Scientifically speaking, is it possible for souls to exist?
>>16889047
>>16889047ofc we're metaphysical iq is metaphysical
>>16889047It's a wave function on a brain, then analyze it like AI learning pattern.
>>16889047I've heard lots of physicists/mathematicians like Panpsychism, from the advent of quantum probably. I equate souls with consciousness for some reason.
>is it scientifically possible for x to existyes, and for all x, there is an entire team of phd students at a university slaving away for a professor hell bent on using his pet tortured string theory vacua to "prove" it
Computer Metaphor is scientific and kinda soulish
>>16889047It is if you believe in the work of Carl Jung.
>>16889047If you knew how to speak scientifically, you wouldn't have to ask that question. Science, (other than string theorists, who are really just obsessive wankers and not real scientists) at any rate, real science explicitly avoids having opinions on things that cannot be measured."Misura ciò che è misurabile, ciò che non è misurabile rendilo tale." - galileo maybe
>>16889047Ok so how would souls work? We'd postulate some kind of soul substrate that does not interact with observable reality but does interact, with... what?I guess it should be with kind of cognitive facilities, right? Centers for empathy, perception of aesthetic beauty, goodness, things like that? So presumably it binds to electromagnetic processes in neurons. Or some other feature of neurons that we've missed.
>>16889047You know how in star wars after obi wan kenobi dies he turns into a spirit or hologram, that is basically your soul, your spirit that lives on after death, you ascend to the afterlife realms where heaven exists, so yes, the human spirit or soul does exist, have faith that youll exist after physically dieing.
>>16889047yes, possible. you can't opine scientifically one way or the other, science and souls are othogonal concepts to each other
>>16889047Scientifically speaking, it is impossible for souls not to exist.
>>16889047Anyone remember the 21 grams soul experiment?
>>16890978This is only for Jedi. Regular creatures just rot and decay after death.
>>16890682if dark matter is allowed to be some unknown substance that doesnt interact with reality outside of gravity, why cant souls ?
>>16891116But souls are supposed to interact with behavior. >Remove the soul -> robotic unempathic cruel behavior>Add soul -> human warm empathic recognizes Truth and BeautySo we need a theory to support that
Yes but it would have to be made up of something. Spiritualists don’t like the idea of there being soul-particles, you see.
>>16891071We are all part of the force
>>16889047No, when the corpus callosum is removed we observed that patients develop two distinct personalities who still confabulate a fake sense of "self", thus proving that souls cannot exist, unless your model posits that you can physically split them because the corpus callosum has some kind of spooky magical property, at which point I'd have to dismiss it with a raised eyebrow and a "seriously, nigga?"
>>16891221Ok so you're saying the soul substrate interacts through the corpus callosum, interesting
It would be scientifically impossible for souls to not exist, because information exists and atheism is a violation of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics
>>16889047I can only tell you if you join my church and tithe faithfully. dig deep, brother!
>>16891221So bipolars have no souls? Woah
>>16889047Short answer, yes. So much of "science" is already heavily predicated on religious notions and axioms that cannot be proven, this one is not particularly distinct.
>>16891446>For every X there exists one or more Ys attempting to exploit it, therefore X is falsemm no very unwise
>>16889047Sure, if you can come up with some experiments to test for the existence of a soul.
>>16891783Best I can do is to structure evolving speculative what-if scenarios to make the soul's definition navigate explanatory gaps.
>>16891023yes, I saw the experiment in dark matters
>>16889047why not?
The way our brains work makes it seem extremely unlikely that souls exist.
>>16890682>We'd postulate some kind of soul substrate that does not interact with observable reality but does interact, with... what?I don't believe in souls, but the closest likely approximation is epiphenomenalism.It's a postulate that asserts that mental properties (subjective experiences/ qualia) are influenced by physical properties, but the causal link is one-way, meaning mental properties cannot affect physical properties in turn.It's logically coherent, but EP invites criticisms like, "Why do the attitudes of our experiences map onto physical properties that make evolutionary sense?", suggesting a two-way system in its place.For example, why do we feel bad when we feel pain? Why do we feel good when we have sex? Why do these experiences coincide so neatly? The view is unsatisfying because it can't answer this question.
>>16889047Science does not and never will dictate what is or is not possible.Science will only ever dictate what is or is not likely happen IF the future were to be like the past.
>>16889047Scientifically speaking, the best we can say is that no known mechanism exists for a soul to be possible. We are merely a collection of atoms and electrical impulses. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>16889047No, it's not possible.
>>16890978Proof? So many people have died, why havent we confirmed any sighting of a soul or a ghost?
>>16892301>>16894308>>16892297>>16892214
>>16889047it is a matter of fact, it's the information about your material structure at any point in time. soul is information, that's my take on what I think some people mean by "muh soul"
>>16894383Can you provide an argument?Im all for souls and afterlife and whatnot but theres no reason to believe they exist
words like "soul" and "body" are just ideas we use to rationalize perceptual phenomena, which include not only the carnal senses but the intellect and transcendent spiritual experiences too
>>16894494NTAAre you conscious? Are you aware of color, smell, taste..etc.? Then you exist and that "you" which is aware of these experiences, is the soul.>but muh brain, nervous system, sensory organs..etc.These are all things the real you, the soul, is experiencing. The experience that is your eye might allow you to have other experiences such as "seeing physical colors", but the removal of eyes does not stop you from seeing; you merely starting seeing just black.The real unprovable conjecture at the end of the day is the materialist narrative that "you" are somehow a product of all these experiences you are experiencing, and that if certain experiential chain were to happen, such as the destruction of your physical body, then "you" would magically cease to exist and experience.Once you look past the dogma there is no reason to believe this is the case.
>>16895602>"you" which is aware of these experiences, is the soulName a difference between my "soul" and your "soul" that isn't strictly due to physical conditions.
>>16895609>Name a difference between my "soul" and your "soul"There isn't any difference. Everybody's soul is their inner observer of pure awareness that is undifferentiated from everybody else's.That been said while the person, aka the soul, might be the same, the "clothes" everybody choose to wear and accumulated overtime is very much different.But at the end of day clothes are just clothes and can be discarded. The person however remains the same and cannot be altered no matter what they wore.
>>16895661>There isn't any difference.Then it has no individual essence and you're not actually talking about a soul. Everything people thought the soul kept, is demonstrably in the brain and thus dies with the brain. The actual content of conscious experience is primarily due to the senses. Conscious experience itself can happen without sense input, of course. Sensory deprivation causes hallucinations, but their form itself is due to the brain. The thing you're referring to, in and of itself, is almost a kind of nothingness.
>>16895670>Everything people thought the soul kept, is demonstrably in the brain and thus dies with the brainThe only thing brain damage demonstrates is the inability to express mental content.Whether or not said content dies with the brain is another unprovable conjecture.>>16895670>Then it has no individual essence and you're not actually talking about a soul.Why, if a person lost memories does that make them no longer them?What is the individual, if not the you that experiences joy and pain?Why do people insist the essence of an individual must be the clothes said individual wear and not the individual himself.
There's no such thing as a "soul".The only difference between you and an LLM is backpropogation and resources.
>>16895685>WhyBecause you've conceded it right here:>>16895609>>Name a difference between my "soul" and your "soul" that isn't strictly due to physical conditions.>There isn't any difference.Do you have trouble remembering what you just said?>The only thing brain damage demonstrates is the inability to express mental content.I wish your brain damage demonstrated this.
>>16895696>The only difference between you and an LLM is backpropogation and resources.Dumb subhumans like you remind me the """AI""" scam has a silver lining: your handlers will soon be using your dumb golem meat to train """AI""" driven military drones when you get sent off to some ditch in Shitistan or Drepyiv or something.
>>16895698Just because two things are indistinguishable does not mean they are not themselves.If you and another is indistinguishable in everyway, are you still not you and they them?Is this so hard to comprehend?>I wish your brain damage demonstrated this.I accept your concession.
>>16895733>Just because two things are indistinguishable>Two thingsYou've undermined the notion that you're really talking about two things, by first leaving the realm of physical concreteness and then claiming there's no difference between your "two things". Abstractly, if two things share every property, they are actually the same thing described twice.
>>16895733>I accept your concession.Yes, I concede that your mindless kneejerk reaction against some talking point you hallucinated is evidence of brain damage.
>>16895749>Abstractly, if two things share every property, they are actually the same thing described twice.You are confusing modelling with reality.If there are two indistinguishable people, doesn't matter how you can substitute things on paper, that's still two separate people in actual reality.
>>16895755>You are confusing modelling with reality.I'm not confusing anything with anything. You simply deny yourself any basis to assert there are two things.>If there are two indistinguishable people...You're not talking about people. You're talking about "souls", retard.
>>16895756If a hypothetical "god" copy&pasted the entire you right this moment, are there still just one thing, or are there now two, souls and all, despite the both of you been indistinguishable from each other in every way?This is such a simple concept any 6 year old child whose mind is not rotted by autism can understand.I don't see any point continuing this further as the debate is devolving into mindless insults. Austic midwits on /sci/ never fails to disappoint.
>>16895766See >>16895749>You've undermined the notion that you're really talking about two things, by first leaving the realm of physical concreteness...Since I'm 4 stdevs above you in IQ, I actually preempted the mistake you only now got to making. You have no idea what I'm getting at because your mental age is, indeed, 6. In any case, I'm bored with you.
