• litewave
    797
    The main problem I see with the idea of the soul (as an entity that can survive the death of the physical body) is how does this soul interact with the physical body while eluding the observation of physicists. If the soul interacted with the body via a very weak force, it might elude the observation of physicists but its influence on the body would seem insignificant. If on the other hand the soul interacted with the body via a relatively strong force, this force should be detectable by physicists.

    One possible answer could be that the soul interacts with the body via a relatively strong force that results in measurable changes in brain activity but the soul's influence on the brain would normally be within the usual variance of human behavior and due to the rather limited level of detail at which we can measure complicated brain processes (fMRI, EEG...) and the myriad external influences on the brain, it would be difficult to tell whether the measurable changes in brain activity are or are not entirely caused by known physical forces.

    The problem with this answer is that the brain consists of the same elementary particles that physicists observe with high precision in particle accelerators and there they have failed to detect a force other than the known physical forces. A relatively strong force should be detectable in particle accelerators. So if the soul influences the brain in a significant way, this influence would seem to be limited to the brain and maybe to some other complex physical objects where it would be difficult to differentiate this influence from the known physical forces. Why would the soul influence only brains or other complex objects? The only reason that comes to mind is that the soul would want to hide from detection, which seems rather questionable.

    So I have searched for a different possible mechanism of interaction between the body and the soul and have come up with a combination of weak force and resonance: the soul might interact with matter via a very weak force and that's why it has not been detected even in precise observations in particle accelerators, but it would be able to influence the brain in a significant way via resonance. Resonance is a familiar physical phenomenon in which a periodic external force or vibrating system drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at specific frequencies. Thus the effects of a weak force would be amplified, theoretically without limit if the driven system had no resistance. It might be that only highly complex structures like neural networks provide patterns that can resonate with the soul and so the otherwise weak interaction between soul and matter would be difficult to detect outside the brain.

    The interaction between the soul and the brain could also go the other way: via resonance, brain activity would influence the soul, and thus the soul would be able to receive information from the brain, including information that encodes perceptions of the sensory system of the physical body. After the death of the physical body, the soul could continue to exist and hold consciousness but would lose access to further information provided by brain activity.

    As a layman in physics, I don't really know if this idea is possible, specifically whether it is possible that a weak force would be able to induce significant resonance on the scope of neural networks without being detected in our current particle accelerators, or whether perhaps gravity could do the job of the weak force. More serious/rigorous physics forums like physicsforums.com and Physics Stack Exchange censor such ideas as too speculative or vague.

    If you have any comments on this resonance idea or other proposals for interaction between a putative soul and the body that might be consistent with known physics, share here.
  • Devans99
    2.7k
    If the universe turns out to be virtual like ‘The Matrix’ then our soul is really just our information. It’s possible to move information between computers so in theory the transmigration of the soul might be possible.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    ...or there might be no such thing as a soul. Problem solved.
  • Inyenzi
    80
    If the soul interacted with the body via a very weak force, it might elude the observation of physicists but its influence on the body would seem insignificant. If on the other hand the soul interacted with the body via a relatively strong force, this force should be detectable by physicists.

    I think the issue here is the soul is being treated as if it is just another object in the world, acting on other objects/being acted upon. The soul is more 'prior' to objects in the world - it's very existence is a condition for there being an appearance of the world of objects in the first place. In other words, rather than there being a world of objects 'out there', with the soul being merely one of these objects. You instead have a world of objects being presented before a soul. Sure, you have a world of objects 'out there', but 'out there' only exists in relation to the apprehension of a soul.
  • litewave
    797
    If the universe turns out to be virtual like ‘The Matrix’ then our soul is really just our information. It’s possible to move information between computers so in theory the transmigration of the soul might be possible.Devans99

    The movement of information should be consistent with known laws of physics though...
  • litewave
    797
    or there might be no such thing as a soul. Problem solved.Banno

    The idea of the soul has inspired passions for millennia. You don't solve the problem by saying that there might be no such thing as a soul.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Well, yeah, you do. Further, that is a much more reasonable approach than searching for a gap in physics into which the soul can be slot; the weak force has nothing to do with souls.
  • litewave
    797
    You instead have a world of objects being presented before a soul. Sure, you have a world of objects 'out there', but 'out there' only exists in relation to the apprehension of a soul.Inyenzi

    I assumed the idea of a soul as a conscious individual who can incarnate in a physical body.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    a soul as a conscious individuallitewave

    So the soul disappears when one goes to sleep?
  • litewave
    797
    Well, yeah, you do. Further, that is a much more reasonable approach than searching for a gap in physics into which the soul can be slot; the weak force has nothing to do with souls.Banno

    I don't mean weak nuclear force, rather a weakly acting force in general. Maybe even gravitational force.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Presumably alcohol has some weird effect on the weak force interaction such that the soul looses its capacity for good judgement...
  • litewave
    797
    So the soul disappears when one goes to sleep?Banno

    Maybe just goes into a temporarily suppressed mode.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    That just does not remove the problem. Instead it makes the soul something physical.

    The story of the soul involves a juxtaposition of the physical and the mental; and then spends its time looking for a way to explain volition and drunkenness. The simplest solution is to deny the underpinning juxtaposition.
  • Devans99
    2.7k
    The movement of information should be consistent with known laws of physics though...litewave

    Well the laws of physics might be different outside the machine, but what would be more relevant is the laws of the computer(s) hosting our virtual universe.

    Moving data between universes maybe possible depending on the architecture of the computer(s). Imagine two virtual universes running on the same computer. Memory could be moved by adjusting a pointer and relocating someone into another universe. Once you in another universe your information could be transformed somehow into a new you.

    There are various arguments to say Time was created by an entity or entities. If time was created, how? I can only think that you could go about creating a dimension virtually... can’t think of any other way. So whilst ‘The Matrix’ type scenarios are unlikely, I don’t think they can be discounted completely?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Maybe just goes into a temporarily suppressed mode.litewave

    Odd, that this corresponds so closely with changes in the brain...
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Well the laws of physics might be different outside the machine,Devans99

    The laws of physics might indeed be different outside the laws of physics!
  • litewave
    797
    Presumably alcohol has some weird effect on the weak force interaction such that the soul looses its capacity for good judgement...Banno

    It has effects on neuronal firings which may combine with effects of the soul.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    I think you're starting, consciously or not, from a version of Cartesian dualism, which depicts the soul and the body as radically separate although joined (Descartes thought that this occurred through the pineal gland. )

    First I should say something about what I believe the meaning of the word to be. I think 'the soul' simply refers to the totality of the being; more than simply the physical body, but also more than the ego or 'conscious thinking self'. To me the idea of 'soul' includes what would be called by modern medical science the sub-conscious and unconscious, and also talents, latent dispositions, memories, hopes, and everything else that comprises the being.

    Whether the soul is an entity, is one question; but another question is, is the soul something that can be known or perceived objectively, as the body can be. And my inclination would be to say 'no' to that. I think the problem with trying to work out 'how the soul interacts with the body' is one of reification - of trying to understand the soul by treating it as an object of perception, something we can know in the third person. But I don't think we can do that.

    See this post for an outline as to why.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    The simplest solution is to deny the underpinning juxtaposition.Banno

    Which lands you smack bang in old school materialism again, by exactly the means it was arrived at in the first place. First through Descartes' division of the mind and the body, and then by the argument that the mind cannot be shown to exist in any objective way. The ghost in the machine all over again.
  • All sight
    333
    It's more like there is quantity and quality, and qualia defies third person description, and can't be physically described. There is no conceivable way to describe what something is like, third person, and then for someone to feel what it is like. It has to happen to them first person. The quality is also aesthetic, or involves a kind of judgement that is non-arbitrary, and universal. That some things are better, and others worse is a fact, and it is this that is perplexing, and inexplicable. I'm perfectly willing to say that the soul is literally part of the physical body, but the qualities that make up its contents cannot be, or they would be entirely private, and arbitrary, but this clearly isn't the case, to anyone that has any sense. Worse than that, to deny this, and ignore the reality of the difference renders one lame, and decays them. Steals their life away. This is what it means to be "in the dark", to not "know the truth". To have no "values" as they say.

    Though, the soul as quality, may literally be part of the physical body, but its contents are inexplicable physically in principle, and objective.
  • litewave
    797
    That just does not remove the problem. Instead it makes the soul something physical.Banno

    If the soul is an object in spacetime that is subject to causation or exchange of energy, we may regard it as "physical". It seems that popular notions of the soul fit into this picture. It is just a different kind of physical object.
  • litewave
    797
    Well the laws of physics might be different outside the machine, but what would be more relevant is the laws of the computer(s) hosting our virtual universe.Devans99

    But the information is inside the universe, in the objects inside the universe, no? So it should follow the laws of physics.
  • Devans99
    2.7k
    But the information is inside the universe, in the objects inside the universe, no? So it should follow the laws of physics.litewave



    They could leave a copy of your information in this universe so that nothing is disrupted and move your original information to the new universe.
  • litewave
    797
    See this post for an outline as to why.Wayfarer

    According to quantum field theory all fields are physical objects whose local energy excitations are particles. So if you regard the soul as a field, it is a physical object which interacts with other physical objects according to laws of physics.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    According to quantum field theory all fields are physical objects whose local energy excitations are particles. So if you regard the soul as a field, it is a physical object which interacts with other physical objects according to laws of physics.litewave

    I don't think particles have any ultimate reality. In fact, I think that is one of the indisputable findings of physics.

    Furthermore, what I'm suggesting is the idea of biological fields, which are not recognised by mainstream science at all, and that Sheldrake's morphic field theory could be understood to account for the persistence of memories from one life to the next. (One thing you need to appreciated to understand that is the content of Ian Stevenson's research into children who recall previous lives - for which see this column.)
  • litewave
    797
    Furthermore, what I'm suggesting is the idea of biological fields, which are not recognised by mainstream science at all, and that Sheldrake's morphic field theory could be understood to account for the persistence of memories from one life to the next.Wayfarer

    The morphic resonance idea actually seems similar to my idea of the soul as a vibrating object that may influence brain activity via resonance but may otherwise have very weak interaction with other (non-resonant) physical objects and thus elude scientists' detection.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    But you're barking up the wrong tree - all due respect. Not objects, forces, and stuff.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    There is no conceivable way to describe what something is like, third person, and then for someone to feel what it is like. It has to happen to them first person. The quality is also aesthetic, or involves a kind of judgement that is non-arbitrary, and universal. That some things are better, and others worse is a fact, and it is this that is perplexing, and inexplicableAll sight

    That is one for the scrapbook.

    By way of contrast, Daniel Dennett, poster-boy for materialism, insists that the first-person reality of being is itself an illusion. It is, he says, the net result of the ‘unconscious competence’ of millions of cellular transactions which are themselves purely physical in nature, but which give rise to the persuasive illusion which we know as ‘being’. About which Thomas Nagel remarks:

    I am reminded of the Marx Brothers line: “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” Dennett asks us to turn our backs on what is glaringly obvious—that in consciousness we are immediately aware of real subjective experiences of color, flavor, sound, touch, etc. that cannot be fully described in neural terms even though they have a neural cause (or perhaps have neural as well as experiential aspects). And he asks us to do this because the reality of such phenomena is incompatible with the scientific materialism that in his view sets the outer bounds of reality. 1

    So Dennett’s kind of ignorance - that is, what he is prepared to ignore - in the attempt to deny the apodictic nature of the first-person perspective, unwittingly serves to illustrate the fact that the reality of the first person is not explicable in scientific terms. In other words, in making his case, it becomes evident to almost everyone apart from himself that he doesn’t have a case. So there’s no use trying to explain or understand the ‘nature of being’ in scientific terms. But regrettably, for many people, those are the only terms in which we can think about it.
  • All sight
    333
    Yeah, Dennett can explain anything away.
  • litewave
    797
    But you're barking up the wrong tree - all due respect. Not objects, forces, and stuff.Wayfarer

    Why not? An object is anything, including a field. And if an object induces oscillations via resonance in another object, it exerts influence via a force.

    According to quantum field theory all matter is fields that are locally excited in the form of particles. The soul might be just another type of field/particle and thus fit naturally into an expanded specific form of quantum field theory.
  • litewave
    797
    It's more like there is quantity and quality, and qualia defies third person description, and can't be physically described.All sight

    These qualities however are linked together by mathematical relations and therefore form mathematically (and scientifically) describable structures. Just the simple fact that you have two different qualities instead of one automatically puts qualities into a numerical structure. If the soul is made up of qualities, it also has a mathematical structure, just as the world of which the soul is a part. Science deals with the description of the structure of the world.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.