Re: Soul, mind and brain

["Milind Sathe" <>]

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

Hello,

    This topic is a little sensitive for me. Hence, I am writing one more
reply.
    The topic we are discussing here that is 'soul' and 'rebirth' is
anything but scientific. It has nothing to do with science. The believers in
rebirth are an example of Carl Sagan's 'There is a dragon in my garage'
story. I will briefly talk about this story, how this 'pseudo-science' works
and how it is related to this topic.
    """ Now I am claiming that there is a dragon in my garage. What? you
want to see it? No no you cannot see it because it is invisible. Oh.. you
want to hear it? It doesn' speak. Every physical test you propose I can come
up with a special explanation of why it wont work.You want some proof??
Well, I feel it. And there are other people who feel it too.
    Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing
as proving it true. """

    Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are
veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in exciting our sense of
wonder. What it comes down to is believing.

    Now here are my comments on some of your answers :

> Q. Is soul a scientific concept?
> 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].

[milind]
unexplained observations crying for an answer : Very interesting!!! Sure,
when there is a person telling you that he remembers things from his
previous life, it is an unexplained observation. And science will try to
answer it. But unfortunately the concept of rebirth is just like other
pseudo-science concepts like, alien abductions, UFO's, telepathy and faith
healing. And is a case of 'there is a dragon in my garage'.
[milind]

> Q. Who is a "so called scientist"?
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.
[milind] this is another trick people use to pass something as authentic
claiming it to be scientific. It is very easy refer to some paper, some
statements in the paper. I have read a few books and I have even read this
paper of goodall. All she is trying to discuss it 'If Monkeys' have emotions
and cognition'. She mentions that 'The question is to see if monleys have
soul' and by soul she is refering to the 'thing' which produces emotions.
She is very specific about the meaning of 'soul' in her paper. [milind]

>
> 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.]

[milind] and to extend my earlier point. Here is an example, if the author
had read the paper carefully, he/she would have known that 'soul' is used in
a very very different sense. And its meaning is very restricted in Goodal's
paper. And read this definition of 'soul' and now relate it to Goodal's
paper. A Perfect example, of misuse of science to mislead people. Giving
un-scientific references to scientific papers.
[milind]

> 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.
>
[milind]
Totally agree. Right to discuss is a fundamental right and it should not be
curbed. [milind]


Cheers
Milind


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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