Started By
Message
Physicists Find the Soul?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:46 am
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:46 am
This could have gone in my "We Live in a Simulation" thread, but decided to make this its own topic.
Some physicist from Oxford University has claimed to have found the soul. He claims that the human brain functions as a quantum COMPUTER and that when a person dies the quantum information stored inside our brain cells in "microtubules" cannot be destroyed and continues to live on indefinitely outside our bodies.
Fascinating stuff, IMO.
LINK
Give it time and our science will finally catch up to what our clergymen have been saying all along.
Some physicist from Oxford University has claimed to have found the soul. He claims that the human brain functions as a quantum COMPUTER and that when a person dies the quantum information stored inside our brain cells in "microtubules" cannot be destroyed and continues to live on indefinitely outside our bodies.
Fascinating stuff, IMO.
LINK
quote:
Oxford University’s world-renowned physicist Sir Roger Penrose has discovered the soul continues to exist after we die.
Known for his prize-winning work with Stephen Hawking on black holes, Penrose is regarded by many as one of the world’s most brilliant people for his contributions in cosmology and general relativity.
His incredible breakthrough is to view our brain as a biological computer and consciousness, also known as the soul, as a program running in the computer.
Give it time and our science will finally catch up to what our clergymen have been saying all along.
5
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:17 am to BoarEd
Explanation:
quote:
Hawking is also not on board, suggesting Penrose should stick with his field of expertise.
quote:
Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:31 am to Kentucker
The problem is that there are loads of independent teams coming to the same conclusions.
Later, when I have a bit more time, I'll bring more examples to the thread.
ETA: Also, I would add that being a "philosopher" does not mean one cannot be a competent scientist. Science, after all, is a philosophical construct.
Later, when I have a bit more time, I'll bring more examples to the thread.
ETA: Also, I would add that being a "philosopher" does not mean one cannot be a competent scientist. Science, after all, is a philosophical construct.
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 10:41 am
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:35 am to BoarEd
quote:
when a person dies the quantum information stored inside our brain cells in "microtubules" cannot be destroyed and continues to live on indefinitely outside our bodies.
So how long until we invent the "stacks" from Altered Carbon?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:37 am to BoarEd
I suspect you'll find loads of independent philosopher teams. There's a reason for the schism developing between science and philosophy. Science sees mankind as just another variable while philosophy still places humanity at the center of the Universe.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:41 am to Kentucker
The scientific method is a philosophical construct.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 11:34 am to BoarEd
Related:
LINK
Also,
LINK /
LINK
quote:
Some people claim that they have experienced out-of-body experiences—aka "astral trips"—floating outside of their bodies and watching themselves from the outside. A team of scientists found someone who says she can do this at will and put her into a brain scanner. What they discovered was surprisingly strange.
Andra M. Smith and Claude Messierwere from the University of Ottawa described this subject's ability in their paper, published in Frontiers of Human Neuroscience:
Also,
quote:
At death quantum information within microtubules is dissipated to the Universe
rajarasablog.wordpress.com...
Dr Hameroff told the Science Channel’s Through the Wormhole documentary: “Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the microtubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed, it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large”. Robert Lanza would add here that not only does it exist in the universe, it exists perhaps in another universe. If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says “I had a near death experience”
LINK /
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 11:39 am
Posted on 1/16/19 at 12:53 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
So how long until we invent the "stacks" from Altered Carbon?
I haven't seen this show yet.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 1:10 pm to BoarEd
I highly recommend it if you like sci-fi/ action mix. It's on Netflix. Just one season
Posted on 1/16/19 at 2:07 pm to BowlJackson
Thanks for the recommendation! I have seen it on there but haven't actually watched it yet.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 4:48 pm to BoarEd
quote:
The scientific method is a philosophical construct.
Because it was developed by humans?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 4:52 pm to BoarEd
quote:
If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says “I had a near death experience”
If a person is dead he cannot be resuscitated. People are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases and can't be restarted. At that point brain cells begin to decay.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 4:58 pm to Kentucker
If we get cremated does it destroy our soul? Or are we good since we made it to death?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 5:38 pm to BoarEd
quote:
“The quantum information within the micro-tubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed
While information can't be destroyed, it can be changed. A living person is a set of information, including his heighth, weight, intellect, etc. This information includes the subatomic particles that beget the atoms that beget the molecules that beget the amino acids that beget the proteins that beget the cells that beget his body.
When he dies, his information changes radically. It's all still there, every bit of it, but it isn't in the form of a living person anymore. The complex information begins to decay to the lowest possible order, or the highest disorder; a.k.a. entropy.
The brain degrades after death along with the rest of the body. All information that made up the living brain is still there but it changes, too.
Entropy rules the Universe and every bit of information, no matter how complex it is, seeks to reorder to the highest disorder. Low entropy becomes high entropy. This is the arrow of time.
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 5:58 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
If we get cremated does it destroy our soul? Or are we good since we made it to death?
Speaking from a strictly scientific view, there is no such thing as a soul. Rather, we have the most complex brain in existence. In fact, we know of nothing more complex than this intriguing organ.
Because we are so different from the other species alongside which we evolved, some of us see humans as having special abilities, superpowers even; the inability to die is the most notable. Well, completely die at least. Instead we migrate to another life.
None of this has any basis in science, of course. Some irrational people who are scientists may theorize their sensational thoughts but peer review always throttles them. It's the way of science.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 6:04 pm to Kentucker
I mean, you could play devil's advocate and say that there is in fact a soul -- if you remove the woo woo language and change the name of course. Consciousness mixed with feelings could fit that, but until someone actually bottles consciousness and transports it into another vehicle this is all literally woo woo.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 6:11 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
As a commited reductionist, it's my purpose and goal to distinguish science from philosophy. Philosophy is a human orientation while science is universal and unchangeable for all intellects.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 7:18 pm to Kentucker
quote:
While information can't be destroyed, it can be changed. A living person is a set of information, including his heighth, weight, intellect, etc. This information includes the subatomic particles that beget the atoms that beget the molecules that beget the amino acids that beget the proteins that beget the cells that beget his body.
When he dies, his information changes radically. It's all still there, every bit of it, but it isn't in the form of a living person anymore. The complex information begins to decay to the lowest possible order, or the highest disorder; a.k.a. entropy.
The brain degrades after death along with the rest of the body. All information that made up the living brain is still there but it changes, too.
Entropy rules the Universe and every bit of information, no matter how complex it is, seeks to reorder to the highest disorder. Low entropy becomes high entropy. This is the arrow of time.
Interesting. So when I flatlined back in '04 and my heart started to decay (scar is still there visible through MRI), I wasn't really dead?
And what about the study I linked from the neuroscientists that seem to have shown evidence that an unconscious person can have awareness separated from their person under certain conditions -- and that happened to me, btw --, that is bunk?
And yes, while it's true that information can be transformed, but not destroyed, you have no idea that it doesnt continue on as some sort of aggregate of you.
Seems to me this is far from settled. And loads of other folks agree, it seems. Like, every clergyman that's ever existed in all of human history, and a growing panel of academics.
Guess we will all find out one way or another at some point, eh?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 7:35 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Because it was developed by humans?
No, because it was developed by philosophers and it is, to this day, continually debated and tweaked by philosophers. Here is a portion of the "scientific method" entry from Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy that will probably explain it better than I ever could, albeit in a long-winded way.
quote:
Scientific method should be distinguished from the aims and products of science, such as knowledge, predictions, or control. Methods are the means by which those goals are achieved. Scientific method should also be distinguished from meta-methodology, which includes the values and justifications behind a particular characterization of scientific method (i.e., a methodology) — values such as objectivity, reproducibility, simplicity, or past successes. Methodological rules are proposed to govern method and it is a meta-methodological question whether methods obeying those rules satisfy given values. Finally, method is distinct, to some degree, from the detailed and contextual practices through which methods are implemented. The latter might range over: specific laboratory techniques; mathematical formalisms or other specialized languages used in descriptions and reasoning; technological or other material means; ways of communicating and sharing results, whether with other scientists or with the public at large; or the conventions, habits, enforced customs, and institutional controls over how and what science is carried out.
While it is important to recognize these distinctions, their boundaries are fuzzy. Hence, accounts of method cannot be entirely divorced from their methodological and meta-methodological motivations or justifications, Moreover, each aspect plays a crucial role in identifying methods. Disputes about method have therefore played out at the detail, rule, and meta-rule levels. Changes in beliefs about the certainty or fallibility of scientific knowledge, for instance (which is a meta-methodological consideration of what we can hope for methods to deliver), have meant different emphases on deductive and inductive reasoning, or on the relative importance attached to reasoning over observation (i.e., differences over particular methods.) Beliefs about the role of science in society will affect the place one gives to values in scientific method.
The issue which has shaped debates over scientific method the most in the last half century is the question of how pluralist do we need to be about method? Unificationists continue to hold out for one method essential to science; nihilism is a form of radical pluralism, which considers the effectiveness of any methodological prescription to be so context sensitive as to render it not explanatory on its own. Some middle degree of pluralism regarding the methods embodied in scientific practice seems appropriate.
LINK /
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:12 pm to BoarEd
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News