What the hell is a 'soul' anyway?

[ignoramus]

Stim, I'm sure his mates reckon he's smart!

[Longhorn]

Lol, thank you

My wife says to me, "Do they think you're a real person on that forum?" She views me as a funny little creature scampering around through life with no clue what's going on. In a loving way

Does she try to burn you for eternity occasionally, and probably doesn't exist? Bc she sounds like this one pal of Chad's

[robvalue]

Well... yeah, she does kind of burn me for eternity. But she doesn't want to, it's my fault.

Does she exist? That's a big question. I think I've already presented more than enough evidence for you all to be sure she does exist. How else do you explain my wedding ring? How else do you explain me remembering to get out of bed and put clothes on?

[Brakeman]

The soul is made of information that exerts downward causation on matter and energy. Information isn't matter, but matter embodies information. Information isn't energy, but energy can transfer information. The idea of a 'materialist' solution is just so 19th century.

Any "causation" of any effect on matter or energy requires matter or energy.

Information isn't anything, it is only perception.

When energy "transfers" information it is simply following physics and is completely unaware that it is "transferring" anything. A domino that falls over when pushed has no sense of the "pattern" involved with the human designed chain of events and is completely happy to stop at the first improperly placed tile. Brain teaser illusions are examples of our imperfect brain "fails" that exemplify our evolved brain activity. There is no damned soul involved!

[Whateverist]

The soul, like math, has no weight or mass, you can't see it and it doesn't alter light.

Like math, you can study its effects because the soul gives human life its fundamental essence and value.

This concept became more refined after Christian teaching met the philosophies of Plato, Aristoteles, and Socrates.

The human soul houses the core of human desire, and as such is an important basis of our understanding of personhood.

This has implications on human dignity, human rights, responsibilities, and freedom. If you ignore these things, you see important implications, the culmination of which are the Gulags of the Soviet Union for instance, or the Holocaust, or the carpet bombing of Dresden and perhaps the destruction of Hiroshima.  

All these things (dignity, rights, responsibilities, freedom), like the soul, are immaterial.

Value, like the soul, is also immaterial.

I can sign off on all of this except for the portion I lined out, and I only lined it out because I think it is a little presumptuous to assume the soul is a purely good thing.

But look at all the additional assumptions you make about the soul based on Christian dogma. There is no other reason to think it is eternal or the handiwork of a god.

Here is an alternative way to attach meaning to "soul" along with "god". When a woman becomes pregnant a new on-board god is also born (gods are not eternal except collectively). As the brain develops it becomes organized first in ways which are generic for chordates, mammals, primates and finally humans. Somewhere early along the way the mind develops dual processors with the capacity to monitor separate things. In humans and quite possibly earlier than that, one of those processors becomes specialized as the conscious mind. Now the "soul" is earlier than the conscious mind and therefore carries the vast majority of the information which makes you a mammal, a person and a particular self. But the conscious mind in the human is separated from the innate, earlier and more vast processor to a much greater extent than in other animals. The processor not associated with the conscious mind can be thought of as the "soul". Our conscious minds experience enormous independence but alas that means they are subject to becoming far more alienated from the soul. Perhaps religion exists to ritually connect the conscious mind to the soul of its being?

[Ronkonkoma]

The term soul was first introduced by the Greek philosophers. Its the immaterial part of you, a part of the immaterial world.

The Greek philosophers realized that Mathematics is also a part of the immaterial world.

The soul, like math, has no weight or mass, you can't see it and it doesn't alter light.

Like math, you can study its effects because the soul gives human life its fundamental essence and value.

This concept became more refined after Christian teaching met the philosophies of Plato, Aristoteles, and Socrates.

The human soul houses the core of human desire, and as such is an important basis of our understanding of personhood.

The Greeks also believed that the earth was the center of the universe. tits Evidence or GTFO.

This has implications on human dignity, human rights, responsibilities, and freedom. If you ignore these things, you see important implications, the culmination of which are the Gulags of the Soviet Union for instance, or the Holocaust, or the carpet bombing of Dresden and perhaps the destruction of Hiroshima.  

I see your point, but it still doesn't prove that the soul is an independent entity. To me, human lives have an intrinsic value too, but that's because I enjoy my life and I have good reasons to assume that other people want to enjoy their lives as well. No souls required.

All these things (dignity, rights, responsibilities, freedom), like the soul, are immaterial.

Value, like the soul, is also immaterial.

Value can generate bills of money from seemingly "nothing". In material terms, a stack of bills is nothing but paper. But money can be put to use to alter material things, such as the great cathedrals and churches of Europe, which are direct expressions on the effect of the soul on matter.

I think this is because we are organisms that have evolved to understand the world around them. The world is really, really complicated and therefore, abstract thought is a great tool to recognize the patterns that occur naturally in our experience of the world. We have an experience and we associate it to the previous experiences we've had, and we "create" the idea by keeping together the things all these experiences had in common.

Similarly, persons in material terms are seemingly nothing but DNA, or ribonucleic acids, but they can generate ideas, hopes and dreams, and put values into reality. Say for example, I value my kids, I can alter reality by reading to them at night. I made that value a reality in the irreversible past. DNA can't do that. On the other hand, our material brain is the most complex thing we know of in the entire universe. In material terms there is no way that we have any idea what a thought, or a value, or a soul is.

Good night, kids.

And this is where I get mad. Because you are completely misunderstanding and underestimating the whole of molecular biology.

1. DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, not "ribonucleic acids".

2. People are NOT "just DNA". DNA holds the "plans" that guide the development of the structures that make out our body and the synthesis of the proteins that are needed for our organism's life. Those structures, on the other hand, are way more complex than DNA is and have different functions. Our material brain is a product of the unfolding of the reactions that many particular sequences of DNA can help catalysing by codifying for enzymes. Enzymes are, in turn, those things that actually go and catalyse the reactions that are needed to happen for our organism's development and survival.

I could go about for days here talking about gene regulation and the like, but I've got other stuff to do so if you want to go deeper in this subject, this is probably the best starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-...0321905377

Yeah, it's not cheap, but you can definitely Google around and find some cheap second-hand copies of it somewhere.

No reason to get mad. I might be just a dumb-ass country doc, who doesn't know his elbow from a pimple on his ass, but for the sake of arguing about the soul it matters little if I say ribonucleic acid or deoxyribonucleic acid.

My point is, there are implications on our understanding of the soul. Implications, that determine a civil and just society, just as the ancient Greek philosophers are the rogenitors of our modern democracy and western set of values.

Sure we can respect human life as long as it is convenient for us to do that, and as long as that seems like the nice thing to do... But as soon as becomes inconvenient?
What stops us from interpreting life to begin as soon as baby is born, versus at the moment of conception?
Does the mere presence of blastocysts and DNA constitute personhood?
Are human zygotes persons???
At what point do they become persons, and who is the one to define that???
Are drug companies that produce the morning after pill competent to re-define the start of human life, so that technically their pills do not cause abortion?

We enter a lot of muddy and dangerous ground when we ignore the soul, the basis of human identity and dignity.

---

The Greeks also believed that the earth was the center of the universe. tits Evidence or GTFO.


I see your point, but it still doesn't prove that the soul is an independent entity. To me, human lives have an intrinsic value too, but that's because I enjoy my life and I have good reasons to assume that other people want to enjoy their lives as well. No souls required.


I think this is because we are organisms that have evolved to understand the world around them. The world is really, really complicated and therefore, abstract thought is a great tool to recognize the patterns that occur naturally in our experience of the world. We have an experience and we associate it to the previous experiences we've had, and we "create" the idea by keeping together the things all these experiences had in common.


And this is where I get mad. Because you are completely misunderstanding and underestimating the whole of molecular biology.

1. DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, not "ribonucleic acids".

2. People are NOT "just DNA". DNA holds the "plans" that guide the development of the structures that make out our body and the synthesis of the proteins that are needed for our organism's life. Those structures, on the other hand, are way more complex than DNA is and have different functions. Our material brain is a product of the unfolding of the reactions that many particular sequences of DNA can help catalysing by codifying for enzymes. Enzymes are, in turn, those things that actually go and catalyse the reactions that are needed to happen for our organism's development and survival.

I could go about for days here talking about gene regulation and the like, but I've got other stuff to do so if you want to go deeper in this subject, this is probably the best starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-...0321905377

Yeah, it's not cheap, but you can definitely Google around and find some cheap second-hand copies of it somewhere.

No reason to get mad. I might be just a dumb-ass country doc, who doesn't know his elbow from a pimple on his ass, but for the sake of arguing about the soul it matters little if I say ribonucleic acid or deoxyribonucleic acid.

My point is, there are implications on our understanding of the soul. Implications, that determine a civil and just society.
Thoe ignorant and stupid Greek philosophers are actually the progenitors of our modern democracy and western set of values, architecture and mathematics.

Sure we can respect human life without speaking of the soul... as long as it is convenient for us to do that, and as long as that seems like the nice thing to do... BUT! as soon as becomes inconvenient?
Take this example. It is inconvenient for the makers of the morning after pill to call the drug an abortion inducing drug.
So they come up with a great idea! What stops us from interpreting life to begin as soon as human life is conceived????
Lets just redefine it to begin as soon as it is implanted in the uterus, that way the general public will have no problem selling these drugs over the counter.

Besides, look at a small zygote of 16 cells. I's just cells and DNA!
Does the mere presence of o few cells and a unique set of DNA constitute personhood?
Are human zygotes persons???
At what point do they become persons, and who is the one to define that???
Are drug companies that produce the morning after pill competent to re-define the start of human life, just to make a profit?

See, we enter a lot of muddy and dangerous ground when we ignore the soul, the basis of human identity and  human dignity.

---

The Greeks also believed that the earth was the center of the universe. tits Evidence or GTFO.


I see your point, but it still doesn't prove that the soul is an independent entity. To me, human lives have an intrinsic value too, but that's because I enjoy my life and I have good reasons to assume that other people want to enjoy their lives as well. No souls required.


I think this is because we are organisms that have evolved to understand the world around them. The world is really, really complicated and therefore, abstract thought is a great tool to recognize the patterns that occur naturally in our experience of the world. We have an experience and we associate it to the previous experiences we've had, and we "create" the idea by keeping together the things all these experiences had in common.


And this is where I get mad. Because you are completely misunderstanding and underestimating the whole of molecular biology.

1. DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, not "ribonucleic acids".

2. People are NOT "just DNA". DNA holds the "plans" that guide the development of the structures that make out our body and the synthesis of the proteins that are needed for our organism's life. Those structures, on the other hand, are way more complex than DNA is and have different functions. Our material brain is a product of the unfolding of the reactions that many particular sequences of DNA can help catalysing by codifying for enzymes. Enzymes are, in turn, those things that actually go and catalyse the reactions that are needed to happen for our organism's development and survival.

I could go about for days here talking about gene regulation and the like, but I've got other stuff to do so if you want to go deeper in this subject, this is probably the best starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-...0321905377

Yeah, it's not cheap, but you can definitely Google around and find some cheap second-hand copies of it somewhere.

No reason to get mad. I might be just a dumb-ass country doc, who doesn't know his elbow from a pimple on his ass, but for the sake of arguing about the soul it matters little if I say ribonucleic acid or deoxyribonucleic acid.

My point is, there are implications on our understanding of the soul. Implications, that determine a civil and just society, just as the ancient Greek philosophers are the rogenitors of our modern democracy and western set of values.

Sure we can respect human life as long as it is convenient for us to do that, and as long as that seems like the nice thing to do... But as soon as becomes inconvenient?
What stops us from interpreting life to begin as soon as baby is born, versus at the moment of conception?
Does the mere presence of blastocysts and DNA constitute personhood?
Are human zygotes persons???
At what point do they become persons, and who is the one to define that???
Are drug companies that produce the morning after pill competent to re-define the start of human life, so that technically their pills do not cause abortion?

We enter a lot of muddy and dangerous ground when we ignore the soul, the basis of human identity and dignity.

---

No reason to get mad. I might be just a dumb-ass country doc, who doesn't know his elbow from a pimple on his ass, but for the sake of arguing about the soul it matters little if I say ribonucleic acid or deoxyribonucleic acid.

My point is, there are implications on our understanding of the soul. Implications, that determine a civil and just society.
Thoe ignorant and stupid Greek philosophers are actually the progenitors of our modern democracy and western set of values, architecture and mathematics.

Sure we can respect human life without speaking of the soul... as long as it is convenient for us to do that, and as long as that seems like the nice thing to do... BUT! as soon as becomes inconvenient?
Take this example. It is inconvenient for the makers of the morning after pill to call the drug an abortion inducing drug.
So they come up with a great idea! Who says human life to begins as soon as human life is conceived????
Lets just redefine it to begin as soon as it is implanted in the uterus, that way the general public will have no problem selling these drugs over the counter.
Why not??? Great idea!
Besides, look at a small zygote of 16 cells. I's just cells and DNA!
Does the mere presence of a few cells and a unique set of DNA constitute a person?
Are human zygotes persons???
At what point do they become persons, and who is the one to define that???
It turns out drug companies with a vested interest in the matter for their personal gain can re-define it at their own whim.

See, we enter a lot of muddy and dangerous ground when we ignore the soul, the basis of human identity and  human dignity.

[Lucanus]

No reason to get mad. I might be just a dumb-ass country doc, who doesn't know his elbow from a pimple on his ass, but for the sake of arguing about the soul it matters little if I say ribonucleic acid or deoxyribonucleic acid.

No, it does, because they are two different kinds of nucleic acid that have very different functions. It's like saying that the internal intercostal muscles and the external intercostal muscles are the same thing. They aren't, and it's really imprecise and a sign of ignorance on the subject to say they are.

My point is, there are implications on our understanding of the soul. Implications, that determine a civil and just society, just as the ancient Greek philosophers are the rogenitors of our modern democracy and western set of values.

Sure we can respect human life as long as it is convenient for us to do that, and as long as that seems like the nice thing to do... But as soon as becomes inconvenient?
What stops us from interpreting life to begin as soon as baby is born, versus at the moment of conception?
Does the mere presence of blastocysts and DNA constitute personhood?
Are human zygotes persons???
At what point do they become persons, and who is the one to define that???
Are drug companies that produce the morning after pill competent to re-define the start of human life, so that technically their pills do not cause abortion?

We enter a lot of muddy and dangerous ground when we ignore the soul, the basis of human identity and dignity.

This is an argument from consequences.

Apart from that, how would you test your hypothesis that there *is* a soul, let alone that a zygote or a blastocyst have one? I, for one, don't think that they are a human being yet, because, well, they are lumps of cells and lack the structures that make a human (or any animal for that matters) conscious and aware of its surroundings.

That does not mean that everyone should have abortions, or that I don't value the life of a zygote or a blastocyst, just that they are not conscious, pain feeling human beings. And seeing as the waters get muddy, it's up to the individual's conscience to decide whether taking the pill or going to the abortion clinic are moral decisions. If I were a woman, I don't think I'd do it except in the most horrible of cases (eg. Getting pregnant after being raped), and I would much rather give the baby up for adoption if I knew that I would not be able to raise him/her in a decent way. But different people think differently, so in cases like this, there has to be freedom of choice for each individual.

The point is, the consequences don't matter. The consequences of the inexistence of the soul don't determine its existence. Try again.

[Ronkonkoma]

The soul, like math, has no weight or mass, you can't see it and it doesn't alter light.

Like math, you can study its effects because the soul gives human life its fundamental essence and value.

This concept became more refined after Christian teaching met the philosophies of Plato, Aristoteles, and Socrates.

The human soul houses the core of human desire, and as such is an important basis of our understanding of personhood.

This has implications on human dignity, human rights, responsibilities, and freedom. If you ignore these things, you see important implications, the culmination of which are the Gulags of the Soviet Union for instance, or the Holocaust, or the carpet bombing of Dresden and perhaps the destruction of Hiroshima.  

All these things (dignity, rights, responsibilities, freedom), like the soul, are immaterial.

Value, like the soul, is also immaterial.

I can sign off on all of this except for the portion I lined out, and I only lined it out because I think it is a little presumptuous to assume the soul is a purely good thing.  

But look at all the additional assumptions you make about the soul based on Christian dogma.  There is no other reason to think it is eternal or the handiwork of a god.

Here is an alternative way to attach meaning to "soul" along with "god".  When a woman becomes pregnant a new on-board god is also born (gods are not eternal except collectively).  As the brain develops it becomes organized first in ways which are generic for chordates, mammals, primates and finally humans.  Somewhere early along the way the mind develops dual processors with the capacity to monitor separate things.  In humans and quite possibly earlier than that, one of those processors becomes specialized as the conscious mind.  Now the "soul" is earlier than the conscious mind and therefore carries the vast majority of the information which makes you a mammal, a person and a particular self.  But the conscious mind in the human is separated from the innate, earlier and more vast processor to a much greater extent than in other animals.  The processor not associated with the conscious mind can be thought of as the "soul".  Our conscious minds experience enormous independence but alas that means they are subject to becoming far more alienated from the soul.  Perhaps religion exists to ritually connect the conscious mind to the soul of i

Sure Boss, well let me talk a little about neurodevelopment and personality... My sources are; "neurodevelopment and the origin of the self" - by Dr. Allen schore, UCLA Davis

we are all born with our set of genes, but that is only part of the story of personality and identity.

The expression of those genes strongly depends on the environment.

At birth, the human brain is quite immature, and during the first three years of life there is an explosion of brain growth. By the end of those first three years, 80% of the adult brain mass has already formed.this is a called a "critical period" where the brain RETAINS the environment but does not RECALL specific memories. Whatever happens during this time is unconscious. Events happenings in the uterus are also retained including, the heartbeat ? of the mom, her voice, ect...

How is personality aquired? It all happens in the context of mother- infant bonding at a time of critical period of brain growth. This happens by the liberation of neurohormones in the infant brain as a response to mother-infant bonding. That alters neuronal gene expression and the physiology of the brain.

This is done through visual interactions during which emotions are passed on from mother to infant. These are JOYFUL interactions that release dopamine in the limbic system (that is one of the most primitive parts of the brain) that alters neuronal genetic expressions and fosters the outgrowth of neurons in the more advanced outer cortex. (i.e. The right paramedial cortex (the area responsible for attention, motivation, moral thinking, and juditial reasoning)....

the point is, the infant brain's genetic expression and anatomy is directly influence by the mother's (joyful!) gaze. Believe I or not, it is JOY that is essential for the development of personality, interacting with genes and gene expression. During this period of brain growth, infants DON'T UNDERSTAND RELIGION, only in terms of the joyful moments ? of mother- infant bonding. After the first three years, personality is already very much formed, and gene expression and brain growth slow ? down. It is only after this time that children are ale to begin thinking abstractly to understand religion.

why,do I stress joy? Because developmental neurobiologists stress it, and it seems to be at the core of religious experience. It is communicated universally between mothers and infants of all cultures. Bonding and desire. Love that gives of itself. caring and affection... A thirst for God, much like the primitive brain thirsts for water and is hungry for food, and we are fed in the Eucharist as a mother who feeds ber infant by giving a part of herself. Be it the icon of the Virgin and child, to the Eucharist where we are fed like a mother who gives of herself... The similarities are not coincidental since the language of religion speaks to,us at the core of,our longing and desires.

Our understanding of the soul is related to this but different. It is related to personHOOD, not necessarily personality. Its an abstract concept that looks at you in its entirety from conception onward. It looks into the future from the point of conception, when a world of unique possibilities related to you are created by the biological happening of conception. It looks at all of you in the future, the present and the past. As life goes on, possibilities exist in the future, choices are made in the present based on learned values and a unique personality, and those values are made real and irreversible in the past. The past can't be undone, and no matter what happens with the universe, reality itself was altered by your choices.

Personhood comes first. Personality can only happen in the context of personhood.

---

I can sign off on all of this except for the portion I lined out, and I only lined it out because I think it is a little presumptuous to assume the soul is a purely good thing.  

But look at all the additional assumptions you make about the soul based on Christian dogma.  There is no other reason to think it is eternal or the handiwork of a god.

Here is an alternative way to attach meaning to "soul" along with "god".  When a woman becomes pregnant a new on-board god is also born (gods are not eternal except collectively).  As the brain develops it becomes organized first in ways which are generic for chordates, mammals, primates and finally humans.  Somewhere early along the way the mind develops dual processors with the capacity to monitor separate things.  In humans and quite possibly earlier than that, one of those processors becomes specialized as the conscious mind.  Now the "soul" is earlier than the conscious mind and therefore carries the vast majority of the information which makes you a mammal, a person and a particular self.  But the conscious mind in the human is separated from the innate, earlier and more vast processor to a much greater extent than in other animals.  The processor not associated with the conscious mind can be thought of as the "soul".  Our conscious minds experience enormous independence but alas that means they are subject to becoming far more alienated from the soul.  Perhaps religion exists to ritually connect the conscious mind to the soul of i

Sure Boss, well let me talk a little about neurodevelopment and personality... My source is: "neurodevelopment and the origin of the self" - by Dr. Allen schore, UCLA Davis

we are all born with our set of genes, but that is only part of the story of personality and identity.

The expression of those genes strongly depends on the environment.

At birth, the human brain is quite immature, and during the first three years of life there is an explosion of brain growth. By the end of those first three years, 80% of the adult brain mass has already formed.this is a called a "critical period" where the brain RETAINS the environment but does not RECALL specific memories. Whatever happens during this time is unconscious. Events happenings in the uterus are also retained including, the heartbeat ? of the mom, her voice, ect...

How is personality aquired? It all happens in the context of mother- infant bonding at a time of critical period of brain growth. This happens by the liberation of neurohormones in the infant brain as a response to mother-infant bonding. That alters neuronal gene expression and the physiology of the brain.

This is done through visual interactions during which emotions are passed on from mother to infant. These are JOYFUL interactions that release dopamine in the limbic system (that is one of the most primitive parts of the brain) that alters neuronal genetic expressions and fosters the outgrowth of neurons in the more advanced outer cortex. (i.e. The right paramedial cortex (the area responsible for attention, motivation, moral thinking, and juditial reasoning)....

the point is, the infant brain's genetic expression and anatomy is directly influence by the mother's (joyful!) gaze. Believe I or not, it is JOY that is essential for the development of personality, interacting with genes and gene expression. During this period of brain growth, infants DON'T UNDERSTAND RELIGION, only in terms of the joyful moments ? of mother- infant bonding. After the first three years, personality is already very much formed, and gene expression and brain growth slow ? down. It is only after this time that children are ale to begin thinking abstractly to understand religion.

why,do I stress joy? Because developmental neurobiologists stress it, and it seems to be at the core of religious experience. It is communicated universally between mothers and infants of all cultures. Bonding and desire. Love that gives of itself. caring and affection... A thirst for God, much like the primitive brain thirsts for water and is hungry for food, and we are fed in the Eucharist as a mother who feeds ber infant by giving a part of herself. Be it the icon of the Virgin and child, to the Eucharist where we are fed like a mother who gives of herself... The similarities are not coincidental since the language of religion speaks to,us at the core of our most engrained and fundamental longings and desires.

Our understanding of the soul is related to this idea but different. It is related to personHOOD, not necessarily personality. Its an abstract concept that looks at you in its entirety from conception onward. It looks into the future from the point of conception, when a world of unique possibilities related to you are created by the biological happening of conception. It looks at all of you in the future, the present and the past. As life goes on, possibilities exist in the future, choices are made in the present based on learned values and a unique personality, and those values are made real and irreversible in the past. The past can't be undone, and no matter what happens with the universe, reality itself was altered by your choices.

Personhood comes first. Personality can only happen in the context of personhood.

[Whateverist]

Sure Boss,

Well thanks for the careful reading and feedback.

well let me talk a little about neurodevelopment and personality... My sources are; "neurodevelopment and the origin of the self" - by Dr. Allen schore, UCLA Davis

There is plenty of copy pasta on the web. You've decided to drop what you found here. But you present it as entirely factual. No, I didn't read it.

[Ronkonkoma]

Sure Boss,

Well thanks for the careful reading and feedback.

well let me talk a little about neurodevelopment and personality... My sources are; "neurodevelopment and the origin of the self" - by Dr. Allen schore, UCLA Davis

There is plenty of copy pasta on the web.  You've decided to drop what you found here.  But you present it as entirely factual.  No, I didn't read it.

no my friend, this is my own opinion based on a very thick i book i mention above as well as my clinic patients, a part of my own publication im working on entitled, "mother infant bonding encouraged, a case exmined from the neurodevelopmental perspective." Which has 36 current references and counting. I took the time to read your post real carefully and in my answer I argue that you are confusing personhood and personality. Personhood I understand as beginning at conception, and personality taking shape after birth through mother-infant bonding, and i explain how that happens through neurobiology. If you want i can go into more detail. Either way I've never heard your idea before and it made me think a little. And, can you please be so kind as to provide your own sources. Thank you.