Scientific Test of the Soul

[Cheerful Charlie]

According to orthodox Christian theology, man has a soul. His organic brain needs a soul, if we are human. The soul is what survives our bodily death and is at the core of our consciousness and ability to reason and act.

I propose a thought experiment here.

A human subject sits before a test panel. There is a red light and a white light. If the white light come on, the subject pushes a white button. A panel will light up, reading "Correct" If the subject errs the "Incorrect" panel lights up. The subject does not know at the beginning what this test is all about. I suggest though that a reasonably intelligent subject will quickly figure it out and complete with a high degree of accuracy After 100 or so times, the "Test Ended" panel lights up.

Now, substitute a cage with a chicken. A red or white light lights up and stays lit for 5 seconds. It the chicken pecks the correct corresponding button within that time, it gets a tasty kernel of corn. I predict that the chicken will quickly figure this all out and will hit the correct button with good accuracy, to gain its corn kernel.

So we have a test here that would show both humans and chickens would perform similarly.

But the chicken has no soul. Merely a brain. It needs no soul to perform this simple intellectual task. So its possible the human likewise relies on their organic brain and needs no soul to succeed or explain how the human succeeded.

What then does the soul add to us in the realm of intelligence, will, and action? It seems to me that the concept of soul has nothing to add to explaining our actions, intellect or will.

What sort of test would demonstrate a soul in addition to our organic brain? Do we have anything more than a chicken?

 

[jonJ]

According to orthodox Christian theology, man has a soul. His organic brain needs a soul, if we are human. The soul is what survives our bodily death and is at the core of our consciousness and ability to reason and act.

I propose a thought experiment here.

A human subject sits before a test panel. There is a red light and a white light. If the white light come on, the subject pushes a white button. A panel will light up, reading "Correct" If the subject errs the "Incorrect" panel lights up. The subject does not know at the beginning what this test is all about. I suggest though that a reasonably intelligent subject will quickly figure it out and complete with a high degree of accuracy After 100 or so times, the "Test Ended" panel lights up.

Now, substitute a cage with a chicken. A red or white light lights up and stays lit for 5 seconds. It the chicken pecks the correct corresponding button within that time, it gets a tasty kernel of corn. I predict that the chicken will quickly figure this all out and will hit the correct button with good accuracy, to gain its corn kernel.

So we have a test here that would show both humans and chickens would perform similarly.

But the chicken has no soul. Merely a brain. It needs no soul to perform this simple intellectual task. So its possible the human likewise relies on their organic brain and needs no soul to succeed or explain how the human succeeded.

What then does the soul add to us in the realm of intelligence, will, and action? It seems to me that the concept of soul has nothing to add to explaining our actions, intellect or will.

What sort of test would demonstrate a soul in addition to our organic brain? Do we have anything more than a chicken?

OK, now kill the man and the chicken...

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Farmers - 13 billion Chickens - 0 The war goes on.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Chicken...Soul Food...Mmmmm.

Have discussssssssssssssssed with fundies the whole soul question. Some were even taken with discredited arguments about how a body weighs less immediately post death.

No. No tests come to mind more than chickens. But I would think that it weighs the same as a chicken brain, or maybe a couple pages worth of the appropriate biblical quotes, you know, about the same as a couple sections of quality toilet tissue.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Stop laughing damn you! This is science!

It is interesting that the Torah and prophets do not mention souls, nor afterlife nor hell nor heaven. In all the teaching of Moses and the Israelites by God himself, there is nary a hint of any such doctrines. If the soul is necessary for an afterlife, and if there is no afterlife as per the OT, there is no need theoretically for a soul. My chicken test would seem to indicate we need no soul for tasks needing thought and action.

In the years I have debated these issues with Christians, I have never gotten a good answer to why the Torah seems to leave these important concerns out. As Josephus points out in his "Antiquity of the Jews", the Sadducees who ran the Temple at Jerusalem did not believe in an afterlife. Because that doctrine is absent in the Torah.

Its a late addition to Judaism, I suspect copied from the Egyptians who were very concerned about their afterlives. And from who they probably got the idea of a soul. Though the Egyptians thought we had three separate kinds of souls. Or five or even seven souls.

And one more reason I doubt the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years. Joshua 24 claims that in Egypt, the Israelites worshipped the Egyptian Gods, so they should have asked God, "Don't we get an afterlife in the Western Lands"?

And why don't chickens get a soul and an afterlife?

 

[Underseer]

Not very damn likely. Even Descartes could not provide a compelling reason to believe in souls, and everything we've learned since then just put more nails in the coffin.




And that's without taking into account all the work in neuroscience that debunks the notion of souls.

 

[Random Person]

Maybe chickens have souls too.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Maybe chickens have souls too.

Yes, that is a response. Its just that chicken souls don't go to heaven, you see little atheist? Uhm, no. In Aristotle's view of souls, soul is more akin to mind, a sort of black box about which Aristotle makes "observations". The soul has intellectual, appetitive abilities et al. And there are human souls, animal souls, vegatative souls, as some theists drawing on this back round have in fact opined animals have souls, ignoring the fact that Aristotle's view of souls was a world apart from the Christian view. Of course some, notably Rene Descartes denied animals have souls. As a notorious example, Descartes declared cats have no souls and hence aren't truly conscious.

So my chicken test would arguably strictly apply only to those who follow Descartes dictum.

So we must ask, if Descartes is wrong, and chickens do have consciousness and souls, why don't they get to go to heaven? Why is God so mean to chickens? Or maybe they do, and the fact the Bible doesn't openly state that doesn't mean they don't.

Isn't theology fun?

 

[bilby]

The problem for a soul is that either it is made of stuff from the Standard Model, or it is made of something else.

If it was made of Standard Model particles and/or forces, then we would be able to detect it interacting with, arriving in, or departing from, the brain and/or body, which we know are made of such particles and forces. We do NOT detect souls in these circumstances, despite many people making a determined effort to do so. Indeed, were the soul made of such particles or forces, we would have spotted one by now.

That means that if souls are real, they must consist of particles and/or forces that are not a part of the Standard Model. Unfortunately for believers, quantum physics rules out the existence of any such unknown particles or forces at energies that could be survived by human beings. The particle accelerators at CERN and elsewhere have rigorously investigated the particles and forces that exist up to some very high energies. Any such unknown particles and forces are either so energetic that they would atomize a human; or they are so weak that they wouldn't interact with an entity as minuscule as a human. No strongly interacting low-energy particle can exist, other than those we already know about. If they did, we would have found them at CERN and elsewhere. Unless Quantum Field Theory is wrong.

So the idea of the soul can only be saved by rejecting Quantum Field Theory - one of the best tested and most reliably accurate theories in the history of science. If, and ONLY if, you think that 'a vague feeling that something ought to exist despite zero tangible evidence for it' outweighs 'the best tested science in all of history', can you continue to believe in the existence of souls; and if you are prepared to make such a startlingly moronic claim, then you deserve nothing but derision for your irrationality.

The claim that humans have an immaterial 'soul' is LESS plausible than the claim that the Moon is made of Stilton Cheese; We know that the Moon is not made of Stilton Cheese, but at least we know that Stilton Cheese is a real material that exists within a few hundreds of thousands of kilometers of the Moon; Whereas the soul (or indeed any not-yet-detected entity that interacts non-fatally with living humans) cannot be made from any real material. It is as close to certainty as it is possible to get that souls are not real entities, and exist only as fictional constructs.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem of how a soul works with the human body came to a head with Descartes. maybe something to do with the pineal gland? Then the theological big brains moved on to occasionalism. Our souls desires a cup of coffee. In the physical world, God moves our physical hand to get that physical cup of coffee our non-physical mind desires.

The problem is, suppose a torturer reaches for an especially cruel instrument of torture to cause pain to his innocent victim. God's actualization of such an action in the physical realm would make God a participant in countless acts of evil. (Famous occasionalists, Leibnez, Malabranche)

You can also apply this idea to the claims of idealist God's who create the persistant of objects not being observed currently by sentient beings. God sustains their existence. That cruel instrument of torture hanging in the Inquisition's dungeon on the wall.

Or the concept of God's immanence. Nothing exists unless God's immanence supports it existence actively. That cruel torture instrument that exists because God allows his immanence to act on it.

 

[bilby]

The problem of how a soul works with the human body came to a head with Descartes. maybe something to do with the pineal gland? Then the theological big brains moved on to occasionalism. Our souls desires a cup of coffee. In the physical world, God moves our physical hand to get that physical cup of coffee our non-physical mind desires.

The problem is, suppose a torturer reaches for an especially cruel instrument of torture to cause pain to his innocent victim. God's actualization of such an action in the physical realm would make God a participant in countless acts of evil. (Famous occasionalists, Leibnez, Malabranche)

You can also apply this idea to the claims of idealist God's who create the persistant of objects not being observed currently by sentient beings. God sustains their existence. That cruel instrument of torture hanging in the Inquisition's dungeon on the wall.

Or the concept of God's immanence. Nothing exists unless God's immanence supports it existence actively. That cruel torture instrument that exists because God allows his immanence to act on it.

You cannot get around the demonstrated non-existence of any possible mechanism by simply calling that mechanism 'God'. God cannot act on human scales any more than souls can. And for the same physical reasons. Metaphysics is not needed nor wanted in the discussion, because physics has filled the last of the gaps.

 

[DrZoidberg]

According to orthodox Christian theology, man has a soul. His organic brain needs a soul, if we are human. The soul is what survives our bodily death and is at the core of our consciousness and ability to reason and act.

I propose a thought experiment here.

A human subject sits before a test panel. There is a red light and a white light. If the white light come on, the subject pushes a white button. A panel will light up, reading "Correct" If the subject errs the "Incorrect" panel lights up. The subject does not know at the beginning what this test is all about. I suggest though that a reasonably intelligent subject will quickly figure it out and complete with a high degree of accuracy After 100 or so times, the "Test Ended" panel lights up.

Now, substitute a cage with a chicken. A red or white light lights up and stays lit for 5 seconds. It the chicken pecks the correct corresponding button within that time, it gets a tasty kernel of corn. I predict that the chicken will quickly figure this all out and will hit the correct button with good accuracy, to gain its corn kernel.

So we have a test here that would show both humans and chickens would perform similarly.

But the chicken has no soul. Merely a brain. It needs no soul to perform this simple intellectual task. So its possible the human likewise relies on their organic brain and needs no soul to succeed or explain how the human succeeded.

What then does the soul add to us in the realm of intelligence, will, and action? It seems to me that the concept of soul has nothing to add to explaining our actions, intellect or will.

What sort of test would demonstrate a soul in addition to our organic brain? Do we have anything more than a chicken?

"Soul" could be replaced by sense of self. That can be tested. Not every animal has a sense of self. The mirror test is one method. I do suspect that chickens have no problems figuring out that it's them in the reflection.

The problem with "soul" is that it's a metaphor. A poetic expression for our sense of self. It's not a scientific term. It would be like testing qualia. Can't do it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Dr. Edward Feser's theory on souls.

Dr. Edward Feser is a college professor, a catholic and a champion of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. He has a blog, and has written several books. He is a rather strong opponent of the Gnu Atheism. Check out his book, The Final Superstition on the subject.

There is the problem of people who have some sort of brain damage losing their mental abilities. Aging, Altzheimer's, physical damage, strokes etc. This would seem to indicate that the brain controls thinking, not some soul thingy. Unless perhaps souls work through the brain and lose efficiency due to brain damage.

Feser's theory is simple. In this life, the brain indeed does the thinking and damage to the brain is evident by our loss of abilities to think. But when we die, our soul is cut free from our bodies and God then activates our soul's ability to think. One assumes that God restores our full ability to think properly. Perhaps somebody born with cognitive dysfunction, say a a mongoloid idiot regains their innate soul's full thinking ability.

But what about a chicken? Since a chicken may well have a limited ability to think because of a limited chicken brain and at death obtains a God given activation of its soul, it gets the full ability to think on par with a human soul's ability.

Does God activate us as the usual run of the mill IQ's or do we get genius level activation? Do activated chicken souls get genius level cognitive abilities? Since our minds rely on our senses to know about the world, how do souls sense things without a brain, eyes, or ears. Do we at death get these senses? Or super senses like Superman? No longer limited by our mere animal brains and bodies?

Whuddya think?

 

[whichphilosophy]

According to orthodox Christian theology, man has a soul. His organic brain needs a soul, if we are human. The soul is what survives our bodily death and is at the core of our consciousness and ability to reason and act.

I propose a thought experiment here.

A human subject sits before a test panel. There is a red light and a white light. If the white light come on, the subject pushes a white button. A panel will light up, reading "Correct" If the subject errs the "Incorrect" panel lights up. The subject does not know at the beginning what this test is all about. I suggest though that a reasonably intelligent subject will quickly figure it out and complete with a high degree of accuracy After 100 or so times, the "Test Ended" panel lights up.

Now, substitute a cage with a chicken. A red or white light lights up and stays lit for 5 seconds. It the chicken pecks the correct corresponding button within that time, it gets a tasty kernel of corn. I predict that the chicken will quickly figure this all out and will hit the correct button with good accuracy, to gain its corn kernel.

So we have a test here that would show both humans and chickens would perform similarly.

But the chicken has no soul. Merely a brain. It needs no soul to perform this simple intellectual task. So its possible the human likewise relies on their organic brain and needs no soul to succeed or explain how the human succeeded.

What then does the soul add to us in the realm of intelligence, will, and action? It seems to me that the concept of soul has nothing to add to explaining our actions, intellect or will.

What sort of test would demonstrate a soul in addition to our organic brain? Do we have anything more than a chicken?

It shows that perhaps a chicken can learn that a white button means tasty corn and a red button means nothing. There's nothing here that disproves or proves the existence of a soul.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The theory is that animals do not have souls, as per Rene Descartes. Souls supposedly are the seat of our intellects. This simple test seems to indicate this particular set of theories about souls is nonsense. Its probable a chicken would learn to peck a red button when the rd light comes on, a white button when the white light comes on. If intellect is part of our soul, a chicken, having no soul in theory should not be able to do this.

Why would God decide not to give souls to animals?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Feser's theory is simple. In this life, the brain indeed does the thinking and damage to the brain is evident by our loss of abilities to think. But when we die, our soul is cut free from our bodies and God then activates our soul's ability to think. One assumes that God restores our full ability to think properly. Perhaps somebody born with cognitive dysfunction, say a a mongoloid idiot regains their innate soul's full thinking ability.

Wouldn't that be too late, though?

If my brain's cognitive ability is what drove me to reject gods and such superstitions, while my soul sat back and watched... Suddenly, i get hit by a bus and the soul is able to reevaluate my stance on how silly gods are... But it's usually been presented to us that we have to make the right decisions in life, because our afterlife disposition is based on what we did in life, not immediately after...

Unless, maybe, reincarnation is real? So if we don't choose God during life, the soul can help pick our next life to make sure our chances of salvation are beter...?

 

[ronburgundy]

The best evidence of a soul would be an observable disconnect between human thought and events in the physical brain. A soul of the sort presumed by most religions predicts that you can have people engage in various mental tasks, or just have them report what they are spontaneously thinking about or feeling and there will be no systematic corresponding activity in the brain. It also predicts that making direct physical changes to the brain (whether with drugs, hormones, surgery, electrical stimulation during surgery, results of injury, etc.) should not lead to systematic changes to fundamental aspects of a person, those features of basic temperament attributed to the soul.

Fortunately, we have mountains of such data and it all shows the opposite of what is predicted by the soul hypothesis and exactly what is predicted by the hypothesis that all aspects of the person we attribute to the soul are by-products of the very particular physical brain they have.

Not only is there no evidence of a soul, there is a ton of evidence against it. Like belief in God, belief in a soul or an afterlife requires more than just faith in the absence of evidence, but active self-delusion involving ignoring of evidence against it and going against the basic principles of honest reasoning.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The best evidence of a soul would be an observable disconnect between human thought and events in the physical brain. A soul of the sort presumed by most religions predicts that you can have people engage in various mental tasks, or just have them report what they are spontaneously thinking about or feeling and there will be no systematic corresponding activity in the brain. It also predicts that making direct physical changes to the brain (whether with drugs, hormones, surgery, electrical stimulation during surgery, results of injury, etc.) should not lead to systematic changes to fundamental aspects of a person, those features of basic temperament attributed to the soul.

Fortunately, we have mountains of such data and it all shows the opposite of what is predicted by the soul hypothesis and exactly what is predicted by the hypothesis that all aspects of the person we attribute to the soul are by-products of the very particular physical brain they have.

Not only is there no evidence of a soul, there is a ton of evidence against it. Like belief in God, belief in a soul or an afterlife requires more than just faith in the absence of evidence, but active self-delusion involving ignoring of evidence against it and going against the basic principles of honest reasoning.

Evidence? We don't need no steenking evidence!

Feser's manuveur allows him to ignore all evidence and yet "explain" how a disembodied soul can have thoughts. Goddidit! God activates our soul's thinking ability when we die, we can ignore all that came before.

But back to our recently dead chicken. Feser is a grand champion of Aristotelean metaphysics. Aristotle posited the existence of man' souls, animal souls, vegatative souls. But who is to say a chicken's disembodied, God activated soul doesn't have an intellect far higher than mere chicken brains allow? Why not Descarte's theory animals have no souls at all?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Feser's theory is simple. In this life, the brain indeed does the thinking and damage to the brain is evident by our loss of abilities to think. But when we die, our soul is cut free from our bodies and God then activates our soul's ability to think. One assumes that God restores our full ability to think properly. Perhaps somebody born with cognitive dysfunction, say a a mongoloid idiot regains their innate soul's full thinking ability.

Wouldn't that be too late, though?

If my brain's cognitive ability is what drove me to reject gods and such superstitions, while my soul sat back and watched... Suddenly, i get hit by a bus and the soul is able to reevaluate my stance on how silly gods are... But it's usually been presented to us that we have to make the right decisions in life, because our afterlife disposition is based on what we did in life, not immediately after...

Unless, maybe, reincarnation is real? So if we don't choose God during life, the soul can help pick our next life to make sure our chances of salvation are beter...?

Because original sin. OS cripples our ability accept salvation. Obviously OS infects our soul, not our brain and body.

Thus if God activates our soul's thinking ability, we still suffer from original sin and reprobation. (No pelagianism allowed here!) Can a chicken's soul suffer from original sin? Or do chickens get a get out of jail card here?

 

[PyramidHead]

I think the idea that souls are the "seat of intellect" has gone out of favor as more and more is learned about the brain. The prevailing idea is now that it represents the consciousness of the being; it is that entity which uses the intellectual power of its brain to solve the white and red light problem. Proponents of this view would argue that there is such an entity when a human is taking the test, but with the chicken there is nothing "inside", just a network of conditioned responses predicated on anticipation of reward. The test as designed is not equipped to demonstrate the existence of that variable, however.