Science researches the soul
-
That was bizarre. How is any of that a proper scientific theory? How does it answer to the perdurance of the soul? How does it explain differences in types of living beings? They are obviously talking about something quite different from the metaphysical “soul” in most all philosophical and religious systems, East and West.
-
That was bizarre. How is any of that a proper scientific theory? How does it answer to the perdurance of the soul? How does it explain differences in types of living beings? They are obviously talking about something quite different from the metaphysical “soul” in most all philosophical and religious systems, East and West.
@Ivorythumper To me it seems more philosophical rather than truly scientific at this point, and it's more about (the origin of) consciousness than about "the soul". The most interesting part on this is that consciousness may be the product of more than what we currently know about what happens within the brain. There's some more explanation at the following link:
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-6127/
There may be better sources, but I found it quite interesting. It's important to note that Roger Penrose doesn't take this as far as his colleague Hameroff's idea that a disembodied consciousness (a soul?) could exist (the part that suggests our soul could survive after death). Rather, he uses his ideas to argue that the brain is more than a biological "computer" and claims that there may be quantum effects involved (and more than that, even claiming a new science that supersedes quantum mechanics may be needed). To me, this suggests that if true, a neuron can transfer more information than just an "on" or "off" (i.e., there's more to it than the neuron firing or not firing; like the I and 0 within a computer). And that's not even touching the storage of information yet. As a biologist, I see everything we know about the brain as an active ingredient that leads to consciousness and how we behave (firing neurons, neurotransmitters, brain chemistry, ...). Penrose adds quantum mechanics to the list of active ingredients, which I find intriguing to think about (however far-fetched it may be). For instance, what may this mean in terms of free will?
I don't claim to understand all of this, and don't know at all if any of this is likely to be even partially true (as you can read at the link, it's quite controversial). And the part about the soul is not what interests me in this. I also don't see how this theory truly supports the existence of a disembodied consciousness/soul. As Hameroff argues, information formed in the brain may not cease to exist after death. From the original link:
According to Dr. Hameroff "the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information in the microtubules is not destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, it just disperses and dissolves into the universe. "
That may or may not make sense/be true, but even if all that information does not cease to exist, to me your "soul" would in any case be lost if that information is no longer condensed (and processed) within a brain.
-
@Ivorythumper To me it seems more philosophical rather than truly scientific at this point, and it's more about (the origin of) consciousness than about "the soul". The most interesting part on this is that consciousness may be the product of more than what we currently know about what happens within the brain. There's some more explanation at the following link:
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-6127/
There may be better sources, but I found it quite interesting. It's important to note that Roger Penrose doesn't take this as far as his colleague Hameroff's idea that a disembodied consciousness (a soul?) could exist (the part that suggests our soul could survive after death). Rather, he uses his ideas to argue that the brain is more than a biological "computer" and claims that there may be quantum effects involved (and more than that, even claiming a new science that supersedes quantum mechanics may be needed). To me, this suggests that if true, a neuron can transfer more information than just an "on" or "off" (i.e., there's more to it than the neuron firing or not firing; like the I and 0 within a computer). And that's not even touching the storage of information yet. As a biologist, I see everything we know about the brain as an active ingredient that leads to consciousness and how we behave (firing neurons, neurotransmitters, brain chemistry, ...). Penrose adds quantum mechanics to the list of active ingredients, which I find intriguing to think about (however far-fetched it may be). For instance, what may this mean in terms of free will?
I don't claim to understand all of this, and don't know at all if any of this is likely to be even partially true (as you can read at the link, it's quite controversial). And the part about the soul is not what interests me in this. I also don't see how this theory truly supports the existence of a disembodied consciousness/soul. As Hameroff argues, information formed in the brain may not cease to exist after death. From the original link:
According to Dr. Hameroff "the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information in the microtubules is not destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, it just disperses and dissolves into the universe. "
That may or may not make sense/be true, but even if all that information does not cease to exist, to me your "soul" would in any case be lost if that information is no longer condensed (and processed) within a brain.
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
@Ivorythumper To me it seems more philosophical rather than truly scientific at this point, and it's more about (the origin of) consciousness than about "the soul". The most interesting part on this is that consciousness may be the product of more than what we currently know about what happens within the brain. There's some more explanation at the following link:
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-6127/
There may be better sources, but I found it quite interesting. It's important to note that Roger Penrose doesn't take this as far as his colleague Hameroff's idea that a disembodied consciousness (a soul?) could exist (the part that suggests our soul could survive after death). Rather, he uses his ideas to argue that the brain is more than a biological "computer" and claims that there may be quantum effects involved (and more than that, even claiming a new science that supersedes quantum mechanics may be needed). To me, this suggests that if true, a neuron can transfer more information than just an "on" or "off" (i.e., there's more to it than the neuron firing or not firing; like the I and 0 within a computer). And that's not even touching the storage of information yet. As a biologist, I see everything we know about the brain as an active ingredient that leads to consciousness and how we behave (firing neurons, neurotransmitters, brain chemistry, ...). Penrose adds quantum mechanics to the list of active ingredients, which I find intriguing to think about (however far-fetched it may be). For instance, what may this mean in terms of free will?
I don't claim to understand all of this, and don't know at all if any of this is likely to be even partially true (as you can read at the link, it's quite controversial). And the part about the soul is not what interests me in this. I also don't see how this theory truly supports the existence of a disembodied consciousness/soul. As Hameroff argues, information formed in the brain may not cease to exist after death. From the original link:
According to Dr. Hameroff "the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information in the microtubules is not destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, it just disperses and dissolves into the universe. "
That may or may not make sense/be true, but even if all that information does not cease to exist, to me your "soul" would in any case be lost if that information is no longer condensed (and processed) within a brain.
I appreciate your take as a biologist. I don’t see what “information” can possibly mean in the sense it seems to be employed.
Information (at some analytical level) is something like organized data that presents a cohesive image (phantasm, in metaphysics). Information is communicated, and “in+form” or creates knowable forms in the mind of the recipient.
An unread book is still a written book, it contains information, but until read it doesn’t communicate. It doesn’t “inform” the mind. Once read, it (imperfectly, partially, and dissipatedly) communicates and informs, but if burned that information is lost unless it resides (again, incompletely) in the minds of the recipients.
If the book is burned and all memory is lost, that information doesn’t continue to exist in some quantum state.
At least there is no reason to think so — unless it can be recovered and reassembled it’s not “information”. And every little data point suffers the same problem as information is compromised of zillions of data points each of which is information as well.
I don’t think they are even talking about “information” in any coherent intelligible sense.
-
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
@Ivorythumper To me it seems more philosophical rather than truly scientific at this point, and it's more about (the origin of) consciousness than about "the soul". The most interesting part on this is that consciousness may be the product of more than what we currently know about what happens within the brain. There's some more explanation at the following link:
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-6127/
There may be better sources, but I found it quite interesting. It's important to note that Roger Penrose doesn't take this as far as his colleague Hameroff's idea that a disembodied consciousness (a soul?) could exist (the part that suggests our soul could survive after death). Rather, he uses his ideas to argue that the brain is more than a biological "computer" and claims that there may be quantum effects involved (and more than that, even claiming a new science that supersedes quantum mechanics may be needed). To me, this suggests that if true, a neuron can transfer more information than just an "on" or "off" (i.e., there's more to it than the neuron firing or not firing; like the I and 0 within a computer). And that's not even touching the storage of information yet. As a biologist, I see everything we know about the brain as an active ingredient that leads to consciousness and how we behave (firing neurons, neurotransmitters, brain chemistry, ...). Penrose adds quantum mechanics to the list of active ingredients, which I find intriguing to think about (however far-fetched it may be). For instance, what may this mean in terms of free will?
I don't claim to understand all of this, and don't know at all if any of this is likely to be even partially true (as you can read at the link, it's quite controversial). And the part about the soul is not what interests me in this. I also don't see how this theory truly supports the existence of a disembodied consciousness/soul. As Hameroff argues, information formed in the brain may not cease to exist after death. From the original link:
According to Dr. Hameroff "the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information in the microtubules is not destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, it just disperses and dissolves into the universe. "
That may or may not make sense/be true, but even if all that information does not cease to exist, to me your "soul" would in any case be lost if that information is no longer condensed (and processed) within a brain.
I appreciate your take as a biologist. I don’t see what “information” can possibly mean in the sense it seems to be employed.
Information (at some analytical level) is something like organized data that presents a cohesive image (phantasm, in metaphysics). Information is communicated, and “in+form” or creates knowable forms in the mind of the recipient.
An unread book is still a written book, it contains information, but until read it doesn’t communicate. It doesn’t “inform” the mind. Once read, it (imperfectly, partially, and dissipatedly) communicates and informs, but if burned that information is lost unless it resides (again, incompletely) in the minds of the recipients.
If the book is burned and all memory is lost, that information doesn’t continue to exist in some quantum state.
At least there is no reason to think so — unless it can be recovered and reassembled it’s not “information”. And every little data point suffers the same problem as information is compromised of zillions of data points each of which is information as well.
I don’t think they are even talking about “information” in any coherent intelligible sense.
@Ivorythumper said in Science researches the soul:
I appreciate your take as a biologist. I don’t see what “information” can possibly mean in the sense it seems to be employed.
They mean quantum information.
Information (at some analytical level) is something like organized data that presents a cohesive image (phantasm, in metaphysics). Information is communicated, and “in+form” or creates knowable forms in the mind of the recipient.
An unread book is still a written book, it contains information, but until read it doesn’t communicate. It doesn’t “inform” the mind. Once read, it (imperfectly, partially, and dissipatedly) communicates and informs, but if burned that information is lost unless it resides (again, incompletely) in the minds of the recipients.
If the book is burned and all memory is lost, that information doesn’t continue to exist in some quantum state.
Fully agree. That's why I said that your "soul" (and consciousness) would in any case be lost if that (quantum) information is no longer condensed (and processed) within a brain. I think what Hameroff is trying to say is that the quantum information does not cease to exist, but I fail to see how - even if that would be true - this could mean that your consciousness survives if all this information gets "dispersed". That would mean all logical structure in this information is gone. To use your book analogy: if all the letters in a book would somehow detach from the pages and get all mixed up, the individual and most basic bits of information of the book are not gone. But since they are no longer organised like in the book, then the higher level information of the book is gone too.
But again, that's not what interests me in this topic. It's just the idea that quantum physics may somehow play an active, mechanistic role within our brain (e.g., in any decision-making processes), that I find fascinating. Remains to be seen if any of it makes sense though, as some of the arguments against this theory are pretty strong.
-
@Ivorythumper To me it seems more philosophical rather than truly scientific at this point, and it's more about (the origin of) consciousness than about "the soul". The most interesting part on this is that consciousness may be the product of more than what we currently know about what happens within the brain. There's some more explanation at the following link:
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-6127/
There may be better sources, but I found it quite interesting. It's important to note that Roger Penrose doesn't take this as far as his colleague Hameroff's idea that a disembodied consciousness (a soul?) could exist (the part that suggests our soul could survive after death). Rather, he uses his ideas to argue that the brain is more than a biological "computer" and claims that there may be quantum effects involved (and more than that, even claiming a new science that supersedes quantum mechanics may be needed). To me, this suggests that if true, a neuron can transfer more information than just an "on" or "off" (i.e., there's more to it than the neuron firing or not firing; like the I and 0 within a computer). And that's not even touching the storage of information yet. As a biologist, I see everything we know about the brain as an active ingredient that leads to consciousness and how we behave (firing neurons, neurotransmitters, brain chemistry, ...). Penrose adds quantum mechanics to the list of active ingredients, which I find intriguing to think about (however far-fetched it may be). For instance, what may this mean in terms of free will?
I don't claim to understand all of this, and don't know at all if any of this is likely to be even partially true (as you can read at the link, it's quite controversial). And the part about the soul is not what interests me in this. I also don't see how this theory truly supports the existence of a disembodied consciousness/soul. As Hameroff argues, information formed in the brain may not cease to exist after death. From the original link:
According to Dr. Hameroff "the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information in the microtubules is not destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, it just disperses and dissolves into the universe. "
That may or may not make sense/be true, but even if all that information does not cease to exist, to me your "soul" would in any case be lost if that information is no longer condensed (and processed) within a brain.
-
More importantly, why did it take 20 slides (plus commercials) to tell us not-a-lot?
I tell you who don't have souls - freaking click-bait creators.
-
More importantly, why did it take 20 slides (plus commercials) to tell us not-a-lot?
I tell you who don't have souls - freaking click-bait creators.
-
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
As a biologist,
You’ve been able to define what a woman is this whole time, and you haven’t told us?
@Horace said in Science researches the soul:
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
As a biologist,
You’ve been able to define what a woman is this whole time, and you haven’t told us?
Of course I haven't told you! Don't tell anyone, but this whole gender-neutrality thing was actually organised by biologists. Soon, none of you will be able to identify the opposite sex, causing all non-biologists to go extinct. We biologists will rule the world!
-
@Doctor-Phibes, did you click through those 20 slides?
@Axtremus said in Science researches the soul:
@Doctor-Phibes, did you click through those 20 slides?
No I did not. I have a soul.
-
@Horace said in Science researches the soul:
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
As a biologist,
You’ve been able to define what a woman is this whole time, and you haven’t told us?
Of course I haven't told you! Don't tell anyone, but this whole gender-neutrality thing was actually organised by biologists. Soon, none of you will be able to identify the opposite sex, causing all non-biologists to go extinct. We biologists will rule the world!
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
@Horace said in Science researches the soul:
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
As a biologist,
You’ve been able to define what a woman is this whole time, and you haven’t told us?
Of course I haven't told you! Don't tell anyone, but this whole gender-neutrality thing was actually organised by biologists. Soon, none of you will be able to identify the opposite sex, causing all non-biologists to go extinct. We biologists will rule the world!
And they say conspiracy theories aren’t real.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
@Horace said in Science researches the soul:
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
As a biologist,
You’ve been able to define what a woman is this whole time, and you haven’t told us?
Of course I haven't told you! Don't tell anyone, but this whole gender-neutrality thing was actually organised by biologists. Soon, none of you will be able to identify the opposite sex, causing all non-biologists to go extinct. We biologists will rule the world!
And they say conspiracy theories aren’t real.
@Horace said in Science researches the soul:
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
@Horace said in Science researches the soul:
@Nunatax said in Science researches the soul:
As a biologist,
You’ve been able to define what a woman is this whole time, and you haven’t told us?
Of course I haven't told you! Don't tell anyone, but this whole gender-neutrality thing was actually organised by biologists. Soon, none of you will be able to identify the opposite sex, causing all non-biologists to go extinct. We biologists will rule the world!
And they say conspiracy theories aren’t real.
They are actually both real and not real until you have heard of them. Only then they will become real or not real to the observer. It’s a quantum thing.
