science soul exploration

[ran cohen]

I believe the “soul” (for lack of a better word) should start being explored by science and no longer be the proprietary of any religion or old ways of investigation.

The word “soul” might have significant connotation to religion and the fear from un-balancing the thin status quo, but I believe there is a great science and discoveries awaiting to be revealed through the ways of science exploration.

To clarify, the word “soul” is not only meant for humans, I believe every living thing has one and it might as well be the same. Neither do I think there is a “good soul” or “bad soul” as there is no good or bad in science.

I believe we are controlled by our gene, driving us from the simplest of tasks to the more elaborate. We eat, we sleep, we marry, we have children, the pattern alone signify control as you would see ants following a line.

But it seems to me there are two kind of controls,

One is direct, like the heart pumping without any real direct intention (although influenced).

The other is indirect, controlled by our feelings. We feel hungry so we might search for food. We feel pain so we might search ways to relieve it. We feel tired so we might go to rest or sleep.

The body could potentially just make the legs walk and put food into the mouth but instead, it makes the feeling of being hungry, intensified as food is more required.

I believe “our” decisions are governed by feelings but not only one. On any point in time we can feel tired, hungry, in love, curious, in pain, satisfied. Each with its own intensity. But our decisions based (in some simplified way) on these feelings. Our experience and information we get from the world while we try to maximize the total “good” feeling.

When looking at the indirect controlling mechanism, I think it is hard to avoid using the word “we” since “feelings” are so far from the act itself. But if so, who is “we”? Who am “I”?

This control mechanism seems somewhat familiar as an Engineer. Our body is very elaborate but does not seem to be “smart”. It does not make us tired so we will go to sleep. It does not seem to know the direct path for survival, so he might give us the control for the decisions. But this might only work if “we” only care about our feelings, which I think is true but hard to admit or grasp.

There is a new science in Engineering called “artificial intelligence”. In which, hardware can accomplish very human-like behavior like winning the Go champion. Some will say (and I can imagine), that in the future this technology can make hardware more intelligent more than humans. The question seems that if a “stupid” hardware can learn how to be better than humans, how that our body evolved to require “us” at all? Even if any soul is intertwined, why does our body give us such control over it, assuming it only cares about its own gene survival? Which I believe it does.

I do not know. But I think the “soul” claim is more than just “I am thinking, therefore I exist”. I think the clues are in the controlling mechanism along with other clues. The direct and specific impact of our actions based on our feelings and that the body generating our feelings but is not focused on only one, driving us for a specific action but existing many feeling In parallel. That might say something about how we and our body interact and give room for science exploration and great discoveries.

I thank you very much for your patience and would very much appreciate any thoughts.

Best Regards

Ran

 

[Markus Hanke]

27 minutes ago, ran cohen said:

I believe the “soul” (for lack of a better word) should start being explored by science and no longer be the proprietary of any religion or old ways of investigation.

What do you mean by ‘soul’? Can you provide a specific definition? The problem with this is that different spiritual/religious traditions understand this concept in different ways, and some traditions don’t have any concept of ‘soul’ at all. So you need to first specify exactly what it is that should be scientifically investigated, and then we can see whether it is feasible (i.e. amenable to the scientific method) or not.

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, ran cohen said:

I believe the “soul” (for lack of a better word) should start being explored by science and no longer be the proprietary of any religion or old ways of investigation.

As Markus said the first thing you have to do is define a soul.  Basing the idea of soul on the religion I am most familiar with, nothing in your OP indicates a soul exists.  You essentially said feelings and emotions arise from the soul.  I would say feelings and emotions raise from the brain.  The soul is an unnecessary addition.  What experiment could be done to indicate a soul may exists?

[Strange]

5 hours ago, ran cohen said:

The other is indirect, controlled by our feelings. We feel hungry so we might search for food. We feel pain so we might search ways to relieve it. We feel tired so we might go to rest or sleep.

The body could potentially just make the legs walk and put food into the mouth but instead, it makes the feeling of being hungry, intensified as food is more required.

I believe “our” decisions are governed by feelings but not only one. On any point in time we can feel tired, hungry, in love, curious, in pain, satisfied. Each with its own intensity. But our decisions based (in some simplified way) on these feelings. Our experience and information we get from the world while we try to maximize the total “good” feeling.

When looking at the indirect controlling mechanism, I think it is hard to avoid using the word “we” since “feelings” are so far from the act itself. But if so, who is “we”? Who am “I”?

I think that what you are describing comes under the field of psychology. Which is a science. Job done.

 

[ran cohen]

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

What do you mean by ‘soul’? Can you provide a specific definition? The problem with this is that different spiritual/religious traditions understand this concept in different ways, and some traditions don’t have any concept of ‘soul’ at all. So you need to first specify exactly what it is that should be scientifically investigated, and then we can see whether it is feasible (i.e. amenable to the scientific method) or not.

 

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

As Markus said the first thing you have to do is define a soul.  Basing the idea of soul on the religion I am most familiar with, nothing in your OP indicates a soul exists.  You essentially said feelings and emotions arise from the soul.  I would say feelings and emotions raise from the brain.  The soul is an unnecessary addition.  What experiment could be done to indicate a soul may exists?

 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

I think that what you are describing comes under the field of psychology. Which is a science. Job done.

 

Thank you for your response. 

My meaning of `soul` is in no way religious. Only the existence of something that is beyond the actual body or matter.

This "something" is probably in no way "good" or "bad", it might not have any memory or thoughts of its own, it does not have to be in any specific body such as human or bug.

To the body, it is only a tool to survive and pass on its genes and i have no clue what happens to it after the body is dead.

This theory is based on several assumptions: 

1. Our body only cares about its gene survival as described by the "selfish gene"
2. We have limited control over our body i.e. our body have some direct control on its own e.g. heart, ears, hair etc.
3. Our body is generating the feelings e.g. pain or love which are expressions of the physical
4. Our actions based on feelings alone

I know assumption '4' can be argued  but i believe that is true and can be proven scientifically. I would even go as far as saying that we might only care about the feeling we are having now (putting aside any argue of what "now" means e.g. 1us or 1 day). 

From assumptions '1' and '2' one can ask himself: if our genes are selfish and if the body can control some functions why not all and why actions (which have direct influence on survival,) are not controlled directly but through feelings?

Like anything else in science, it might just be that these questions can also lead to more theories and answers such as where did we come from and what is beyond this world.

Best Regards

Ran

[Bufofrog]

58 minutes ago, ran cohen said:

To the body, it is only a tool to survive and pass on its genes and i have no clue what happens to it after the body is dead.

This theory is based on several assumptions: 

1. Our body only cares about its gene survival as described by the "selfish gene"
2. We have limited control over our body i.e. our body have some direct control on its own e.g. heart, ears, hair etc.
3. Our body is generating the feelings e.g. pain or love which are expressions of the physical
4. Our actions based on feelings alone

I know assumption '4' can be argued  but i believe that is true and can be proven scientifically. I would even go as far as saying that we might only care about the feeling we are having now (putting aside any argue of what "now" means e.g. 1us or 1 day). 

From assumptions '1' and '2' one can ask himself: if our genes are selfish and if the body can control some functions why not all and why actions (which have direct influence on survival,) are not controlled directly but through feelings?

Like anything else in science, it might just be that these questions can also lead to more theories and answers such as where did we come from and what is beyond this world.

Best Regards

Ran

Animals don't care about their genes.  Our bodies don't care about their genes.

I think it is fair to say we act on our feelings and desires.

This post has nothing to do with a soul that I can see.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, ran cohen said:

 

 

Thank you for your response. 

My meaning of `soul` is in no way religious. Only the existence of something that is beyond the actual body or matter.

This "something" is probably in no way "good" or "bad", it might not have any memory or thoughts of its own, it does not have to be in any specific body such as human or bug.

To the body, it is only a tool to survive and pass on its genes and i have no clue what happens to it after the body is dead.

This theory is based on several assumptions: 

1. Our body only cares about its gene survival as described by the "selfish gene"
2. We have limited control over our body i.e. our body have some direct control on its own e.g. heart, ears, hair etc.
3. Our body is generating the feelings e.g. pain or love which are expressions of the physical
4. Our actions based on feelings alone

I know assumption '4' can be argued  but i believe that is true and can be proven scientifically. I would even go as far as saying that we might only care about the feeling we are having now (putting aside any argue of what "now" means e.g. 1us or 1 day). 

From assumptions '1' and '2' one can ask himself: if our genes are selfish and if the body can control some functions why not all and why actions (which have direct influence on survival,) are not controlled directly but through feelings?

Like anything else in science, it might just be that these questions can also lead to more theories and answers such as where did we come from and what is beyond this world.

Best Regards

Ran

You might be pleased (or disappointed) to know that all these questions are, already, the subject of scientific (and philosophical) inquiry. People including psychiatrists and neurologists are interested in these questions (and a few misguided physicists).

[ran cohen]

I thank you all for your patience and feedback.

If any other, i will be glad to read them.

Best Regards

Ran

[swansont]

13 hours ago, ran cohen said:

I believe the “soul” (for lack of a better word) should start being explored by science and no longer be the proprietary of any religion or old ways of investigation.

So why is this posted in philosophy?

[Ghideon]

3 hours ago, ran cohen said:

My meaning of `soul` is in no way religious. Only the existence of something that is beyond the actual body or matter.

What do you mean by beyond body or matter? It similar or related to dualism* ?

 

14 hours ago, ran cohen said:

There is a new science in Engineering called “artificial intelligence”.

Note: artificial intelligence in science and engineering started in the fifties as far as I know. In my opinion that is not "new".

14 hours ago, ran cohen said:

In which, hardware can accomplish very human-like behavior like winning the Go champion.

Minor note: I would say that the recent successful applications of machine learning is not only due to improved hardware. There is quite a lot of progress in software. And the available amount of data has increased as well.

 

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_dualism

 

[joigus]

35 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What do you mean by beyond body or matter? It similar or related to dualism* ?

Today's best "gotcha"!!! +1

Yes. Where is the line between one and the other?

[drumbo]

It seems like the soul is the word we use to describe whatever allows us to be creative and introduce new things into the world, the thing that elevates us beyond some deterministic electrochemical machine. The human brain seems to essentially be an electrochemical machine, but how is it possible for a mere machine to be creative, to write a symphony? Consider the idea of an exogenous influence, an influence on this world which comes out of seemingly thin air. There might be some mechanism that uniquely allows the brain to introduce some exogenous influence onto the world, a phenomenon which could be described by science which just hasn't been understood yet.

[ran cohen]

On 8/10/2020 at 12:01 AM, drumbo said:

It seems like the soul is the word we use to describe whatever allows us to be creative and introduce new things into the world, the thing that elevates us beyond some deterministic electrochemical machine. The human brain seems to essentially be an electrochemical machine, but how is it possible for a mere machine to be creative, to write a symphony? Consider the idea of an exogenous influence, an influence on this world which comes out of seemingly thin air. There might be some mechanism that uniquely allows the brain to introduce some exogenous influence onto the world, a phenomenon which could be described by science which just hasn't been understood yet.

Not sure if creativity can only exist in a "soul". As we explore the AI, it does not seem to require it. But i think there are clues to the dualism concept such as the controlling mechanism. As many believe at "the selfish gene" concept, one would ask: how does the body decides the correct decisions to allow him to progress to the next generation? Although it does not seem to require any such "soul" to activate its own organs, these actions seems to be in perfect sync with our feelings. We feel hungry so we eat, we feel curious so we explore, we feel bored so we get out of the house. This sync seems redundant to the body as he can just control his own legs as he would do to his own heart. Not only that, our feelings reside in parallel, we feel tired, hungry, happy.. all on the same time. No one feeling to drive us to specific action, it seems as our body does not really know what needs to be done, or that he does but easier to have evolved this way. I am curious if any of the things i said made sense to anyone.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, ran cohen said:

Not sure if creativity can only exist in a "soul". As we explore the AI, it does not seem to require it. But i think there are clues to the dualism concept such as the controlling mechanism. As many believe at "the selfish gene" concept, one would ask: how does the body decides the correct decisions to allow him to progress to the next generation? Although it does not seem to require any such "soul" to activate its own organs, these actions seems to be in perfect sync with our feelings. We feel hungry so we eat, we feel curious so we explore, we feel bored so we get out of the house. This sync seems redundant to the body as he can just control his own legs as he would do to his own heart. Not only that, our feelings reside in parallel, we feel tired, hungry, happy.. all on the same time. No one feeling to drive us to specific action, it seems as our body does not really know what needs to be done, or that he does but easier to have evolved this way. I am curious if any of the things i said made sense to anyone.

Only if we don't include the concept of the soul as meaning anything other than 'me'. 

[Phi for All]

I think humans use the concept of an unseen soul as a reflective surface for our own intelligence. Constant mental bouncing of thoughts and ideas as internal dialogue probably lends itself to the creation of a separate entity or soul we see as a basic, pure, default state (that might even survive the death of the body). Many treat it like an imaginary friend, and speak about it the same way they do about their "conscience" (as in, "Let your conscience be your guide"). 

There's no evidence to support the scientific concept of "soul" as anything but psychological. I'm not sure why so many folks need more than high intelligence to explain this non-phenomenon.

[Alex Caledin]

- Body is a "material" data structure, soul is the software instance maintaining it (in the Computer simulating our universe).

Edited September 16, 2020 by Alex Caledin