If the soul interacted with the body via a very weak force, it might elude the observation of physicists but its influence on the body would seem insignificant. If on the other hand the soul interacted with the body via a relatively strong force, this force should be detectable by physicists. —
If the universe turns out to be virtual like ‘The Matrix’ then our soul is really just our information. It’s possible to move information between computers so in theory the transmigration of the soul might be possible. — Devans99
You instead have a world of objects being presented before a soul. Sure, you have a world of objects 'out there', but 'out there' only exists in relation to the apprehension of a soul. — Inyenzi
Well, yeah, you do. Further, that is a much more reasonable approach than searching for a gap in physics into which the soul can be slot; the weak force has nothing to do with souls. — Banno
The movement of information should be consistent with known laws of physics though... — litewave
The simplest solution is to deny the underpinning juxtaposition. — Banno
That just does not remove the problem. Instead it makes the soul something physical. — Banno
Well the laws of physics might be different outside the machine, but what would be more relevant is the laws of the computer(s) hosting our virtual universe. — Devans99
See this post for an outline as to why. — Wayfarer
According to quantum field theory all fields are physical objects whose local energy excitations are particles. So if you regard the soul as a field, it is a physical object which interacts with other physical objects according to laws of physics. — litewave
Furthermore, what I'm suggesting is the idea of biological fields, which are not recognised by mainstream science at all, and that Sheldrake's morphic field theory could be understood to account for the persistence of memories from one life to the next. — Wayfarer
There is no conceivable way to describe what something is like, third person, and then for someone to feel what it is like. It has to happen to them first person. The quality is also aesthetic, or involves a kind of judgement that is non-arbitrary, and universal. That some things are better, and others worse is a fact, and it is this that is perplexing, and inexplicable — All sight
I am reminded of the Marx Brothers line: “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” Dennett asks us to turn our backs on what is glaringly obvious—that in consciousness we are immediately aware of real subjective experiences of color, flavor, sound, touch, etc. that cannot be fully described in neural terms even though they have a neural cause (or perhaps have neural as well as experiential aspects). And he asks us to do this because the reality of such phenomena is incompatible with the scientific materialism that in his view sets the outer bounds of reality. 1
But you're barking up the wrong tree - all due respect. Not objects, forces, and stuff. — Wayfarer
It's more like there is quantity and quality, and qualia defies third person description, and can't be physically described. — All sight
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.