Papal Visit to the UK

[BeBMan]

I already wrote that science may be able to answer why guy X prefers coke or not. That is not the prob. I also certainly do not claim 'taste' is metaphysical or mysterious (the metaphysical point was about religion).

But scientifically explaining/understanding what taste X works like in a human bio system or what is love chemically is not the same as providing an answer to stuff like "What tastes better" or "There's this girl I find kinda cute but do I want to go into a relation, do I love her blahblah?" or "we married 3 years ago - do I still love her?" in the concrete situation where an individual is confronted with these or similar questions.

These are simple different takes on a certain problem - the chemical explanation of love doesn't help some guy asking himself this stuff. That science may later research and explain what he finally did is a completely different matter. But it doesn't answer him while he is playing around with decision A, B or C like "after a couple of tests we finally concluded that it would be the right decision do ask the girl out with the possible option to a 6 year-long relationship".

A while it may sound a bit banal, I wouldn't say it's meaningless, since such stuff is part of our daily routine on this planet.

[MikeH]

But when confronted with those situations you could scientifically examine each of those things and use that to get an answer if you wanted. People choose not to because it's too much work, takes too long and most people don't understand science.

If you know a bit of basic biology you can work out if someone finds you attractive or not, but I agree it takes a lot of the fun out of it.

[C0ckney]

1. "Soul" indicates self awareness coming from our brains abaility to use language to define abstract concepts i.e. "the soul" is a concept that your brain gives to its self consciousness. If you die, your brain dies and the self consciousness ergo "your soul" disappears. The fact that you have difficulties accepting that fact is a testimony to millions of years of evolution with the single goal of survival (i can die but my soul will live on, the ultimate self delusion of a self conscious organ)

2. Love is a chemical reaction induced by millions of years of human evolution so our children would have ahigher chance of survival (after all, humans need a much longer period of parental protection than any other animal out there)

Scientific enough for you ?

basically what JM said. the first isn't scientific in the least and the second is a cop out. neither even begin to provide a satisfscttory answer to the questions i'm afraid.

[MikeH]

I'm not sure you'd accept any answer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

neither even begin to provide a satisfscttory answer to the questions i'm afraid.

This. You can call it an answer, but you know that's not what the question was really asking.

[dannubis]

So give me another more simple explanation of "soul" that doesn't require dogmas to believe in. I am all ears.

And nothing what I said is a cop out. I explained where "love" comes from. The romantized idea you seem to have is a burden you have to carry around.

[Asher]

It's only unacceptable to you because you wish it meant something more.

[MikeH]

Exactly.

Turn it on its head. Exactly what part of "a soul" or "love" do you think science can not explain?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

the part which is not based on material

[C0ckney]

I think this has already been answered, but let's say in scientific terms "the soul" is a theory. What is the theory? That the thing that gives humans self conciousness is "the soul"? Generally people define "the soul" in terms of something that science can't explain, but the things it is made up of, self conciousness, language, memory etc. are all fairly well explained.

But we are making great strides in animal intelligence studies, around self awareness, and finding out that there's a broad spectrum of intelligence below ours, from very close to our own to incredibly dumb. We have animals that recognise themselves, even ones considered relatively stupid like crows. We have primitive languages moving from trees emitting different chemicals to warn of danger, to sea mammals and primates who can communicate quite complex ideas. We have memory and advanced tool use and problem solving in well publicised experiments in things like squirrels and octopuses. We have studies of "emotions" in all kinds of animal life. We have increasingly good understanding of the brain, how it thinks, how it is affected by chemistry, including the hormones we produce ourselves.

Do we have a pretty good model for how it is that humans can think, feel emotion? Yes. Do we have a good model for what triggers the switch to self conciousness? Well not really, but mostly what we are finding out is that actually a lot of animals show a lot more of the signs of self conciousness than we are really comfortable admitting, considering how we treat them. Although no worse than we've historically treated other humans.

So historically there was something people called "the soul" which we couldn't explain, but now we really can explain most of it and we're on our way with the rest. The same with love. We know a lot of the brain chemistry, and the way the brain changes. We understand the evolutionary advantage it brought.

"how do you define the soul" is a just one of those religious tricks, if you define it as something that can't be explained, it can't be explained, but I think you can explain everything that people generally consider to be a soul. The concept that it might 'live on' after death seems a bit ridiculous once you know how the brain works.

if you are trying to be provide a scientific answer to the question 'what is the soul' then surely it should to be along the lines of 'the soul is x, y and z. i don't think talking about emotions in animals, while very interesting in itself, is really getting to grips with the question of what the 'soul' is.

the point i'm trying to make here is not to deny that many aspects of how we think, how we come to feel emotions can be explained by science, but rather to say that what the soul is, is a question which can be posed in many different ways and answered in many different ways. this is something that philosophers and religious thinkers have been grappling with since forever and is not a question that can ultimately answered by hard science. i do not believe that we will ever reach a point where we can say that the soul is x,y and z because of the nature of the question. however much light science can shed on aspects of our brain chemistry et al.

and what of love mike, if the feelings you have towards your wife, your family etc. are all produced by chemical reactions in your brain (i, of course, don't deny the existence of these reaction or the effect they have), do you think of them in such terms, do you talk about it in such terms? or do you think of it in a different way. i mean we all know when we feel hungry or thirsty and this is because of chemical reaction in our brains telling us that our body needs food and water etc. but i would argue that love (and not only love) is different. when you have been faced with a situation in life such as that which bebro describes, as we all are in life, do you try to think in terms of the chemistry or in another way. i would suggest that it's another way because as bebro has said the chemistry does not help in those situations. doesn't that then suggest that there's more to the question than chemistry and that it's valid to explore such questions.

[C0ckney]

I'm not sure you'd accept any answer.

you should have more faith

[Imran Siddiqui]

Love for one, is inadequately explained by "it's all just chemicals". The complexities involved in love and different levels of love (it isn't JUST about mates and children for one) defy a simply mechanical explination. As as put, does chemistry, or even can it, explain the multitude of questions and outpouring of emotion (poems and stories and songs we write to encompass that try to encompase that) we have involving love?

[Asher]

and what of love mike, if the feelings you have towards your wife, your family etc. are all produced by chemical reactions in your brain (i, of course, don't deny the existence of these reaction or the effect they have), do you think of them in such terms, do you talk about it in such terms? or do you think of it in a different way. i mean we all know when we feel hungry or thirsty and this is because of chemical reaction in our brains telling us that our body needs food and water etc. but i would argue that love (and not only love) is different.

It's not, though. You probably wish it was, but it's not.

It's something we see in animals as well, the ones that mate for life. It's something we have that gives our kids better chances of survival with two attentive parents.

It's nothing to do with soul and everything to do with biological imperative. Love, lust, and sex are all biological aspects of life and have nothing to do with spirituality, even though that idea if blindingly attractive for many people.

[C0ckney]

as irman points out love isn't just about mates and children.

[Dauphin]

We will at least eventually be able to explain why we can't compute something.

I don't think we necessarily will. We might, but I think that it will be an asymptotic approach, not a definitive explanation.