/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3197824]

Explain to me why we can't have a soul.

How does our brain actually work (electrons just swirling around?) - an explanation to this would maybe help me understanding why we can't have a soul.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3197831]

We do have a soul. your soul is your consciousness and your memories.
It isn't a physical thing like an organ, it can't be extracted. but you clearly do have one.
its the difference between a live human body and a corpse.

[Anonymous No.3197834]

By definiton a soul is not a physical entity, and therefore is not measureable.

Therefore we just assume it doesn't exist because why would be think otherwise?

[Anonymous No.3197842]

>>3197831
the difference between a living human being and a corpse is called life, not soul

[Anonymous No.3197835]

>>3197824
>a soul

Tell me what you mean by that term, and maybe that will be an answerable question.

[Anonymous No.3197843]

Burden of proof is on us having souls. No proof yet.

[Anonymous No.3197845]

>>3197831

The difference between a live human body and a corpse is that a live human body is physically undergoing the processes of life.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3197854]

>>3197842
>>3197845

I define 'soul' and consciousness to be interchangable. if one exists, so does the other.

if there is some other definition people are using, like ghost or spirit, then i might well argue against its existence.

[Anonymous No.3197856]

>>3197831

the problem is: how matter can be conscious of itself? There's still something missing nowdays.

[Anonymous No.3197857]

A soul by religious definition would mean that the mind is seperate from the body, if I stick a knife in your brain and then your retarded what happened to your soul? Also, did retards get a defective soul?

[Anonymous No.3197860]

Non-hipster or poser teen atheist here.

We don't know anything about sapience, so there is no reason to assume we have a soul.

Sapience as in experiencing qualia and understanding thoughts, not sapience as in neuroscience. It is possible we could study neuroscience to the point where we can program our own brains like we do with computers but that still wouldn't explain why we aren't philosophical zombies.

[Anonymous No.3197861]

>>3197854

So just say consciousness.

[Anonymous No.3197865]

All of your "soul" is just electrons accessing and triggering receptors in your brain.
When you die, they won't trigger those receptors anymore.

There is no "soul". There is only mass, energy, and emptiness.

[Anonymous No.3197868]

According to modern psychology, all cognitive processes are related to physical neural activity. Psychology cannot (yet) explain the details surrounding feeling of consciousness, thinking ability or memory, but it is all based on connections between neurons in the brain and activation of these (i.e. electrical signals) are responsible for all mental processes.
However, I think that a much more relevant question than yours is "do we have a soul?". One should have provide argumentation for the existence of something rather than the other way around (assuming that we can explain everything we perceive, think and feel as physical changes in the brain). To me it seems that the concept of a soul is just accepted because it has been around for quite a few millenia and there is no holistic and accurate explanation of how our brains work yet).

[Anonymous No.3197873]

>>3197860
>implying we're not philosophical zombies

[Anonymous No.3197875]

>>3197860
>Non-hipster or poser teen atheist here.

Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3197885]

I think that some people confuse cognition with consciousness.

[Anonymous No.3197903]

>>3197885

Consciousness is a product of cognition. It's not something separate that can be removed from the brain and continue to work.

Pic related, what the religious actually believe.

[Anonymous No.3197914]

There is no soul because the body is a biological machine. When the brain is destroyed, the person is most likely completely gone forever. Why? Because the person itself is located within the brain. Without a brain, there is no person inside of the body.

However, a brain on its own CAN be a person. In the future, we could allow brains to live on after the body has been either damaged in some way or become paralyzed. Attach them to a computer and have them communicate with us.

When all brain processes stop, the person is no longer there at that moment. Not until the brain processes start going again and consciousness returns.

[Anonymous No.3197932]

>>3197914

This. You'd have to know nothing about the human brain to think souls are real.

[Anonymous No.3197933]

Every single atom in our body is replaced every seven years.

A soul can not be something that doesn't exist in the physical universe. Something that is beyond the physical universe would not matter to us anyways because for it to interact with this universe it would have to be part of this universe as it would have to follow the laws of the universe.

A soul is something hypothetically drawn up by people who believe they are unique, special, something that defines them as an individual but really the human conscience is just a system of neurons. electrical pulses.

[Anonymous No.3197947]

>>3197903

So the computers are conscious?

[Anonymous No.3197952]

If I scanned somebodies atomic make up then used that information and assembled atoms based on that scan.

Will i have essentially created an exact human being including his 'soul'?

This is not like cloning, where the two humans have the same DNA.

[Anonymous No.3197960]

>>3197873
I'm not.
>>3197875
Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3197964]

>>3197952
They would be exactly the same, except for one small difference. The clone is younger than the original. Its age starts at the point of the original's age when they were scanned. The original will have aged since that time because it obviously takes some time for the cloning process to complete.

[Anonymous No.3197967]

>>3197947
With the right algorithms, yes.

[Anonymous No.3197972]

>>3197947
FFFFUUUUUU

[Anonymous No.3197977]

So I have a question:

what do you think about NDE? (well, not the nde sponsored by religious organization, but the ones happened in hospitals and reported by doctors) How could a brain with a flat EEG elaborate such complex experiences?

[Anonymous No.3197981]

>>3197967

proofs? or at least a clue?

[Anonymous No.3197982]

>>3197964
That is true, but age doesnt define a human entirely. Who deserves to live? I mean both the original person and this hypothetical copy theoretically contain the same memories, personality and feelings. Both these two people can not live the same life if they have a wife or children or someone.

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3197984]

>>3197824
Define what the soul is and that there is your problem. it would be what your say is there and not what is actually there.

[Anonymous No.3197985]

>>3197933
"Except neurons" is the expected response here.

[Anonymous No.3197986]

>>3197982
The clone obviously needs to start over. It came into life after.

They'll have to live with heart break if their original was a good person.

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3197990]

>>3197831
Why are you deviating from atheism?

[EK !JynwyIpONE No.3197993]

Why don't woman have a soul? If they did, they'd stay in the kitchen.

[Anonymous No.3198003]

If the consciousness is made by neurons, and a neuron itself is not conscious, how a moltitute of neurons be conscious?

I mean, 0^11 is still 0.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3198002]

>>3197990
I'm not. Soul = consciousness.
No god required.
I never said 'god made your soul'

[Anonymous No.3197999]

>>3197981
we have cleverbot and deep blue and that thing in jeopardy, hurr durr

[Anonymous No.3198010]

I think EK is having a stroke or something.

[Anonymous No.3198012]

>>3197999

I not so sure that it's conscious, but yes it's a very nice experiment and sometimes good for inspirations (due to all the informations that collects).

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3198013]

>>3198002
Soul is by definition the immortal essence that lives in each of us and will be free of the mechanical unit upon death. That's nonsense. Therefore there is no soul. If you mean consciousness say consciousness.

>mfw I'm a better atheist than FnQ

[Anonymous No.3198016]

>>3197986
Why is it so obvious? Does the clone not have the same rights as the original? Are you treating this clone as a lesser individual even though it has everything that it requires to be a human being.

[Anonymous No.3198024]

>>3198003
>If the consciousness is made by neurons, and a neuron itself is not conscious, how a moltitute of neurons be conscious?

The same way one transistor is not a computer or one valve is not an engine.

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3198025]

>>3198013
>also mfw off camera cunnilingus

[Anonymous No.3198029]

>>3198016
I never said they didn't have the same rights. However, obviously 2 men cannot marry the same woman. Therefore, the original gets to keep their wife. It's only natural.

[Anonymous No.3198030]

>>3198003
Well define conscience? What exactly do you mean by conscience .

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3198037]

>>3198025
ahahah!
lmao.

[Anonymous No.3198034]

>>3198013
>>3198002
>>3197993
>>3197990
>>3197831

(Why is this tripfag arguing with itself?)

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3198032]

>>3198013
That isn't how i define soul.
If you define it as that, then yeh, it isn't real
and theres no such thing as a 'better atheist'

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3198035]

>>3198030
Conscience - sense of right and wrong.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3198040]

>>3198034
there are several different EK's
FnQ and WYU are the 2 main ones (both here now)
i am FnQ

[Anonymous No.3198043]

Good video on the subject:

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

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3198045]

>>3198032
If it was any other word, I wouldn't tolerate you coming up with your own personal arbitrary definition. but seeing as it doesn't exist, I'll allow it. For now.

[Anonymous No.3198047]

>>3198029
Why the original though? Why not the copy? the copy has the same emotions, personality as the original and essentially the husband or wife fell inlove with the characteristics of the person, not the physical body.

[Anonymous No.3198051]

>>3197865

The matter/energy is indestructible, and in our planet this is transferred among all other life-beings.

So, according to materialism, are we immortal?

[Anonymous No.3198053]

>>3198047
I already said, it came into life later. Life is first come, first serve. It doesn't matter what you think.

[Anonymous No.3198054]

>>3198035
Let me put it this way, would you say a disabled person would have a soul then?

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3198057]

>>3198051
Living things are a process, the process does not last forever. Therefore you are not immortal. if I was define the atoms that remain after your death as you then I might as well go all out and say poop is a hamburger.

[Anonymous No.3198062]

>>3198053
Shesh, you have a very narrow mind.

[Anonymous No.3198063]

>>3198051

No, because it's the arrangement of matter and energy that makes you alive, not just its existence.

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3198065]

>>3198054
No one has a soul.

by the way, conscience != consciousness.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3198064]

>>3198051

No, for the same reason that the electrons running through a processor, executing a program are not the same as the electrons in a battery, or a lightning bolt.

Unstructured energy isn't thought, it's just energy. Without a brain to organize/direct that energy, no thought can occur.

[Anonymous No.3198080]

We can have a soul. Fucks don't know how to measure it so they pretend it must not exist, odd thing is they can't measure consciousness either and that is known to exist.

[Anonymous No.3198083]

>>3198080
In fact the known rules of physics do not leave room for consciousness. Great job science.

[Anonymous No.3198085]

>>3198035
>>3198030

Not only, I mean the fact that you are aware of yourself right now.

I don't think there's a single computer able to do such a thing today but a simulation (that seems real to you because you observe it from the "external").

[Anonymous No.3198088]

>>3198065
Whoops, my bad.

I mean if you're talking about consciousness being the ability to be able to tell whats right and wrong then so does a computer. It is conscious in the way it understands that if it has input then it is required to output the correct information.

[Anonymous No.3198096]

>>3198080
If you can't measure it then what does it matter?

If it is undetecable then it doesnt influence the physical universe in which we live.

The soul you think exists must exists in this unvierse therefore it has to be detectable.

If there is a thing known as a 'soul' that exists beyond the universe then it wouldnt matter anyways. It will never interact with our universe.

[Anonymous No.3198100]

>>3198096
Because we must know the objective truth

[Anonymous No.3198101]

>>3198057

But before or later some of these parts and quantities of energy will be included in the brain of someone else.

Supposing that the life will go on for billions of years here, it's not highly improbably that you will not be alive again?

(well, I'm not too good to explain such a concept, hope you'll understand however)

[Anonymous No.3198108]

>>3198100
what is the objective truth?

[Anonymous No.3198112]

>>3198108
It's when you are not wrong

[EK !EKFQQAJWYU No.3198114]

>>3198101
They would arranged in a different way and wouldn't have memory. if time of existence was infinite then who knows, they could probably arrange in exactly the same way and I would be reborn.

[Anonymous No.3198120]

>>3197977
>>3197977
>>3197977

>mfw no one was able to reply on this.

[Anonymous No.3198126]

>>3198120

NDEs are caused by the release of DMT in the brain during death or deathlike conditions.

[Anonymous No.3198127]

>>3198114

Also another person have atoms arranged differently. He's not you, but he is alive and conscious.

I meant this.

[Anonymous No.3198133]

>>3198112
Whats that got to do anything?

[Anonymous No.3198141]

>>3198126

and why this activity cannot be recorded by eeg?

Ok, supposing there's electric activity but that's too low to be detected, how such a low power activity could cause such complex experiences?

[Anonymous No.3198150]

>>3198141

>>and why this activity cannot be recorded by eeg

Citation please.

>>Ok, supposing there's electric activity but that's too low to be detected, how such a low power activity could cause such complex experiences?

In what sense are they complex? How are you quantifying complexity? And are you aware that the brain runs on very little power in general?

Do you really believe that you DON'T think with your brain, and that instead you are a meat puppet driven around by a ghost?

[Anonymous No.3198153]

>>3198054

A disabled person may have cognitive problems and stuff like that, but she/he is conscious.

[Anonymous No.3198165]

>>3198153
I know my question is whether does he or she still have a soul? Which is no.

[CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 No.3198171]

Christ, people here can be stupid...

[Anonymous No.3198179]

>>3198150

The fact that the electric activity is very low doesn't mean it cant me lower.

lim x as x ->0

I'm not talking about thinking, but about being aware of ourselves, and I did not made statements btw.
..I'm just asking how such phenomenons could happen.
This is science.

A simple experience could be a emotion or a color, a complex is seeing/imagine (whatever it actually happens) doctors around your body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience#External_links

(YEAH, before the "herp derp wikipedia" please note the EXTERNAL LINKS thing)

[Anonymous No.3198178]

>>3198171
I agree with this above everything else in this thread.

[Anonymous No.3198177]

>>3198141
It doesn't happen during flat EEG.
It happens in a very brief moment before then.

Probably most of us have, at some point, experienced a discrepancy in time passed versus time perceived.
The most obvious is example is summed up by the phrase "time flies when you're having fun".

But have you ever had a dream that seemed to last for hours, or even days...and when you awoke, you realize you had only been asleep for an hour?

without a point of reference, your mind can perceive the passage of time in very odd ways.

When your body is dying, and your brain is shutting down...you lose ALL outside input.

You have no point of reference. All that exists in your entire universe are the rapidly decreasing firing of your synapses.

As your brain shuts down, it tries vainly to organize some form of organized activity, and you dream...a dream that can stretch an instant into an entire afterlife.

Now fuck off.

[Anonymous No.3198188]

>>3198177

So the activity in that very brief moment before should be extremely high, amirite? (because you are elaborating a massive amount of stuff in a very short time)

>telling me to fuck off
Nice how all you overreact when there's someone that ask too much uncomfortable stuff.

[Anonymous No.3198195]

>>3198188
>So the activity in that very brief moment before should be extremely high, amirite?

No.

Go suck a dick.

[Anonymous No.3198199]

>>3198035
oooooold also a computer with a table that goes like
0=bad
1=good
would be concious

[Anonymous No.3198207]

>>3198195

I meant for an external observer/eeg.

But if your arguments can only be "go suck a dick" I think it's useless to reply, because you just want to ear what you want.

[Anonymous No.3198230]

>>3198062
Narrow? Okay. Picture this.

Someone gets your information and clones you. Your clone shows up at your door and demands that they live with you AND fuck your wife.

[CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 No.3198249]

... 'Flat' EEG means nothing. Well, at least EEG is of limited use in excluding every level of conscious awareness. EEG only measures cortical, post-synnaptic activity summated over large populations of neurons. It is blind to the entire subcortical volume, and even to large parts of the cortex.

[EK !w.0y5kVOLc No.3198252]

Only losers want a soul. It's a fabricated concept. Get over yourselves.

[Anonymous No.3198284]

It's just about understand things and phenomenon not yet clarified, and this not necessarily imply a religion.

[Anonymous No.3198291]

God might exist and we might have a soul that transcends this plane of existance, but on purely on physical evidence it appears unlikely.

[Anonymous No.3198340]

>>3197831
If you're saying that your soul is literally your consciousness and your memories, it's just a buzz word; it's meaningless, by necessity.