Physical universe vs spiritual realm

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems to me that there is still a "scientific" question related to the existence of 'soul' that warrants a scientific answer.

What scientific question is that? is there some observation that requires explanation for which a 'soul' hypothesis is somehow explanatory? Does the 'soul' hypothesis have some scientific basis? is it testable?

What is the scientific 'soul' hypothesis ?

 

[Larniavc]

These analogies would make sense if oxytocin and similar hormones regulated some critical physical function. Instead they seem to do nothing but prompt feelings, which you claim reside in the non-physical realm.

Ocytocin does a great deal. It is a hormone, for a start.

Nothing odd about ocytocin.

 

[Larniavc]

What function is that?

My understanding is their function is to produce the feelings in our mind. But that would indicate that the feelings are part of the physical brain complex.

If the feelings "live" in the supernatural realm, then there's no need for oxytocin and similar, unless we can discover some necessary physical function that they perform.

From wiki

"Oxytocin is released into the bloodstream as a hormone in response to stretching of the cervix and uterus during labor and with stimulation of the nipples from breastfeeding."

 

[Michael]

That may be correct. But until there is a way show that souls exist we're not going to get anywhere.

That's not to rule out a hitherto unevidenced manifestion of a facet of existence, but until that happens we have to tentatively conclude that there is no soul on the table to examine.

Which is a shame as it's a great concept.

I guess it depends on what one might accept as 'evidence' to support the concept of soul. Near death experiences and/or past life memories might offer a way to provide a type of 'evidence' of soul. There are a few (usually QM) oriented definitions of awareness/consciousness that might support it (Hammeroff seems to think so).

It's also kinda tough to explain how even single celled organisms are able to demonstrate a primitive type of intelligence, solve mazes, eat a balanced diet, etc without the benefit of a "brain" of any sort.

 

[Michael]

What scientific question is that? is there some observation that requires explanation for which a 'soul' hypothesis is somehow explanatory? Does the 'soul' hypothesis have some scientific basis? is it testable?

What is the scientific 'soul' hypothesis ?

Hammeroff seems to think his ideas move us in that direction and there are other such QM definitions of awareness. I know that neither of us is entirely thrilled with ORCH-OR theory, but it's a start. I've seen plenty of theories/hypotheses which enjoy *less* empirical support that are now mainstream concepts, so it's not without precedent.

 

[Larniavc]

It's also kinda tough to explain how even single celled organisms are able to demonstrate a primitive type of intelligence, solve mazes, eat a balanced diet, etc without the benefit of a "brain" of any sort.

It’s not tough, though.

Some plants orient themselves to the sun to maximise their ability to capture energy.

This happens through purely physical (as opposed to intentional) processes.

 

[Larniavc]

Hammeroff seems to think his ideas move us in that direction and there are other such QM definitions of awareness.

I’ve yet to see any use of quantum mechanics to define consciousness that is anything but ‘what if?’.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hammeroff seems to think his ideas move us in that direction and there are other such QM definitions of awareness. I know that neither of us is entirely thrilled with ORCH-OR theory, but it's a start. I've seen plenty of theories/hypotheses which enjoy *less* empirical support that are now mainstream concepts, so it's not without precedent.

None of which answers my questions...

You said, "It seems to me that there is still a "scientific" question related to the existence of 'soul'..."

I asked you what that scientific question was, and what observation(s) you think have raised it.

 

[Michael]

It’s not tough, though.

Some plants orient themselves to the sun to maximise their ability to capture energy.

This happens through purely physical (as opposed to intentional) processes.

So explain how single celled organisms (slime molds) can anticipate hot and cold cycles and respond accordingly?

 

[Michael]

None of which answers my questions...

You said, "It seems to me that there is still a "scientific" question related to the existence of 'soul'..."

I asked you what that scientific question was, and what observation(s) you think have raised it.

I would say that past life memories tend to raise the question of the existence of a soul which can survive physical death. Some types of "knowledge" aspects of near death experiences tend to support the concept as well. Carl Jung had an NDE and he seemed to know in advance from his NDE that his doctor would die soon, and he was right. Jung did seem to think it was a "real" experience too rather than a function of a dying brain, and he had the advantage of having the experience, as well as formal training related to the 'mind'.

 

[Michael]

I’ve yet to see any use of quantum mechanics to define consciousness that is anything but ‘what if?’.

FYI, lot's of concepts in physics begin and end with "what if". What *if* gravity is caused by carrier particles called gravitons......

 

[Larniavc]

So explain how single celled organisms (slime molds) can anticipate hot and cold cycles and respond accordingly?

Anticipate?

What do you mean by that? Where has this been established? That would be fascinating!

 

[Larniavc]

FYI, lot's of concepts in physics begin and end with "what if". What *if* gravity is caused by carrier particles called gravitons......

Yeah, but no one ever answers what if questions, do they.

What if the moon is made of cheese?

That question is completely implausible: as is thinking organisms without a nervous system.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, but no one ever answers what if questions, do they.

What if the moon is made of cheese?

That's not entirely true however. LIGO's recent discovery began by asking "what if gravitational waves exist"?

That question is completely implausible: as is thinking organisms without a nervous system.

As implausible as it sounds, that does seem to be the case:

How brainless slime molds redefine intelligence
https://phys.org/news/2016-06-slime-mold-insight-intelligence-neuron-less.html

 

[Michael]

Anticipate?

What do you mean by that? Where has this been established? That would be fascinating!

Cellular memory hints at the origins of intelligence : Nature News

When the amoeba Physarum polycephalum is subjected to a series of shocks at regular intervals, it learns the pattern and changes its behaviour in anticipation of the next one to come1, according to a team of researchers in Japan. Remarkably, this memory stays in the slime mould for hours, even when the shocks themselves stop. A single renewed shock after a 'silent' period will leave the mould expecting another to follow in the rhythm it learned previously. Toshiyuki Nakagaki of Hokkaido University in Sapporo and his colleagues say that their findings "hint at the cellular origins of primitive intelligence".

 

[Larniavc]

Cellular memory hints at the origins of intelligence : Nature News

I have to admit that is impressive.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would say that past life memories tend to raise the question of the existence of a soul which can survive physical death. Some types of "knowledge" aspects of near death experiences tend to support the concept as well.

I've spent a lot of time looking at past life claims, and found that the vast majority that have been investigated in detail (particularly the better known ones, such as the much recycled James Leininger case) can be explained without invoking the exotic and/or supernatural. Similarly, there is no good evidence to support the idea that NDEs and OBEs are any more than dreamlike imaginative confabulations. When I asked for the most solid and incontrovertible examples of past life recall on the Past Life forum, the moderator acknowledged to me that, in the final analysis, it was more a matter of belief than hard evidence.

Carl Jung had an NDE and he seemed to know in advance from his NDE that his doctor would die soon, and he was right. Jung did seem to think it was a "real" experience too rather than a function of a dying brain, and he had the advantage of having the experience, as well as formal training related to the 'mind'.

Lots of people think they've had premonitions, but again, there's no good reason to suppose they've accessed information via paranormal or supernatural means.

It's a common error to suppose that people with experience or expertise in a field are necessarily less susceptible to cognitive errors and biases regarding that field (e.g. that pilots and military observers wouldn't mistake Venus for a UFO); the scientific method acknowledges this by the introduction of single, double, and even triple blinding. Jung had a strong predisposition to a mystical teleological concept of the paranormal based on the idea of synchronicity. It's hardly surprising he'd interpret his experiences in those terms.

 

[Michael]

I have to admit that is impressive.

It sure is. It's also hard to explain without assuming that "awareness/intelligence" is an intrinsic part of nature.

 

[Michael]

I've spent a lot of time looking at past life claims, and found that the vast majority that have been investigated in detail (particularly the better known ones, such as the much recycled James Leininger case) can be explained without invoking the exotic and/or supernatural.

The same thing can be said of many observations (particularly in astronomy), but that hasn't prevented supernatural options being proposed as a solution, or even becoming popular. You asked me what options might lead us to ask that question, and I provided some. You're not obligated to agree of course anymore than I agree with other supernatural constructs from the halls of "science".

Similarly, there is no good evidence to support the idea that NDEs and OBEs are any more than dreamlike imaginative confabulations. When I asked for the most solid and incontrovertible examples of past life recall on the Past Life forum, the moderator acknowledged to me that, in the final analysis, it was more a matter of belief than hard evidence.

That's a more honest answer than you will ever get from astronomers. Something which cannot be demonstrated empirically in controlled experimentation will always be a bit of an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer. Photons never get 'redshifted' by 'space expansion" in the lab either and Quasars don't show any signs of time dilation as LCDM predicts. How then is that supposed "explanation" of photon redshift not a "matter of belief"? It's certainly not a claim that can be demonstrated in controlled experimentation.

Lots of people think they've had premonitions, but again, there's no good reason to suppose they've accessed information via paranormal or supernatural means.

It's a common error to suppose that people with experience or expertise in a field are necessarily less susceptible to cognitive errors and biases regarding that field (e.g. that pilots and military observers wouldn't mistake Venus for a UFO); the scientific method acknowledges this by the introduction of single, double, and even triple blinding. Jung had a strong predisposition to a mystical teleological concept of the paranormal based on the idea of synchronicity. It's hardly surprising he'd interpret his experiences in those terms.

So then who or what might count as an "expert" in such a field? We all "interpret" all forms of evidence, particularly when there is no cause/effect support of the claim in controlled experimentation, which is actually pretty common in science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The same thing can be said of many observations (particularly in astronomy), but that hasn't prevented supernatural options being proposed as a solution, or even becoming popular.

Astronomy apart, many people do believe in supernatural explanations rather than more parsimonious and prosaic explanations. Many people are prone to superstition and magical thinking.

So then who or what might count as an "expert" in such a field? We all "interpret" all forms of evidence...

The point is that everyone, regardless of expertise, is liable to perceptual errors and cognitive biases. The best we can do is to make sure we're aware of this, and bear it in mind when analysing our own experiences and reports of other people's experiences. In appropriate situations, an understanding of the scientific method can help.