• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If the "soul" is more than just natural function of the brain...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Very timebound perspective; throughout history there have been things we've been incapable of manipulating physically. Gravity is a great example. That didn't make it imaginary, it just meant we weren't sufficiently developed to manipulate it. It's possible that's the case here.
Click to expand...

Bad example. Gravity at least exerts a measurable force on physical matter, so we have a good reason to postulate its existence. The soul has no such telltale signs of existence. We postulate the existence of the soul because we feel it ought to be there, which isn't a very good reason IMO.
 
Say relativity rather than gravity then. For most of history we didn't have the equipment to prove it. Doesn't mean it was imaginary.
 
Say relativity rather than gravity then. For most of history we didn't have the equipment to prove it. Doesn't mean it was imaginary.
 
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Very timebound perspective; throughout history there have been things we've been incapable of manipulating physically. Gravity is a great example. That didn't make it imaginary, it just meant we weren't sufficiently developed to manipulate it. It's possible that's the case here.

It's also possible that there's something that exists beyond the material world. Take the universe as an example. There was a big bang - what did it bang into? Everything material exists inside the universe; what's outside? It's not material, not as we define material. There are edges to the universe; what's on the other side?

I'm not suggesting the spiritual world is on the other side of the universe edge. I'm simply pointing out that simply because we can't manipulate it physically, or observe it materially, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Doesn't mean it does, but doesn't mean it doesn't.

Be careful of a statement of fact in areas like this. Things may be as simplistic as you state, but it's no shame to consider that they might not be; millions of people, including great minds, have grappled their whole lives with the same questions.
Click to expand...

Gravity is just a model for physical behavior we can observe in nature. It's a necessary model with much more explanatory power than the assumptions it makes. The concept of a "spiritual world" is far less parsimonious, and is ultimately superfluous in my opinion.
 
My point about gravity was that at one point in history it wasn't possible to observe the absence of gravity, rendering the theory itself unobservable and, hence the principle "imaginary" by the earlier standards. Which is totally invalid, as we know now. Point being, observation alone at a given point in history isn't the defining method of determining whether something is imaginary.
 
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
My point about gravity was that at one point in history it wasn't possible to observe the absence of gravity...
Click to expand...
Do you think that it is now possible to observe the absence of gravity? If you do, you are sorely mistaken.


....rendering the theory itself unobservable...
Click to expand...
As a point of clarification, theories themselves aren't "observeable" -- other than that they can be read wherever they are written down. Phenomena are observeable, and the explanations for those phenomena are embodied in theories.

/now back to your regularly scheduled disagreement...


*edited to correct quote tags used from different forum software
 
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
My point about gravity was that at one point in history it wasn't possible to observe the absence of gravity, rendering the theory itself unobservable and, hence the principle "imaginary" by the earlier standards. Which is totally invalid, as we know now. Point being, observation alone at a given point in history isn't the defining method of determining whether something is imaginary.
Click to expand...

This comes back to

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
In my opinion, there's not going to be a materially-based explanation and definition for something that's not material, so no matter what answer I supply it won't be satisfactory if you're measuring it against material measures. I know that in advance, so it doesn't bother me that my answer falls short of what you're looking for.
Click to expand...

Science can only work with the material. We can only communicate with each other through material means. All human interaction takes place through physical processes.

When I say that the "spiritual world" is imaginary, I simply say you've defined it in a way that makes it, by definition, not amenable to science, and therefor not falsifiable. Something like gravity was not directly measurable (and to some extent still is not) for much of human history, but there were definite effects caused by it that begged an explanation.

What effects can we observe for which not only is the materialistic paradigm insufficient explanation, but that the theory of a soul is a necessary requirement for?
 
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Kadarin
There is no evidence to support the idea that the soul even exists.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But those that assert it -- and granted, they'd need to show positive evidence anyway -- but how do they explain such a simple fact away?
Click to expand...

Are you asking how people can blindly believe in something like a soul?

Easy, their parents and a local church brainwashed them.
 
Originally posted by: fishjie
Originally posted by: So
Then, can someone explain to me why shocking someone's brain can temporarily change their personality, hitting the brain physically can permanently change it, and application of chemicals (drugs) can mold it in controlled ways?
Click to expand...

one of the things that shook my faith in college was when i learned about phineas gage and how he turned into a jerkoff whereas before he was a saint after an accident damaged his brain.

years later i finally became an atheist...
Click to expand...

You should read this book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat

 
DangerAardvark, I agree with your post. Something that is not material cannot be proven materially. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist but it does mean we currently, and may always, lack the means to prove it. Therefore the most prudent course would be to be agnostic to the idea of a spiritual world and everything related. Some people will choose to disbelieve and some will choose to believe. Belief and disbelief are equally illogical where undecided is logical. All are valid personal choices.

[edit] Now that I'm off my Blackberry. I think the word choice of "imaginary" connotates not-real, whereas the point you make in your post is "not-observable" and "not-provable". I'd agree that it's not-observable and not-provable, but that doesn't by necessity make it not-real.
 
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
DangerAardvark, I agree with your post. Something that is not material cannot be proven materially. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist but it does mean we currently, and may always, lack the means to prove it. Therefore the most prudent course would be to be agnostic to the idea of a spiritual world and everything related. Some people will choose to disbelieve and some will choose to believe. Belief and disbelief are equally illogical where undecided is logical. All are valid personal choices.
Click to expand...

occam's razor says otherwise, where as, the belief in a soul adds uneeded complexity, because the function of th brain remains the same.
 
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Say relativity rather than gravity then. For most of history we didn't have the equipment to prove it. Doesn't mean it was imaginary.
Click to expand...

Even the theory of relativity was based on observed reality at its core. The fact that much of relativity has proven to be correct is a testament to the accuracy of our mathematics in extrapolating on what we actually can measure. If you've read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" you may remember the machine that extrapolated the entire universe from a slice of cake. Einstein extrapolated his theory of relativity from his limited data in a similar way.

The point of all this is that there is NO phenomena or theory based on observed phenomena in science that is analogous to a theory relating to the existence of a soul. There is no physical evidence to start with, therefore there is no reason to put forward such a hypothesis. You cite gravity and relativity as though you think these concepts came from nothing, but it was actual physical reality that brought them to our attention. What part of actual physical reality is there to bring a soul to our attention? If there is nothing, then why do we insist that it rates equally with an unproven scientific theory despite the fact that there is less to indicate its existence than there is for any of them?
 
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Say relativity rather than gravity then. For most of history we didn't have the equipment to prove it. Doesn't mean it was imaginary.
Click to expand...

Even the theory of relativity was based on observed reality at its core. The fact that much of relativity has proven to be correct is a testament to the accuracy of our mathematics in extrapolating on what we actually can measure. If you've read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" you may remember the machine that extrapolated the entire universe from a slice of cake. Einstein extrapolated his theory of relativity from his limited data in a similar way.

The point of all this is that there is NO phenomena or theory based on observed phenomena in science that is analogous to a theory relating to the existence of a soul. There is no physical evidence to start with, therefore there is no reason to put forward such a hypothesis. You cite gravity and relativity as though you think these concepts came from nothing, but it was actual physical reality that brought them to our attention. What part of actual physical reality is there to bring a soul to our attention? If there is nothing, then why do we even give the soul more consideration than any other flight of fancy?
Click to expand...

Childhood indoctrination, because thats what religion is.
 
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: rezinn
Who says the soul is a natural function of the brain?
Click to expand...

Most neurologists? Rather, I'm saying if there is some supernatural soul, rather than simply consciousness emergent from the natural physical functions of the brain.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like that thing that God puts there when the sperm touches the egg, thus creating life?

God has some great timing, I must say. He's also a bit of a pervert, sticking his hands in vaginas all day long.
 
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Say relativity rather than gravity then. For most of history we didn't have the equipment to prove it. Doesn't mean it was imaginary.
Click to expand...

Even the theory of relativity was based on observed reality at its core. The fact that much of relativity has proven to be correct is a testament to the accuracy of our mathematics in extrapolating on what we actually can measure. If you've read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" you may remember the machine that extrapolated the entire universe from a slice of cake. Einstein extrapolated his theory of relativity from his limited data in a similar way.

The point of all this is that there is NO phenomena or theory based on observed phenomena in science that is analogous to a theory relating to the existence of a soul. There is no physical evidence to start with, therefore there is no reason to put forward such a hypothesis. You cite gravity and relativity as though you think these concepts came from nothing, but it was actual physical reality that brought them to our attention. What part of actual physical reality is there to bring a soul to our attention? If there is nothing, then why do we even give the soul more consideration than any other flight of fancy?
Click to expand...

My point hasn't been "since we couldn't observe x and it is real then since we can't observe y it is real", my point is "at one point we couldn't observe x and it is real, therefore it is possible that y, though not currently observable, may or may not be real."

I have two separate assertions going on right now:
1. If a hypothetical soul was material, the fact that we cannot currently scientifically prove it means that we lack the means to prove it, not that it does not exist
and
2. If a hypothetical soul is not material, we can never prove it scientifically and that still doesn't prove it does not exist.

IIRC, basic rules of logic provide that you can conclusively prove the existence of something but you cannot conclusively prove the non-existence of something.
 
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Say relativity rather than gravity then. For most of history we didn't have the equipment to prove it. Doesn't mean it was imaginary.
Click to expand...

Even the theory of relativity was based on observed reality at its core. The fact that much of relativity has proven to be correct is a testament to the accuracy of our mathematics in extrapolating on what we actually can measure. If you've read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" you may remember the machine that extrapolated the entire universe from a slice of cake. Einstein extrapolated his theory of relativity from his limited data in a similar way.

The point of all this is that there is NO phenomena or theory based on observed phenomena in science that is analogous to a theory relating to the existence of a soul. There is no physical evidence to start with, therefore there is no reason to put forward such a hypothesis. You cite gravity and relativity as though you think these concepts came from nothing, but it was actual physical reality that brought them to our attention. What part of actual physical reality is there to bring a soul to our attention? If there is nothing, then why do we even give the soul more consideration than any other flight of fancy?
Click to expand...

My point hasn't been "since we couldn't observe x and it is real then since we can't observe y it is real", my point is "at one point we couldn't observe x and it is real, therefore it is possible that y, though not currently observable, may or may not be real."

I have two separate assertions going on right now:
1. If a hypothetical soul was material, the fact that we cannot currently scientifically prove it means that we lack the means to prove it, not that it does not exist
and
2. If a hypothetical soul is not material, we can never prove it scientifically and that still doesn't prove it does not exist.

IIRC, basic rules of logic provide that you can conclusively prove the existence of something but you cannot conclusively prove the non-existence of something.
Click to expand...

2500th post!!!!

Hence, burden of proof lies on those trying to prove a soul exists, until they prove a soul exists, we can only assume it doesn't.
 
Originally posted by: videogames101
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
DangerAardvark, I agree with your post. Something that is not material cannot be proven materially. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist but it does mean we currently, and may always, lack the means to prove it. Therefore the most prudent course would be to be agnostic to the idea of a spiritual world and everything related. Some people will choose to disbelieve and some will choose to believe. Belief and disbelief are equally illogical where undecided is logical. All are valid personal choices.
Click to expand...

occam's razor says otherwise, where as, the belief in a soul adds uneeded complexity, because the function of th brain remains the same.
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor would work as a test in a closed system where all other variables are known. However, if life doesn't end at death, there are more complex variables to factor in, meaning that the absence of a soul could make things more, rather than less complex.

All in all, guys, I'm simply stating that this is a debate throughout all of history, and it remains unresolved, and each person's belief is deeply personal, even today. I'm not trying to get you to believe there IS a soul. Why is it important for you to get me to admit that there is not? Is it not reasonable to collectively conclude this isn't provable one way or another?
 
Originally posted by: So
Then, can someone explain to me why shocking someone's brain can temporarily change their personality, hitting the brain physically can permanently change it, and application of chemicals (drugs) can mold it in controlled ways?
Click to expand...

(Possibly)

The brain is sort of the receptor (like a radio) for the soul. If you knock a radio around, it distorts the signal and the output, but the input remains the same
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top