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

this is ridiculous. physical laws and processes can only be used to understand this physical universe. to try to connect them to the ethereal or supernatural is absurd. the only thing that can be said is that science cannot prove that god does not exist. science explains the universe we live in and nothing about whatever domain a god lives in. the same logic can be derived from attempts to studying the earliest parts of the universe. we cannot study past a certain time because we dont know if the laws of physics we know were applicable under such a system
 
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.
Click to expand...

Not quite Marco. The eye relays signals to the brain and we can see. We don't see because of the eye, we see because of the signal sent to the brain. Your eyes could be perfectly functional, but if the signal is not sent to the brain, you would see no visual. So you only reinforce how the brain is solely responsible for seeing, and the "psyche" role is nullified.
 
>>>>Not quite Marco. The eye relays signals to the brain and we can see. We don't see because of the eye, we see because of the signal sent to the brain. Your eyes could be perfectly functional, but if the signal is not sent to the brain, you would see no visual.

And this simply proves that the signal has only a preliminary role in the process that leads to the formation of the visive sensation. The signal, in fact, is nothing but an electric impulse, equivalent to any other electric impulse, and it cannot be considered a visive sensation (unless you think that also electric bulbs have visual sensations).
The generation of the visive snsation requires necessarily a further unphysical process, which proves the existence in man of an unphysical/unbiological element, the soul or psiche.

Marco.
 
marco said:
>>>>Not quite Marco. The eye relays signals to the brain and we can see. We don't see because of the eye, we see because of the signal sent to the brain. Your eyes could be perfectly functional, but if the signal is not sent to the brain, you would see no visual.

And this simply proves that the signal has only a preliminary role in the process that leads to the formation of the visive sensation. The signal, in fact, is nothing but an electric impulse, equivalent to any other electric impulse, and it cannot be considered a visive sensation (unless you think that also electric bulbs have visual sensations).
The generation of the visive snsation requires necessarily a further unphysical process, which proves the existence in man of an unphysical/unbiological element, the soul or psiche.

Marco.
Click to expand...

do you understand the difference between what it means to prove something and what it means to speculate?
 
The generation of the visive snsation requires necessarily a further unphysical process, which proves the existence in man of an unphysical/unbiological element, the soul or psiche.
Click to expand...

Marco, you need to be able to differentinate between proof and speculation. Proof is what can be verified. How do I verify "the existence in man is of an unphysical/unbiological element, the soul"

You are wrongly comparing man to a light bulb, and stating as the light bulb requires an external electricity to function. So does man. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Are you aware of battery powered light bulbs? What happens when a battery weakens? The light dims, and then eventually blows out. No prizes for guessing, but our brain is like a chemical battery that is producing the electricity that is running our bodies, and when it weakens, our activity weakens and eventually ceases.

If anything, you have further validated the brain being the cause of consciousness.
 
>>Marco, you need to be able to differentinate between proof and speculation. Proof is what can be verified. How do I verify "the existence in man is of an unphysical/unbiological element, the soul"

The existence of consciousness is the more direct verification of "the existence in man is of an unphysical/unbiological element, the soul". In fact the laws if physics proves that no chemical/biological/physical processes can generate consciousness.

Marco.
 
marco said:
>>Marco, you need to be able to differentinate between proof and speculation. Proof is what can be verified. How do I verify "the existence in man is of an unphysical/unbiological element, the soul"

The existence of consciousness is the more direct verification of "the existence in man is of an unphysical/unbiological element, the soul". In fact the laws if physics proves that no chemical/biological/physical processes can generate consciousness.

Marco.
Click to expand...

this is blatantly incorrect. the only thing the laws of physics tell us, as we know them, is that we dont know enough to come up with a theory for the conscienceness. there are certain things that cannot be explained as well. conscienceness may simply be a physical property of the universe. it could be a basic property like the 4 forces. you cant explain where they come from, they are simply a property of the universe. none of this requires the existence of a supreme being. it could be that this is just how things are. emergent properties exist and those can be nothing more than a property of some complexity that we do not yet understand or may never understand. i am sorry marco but you have lost all credibility as a scientist
 
I agree with you Marco.

Maybe not that it could be considered proof, but there are things in what you say that are logical proof - wether or not science say so.

Vibrations in air has no sound.

Waves of light has no color.

The brain don't see anything, it doesn't hear anything.

The mind is not the brain.

Do we really need proof for that?

Even though the brain do have a role, so does the mind.

We don't "feel" the chemicals, we don't "feel" electrical signals, we don't "feel" patterns.

Maybe though we feel change, maybe we are in time.
 
Cyperium said:
I agree with you Marco.

Maybe not that it could be considered proof, but there are things in what you say that are logical proof - wether or not science say so.

Vibrations in air has no sound.

Waves of light has no color.

The brain don't see anything, it doesn't hear anything.

The mind is not the brain.

Do we really need proof for that?

Even though the brain do have a role, so does the mind.

We don't "feel" the chemicals, we don't "feel" electrical signals, we don't "feel" patterns.

Maybe though we feel change, maybe we are in time.
Click to expand...

there are no scientific proofs here or logical proofs. he has a conclusion set out before he even formulates an argument. he builds his argument around some assertion that has no reasonable backing. he believes it is true and attempts to build something around his belief. meanwhile, his conclusion is one of many possible solutions, none of which can be proved at the moment
 
I think Marco's reasoning is wrong. However he is not alone in arguing that consciousness cannot be a 'scientific' entity for strictly logical reasons. This is not so much a claim about the specific nature of the mind/body relationship, but rather follows from an analysis of the definition of science and the first-person nature of conscious experience. A number of respected philsophers argue that science (or its method) needs to be redefined for this reason.

However this implies nothing about 'souls' or 'God', at least not until these terms have been defined clearly.
 
Ah, modern science can't explain it, so it must be something supernatural.

Wait, hasn't this same line of thinking failed us many times before? Didn't people throughout history attribute anything and everything that they couldn't rationally explain to supernatural forces, from lightening to disease to astronomical events?
 
shrubby pegasus said:
there are no scientific proofs here or logical proofs. he has a conclusion set out before he even formulates an argument. he builds his argument around some assertion that has no reasonable backing. he believes it is true and attempts to build something around his belief. meanwhile, his conclusion is one of many possible solutions, none of which can be proved at the moment
Click to expand...
Though I see it as logical proofs.

I think that it is logicly proven that color is nothing by itself, but is simply the wavelength of light, it's we that give meaning to the color - or information that arrives to us from the eyes.

The brain itself never see any light, it just orders the info's into different categories (as I see it anyway). It's you that see the light. How can you order something in a way that it gives an experiance? If you made a formula, would that formula constantly experiance the result? Cause there aren't any difference in the brain (from what I can understand), we could just as well write down the principles on paper.

Then we would have a computer constantly solving and sorting the info that it gets according to the principles.

That's the brain.

That's not you.

You actually experiance the result, the result is given to you (by the brain - I guess) and you experiance it. Maybe because you identify with it?

We still haven't gotten rid of the "you" though...

Sure there may come theories here and there, but it's just the same as adding to the confusion. Maybe we should try to take it step-by-step instead of trying to beat up the brain using large and complex ideas?

I believe that the truth is simple.
 
Last edited:
Cyperium said:
Though I see it as logical proofs.

I think that it is logicly proven that color is nothing by itself, but is simply the wavelength of light, it's we that give meaning to the color - or information that arrives to us from the eyes.

The brain itself never see any light, it just orders the info's into different categories (as I see it anyway). It's you that see the light. How can you order something in a way that it gives an experiance? If you made a formula, would that formula constantly experiance the result? Cause there aren't any difference in the brain (from what I can understand), we could just as well write down the principles on paper.

Then we would have a computer constantly solving and sorting the info that it gets according to the principles.

That's the brain.

That's not you.

You actually experiance the result, the result is given to you (by the brain - I guess) and you experiance it. Maybe because you identify with it?

We still haven't gotten rid of the "you" though...

Sure there may come theories here and there, but it's just the same as adding to the confusion. Maybe we should try to take it step-by-step instead of trying to beat up the brain using large and complex ideas?

I believe that the truth is simple.
Click to expand...

your logic fails you, you make an assumption that the conscienceness is something outside the brain, where in actuallity it is an emergent property of it that is not yet understood,. you differentiating from what the brain does and the "you" has an implication that cannot be proven. again it is merely speculation. experience is an interpretation of the brain, you are assigning qualities that have no evidence of existence. the premise of your argument is the same thing you are claiming to prove. you logic is totally flawed because it is 100% circular. you are basically saying conscienceness is outside the and the fact that is it outside the brain proves that it is outside the brain.
 
In fact the laws if physics proves that no chemical/biological/physical processes can generate consciousness.
Click to expand...

Well I have a revelation for you: We are not conscious. We only think we are. Our brain is regulating multiple bodily functions, and hormonal functions simutaneously, which creates the impression, rather a glitch in a system, that we are conscious. This is why, when the brain's activity is slowed down, or certain processes are inhibited, we lose our percieved consciousness. We can replicate this system to develop artificial intelligence, and we have already created intelligent systems that mimic our abilities, it is only a matter of time, before we can create an equally, if not more, intelligent system.

The reason no sole chemical, biological and physical process can create the illusion of consciousness is because they are isolated processes that can exist seperately. However when millions of these processes are regulated by one source(brain) simutaneously it creates the illusion of consciousness.

You have the burden of proof however, to prove to me how our consciousness is external.
 
Last edited:
shrubby pegasus said:
your logic fails you, you make an assumption that the conscienceness is something outside the brain, where in actuallity it is an emergent property of it that is not yet understood,. you differentiating from what the brain does and the "you" has an implication that cannot be proven. again it is merely speculation. experience is an interpretation of the brain, you are assigning qualities that have no evidence of existence. the premise of your argument is the same thing you are claiming to prove. you logic is totally flawed because it is 100% circular. you are basically saying conscienceness is outside the and the fact that is it outside the brain proves that it is outside the brain.
Click to expand...
What is color? What is color made of?
-not lightwaves or light-

What is sound?
-not vibrations or molecules-

Is it the same principle that makes both color and sound?

Look at a red color, what does it consist of? Where do it exist?

The object isn't red. The object is no color. The object reflects light in such a way that it looses some of it's energy, the cells in the eyes react with the light and send a signal to the brain. No color has been seen so far.

What would something have to do to create consciousness? What calculation would create that? If it is the emergent property that comes about because of the similiarity between the principles of the description vs. reality, wouldn't then reality be conscious? At least conscious of our description of it (it must be a two-way feedback, if it works for you then it works for me). Are there only one form of awareness? Cause if there are, then there can only be one description of it.

Anything that exist, be it a illusion or not, must exist in some way. If it is a emergent property, then the property must exist nontheless. Awareness exist, the brain may (more or less) create it, or help it exist, but it also exist by it's own right, and is different from the physical brain (if it is "outside" or "inside" the brain looses meaning in this context, it is neither inside nor outside).
 
If consciousness exists independent of the brain how can something that affects the brain cause consciousness to cease?
Click to expand...
A couple of quick notes; while I disagree, it's hard to phrase exactly how.

(1) We don't know that consciousness ceases.
(2) I carry this weird, undeveloped notion with me that describes the brain as a filtering device, and not a generating device. In this instance I am unsure what that would say about brain as origin of consciousness. On the one hand, consciousness does originiate in the brain, but to the other consciousness becomes a symptom. Strange, that.
 
Cyperium said:
What is color? What is color made of?
-not lightwaves or light-

What is sound?
-not vibrations or molecules-

Is it the same principle that makes both color and sound?

Look at a red color, what does it consist of? Where do it exist?

The object isn't red. The object is no color. The object reflects light in such a way that it looses some of it's energy, the cells in the eyes react with the light and send a signal to the brain. No color has been seen so far.

What would something have to do to create consciousness? What calculation would create that? If it is the emergent property that comes about because of the similiarity between the principles of the description vs. reality, wouldn't then reality be conscious? At least conscious of our description of it (it must be a two-way feedback, if it works for you then it works for me). Are there only one form of awareness? Cause if there are, then there can only be one description of it.

Anything that exist, be it a illusion or not, must exist in some way. If it is a emergent property, then the property must exist nontheless. Awareness exist, the brain may (more or less) create it, or help it exist, but it also exist by it's own right, and is different from the physical brain (if it is "outside" or "inside" the brain looses meaning in this context, it is neither inside nor outside).
Click to expand...

you use a lot of words to say very little. you seem to confuse all a lot of things. our ears, eyes, skin, toungue, etc are all sensors. they detect the vibrations, the wavelength, the temperature, etc. the brain is a processor. it processes these signals and that is what you interpret as seeing red or hearing a certain sound. having two people seeing two different colors basically means that the two brains processed the information differently or the qualities of the sensors were different. none of those imply a seperation of conscienceness from your brain. again you cant seem to understand that just because we dont have the explanatory power to understand how conscienceness does not mean that it is supernatural. it could simply be a property of the universe like gravity. you cant explain wher gravity comes from so does that prove that god exists? no it does not, it just means gravity is one of the rules of the game that you have take as a given.
 
also, if two people pick up an object and one says that it is heavy and the other says it is light does that imply god exists too? the idea of being heavy or light wasnt there until one of them picked it up. does weight exist some where outside of this world? or is it a mechanism we use to describe our experiences? you confuse a mechanism of description with some kind of ethereal implication. i used the same logic you used above, does this prove god exists? no
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top