The scientists have not yet managed to explain the thing we call 'consciousness'.
A book called "The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul", edited by Mark C. Baker and Stewart Goetz, was published in 2011.
The book has been reviewed by Howard Robinson of Central European University.
The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul.
In Chapter 1, Charles Taliaferro points out that materialism (the belief that there is no soul) cannot explain consciousness.
In chapter 2, Daniel Robinson writes that certain scientists have wrongly interpreted the scientific data when they seek to prove that the mind is a mere product of physical processes.
R is a conscious, self-aware, and sentient human being despite the widespread destruction of cortical regions purported to play a critical role in Self Awareness, namely the insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and medial prefrontal cortex. - WHERE IS YOUR MIND?
In Chapter 3, Mark Baker argues that the language problems caused by brain damage all have to do with words and grammar.
The brain damage appears not to affect the ability to think creatively, which suggests that the 'mind' does not need the brain.
In Chapter 4, Stewart Goetz argues that common sense sees us as agents, in other words, people with souls.
When examining neurological experiments, we should not assume that only physical stimuli are affecting the mind.
The materialists have problems explaining reasons, desires and beliefs.
In Chapter 5, Robin Collins refers to scientists who have thought that belief in the soul goes against basic 'conservation principles' and so is anti-scientific.
The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics that states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time.
How can a non-physical mind provide the energy to get a human body to carry out an action?
However, Collins points out that, according to many modern scientists, energy is not conserved "in general relativity, in quantum theory, or in the universe taken as a whole."
In Chapter 6, Hans Halvorson explains that, according to Quantum Theory, a physical system can be in two apparently inconsistent states at once.
Apparently a particle can perform an action that requires much more energy than the particle itself has.
More here: The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul.
~~~
CanSpeccy left this comment:
Science deals only with what can be demonstrated. But consciousness cannot be demonstrated, it can only be experienced.
To science, the only approach to understanding the human mind is on the assumption that we are automatons and that our reports of awareness of pain, or color, or whatever, are merely reports of internal states that correspond with neurological events. But such states or events are scientifically significant only insofar as they are outwardly observable, and thus do not constitute an understanding of consciousness.
That pain hurts or that color green has a subjective quality that cannot be expressed by reference to anything observable means that consciousness will never be explained.
This is no doubt a cause of annoyance to the purveyors of the scientific world view who know that belief in the unlimited power of science to explain the world is the basis of their own wealth, power and prestige.
Hence the recurrent claims to have "solved" the problem of consciousness: some special cells at the back of the brain, some neuronal quantum resonance, or some other hocus pocus.
However, Collins points out that, according to many modern scientists, energy is not conserved "in general relativity, in quantum theory, or in the universe taken as a whole."
In Chapter 6, Hans Halvorson explains that, according to Quantum Theory, a physical system can be in two apparently inconsistent states at once.
Apparently a particle can perform an action that requires much more energy than the particle itself has.
More here: The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul.
~~~
CanSpeccy left this comment:
Science deals only with what can be demonstrated. But consciousness cannot be demonstrated, it can only be experienced.
To science, the only approach to understanding the human mind is on the assumption that we are automatons and that our reports of awareness of pain, or color, or whatever, are merely reports of internal states that correspond with neurological events. But such states or events are scientifically significant only insofar as they are outwardly observable, and thus do not constitute an understanding of consciousness.
That pain hurts or that color green has a subjective quality that cannot be expressed by reference to anything observable means that consciousness will never be explained.
This is no doubt a cause of annoyance to the purveyors of the scientific world view who know that belief in the unlimited power of science to explain the world is the basis of their own wealth, power and prestige.
Hence the recurrent claims to have "solved" the problem of consciousness: some special cells at the back of the brain, some neuronal quantum resonance, or some other hocus pocus.