Scientific Proof Of The Existence Of The Soul (and God)

M

marco

Registered Member
I am a physicist and I would like to invite you in the site of the “Center of Scientific Divulgation about Consciousness”:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

where I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.
This analysis points out how the laws of physics prove that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.
In the first article entitled “Mind and brain...” you can find a general discussion of the mind and brain problem from a scientific point of view.
In the second article entitled “Scientific contraddictions in materialism”
you can find an explanation of the fundamental inconsistencies of the typical arguments used by materialists, such as the concept of emergent, macroscopic or holist property, complexity, information, etc.
In the section called “FAQ: answers to visitors' questions” you can find the answer to many typical questions, such as "Are there any scientifically proved miracles?", "Does the existence of the universe imply the existence of God?", "Can science explain God?", "Can science establish which is the true religion?", "Can science explain consciousness in the future?", and many others.


Marco Biagini

Ph.D in Solid State Physics
 
marco said:
I am a physicist and I would like to invite you in the site of the “Center of Scientific Divulgation about Consciousness”:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

Hey Marco......unfortunately, i can't download the link you've given. My system has VERY limited memory, so your site is probably to complex for it

where I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.

d__sounds good. Have you read anything by the professor of philosophy, Christian de Quincey www.deepspirit.com
He also is exploring all bout the misconception of materialsitic inderstandings of the organism and Nature. His book, Radcial Nature is a modern exploration of the ancient insight of animism. De Quincey argues that consciousness and matter are distinct, yet ALWAYs togther, "all the way down".

This analysis points out how the laws of physics prove that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.

d__I feel you ae making a bit of a jump here, Marco. It is one thing to be exploring how mind and body are not really separate, but when you bring in concepts like 'God' and 'soul', you are in the realms of mythology, and whats needs to be understood in this field is the role of patriarchy and how concepts of a male 'God' and separate 'soul' have arisen in this belief-system. Heard of Goddess?

In the first article entitled “Mind and brain...” you can find a general discussion of the mind and brain problem from a scientific point of view.
In the second article entitled “Scientific contraddictions in materialism”
you can find an explanation of the fundamental inconsistencies of the typical arguments used by materialists, such as the concept of emergent, macroscopic or holist property, complexity, information, etc.
In the section called “FAQ: answers to visitors' questions” you can find the answer to many typical questions, such as "Are there any scientifically proved miracles?", "Does the existence of the universe imply the existence of God?", "Can science explain God?", "Can science establish which is the true religion?", "Can science explain consciousness in the future?", and many others.

d__As i am saying. i really urge you to open your field of vision when you beging looking at the mythological aspects. it is VITALLy importnt in my opion. Included in this exploration also has to be research into the role of hallucinogens, as they are essential for understanding the essence of both pre-patriarchal and patriarchal religions, as well as how still caught up in the past is our so-called secular society, which still betrays its unresolved patriarchal prejudices and fears with its ongoing 'War on [SOME] Drugs'!

Marco Biagini

Ph.D in Solid State Physics
Click to expand...

)))))((((((((U)))))))))((((((((
 
I'm sorry, but I am totally un-motivated to read even a single word of what that guy has to say.

You wanna know why? One word: DIVULGATION

WTF? If you can't make your point without making up stupid nonce words, then please don't waste my time with what passes for your philosophy.
 
Silas said:
I'm sorry, but I am totally un-motivated to read even a single word of what that guy has to say.

You wanna know why? One word: DIVULGATION

WTF? If you can't make your point without making up stupid nonce words, then please don't waste my time with what passes for your philosophy.
Click to expand...

Question: Can YOU speak Italian?
 
marco said:
I am a physicist

where I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the
basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.
This analysis points out how the laws of physics prove that the brain cannot generate
consciousness,which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial
element. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the
existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Plato also thought that he could conclude that the soul could exist independent of the body because it acted independently from the body when it engaged in pure thought. This is no longer accepted as true since it is equally evident today that without a physical brain, thought is not likely to occur.
marco said:
In the first article entitled “Mind and brain...” you can find a general
discussion of the mind and brain problem from a scientific point of view.
In the second article entitled “Scientific contraddictions in materialism”
you can find an explanation of the fundamental inconsistencies of the typical arguments used by materialists, such as the concept of emergent, macroscopic or holist property,
complexity, information, etc.
Click to expand...
anything which cannot produce solid evidence,
unfortunately is a baseless assumption, and should not be put forward as a truth, only as a theory.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of
the thing.
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the
theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a
place that can not be visited.Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
The thing exists.
It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying
criteria.
If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

so marco can you do this, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

these are some of Arguments against the existence of the soul

1. Metaphysical argument no evidence of the soul as a separate , distinct substance
If it did exist it would be ingenerable and would exist before the body.

2. Moral argument
Justice of God would be called into question because of the eternal nature

of the rewards and punishment

3. Physical Argument
No evidence of survival, Much evidence of decay-alterations, dissolution.




pavlos marcos
Ph balanced.
 
(the following was written without realising that the theory is that of marco himself, for which I apologise - I would have addressed you directly).

The basic flaw in his logic is in supposing the laws of physics to have demonstrated any such thing beyond doubt, which so far they have not done.
The laws of Quantum Electrodynamics allow to establish that cerebral processes, just like every other molecular, chemical or electromagnetic process, can generate no sensations, no emotions, no thoughts; science denies then the basic hypothesis of materialism and confers scientificity to the unmaterial/spiritual nature of the psyche or soul.​
Just because the laws of QED allow us to correctly predict the motions of the infra-tiny subatomic elements of reality such as quarks, muons, gluons etc, does not mean that science has yet built a complete model of the Universe, and included or excluded Consciousness. Science would claim so far that insufficient work has been made to make such an understanding possible. Some, like Roger Penrose, recognising the fact that the existence of Consciousness is a necessary element in QED itself (or at least that part of Consciousness which forms Perception) means that some other, deeper theory is necessary in order to create a Universe model that will successfully account for the motions of particles by QED, and the Perception that collapses the probability wave functions demanded by QED. But certainly there must be a fundamental misunderstanding of physics to state that QED "rules out" the existence of Consciousness - therefore Consciousness is due to some supernatural cause. Rather it is that our understanding of QED has not so far extended to the explanation of Consciousness.
 
Last edited:
marco said:
This analysis points out how the laws of physics prove that the brain cannot generate consciousness,
Click to expand...
ANALyze this:

without brain you are a vegetable,
people with brains damaged in accidents or some disease such as Alzheimers,Parkinsons etc,are unable to function too well if at all
so a healthy brain is needed to be consious.
which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element.
Click to expand...
well no it doesnt
The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.
Click to expand...
you just love to pull that fucker God out of every silly idea dont you? :D

even if there was something like a soul HOW the fuck would that prove gods of any kind??? :rolleyes:
 
Marco, this is a quote from your site:

marco said:
modern science proves that cerebral activity can generate no sensations, no emotions, no thoughts.
Click to expand...

I would suggest experimenting with some electrode stimulation with the brain.
The results that are produced will contradict the quoted assertion.
 
The article is transparently religious with conclusions that are no more than imaginative speculations.
 
what i DON'T understand is when people start threads, and then disappear......?

wheres Marco engaging with us engaging about his ideas...?

'helloooo, helloooo, Marco, Marco....??"
 
Marco,

I found a 'readers' quote on your website:

23/04/2004 Marco, thank you for your long, detailed discussion. I had never seen a proof of the existence of God based on the psychical life, and I found it very interesting.

Karl Kuhn,
Professor Emeritus,
Eastern Kentucky University,
Department of Physics.
Click to expand...

I looked up this professor on the website http://www.physics.eku.edu/Faculty.htm.
I find it a little odd that a professor whom retired in 2000 would provide
a footer indicating he is still employed. Out of curiosity, what college is
your doctorate from? Is this college accredited?
 
marco said:
...I analysed the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind ....This analysis points out how the laws of physics prove that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.....
Click to expand...

I agree that physics makes us chose between miracles (if we believe we have a consciousness that is actually making choices) and being only complex bio-mechanical creatures without capacity to make real choices;however, I think even without miracles, consciousness may be possible. I don't want to get into pointless discusion about what it is to be "conscious" or whether it is conceptually possible for AI to achieve "consciousness" etc.

What I want to do instead is to contradict your statement:
"the laws of physics prove that the brain cannot generate consciousness" by giving a counter example completely consistent with physics, and even predicted by our evolutionary history, showing how we can make real choices, without any need for souls, God, miracles etc. to exist.

The attachment will show that Genuine Free Will, GFW, is possible, consistent with physics, and likely to be true, instead of an illusion. (I am assuming that if I have GFW, you will grant that I am conscious, by any reasonable definition of what consciousness is. if you grant this, your statement is refuted by the attachment.)

PS - I tried twice to visit your site, but it was down.
 
I agree that consciousness is separate from the body and material world (this doesn't have to do with God or a soul or anything). I think that consciousness is unmaterial (like many other things we observe), and that the brain some how links our consciousness to the physical world, which is why we become vegetables without a brain (no link to the physical world), and why the brain affects us so much.
 
Vitalone,

I agree that consciousness is separate from the body and material world.
Click to expand...

Why? How do you justify that claim?

I think that consciousness is unmaterial (like many other things we observe),
Click to expand...

What other things are immaterial? If you can observe something then it is material.

and that the brain some how links our consciousness to the physical world,
Click to expand...

How can something immaterial interact with something material without being material? If you extend this argument you eventually have to conclude that something immaterial is an impossibility, or at least impossible for us to detect and impossible for it to interact with us.

which is why we become vegetables without a brain (no link to the physical world), and why the brain affects us so much.
Click to expand...

LOL. By extremely simple and rudimentary deduction – we lose our consciousness when the brain is damaged 100% of the time – conclusion: consciousness is caused and maintained by a healthy brain – i.e. consciousness and brain are one and the same thing. There is no evidence that indicates anything else.
 
I agree will all Cris said (about VitalOne's post which commented on mine.) except "... consciousness and brain are one and the same thing. There is no evidence that indicates anything else."

If I may continue with the idea that anything making genuine free choices is conscious, and Cris does believe (as almost everybody does) that he can make genuine choices; Then his genuine free will, GFW, making these choices (see attachment to my post) is evidence that the brain (a material object) and consciousness (I argue in attachment it is inmaterial) are different.

Any material object, brain included, is governed by physical laws. If you think consciousness is material, then either you never made a GFW choice or you believe a miracle occurs each time you do so as each GFW choice would violate physical laws.

The illusion of choices can still exist in a material object like the brain without miracles, but the molecular interactions that follow the physical laws are what is really making the choices, not your "consciousness". (For example, the rate that neuro transmitters difuse across the synaps gaps is controted by concentration gradients and the temperature. This and other physical chemisty things is what determins each individual nerve discharge etc.)
 
VitalOne said:
I agree that consciousness is separate from the body and material world (this doesn't have to do with God or a soul or anything). I think that consciousness is unmaterial (like many other things we observe), and that the brain some how links our consciousness to the physical world, which is why we become vegetables without a brain (no link to the physical world), and why the brain affects us so much.
Click to expand...

Descartes believed as you do, only he was more specific about where this interaction takes place in the brain. Most of the brain is bilaterial symetric, but we have only one pituitary gland centrally located in the brain. He designated it as the interaction site between the spirit and matter mainly because it is unique.

The problem, as Chris and thousands before him, have pointed out is that something which has no material existance can not move a single molecule. If a molecule suddently began to move without any material cause, F=ma, Neuton's famous equation, would be violated as "a" is non zero while "F" is zero. :eek:
 
you must all simply go look here www.deepspirit.com a website of Christian de Quincey. he is professor of philosophy who is looking into all of this.

to summarize......we have matter-energy and consciousness. as you know this mind/body 'problem' goes WAY back in our history. i am seeing it as a patriarchal problem, for when you research about it you see it is the patriarchal Eastern metaphysicians and Western mystical-philosophers who first separate Nature from spirit. In secular terms 'body from mind'

so, Quincey: therer is matter-energy and consciousness. matter-energy is non-local and consciousness is not-LOCATED!

he agrees with Decartes' in that matter has extension in space and can be measured and consciousness cant'. but parts company with his dualistic interpreation of that insight. Quincey rather--agreeing with primal animism--sees that matter-energy and consciousness are NEVEr apart. in REALITy they are not separate. so the 'problem' of how they can come to interact--wgich Descartes attempted to explain--is a pseudo-problem.

matter-energy is active intelligence. consciousness although with matter "all the way down" (ie., all matter is sentient)...even to 'waves' and 'fields' etc. he argues not to confuse 'energy-talk' with 'consciousness-talk', ie., trying to explain consciousness by using modern physcist metaphors fro flowing energy. rather consciousness is 'in' matter but NOT like the brain is inside th skull

but THe most importan insight in my opion is that they are ALL ways togther. like two sides of a coin. one not being better than another!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top