Can Neurology Explain the Human Soul?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between neurology and the concept of the human soul, arguing that understanding brain signals, particularly during strong emotional experiences, could provide insights into human consciousness. It posits that there is no scientific necessity for the concept of a soul, as human behavior can be explained through the complex interactions of neurons. The conversation also touches on the idea that exploring the fundamental workings of the brain may lead to discoveries akin to the Higgs field, although this connection is questioned. Critics argue that studying the Higgs field requires specific conditions that are not applicable to neurological studies. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the need for a scientific approach to understanding human consciousness without invoking the notion of a soul.
smak64
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have read a great deal of psychology and I have a very strong feel that the explanation of human soul must lie in the neurology and study of brain signals especially in strong emotional states like listening to strong lyrical rap music or being in love.

I want to discuss it here so we can make something better out of this abstract idea and get somewhere.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From a scientific point of view (and this is a science forum), there is absolutely no reason to introduce the concept of a soul. What would it explain that cannot be explained without such a concept, and how would it explain that?
 
That the human race isn't driven by some absolute entity. The human mind is a complex network of neurons firing and forming patterns. If we could get to the trigger of the neuron at the base level and analyse some phenomenons, we may converge at the thing not explained yet(Higgs field) and we may find the missing part of the whole big equation.
 
smak64 said:
That the human race isn't driven by some absolute entity
What does that mean?
smak64 said:
The human mind is a complex network of neurons firing and forming patterns.
Right.
smak64 said:
If we could get to the trigger of the neuron at the base level and analyse some phenomenons, we may converge at the thing not explained yet(Higgs field) and we may find the missing part of the whole big equation.
That does not make sense at all.

To study the Higgs field, for example, you need something that depends on the properties of the Higgs field - like Higgs bosons. To produce Higgs bosons, you need a particle accelerator. You can't learn anything about the Higgs by studying a human brain (unless that human brain is a scientist working in particle physics, but then it is easier to just ask that person).
 
  • Like
Likes Shakir
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top