the previous comment, and so on?
     Well, now you will have to go into: 'Dante's Divine Comedy' and extract from there what you couldn't extract from here,,,
     😕 ➡

138. Hugin:
     You expect me to say your words and not just go deeper into them.
     That's how you asked me in the past to define terms that only you used and I saw no need for them, and the same is true now.
     Tell me what you mean by getting into the head of an Indian.
     Who is that Indian you are talking about and what characterizes him?
     How will you judge if I managed to get into his head, how do you intend to prove to me that you are able to get into his head and the like.
     To work, Hugin.
     Swans won't help.

139. Well, Michael. Apparently, even in order to go deeper into my words, you need another sense. :)

140. Hugin:
     I suggested you say something meaningful.
     The offer is still open.

141. You know what Michael??Try to get into 'Indian's head' and then maybe you will understand what I mean and give it up.

142. Hugin:
     you can say what you want
     You can also make parables about the deaf and the blind and then say that you never meant to hurt anyone personally.
     If, on the other hand, you want to say something significant, you are welcome to do so.

143. Correction: dulled senses. (Although dulled senses can also indicate 'darkness' in the absence of bright light :) 🙂

144. Michael:
     From your response to Gogil: "What I tried to show is that it is easy to prove that there is no soul that survives the death of the body."
     From here I can bring here against your claim: Deaf - and say almost the same sentence about his hearing.
     And also bring a blind man - and prove by his eyes the lack of light and sight, and let him know that his world has no smell, color blind, etc.
     It is very easy to prove the absence of those 'senses' that are used as sensors for those 'objects being tested'.
     *Nevertheless, in order to make progress on the same 'issue', I suggest checking more healthy senses of an animal/animals because they have sharp identifying sensors, which are dormant/or dark in some humans.
     By the way, in the great myths the jackal has an important role as a 'companion of the souls of the dead' and in order to understand what is in his 'head' and what he sees or,,,'thinks as one of the dog/sensory family' I actually recommend that you read if you get the chance Paul Auster's book "Timbuktu" is fascinating.

145. Hugin:
     It is clear that we do remember those we knew, read or hear about those we did not know, come across his work, and the like, but beyond the obvious ways of transmitting information, there is, in my opinion, no other way in which the soul of the deceased "survives", nor is such a way possible.
     I don't know what you mean when you use the above verbs, but I hope that what I am saying is clear to everyone who reads my words.

146. Michael:
     It exists or remains 'as a 'remaining spirit' in all of us.
     These are the sources of 'inspiration' that we breathe, smell, experience, remember, want, with all our senses: and the 'logic' of the brain and the cells of the body are translated subjectively, according to the personality/psyche structure/unique 'root' of each and every one.

147. Google:
     I repeat my claim in the article itself.
     The claim that the existence of the soul has not been proven is trivial and most people know it.
     What I tried to show is that it is easy to prove that there is no soul that survives the death of the body.

     Hugin:
     I repeat and emphasize - I am only talking about a soul that survives the death of the body. There is no reason not to call part of the body's activity by the name "soul" and that is what you do in your poem.
     Of course, all this activity ceased with the death of the body, because when the body dies, the soul ceases to exist.

148. If you have poetry in your heart
     If she also has a heartwarming melody.
     It's a soul.
     If you have a burning idea
     If it also has a painful memory.
     It's a soul.
     If you have right morals
     If he also has logic checks.
     It's a soul.
     If you have a name Jose
     If there is also a tone of desire in it.
     It's a soul
     And if this song withered, and there was no thinker left
     After all, this is proof, even in the negative way
     our soul
     bloomed,
     passed,
     And to our sorrows gathered,,,

149. It was a meaty soul song,,:)

150. You came and didn't find it - don't believe it.
     Apparently the search for a logical proof of the possibility of the existence of a soul has not yet been successful and may not be successful, or unfortunately it was successful and I am not aware of the result.
     In any case, according to the article and reading the comments, it seems that the existence of a soul has not been proven.

     Which raises questions about the song on the street of the pure souls:
     On the street of the pure souls
     They sent three to prison
     Because they did not know morality
     and on the removed sign
     They changed the name of the narrow street
     They changed the way of all flesh

     Removed? Who cares today?

151. Hugin:
     In the meantime I have no plans for follow-up articles, but that doesn't mean much because even two days before I wrote this article I had no plans to write it

152. Michael:
     You have not yet answered the question you asked about the 'what' series you are preparing.
     So what is the next topic in the MMM series? Perhaps you will prepare an article dealing with the definition, analysis and simplification of the 'concept of logic' to all its components, formations, aspects? Like: 'What's the point?' , I think it can be interesting considering that your article can also have an interesting 'tagvetation' set.
     (It is true that one of the qualities of logic can be suspicion and doubt, but there is no need to focus only on this, especially since my suggestions stem from natural curiosity and genuine interest.)

153. Hugin:
     I don't know what you are basing your conclusion on as I did not check the matter.
     In any case - a mistake in your hands.

154. Michael:
     explain your ears then,
     Rudolf Steiner is an 'anthroposophist'.
     that Helena Blavatsky actually founded..)
     I do not accept the negation of other forms of thinking and different approaches, before a comprehensive investigation and self-examination in every field I touch, but this is my way and maybe also honest with myself (at least). How and what you learn and also your sources are your business. But unfortunately, I will not be able to evaluate if you do not check things in a more serious way before you dismiss them outright.
     In any case, you hinted in one of your responses that you intend to bring more issues in the 'series'. My question was what???

155. Sorry - misidentification. The words "Theosophy" and "Anthroposophy" were interchanged to me.
     Lucky that I didn't replace them with "Beep" (because all these words, in the end - the same meaninglessness)

156. Hugin:
     Indeed, in my opinion, there is no significant statement in the theosophical theories, and therefore no truth.
     When I read "Rebirth and the Law of Fate" (I think it was the name of the garbage written by Rudolf Steiner) I was immediately sickened and I am proud to say that I was only a teenager at the time.
     The fact that a certain combination of words can be formed does not give that combination of words meaning.
     And as for "why soul" with me - since many years have passed since then - the nausea has already passed me along with the innocent belief that people really believe what they say.

157. By the way, Michael
     The term 'etheric body' is quite common in the theosophical teachings (at least I have no ownership of this).
     In any case, we are all watching and alert for the continuation of the intrusive and in-depth articles and are really curious to know what is going on with you,,:) 🙂

158. Yehuda, you are not so much in the news, her films (many of them with Hebrew translation) have been appearing on YouTube for several years. Unfortunately, as I know the Muslims, it is hard to believe that they would let this woman die in return.

159. This is an important film that has been around for quite some time.
     There is no danger of it being deleted because it is saved by me MEMORY Sharing with PMW Save a lot of interesting and important material

160. Dear science friends!

     Really especially for the subject related to us of good souls and the Jewish spirit. An American Muslim attacks Islam and defends Israel. Fun to see, and quickly, before El Gezira deletes it!

     http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul

     good evening
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

161. Tor=nisha, tor=time. , perhaps the Jew? Gene; DNA that has not yet been tested to its end and its cargo that embraces the memory of all the peoples of the world, unique and still puzzling + the rest of the spirit that is not 'captured' and binding, unfortunately).

162. Wonderful! Beautiful! magnificent! (Nice correction!)
     And in the XNUMXth? Remnants of the spirit? A memory that lives forever and pervades those who come to the column in a 'genetic' manner and in the objects bearing the memory? A living memory that dangles forever? A memory that can be corrected? (always hope).
     I am very happy that you are satisfied.
     So, we closed the issue and we understand everything.
     Shabbat Shalom.

163. Hugin:
     In this case - as it turned out - it is not about a special spirit of the Spaniards but a loophole in their law - a loophole that as soon as the story became known they already undertook to fix it.

164. Michael::) Chipsul,, I liked it.:)
     But, since really topical and relevant things are bothering my mind at this historical moment, it occurred to me in connection with your article and the tagivitation (the contents of the comments) that we might still raise the matter: the 'rest of the spirit' that you mentioned and asked for its interpretation..
     And an example: how will you explain that it was the Spaniards (the Inquisitions) and the Turks (from the vampiric historical tradition) who had something to say and dare to ask for another sentence of 'crimes against humanity' against us while we are trying (for 8 years) to be restrained in our reactions to the attacks in our home? Why exactly them? What 'remaining spirit' and 'leftovers' permeate their blood and spirit that suddenly came out again! and emerged into expression??
     In short: what is rest of spirit (both negative and positive), and how does it relate to the secret of my soul? If at all.

165. In the end, there will be no space left for my father on the hard disk.

166. Hugin:
     There is no need to set up a site as long as there is no talk about it.
     I really don't know what you mean when you say "site" but I don't need this word (except for using it as the name of an anesthetic - it's a completely legitimate use).
     By the way, I don't know why you want to use a word that has a meaning in Hebrew instead of a word that is not used yet. Is this to increase confusion? Why don't you talk, for example, about "Tepsol" and the Tepsol soul? Since it's an undefined word, it's better that way, isn't it? No one will prevent you from defining "beep" as you wish

167. Yehuda,
     Bringing 'something' out of the darkness. :)

168. Michael:
     A. I am not the only one responding.
     B. The main thing is that you understood my intention that it is necessary to define additional terms such as 'site' and the other 'subtle bodies' that I mentioned (in response 120) and which are attributed to the issues of the active 'soul' and the invisible 'soul' / and-or hidden from a certain level of perception and which is visible or detectable/ We are experienced by additional senses (if developed) and therefore, there are differences of opinion on this subject due to different levels of reference.
     C. The 'domain' can also be understood in a logical manner that corresponds to the logic of 'reversal', such as the 'definition' of a rational/irrational and the very intellectual engagement with it also develops 'dormant' senses or awakens them.
     Like any other practice,,.:)
     D. If in your eyes 'ether' is simply an anesthetic, you will not be different from many who engage in hallucinations, similar to Nostradamus and the fictional 'developments' stunts. (So, we are not talking about that)
     In short: as mentioned, you are entering a field that also touches on: 'cases in the dark',,, on the way to the blinding 'light' or to the world of 'truth' :)

169. Hugin:
     Although you added the missing parenthesis in response 123, but since it was taken out of context, it is still not possible to understand things.
     What I did understand from your words is that you expect us to refer to levels of existence at the ethereal level and perhaps also define "ether".
     That's why I ask you - Hugin: We haven't defined "ether" yet, so what do you mean by the expression "souls on the etheric level"?
     After all, you are trying to say things so that we can understand them, so you are the one who needs to define the words you use.
     You also don't want to leave this job up to me because what if I decide to define the "ether" as simply the laws of physics? More than that - what if I decide that Ether is simply an anesthetic?

170. Judah, you are great! 🙂

171. What does Yehuda say? You are right. :)

172. I'm glad that the science site upgraded your unknown sentence to three and a half lines. Don't say that you don't get special treatment here!

173. Hello dear Hugin

     I respond to this response out of pain.
     I really wanted to respond to your learned response, but, why does one sentence have to span five lines?. I would like to remind you of the existence of a tiny point on the side of the keyboard and it is highly recommended to use it from time to time.
     Everyone will agree with me that reading such a sentence requires developed lungs! :-

     (such as: the world of 'images' or also 'ideas', as it is commonly called in the currents of the other sciences (such as: the spirit/mental sciences/and soul sciences) 'emotional/astral body' to subtler/thinner and immaterial states of 'reality' visible to the unarmed eye or one that is not yet accustomed/or qualified to penetrate a sense called 'there' and maybe even more (depending on degrees of adaptation and training and 'basic tendencies' of an innate inner nature).", end quote.
     I also counted in this celebrated sentence three opening parentheses and only two closings, about this I ask:- are you always used to sleeping with the door open".
     In addition, it seems problematic to me to start a sentence with brackets and the word "like". It's like being thrown into water without knowing how to swim.
     So, five lines without any point in the middle, which will give you peace of mind, are beyond my average absorption capacity!
     So our soul, is it possible to upgrade the response?, I'm sure there are words of wisdom there.
     I hope you are not angry that I touched on these missing points of your learned and closed response.
     with you, and with a smile,
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

174. If, after all, the subject is the existence of 'souls' as requested for examination by the author of the article Michael and other commenters who refer to this (and on the assumption that you really want to understand and not just fight to the point of exhaustion in order to fight for control. :)
     You may also have to refer to levels of existence on an 'ethereal' level, perhaps also define an 'ethereal' in order to continue the discussion, if you still want to enter into the terminology of the realizations of the spiritual/hidden 'reality' type. (such as: the world of 'images' Or also the 'ideas', as it is commonly called in the currents of the other sciences (such as: spirituality/psychological sciences/and soul sciences) 'emotional/astral body' and even subtler/thinner states of 'reality' and invisible to the unarmed or untrained/or trained eye still penetrate the sense called 'there is' and maybe even more (depending on degrees of adaptation and training and 'basic tendencies' of an innate inner nature).

175. Hello everyone…

     Thanks Michael for the beautiful article.
     I know the material in question - and like to present it to anyone with an understanding.
     There are other things that I think could have been added to the article, such as: evidence. It is "known" to everyone that the soul sees, from stories about clinical death and others. I don't think there is anyone who believes in souls and claims they don't see. But there is a difficult problem here. We use our eyes and brain to see. If they are in a rotten grave, how does the soul see after death? I've already heard the claim that the eyes are just an opening for the soul, so why does the brain have to deal with the translation of the image that reaches it? The soul can't do it alone?. And if the soul needs the mind to translate the image for it, then it still has no one to translate it after death. Conclusion - the soul cannot see.

     In the end, it is clear where all the belief in souls, the afterlife, etc. comes from. It starts with fear of death, a desire for meaning, and ends with incomprehensible things such as feelings (love, hate, etc.) that appear to be a spiritual thing (thoughts and ideas too), so they understood that their existence is in something immaterial - in the soul. Today, fortunately for us, there is a developing science - neuroscience - which is starting to shed light on the subject of emotions, so we have to get rid of this problem.

     good day,
     Moti.

176. To Michael
     Thank you for the interesting attempt to individualize the soul. The specification remains problematic to me. I have never heard a definition of the soul as a sequence of memory. If anything, it enjoys [or responds to] the definition of a sequence of existence. An analysis of the subject must be done by separating unfounded and clumsy stories about reincarnations and the question of existence. The basic assumptions of the definition of the soul [of those who need its existence] are that a person beyond basic existence has both will and free choice. There is also an assumption that there is reality and meaning to existence. On the path of negation it can be said that although it is clear that the system that they call Michael R. will eventually die of a word and on the day of her death, her brain will surely lose the feature of memory, since the past existence of a person/personality named Michael R will not be retroactively denied. When Descartes answers the question of existence, 'I think means I exist', he bases his answer on a closed system of assumptions that assumes as an axiomatic fact the existence of a thinking being. Therefore, the connection between the facts/consciousnesses of life-will-free choice can be given an interpretation of existence which is Beyond the anemic total of an elaborate particle cluster. It is also possible to deny the above description, let us deny the existence of free will/choice and assume that these are emotional interpretations of a complex but deterministic relationship in a world of clusters of complex particles. Whether we choose to explicitly identify with one of the two interpretations or whether we obscure our attitudes under the cloak of the 'unsolvable psychophysical problem' Solved' the question exists and the answers are from the world of personal consciousness and not another.
     There is no doubt that scientific progress sharpens questions of existence and poses doubts and challenges to outdated definitions and concepts, but we are still allowed with all humility and modesty to believe in both existence and our meaning. So even if it is not possible [yet?] to present the unifying theory of life/will/free choice/ Existence in quantum quantities that can certainly be referred to. Such a relation gives place to a personality which is the "I" that is expressed in its current appearance but does not depend on it.
     Good night and fruitful discussion
     Yoel

177. A simple Jew:
     In my opinion, you are not saying anything meaningful and probably - not anything true either.
     I have no doubt that you do not know what you are stating.
     For me there is no point in continuing the discussion.

178. Hello everyone..
     Michael:
     First I must point out that the answer to your question is similar to trying to explain to a person living in a two-dimensional world,
     Regarding the third dimension.

     The soul when it is detached from the body is fully aware of itself.
     Remembers everything and has a much broader perception of reality.
     When it is inside the body it is limited, because the world transmits to it through the body the rule of matter without interruption.
     In truth, she does not forget anything and has wonderful abilities and qualities that are hidden according to the person's rank.
     In the case of a brain injury that you describe, the discovery of memory and its very ability to be expressed in this world is damaged.

     Eran:
     Hello..
     Regarding proofs, we touched on the subject a bit in Dan Meller's article on the website about Dawkins' book
     I also posted a link there to a lesson that explains the subject.

     Regarding the séance, I can assume that the souls "see" through the callers, which could answer your question, but this is only a hypothesis.

     And the soul, according to the definition, is indeed a part of the divine, but the divine is satisfied when its existence is examined,
     After all, his desire is for us to recognize and know of his existence more and more and how can we do this without examining and finding out?

     *Dear Michael:
     Allow me to disprove your theory and tell you that I too am inside a body with fingers tapping at my command on the keyboard, just like you.

     Shabbat Shalom to all..

179. H - M M - F - H - D - Y - M! ! ! ! ! 🙂

     (recognize reality)

180. Hugin:
     Do you know what betrays you despite hiding behind a different name?
     Hint: This is your arrogant style.
     If a "simple Jew" does not know how to speak simply and his words require interpretation - maybe he is God at all?
     We have already seen that the style betrays the writer 🙂

181. to respondent 112,
     If I were a soul, I would hide myself from you because of the fierceness of your face.
     Now: interpret and understand what a simple Jew was trying to say and you will get an answer to your question.

182. Not a simple Jew -

     "The mind hides the soul from the soul itself"

     from where do you know? On what basis do you claim such a thing? What research has proven such a claim?

     How do you explain that a soul that is lifted up during a séance is never, ever able to take a moment to look into a nearby room and tell the participants in the séance what is written on a piece of paper there or what random object is placed there on the table? Are souls like God? I mean, are they offended when you try to examine their existence? I'm waiting for your answer, stop avoiding her.

183. A simple Jew:
     If the soul remembers then how does it forget itself?
     Why do you think there is anything in the soul other than what the mind experiences?
     And again - if the memory is in the soul - how can a blow to the head damage it when the person remains alive?
     In fact, you did not refer to the article at all.

184. Good night everyone..
     My friend Michael:
     The mind hides the soul from the soul itself.
     This is similar to the phrase: "is not aware of himself", except that the above phrase usually refers to more external layers, such as: abilities and character traits.
     The term soul refers to the inner layers, the soul is the essence, it contains the memory, and is actually the core of all the more external appearances of the person.
     As mentioned, the soul is a part of God, and similarly to him, it cannot be perceived by the five senses.

185. Hugin:
     Some of the "memory carriers" you spoke of are clearly matter and clearly not soul.
     Of course, I don't have any problem in principle with you (even though it's factual - in part I'm an infidel and it doesn't seem to me that you can present even one piece of evidence that road dust caused someone to remember something they didn't experience).
     It is also understood that they do not belong to the subject.
     I devote all the time required to your words and my failure to understand some of them is not due to a lack of time but to a lack of clarity and obscurity of the things themselves.
     I don't understand how you give in to your tendency to write things in an unclear manner and to state that clear writing would have distorted your way.
     What are you writing for if not to convey a message that people will understand? What purpose do you achieve by forcing people to waste time reading unclear text?

186. : )

     The charlatans of all kinds, who are usually also the more famous people in the public on supernatural issues, did not even try to get to pass the test, they simply understand in advance that they have no chance and that they will fail and destroy the careers they have built with great effort using lies and deception. On the other hand, many people who truly and wholeheartedly believed and thought they had supernatural powers took the test and failed, this of course did not make them change their minds on the subject.

187. Michael:
     Forgive me, but in a genetic sequence there are also grandparents and great-grandfathers and so on and so on for a huge sequence bearing 'memory' and children in the sequence who marry and bear sequences of related 'memory', I was a huge inspiration for narrowed and expanded circles and so on and so on,,
     For the rest of the things: And 'the rest of the spirit', I mentioned that objects/photos/bequests/writings/inheritances/memories that pass through fiction by all means from generations/documents/'reality'/and more and more until the term you referred to, which is the disintegration of matter and I add, that even the smallest particles Small ones that are also in the dust of the roads 'store within them a memory' of the historical experiences that are actually 'carriages of sequences' and everything, as I mentioned, is also carried with the wind (for it blows and we also breathe (air and memory).
     And for the rest of the references, you may have to read them again at random/repeatedly and the tokens may have dropped.
     I was in your place, and I had to reply at the same time to a thousand and one people (which is indeed worthy of mention in itself) and I might not have been able to 'deepen' the responses either.
     And if I didn't respond according to the 'form' you expect, forgive me for that too, my free will and perhaps my original 'natural' tendencies by nature do not allow me to 'distort' my way but I try to be very clear / and above all You too, and really without being condescending.
     And in general, this is really a subject that has no end, as mentioned, and also evolves conceptually according to the stimulus/trigger.

188. Eran:
     Although I constantly try to emphasize the fact that experiments in this matter will not achieve the goal of persuasion, but if you have already mentioned James Randi, it is worth noting the fact that he promised a reward of one million dollars to anyone who will present to him any "supernatural" phenomenon (and this includes channeling, clairvoyance, telepathy, telekinesis and the like).
     http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
     The challenge has been open since 1964 and no one has ever managed to win the million dollar.
     Hugin:
     Don't you feel like getting a million dollars?
     anyone else here?

189. Hugin:
     I am sorry to say that I cannot identify the part of my speech that you agree with and I do not know what you are disagreeing with.
     Maybe you could clarify yourself more?
     I remember you mentioned dreaming, intuition and imagination but I don't remember you saying anything about them. Whether you said it or not - there is nothing between them and the remaining of the soul - in my opinion. Do you have a different opinion? If so - would you mind detailing the connection?
     What is the "particle memory besieged in the rest of the spirit" I do not know. This term hides within it a hidden assumption that there is an entity that can be called the rest of the spirit, and if it is a spiritual and non-material entity, then the very use of this term is the desired assumption.
     As everyone who engages in logical inference knows - assuming the requested is not a legitimate tool in the discussion.
     At the end of your response you return to those particles in the rest of the spirit and I repeat - if you know of any kind of memory - particle - wave - super symmetric - strings - (or any other adjective) that is not in the brain - you are welcome to point to it.
     Also note that there is an internal contradiction in the claim of the possibility of inheriting "spiritual" traits that are not genetic from the parents because they are usually still alive when the child is born.
     Genetic inheritance - on the other hand - gets along very well with the fact that the parents continue to live.
     If the child inherits such traits from someone else's "rest of the spirit" - how - in your opinion - are the contradictions between the spirit he received and the genes he received reconciled?
     I want to add and ask you for the obvious:
     I noticed that people have a tendency to find one section that they think they know how to refer to and focus the discussion on.
     It's a demagogic exercise whose entire purpose is to forget the arguments that are not answered at all.
     I ask you not to take this approach and answer everything.

190. Hi Yotam, the experiment you proposed is nice, but it is too sophisticated/cumbersome to be performed by the common man.

     I offer a much simpler experiment, without the need to get involved with electronic boards and a computer, it is important that the experiment be as easy and simple as possible in order to avoid excuses and make it easier for those who wish to check the subject themselves, a sheet of paper and a pen can be found in every home, simple experiments - decisive proof.

     By the way, James Randi (you can click on my username to see who it is) advocates very simple experiments, exactly in the style I wrote down, he also likes to test those who claim to be able to find water or metal objects with the help of two wooden sticks that they hold in their hands, during the test He places 10 containers of which only one (completely randomly chosen) is full of water, then he asks them to find out which is the full container, of course they always fail but they always have excuses of various excuses, there are some nice videos on YouTube where you can see the tests that Randy conducts For those claiming the crown, unfortunately there is a problem with links in messages here, so I will not attach a link here.

     In short, there are people who insist on believing nonsense, and nothing will help.

191. Michael:
     I wrote the main thing, what remains (if you want) is to simply read it again and comment accordingly, because I agree with some of your points in the article and I added another facet in my previous comments to the other comments.
     So there's no point in repeating it again: but, I was referring to the concept of intuition and imagination arising from another source of inner/casual knowledge/mouth emissions/the 'nonsense' that fail to pass through the planned processing of the 'rational thinking' brain which is not only the mind/my brain- Senses trying to 'control' and perishable,, finally, but also, a particulate 'memory' besieged by the rest of the spirit,, the sixth part of the senses: states of dreaming in sleep/waking/and philosophical awareness similar to comprehensive intelligence,, and for example:: how did you extract 'information' about the elephant Me in the living room?? Yes, I have a pylon in my living room that is an artistic simulation and it has a belly and even a removable back and inside it there is a ring that changes colors depending on the mood...
     So, such 'outings' are a completely trivial part of life, although sometimes surprising and even funny, and also very 'useful' if one listens to one's own/and others' emissions and if one does not underestimate them,,,we become wiser than this. By the way, what is actually 'telepathy'? ??(I don't feel like going back to topics that wear out between the words).
     And a joke that my son told me today: and regarding your article about the mention of 'suicides':
     One man wanted to commit suicide, so he went to Tel Aviv to a place crowded with 100 people and calls the head of Hamas to ask him if it's okay, he tells him 100? Not enough. So the man goes to Azrieli and calls the 'head' again and tells him look here there are about 1000 Folks.,,He calms his mind and tells him ok, that's enough. So the man takes a gun and shoots himself in the head,,:)
     In any case, if you still want to know my partial opinion on the matter of leaving the 'memory' or something else after the death of the body, (since in my other responses I only expressed many faces on the matter) then, regarding the matter of leaving the 'rest of the spirit' indeed, I have a tendency to accept the assumption that the 'particles' that carry the eternal 'memory' remain in virtually every 'thing': both in the genetic lineages that a person leaves behind from sequence to sequence and also in objects that are a kind of imprint and seals for sequences and of course in all the scriptures that ever were and will be. And everything after everything returns to the Spirit, ,,filled with particles of great and eternal memory,,and as I said in my earlier comments, we breathe all of this in the air,,,in the memory of the living and the dead who live in us forever (love).
     So, the spirit has an 'elephant memory'.

192. Yotam and Eran:
     Evidence of reincarnation has been refuted since time immemorial.
     The link I brought to Shermer's words is an example of a concentration of this type of rebuttal.
     The believers in souls have never addressed this because it is always possible to claim something like "Ok - this case you examined is a mistake or a lie, but what about the thousands of other evidences?".
     I have a friend who clearly takes this approach. Every time an example is given to him, he says that it does not prove the rule.
     What I tried to do in the article and in the comments is to show that all claims of this type can be ruled out in advance - not only because this or that example (that's right! All the ones tested!) has been proven to be false, but because the common basis for all of them is a lie.

     Jotham:
     I think the above means that even if I didn't reveal new information to you - I revealed to you a new way to draw conclusions from existing information.
     To this day - everyone to whom I presented the system of considerations that appears in the article admitted that he did not know them.
     The words of Shermer, who is a well-known skeptic and an expert in refuting spurious claims, indicate that this system of considerations is not familiar to him either.

193. Hey Michael.

     Many thanks for the article. It's hard to say that he revealed new information to me, but I really enjoyed the concentration of things and their clear presentation.

     Eran -

     These are really cool things. I also read somewhere (at the moment I don't remember where. If I remember, I'll update) about another experiment to negate the confusions of the sessions:

     The session board will be an electronic board, where the numbers and letters are arranged randomly by computer programming. There will be a cover on the board. None of the séance participants knew about the location of the letters.
     A soul will "appear", questions will be asked, and the answers (that is, the letters on which the cup will stop) will be recorded by the computer.
     In the event that there is truth in the matter, it is understood that in the examination of the computer documentation, quite clear sentences with reasonable spelling will appear.

     The idea sounds excellent to me, and I have also previously suggested holding it to various "seance believers". No one has yet accepted the challenge.

     excellent week,
     Yotam
     Nature Protection Society

194. Danish:
     I just saw your comment 7.
     What tones are you talking about? What are you talking about?
     I have no idea where this all came from.
     Regarding the atheists you mentioned, you should know:
     The murderers of Islam are not Muhammad but the crowd of madmen who believe in Islam.
     The Inquisition was not the handiwork of Jesus but of the bunch of idiots who accepted Christianity.
     Equally - the killers in the concentration camps - are the ones who committed the atrocities that Hitler devised.
     Hitler and Stalin simply founded new religions. It is true that these were religions devoid of God, but the most important feature of religion - in fact the feature that defines religion - and it is the feature of faith that replaces critical thought was in both Nazism and Communism. That is why these atrocities were also committed by religion.

     The kamikaze suicide bombers committed suicide - some out of blind faith in the emperor and some because they were forced to.
     In general - suicide is not evidence of underestimating the value of life because someone can calculate that his own suicide will save many other lives and all in all the benefit will be greater than the damage. This kind of consideration is also what guides you when you say that you will agree to give your life for the country. After all, you will not do this under any conditions unless you think that in the final calculation your death will lead to the saving of other lives. The problem is that for those who believe in the survival of the soul - the consideration of taking a life - their own or that of others - does not play any role at all! That's what I tried (and succeeded) to say. Note that I never talked about suicides in general and to avoid complicating matters I didn't talk about kamikaze either. I spoke explicitly about the underestimation of the value of life and the only example I gave (and as mentioned it is only an example) is that of the suicide terrorists.

195. Hugin:
     A. Who are you to set the context? It's very funny. I write an article and you determine in what context it should be? What senseless arrogance!
     A simple Jew said obvious things? maybe you They are not clear to me at all. Maybe - if you understand them - you could rewrite them in Hebrew? In addition to that - maybe you can answer the question I asked him, which is "From whom does the mind hide the soul?" (To remind you - one of the clear things he said is that the mind hides the soul). On that occasion - in relation to the metaphor that is interesting to your claim - who are the "we" hiding in the phrase "is able to show us" and what is that part of reality that the mind is able to show us and how do you conclude that reality has other parts? Words come cheaply - Hugin. You should start attaching meaning to them!
     B. The questions you raise in section B are strange. You ask, "What is the memory beyond, etc., when what you just admitted to before is that on the face of it, it seems that such a memory does not exist." Let me ask you. I guess you know that it looks like there is no elephant in your living room, so what is the elephant in your living room anyway?
     I did not say that character is attributed to the soul. On the contrary - I showed that it is in the brain. I said that if there is a soul at all that can interest us there must be something in it that interests us. I listed memory, character and abilities as possible "somethings" and showed that none of them are in the soul - if it is supposed to survive the death of the body. How can you expect a person who claims that there is no soul that survives the death of the body to say what he thinks is found in such a soul? It's like asking you what's in the belly of the elephant in your living room. I simply showed that if there is a soul that survives the death of the body, then memory, character and abilities are not part of it. I've said it a thousand times and I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat it. What is complicated here?!
     If you claim that there is a soul that survives the death of the body on you - as you have already understood (I hope) to say what is in that soul that the term "survive" (with the term "duration of time" embedded in it) is relevant to it. None of the commenters who tried to disagree with my words (and that includes you) has so far failed in this task.
     Higgs understood my words and you did not understand them. Higgs admitted that the qualities I would expect from a soul that survives the death of the body do not indeed survive the death of the body, therefore - if you want to "save" the concept of the soul surviving the death of the body, you have to talk about other qualities, but neither he, nor you, nor anyone else - you were able to suggest such qualities. You are still welcome to try. Don't expect one thing, and that is that I will define the terms you want to talk about. Define them yourself. If you don't succeed - it's a sign that you don't know what you're talking about.
     This. Everything you wrote after the asterisk fits Nostradamus so he might answer you.
     I was able to understand from there that you consider Yehuda a genius? A shame for both of you. In my opinion, there is nothing that is further from reality (but I know that reality is not of interest to you).

196. What is the difference between science and soul?:-Thought.
     What is the thought that connects water and sky?:-"Imagination"
     What is a person?: - a creature of the earth, a product of imagination + thought equal to life.
     What is animation?:-the aspiration of the soul.
     What is the soul?:-Revival there.
     What is a name?:-ambition/desire.
     What is desire?:-Genome created.
     What is a genome?:-evolution promotes d.na
     what is missing?:-
     (The solution that Michael might give,,)
     And so on..

197. Michael:
     My response #96, to you and Yehuda, is waiting in the 'system' (possibly a combination of icons, creating a block or temporarily waiting for approval/release, I suppose).

198. Michael: (also for Yehuda, as requested)
     A. Further to your words to a simple Jew, precisely your references in your article to the concept of 'soul' take things out of context and even 'clogged' or 'clogged' by your explanations and/or your Pharisee attempts to the issue you raised in the article. A 'simple Jew' said clear and transparent things and even expressed an interesting metaphor.
     Hope it is allowed to express what we know at least,,, (even if neutral, according to all philosophical approaches that think about the 'essential' issues),,,without defamation on your part if you 'believe or trust' in this 'place' (the 'hostel' of knowledge - as you say ) It is possible to develop a spotlessly clean/unbiased discussion as much as possible and perhaps also come out profitable with achievements/insights and perhaps also with additional questions.
     B. In your article you attributed 3 characteristics to the concept of soul: 1) memory 2) character traits 3) abilities and talents.
     And you tried to test or prove that their validity disappears or goes wrong with the loss of 'brain' activity.
     According to you (if I understood you correctly) the characterizations you attribute as 'soul' are mistaken / or a 'mischief' is happening and in fact through this you are trying to prove that after the 'human machine' is destroyed all the other 'values' and characterizations attributed to it disappear as if they were not there.
     Reference: On the face of it, that's how it seems.
     The questions: 1) What is, after all, the 'memory' beyond the bodies that die/or change into atomic decay? 2) How does 'memory unfold' in general? 3) What is character anyway? Is it attributed to the 'soul' as you defined it, or maybe there are other mediators inside and outside of us that 'build' our character and are mistaken / improved / or changed by certain triggers which are not exactly the same concept that you attributed to 'soul'. (In my previous responses I tried to draw your attention to the concept called 'soul' for the purpose of making that fine distinction). 4) Regarding abilities and talents (potentials), many comments were made by the other commenters, who showed the need to 'define' More terminology (see Yehuda's response at the beginning).
     And the response of Mr. Higgs (who hinted to you that according to your definitions you will also receive the answers accordingly) and my response which tries to signal to you that entering this subject is like entering 'deep water' or the sea of ​​potentials that has no end, the 'twilight' areas (false like the 'drugged' Nostradamus ') or the 'enlightenment' or the 'sublime' area, to which the soul has a 'consciousness' connection in the 'divine' context, etc.
     *Entering deep water (or into the invisible realm by means of the five known senses) also requires mental/brain/emotional clarity, otherwise both the atmosphere and the insight disrupt perhaps another 'hidden' sense, usually known during 'conscious sleep' Or with very 'creative' people, 'artists' and 'geniuses' like Einstein, for example Yehuda, Rowling,, and several other 'geniuses',,, who were and are and are able to 'dilute' in a 'natural' way the dream world and express it in 'reality' That is, in the 'whole' being, there is no separation between the perception of reality from the states of sleep and wakefulness, and therefore there is denial or ridicule towards those who follow the shadows, but actually those 'whole' live the 'sixth sense' in the state of 'not in' and call it simply 'Healthy intuition', and a developed imagination (in fact, this natural connection is called a 'respiratory connection', that is, a person is in a continuous connection with his soul/name).
     In a situation of dichotomy (blocking/clogging) even socially, as manifested with the development of the industrialized 'rational' world, that 'connection' at a certain level went wrong/or split.
     Therefore, fiction writers, creative people are actually the creators of the 'bridges' and the others that you refer to in your article, 'communicators' who are no different from the subjects of other missions throughout history.
     And the others, like you for example, enjoy all the material abundance of the world,,,,

     So, Michael, be cute, because otherwise you will have to perform a 'requiem' as well, if not a 'soul lifting' ceremony for both of us, according to: reading the letters of the Psalms,,, 😕 😉

199. A simple Jew:
     Your words are obscure and do not allow for serious consideration.
     One thing emerges from them nevertheless and that is the internal contradiction in the expression "hides the soul".
     Who exactly is he hiding her from?

200. Good night everyone..
     According to Judaism, the "scientific" definition of the soul is: "a part of God above"
     The same God that cannot be physically grasped.
     The brain is actually a kind of physical screen that shows us the tangible world and hides the soul.
     The parable for the soul can be a map of AI and the brain is a plate with a small hole that moves on top of the map,
     and is able to show us a very specific section at any given moment.

201. Friend, I would love to hear responses (if anyone still looks here from time to time) regarding points I raised in my previous response, response 48, I always enjoy seeing these are excuses invented by soul lovers to not accept reality 🙂

     Thanks.

202. Hugin:
     It is not me who makes an intellectual discourse personal.
     My response becomes personal only when I recognize an attempt to hurt the one to whom I am responding.
     Therefore, you could keep this preaching to yourself.
     I relate to the things that are said as I see them and as soon as a person talks about a reality that he can see but others cannot, I consider it condescending. What to do? It is what it is.
     Degradation to personal stripes is degradation and I will always describe it as such.
     Your claims against the hostel are bullshit and if someone allows themselves to be bullshitting - why should they complain that I point out that this is what they did? This is not about something that requires excessive wisdom to know, so I have no doubt that if you had devoted even one second of thought to what you wrote, you would have known that it was nothing but defamation.
     The fact that you mentioned what kind of trash or deep water we are entering didn't change anything.
     As you saw in the article - even when I wrote it - I watched the wars that people would wage here to allow the soul to remain after the article.

     Yehuda:
     I have no idea who the rabbis are and none of them have ever been censored here when having a cultural conversation. I don't know why you think anyone might be censored.
     I did not warn Hugin lest she speak Nostradamian and we all know that none of her Nostradamian expressions were censored here. I suggested that she speak in Hebrew just so that they would understand her words (and this, of course, based on the assumption that I am not sure that she is correct, that she wants them to understand).
     There is no question that does not have a place on a scientific website and provided that it is treated according to the standards of science.
     If people have a theory about the survival of the soul and if I provide experiments that disprove this theory - then this is scientific work par excellence.
     I did not take it upon myself to exhaust the subject.
     For me, as soon as there are no souls that survive the death of the body - it goes without saying that the representations of speaking with such souls are nothing but false representations.
     The same goes for reincarnations.
     Since I saw that the public is interested in hearing about these things, even though in the light of the analysis I presented there can be no basis for them - in one of the comments I provided a link to Schermer's article that demonstrated exactly the shallowness against it.

     I am under no obligation to define the things that others are talking about.
     It is the duty of those others.
     I defined the things I talked about and my conclusions refer to these defined things.

203. Maybe it really is impossible to explain the "soul" in a scientific way.

     And to be honest who wants to, at the end of the day it comes down to a decision of chances

     And I prefer to "believe" in something bigger.
     If when I die suddenly I find out that I really should have kept kosher and things like that, I will tell God that he is petty and needs to catch up with the times, but I will take the responsibility.

     My belief is that if there is something bigger beyond, he won't be petty in the small things and just believing in something bigger matters (although in my honest opinion it doesn't matter to him either)

     I think I have a good chance that way 🙂

     Beyond that, I want to salute the talks here, well done to you
     I enjoy reading you every time 🙂

204. To Michael

     But still there is a reason for the defect that the comments on this sensitive subject of my soul may be censored.
     After all, the best battalion commanders were supposed to respond here, where are they?
     Nor does the "warning" to Hugin that she must not speak "Nostradamus" make it easier for her and others.
     I am not at all sure if there is a place on a scientific website for stories of souls, but once the site decided to publish, then the subject will not be exhausted if we do not hear about stories of séances, repentance and reincarnations of souls.
     It is also your duty to comprehensively define all the concepts that we have raised Hogin and Selfish in order to make sense of this charged and sensitive topic. With all due respect, your article was not steeped in definitions of concepts.
     Good Day
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

205. Michael:
     There is no need to turn an intellectual discourse or even a pseudo-intellectual (doesn't matter) into throwing personality and a tone of argument.
     Everything I wrote comes and stems from a neutral and unbiased place as possible.
     Perhaps you should stop attributing nonsense / or 'degradation', or condescension, every time you are unable to get down or up to the bottom of my words, after all I already mentioned in my first response what 'bin' we are entering / or if you want 'deep water' (in another response that does not Passed the 'iconic filter' (in reference to the topic you brought up in the article.) And this is indeed a reality learned from experience, which a discerning mind pays attention to according to what happens on the site when topics that are 'above and beyond' are brought up or discussed, God, the Torah, the soul and more 'Holy cows' that break, etc., etc.).

206. Hugin:
     It is nothing but typical that you attribute the claim that the soul needs to be defined before talking about it to the commenter and not to me, even though this claim already appeared in the article itself.
     Not only did I say this in the article but I repeated it in many comments.
     Not this one either - I did define the nature of the soul I'm talking about and came with claims to all those (including you) who tried to talk about souls with a different definition that they never bothered to provide.

     I don't understand how the fact that the site is the scientist's site that my father runs and the article is an article I wrote prevents you from saying even one sensible thing on the subject. If you have something to say (in Hebrew and not in Nostradamus) - nothing prevents you from doing so.
     The whole argument against the hostel of the discussion is one big bullshit.

207. 'What is a soul', or what is a 'soul' at all?
     The commenter who suggested to 'define' a term first before dealing with it is right. I mean, in the spoken language, in the written language and especially in the language that we try to communicate with each other in life here on the site.
     What's the point of trying to have a conversation if the person-subject you're trying to 'understand' or 'present' or 'analyze' or even 'prove his validity first, and if also eternal' and in the worst case to deny his existence, (even though he lives in the spoken and written language in the usages Many, in the many 'remembrance' ceremonies that are held in the shadow of death, in everyday life and stigmas are common, common and formulated for generations, and all the acquired meanings and fragments of language use it. So what's the point, if you don't understand or have any 'concepts' of what it is about.
     So some questions about terminology: for example-

     In what situations do we mention this word in our day-to-day life, 'soul'? Why is it given more meaning in certain denominations or in certain nationalities?
     Why are there those who say that this word "soul" really annoys them, and why are there those who, when they pronounce it in certain situations, consider it a "compliment" and so on?
     ** So I already mentioned in my comments, that the Hidan site may not be the right place to discuss the matter, unless the 'writer of the article', Michael for our purposes, and my father, the 'head of the site', are indeed interested in understanding or perhaps just hanging on,,, but we still haven't reached the deadline 'Purim',,, (here and in the world that is when people play 'I think' to their gilt-golem in many mysteries and also in certain nations).
     I have no intention of expressing a personal opinion, but for those who want to read mainly out of curiosity and broadening their horizons, the following is an example of two books:
     A. 'The eternal attack of the soul' (Jane Roberts-Seth Meber).
     B. "Anatomy of the soul" (Rabbi Nachman of Breslav).

208. Danny Barsela:

     First - as I also said in the article - the soul does need to be defined if you want to talk about it.
     You don't have to define it fully, but you have to attribute some quality or ability to it - something we can talk about.
     This is what I tried to do and I really feel that the missing soul is both memory, character and abilities - even if it can be defined - how to say? I am not interested.
     To me even life without any memory is not life.
     It's a personal matter but I have a hard time imagining a person who would really be willing to live without a memory.
     Of course, if these are not alive then the soul defined as having no memory is a lifeless soul.
     I refer you to the words to the "point" in response 55 if by chance you haven't read them yet.

     I have to say it's a little too much to expect actual proof. In science there is almost no such thing - there are only refutations of theories. It is true that the refutation is actually a proof of the negation of the theory, but the negation of a theory - even though an experiment can prove it is still not a theory in itself, because the negation of a theory does not provide predictions while a theory does.

     I tried to deal with providing theories of the soul and in my opinion - as far as science allows this - I refuted them because I provided an experiment whose results are not in line with those theories.

     Most of the counter-reactions I received were those who told me that I should refer to a different definition of soul.
     When this sentence is said without any suggestion of another definition, there is not much to be done with it - one can only shrug.
     When other definitions were proposed, it seems to me that I presented convincing arguments - either against the definition or against the theoretical correctness of the soul remaining defined in the proposed way - as the case may be.

     I must draw your attention to an interesting fact that, according to the beginning of your words in the last response - you are probably not aware of:
     The physical (and chemical) world is not deterministic!
     Quantum theory introduces an inherent element of uncertainty into reality!
     Roger Penrose - for example (mathematician/physicist/cosmologist one of the greatest in the world), thinks that the uncertainty arising from quantum theory is what underlies our free will and he wrote two popular books to present his ideas in this area: The Emperor's New Mind is the first of them and Shadows of the Mind He is the second.
     Both are recommended.

     You should also read the books of Ramachandran - the well-known neurophysiologist and see how "spiritual" things in our lives are actually completely material. I think it was in his book Phantoms in the Brain that I read about how stimulating certain points in the brain creates a feeling of divine revelation, stimulating other points creates a feeling of an out-of-body experience, and certain defects in the brain make a person think very strange things about the identity of people. For example, he can think that all the people he knows have been replaced by doubles who only look and act like them but are not themselves. I don't remember if there were examples of people who thought they had replaced them themselves - this is the context for the joke I told in response 81.

209. Michael Shalom,

     My first time on the site and I'm enjoying it.

     When you go that far, you get to the basic questions of body and soul or matter and spirit. It is too easy for us to prove that in our closed system there is nothing except what is inside that system itself. But we remain with the basic question, are we more than the collection of chemistry that makes us up?
     (Of course, if we are only chemistry then in fact we never choose, because everything can be calculated a priori and a powerful enough computer could expect that I will now write what I am writing).

     If there is something that is beyond chemistry (if we leave pure materialism) then it is necessary to develop a system of concepts that may include the concept of "soul". In my opinion, only in this context can the assumption of reincarnation be disproved, otherwise it must be said that there is no soul and necessarily this thing that does not exist does not reincarnate.

     Can't remember who, but someone talked about the desecration (in a generational sense) of the mother's tears of joy at the sight of her baby as an indication of the existence of something more beyond the body (of course the materialists can say that the excitement is chemistry, but I assume the existence of something beyond the body).

     So I'm in a tough spot. I think there is something that is beyond the body, and for that matter we will call it soul. However, I don't know how to define it because I immediately come to descriptions borrowed from the material world of which the soul is not a part.
     Now I have to negate a feature of something I know nothing about (in material terms) and have no language to describe.

     As mentioned, I do not believe in reincarnation, but I think that the failure of a séance or the lack of memory, as we know it, is not a real proof of that. This proof implicitly assumes the non-existence of the soul.
     The discussion should first define what a soul is and only then can we ask if it passes between people or between all kinds of other things.

     safe trip.

     Best regards,
     דני

210. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
     # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

     $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

     # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
     # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

     Sorry for the somewhat loud tone, but I'd love to hear a reference to his response number 48, for the lazy I'll copy it here again -

     Some interesting and important points in my opinion -

     1. The first major question that comes to mind is where did the souls of the first humans on Earth come from? If souls really reincarnate from one person to another then where did the first souls come from? And is there a factory in heaven that produces such souls? Who runs the factory God himself?

     2. How exactly does "soul" better explain our thoughts and feelings? Why is "air" supposed to carry out thought processes and emotions in a better way than the physical substance in the brain?

     3. Why are the souls always wearing clothes in the pictures of "souls" supposedly taken with a camera? A garment is a physical material made by human hands, does a soul that supposedly left the dead body take with it the clothes it wore? It is simply ridiculous.

     4. It is possible to perform such a simple test that will prove to all the séance performers that this is nonsense. Near the time of the séance, a person who is not participating in the séance (and is also not allowed to be present in the room during the séance) is asked to clearly write on a piece of paper a completely random 10-digit number, preferably a number drawn by lottery Using a game cube, (in no way write down a phone number and the like, but only a random number), ask him to place the page in a visible place in a nearby, lighted room, and lock the door (make sure no one is peeking) during the séance, ask the rising spirit, politely, to reveal For the participants in the séance, what is the number written on the paper in the next room, and of course immediately after the séance to go and compare what the spirit said and the number that is really written.

     You will be surprised to hear, but such tests have been carried out (by James Randi and his people for example) and they have always ended in miserly failure. Now all soul lovers will explain to me why a soul that appears in a séance and can tell those present in the room about things that are happening on the other side of the earth, and personal details about the past and the future of each of the participants, is unable to glance for a moment in the next room and read what is written there on a piece of paper? After all, she reads without any problem the letters and numbers that are written on the séance board, why on earth does she always have a problem reading what is written on a piece of paper in the next room?

     The answer for those who haven't figured it out yet - those who answer the questions during a séance are the same people who perform the séance, those people talk only with themselves and their wild imagination, not with any real soul, sad, but that's the real truth friends.

     Best regards,
     Eran.

     # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
     # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

     $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

     # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
     # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

211. That's right! You are Barack Obama..
     And from then until today, when his 'soul' was sworn to the long-awaited presidency, he lives in peace with the two parallel identities in happiness and wealth and a world full of races, varieties, shades and practicalities.
     Waiter: Twice a beer,, to the life of 'pure science',, and its products,, and a little of its 'troubles',,:) 😉 🙂

212. Friends:
     Please - stop with the nonsense discussion.

     If I am already interfering - I will use the opportunity to tell you a joke that belongs to the subject of the article:

     One man came to a conference in South Africa during apartheid.
     He arrived the day before the conference and found out that there was no room in any hotel for whites.
     He was not a racist and therefore decided to try his luck in a black hotel.
     When he got to the hotel they told him there was room there but they couldn't accept him because he was white.
     He said there was no problem with that, went into the bathroom for a moment, rubbed himself with black shoe polish and returned to the counter.
     They welcomed him to the hotel.
     Before he went to sleep he asked the receptionist to wake him up at 8 in the morning because he had to attend a conference that starts at 9 on the other side of town.
     He was promised to do so and he went to bed satisfied with the way he had dealt with the problems.
     In the morning he wakes up from panicked knocking on his room door.
     He opens the door and the panicked clerk tells him that there was a problem and they forgot to wake him up at 8 and now it's half past eight.
     He gets dressed as fast as possible and runs to the train station to get to the conference as quickly as possible.
     At the entrance to the platform, the guard stops him and tells him that he cannot get on the train because it is a brick train.
     No problem, he says, and runs to the bathroom for a moment to remove the shoe polish he applied yesterday.
     He tries to rub off the paint with a bit of wet cotton but it won't come off!
     He tries again and again, finishes all the cotton wool he has and a few rolls of toilet paper and...nothing! The color just doesn't come off!
     Then suddenly the token falls to him and he realizes: out of haste the idiots at the hotel woke up someone else in his place!

213. Mrs. H
     Whatever

214. Mrs. H
     So what do you want me to say WELCOME TO THE BAR

215. Mrs. H
     Now I was indeed reminded of the ancient debate
     What do I learn from this??? What I already knew that women will never forget you.
     I know it well, ask any sane married man who knows the matter well.

216. Waiter: Can I have another beer, please..

217. Mrs. H
     You forget that communism has already fallen, there are no more equals than everyone else.
     Although you prefer to consider yourself among the most equal as we know and anyway we are in a different era.
     Everyone is no longer relative nowadays.

218. Mr. Higgs.
     Everyone is a relative matter.

     You are free to ignore and ignore (and also drink beer in silence... no one bothers you).

219. Mrs. H
     Your attempt to impose rules in the virtual world and command its inhabitants to lead their lives according to your personal pattern brings you repeatedly into collision with your head against the wall.
     That's why you see a threat in every reflection of a word or sentence and feel the need to threaten back
     And you enter again and again into a meaningless vortex.
     Begin to understand that there are no rules in the virtual world, neither yours nor anyone else's, that's exactly it
     The feature that makes you go…….and welcome to participate in this world, everyone will express their personal opinion as they see fit.

220. Michael:
     It's a shame that you are a personal 'interpreter' when talking about matters.

221. The village fool:
     No one owns the logic and the truth. This is true. But this does not mean that there is no logic and no truth.
     It's a shame that so many people do not make sense and do not attach any value to the truth

222. It's a shame Higgs, it's a shame, don't get dirty or you'll have no choice but to confront and confront me really. (You've hurt enough in the past and made consequences really, really irrelevant!).
     A seeker of truth checks things he is based on and does not throw dirty water in a clean place.
     I'm asking you for the last time, stop.
     (There are valid laws in the virtual world as well/the word 'temptation' is an obscene word and is out of place).

223. It's good that no one owns the logic and the truth,
     Otherwise this world would be alienated and very cold.

224. Higgs:
     I am responding to response 67 only for other readers who may be confused - I understand that your words were written in jest but someone may be confused.
     So for anyone who doesn't know what Higgs was talking about:
     Among the real numbers there are numbers that are called "rational" and numbers that are not such that are naturally called "irrational".
     It has nothing to do with logic.
     This is simply due to the fact that in foreign languages ​​(for example in English) there is a "similarity" between the word logic and the word "ratio".
     Rational numbers are real numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of two whole numbers.
     The irrational numbers are those that cannot be expressed like this.
     Those who study mathematics learn, among other things, that there are many more irrational numbers than rational numbers.
     This is a very interesting topic because in everyday life most people will think that infinity is infinity and there is no room for the claim that one infinity is more than the other, but delving into the matter shows that there is and is indeed a point in comparing the "size" of two "infinities".
     I will not elaborate more here.
     Anyone who wants to learn about the subject is welcome to read the book Infinity and the Mind
     Regarding your comments about Hugin - I tend to give it a chance every time, and there are times when it doesn't descend into personal lines and the discussion remains matter-of-fact.
     As soon as she turns the discussion into a personal attack, the discussion tends to deteriorate and as you saw here - I decided that in such situations I would simply interrupt it.

225. Michael
     Regarding H, I see how divided you are on the one hand she manages to lure you into a whirlwind of dialogue and then you get fed up and you slam a door on her. Don't start and you won't have problems.
     Is it possible that this indicates the existence of two souls among you or what……..
     (no icons, don't know how to add a smiley face)

226. Michael
     I wonder, there are many more irrational than rational in the world, for example numbers.

227. Michael:
     If you want to enter the 'deep water' it will be right if you don't 'dirty' it before you enter.
     All the best to you, Doggy Dog.
     (I hope that along the way you will also find the different distinctions between the 'soul' and the 'soul'..)
     Good luck/try not to drown until I return.
     😳 😕 😉

228. Tomer:
     I did not send you to hell except conditionally and set the condition.
     Therefore, if you read my words, you will understand that if what you say is true and you did not mean me - I did not send you to hell.
     Therefore your claim that I sent you to hell even though you didn't mean me is incorrect.
     The sending to hell was done conditionally because your words were not clear enough and I could not tell from them if the condition was met.
     The concern that you mean me was natural in light of the fact that they were written in relation to my response to Hugin.
     I don't think that everyone is attacking me, but the enemies of logic, among them Hogin, clearly do, and as soon as you join them, your words at least arouse suspicion.
     I don't know why you saw fit to tell me that it's okay for people to have different opinions than mine.
     Which opinion is okay and which is not depends on whether it is my opinion but whether the opinion is correct. I have never argued with anyone for expressing an opinion that is not mine.

     The village fool:
     Maybe you'll switch from passwords to words of taste?
     Why do you want me to change myself?
     Knows what? Just to please you I changed myself right now into a rabbit (and another one that brings up rumination!).
     Happy?
     I argue with people who I think are wrong and as I explained to you - in the case of the belief in the soul the mistake is destructive.
     You want me not to try to change someone who holds a belief that I think is destroying the world?
     Change yourself!

     Higgs:
     Regarding response 63 - the last sentence says it all - with the good hand of imagination you can invent what you want. I try to deal with what is happening in reality. After all, the same person who mentions Einstein can live even while Einstein was alive.
     I have a friend - a doctor of mathematics who always tells me that I remind him a lot of his supervisor - Shahran Shelah.
     Does that mean I'm his incarnation? He is still alive!
     My friend is a reasonable person, so he wouldn't be tempted to think that there is reincarnation here even if we hadn't lived at the same time, but someone would surely have been able to use his imagination. What can I do about it?

     Regarding response 64:
     I find no place for any link between the rational and the irrational.
     In my opinion, irrationality has no place.

     Hugin:
     I stop arguing with you because already in your previous response you started the usual process of deterioration from which nothing good has ever come.

229. Michael:
     Forgive me, but after you responded to Tomer and stigmatized me, I tell you that you are saturated with erroneous stigmas, errors that are devoid of regret, reliable sources and even misleading and inciting others with logical distortions that are not based on understood and tested basic assumptions and are 'accepted' and 'ordered' for many years in light-rich knowledge Many experiences/experiments and studies done in the past in the field. The uses you make of your 'logic' lack the correct definitions.
     And I repeat again, the science website may not be exactly the right place for those 'analyses' and therefore I don't want to get carried away too much.

230. Michael
     It is worth adding and clarifying that the source of the lack of symmetry in your presentation stems from the unspoken conflict between legality and fiction. On the one hand, conservation laws impose a requirement of experimentation and testing, which immediately eliminates events that cannot be repeated. On the other hand, facts of matching and combinations of cases, even such a case is still a fact. There are many such adjustments and combinations, the problem is that they cannot be inserted into an orderly template of verifiable legality.
     In other words, the soul as a being comes to answer and bridge between the orderly rational realm and the irrational.

231. Michael
     The difficulty in bridging different points of view stems from the way the matter is presented.
     When you present the soul as an entity and test its existence as dependent on basic conservation laws.
     Naturally, this way of presenting is one-way and is a source of endless debates.
     Another way to initially present it in a symmetric inversion with respect to conservation ie:
     Let's suppose that tomorrow a young physicist will arise and outline a new theory that will solve the bridging problem between relativity and quantum. If we notice that certain characteristics of his personality or his way of thinking will remind us of Einstein, then surely they will claim that he is an incarnation of Einstein.
     In the same way, any phenomenon that has certain characteristics that remind us of a certain uniqueness from another place and time is said to have this soul=uniqueness incarnated.
     Now in a symmetrical way it is possible to assume the existence of a soul as a result of the existence of the same characteristics at different time locations. In the same way, start from the assumption of a soul entity and assume conservation laws regarding it.
     As a result of this symmetrical duality, it is possible to move forward and see soul connections, for example, in surprising coincidences or in various wonderful matches. Everything as the best imagination.

232. You've convinced me you need a drink and fast.
     What do you care what people believe?
     You want to change other people -
     Start by changing yourself.

233. Thank you for sending me to hell,
     Although I didn't mean you at all.

     Nice to hear your opinions,
     But maybe relax a little - not everyone is attacking you,
     And it's perfectly fine for people to have different opinions than you.

234. Tomer:
     Regarding the saying: So you said!
     Although any memory can be erased by destroying the neurons, you are welcome to continue to believe that it is somewhere else.
     Regarding people's connection with their souls:
     I don't know who the people are that you claim have no connection with their souls. Can you point to one? Hugin's words - to which I referred - did not speak about the subject in general. Her intention in her condescending comments of this kind is to say that she is connected to her soul better than others.
     Connected to her soul - deprived of her - multiplied by her - all this New Age nonsense they use without even bothering to think about what they are saying.
     If you're also trying to imply that I'm one of those people who have no connection to their souls, then I can only wish you the best of luck.

     The village fool:
     You are not accurate - to put it mildly (and I almost wrote "in the tongue of the dead" because it is a mistake that kills people and spells disaster for humanity).
     Stories about reincarnation have a significant part in the destruction of the world because, as I said in the article and in some of the comments - belief in eternal life leads to disdain for life.

235. Dear Michael:
     You are more than welcome to come drink with me.
     Put aside for a moment the great seriousness,
     You may not know but nothing of what
     What is written here does not hold the world.

236. Lesbadramish Yehuda:
     Question: When does the soul appear?
     Answer: After three months from the moment of transfer.

     Statement: Memory is information that lies in the neurons of the body.
     Reference: There is indeed what is known as the memory of the body, but the experiences
     In their entirety they are not burned in the neurons and certainly not in the gray cells in the brain.

     To Michael:
     Question: Do some people have no connection with their soul?
     Answer: There are definitely such cases, but for most people
     There is definitely such a connection, only others may not like it.

237. The village fool:
     What did you drink?

238. Yehuda:
     I saw your comment just now.
     Although I remember that in the past you claimed that even humans do not have free will, but I am glad that the desire to contradict my words made you change your mind on this subject because I think your new opinion is more correct.
     I mentioned the need for a definition in the article and repeated it in many of my responses so that we have no disagreement on this issue.
     However - I explained why I chose the traits I chose as part of the soul definition I did so both in the article and in the comments. In particular, I expanded this in my words to the point in response 55.
     As I mentioned - I did not try to deal with all the possible definitions of a soul - also because it is impossible to even list them in an article of reasonable length (I mentioned the possibility of defining a soul as a cup of coffee), also because no one talks about them when they talk about reincarnation, and also because in my opinion They are rightly not talked about.

239. point:
     I have already referred to the comments made here about the psycho-physical problem and I said that I did not intend to offer a solution to it in my words here and yet I claimed - and I repeat and claim - that it is not relevant to our case.
     I repeat and emphasize what I see as the very point, which is the continuation of the life of "something" that is important to us that will continue to live.
     I didn't just liken other things to the atoms that make us up.
     After all, it's clear that the atoms keep rolling and it doesn't interest us at all.
     Equally, imagine that there is a kind of "farm mechanism" that is not physical (suppose there is - I think there isn't, but that's not the point here).
     If he has no memory - then what does it matter to you if he continues to live?
     Let's present it in a more radical way: what do you care if they change it for you every second?
     The term "remaining" embodies the dimension of time. Therefore, anything in which time does not play a role is not relevant to our discussion.
     You can keep claiming I'm being evasive but I have no other answer. If I haven't managed to convince you so far - I probably won't.
     If I didn't manage to make myself clear, then there is more point in trying and getting clarifications.

     Higgs:
     I think we have reached an understanding.
     You should also read what I said to the "point" so that you better understand why the qualities I attribute to the soul are the only ones that are actually really interesting.

     Hugin:
     It's a shame to find out after so much talk that you actually didn't understand what I was talking about at all.
     I did not intend to write an exhaustive article on the subject of the survival of the soul.
     I have not covered here the whole bubble from Ayss that they are trying to sell us under this title and I have no intention of doing so.
     Already at the beginning of my remarks I expressed criticism that people who focus specifically on this or that claim of reincarnation ignore the fact that we already have enough information to rule out the matter from the ground up and that is what I tried to show here.
     That's why I didn't bother here with all kinds of books that tell about reincarnations and reveal - unintentionally - the lie in them.
     I remember, for example, quite a few examples where people talked about being hypnotized back to the year - say - 1863 BC.
     It is clear that this straight up betrays the lie because in that year no one knew that in 1863 years the counting would begin.
     In general, a lot of work has been done in exposing lies on this topic and extracting the stories of lies and exposing them would require at least a whole book (and still - there are many lies that no one has had time to investigate).
     You can read a little about the subject of lies and their disclosure in the following link, but it is only an appetizer (for those whose lies whet their appetite) and as mentioned - in my opinion it is of no importance once the subject has been fundamentally refuted:
     http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html
     I repeat - in my opinion the approach represented in the link above shows a failure of those involved in the field - in that they did not understand that there is no point in bothering with examples.
     The topic of the year is not relevant to the rest of the soul and therefore I did not deal with it - just as I did not deal with cake recipes either.
     I hope you will give me a chance to write about these topics in the articles I will dedicate to them and not in the article about reincarnation.
     You return - at the end of your words to those condescending formulations that try to imply that some people have no connection with their soul.
     In this matter - let me just... grin.

240. Isn't there a mixture of different concepts here that require a definition first?
     Soul soul, memory, reincarnation, life, death, self, awareness, and to all of these I would add a new concept, the ability to choose.
     Michael tries to link the soul and the memory, and after doing so, it is easy to shatter the essence of the soul by showing that the memory is not preserved.
     I see the soul as something else.
     My definition begins with this, every developed living being is a system that knows how to respond mechanically to things but not only. We know we have the ability to choose. That is, we are a very sophisticated machine that has the ability to choose to operate not only as a mechanical machine whose operation is predictable in advance. This difference is made by the soul. That is, we can define that
     A body has a soul in it if it performs actions that result from self-choice
     Reincarnation is another question, and memory of the soul is also another question that does not lie in the definition of the soul.
     To summarize my response
     In my definition, a soul is the ability to self-choose a body. Memory is information that lies in the neurons of the body, can these two unite and move without the body for which they are defined?, I am satisfied.
     I still remain with the difficult question of when the soul appears, whether at the moment of ovulation, at the moment of fertilization, during the fetal period, at birth, at the age of several months, or at another time in our childhood.
     Good day souls
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

241. How lucky you are to have experienced reality and the roads
     In her understanding, they do not amount to a few tools
     Scientific, most of which are still simple.

     Fortunately for us, Adam has an example
     the dream and the imagination without these
     Man would still raise a few sheep and nothing more.

242. Michael:
     Your article is not exhaustive and does not actually prove anything:
     A. The reference to 'sleep states', which on average constitutes about a third of life, was absent.
     B. You didn't study people who experienced clinical death and regained consciousness with quite similar 'One Thousand and One Nights' stories.
     third. Absent in your article is a reference to additional layers in the experiences of living beings besides the body/matter, thus the format you referred to is no different to any existing computer/mechanical.
     D. A 'soul' is never spoiled (because it is, in fact, a completely complete being). The only thing that can 'spoil' is the states of contact with it and the recognition of it when the partners in communication with it are the experiential 'soul' (personal and arbitrary in each and every one) in a mental reference/ and emotional.
     E. Attributing the same 'connection to the soul' to the sixth sense (which is mainly active during sleep). If you want to at least show seriousness in your reference, you have to 'dig' on the subject more deeply and I am not sure that the science site is the place for that.
     And between us, if a person does not have full connection/awareness, and communication with his soul in his life, it is clear that there is nothing to talk about in regards to such communication after death, which the 'disqualification' implied, as you wrote, trying to define/deny and prove in an apparently 'logical' way..

243. Again, as I wrote in my previous message (response 48), leave you with all the nonsense and mysterious theories, one easy and simple test proves again and again that this is nonsense.

244. You dodge and go round and round.
     I asked simple questions.
     Does the soul (the world of experiences) exist or not.
     And what is the relation of that soul to the body.

245. Michael
     In the way you define, you get answers. According to your specific description, the conclusions you reached seem reasonable.
     But this ethereal entity has many ways of referring depending on who you ask and what the source is.
     Our ancient sources i.e. Talmud, Midrashim and Kabbalah such as the Ari. perceive the matter of copying the memory for a certain soul whether by way of reincarnation or another way as follows.
     Details of various events that are attributed to a certain soul sometimes appear at a different time in a different reality when they repeat themselves. That is, there are different characteristics of the details that appear in the attributed to a certain soul and the synchronization of the details and their order in a completely different place and time.
     In these situations the claim is made that the original soul reincarnated or transmitted the particular information.
     There are certain criteria of conformity according to which this claim is asserted.

246. .
     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >
     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>
     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >
     .

     Some interesting and important points in my opinion -

     1. The first major question that comes to mind is where did the souls of the first humans on Earth come from? If souls really reincarnate from one person to another then where did the first souls come from? And is there a factory in heaven that produces such souls? Who runs the factory God himself?

     2. How exactly does "soul" better explain our thoughts and feelings? Why is "air" supposed to carry out thought processes and emotions in a better way than the physical substance in the brain?

     3. Why are the souls always wearing clothes in the pictures of "souls" supposedly taken with a camera? A garment is a physical material made by human hands, does a soul that supposedly left the dead body take with it the clothes it wore? It is simply ridiculous.

     4. It is possible to perform such a simple test that will prove to all the séance performers that this is nonsense. Near the time of the séance, a person who is not participating in the séance (and is also not allowed to be present in the room during the séance) is asked to clearly write on a piece of paper a completely random 10-digit number, preferably a number drawn by lottery Using a game cube, (in no way write down a phone number and the like, but only a random number), ask him to place the page in a visible place in a nearby, lighted room, and lock the door (make sure no one is peeking) during the séance, ask the rising spirit, politely, to reveal For the participants in the séance, what is the number written on the paper in the next room, and of course immediately after the séance to go and compare what the spirit said and the number that is really written.

     You will be surprised to hear, but such tests have been carried out (by James Randi and his people for example) and they have always ended in miserly failure. Now all soul lovers will explain to me why a soul that appears in a séance and can tell those present in the room about things that are happening on the other side of the earth, and personal details about the past and the future of each of the participants, is unable to glance for a moment in the next room and read what is written there on a piece of paper? After all, she reads without any problem the letters and numbers that are written on the séance board, why on earth does she always have a problem reading what is written on a piece of paper in the next room?

     The answer for those who haven't figured it out yet - those who answer the questions during a séance are the same people who perform the séance, those people talk only with themselves and their wild imagination, not with any real soul, sad, but that's the real truth friends.

     Best regards,
     Eran.

     .
     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >
     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>
     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >
     .

247. point:
     I do not confuse being present with being defined.
     I'm just saying that as long as you don't define what you're talking about you can't talk about it with others.
     If you want to claim that the soul is the experiences then tell me what exactly happens in the state of unconsciousness?
     Usually nothing just happens.
     It's lost time in terms of experiences even though the soul is still here.
     In any case - I had no intention of talking about a soul regardless of its definition. After all, someone can define a soul as a cup of tea and then it can be argued that it can definitely survive the death of the body.
     The world of experiences also requires memory and in any case - if you do not remember at a given moment what you experienced before then in my opinion there is no reason to treat you as the same person in these two moments.
     These experiences - which you are talking about - without memory - do not create a continuum of existence, therefore there is no point in talking about the reincarnation of this ability because when there is no memory, it does not matter at all who experiences the experience.
     I repeat and emphasize: a soul can be defined in all kinds of ways and you are making great efforts here to surpass any such definition, but the fact is that souls have never been defined that way and no one has ever been interested in the reincarnation of such souls.
     All stories about reincarnation - without exception - are based on memory.
     I came to tell you what my conclusions are regarding the souls that everyone has always talked about and you - as I predicted in advance - are simply trying to pour new content into the word soul - content that no one has ever been interested in - all to try (not so successfully) to escape the conclusions.

     Higgs:
     I'm sorry, but I don't see in what you wrote in response 25 an answer to my questions.
     My questions are simple and do not refer to what the answers would be if the soul were defined as the development of a pie but what are the answers in the definition of the soul as you see it and as you think there is any point in being interested in its reincarnation or remaining.

     Danny Barsela:
     First of all - nice to "hear" from you.
     Do you visit the site often?

     The memoryless people you speak of are not completely memoryless.
     They may not have the ability to consolidate long term memory but their working memory works.
     In any case - your saying that they have a soul does not contradict my argument.
     I'm talking about a soul that survives the death of the body.
     By the way - the external appearance of a soul does not necessarily indicate a soul in the sense we mean.
     I don't know if you saw the program on Channel 8 about old people who were given a robot dog to comfort them.
     It was interesting to see that their experiences with the robot were the same as others' experiences with a real dog.
     But, as mentioned, it doesn't really belong.
     I was talking about a soul that makes sense to talk about the continuity of its existence.
     Without long term memory there is no continuity even in the existence of the same incarnation.
     Not to mention that there are people whose damage is so severe that even short-term memory is not able to consolidate.
     When you succeed in recovering the memory, it is really a situation where the memory is not deleted, but only the access to it has disappeared, but these are not the situations I was talking about.
     The restoration of the ability to recall is really the restoration of a general mechanism, but I made sure to differentiate between general mechanisms and specific mechanisms.
     By the way - the damage caused by drugs - both to memory, abilities and personality - is also reversible.
     I think these arguments only strengthen my claim.
     You perform a physical action on the physical mind and as a magic wand the soul changes. What better evidence is there that the soul is physical?
     When you damage the parts of the brain that handle a certain memory there is no chance of that memory coming back.
     I repeat the analogy I made to the subject of the genome.
     If someone claims that the brain is not the mechanism that creates the characteristics of the soul that I talked about - there is no reason why he should not use the same reasoning to claim that the traits that are inherited are not found in the genes.
     The connection between the two mechanisms becomes even clearer when we remember that we have already discovered genetic influences on abilities attributed to the soul.

     Roni:
     I think you didn't understand.

248. I don't know how you know all this...
     It is not written in the article, as well as in the comments, any explanation or proof that can tell if there is life or no life after death, what form it has, whether or not there is reincarnation and how it is performed, or where it goes.
     With all our desire, perhaps we should also be able to say with humility that a person cannot know everything, at least at this stage of scientific development.

249. Dear Michael (how are you)?

     I agree with the conclusions, but in my opinion there is a difficulty in proof.
     I don't think there is reincarnation, but:

     Even people without memory have a soul. There was an instructive English program shown on Channel 8 about a man who has no memory, yet clearly has a soul (the same thing we have that is beyond the body that distinguishes us from a robot wrapped in a wax doll).

     I think Alzheimer's is not necessarily proof either. It may just be hiding things and not deleting them. I know a man who was put on psychiatric drugs and gradually lost his sight. After a long period of time, he was replaced by a doctor who changed his medication and that person returned to functioning as he had previously functioned in matters of memory and other mental functions.
     In other words, I argue that the inability to express memory does not indicate our loss.
     By analogy, it is possible to repair certain parts of the eye that, when damaged, cannot be seen.

     As mentioned, I think like you, but in my opinion the examples you gave do not prove your opinion.

     Best regards,
     דני

250. Ok, Michael.. (in response to 35..)

     The sum of the 'breaths' is 'soul'.. (despite everything, as the soul of our/your
     The 'secret' that Lot reveals in his carols during his 'intoxication' is engraved in the hearts of his listeners,, as a 'memory',, 😉

251. Michael
     I answered on the 25th. It should be remembered that your questions have a very wide possible spectrum of reference because essentially the subject of the problem of recognition is at the center of the topic of your article.
     Therefore, first of all, your topic must be placed exactly within this broad context.

     Enjoy being in shape. If you get bored, take your laptop with you and continue from there.

252. Michael, you are confusing a bit between "being present" and "being defined". There is no way to show that there is any connection between these two things.
     I wrote that Nefesh indicates the world of experiences. It is clear that only those who have experienced can understand what the world of experiences is, it cannot be written on a board, it cannot be measured, etc.
     It is clear that this is a world that is completely different from the scientific world where things get real from their mere measurement. Still, you won't deny that you experience.

253. for everyone:
     I'm going to the gym now and won't be back until tonight.

254. Higgs:
     I have already said that this is a problem that has not been solved yet and I doubt if it will ever be solved and yet I discussed the issue.
     Tell me why you don't answer the questions I asked. Isn't it because they refute your claim?

255. point:
     I don't know what it means to "exist philosophically".
     To me - either something exists or it doesn't. I'm talking about reality. Only in reality there is existence.
     I said myself that in order to discuss the existence of the soul it must be given attributes or characteristics because otherwise there is nothing to talk about.
     I mentioned what the characteristics are that it makes sense to try to tie in the mind. These characteristics include all the characteristics that have ever been based on by anyone who claimed reincarnation, channeling or anything similar and much more beyond these characteristics and I have shown that none of these characteristics exist outside of his physical expression.
     Where does your definition fall?
     I do not know. In my opinion this is not a definition at all. When someone defines the soul as the spiritual world of experiences (when "spiritual" in my eyes equals "mental") he defines the soul based on itself.
     This is not a definition.

256. Michael
     Here you are wrong. As you know, the brain is not a computer at all and the main point of understanding the brain's way of "calculation" is actually the problem of hard and easy recognition, as you know, precisely deals with these gaps.
     The soul and other spiritual beings are meant to deal with the same problem.
     The question of recognition still remains far from being resolved as in previous years. All the data and experiments in recent years have contributed nothing real to the very solution itself.
     You cannot deal with the meaning of the soul entity without dealing with the problem of consciousness and all that is involved in the psychophysical connection.

257. And more on the same subject - my article in science from 2002 but written a few years before that.
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/setter-on-soul-181102/

258. Michael, philosophically there is a soul and a body. The mind indicates the world of experiences (the spiritual if you will), and the body the material physicochemical world.

     I didn't quite understand from your article where the definition I just proposed falls. Does the experienced soul exist or not? And what is its relationship to the body?

     Only if you answer that can I take the article seriously.

259. Hugin:
     Soul is not breath and memory is not intoxication 🙂

260. And by the way,
     If we are already entering the field of the 'memory' of the rest of the soul or the soul as a whole, whether to prove its remaining or its exclusion and if we have already entered the same examination of that 'memory', should we attribute it only to the 'mind' or/and also to a more external 'something' and if already There are mentions here (also in the comments) of 'space' matters and even essays, and also allude to or refer to free or bonded particles, the possibility is certainly possible that we are constantly 'breathing' the memory of the 'inherent' in the particles carried in the wind we breathe,, in every moment of breathing air...

261. Higgs:
     But what I said is exactly this: the logical concept of the soul is of no help because every function that can be attributed to it is performed by the brain and there is nothing whose existence is explained or better predicted that is not explained or predicted by understanding the functions of the brain.

262. Hugin:
     I didn't make any "salad" for nothing. Just as people attribute meaning to the word "soul" (and as I said - unjustly in my opinion) so they also refer to the word "soul" or "spirit" and invent differences between these meanings as needed only for the needs of debate while not bothering to define at all the things that the supposed differences between them are As if voting.
     In my opinion, the whole salad is placed in front of them, but it is a very strange salad that does not have any ingredients.

     It is also clear that I was only talking about the private soul and not about anything common to everyone (something that seems even more absurd to me). Why do you call your mention of the same illusion by the name of "correction" when I did not speak and did not intend to speak about this illusion is not clear to me.

     Not every joke has a pinch of truth, but it really doesn't matter.
     I only bothered to clarify that if the "pinch of truth" you are referring to is the one that will confess the "rest of the soul" of the site, then I completely disagree with you.

263. Michael
     I will try again.
     Feynman diagrams became the accepted work tool and were unequivocally preferred over the mathematical calculation method of Schwinger and Tomonaga for the simple reason that it was easy to simulate the physical reality according to the theory. Although all three methods reached essentially the same results.
     Let's not forget that this was a supplement at the time to QED, which was and still is a theory of physical reality as it is. Asking a physicist to separate the two will only make him chuckle.
     Try to think seriously about where the theory ends and the reality of the Standard Model begins.
     What I want to emphasize in this analogy is simple.
     The investigation of the evolution of logical structures in Talmudic literature, etc., has a special element, one might say. There was a prior intention to try to create theoretical logical arrays and trains that would serve as self-sustaining entities. And this is to simplify the treatment and understanding of themselves and other objects.
     In other words, the concept of soul is in advance something logically patterned that can be used and makes it easier to bridge the gap between physical reality and theory.

264. Michael:
     And what was not understood in my reference?
     In the first sentence: I diagnosed what 'field' you tried to touch on in your article.
     In the second: I corrected and sharpened a common mistake in the minds of mankind, as expressed in your article that makes a 'salad' between the terms 'soul' and the term 'soul' (in your reference to their remains/or their negation...).
     On the third: I was joking, although in every joke there is a slight pinch of truth..
     Apart from that, yes, you should refer to the things that my predecessor wrote, because there are both interesting analogies and contexts in them, (although as far as I'm concerned, he was wrong about 'big' in the past, and I don't want us to go back to that).

265. epic:
     In the article itself, I referred to the argument you raised and in my opinion it is not in line with the findings because, as stated in the article - every memory of your memories has a partner in the brain that if you damage it, the memory will disappear.
     This means that each memory is coded in the brain separately and this is not a general mechanism for retrieving the memory from the soul.

266. As far as I understand the soul and the body work together to achieve the desired results and to do this they communicate with each other in their entirety. If there is no damage to the vessels then you (when you see I am referring to your consciousness without knowing where it resides and whether the soul represents it) from your body you will be able to enter other dimensions in your dreams through this connection and as above parts of the soul (such as those who have a desire and curiosity to study mathematics for example) will be able to enter through the vessels these to the dimension the body is in and affect it.

     If one of these tools has broken down (a certain area of ​​the brain for example) then there is a problem with this communication and the transfer of properties (for example mathematical tendency) from a world in some dimension to a world in another dimension.

     In the light of this explanation, your questions seem to be the ones that are not the right questions.

267. Higgs:
     The message still hasn't gone through.
     I think the only way I can get closer to understanding your words is if you answer my questions which, in my opinion, are well defined (see response 21).
     Regarding the physicist's jargon - in my opinion, it is not really relevant without understanding the context.
     After all, even when discussing evolution, it is often said that the legs were meant for walking, while they do not mean "purpose" at all, but rather the convenient use that increases survival that we found for the legs after they were created.
     I also did not use the term of visualization when I talked about Feynman diagrams but rather the term of tools.

268. Michael
     In the accepted jargon of physicists, these diagrams have long passed the stage of mere visualization.
     Check.

269. Michael
     specific to your questions. According to the approach I described the uniqueness of the soul is similar to the uniqueness of one prime number from the infinite group of the first ones. Or say a certain approximation of the development of an irrational number for example Pi. You can choose an infinite number of approximations of the development of the number after the point. Each one is unique.
     In the same way the "possible" meaning of reincarnation without memory. will be the special development of that prime number when it is used as a nucleus for a complex mathematical pattern.
     It is clear that it is possible to create patterns such that each nucleus with a certain fixed value will give, after development, a unique pattern that is different from the others.

270. Hugin:
     What have I already written that can not be understood?
     I wrote that I did not understand your words and I do not think it is difficult to understand this statement. There is no hint or image hidden behind these words, but only a simple one.
     I wrote that the above is true in every detail of your reference to Yehuda's case and I explained that there is no connection between "the return of Yehuda" and the timing of the article.

     Higgs:
     I don't see the analogy.
     To me, Feynman diagrams are a computational/thinking tool - just like a differential equation.
     The differential equation is not an entity in physical reality but a mechanism that describes the behavior of the physical world.
     So are Feynman diagrams.

271. Michael
     Sorry... I shortened and expanded as much as possible in the time constraints as you know.
     In relation to the existence/non-existence of the entity, the example that comes to my mind is the Feynman diagrams for analyzing and calculating the splitting path of the electron. As I recall at the time, the renormalization problem in this calculation was quite problematic due to the appearance of infinities due to self-energies, polarization problems and virtual particles. The attempt to calculate this using the perturbation method encountered enormous difficulties. Until Schwinger and Feynman came along. As is well known, Feynman's diagrams were initially received with great distaste by Bohr. And Feynman took the trouble to explain that it was only a simulation. In short, most of the time these charts became a physical reality or say an independent physical entity sheep and iron properties of the standard model. The same is the case in our eyes, the soul, etc. is theoretically of essential significance in the same way. By the way it is not much different in the same respects from dark energy and matter. which are essentially the result of theoretical constraints.

272. Michael:
     I really, really didn't understand your response and I don't know what to attribute it to.

273. Higgs:
     It's hard to say that I understood what you said, but I don't expect to understand everything at once.
     I would like to ask you for just one summary to see if there is even an argument between us.
     Is there - according to the concept you describe - a soul that survives the death of the body?
     And if so - what is the thing that makes my soul mine?

     Besides, I would love to hear if you think there is any meaning to the reincarnation of the soul without the reincarnation of the memory.

274. Michael
     First of all, a compliment on the picture means you intend to go PUBLIC in what sense politics, something else?
     In the matter of the soul and the spirit, allow me to separate between mystics who provide services and contracts of all kinds and the approach of Judaism anchored in the Sages.
     The attitude that the soul is a kind of ethereal object with such and such properties is the source of the problems you raised. Many things can be hung on an invisible being.
     The Torah's approach to the variety of its parts is completely different.
     The Talmud deals a lot with the logical structures of the Torah. From the analysis of local logical structures that appears everywhere in the Shas, each section of its topics that deals with the study of a certain halacha basically analyzes the possible logical structure and its possible development.
     And in the same way from the local to the general there is a reference to the general logical structure and the development of all the laws and systems of laws and regulations. This is summed up in the division into four layers of the structure of the Torah in the XNUMXPF: Pesht, Remez, Darsh, Sod. That is, the understanding is that any local structure can be generalized within the aforementioned general structure with four layers. If you put the written text itself at the top of the pyramid, the four corners of the base are these. In other words, the concept is that without a sophisticated structure of analysis, the Bible itself has no meaning. The meaning is created only by the different relationships created between the different layers of the structure. When each of them deals with the area that is missing from the layer above it and thus they complement each other. Hence, in the same way sages perceive the human being as a meaningful structure
     When its parts are a body, mind, spirit, and a single soul. parallel to the previous structure.
     That is, these are objects that give meaning to complexity through the application of an overall architecture.

275. know not believe:
     Instead of sending me to read the Kabbalah cover or the late Ari Poter - maybe tell me what I said is not true in your opinion?

276. Yehuda:
     There is a huge difference between dark mass and a soul that survives the death of the body:
     Regarding dark mass - there is very strong evidence that it exists. So strong that most scientists believe in its existence.
     Regarding the soul that survives the body (which is the basis of séances) there is very strong evidence that it does not exist.
     Long live the little difference!

     age:
     This whole subject of subjective feeling is indeed not fully understood and this is true not only for pain but for all sensations - whether it is the feeling of sweet taste, whether it is the feeling of the color red, whether it is love or whether it is the desire to respond with knowledge.
     It is not entirely clear to me if there is even a possibility that science will ever reach a perfect understanding of this because science deals with objective knowledge and here we are talking, as mentioned, about a subjective feeling.
     Already today we know how to follow the mechanisms that produce some of the sensations and in the future we will no doubt know more.
     We may even know how to make machines that will tell us that they feel pain without being able to say why they feel it.
     In short - you asked if there is anyone who wants to explain? I cannot explain this and in my opinion anyone who would risk an explanation at this stage does not know what he is talking about.

     Guru Yaya:
     I actually referred to that aspect and said that in my opinion no one is interested in it and no one talks about it when they talk about a soul.
     I even likened his incarnation to the incarnation of the atoms that make up the body.
     If there is no memory then there is no longer any meaning to the self.
     This is part of a broader question once discussed in Galileo under the title (if I remember correctly) "Paradoxes of Identity" - penned by Marius Cohen.
     He raised much simpler questions there about the selfhood of objects rather than people.
     One of the examples is a boat that replaces one of the planks that make it up - is it still the same boat?
     And if they replace another board and then another one? Is it the same boat even after all the planks have been replaced?
     In my opinion, the answer to this question is "it really doesn't matter - it's a question of definition and the need for which this definition is defined".
     When we say that we continue to live after death, but there is no connection between who we are after death and who we are before, which is more significant than a personal number, then there is no point or interest in this continuity.
     Regarding the brain as a control device - I mentioned that memories can be erased by manipulating the brain and therefore - even if the brain controls the content of the memory, this does not contradict the claim (which in my opinion is proven with certainty) that the brain is also the one who remembers. This is explained in detail in the article - including the comparison with the genome.
     Regarding the character - after all, you reinforce my words.
     Although I do not believe that conditioning of the type you described works on humans in a simple way, but the fact that the character can change due to an influence on the body - this is precisely the evidence that the soul is not an entity separate from the body.
     After all, the character also changes often with age - even without a distinct illness and a laughing baby, the person may turn into a grumpy old man. What character will he have in the next incarnation? Will he be born with the character of a grumpy old man?
     In short - I don't think you brought up an issue in your response that I didn't address and my conclusions are correct even while taking these issues into account.

     I must say, however, that while thinking about the answer to your response, a certain thought crossed my mind that I found it appropriate to give myself an account of it and for a moment I even thought that the conclusions from it were not in line with what I wrote, but when I continued to think about it I realized that it actually strengthens the same conclusions.
     This thought was related to the matter of identity (the one I likened to a personal number).
     I remembered that on various occasions I had wondered if I would be willing to use the teleportation mechanism depicted in science fiction movies.
     This mechanism - as far as it can be linked to real science (and a serious link cannot yet be made here) - breaks down the body in place A and reassembles it in place B.
     I felt that personally I would not agree to be transferred in this way because somehow - whoever will be built in place B - even if he will be identical to me in everything - including the memories (!) - will be someone else, while I myself will die in the process.
     This, as mentioned, is a subjective feeling, so far-reaching conclusions cannot be drawn from it, but this feeling shows that I also see the "soul" as something that is more than a memory.
     So what is that "something"?
     I don't know what it is and I don't even know if it exists in reality and not just in my fears.
     What can be said about it is that the same feeling that tries to imply to me its existence also tends to imply to me that it disappears with the death of the body and therefore I fear this kind of teleportation.

     Hugin:
     It's hard for me to say that I understood your words except for the question at the end to which the answer is negative.
     I also wouldn't define Yehuda as you defined it, but that's another matter.

     The village fool:
     It seems to me that there are several wording problems in your response and as a result it is difficult for me to understand who they are aimed at.

277. A little acceptance won't hurt the reincarnation gate for the late Hari, perhaps it will change Mr.'s opinion

278. Dear friend -
     You will have to try harder because there is none
     No contradiction between what you said.

     If memory is indeed embedded in the soul,
     or in other words is not found in the brain itself,
     So in the case of a "malfunction" in the brain there is a possibility
     that the person really will not be able to connect to this memory.

     There is no contradiction here, sorry.

     and by the way -
     Memory really isn't in the brain...

279. Michael:
     This is in fact the same experiential/internal/personal/ area on which there is a consensus for positive or negative, or the 'zone of twilight and doubt' between the two extremes, similar to the questions attributed to 'God' in different currents.
     A small correction: there is a difference between a private soul (an 'astral'-emotional body that is attributed to the world of images and the eternal 'memory') and the concept of the 'soul' (which includes the totality of everyone's soul memory/similar to the terms that are attributed to 'God' in various currents ).
     By the way, is there a circumstantial connection between your uploading this article today and the return 'home' of 'the rest of the scientist's soul' who happens to be called...Judas?? Or just the hand of chance?? 😉 🙂

280. It seems that you did not address one aspect of the soul, probably the most elusive: the center of selfhood. The part we call "I". The soul may not have a character or memories of its own, but its thing we call "I", which experiences the world, can pass and roll from body to body, can go to hell or heaven for the sake of discussion, and can be "bundled in the bundle of life" without the need for memory or character.
     Besides, I will play the devil's trick here, and say that the brain is not necessarily a mechanism designed to keep the memories, that the soul or the mind has no possibility of remembering, it is the other way around: it is a mechanism that controls the memories. While the soul remembers everything, the brain takes care to prevent the soul from painful memories, or endless thoughts about sex. The soul can be described as an entity that contains memories, enters them into a computer, and the computer helps it determine which thought to concentrate on at the moment. I, by the way, don't really believe it, but I don't think such a description can be dismissed based on evidence, or that it is necessarily more wasteful in its assumptions.
     Regarding character, I can play the devil's advocate again, and claim that a person's character tends to change due to pressures. Therefore if we assume that the body has a certain degree of ability to enforce unpleasant sensations on the soul, it can change something in its character. For the sake of demonstration: you can be a nice person to dogs, until one day I attach a device to your tongue that emits an electrical signal by remote control, and electrocute you every time you see a dog. It is hard to believe that you will continue to be nice to dogs for long.
     I don't think what I wrote here proves that you are wrong. More than what you have written here cannot be proof that the soul does not exist, or even that memory or character cannot be attributed to it.

281. Maybe someone is willing to explain to me where the pain will go
     This is another question that fails in the sense that science cannot explain the pain
     He can explain how it works, its role and how it reaches the brain
     even control it with electrodes
     But he is unable to explain the pain itself

     The only way to explain the pain is that it is closed software
     A kind of virtual reality where the pain is part of the software
     But then in such a case all reality crashes

     Well, is there anyone who wants to try to explain?

282. Especially Michael who writes about dark senses, this could have been an unusual experience.
     By the way there is a lot of similarity between dark mass and souls. You can't see them both, but we're sure they exist.
     Material for dark thoughts.
     Good night
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

283. McCain:
     There is a difference between spiritual perceptions and false perceptions even though all delusional types call their delusion spiritual.
     The link between the eternity of the soul and religion is a link made by religions and no one else.
     That is why, in Judaism, this world is the gateway to the next world and there is the end of days and the vision of dry bones.
     That is why there is heaven and hell in Christianity.
     That's why 72 virgins are waiting for the suicide bomber in the next world.
     That is why the Druze and the Buddhists roll into each other.

     The fact that you do not know all this shows a deep ignorance in the field.

284. It is very unfortunate that a science website chooses to see science as something that goes against spiritual concepts, and this is not only reflected in this article. What's more, the link between the eternity of the soul and religion shows a deep ignorance in the field. I wish you a deeper understanding of the realm of the soul, even though it is not the essence of life...

285. Yehuda:
     If you haven't noticed, then in short, the article claims that there is no soul of the type on which there is no scientific consensus.
     If you would like to read my article about séances you should hope that my words are not true because in this incarnation you will not see such an article (unless you refer to the article saying that séances are nonsense as an article that brings séances into the scientific consensus).
     If you see an entry into the scientific consensus in this way then maybe we can solve the problem of your theories in an elegant way: I will write an article proving that they are nonsense and you will see it as an entry into the scientific consensus and come to Zion Goel.

286. To Michael my soul
     I am happy that my father is adding souls to the scientific consensus he established.
     This will surely help in cultivating the souls of my Israeli students.
     Looking forward to your next article on séances.
     Good Day
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

287. Michael,

     Tone down 🙂

     I'm not a rabbi and we all disapprove of verbal violence - moreover, at least I haven't come across converts on this site!

     I will remind you again and again of the criminal atheists of our time - Hitler, Stalin and Mao. You claim it's God's fault and I claim it's humans' fault. We also saw suicides among the Japanese kamikazes who were completely secular. I personally risked my life to the point of danger for my country and will give my life when needed.

     good week,

288. Cookie:
     To answer your question, I need you to ask a relevant question.
     If you ask "what the hell are you claiming?" Well, my answer is - read the article and see what I claim.
     If you are asking if I am claiming that "because the physical brain is damaged then the "spiritual" brain is supposed to repair it"? So my answer is again - read the article and you will see that I do not claim this.

289. Michael, maybe one time you will answer my question and I didn't understand from the response whether you agreed with me or not

290. Danish:
     The link to religion is correct and I wrote that religions use the rest of the mind to encourage behavior that they define as "moral".
     I am not saying and I have never said that what the religions define as "moral" is necessarily immoral, but the behavior that we all define as moral has such and such an encouragement that originates in evolution (otherwise we would not feel that it is moral behavior) and the mobilization of religion for the benefit of the cause opens the door through which all religions erupted in defining immoral actions Obviously morality as morality

291. A beautiful and correct article. I liked the link between genetic damage and mental abilities. He mentioned a little about looking at a cinema projector: it is true that the film is the content shown - but from here to claim that the projector has a soul because it shows a story is a joke!.

     How is it that all the amazing stories about "souls" and "voices" did not stand up to an objective test?, at least in all the tests/studies I know of, no support was found for the metaphysical claims.

     The conclusion of the article and its link to religion is not necessarily true, indeed the example given represents exploitation of the "remnants of the soul" but this is only a deviation. In all religions "the rest of the soul" is a reward and punishment for upholding normative moral values ​​throughout life.

292. Cookie:
     If all the spirits sent you to ask a question in oil then you can fly back to the spirits and tell them like this:
     I do not speak to all spirits, not even to a single spirit.
     I'm talking to thinking people and if you read my words there's a chance you'll understand what I'm saying.
     And yes - religion is opium for the masses - this is true and not nonsense.

293. What the hell are you claiming?
     that because the physical brain is damaged then the "spiritual" brain is supposed to repair it?
     According to the Jewish religion (I say approximately because it is not so clear) the body is made up of several things
     1) Spirit 2) Body 3) Soul 4) There is also number five but I don't know exactly what they do
     More or less, the spirit is what holds the body in terms of what you feel, the body is the body simply, the soul is just something that gives a spiritual effect (that is, it gives you a kind of emotions that have no reason for them to come to you at that moment) and according to the Jewish belief it is not quite the same part of the body himself and the body only affects him if he remains clean or not (that is, if the soul was "dirty") so don't confuse the spirit with the soul
     And as for ghosts, you are actually asking about memory, the answer is stupidly simple, according to almost all religions, after death you stand trial where you see a "film" of your entire life and you remember everything about the attributes anyway, I don't know and I've never heard of it
     N.B. To all commenters (and especially Michael R. (formerly Michael)) respond objectively regarding the response and not the usual nonsense that religion is an opium for the masses

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.