On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.

On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Post Number:#1  Postby Jonatron5 » August 28th, 2017, 10:48 pm

On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Assumptions:

1. Souls are unique to each instance of concioussnes

2. When presented with input X a deterministic concioussnes should always respond with output Y

3. Concioussnes exists and is mesureable

Procedure: take two identical individuals, twins/clones or brain emulations

Setup:
If the former (more likely)raise the twins identically, so that they are exposed to the exact same stimuli, food education,socialization, body chemistry, etc. Until they reach adulthood and are judged to be rational and sound of mind.



Where upon you present them with a new stimulus X, and measure their reactions.

If assumptions are true, and if they react the same way, thenconcioussnes exists deterministically as a factor of biology/upbringing

If assumptions are true, and they react in different ways, (assuming magically identical upbringing) then their is some facet of concioussnes that exists beyond the physical of biology/upbringing.
User avatar
Jonatron5
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 28th, 2017, 10:46 pm

On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Post Number:#2  Postby Greta » August 29th, 2017, 2:39 am

Alas, impossible.

However, it is not possible to expose two people to the exact same stimuli, food, education, socialisation, body chemistry. All you need is for one twin to sneak an extra biscuit when no one is looking and chaos theory's butterfly effect will apply, and it would apply anyway to the innumerable small differences that occur simply because one twin is here and the other there, even if the difference is often a matter of centimetres. One of them goes to the toilet and slips on the tiles or is exposed to a particular pathogen ...
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5419 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Post Number:#3  Postby LuckyR » August 29th, 2017, 3:33 am

Greta wrote:Alas, impossible.

However, it is not possible to expose two people to the exact same stimuli, food, education, socialisation, body chemistry. All you need is for one twin to sneak an extra biscuit when no one is looking and chaos theory's butterfly effect will apply, and it would apply anyway to the innumerable small differences that occur simply because one twin is here and the other there, even if the difference is often a matter of centimetres. One of them goes to the toilet and slips on the tiles or is exposed to a particular pathogen ...


While your analysis is accurate, since the OP's assumptions are not true you don't need to even go that far.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2276 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Post Number:#4  Postby Socrateaze » August 29th, 2017, 4:10 pm

People are different from each other, simply because they do not look in the same direction. If they were to get into a conversation, there are bound to crop up different views; the mere fact that they are having a conversation is a sign of opposites. Their mere interaction with one another creates a difference within them. One may grow to hate the other or be jealous of the other. The shadows in their rooms, if they were separated all the time, would be different; they would see different things through their windows.

So no. It's not possible. I don't believe in souls in anyway, it's an old-fashioned term, describing god knows what.

At best we have our mind, that is soul enough for me. And if souls DID exist, no clone, no matter how precise, would have the same one. Not one rock is exactly the same, how could two people be the same? Atomically and sub-atomically that is even more improbable, unless we're talking software. Would the experiment not fare better with two exact androids - and at the same time prove if they can have soul? :idea:
418


- If you can paint the wind, I will tell you the secrets of the soul.
User avatar
Socrateaze
 
Posts: 131 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Post Number:#5  Postby Spectrum » August 29th, 2017, 10:37 pm

Jonatron5 wrote:On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Assumptions:
1. Souls are unique to each instance of conciousness
..

You cannot assumed soul exists then try to prove the assumption. Rightly that should be a hypothesis.

If you can set up an experiment that is 100% the same for the twins down to the inherited DNA - genome and they act in synchrony for every deterministic actions, then yes, it will point to something beyond if the output is different. As pointed out this is merely a thought experiment that is impossible in practice.

Another point is you need to define the term 'soul'.
Is is a soul [self or entity] that survives physical death or otherwise.

The most convincing proofs of a soul is that of reincarnation.
E.g. your soul survives after physical death and reincarnate in another body.
The proof [objectively] is you remembered your past life.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
 
Posts: 4371 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Post Number:#6  Postby Londoner » August 30th, 2017, 10:39 am

Jonatron5 wrote:If assumptions are true, and if they react the same way, thenconcioussnes exists deterministically as a factor of biology/upbringing

If assumptions are true, and they react in different ways, (assuming magically identical upbringing) then their is some facet of concioussnes that exists beyond the physical of biology/upbringing.


Not necessarily. Having a soul would only make a difference to their reaction if it was involved and relevant to the situation.

A blue-eyed person and a brown-eyed person might both react in the same way to a situation where eye colour was irrelevant. That would not prove eye colour does not exist.

Besides, if the nature of a soul is such that it effects consciousness, and if every soul is different, then that means you could not set up your experiment in the first place, since no two people could have the same consciousness. So your suggesting such an experiment is possible begs the question you are trying to resolve.

-- Updated August 30th, 2017, 9:40 am to add the following --

Jonatron5 wrote:If assumptions are true, and if they react the same way, thenconcioussnes exists deterministically as a factor of biology/upbringing

If assumptions are true, and they react in different ways, (assuming magically identical upbringing) then their is some facet of concioussnes that exists beyond the physical of biology/upbringing.


Not necessarily. Having a soul would only make a difference to their reaction if it was involved and relevant to the situation.

A blue-eyed person and a brown-eyed person might both react in the same way to a situation where eye colour was irrelevant. That would not prove eye colour does not exist.

Besides, if the nature of a soul is such that it effects consciousness, and if every soul is different, then that means you could not set up your experiment in the first place, since no two people could have the same consciousness. So your suggesting such an experiment is possible begs the question you are trying to resolve.

-- Updated August 30th, 2017, 9:42 am to add the following --

Sorry for the double-posting. Sometimes you press 'submit' and it just hangs, then posts it twice.
Londoner
 
Posts: 1597 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Post Number:#7  Postby Alias » September 2nd, 2017, 10:39 pm

Jonatron5 wrote:On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Assumptions:

1. Souls are unique to each instance of concioussnes

If consciousness itself is unique to to each instance, it will be expected that two individuals respond differently to any given stimulus.
So, you can prove nothing beyond the bare fact of consciousness.

-- Updated September 2nd, 2017, 9:41 pm to add the following --

Jonatron5 wrote:On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.

Assumptions:

1. Souls are unique to each instance of concioussnes

If consciousness itself is unique to each instance, it will be expected that two individuals respond differently to any given stimulus.
So, you can not prove nothing beyond the bare fact of consciousness.
(Better.)

-- Updated September 2nd, 2017, 9:42 pm to add the following --

No it wasn't better. Oh well.
Democracy in Truth! Equal votes for fact and fantasy!
Alias
 
Posts: 2011 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett


Return to Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Scribbler60 and 8 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST