Scientists offer quantum theory of soul's existence.
89 replies, posted
[quote]A PAIR of world-renowned quantum scientists say they can prove the existence of the soul.
American Dr Stuart Hameroff and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose developed a [b]quantum theory of consciousness asserting that our souls are contained inside structures called microtubules which live within our brain cells[/b].
Their idea stems from the notion of the brain as a biological computer, "with 100 billion neurons and their axonal firings and synaptic connections acting as information networks".
Dr Hameroff, Professor Emeritus at the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology and Director of the Centre of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, and Sir Roger have been working on the theory since 1996.
They argue that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects inside these microtubules - a process they call orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).
In a near-death experience the microtubules lose their quantum state but the information within them is not destroyed. Or in layman's terms, the soul does not die but returns to the universe.
Dr Hameroff explained the theory at length in the Morgan Freeman-narrated documentary "Through the Wormhole", which was recently aired in the US by the Science Channel.
The quantum soul theory is now trending worldwide, thanks to stories published this week by The Huffington Post and the Daily Mail, which have generated thousands of readers comments and social media shares.
"Let's say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state," Dr Hameroff said.
"The quantum information within the microtubules is not destroyed, it can't be destroyed, it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large.
"If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says 'I had a near death experience'."
In the event of the patient's death, it was "possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body indefinitely - as a soul".
Dr Hameroff believes new findings about the role quantum physics plays in biological processes, such as the navigation of birds, adds weight to the theory.
Read more: [url]http://www.news.com.au/news/quantum-scientists-offer-proof-soul-exists/story-fnenjnc3-1226507686757#ixzz2ArB5FPGD[/url][/quote]
If I read correctly it's basically saying that there are pieces of information in our brains that can exist without being stored in a physical object. In other words what we define as a soul.
I'm actually taking a class on this subject and have read those papers by Penrose and Hameroff. They basically try to cram quantum mechanics into neuroscience but it comes off as ridiculous New Age bullshit, to be honest.
[quote]The quantum information within the microtubules is not destroyed, it can't be destroyed, it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large[/quote]
How poetic
I am the soul.
So let me get this straight.
They're saying that the soul, the everlasting soul, exists on a quantum level.
The quantum level. The level of physics that is so nonsensical and chaotic that matter can assume two forms simultaneously.
It's like saying, "Don't worry, you have insurance. Your papers are in our volcano earthquake room."
I need more evidence Sir Penrose
That's damn cool.
They should experiment on comparing human brains and ginger brains, that should give a definitive proof.
How could a determinate function exist as the result of an indeterminate process?
NB: His degree does not include that of Physics.
This is no different then an anthropologist making hypotheses about cosmic inflation..
[QUOTE]"If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says 'I had a near death experience'."
In the event of the patient's death, it was "possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body indefinitely - as a soul".[/QUOTE]
lmao what is this bullshit
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38259229]lmao what is this bullshit[/QUOTE]
Panic! Souls and consciousness have no place in modern science!
[QUOTE=Bradyns;38259213]How could a determinate function exist as the result of an indeterminate process?
NB: His degree does not include that of Physics.
This is no different then an anthropologist making hypotheses about cosmic inflation..[/QUOTE]
Dude, [B]Penrose[/B]!
Edit: Okay I only know that dude because a former professor from my university Max Tegmark is a big critic of this so called theory. But Penrose seems quite well known.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38259237]Panic! Souls and consciousness have no place in modern science![/QUOTE]
not when you pull them out of your superfluous second anus
It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure there's much solid evidence for it at this point.
There's a lot of weirdo paradoxical issues with the basic concept of "consciousness," so it's nice to actually see some proper scientific discussion about it. Though the article really doesn't go into depth.
Just because you put "quantum" infront of something, doesn't make it automatically seem more credible, and it certainly doesn't make it a fact. More proof pleez
[QUOTE=Swebonny;38259243]Dude, [B]Penrose[/B]!
Edit: Okay I only know that dude because a former professor from my university Max Tegmark is a big critic of this so called theory. But Penrose seems quite well known.[/QUOTE]
Penrose is a big name physicist/mathematician, yes..
But, this isn't his playing field -- you can't amalgamate two entirely different disciplines, talk about untested hypotheses as fact, and pass them off as a theory -- THEN link them to something colloquially referred to as a soul...
That is some Chopra shit right there..
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38259237]Panic! Souls and consciousness have no place in modern science![/QUOTE]
Consciousness is something we do actively study.
The idea of a soul, though, is based on a supposition which has no basis in what we observe in reality, it's the idea that there's something beyond your brain that exists on a higher level and controls its function, which isn't supported by anything. So you're right, souls have no place in science because to seek them out to study them you must first believe that they exist, you must believe in an idea that isn't supported by evidence and this is not scientific.
Scientists don't assume something and then go out and try to find proof for it, that's what cryptozoologists do.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38259237]Panic! Souls and consciousness have no place in modern science![/QUOTE]
Well the soul doesn't exist.
Heck I knew something was fishy when I sold my soul 3 times. (Once to my brother for a fiver)
For people that want to know more, read this :
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR[/url]
[editline]31st October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bradyns;38259270]Penrose is a big name physicist/mathematician, yes..
But, this isn't his playing field -- you can't amalgamate two entirely different disciplines, talk about untested hypotheses as fact, and pass them off as a theory -- THEN link them to something colloquially referred to as a soul...
That is some Chopra shit right there..[/QUOTE]
But these papers and the papers that criticize Penrose's and Hameroff's have all passed peer reviewing and have actually been published in scientific journals.
There are no indications that they are talking about a soul, except the article in the OP.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;38259285]For people that want to know more, read this :
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR[/URL]
[editline]31st October 2012[/editline]
But these papers and the papers that criticize Penrose's and Hameroff's have all passed peer reviewing and have actually been published in scientific journals.
There are no indications that they are talking about a soul, except the article in the OP.[/QUOTE]
Checking out the ArXiv papers atm..
Cheers. :)
[editline]31st October 2012[/editline]
As far as I can see, it seems like there is a rather furious debate as to whether it should still be classified as a classical system, with some pretty strong evidence supporting this case.
It would be pretty awesome to find out that consciousness (information processing in general) is a quantum mechanical by-product, but it doesn't seem very definitive.
Early days.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;38259285]
There are no indications that they are talking about a soul, except the article in the OP.[/QUOTE]
Those are popular science articles for you.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38259237]Panic! Souls and consciousness have no place in modern science![/QUOTE]
Consciousness does, souls don't. It's a mainstream news agency butchering science again.
[QUOTE=Chrille;38259372]Consciousness does, souls don't. It's a mainstream news agency butchering science again.[/QUOTE]
Even by itself, Penrose's and Hameroff's theory on consciousness is bordering on pseudoscience...
I am currently reading a book on quantum mechanics (The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw), and while I actually understand and accept everything so far, this feels like they are grasping at nothing.
Somewhat related:
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A3dOgX_CcAE3elM.png:large[/IMG]
I love how many new age quacks are pushing quantum mechanics as a spiritual thing because it's too complicated for the layman to understand.
Well, if it dissipates then how can the microtubules interact with one-another? To me that seems like death by shattered consciousness, which is not ideal.
Nonetheless, this new theory brings hope to my death-fearing heart; if we could find a way to keep all of these microtubules networked and interacting even after death, perhaps through vigorous entanglement and binding nuclear forces, then we could end up inventing ghosts. Give it the ability to absorb and expel energy to provide mobility, and the Hameroff-Penrose Gestalt would seem all the more ideal, especially if it could become manifest within a vacant vessel to return to life.
I hope these guys manage to test and verify this theory, 'cause if it's real, we could be one step closer to inventing the soul and achieving a form of metaphysical immortality.
"Take that Atheists" - Every religious zealot ever
Penrose is an incredibly respected mathematician and physicist who's done a lot of serious work with Stephen Hawking that's been considered revolutionary. He's definitely not a quack and I'd rather somebody with some deal of knowledge in the subject matter seriously read his paper and THEN commented on it rather than just taking the over-sensationalised media's version of it and commenting on that at a face value.
Of course the appeal to authority isn't a valid argument, but he does seem to know his shit so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt over some news website.
[quote]A PAIR of world-renowned quantum scientists say they can prove the existence of the soul.[/quote]
Well if they can prove it then surely they can give sound evidence and...
[quote]a process they call orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).[/quote]
Oh dear here we go.
[url]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=orchestrated%20objective%20reduction&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=[/url]
It's not a theory it's a hypothesis. So you report the existence of Orch-OR and take it into consideration (which is still a hypothesis)? Well done I say. So what link and correlation can you even make between that and a "soul"? So what basis is there for even anything?
If this article is about reporting on the proof of the existence of a "soul" then it's complete bunk. I hope this wasn't the case for Dr Hameroff and Penrose to pass their idea off as an actual theory, especially in the literal sense of a "soul", otherwise it's just bad journalism.
[QUOTE=sltungle;38260518]Penrose is an incredibly respected mathematician and physicist who's done a lot of serious work with Stephen Hawking that's been considered revolutionary. He's definitely not a quack and I'd rather somebody with some deal of knowledge in the subject matter seriously read his paper and THEN commented on it rather than just taking the over-sensationalised media's version of it and commenting on that at a face value.
Of course the appeal to authority isn't a valid argument, but he does seem to know his shit so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt over some news website.[/QUOTE]
Check out Swebonny's link above, read the criticism section.. It's pretty disputed, and with good reason.
I don't fully understand quantum other than it's neither 1 nor 0
but this just sounds silly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.