DrmDoc

Of course not; however, some of us can be quite dismissive of any measure of evidence without fair consideration, which is all I believe others ask.

Noooo! I shutter at the possibility. Once is enough thank you! ​

Ha!

If I followed my eating intuition, I'd be typing this from my reinforced bed on the ground floor of my home while several attendants struggle to lift my enormous rear for a sponging.

Precisely, which is why science and scientist shouldn't become so staid as to not consider there could very well be such evidence yet to be uncovered. Sure, remain unconvinced of a soul but also remain open to the consideration of evidence in that possibility. Being closed-minded isn't science or scientific, it's fanaticism--an irrational, unreasonable, and destructive force diametric to progress. Let's not be like those scientist of the late 19th to early 20th century who prematurely declared that there is nothing new to be discovered. Whether animals, including ourselves, have a soul is dependent on our perception or understanding of its properties. Since we haven't developed or evolved a means to discern what a soul's properties might be, no one can definitively answer your questions. It's much easier, because of the science, to answer whether animals have minds than whether they have souls. With a mind as our query, we merely have to look for brain structures and behaviors comparable to human. I'm pissed off enough without the angst of having to endure an eternity of indifference.

If you're truly interested in or serious about human reproductive anatomy and processes, you'll have to pursue solid medical science sources and remove all religious and traditional sources and accounts as your reference. Respect your faith but rely on purely scientific sources for verifiable facts, if facts are your interests.

No, but thanks for the post, it was illuminating. Hmm...It seems there are atheists in foxholes! I stand corrected. This must be a sad moment for some believers; but then, their faith never relied on the beliefs of atheists.

Come on John...that's just a monument...where are the testimonials with bombs failing all around, bullets flying overhead, and their steadfastness against imminent death. Sure, they're atheists now but what were they then? And then again, perhaps their war predicaments were more of a reason to not believe in some supernatural being; if they did believe, they would likely have been cursing him/her/it from hell to heaven for the scourge of war.

Yes...I know...but I see both sides of the argument. There is a very clever animation (Rick and Morty) done on a dilemma where the scientist, Rick, had a limited time to repair a device to keep from dying. Rick prayed profusely as the seconds ticked away and at the last second, as expected, he completed his repairs and survived--and then Rick immediately begin to curse and deny the existence of God and self-congratulate his singular ingenuity. It was hilarious. Yes, unquestionably, John is right; however, there are no atheist in foxholes.

There been a lot of misleading spam post lately. May I, if you're not considering this option, recommend that you consider limiting new member's ability to post links until some minimum number of pristine posts are made. This could limit the number of single spam posters and their malware content.

Even in riding a bike, not to beleaguer the point, nothing is just there, it has to be learned or acquired in someway through some source. This is not an argument for the existence of a soul but more of an acknowledgement that there could indeed be "more things to heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"--Shakespeare.

Data from subconscious observations of what exactly? If some of our perceptions of paranormal or extraordinary phenomena is subconscious data coming fore to conscious awareness, how is that data derived? We know that our conscious perceptions are products of sensory stimuli that influence brain function and mentation. Sensory stimuli suggests an influence external to brain function. Therefore, what we believe is likely a product of something we've experienced within our environment. That experience could involve the fantasies passed down to us from less enlightened ancestors or involve perceptions as nebulous or as real as DM or DE.

I agree; there's just too many explanations in brain function to convincingly argue otherwise. Still, I wonder, is it likely that we are unconsciously able to detect or sense a force of nature within or upon ourselves that is as immaterial as DM and energetic without a define source like DE? We are routinely influenced subconsciously by forces that go undetected or unnoticed consciously. Even now as I type, I've only just become aware of the sounds beyond my office and who is approaching. Our ability to unconsciously detect subconscious influences provides convincing support for extraordinary sensory phenomena such as precognition. Perhaps belief in a soul, for some, is also a product of some unconscious extrasensory perception of an otherwise undetectable influence.

True; DM and DE provides an eloquent explanation for the forces underpinning the cohesion and expanse of our universe. However, belief in a soul, for some, may also have its eloquence in explaining phenomena reported as reincarnation, out-of-body and near-death experiences.

Relative to physics, playing Devil's advocate for the moment, isn't the soul a bit like dark matter and dark energy? We do not know their precise properties but we do know of their existence not be any direct material attribute other than their apparent affect on matter and the universe. Some could convincingly argue that the same is true for the soul. Some, not particularly I, could argue that we may not know what the soul is but we do know that we are moved by it, gravitate to others because of it, and are boundlessly enlivened by its energy. Could the ​soul ​merely be the subtly sensed force of dark matter or energy?​

Which organ or organs? If still on topic, according to this Wikipedia page: "A fetus doesn't develop its external sexual organs until the second month of pregnancy—seven weeks after conception. The fetus appears to be sexually indifferent, looking neither like a male or a female. Over the next five weeks, the fetus begins producing hormones that cause its sex organs to grow into either male or female organs. This process is called sexual differentiation. The precursor of the internal female sex organs is called the Müllerian system."

If this is about your Dr. Dawdah's comments, I would question whether his doctorate involved a study of human anatomy. It lacks necessary details and accuracy. The Wiki page I've provided contrasts Dr. Dawdan's comments with accurate descriptions, precise details, and correct terminology. Dr. Dawdah's comments read more like conjecture than science--in my opinion.

I agree with Strange, the Wikipedia page and its links provide a clearer, more detailed perspective.

Not so much my final thoughts as my final perceptual experiences. In death, I believe our brain provides an interpretation of the process much like one might experience through a dream. I've theorized this interpretive process as the likely source of afterlife reports through near-death experiences. I think our brain supplies imagery of an afterlife and deceased relatives as an interpretation of the process a person believes he is enduring, which is a process ending with one joining one's ancestors in death.

Here is where I think you'll find the answers your seeking. That link is to a Wiki page on gonad development.

Ha! More like, "It was B...B...B...rrrrr"

Isn't that the point? Nothingness has no weight. When I'm moved to consider my mortality and eventual demise, as recent events have, my thoughts regard what may come in the moments immediately before my end because afterwards there is none and nothing. Rather than being blissfully oblivious, I'd prefer to meet my end fully awake and aware--he said courageously. My only regret might be an inability to completely record and report my perceptual experience of the end moment.

I was intrigued by the possibility of what my perceptual experiences might be under anesthesia. I fully recall everything immediately before sedation and after arousal. My attendants didn't report any odd exchanges only that I went blank and then I awoke. Other than birth and the first few months of my life, I'm hard pressed to recall ever having an experience without some memory or impression of it. As I enter the proverbial twilight of my life, my thoughts have not regarded the hereafter as much as its preamble--which, with my luck, is likely pain and long suffering.

Have you ever had need? I did recently for the first time in my very long years. Although expected, what an odd experience it was to be without memory of some mental and perceptual experience while under. It was oblivion, which was quite unlike the sleep and dreaming state I study and enjoy. It was, perhaps, a taste of the blissful hereafter I've imagined--nothingness. It's odd I wasn't interested before now in the affects of anesthesia on the brain given my interests. If you were ever unlucky to have had need for general anesthesia, what were your perceptual experiences if any?

In parts, I agree; however, if I may add further, the distinction between the two terms is the difference between affect and effect. Subconscious describes an affect ​relative to a type or path of influence on the mind; whereas, unconscious describes an effect ​relative to a state, action, or product of the mind. In simpler terms, subconscious references a mental influence while unconscious references an mental state. Our brain engages in two distinct and normal states of activation and mentation, which are conscious and unconscious. As SJ alluded, unconscious refer to that active state of brain function and mentation most clearly defined by the brain's dreaming activity. Conversely, brain function doesn't produce a distinctive subconscious state or mind because, in terms of brain function and activation, we are either conscious or unconscious.