GameBanshee Forums

Think about it,

Familys souls bond and when 1 departs it takes some with them, thus feeling empty.

Evil people pick up soul energy when they murder.

E=MC^2 We are sort of energy.

Spirits are energy, just without a casing

Mad people have to much, and "short-circut"

Babys in the womb are seperated from the "main stream" "poolage" of energy, and shaped into a simmilar "frequency" as to the parents (who made it by giving up some of their energy)

Or am I babbling?

any comments?

Originally posted by craig
Or am I babbling?

Or did you take hallucinogenic drugs before loggin on today, Craigus?

*psyches self up to voice extremely controversial opinion*

You're babbling.

Or perhaps this all means something extremely useful in Craigian...*strokes beard*

No and thats a secret language!

But does the theory have flaws?

Originally posted by craig
No and thats a secret language!

But does the theory have flaws?

No offense or anything, but a "theory" needs some research and/or facts to back it up. What you have stated is a hypothesis. It certainly is interesting, but I think its a bit off...

Ahh thank you, A bit off how though?

Oh and these isn't be believeing it all the way this is simply experimental. Sorry if I scared you

Originally posted by craig
Oh and these isn't be believeing it all the way this is simply experimental. Sorry if I scared you

Good to know.

How is it a bit off?
I really dont think souls are kinetic. I dont think you can absorb them or anything like that.

Actually I believe in a kind of soul, a electric/magnetic field caused by brain functions. When someone dies the field stays temporarily near the body or the place where the body died until it fades away. The time it takes a "soul" to fade depends on the original person's will or something similar. The soul can perform very simple actions (move something very small or generate a minor visual effect) but as this takes energy and the only energy available to the soul is it's own performing actions is at the expendure of it's lifetime.
If a pregnant woman passes trough one such fields there is a small chance the elder soul suppresses the foetus' causing what we define as reïncarnation.

This theory explains some supernational phenomenons but by far not all. I'm not totally satisfied by it, any comment?

As you've probably guessed I'm atheïst/agnost . I don't believe in anything supernational right now, but I'm open to any belief or superstition if it makes sense to me.

its also flawed in the fact that its yet to be proven that souls exist but thats just nit-picking (i hope this doesnt bite me in the bum later)

@Craig, I suspect the problem with calling "soul" a "form of energy" is that many forms of energy can be scientifically verified and measured, but nothing like that has yet discovered a human soul. Of course, science is an evolving system of theories and tools, so it might happen, yet. I personally do believe in souls, but as a currently unmeasurable phenomenon.

Anyone want to comment on Kirlian energy? I've been told it's a scam. Never looked much into it, but it's based on taking photographs that supposedly detect a form of energy from living (and nonliving) objects.

(this is juz superstition)
The chinese believe that when a person dies his/her soul would capture the closest living thing around him/her.

so when there is a dead cat or dog or any animal...i used to be very afraid of going near it....

but it is due to all the horror stories that brain washed me.

When someone dies the field stays temporarily near the body or the place where the body died until it fades away. The time it takes a "soul" to fade depends on the original person's will or something similar. The soul can perform very simple actions (move something very small or generate a minor visual effect) but as this takes energy and the only energy available to the soul is it's own performing actions is at the expendure of it's lifetime.

so i guess it's kinda like how /-\lastor put it..

E=MC^2 We are sort of energy.

That is correct but our bodies are just, how shall I put it, fuel. We're mostly made of carbon and ATP (AdenineDiPhophate, the fuel of all life) and that is burnable or tranformable to fuel.

Scientifically speaking @Craig, a theory is a massive system of collected data and demonstrated hypothesis that all shows the validity of the system. (ie the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, the theory of DNA etc).

All theories must start out with several hypothesis. A hypothesis is not just any idea or opinion one have, it is the scientifically testable formulation and experimental set up of your idea or thought. One of the most important aspects of science is how to test different hypothesis so that we can know whether they are correct or not. In order to test things, we must also know what are looking for, so we must have a clear definition of things. Your ideas are interesting, but as Fable points out, to start with, you need a clear definition of the concept of energy, or rather the different forms of energy you refer to. You also need a way to measure and quantify the energy.

Originally posted by fable
Anyone want to comment on Kirlian energy? I've been told it's a scam. Never looked much into it, but it's based on taking photographs that supposedly detect a form of energy from living (and nonliving) objects.

It was a scam, and has been thouroghly refuted. Check this site if you want to know more.

http://skepdic.com/kirlian.html

@Anyone...

...how do you explain the loss of a few weight of an individual right after he died?

It was a scam, and has been thouroghly refuted. Check this site if you want to know more.

No offense, but I don't get a feeling from that article that Kirlian photography was a scam--only a self-delusion by some well-intended people. The knowing desire to commit fraud, which is the essence of a scam, is lacking. The article also seems a little sweeping in its conclusions, leaving me feeling not unlike I did after hearing a government scientist once categorically claim that all UFOs were heat waves, birds, or mass hysteria. He may be right; but to arbitrarily dismiss every last claim to the contrary in this fashion has an ex cathedra air about it that sits badly with me. The same applies to the sweeping dismissal of Kirlian photography in that piece. I don't say the dismissal is wrong--but I'd like a little less condescension than a few words of explanation which I'm supposed to swallow without detail.

Re: @Anyone...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...how do you explain the loss of a few weight of an individual right after he died?

A stab at the dark, until CE or someone smarter pops in *looks over to fable *

IIRC, and I rarely do. The body releases its gases after it stops functioning.