Does "Soul" exist?

The problem I have with the "soul" as being this immutable thing that traverses time and space is the very real effects of the physical world upon it.

many ...scientist are saying that our soul exists...

Asking White People about "soul" is the first problem.

The soul has nothing to do with philosophy, religion or science.

The living entity is eternally the individual soul a part parcel of the Supreme soul.

madbolter1: The word "soul," though is so ambiguous or vague that it's a problem. . . . what "it" is is ineffable. So, it's impossible to talk about it or express what "it" is.

Is there a way we could talk about feelings instead? :-D

soul isn't the same as the concept of consciousness

The person promoting an idea has the burden to prove it, not the person who questioning it.

this is a particular philosophical view of science which I'm not sure is correct.

Scientist say "when somebody dies his/her bodyweigth decreases 3/4 of oz (21 g)" how do you explain this?

In the immersed style self/ego connects with something/someone else losing its self awareness. If this text was a good novel you would feel for a main character and live her/his life for the duration of reading.

In this style everything merges together and becomes the one.

Whatever we do we have to attend it somehow. There are moments when we have to be focused and ‘to the point’ to achieve a specific goal – the narrow style. We dance losing ourselves in a rhythm – the immersed style – or stay in the corner of the dance room frustrated, or thrilled, with the DJ’s choice of music - the objective style.

Precisely the case in mathematics. Even though a standard proof technique is call "mathematical induction" it is in fact a deductive process.

You have not established this so-called fact of 'one or the other."

But what of Schrödinger's cat? Dead or not?

Suppose there were a dog that "sort of" flew. Maybe someone shot it out of a cannon. But there wasn't a consensus as to whether it really flew or not. Would that qualify as middle ground?

Maybe not. But what of Schrödinger's cat? Dead or not?

Light: wave or particle?

The belief that there is a totally unambiguous "real" world out there is apparently what you are pitching for, whereby ambiguity lies only in definitions, or the manner etc. by which we "know" (epistemic).

That question is not obviously concerning propositions that are the mere negations of each other.

but even he doesn't pretend to resolve much

the only one I've read who seemed to have much to say was Daniel Dennett

Self-consciousness is NOT the mind.

The self is the soul itself which is consciousness itself.

The self is the soul itself which is consciousness itself.

Fact is, how we perceive is what we experience. There's no immutable stuff "out there."

Largo: What Ludwig did make clear is the trouble with explaining anything. Simply describe. And go from there.

Perhaps this is better on the mind thread, although I quickly tired of the barrage of speculative opinion over there.

Consider Ed H - does he WoM when he needs to discuss physics? And yet, he communicates superbly. So do you, when you want to.

I hope that you are not referring to the scientific opinion on that thread. For the most part, it is merely reflecting the current consensus of scientific opinion.

You are an evolution denier.

You are an outlier

(although I kind of like you:)).

You can turn any 'good' soul into a killing monster with a little alteration of neurochemicals or other malignancies like tumors. It seems too easy to alter both perception and behavior with much more earthly materials.

So then do we separate soul from good and/or evil, from personality and actions/behavior?

Werner: It is part parcel with all qualities but NOT the quantity of the whole consciousness, God.

This was Nagel's point when he said that the phenomenological was not a question of physical causality, which can never show it in the first place, though few understand why, and insist this will be sorted out once the data is in - the data that our "machine" had times a million.

Dingus Milktoast: With all due respect I think you're wrong.

Have you ever looked into someone's eyes and realized that there was not a soul there?

I’d say there is a palpable bias, and I don’t think that one needs to read between the lines to feel it.

Because we know it would induce a WOT.

I don't think it's necessary.

When the Higgs boson is taught from now on, the sense of "proof" will be very strong.

Science is not just a set of empirical facts.

I believe that many different explanations where pursued to explain how we could have an electroweak theory. Many different theories were pursued, and their consequences shown to be in conflict with observation.

Given the constraints from what we knew about electrodynamics and the weak interaction at high energy, the idea of dynamical symmetry breaking via a Higgs boson was the only logical explanation.

Had it not been confirmed in experiment we would have moved on from the theory.

This last step is a bit more subtle as different instantiations of "Higgs field" in terms of effective propagators is possible.

As it stands, we do not have a good explanation of the particular Higgs boson that was observed.

Ergo, science does not prove anything, nor can it.

Is the same true for math?

Wayno: How do you define something that you are not sure exists? 

MB1: So, if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that the Higgs boson is the ONLY metaphysical entity that could logically-possibly produce the phenomena observed by experiment. Is that what you're saying?

"Well, that experiment didn't falsify the theory." But it is a formal fallacy to then slip into the very tempting supposed corollary: "The theory is correct."

Ed: I agree that the discussion are interesting, they may or may not be important.

He is younger, better looking, and smarter.

I am wondering what the role of metaphysics is, after all this time, and the state of philosophy that has not yet resolved many of these issues.

I am wondering what the role of metaphysics is, after all this time, and the state of philosophy that has not yet resolved many of these issues.

You often speak as if these have been resolved, and when I look into them more deeply I find, not only are they not resolved, but there is often the statement that they are unresolvable.

Given that the status of Hume's "Induction Problem" hasn't progressed that much further than when Hume left it off, and though a lot of work has gone into attempts to resolve it by credible, competent and often good thinkers, one wonders whether or not they are relevant.

Operationally, they are not. We use induction, we use deduction we seem to be able to make progress even though the philosophers are not sure how it is we are doing it, and whether or not it is "true."

If the philosophy of science was at all relevant to science, it would be taken more seriously by scientists.

The fact that philosophy can't understand science, and yet science gets done, ought to serve as some metric regarding relevance.

I can understand your motive to separate science from what you would consider "truth" but the philosophical basis of that separation is on equally perilous ground.

Perhaps the role philosophers serve is to demonstrate where that quick sand is (by falling into it) and providing an example of what to avoid.

the mind is just a processor for translating certain very narrow bands of broadcast frequencies

Don Paul: If someone were trying to cure cancer, I doubt they could get very far with these methods.

May 20, 2018 - 09:22pm PT
Wayno: How do you define something that you are not sure exists?

I think you’ve made at least two errors here. (i) How can something not exist when you’ve brought it to mind? You seem to be saying that only certain characteristics count for existence. And what if those characteristics don't exist or are irrelevant? Then a thing cannot exist? Would you say that “trust” is a thing that exists? (ii) Definitions are’t really all that helpful sometimes. One cannot seem to choose one thing and define it so that nothing wiggles out.

Your writing a wall of text (WoT) is not surprising,

Fear - where can I get a milligram of that stuff?

the ability to say NO and take an independent course of action, is one definition of consciousness.

Trump: . . . we formally logical rational human thinkers . . . .

A universe without God or some equivalent consciousness would be pointless, IMO.

One of the problems IMO with analysis is that it cuts things down into small pieces for observation, but in doing so it destroys what was interesting because the distinctions are not really that salient.

Wayno: Differentiate and then integrate.

an assertion based on belief, using an unrealistic premise, avoiding the details, and ignoring the question "what is consciousness."

but otherwise you might consider it poetic...

Your writing a wall of text (WoT) is not surprising, and pushing you to make your arguments clearer by provoking your outrage (whether or not you admit you're outraged) a simple task.

When I read through your post in its entirety the core argument revolves around "truth" and the way that you see scientists interacting with society, you seem to single out theoretical physicists in particular (and please note that I am trained as an experimental physicists).

Jumping down to your summary you seem to be saying that science competes against other ideas about the "true" description of the universe (and even against itself in view of "contradictions" arising from scientific research). Your argument then becomes a challenge for science (and physics in particular) to provide a philosophical basis for the claim to "truth."

Perhaps you could provide a concise argument why there should be a "true" description of the universe.

The lack of that "complete description" could categorize the entire scientific program as inductive, a proper deductive process would proceed from the given complete description of reality.

The scientific program proceeds by expanding our knowledge of the physical universe by observation and by prediction, comparable quantitatively with stated, quantitative, uncertainty.

The challenge for competing "true" descriptions must also account for the body of knowledge acquired regarding the physical universe within the quantitative uncertainty of the body of knowledge.

This turns out to be not so challenging, one can state that a super-physical entity has created all of the physical universe to be just the way it is, an unassailable assertion.

However, such an assertion lacks the ability to describe "what is." To science, "what is" becomes a central question, and how to provide answers a crucial component. But not just as a set of "observations," but a set of observations organized into relationships.

To the extent that this scientific program works and provides the "best" description of physical reality can be studied by philosophy. Scientists would criticize the philosophical activity as lacking precise questions, and so admitting a range of answers to broad as to render them "irrelevant," and not helpful for "progress."

We can go into cases elsewhere, you have built your argument on faulty understanding of a number of examples.

I don't think proving that the soul exists is within the realm of science.

"while philosophers keep chasing their tails, we'll just continue to do productive science"

A universe without God or some equivalent consciousness would be pointless, IMO.

Seems more than reasonable to me. What does seem pointless to me is the desire to live on in some manner after death.

Yet Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius had his reasons for thinking that the Earth could not possibly be a sphere, and he was a smart guy.

We have much to learn about the brain. I view the scientists as explorers. They try to go out past the borders of what we know and extend the map.

What does seem pointless to me is the desire to live on in some manner after death.

it seems that we bandy the term "stupid" and "idiot" around way too quickly toward people that don't share our (of course correct) perspectives.

With deference, I am not claiming a correct perspective.

I think there is more to science then just a collection of facts... something you seem to resist