this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
83 points (84.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
669 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think so, but, to be fair, it simply isn't a question that science could ever actually answer.
Until there's a good definition of a "soul" that's based in the natural world, there's nothing to even evaluate. If it's a definition based in not the natural world, then there's no evidence that it even exists to begin with.
Do you have a working definition for a "soul"?
You're right that we need a definition, but that doesn't mean it has to be based in the natural world. Science could never conclusively prove/disprove the existence of a soul because it's inadequate in this context.
The only scientific way to do it would be to compare a large group of people who definitely didn't have a soul with another large group too see if there's any consistent differences. Given that the experiment itself implies the existence of a soul it all becomes a little circular.
no it did answer it, the answer is "no".
the easiest one is brain damage or drugs altering your consciousness...
if your mind can be permanently damaged or significantly altered via brain changes, then it's in your brain.
but there's a lot of other reasons the "soul" myth doesn't make sense.
Really? I'd be very interested in seeing a peer reviewed article in Nature in which someone reputable claims to have disproven the existence of the soul (especially without making a bunch of other ontological assumptions first). Can you point me to one?
As far as I can tell, the existence of a soul, like the existence of God, is inherently a non-scientific proposition--i.e., it is not falsifiable. But correct me if I'm wrong.
It is primarily not falsifiable, because there is no clear definition of a soul. But something not being falsifiable or provable also means that it has no impact on reality. If it had an impact, we could measure that impact to prove that it's there.
pretty sure both of those concepts have only remained 'unfalsifiable' via the immense power of shifting the goalposts whenever the evidence disproves them until they become so removed from reality as to be essentially meaningless.
It hasn't answered it because it simply isn't within the scope of science to be able to answer it. As has been pointed out elsewhere, you can't point to any peer reviewed papers listing the evidence against a soul.
At best you can play the "no evidence" card, which underlines my point that science cannot prove/disprove it because it's out of scope.