The "Soul" Doesn't Die

[Pastor Dave]

I ran across this Article today and thought some here might find it interesting. The attention grabbing headline reads, "Scientists Concluded That the Soul Does NOT Die – It Goes Back to the Universe!" Of course I had to read it to see what groundbreaking new theory could propose such a thing. It seems that the information that makes you you and me me is stored in what they call micro-tubules. Once we die these guys say that these micro-tubules lose their quantum state.

 

" Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an American physicist, and Sir Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist, claim that the soul is maintained in brain cells’ micro-tubules. Both researchers refer to this process as “Orch-OR” or “Orchestrated Objective Reduction.” "

 

" In case the patient is resuscitated, revived, then this quantum information could go back into the micro-tubules and they say that they had a near-death experience. However, in case the patient isn’t revived, and they die, then this quantum information may exist indefinitely outside the body, as a soul. "

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I would be thrilled if such proof of the soul actually existed.  That would be wonderful.  As it is, what did they prove?  That death brings about physical changes?  I can contain my excitement.  

 

Even if they found the receptor site where the soul resides -- they call this proof?-- it still remains to establish that something continues to exist.  Seriously?  A dead body loses it's quantum state?  It's called decay.  

[cuchulain]

It seems to me the article didn't really so much provide proof of the existence of the soul as show a possibility that information in our heads are contained physically...in our brains...and even then the article claims this as a theory, but doesn't really cite any of the data or experiments.  And information we contain doesn't really die, just transforms into a different state?  But, how does that information get processed in the future?  And DOES it get processed in the future?  If not...isn't it as good as one of those old floppy disks that nobody uses anymore?

I dunno...I guess I just don't see the evidence for a soul in the first place from this information.  And it comes from a website that seems a little hinky to me personally, like it is trying to push an agenda, although I suppose the same could be said for many websites that are considered reputable.  

[Pastor Dave]

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I would be thrilled if such proof of the soul actually existed.  That would be wonderful.  As it is, what did they prove?  That death brings about physical changes?  I can contain my excitement.  

 

Even if they found the receptor site where the soul resides -- they call this proof?-- it still remains to establish that something continues to exist.  Seriously?  A dead body loses it's quantum state?  It's called decay.  

 

 

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

It seems to me the article didn't really so much provide proof of the existence of the soul as show a possibility that information in our heads are contained physically...in our brains...and even then the article claims this as a theory, but doesn't really cite any of the data or experiments.  And information we contain doesn't really die, just transforms into a different state?  But, how does that information get processed in the future?  And DOES it get processed in the future?  If not...isn't it as good as one of those old floppy disks that nobody uses anymore?

I dunno...I guess I just don't see the evidence for a soul in the first place from this information.  And it comes from a website that seems a little hinky to me personally, like it is trying to push an agenda, although I suppose the same could be said for many websites that are considered reputable.  

 

I have to agree with you both here. There is not really any proof in the story. The article seems to me to be written by someone who was less concerned with the details than they were concerned with sensationalizing the theory. That being said, I have started to look into the theory a little farther. Although this is the first time I can remember hearing about it, it was originally proposed in the '90s.The article I'm reading now is much more detailed and a little hard to fully grasp. I'm about 1/4 of the way through it so far. If I see anything that seems to be more quantifiable I'll let you all know.

 

BTW, when I searched Google for info on Orch OR there was also in the "related searches" Orch OR debunked which I may read next.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

45 minutes ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

 

 

I have to agree with you both here. There is not really any proof in the story. The article seems to me to be written by someone who was less concerned with the details than they were concerned with sensationalizing the theory. That being said, I have started to look into the theory a little farther. Although this is the first time I can remember hearing about it, it was originally proposed in the '90s.The article I'm reading now is much more detailed and a little hard to fully grasp. I'm about 1/4 of the way through it so far. If I see anything that seems to be more quantifiable I'll let you all know.

 

BTW, when I searched Google for info on Orch OR there was also in the "related searches" Orch OR debunked which I may read next.

 

The sad thing here, is that I would love to be convinced, with real evidence, that I have a soul.  Alas, what really sets off my bull crap detector, is when people adopt the language of science, without actually talking science.  A prime example is the author of this piece, talking about "quantum state".  Does the author even know what "quantum state" means?  It's all very sciency but it's not science.

 

It was a lovely thought and I thank you for the effort.  If you find something with more substance, I would love to see it.

 

            

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

It seems to me the article didn't really so much provide proof of the existence of the soul as show a possibility that information in our heads are contained physically...in our brains...and even then the article claims this as a theory, but doesn't really cite any of the data or experiments.  And information we contain doesn't really die, just transforms into a different state?  But, how does that information get processed in the future?  And DOES it get processed in the future?  If not...isn't it as good as one of those old floppy disks that nobody uses anymore?

I dunno...I guess I just don't see the evidence for a soul in the first place from this information.  And it comes from a website that seems a little hinky to me personally, like it is trying to push an agenda, although I suppose the same could be said for many websites that are considered reputable.  

 

 

The most hard core of materialists, would agree that we process and store stuff in our brains.  It's not really pushing the boundary.  

[VonNoble]

On 9/11/2017 at 6:00 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I would be thrilled if such proof of the soul actually existed.  That would be wonderful.  As it is, what did they prove?  That death brings about physical changes?  I can contain my excitement.  

 

Even if they found the receptor site where the soul resides -- they call this proof?-- it still remains to establish that something continues to exist.  Seriously?  A dead body loses it's quantum state?  It's called decay.  

 

jonathan H.B. Lobl,

First thanks for making me chuckle - you position mostly mirrors my own but i 

loved your panache in summarizing it. 

 

PASTOR DAVE:  Thanks for bringing this to my (our) attention - I will do some 

digging around also.    It was a good slice of information to ponder and 

worthwhile to do so. 

 

When I was new to the FORUM....I was taken to task by a then "ruling" atheist of 

the joint  for wondering out loud if anything survives us in death....some spark

of matter that carries our DNA into the decay process and beyond.   

 

After thinking that over for a decade or so - my conclusion is that it has no

merit for me (just speaking for me) to ponder that any longer.    What does it

matter what happens next?   I'll find out if and when there is a "next" existence. 

 

Just do what I can to be useful now - and let later take care of itself. 

 

I do know, for sure, that the lasting impact from this life is in our actions

(or lack thereof) 

 

Thanks to all - good thread

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

jonathan H.B. Lobl,

First thanks for making me chuckle - you position mostly mirrors my own but i 

loved your panache in summarizing it. 

 

PASTOR DAVE:  Thanks for bringing this to my (our) attention - I will do some 

digging around also.    It was a good slice of information to ponder and 

worthwhile to do so. 

 

When I was new to the FORUM....I was taken to task by a then "ruling" atheist of 

the joint  for wondering out loud if anything survives us in death....some spark

of matter that carries our DNA into the decay process and beyond.   

 

After thinking that over for a decade or so - my conclusion is that it has no

merit for me (just speaking for me) to ponder that any longer.    What does it

matter what happens next?   I'll find out if and when there is a "next" existence. 

 

Just do what I can to be useful now - and let later take care of itself. 

 

I do know, for sure, that the lasting impact from this life is in our actions

(or lack thereof) 

 

Thanks to all - good thread

 

von

 

 

This is similar to my understanding of Agnosticism.  When death comes, there are only two possibilities.  Either there is something that happens next -- or nothing happens next.

 

If there is something that happens next, we may or may not find out, depending on what it is.  If sentience continues, then we will find out.  If sentience does not continue, we won't find out.

 

If nothing happens next, then we will never know.  Best to enjoy this life while we have it.  It is the only life we can be sure of.

 

Above all, we must not let our selves be intimidated, by people who insist that they know what the answer is.  No.  They don't.  They may believe that they know.  They are mistaken.  Nobody knows.  Belief is not knowledge.  

 

If any real evidence comes up, I will be happy to reevaluate everything. I do mean EVERYTHING.   It has to be real evidence.  Not this humbug.  

[mererdog]

21 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

They may believe that they know.  They are mistaken.  Nobody knows.  

How do you know that they don't know? You know, as distinct from simply believing that they don't? And doesn't deciding that no one else knows make it impossible to fairly weigh new information that contradicts the conviction? 

[Pastor Dave]

Alright, I've finished the scientific article located here  (ok I may have skipped a few areas where quantum math formula's were being given) and it appears that the original article may have read into the theory something that I did not see being discussed in a well written review of the theory.  It seems to me that Orch OR is a theory of how/where/when consciousness occurs. I saw nothing about a soul.

 

The writer gives a list of criticisms and responses. (Found in section 5.6)

5.6. Orch OR criticisms and responses

Orch OR has been criticized repeatedly since its inception. Here we review and summarize major criticisms and responses.

 

They also give a list of predictions of Orch OR. (Found in section 5.7)

5.7. Testable predictions of Orch OR – current status

Orch OR involves numerous fairly specific and essentially falsifiable hypotheses. In 1998 twenty testable predictions of Orch OR in 9 general categories were published [15]. They are reviewed here with our comments on their current status in italics.

 

Their conclusion to the article;

 

‘Orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’) is a theory which proposes that consciousness consists of a sequence of discrete events, each being a moment of ‘objective reduction’ (OR) of a quantum state (according to the DP scheme), where it is taken that these quantum states exist as parts of a quantum computations carried on primarily in neuronal microtubules. Such OR events would have to be ‘orchestrated’ in an appropriate way (Orch OR), for genuine consciousness to arise. OR itself is taken to be ubiquitous in physical actions, representing the ‘bridge’ between the quantum and classical worlds, where quantum superpositions between pairs of states get spontaneously resolved into classical alternatives in a timescale ∼τ, calculated from the amount of mass displacement that there is between the two states. In our own brains, the OR process that evoke consciousness, would be actions that connect brain biology (quantum computations in microtubules) with the fine scale structure of space–time geometry, the most basic level of the universe, where tiny quantum space–time displacements are taken to be responsible for OR. The Orch-OR proposal therefore stretches across a considerable range of areas of science, touching upon the foundations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, in unconventional ways, in addition to the more obviously relevant areas such as neuroscience, cognitive science, molecular biology, and philosophy. It is not surprising, therefore, that Orch OR has been persistently criticized from many angles since its introduction in 1994. Nonetheless, the Orch OR scheme has so far stood the test of time better than most other schemes, and it is particularly distinguished from other proposals by the many scientifically tested, and potentially testable, ingredients that it depends upon.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Pastor Dave

[Pastor Dave]

On a side note;

I suppose, if the writer of the initial article viewed consciousness as being the soul, then it could be seen as "less" of an act of sensationalizing.

That of course brings us back to cuchulain's point in the topic "Does the human soul exist?". Until we can come to an agreement on what a soul is we will continue to have disagreement on all points relating to the soul.

 

[mererdog]

I thought we had all agreed to define it as "An item, area, system, energetic state, or made-up thing that James Brown was the godfather of."

Really, though, if we can't all come together behind that, what hope is there for the children?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

How do you know that they don't know? You know, as distinct from simply believing that they don't? And doesn't deciding that no one else knows make it impossible to fairly weigh new information that contradicts the conviction? 

 

Now that you've asked -- I don't know.  Perhaps my reasoning is flawed.  I don't have an answer.  

 

Is there a reason to think that somebody does know?  Or might know?  Distinct from thinking that they know, and being mistaken?  

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

Alright, I've finished the scientific article located here  (ok I may have skipped a few areas where quantum math formula's were being given) and it appears that the original article may have read into the theory something that I did not see being discussed in a well written review of the theory.  It seems to me that Orch OR is a theory of how/where/when consciousness occurs. I saw nothing about a soul.

 

The writer gives a list of criticisms and responses. (Found in section 5.6)

5.6. Orch OR criticisms and responses

Orch OR has been criticized repeatedly since its inception. Here we review and summarize major criticisms and responses.

 

They also give a list of predictions of Orch OR. (Found in section 5.7)

5.7. Testable predictions of Orch OR – current status

Orch OR involves numerous fairly specific and essentially falsifiable hypotheses. In 1998 twenty testable predictions of Orch OR in 9 general categories were published [15]. They are reviewed here with our comments on their current status in italics.

 

Their conclusion to the article;

 

‘Orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’) is a theory which proposes that consciousness consists of a sequence of discrete events, each being a moment of ‘objective reduction’ (OR) of a quantum state (according to the DP scheme), where it is taken that these quantum states exist as parts of a quantum computations carried on primarily in neuronal microtubules. Such OR events would have to be ‘orchestrated’ in an appropriate way (Orch OR), for genuine consciousness to arise. OR itself is taken to be ubiquitous in physical actions, representing the ‘bridge’ between the quantum and classical worlds, where quantum superpositions between pairs of states get spontaneously resolved into classical alternatives in a timescale ∼τ, calculated from the amount of mass displacement that there is between the two states. In our own brains, the OR process that evoke consciousness, would be actions that connect brain biology (quantum computations in microtubules) with the fine scale structure of space–time geometry, the most basic level of the universe, where tiny quantum space–time displacements are taken to be responsible for OR. The Orch-OR proposal therefore stretches across a considerable range of areas of science, touching upon the foundations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, in unconventional ways, in addition to the more obviously relevant areas such as neuroscience, cognitive science, molecular biology, and philosophy. It is not surprising, therefore, that Orch OR has been persistently criticized from many angles since its introduction in 1994. Nonetheless, the Orch OR scheme has so far stood the test of time better than most other schemes, and it is particularly distinguished from other proposals by the many scientifically tested, and potentially testable, ingredients that it depends upon.

 

 

What language are they speaking ?  Why does it stink of cultishness?  My b-s detector is going off big time.  

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

On a side note;

I suppose, if the writer of the initial article viewed consciousness as being the soul, then it could be seen as "less" of an act of sensationalizing.

That of course brings us back to cuchulain's point in the topic "Does the human soul exist?". Until we can come to an agreement on what a soul is we will continue to have disagreement on all points relating to the soul.

 

 

 

In very loose terms, I would say that the soul is what survives the death of the body.  Let us find this.  Then we can figure out what it is.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

I thought we had all agreed to define it as "An item, area, system, energetic state, or made-up thing that James Brown was the godfather of."

Really, though, if we can't all come together behind that, what hope is there for the children?

 

If we are going there, the sole is the bottom of the foot.  Also a tasty fish.  And the capital of South Korea.          

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Orch or on Youtube:

 

There is a lot of material on Youtube on the subject of Orch Or.  The subject matter is quantum consciousness.

 

The video that made the most sense to me, was the one that insisted that Orch Or is bull **.  (From the standpoint of physics)