The Quantum Soul

[sundowning]

It kind of crept up on me, but I think Discover is now my favourite popular science magazine. The following bit (among others) just made me realize this.

In the latest issue, June 2007, there's an article about the search for the human soul. It gives a brief overview of some of the attempts made to discover and quantify the soul, but one view in particular stood out - and perhaps it's not new: the idea that consciousness is an entangled quantum state that may exist (for an undertermined period of time) outside of the biological context.

"...When the blood supply and the oxygen stops, things go bad and the coherence stops, but quantum information at the Planck scale isn't lost. It may dissipate into the universe but remain somehow entangled in some kind of functional unit, maybe indefinitely. If the pateint is revived, the information gets picked back up again."

(Unfortunately, the article isn't online yet)

Philosophically at least, it's an interesting idea to play around with. Pretend that this soul does indeed exist - it seems to follow that it should arise as a result of the structure and function of our biological brain, but what then? Does it influence our biology as well? Is this our life after death, and if so, what does it look like?

I've never been too fond of oblivion, so this is interesting to me.

 

[Xander]

If I understand this right they are venturing down the path that as someone can die and then be revived still remembering all they had experienced before death then there must be a soul? That sounds like a few logical errors to me.

 

[Ivy]

I don't make any claims about the afterlife but I don't think a deity is necessary for one to exist. I've always thought it would have to be something like this. My pet theory is that maybe we experience eternity in our final moments of life (the point beyond which there can be no revival of the natural body-- it's not a crisp line, obviously). Maybe it's a perception of the dying brain. But I like this idea, too.

It seems to me that "supernatural" is a nonsense category-- anything that happens or exists is, by definition, natural. Supernatural just means "we don't know how this works yet."

 

[wyrdsister]

I don't make any claims about the afterlife but I don't think a deity is necessary for one to exist. I've always thought it would have to be something like this. My pet theory is that maybe we experience eternity in our final moments of life (the point beyond which there can be no revival of the natural body-- it's not a crisp line, obviously). Maybe it's a perception of the dying brain. But I like this idea, too.

It seems to me that "supernatural" is a nonsense category-- anything that happens or exists is, by definition, natural. Supernatural just means "we don't know how this works yet."

That's my definition of supernatural too Ivy.



I am also interested in the quantum soul and also the exploration into the brain being a quantum machine.

I'm looking forward to more developments in the coming weeks and years. Another thing that puzzles me.. dark matter what is it?

Cheers.

I'm in the UK and not sure that we get *discover* we have New Scientist here which I quite like.

 

[Xander]

An interesting concept dame up during a world design session with an INFP friend :-

What about if "God" isn't a being at all? What about if "God" is what you see all around you? What if "God" IS reality?
(Based on the thinking that a being of such difference to ourselves doesn't have to be a being per se but could be a place or such.)

 

[Langrenus]

It's an interesting idea, but what does it make the soul? For instance, if the particles in a snail's shell exist in an entangled state with other particles does this mean the snail's shell has a 'soul'?

Simple entanglement isn't enough. What if your mind is quantum-entangled with billions of particles spread across the galaxy, some in the middle of a star, some on another planet, some floating in deep-space...what does this actually mean? Random particles on their own are worthless, what's needed is a kind of entanglement of billions of cells, so that they're combined together to create some kind of coherent whole.

Or I'm talking crap But in my defense I am half-cut, so...

 

[Krill]

What about if "God" isn't a being at all? What about if "God" is what you see all around you? What if "God" IS reality?
(Based on the thinking that a being of such difference to ourselves doesn't have to be a being per se but could be a place or such.)

What does it mean to say reality is God? In that sense, what changes about reality, why does saying God is reality alter anything? Is "God" the title of something to be worshipped? What does it mean to worship reality? Or is God something else in this case (as a name/title) and what does it denote? Basically: Why doesn't it suffice to call reality by the name of reality. What makes it God?

I've always liked toying with the idea of a quantum soul, and I've always thought that the actuality of such a thing might (but not necessarily) make free-will possible.

 

[sundowning]

If I understand this right they are venturing down the path that as someone can die and then be revived still remembering all they had experienced before death then there must be a soul? That sounds like a few logical errors to me.

If I'm understanding you right, you're suggesting that any memories retained after a death and subsequent resuscitation are purely biological in origin (as the brain wouldn't immediately degrade after death), and therefore it's illogical/needless to assume something else is involved?

I can agree to extent, but the idea here is that quantum entanglement is a product of biology, and acts as a shadow or mirror to the biological brain which may or may not also influence the brain while an organism is alive (and therefore, once created, is not entirely dependent on biology).

It's an interesting idea, but what does it make the soul? For instance, if the particles in a snail's shell exist in an entangled state with other particles does this mean the snail's shell has a 'soul'?

The difference is between a structural organ and one like the brain that at least appears to work as consciousness. For the idea to work, the assumption here is that something else is going on at a quantum/sub-atomic level within the brain, beyond the simple reactions used to form and maintain atomic level structures like snail shells.

Of course, the reality may be that no such literal entanglement within the brain exists. It's all speculation, but that at least - to me as an atheist - seems plausible, and something we could actually determine as true or false, unlike many/most/all religious claims.

 

[wyrdsister]

Of course, the reality may be that no such literal entanglement within the brain exists. It's all speculation, but that at least - to me as an atheist - seems plausible, and something we could actually determine as true or false, unlike many/most/all religious claims.

Quantum Consciousness . Stuart Hameroff

Are life and consciousness connected to the funda-mental level of reality?

Most explanations portray the brain as a computer, with nerve cells ("neurons") and their synaptic connections acting as simple switches. However computation alone cannot explain why we have feelings and awareness, an "inner life."

We also don't know if our conscious perceptions accurately portray the external world. At its base, the universe follows the seemingly bizarre and paradoxical laws of quantum mechanics, with particles being in multiple places simultaneously, connected over distance, and with time not existing.

 

[Xander]

Would it not be fair to say that we don't understand the brain and we have no idea what a soul is either. So we're scratting around trying to explain such things within our own pre-existing conceptions of how the world works and applying anything which looks similar. According to quantum theory I'd leave such things as undefined. There exists no proof one way or another and no real reason to test it. Hence my response.

Basically the theory that our soul exist in more than one place, or indeed our minds, is critically flawed in that there is no reason to think such things except for the fact that we can't explain everything about it from our current standpoint. That does mean that the current one is wrong/ incomplete but that does not make any alternative more valid without it's own validation.

 

[logan235711]

I think that's pretty accurate. We don't have a good grasp of the human brain at all. We don't even have a definition of consciousness for goodness sakes! here let me quote the entry for one of the formost books about the mind from The International Dictionary of Psychology:

Consciousness: The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of confusing consciousness with self-consciousness – to be conscious is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it. (Sutherland 1989)

lol ok...but anyways, other problems that have been around for centuries are about the very notion of duality. The idea of mind and soul are so ingrained in peoples' conception on the world that including elements outside of that or that disregard one of those elements seems impossible for many to grasp. Within the heart of philosophy, the very sector which this Cartesian duality arose, has been questions and results from taking up this view that not only seem to contradict it, but have left over numerous interpretations to it's very meaning blah blah blah, basically, we are no closer to an answer and Cartiesian duality is admitted by most to be just one view, nothing in stone, nor ever have been, even the day after it was written about.

Regardless! Quatum souls, or whatever have been around since the 70s in good form. lol I remember when these pop mags wrote about string theory in the early 2000s and I was like, what?! they just found out about this, it's been around for over 25 years for goodness sakes!!! lol, I know for you older folks, it might not seem like awhile, but for people who pick these magazines up and think, 'wow' we are making incredible breakthroughs! or 'look what we just found out!' they are so out of the loop its funny : ( anyways, interesting idea of course, but not much support for it than most the other stuff that comes from those magazines--I usually might just read then for the two page 'tidbit' sections they have xD the best stuff!

 

[sundowning]

Would it not be fair to say that we don't understand the brain and we have no idea what a soul is either. So we're scratting around trying to explain such things within our own pre-existing conceptions of how the world works and applying anything which looks similar. According to quantum theory I'd leave such things as undefined. There exists no proof one way or another and no real reason to test it. Hence my response.

I would argue scientists do understand a great deal about the brain, given what's been discovered and what has been achieved with that information. We also know what the soul is too: numerous religions have expanded on the idea. The problem is that the two don't really match, though here is a realistic possibility.

Just because you cannot conceive of a way to test it means there isn't one. Given enough time, would you have invented the transistor? Yet there it is.

Basically the theory that our soul exist in more than one place, or indeed our minds, is critically flawed in that there is no reason to think such things except for the fact that we can't explain everything about it from our current standpoint. That does mean that the current one is wrong/ incomplete but that does not make any alternative more valid without it's own validation.

I think you were heading in the right direction here, but I'm not sure where you ended up. For something to be 'valid with its own validation' is almost like expecting two results from zero causes, even in comparison with another theory. Ideas are good; ideas are worth something until you evelate them beyond testability, but that's not the case here (at least not yet). The quantum 'soul' doesn't need to prove itself before we can ask if there is one. This idea is built on something known to exist. Indeed, that doesn't mean it's correct, or 'true', but as it has a grounding in the real world, that means it's "valid"... that it should be testable and that it 'should' be tested.

Sooner or later it will, regardless of what anyone thinks.