Noetic Sciences - Scientific proof of the soul.. what's your take??

[nanofreak]

:::::

[jtwyler]

Originally Posted by nanofreak

Yesterday after my exams I got time to read the novel 'The Lost Symbol' by Dan Brown.

You may also be interested in a documentary about a US veteran named Forrest Gump who could actually change weight and speed at will. Or if absent try to contact his agent Leonard Zelig who should be very eager and pleased to discuss all aspects of fact-based reality novels with you.

Keep up the good work, the world needs research based on facts and educated opinions

[jtwyler]

Originally Posted by nanofreak

woah! no need for the sarcastic tone bro... if someone had talked of genetic engineering a century ago many would have called them mad.
If you are truly a student of science you need to be broad minded.
In fact if people would not believe in any relation between science and God, why would there be a forum for the discussion of science and religion???!!

Fine... Thanks a lot for the feedback its really heartening to know people can't think of a problem or a question from all sides.

define soul

[jtwyler]

Originally Posted by nanofreak

there's no research institute which conducts scientific experiments or collects proofs on the so called amazing powers of the forrest gump.

of course not but it would be as well grounded to do so as to read a novel and then state what you state because based on forrest gump one can claim that some people run faster than others. does usain bolt therefore prove that forrest gump existed?

also, if you believe a novel why wouldn't other people believe a movie?

what exams did you do?

Originally Posted by nanofreak

P.S. : Today's science fiction is tomorrow's science.

99.9% of todays sci fi is tomorrow's garbage. And the 0.1% that will in a general way have a vaguely resembling counterpart in the future is generally written by scientists who know what they are talking about. brown is not asimov or lem, he is simply a good novelist, so to mistake the one for the other has all the seeds of error.

Originally Posted by nanofreak

I'm not saying that every piece of fiction comes true but when there's a strong scientific basis you can't ignore it.

As you say, when there's a STRONG SCIENTIFIC BASIS but there isn't, not even a nano shred, so?

Originally Posted by nanofreak

Nothing's impossible in Science.

utter nonsense! nothing's impossible in your dreams but there are many dreams that are impossible in science.

Originally Posted by nanofreak

so get your facts right before you go passing judgement.

YOU prove your claims before you present them as facts instead of posting this meaningless sentence.

it's not up to me to prove my doubts, it's up to YOU to prove your claims.

you don't have a clue about scientific methods.

about facts:

1. if you put ANY body in a box, and unless that body is eating while in there, it will at all times indicate a change of weight because it is burning energy = calories = weight. it is an ongoing process.

2. as you put it, the soul leaves the body at a very precise fraction of a second. how do you prove at which precise time that is?

3. by which means would you prove that the body at that precise moment burned more energy than the second before and after?

so before anything at all, YOU prove:

a) what a soul is;
b) at what precise moment it leaves a body;
c) that there is a weight loss at that precise moment that differs from the natural weight loss of a non-eating body.

before you have proved these, you cannot claim ANYTHING, you can only wonder if.

once YOU have proved these, you can postulate that there MAY possibly be a weight loss due to a soul leaving a body.

until then your claims are unproven and therefore NOT facts.

So before you post such a meaningless sentence, get your facts AND your methods right.

I am standing on far firmer grounds when I am saying that based on my extensive knowledge of mickey mouse literature, I can affirm that mice make speech-like sounds. which of course by your logic allows me to claim that mice can write novels. ergo brown being a living organism capable of speech-like sound might possibly be a mouse. why not? for all I know he might be related to <ratatouille>.

my working week starts again, meaning I won't have time anymore to skate around trolls here anymore.

[jtwyler]

I give you credit for using <noetic> and <soul leaving body at weight loss> in the same sentence.

Let me try to match that: "George Bush is intelligent."

[NoeticBeliever]

Just because information was shared in a fictional story doesn't mean the science written isn't based on factual studies. You don't even have to dig deep to find actual studies on the weight of the soul and proof of its existence...call it what you want...a soul,energy that becomes unteathered by the body upon death or simple energy that feeds the earth and our surroundings...there have been studies by respected scientists out there on the matter.

Here's an exerpt on such a study:“The inescapable conclusion is that we have now confirmed the existence of the human soul and determined its weight,” Dr. Becker Mertens of Dresden said in a letter printed in the German science journal Horizon.

“The challenge before us now is to figure out exactly what the soul is composed of”, he continued. “We are inclined to believe that it is a form of energy. “But our attempts to identify this energy have been unsuccessful to date.”

The expert’s report, co-authored by physicist Elke Fisher, got mixed review from top scientists around the world. Gerard Voisart, the leading French pathologist, was especially critical, saying that the weight difference between the living and the dead could be accounted for by air leaving the lungs. But Drs. Fisher and Mertens said they took that into account in making their calculations. They further stated that the device they used to weigh the soul has a margin of error of less than 1/100,000th of an ounce.

“It occurred to us that the weight loss could be the result of an instantaneous physical deterioration,” said Dr. Fisher. “But after exhaustive study we agreed that was not the case. The only possible explanation is that we were measuring the loss of the human soul or some kind of life force.”

Now, I think that this at least contradicts your initial reaction that the loss of weight can be due to digestion. Don't be so quick to judge others and their posts...I don't know if it makes you feel intelligent, but to me it just made you look like an a**.

[jtwyler]

Originally Posted by nanofreak

So that means if someone contradicts you they are a "Troll"(I didn't know you can use abusive language on the forum), and if there are scientists who work in Noetic science AND they don't have the TIME or you can't UNDERSTAND their views or work, means their work is worthless...

Let me return the compliment then. Its a waste of my time if I look for any civilized answers from you.

a) you are new to the internet I suppose? ah well, we've all been newbies... for your info, the word troll is NOT abusive in the slightest;

b) you are not contradicting me, you are defending your original post which is intellectual garbage; I am contradicting you by saying that the foundation of your post stinks; get your logic in order;

c) you use a novelist who is known worldwide as a bestselling author and who for perfectly acceptable literary reasons uses pseudo-science to make his books more interesting; his writings do not in the least qualify as scientific; to present his novels as the foundation of serious science is at best a hallucination, at worst a @§$#!%“& (there you have your abusive language);

d) Noetics a science??? ; noetics is NOT a science, it boggles the mind to read that; noetics is a somewhat esoteric branch of metaphilosophy; at best;

e) and what do you mean you return my compliment? You can't return anything you weren't given; I have not complimented you on anything, quite the contrary;

f) I just notice I have replied to your post which I had promised myself not to do anymore because there are already enough time-wasters out there as is; but then I sometimes feel strangely inspired by troll posts; I guess it's the fairy-taleish aspect of it that attracts me when I've got nothing else to do;

g) I believe your claim to be a student of science as true as the content of your posts is scientifically valid; which narrows it down: do you post because you are a fervent adept of pseudo-science, in which case you are not to be taken seriously, or is it to irritate the members of this forum? If it is the first, you are a jwiervlékjer, if it is the latter, you are a troll; and before you impulsively post another ignorant comment on that word", google "troll" or "forum troll" to see what it means.

h) you have not replied to a single one of my rational question, for example as to how you define the very moment a soul leaves a body or why bodies keep losing weight for some time after clinical death; the reason why you haven't answered is that logic disturbs you, that you don't know what you are talking about and that you have not the slightest idea how to reply in a way that makes sense; instead you get personal because you take your completely unscientific beliefs for facts but feel insulted because no one here believes your esoteric haberdashery.

i) since you believe in Brown's, here's one for you: [Only registered users see links. ]

[chubbuck35]

[quote=jtwyler;417487]a) you are new to the internet I suppose? ah well, we've all been newbies... for your info, the word troll is NOT abusive in the slightest;

b) you are not contradicting me, you are defending your original post which is intellectual garbage; I am contradicting you by saying that the foundation of your post stinks; get your logic in order;

c) you use a novelist who is known worldwide as a bestselling author and who for perfectly acceptable literary reasons uses pseudo-science to make his books more interesting; his writings do not in the least qualify as scientific; to present his novels as the foundation of serious science is at best a hallucination, at worst a @§$#!%“& (there you have your abusive language);

d) Noetics a science??? ; noetics is NOT a science, it boggles the mind to read that; noetics is a somewhat esoteric branch of metaphilosophy; at best;

e) and what do you mean you return my compliment? You can't return anything you weren't given; I have not complimented you on anything, quite the contrary;

f) I just notice I have replied to your post which I had promised myself not to do anymore because there are already enough time-wasters out there as is; but then I sometimes feel strangely inspired by troll posts; I guess it's the fairy-taleish aspect of it that attracts me when I've got nothing else to do;

g) I believe your claim to be a student of science as true as the content of your posts is scientifically valid; which narrows it down: do you post because you are a fervent adept of pseudo-science, in which case you are not to be taken seriously, or is it to irritate the members of this forum? If it is the first, you are a jwiervlékjer, if it is the latter, you are a troll; and before you impulsively post another ignorant comment on that word", google "troll" or "forum troll" to see what it means.

h) you have not replied to a single one of my rational question, for example as to how you define the very moment a soul leaves a body or why bodies keep losing weight for some time after clinical death; the reason why you haven't answered is that logic disturbs you, that you don't know what you are talking about and that you have not the slightest idea how to reply in a way that makes sense; instead you get personal because you take your completely unscientific beliefs for facts but feel insulted because no one here believes your esoteric haberdashery.

i) since you believe in Brown's, here's one for you:

jtwyler, you need to chill out, what is wrong with you? The guy just posted a fun question to speculate about, he wasn't claiming anything was "proven" or "real science". The tone of his post sounded like a topic starter that is fun to give an opinion on. Honestly, you come across as someone with a lot of pent-up anger and hostility when you immediately respond with unprovoked personal attacks and angry responses.

Personally, I think noetic science is a load of crap based on the little research I've done (see how easy that was to disagree with someone without attacking them personally?)

Hope your forum anger problem improves,

Sincerely,

Chubbuck35

[nanofreak]

Oh yeah & you are a world-famous scientist i suppose.... Alrite.

& NO i don't have an idea that's why I asked a question Hoping to get answers not abuses...
Oh God save me from this guy.. I'm gonna try & delete my profile, you are getting on my nerves at last



HAPPY RANTING... enjoy ur job...

[jtwyler]

Originally Posted by nanofreak

i don't have an idea that's why I asked a question...

Seems typical, not a clue why he asks but then asks anyway. All you do is whine why you aren't taken seriously. The truth is, you aren't to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by nanofreak

I'm gonna try & delete my profile

Ah, signs of intelligence at last...