Reply #67: I don't think so

[hyphenate]

Some people who have felt the presence of "something" don't even understand it enough to phrase it in a context that would be comprehensible to others.

I believe in some sort of "essence"--whether you want to call it a "spirit," a "ghost," a "soul," or some other similar word, is up to you.

They have proven without a shadow of a doubt that there is an unexplained loss of "weight" when a person dies. We're NOT talking about bodily fluids or anything like that--they've taken all that into account. The amount of "energy" expended upon death is miniscule, but measurable.

We all know that energy is impossible to destroy--it merely converts into another form, so why is it so hard to discount that "spark of life" as surviving the human body?

I've seen the argument that there are far more people now than there were a century ago, so how could the energy exist if it didn't exist when there were less bodies to fill? The argument for the "essence" is simple--at some point, that energy splits, such as you would see in mitosis. That alone would account for some phenomenon as clairvoyance, reincarnation and psychometry, because an essence that has split could then inhabit more than one "host" and thus share some memories with others.

It's all a matter of how you look at things in the end. Some people who are radically religious in a right winged manner would suppress their curiosity about things they don't understand, and those who pride themselves as "scientists" don't want to have to decipher another paradigm.