Weighty matters

Here's a trivial thing I noticed a while ago. For some reason it stuck in my mind. In a comments thread at a political website, people were arguing about whether or not Mitt Romney's religion would affect his chances in the primaries. I'm not getting into that. What interested me was a comment left by one of the participants:

All religions have strange beliefs. Belief in a invisible massless soul is as strange as you can get.

Apparently we are meant to understand that a belief in something invisible and massless is inherently ridiculous. But why?

Certainly there is nothing inherently crazy about the idea of something invisible. All sorts of things are invisible to the human eye, yet they surely exist. And some things are just invisible, period. As far as I know, there's no way to obtain a visual image of a quark, but there seems to be no doubt that quarks exist.

The key word, then, is not invisible but massless. Yet here too, it seems unreasonable to assert that nothing can exist without mass. After all, until recently it was assumed that the subatomic particles called neutrinos had no mass. I remember Isaac Asimov going on at some length about the strange massless property of neutrinos in one of his popular science books. This was the conventional wisdom for many years, although recent observations have suggested that neutrinos do have some slight, barely detectable mass, after all.

If, for decades, it was perfectly acceptable for neutrinos to be both invisible and massless, and nobody ridiculed scientists for believing and asserting precisely this, then why should the concept of an invisible, massless soul be any more risible?

The answer, of course, is that science - considered by many to be the ultimate arbiter of the facts of reality - has stamped its imprimatur on the idea of the neutrino, but not on the idea of the soul. In fact, some of science's more militant propagandists have asserted that there is not and cannot be a soul, though their arguments are more ideological than empirical. (They simply assume that materialism is true, then draw the conclusion that nothing nonmaterial can exist. This is circular reasoning.)

In sum, we were expected (until lately) to accept the reality of an invisible massless neutrino, but to reject and ridicule the reality of an invisible massless soul. All because science "says so."

What this amounts to is an appeal to authority. Strictly speaking, this is a logical fallacy, but it might be acceptable if science were the relevant authority in this matter. Is it? Science is a tool of investigation supremely adept at ferreting out the truth about things like quarks and neutrinos but, arguably, not at all suited to dealing with matters of consciousness and spirit.

And by the way, what kind of visibility and mass are possessed by consciousness? How do you weigh a thought, or see an emoti0n? You may be able to map corresponding brain states or weigh parts of the brain, but this is not the same as seeing and weighing the content of consciousness - which is, of course, ineffable, yet real. One might even argue that the content of consciousness is the most real thing we know.

In any event, it's interesting to see how the skeptical position sloppily accepts an obvious double standard. Invisible and massless entities are accepted without demur if they are consistent with the materialist worldview, but rejected out of hand if they contradict materialism.

It's an argument that, like the humble neutrino itself, doesn't seem to carry much weight.

Comments

[Bryan]

Truly u make good points.Seems to be those materialists think only they carry the truth and rational thought.

On the other side of the coin there are
Alot of religious people like(fundamentalist) cristians or what not do believe in a soul concept but not unless it fits exactly in their "reality hypothesis" which means the spiritualistic concept of soul and its reality after death are not automatically accepted or is twisted in a way to make sense with what they believe.

I have met alot of cristians and "spirits" are thought of as devils.Same concept counts for the evolution theory,although its highly probable to be true alot of cristian people I met automatically say it cannot be true because God(the bible) contradicts it being so.

Arguing with these people is therefore pointless.I wonder what the bible-thumpers would think of the humble neutrino u mention .

[Michael H]

"One might even argue that the content of consciousness is the most real thing we know."

Good point, Michael.

Have you ever considered that the content of consciousness is all we can ever know?

[Kevin]

I suggest that materialists would lose the argument were the debate held by the Oxford Union Debating Society. The very thoughts used in rhetorical argument are immaterial and therefore germane to question at hand (sorry, I couldn't resist that one). That thoughts can be MADE material is after the fact. The person who posted the comment clearly hasn't given the matter more than cursory consideration. It seems to reinforce the notion that ALL is thought (though I'm uncertain how well THAT would fare at Oxford).

[lucyjane D]

Does that mean that the soul which to my estimation, is the same as the 'mind' because its our invisible form, is also as strange as you can get?.. Is to contradict his/her own existing mind/consciousness.
lucyjane D

[Mark]

I have said before here and will say again that I do not agree that science is "not at all suited to dealing with matters of consciousness and spirit." I believe that anything that can interact in any way with the physical world can be studied using the scientific method. It may even be true to say that anything that can interact with the physical world can be totally understood through the scientific method, although this is much less certain (and if I were a bettin man, I would probably bet that there are some things that can interact with the physical world and cannot be totally understood through science in the way that it is narrowly defined by most scientists). However, even with the current narrow definition of science, if this soul can in some way interact with the physical world (as it seems to be able to, if it is real), then science can study and gather at least some knowledge about the phenomenon, even if it is only knowledge that the phenomenon exists. The only question is: How much knowledge can be gained about the soul from current, narrowly defined science alone and how much knowledge needs to be learned using other forms of epistemology either in conjunction with or totally separate from science?

[Cyrus]

Light waves and radio frequencies do not have mass, unless I am mistaken. If consciousness is energy then it's one of the few things in life that DOES make sense. The notion that all this is from meat is absolutely laughably absurd and horrifying that people believe it.

[Dey]

Some materialist atheists said that consciousness and "ideas" don't exist because they're only cerebral processes. They're not "material". But human beings can "suppose" that they have real ideas...

I can't think a more stupid and counter intuitive comment like that.

As said Michael, "One might even argue that the content of consciousness is the most real thing we know". It's true.

People who deny this is out of touch with reality. Maybe, it's one of the reasons why atheists are identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to this scientific study:

http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted

Bryan commented on another interesting point: "Alot of religious people like(fundamentalist) cristians or what not do believe in a soul concept but not unless it fits exactly in their "reality hypothesis" which means the spiritualistic concept of soul and its reality after death are not automatically accepted or is twisted in a way to make sense with what they believe"

It's true. However, there are christian philosophers (not fundamentalists) who seems to be open to any kind of scientific evidence of consciousness and afterlife (and other phenomena like these) and try to give a rational and scientific foundation of their faith in God and Christ. An example is Peter Williams:
http://www.arn.org/authors/williams.html

I don't know if Williams knows the scientific evidence on these topics, but he seems to be open to them.

[Tony S]

Skeptical thinking and arguments are massless and therefore baseless. Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

[Leo]

Materialism is so engrained in science it's really sad that one another scientist comes along and suggests that maybe that worldview is wrong is often ridicule. Materialists like Louie Savva, Steve Pinker, Susan Blackmore, Richard Wiseman, Richard Dawkins, John Searle, Patricia Churchland, Keith Augustine, James Randi, Chris French, Steve Novella all think that the soul does and cannot exist because materialism says so there ideology bias.

[Michael H]

It’s all quite amusing really.

I’ve been lurking around the forum over at Thunderbolts this past weekend and have been floored by the parallels I see with what that small group of astronomy enthusiast’s face in dealing with mainstream cosmologists. It’s eerily reminiscent of what paranormal investigators face routinely, and has included several instances of members being literally banned from mainstream science forums simply by advocating alternative explanations of observed astronomical phenomenon that run counter to accepted Big Bang Theory.

For those unaware, the Thunderbolts web site is advocating an entirely new cosmology, proposing that the primary forces involved in the formation of the structure of the universe are vastly electromagnetic in nature, relegating gravity to a significantly secondary role. Their model is based on the observed behavior of electrified plasma in laboratory settings, the knowledge that plasma represents the fundamental state of matter in the observable universe and the understanding that observed electrified plasma phenomena can be scaled up to galactic and intergalactic dimensions. Their arguments are quite elegant and compelling to a layman (that would be me), although it almost seems too simplistic.

Their home page, with a link to the forum, is here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

Setting aside the veracity of their theories for a moment, what interests me is the absolute assaults these folks are subjected to from the mainstream community. There is apparently no interest in open debate in the astrophysical community, except in how anomalous observations can be interpreted within currently accepted theory. Spending a half-hour reading the openly biased article and the associated discussion thread on the Wiki entry for Plasma Cosmology gives a great feel for what’s going on in that realm.

To get back on topic, Michael’s point in the piece above is that materialists reject invisible and/or massless entities out-of-hand. Do they?

Most materialists will espouse complete acceptance of modern cosmology. They will tell you that we “know” nothing exploded some fourteen billion years ago to create the universe. Then they’ll tell you that 25% of the universe is “dark matter” that cannot be observed but has “mass” that has been measured, while another 70% of the universe is “dark energy” that apparently has no mass, but is some sort of invisible, mysterious force that is causing an immense acceleration of the galaxies. They’ll pontificate about black holes, speculate about a multiverse, propose multiple dimensions and point to elaborate mathematical equations that “prove it” all.

Two weeks ago an article hit the newswires describing an immense void that had been observed in a remote region of the universe, measured as some billion light years across. There should not be that big of a gap according to current theory. So what does it mean? We’re seeing a “parallel universe”, of course.

Come again? Observation: Nothing. Conclusion: A parallel universe. Modern cosmology has morphed into mathematically elegant metaphysical nonsense.

It’s pretty clear that materialists will accept bizarre ideas, including the invisible and massless, as long as it is stamped with scientific consensus, and has nothing to do with the human spirit. How is that different from accepting bizarre ideas stamped with the approval of a given religion? Both groups are placing faith in their respective beliefs.

What’s amusing is that neither group is even aware that they’re operating from a belief system in the first place – their respective views make perfect sense to each of them, while each sees the other as hopelessly misguided.

[william]

Good analysis Michael: I lean at this time that all is consciousness. Think of matter as some type of "frozen" consciousness.

Many atheists claim they do as much good in the world and often more good than the religious, never of course doing much introspection into where that desire for good came from. I am sure they would claim it came from some form of evolutionary adaptive behavior.

Recently I have been able to see the subtle but profound difference between what most call love and compassion. I submit we know little about compassion. Compassion appears to be a very deep and thoughtful understanding of the human condition/struggle and the evolutionary process of soul development shown towards others.

Only in a dream state have I been able to experience compassion from another entity. In this life I have been shown sympathy, empathy, and pity but never to my knowledge compassion at least not like the compassion I experienced in that dream state.

Most atheists refuse to deal with consciousness preferring to call it the hard problem.

[Michael Prescott]

>Light waves and radio frequencies do not have mass, unless I am mistaken.

I don't know. Don't photons have mass?

Hmm. I just Googled it. I guess the answer is, no, photons don't have mass. This surprises me for some reason.

From the linked article:

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass.

If I had known this, I could have written a better post. Instead of talking about neutrinos, which do have mass, I could have talked about photons, which don't.

There seems to be some controversy (or at least complicating factors) involving the mass of a proton, but it is too technical for me to fathom.

[Michael H]

It’s all quite amusing really.

Most materialists will espouse complete acceptance of modern cosmology. They will tell you that we “know” nothing exploded some fourteen billion years ago to create the universe. Then they’ll tell you that 25% of the universe is “dark matter” that cannot be observed but has “mass” that has been measured, while another 70% of the universe is “dark energy” that apparently has no mass, but is some sort of invisible, mysterious force that is causing an immense acceleration of the galaxies. They’ll pontificate about black holes, speculate about a multiverse, propose multiple dimensions and point to elaborate mathematical equations that “prove it” all.

Two weeks ago an article hit the newswires describing an immense void that had been observed in a remote region of the universe, measured as some billion light years across. There should not be that big of a gap according to current theory. So what does it mean? We’re seeing a “parallel universe”, of course.

Come again? Observation: Nothing. Conclusion: A parallel universe. Modern cosmology has morphed into mathematically elegant metaphysical nonsense.

It’s pretty clear that materialists will accept bizarre ideas, including the invisible and massless, as long as it is stamped with scientific consensus, and has nothing to do with the human spirit. How is that different from accepting bizarre ideas stamped with the approval of a given religion? Both groups are placing faith in their respective beliefs.

What’s amusing is that neither group is even aware that they’re operating from a belief system in the first place – their respective views make perfect sense to each of them, while each sees the other as hopelessly misguided.

[william]

"What’s amusing is that neither group is even aware that they’re operating from a belief system in the first place"

I actually had a long discussion with an ultra skeptic on beliefs and he stated that he did not have beliefs. This person actually thinks he has no beliefs. We could not make it through a day without beliefs. It is when my beliefs become thee beliefs that problems arise. We humans are a very interesting species.

95% of the universe we know nothing about and the other 5% we know little about but yet we make statements as if we understand reality and make such ridiculous statements as there cannot be a invisible massless soul.

The book I am reading now the author states that he believes there is more evidence for a soul than for Darwin’s theory of evolution. I happen to agree with that statement but yet this form of evolution is taught in our schools as fact.

[Kevin]

Too true about photons, Michael.While we're at it, we can include another problematic immaterial concept: Time. It's a subject I (almost) fear to broach in this thread, but Time is a consistant factor in so much of experimentation and research, an absolute necessity in so many processes and explications, measured in extremes of billions of years to nanoseconds depending on the need, but it carries one basic flaw: no one seems to be able to say what "it" is. No matter how we define it (or who does the defining), the concept devolves into a struggle of trying to cogently understand and communicate some"thing" we CAN'T understand or communicate. In the interest of the scientific method, Time is measured and subdivided in various (and useful) ways, albeit arbitrarily, yet the ambiguity remains. I had no intention of diverting the thread into a voluminous listing of definitions of Time (that would extend into an infinite [time reference] stream straining our semantics beyond the breaking point), but merely to call attention to another example of how science relies on assumptions based on immateriality to study material physicality.

[william]

Time I suspect is in the eyes of the beholder. It interests me how sometimes an entity coming through a medium can predict something to happen in the future with great accuracy. How do they know the future? So little we know about time, matter, and consciousness. Stated another way we know so little about reality.

[Graylien]

Neutrinos can be detected. Thoughts can be detected as brainwave patterns. The soul has yet to be detected. This is why scientists find it logical to believe that there is empirical evidence for the existence of neutrinos, but none for the evidence of souls. Why does this confuse you so?

The problem isn't the soul's lack of weight or it's invisibility to the naked eye. The problem is that despite allegedly consisting of pure 'energy' (a much misused term in New Age circles) the soul has not yet been detected by even the most sensitive of instruments.

And arguments along the line of "well we don't know everything about how consciousness works therefore we might as well believe in souls" are too banal for words. You might as well argue that because we don't know how the Big Bang started, we may as well believe in Santa Claus.

[Michael]

Oh, goody--another gathering of religious zealots arguing about how many massless objects can fit on the head of a pin--just what the world needs!

The real issue is certainly not about whether massless objects exist (and taking it in that direction with photons, etc, is, indeed, totally trivial), but about >sentient< massless things--souls--about which I would suggest the original statement was precisely correct: this is about a strange an idea as you can get, especially considering its effects over the last few thousand years: an endless series of wars, murder and genocide among violent people who declare they alone own the idea. And the above posters insist this is somehow a new and radical concept, outside of our materialist world? Where on earth have you people been?

[John]

Michael, I fail to see what you're getting at.

Also, your "religious zealots" comment is slightly amusing - I'm actually an agnostic.

[Michael H]

I considered commenting on the "religious zealot" comment as well, John.

I see myself as an skeptical atheistic mystic, and was going to expound on what exactly that means, but then realized that the belief system the writer is working from would render the exercise futile.

As MP discussed recently - "Bored Now".

[Cyrus]

Michael your blog is driving me nuts. Every time I try to post, it's telling me it's potential spam and blocking it.

[Cyrus]

Whoa, hold up a second, pardner.

Unfortunately, it would appear sentient massless things do exist; considering that people are able to accurately identify things in different places from their bodies due to becoming a "sentient massless form". The true test of faith concerning whether or not somebody is a zealot is whether or not information like this is considered or rejected on a priori grounds--citing moral arguments concerning religion and war. Which is a complete non sequitur. Religious wars have nothing to do with the conversation about consciousness as energy instead of meat.

But one thing you won't find here is somebody really lambasting against somebody else's point of view. Just come back with a better argument after you do more research. Cheers.

[Ed]

Your argument is a straw-man argument and totally false.

1) No one ever said the neutrino was invisible. You assumed that because you can't see it. Being small is not invisible.
2) As science does, to find the truth they tested the idea. They did not require you to believe something without evidence. Now, beluif is not required. As religion expects you to believe with evidence.
3) Science only deal with the real world. Mysticism, make believe and superstition is not part of it.
4) If you think there is a soul, test for it and find it. Don't complain that because the idea of a massless neutrino is the same as a massless soul they should be recognized as the same idea. Wrong. Neutrinos were know to exist and detected them. It was whether a mass or no mass, was the question. belief not require. Lets find out the truth.

Straw-man argument you put in this blog.

[Michael Prescott]

>Michael your blog is driving me nuts. Every time I try to post, it's telling me it's potential spam and blocking it.

I don't know why that would be. But I have no control over the servers and software. I'm just renting space from TypePad.

[Tracy Hughes]

>In sum, we were expected (until lately) to accept the reality of an invisible massless neutrino, but to reject and ridicule the reality of an invisible massless soul. All because science "says so."

Man I'd love for there to be souls, but its much easier to repeat neutrino experiments... =)

> What this amounts to is an appeal to authority

Not all authorities are created equal. Repeatable, competitive and adaptive ones are much cooler.

I think belittling science is a bad habit, and perhaps a little reactive. Its not a belief system, its the single most effective system we have for explaining the universe in a repeatable, useable fashion.

Now, its certainly true that individual scientists can be very resistive to change, but thats actually signs of a healthy system. If scientists dropped everything for every single anomaly they'd end up rewriting science for an awful lot of sloppy experiements and computer glitches. Extraordinary claims... well you know. If its true, there will be evidence, and that evidence will mount.

>Invisible and massless entities are accepted without demur if they are consistent with the materialist worldview, but rejected out of hand if they contradict materialism

The evidence for things that contradict materialism tends to be of poor quality. I've looked at a fair amount of it, it seldom fails to disappoint although there's just a hint there that makes you go hmmm.

Don't attack the messengers, go get better evidence.

>Unfortunately, it would appear sentient massless things do exist; considering that people are able to accurately identify things in different places from their bodies due to becoming a "sentient massless form"

I've not seen a decent experiment like this (although again, would be cool). Mostly its kind of like the numbers game (where you take a number and find a bunch of things that have the same number... there will be lots... and go... coincidence!!?!!). Vague drawings that can be interpreted a variety of ways. There were some cool correspondences, but you have to know how many hits there were or how many misses.

And there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics (like the pear experiments /sigh) =) so you have to be very careful with vague experiments.

Well anyways... found this via the anomalist. Don't usually post but I think parapsychology would have a better chance of progressing without the 'science attacking', which serves nothing but the forces of ignorance.

>Most atheists refuse to deal with consciousness preferring to call it the hard problem.

It is a hard problem and a very cool one. Admitting we don't know is infinitely preferable to making something up on slim evidence.

But, I still hope there's a soul... =)

- Tracy

[Cyrus]

I learned that the spam filter kicks up when you copy and paste anything into the text box. Problem solved

[Michael H]

"Science only deal with the real world. Mysticism, make believe and superstition is not part of it."

Two things to consider, Ed. First, the claim that science only deals with the real world. There is a strong argument that can be made that astrophysics has been intimately involved in "make believe and superstition" for the last eighty years.

Please take the time to read the recent article at Scientific American addressing the Big Bang Theory here:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/
AssetDetail/assetid/55839?&print=yes#55867

The second thing to consider is that mystics throughout history and irrespective of religious faith universally state that there is a level of reality that transcends this one - the consistent message of the mystics is that there is a level of consciousness that can be achieved that leads one to a direct realization of the divine, immortality and an associated state of inner contentment that is independent of external circumstances.

Even Sam Harris, one of the three most vocal of the popular critics of religion has acknowledged this here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris
/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

Michael Prescott's posts consistently point to confirmation of what the mystics have said since the beginning of recorded history, and relegating all of the testimony together to some sort of common delusion strikes me as highly suspect, if not somewhat delusional in itself.

[Cyrus]

-3) Science only deal with the real world. -Mysticism, make believe and superstition is -not part of it.

This comment is laughable. In the 17th century the idea of electrically powered machines would have been considered mysticism. What I see are attitudes repeating themselves. Data shows that consciousness can operate independently of the brain. This is not mysticism but a new discovery that is paradigm redefining.

-4) If you think there is a soul, test for -it and find it.

I am so glad I am not entrenched by scientism, or else I would spend the rest of my days performing tests on myself to validate that I am really me, using various devices and electrodes attached to my body. What a sad existence that would be.