How does science explain soul?
how much is science sure of existence of soul?
Re: Soul
my apology modz, can you plz move it to philo forum?
Re: Soul
moved
Re: Soul
thank :)
Re: Soul
so science does not define soul? may be some sort of energy?
Re: Soul
science has nothing to do with philosophy, why was this thread moved here? 
Re: Soul
to determine jurisdiction of soul. whether its purely philosophical or science also has some say about the soul
Re: Soul
Koi scientist hi bata sakta hy yeh :)
Re: Soul
soul is not a scientific concept and falls within the realm of mythology or blind belief.
Re: Soul
it ain't observable, repeatable, or falsifiable...sooo. who knows.
Re: Soul
need to do some soul-searching.
A question with a follow-on comes to mind :
Is being religious a pre-requisite to having a soul? Or can souls be immoral, and hence non-religious?
Re: Soul
bad-rooh (pret-atma) does exist for some people 
Re: Soul
soul is not a scientific concept and falls within the realm of mythology or blind belief.
It exists and this is the reason a lot of experts and scientists are wasting their time in attempt to quantify it.
Re: Soul
Actually established science has nothing to say about soul. But, "theoretical" science and some science lovers tell some illogical things about soul.
Why Illogical, because they degrade and transform the concept of soul before explaining it as they cannot explain it without scientific formalization. Whereas, soul cannot be understood without taking two facts into consideration, life and death.
They formalize it by declaring it sometimes, consciousness, chemical reaction being performed in our brain, implication of our neural system, or sometime a sophisticated phenomenon that built/constructed the object as our body. Scientifically, no one knows, how consciousness works, what are these chemical reactions, what is the implication of neural system, and what is that sophistication that is required to construct an object with soul.
How they quantify it, for example, I have read some guy's comments that it is not about constructing an object simply but the way HOW we construct an object so that it can work like living objects. They have nothing more to say on it then a word ‘HOW’.
How can a scientist attempt to develop an object that will have soul?
An object with soul means it has life, and having life means there must be a death state/condition for that object. So if a scientist is going to develop an object with soul, how would he deal with this death condition? Would he purposely or manually add this condition/state?
Re: Soul
:halo: religion starts where science fails to explain
Re: Soul
Yes if you want to see your Soul start smoking! 
Science itself can also be considered a Mythology too when All Matter particals we see and touch having the property of Mass depending on an unseen Boson!
So in essence Soul can be a relative term…soul is something that is the quitessential spark that keeps things going!
Re: Soul
In other words, one’s dependance on religion is inversely correlated with one’s grasp of scientific concepts?
Re: Soul
this is true. religion fills the voids and unknowns of our experience. but as our knowledge of our world grows, religion must be flexible enough for re-interpretation, or be compartmentalized to non-practical spheres of our lives. otherwise, it becomes a ball and chain on one’s ankle.
Re: Soul
In other words, one's dependance on religion is inversely correlated with one's grasp of scientific concepts?
lols. No it means there are still some questions, which aren't answered by science satisfactorily.
Re: Soul
Atman is ones inner self. The deeper you look within yourself, you can feel oneness with the univeerse. I am you. You are me. This life is Maya. Getting in touch with Atman is akin to waking up from the dream - the Maya life we are living. Makes sense to me, I think.
So if I hate you, I hate me. Kumbaya anyone?