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

[hav0k]

is the topic still the scientific proof of the soul and god?

[maddog]

JL,

You made more of than I though about. Thanks. Reading your response reminded me of
a movie I saw in college. It was about such a guy. I think it was called "Johnny, get your
gun". In the main character was injured in the First World War (WW I). He had lost his
arms and legs an most of his face in a mortar shell explosion. He could not see nor hear
nor smell nor taste. He was feed through a tube. All he had was his sensory input from
his skin. His day to day was just as you described. Your heart poured out to him as you
watched the movie. I now am thinking of all the troops we as Americans have sent to
elsewhere to war. I wish them safe passage home and that no one suffers as this young
man suffered. It was based on a true story.

My reason for bringing that up is to still consider that as concious, right. Only how can
you really be sure as an independant observer. How do you determine being concious
without a way to communicate from being unconcious as in a coma ?

Maddog

[hav0k]

the observer could monitor brain activity?

[J.L. des Alpins]

Originally Posted by hav0k

is the topic still the scientific proof of the soul and god?

hav0k, we are still working toward that goal. By reviewing a few scenarios, we are trying to determine the boundaries of consciousness. Once we have found a line, we will then be able to cross that line and see what is beyond consciousness. If we are lucky, we may find evidence of the soul.

Originally Posted by maddog

Only how can you really be sure as an independant observer. How do you determine being concious without a way to communicate from being unconcious as in a coma?

Maddog, your question highlights the “Problem of Intersubjectivity” , which is about, in a nutshell, a consciousness being conscious of another consciousness. I am trying to prepare a short reply on that topic. Stay put…

[whoa182]

Concsiousness, I know that I am conscious, But how do I know you are?

To me without thinking about it, I could be the only conscious person alive on the planet, I am me 24 hours a day, Im aware of my self and surroundings all day every day. Yet I cannot take a peak into another persons consciousness.

What Im trying to say is, How do you define consciouness first. Is my dog consious? I cannot take a peak into his consciousness anymore than I can take a peak into another persons.

Is consiousness special? Well indeed it is... but can we truely say its unique to humans even tho one cannot go into some other persons other consiousness and see if well. He is conscious.

So we just dont know. But we assume that other peers are consiouss and we clearly are. But I cannot truely 100% experience their state of consciousness.

Im sorry if that was confusing. Anyway he is what I have said about consciousness in another thread. http://www.hypography.com/sciencefor...2&page=1&pp=10

The point of this is, When does consiousness start?

" When you are born, you are born with 5 senses usually. you have Basic instructions from you're Genes. As you experience the world around you, you're brain is rapidly trying to make sense of the world and the surroundings it is in. You're brain is making so many Connections at this time in you're life that. the first few years are when you are not exactly conscious.

So rather the reason you dont remember things is because you havnt yet making sense of you're surroundings that well. Once you're brain has enough understanding and Intelligence you develop a greater consciousness. This continues and progresses to being Fully conscious bein eventually.

You're brain didnt really have any sense of the world for you to record any meaningful memories at the time.

A brain and 5 Senses = input = understanding/intelligence = consciousness "


Consciousness a gift from god? no
Consciousness a proof of the soul? no

We are clearly concsiouss in a bioligcal sense, not spiritual. I mean, where does the soul lie if there were one.

take this for an example:

If I were to cut up a persons body, take off both of his legs. Is he still consciouss?

yes of course !


If I were then to remove both of his arms. Is he still consciouss?

yes of course!, so far we know that consciousness doesnt hang around the the arms of legs.

What If I were to use the most advanced machines and take his body away from him and keep his brain active somehow and he remained alive and talking.

Is he still consciouss? well sure!. hes still the same guy, just without a body or legs and arms!.

So clearly, the SOUL does not hang around in the body!


now lets move to the brain. We know that we can take out parts of the brain, even half of it! Now since we are only left with a brain, isnt it safe to assume that consiousness lies in this thing?

Lets try removing little bits of his brain!!! . Im sure most of you know that it is possible to live with only half of a brain! Now At some point while you chopp off parts of this persons brain, you are going to run into problems and eventually this guy is going to switch off.


there is no spiritual thing about it, the brain is consciouss, not a soul!

[lindagarrette]

Certainly there is no mind separate from the body. But the brain alone may not constitute consciousness. The central nervous system and to whatever extent is can reach is part of the process which is direted by the cerebelum which directs data to the grey or white matter for storage I suppose you could start taking parts away bit by bit of your body but at what point would the individual cease to exxist? There is a lot of redundancy in out brain matter and an ability to regenerate a lot of abilities. It's like an interconnected multi-server network. It is now gupposed that the cerebelum is actually a central processor and does not actually store information and it has to have access to various body parts and senses for it to be meaningful. To me that means some minimum of body attached to the central nervous system is reuired for you to be you. In my opinion that procludes the possibility of transfering memories to a machiner or another body with the intent of carrying the person along. The most rediculous extreme is the possibility of a soul or spirit that can exist independently from brain and magically be reimplanted at a later time after the body dies.

[J.L. des Alpins]

Originally Posted by whoa182

Concsiousness, I know that I am conscious, But how do I know you are?
[...]
So we just dont know. But we assume that other peers are consiouss and we clearly are. But I cannot truely 100% experience their state of consciousness.

What is special about another person is that he/she is a totally foreign subject, an ineffable and radical exteriority. If you could ‘touch’, ‘connect’ or ‘communicate’ directly with the other’s consciousness, both of you would lose your ‘otherness’ toward each other; you would become parts of a same ‘network’, components of a bigger whole. Both of you would lose your subjectivity. The world would collapse into monism. Direct experimentation of someone else’s consciousness is thus impossible.

Which experimental evidence can you find then of the other’s consciousness if you cannot experiment directly with it?

Let’s try this exercise:

(1) We have a (virtual) volunteer, a man named Paul. We also have a statue of Paul carved in stone. First examine the statue. You can see that it is a convincing replica of Paul, that it is well polished, the colours in the stone are lively, and it is cold to the touch. You can experience the statue of Paul because you are directing your consciousness toward it, and your intentionality makes this ‘thing’ an object that is ‘the statue of Paul’.

(2) Here comes Paul—the man—in the room and walks beside his statue. You can experience Paul because you are directing your consciousness toward Paul (you have to, otherwise, you would not be conscious that Paul is in the room). You see his body, his clothes; you can feel the warmth of his skin and hear his breathing. You are touching and feeling ‘matter’—a thing— and your intentionality makes this ‘thing’ an object that is ‘Paul’. You try to ‘touch’ his consciousness in vain. Paul’s subjectivity is transcending his body. In your eyes, Paul is as much an object as his statue, that is, to experience Paul, your consciousness has no other choice but to ‘objectify’ Paul.

(3) Then, while you are examining Paul, you suddenly realise that Paul is looking at you. Paul is examining you as you are examining him. A thought comes to your mind, “If Paul is experiencing the same while examining me as I am while examining him, then that means that, at this very moment, Paul is objectifying me.” You have the feeling of being an object in Paul’s eyes. You know, because you know that your own subjectivity transcends your body. Yet, you didn’t get that feeling from the statue.

Therefore, even though you did not directly ‘touch’ Paul’s consciousness, the feeling you get from Paul’s look is evidence that there is a consciousness ‘inside’ Paul.

[J.L. des Alpins]

Originally Posted by maddog

Only how can you really be sure as an independant observer. How do you determine being concious without a way to communicate from being unconcious as in a coma?

Maddog, from my latest post here [post #37], we may have something to work with to find an answer to your question.

We have established that intersubjectivity is necessary, unless we accept the world as being a big mass of goo. A direct consequence of intersubjectivity is that direct experimentation of another’s consciousness is impossible.

Furthermore, the exercise proposed in post #37 illustrates the only way the other’s subjectivity can be revealed to you. It happens by your awareness of yourself as being an object in the eyes of the other. The experience of your own objectivity is evidence of the presence of the other as a subject.

Now, in the scenario that you proposed, Maddog, the other is totally deprived of senses and means of communication—he is like in a coma—but may still be conscious. How can you find evidence of his consciousness.

As indicated above, the only evidence of the other’s consciousness is by experiencing his objectivation of you. The problem is that he has no way to know that you are there, by his bed. At least, he cannot even give a hint that he can sense your presence. Without a hint, without his look, you cannot experience his objectivation of you, if it is there at all.

I propose the following conjecture:

Ontology cannot resolved the problem of detecting consciousness in a coma-like person.

That leaves us with epistemology and ethics as investigation approaches to the problem.

I suspect, however, that both approaches will not help our investigation either. Take the notorious—and sad—case of the brain-damaged Florida woman who is at the center of a right-to-die dispute between her husband and her parents. We can be fairly confident that all known investigation approaches to find consciousness in her have been exhausted. The failure to prove or disprove the presence of consciousness is evident.

Originally Posted by Hav0k

the observer could monitor brain activity?

This is indeed what they did. A court said a neurologist who had reviewed a CAT scan of Mrs. Schiavo's brain and an EEG has testified that most, if not all, of Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex—the portion of her brain that allows for human cognition and memory—is either "totally destroyed or damaged beyond repair." Yet, these results did not appease half the state’s population, including Governor Bush.

This case has evolved way beyond the search for consciousness; it has become an ethical debate on what to do when search for consciousness fails to reach conclusive results.

(Note: Early in January, independent observers claimed that they have seen signs of consciousness in Mrs. Schiavo. This is still very much a case in progress.)

[mother engine]

"Every biological process is due only to the chemical reactions, which in their turn, are due only to the electromagnetic interaction among the electrons and the protons of the atoms forming our organism. " (From the site)

yes biological process is only due to chemical processes but this is a bit redundent, like saying the process of things made up of chemicals are only do to chemicals. personally i do not think this addresses (or refutes for that matter) the idea of a soul existing apart from the biological process. the question is how can one measure something that almost by definition is unmeasurable.

[paultrr]

By definition the soul is supernatural. By that same definition it is beyond nature and not really subject to nature based means of testing or proving such. You simply cannot prove or disprove the existance of a soul by any means usable say in a court of law. As such, it is beyond the perview of courts to determine such a matter weither or not the Right Wing, so called Moral majority of this county likes that fact or not. Personally, if I was to claim say the Christian religion I would totally resent government or lawmaker decisions on such matter in the first place. I hear a lot of Christians out there making the statement that real religion is a personal relationship. One of the founding principles of this Country was freedom of religion. If its really ment to be personal then the government does not belong making decisions on this or any other subject that by definition is supernatural. They simply have no provable evidence either way.