The simplest explanation is best. --The case against the immortal soul--

[Meow Mix]

If John Wheeler is correct that we not only participate in bringing change to being in the world around us but also the far away and long ago by observing the Universe. Then it is the epiphenomenalist who will be cut by Occam's razor.

Schroedinger however believed that this issue will never be resolved by science. So we both might need to take our leaps of faith for a long time.

Wheeler's "self-observing universe" has long been abandoned by science metaphysics and philosophers of science in favor of more realist (or rather, less anti-realist) interpretations like the Copenhagen Interpretation and quantum decoherence. Wheeler's SOU was based on Wigner and Bohm's "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation, which is ultimately bad metaphysics. (In fact, nowadays it's called "quantum quackery.")

In fact the issue has already started to be resolved with quantum decoherence: the wave-function doesn't exist. It's only apparent. This was already guessed at by the Copenhagen interpretation, but we're starting to understand why.

 

[Reptillian]

Schrodinger thought that life itself might be a kind of complimentary concept. Its possible that you might attempt to model a cell in terms of electrochemical interactions only to find that the cell decays and that your equations basically describe a dead cell. Complete knowledge of the cell in terms of chemical interactions may be incompatible with knowledge of it as a living thing. Schrodinger thought there might be room for ideas like "life" and "mind" in science.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Wheeler's "self-observing universe" has long been abandoned by science metaphysics and philosophers of science in favor of more realist (or rather, less anti-realist) interpretations like the Copenhagen Interpretation and quantum decoherence.

Just to answer back in a speedy reply. Like I said I find this topic very uninteresting. I wish I never responded on this subject

According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.[8] Although current trends show substantial competition from alternative interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had strong acceptance among physicists. Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.[9]
Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems it is not as universally accepted as your statement would lead us to believe.

. (In fact, nowadays it's called "quantum quackery.")

Again one of the very ugly parts of human nature is the need to insult and belittle those who disagree with our positions. We are talking about someting in the universal human experince that just is not as important as other subjects like world hunger or ending war. So you should put it in perspective.

From what I have read that term was applied to that movies like What the Bleep Do We Know or people like Deepack Chopra. Not a person who won the Wolf Prize. He is a respected scientist.

There are still very respected scientists who still accept this view even though some might call it names.

 

[Madhuri]

That, of course, would be the unnecessary entity. The spiritual is not needed to explain anything. Not that it explains anything at any rate; it is such a vague and shapeless concept that it practically means nothing.

I disagree. There are some fundamental questions that our society has no answers for. Spirituality provides the answers to those questions.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't believe in any sort of soul because, as stated in this thread, the brain is the source of most of the things that a soul is often understood to encompass. The brain leaves nothing left for the soul to claim as its own.

If the soul is consciousness, and nothing else, then all souls are identical. If this is as the Hindus in this thread say, then where does reincarnation come into play? "What", exactly, is doing the reincarnating?

Suppose person A does good things throughout their life time, accumulates positive karma, and gets reincarnated in a pleasant situation. And suppose person B does evil things throughout their life time, accumulates negative karma, and gets reincarnated in an unpleasant situation. If the soul is nothing but consciousness, it wouldn't even matter if this scenario were switched, with the good person having a bad reincarnation and the bad person having a good reincarnation, because there is nothing fundamentally "them" that exists between their current lifetime and their next life time. Not personality, not memories, not likes or dislikes, etc. Their deaths in this lifetime are actually deaths, because nothing of them continues afterwards.

So wouldn't the soul become rather irrelevant?

 

[LuisDantas]

There are still very respected scientists who still accept this view even though some might call it names.

That doesn't really matter, because they are not acting as scientists, following the scientific method, or even talking about a scientific subject. They are just people speculating about metaphysical matters - and as such, one is quite free to disagree with them.

 

[Madhuri]

I don't believe in any sort of soul because, as stated in this thread, the brain is the source of most of the things that a soul is often understood to encompass. The brain leaves nothing left for the soul to claim as its own.

If the soul is consciousness, and nothing else, then all souls are identical. If this is as the Hindus in this thread say, then where does reincarnation come into play? "What", exactly, is doing the reincarnating?

Suppose person A does good things throughout their life time, accumulates positive karma, and gets reincarnated in a pleasant situation. And suppose person B does evil things throughout their life time, accumulates negative karma, and gets reincarnated in an unpleasant situation. If the soul is nothing but consciousness, it wouldn't even matter if this scenario were switched, with the good person having a bad reincarnation and the bad person having a good reincarnation, because there is nothing fundamentally "them" that exists between their current lifetime and their next life time. Not personality, not memories, not likes or dislikes, etc. Their deaths in this lifetime are actually deaths, because nothing of them continues afterwards.

So wouldn't the soul become rather irrelevant?

I don't think so. All souls are equal but they evolve individually. We are different in each life because of how our consciousness has developed through past experiences. Our state of consciousness at the time of death is the consciousness that we are born with in the next life. These states relate to the modes of nature: goodness, passion and ignorance. These states of consciousness influence the choices we make and our perception of life. However the nature of this process leads to the eventual state of Enlightenment, which is liberation from this cycle of birth and death.

It is said that the souls in the material world are God's way of exploring Himself. But many things mentioned are poetic or metaphoric and I am not scholarly enough to truly understand this. What I do understand is that the souls are part of God (the whole). Material nature is an energy of God. The souls, perhaps, are the aspect of the divine that desire to experience material life. But as the Marginal Potency, we're torn between desire for the material and for the spiritual.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

That doesn't really matter, because they are not acting as scientists, following the scientific method, or even talking about a scientific subject. They are just people speculating about metaphysical matters - and as such, one is quite free to disagree with them.

Very true on both sides of this argument. My point is not to convert others to my views. But to point out they are acceptable.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

If the soul is consciousness, and nothing else, then all souls are identical. If this is as the Hindus in this thread say, then where does reincarnation come into play? "What", exactly, is doing the reincarnating?

From the Advaita point of view the soul reincarnating goes away with the direct experince of Brahman. Just like all pain and suffering. If there is no individuality who is there to reincarnate?

Suppose person A does good things throughout their life time, accumulates positive karma, and gets reincarnated in a pleasant situation. And suppose person B does evil things throughout their life time, accumulates negative karma, and gets reincarnated in an unpleasant situation. If the soul is nothing but consciousness, it wouldn't even matter if this scenario were switched, with the good person having a bad reincarnation and the bad person having a good reincarnation, because there is nothing fundamentally "them" that exists between their current lifetime and their next life time. Not personality, not memories, not likes or dislikes, etc. Their deaths in this lifetime are actually deaths, because nothing of them continues afterwards.

So wouldn't the soul become rather irrelevant?

To the soul it matters not. Bad behavior takes us away from seeing our true nature. Good behavior takes us toward better understanding our true nature and will make us free. The soul is untouched by all of this. It is pure consciousness.

 

[nrg]

Very true on both sides of this argument. My point is not to convert others to my views. But to point out they are acceptable.

Who cares if they're acceptable? They are not propable, valid or even consistent wich is what really matters in a scientific concept.

 

[Madhuri]

Who cares if they're acceptable? They are not propable, valid or even consistent wich is what really matters in a scientific concept.

They might not be probable, valid or consistent to you but they can be all to other people. Just because you haven't had the life experience to believe something in particular doesn't mean it isn't a reality. Scientists know a lot, but there's more that they don't know than what they do. And some are very attracted to Vedic explanations of reality, Carl Sagan being a prominent one.

So to answer your question, I care. I'm pretty sure a lot of people do.

 

[Atomist]

It seems it is not as universally accepted as your statement would lead us to believe.

I don't know much about physics but I think the Copenhagen interpretation is repeatedly verified in labs.

Again one of the very ugly parts of human nature is the need to insult and belittle those who disagree with our positions. We are talking about someting in the universal human experince that just is not as important as other subjects like world hunger or ending war. So you should put it in perspective.

From what I have read that term was applied to that movies like What the Bleep Do We Know or people like Deepack Chopra. Not a person who won the Wolf Prize. He is a respected scientist.

There are still very respected scientists who still accept this view even though some might call it names.

Stupid ideas should be belittled. Like flat earth society should definitely be belittled. I'm just saying.

Also is it part of human nature to point out other people's faulty natures in one's own perspective? Is that an attempt at superiority?

 

[Jeremiah]

1st thing Madhuri and I see the world in a slightly different way. I will let her speak for her self. She is more eloquent then I am any way.

I will say this your argument is geared to the folks of the Abrahamic faiths not us.

If John Wheeler is correct that we not only participate in bringing change to being in the world around us but also the far away and long ago by observing the Universe. Then it is the epiphenomenalist who will be cut by Occam's razor.

Schroedinger however believed that this issue will never be resolved by science. So we both might need to take our leaps of faith for a long time.

"I will say this your argument is geared to the folks of the Abrahamic faiths not us."

No, it is not. It is not "geared" towards any particular "folks", Abrahamic or otherwise. This is a non-religion specific debate about the immortal soul.

 

[Jeremiah]

I disagree. There are some fundamental questions that our society has no answers for. Spirituality provides the answers to those questions.

What questions? And how does "spirituality" answer them?

 

[Madhuri]

What questions? And how does "spirituality" answer them?

The biggest tend to be:
Who am I? What am I? How do I exist? How does anything exist?
Science only goes so far in answering these. In fact so many things are still a mystery to scientists. Spirituality offers the means to finding that out. Of course when I am talking about Spirituality, I do not mean the religious institution or religious doctrine.

 

[nrg]

They might not be probable, valid or consistent to you but they can be all to other people.

And either I or all those other people are wrong. That's why we have the scientific method so we can decide who is.

Just because you haven't had the life experience to believe something in particular doesn't mean it isn't a reality.

Absolutely, you can never prove an absolute, you can only establish what's propable. And if there's no evidence, it's not.

Scientists know a lot, but there's more that they don't know than what they do.

Point being?

And some are very attracted to Vedic explanations of reality, Carl Sagan being a prominent one.

Carl Sagan didn't confess belonging to any set of faith, and by account from his friends, he was an agnostic. CSI | Ann Druyan Talks About Science, Religion, Wonder, Awe . . . and Carl Sagan

Not that it matters at all. We all have our personal experiences, but we have to use reasoning in order to determine how the world works and what fits what criteria. It's impossible to do so perfectly, but we have a method that's been proven better than all others, and that's science. It's not that the rest of the world doesn't believe that Denmark is a duck that makes us lable it as a country, it's because we have scientific criterias for ducks and countries. It's the same thing for propability.

So to answer your question, I care. I'm pretty sure a lot of people do.

Ok, whatever. Can you please show how something becomes propable just because it's acceptable (seeing as being acceptable is something you cared about)?

 

[LuisDantas]

Who cares if they're acceptable? They are not propable, valid or even consistent wich is what really matters in a scientific concept.

I don't know if souls will ever be a scientific concept. For the time being, they certainly are not, not by any stretch.

As you well point out, they don't even have consistent attributes - in fact, there are several, mutually exclusive definitions running around, which of course makes any attempts at being objective, much less scientific, pointless.

Still, it must be pointed out that religious concepts rarely if ever have a scientific nature, nor do they need to. Much of the point of religion is that it is not science, that it deals with the subject matters that science is not well suited to handle.

And either I or all those other people are wrong. That's why we have the scientific method so we can decide who is.

Are you sure? It seems to me that while conceptions of soul must be questioned (mainly by non-scientific approaches, because it is after all not a scientifically well-defined concept), it will be a long time, if ever, until enough of a consensus is reached about what a soul would be like (and how it could be detected in an objective way) that it makes any sense to give a scientific, or even simply objective, opinion on the matter.

For the time being, we will probably have to satisfy ourselves with noticing that the concept is very subjective, not always defined in a non-contradictory way, and there are in fact disputing view of what it would be like.

 

[Madhuri]

And either I or all those other people are wrong. That's why we have the scientific method so we can decide who is. Absolutely, you can never prove an absolute, you can only establish what's propable. And if there's no evidence, it's not. Point being? Carl Sagan didn't confess belonging to any set of faith, and by account from his friends, he was an agnostic. CSI | Ann Druyan Talks About Science, Religion, Wonder, Awe . . . and Carl Sagan

Not that it matters at all. We all have our personal experiences, but we have to use reasoning in order to determine how the world works and what fits what criteria. It's impossible to do so perfectly, but we have a method that's been proven better than all others, and that's science. It's not that the rest of the world doesn't believe that Denmark is a duck that makes us lable it as a country, it's because we have scientific criterias for ducks and countries. It's the same thing for propability.

Ok, whatever. Can you please show how something becomes propable just because it's acceptable (seeing as being acceptable is something you cared about)?

I didn't say that something is probable because it is acceptable. I would definitely argue against that!

I used the example of Carl Sagan, not because he is Hindu, but because he gives a lot of credit to Vedic explanations of the universe.

The scientific method is great, and the knowledge we can acquire through science is fabulous. But we need to understand that our knowledge and skills today are still limited, very biased, sometimes flawed and very much lacking. As time goes on I fully expect society to continue learning more and more new things. What we know so far is incredibly minuscule compared to what we could and may someday know.

So the conclusions we make now are based on the knowledge we have now just as the knowledge of the ancients dictated the conclusions they arrived at. This doesn't mean we know everything. It also means (I believe), that simply because something is probability now does not mean it is a reality because that probability is based on the knowledge we have now.

I think it is wrong to assume that a religious person is not using reason. We always like to make assumptions about why people believe what they do- but these assumptions are generally unfair and based in arrogance (and ignorance). A lot of people are blind believers, but a lot of people are also intelligent, reasoning individuals who have had certain experiences that make believing in the divine (or something other) hard to ignore. Some people like to categorise these individuals as delusional, but in my opinion, that is very arrogant too.

 

[logician]

I didn't say that something is probable because it is acceptable. I would definitely argue against that!

I used the example of Carl Sagan, not because he is Hindu, but because he gives a lot of credit to Vedic explanations of the universe.

The scientific method is great, and the knowledge we can acquire through science is fabulous. But we need to understand that our knowledge and skills today are still limited, very biased, sometimes flawed and very much lacking. As time goes on I fully expect society to continue learning more and more new things. What we know so far is incredibly minuscule compared to what we could and may someday know.

So the conclusions we make now are based on the knowledge we have now just as the knowledge of the ancients dictated the conclusions they arrived at. This doesn't mean we know everything. It also means (I believe), that simply because something is probability now does not mean it is a reality because that probability is based on the knowledge we have now.

I think it is wrong to assume that a religious person is not using reason. We always like to make assumptions about why people believe what they do- but these assumptions are generally unfair and based in arrogance (and ignorance). A lot of people are blind believers, but a lot of people are also intelligent, reasoning individuals who have had certain experiences that make believing in the divine (or something other) hard to ignore. Some people like to categorise these individuals as delusional, but in my opinion, that is very arrogant too.

One can be very intelligent, but forego all reason in their religious beliefs, which are usually based upon tradition, and peer pressure.

 

[LuisDantas]

One can be very intelligent, but forego all reason in their religious beliefs, which are usually based upon tradition, and peer pressure.

I don't really disagree, but those are not the only possibilities.

There are matters that are important yet refratary to rational analysis, for instance.

Also, while tradition and social pressure play a major role in religion, it may also be self-generated to a great extent (and arguably it is supposed to be).