A soul must be made of matter

[Talishi]

Life is a set of chemical processes which is capable of creating child processes faster than entropy can tear it apart. And those child processes in turn can make grand-child processes, and so on. Individual cells do not endure, but the community of cells which is the organism does endure…somewhat longer.

On a higher level, individual organisms do not endure, but the community of organisms which is the species does endure…somewhat longer.

On the highest level, individual species do not endure, but the planetary biosphere which is the set of all species does endure…somewhat longer.

The physical “intelligence� to construct every protein in the human body is encoded in our DNA, which is copied as single-strand transfer RNA, which goes into a ribosome like an audio tape, and the ribosome constructs the protein using this information and materials from the ambient store of amino acids floating around in the cell which are supplied by eating other organisms.

Intelligence in a mental sense is the process of modeling the objective universe in a subjective way. When intelligence is great, as it is in mankind, the model is so precise that it can be used to predict how the real universe will react when changes are made to it. This allows humans to construct, for example, a car. A car is a piece of frozen intelligence.

Patterns of matter are information. A CD contains a layer of dye (matter) which a laser has dented with a series of holes to record information. Every bit of processed information requires energy to create or retrieve. But information can only exist as patterns in matter. The reason for this is simple: since energy is fundamentally light, and light always travels precisely at the speed of light for all observers, there is no way to confine pure energy in frozen patterns like we have produced a car. If disembodied spirits exist, they must be made of different stuff than energy.

To date no believer has put forth a testable hypothesis for the eternal soul, and where it would fit in the Standard Model of particle taxonomy.

People who believe in an eternal soul have latched onto the truism that “energy cannot be destroyed� and also assert the soul is made of energy. This fails for the reason I describe above, and also because energy can indeed be destroyed qua energy when it is converted to matter, and vice-versa.

[OnceConvinced]

As far as I can see everything that religious folk says a soul does, are things that the brain does. The only conclusion I can come to is that the soul is just another part of the brain.

[Divine Insight]

Patterns of matter are information.

And then there's the question of what it is that is experiencing these patterns of information?

Thus far all you have proposed is that patterns of information are having the experience of being patterns of information. I don't see where this is a sufficient explanation.

In physics we assume the following:

1. Energy exists. We have absolutely no clue what energy is or from whence it arises.

2. Matter exists. Currently we see matter as nothing more than standing wave states of energy. So again we have no clue what this even is.

3. There are four forces that exist, and they are:

a) Gravity
b) electromagnetism
c) strong nuclear force
d) weak nuclear force

So now, how do we use the above picture to explain how patterns of information can have an experience?

Where in physics is there anything that suggests that any energy, matter, or forces (or any combination therefore) should be able to have an experience?

In other words, how do we explain, using only modern physics, how any pattern of information can have an experience?

[Talishi]

In other words, how do we explain, using only modern physics, how any pattern of information can have an experience?

Take the human genome as a pattern of information.

Take World War III as an experience.

Presumably, on the other side of World War III, those individuals with the genes to automatically repair radiation damage to their tissues will thrive, and those who don't, wont.

Thus the human genome would be a pattern of information that had an experience.

[Divine Insight]

In other words, how do we explain, using only modern physics, how any pattern of information can have an experience?

Take the human genome as a pattern of information.

Take World War III as an experience.

Presumably, on the other side of World War III, those individuals with the genes to automatically repair radiation damage to their tissues will thrive, and those who don't, wont.

Thus the human genome would be a pattern of information that had an experience.

I don't see where what you just said makes any sense at all. You are talking about a pattern of information that has been "affected" over time. But that doesn't explain what it was that actually "experienced" these effects.

You are having an immediate experience as you read these words. My question is, "What is it that is having this experience?"

To say that it's just the pattern of information that constitutes your existence changing, doesn't explain what it is that is actually having an experience.

Perhaps this question may be difficult to address in words alone. But it's similar to the question of solipsism. Every person knows directly that they are having a subjective experience. But we can't prove via science that anyone else is having a subjective experience. All we can say is that everyone around us is acting as though they are having a subjective experience. And we accept, basically as a matter of faith, that everyone is indeed having their own subjective experience, just as we are.

My question to you is, "How do you explain this individual subjective experience in terms of information being nothing more than mere physical patterns?"

What is it that is having this direct subjective experience? Are you suggesting that the pattern of information is itself having this experience? And if so, what can you point to in physics that would account for (or explain) why a pattern of information should be able to have an experience? How do you explain this using the physical properties of the universe and the law of physics?

Just telling me that these patterns of information are "changing" and can therefore be said to have "experienced change" does nothing to explain just what it is that is actually aware of this experience.

In fact, maybe "awareness" is more to the point. How does a pattern of information become "aware" of anything?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. To the contrary if you could actually offer a meaningful explanation for this I would personally nominate you for a Nobel Prize.

[Talishi]

In fact, maybe "awareness" is more to the point. How does a pattern of information become "aware" of anything?

I'm a fan of Dr. Paul Brand, who discovered that the reason diabetics and leprosy patients lose parts of their body is nerve damage...they can't feel their extremities, so they don't know when they are infected until it's too late. He described a toddler who could not feel pain, she would bite the end of her finger and paint in her crib, parents would spank her for it, but she'd just laugh. There was nobody home staring out of those eyes.

I'm also a fan of SF author Greg Bear, whose classic novel "Queen of Angels" has a computer named Jill who attains awareness when she figures out the clever monkeys who made her deliberately put her twin brother at Alpha Centauri in a situation where it would be conscious but have nobody to talk to, a kind of hell.

Putting these things together I've decided that "I hurt, therefore I am."

[Divine Insight]

Putting these things together I've decided that "I hurt, therefore I am."

That's all fine and dandy. But what is it that 'hurts' then?

So far all you've suggested is that we are a pattern of information. So it is this pattern of information that is "hurting"?

And again, how do you justify in terms of modern physics how a pattern of information could "feel hurt".

What is it that "feels" this hurt?

[Talishi]

Putting these things together I've decided that "I hurt, therefore I am."

That's all fine and dandy. But what is it that 'hurts' then?

So far all you've suggested is that we are a pattern of information. So it is this pattern of information that is "hurting"?

And again, how do you justify in terms of modern physics how a pattern of information could "feel hurt".

What is it that "feels" this hurt?

I'll be honest and say I don't know. This is the science of mind, and it's not very far along. Witness: we have self-driving cars, but the car can't look at its own binary folder and know that it is one of those running scripts.

[Kenisaw]

Patterns of matter are information.

And then there's the question of what it is that is experiencing these patterns of information?

Thus far all you have proposed is that patterns of information are having the experience of being patterns of information. I don't see where this is a sufficient explanation.

In physics we assume the following:

1. Energy exists. We have absolutely no clue what energy is or from whence it arises.

2. Matter exists. Currently we see matter as nothing more than standing wave states of energy. So again we have no clue what this even is.

3. There are four forces that exist, and they are:

a) Gravity
b) electromagnetism
c) strong nuclear force
d) weak nuclear force

So now, how do we use the above picture to explain how patterns of information can have an experience?

Where in physics is there anything that suggests that any energy, matter, or forces (or any combination therefore) should be able to have an experience?

In other words, how do we explain, using only modern physics, how any pattern of information can have an experience?

What in physics suggests in can't?

[Delphi]

My question is, "What is it that is having this experience?"

This is perhaps the most important question to have ever been posed. It is a philosophical question, but I also see it as a scientific question with an answer that can be derived through methods that can in principle prove/disprove, verify/falsify proposed hypotheses.

Descartes made the seemingly obvious armchair philosophical statement: "cogito ergo sum". Or "I can think, so it makes sense that I am able to experience things".

David Chalmers has introduced what he calls the "hard problem" of consciousness. It is very difficult to answer the question "why do we experience conscious awareness at all?"

This is a serious question for both the theist and the non-theist.

Asserting that we have a god-given soul with free will does not answer the ontological question of how we as questioners are able to ponder the fact that we are questioning what is questionable.

Materialists who negate the idea of souls or gods still have the same problem.

The hard problem of consciousness is a real bitch.