Scientists offer quantum theory of soul\'s existence (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, November 05, 2012, 18:13 (4402 days ago) @ David Turell

BBella drew our attention to an article according to which two world-renowned scientists (Hameroff & Penrose) "say they can prove the existence of the soul". I found nothing even resembling proof, or even supporting belief in the existence of a soul. David has referred me to Stuart Hameroff's website.-I found the section on the "Quantum Soul" (just under the photo of Lillian Kaplan Hameroff), but it is by Hameroff and Deepak Chopra, though it refers extensively to Penrose. However, "Sir Roger does not necessarily endorse the further speculations developed here, and generally avoids connections between science, religion and spirituality." Hardly surprising as he is apparently an atheist, which raises all kinds of questions about his concept of the "soul" if the article is to be believed! We've come across Deepak Chopra before, and he clearly does seek such connections. That does not, of course, mean he's wrong! The basic argument is summed up near the end: -"At any frequency, Orch OR consciousness in the brain is occurring in fundamental space-time geometry, localized to brain neuronal microtubules and driven by metabolic processes. When the blood stops flowing, energy and oxygen depleted and microtubules inactivated or destroyed (e.g., NDE/OBE, death), it is conceivable that the quantum information which constitutes consciousness could shift to deeper planes and continue to exist purely in space-time geometry, outside the brain, distributed nonlocally. Movement of consciousness to deeper planes could account for NDEs/OBEs, as well as, conceivably, a soul apart from the body."-It is conceivable...could shift...could account...conceivably...The sensational claim at the head of the article is clearly quite out of order, there is no talk of proof, and the heading on the Hameroff website calls it a "scientific hypothesis", which seems perfectly fair to me. The conclusion is: "We present a secular, scientific approach consistent with all religions and known science. With the advent of quantum biology, nonlocality in consciousness must be taken seriously, potentially building a bridge between science and spirituality."-Since science knows next to nothing about the true nature of consciousness, one can say that this hypothesis is indeed just as scientific (or unscientific) as the hypothesis that consciousness is caused 100% by the materials in the brain, and dies when they die. (Presumably Sir Roger's interest lies in the nature of consciousness rather than the existence of an immortal soul.) I stand by my criticisms of the article, which I now find to be extremely misleading, but I'm all for taking "nonlocality in consciousness" and indeed the hypothesis itself seriously. My thanks to BBella for drawing attention to it and to David for pointing me towards the Hameroff website.