by Richard Hemingway

Created on: May 04, 2009

While this article does not prove or disprove the existence of a soul, as far as science goes, it does leave much room for speculation and different interpretations. Chem theorist study the behaviors of em-feilds within the human brain and the possibility that conscious will has causal powers. There are also Quantum Chem Theories. There are probably hundreds of them combined. I wanted to go into some detail on them, but they are just too broad and I don't want to focus on anyone in particular. That's not my point. These are all dualist accounts, but dualism that are rooted in physical reality. There is a postulate in physics; information cannot be created, nor destroyed, only transferred. I believe that this emfeild is going to go somewhere. This doesn't mean anyone else has too. I just want people to come to their own conclusions, and not just simply come to a conclusion based off of what scientific modern rationalism has to say on the topic. Just so that this is not written off as silliness; here is a short list of scientist who are dualist and have their very own chem theory: David Bohm, Susan Pockett, Benjamin Libet, Johnjoe McFadden,

Roger Penrose, Karl Popper, John Eccles.

Before I go any further on chem theories, I just want to touch on this issue of qualia. I think it is important that we realize the uniqueness of individual humans. Qualia is kind of like this zen-like question: "Why is red, red and why is green, green?" Here is a thought experiment to help clarify. It is just a thought experiment; I wouldn't suggest to any scientist to actually do this. If we took two identical twins, and we locked them in a room their whole life, and we exposed them to exactly the same things, same foods, same faces, same room, same clothes, same everything. They are still going to grow up to be two different people. If both nature and nurture are the same, than why would they be so different? The uniqueness to the human individual is a baffling mystery.

Now, I'm going to take a closer look at an example of where scientific rationalism doesn't work, in order to formulate a conclusion. If a murderer stands before a judge, and this murder has a "rational scientist" as his lawyer. And the judge asks the murderer, "Why did you kill that person?" And then the scientist lawyer cuts in and says, "He killed that person because, these neurons fired in his frontal lope, and these modulating chemicals shuffled to the right, inhibiting these other neurons." This should be an adequate

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>