Science Vs The Soul

[ydoaPs]

So, my first runthrough of this idea went like this:

 

 

1)An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion unless a force acts upon it.

2)The force exerted on an object is equal in magnitude and direction to its time rate of change of momentum.

3)When one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction upon the first object.

 

Now, the others come from what "soul" means and from basic neurobiology.

 

Souls have not only have no spatial extent (what's the volume of your soul?), but also have no spatial location. "But my soul is in my body!" Oh? Where? Does it hide in the pineal gland? How about your left pinky toe? Souls can make decisions. That is, the 'you' who has free will is your soul. You are not just a passive observer to your body. Souls are immaterial. They're not made of anything.

 

Whenever there is a choice, there is brain activity. If you choose to move your right thumb, there are ions that move around in your brain which eventually make your thumb move. This is a fact.

 

And a fact about momentum: since momentum is an inherently spatiotemporal thing, things without spatial location cannot have momentum.

 

Ok, back to the argument.

 

1)An object at rest stays at rest and an object in uniform motion stays in uniform motion unless a force acts upon it.

2)The force exerted on an object is equal in magnitude and direction to its time rate of change of momentum.

3)When one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction upon the first object.

4)Things without spatial location cannot have momentum.

5)Human decisions involve objects moving.

 

Ok, there are the premises. Let's see what we get!

 

 

6)Assume a non-spatiotemporal soul exists and has volitional control. (assumed premise)

7)Then the soul exerts a force on ions in the brain causing them to move. (from 5 and 6)

8)The ions, then, exert an equal force on the soul. (from 7 and 3)

9)Since a force is exerted on the soul, its momentum changes equally. (from 8 and 2)

10)The soul has momentum. (from 9)

11)The soul is not spatio-temporally located. (from 6)

12)The soul cannot have momentum (from 4 and 6)

13) CONTRADICTION (10 and 12)

14)Therefore, there exists no non-spatiotemporally located soul with volitional control.

 

Then, it was brought to my attention that some might object that souls aren't the types of things on which forces can act. So, take 2:

 

1)Momentum is always conserved.

2)An object at rest stays at rest and an object in uniform motion stays in uniform motion unless a force acts upon it.

3)The force exerted on an object is equal in magnitude and direction to its time rate of change of momentum.

4)When one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction upon the first object.

5)Any human decision involves movement.

6)Souls are not the types of things which can have forces acting on them.

7)Assume a non-spatiotemporal soul exists and has volitional control.

8)Then the soul exerts a force on ions in the brain causing them to move.

9)There is a change in the momentum of the ions in the brain.

10)There is no corresponding change in momentum in the soul.

11)Momentum is not conserved.

13)CONTRADICTION

14)Therefore, there exists no non-spatiotemporally located soul with volitional control.

[pears]

Should this be in general philosophy rather than religion? Even though it touches on religious ideas, the central question of whether a non-spatiotemporal "I" capable of free-will exists, is philosophical. Perhaps it doesn't matter but you might reach a wider audience in general philosophy?

Edited September 23, 2013 by pears

[imatfaal]

So, my first runthrough of this idea went like this:

 

 

1)An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion unless a force acts upon it.

2)The force exerted on an object is equal in magnitude and direction to its time rate of change of momentum.

3)When one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction upon the first object.

 

Now, the others come from what "soul" means and from basic neurobiology.

 

Souls have not only have no spatial extent (what's the volume of your soul?), but also have no spatial location. "But my soul is in my body!" Oh? Where? Does it hide in the pineal gland? How about your left pinky toe? Souls can make decisions. That is, the 'you' who has free will is your soul. You are not just a passive observer to your body. Souls are immaterial. They're not made of anything.

 

Whenever there is a choice, there is brain activity. If you choose to move your right thumb, there are ions that move around in your brain which eventually make your thumb move. This is a fact.

 

And a fact about momentum: since momentum is an inherently spatiotemporal thing, things without spatial location cannot have momentum.

 

Ok, back to the argument.

 

1)An object at rest stays at rest and an object in uniform motion stays in uniform motion unless a force acts upon it.

2)The force exerted on an object is equal in magnitude and direction to its time rate of change of momentum.

3)When one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction upon the first object.

4)Things without spatial location cannot have momentum.

5)Human decisions involve objects moving.

 

Ok, there are the premises. Let's see what we get!

 

 

6)Assume a non-spatiotemporal soul exists and has volitional control. (assumed premise)

7)Then the soul exerts a force on ions in the brain causing them to move. (from 5 and 6)

8)The ions, then, exert an equal force on the soul. (from 7 and 3)

9)Since a force is exerted on the soul, its momentum changes equally. (from 8 and 2)

10)The soul has momentum. (from 9)

11)The soul is not spatio-temporally located. (from 6)

12)The soul cannot have momentum (from 4 and 6)

13) CONTRADICTION (10 and 12)

14)Therefore, there exists no non-spatiotemporally located soul with volitional control.

 

Then, it was brought to my attention that some might object that souls aren't the types of things on which forces can act. So, take 2:

 

1)Momentum is always conserved.

2)An object at rest stays at rest and an object in uniform motion stays in uniform motion unless a force acts upon it.

3)The force exerted on an object is equal in magnitude and direction to its time rate of change of momentum.

4)When one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction upon the first object.

5)Any human decision involves movement.

6)Souls are not the types of things which can have forces acting on them.

7)Assume a non-spatiotemporal soul exists and has volitional control.

8)Then the soul exerts a force on ions in the brain causing them to move.

9)There is a change in the momentum of the ions in the brain.

10)There is no corresponding change in momentum in the soul.

11)Momentum is not conserved.

13)CONTRADICTION

14)Therefore, there exists no non-spatiotemporally located soul with volitional control.

 

8)Then the soul exerts a force on ions in the brain causing them to move.

9)There is a change in the momentum of the ions in the brain.

10)There is no corresponding change in momentum in the soul.

11)Momentum is not conserved.

13)CONTRADICTION

The soul could move positive ion at velocity p/m₊ and negative ion at velocity -p/m_-. the net momentum change is zero as the vectors can cancel out as movement is in opposite directions.

 

how the soul could do this is unknown and unimportant - but the possibilty is a problem for your contradiction

Edited September 23, 2013 by imatfaal
putting in subscripts

[ydoaPs]

Should this be in general philosophy rather than religion? Even though it touches on religious ideas, the central question of whether a non-spatiotemporal "I" capable of free-will exists, is philosophical. Perhaps it doesn't matter but you might reach a wider audience in general philosophy?

As a moderator, I can't say one way or the other. As the resident philosopher, I'll tell you that the soul is a religious concept distinct from almost every other view of the self. We're not talking about a self in general, but in a non-spatiotemporal, interacting soul completely distinct from the brain.

 

The soul could move positive ion at velocity p/m₊ and negative ion at velocity -p/m_-. the net momentum change is zero as the vectors can cancel out as movement is in opposite directions.

 

how the soul could do this is unknown and unimportant - but the possibilty is a problem for your contradiction

I'll have to give it to you, that was a good objection. It really did take me a second. At first glance, that's a plausible objection which would leave the possibility open until the entirety of the human brain has been modeled down to the molecule.

 

At first.

 

Then one stops and thinks enough to see that your situation is two ions interacting with each other, not interacting with a soul. Of course, you could have them be isolated ions, but that means conservation of momentum is still violated; it's just violated twice with a net effect of null.

[Moontanman]

I have to ask, is there a plausible mechanism for a soul?

[imatfaal]

...

I'll have to give it to you, that was a good objection. It really did take me a second. At first glance, that's a plausible objection which would leave the possibility open until the entirety of the human brain has been modeled down to the molecule.

 

At first.

 

Then one stops and thinks enough to see that your situation is two ions interacting with each other, not interacting with a soul. Of course, you could have them be isolated ions, but that means conservation of momentum is still violated; it's just violated twice with a net effect of null.

As long as yo chose your system to be bigger than the single object, ion in this case (and you must for conservation to apply otherwise it is an external to the system net force and there is no conservation of momentum), then the use of two objects moving away from each other with correctly weighted velocities will have zero momentum as a system. The soul is the triggering device that causes - through an unknown mechanism - two ions to move apart at precisely the right point. The unknown mechanism is clearly very dodgy - but for your contradiction to work you must be able to show that no circumstances exist which could circumvent your premises; and the release of aa compressed spring between two balls clearly demonstrates that velocities can be changed without an external agent suffering a momentum change

 

As a toy model - I could postulate that the soul works through molecular activity rates; there are complex molecules within the synapses, they react with free ions/molecules and eject a positive ion/molecule in one direction and a negative ion/molecule in the other. They are orientated at every angle within 3d space in a constantly changing solution - which individual molecules react at any given second would be said to be random and unpredictable, just that a certain percentage will react in any given time frame. But in fact (well not fact obviously, but in this particular fiction) - the soul causes those molecules which are aligned in the correct cross synapse direction to react predominantly, this is enough to cause the ionic imbalance which triggers the chain reaction which is a nerve impulse. How the soul does this is unimportant - but it really does not imply a breach of the conservation of momentum. I don't believe in a soul - but I am not sure you have shown that it cannot exist, although I think it is a great concept of using such basic physics to make the attempt

[BusaDave9]

What is the soul?

I don't think it exists. Religion invented the soul. It's supposed to be yourself independent from your body. The soul was invented for the sake of the afterlife. There is no way you could prove the existance of the soul but I'd like to hear a good explanation of what the soul is.

 

 

imatfaal, you say the soul "works through molecular activity rates" That's far from the conventional view that your soul can go on to heaven. Your explanatin sounds more like an explanation of the mind. I think the mind is nothing more than the thought processes of the brain.

[ydoaPs]

As long as yo chose your system to be bigger than the single object, ion in this case (and you must for conservation to apply otherwise it is an external to the system net force and there is no conservation of momentum), then the use of two objects moving away from each other with correctly weighted velocities will have zero momentum as a system. The soul is the triggering device that causes - through an unknown mechanism - two ions to move apart at precisely the right point. The unknown mechanism is clearly very dodgy - but for your contradiction to work you must be able to show that no circumstances exist which could circumvent your premises; and the release of aa compressed spring between two balls clearly demonstrates that velocities can be changed without an external agent suffering a momentum change

 

As a toy model - I could postulate that the soul works through molecular activity rates; there are complex molecules within the synapses, they react with free ions/molecules and eject a positive ion/molecule in one direction and a negative ion/molecule in the other. They are orientated at every angle within 3d space in a constantly changing solution - which individual molecules react at any given second would be said to be random and unpredictable, just that a certain percentage will react in any given time frame. But in fact (well not fact obviously, but in this particular fiction) - the soul causes those molecules which are aligned in the correct cross synapse direction to react predominantly, this is enough to cause the ionic imbalance which triggers the chain reaction which is a nerve impulse. How the soul does this is unimportant - but it really does not imply a breach of the conservation of momentum. I don't believe in a soul - but I am not sure you have shown that it cannot exist, although I think it is a great concept of using such basic physics to make the attempt

This then, comes down to whether or not momentum is conserved in all interactions, or just in a closed system.

[doG]

Should this be in general philosophy rather than religion? Even though it touches on religious ideas, the central question of whether a non-spatiotemporal "I" capable of free-will exists, is philosophical. Perhaps it doesn't matter but you might reach a wider audience in general philosophy?

 

Religion is about belief, regardless of the facts and science is about the facts, regardless of belief. Since there is no credible science to conclude that a soul exists at all then this seems to be more about belief in one and religion seems an appropriate category.

[Villain]

 

Religion is about belief, regardless of the facts and science is about the facts, regardless of belief. Since there is no credible science to conclude that a soul exists at all then this seems to be more about belief in one and religion seems an appropriate category.

 

Please stop making this ridiculous statement.

[Moontanman]

 

Please stop making this ridiculous statement.

Care to explain why this is ridiculous?

[Villain]

Care to explain why this is ridiculous?

 

It doesn't make sense.

 

What facts does religion disregard?

 

What is a theory or hypothesis if not a belief?

[Moontanman]

 

It doesn't make sense.

 

What facts does religion disregard?

 

What is a theory or hypothesis if not a belief?

 

You do make a point, some religions do and some do not reject reality, most mix reality and nonsense at least to some degree.. .

 

A hypothesis should be, at least partly based on real world observations, a theory is based on observable empirical evidence not belief...

[Villain]

 

You do make a point, some religions do and some do not reject reality, most mix reality and nonsense at least to some degree.. .

 

A hypothesis should be, at least partly based on real world observations, a theory is based on observable empirical evidence not belief...

 

Since theories don't becomes truths, I don't see how they can move beyond belief.

[Moontanman]

 

Since theories don't becomes truths, I don't see how they can move beyond belief.

 

 

Then you do not understand what a theory is, a theory is a body of knowledge, it is never proven, it is always subject to revision, there is no such thing as "truth" no one knows everything about anything and everything we do know is subject to some degree of error...

[BusaDave9]

 

Since theories don't becomes truths, I don't see how they can move beyond belief.

Is gravity a law of nature or "just" a theory?

A law of nature is how reality exists outside of human understanding. A theory is our (human) understanding of reality. When a theory is proven it doesn't become a law of nature.

Gravity is a law of nature. Then Newton came up with his theories on gravity. Later Einstein came up with his (General Theory of Relativity). Did that mean Newton was wrong? No, Newton's equations are till used to put a satellite in orbit.

I like doG's post and I will quote him often. Religion is based on faith. Science is based on facts. That's not to say religions are wrong. The best way to accept both is to say God only works through the laws of nature.

[John Cuthber]

. That's not to say religions are wrong. The best way to accept both is to say God only works through the laws of nature.

Heretic!

How dare you deny miracles?

[Villain]

 

 

Then you do not understand what a theory is, a theory is a body of knowledge, it is never proven, it is always subject to revision, there is no such thing as "truth" no one knows everything about anything and everything we do know is subject to some degree of error...

 

You haven't validated why it should be considered beyond belief, you seem to be overrating falsification.

[Moontanman]

 

You haven't validated why it should be considered beyond belief, you seem to be overrating falsification.

 

 

Belief is meaningless in the face of reality...

[tar]

ydoaPs,

Are objects, in your proof, limited to concrete objects, or are abstract nouns allowed?

If abstract nouns are not allowed, should we eliminate such constructs as "a system" from consideration, or can we consider the "essence" of a system, as an emergent real quality of a system, dependent on the particular summation and schema understood results of a multitude of particular momentum interactions, that "add up" , over time, to some quantity or quality, that is not present or characteristic in or of a particular momentum transaction?

Regards, TAR2

Although I would argue against the notion of "the ghost in the machine", I would not argue against the spirit of the thing.



Then
6)Souls are not the types of things which can have forces acting on them.

would require some futher explanation, as to what type of thing the soul, or spirit or essence of a complex living organism exactly is to be considered.

Conflating the issue, is the subject and object nature of information. An "external" form is manifested "in" the synapses and ion exchanges, in a human brain. The analogy created thusly is "of" the external objects, and is ALSO a real true, "form" in and of itself, when taken in the context of the body/brain/heart group arrangement of ion exchange over time. Thusly somethings more than the patterns and ideas, and perceptions, existing in a human brain, are implied by the structure and patterns and momentum interactions, therein contained.

Edited October 2, 2013 by tar

[overtone]

Patterns - of anything in time and space - do not have any necessary mass etc.

 

Neither are they governed by their substrates. Patterns in sand, for example, weigh little or nothing and derive few of their properties from the properties of sand. A pattern in rounded, tiny, collectively heavy, and constantly shifting sand grains can be a stable, large, weightless, square.

 

There is room for the soul, for something with all the reasonable and important properties of the non-superstitious soul, in the very highest levels of pattern formation of the human mind.

 

That avoids the discouraging and doomed approach of opposing "science" (physical reality) to the "soul". Nothing that actuallyu contradicts science has much of a chance of viability, or should. have.