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

[Raithere]

(1) We don't know that consciousness ceases.

Well, to be picky we don't know that consciousness exists in the first place (again the problem of definition arises). But if what I typically experience in my waking life is a state of consciousness I have indeed experienced periods where consciousness ceased, during non-REM sleep for one as well as during several anesthetic experiences and a few other times. Although to be fair I suppose you could argue that my memory ceased to function but not my consciousness. But that would mean that consciousness is the core of our selves yet has no memory itself. A condition I find rather futile as consciousness would then seem to simply be along for the ride entirely dependent upon the body for identity or purpose.

(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.

Personally, I suspect this is the case although I think of it as an imperfect reflecting device. Think of two somewhat warped mirrors at an acute angle to each other. Consciousness, in context, is the overall state of the device in time. Not to dismiss your idea of filters, they are intrinsic but as I conceive them you're still left with the unknown observer at the center.

I also think we attribute more significance to consciousness than it really deserves. When attempting to break it down it comes apart into rather mundane pieces which are rather easily reproduced but as a whole there seems to be a synergistic effect. The problem, I think, is that consciousness is most essentially awareness of the state of being aware, which makes it infinitely reflective.

~Raithere

P.S. I'm going to have to give the filters idea more work... I feel like there's something there relating to qualia but I can't put my finger on it yet.

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

Science cannot explain the mechanics behind a thought either, yet we do not attribute each thought we have to a soul or god.

How about we just assume that thoughts are the demons in our heads forever tauting us until one day we go so insane from it and rip open our bodies from the inside out and die... either using the demon-enhancing effects of crack or vodka or we wait it out until old-age when the natural build-up of anger takes hold?

 

[marco]

>>>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?

It is absolutely unreasonable to compare the present status of our scientific knowledges with the one of the past.
In fact, now we have a consistent explanation of all molecular processes, supported by billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data. This represent a new fact in history. Advances in science has never dethroned and can never dethrone well established facts, supported by billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data. It would be equivalent to hypothesize that one day science will discover that the earth does not orbit around the sun, but it is motionless at the center of the universe. The statement "maybe one day science will discover that..." is no longer a rational statement, because of the wide and systematic experimantal confirmation obtained by the laws of physics. The laws of physics establish some firm points, which must always be considered when we make a rational and scientific hypothesis.
Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamic. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.
Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.
There is another fundamemtal point; history shows that scientific progress has been possible only when scientists began to compare theoritical results with experimenal data. Since all our measurement instruments work and are designed on the basis of the laws of physics, and since consciousness transcends such laws, it is not possible to design any instruments able to measure consciousness. Without such measurement instruments, it will never be possible to reach any scientific progresses in the explanation of the existence of consciousness. It is useful to observe that, in spite of the great scientific progresses reached in the fields of the natural sciences, no steps have ever been done in history in such direction, as it is proved by the fact that science is not able to explain, neither in principle, the existence of consciousness, neither the existence of the most banal sensation.


Marco.

 

[Raithere]

It is absolutely unreasonable to compare the present status of our scientific knowledges with the one of the past.

No matter how much you do know, stating 'we don't know, therefore...' constitutes an argument from ignorance. You're also forcing a false dilemma by asserting that either consciousness is material or a 'soul' and 'god' must exist. Both of these constitute logical fallacies and Nasor was absolutely correct in pointing out the error, your arguments otherwise non-withstanding.

Of course, you haven't deigned to answer a single one of my posts here yet which already addressed some of these problems as well as other problematic assumptions you've made. But I don't expect you'll respond to this one either.

~Raithere

 

[crazymikey]

Raithere, you beat me to it:

It is absolutely unreasonable to compare the present status of our scientific knowledges with the one of the past.

Do you think we know, or just think we know? Scientists have since time immorial, based on observation, professed to knowing - but do they really? There have been many shifts in scientific paradigms, and it is ignorant to think, there won't be more. The journey has not ended Marco; it's only begun. Ignorance is not a virtue.

Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.

And who said, we are conscious? You are making unfounded assumptions. If we can replicate human perception now on a rudimentry level, artificially, and electrodynamically, why can't we replicate it fully or surpass it even?


Repost:

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.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

it would be nice if marco would address at least on of the innumerable points made against his "proof" i have a hard time believing he is phd physicist if he cant even hold on agaist a little peer review

 

[marco]

>>>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.

The existence of an illusion implies the existence of consciousenss, therefore consciousness cannot be an illusion. There is then an obvious logical contradiction in your assertion above.

Marco.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

>>>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.

The existence of an illusion implies the existence of consciousenss, therefore consciousness cannot be an illusion. There is then an obvious logical contradiction in your assertion above.

Marco.

you draw implications way to loosely. what you really mean is there may be a chance. this thread is nonsense

 

[crazymikey]

>>>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.

The existence of an illusion implies the existence of consciousenss, therefore consciousness cannot be an illusion. There is then an obvious logical contradiction in your assertion above.

Marco.

Marco, as you are not practicing science here with your beliefs, you are practicing fundamentalism. If consciousness is the emergent property of the aggregation of cells or electrodynamic processes, it seperates one from the reality that surrounds us, by creating an ego. In retrospect, when you were a simple organism, you could not even percieve, it is due to a growth in complexity, that you now percieve consciousness. If your neural pathways are affected or diminished in a certain way, you will continue to function and "exist" however you will lose consciousness.

Therefore consciousness is only an illusion, and emergent property of the aggregation of processes. Thus, even a rock could be made conscious.

Interestingly, you did not provide me the proof for consciousness being external. The proof of not fully knowing consciousness, to being the proof of consciousness being paranormal, is contrapositive.

 

[marco]

>>>Therefore consciousness is only an illusion, and emergent property of the aggregation of processes. Thus, even a rock could be made conscious.

Boh in my article entitled "scientific contradictions in materialism" and in my previous posts, I have already proved that consciousness cannot be an illusion or an emergent property, because the existence of both illusions and emergent properties presuppone the existence of consciousness. However, you go on neglecting my arguments because you are unable to reply with valid arguments.

Marco.

 

[crazymikey]

Marco, you have proven absolutely nothing thus far. So don't make blank claims. The emergent property of aggregation of cells is what we percieve to be consciousness. Further more, your definition of illusion, is too simplistic. The universe could be an illusion, how can we say it actually exists, or anything exists?

The process of aggregation and the resultant emergent property occurrs at the sub-atomic level. The aggregation of quarks, and the emergent property of sub-atomic particles, the aggregation of sub-atomic particles, and the emergent property of atoms, the aggregation of atoms, and the emergent propety of elements. It is when cells aggregate that consciousness arises, which creates an ego, that subsets one from the the processes, and we can then percieve a reality. The illusion is that we "think we exist" when we are just a super-process.

This only proves, that consciousness only arises the processes going on inside us. Which brings us full circle to my initial assertion, that consciousness is caused by the brain, or more accurately, the aggregation of neurons. When this process is diminished, curtailed, or slowed down, we lose the illusion of consciousness, and yet can continue to exist to the objective eye, but subjectively, cease to exist.

Now, I have asked you dozens of times already. You have to prove, how consciouness is external. That is your initial claim right? Yet you've not produced a single logical argument, that proves it is. Nor have you defined consciousness.

 

[Raithere]

Boh in my article entitled "scientific contradictions in materialism" and in my previous posts, I have already proved that consciousness cannot be an illusion or an emergent property, because the existence of both illusions and emergent properties presuppone the existence of consciousness.

Okay, let's take a look:

However these are only arbitrary and subjective concepts and classifications,used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is .

Are you really trying to assert that rigidity is not a physical property and that an iron bar (in solid state) is only different in appearance and not actuality than a wet spaghetti noodle? Or that the emergent properties of water and temperature are non-existent and water only appears to form droplets or crystals as an arbitrary and subjective perception and not a physical reality?

~Raithere

P.S. I'll quickly remind you that you haven't even given us a workable definition of consciousness beyond 'something that feels' and, of course, you have neglected to define what it means to feel.

 

[marco]

>>>>Are you really trying to assert that rigidity is not a physical property and that an iron bar (in solid state) is only different in appearance and not actuality than a wet spaghetti noodle? Or that the emergent properties of water and temperature are non-existent and water only appears to form droplets or crystals as an arbitrary and subjective perception and not a physical reality?

The electromagnetic interaction has both an actractive and a repulsive nature: two equal charges repulse each other, while two opposite charges attact each other. Since the intensity of this repulsion and attraction depends on the distance among the particles, a modification of the positions of the atomic nuclea changes the interaction among the nuclea and among the nuclea and the electrons. A stable molecule is formed when nuclea are placed in a geometrical configuration where repulsive and attractive forces balance. The equations of quantum mechanics allow to calculate these configurations, and to know how much energy is necessary to break the molecule or to modify the geometrical structure of the molecule.
So, many different molecules exist because many different stable geometrical configurations exist as the number or the kind of atoms change. The stiffness of a molecule depends on the amount of energy necessary to change the geometrical structure of the molecule.


>>>P.S. I'll quickly remind you that you haven't even given us a workable definition of consciousness beyond 'something that feels' and, of course, you have neglected to define what it means to feel.

Every definition requires the used of some other concepts, therefore you can never define everything. Since consciousness is the necessary condition for the observation of every other phenomenon and it is the only directly observed phenomenon, consciousness need not be defined.

marco.

 

[Raithere]

The stiffness of a molecule depends on the amount of energy necessary to change the geometrical structure of the molecule.

I understand, but that does not change the fact that rigidity is an emergent property. A single atom does not have the property of rigidity; it only emerges as an interaction between atoms. Likewise, we can build a model of consciousness as an emergent property of the interaction between complex systems.

Every definition requires the used of some other concepts, therefore you can never define everything. Since consciousness is the necessary condition for the observation of every other phenomenon and it is the only directly observed phenomenon, consciousness need not be defined.

This is a completely circular argument and therefore logically invalid. It is relatively simple to build a system that is capable of ‘observation’ and ‘sensing’. This only requires that a system can be altered by outside phenomena.

Of course, even allowing for these assumptions and the possibility of an unknown observer that is consciousness, you have not done anything to prove that this observer has any other properties that equate it to the religious concept of a soul. And you definitely have not proven the existence of God.

~Raithere

 

[marco]

>>>>I understand, but that does not change the fact that rigidity is an emergent property. A single atom does not have the property of rigidity; it only emerges as an interaction between atoms. Likewise, we can build a model of consciousness as an emergent property of the interaction between complex systems.

Rigidity is only a concept, an abstraction; in fact, particles move and modify their positions both in their iron bar and in a spaghetti noodle. The only difference is in the ammount of these geometrical modifications. You choose to define rigid an object where these changes are not observable, but this definition is arbitrary and presupposes the existence of a consciousness. Rigidity, as all the other so-called emergent properties, is then only and abstract concept which presupposes the existence of consciousness; this proves that consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Besides, also complexity is only an arbitrary and abstract concept, which is sufficient to prove that complexity cannot be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness; complexity is only an idea created by our conscious mind, and therefore complexity cannot generate consiousness. This is obvious.

>>>This is a completely circular argument and therefore logically invalid. It is relatively simple to build a system that is capable of ‘observation’ and ‘sensing’. This only requires that a system can be altered by outside phenomena.

Absurd.

marco

 

[shrubby pegasus]

>>>>I understand, but that does not change the fact that rigidity is an emergent property. A single atom does not have the property of rigidity; it only emerges as an interaction between atoms. Likewise, we can build a model of consciousness as an emergent property of the interaction between complex systems.

Rigidity is only a concept, an abstraction; in fact, particles move and modify their positions both in their iron bar and in a spaghetti noodle. The only difference is in the ammount of these geometrical modifications. You choose to define rigid an object where these changes are not observable, but this definition is arbitrary and presupposes the existence of a consciousness. Rigidity, as all the other so-called emergent properties, is then only and abstract concept which presupposes the existence of consciousness; this proves that consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Besides, also complexity is only an arbitrary and abstract concept, which is sufficient to prove that complexity cannot be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness; complexity is only an idea created by our conscious mind, and therefore complexity cannot generate consiousness. This is obvious.

>>>This is a completely circular argument and therefore logically invalid. It is relatively simple to build a system that is capable of ‘observation’ and ‘sensing’. This only requires that a system can be altered by outside phenomena.

Absurd.

marco

there isnt a single proof in your discussion. you merely have speculation and an absolutists view. you combine those to reach some sort of ridiculous claim. you are the worst scientist i have ever seen. submit your proof to physical letters and we will see how much of a proof it is when it against rejected immediately. you are a joke.

 

[crazymikey]

Ah Marco, I normally don't say this, but I've asked you a dozen times, to prove to me how consciousness is external, and you've evaded it yet again. You're an obvious wannabe scientist, and if you wannabe a scientist, you have to practice science, as opposed to the fundamentalism you are practicing here. Honestly, with your attitude, you would not even convince a high school science student.

As you have no proof, I think I shall consider this discussion, finished.

 

[Raithere]

Rigidity is only a concept, an abstraction; in fact, particles move and modify their positions both in their iron bar and in a spaghetti noodle.

That our classification of rigidity in common parlance is imprecise or fuzzy is irrelevant. The fact remains that atoms and molecules interact in quantifiable ways and that these interactions have an emergent effect that is an empirical property of the composite structure but is absent in the consideration of a single atom.

The only difference is that you arbitrarily refuse to even consider that consciousness is reducible. You start off with irreducibility as a premise and then seem to find it significant when it is part of your conclusions. It's simply faulty logic.

Besides, also complexity is only an arbitrary and abstract concept, which is sufficient to prove that complexity cannot be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness; complexity is only an idea created by our conscious mind, and therefore complexity cannot generate consiousness. This is obvious.

All concepts presuppose a consciousness, abstract and arbitrary or not. That we can consider the problem of consciousness at all presupposes the existence of consciousness, "I think, therefore I am". If you consider this an error in regards to an explanation that involves complex systems then it is likewise an error in regards to an explanation that involves a "soul" and "God".

Absurd.

Indeed, how then do you explain an alarm system that is activated by motion detectors or acoustic sensors? It seems to me that such systems are indeed aware of certain aspects of their environment and can even initiate action based upon this awareness.

~Raithere

 

[marco]

>>>Indeed, how then do you explain an alarm system that is activated by motion detectors or acoustic sensors? It seems to me that such systems are indeed aware of certain aspects of their environment and can even initiate action based upon this awareness.

Absurd. I perfectly know how an alarm system works and I perfectly know that an alarm system is aware of absolutely nothing. Your statements above about the alarm system proves that you understand absolutely nothing about physics, which explains the reason why you do not understand my arguments.

Marco

 

[shrubby pegasus]

>>>Indeed, how then do you explain an alarm system that is activated by motion detectors or acoustic sensors? It seems to me that such systems are indeed aware of certain aspects of their environment and can even initiate action based upon this awareness.

Absurd. I perfectly know how an alarm system works and I perfectly know that an alarm system is aware of absolutely nothing. Your statements above about the alarm system proves that you understand absolutely nothing about physics, which explains the reason why you do not understand my arguments.

Marco

you are absurd marco. i understand physics. you argument has nothing to do with it. and it is an extremely flawed usage of logic. the errors in your logic have been noted by me as well as others in previous posts. i ask you again, do you understand the difference between proof and speculation? your posts "prove" that you do not. also, the sensor analogy is apt. it works in contradiction to what you are saying. you are basically trying to claim that the universe requires conscienceness to exist. if you know physics, you know that the universe existed before anyone was around to observe it. you can just look up at the stars and know the speed of light and distance to a galaxy to be able to tell that the galaxy was around before conscieneness. marco you have not proved that you know a thing about physics, philosophy, religion or logic only the opposite. i really dont believe you have a phd in physics or are an expert in any field for that matter. i will sum up your argument for you once again" conscience requires a god, therefore god exists. you assume your premise is a proven fact. it is not and you have not even come close to proving tat. once again, i will ask you to submit your "proof" to physical letters, that is afterall a very reputable journal, which you should know of being a phd. if your "proof" holds so much water send it in, win your nobel prize.