The Future Of The Soul?

Evolving, And Collective, The Soul Still Exists, And Science Is Its Prophet:

Is it useful to speak of the “soul”? Why not? Why to deprive us of words? Over the millennia, the word “soul” had many meanings. No, immortality is not necessarily a property of the soul.

There was always physics, and, thus, there was always metaphysics. The latter being the logical universe of the former. There will be always physics, and thus there always will be metaphysics.

Metaphysics is what is beyond physics. Any logical discourse has a universe that is beyond itself.

Our Soul Decides What It Means

Our Soul Decides What It Means

And mathematicians have agreed to disagree with themselves about metamathematics:

Thus, both physics and metaphysics are moving targets. So the soul, naturally, should be, as understanding progresses. But we thinkers, are hunters, and we go after the biggest preys. We need an unending chase, to feed our souls.

To each stage in the mentalization of the universe, to each stage in human understanding, its own physics, metaphysics, and thus, then notion of a soul.

Neurology indeed enables to embody some of the notions of soul Aristotle floated across. One can speak of the “German soul”. And the “German soul” has changed.

Quantum Physics has started to spawn Quantum Biology, thus, soon, a scientific system of ideas that will be best described as “Quantum Minds”, not to say Quantum Mentalization.

If one brings all what we know about Quantum Physics, to bear on what the soul could be, our mental universe, the universe of possibilities and the imagination, tremendously expands.

The Quantum is characterized by waves, something intrinsically vague (pun intended, except it’s not a pun: “wave” and “vague” have the same root).

Quantum waves are non-local, and entangled, so they embody (sort of, as they constitute, de facto, the “ether”) something going much further than the body.

When a mind is operating, a beyond-astronomical, beyond-set, beyond-category, entanglement of wavy delocalizations is self interacting. This is the soul.

The Quantum Mind, per its very nature, is hard to know: it’s always changing, and interacting with it is a more-than-delicate matter. So the very question of whether it survives is inappropriate.

Souls are always interacting with souls. Quantum-interacting (even though the interaction goes through classical means, that is, particles, at some point).

Thus souls survive in the collective.

Ever more arguments, and even now experiments, show that those waves, while not particles, are endowed with an ethereal existence capable of differences, thus identity.

One of the philosophical lessons of Quantum Physics is that local is global. Another lesson is that the particular world (the world of particles), is only a minute part of the world. This universe is full of waves, and Dark matter is its prophet.

Full Quantum Neurology is a soul in waiting. Only thus will consciousness be explained. Meanwhile, as physics cannot even get started on consciousness, we have to admit, just because of that, its incompleteness.

Notice in passing that the Quantum Biology based soul does not suffer of predestination problem often plaguing old fashion religion. The Quantum seems to say that the spirit is everything, and has a global reach, but still, it is, somehow, local. That’s unifying, somehow, very disparate and traditionally contradictory notions.

Our moral discourse needs to know there is more than us, because our discourse itself is more than us, and Quantum Wavy, besides. Morality needs a universe, the framework Nihilism is deprived of. And, logically there is more than us. This supplement d’ame, we give it a name, the soul. We are a discourse, the soul is our universe. Amen.

To diminish words and concepts diminishes the reach of our poetical imagination, central to mental creativity. Let’s not be afraid of words. Let’s, instead, endow them with refresh meaning.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses to “The Future Of The Soul?”

  1. gmax Says:

    How do the words ‘soul” and ‘race’ help? Are they irreplaceable concepts?


  2. dominique deux Says:

    “soul”, “race”, “creation”, “market” and many others are verbal concepts (words) which do not refer to existing entities (delusions), but nevertheless have a ponderous impact on reality through the everyday activities of the deluded. They thus cannot escape scrutiny.
    They also are convenient shorthand to designate complex phenomena, processes, categories etc, making them easier to contemplate by the (hopefully) non deluded, but unfortunately comforting the deluded in their delusion.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You are right, Dominique. This is the difficulty, indeed.

      An example: I often accuse American individuals or institutions of anti-French “racism”. They haughtily reply that “French” is not a race. The same (including Obama) are ready to brandish “Anti-Americanism”.

      So, as it is not a race, all sorts of things can be done against the French, that would be viewed as racist if done just the same against, say, the Jews. Or even against the “Americans”!

      There is a word for that concept, “anti-Americanism”, enabling its existence. A serious problem, American plutophiles claim. While denying “Anti-Frenchism” exists. Why? There is no such a word.

      So when the USA, starting in the 1940s, work to systematically destroy French influence in South America, using various government devised mighty tricks, that was neither from “Anti-Frenchism”, or anti-French racism, as neither concept exist, either through lack of word, or non-existence of “racism”.

      At some point I used the concept of “German Soul“, meaning the German soul that was murderously fascist and racist, say circa 1914, and a philosophical journal barred the comment, on the ground that they “did not know what it meant” (they have changed their minds, since, thanks to my efforts of instruction! :-)).

      Actually, in the USA racism is alive and well (in some parts, say Texas; much less in others). It just has transmogrified semantically…


  3. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    Sorry for resurrecting a very old thread – but I just discovered your blog and its trove of alter-thoughts – many of which coincide with mine.

    “Full Quantum Neurology is a soul in waiting. Only thus will consciousness be explained. Meanwhile, as physics cannot even get started on consciousness, we have to admit, just because of that, its incompleteness.”

    Oh yeah.I have spent a lot of time contemplating the essence of the paragraph you wrote. A classical axion/neuron/synapse impulse explanation of the bain doesn’t get so far as to explain the intelligence of a cockroach, let alone a human. Not to disparage the little creatures – they’re quite intelligent in their own right.

    Some recent papers address the idea that the neural pathways of the animal’s body are not what we think – and all really operate mostly in the realm of quantum physics. Axions have microtubules which themselves have ring resonators that seem perfectly tuned to the idea of quantum communication. In the quantum interpretation of our minds, the brain’s highways (axions, etc) are simply primer pathways to initiate quantum communication. Since the body is not perfect, its imperfect chemistry requires those pathways to be used repeatedly to reprime the system after natural decay periods.

    In this concept, the retina of the eye is quantum entangled with the visual cortex, etc.

    I do not agree with the idea of “one mindedness” that is popularized in some descriptions that can occasionally be seen and that are referred to as the “collective quantum mind”. I think the so-called collective consciousness is an order of magnitude suppressed in each of us – such that we control our own thoughts completely.

    What I fear about our coming knowledge in this realm is the quite reasonable possibility that such things could be manipulated.

    – Ron

    PS – Wish WP had a decent comment editor.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Ronald,
      It is quite all right to comment on all and any essay of mine… However old (there are older public ones on Tyranosopher). The essays are supposed to last, to have valuable ideas therein, so I better keep on replying to, and defending them. It helps me actually. Montaigne did something similar with his essays, debating them extensively with friends, including Queen Margot, a top intellectual and feminist (and the only monarch in the history of France who officially kept the title of Queen… while the King was married to another Queen… True, there had a been a sort of precedent in Spain, with Philipp V…) Then he would modify them….


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: