The Soul, Scientificly Proven?

R0ot

Think of a sunset… As soon as you see this image there is a binary code of photons coding for that experience in your brain. Think of a dark room with the flame of a candle.

Now if I were able to look inside your brain, there would be no candle there - just a binary code of photons flickering on and off. The question is, where was that image before I asked you to think of it? The point I am trying to make is that when I ask you to envisage a sunset or a candle flame, before you remember it that information is not in your brain. The information shows up in your brain as soon as you have the intention to remember. So where was it before that? It existed as potential in consciousness but it wasn’t in your brain.

My memories therefore are not in my brain. This is a very important point because the reductionist model says our memories are in our brains. Why does it say that? Because when the brain is damaged people have damaged memories - whether through Alzheimer’s disease, or a comatose state, or through drunkenness.

Read the full story Here

Dellgirl

Said brain goes.....


















.........*BOOM*

coffee_cake

Your brain is a quantum instrument that causes the Collapse collapse of wave functions that exist as possibilities before you actualise them as space-time events. So your brain takes possibilities and actualises them into space-time events.

Oh, that sounds so iffy. That's not how I'd put it at all.
And what does that have to do with a soul? Nothing. That article sounds iffy to me altogether.

Tar.Aldarion

Hah, it's funny unless somebody actually believes that crap, that is. Oh and that image is stored in your long term memory...in your 'brain'.:)

nitrogen

For people that think the soul exists, read this:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge53.html

Kernel

The article was written by Deepak Chopra, who was discredited and debunked on many of his pseudo scientific theories and nonsense. He is actually regarded as the Ramtha cult leader.

His cult was behind the 'What The Bleep Do We Know' DVD that was in the US charts last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra
http://www.skepdic.com/chopra.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F

He talks bollocks basically, but that info should help you find that out for yourself.

Crucifix

Sounds dodgy to me.

Binomate

R0ot wrote:

Read the full story Here

Memories are stored in protien in the brain as far as I know.

Kernel

nitrogen wrote:

For people that think the soul exists, read this:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge53.html

Likewise Dawkins is also a heavily biased atheist, so his ramblings should also be taken with a pinch of salt. I liked 'The Selfish Gene', but it was a little bleak in it's outlook.

alleepally

Each to their own. If it helps ya, believe it, if it doesn't, don't. Either way I can't stand the extremists on both sides and that Dawkins is obnoxious.

dr zoidberg

wrote:

The information shows up in your brain as soon as you have the intention to remember. So where was it before that? It existed as potential in consciousness but it wasn’t in your brain.

My memories therefore are not in my brain.

Incorrect. There is a difference between memories stored in long-term memory and those accessed in "real time", which is known as short-term memory and working memory. Studies have shown that certain memories activate the same part of the brain when they are thought about. Interestingly, memory is generally found to be dispersed across the brain in the location corresponding to the type of memory, ie sounds are in the area responsible for hearing etc.

Claiming that memories do not exist because they are not currently being accessed is like saying that there is only one TV station without changing the channel. If that makes any sense

Tar.Aldarion

nitrogen wrote:

For people that think the soul exists, read this:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge53.html

Ace article thanks.

Kernel

dr zoidberg wrote:

Claiming that memories do not exist because they are not currently being accessed is like saying that there is only one TV station without changing the channel. If that makes any sense

Exactly. Ramtha believe that we create our own reality, so they may actually argue that those channels don't exist until we switch to them!

nesf

Eh, science can't say anything about the existence or non-existence of the soul. It really isn't concerned with such matters tbh. Anyone saying otherwise has missed the point. Science isn't the be all or end all of human knowledge.

nesf

Moved to Humanities.

Son Goku

Yeah, I'd have to agree with nesf. It's just a giant N/A as far as science is concerned. Science can talk about certain factors of personality, e.t.c., but it certainly can't address the ego or the self. The "I" that underpins it.

There is no experiment which could isolate it as a controlled factor, in any way. It is in fact, possibly the most unaddressable thing in science.

Hobbes

dr zoidberg wrote:

is like saying that there is only one TV station without changing the channel. If that makes any sense

But aren't all TV channels in an indetermined state until you observe them? :v:

nesf

Hobbes wrote:

But aren't all TV channels in an indetermined state until you observe them? :v:

No I think you'll find that they are in collapsed states because they all observe one another. Or so mainstream theory tells us.

It's quite odd actually.

IvaBigWun

nitrogen wrote:

For people that think the soul exists, read this:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge53.html

Great article. Took ages to read and get my head around but worth it

bonkey

...before you remember it that information is not in your brain. The information shows up in your brain as soon as you have the intention to remember. So where was it before that? It existed as potential in consciousness but it wasn’t in your brain.

The author appears to be (deliberately) using "brain" when he should be using "consciousness", and "consciousness" when he should be using "brain" here.

Memories are most certainly stored in our brains. The recollection of those memories involves accessing them with our consciousness.

So, the above should read:

...before you remember it that information is not in your consciusness. The information shows up in your consciousness as soon as you have the intention to remember. So where was it before that? It existed as potential in your brain but it wasn’t in your consciousness.

Now, it makes more logical sense, although the use of the term "potential" is perhaps no ideal. Not only that, but there is nothing mystical in the conclusions any more.

But the argument is fallacious: it’s the same thing as saying my radio set is damaged and no music is coming out, therefore the music must be manufactured by my radio.

This is also not true.

It might arguably be the same, or it could be the same as your PC using information on your HD to manufacture audiovisual output. However, we can formulate tests which show that we can prevent a radio from "manufacturing" sound without affecting the radio at all, such as putting it inside a suitable Farraday Cage. We cannot/i] formulate such tests with a PC / HD, as any approach which will prevent output generation will require interfering with the PC/HD (e.g. wiping the disk, using EMP, whatever).

So, we then have to ask ourselves whether or not we can scientifically model the brain in such a way that we can prevent it from generating its output without changing the brain itself - as would be possible with a radio - or if we can only prevent such output generation by inducing state-change in the brain itself.

Clearly, we can only do the latter. To conclude, therefore, that our brain is not the generator, but simply an accessor is non-scientific and fallacious. One cannot conclude this from the argument supplied. One can only assume it, and then use that assumption to lead to other conclusions.

Assumption is not proof, it is the antithesis of it.

The author could argue that it cannot be determined for certain whether or not the brain is as according to the reductionist model, or as according to the author's quantum-mystical model. However, to do so honestly would involve admitting that the reductionist model can be scientifically verified to a far, far higher degree, cannot be shown (through scientific observation) to be false, and is therefore a far stronger (scientifically-speaking) model.

Indeed, one could go so far as to say that the reductionist model is sufficiently verified to form a scientific theory, whereas the author is simply offering a conjecture as an alternative.

None of this precludes the author from being right. It just indicates that the author is building an invalid argument to support their belief in their correctness, and appears to be (deliberately) using ambiguous, misleading, or downright incorrect terminology in places in order to "strengthen" their apparent case.

jc

rsynnott

*sings* Jesus is my MMU, Mohammed is my cache...

Really, what nonsense.

Also, scientificly isn't a word.

Kernel wrote:

Likewise Dawkins is also a heavily biased atheist, so his ramblings should also be taken with a pinch of salt. I liked 'The Selfish Gene', but it was a little bleak in it's outlook.

Not liking something isn't a rational reason for not believing it.