If something can't be proven....

Post Reply New Topic

does it mean it doesn't exist?

The reason I ask is that I was reading an article about the soul and although science cannot prove that there is such a thing as the soul, some scientists do still believe that it exists.

When I find the article I might post it, but I'm a bit busy now.

Thanks.

If something can't be proven it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. However, in the case of a "soul" there is substantial evidence that one does not exist. First, you need to define what a soul actually is and different people will give different answers to that. It can't be a person's personality as we know that the personality is based on the physical brain and can be altered with drugs, disease, damage and a scalpel. Similarly those who say the soul is the person's individuality that too has been discounted due to the fact the brain can be cut into two halves (by cutting the corpus collosum) which then results in two distinct personalities each with their own knowledge and volition. All advances in neurology point to everything about what makes us "us" is based on the physical brain, rather than some abstract concept called a soul.

This is what I was reading

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... f-comments

The article seems to be a lot of words with no real content. The most sense I can make of it is that he is equating emergent properties such as the feeling of "love" with a soul. One could argue that such emergent properties e.g. the sense of consciousness is the soul, but that is mere semantics. When the brain dies or gets damaged so do these emergent properties. Much in the same way you could describe a sand castle as an emergent property of a kid playing in the sand at the seaside; but when the tide comes in the sand is redistributed and the emergent property known as "sand castle" no longer exists.

If something can't be proven but also there is no prove it doesn't exist it just means we can't prove or deny it with our current knowledge. That's all.

It really depends on what you mean by "proven". Many assume that unless something can be repeatedly detected with the physical senses, it doesn't exist...but we have yet to find a natural source for concepts like love, justice, or compassion. Chemicals and chromosomes can only explain so much in life; after that, its a matter of trust.

All your emotions are based on the physical brain. fMRI scans show which parts of the brain are responsible for which emotions. Similarly direct stimulation of those neurons generates those emotions. There is a genetic basis for all the emotions we experience and they have all evolved to aid in our survival. Humans' emotions are more complex than those of animals as we have more complex social relationships.

The fact that the physical activity in our brains somehow results in consciousness, our subjective experiences, is pretty surprising and amazing. It's enough to make me wonder if there really is something more going on behind the scenes. As much as some scientists like to pretend otherwise, consciousness can never be explained by science and reason alone. No matter how well they understand the mechanisms of the brain, there will always be that lingering question of why we feel, rather than being mindless zombies that do as we are programmed but feel nothing.

I agree with you about consciousness. However, consciousness is actually an emergent property based on the neural activity within the brain. Consciousness is more than the sum of the neural activity. However, this does not mean it is some mysterious "soul". This consciousness is entirely based/reliant upon the underlying neural activity. When the neural activity ceases so does consciousness. This consciousness can be manipulated by physical and chemical means by manipulating the neuronal activity... as anyone who has taken psychedelic drugs would attest. So while consciousness is a remarkable "thing" it is not entirely mysterious.

Oh OK, Thanks.

Doesn't it depend on what it is someone is trying to prove, and the perception of the observer/s. It seems like proof is subjective. Does a soul, or consciousness need to be seen or touched to be proven? Does the proof have to be accepted by everyone for it to be accepted? Can the existence of a soul be accepted to be a reality even if the terminology used to define the soul/mind/spirit/consciousness is still being debated?

Brain sections detail things like pain, and chemical responses to emotion like adrenaline or dopamine rushes. They don't account for the emotions themselves.

If one stops eating the fruit of knowledge and instead eats of the fruit of life then truth becomes self evident.

You might want to take a look at phenomenology:

http://cfs.ku.dk/

This is the University of Copenhagen's Center for Subjectivity Research.

How do you want them accounted for? That they even exist? Our conscious experience of them?

Emotions are physical things, very much part of our physiology. We feel them with our whole bodies - anticipatory butterflies in our stomachs, the wretched sadness that feels like a hollow in our chest, anxiety that twists our intestines - and, as Tallyman said, we can alter them by consuming mind-altering substances.

I don't think "emotions" fall into any persons classification of "soul." I think the physical body can exist without measurable emotion.

A conversation with Dr. Stuart Hameroff regarding consciousness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUVot-4GPM