# Scientific examination of reality of the human soul **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2000, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558 "2000-10-04T01:25:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/41 "2000-10-17T14:31:13Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by quasar \* > Nonetheless, as far as their nature concerns, they are totally different. While dark matter is physical and thus potentially detectable, the alleged entity that you call soul is by definition undetectable since it can not exert a force capable of generating measurable effects and thus yield concrete evidence of its existence._\* Yes, but, but, how do you _know_ this to be true? How do you _know_ that the soul exerts exactly zero force against the universe? How do you _know_ that someday the instruments that will eventually detect dark matter will not also detect other, extremely weak forces? I’m just bustin. I rely on faith to answer the philosophical questions of existence. btw, cool name, **quasar** ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/42 "2000-10-17T17:20:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lumpy \* > \*\*The best scientific evidence is **against** the existance of an immortal soul. To whit, when someone is given a prefrontal lobotomy, they are turned into a gibbering monkey. Where’s their soul then? > \*\* When you disconnect the tuner from the amplifier, all you get out of a radio is a low hum. Where’s the music then? ---
**Author:** ![Gollum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85f322/32.png) [@Gollum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gollum)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2000, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/43 "2000-10-23T05:53:16Z")
The brain is hardly a comparable to a tuner. The brain affects how we ARE, in the world, not how a soul percieves it and interacts with it. In science, is it not a principle to hypothesize the simplest possible solution to observed phenomena? If so, the observed actions of humans and the thought processes I know occur in my own head (do not scoff) are best explained by the unified processing of the lump of neural networking that in most of us is a brain yet in others a draft stopper. ---
**Author:** ![quasar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@quasar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quasar)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/44 "2000-10-24T00:55:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wrath \* > > …btw, cool name, **quasar** Hey, **Wrath** , I feel obliged to commend you on your great taste. 😃 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wrath \* > Yes, but, but, how do you _know_ this to be true? How do you _know_ that the soul exerts exactly zero force against the universe? How do you _know_ that someday the instruments that will eventually detect dark matter will not also detect other, extremely weak forces? Because only massive particles can exert forces and the soul, by definition, lacks any mass. That is, of course, what we now at this moment. There exists an infinitesimal possibility that we will eventually discover a new force (spiritual force?) that exerts an influence upon human affairs in ways so stealthy that we can not perceive them–at least not the average Joe; maybe spiritually “enlightened” fellas (loonies?) can. Who Knows? But, at the current state of affairs, there is no scientific evidence–nor does it appear to be anytime soon–regarding the existence of a soul. All arguments concerning its existence can be empirically refuted; the only arena left for discussion lays in the spiritual domains, in the realm of dogma and faith. Somehow that is not convincing enough for me to accept its reality and fashion it as part of my own self. ---
**Author:** ![APB9999](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB9999](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB9999)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/45 "2000-10-24T03:03:39Z")
It seems like energy would be the thing to look at, not mass. We take two identical twins, and snuff one by, say, strangulation. Now we burn the live twin in a calorimeter, then the dead one. The difference in energy can be attributed to the soul, and perhaps we could then calculate the mass from Einstein’s famous equivalence, E=mc2. WRT mass, just how light is a soul supposed to be? Surely an analytical balance is good enough: A newborn only weighs a few pounds. If we can measure down to micrograms, and we can, we can just slap a neonate on the scale and relieve it of mortal coil with a tool of known mass - say, a pitchfork. Why do we need exotica like orbiting the earth? The [article](http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html) linked by mrblue92 has the weight change at between half an ounce and one and a half ounces and fifty grains, more than enough. However, the fact that the weight of the soul apparently changes with the patient is a matter for consideration. Are the souls of large people heavier? Do comedians have especially light souls? What about priests? Are those with the guilt of some horrible crime weighing on their souls heavier than the innocent? Could this be used forensically alongside DNA tests? Is this weight difference an indication of the degree of progression of the soul along its karmic development (and thus evidence of reincarnation? Significantly, no one has asked the opposite question: can the soul ENTERING the body be observed? The Supreme Court has decided this occurs at the beginning of the third trimester, and indeed, many women report significant weight gain at around this time. We need merely quantify the process precisely, and in the future parents may, in addition to the revelations of sonograms and amniocentesis, be told the exact moment when their child receives a soul! It occurs to me that the maker of such a “massogram” machine could potentially become very wealthy. [And it would be VERY difficult to prove fraud: “I’m sorry your honor, exactly _which_ child does the state assert did not receive a soul as indicated?”] Incidentally, I think the clearest statement of the problem I’ve seen yet comes from that [article](http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html) mentioned above. The first two paragraphs read > [@](#): > > If personal continuity after the event of bodily death is a fact, if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individually or personality after the death of brain and body, then such personality can only exit as a space occupying body, unless the relations between space objective and space notions in our consciousness, established in our consciousness by heredity and experience, are entirely wiped out at death and a new set of relations between space and consciousness suddenly established in the continuing personality. This would be an unimaginable breach in the continuity of nature. > > It is unthinkable that personality and consciousness continuing personal identity should exist, and have being, and yet not occupy space. It is impossible to represent in thought that which is not space-occupying, as having personality; for that would be equivalent to thinking that nothing had become or was something, that emptiness had personality, that space itself was more than space, all of which are contradictions and absurd. Uh, yeah. Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/46 "2000-10-24T14:36:32Z")
I am hijacking this thread to a mirror universe! According to some [physicists](http://www.sciencenews.org/20000909/bob2.asp), what appears to be dark matter may actually be the gravitational influence of matter existing in another universe. What I find really intriguing is the implication of one of the proposed theories is that the existence of matter in this universe may be dependent on the existence of matter in that other universe. IOW, matter in that universe caused matter in this universe to come into being. Another intriguing possibility is that neutrinos could oscillate back and forth between universes, which would explain why there does not seem to be a many neutrinos as there should. And if we ever find a neutrino that is spinning clockwise, the best explanation is that it came from this mirror universe. It would restore symmetry to particle physics. What this has to do with the possibility to verify the existence of a human soul, I have no idea. But I wasn’t the one who brought up dark matter. ---
**Author:** ![quasar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@quasar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quasar)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/47 "2000-10-24T19:16:35Z")
A few comments on **Jab1’s** link: I don’t think that conceptualizing the purported mirror matter as forming part of an invisible mirror universe helps get a clear understanding regarding its existence and true essence. It would be simpler, IMHO, to consider it as another type of matter, a yet undiscovered material manifestation, residing within the confines of our own universe but escaping detection due to its stealthy and poorly comprehended features. Another point, if this mirror matter is indeed massive–as its name implies–and the “universe” it is contained in shares its space with our own universe, it follows that mirror matter would stand in the way of EM radiation emitted by ordinary matter. We then wouldn’t be able to detect this matter. This means that a great deal of the undetected matter would be missing because of the obstructive properties of mirror matter, indicating that current estimates of the mass of the universe are farther off than previously thought. In any case, I believe this idea is silly. Ordinary matter in the form of black holes, brown dwarfs and neutrinos could very well solve the missing matter mystery without recurring to the “mirror universe hypothesis.” The only interesting points it makes is that it provides a reasonable explanation for why we aren’t able to detect the expected amounts of neutrinos predicted by theory. Aside from that, I dismiss it as the brainchild of some hyperactive scientists with way too much time on their hands. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![APB9999](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB9999](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB9999)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/48 "2000-10-24T19:43:40Z")
Oh screw theorists! They are so far out there that they don’t know which end is up anymore. The vast proliferation of modern theories which are perfectly compatible with observation yet inconsistent with each other shows the pressing need to tie science back to experiment, as originally intended. Until theorists stop explaining and start making predictions - **successfully** , meaning experiments that can actually be done with current technology, we should all stop listening to them; they just muddy the waters. This shouldn’t be too limiting for them: Even such abstract theories as relativity and quantum mechanics are testable. “Mirror Universe” indeed. Unless they wear uniforms there where I can see Uhura’s navel, I’ll continue to scoff. _SCOFF, SCOFF!_ ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/49 "2000-10-25T15:25:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by APB9999 \* > **Until theorists stop explaining and start making predictions - successfully, meaning experiments that can actually be done with current technology, we should all stop listening to them; they just muddy the waters.** New theories encourage the invention of new technologies and the improvement of old ones. Surely you know this. ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/50 "2000-10-26T15:01:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quasar \* > Because only massive particles can exert forces and the soul, by definition, lacks any mass. > \*\* Massive? Don’t subatomic particles affect each other with nuclear (and/or magnetic?) force? Otherwise, how would nuclei stay together? I’m not arguing for or against the scientific observability of a soul, but isn’t it _possible_ that the mass of a soul is sooooooooo faint as to be currently unobservable, and exert a force soooo weak that it is currently unmeasurable? And why would the definition of a soul include it’s lack of a mass? ---
**Author:** ![quasar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@quasar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quasar)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558/51 "2000-10-26T17:56:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wrath \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by quasar \* > > Because only massive particles can exert forces and the soul, by definition, lacks any mass. > > \*\* > > Massive? Don’t subatomic particles affect each other with nuclear (and/or magnetic?) force? Otherwise, how would nuclei stay together? The **strong nuclear force** holds the nuclei together. It is the strongest of all 4 fundamental forces. The **electromagnetic force** exerts its leverage as well. Inside the nucleus it acts as a repulsive agent, trying to separate the protons from each other (like charges repel). Its effect is negligible since it is nowhere as close to the strong nuclear force in terms of strength. The **weak nuclear force** is the third strongest force–or second weakest, if you prefer. It was recently unified with the electromagnetic force by 3 different scientists, including Noble Laureate Steven Weinberg. I don’t know exactly what role it plays. I assume it has something to do with holding the electrons in orbit around the nucleus, since otherwise they should be attracted by the positive nucleus (opposite charges attract). That last part is totally speculative, I really don’t know. **Maybe another doper can clarify that**. **Gravity** is the weakest of the four forces. **Every** massive particle, however minute its mass is, exerts a gravitational effect on every piece of mass in the universe. For example, the fart that just escaped from my ass is gravitationally exerting its influence on **Proxima Centauri** (closest star to the Solar System). Of course, in part due to the great distances separating my gaseous emanation from the gaseous stellar object, and also because of the minuscule mass contained in my fart, this effect is rather imperceptible and thus negligible. This explains pretty well the gravitational interactions between subatomic particles: they exist, they are infinitesimally small, and furthermore, they are far less strong than the forces they compete with in the quantum mechanical realm. Thus its effect on the atomic scale is not relevant, just like the effects predicted by general relativity upon our mass are negligible at the diminutive speed we travel through space-time. Hope that explains it better. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing for or against the scientific observability of a soul, but isn’t it _possible_ that the mass of a soul is sooooooooo faint as to be currently unobservable, and exert a force soooo weak that it is currently unmeasurable? Yes, I mentioned the plausibility of that scenario in my previous post. For example, a soul could have properties similar to neutrinos, that is, scarcely massive particles that seldomly interact with matter and thus are only detectable using complex experimental techniques. In any case, I repeat, I don’t consider likely that a soul could share those attributes but I can’t rule out that possibility either. That is the beauty of it, no evidence either way prevents you from categorically refuting the discussed hypotheses. You can favor one over other but, if you pride yourself on being objective, you must admit that the neglected speculation is, at least to an infinitesimal degree, plausible. Of course, by that same token I can say that **God is a pink hermaphrodite elephant who masturbates all day**. Since you can not prove that ridiculous assumption to be wrong, you are forced to admit that there is a tiny possibility that it could be true. > [@](#): > > And why would the definition of a soul include its lack of a mass? Maybe a theologian could explain that to you better than I can. The common interpretation of the soul posits that it is a spiritual manifestation, which in turn implies that it doesn’t have mass. Have you ever heard of a massive spirit? You would have probably bumped into them at some point if they had any mass, don’t you think? Besides, the soul is an abstract concept, a theoretical construct created by humans without the benefit of convincing evidence to support the claim of its existence. As such it can be conceptualized in different ways–massive, non massive, 7th -dimensional, whatever. It doesn’t really matter, in the absence of concrete evidence every speculation that is ventured is as good as the next one. In reference to what motivated the creation of the concept of the soul, it is as simple as the fear of our own mortality; a soul provides a nice way to escape from our deceased body into a new manifestation, spiritual and eternal in nature. By the soul not being carnal it is not subjected to the dangers and perils that commonly affect us while in our human form, giving it an aura of “invincibility” and immortality. It can be conceptualized as a reincarnation of sorts; while you don’t really reincarnate (you don’t came back as a physical being) you do prolong your “life,” reaching a new transcendental, perpetual state. Or something like that, I am just trying to make sense out of nonsense. :rolleyes: Summarizing, just like we “created” God out of the need to justify our own existence, we “invented” the soul to appease our fears of ceasing to exist. Both entities (the soul and God) are posited out of convenience instead of springing from palpable, empirically detectable evidence. That is why doubts have arisen regarding their existence, doubts that will only be eradicated from the human mind when those purported entities decide to make their presence known. Extrapolating from experience, don’t expect that anytime soon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-examination-of-reality-of-the-human-soul/35558.md?page=2)