Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Michael]

So what you're saying (/writing) is that the memories of the brain isn't the same as the memories of the soul?

That is the implication of a soul that can survive physical death isn't it? What you're calling 'memories' related to form would simply be a data download from the perspective of soul.

 

[Elendur]

That is the implication of a soul that can survive physical death isn't it?

Not necessarily, I can think of some more explanations/implications.
But that would be under the assumption that there is something that survives physical death.

What you're calling 'memories' related to form would simply be a data download from the perspective of soul.

And when would this 'download' occur?

 

[Michael]

Not necessarily, I can think of some more explanations/implications.
But that would be under the assumption that there is something that survives physical death.

There are a lot of "out of body" reports associated with NDE's.

And when would this 'download' occur?

I would assume it occurs constantly actually.

 

[Elendur]

There are a lot of "out of body" reports associated with NDE's.

And yet those experiences could still be explained by something non-spiritual.
Why jump to the assumption of a soul?

I would assume it occurs constantly actually.

I understand. (Note the bold text)
So if I put a fork through my frontal lobe, that would severely cripple my soul (or at least corrupt my current 'download')?

 

[mzungu]

And yet those experiences could still be explained by something non-spiritual.
Why jump to the assumption of a soul?


I understand. (Note the bold text)
So if I put a fork through my frontal lobe, that would severely cripple my soul (or at least corrupt my current 'download')?

Not to mention the fact that this would make the soul susceptible to malware infections or even viruses, worms, and God forbid Trojans.

 

[Michael]

And yet those experiences could still be explained by something non-spiritual.
Why jump to the assumption of a soul?

Define "jump to" for me. Every religion "predicts" life after death and the existence of soul. Even Buddhists predict a soul, and most Buddhists are atheists. If "predictions" matter to science, shouldn't we consider such a prediction in terms of it's scientific value?

Lot's of folks report the existence of awareness while outside of their form during near death experience. Some have reported events occurring AWAY from their body at the time. There 'could be' a lot of reasons, but why NOT include the obvious possibility?

Note also the Lancet study looked for and eliminated a lot of potential physical causes for these events. I'm not so much "jumping to" anything that person themselves didn't already "believe" and tell me in many cases.

I understand. (Note the bold text)
So if I put a fork through my frontal lobe, that would severely cripple my soul (or at least corrupt my current 'download')?

It could potentially sever the connection and corrupt the current download. Potentially even the experiences in life could alter the soul. You could call it a 'malware' of sorts.

 

[Guy1]

Such mental limitations don't seem to have gotten in the way of anyone producing a computer or a cell phone or a iPad. All stuff breaks and goes bad over time. Surely you can't be suggesting that awareness and/or memory are somehow less 'real' due to their temporal nature?

I'm saying your treating them as concrete things is incorrect. They're abstract concepts and should be treated as such.

Abstract concept or not, we all EXPERIENCE and have "memories" of something called "gravity' that (fortunately) makes us stick to the this planet, along with our atmosphere. The mind/brain is simply a "tool" with which we study "reality" as it exists. This planet is "real". Gravity is "real".

I don't care how many concrete things you name, it doesn't make memories and experiences any more physical.

Haven't you been paying attention? I've never once deviated from that position!

Mind you I did just jump in.

No. I do not. I exist as a SOUL that inhabits this form. This form has "memories" and it's "aware" of things around it.

Baseless assertions will get you nowhere. Either supply evidence that you inhabit something other than your brain, or be quiet.

If that were the case, then we would not expect folks to claim to meet God during near death experiences, and we would not expect them to have "out of body" experiences. Unfortunately for your claim, folks do report such events during NDE's, about 4 times more frequently than "atheists" appear in any given population in fact.

Brain Waves Surge Moments Before Death : Discovery News

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?pagewanted=all

Not exactly peer-reviewed science, but arguments from ignorance aren't exactly worth any serious research.

Yes, I know how the atheistic meme works. I simply don't agree with it.

Denial is not a refutation.

I provided two such references a few pages back (two and a half if you include the one accidental metaphysical link). You might look them up at least and see that people are in fact interested in the physics related to 'soul'.

I can't be arsed.

The only point I was making earlier is that any expectation of "soul" to have "rest mass" is a silly expectation.

Expecting there to be a "soul" in the first place is even sillier.

 

[Michael]

I'm saying your treating them as concrete things is incorrect. They're abstract concepts and should be treated as such.

In terms of how it effects my conversation about the relationship of rest mass and information, it's not actually relevant IMO. The "brain" is the "concrete thing" (physical container of awareness/information) in your example. Likewise, there would necessarily need to be a "physical structure' related to 'soul'. The "information" related to individuality however has no particular "rest mass", so it's not like I'd expect the body to lose any rest mass as a result of physical death. That was my whole point over the flash drive question.

I don't care how many concrete things you name, it doesn't make memories and experiences any more physical.

We're still talking past one another. Let's try it this way. The BRAIN is physical. It's got real physical circuitry in there, and real pathways that are cut into the brain that are directly related to that "individual" and their particular way of processing and storing information. Likewise any "soul" would necessarily need to be "physical' at some level, even if it's a quantum level. The processing of information within that quantum container would also necessarily need to be 'unique' and customizable by the 'user' just like a brain. The data however isn't likely to contain REST MASS which was the POINT of my conversation before you jumped into the middle of it.

Baseless assertions will get you nowhere. Either supply evidence that you inhabit something other than your brain, or be quiet.

I've already provided some evidence of that in this thread. That Lancet report INCLUDES (does not exclude) out of body reports. That study also looked for and eliminated a series of "most likely possible physical causes' for these events.

FYI, there are also any number of books and papers on the topic of past life memories.

Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation - Ian Stevenson - Google Books

Brain Waves Surge Moments Before Death : Discovery News

The notion that neurons fire isn't surprising. The fact the "experience"
follow specific patterns and include specific events is surprising.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?pagewanted=all

That one is bit more interesting actually. Thanks. FYI, in the empirical theory of God thread I listed links to a "God helmet" that you might read through sometime. I think the EM field has the ability to explain ALL human experience, including the experiences of God. It therefore wouldn't surprise me to find that there are EM "entry" and "exit' mechanisms, including a way to trigger such events.

Not exactly peer-reviewed science, but arguments from ignorance aren't exactly worth any serious research.

IT all warrants serious research. If "inflation' warrants 'research' anything and EVERYTHING warrants research.

Denial is not a refutation.

Ya, but your handwave wasn't much of an argument so what exactly did you expect?

Expecting there to be a "soul" in the first place is even sillier.

Maybe it's "silly" to approximately 4% of the planet perhaps. Who cares what they think? To the rest of the humanity it's not silly at all. It's something they take very seriously in fact.

 

[createdtoworship]

My point is that the information itself (or lack thereof) doesn't actually change the mass of the flash drive. It's therefore irrational to insist that SOUL must NECESSARILY contain rest mass.

good one! Hadn't thought of that one!

 

[Guy1]

The "brain" is the "concrete thing" (physical container of awareness/information) in your example.

I take issue with the wording, but ok.

Likewise, there would necessarily need to be a "physical structure' related to 'soul'.

Why assume a "soul" to begin with? Define a "soul" for me, will you? I'm not quite in the mood to backpedal through page upon page to find out.

The "information" related to individuality however has no particular "rest mass", so it's not like I'd expect the body to lose any rest mass as a result of physical death. That was my whole point over the flash drive question.

The physical representation of this info is destroyed upon physical death.

Likewise any "soul" would necessarily need to be "physical' at some level, even if it's a quantum level. The processing of information within that quantum container would also necessarily need to be 'unique' and customizable by the 'user' just like a brain. The data however isn't likely to contain REST MASS which was the POINT of my conversation before you jumped into the middle of it.

You assume there's a soul and that it's physical, then immediately appeal to some nondescript quantum event that, for some reason, decides to record us.

I've already provided some evidence of that in this thread. That Lancet report INCLUDES (does not exclude) out of body reports. That study also looked for and eliminated a series of "most likely possible physical causes' for these events.

I didn't read this nor do I wish to backpedal (as I've stated before).

FYI, there are also any number of books and papers on the topic of past life memories.

And there's an entire series relating to the power of the spiral. What's your point?

The notion that neurons fire isn't surprising. The fact the "experience"
follow specific patterns and include specific events is surprising.

The notion that they fire during oxygen deprivation and result in people suffering from hallucinations, is not.

Empirical theory.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Thanks. FYI, in the empirical theory of God thread I listed links to a "God helmet" that you might read through sometime.

I know of this. Unlike a certain someone, I try to keep up with scientific discoveries. Granted I don't do very well; but then again who can keep up with so much progress?

IT all warrants serious research. If "inflation' warrants 'research' anything and EVERYTHING warrants research.

They did the research. There was no sign of your god anywhere.

Ya, but your handwave wasn't much of an argument so what exactly did you expect?

I gave you an accurate representation of reality. If you disagree you can take your opinion and shove it into the dark crevice from which it came.

Maybe it's "silly" to approximately 4% of the planet perhaps. Who cares what they think? To the rest of the humanity it's not silly at all. It's something they take very seriously in fact.

I don't care what they think.

 

[Michael]

Why assume a "soul" to begin with? Define a "soul" for me, will you? I'm not quite in the mood to backpedal through page upon page to find out.

Amazon.com: Quantum Physics, Near Death Experiences, Eternal Consciousness, Religion, and the Human Soul eBook: william bray: Kindle Store
http://www.amazon.com/The-Quantum-Physics-Soul-Spirit/dp/1561708259

You have your pick of mathematical models to choose from. There's the $3.00 version to choose from, or the $100.00 version.

The physical representation of this info is destroyed upon physical death.

I don't doubt that. The informational representation isn't destroyed upon death, at least according to those who've had NDE's.

You assume there's a soul

Every "religion" on the planet teaches/predicts that there is a "soul", including atheistic religions like Buddhism. It's not like *I PERSONALLY* came up with the idea/prediction, without scientific precedent, like Guth did with inflation theory.

and that it's physical,

Some physical THING is still required to hold information and process information.

then immediately appeal to some nondescript quantum event that, for some reason, decides to record us.

You'd have to read some of the theories associated with soul get a handle on WHY awareness is thought to be a quantum event.

I didn't read this nor do I wish to backpedal (as I've stated before).

The Lancet: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest

FYI, It's not considered 'backpeddling" to actually read the thread and the materials presented in the thread before jumping into the middle of it. It's called "research".

And there's an entire series relating to the power of the spiral. What's your point?

My point is that you're pretty much ignoring and flippantly handwaving away at every bit of published data that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas.

The notion that they fire during oxygen deprivation and result in people suffering from hallucinations, is not.

Had you actually READ that Lancet study you'd know they checked for an eliminated that as a potential "cause" of these events. Many were undergoing CPR at the time.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

I mean that my belief in "God" doesn't require any leaps of faith in the "unseen" in the lab. There are purely empirical theories related to God.

I know of this. Unlike a certain someone, I try to keep up with scientific discoveries. Granted I don't do very well; but then again who can keep up with so much progress?

For someone who's supposedly so well versed on the actual published science, you're not making yourself look good by handwaving in arguments that have already been considered and eliminated in PUBLISHED works.

They did the research. There was no sign of your god anywhere.

You clearly have no idea what "my" God is, where it might be, or how it might manifest itself in the lab. In case you ever actually are curious how *I* define God:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

I gave you an accurate representation of reality. If you disagree you can take your opinion and shove it into the dark crevice from which it came.

Oh, I see. It's argument by rude behavior. Boring. You gave me YOUR OPINIONS about "reality". I don't care about your opinions of me quite frankly because I've seen how you operate, namely by NOT reading the materials presented and acting rather emotionally and irrationally when presented with opposing points of view.

I don't care what they think.

So why are you here on a religious website again? If you don't care with theists believe, why are you even here on a "Christian" website discussing such topics in the first place?

 

[Freodin]

My point is that the information itself (or lack thereof) doesn't actually change the mass of the flash drive. It's therefore irrational to insist that SOUL must NECESSARILY contain rest mass.

So does the information "inhabit" the flash drive in some way? Is there a "flash drive soul" that keeps the informations when the drive is destroyed? Or what happens to that information?

 

[Michael]

So does the information "inhabit" the flash drive in some way?

Does information "inhabit" the brain? Define "inhabit". I suppose I'm suggesting that the information is "stored" in both flesh AND soul and it exists in both forms.

Is there a "flash drive soul" that keeps the informations when the drive is destroyed? Or what happens to that information?

A lot of religions have some concept about all information being stored and retrieved in "Akashic records". Lots of folks report 'life reviews" during the NDE process that allows them to observe the EFFECTS of their actions on OTHERS, not just the effect on themselves.

Akashic records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Michael]

Welcome to quantum mechanics! Niels Bohr supposedly once said:

"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it".

FYI, Ari studied at the Niels Bohr institute. While I wasn't aware of it until just recently, the redshift phenomenon that he's describing has apparently already been observed in the lab, and the electron density is the key determining factor apparently.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
ScienceDirect.com - Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics - Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas

From his website:

Education and Degrees:

Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson was born and raised in Iceland where he graduated in the math and sciences line from Mentaskólinn a Akureyri in 1948. He studied nuclear physics at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 1948-1954, where he received Cand. Mag. and Mag Scient. (Ph.D) in 1954. Dr. Brynjolfsson was a special research fellow of University of Iceland from 1954 to 1955, and an Alexander von Humboldt fellow of the University of Göttingen, Germany, from 1955 to 1957. In 1973, he received a Doctor Philosophiae (DSc) from the Niels Bohrs Institute, University of Copenhagen.
Dr. Brynjolfsson’s Mag. Scient. (PhD) thesis focused on cosmic radiation and the design and construction of a sensitive and accurate magnetometer for measuring the magnetization of rocks. He subsequently used the magnetometer in Iceland to trace prehistoric variations in the Earth’s magnetic field, including the reversal of Earth’s magnetic field; and the more recent secular variations that indicated that Aristoteles saw the Northern Lights, as illustrated in his writings. See Phil. Mag. 6(23), (1957) 247.
Dr. Brynjolfsson’s Doctor Philosophiae (DSc) thesis, “Some Aspects of the Interactions of Fast Charged Particles with Matter”, improved three major aspects of the stopping power theory developed mainly by Niels Bohr, Hans Bethe, and Enrico Fermi. His thesis improved a) the frequency limits, b) the estimates of the Cherenkov radiation, and c) the estimates of the energy levels in the solid materials conventionally used for stopping power measurements. These changes improved the theoretical estimates from about 1% to about 0.1%. The best experimental accuracy is about 0.1%.
Dr., Brynjolfsson’s theory for the stopping of charged particles was useful for discovering the plasma redshift of photons in 1978. The plasma redshift has been overlooked due to the approximations used and because this cross section is insignificant in laboratory experiments. It is important only in very hot sparse plasmas, like those in the corona of the Sun and in intergalactic space.
Special Studies:

Fellowship University of Reykjavik, Iceland, 1954–1955
Alexander von Humboldt Fellow University of Göttingen, Germany, 1955–1957
AMP, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, 1971
Primary Positions:

Head of Danish AEC Radiation Facilities at Risø 1957-1965, with focus on research and industrial applications of radiation
Head of US Army Radiation Facilities, Natick, Massachusetts, 1965-1980, with focus on research and industrial applications of radiation
Special Assistant for Physics, Natick, 1980-1988
Director of IFFIT of the Joint FAO/IAEA, United Nations, 1988-1992, with focus on international training and applications of radiation
Director, Applied Radiation Industries, Wayland, Massachusetts, 1992 - present
Awards:

Møller Foundation Award for exceptional service to Danish Industry, 1965
“Radiation Science and Technology Award of the American Nuclear Society”, 1988

Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson - National Science Foundation

It seems to me that in light of the recent research in the plasma redshift in the lab, you'll need to explain why I should go with a supernatural claim of 'space expansion' when a simple documented and observed feature of current carrying plasma will suffice?

 

[mzungu]

So does the information "inhabit" the flash drive in some way? Is there a "flash drive soul" that keeps the informations when the drive is destroyed? Or what happens to that information?

It haunts very old castles

 

[Guy1]

Disclaimer: This is being written at 2:40AM. The coherence and accuracy of this post cannot be guaranteed.

Amazon.com: Quantum Physics, Near Death Experiences, Eternal Consciousness, Religion, and the Human Soul eBook: william bray: Kindle Store
Amazon.com: The Quantum Physics of Soul and Spirit (9781561708253): Deepak Chopra, Amit Goswami: Books

You have your pick of mathematical models to choose from. There's the $3.00 version to choose from, or the $100.00 version.

I came for a definition, not a sales pitch. Either present it or find a free document that does..

I don't doubt that. The informational representation isn't destroyed upon death, at least according to those who've had NDE's.

Define "informational representation."

Every "religion" on the planet teaches/predicts that there is a "soul", including atheistic religions like Buddhism.

But we're not talking about them, are we now?

It's not like *I PERSONALLY* came up with the idea/prediction, without scientific precedent, like Guth did with inflation theory.

I leave this to the astrophysicists. I'm a mere molecular bio undergrad.

Some physical THING is still required to hold information and process information.

I take issue with this wording. You need a physical medium to represent the information. "Hold" implies that the info actually exists in any concrete way.

You'd have to read some of the theories associated with soul get a handle on WHY awareness is thought to be a quantum event.

Scientific theories, or mere layman's theories? If it's the former, name one; if it's the latter, I could care less.

The Lancet: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest

It's far too late for me to be reading these things, so I'll throw in a personal question for you to answer in the meantime. What are your credentials?

FYI, It's not considered 'backpeddling" to actually read the thread and the materials presented in the thread before jumping into the middle of it. It's called "research".

I'm not one to research the claims and materials presented by willfully ignorant laymen unless I really have to.

My point is that you're pretty much ignoring and flippantly handwaving away at every bit of published data that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas.

I have no preconceived notions regarding this issue.Actually, unlike a certain someone in this exchange, I likebeing refuted. There's nothing more exhilarating than being refuted in the heat of an argument and broadening your horizons as a result.

This is the first post that actually has any kind of material on the subject; and 50% of it is a book written by some guy whose credentials I'm having trouble verifying.

Had you actually READ that Lancet study you'd know they checked for an eliminated that as a potential "cause" of these events. Many were undergoing CPR at the time.

I'll read it tomorrow. Thanks for the link by the way.

I mean that my belief in "God" doesn't require any leaps of faith in the "unseen" in the lab. There are purely empirical theories related to God.

I mean I don't know what you mean by "empirical theory."

For someone who's supposedly so well versed on the actual published science,

Woah, woah, woah. Cool it there. I never said I was well versed in anything. I try keeping up- but there's only so much a 17 year old, 2nd year molecular bio undergrad can comprehend. If you want to get to the really interesting points in science, I suggest you talk to the actual scientists on here.

you're not making yourself look good by handwaving in arguments that have already been considered and eliminated in PUBLISHED works.

So many ways I could call you out on this. I'll stick with a simple "This coming from the guy who outright denied that "he" inhabits his brain when hit with a cold, hard, straightforward fact" and be done with it.

You clearly have no idea what "my" God is, where it might be, or how it might manifest itself in the lab. In case you ever actually are curious how *I* define God:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

To be honest, I only read the first sentence and am basing this on just that. You sire, are a pantheist. You mistakenly assume the universe is alive and I have no urge to argue with you about that.

Oh, I see. It's argument by rude behavior.

No. That's what happens when my patience is tried. My replies become increasingly caustic until you either back out, I back out, or I'm disciplined for flaming. There really is nothing more that can be said though. When the person you're arguing with outright denies such a simple fact, the most productive thing you can do is tell them to shove their opinion so deep it'll never again see the light of day.

You gave me YOUR OPINIONS about "reality".

I gave you a cold, hard fact. You didn't like it.

So why are you here on a religious website again? If you don't care with theists believe, why are you even here on a "Christian" website discussing such topics in the first place?

Note how I stick to the Creation V Evolution forums. Here, what you believe doesn't matter. I can argue the facts as best I can without really having to worry as much about what you believe regarding the issue.

 

[Elendur]

Define "jump to" for me. Every religion "predicts" life after death and the existence of soul. Even Buddhists predict a soul, and most Buddhists are atheists. If "predictions" matter to science, shouldn't we consider such a prediction in terms of it's scientific value?

If they had been testable, sure. As it is, all results from tests I've seen are pretty much met with "I know I'm right, I don't care if your study says I'm wrong. You need to change this.", repeat to infinity.

As for the jump, I think you know what I meant. The ordinary term 'jump to conclusions'.
The null hypothesis:
H0: Near death experiences have no explanation.

Several alternative hypotheses can be constructed and tested, you have however started by assuming that a soul exists (which in itself has the null hypothesis that it doesn't exist) and apply that to form a different null hypothesis (that the soul explain those NDE's).

Lot's of folks report the existence of awareness while outside of their form during near death experience. Some have reported events occurring AWAY from their body at the time. There 'could be' a lot of reasons, but why NOT include the obvious possibility?

Including is fine, one among many alternative hypotheses.
But an alternative hypothesis that isn't testable is worthless.

Note also the Lancet study looked for and eliminated a lot of potential physical causes for these events. I'm not so much "jumping to" anything that person themselves didn't already "believe" and tell me in many cases.

Elimination of other hypotheses doesn't strengthen those left, the number of alternative hypotheses are infinite after all.

It could potentially sever the connection and corrupt the current download. Potentially even the experiences in life could alter the soul. You could call it a 'malware' of sorts.

So one would spend eternity as a mental cripple? Harsh.
Of course, that would be under some of your rather strict assumptions (which makes this all speculations with no base).

 

[Elendur]

Not to mention the fact that this would make the soul susceptible to malware infections or even viruses, worms, and God forbid Trojans.

 

[Elias526]

NDE process that allows them to observe the EFFECTS of their actions on OTHERS, not just the effect on themselves.

That is interesting, sort of like that wonderful life movie that they play on tv every year at christmas.

 

[Elias526]

Lot's of folks report the existence of awareness while outside of their form during near death experience. Some have reported events occurring AWAY from their body at the time. There 'could be' a lot of reasons, but why NOT include the obvious possibility?

I have had dreams about the future and dreams about places I have not been to yet. How do we explain things like that?