On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
- Jonatron5
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: August 28th, 2017, 10:46 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.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
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 ...
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
While your analysis is accurate, since the OP's assumptions are not true you don't need to even go that far.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 ...
- Socrateaze
- Posts: 132
- Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
- Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin
Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
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?
- If you can paint the wind, I will tell you the secrets of the soul.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
You cannot assumed soul exists then try to prove the assumption. Rightly that should be a hypothesis.Jonatron5 wrote:On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
Assumptions:
1. Souls are unique to each instance of conciousness
..
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.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
Not necessarily. Having a soul would only make a difference to their reaction if it was involved and relevant to the situation.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.
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 --
Not necessarily. Having a soul would only make a difference to their reaction if it was involved and relevant to the situation.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
If consciousness itself is unique to to each instance, it will be expected that two individuals respond differently to any given stimulus.Jonatron5 wrote:On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
Assumptions:
1. Souls are unique to each instance of concioussnes
So, you can prove nothing beyond the bare fact of consciousness.
-- Updated September 2nd, 2017, 9:41 pm to add the following --
If consciousness itself is unique to each instance, it will be expected that two individuals respond differently to any given stimulus.Jonatron5 wrote:On proving/disproving the existence of a soul.
Assumptions:
1. Souls are unique to each instance of concioussnes
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.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023