The scientific proof of the existence of the soul (and of God)

M

marco

Registered Member
In the following site I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges of brain and matter.
This analysis points out how science proves that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial entity. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

Marco Biagini

Ph.D. Graduated in Solid State Physics.
 
Science cannot explain the mechanics behind a thought either, yet we do not attribute each thought we have to a soul or god.
 
Conciousness is a kind of omnidirectional threat detection and assesment system, put in place by paranoid and very small monkeys, in a grassland environment, frequented by very large hunting cats. So the purpose of conciousness is to inform you when something horrible and catastrophic is about to happen in the hope that you can then do something about it.

Terence McKenna
Click to expand...

The unmaterial-ness of conciousness is due to the fact that it is a dynamic, funtioning system, not an object. It is not the ocean, or the water, it is the wave.
 
Last edited:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5389

I'm a terrible skeptic. Marco, you have to type me up a much longer, far more detailed explanation.

A believer in a soul attributes thoughts to that soul. What puzzles me is why can't there be souls without gods and gods without souls and why can't we all be gods, etc.
 
whitewolf said:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5389

A believer in a soul attributes thoughts to that soul. What puzzles me is why can't there be souls without gods and gods without souls and why can't we all be gods, etc.
Click to expand...
----------
M*W: Each of us does not have an individual soul. There is only one soul. I like to call it the One Spirit of God which we all share. So, therefore, we are One with God. We are God.
 
Marco,

I will study your text in more detail later but my first reactions are –

You seem to ignore the most obvious conclusion of emergent properties. Consciousness probably arises as an emergent property of brain complexity, in the same way that waves and tides arise from complex environment and weather patterns. In your perspective oceans are made of simple atomic structures and waves and tides could only appear because of non-material influence. Another example might be building bricks which are simple physical objects but a house is an emergent property of bricks – are houses only build by ghosts then?

A “feeling” is also something very material – a combination of neural interactions and hormonal changes. Why do you assign it characteristics other than that?

I don’t see a case for a soul here only a lack of knowledge about how the brain operates, an area that still needs a great deal of study.

Kat
 
what the hell? "science cannot explain the mechanics of thought"??

here's a lab experiment for you to be the test rat...let me cut lesion parts of
your parietal lobe and your language centers in your temporal lobe.
 
or better yet let me cut out three generations of nerves attached to your speech box.

Neuroscience is limited to the moral laws that we have today. Its too bad considering all the technical equipment we have acheived.
 
No offence Mr.Ph.D in Physics, but can you kindly not use the word 'proof' where it does not belong :) Thank you.

Regardless to popular opinion, you can't arrive at "proof" after a 10 second website visit. It requires a lot more than simple say so.
 
On a re-read I realize I couldn't find any science on the website - it is just personal opinions.

Kat
 
I limit myself to define consciousness or psychical life as our capacity to feel sensations, emotions, thoughts etc.
Click to expand...
Next you must define what it means to 'feel' sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc. As of yet you have still left consciousness entirely undefined.

Since we have no way to observe directly the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals
Click to expand...
Nor in humans. Please recall that testimonials are not regarded by science as evidence. Thus without an empirical measure you have nothing upon which to assert that even humans are conscious.

I would like to point out that the fact that brain damages or drugs induce changes in our mental capacities simply proves the existence of an interaction between the brain and the psyche
Click to expand...
The problem with dualism is that there can be no interaction between the two realms of phenomena. If the 'psyche' can affect the physical brain (and vice versa) then it can be physically detected and is thus a physical phenomena. As of yet, no one has been able to substantiate the existence of such nonexistent phenomena. What then is the mechanism of interaction between the undetectable non-physical ream of 'psyche' and the physical realm?

Taken in its entirety and even if we accept it as disproof of particular mechanistic hypotheses regarding consciousness you have not even begun to address them all. For instance, we might consider the hypothesis that consciousness and sensation are emergent properties rather than tangible qualities, in which case your entire argument would fall to pieces.

Nor have you presented an alternative hypothesis regarding anything that might be considered a 'soul', much less proven it. Disproving one theory is not proof of an alternative theory. Your thesis falls far short of this thread's titular declaration.

~Raithere
 
>>>>Marco,I will study your text in more detail later but my first reactions are –
You seem to ignore the most obvious conclusion of emergent properties. Consciousness probably arises as an emergent property of brain complexity, in the same way that waves and tides arise from complex environment and weather patterns.

Dear Katazia,

as I have expalined in my article entitled "scientific contradictions in materialism" (you can find itin my site), consciousness cannotbe considered an emergent property because this definition is inconsistent from a logical point of view; in fact, science has proved that the so-called emergent properties are only concepts used by man to describe in an approximated way real physical processes, which consist uniquely of successions of microscopic elementary processes. The emergent properties quoted by materialists, are not objective properties of the physical reality, but they are only subjective concepts; in other words, they are abstractions and ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria, a given succession of microscopic processes. The point is that the existence of a concept or idea implies the e xistence of consciousness. Therefore, the concept of emergent property implies the existence of consciousness. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because the concept itself of emergent property implies the existence of consciousness. We have then a very direct logical contradiction. No concept which implies the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Similar consideration can be given for the concept of complexity.
(see a more detailed discussion in my article).


Marco
 
marco said:
consciousness cannotbe considered an emergent property because this definition is inconsistent from a logical point of view; in fact, science has proved that the so-called emergent properties are only concepts used by man to describe in an approximated way real physical processes, which consist uniquely of successions of microscopic elementary processes.
Click to expand...
We might consider that consciousness is the same thing. Without defining any quantitative properties of consciousness you have nothing with which to formulate a comparison much less refute the conjecture.

The point is that the existence of a concept or idea implies the e xistence of consciousness.
Click to expand...
No more so than the existence of the concept or idea of a unicorn implies the existence of a unicorn.

It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because the concept itself of emergent property implies the existence of consciousness.
Click to expand...
If the state of emergence defined as consciousness is isomorphic then self-realization becomes a property of the state. There is then no need for a pre-existent state of consciousness.

No concept which implies the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Click to expand...
Recursion and isomorphism, a system can be self defining as well as self aware.

~Raithere
 
I find it hard to entrust some stranger propounding God and the existence of a soul, who cannot even spell philosophy correctly. His theory is very subjective, and he appears to be drawing conclusions without substantiating them properly.

I for one could disprove his claims that consciousness is not related to the brain, with this simple fact; when one is under the influence of general anesthetics, the spinal cord, the cerebral cortex and the brain-stem reticular system are affected, and neuron activity is considerably slowed down. Resulting in a loss of consciousness. Therefore the brain IS related to consciousness.
 
>>>Therefore the brain IS related to consciousness.

I would like to point out that the fact that brain damages or drugs induce changes in our mental capacities simply proves the existence of an interaction between the brain and the psyche.
By no means this can be considered a proof that the brain is the origin of consciousness and the capacity to feel sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc. If you have a problem in your eyes, your visive capacities would be altered, but this certainly does not men that it is your eye which has the visive sensation; this simply proves that your eye has a preliminary role in the process of generation of the visive sensation.
The eye is only an instrument used by the psyche to see, but the eye can see nothing at all and has no visive sensations.
In the same way, the brain has only a preliminary role in the process of generation of sensations or emotions, and it can be considered an instrument used by the psyche.
All neurological studies on brain only prove the existence of an interaction between psyche and brain. But the existence of this interaction is obvious; in fact, without this interaction, our psyche would be completely isolated from the external reality, and we could not interact with the external reality.
It must be stressed that the physical stimulus and the sensation we feel are two completely different phenomena.
For example, the vibrations of the molecules of the air is not the sensation "sound" we feel; the molecules of the air hear nothing, and it would be absurd to say that the molecules of the air are a auditory sensation. The sensation "sound" exist only in the psychical reality, and not in the physical reality; the auditory sensation is generated only by the psyche and is the psychical elaboration of a physical stimulus.
In the same way, the chemical reactions and the electric impulses which occur in our brain are not emotions, feelings, awareness; they are only physical stimuli. It is the our psyche who elaborates and translates these ordinary physical processes into emotions, feelings, etc.
 
marco said:
By no means this can be considered a proof that the brain is the origin of consciousness...
Click to expand...
Actually, it does just that. If consciousness exists independent of the brain how can something that affects the brain cause consciousness to cease? Why, when we are completely under general anesthetic are we not conscious, simply waiting in the darkness for our brains to become functional again?

~Raithere
 
marco said:
This analysis points out how science proves that the brain cannot generate consciousness,
Click to expand...
I cant believe that Ph.D would say such crock!
you dont happen to be a ID creationist,do you?
without healthy functioning brain,a man is a vegetable!
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...
where is this soul located then?
and how does it proves existence of gods? :rolleyes:
 
Isn't this just the classic "Mind/Body Problem"? One of the oldest problems in philosophy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top