Clones and Souls

[unicorn]

Would clones have souls? Maybe that's why they die so quickly...because God does not endow them with souls...they are copies of the biological aspect of a being--souls cannot be replicated. Souls are what spark life/animate the biological being. What do you guys think?

[unicorn]

ENIGMA:

Enigma, the fact that your articles didn't mention the word soul in them, is not why they didn't pertain to this thread. It is because they did not support the existence of, nor the non-existence of souls in anyway, shape, or form. They are articles on brain damage, which has nothing to do with souls.

So, as you were so want to ask:

I think you are getting personality and identity confused. That's a simple mistake. When Gage's personality changed, did they give him a new name? Did he lose all rights to his property acquired under his old personality? Did his family members stop referring to him as one of their own? The answer is no because his identity as Gage continued to exist...he was still the same being. Personality changes all the time, even in people who are not brain-injured. Identity does not change.

If you read the article as opposed to skimming it...

I skimmed again, but still, nothing changes the fact that the articles do not support this discussion on souls. The inability to create long-term memories is a matter of brain function, not souls.

However, because you are definately participating in this discussion intelligently (stating more than your opinion/feelings/disagreement), I will help you out. To make at least one of your articles compatible with this discussion, you might ask:

"unicorn, you listed the ability to carry-on memory as one of the attributes for souls. In this article on Henry M., there is a paragraph on skill learning as differentiated from other types of long-term memory; an aspect of long-term memory unaffected by traumas which degenerate the creation of most long-term memory. What kinds of memories do you think souls would have?"

I would then reply, "Wow, ENIGMA, that's a really good question. You know what, I really don't know!"

[unicorn]

McCulloch: Thank you. Now that is a reply that I can work with. You have pointed out something which clarifies this entire "argument" on souls and is a point of great frustration for everyone.

If we use your definition of soul,...and we assume that there will be no further redefinition of the point of death...Then NDEs still do not prove that a soul exists independent form the body. All they prove is that, under some conditions, these abilities can be restored after apparent death, if the bodily functions can be restored. There is still no evidence that a soul, if it exists, has any continuity apart form the body which once housed it.

I found in the articles on research I posted, that the "soul" (as defined for purposes in this discussion) was able to acquire new information for the individual...information above and beyond what existed before death and could be restored. So, during death, the individuals kept learning, creating memories, experiencing. How do you understand and explain this without using a soul explanation?

I have no need for the soul hypothesis.

I really didn't understand this statement. The fact that you joined in this discussion means that you have an interest in souls (whether to negate or prove their existence). But, it seems as if you are saying several things to the contrary: Even if souls are real, they don't matter, because my experience is here and now. Souls are outside the realm of our perception based on our senses, they don't effect me, so they don't matter. This is too complicated to bother with.

Lastly:

One principal of debate is that someone who makes a positive claim, such as "souls exist", bear the burden of proof.

One of the rules of debate is that the individual who contends against the majority has the burden of proof. Since over 90% of this world believes in an afterlife, a creator, and the existence of souls, the burden is on those who claim otherwise.

[McCulloch]

One principal of debate is that someone who makes a positive claim, such as "souls exist", bear the burden of proof.

One of the rules of debate is that the individual who contends against the majority has the burden of proof. Since over 90% of this world believes in an afterlife, a creator, and the existence of souls, the burden is on those who claim otherwise.

Actually on this point you are incorrect. The principal that the individual who contends against the majority has the burden of proof is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum).

However, lets look at the list attributes you provide for a soul to see whether an extra bodily entity such as a soul is required to explain its existence.

• A sense/recognition of identity encompassing
  • sensations, sensations are transmitted by neurons to the brain. They are entirely physiological.
  • thoughts, feelings, beliefs & desires, These are all existent in the human brain. We know that surgery and certain chemicals can alter thoughts, feelings and desires. These are adequately explained by human physiology.
  • ability to make choices, same.
  • ability to think/reason, same. Again this can be altered surgically hormonally and chemically. Would that mean that your soul is changed by it's physical environment?
  • memory, same
• that continues to exist/experience apart/independently from the cessation of all brain/bodily functions

So only the last point is left without a physiological explanation. And that point is still unproven.

I have no need for the soul hypothesis. Apologies to Stephen Weinberg.

I really didn't understand this statement. The fact that you joined in this discussion means that you have an interest in souls (whether to negate or prove their existence). But, it seems as if you are saying several things to the contrary: Even if souls are real, they don't matter, because my experience is here and now. Souls are outside the realm of our perception based on our senses, they don't effect me, so they don't matter. This is too complicated to bother with.

No, you misunderstood me. I am invoking Occam's Razor. Since all of the attributes listed are explained without hypothesizing the existence of a soul, I see no need to introduce it.

So the crux of your argument seems to hang on the idea that certain individuals seem to have accumulated experiences, feelings and memories while in a state of undetectable brain activity. It appears as if the only explanation for these phenomena available to you is the existence of an extra-bodily immaterial eternal entity called a soul. I believe that such a conclusion would be the logical fallacy of False Dilemma. I have to ask your indulgence before I can get back to you with further information about that, but feel free to formulate other possible and plausible explanations for NDE phenomena.

[unicorn]

McCulloch:

You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose I was wrong. But, we learn most from our mistakes!

What have I learned, you ask? The following:

1) In having the burden of proof in this instance, I have already fulfilled my purpose: I have presented positive proof that the soul (as defined for the purposes of this discussion) has been measured by scientists in recent studies.

2) Now, as the person who does not have the burden of proof, you must now either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported. You still have failed to do this.

For example:

Lets look at the list attributes you provide for a soul...only the last point is left without a physiological explanation...

A point you continue to miss (or perhaps one you are ignoring) is that the individuals in the studies presented were DEAD. As a result, no physiological explanations were present to explain the functions of the soul (sense/recognition of identity (sensations, thoughts, felling, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason, memory)). Perhaps you've also missed a part of my definition: ...continues to exist/experience apart/independently from the cessation of all brain/bodily functions...(physiological functions, perhaps?).

So the crux or your argument seems to hang on...False Dilemma.

Wrong, as has been pointed out to you. However, I have determined the fallacy that you are subscribing to: Invincible Ignorance

[QED]

1) In having the burden of proof in this instance, I have already fulfilled my purpose: I have presented positive proof that the soul (as defined for the purposes of this discussion) has been measured by scientists in recent studies.

A British scientist studying heart attack patients says he is finding evidence that suggests that consciousness may continue after the brain has stopped functioning and a patient is clinically dead

Recent medical studies in cardiac arrest patients have begun to shed light on this fascinating phenomenon and have indicated that the mind and consciousness may in fact be what remains of us after death. If proven, this will of course have huge implications for all humankind.

(All emphasis mine)

However, Pim van Lommel is much more sure about it:

Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia).

(emphasis mine)

How exactly is it established that the the reported experiences are actually taking place during the period of TPA?

[McCulloch]

The question for debate seems to be around the existence of souls. Unicorn has asserted that science proves that souls exist and as evidence to support that view, she has provided examples of out-of-body experiences (OBEs) in Near Death Events (NDEs).

This all hinges on the idea that the individuals in the studies presented were DEAD. As a result, no physiological explanations were present to explain the functions of the soul (sense/recognition of identity (sensations, thoughts, felling, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason, memory)).

The facts which require an explanation are simply these. A few people have been in a state of clinical death, no measurable brain activity and have been revived. After their revival, they have apparent memories of sensations and thoughts which they believe had happened while they were 'dead'. Some of these include being out of their bodies and observing themselves from some other place.

Unicorn has asserted strongly that the only possible explanation for these facts is the existence of an immaterial thing we call a soul which has an existence independent from the body.

The scientists researching these phenomena are not quite as certain as Unicorn.

For instance Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick at the University of Southampton, 15th May 2001. Dr Parnia is a graduate of Guys and St. Thomas' medical schools in London. He is currently a registrar in internal and respiratory medicine as well as a clinical research fellow working towards a PhD in the molecular biology of asthma. He was a member of the Southampton University Trust Hospitals resuscitation committee between 1998 and 1999. He is also chairman of Horizon Research Foundation. While working on the medical and coronary care units of Southampton General Hospitals and together with Dr Peter Fenwick he set up the first ever study of near death experiences in the UK. The results of this study have received widespread coverage in the national and international press and have recently been published in the medical journal "Resuscitation"

A problem that Dr. Parnia is very aware of is the fact that the stories don't constitute scientific proof. The two main objections have been that the accounts can be dismissed as hallucinations or fabrications. Also, you never know how close to death the person under investigation actually was. Whether the brain is still functioning or not is going to be a major factor in any study. The three explanations that have been proposed are:

• they can be explained physiologically
• they are psychological
• they are genuinely transcendental

... Needless to say, there needs to be more research and a higher population of survivors to develop a better picture. In order to obtain independent evidence, Dr. Parnia has hidden certain objects around the hospital wards that the patients may notice and remember, but this has not brought results yet. ... Hence, Fenwick leans towards the transcendental interpretation. ... It is unlikely that many sceptical scientists will be convinced. The science writer Susan Blackmore has researched the subject, having considered many case histories, but says, 'All things considered, I can see no reason to adopt the afterlife hypothesis ... The dying brain hypothesis, for all its shortcomings, does a better job of accounting for the experiences themselves'. Because we do dream and (sometimes) hallucinate, it might seem hasty to posit an afterlife on the basis of these experiences if there is a simpler explanation.

So it appears as if the scientists who are actually doing the research cannot be as sure as Unicorn in their conclusions. I believe that Unicorn is a bit premature in declaring that only one explanation could possibly explain the observed facts. I am with the real scientists who admit that science is still a bit short of proof of a soul.

[Excel]

Unicorn:

1) In having the burden of proof in this instance, I have already fulfilled my purpose: I have presented positive proof that the soul (as defined for the purposes of this discussion) has been measured by scientists in recent studies.

I don't believe you have satisfied the burden of proof. You have only provided three studies that have varied results. The NDE may be akin to a brain reboot and any experiences are drawn from the pearsons memories.

You also haven't respond to ENIGMA's excellent argument. Your definition of a soul includes the following: encompassing sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason and memory. However all of these are affected by brain damage. Neurological disorders can prevent sensation, empathy, judgement, desires, memory and so on. So does that mean neurological disorders also effect the soul? Do medications or drugs that impair judgment effect the soul?

There has been very little study into NDEs and there is only a moderate understanding of how the brain works. Although NDE's may, in fact, be caused by the soul. However, there is not yet a compelling reason to favor that explanation over other ones that are obeserveable and testable.

[USIncognito]

No they do not... since there is no "soul." As far as being a seperate autonomous being? Of course. Clones are nothing more than offspring that were created via - admittedly - Frankensteinish science, but they are merely autonomous offspring, no different from a son or daughter.

[Cathar1950]

Identical twins?
Even before birth they start to develop separately. They each have their own experiences and respond and grow. Sure they are weird. They do the same things but there are differences.

[ST88]

The question for debate seems to be around the existence of souls. Unicorn has asserted that science proves that souls exist and as evidence to support that view, she has provided examples of out-of-body experiences (OBEs) in Near Death Events (NDEs).

Even if you don't accept the idea that there haven't been enough cases to make claims, both OBEs and NDEs have been scientifically validated as being functions of brain activity.
OBEs can be triggered manually by stimulating a part of the brain known as the angular gyrus.
NDEs can be triggered by a number of chemicals, including ketamine and DMT, a chemical produced by the body.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience