Soul as parasite

[davewhite04]

And you have no evidence. I attack meritless and unscientific ideas. A dying person is the least reliable storyteller possible, other than the mentally ill. How do you know it's not a dream?

No evidence for what?

EDIT: Before you unload some more shit, yes, you have no evidence. Move on.

 

[davewhite04]

Yes, you don't know. For a perception after death to be verified, one would have to bring back verifiable information that could not have been known or guessed otherwise. Until then, there is no reason to assume a vision experienced during a medical emergency represents anything real.

Actually I do know, but that is besides the point. You obviously don't hence the confusion once you ask science to prove something it cannot prove thus science must be right.

Pathetic. Go on, get your last word in.

 

[C C]

I stumbled across this page , I'll start here I have a heart problem my heart ended up stopping and I was dead for over 3 minutes while I was dead I seen in a vision type state what life and creation was , souls are a parasite created by what you would call the creator, our physical body is like a host ,the soul(parasite)and the physical body can influence each other, souls cant be killed by anything but the creator, there are 7 different kinds of soul (parasite), there also made in pairs of 2 (soulmates) [...]

Parasitism involves a predatory relationship with a host. Accordingly, those transactions would be detectable and thus evidence for such an invisible parasite. Which they aren't.[*]

In contrast to parasitism, the relationship in epiphenomenalism concerns one category of events (physical or neural) either causing or evoking another class of events (mental), but the latter has no return influence upon the former (thus the public invisibility or lack of detection, despite existing). But a consequence of that one-way influence would be that the brain should have no knowledge of the epiphenomenal manifestations and feelings it references in its reports about the body's thoughts, somatic states, and perceptions (processing of external sensory information).

- - - footnote - - -

[*] Outside any dispensed propaganda, however, no exhaustive mapping and measurement accounting of all microscopic exchanges in the brain has been miraculously conducted to determine such one way or another. But methodological naturalism prods one to conform to its practical "as if" directives for scientific progress. Which is to say, it is expected that if such an ultimate inventory was possible, no inexplicable anomalies would show up in the audit.

 

[James R]

Actually I do know, but that is besides the point.

Personally, I think this should be the crux of the point.

This is you claiming you have actual knowledge that souls exist. But you say your knowledge and the means by which you came to it are beside the point. That strikes me as exceedingly strange.

If you have definite knowledge that souls exist - as opposed to a mere unevidenced belief - then why would you not want to share the source of your knowledge with the world?

 

[Michael 345]

then why would you not want to share the source of your knowledge with the world?

I know the question rhetorical but perhaps

• future big reveal via
• book deal getting lots of
• money

That the book will be full of Woo Woo won't matter

 

[James R]

I know the question rhetorical but perhaps

• future big reveal via
• book deal getting lots of
• money

That the book will be full of Woo Woo won't matter

I'm tempted to make the point that to write a book one needs (a) a modicum of facility with language use, (b) the ability to string together more than a couple of lines of text at a stretch, and (c) the ability to concentrate on one thing long enough to be able to sustain an extended narrative of one kind or another.

But on the other hand, they published The Secret, and Dan Brown made millions, so who am I to dispute your hypothesis?