Re: Soul, mind and brain

["Mahesh chandra Gupta" <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  Join the Mumbai Grapevine for daily news from Mumbai
          http://www.mumbai-central.com/grapevine/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your mail has raised certain questions. To be brief, objective and to the
point, I am responding in a question-answer format.

Q. Why does it seem odd that a scientist talks about soul?
A. It seems odd because in general, a man of science is expected to talk
only about concepts recognised by science, using terminology recognised by
science.
That is true about a run of the mill scientist. But an epoch making, path
breaking scientist knows that as long as he keeps on moving in the preset
grooves, he is destined to remain stuck in those grooves. Once he finds that
the groves are impeding the advancement of science, not allowing it to look
at unexplained facts from new angles, he is forced to have a hard look at
the grooves, move  out of them, and tread a new path. When he walks along
that path, he walks alone. Then , may be even after his death, others start
following the path, find it worthwhile, and it becomes a thoroughfare. It
becomes part of the scientific grooves. That is how science has grown. some
examples of the now discarded grooves are the theory of creation of life,
theory of earth being the central point of the solar system, theory of
indivisibility of the atom and the theory of indestructibility of matter. In
the present case, it seems all the more odd because having discarded the
theory of creation of life by god, the concept of soul once again seems to
be reopening that theory.

Q. Is soul a scientific concept?
A. The answer depends on what is our concept of science. If by science we
mean the existing scientific knowledge neatly packed in science textbooks,
journals and laboratories, then such science is dead science. It may be
science today, but not beyond. Within this concept of science, soul may not
be a scientific concept. But, if by science we mean a package including the
above, plus all the unexplained observations crying for an answer, along
with the theories to explain them, then soul may be termed a scientific
concept or, may be, a candidate scientific concept. When the theory is
proven, it becomes a fact, and the candidate concept becomes an accepted
concept. Such science is dynamic, alive science. Within such science, the
concept of soul would be a valid concept, to be discussed, debated,
observed, experimented and proven, if possible [there are limits to
scientific experimentation and observation; in certain situations, the very
act of observation changes what is being observed].

Q. Who is a "so called scientist"?
A. This apellation would fit a person who is not a scientist but pretends to
be so. Whether such person is a scientist or not can be judged only by other
scientists in that discipline. The reference here is to Jane Goodall. I do
not know her, except to the extent that the news report describes her as a
primatologist who has spent 40 years in scientifically observing chimpanzee
behaviour. Now, primatology is a well recognized science. It is not my
field. May be it is yours. If so, you would be justified in passing academic
comments about a scientific colleague.

Q. What is scientific definition of soul?
A. Your question contradicts yourself. Since you deny soul as a scientific
concept, you can not have a scientific definition of the same. Here would be
a working definition of soul: "Soul is that which is present in a living
being and survives after the death of the living being". [Definitions in
science are not static. They keep on changing as knowledge accumulates.]

Q. Is the right to discuss conditional?
A. No. It is absolute. It is a funamental right guaranteed under the
Constitution. It can not and should not be curbed. It can be curbed only to
one's peril. Denying right to discuss is sure recipe to intellectual murder.

Q. Can monkeys think?
A. Yes. Evidence is ample.

MC Gupta
July 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milind Sathe" <milind.sathe@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Soul, mind and brain


     It seems rather odd to me that a scientist is talking about "If
monkeys  have souls'.

 It is odd because the concept of 'Soul' is not a scientific
> concept to start with.

>     This is what happens when so called 'Scientists' talk about science.
>     Please, if I am wrong, give me a scientific definition of a 'Soul'.

 Then only we have a right > to discuss whether Monkeys have soul or not.

It can  be discussed if monkeys can 'think' or not.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html