If the soul exists, is it detectable?

[Candide_West]

The soul is not something that people can detect scientifically because science deals only in the physical world of matter and energy, and the reality of the soul is in the realm of the spiritual. Although science is able to observe the effects of the spiritual realm in the physical world, it cannot actually physically observe the spiritual.

Right, which is basically what I’ve written in the OP. That even accepting that the “soul” (if it exists) is in itself undetectable we should be able to detect it’s point or points of interaction with the physical world.*

Do you have any thoughts on this topic? Or know if the church has funded any such research work?*

 

[greylorn]

Right, which is basically what I’ve written in the OP. That even accepting that the “soul” (if it exists) is in itself undetectable we should be able to detect it’s point or points of interaction with the physical world.*

I realize that “undetectable” is a big word. So exactly what part of it do you find incapable of understanding?

Perhaps you find it too physically taxing to pull out a dictionary and look up words. No problem! The internet has several excellent dictionary services. You could actually use these services to look up words such as undetectable and spirit.

There you (or maybe someone else with a functional mind) will see that a spirit is, by definition, entirely outside the physical universe, and cannot be detected by physical mechanisms. There are no “points of interaction” between the physical and the non-physical.

Think (I know that this would be a struggle) about acknowledging that if an entity interacts with a physical human brain, it is physical itself by definition.

Likewise, if an entity creates a physical universe, it is itself physical, by definition.

You would all be well advised to take courses in critical thinking or general semantics.

Do you have any thoughts on this topic? Or know if the church has funded any such research work?*

It is unlikely that the Church could muster the courage to fund such work. What if it failed?

 

[yppop]

Science has shown us that the redness doesn’t inhere in the molecules of an apple; but rather is associated with the nature of the photons reflected from its skin. We know that the photons are not red, nor does the redness arise in the eye, which brings us to the neurons in the brain. Obviously the redness of the apple is created somewhere in proximity of the brain. The unresolved question is how is the redness of the apple actualized, by which I mean, brought into reality? No one knows; all we can say for certain is that redness is real, but real in a different sort of way than the configuration of molecules that occupies a specific segment of space and that we identify as the form of the apple. The redness, on the other hand, is formless and seems to reside in the mind. We refer to the molecular structure of the apple as objective reality and we refer to the image created in the mind as subjective reality. We conclude that both the molecular configuration of the apple and the image it creates within one’s mind are real. In other words the apple exists at two levels of reality: the objective and the subjective. Redness isn’t the only property of the objective reality that exists subjectively; there are tastes, smells, and sensations of touch, sounds, and sight. In fact, all of the images that the senses create in the mind are called qualia. What exists outside our minds including our own body including the brain is nothing more than the arrangement of atoms. Although each quale is most likely associated with a specific neuronal circuit in the brain, science has no plausible explanation for qualia other than to say that they are an emergent property of the brain. To me the simple answer is qualia exists in the spiritual component of reality and therefore the material “detects” the spiritual every time we experience redness, hear a melody, smell a rose, or experience the thousands of other sensations that God has immersed us in. Yes, the soul is detectable!!

YPPOP

 

[greylorn]

I’m not sure how to infer that the soul must be physical. In any case the point here is that even if we assume the soul to be in itself totally undetectable. Then we can still detect it’s effects. So theoretically at least, soul detection should be possible.

Your understanding of how physicists detect things is about a tick higher than that of a hamburger.

Aristotelian physics was built (incorrectly) upon direct detection and fourth-rate observations. Modern physics uses inferential detection almost entirely.

You cannot directly detect energy fields (e/m, gravity, etc). Likewise, dark matter and dark energy, which comprise 95% of the universe. Likewise quantum effects and subatomic particles. Etc.

Physicists discover these things via their effects. If they were not physical, they would have no effects upon that which is also physical. The soul can be detected if, and only if, it is physical. (As it must be.)

Ok, whichever words work better. Makes little difference to the point here.

That is the opinion of someone determined to remain ignorant of useful distinctions.

Words, and their meanings, matter— but only to those who are actually trying to learn something.

That’d work too, monitor any one part of the brain and identify a point where there is spontaneous activity. Or more accurately - activity which is not caused by anything which we can detect. If such a thing could be reliably found we could then start trying with different mental states and mapping how the “soul” interacts with the brain.

It’d make great science and would provide some truly hard evidence for something claimed by the religion.

You’ve clearly never read so much as a basic neuroanatomy text, and don’t know the difference between neurons and glial cells. Your proposal is absurd. How would you determine whether activity is spontaneous or caused?

Indeed, this is really the trust of the thread I suppose. The church has spent millions investigating prayer and trying to prove objectively that it works (unsuccessfully to date). Perhaps another valid area of research for them would be to seek to identify the point at which an unknown something (which we can call a soul) appears to interact with the brain. That way we’d have some real evidence for something from the religion and unlike prayer it isn’t subject to God being shy.

If you bothered to read anything, you’d know that even parapsychologists have verified that prayers have been proven to work. Carmelite nuns participated in this research, and it didn’t cost the Church a nickel.

Any evidence derived from serious research will have to come from outside any known religion which hypothesizes the reality of the non-physical.

 

[inocente]

Or, our intellects created logic and math. It has no volume or mass, etc. Do scientist believe math exists?

Or, what is the being of math?

Or, is math immaterial?

Richard Feynman the physicist gave a good answer to this kind of question in this very short video.

youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

A question with regards to the soul.

If it exists, should it not at least in theory be detectable. My reasoning is as follows.*

As I understand it, in catholic theology (and please correct me if I’m wrong here) - “I” (as in the me who is saying “I”) am a soul which inhabits this body and will after it dies go on to an afterlife? This soul is immaterial and as such cannot in itself be detected. Is this correct?*

Now, “I” as far as I am able to detect control this body and can direct it. The body is physical, so in order for me (the soul) to be in control of it. “I” must be in some way interacting with the physical properties of this body.*

In other words there must be a point at which the “soul” interacts with the physical world and at least in theory that point must be detectable. For example if we developed a sufficiently advanced machine which could simultaneously monitor all brain functions we’d have to find things happening which didn’t have a physical cause.

Thoughts?

… my dear friend ,

… mu opines : we are body ad soul and they are one , but as blood can be taken out of man so the soul can also , and in both cases man dies , i don’t see man as a soul in a body or vice versa , mystics will tell you much about the mystical experience of god which is proofs of souls and spiitual hearts …

… i don’t know but a relatively new science of kirlian photography shows auras around living things and is being studied for medical reasons , whilst satan may deceive some with ths it is not just new age and may be a glimpse of the soul or spirit , at least in some way or to some degree ??? , not sure yet , but we may know one day , it’s very interesting and you can look it up on youtube if you want …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[tonyrey]

Then I’m afraid as Tonyrey said the only thing you can know to exist is your own mind. Everything else is indirect knowledge.

It’s not my idea! Many philosophers agree that we **are **in the egocentric predicament - a fact that has not been successfully refuted as far as I’m aware…

 

[Candide_West]

I realize that “undetectable” is a big word. So exactly what part of it do you find incapable of understanding?

? What an odd thing to say. I know what undetectable means. I think you’ll find that most people who speak the English language do. It’s not a difficult word.

Perhaps you find it too physically taxing to pull out a dictionary and look up words. No problem! The internet has several excellent dictionary services. You could actually use these services to look up words such as undetectable and spirit.

No, I don’t find it taxing at all. Just uneccessary.

There you (or maybe someone else with a functional mind) will see that a spirit is, by definition, entirely outside the physical universe, and cannot be detected by physical mechanisms. There are no “points of interaction” between the physical and the non-physical.

Well there are many different definitions of “spirit”. Perhaps you would like to present the one you’d like to use? Incidentally if there is no interaction between the spirit and the physical universe then we are as well to deploy Occams razor and consider them to not exist.

Think (I know that this would be a struggle) about acknowledging that if an entity interacts with a physical human brain, it is physical itself by definition.

If that is how you define it then that’s fine. But I often hear from Christians that the soul is non-physical and undetectable. My point on this thread is that even accepting that the soul is itself undetectable then we should be able to detect it’s affects on the brain etc. Much like the way we cannot actually detect any dark matter / dark energy out there in the universe at the moment but we can infer it’s presence from the behaviour of the mass that we can detect.

Likewise, if an entity creates a physical universe, it is itself physical, by definition.

By your definition perhaps, I suspect that the majority of Catholics would disagree with you.

You would all be well advised to take courses in critical thinking or general semantics.

Thanks, perhaps you’d consider taking a course in polite discourse? Snide remarks and insults rarely help discussion in my experience.

It is unlikely that the Church could muster the courage to fund such work. What if it failed?

Well, absence of proof is not proof of absence. There would always be the argument that the equipment they had built was not adequate to the task. So I don’t suppose many people would be affected by the failure.

Much like in the way that objective studies into the effectiveness of prayer, which have failed to produce a positive result and have not convinced the vast majority of Catholics that prayer is ineffective.

 

[Candide_West]

Your understanding of how physicists detect things is about a tick higher than that of a hamburger.

Lovely, always nice to get insulted by someone I’ve never met. I think I’ll not bother reading or replying to any further of your posts.

Really there is no need for such behaviour and it does not aid understanding or discussion.

Goodbye.

 

[Candide_West]

It’s not my idea! Many philosophers agree that we **are **in the egocentric predicament - a fact that has not been successfully refuted as far as I’m aware…

And I agree. However, we must make some allowance for practical knowledge as opposed to only admitting certainty of our own minds (at least if we are to live successfully) we must really take the information from our senses as largely true except where we have reason to doubt it.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s not my idea! Many philosophers agree that we **are **

And I agree with you on that score! Our egocentric predicament doesn’t make the external world any less real. The success of science is sufficient evidence of that. It would be a colossal achievement for our minds to construct an imaginary universe which is immensely vast, complex, consistent, coherent and comprehensible.

 

[babylonsfalling]

A question with regards to the soul.

If it exists, should it not at least in theory be detectable. <—NO…not necessarily. My reasoning is as follows.*

As I understand it, in catholic theology (and please correct me if I’m wrong here) - “I” (as in the me who is saying “I”) am a soul which inhabits this body and will after it dies go on to an afterlife? This soul is immaterial and as such cannot in itself be detected. Is this correct?*

Now, “I” as far as I am able to detect control this body and can direct it. The body is physical, so in order for me (the soul) to be in control of it. “I” must be in some way interacting with the physical properties of this body.*

In other words there must be a point at which the “soul” interacts with the physical world and at least in theory that point must be detectable. For example if we developed a sufficiently advanced machine which could simultaneously monitor all brain functions we’d have to find things happening which didn’t have a physical cause.

Thoughts?

The fact that we cannot detect something does not mean it doesn’t exist.

 

[GEddie]

Maybe the current understanding of ‘physical’ is to blame. Einsteinian mass-energy might not be the whole of it.

Right now we don’t know what to detect.

ICXC NIKA

 

[babylonsfalling]

Maybe the current understanding of ‘physical’ is to blame. Einsteinian mass-energy might not be the whole of it.

Right now we don’t know what to detect.

ICXC NIKA

Exactly, how much of what we know about today (in both the macro and micro world) was undetectable a thousand years ago?
Did those things not exist until we detected them

 

[Candide_West]

The fact that we cannot detect something does not mean it doesn’t exist.

True enough, however, if we could reliably detect a “soul” then that would be very good evidence for it’s existence.

My point is not that we haven’t found it so it doesn’t exist. But rather, is it theoretically possible to detect this interaction and if so is anybody looking for it?

 

[tonyrey]

My point is not that we haven’t found it so it doesn’t exist. But rather, is it theoretically possible to detect this interaction and if so is anybody looking for it?

Perhaps “interaction” is an inaccurate description:

1. The expression “to be out of one’s mind” suggests that the mind directs the body - which doesn’t have insight or the power of abstract reasoning.
2. The power of the mind is evident in hypnosis and self-hypnosis.
3. There is no physical control-centre in the brain to explain self-control.
4. There is nothing to detect if the mind is like the invisible director of an orchestra!

(To discuss the difference between the mind and soul - if there is one - would take us away from the topic).

 

[greylorn]

Science has shown us that the redness doesn’t inhere in the molecules of an apple; but rather is associated with the nature of the photons reflected from its skin. We know that the photons are not red, nor does the redness arise in the eye, which brings us to the neurons in the brain. Obviously the redness of the apple is created somewhere in proximity of the brain.

YP,
Were you checking to see if I was awake? This analysis may not be technically incorrect, but is so sloppy that it will give people an incorrect understanding.

Assuming that an apple is illuminated with full spectrum (white) light, its skin will absorb light frequencies other than red, and reflect those in the reddish spectrum. Thus the skin of an apple is the sole determinant of color.

The “photons” thus reflected from the apple are indeed red— meaning, that the frequency range within which they oscillate as they propagate are those which the human eye will interpret as red.

To say that the redness does not arise in the eye is something you should know better than to say, old friend, unless you are referring to the redness resulting from a good drunk the night before. There are receptor molecules in the eye which are only triggered by red light. When triggered they send signals to the brain along circuits which the brain (rather mysteriously) associates with redness.

It is an egregious error to claim that the redness arises in the neurons of the brain. These are simple machines which are only responding to their (name removed by moderator)ut signals. The redness is the result of the absorption/reflection characteristics of the apple’s skin. Thus it is correct to say that they arise in the skin of the apple.

 

[tonyrey]

Science has shown us that the redness doesn’t inhere in the molecules of an apple; but rather is associated with the nature of the photons reflected from its skin. We know that the photons are not red, nor does the redness arise in the eye, which brings us to the neurons in the brain. Obviously the redness of the apple is created somewhere in proximity of the brain.

YP,
Were you checking to see if I was awake? This analysis may not be technically incorrect, but is so sloppy that it will give people an incorrect understanding.

Assuming that an apple is illuminated with full spectrum (white) light, its skin will absorb light frequencies other than red, and reflect those in the reddish spectrum. Thus the skin of an apple is the sole determinant of color.

The “photons” thus reflected from the apple are indeed red— meaning, that the frequency range within which they oscillate as they propagate are those which the human eye will interpret as red.

To say that the redness does not arise in the eye is something you should know better than to say, old friend, unless you are referring to the redness resulting from a good drunk the night before. There are receptor molecules in the eye which are only triggered by red light. When triggered they send signals to the brain along circuits which the brain (rather mysteriously) associates with redness.

It is an egregious error to claim that the redness arises in the neurons of the brain. These are simple machines which are only responding to their (name removed by moderator)ut signals. The redness is the result of the absorption/reflection characteristics of the apple’s skin. Thus it is correct to say that they arise in the skin of the apple.

Greylorn is lost - for words, I hope!

 

[yppop]

Greylorn is lost - for words, I hope!

Tony
Sometimes my friend GL has trouble with his reading and almost always has trouble extracting my meaning from those of my posts that he does read. Case in point, to quote GL: *“It is an egregious error to claim that the redness arises in the neurons of the brain. These are simple machines which are only responding to their (name removed by moderator)ut signals.” *Where did I say that? Redness and all other qualia are associated with specific neuronal circuits, but the redness we “see” happens elsewhere: I believe, in the spiritual component of the mind.

I may have been unclear, however, I know that GL has the intellect to extract the meaning if he so desired, but for one reason or another prefers not to. Probably because one of his inviolate tenets is: "only the physical can affect the physical." Isn’t that right, GL?

YPPOP

 

[Candide_West]

Perhaps “interaction” is an inaccurate description:

Perhaps. I used it in this case since I could think of nothing more appropriate. Does anything spring to mind?*

In any case if the soul exists and is something that goes elsewhere when the body dies then there would seem to be a need for at least some distinction between body and soul as the body stays where it is. If we are to talk of something affecting something else then interaction seems to be a reasonable word to describe the event.*

*1. The expression “to be out of one’s mind” suggests that the mind directs the body - which doesn’t have insight or the power of abstract reasoning.

True, I guess the question then is if the mind is a function of the brain (in which case an afterlife would seem impossible since the brain ceases to function when the body dies) or the mind is a function carried out in a soul or a combination of brain and soul (in which case detection should be at least theoretically possible though potentially extremely difficult).

*2. The power of the mind is evident in hypnosis and self-hypnosis.

Ok, and of course it’s evident elsewhere too.

3. There is no physical control-centre in the brain to explain self-control.

Although taking the materialist line you could just say that it could exist but we haven’t found it yet or of course that all of the brain works together to be the control centre.

*4. There is nothing to detect if the mind is like the invisible director of an orchestra!

True, as yet. The question is, could such a thing be made?*

*(To discuss the difference between the mind and soul - if there is one - would take us away from the topic).

But its a wander I wouldn’t mind taking if you’re interested, after all it’s difficult to discuss the topic without clarity on terms.