Simply put, a soul can be described as the CONFLICT of
>the right and left side of the human's brain. The interlocking information
>between the two sides of the brain, which are both massively complex, gives
>the illusion of having a physiologically separate identity. This is one of
>the psychologist's theory, but again, this can be proved only if we can
>clone a human and study the subject matter from there. This will for once
>be a scientific fact that can prove whether a soul exists, which may also
>tell us whether a God exists
soul is a matter of faith, not fact.
Besides, scientific method cannot prove that a hypothesis or theory is true,
only that it is false, or that it may be 'not false' at this point of time,
using that experiment.
>And how would the cloned and the original person differ? The answer to me
>is simple. They are the same. More same than twins in that they both have
>the same contents of information in their brain. It might be easy for
>twins to grow up to be exactly alike physically, but personality wise, we
>are positive that twins are psychologically different. But clones are
>same. A clone contains all memories including the original's childhood,
>past failures and victories, loves, etc.
I totally disagree. Identical twins are GENETICALLY identical, and are
therefore the same as a clone. How do you derive the data that clone would
not be psychologically different, as are twins?
How does a clone contain all memories of the original animals experience?
this may only be possible if memories are encoded genetically....memories go
germline ;->
