Science at Last Explains Our Soul

[Polymath257]

Just another example of how "science" can make claims that it can't support and everyone accepts it because it is "science" but if "religion" makes a claim about something, everyone wants proof.

Really? Who has accepted these claims because they are 'science'? If anything, there is a LOT of doubt concerning these claims and whether they are even plausible given the scientific facts. And I see a LOT of people asking for exactly the same type of proof required of religions in debates.

 

[Skwim]

Seems the quantum "proof" is only a theory.

Source article:

"American Dr Stuart Hameroff and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose developed a quantum theory of consciousness asserting that our souls are contained inside structures called microtubules which live within our brain cells."
source​

It's pretty bad when a so-called science publication, ZME Science, doesn't know the difference between a proof and a theory.

.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Why would science needs to explain what's at the bottom of our feet? Don't each person has 2 soles?

The poor one legged man, working with only one sole. And the legless? No sole at all.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

"Recently two quantum scientists have claimed that they can prove the existence of the soul, a quantum entity that acts as the program for the computer of our brain, and exists independently of the physical body after death. One psychologist says that the concept of soul is merely an extrapolation we make based on the duality that we experience between body and consciousness."

Science at Last Explains Our Soul

I find this theory to be plausible. Do you? If not, why not?

The candle flame can not survive without the wick.

 

[viole]

Death is unreal. Man is spirit even after what you perceive as death.

I hope Woman, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

"Recently two quantum scientists have claimed that they can prove the existence of the soul, a quantum entity that acts as the program for the computer of our brain, and exists independently of the physical body after death. One psychologist says that the concept of soul is merely an extrapolation we make based on the duality that we experience between body and consciousness."

Science at Last Explains Our Soul

I find this theory to be plausible. Do you? If not, why not?

Oh dear. Hope does really spring eternal.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Randy the Atheist]

The idea of the "immortal soul" is that the Mind can exist completely intact in the absence of a physical brain. Thinking, remembering, and perceiving will all be completely unaffected by the disintegration of this vital organ. The study of brain trauma however, reveals startling examples that this concept is false.

Prosopagnosia (the inability to recognize faces including your own) is one such example of a mind-brain dependence. Alzheimer's Diesease is another dramatic example of mind-brain dependence. Not only is the brain slowly destroyed neurologically - but the personality contained within is slowly destroyed in corresponding fashion. The creation of multiple personalities in split-brain patients whose brain is severed down the corpus callosum to reduce severe epileptic seizures, is yet another dramatic example. Left brain no longer communicates with right brain and causes the emergence of two independent persons operating in the same body - each unaware that the other exists.

Thus, your mind is not immune to damage and decay. When your physical brain begins to die off, that person known as *you* dies off as well. Your memories, your experiences, your emotions - are directly caused by the dendrites in your head. Destroy some of those dendrites and those memories will be lost forever - never to return. Destroy enough dendrites and you will become imbecillic - unable to recognize family, friends and favorite places. If all of us had "souls", then the only thing that brain damage would do is incapacitate our ability to move the body. Our memories, emotions and experiences should all remain indestructible and able to survive.

This is now known to be false.

Destruction to your brain parts results in the corresponding destruction to the personality it contains. When your physical brain dies, your personhood and everything that makes you *you* - dies with it.

 

[gnostic]

Just another example of how "science" can make claims that it can't support and everyone accepts it because it is "science" but if "religion" makes a claim about something, everyone wants proof.

Actually, any new hypotheses required evidences.

Hypothesis is the proposed explanation, not a scientific theory, because either (A) it hasn’t been tested yet, or (B) it is currently undergoing tests.

Scientific theory is explanation and predictions that have already been tested, meeting the requirements of Scientific Method.

Scientific theory can be changed and updated, or it can be replaced by better alternative scientific theory, provided that there are verifiable evidences to support them.

Even brilliant as Einstein were, scientists cannot accept any of his hypotheses as “true” by default until he or someone else (other scientists) succeed in finding verifiable evidences. Einstein have made mistakes.

The reasons why religions failed to achieve “scientific” status, is because of lack of evidences, and because of its reliance on accepting faith in accepting unsubstantiated belief (eg god, angels, demons, miracles).

If you and any religion that people follow want their belief to be accepted in the same level as science, then like the scientific theories and hypotheses, their claims will require evidences that anyone (believers and nonbelievers) can verify.

You cannot have science requiring evidences and religions requiring no evidences.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The idea of the "immortal soul" is that the Mind can exist completely intact in the absence of a physical brain. Thinking, remembering, and perceiving will all be completely unaffected by the disintegration of this vital organ. The study of brain trauma however, reveals startling examples that this concept is false.

Prosopagnosia (the inability to recognize faces including your own) is one such example of a mind-brain dependence. Alzheimer's Diesease is another dramatic example of mind-brain dependence. Not only is the brain slowly destroyed neurologically - but the personality contained within is slowly destroyed in corresponding fashion. The creation of multiple personalities in split-brain patients whose brain is severed down the corpus callosum to reduce severe epileptic seizures, is yet another dramatic example. Left brain no longer communicates with right brain and causes the emergence of two independent persons operating in the same body - each unaware that the other exists.

Thus, your mind is not immune to damage and decay. When your physical brain begins to die off, that person known as *you* dies off as well. Your memories, your experiences, your emotions - are directly caused by the dendrites in your head. Destroy some of those dendrites and those memories will be lost forever - never to return. Destroy enough dendrites and you will become imbecillic - unable to recognize family, friends and favorite places. If all of us had "souls", then the only thing that brain damage would do is incapacitate our ability to move the body. Our memories, emotions and experiences should all remain indestructible and able to survive.

This is now known to be false.

Destruction to your brain parts results in the corresponding destruction to the personality it contains. When your physical brain dies, your personhood and everything that makes you *you* - dies with it.

That's an interesting theory, but I believe that the "soul" is more fundamental than that. It is not our memories, our experiences, or our personhood. I believe it is more like a disruption of sorts in the energetic field...like an imprint left behind. Sure you can wash out the dye, but you can't wash out the stain, the stain remaining as a permanent imprint in the fabric. Metaphorically, a person's "soul" could be similar to that permanent stain and the fabric could be the fabric of space and time itself. The memories or emotions and such may fade or seem to disappear over time, just as the intensity of that stain may fade, but it never really goes away completely.

There could be so-called "spirits" that do not remember their own names or anything of their past existence. Or there could be some that do remember such things because those previous experiences left a strong enough imprint on them. Whether "you" are no longer "you" I think is not a strong enough argument that souls cannot exist. If such a thing as souls exist, then I believe they are somehow more fundamental and can possibly exist independently of our memories or experiences.

I happen to believe in reincarnation as in a natural sort of energy transferral. We don't generally remember our past lives specifically because "you" are no longer the "you" of you're past life. It is almost like a necessary sort of cleansing that we lose our old personhood.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

"Recently two quantum scientists have claimed that they can prove the existence of the soul, a quantum entity that acts as the program for the computer of our brain, and exists independently of the physical body after death. One psychologist says that the concept of soul is merely an extrapolation we make based on the duality that we experience between body and consciousness."

Science at Last Explains Our Soul

I find this theory to be plausible. Do you? If not, why not?

What does this theory propose that a person can actually use in a practical way?
I studied this extensively and found it to be sheer blah-blah.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What does this theory propose that a person can actually use in a practical way?

Understanding consciousness, and recognizing whether or not the theory (or hypothesis) is falsifiable.

 

[DavidFirth]

"Recently two quantum scientists have claimed that they can prove the existence of the soul, a quantum entity that acts as the program for the computer of our brain, and exists independently of the physical body after death. One psychologist says that the concept of soul is merely an extrapolation we make based on the duality that we experience between body and consciousness."

Science at Last Explains Our Soul

I find this theory to be plausible. Do you? If not, why not?

Thanks for this. Sir Roger Penrose is a genius and I plan to read up on this theory.

 

[DavidFirth]

Seems the quantum "proof" is only a theory.

Source article:

"American Dr Stuart Hameroff and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose developed a quantum theory of consciousness asserting that our souls are contained inside structures called microtubules which live within our brain cells."
source​

It's pretty bad when a so-called science publication, ZME Science, doesn't know the difference between a proof and a theory.

.

The link to "Originally published as Scientists offer 'proof' soul exists" has evidently been removed, probably because Sir Roger asked them to remove it.

 

[Milton Platt]

"Recently two quantum scientists have claimed that they can prove the existence of the soul, a quantum entity that acts as the program for the computer of our brain, and exists independently of the physical body after death. One psychologist says that the concept of soul is merely an extrapolation we make based on the duality that we experience between body and consciousness."

Science at Last Explains Our Soul

I find this theory to be plausible. Do you? If not, why not?

It is trying to use quantum physics to explain things that have nothing to do with quantum level events. I checked the link and found no reference to a published paper in a peer reviewed journal. If this was serious research, it would not be have been published in a common news rag first. I would have been subjected to peer review and confirmation.

 

[Polymath257]

It is trying to use quantum physics to explain things that have nothing to do with quantum level events. I checked the link and found no reference to a published paper in a peer reviewed journal. If this was serious research, it would not be have been published in a common news rag first. I would have been subjected to peer review and confirmation.

Here are a few more scholarly papers on the subject:
arXiv.org Search

There are a number of references to peer-reviewed journal articles on this. Just look in a couple of the papers by Hameroff.

BTW, I generally think this is incredibly unlikely to be true, but there are people taking it seriously and publishing in decent journals about it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Here are a few more scholarly papers on the subject:
arXiv.org Search

There are a number of references to peer-reviewed journal articles on this. Just look in a couple of the papers by Hameroff.

BTW, I generally think this is incredibly unlikely to be true, but there are people taking it seriously and publishing in decent journals about it.

Thanks for the come back. I will take another look. I agree with you. I don't think the conclusions in the article are justified.

 

[Skwim]

The link to "Originally published as Scientists offer 'proof' soul exists" has evidently been removed, probably because Sir Roger asked them to remove it.

It's been renamed and can be found HERE.

.

 

[DavidFirth]

It's been renamed and can be found HERE.

.

That link just takes me back to the article itself. There is no article entitled "Scientists offer 'proof' soul exists."

 

[Skwim]

That link just takes me back to the article itself. There is no article entitled "Scientists offer 'proof' soul exists."

If you go to the end of the article you'll see,

"Originally published as Scientists offer 'proof' soul exists"

.​

 

[DavidFirth]

If you go to the end of the article you'll see,

"Originally published as Scientists offer 'proof' soul exists"

.​

Yes, but that link only takes you back to this story. The original story was removed.