Questions on the Soul

[Nirvana-Eld]

Hi guys long time no see. (SAT's bogged me down )

When I first joined this site a while ago I made a similar topic. Now after reading butt-loads of books and with more knowledge (at least thats what I hope it is) and I feel that some real questions need to be posed towards theists.

First: What is the relationship between the mind and the conscious self?

Second: Is the soul synonymous with the conscious self?

Third: What is the purpose of this soul?

Fourth: What reasons is there for the soul to survive the body?

There are some more that I know I cannot think of now, but I'm sure that through the course of debate they will come to me. So for now this will do. Good to be back and with some free time for this.

[harvey1]

So long as we are treating the existence of Soul, possibly related to quantum entanglement as hypothetical, I'm fine. However, I still think that we are a long way from explaining soul in terms of quantum entanglement. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is a promising hypothetical framework. Meanwhile, people are making unsupported and unwarranted assertions about the soul. Each human has one and only one. They exist eternally. They exist in God's image (now there is a doubly non-falsifiable claim). etc.

I would just hasten to add that I'm not suggesting that the soul is a scientific concept. However, it might someday be scientifically admissible to say our mind-body-wavefunction exists.

[QED]

I would just hasten to add that I'm not suggesting that the soul is a scientific concept. However, it might someday be scientifically admissible to say our mind-body-wavefunction exists.

Out of curiosity, If this mind-body-wavefunction did exist is there anything that would suggest it could be eternal, existing independently from the mind-body?

[HughDP]

I would just hasten to add that I'm not suggesting that the soul is a scientific concept. However, it might someday be scientifically admissible to say our mind-body-wavefunction exists.

Out of curiosity, If this mind-body-wavefunction did exist is there anything that would suggest it could be eternal, existing independently from the mind-body?

I would guess if we're likening it to quantum wave-particle duality, there would be a bunch of probability waves that 'suggest' us and they collapse to 'become' us when we're born. Not sure what would happen when we die. Perhaps they revert to waves that were the suggestion of us.

Or something.

I'm making this up as I go along!

[harvey1]

I would just hasten to add that I'm not suggesting that the soul is a scientific concept. However, it might someday be scientifically admissible to say our mind-body-wavefunction exists.

Out of curiosity, If this mind-body-wavefunction did exist is there anything that would suggest it could be eternal, existing independently from the mind-body?

Well, if you took it that every object in the universe had a wavefunction, and this wavefunction gave us the probability of our event occurring (i.e., our life happening), with there being a probability near 1 with it happening now, then everything in the universe would just "be" as Hawking said about the universe (when speaking about the wavefunction of the universe). If there are multiple universes, then our probability might be far less than 1 to be found in certain types of universes. So, for example, if someone was an evil person, the probability of finding themselves in a perfect world would be near zero. A wavefunction of someone who was a very kind and loving person might find themselves with a probability of 1 of being in a perfect utopian world, perhaps where the arrow of time is defined differently in that universe.

[Bugmaster]

if someone was an evil person, the probability of finding themselves in a perfect world would be near zero. A wavefunction of someone who was a very kind and loving person might find themselves with a probability of 1 of being in a perfect utopian world, perhaps where the arrow of time is defined differently in that universe.

So, how exactly do you measure evil ? Do you have an evil-meter that, when you aim it at a person, will tell you how many mini-Lotans of evil he exudes ? What about love -- how do you measure it ? And speaking of good and bad worlds, how would you rate our world, on the scale of 0..1 (where 0 is Hell, and 1 is Heaven) ? Can you show your work ?

This, IMO, is the major difference between philosophical musings and science. In science, theories make predictions that can be measured. In philosophy, you just deal with concepts, which are fun to think about, but are completely arbitrary. Confusing the two disciplines is akin to confusing the theory of relativity with your aunt Selma.

[harvey1]

So, how exactly do you measure evil? Do you have an evil-meter that, when you aim it at a person, will tell you how many mini-Lotans of evil he exudes?

Evil is for God to judge, Bugmaster. The key is to move toward a spiritual mind as much as possible so as to be found in God's good graces. After our physical lives are over (which sadly for some of us it could be sooner than later), all there is left is our spiritual standing with God.

[Bugmaster]

Evil is for God to judge, Bugmaster. The key is to move toward a spiritual mind as much as possible so as to be found in God's good graces.

Sounds good, but this means (as I've said in my second paragraph) that you cannot use the language of physics -- such as wave functions and quantum entanglement -- to discuss concepts such as good and evil (and the soul, etc. etc.). These are not scientific concepts. You cannot measure them, because they're for God to judge, not you.

[harvey1]

Sounds good, but this means (as I've said in my second paragraph) that you cannot use the language of physics -- such as wave functions and quantum entanglement -- to discuss concepts such as good and evil (and the soul, etc. etc.).

This is confusing two topics. There's the issue of there being an immaterial existence of all things--call it a soul/wavefunction/probability amplitude/etc.. Then there's the factors which determine the probability of the wavefunction which can logically be any property that increases the likelihood of a probability amplitude of being an event that occurs (e.g., close to 1) in a particular location/situation. For example, quantum tunneling is based on the thickness of the barrier, so the probability of a particle tunneling through a wall barrier must take the thickness of the barrier into consideration. If there is a probability that our wavefunction (soul) can tunnel through to the "other side," then it would depend upon metaphysical factors that science cannot presently determine. Those factors are for God to determine, not us.

[Bugmaster]

This is confusing two topics. There's the issue of there being an immaterial existence of all things--call it a soul/wavefunction/probability amplitude/etc..

No, sorry, you can't call it that. In your previous statements, you've said that good and evil cannot be measured; you've also implied that the soul cannot be measured (and, by your own admission, neither can consciousness, but that's another topic). This completely prevents you from lumping these things in the same category as scientific concepts, such as wavefunctions and quantum tunneling.

You can always apply the scientific concepts as a metaphor -- i.e., you can always say, "Just as an electron must tunnel through the barrier, so our souls must find a way through sin to emerge in Heaven", but that's just a metaphor (or maybe a similie, I had a B+ in English). It's not a description of how things actually are.

As I've said on multiple occasions before, in science, words like "wavefunction" and "amplitude" have some very specific meanings, and these meanings ultimately relate to measurable quantities and falsifiable theories. You cannot apply them to metaphysics.

If it sounds as though I'm coming down on you like a ton of bricks on this issue, then... well... I guess I am. But don't feel bad: I come down in the exact same way on the New Age people (who confuse "the ability to do work, expressed in Joules" and "like, energy, man"), and the Hare Krishnas (who confuse "f=1/T" with "everything is vibration"), and pretty much everyone else who confuses science with philosophy. Christianity is not special in this regard.

[harvey1]

No, sorry, you can't call it that. In your previous statements, you've said that good and evil cannot be measured;

I've never said that. We can't measure it, that doesn't mean it is unmeasurable.

you've also implied that the soul cannot be measured (and, by your own admission, neither can consciousness, but that's another topic).

I never said that it cannot be measured, we humans cannot measure it, but that doesn't mean it is not measurable in principle.

This completely prevents you from lumping these things in the same category as scientific concepts, such as wavefunctions and quantum tunneling.

Why? I've already shown that we have good evidence to think that macro objects have wavefunctions, at least at low temperatures, so I don't see why we cannot postulate on firm footing that macro objects have wavefunctions and can experience other quantum effects. It sounds like this just contradicts your atheistic beliefs, and so it's just something that you won't even consider. Again, I think this is based on unfounded presumptions of atheism on your part.

You can always apply the scientific concepts as a metaphor -- i.e., you can always say, "Just as an electron must tunnel through the barrier, so our souls must find a way through sin to emerge in Heaven", but that's just a metaphor (or maybe a similie, I had a B+ in English). It's not a description of how things actually are.

You mean it's not a description of how you prefer things to be, right?

As I've said on multiple occasions before, in science, words like "wavefunction" and "amplitude" have some very specific meanings, and these meanings ultimately relate to measurable quantities and falsifiable theories. You cannot apply them to metaphysics.

No one owns these theories, Bugmaster. I can apply them to metaphysics and I did.

If it sounds as though I'm coming down on you like a ton of bricks on this issue, then... well... I guess I am. But don't feel bad: I come down in the exact same way on the New Age people (who confuse "the ability to do work, expressed in Joules" and "like, energy, man"), and the Hare Krishnas (who confuse "f=1/T" with "everything is vibration"), and pretty much everyone else who confuses science with philosophy. Christianity is not special in this regard.

It's good to see that you are consistent in your metaphysics, but I emphasize that it is your metaphysics. I don't read that particular bible.