Spirits

[tJjohnstone]

Hi, there

I'm not entirely sure where to post this, so please forgive me if this is the incorrect area to post in.

So, I've been studying a bit on psychology, physics and other areas too. I don't believe that there's such thing as a spirit or soul, I think that's part of your body, but I was wondering if anybody had any research that supports the idea that the spirit or soul isn't separate from your body, but rather what the brain does - if you get what I mean.

Thanks!

[jmatejka]

The Society for Scientific Exploration explores these topics. Their papers are peer reviewed. Here is a link to some PDF abstracts:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that the Society for Scientific Exploration is not an accepted mainstream source. It may only be used here anecdotally with no references to studies or theories.

A list of journals that may be used are found here:
http://scientific.thomson.com/index.html

I have no idea what the op is asking.

[nismaratwork]

I think the OP is stating that he is a materialist, but asking if there is some scientific evidence of dualism. The obvious answer is that with current technology, and probably until we die as a species, there will never be a scientific answer to that question, rather it is a matter of philosophy.

LJ, note that materialism in this context means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialist and that dualism means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)

[Ivan Seeking]

Thanks, I didn't recognize the context.

I know there are a number of schools of thought on this matter - no doubt many being fringe or crackpot - but I don't know if there is any scientific basis for these ideas. I will leave the thread open for any papers suggesting that the mind cannot be explained solely in terms of brain function.

Please note that we are interested in scientific papers and evidence, not personal or internet theories.

[loseyourname]

I actually think he's asking for the opposite, for scientific evidence that mental phenomena are entirely caused by the brain.

[tJjohnstone]

Thanks for your replies! :), I'm checking out those links now.

Yes, loseyourname understood what I meant. I'm looking for scientific studies that prove or suggest that dualism highly improbable or impossible, studies that do NOT work in the favour of dualism.

Though, I'd actually also be interested if there are studies that DO support dualism, but from what I can gather so far is that dualism is considered incorrect (if incorrect is the correct term :P) in the scientific community and I pretty much just want to know why. I'm very interested in the topic.

[Ivan Seeking]

That seems like a backwards question: I would think that nearly every bit of our understanding of the mind and brain function would qualify as the desired evidence. The exception to the rule would be something suggesting otherwise. I don't know if there are any examples.

Moving to philosophy.

[Pythagorean]

The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, Francis Crick

Basically, the modern word for soul is consciousness.

[nismaratwork]

The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, Francis Crick

Basically, the modern word for soul is consciousness.

That is the explanation that works for me, and beyond that I think my capacity to understand the topic with current technology is at an end.

tJohnstone: Sorry that I got your intent off kilter!

[skippy1729]

Hi, there

I'm not entirely sure where to post this, so please forgive me if this is the incorrect area to post in.

So, I've been studying a bit on psychology, physics and other areas too. I don't believe that there's such thing as a spirit or soul, I think that's part of your body, but I was wondering if anybody had any research that supports the idea that the spirit or soul isn't separate from your body, but rather what the brain does - if you get what I mean.

Thanks!

You might want to look at:

The Emerging Physics of Consciousness - edited by J. A. Tuszynski - Springer 2006

which covers several materialistic approaches, some classical, some quantum.

Skippy

PS Although it is not what you are looking for, there is some scientific research being done by the University of Virginia, School of Medicine, Division of Perceptual Studies on apparent cases of reincarnation. They are continuing the work of the late Dr. Ian Stevenson. http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/home-page.

[Boy@n]

Until I, or whoever, understands how you can make a computer, or whole internet (since it's even more complex than the brain itself), aware of itself (and also have true feelings), I'd be inclined, and very much so, that there is something beyond this physical realm we scientifically can understand and/or prove.

So, yes, in my experience, we, humans, have souls. Or rather, souls enable us to be aware and feel while existing in this physical bodies which are governed my natural laws, but via souls, free-will is possible, not just consciousness, pain and pleasure and other "human" qualities.

[nismaratwork]

Until I, or whoever, understands how you can make a computer, or whole internet (since it's even more complex than the brain itself), aware of itself (and also have true feelings), I'd be inclined, and very much so, that there is something beyond this physical realm we scientifically can understand and/or prove.

So, yes, in my experience, we, humans, have souls. Or rather, souls enable us to be aware and feel while existing in this physical bodies which are governed my natural laws, but via souls, free-will is possible, not just consciousness, pain and pleasure and other "human" qualities.

This is analogues to a demand by pre-space civilization that until they see that the earth is roughly spherical, they will assume it is flat.

[Pythagorean]

The Emerging Physics of Consciousness - edited by J. A. Tuszynski - Springer 2006


That's a good summary of the general topics of neurophysics! I've been looking for a text like that for a while.

[apeiron]

That's a good summary of the general topics of neurophysics! I've been looking for a text like that for a while.

Actually it is quantum consciousness crack-pottery.....

[Pythagorean]

Take a closer look. Quantum is only one topic. It covers several approaches.

[Evo]

Until I, or whoever, understands how you can make a computer, or whole internet (since it's even more complex than the brain itself), aware of itself (and also have true feelings), I'd be inclined, and very much so, that there is something beyond this physical realm we scientifically can understand and/or prove.Your lack of understanding means nothing. If you knew how simple the internet was you'd be too ashamed to post here again.

So, yes, in my experience, we, humans, have souls. Or rather, souls enable us to be aware and feel while existing in this physical bodies which are governed my natural laws, but via souls, free-will is possible, not just consciousness, pain and pleasure and other "human" qualities.This is nonsense.

[apeiron]

Take a closer look. Quantum is only one topic. It covers several approaches.

OK, apart from Scott, which isn't a crackpot approach?

[Pythagorean]

OK, apart from Scott, which isn't a crackpot approach?

Well, Scott's approach is the only one I'm actually familiar with (as in, I've done hands on research in the subject) and it's necessarily classical (i.e. not quantum).

But there's other non-quantum approaches in the book that represent the general neurophysics (and not just to conscoiusness, btw, neuroscience in general):

JohnJoe McFadden
Avner Priel, et al
Christopher Davia
Nancy J Woolf

Who have all been productive in neuroscience research and have little to no mention of QM.

Anyway, there's no reason QM somehow shouldn't be applied to neuroscience in general. It already successfully has. "Quantum Consciousness" as developed by Penrose is what largely receives the criticism, but that's a very narrow scope and shouldn't represent all things QM + neuroscience. Pretty much all of the chemistry that is done in neuroscience would be meaningless without it's recent developments through QM.

[Pythagorean]

Though I must admit, I'm disappointed to not see a thermodynamics chapter.

[apeiron]

JohnJoe McFadden
Avner Priel, et al
Christopher Davia
Nancy J Woolf


You can't have read these authors before coming to that opinion.

All these researchers are part of a crackpot subculture organised by Hameroff.

[Pythagorean]

You can't have read these authors before coming to that opinion.

All these researchers are part of a crackpot subculture organised by Hameroff.

Well, no, I don't know the authors. I was looking at the subjects:

microtubules, computational properties of dendritic cytoskeleton, metabolism, etc, are all valid topics in neuroscience. I have no idea about their applications to consciousness, but I'm starting to steer clear of the direct topic of consciousness more and more lately.

[apeiron]

Well, no, I don't know the authors. I was looking at the subjects:

microtubules, computational properties of dendritic cytoskeleton, metabolism, etc, are all valid topics in neuroscience. I have no idea about their applications to consciousness, but I'm starting to steer clear of the direct topic of consciousness more and more lately.

OK, if you ever read the research :uhh:, you will see it is indeed all quantum consciousness crack-pottery.....

[Pythagorean]

OK, if you ever read the research :uhh:, you will see it is indeed all quantum consciousness crack-pottery.....

Ok... let's look at each author and what they've contributed to the field of neuroscience:

Nancy Woolf:

http://nwoolf.bol.ucla.edu/

yep, bonified neuroscience research topics.

Christopher Davia:

http://www.psy.cmu.edu:16080/~davia/mbc/4start.html

Davia hasn't done anything productive that I can find. He only has this very informal proposal that's based on a dynamical systems view. I won't judge him so quickly.

Johnjoe McFadden, lets look at his paper contributions:

http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/papers.pdf

His papers are boring and very obviously not crackpottery... But the books he writes for the public... yeah, ok, he's a little out there.

Avner Priel:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?rlz=1C1DVCG_enUS354US354&q=Avner%20Priel&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws

Has been productive in biophysics with similar titles to those presented in this book.




So, besides JohnJoe McFadden, would you please explain to me why the others are crackpots?

[apeiron]

So, besides JohnJoe McFadden, would you please explain to me why the others are crackpots?

Yes, some of these guys have day jobs. When you have read more than the contents page of the book, get back to me........:zzz:

[brainstorm]

Could the idea of spirits represent a premodern attempt to describe certain kinds of cultural processes where people's subjectivity comes to function in terms of subconsciously learned cultural parameters? This might be something like the way physicists used to try to explain the propagation of light with reference to a fictitious medium, "ether."

[nismaratwork]

Could the idea of spirits represent a premodern attempt to describe certain kinds of cultural processes where people's subjectivity comes to function in terms of subconsciously learned cultural parameters? This might be something like the way physicists used to try to explain the propagation of light with reference to a fictitious medium, "ether."

Certainly there have been examples of this, where "infestation by devils" and other variations were blamed for deviations from the norm, illness, and more. It's very common to ascribe to an external force, effects caused by mechanisms that we don't understand.

[apeiron]

Could the idea of spirits represent a premodern attempt to describe certain kinds of cultural processes where people's subjectivity comes to function in terms of subconsciously learned cultural parameters? This might be something like the way physicists used to try to explain the propagation of light with reference to a fictitious medium, "ether."

The connection between the notions of mind (as a spiritual substance) and aether are in fact much closer than you perhaps realise.

Anaxagoras, for example, based his philosophy on the (Anaximander-derived of course) dichotomy of chaos and nous. Chaos was the "heavy materials", the mixed ball of atomistic substance. Nous was then the organising principle, the mindful swirling motion that set up a process of disruption and aggregation.

The "stuff" the nous was made of was the aether - the most rarified form of substance. And nous later became more clearly identified with reason and human insight, psyche and consciousness.

Plato and Aristotle eventually managed to make a comple(ish) break with materialism by treating form as an ontic category all of its own. But the idea that everything that exists must be some kind of substance (whether weighty or rarified) has persisted.

Hence the view, if there are souls, they must be made of some kind of actual stuff (a spirit) - a vital or animating substance.

And this is EXACTLY the mistake that the quantum crackpots make in seeking the secret of consciousness in some kind of material process. They say, well classical materialism does not seem to explain how brains have minds, so we will have to dig down to an even more fundamental level and find how brains harness the special properties of QM, like superposition and nonlocality.

Mind studies is plagued by this kind of beginner's metaphysics. Systems arise as the interaction of substance and form - local construction and global constraints. Or chaos and nous as Anaxagoras put it.

So consciousness has to be modelled in terms of substance and form, not crude substance and rarified substance. (And the kinds of forms we are talking about are shaping purposes like the need to anticipate the world, to model reality).

[nismaratwork]

The connection between the notions of mind (as a spiritual substance) and aether are in fact much closer than you perhaps realise.

Anaxagoras, for example, based his philosophy on the (Anaximander-derived of course) dichotomy of chaos and nous. Chaos was the "heavy materials", the mixed ball of atomistic substance. Nous was then the organising principle, the mindful swirling motion that set up a process of disruption and aggregation.

The "stuff" the nous was made of was the aether - the most rarified form of substance. And nous later became more clearly identified with reason and human insight, psyche and consciousness.

Plato and Aristotle eventually managed to make a comple(ish) break with materialism by treating form as an ontic category all of its own. But the idea that everything that exists must be some kind of substance (whether weighty or rarified) has persisted.

Hence the view, if there are souls, they must be made of some kind of actual stuff (a spirit) - a vital or animating substance.

And this is EXACTLY the mistake that the quantum crackpots make in seeking the secret of consciousness in some kind of material process. They say, well classical materialism does not seem to explain how brains have minds, so we will have to dig down to an even more fundamental level and find how brains harness the special properties of QM, like superposition and nonlocality.

Mind studies is plagued by this kind of beginner's metaphysics. Systems arise as the interaction of substance and form - local construction and global constraints. Or chaos and nous as Anaxagoras put it.

So consciousness has to be modelled in terms of substance and form, not crude substance and rarified substance. (And the kinds of forms we are talking about are shaping purposes like the need to anticipate the world, to model reality).

The killer is, consciousness may be largely illusory... just a level of complexity we as humans recognize, but not a significant plateau... and in the midst of this the genuine question of whether or not classical or quantum processes play a factor in such an emergence (if there is such a thing) is choked with supposition. It could very well be that the brain uses some quantum processes, but that wouldn't mean that those processes are the magical seat of the "MIND". I'm reminded if Ivan_Seeking's complaint about UFO skeptics and believers; both are blinded by their preconceptions, so the real science that could occur takes a backseat on both sides of the equation.

Photosynthesis seems to make use of QM, but that doesn't mean plants are magical. In the same way, it may be that a search for the mind emerging from the brain is a fruitless thing. In fact, the only way it CAN yield results is if one works with the assumption of a physical or spiritually tangible result that can be found, and by necessity that presupposes a very inaccurate view of human consciousness.

[Pythagorean]

Yes, some of these guys have day jobs. When you have read more than the contents page of the book, get back to me........:zzz:

Fair enough.

I don't really read science books geared for the public. I'm more likely to judge a scientific author based on their peer-reviewed published works.

What I've been looking for though is a text that covers the general topic of neurophysics (both theoretical and applied). I'm not going to be bias about which ones I like and don't like. As long as someone is making a falsifiable statement it should be included.

For now, all I've been able to do is look around to different neurophysics departments to see what kind of research they're doing. Some of the major topics I've found so far are:

Quantum approaches (you obviously know the theoretical aspect already, but there's also an applied medical aspect that's wholly removed from it and has been productive.)

Classical approaches:

dynamical systems, which is a study of behavior and relationships more than the variable or observable itself. (membrane potential and relaxation variable are popular, but there's also volume transmission to consider). Theoretical and practical applications.

thermodynamics (free energy principle, 2nd law), both theoretical and practical applications.

electromagnetics (action potentials, field interactions), both theoretical and practical.

This neurophysics group has a variety of research publications, not necessarily pertaining to any of the above categories:

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/neurophysics/neurophysics/Publications.html

Here's the Institute of Theoretical Neurophysics:

http://www.neuro.uni-bremen.de/~web/index.php?id=2&link=publications.php

At some point, some of these publications veer more towards the computational approach, so I'm still trying to make sense of the field and haven't been able to find a summary of the different approaches (this table of contents from the above book are the closest I've found). Perhaps you have an alternative suggestion?

[apeiron]

Photosynthesis seems to make use of QM, but that doesn't mean plants are magical. In the same way, it may be that a search for the mind emerging from the brain is a fruitless thing. In fact, the only way it CAN yield results is if one works with the assumption of a physical or spiritually tangible result that can be found, and by necessity that presupposes a very inaccurate view of human consciousness.

What is fruitless is to try do derive a theory of mind only from material processes.

Certainly a theory of mind will needed to be grounded in a materialistic account (one that talks about neurons and synapses, then microtubules and vesicles - but probably not any QM mechanism).

But my point is that it needs to be equally grounded in formal processes - talk about the structures and organisational principles. And this is what we do when we talk about neural net models or dissipative structure theory.

However, so few people study systems approaches that they don't realise there is this complementary direction of explanation. They know all about the trail of material causality that runs from simple QM and atomic scales, to complicated chemical, biological and neurological scale. But just cannot see the matching hierarchy of explanation that connects models of complex adaptive systems, or anticipatory systems, back to dissipative structure theory and thermodynamics generally.

And yes, the very term "consciousness" is incredibly unexamined. Most people who use the term could not tell you the difference between attention and habit, ideas and impressions, socialised human self-awareness and biological anticipatory modelling, etc.

It is a portmanteau term that creates a fiction we are dealing with just "one thing".

[nismaratwork]

What is fruitless is to try do derive a theory of mind only from material processes.

Certainly a theory of mind will needed to be grounded in a materialistic account (one that talks about neurons and synapses, then microtubules and vesicles - but probably not any QM mechanism).

But my point is that it needs to be equally grounded in formal processes - talk about the structures and organisational principles. And this is what we do when we talk about neural net models or dissipative structure theory.

However, so few people study systems approaches that they don't realise there is this complementary direction of explanation. They know all about the trail of material causality that runs from simple QM and atomic scales, to complicated chemical, biological and neurological scale. But just cannot see the matching hierarchy of explanation that connects models of complex adaptive systems, or anticipatory systems, back to dissipative structure theory and thermodynamics generally.

And yes, the very term "consciousness" is incredibly unexamined. Most people who use the term could not tell you the difference between attention and habit, ideas and impressions, socialised human self-awareness and biological anticipatory modelling, etc.

It is a portmanteau term that creates a fiction we are dealing with just "one thing".

What can I say except... yep, I agree with everything that you just wrote.

[apeiron]

What can I say except... yep, I agree with everything that you just wrote.

Agreement is liable to earn you an infraction on PF you realise o:). But you could say what kinds of theory of form you might favour.

For example, there is Friston and Hinton's Bayesian brain model which is getting quite detailed now....
http://reverendbayes.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/bayesian-theory-in-new-scientist/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_brain

And here is a proper book representing the cutting edge of mainstream thought...
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11106

Or there is the similar and earlier adaptive resonance models of Stephen Grossberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Grossberg
http://cns-web.bu.edu/~steve/

These are what theories of form actually look like at the detailed neuroscientific level.

[nismaratwork]

Agreement is liable to earn you an infraction on PF you realise o:). But you could say what kinds of theory of form you might favour.

For example, there is Friston and Hinton's Bayesian brain model which is getting quite detailed now....
http://reverendbayes.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/bayesian-theory-in-new-scientist/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_brain

And here is a proper book representing the cutting edge of mainstream thought...
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11106

Or there is the similar and earlier adaptive resonance models of Stephen Grossberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Grossberg
http://cns-web.bu.edu/~steve/

These are what theories of form actually look like at the detailed neuroscientific level.

I'm familiar with the Bayesian theory in relation to economics, computation, and neurology so I'm skewed towards that. The cutting edge is interesting, but... well... it's the edge and I don't feel comfortable hanging my hat on the ideas espoused. Grossberg's work is interesting, but I prefer the latter two, especially the Bayesian model. I never was able to accept some of the notions of how adaptation occurs as presented by Stephen Grossberg, but that could be my own limitation.

[brainstorm]

Certainly there have been examples of this, where "infestation by devils" and other variations were blamed for deviations from the norm, illness, and more. It's very common to ascribe to an external force, effects caused by mechanisms that we don't understand.
Strangely, I don't know when the language of "norms" and "deviance" surfaced in social science. I can't imagine they precede the notion that behavior can be defined in terms of statistical patterns of a larger population. I also wonder if "spirit" was always used to describe what would now be called "deviance" or whether normative behavior was also explained in terms of spirits. In a modern materialist mindset, it is common to think in terms of vectors for pathology but not for health - I think it is very recent that specific pro-health "vectors" are being considered rather than just treating health as the natural state of a "normally" functioning body. I have heard of being in "good spirits" or the religious notion of "holy spirit" but I don't know of any other specific references to spirits in a positive context. On the other hand, what kind of bad spirits are ever mentioned except "evil spirits" generally?


Mind studies is plagued by this kind of beginner's metaphysics. Systems arise as the interaction of substance and form - local construction and global constraints. Or chaos and nous as Anaxagoras put it.

So consciousness has to be modelled in terms of substance and form, not crude substance and rarified substance. (And the kinds of forms we are talking about are shaping purposes like the need to anticipate the world, to model reality).

Maybe these people just haven't received enough nous from the aether:) Thanks for the history lesson. It's always interesting, if confounding, to hear these kinds of explanations that make little if any logical sense (at least not upon first reading). Well, they make a little sense but beyond the initial distinction between form and substance, I don't see the logic in the sub-level distinctions.

[nismaratwork]

Strangely, I don't know when the language of "norms" and "deviance" surfaced in social science. I can't imagine they precede the notion that behavior can be defined in terms of statistical patterns of a larger population. I also wonder if "spirit" was always used to describe what would now be called "deviance" or whether normative behavior was also explained in terms of spirits. In a modern materialist mindset, it is common to think in terms of vectors for pathology but not for health - I think it is very recent that specific pro-health "vectors" are being considered rather than just treating health as the natural state of a "normally" functioning body. I have heard of being in "good spirits" or the religious notion of "holy spirit" but I don't know of any other specific references to spirits in a positive context. On the other hand, what kind of bad spirits are ever mentioned except "evil spirits" generally?




Maybe these people just haven't received enough nous from the aether:) Thanks for the history lesson. It's always interesting, if confounding, to hear these kinds of explanations that make little if any logical sense (at least not upon first reading). Well, they make a little sense but beyond the initial distinction between form and substance, I don't see the logic in the sub-level distinctions.

In the case of western European cultures, there is very little to be said for "good spirits", until you go back to Celtic and Norse legends... and even then it's a bit iffy. In the case of Indian (both types), Asian, and many other cultures you have spirits which rule or can aid everything from personal health to the fecundity of livestock. I can get a bunch of examples online, but it's not hard to research, and it's way off the original topic here. It would make for a good new thread however, and I'd be up for that.

[tJjohnstone]

WOW! Thanks for all the responses! I'm very tired but I'll have a read and respond tomorrow :D.

[tJjohnstone]

tJohnstone: Sorry that I got your intent off kilter!
No worries :)

You might want to look at:

The Emerging Physics of Consciousness - edited by J. A. Tuszynski - Springer 2006


I'll have a look, however I'm skeptical due to what others have said.

So, yes, in my experience, we, humans, have souls. Or rather, souls enable us to be aware and feel while existing in this physical bodies which are governed my natural laws, but via souls, free-will is possible, not just consciousness, pain and pleasure and other "human" qualities.

Sorry, but that simply isn't how science works.

[tJjohnstone]

Could the idea of spirits represent a premodern attempt to describe certain kinds of cultural processes where people's subjectivity comes to function in terms of subconsciously learned cultural parameters? This might be something like the way physicists used to try to explain the propagation of light with reference to a fictitious medium, "ether."

I've wondered that.

The killer is, consciousness may be largely illusory

A question I do have though is, if we don't have free choice, why would we have evolved the illusion of it? Honestly, I don't know if we have free choice, I haven't researched it enough to form an opinion, it's a very interesting topic as well.

[Math Is Hard]

I think you would be pretty hard-pressed to find studies that don't support the materialist perspective. You will find a wealth of research that demonstrates that if you physically or chemically change the brain, you alter the also mind/personality/behavior, more or less, what many people regard as "the soul".

I recall my introductory behavioral neuroscience textbook started off with a history of of philosophical views on materialism and dualism, and then basically went on to say: "If you have any ideas about dualism, get them out of your head right now."

Lesson 1: Phineas Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage).


A question I do have though is, if we don't have free choice, why would we have evolved the illusion of it? Honestly, I don't know if we have free choice, I haven't researched it enough to form an opinion, it's a very interesting topic as well.

New topic, so let's save that for a new thread.