Scientists Find Hints for the Immortality of the Soul

[barbos]

As a 'rule of thumb', if someone tries to prop up some idea with a reference to quantum physics, the idea may be safely rejected. The obvious exception is ideas that are presented in peer-reviewed journals of physics, with an actual connection to quantum physics. In any event I saw nothing in that article that suggests that I should not apply this 'rule of thumb'.

Peez

So true. Especially when that someone is far from the subject of Quantum mechanics.
And even people who are supposed to be experts are usually not. I am talking about people who keep on doing double slit experiments and then interpreting it.

 

[Kharakov]

What a coincidence. I just talked to an old friend yesterday about how my grandfather (who recently died) set up this cool coincidence in my life.

I went up to the family cabin near Mt. Shasta in northern California to hang out with family to celebrate my grandfathers life. Just 2 nights, and the end of the second night everyone went to their place (hotel, another cabin) except me and a few people. I was bored so I grabbed an old newspaper out of a stack of papers for the fire, the top newspaper of the stack. It was from June 17th of this year (like the article you cited).

So later that night, I put in a movie randomly and the first part of it was set on June 17th some other year. So I was like, that is sort of weird.

My family friends had recommended that I read a book on the history of Hungary, due to my grandfather and my adopted uncle having the names Arpad and Zoltan. So.. when I got back to my uncle's house, where my grandfather lived, I looked in the book. I opened the book to the page that my grandfather had bookmarked it to, and it was about King Arpad and Prince Zoltan- and on the page it described an event that happened on June 17th 8XX.

It also described the meaning of the name Arpad, which coincided with my thoughts of what my grandfather had become upon death (I was thinking about it up at the cabin). It describe the name as The light that becomes (or something like that).

My grandfather was a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project. Don't know about a soul being preserved, but truthfully, I heard him speak after he died. Another funny thing, his first name is Hans, which is the name of one of the physicists named in the article, and one of my great grandfather's names was James, which is the other name of significance in the article. Not to mention the article (from June 17th) cited "The Secret Physics of Coincidence. Quantum phenomena and fate - Can quantum physics explain paranormal phenomena?".

Coincidence? Sure. You know it, and you know I know both sides.

 

[dystopian]

The physicists state in the article that having studied the field they have reached their views, out of necessity.

Except they really haven't. Based on their own words, it becomes exceedingly obvious that they are just projecting their own personal desires into their scientific fields. The fact that the rest of the physicists in the same field do *not* jump to this sort of thinking is very telling indeed.

Dark matter, dark energy and multiple universes are all hypotheses and lacking in evidence. They are however also put forward out of necessity.

This is an incorrect analogy. Both dark matter and dark energy have actual *evidence* for the necessity of their existence. This is not the case with anything the article quotemines from these scientists.

The only reason to dismiss these views is if you know something they don't. If you do lets hear it.

Incorrect. The only reason we need to dismiss these views is the fact that they are non-scientific. The article simply quotemines scientists for their personal beliefs about an afterlife and how they personally try to reconcile that with science, and then jumps to the conclusion that these views *are* actual science. They're not.

A physicist has said that it is necessary that consciousness has a quantum state. I am not saying he is right or wrong but you are without being able to provide evidence of what is wrong.

I really don't care what "A" physicist says. I'm interested in what physicists as a whole say; and they do not agree with this claim regarding consciousness and quantum states.

He who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. The rest of us are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to provide evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until the evidence is actually presented, the only rational position is rejection.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That is your right, as it is the right of creationists but it puts you in the same camp as them. It is also the opposite of free thought.

Creationists reject and ignore evidence in order to hold onto their opinions.
That's not in the same camp as rejecting unsupported opinion in order to hold onto an opinion.

And no one is saying you, or these quote mined scientists, are not allowed to hold these views, if indeed they hold them. Just don't pretend it's science until you (or they) can produce some sort of evidence for evaluation. 'Free thought' does not mean 'accepting any damned opinion as being equally valid as objective facts.'

 

[braces_for_impact]

 

[Peez]

West:
Its nothing to do with an argument from authority.

Some international physicists are convinced...

...from respectable physicists.

The physicists state...

The only reason to dismiss these views is if you know something they don't.

I'm saying I just don't dismiss their views like you do.

Non-sequitur, this does not address your use of the Argument From Authority fallacy.

It seems clear that materialism (meaning philosophical materialism) is your religion

It is not a religion, it is a philosophy. However, you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. If quantum physics is science (methodological materialism) and spirits are outside of materialism, then why are you trying to join them together? When you post “Scientists Find Hints for the Immortality of the Soul”, why is it important that they are scientists? It might be important if we are looking at something materialistic (and therefore a possible subject for scientific study), but otherwise science is not an issue. You certainly seem to be contradicting yourself.

and you dismiss anything outside of that.

In some sense this is true, though I am not certain of what “outside of that” could even be.

That is your right, as it is the right of creationists but it puts you in the same camp as them. It is also the opposite of free thought.

:laughing-smiley-014

You’re funny. Creationists reject certain ideas based on what authority figures have told them, and they do not worry about evidence. This is exactly what you are doing. By the way, you are employing yet another logical fallacy: ad hominem.

A physicist has said that it is necessary that consciousness has a quantum state. I am not saying he is right or wrong but you are without being able to provide evidence of what is wrong.

Any hypothesis presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. As I mentioned earlier, you are trying to shift the ‘burden of proof’. I have an invisible dragon in my garage, you will have to accept that this is true unless you can provide evidence that it is not.

Peez

 

[Peez]

Some international physicists are convinced...

By the way, exactly what is an "international physicist"?

Peez

 

[Shadowy Man]

Some international physicists are convinced, that our spirit has a quantum state and that the dualism between the body and the soul is just as real as the "wave-particle dualism" of the smallest particles.

If the "spirit has a quantum state" then I want to see the Hamiltonian and Eigenvalues.

 

[dystopian]

Some international physicists are convinced...

By the way, exactly what is an "international physicist"?

Peez

The international physicist, like the international man of mystery, is an entity poorly understood.

Some theories state that a physicist becomes international by dividing, much like a cell, and sending its new duplicates across recognized borders. A handful of people adhering to this particular theory state that it doesn't matter whether or not the border is recognized, so long as it's regarded to be one by at least one individual besides the physicist. One crackpot; dismissed by the majority of the scientific community; suggested that if the physicist himself declares something to be a border, and sends one of his duplicates across, then this qualifies him as international.

Other theories hold that a physicist can not become international through his own effort; that instead it is a term thrust upon him by circumstance. For instance, one sub-theory holds that the physicist becomes international if two or more countries honor him by naming a street after him. Again, some voices dissent. Schools, say the dissenters, are the things that must be named after the physicist in order for him to become international.

Perhaps the most plausible theory, and one currently enjoying mainstream popularity, is that international physicists aren't made... they're born. If this theory is correct, then international physicists are a very rare breed produced when a woman gives birth to a future physicist while her body is exactly on a national border so that her body is split between two (or more) countries (there is some debate as to whether this needs to be a 50/50 split or if other divisions are possible too).

 

[Peez]

dystopian:
The international physicist, like the international man of mystery, is an entity poorly understood.

Some theories state that a physicist becomes international by dividing, much like a cell, and sending its new duplicates across recognized borders. A handful of people adhering to this particular theory state that it doesn't matter whether or not the border is recognized, so long as it's regarded to be one by at least one individual besides the physicist. One crackpot; dismissed by the majority of the scientific community; suggested that if the physicist himself declares something to be a border, and sends one of his duplicates across, then this qualifies him as international.

Other theories hold that a physicist can not become international through his own effort; that instead it is a term thrust upon him by circumstance. For instance, one sub-theory holds that the physicist becomes international if two or more countries honor him by naming a street after him. Again, some voices dissent. Schools, say the dissenters, are the things that must be named after the physicist in order for him to become international.

Perhaps the most plausible theory, and one currently enjoying mainstream popularity, is that international physicists aren't made... they're born. If this theory is correct, then international physicists are a very rare breed produced when a woman gives birth to a future physicist while her body is exactly on a national border so that her body is split between two (or more) countries (there is some debate as to whether this needs to be a 50/50 split or if other divisions are possible too).

It is all clear to me now.

Peez

 

[West]

These physicists might be right or they might be wrong.

I posted the article as I wanted to see how atheists would react to scientific opinion which is unsettling to their worldview, ie, immortality of the conciousness, as opposed to a scientific opinion which is not, such as dark matter.

The physicists who expressed these views are not crackpots, indeed somne of them are quite eminent.

All I saw was a reaction much like I predicted, ie, the same as I would get if I said to a creationist the universe is billions of years old.

There was not one refutation based on the scientific method. Again much like a creationist.

Braces_for_impact even posted a pic implying that he knows everything about quantum physics.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the article had been about something else related to quantum physics there would not have been one refutation.

Who even has the knowledge to refute this?

This shows huge bias and closed mindedness.

So much for free thought eh.

 

[Perspicuo]

Yes, freethought is not free as an LSD trip.

It is not that free.

Freethought is concerned with the grounds for believing something is true, not from authority ("eminent" scientists, or "international" scientists).

Do not be mistaken, "Freethought" does not mean whatever you think it does nor does "free" mean "believing whatever crock someone may want to be passed for legitimate".

 

[West]

Yes, freethought is not free as an LSD trip.

It is not that free.

Freethought is concerned with the grounds for believing something is true, not from authority ("eminent" scientists, or "international" scientists).

Do not be mistaken, "Freethought" does not mean whatever you think it does nor does "free" mean "believing whatever crock someone may want to be passed for legitimate".

Authority can go and piss into the wind. Don't try to misrepresent my views.

I mentioned these physicists as these are their views and they are coming from people who has actually studied the subject matter.

Which reminds me, have you?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I posted the article as I wanted to see how atheists would react to scientific opinion which is unsettling to their worldview, ie, immortality of the conciousness, as opposed to a scientific opinion which is not, such as dark matter.

Except that
1) It's not a scientific opinion. It's an opinion held by some scientists for reasons other than the results of objective research. A swing and a miss.
2) Even if it turns out to be true, it's not upsetting my worldview as an atheist. Atheist means that i don't believe in any gods. The term is neutral to the idea of non-physical consciousness or some form of life after the loss of bodily integrity. You may have meant upsetting to a skeptical point of view? But then, why would you be surprised at it being received with skepticism? A conundrum.
And another swing-and-a-miss.

The physicists who expressed these views are not crackpots, indeed somne of them are quite eminent.

Argument from respect for authority. What difference does their emminence make for their personal views?

All I saw was a reaction much like I predicted, ie, the same as I would get if I said to a creationist the universe is billions of years old.

You don't appear to understand the reactions, so you continue with the ad hominem.

There was not one refutation based on the scientific method. Again much like a creationist.

Exactly why would 'where is there evidence?' not be part of the scientific method?

Who even has the knowledge to refute this?

You've yet to offer anything that needs refuting.

This shows huge bias and closed mindedness.

I would agree, if you're talking about your posting.

So much for free thought eh.

Another term you don't understand.

- - - Updated - - -

Authority can go and piss into the wind. Don't try to misrepresent my views.

So, this IS your view? I thought you were trying to distance yourself from the views expressed. You're taking it kind of personally if you're a disinterested observer.

I mentioned these physicists as these are their views and they are coming from people who has actually studied the subject matter.

Then you can show the studies?
Peer review of the studies?
Findings of the studies published in reputable journals?

 

[West]

Except that
1) It's not a scientific opinion. It's an opinion held by some scientists for reasons other than the results of objective research. A swing and a miss.
2) Even if it turns out to be true, it's not upsetting my worldview as an atheist. Atheist means that i don't believe in any gods. The term is neutral to the idea of non-physical consciousness or some form of life after the loss of bodily integrity. You may have meant upsetting to a skeptical point of view? But then, why would you be surprised at it being received with skepticism? A conundrum.
And another swing-and-a-miss.

The physicists who expressed these views are not crackpots, indeed somne of them are quite eminent.

Argument from respect for authority. What difference does their emminence make for their personal views?

All I saw was a reaction much like I predicted, ie, the same as I would get if I said to a creationist the universe is billions of years old.

You don't appear to understand the reactions, so you continue with the ad hominem.

There was not one refutation based on the scientific method. Again much like a creationist.

Exactly why would 'where is there evidence?' not be part of the scientific method?

Who even has the knowledge to refute this?

You've yet to offer anything that needs refuting.

This shows huge bias and closed mindedness.

I would agree, if you're talking about your posting.

So much for free thought eh.

Another term you don't understand.

- - - Updated - - -

Authority can go and piss into the wind. Don't try to misrepresent my views.

So, this IS your view? I thought you were trying to distance yourself from the views expressed. You're taking it kind of personally if you're a disinterested observer.

I mentioned these physicists as these are their views and they are coming from people who has actually studied the subject matter.

Then you can show the studies?
Peer review of the studies?
Findings of the studies published in reputable journals?

You mention argument from authority and then ask for a peer review. Isn't that another argument from authority.

Unlike you, I don't need arguments from authority.

I don't need one or more scientists to tell me what to think.

You also have not explained what is illogical and irrational about the continuance of consciousness, the existance of dark matter, dark energy, etc.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You mention argument from authority and then ask for a peer review. Isn't that another argument from authority.

No, i mentioned argument from respect for authority, which is what you're doing. You're not showing any evidence for the 'views expressed' except to say that some of them were emminent (when they were alive).
No actual studies.

Unlike you, I don't need arguments from authority.

No, of course not.
Except, of course, that you keep on flinging out arguments from respect for authority.

I don't need one or more scientists to tell me what to think.

Funny ,neither do we.

You also have not explained what is illogical and irrational about the continuance of consciousness, the existance of dark matter, dark energy, etc.

I never said it was illogical or irrational. I just asked for some reason, any fucking reason, to think that this quote-mined effort in credulity has any relevance to the world, at all.
The idea that emminent people cannot be crackpots is easily dismissed. As the song says:
Salvador Dali's surreal paintings were godsent
You'd never know he ate his own excrement.

Being emminent is not proof against crackpottery.

 

[Perspicuo]

Yes, freethought is not free as an LSD trip.

It is not that free.

Freethought is concerned with the grounds for believing something is true, not from authority ("eminent" scientists, or "international" scientists).

Do not be mistaken, "Freethought" does not mean whatever you think it does nor does "free" mean "believing whatever crock someone may want to be passed for legitimate".

Authority can go and piss into the wind. Don't try to misrepresent my views.

Misrepresnt your views? I quote:

The physicists who expressed these views are not crackpots, indeed somne of them are quite eminent.

I mentioned these physicists as these are their views and they are coming from people who has actually studied the subject matter.

Which reminds me, have you?

Everybody studies their subject matter. Didn't phrenologists studiy the scalp and behavior? Din't astrologists study the celestial orbs? Studying something doesn't command belief in the scientific age. It's replication. When everybody (most of them, not all, because that wouldn't be practical) can "study the subject matter" AND achieve the same results with no contradiction, that commands conviction.

 

[West]

No, i mentioned argument from respect for authority, which is what you're doing. You're not showing any evidence for the 'views expressed' except to say that some of them were emminent (when they were alive).
No actual studies.

Unlike you, I don't need arguments from authority.

No, of course not.
Except, of course, that you keep on flinging out arguments from respect for authority.

I don't need one or more scientists to tell me what to think.

Funny ,neither do we.

You also have not explained what is illogical and irrational about the continuance of consciousness, the existance of dark matter, dark energy, etc.

I never said it was illogical or irrational. I just asked for some reason, any fucking reason, to think that this quote-mined effort in credulity has any relevance to the world, at all.
The idea that emminent people cannot be crackpots is easily dismissed. As the song says:
Salvador Dali's surreal paintings were godsent
You'd never know he ate his own excrement.

Being emminent is not proof against crackpottery.

Why would I show evidence for the views expressed? They are not my views.

You haven't even read the thread, I have said all along that these physicists may or may not be right. I'm not bothered either way.

You however attempt to create an argument where none exists. I have mentioned this to you before.

You relentlessly ask for arguments from authority and when I give you the details of the physicists, you say I am arguing from authority!

Also what is respect for authority? How on earth could you know who I respect?

It seems to me that you are obsessed with getting arguments from authority like you need guidance in the world. An authority figure to tell you right from wrong.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why would I show evidence for the views expressed? They are not my views.

Then you shouldn't be surprised that no one's accepting the views.

You haven't even read the thread, I have said all along that these physicists may or may not be right. I'm not bothered either way.

Odd, then, that you keep flogging the positions and reputations of the scientists as if that meant a damned thing.

You however attempt to create an argument where none exists. I have mentioned this to you before.

You're the one being critical of others being critical of the article.

You relentlessly ask for arguments from authority and when I give you the details of the physicists, you say I am arguing from authority!

I'm guessing you don't really know the difference between a statement by an authority and an argument from respect for authority.

Also what is respect for authority? How on earth could you know who I respect?

Yeah, that's a roger.
Try looking up the 'logical fallacy' that is 'respect for authority.' You're using the reputation of the scientists as support for their claims. It's textbook.

It seems to me that you are obsessed with getting arguments from authority like you need guidance in the world. An authority figure to tell you right from wrong.

Lots of things 'seem to you' that have little to do with reality. i can't help you, there, except by pointing out, like Buddy Bizzare.

 

[dystopian]

These physicists might be right or they might be wrong.

But let's be honest, you think they're right. Don't try to present yourself as some sort of neutral party now.

I posted the article as I wanted to see how atheists would react to scientific opinion which is unsettling to their worldview, ie, immortality of the conciousness, as opposed to a scientific opinion which is not, such as dark matter.

1) This is not scientific opinion. Just because an opinion is voiced by a scientist, doesn't mean the opinion itself is scientific.

2) Why would the immortality of consciousness be unsettling to us? Quite the contrary; I would very much like to have an actual reason to believe in the immortality of my consciousness; I do not want to cease existing, so if there was actual objective reason to believe I won't then that would make very happy indeed.

The physicists who expressed these views are not crackpots, indeed somne of them are quite eminent.

1. Define eminent.
2. Establish the original source for the quotes, since it just looks like quote-mining at the moment.
3. Whether they're eminent or not is irrelevant; appealing to such a thing is what we call an argument from authority; a fallacy.

All I saw was a reaction much like I predicted, ie, the same as I would get if I said to a creationist the universe is billions of years old.

No, you saw no such thing. What you saw was people expressing skepticism and asking for something more than vague claims and quotemined blurbs. Pointing out (rightly so), that the claims in the article have not been scientifically vetted and do not in fact represent anything more than unsubstantiated opinion is *not* akin to a young earth creationist's reaction to scientific facts.

There was not one refutation based on the scientific method. Again much like a creationist.

Reversal of the burden of proof. He who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. Furthermore, why would you expect us to refute vague statements that haven't been supported by actual arguments and evidence first? Exactly how are we supposed to refute something when there's nothing to refute? If you tell me you believe in an afterlife, I can't refute that. If you tell me you believe in an afterlife because 3+3 equals 7, then I have something to actually address and refute. All the quotes in the article show are vague statements without evidence or specific claims to address.

Braces_for_impact even posted a pic implying that he knows everything about quantum physics.

A picture that makes fun of your arguments does not imply that he thinks he knows everything about a given subject. It just implies that he thinks you're an idiot.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the article had been about something else related to quantum physics there would not have been one refutation.

I have no doubt that you're wrong. Because of the nature of QM however, I can not say what about.

Who even has the knowledge to refute this?

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that nobody here has the necessary knowledge to refute claims regarding quantum mechanics. WHY exactly does that mean we're supposed to take these claims seriously? Do you lend credence to any and all claims regarding a subject you're not knowledgeable about? Would you believe someone telling you that you can run your car by pouring in sugar instead of oil just because you don't know how engines work?

This shows huge bias and closed mindedness.

Those words, I don't think they mean what you think they do. Expressing skepticism about vague claims that have no arguments/evidence in their favor is neither biased nor closedminded, even less so when said expression is followed by requests for actual evidence and arguments.

So much for free thought eh.

Again, I don't think that term means what you think it means.

You mention argument from authority and then ask for a peer review. Isn't that another argument from authority.

Asking for peer review is obviously not an argument from authority, and if you think that it is then you probably shouldn't be trying to argue anything relating to science.

Peer review ensures that a scientific hypothesis is in fact scientifically sound. The whole point of peer review is to present your claims before the merciless judge of science. Peer review lets the rest of us know that a scientific claim has been vetted by independent experts. It lets us know that true or false, it's good science; that it follows the scientific process and isn't so easy to knock down as to be pseudoscience. Asking for peer review isn't an argument from authority, it's asking for a willingness to put one's claims to the test. A person who is not willing to put his claims to the test, is a person whose claims aren't worth considering.

Unlike you, I don't need arguments from authority.

Yet you have done almost nothing but appeal to authority. According to you, we're supposed to take these claims seriously because they're supposedly made by "international" physicists (even though it looks like quotemining to the rest of us, so we're not even sure if these claims represent their actual views). That is the very definition of an argument from authority.

As skeptics, we do not find ourselves compelled to take the claims of anyone seriously based purely on such reasoning. Nor do we find the other argument you're making; that the claims have merit by virtue of the fact we can't provide evidence that they're wrong; particularly compelling either. As mentioned, that is a reversal of the burden of proof. We no more have to provide evidence that these claims are false than you have to provide evidence I have not created a time machine: you can not provide such evidence. At best, you can argue that my own evidence for its existence is lacking.

I don't need one or more scientists to tell me what to think.

Then why make mention of them at all? What's the point of the OP?

You also have not explained what is illogical and irrational about the continuance of consciousness,

Again, he doesn't have to. It's a reversal of the burden of proof.