Can Science Explain the Soul?

I found a interesting article and wanted to get people's take on it. Enjoy!

Unable to fathom a rational explanation for out-of-body and/or after-death consciousness, modern science ignores such reports. Short-sighted skeptics reinforce the assumption that they are either subjective folly, hallucinations, or outside the scope of scientific proof.

The central weakness here is that modern science can't explain normal, in-the-brain consciousness. Despite detailed understanding of neuronal firings and synaptic transmissions mediating non-conscious, 'auto-pilot' perception and behaviors, there is no accounting for conscious awareness, free will or 'qualia' — the essence of experienced perceptions, like the redness, texture and fragrance of a rose. Philosopher David Chalmers refers to this as the 'hard problem' — explaining qualia and the subjective nature of feelings, awareness, and phenomenal experience — our 'inner life'.

Unable to explain consciousness in the brain, it is easy to see why conventional science ignores out-of-body, or after-death consciousness, if they do indeed occur. However one controversial theory of in-the-brain consciousness can also in principle explain possible out-of-body and after-death consciousness. That is the Penrose-Hameroff 'Orch OR' theory of consciousness as sequences of quantum computations inside brain neurons.

Full Article @ Source


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

They just assume it's impossible because many of them have a materialistic point-of-view. But strange experiences like OBEs, NDEs, and spiritual experiences do happen. They just brush it all away because it doesn't match their personal models of existence.

reply to post by 547000


There are some advantages to materialistic thinking if you ask me. But as with anything you suffer if you go overboard with it. And a great many does, it appears to be a part of human nature.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Short-sighted skeptics reinforce the assumption that they are either subjective folly, hallucinations, or outside the scope of scientific proof.

As a sceptic with 20/20 visual acuity I'd say that discounting these theories altogether would be foolish.

If a soul exists and if it is able to be perceived through physical means then science will do what it always has done and try to explain it.

If however you are talking about free will as a perceived set of actions rather than something magical then we already have people spending billions on it daily in the form of advertising.

I'm not against the existence of a soul or that it can do seemingly magical things like leave the body, roam around and then come back but I do notice that there is very little by way of proof that these things happen.

I'll follow the evidence when the evidence is presented.

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


The problem is that the phenomena *if it is true* by it's very nature makes finding "proof" really really hard. If not impossible.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

This is a pretty interesting book on the subject..I read it a few years ago.
www.maryroach.net...

Her other book the "STIFF: the curious lives of cadavers" is also a great read.

Science has a hard time explaining anything. Science is a form of religion. Religion and Science are mechanisms of control. Free yourself from the prison and always look withing. Namaste

reply to post by Klaatumagnum


No. Science is an excellent tool for understanding and manipulating the physical/material world. But, yes, it has become a religion for some.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


You don't need the external to form your reality. You already have all you need inside. Namaste

I think that science would have a greater understanding of undiscovered realities if, science and religion helped each other out.

reply to post by Klaatumagnum


You really should attribute whomever you quote. But, anyway, I well understand that particular idea. But also as I said, your certainty does not trump others. Unless of course you can "prove" it. And people being as they are, well, proving it to someone who does not wish to have it proven is impossible.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

If there's such a thing as a soul, I'm entirely sure science will be able to explain it one day. Likewise, if there's such a thing as god or universal consciousness, one day science will be able to explain them too.

A couple of years ago a UK Doctor set up a study that aims to secure proof of NDEs. If NDEs can be scientifically proven as a genuine phenomena, the implication will lead to a serious appraisal of souls and consciousness.

Science won't fall to its knees and start going to mass, circumcising babies or chanting 'Allah be praised' every day. Scientists won't start wearing robes or submitting papers to their local Imam, Priest or Buddhist monks for peer-review.

They'll just add a few more bricks in the wall of human knowledge and maybe take a few more out. That's science for you, always changing and adapting to new ideas.

So far the study hasn't yielded results that are meaningful, but at least the effort is there. It's impossible to prove a negative, so the existence of 'souls' will be always be discussed.

Personally, I like the idea of souls and remain open minded and unconvinced. You can read about the study here....World’s largest-ever study of near-death experiences

reply to post by Kandinsky


Why exactly do you refer to science as a independent entity capable of action on it's own?

Originally posted by 547000
They just assume it's impossible because many of them have a materialistic point-of-view. But strange experiences like OBEs, NDEs, and spiritual experiences do happen. They just brush it all away because it doesn't match their personal models of existence.

What you call evidence of the soul I call the brain in dying mode.

If there is a soul, we would be absolutely nothing like we are now, because everything that is our personality is produced by the brain, but it would certainly be detectable by some means, there are plenty of things in science we can't see, but we know they are there.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by Klaatumagnum
Science has a hard time explaining anything. Science is a form of religion. Religion and Science are mechanisms of control. Free yourself from the prison and always look withing. Namaste

No, science has a very good way of explaining most things, just because it doesn't have all the answers yet doesn't make it a religion.

Without science we wouldn't know what caused disease, nor would we have any of the luxuries of the modern age.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

Here watch this..... maybe youll understand.... maybe not.

I already know how much you love your magical soul... afterlife.. and deity. A smartman who hangs on to such pitifull self-comforting childish beliefs obviously needs them to justify his existance..... and all there is to gain from his education is suicide.

video.google.com...#

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Here watch this..... maybe youll understand.... maybe not.

I already know how much you love your magical soul... afterlife.. and deity. A smartman who hangs on to such pitifull self-comforting childish beliefs obviously needs them to justify his existance..... and all there is to gain from his education is suicide.

video.google.com...#

Who said anything about a deity?

I know you need to come into this thread as the angry atheist, calling whatever you don't believe in childish, but take it a notch down before you go on your usual tirade.

These are my own thoughts and my own words. Thank you anyway I "trump" no one. Two people fly from New York to LA, same carrier and same class. One leaves at seven AM and the other at ten AM. Is the traveler who departed at seven greater,wiser,awakened.enlightened to a greater degree than the one who departs at ten?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Klaatumagnum

 

You really should attribute whomever you quote. But, anyway, I well understand that particular idea. But also as I said, your certainty does not trump others. Unless of course you can "prove" it. And people being as they are, well, proving it to someone who does not wish to have it proven is impossible.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Klaatumagnum
These are my own thoughts and my own words. Thank you anyway I "trump" no one. Two people fly from New York to LA, same carrier and same class. One leaves at seven AM and the other at ten AM. Is the traveler who departed at seven greater,wiser,awakened.enlightened to a greater degree than the one who departs at ten?

I don't understand the relevance.
If we are to discover more about the physical universe, how are we going to get anywhere meditating?

I understand the spiritual advantage of meditating, the peace and calming feeling, etc.

But it certainly won't help us detect dark matter, find out how our brain tracks motion, discover how life evolves on this planet, etc.

reply to post by Klaatumagnum


No. Because each has spent that time in their seperate ways. But as much as I am enjoying our... whatever it is. Any comments on the article this thread refers to?