[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 39 KB, 425x609, neanderthal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2207543 No.2207543 [Reply] [Original]

Hi /sci/.
What is a 'soul'? Is it the same thing as mind? I thought so, but my friend told me it's completely different thing. Don't know so much about theology and thought you might.

Pic unrelated.

>> No.2207559

a soul is imaginary, there is no such thing as a soul.

>> No.2207568

>>2207559
What do people claim it is? The word must have some meaning. Santa Claus is imaginary (sorry kids), but the word 'Santa' still means something.

>> No.2207572

>soul

>AHAHAHAHAHAFAGGOT.jpg

>> No.2207575

soul is the ghost inside you

>> No.2207608

>>2207543
The concept of a soul is rarely defined, but rather used indiscriminately by new age hippies and religious people. You will be hard pressed to hear a clear, unambiguous definition of it, as people really just prefer to use it as a somehow implicitly meaningful term without having to wonder about the hard facts of life. If they were to truly dive into its definition they would probably realize the concept is not meaningful and abandon it, which is surely a contributing factor to the lack of clarity in definition. You will probably hear some fluffy fending-off like 'the very core of your being', 'the things that makes you who you are', 'the eternal part of you', etc.

>> No.2207620

>>2207608
if you weren't a namefag, i would like you,
fgt

>> No.2207636

Soul is most generally defined as immaterial part of the self. Defining what is material and what is immaterial can get vague, especially when dealing with panpsychism or realistic monism. In a monism model, the soul could be the mental as opposed to physical aspect of the self.

>> No.2207663

>>2207620
Ah, right. I need to remember to clear the name field when not trolling /g/ with arch linux.

>> No.2207673

The ghost in the shell :3

>> No.2207675
File: 71 KB, 336x500, 1280569944970.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2207675

this is what it is to Have a soul, as to what it is...
SCIENCE!

>> No.2207683
File: 80 KB, 1024x768, 1291060184707.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2207683

>>2207543

Yes it`s something completely differend.

soul = immaterial entity or the immaterial part of a human/ or other being.

The idea of a soul is deeply rooted in society becaus it is a fundemantal part of christianity, judaism and islam.

Some people here are gonne tell you it is a ridiculous idea because there is no evidence for it/has nothing to do with sceince/is impossible.

Those people are actually retards who haven`t read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s.

Scince quantum theories make it verry likely matter is made out of more then just some tiny tiny bits of matter, it`s something much more complex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

>> No.2207691

>>2207683

>Thinks quantum anything can account for souls

feynmanlaughing.jpg

>> No.2207687

>>2207543
human philosophy,
/thread

>> No.2207695

>>2207683
>drmanhattansdick.jpg

>> No.2207696

>>2207695

Is dat sum quantum cock?! GOBBLE GOBBLE!

>> No.2207719

>>2207683
Butthurt philosofag detected. It would appear you have close to no idea what quantum physics are all about.

>> No.2207723

>>2207683
I think the ending of that video is very misleading.

>> No.2207731

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR63MMAi-fs

watch this

>> No.2207740
File: 299 KB, 1000x1000, 1291864673491.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2207740

>>2207723
no shit?
just on the off chance someone got suckered into that movie and doesnt know about it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo

>> No.2207758

>>2207568

santa means saint, I forget in which language, I think spanish or other latin languages

>> No.2207762
File: 26 KB, 384x400, 1291058277094.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2207762

>>2207691
>>2207695
>>2207719
>>2207723

Oh that`s right.

I was just pointing out, souls can`t be excluded because we barely know what the universe/matter is made of.

Therefor it is retarded saying the idea of souls are ridiculous.

This is a rock solid statement so ofcourse you mizerable fucks are attacking me on peson, saying i`m a fag, laughable and know almost nothing about QM; --> which has nothing to do with my statement.

>> No.2207769

>>2207762
>>retarded for rejecting proposition with no clear definition, no actual application for it to be observed, and no actual observable effects for it to explain.
yeah no.

>> No.2207791

no such thing as a soul.

>> No.2207795

>>2207762
hurr durr it can't be disproved so it must exist.

>> No.2207804

Wrong board.

>> No.2207807

Your brain's every atom changed to another. Is that you mind anymore? Mind blown.

>> No.2207809

you're not a body with a soul

you're a soul temporarily using a body

>> No.2207819

What's a future without a past?

>> No.2207836

>>2207762
Who is that woman? Serious, looks familiar.

>> No.2207841

>>2207683

>>Yes it`s something completely differend.

i'm sure you mean to say, "Yes, it's something completely dividend.".

It's quite all right you know, not knowing how to phrase sentences and such. grunting and pointing are allowed.

>> No.2207848

>>2207836

tatou, Audrey Tatou.

my favorite french woman.

>> No.2207871

The term "soul" is used to refer to many different things; sometimes it refers to the mind, sometimes it refers to other things.

>> No.2207889
File: 41 KB, 250x375, 05_audreytautou_lgl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2207889

Article about the Wheeler's delayed choice experiment being successfully preformed...

>According to quantum mechanics, light can be either a graceful rippling wave or a hail of bulletlike particles, depending on how you look at it. Now, an experiment shows that an observer can make the choice retroactively, after light has entered a measuring apparatus. The result shows that reality is truly in the eye of the beholder.

>The results, reported this week in Science, prove that the photon does not decide whether to behave like a particle or a wave when it hits the first beam splitter, Roch says. Rather, the experimenter decides only later, when he decides whether to put in the second beam splitter. In a sense, at that moment, he chooses his reality.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/02/16-04.html

>implying in this experiment the photon is NOT effected by the act MEASUREMENT, but by the act of OBSERVATION.

Sadly most atheists/sceintists think they are too smart to "believe" in something like this. Even with hard evidence.

See on Wiki how it is a disputed subject and people are trying to make the measurement effect more likely by saying most sceintists belief that explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

>> No.2207908

>>2207889
>According to quantum mechanics, light can be either a graceful rippling wave or a hail of bulletlike particles, depending on how you look at it.
This is wrong. Light is *both* a particle and a wave at the same time. The difference is purely a question of interpretation.

>> No.2207922
File: 503 KB, 1600x1034, audrey_tautou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2207922

>>2207889

oh btw

Epic prove that an observer (in this case a human) must have some form of immaterial element (soul).

Not claiming it a soul exactly as discribed in the bible though.

>> No.2207923

>>2207908
If light is a particle then surely the earth would move away from the sun through the pressure? Hang on, does light become a particle once it hits a surface? And is a wave in it's normal unobstructed form? Explain please.

>> No.2207935

>>2207923
>If light is a particle then surely the earth would move away from the sun through the pressure?
It does, it's called a solar sail. Luckily the sun's gravity overpowers this effect for the earth by many orders of magnitude.
>Hang on, does light become a particle once it hits a surface? And is a wave in it's normal unobstructed form? Explain please.
Roughly speaking, a particle and a wave are the same thing in different forms, and anything can be seen either as a wave or as a particle depending on taste. However, for most objects one of the two forms makes much more sense than the other. Light just happens to be in the middle somewhere.

Unfortunately I don't know much more details than this, though.

>> No.2207942

>>2207935
I get it.
Particle: Evaluative.
Wave: Descriptive.

>> No.2207949

>>2207908

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Nothing can demonstrate wave and particle effects at the same time (inb4 afshar experiment), and it is nothing to do with interpretation.

>> No.2207973 [DELETED] 

bumo

>> No.2207982

>>2207949
I'm only repeating what I heard from a fairly authoritative source but don't really understand, so I can't argue with that. Care to explain that?

>> No.2208011

>>2207949
So are you suggesting that light shifts in between wave and particle states?

>> No.2208021

>>2207982

Sorry I was so rude, it is an easy mistake to make. Light (and indeed anything at all which can demonstrate quantum behaviour, which is theoretically everything) can demonstrate EITHER wave behaviour OR particle behaviour, but never both at the same time. The interesting and puzzling part is that light will demonstrate either type based on the type of experiment being performed with it. This is WHAT happens.

This leads to the serious philosophical questions being bandied about in this thread. There are many interpretations of WHY this is, and what the limitations of this effect, because the evidence seems to suggest that quantum object will behave as a particle or a wave when it is being "observed" or "measured", and it appears that it will change its behaviour WHEN it is measured: ie, if you look at a wave close up, it will become a particle (in incredibly simplified terms)

A really good (pretty scientific book) to read on the topic is the Quantum Enigma by Kuttner and Rosenblum.

>> No.2208022

'You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body'

>> No.2208023

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q

>> No.2208031

>>2208022
Who the fuck are you, aether's even more retarded sister?
>>2208023
Both of you underage fucks get out of here. Every thread you touch upon grows blighted.

>> No.2208032

>>2207942
>>2207935
I don't think that's quite it. Particle and wave are two mental and mathematical models we use to describe all "particles". "Particle" works for when a particle is emitted or absorbed. "Wave" works for how the particle travels from one place to another. There is a discontinuity between these two models, which is called the wavefunction collapse. QED tries to combine them all into particles, and combine infinite possible paths of particles in a way so they just act like a wave. But it doesn't really solve the problem of the discontinuity.

As something gets more energy or mass, the wavelength shrinks, and the behavior converges towards the behavior of a simple particle, which is why we don't need the wave model for macroscopic things. But it's just an approximation, like Newtonian physics. Everything

>> No.2208033

>>2208011

Yes. The Photoelectric Effect will demonstrate particle behaviour, Young's Two Slit experiment will demonstrate wave behaviour. This is the puzzler, because not just light but ALL things (including matter) can do this. It jsut gets harder to demonstrate wave behaviour with bigger things.

>> No.2208035

/sci/ just got trolled hard. Not like this is an uncommon thing however

>> No.2208036

>>2208022
That's the same thing Pythagoras said.

>> No.2208042
File: 80 KB, 399x293, wolo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2208042

>>2208023
Please die, you're just an annoying butthurt atheist who doesn't contribute anything to any thread bar incoherent moaning, grovelling and stupid remarks that 99.9999r% of the time make no sense and aren't relative what so ever.

/end of story

>> No.2208047

>>2208021
>Sorry I was so rude
That wasn't rude, it was just refreshingly direct :3
>Light can demonstrate EITHER wave behaviour OR particle behaviour, but never both at the same time.
So there is an actual hard cut-off point? No sliding scale between particle and wave that just happens to be very close to x=0 or x=1 in most practical situations? Because that would be consistent with these strange effects you speak of, and I *think* it's what was implied in said authoritative source.
>A really good (pretty scientific book) to read on the topic is the Quantum Enigma by Kuttner and Rosenblum.
Perhaps after the Feynman lectures.

>> No.2208054

>>2208042
>doesn't contribute
I contribute when I feel like contributing. I happen to not feel like contributing very often. At least that's better than spamming theist pollution everywhere.

>> No.2208088

>>2208047
Well, Neils Bohr would tell you that it is a either-or situation, but Alain Afshar would disagree. The widely accepted opinion is that it must be one or the other, and that is what I would certainly say.

The term described to use the change from wave behaviour to particle is "collapse of the wave-function", and this is your cut off point, when the electromagnetic wave hits a photon detector or something, it will suddenly cease to be a wave, and have a defined (insofar as anything in QM is defined) position in space and time.

The sting in the tail is, why does the wave function of a photon (or electron, or atom) collapse when anyone attempts to measure its location?

>> No.2208113

>>2208088
That sounds like a one-way trip, i.e. once a photon has collapsed into a particle there's no getting back to wave form. Is that correct? Does that mean that all sunlight is in particle form when it enters earth (because it can only travel in particle form in space) and is stuck in that form? Or am I confusing two entirely unrelated concepts now?

>> No.2208125
File: 23 KB, 640x480, aether.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2208125

>>2208054
u mad

>> No.2208140

>>2208042
99.99999r%
x=99.9999r
10x=999.9999r
10x-x=900
x=100
Thus, he makes stupid remarks 100% of the time.

>> No.2208161

>>2208113

No, particles can be made to demonstrate wave behaviour. Electrons can be diffracted and made to intefere with themselves fairly easily, and the largest thing they have managed this with so far is balls of 60 Carbon atoms. Things don't get "stuck" in a state, although it is nigh on impossible to perform quantum behaviour with macroscopic objects.

>Does that mean that all sunlight is in particle form when it enters earth (because it can only travel in particle form in space) and is stuck in that form?

I think you have gotten htis a bit confused... Light will be travelling as a electromagnetic wave.

>> No.2208527

bump

>> No.2208547

>>2208113
>once a photon has collapsed into a particle there's no getting back to wave form
Yeah, but that's because at that moment it's ceasing to exist. It's transferring all its energy to an electron in a specific place and time. The moment it's done that, the phenomenon of the photon is over. That energy is now kinetic energy in an electron (99.99999% of the time that's where the energy goes). It's the fact that it's all focused on exactly one electron which is in one place and time, is what gives the appearance of a particle.

Likewise when it comes into being it's created from the kinetic energy of an electron (99.99999% of the time). At those to endpoints it's localized as a particle interacting with an electron at each end, transferring the totality of its energy. But the whole duration in between while its existing, its existing as a wave. So it can easily be thought of that the photon as a particle doesn't exist at all, but its that focusing of all the energy into a single point where an electron is sitting that we call a photon.

>> No.2208554

>>2208547
And to that once you add that the electrons are never in fixed pionts really, but just waves that come close to looking like points, the wave is actually starting and terminating in another wave that is not perfectly localized after all. So the concept of particles starts to appear like a convenient illusion. Nevertheless energy only is transferred from one form of wave to another in fixed allowable amounts.

>> No.2208937

A soul if it exists is immortal, a mind is the product of a brain and is not.

>> No.2208968
File: 25 KB, 300x300, brainsoul.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2208968

<--

>> No.2208969

A soul is a fictional entity from mythical religious books, largely written in the illiterate Middle East & have somehow lasted till now. Some people think they literally exist - those are the people that can't tell the difference between delusion and reality, usually religious.

>> No.2208999
File: 54 KB, 477x599, EpicWin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2208999

>>2208969

>> No.2209038

>>2207543
A soul is an ancient concept created solely (pun intended) by man to help us cope with the terrifying and depressing thought of utter oblivion ramifications of oblivion. The primary ones being once your gone, your GONE. When someone you love is gone, their GONE. Forever. Ceased to exist totally. And you WILL share that fate one day and everything you are will forever be lost in nothingness.

Dont like the sound of any of that last bit?

Well theres the reason we have the "soul".

>> No.2209048

>>2207559
prove it

you can't

and i can't prove it is real either

deal with it

>> No.2209050

>>2209038

Got over my mortality when I was 15. Oblivion is really not that big a deal; when people are scared of dying its the pain that frightens them. But that's only a passing thing.

If the theists were right however, and there was an epic troll deciding who to torture for following the wrong sacrificial customs, I fuckign would be scared of death.

>> No.2209074

>>2209048
You can't prove Superman isn't real.
What's your point?

>> No.2209083

>>2209038
>Has never studied or even thought about any philosophical subject

>> No.2209093

>>2209083
>believes in fairy tales

>> No.2209095

>>2209038
That makes no sense. Why would anyone be scared of oblivion? That's stupid. The idea of the soul comes from the dual nature of what we can observe -- the physical and the mental.

>> No.2209100

>>2209093
>is retarded and gay

>> No.2209121

>>2209095
Everything we see is physical, you're stupid.
>>2209100
>believes in fairy tales