Below is the fallacy that I came up with.

Humans and animals that are alive and not asleep are all comprised of a soul and a body. The soul means consciousness, namely the ability to feel, to experience or to sense, and also can be called the real "self", similar to the concept of All-encompassing foundation consciousness in Buddhism.

When being asleep or dead, the soul leaves the body. The outside soul lost all connections with the old body, including the memory inside the old body. Then, the outside soul progresses to recombine with another asleep body (an empty body). When the soul and the new body combine, the new body wakes up. When the soul combines with the new body, it gains all of the new body, including the brain (the brain also includes thoughts and memories).

Therefore, although every time when falling asleep, the self (soul) leaves the old body and enters a new body, it will never know, and believes that this is itself (because it has lost all the memories inside the old body, and received all the memories inside the new body).

Being dead is the same as being asleep - they both mean the soul has left the body. The difference is that the dead body has lost the ability to carry any soul, so it is impossible to wake up after death.

Welcome Kaichen,

There is some sense in your ideas.

However, souls are not part of humans or animals: humans (and animals) are just bodies.

If souls could swap bodies as they sleep, then why not as they are awake? then why not even hold several bodies all at once? or even cycle and quickly scan round through all bodies, perhaps for one femtosecond each?

Our consciousness and experiencing does not stop when we sleep, not even when our body dies - the only difference is that the memory function of our brain is partially impaired in the dream state, then completely stops in the state of deep sleep. As a result, our thoughts are not connected and associated with previous thoughts, nor stored for future reference, so when we wake up we don't remember our experiences during sleep. In death of course, the brain's memories are lost forever, so our thoughts can never again be connected with the past.

For example, there are three people X, Y and Z. X has the soul "A" and the body "a"; Y has the soul "B" and the body "b"; Z has the soul "C" and the body "c". If the three people X, Y and Z are all asleep, then when X wakes up, the combination of its soul and its body can be "Aa", "Ba" or "Ca". If X and Y are asleep, and Z is dead, then Z's body "c" can no longer combine with any soul, but Z's soul "C" continues to try to combine with another body.

The reason why you can have your current thoughts and memories, and can sense and control your current body, is because "you"(your soul) sojourn in this body. Once the body falls asleep or dies (namely losing consciousness), "you"(your soul) leave the body and go to sojourn another body.

The "soul" and the "consciousness" in this article refer to the ability to feel, to experience or to sense. I have my memories and thoughts, and control and sense my body. You have your memories and thoughts, and control and sense your body. Assuming when bodies are asleep, your soul and my soul transfer, then after waking up, I no longer have my memories and thoughts, and can no longer control or sense my body, but have your memories and thoughts, and can control and sense your body; you no longer have your memories and thoughts either, and can no longer control or sense your body either, but have my memories and thoughts, and can control and sense my body.

You currently control and sense your current body (including the thoughts and the memories), and your consciousness can transfer. Your consciousness can transfer to another body, controlling and sensing another body, and completely losing connection with the body you used to have. For example, now using a needle to prick your body, you feel pain, but using a needle to prick other people's bodies, you don't feel pain. This is because your soul is inside your current body. After the transfer of souls, the body in which your soul stays has been replaced. At this time, using a needle to prick your new body, you feel pain.

Below is refutation against the fallacy above.

(I)

If a creature can control and sense itself (have the ability to feel, to experience or to sense), then we can say this creature has consciousness. A creature's consciousness is merely an ability of this creature. The reason why this creature has this ability results from the evolution of the natural selection.

Creatures evolved the simple nervous system from no nervous system, and then evolved the more complicated nervous system. Whether a creature has a nervous system decides whether this creature has the ability to feel, to experience or to sense; the complexity of a creature's nervous system decides the strength of this creature's ability to feel, to experience or to sense. In other words, a creature's consciousness is merely an ability of this creature's nervous system. Your consciousness is an ability of your nervous system. An earthworm's simple responses to external stimuli are also an ability of its nervous system. Only because your nervous system is much more complicated than an earthworm's, you have the ability to feel, to experience and to sense, but the earthworm can only make simple responses to external stimuli (but it itself doesn't have very strong feelings because its nervous system is not complicated enough).

Every single creature is unique. "You" are you this creature (more precisely, the nervous system of you this creature), not something like "your soul".

(II)

A creature's consciousness was produced by this creature's brain, and cannot exist when leaving this creature's brain.

Many kinds of general knowledge can also prove that a creature's consciousness is just an ability of this creature's nervous system.

For example,

1) When a person is asleep, if his brain has not got a complete rest, he can still have weak consciousness (such as dreams).

2) When a person's brain does not have enough supply of blood (for example suddenly standing up after crouching down), his consciousness will weaken, or even temporarily die (fainting).

3) If some important structures of a person's brain get damaged, his consciousness will weaken, or even permanently die (brain death).

4) A newly born baby barely has consciousness (research has proven that a newly born baby barely has pain sense); with the development of its brain, its consciousness gradually comes to existence.

(III)

This fallacy also has the error of inverting cause and effect. It is not the soul (or the consciousness) that controls and senses the body, but the body that controls and senses itself (this phenomenon is called the soul or the consciousness). But why a body can control and sense itself? Just a result of the evolution of the natural selection.

(IV)

This fallacy can also be refuted from other angles. For example,

1) What media and ways does the consciousness rely on in order to transfer? What is the existence form when transferring? Where does the energy for the activity come from?

2) Creatures came to existence from nothing, and grew from a few to a lot. Also, the randomness of the objective world has shown that the number of conscious creatures changes randomly.

3) The transfer of the consciousness is assumed to be a natural rule, but there is nowhere that shows its existence and significance.

4) This fallacy does not admit the authenticity of the memory. You are not sure if the one who controlled your body yesterday is yourself, believing that the reason why you feel so is because you yourself have received the memory of the body. According to this, you cannot ensure either if the one who controlled your body a second ago or a moment ago is yourself. This even further increases the absurdity of this fallacy.

5) Many evidences have shown that this fallacy can never hold true, unless this world is false or disorderly. But if this world is false or disorderly, any kind of situation, whether it be imaginable or unimaginable, is possible to happen. Therefore, there is still less need to worry.

Normally I would engage with a discussion along these lines but I'm totally confused by KAICHEN's reasoning; why he has presented a fallacy to contemplate followed up immediately by several refutations; and how he came up with this mixture of odd assumptions.

Kaichen has certainly shown a misunderstanding regarding "the real "self", similar to the concept of All-encompassing foundation consciousness in Buddhism."

In Buddhism, Hinduism, and yogic philosophy the self that identifies with the body, the mind, the brain, the experiences, the pain and joy, is not the 'real self. The Buddhist 'Real Self' is well beyond the senses, it is the only Self, the same Self we would all discover if we could experience our true Self. "Knowing the Self is knowing the Truth"

So, other than the above, I am steering clear of this discussion because I already know what's coming from the usual suspects who will get themselves all worked up over this.

I remember years ago being given the book -
"The Autobiography of a Yogi," and loving the
whole great Hindu tradition of spiritual seeking.
I ended up lending the book to my younger brother
on the condition that he return it to me.
I never did get it back.

Humans are "soulish" creatures; and we are always
seeking answers to the difficult questions. Our nature is
that of a seeking, curious, speculative creature, and if
we aren't provided with answers to the imponderables of
life, at least some of us turn to a faith to steady us and
give us direction.

Down the ages ring questions as to the nature of humankind;
where on the spectrum of might, power and understanding do
we belong? Are we masters of our own destiny or playthings
of the gods? How will the battle of good and evil end?

Is death an end or a beginning?

I am still on my own journey - on ongoing spiritual
search.

I certainly don't have the answers.

But I find the search worthwhile.

Dear Kaichen,

I forgot to add that the innumerable recorded and
researched cases of past life experiences clearly point
to life after death.

But is there life for this thread?

The OP says it all.

Dear Is Mise,

It would be interesting to have a discussion on
Spirituality.

I certainly would enjoy it.

No point having any conversation with you FOXY, you DON'T respond anyway ? You're rather more interested in belittling others than answering an enquiry ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Please point out to me when and where exactly have I
belittled you - or any one else?

And, if I don't respond to a particular question
on this forum - perhaps there's a very good
reason for not doing so - possibly it could be
due to the fact that I've already made my position
on the topic quite clear and see no point in
repeating things.

cont'd ...

Dear O Sung Wu,

However, seeing as I seem to have upset
you - I shall re-state some thing for
you - which by the way Poirot has already
done in an earlier post on that other
discussion on paying people smugglers:

Here goes:

According to the Department of Immigration and
Border Protection 9 out of ten boat people are
found to be genuine refugees.

However, as Poirot did point out (and so did I
many times on this forum) many overstayers are
detected who come in by plane. Many unlawful non-citizens
are detected in our community and that doesn't include
all the illegals flying in and being caught on a daily
basis. It makes sense -
that criminals would prefer to travel by plane where they
are not detained or subject to any scrutiny and can live in the community quite freely.

Perhaps the following link may help:

http://www.glennmurray.com.au/australia-boat-people-illegal-policy/

FOXY I asked you and POIROT a direct question, in my post, on that mammoth topic; People Smuggling racket !

Dear O Sung Wu,

The Australian Crime Commission works closely with
the Australian Federal Police and ASIO and they
were given unprecedented powers by the former
Howard Government including to security detention
and questioning of people without charge. They have
been involved in the interrogation of asylum seekers.
It's been in the news - and on programs like
Lateline, et cetera.

I can't help you any further.

Try Googling the subject.

This is the wrong thread for quibbling over people smugglers.

If you want to continue your argument please do it in the right thread.

Dear CH,

Your reprimand was totally unnecessary.

The so called - "quibbling," had already
ceased with my last post.

And once you've been on this forum a bit longer
you will discover that there are many discussions
that often
go off-track which for many posters is just one
of the things they enjoy about this forum.

Someone makes a comment - others feel
obliged to respond to it.

In any case - it is good to see that you're still
reading this thread - even though you were not going
to contribute to it initially.

How about putting your money where your mouth is -
and contributing something more substantial to the
topic.

Now that would be constructive.

As I said....

Dear Is Mise,

How about saying more?

Foxy you really can't ever admit you were wrong or let anyone's comment go, without a retort, can you.

Dear CH,

Not from people whose opinions I respect.
It's an occupational habit. My responsibility
in my profession is not to deny, but to add,
enrich, stimulate and amplify the knowledge
of people. Educators and librarians do have
a responsibility to select reading materials.
I guess this habit sometimes passes over into other
areas of my life.

You actually don't have to make comments if you don't
want a response. Also you're not under any obligation
to read my responses either.

Enjoy your day.

Foxy,

"How about saying more?"

There is nothing more to be said.

Dear Is Mise,

What a pity.

"Humans and animals that are alive and not asleep are all comprised of a soul and a body."

The discussion starts with a perfect example of presupposition or preconception and has absolutely no basis in fact.

It makes the rest of it pretty meaningless. We may as well argue about what colour the "soul" is or what it smells like.