Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[CaliforniaSun]

What's inflation? What's a Higgs? What's a graviton? What's dark energy? What is dark matter? Are you expecting a physical description of some kind?

If you expect me to believe it survives my physical body's death, and will be susceptible to eternal fire or eternal singing, then yeah, evidence would be appropriate.

 

[Guy1]

What's inflation?

Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.

What's a Higgs?

Higgs is a last name.

What's a graviton?

Proposed particle responsible for gravity.

What's dark energy?

Whatever is responsible for the acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe.

What is dark matter?

Whatever is responsible for the additional gravitational pull observed in the universe that our current theories cannot account for.

Are you expecting a physical description of some kind?

We're expecting some kind of clear definition. Something that allows us to differentiate the "soul" from a mind, or a brain, or really any other phenomenon we can already easily explain.

 

[mkatzwork]

What's inflation? What's a Higgs? What's a graviton? What's dark energy? What is dark matter? Are you expecting a physical description of some kind?

Inflation is the cosmological model that says the universe expanded exponentially and is still expanding. It is a theory - a model - but one that fits annoyingly well. It predicts there should be adiabatic perturbations (in thermal equilibrium with each other) with about a one in ten thousand level of inhomogeneity - almost exactly what has so far been observed by experiment...so currently it is pretty much accepted, despite the known problems.

A Higgs Boson is a hypothesis of the standard model, a particle that should have a mass of around 125 GeV/c2. The mathematics works annoyingly well with it included.

A Graviton is another hypothetical particle, another boson. It fits the mathematical models LESS well, especially at Planck scale energy levels, unless string mathematics is brought into the picture, at which point, it fits annoyingly well.

and so on.

So what's a soul? Yes, I am expecting a clear description, even a hypothetical one. You're the one saying it exists...define it. Thanks.

 

[mkatzwork]

Do you know the difference between slavery and reverence?

Religion - particularly that with the Bible as part of its core - is considerably worse than a dictatorship on Earth. Much worse. At least death is an escape in North Korea, but in the divine picture painted by the Bible, punishment is eternal, one cannot leave Heaven and one must have a good time at all times (and occasionally be taken to enjoy the suffering of the damned, for reasons not altogether clear...).

Your reverence is demanded, and anything less will mean eternal punishment.

 

[Greg1234]

We're expecting some kind of clear definition. Something that allows us to differentiate the "soul" from a mind, or a brain, or really any other phenomenon we can already easily explain.

There's your problem right there. Just because you theorized that the brain is responsible for all things defined by soul, it doesn't mean that we must keep seeking an alternative definition which "doesn't fly in the face of the observable world" (code for "does not conflict with methodological naturalism").

If you expect me to believe it survives my physical body's death, and will be susceptible to eternal fire or eternal singing, then yeah, evidence would be appropriate.

You switched it up. He asked if you wanted a physical description of an immaterial soul, not whether you wanted evidence (which is a broader request).

Ok, let's go for some actual ones, just as an aside:

How many children did Michal have? (2 Samuel 6 vs 2 Samuel 23)

Who was the mother of Abijah? (2 Chronicles 11 vs 2 Chronicles 13)

Search them.

 

[Michael]

If you're hunting down more anecdotes, then don't bother.

Then there is effectively no possible way to EVER change your position and I suppose that is the whole intent in the first place. What "evidence" would even suffice?

You could post 10 million anecdotes and still miss the point entirely.

The only point seems to be that only you personal experiences are relevant and factually true. Everyone else must be distrusted lest your belief systems crumble.

There is no amount of anecdotal evidence that is ever valid in science.

It's used statistically in science all the time. It's accepted in a court of law.

It can be interesting and spur further research but it demonstrates nothing scientifically.

What would suffice in your opinion?

So what? See above for why this is irrelevant. Is there a cutoff where something becomes 'factually true'...how many reports is that at, exactly? 200? 20,000? 2 billion? How verified do these accounts have to be? When you'll admit anything as evidence without using any kind of standard, the entire system falls over.

Likewise when you refuse to admit anything as evidence without any kind of standard, the whole system turns into pure denial and becomes a self serving circular feedback loop designed to protect a current belief.

It's not data. It's anecdote.

What would constitute "data" related to "soul" to you personally?

Again, you're missing the entire point, and your acceptance of anecdote as evidence demonstrates why your belief system was so easily subverted.

Likewise, your desire to elevate your own personal experience, and/or lack thereof to the level of super importance, and exclude all other human experience from consideration demonstrates why your belief system is so self serving and so self righteous.

And yes, it's entirely valid to look at an extraordinary claim and realize that the person making it might be looking for fame and glory.

And what if they are not and you simply assumed that?

You don't even really know what it is, so how can you say that it is part of the natural order?

No astronomer in the universe knows what dark energy is, where it comes from, etc. Ditto for inflation, dark matter, etc. No clear evidence exists that a Higgs is part of the "natural order". How can we say ANYTHING is part of the "natural" order?

My point would be that we can damage specific parts of the brain and lose particular faculties, even emotional ones - the ability to empathize for example, or the ability to match names with faces - and still have the rest of the brain function fine.

So? People have also been known to reassert their personality again even after such traumatic events as the brain has a chance to repair and rewire itself over time. I certainly wouldn't deny the fact that the physical structures of the brain are involved in 'awareness', intellect and emotional input/output while we're alive. Quite the opposite in fact.

What you're asking is that the ENTIRE brain will be damaged through the process of death - all neuron activity and function will completely cease - and yet your soul can rise off of this with all your mental faculties entirely intact, and you'll be able to recognize people, places, memories, and so on. There is absolutely no evidence to show that this is possible, and we've had billions of people from whom to get a verified example.

How does one get a verified example from any of those billions of people when you ignore their testimony entirely?

What evidence would suggest there is any such thing as a soul?

As I've said, I think the "best" testimony comes from NDE's. Stevenson has done some published work on reincarnation as well (just noting).

Non-biblical or anecdotal evidence please.

How could there be anything but "anecdotal" evidence for soul anyway? What would suffice? That's really the same question I keep having to ask you since there's really no other way to demonstrate what you're looking for (the ability to RECOGNIZE things) other than to ask living humans if they do recognize some thing, some place, etc.

I know you want there to be such a thing, as do lots of people, but that's not good enough, and 150 years of neurobiology has suggested the very opposite to be true. Damage parts of the brain and you lose parts of your mind, damage all of it and you lose the lot.

But the brain isn't even STATIC to begin with. It REWIRES itself! Your error is demonstrated by an analogy. A driver/soul might get into a car/body accident yet the driver is not injured. The car's horn is now blowing, the lights no longer work, the brakes are squealing like pig now, but the driver isn't harmed. Likewise parts of our brain can be damaged and our emotional inputs and outputs can be damaged, but a soul isn't damaged just as the driver is not damaged. That doesn't mean the the driver will be able to do everything with that car that they once did, but the driver is still fine. He may even be able to fix parts of the car.

I need to stop here for now, but I'll check back to see if I missed anything important.

 

[Michael]

Inflation is the cosmological model that says the universe expanded exponentially and is still expanding.

Soul is the theoretical model that says that awareness isn't limited to form and which suggests that awareness transcends physical death. I can play these definition *WITHOUT* empirical substance games just like you.

It is a theory - a model - but one that fits annoyingly well.

As does the theory of soul.

It predicts there should be adiabatic perturbations (in thermal equilibrium with each other) with about a one in ten thousand level of inhomogeneity - almost exactly what has so far been observed by experiment...so currently it is pretty much accepted, despite the known problems.

You still never explained where it comes from, you've never shown it is 'real" or capable of moving even one atom in a controlled experiment. It's a MYTHOLOGY without empirical substance. Even some of it's early pioneers have rejected it and cited it's CONSIDERABLE problems:

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation … Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly –without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation –by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!”[98]

That sure is a lot of zero's.

A Higgs Boson is a hypothesis of the standard model, a particle that should have a mass of around 125 GeV/c2. The mathematics works annoyingly well with it included.

It still lacks empirical support at this moment in time. Granted that could change at any moment, but it's still a 'theory' devoid of empirical support.

A Graviton is another hypothetical particle, another boson.

Another DUD in the lab too.

So what's a soul? Yes, I am expecting a clear description, even a hypothetical one. You're the one saying it exists...define it. Thanks.

See my first sentence.

 

[Michael]

Whatever is responsible for the acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe.

So by your logic, soul would be whatever is responsible for awareness and experience after physical death.

 

[mkatzwork]

Soul is the theoretical model that says that awareness isn't limited to form and which suggests that awareness transcends physical death. I can play these definition *WITHOUT* empirical substance games just like you.

What evidence do you have to support this theoretical model other than anecdote? We've only got anecdote to support the loch ness monster...apart from some dodgy photographs.

As does the theory of soul.

You should have worked for James Brown. That'd be a catchy album title.

You still never explained where it comes from, you've never shown it is 'real" or capable of moving even one atom in a controlled experiment. It's a MYTHOLOGY without empirical substance. Even some of it's early pioneers have rejected it and cited it's CONSIDERABLE problems:

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't have to explain where it comes from. The mathematics of it still works and the WMAP measurements are still annoyingly close to the predictions. It's still an open and very interesting book though. I'm not quite why you see that as a problem.

It's passed a major hurdle already - making testable predictions - so rejection out of hand is not called for, especially only when it is based on religious presupposition.

Even those who posit problems with it that you borrow understand the things it does very well indeed, which you don't. The thing is though - the scientific community is entirely open to a different idea, it's only religion that's claiming to know these answers and to be infallible at the same time.

It still lacks empirical support at this moment in time. Granted that could change at any moment, but it's still a 'theory' devoid of empirical support.

True, but the mathematical support is still there, the standard model still works very well with it - very well indeed in fact, and the window in which it should be found is not closed. If it gets closed, it'll be a fascinating thing to watch what happens next, because a lot of new hypotheses will be drawn up, some testable, and on we go. It's called scientific progress, and it's an amazing thing.

Another DUD in the lab too.

Not yet - gravitational wave experiments are still underway. It might exist, it might not, but mathematically its an elegant theory, especially when combined with string mathematics. It might be found (likely by inference from gravitational wave data, or it might not. It's a fascinating possibility either way, but not to someone who dismisses it out of hand. Your capitalization merely betrays your inbuilt disrespect, which is a great shame.

 

[Guy1]

So by your logic, soul would be whatever is responsible for awareness and experience after physical death.

Dark energy is a placeholder term for an observed phenomenon. By my logic you would need to demonstrate the persistence of a conscience (or awareness; in case there's any practical difference between the two), then you can call it a soul. That said it would just be a placeholder until we can find the actual mechanism that would allow such a thing to happen.

In the end it all comes down to evidence though. We have no observations of such a ludicrous thing happening, as such we don't use any arbitrary name to describe it.

 

[mkatzwork]

So by your logic, soul would be whatever is responsible for awareness and experience after physical death.

Which has never been verifiably observed, ever. Not to say that it won't be, of course, but so far...no.

 

[Michael]

Which has never been verifiably observed, ever. Not to say that it won't be, of course, but so far...no.

It has in fact been observed by others, just not by you (or me) personally. Your need for a subjective kind of 'verification' without that information/data coming from INDIVIDUALS makes validation impossible in YOUR particular case, probably by (my) definition. I can't see how we'd ever "verify" anything about awareness surviving physical/clinical death without asking them questions about their "experiences' during clinical death.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

It has in fact been observed by others, just not by you (or me) personally. Your need for a subjective kind of 'verification' without that information/data coming from INDIVIDUALS makes validation impossible in YOUR particular case, probably by (my) definition. I can't see how we'd ever "verify" anything without asking them questions about their "experiences' during clinical death.

How would you ask questions of someone who is dead?

 

[Michael]

Dark energy is a placeholder term for an observed phenomenon.

Actually is a placeholder term for kind of energy that might plug the gaps of an otherwise FALSIFIED and highly subjective interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. Acceleration hasn't been "observed" anymore than tired light has been observed. Only redshift has been observed. No CAUSE has been established.

By my logic you would need to demonstrate the persistence of a conscience (or awareness; in case there's any practical difference between the two), then you can call it a soul.

That was my intent in citing the Lancet study. It describes experiences during the time of clinical death.

That said it would just be a placeholder until we can find the actual mechanism that would allow such a thing to happen.

I agree with you on that point actually. Assuming that "soul" is "real", it most likely is composed of some PHYSICAL substance. The term isn't complete anymore than "dark energy" would be complete even if we KNEW that the universe was actually accelerating (but we don't).

In the end it all comes down to evidence though. We have no observations of such a ludicrous thing happening, as such we don't use any arbitrary name to describe it.

Um, the term "soul" isn't arbitrary and we did create a name to describe it.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Clinical death is not dead, but hypoxia. Reproducible results - every time. There is no soul.

 

[Michael]

How would you ask questions of someone who is dead?

Presumably the same way you do now. The real questions are: would they "hear" you and how would you hear them?

You can question the living about their experiences during clinical death.

 

[mkatzwork]

It has in fact been observed by others, just not by you personally. Your need for 'verification' without that information/data coming from INDIVIDUALS makes validation impossible in YOUR particular case, probably by (my) definition. I can't see how we'd ever "verify" anything without asking them questions.

By verification - you do realize all I mean is that a situation that means other explanations for these phenomena, if they have occurred, can be reasonably ruled out? Because someone or a group of people just saying it doesn't make it true, just like with UFO's, Bigfoot, Nessie...

We can think of many explanations for these occurrences that are just as plausible, so it doesn't matter how much anecdote you have. You're complaining that I want verified evidence for something that is nothing less than the most important scientific discovery of all time. Why would you want the standard of evidence to be low for THAT? It'd be the most pivotal thing in the entirety of human history. It'd redefine the planet and our species, it'd rewrite every school book, everything - it'd change the entire planet forever.

It's a lovely notion, but do you actually think untestable anecdotal evidence will suffice for that?

 

[Michael]

Clinical death is not dead, but hypoxia. Reproducible results - every time. There is no soul.

Hypoxia was eliminated as a potential "cause" of the NDE in that Lancet study by the way, as were drugs. There is a soul.

 

[mkatzwork]

Assuming that "soul" is "real", it most likely is composed of some PHYSICAL substance.

Bzzzzzz... you went off the rails there. When you were in the transcendental or metaphysical realm you were sort of doing ok, but now you're absolutely out. Because if it has physical substance, it should have weight, deriving from the force of gravity acting on its mass and density. It therefore cannot be seen to pervade the body; unless you'd like to claim its somehow similar to a neutrino, in which case you're citing the possibility of physical particles that could exist but have never been seen, which is....oh yes, exactly what you're deriding scientists for doing with dark matter, gravitons, and the Higgs boson.

 

[Michael]

By verification - you do realize all I mean is that a situation that means other explanations for these phenomena, if they have occurred, can be reasonably ruled out? Because someone or a group of people just saying it doesn't make it true, just like with UFO's, Bigfoot, Nessie...

One of the more interesting points in that Lancet study was the follow up interviews. There were significant behavioral and ideological changes as a result of these experiences even YEARS later. You're right of course, they don't necessarily have to be "true", but the effect on the individual is tangible.

We can think of many explanations for these occurrences that are just as plausible, so it doesn't matter how much anecdote you have. You're complaining that I want verified evidence for something that is nothing less than the most important scientific discovery of all time.

I'm not complaining that you WANT verification, I'm complaining because you're writing off all testimony you disagree with with nothing more than a handwave.

Why would you want the standard of evidence to be low for THAT? It'd be the most pivotal thing in the entirety of human history. It'd redefine the planet and our species, it'd rewrite every school book, everything - it'd change the entire planet forever.

Why would it "change" anything? More than 85% of the planet already believes in a "soul".

It's a lovely notion, but do you actually think untestable anecdotal evidence will suffice for that?

You keep making claims about their testimony being "untestable'. That's nonsense. Police investigate testimony all the time, and verify it or falsify it too.