Scientists talk about human soul

[Netherspark]

The idea that consciousness can exist outside the body and does not need it to survive is proven wrong by brain damage and chemical imbalances -- these are purely physical effects that alter a person's "soul" and turn them into vegetables or alter their personalities -- proof that consciousness needs a healthy brain in order to exist.

It's quite clear that a person's consciousness is directly linked to the physical state of their brain, and in fact IS the physical state of their brain. Why would we even need a brain or a body if we could exist as "souls"?

I think that was the point. Nobody has ever found a soul. So for a scientist to use that as part of his explanation of a physical event is equivalent to using magic as part of an explanation. Maybe magic is real, but let's keep it out of the explanations of physical processes until we have evidence supporting it.

The scientists aren't saying that a soul is "magic", they're saying that they think what we call a soul is explainable through (quantum) physics.

[Kasierith]

Not enough evidence to substantiate their theories, something that numerous other professionals in the field have indicated, among these the rather notable physicist Lawrence Krauss.

[Deleted]

You shouldn't assume readers are unfamiliar with them (perhaps some are, but I'm certainly not). Penrose, despite his scientific contributions as well as his pedigree, has drawn up some rather nutty ideas as he's aged, and he's drawn significant criticism for it. Hameroff has teamed up with the likes of Deepak Chopra, which should set off every possible warning alarm.

It doesn't matter how many awards you've won; if you partner with tinfoilers or espouse tinfoil ideas, you're going to catch flak for it, and rightfully so. It would be particularly unwise to put these guys up on a special pedestal just because they say things you find appealing, or that you're impressed by their resumes. In the end, all that matters is whether or not their ideas can withstand the scrutiny and rigor of the scientific method, and in this case they haven't.

We're on a gaming forum, so allow me to assume most readers are unfamiliar with them. Sure, you are not, and sure, you might be right, but I still don't belive dismissing the idea from the start "just because" by some people (not you) is right. If they have arguments, good, I like talks, but if they come and say "this theory is stupid" or "they were trying too hard" or similar arguments what talk is there to be had? None, plus it shows the people don't know anything about the two researchers.

While I agree in general, it is just as ignorant to assume we can explain, or comprehend everything. I'm not religious, so i'm not making claims that do we have a soul, but for thousands of years mankind has believed we have, and whether right or wrong it is something that helps explain what science so far can not.

Yes, I fully agree with this. Sometimes there are things that can't be explained. Sure that in the great scheme of things there is a reason why it happens like that, but we don't know them and we might never will.

[Hyve]

The truth is: Science cán and does explain those things. People merely generally do not want to listen, because they don't like the result.

I don't tend to listen to a lot of it because people seem to treat almost anything that is labelled: Scientific as if it is 100% without fail the truth. Science can not explain everything about life. For all we know, we might have a soul, or we might not. There is no harm in looking I say, but the amount of people in this thread just goes to show that science has become as filled with fanatics as any religion.

People who believe anything that is announced by a scientist and accept it without questioning it or understanding it.

[Deleted]

The idea that consciousness can exist outside the body and does not need it to survive is proven wrong by brain damage and chemical imbalances -- these are purely physical effects that alter a person's "soul" and turn them into vegetables or alter their personalities -- proof that consciousness needs a healthy brain in order to exist.

It's quite clear that a person's consciousness is directly linked to the physical state of their brain, and in fact IS the physical state of their brain. Why would we even need a brain or a body if we could exist as "souls"?

Depends how it works, of course this is speculation but let's think this way.

Your soul is like water. You can put it in a glass. This is the brain. Now, if it's a normal glass, the water will take the shape of the glass into said normal shape.
But if the glass is split in 2 or has a weird shape... the water will still go in there, and it will be same water, but it will take the shape of the container. And as such a part is separate from another or the water sits in weird positions in there. This is the brain of someone with brain damage.

Yet, removing the water from both glasses, it's same water as it was before it was poured, is it not? Of course this is all speculation, but this is how I see the issue.

[Sayl]

I still don't belive dismissing the idea from the start "just because" by some people (not you) is right. If they have arguments, good, I like talks, but if they come and say "this theory is stupid" or "they were trying too hard" or similar arguments what talk is there to be had?

You could probably prevent some of that from happening by quoting a better source than a tabloid.

This article is misleading right out of the gate, and that's automatically going to put some people off. From there, if anyone's really interested in discussing the subject, they have to be attentive enough to distinguish between what Penrose and Hameroff actually say versus what the article unduly attributes to them.

[Deleted]

You could probably prevent some of that from happening by quoting a better source than a tabloid.

This article is misleading right out of the gate, and that's automatically going to put some people off. From there, if anyone's really interested in discussing the subject, they have to be attentive enough to distinguish between what Penrose and Hameroff actually say versus what the article unduly attributes to them.

Fair point. I will try to look for some better sources and will edit them in the OP by tomorrow evening (bit busy now, was about to start doing something or I'd have done it now).

[Belisk]

Shoddy reporting and minority bad science ("scientists" who are accredited at self set up institutions that will never be accredited) is what is hurting public opinion of science. Its no wonder people refuse to listen to scientists now day when crap like this is in the general public perception of science, much easier for people to believe what they wish.

[Stir]

I don't tend to listen to a lot of it because people seem to treat almost anything that is labelled: Scientific as if it is 100% without fail the truth. Science can not explain everything about life. For all we know, we might have a soul, or we might not. There is no harm in looking I say, but the amount of people in this thread just goes to show that science has become as filled with fanatics as any religion.

People who believe anything that is announced by a scientist and accept it without questioning it or understanding it.

That is a logical fallacy.
For all we know, there's an invisible pink unicorn prancing around the world. (Edit: This is not to be insulting; it was merely the first example that came to my mind that was NOT insulting to some readers, and therefore, banned from the forums.)

The reason why I brought it up is simple: The question of whether or not a soul exists is redundant simply because everything we associate with the word 'soul' can be explained by neurobiology. That renders the question itself simply moot. Not the same thing as saying 'there is no soul.' Rather, it is saying: 'Why should we ask about that in the first place? We don't ask about other things we have no knowledge of, and, technically speaking, we have no knowledge of this 'soul' thing, either.'

[Belisk]

The whole idea behind what I said is that, while now, for us, the idea of a soul might seem like "magic", it may actually be true and be something we don't fully understand yet. Dismissing the idea from the start is ignorant and close-minded.

That is reversing the onus of proof, there may be something like a soul. However why assume this at all when there is no evidence to point to such a phenomenon. Do you go around suspending your disbelief that their is a is a teapot orbiting the sun? The correct answer is no, only bother with things that have evidence of being real.

As for all of this, I am not blaming the scientists here. If any of you read the story about a scientist who claimed he wants and will create a neanderthal baby with a willing woman then you know how reporters can often be completely incompetent and negligent in their duty to accurately report. Even if it is not on purpose expecting a writers to understand high level quantum physics is ludicrous, understanding these theories takes years of intensive study, your armchair postulating does not do it.

[Deleted]

The problem with soul is that if it exists, animals should have it too. Humans are not that special compared to animals.. it's just stupid to assume only humans have a soul if they share 70% DNA or something like that with a potato.

And another problem, even if these souls do exist is what happens to them? Do they just float around forever? Sounds like a horrible fate if you ask me. And being reborn or going to some magical land in the clouds.. well, that sounds too much like magic and I don't really buy it

[Belisk]

Not enough evidence to substantiate their theories, something that numerous other professionals in the field have indicated, among these the rather notable physicist Lawrence Krauss.

I enjoyed watching his something from nothing lecture. For such a brilliant man he sure knows how to explains the basics for laymen like me.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 02:27 AM ----------

Also 2 scientists do not make a theory, a scientific theory needs to withstand extensive scientific study and contention and be accepted. Not only when formed but forever thereafter.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 02:29 AM ----------

Depends how it works, of course this is speculation but let's think this way.

Your soul is like water. You can put it in a glass. This is the brain. Now, if it's a normal glass, the water will take the shape of the glass into said normal shape.
But if the glass is split in 2 or has a weird shape... the water will still go in there, and it will be same water, but it will take the shape of the container. And as such a part is separate from another or the water sits in weird positions in there. This is the brain of someone with brain damage.

Yet, removing the water from both glasses, it's same water as it was before it was poured, is it not? Of course this is all speculation, but this is how I see the issue.

This is how I know you know nothing about quantum physics (don't be ashamed I know little more than you). Please provide evidence of this claim, as it is it is only a crackpot idea.

[Belisk]

All this being said the scientist may be right. Current scientific consensus seems to be against him but the Big Bang theory was once thought outlandish and the steady state theory the favorite, not that this means every crackpot who gets laughed at will be right....

This is a game forum. All anyone can say with accuracy is that this idea will never become a theory until it can be reproduced by different teams in an experiment.

[Prokne]

The idea that consciousness can exist outside the body and does not need it to survive is proven wrong by brain damage and chemical imbalances -- these are purely physical effects that alter a person's "soul" and turn them into vegetables or alter their personalities -- proof that consciousness needs a healthy brain in order to exist.

It's quite clear that a person's consciousness is directly linked to the physical state of their brain, and in fact IS the physical state of their brain. Why would we even need a brain or a body if we could exist as "souls"?

The scientists aren't saying that a soul is "magic", they're saying that they think what we call a soul is explainable through (quantum) physics.

To me your soul is not your subconscious or even consciousness, it doesnt depend on the body at all to survive but is sort of a mirror of yourself if in a perfect physical state. So if you are brain damaged or in a coma your soul is just trapped inside the body since its not dead but your physical problems dont have any impact on the soul.

We dont really even know if souls exist and definitely havent seen one or measured it to see if the body changes it. If it does exist I doubt its on a fully quantum level.

If they really wanted to make up pseudo science to explain souls, they should have said its a projection of you in another dimension. It makes about as much sense.

[Dezerte]

We're on a gaming forum, so allow me to assume most readers are unfamiliar with them. Sure, you are not, and sure, you might be right, but I still don't belive dismissing the idea from the start "just because" by some people (not you) is right. If they have arguments, good, I like talks, but if they come and say "this theory is stupid" or "they were trying too hard" or similar arguments what talk is there to be had? None, plus it shows the people don't know anything about the two researchers.

I find it hard to discuss a hypothesis (remember they have no evidence), and in the fact that I'm not a physicist. And neither do I find the hypothesis interesting, they seem to be trying to claim too many radical things in one hypothesis.

[Hyve]

The problem with soul is that if it exists, animals should have it too. Humans are not that special compared to animals.. it's just stupid to assume only humans have a soul if they share 70% DNA or something like that with a potato.

And another problem, even if these souls do exist is what happens to them? Do they just float around forever? Sounds like a horrible fate if you ask me. And being reborn or going to some magical land in the clouds.. well, that sounds too much like magic and I don't really buy it

Your post is just stupid. You instantly assume a soul is related to religion which shows a serious lack of spiritual understanding. Also, the bolded part. I fail to see where the problem is. How is it a problem for animals to have a soul?

[Dezerte]

I don't tend to listen to a lot of it because people seem to treat almost anything that is labelled: Scientific as if it is 100% without fail the truth. Science can not explain everything about life. For all we know, we might have a soul, or we might not. There is no harm in looking I say, but the amount of people in this thread just goes to show that science has become as filled with fanatics as any religion.

People who believe anything that is announced by a scientist and accept it without questioning it or understanding it.

Aren't we doing the exact opposite here?

[Stir]

To me your soul is not your subconscious or even consciousness, it doesnt depend on the body at all to survive but is sort of a mirror of yourself if in a perfect physical state. So if you are brain damaged or in a coma your soul is just trapped inside the body since its not dead but your physical problems dont have any impact on the soul.

The problem with this is two-fold:
One: What is the causality? It sounds neat, but there's no system to back it up. It pretty much just drops out of the clear blue sky.
Two: Brain damage can alter someone's personality, sometimes drastically. Alter a personality; not damage it. The person isn't suddenly unable to draw upon their old personality traits because they're blocked off; the person develops néw personality traits. Which refutes your belief somewhat drastically.

It's pretty, it's beautiful, but it's also completely illogical.

[Dezerte]

Also, the whole soul discussion is rather meaningless if you take religion out of it. What are you then defining as a soul? Isn't just "soul" another word for explaining ourselves/our consciousness/self-awareness? Why not call it the latter, at least when we're talking about science.

[Hyve]

Aren't we doing the exact opposite here?

No. Because most people in here are arguing against the existence of a soul purely on the basis that science says it doesn't exist.

Also, the whole soul discussion is rather meaningless if you take religion out of it. What are you then defining as a soul? Isn't just "soul" another word for explaining ourselves/our consciousness/self-awareness? Why not call it the latter, at least when we're talking about science.

So the issue is people are to pathetic to handle a word, and need it called something else before a full and open discussion can be had?