• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Happiness Box

Jeff Corkern said:
No, I want truth that meets the gold standard of all truth.

Scientific laboratory experiments, performed by reputable scientists, published in refereed journals.

If you can find such experiments that fail repeatedly to detect anything, great! I will happily concede that science is on your side.

But nobody's done that yet. I haven't heard a peep from a scientist, and I expected to.
Click to expand...
You want scientific experiments which failed to detect a soul? Alright.

Wikipedia said:
* Robert Hooke, using a microscope, observes cells (1665)
* Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovers microorganisms (1674-1676)
* James Lind, publishes 'A Treatise of the Scurvy' which describes a controlled ship board experiment using two identical populations but with only one variable, the consumption of citrus fruit. (1753)
* Edward Jenner tests his hypothesis for the protective action of mild cowpox infection for smallpox, the first vaccine (1796)
* Gregor Mendel's experiments with the garden pea lead him to surmise many of the fundamental laws of genetics (dominant vs recessive genes, the 1-2-1 ratio, see Mendelian inheritance) (1856-1863)
* Louis Pasteur uses S-shaped flasks to prevent spores from contaminating broth. Disproves the theory of Spontaneous generation (also known as abiogenesis). (1861) An extension of the rancid meat experiment of Francesco Redi to the micro scale.
* Charles Darwin and his son Frances, using dark-grown oat seedlings, discover the stimulus for phototropism is detected at the tip of the shoot (the coleoptile tip), but the bending takes place in the region below the tip (1880).
* Frederick Griffith demonstrates (Griffith's experiment) that living cells can be transformed via a transforming principle, later discovered to be DNA (1928)
* Alexander Fleming demonstrates that the zone of inhibition around a growth of Penicillium mold on a culture dish of bacteria is caused by a diffusable substance secreted by the mold. (1928)
* John Gurdon clones an animal, a frog tadpole, from an egg cell using the nucleus from an intestinal cell (1962).
* Roger W. Sperry shows the potential independence of the two sides of the human brain using split-brain patients (1962-1965)
* Nirenberg and Leder experiment, binding tRNA to ribosomes with synthetic RNA to decipher the genetic code (1964)
* Demonstration of the role of reverse transcriptases in tumor viruses, independently by Howard Temin and David Baltimore, 1970
* Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen selectively clone genes in bacteria, using bacterial plasmids cut by specific endonucleases (1975).
* Mary-Dell Chilton shows that crown gall tumors of plants are caused by the transfer of a small piece of DNA from the bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, into the host plant, where it becomes part of its genome (1977).
* Blaise Pascal caries a barometer up a church tower and a mountain to determine that atmospheric pressure is due to a column of air (1648).
* Robert Boyle uses an air pump to determine the inverse relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas. This relationship came to be known as Boyle's law (1660-1662).
* Julius Robert von Mayer and James Prescott Joule measure the heat generated by mechanical work. This establishes the principle of conservation of energy and the kinetic theory of heat (1842-1843).
* Louis Pasteur separates a racemic mixture of two enantiomers by sorting individual crystals, and demonstrates their impact on the polarization of light (1849).
* Anders Jonas Ångström observes the presence of hydrogen and other elements in the spectrum of the sun (1862).
* François-Marie Raoult demonstrates that the decrease in the vapor pressure and freezing point of liquids caused by the addition of solutes is proportional to the number of solute molecules present. This establishes the concept of colligative properties (1878).
* Henri Louis Le Chatelier performs several experiments to disturb a chemical equilibrium before formulating Le Chatelier's Principle (1884).
* Svante Arrhenius studies the conductivity of salt solutions and determines that salts dissociate into ions in water. (1884)
* Svante Arrhenius determines the impact of temperature on reaction rates and formulates the concept of activation energy. (1889)
* Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann observe nuclear fission (1938).
* Glenn Theodore Seaborg creates and isolates five transuranium elements. He reorganizes the periodic table to its current form. (1941-1950).
* Melvin Calvin and Andrew Benson delineate the path of carbon in photosynthesis using Chlorella and carbon dioxide labeled with carbon-14 (14CO2) (1945) - (1954).
* Neil Bartlett mixes xenon and platinum hexafluoride leading to the first synthesis of a noble gas compound, xenon hexafluoroplatinate (1962).
* Ernest Rutherford's gold foil experiment demonstrated that the positive charge and mass of an atom is concentrated in a small, central atomic nucleus, disproving the then-popular plum pudding model of the atom (1911)
* Arthur Eddington leads an expedition to the island of Principe to observe a total solar eclipse (gravitational lensing). This allows for an observation of the bending of starlight under gravity, a prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. It was confirmed (although it was later shown that the margin of error was as great as the observed bending) (1919)
* Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach conduct the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which demonstrates particle spin (1920)
* Enrico Fermi splits the atom (1934, although the results were not fully understood until 1939, by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann)
...
Click to expand...
More available here. Not one detected a soul. Got any experiments which did detect a soul?
 
Jeff Corkern said:
If he's got a soul, then hopefully the SQUIDs will pick it up when it leaves his body and passes through the detectors. Assuming, of course, that the soul has electromagnetic properties, and they are intense enough for the SQUIDs to pick up.

That's at least a reasonable first experiment.

Waddya think?
Click to expand...
I think that it's looking for something that is not required by your definition, and not looking for anything that is required. But let's go with it for a minute anyway.

Say that this experiment was a resounding failure. Say a thousand terminally ill people volunteered for it, and they all died in the detector, and not a single SQUID detected the slightest anomaly.

Would a result of that level of reliability convince you that souls didn't exist?
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corkern said:
Thank you.



Yes, I agree. The "eternally existing" part can't, I think, be demonstrated in the lab.

I am not an experimental physicist or even close, but I propose the following scientific experiment.

There are these thingies called SQUIDs, Superconducting Quantum Interference Detectors, that have the property of being able to detect VERY small electromagnetic fields.

I propose building a sphere out of these things big enough to hold a living being. I think you could use an animal, but let's say you use a human being in order to be certain.

Some volunteer, somebody with a terminal illness, crawls into this thing and dies. I bet you could find some religious person who thinks he has a soul to do it. Shouldn't be a problem for him/her, as they are theoretically not afraid of death as it is not a big thing for them, just passing on to somewhere else.

If he's got a soul, then hopefully the SQUIDs will pick it up when it leaves his body and passes through the detectors. Assuming, of course, that the soul has electromagnetic properties, and they are intense enough for the SQUIDs to pick up.

That's at least a reasonable first experiment.

Waddya think?
Click to expand...
I think it is rubbish. You don't do science by trying to prove negatives. You do it by testing theories.

So, your theory is that the soul has electromagnetic possibilities? Does that mean you are a materialist? Electromagnetics are very material.

What if there is some electromagentic signal leaving the body at the moment of death? What does that prove? Since the body is full of electric signals, when alive, then in theory, some kind of electromagnetic event will happen when these signals cease, and it might be detectable. So what?

Hans
 
Jeff Corkern said:
No, I want truth that meets the gold standard of all truth.

Scientific laboratory experiments, performed by reputable scientists, published in refereed journals.

If you can find such experiments that fail repeatedly to detect anything, great! I will happily concede that science is on your side.

But nobody's done that yet. I haven't heard a peep from a scientist, and I expected to.
Click to expand...

This will never work unless it is agreed upon what kind of test would detect a soul. For example, let's say I decided to check for excess electromagnetic energy. My scanners fail to find any in test subjects. I present the study to you. You say, "Souls don't give off electromagnetic energy". So I go try looking for little sparkles in people's eyes. I find only reflections. I show you the study, and you say "Souls don't make little sparkles in people's eyes." We could go on FOREVER without you ever having to admit anything. As long as you're the one that wants convincing, and the arbiter of what constitutes a legitimate effort to find a soul (at least arbiter of what will convince you) ... you will have to present to scientists exactly how to test for a soul in a manner that would convince you.
 
Jeff,

I don't believe I have a soul, and yet I've spent the afternoon arranging life insurance so that my family will be provided for if I die before my mortgage is paid off. Why would I do that if what you believe is true?
 
Jeff Corkern said:
Thank you.
Some volunteer, somebody with a terminal illness, crawls into this thing and dies. I bet you could find some religious person who thinks he has a soul to do it. Shouldn't be a problem for him/her, as they are theoretically not afraid of death as it is not a big thing for them, just passing on to somewhere else.

If he's got a soul, then hopefully the SQUIDs will pick it up when it leaves his body and passes through the detectors. Assuming, of course, that the soul has electromagnetic properties, and they are intense enough for the SQUIDs to pick up.

That's at least a reasonable first experiment.

Waddya think?
Click to expand...

I say it's pretty asnine to think that the soul would have EM properties. though it might explain why crazies are afraid of cell phones...

if the soul was made of EM, it would dissapate a few feet from the body. if it gave off EM but was made of something else, it would run out of energy and stop functioning.

You really can't convince someone who believes in souls that they don't exist. through experimental data.
 
Jeff Corkern said:
No, I want truth that meets the gold standard of all truth.

Scientific laboratory experiments, performed by reputable scientists, published in refereed journals.

If you can find such experiments that fail repeatedly to detect anything, great! I will happily concede that science is on your side.

But nobody's done that yet. I haven't heard a peep from a scientist, and I expected to.
Click to expand...


Well, not quite. You argured that People behave the way they do because they have a soul, wich (correct me if I'm wrong) was the point of your Happiness box parable. If we can find a scientific study that shows a personality change, whether illness, Drug induced, trauma induced, or whatever, as long as it had nothing to do with taking a soul out or putting one into a body, then your happy-box argument would have to be false. Proving the existance of a soul is not needed to falsify the argument.

Trifikas.
 
BenK said:
Apparently
a soul weighs 21g ;)
Click to expand...
Good post. I don't see any reason to expand the
definition of a soul beyond ...
  • Plato, drawing on the words of his teacher
    Socrates, considers the soul as the essence of a
    person, as that which decides how we act.
Plato did elaborate but I don't see the need to.
Dissecting the idea of soul dilutes the usefulness of
the idea. If the soul is defined as the total
personality of a human the idea that a soul can exist
outside the body is theoretically possible.

Gene
 
Rob,

You might take issue with the word 'soul'.

  • Currently, localization studies by contemporary
    neuroscientists--that is, finding specific regions or
    distributed systems in the brain associated with
    particular cognitive and emotional functions--provide
    some of the most compelling evidence that it is the
    brain, rather than a mind or soul    , that is
    responsible for these capacities. In other words, the
    current trend in neuroscience is pointing us towards a
    reductive physicalist account of the human.

It might be that neuroscientists take issue with the
term 'soul' because of the religious/philosophical
meaning and would prefer to explain human personality
in other terms. I don't have an issue with that. I
see no real reason to agree with Plato. We could term
the sum of the human personality as a 'googly bah' or
any other term you'd like to call it. What ever you
would want to call the sum of human personality that
personality in its entirety resides in the media of
the brain and could reside in an other properly
constructed media, theoretically.

Gene
 
Roboramma said:
Hm. Taking into account the "properly constructed media" point, I agree.
Click to expand...
With the caveat that, if it turned out that this "properly constructed media" had to be essentially non-different from a brain, then the point becomes trivial.
 
Hmm.

I'd make the argument that personalility is also, at least in part, controlled by body as well.

Your brain isn't independent (although we often speak as if it is). Your body produces all sorts of chemicals and hormones that circulate to and can affect the brain. Not to mention the simple way the brain reacts to bodily stimuli. When you start toalking about soul as being the "thing that determines the personality", then you pretty much have described a human being, at a particular stage in time.

Seriously, take away a part, chances are you'll see personality changes. Maybe not severe, but stil lthere. I'm a different person now than I was 20 years ago, as well.

So, I suppose I'm having trouble seeing the difference between soul and person, in this case. But I admit I'm being a bit extreme.

Although I do think brain without body would produce a very different personality.
 
AgingYoung said:
What ever you
would want to call the sum of human personality that
personality in its entirety resides in the media of
the brain and could reside in an other properly
constructed media, theoretically.
Click to expand...


I can, in principle, agree with the statement. I cannot agree with Jeff Corkern that heaven/the eternal afterlife/angelic ether or whatever else he is calling it is a properly constructed medium.
 
Meffy said:
I suppose just to be on the safe side I ought to do this.

To Jeff Corkern: I hereby forbid you to employ me as a character in any of your narratives, to use my name for one of the straw men in your fantasies, or otherwise to make use of my person or persona as devices in your works of fiction. You may quote my posts in the conventional manner provided by the board, so long as the limits of the quoted material are made clear. But you may not write me into one of your posts as a character and attribute to me any statement which I have not actually made. Depending on the individual case, violating these terms may be considered defamatory.

Is this clear? And do you agree to these terms?

[edit] To those who are not Jeff: It's really stupid to have to say such a thing -- I agree. Ordinarily I assume that every poster in a public forum has the decency not to force their words into unsuspecting victims' mouths. It seems not everyone is worthy of the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

Using the semi-scientific technique of semi-unequal distant letter spacing I think I've stumbled upon a hidden message.

Gene
 
Jeff Corkern said:
I am examining a process in motion in an objective, unbiased, scientific manner---human behavior---and deriving what the basic postulates are behind that behavior.

Like the way examining particles in motion in an objective, unbiased, scientific manner leads to Newton's Equations of Motion.
........

So please consider the following.

In a different post, I made the observation:"If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath." Because without souls, it then becomes possible to escape the consequences of your actions.

The behavior being exhibited in this thread is proof of that proposition.
Click to expand...

I took the liberty to process one of Jeff's posts thru
that same super computer I have that can process any
sort of text. The output speaks for itself. Jeff is
doing scientific research in this laboratory of a
forum and coming to the same conclusions any scientist
would come to observing particle motion; that is
Newton's laws of motion.

It would seem that his conclusion is that there are
some sociopaths in here; maybe with or maybe without
souls. I'd like to add a disclaimer for the results
of that high speed algorithm running on that network
of some 47 TRS80's acting as a single machine.

Gene
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom