TED Conversations

Tambra Tice

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What do you think happens to your soul when your body dies?

What do you think happens to your soul when your body dies? I'm looking to find out what people think about the soul...does it live on? cease to exist? reincarnation? heaven or hell? What makes you believe that?

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Sep 4 2011: YES!!!!!
    • thumb
      Sep 6 2011: That is quite far fetched Farrukh,

      That would imply that your soul is your metabolism....

      But technically, it is not in contradiction with science. Though I would like to point out that when the energy is used and disperses as heat.... your soul is the heat (following your reasoning)... and stops to produce more heat after death.

      It does not support a lot of the claims made in this conversation though
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Sep 7 2011: QUOTE: "When it comes to heat being the soul, I did not even think about anything like that."

          No, that's true, you didn't say that - whether you thought about it or not is beyond my ken - , but it is the logical extension of attributing anything to the application of energy. "Unused" energy dissipates as heat. There is no physical contrivance, biological or otherwise, that is 100% efficient in its use of energy.

          QUOTE: "In worst case, my interpretation of soul as type of energy might be wrong, but soul is something."

          Yes, it no doubt is "something." It is possible that "the something" is simply an idea.

          It might be something other than that.

          Again: We either know or we don't know.

          Speculation is not disallowed.
        • thumb
          Sep 7 2011: I'll have to second Thomas.

          I think it is unfair (and misleading towards science) to first try and formulate a scientific account of the soul, while later saying you are not using the scientific terminology (in this case energy) properly.

          Your claim about "unconventional energy" should not be called energy (unless it has the same fundamental properties all forms of energy have). If that is a claim you are willing to make, it can start to become a scientific theory, that can then be tested (after eliminating all logic errors en inconsistencies first I guess)
      • thumb
        Sep 7 2011: Christophe,
        What might have happened, if scientists, throughout history had said...that idea is too "far fetched" so we're not going to consider it? Probably not much progress in scientific discovery huh?

        I think Farrukh's idea is very interesting, and it DOES support many claims made in this discussion:>)The soul/energy may be very much a part of our metabolism, as some of us have suggested that it is the life force energy.Y

        ou say Christophe, that technically, Farrukh's theory is not in contradiction to science? I agree:>)Some of us are suggesting that the soul/energy moves on when the body dies. The energy disperses heat...the soul is the heat/metabolism/life force, and stops producing heat IN THE BODY because the energy/soul is no longer in the physical body. That is why the body becomes cold and
        ceases to function.

        I don't think it is unfair or misleading towards science to build on the knowledge we have at this time, and in fact, that seems like the logical way to learn and grow with information. Scientific discoveries need to start somewhere...correct? Again, I ask you the question...what would happen if young scientists with different ideas are all told that their idea is too "far fetched"?

        We know that I am not a scientist, and I'm commenting on this topic because of an experience I had, and I LOVE to hear the scientific possibilities:>) The only way I can describe what I experienced is as energy, and I know that is not adequate as far as what I am trying to describe, but it is the only word that fits, at this time. Call it "unconventional energy" if you will, and perhaps we can speak about soul/energy/life force from that base. It is already being tested scientifically, so for you to dismess it as "far fetched" Christophe, doesn't seem very logical:>)
        • thumb
          Sep 7 2011: Hi Colleen
          I just received over mail the link to a testimony that you perhaps would like to see.
          Maybe Christophe likes to see it too, to criticize it because it doesn't fit his logic.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08
        • thumb
          Sep 7 2011: @ Frans:
          - They pronounced him dead when he was still on the machines... (technically he was still not completely dead?)
          - The person heart started to beat again (which he admits happens). The pressure comes back (we don't know why... but it can happen)...
          => this is an exceptional story, but does not give an account of a soul
          - The person's description could have been influenced by other people's witnesses... I would need to make an inquiry on the people talked to him &c... Plus the doctors pre-disposition towards certain beliefs (in order to exclude confirmation bias)
          Still quite skeptical, but witnesses like that should make us attempt to document such cases, and maybe try and film the whole event, in order to exclude any sources of skepticism people like me still have...
        • thumb
          Sep 7 2011: @ Colleen

          Of course out of the box thinking is needed in order to generate new hypothesis... so i would not try to prevent people from coining new ideas.

          however... certain observations and established facts have a body of evidence that can not be ignored, and need to be taken into account within the new (forming) theory. It may not blatantly reject it (a new theory in physics cannot contradict gravity for example)

          I did say he made a good point... sadly, he lost his credibility after my comment... If he acknowledged the (thus far never ever rejected) ideas of thermodynamics, it would have been great and he might have gone to a new plausible theory that might augment the probability of a soul to exist.
          However, he retreated from the established body of observations, and got to a "mere" opinion.
          if however, he acknowledges thermodynamics, we could go further, and investigate his ideas (following the older logic of Popper, or the newer Bayesian reasoning), in order to see whether this (albeit far-fetched) idea is likely (or not).

          To me it's like Michael Shermer says: "Be open minded, but not so open minded your brain falls out"... It means that you cannot throw previous observations or ideas out of the window, just because you like to think otherwise (or because you don't know about them)
        • thumb
          Sep 8 2011: Hi Christophe,

          I am responding here to a question you asked in another conversation.

          I don't think our intention should be to convince other people of anything ... that is, it is not important whether anyone agrees with us or not (about anything.)

          I think we should just express ourselves as clearly as we can and accept that, like us, others will make up their own minds.

          I do not think that we humans are particularly good and drawing "correct" conclusions. I think we are pretty good at choosing what makes us feel good - even if it doesn't make sense. And, when you think about it THAT makes sense: choosing to feel good over choosing to make sense is EXACTLY what an irrational feeling machine would do.

          So if it makes us feel good to believe that our soul goes to heaven when we die, no matter what evidence is, or is not, available, we will interpret the evidence in such a way that it supports our worldview - or we will ignore it.

          And if it makes us feel good to believe that we don't have a soul and that everything can be explained using physical laws, we will interpret the evidence in such a way that that worldview is supported.

          It seems rare for humans to simply say, "I don't know." (Saying "I don't know" makes us feel uncomfortable.)

          As a small sample in support of that statement, witness the bulk of this conversation.

          Does anyone here know what happens after we die - absolutely not - and yet very few of us are willing to accept that. (In fact, that I will say that, unequivocally, will likely draw out a few comments about how I don't know that they don't know ... because of ... [pick an explanation.])

          But my point is: it doesn't matter if people understand and accept your point of view. It's enough that you do.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Sep 8 2011: Science does not give all the answers Farrukh... It tels us how the answers can unabiguously be found. And it tells us the current answers (with all our ignorance).

          There are degrees of wrong: http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
          Please read this article written by Isaac Asimov... he explains it better than I can.

          in short: 50% error is more wrong than 10% error is more wrong than 0.1% error.
          If you think all wrongs are equal, and derive that science is wrong, you are more wrong than those two wrongs together.

          And Yes, we could be completely wrong about everything (though i does not seem that way, given our posibility to predict a lot of stuf); but it is better to base your ideas on facts (limited information) than on nothing at all... Some people call it inductive reasoning
        • thumb
          Sep 8 2011: I agree Christophe,
          Scientific research provides the "current answers", and as with any other exploration, when we get new information, our answers may change at times. If we are "stuck" with what detail is "right" and which one is "wrong", we may miss the exploration, and thereby limit ourselves:>)
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2011: Dear Christophe,
        Farrukh's comments were not at all "far fetched" and his ideas are "not in contradiction with science" as you have stated. They did however, seem to be in contradiction with what you are willing to open your mind to. Too bad we lost him from this discussion.

        I agree with Cole Barnshaw's recent post in this thread. You "correct others" when Cole does not have the energy to do so. What kind of discussions evolve however, when a person needs always to "correct others"?
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2011: Hmmm...
          There is this saying ( Matthew 7:3) that is in my opinion incomplete:
          "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

          I say: "Help each other to remove each other's specks and planks, so you can both see more clearly." (actually, in the Apocrypha Gospel of Thomas, it is stated like that).

          I also regret that Farrukh's posts have disappeared...

          There is no contradiction between an open mind and a logical mind.
          But I don't mind I might give you the impression of audacity...
          or like Birdia puts it:
          "[some] people tend to mistake confidence for arrogance"

          I don't have the energy to be gentle with everybody who might be offended with what I say or think.
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2011: I agree Christophe,
        We are here to support each other in our life journey..."help each other to remove each other's specks and planks, so you can both see more clearly".

        The only contradiction between an open mind and a logical mind comes when one is stuck in his/her own logic, and fails to be open minded to someone else's logic. How about being gentle with yourself and allow yourself to honestly see all the specks and planks without judgement?

        I don't agree that people "mistake confidence for arrogance". Confident people will generally be open to new thoughts, feelings, ideas and opinions.
        • Sep 10 2011: Dear Colleen,

          Cop is saying 3 + 3 = 6
          and you are asking why don't one accept the possibility of being 7
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2011: Dear Kaka Dada,
        As humans, we continually evolve beyond certain scientific beliefs...that is how we grow, learn and evolve as a species:>) I'm open to the idea that 3+3=6 is a mathamatical construct in the human life experience, and may not be correct in other life forms:>)

        I'm sure you know the fact that we have energy moving through our body and mind has been proven scientifically. The next question is...where does that energy go when the body dies? That is the topic of this discussion.
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2011: Ok, let's assume I'm less open minded than you, and that I have my profound reasons for it. You can be open minded to accept that Colleen.

          As for the energy through the body (as indeed that is the topic in this part of the conversation):

          - Thermodynamics and laws of entropy can be seen as a fact.
          - The energy that flows through the brains is partly chemical/molecular (synapses, neurotransmitters) and partly electric (neuronal signal, triggered by sodium/potassium differential)
          These energy flows are fed by the cell's metabolism that needs sugars and oxygen.
          When the blood stops flowing through the brain, and the oxygen is all burned, the energy flow stops... And the neurons start to die (you see this in stroke trauma's).
          When the brain ceases to function, the energy-flow ceases.
          The process of decomposition is the sum of all the molecules and cells that start to lose more and more energy, as the chemical reactions follow the chain of entropy.

          The energy in the atoms (nuclear energy) stays the same
          the molecular energy falls down (through heat) until the remainder molecules are stable.
          The electrical energy is lost when the membranes of the cells get torn and add to the chemical reactions

          So the energy goes to heat.

          You are free to put forth another hypothesis. For example: If there is such thing as "soul"-energy, it should be measure-able and maybe even isolated and captured. (place a dying brain in a (air and magnetic) sealed tank filled with energy sensors of all kind, and see what happens)
        • Sep 10 2011: Colleen, "As humans, we continually evolve beyond certain scientific beliefs...that is how we grow"

          thats how i was forced to believe there is Big guy up there in Heaven who watches every move i make but i'm sorry Colleen it didn't make me grow.
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2011: The human experience is 1+1=3. Sometimes 4.
        • Sep 11 2011: Frans, rubber hasn't anymore value?
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2011: Dear Kaka Dada,
        When I said we evolve beyond certain scientific beliefs, I was thinking that we move to more advanced scientific beliefs. Sorry I was not more clear with that statement.

        I also had the experience as a child, with people trying to force me to believe "there is a big guy up there in heaven who watches every move i make". That never made sense to me even as a child. As I grew to be an adult, I realized I could make my own choices based on information I had at any given time. The information I consider is from many different sources. Nothing to be sorry about kaka dada...it is all part of the life exploration:>)
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2011: My Dear Christophe,
        I accept and appreciate you exactly as you are, and do not care to compare my open mindedness with your open mindedness:>) I have simply been encouraging a dialogue that includes and welcomes ideas that may be new to some people:>)

        In many respects, we're on the same page. I have never questioned the dying process, which you have explained very well. After sitting with many dying people, I can probably tell you the order in which the organs start to fail, but that is not the topic of this discussion.

        I agree...."the energy flow ceases" when we die. In my perception, it ceases to flow through the body, and changes form.

        I do not agree that "the electrical energy is lost". I believe it changes form, and that is what we call the spirit/soul/life force energy. That is the idea Farrukh explained much better than I can. It was this idea you called "far fetched" and said it did not support any other comment on this thread, which is not true. Several of us on this thread have presented this theory:>)

        I do not have a "dying brain" available to me, but scientists are doing just fine with similar experiments:>) Thanks for your openmindedness:>)
    • thumb
      Sep 7 2011: Frans,
      Thanks for that link...I LOVE it of course!!!

      As a younger person, I worked as an Operating Room Technician/Surgical Assistant, so I've seen lots of interesting "scenes". As an older person, I've volunteered in a terminal care facility, and I've been with several friends and relatives when they died. Then of course, there's my own NDE/OBE, which happened after a head/brain injury and craniotomy, as life support systems were keeping the body alive:>) I've also done a lot of research on the topic over the years.

      I got a kick out of the video because it reminded me of going back to ICU to visit the people who took care of me there. The director of ICU showed me the room I was in when I was unconscious, close to death, and hooked up to life support systems. I described the room as I saw it from above, and he was quite amazed that I knew how the room was set up...I was unconscious and very close to death according to the medical model:>)
      • thumb
        Sep 7 2011: Hi Colleen
        Thought you would like it. One has to see with or without their own eyes to know. At the age of 19 I had a heavy road accident and was fully unconscious until I waked up in the hospital. Yet did I answer questions in the ambulance about my identity and security and I have a memory of it. And also that I had a vision on the same moment from inside as well as outside the ambulance. The answers I provided were out of the database that wasn't yet updated because some facts weren't actuated.

        @Christophe
        Over thermodynamics. Do I say something stupid as I think that entropy decreases in living systems during their development in ever more complex order?
        • thumb
          Sep 7 2011: "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes..."
          (Marcel Proust)

          Thanks for sharing a piece of your story Frans, and glad you're still here:>)
          There is so much information regarding this topic, I am amazed that some people still hide their heads in the sand...but...that's life in this earth school:>)

          Personally, I feel that the spirit/soul/energy state of being is more "real" than the earth school. I am looking forward to going back to my real home again,when I'm finished here:>)
        • thumb
          Sep 8 2011: Frans: no, you don't, but that comes from the fact that we charge up with a higher form of eneregy that comes from our food, and that the energy on our planet can increase due to the sun... though the sun is increasing entropy at a very high rate.

          Local decreases in Entropy don't violate the laws of thermodynamics...
          If you look at each specific reaction that happens, we see that it is always an increase though...

          So it is not stupid. It is incomplete
    • thumb
      Sep 7 2011: My Dear Christophe,
      You are absolutely right! "Certain observations and established facts have a body of evidence that can not be ignored, and need to be taken into account within the new (forming) theory".

      "Be open minded, but not so open minded your brain falls out".
      I agree with THAT Christophe!!! Perfer to keep my brains inside at this point...LOL:>)
    • thumb
      Sep 8 2011: I think it's definition problem.
      Definition problems are everywhere..

      I curious about this question, do you think everything is energy?
      I mean, do you think "soul or your thoughts" are energy?

      I doubt it..

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.