The relevance to physics

From my point of view as a physicist all the above places 'awareness (self-awareness)' in a unique scientific category.

One can of course limit 'physics' to include only that which is consensual among physicists (though the definition of physicist is of course to some degree inevitably subjective/arbitrary, especially as some who are not accepted by faculty in academic physics department might claim this title for themselves), but as a physicist I am very interested in the nature of our reality and studying what exists, and certainly the quest to understand that which is most fundamental in our reality is to me not to be dismissed even if I agree that for reason of lack of consensus it is by consensus not to be included in 'physics'.

It seems to me to be an interesting feature of the universe that the existence of that which many physicists consider to be its most fundamental feature is of disputed existence, and similarly regarding that which many would consider to be "that via which all that is known to physics is known", and that the very notion of whether one can know anything on its own without proof is disputed among physicists who are those who professionally seek to discover, catalogue, describe (perhaps via 'laws') all that can be known to exist (at least in the reductionist sense in which physicists will assume that the laws of physics underlie all else).

It seems to me to be an issue of scientific importance or significance to attempt to discover as much as possible why there is such a fundamental divide between those physicists who state as fact that mind exists and those who state equally forcefully that it does not and even cannot exist.

..

seems to me to be an issue of scientific importance or significance to attempt to discover as much as possible why there is such a fundamental divide between those physicists who state as fact that mind exists and those who state equally forcefully that it does not and even cannot exist.

"True Infinity", and "The Platonic Realm"

One can have the experience of "touching infinity" etc but this does not prove there is actual infinity, especially as our brains are finite, so what one has is an experience of one's awareness. The awareness though is said to be known as a fact.

One can mathematically define infinity, however conceiving of a physical infinity is more problematic. Of cours eone can create a matehmatical model of infinity for spacetime or for space and for time separately, but this is different than the claim that indeed "physical space and time" can indeed be infinite.

Of course the fact that our minds are conditioned to boggle at thenotion of infinity, does not mean that infinity is impossible, and conversely because we "understand" the math of infinity this does not mean that we can ineed "contemplate infinity".

However, if it is only our brains which are finite, whereas our minds are not bound by the same militations, it is conceivable that the feelingo f touching infinity

seems to me to be an issue of scientific importance or significance to attempt to discover as much as possible why there is such a fundamental divide between those physicists who state as fact that mind exists and those who state equally forcefully that it does not and even cannot exist.

The existence of Platonic Truths is in some sense a deduction: one feels the truth of certain statements, that they are not contingent or human-invented etc, and yet there doesn’t seem to be any way this can be unless there is some Absolute Realm etc, but one cannot know that one is experiencing this Realm directly – rather there is a sense of this realm in one's awareness, so it is conceivable that the illusion of a Realm exists, and the false notion that there is a logical necessity for this Realm, whereas actually what exists is only a notion in one's awareness. The awareness though is said to be known as a fact.

However, perhaps it is only our brains which are finite, and the awareness of the Platonic relam, are due to our possession of mind.

Correlations

Is there a strong correlation between: a) the belief among mathematicians/physicists in the necessary existence of a "Platonic Realm" and b) being an idealist/dualist etc?

Is it possible for a Platonist to be a naturalist/materialist? If so, is it a type of cosmic naive realism?

One can postulate correlations between positions regarding these topics and whether one is an idealist or materialist.

• presumably, idealists are more likely to believe in the existence of a Platonic Realm. Is this in fact the case?

• Does belief in the existence of a Platonic Realm due to the laws of nature, or mathematics, or logic etc automatically imply that person would self-identify as not being materialist/naturalist?

It may be that a philosopher will consider these incompatible positions, but it is interesting to ask physicists HOW THEY SEE THEMSELVES, so that one can make statments about their positions based on 'experiment'.

Cosmology, Genetics

The existence of Platonic Truths is in some sense a deduction: one feels the truth of certain statements, that they are not contingent or human-invented etc, and yet there doesn’t seem to be any way this can be unless there is some Absolute Realm etc, but one cannot know that one is experiencing this Realm directly – rather there is a sense of this realm in one's awareness, so it is conceivable that the illusion of a Realm exists, and the false notion that there is a logical necessity for this Realm, whereas actually what exists is only a notion in one's awareness. The awareness though is said to be known as a fact.

However, perhaps it is only our brains which are finite, and the awareness of the Platonic relam, are due to our possession of mind.

Is there a strong correlation between: a) the belief among mathematicians/physicists in the necessary existence of a "Platonic Realm" and b) being an idealist/dualist etc?

Is it possible for a Platonist to be a naturalist/materialist? If so, is it a type of cosmic naive realism?

It may be that a philosopher will consider these incompatible positions, but it is interesting to ask physicists HOW THEY SEE THEMSELVES, so that one can make statments about their positions based on 'experiment'.

Cosmology, Genetics

Cosmology, Genetics

§ If there can be in brain a physical structure associated to mind, perhaps the physical universe also has such structure.

§ Maybe the existence of laws of nature (see Hume, PCW Davies etc) is an indication of this? Or can one find a new level of structure to the universe given the postulate that it emerged in an acausal manner?Just as awareness is that which can be known in of itself requiring no proof, so too perhaps the universe is that which can (begin to) exist on its own requiring no physical cause?

§ If true free will (incompatibilist libertarian, acausal) exists in human brains, then perhaps the acausal aspect is that which can emerge on its own? Or it is present in the universe or is associated to that which enabled the universe to emerge into existence acausally?

...........

......

The relevance to a broadened version of cosmology

Cosmological implications: When brains are fully convinced about some fundamental aspect of our reality, but differ irreconcilably, is this a matter for science as a whole (ie not just neuroscience) to be interested in? ie might it be taken as indicating something of importance regarding the universe and not just about human brains? For example: Universes (or 'realities') which are correctly described by naturalism or by dualism are qualitatively different, so the fact that two brains can differ as to which is correct renders this 'dispute' sui generis.

Genetics

§ Do those without mind have something else instead? Maybe they also struggle to convey to the minded what they feel?

§ If there can be in brain a physical structure associated to mind: how did it arise? Is it coded in the genes?

§ If one removes that part of brain, does the person remember what it felt like?

§ Can one transplant it to a mindless person and transform them to minded?

§ Can one inject generic material to the brain to stimulate it to produce that structure, thus inducing mind?

Is it like seeing, where a blind from birth person receives the ability to see, and they need to orient their brain to interpret new signals? or would it be automatic?

..

DNA matching to results of the proposed Neurophysiological Experiment: * Analysis of dna can be performed on volunteers, with investigation of any correlations (especially since we do know that we interbred with Denisovans and Neanderthals etc).

...

Given the fact that scientists disagree so fundamentally on this, and given the possibility (to be established by a survey) that this disagreement is unique, and given the general assumption that awareness correlates to some aspect of the brain structure of the aware being:

* it would be interesting to investigate whether there is a corresponding brain-distinction, between the dualist and materialist to determine whether there is something observably different about them.

The genius of Descartes was the recognition that the Aristotelian indiscriminate homogeonous mix of mind+matter could be decomposed into a "naturalistic order" governed by "laws" which would include also the two realms formerly sacrosanct: the operation of a) human brains and b) of the universe as a whole. To this need be added a realm operating according to a different schema, the realm of mind. This realm could seamlessly be separated since it is not needed for the explanation of the physical realm and could not interact with it according to its type of laws. He then briliantly crafted theories of the 'natural universe' including cosmology to illustrate his point, that there is a physical universe which operated according to 'laws' and that this is all separate from the realm of mind.

This 'dualist' decomposition was incredibly successful, and led to the wealth of physics as we know it, as well as to mechanistic biology (and of course chemistry), and of course to highly successful modern origin-theories such as inflation/big bang and evolution (and more recently to advances in brain-research).

However this Cartesian revolution was later extended by the materialists to mind itself, and they gleefully offered theories indicating - to their satisfaction - that mind too was a part of the "naturalistic order".

Of course the dualist sees a basic flaw in this, for after all their consciousness is known to exist without requiring proof, and it is sui generis (and known to be so 'intrinsically' without need for proof). However, it is unfortunatey only nown to them secifically, and the materilaist of course might consider this type of delusion to be an as-yet-undiagnosed form of mental illness (ie corrupted brain-software). Espceially since to the materilaist the very claim of the existence of something indetectable to science, which is allegedly known to exist without needing proof, is an affront to science.

SO the great discovery upon which science is built is that one does not need mind at all "we have no need of that hypothesis" for most phenomena! And so it became possible for materialists to fully take part in scientific discovery. However, the minded understand that there is a natural realm where all is mechanistic (including the randomness of quantum effects).. and there is ALSO another realm, of mind, but the former does NOT need mind as explanation.

Of course it may be that only a universe underlaid by Mind could have 'laws' (apologies to Hume) and therefore seem as though it can exist independenlty of Mind!

........

It is difficult for us today to pull ourselves out of the context into which we are deeply embedded, a mechanistic physics and biology, where Mind has to fight for a place, and is rejected as an 'illusion'. The ancients lived in the opposite conceptual environment: they thought in terms of stone 'wanting to return to its original place, the Earth" as explanation for falling.***

However this does NOT mean the ancients necessarily possessed mind! Even the mindless describe "wanting to do this or that" even though we minded know that via a vis a mindless entity there is no actual sentience wanting anything.

So it is not correct to assume that all were minded [of course one is reminded in this context of the thesis of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes] nor can we assume that Mind in the sense we mean it was the basis of Arsitotelian physics (though the mindless will perhaps say it is, but only because they have no idea what mind is!).

So in Aristotelian times the nonminded used mind terms to describe what even we minded folk would consider to be 'phenomena which do not require mind'

and the nonminded used mdlike terms since they did not recognize what it meant. it was only after Descartes etc separated them and showed how one could describe phenomena without mind-like notions, that the non-minded then decided oh that's what you mean by mind, ok, well it doesn't even exist at all!!!

Thus until the Cartesian split, there was no way for the Minded and nonMinded to even discover that they were different!

.....

Mind is primary: Mind is the means whereby we become aware of the 'physical'. The idealist position holds as a belief that in fact there is only mind, and anyone understanding mind-body duality agrees that this is possible, and that one cannot actually prove that the external universe 'exists' independently of one's mind. Indeed solipsim takes this to its logical undisprovable conclusion. As such, a philosophical disagreement about whether or not the physical universe indeed 'actually exists' is not an essential philosophical distinction, and so materilaist and dualist idealist and solipsist can agree on discussing "physics" as the laws of that which the materiailit is comfortable as considering the external objectively existent physical universe. However any self-conscious intelligent being even if not an idealist understands this vital distinction: mind incontrovertibly exists whereas the material universe is only supposed by the mind to exist.

Furthermore: Mind may well have been present always; it is not 'in space and time' as is matter, and could seemingly not have emerged from materialist stuff, so it may well be beyond natural law as presently understood. (eg evolution and cosmology as known so far deals with laws only of ordinary material entities.)

Can we consider mind real if it is not encompassed within science?: Mind exists on a level more like that at which universal emergence arises, and the level of the existence of order and 'laws', not at the 'lower' level of the matter-energy which the laws govern, and so the inability of these laws to explain mind, or the non-existence of laws which govern mind, are not valid reasons to discount mind. Indeed, I know that mind exists far more deeply than I know anything else, including the necessity of laws of nature.

Science and technology have adequately demonstrated (or convinced us) that machines can in theory reproduce all of human action, speech, cogitation; we therefore understand that the 'qualia', the mind-aspect of human experience, is not required to explain any phenomena associated to human activity (ie we understand that even if there is no consciouos feeling of pain there can be a mechanism of damage avoidance which employs the neural pathways which are involved in the processes which give rise to our experience of pai)n. Since mind is not required for the production of any of the neurologial processes we "experience", the existence of mind cannot be explained by evolutionary science - indeed, since Descartes science has indicated that mind is not within the realm of scientific law as we know it.

What physics includes and what it cannot

Physics describes the allegedly-external seemingly-material universe that presents itself to awareness. That which is directly accessible to our awareness, namely the knowledge of our own awareness (ie self-awareness) is not part of physics. It cannot be measured using only elements of the ‘external universe’.

Physics deals with that which is presented to our awareness, not with our awareness itself, nor with that which is known directly to our awareness without actual means of measurment ouside it. In the latter category is time-passage. Time-passage is a phenomenon within our awareness, but cannot be captured via measurement. Also, time passes inevitably, we cannot make it stand still. However, time-passage and also its inevitability is not necessary for the physics-based descripton of nature (it is is a phenomenon existing only within our awareness). Measurements made with our brain alone without factoring in awareness do not require time-passage; all physical measurements other than those made by our awareness itself, do not involve time-passage, only time and intervals of time. SR involves worldlines which are space and time frozen…

There is a concept of the light-cone, and events which can influence each other etc, so this gives a form of ordering of time-periods, but not actual time-passage.

In some sense the measurement problem of qp is the reverse. The universe as perceived by us is in specific states, not superpositions, but physics gives us only the probablilities of any specific state being the one we will perceive after any measurement. Physics does not seem to tell why we perceive only one state, but that is consistent with physics not dealing with that which is apparent only to awareness.

In addition, one of the most fundamental aspects of our awareness is of the passage of time, and this is not part of physics, as clearly indicated by special relativity. Physics contains only a 'frozen' spacetime of all time-moments rather than any 'flow' of time as we experience it*. Similalry for the insights of quantum physics. And so the most essential fundamental aspects of of our existence - mind, time-passage, and individual-states (rather than quantum superpositions) - are not encompassed within physics!

In sum, these most fundamental aspects of our existence, our awareness and the sense of time-passage (and its inevitability), are not encompassed within physics.

The fact that they are not part of physics of course does not weaken our knowledge that they exist, it only makes clear to us a fundamental limitation of physics.

......

What is nature, what is science, what can be said about our reality that is in the spirit of what is known or thought to be possible at the deepest levels

It is appropriate that a journal titled "Nature", devoted to the study of nature, should include a discussion of nature in the broader context broached in these quotes by eminent physicists:

• Wigner on the occasion of his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for physics in 1963 [2]: " Physics does not endeavor to explain nature. In fact, the great success of physics is due to a restriction of its objectives: it only endeavors to explain the regularities in the behavior of objects. This renunciation of the broader aim, and the specification of the domain for which an explanation can be sought, now appears to us an obvious necessity. . . ."The regularities in the phenomena which physical science endeavors to uncover are called the laws of nature. The name is actually very appropriate. Just as legal laws regulate actions and behavior under certain conditions but do not try to regulate all action and behavior, the laws of physics also determine the behavior of its objects of interest under certain well-defined conditions but leave much freedom otherwise."

• Sir Arthur Eddington ""All through the physical world runs that unknown content, which must surely be the stuff of our consciousness. . . . Where science has progressed the farthest, the mind has but regained from nature that which the mind has put into nature."

.....------

The mind perspective:

Given our understanding that physics is limited in the above sense, some have more confidence in identifying other aspects which we know of to be true (“we hold these truths to be self-evident”) and can claim to be valid without expecting - or feeling the need to find - validation from physics.

As a creation of the human mind,physics cannot describe mind itself. And as a tool of the mind in determining certain types of truth – those which are measurable in the ‘external material universe’ - physics will not be considered by mind to be the ultimate arbiter of what is true in general.

There are limits so far to what logic or physics can enlighten us about, wheter ultimate quesiotns such as in cosmology's quesiotn "why ther eis something rather than nothing" or "how the universe can emerge into existence wihout causal influence from something preceeding it" which is similar to the quesiotn of the 'origin of time' which is solve din some sense via a closed time but then the same equation as for the universe arises for itme, ie "why is there there time".

Of course one could reply that we are only bound to think in terms of causality due to our brain-wiring which is due to evolutionary pressures and the laws of nature and the facts of our environment etc, but if we discard the validity of our reasoning then perhaps all physics will be lost. Unless we accord a special status to these 'ultimate quesiotns'.

But then, should we do so also regarding 'awareness', which to those who state that they know it to exist has no less certain existence than the universe itself and is as 'fundamental' to our reality as the physical universe, or even moreso.

…......

Materialists as an Exception to Cartesian dualism: Though it may sound paradoxical, I consider correct both materialists who deny the reality of conscious awareness and Descartes who knew it does exist. I believe they are simply both reporting on the realities of their own existence, one without mind, the other with. So the Cartesian tells me “I think Descartes was right therefore I am self-aware” and what the materialist effectively tells me is: “I think materialism is correct therefore I am un-aware”.

...

EDIT THIS: if it is explainable or one finds laws, does this necessarily mean it is NOT what Eddington, Eccles, thinks it is? Does Penrose disagree with them? Is he referring to some phenomenon or existent which he believes can be proven to exist (ie to someone else)?

.

Overcoming a conundrum

Given the Cartesian dualistic disconnect between mind and body, a person without awareness will act and speak in the same way as one with awareness, This presents the dilemma of how to detect awareness. My proposal is to utilize an aspect of awareness - indeed of self-awareness, (basically a form of introspection). Since anyone who is aware will understand the Cartesian proposal, anyone who insists on materialism may well be unaware.

If an aware being can feel their awareness and remark on it, then this is itself an effect of the Mind on the realm of the body! However, if Cartesian dualism insists that the effect of consciousness is not possible in the realm of body, the very utterance of the phrase “I am aware” cannot be due to Mind! If it is nevertheless due to the existence of the mind of the one speaking, then this is itself a weakening of the Cartesian dualism for the case of self-reference.

.....

Why the mateilaist position is reasonable form the scientific perpective

How did awareness arise in an otherwise-material universe? If evolution can proceed without the existence of mind, there is no guarantee that mind would arise in all genetically-identical beings, ie not all humans need be aware simply because some are. And so it is not unreasonable for the mindful to suppose that if there are some humans who are not mindful, among them are those highly-intelligent philosophers who disbelieve in the existence of mind.

....

Given that Mind is not physical, it cannot arise via evolutionary processes (as pointed out by Eccles), and so my conclusion is that it is not necessarily universally present in all biological humans. And so it is understandable that those who do not possess Mind are sceptical about it, indeed don't even understand what those who possess Mind are talking about, and think that they can disprove the existence of that which is uniquely self-evidently-existent. And indignantly deny the possibility of anything being self-evidently existent.

There is only mind, but any self-conscious intelligent being even if not an idealist understands this vital distinction: mind incontrovertibly exists whereas the material universe is only supposed by the mind to exist. Mind may well have been present always; it is not 'in space and time' as is matter, and could seemingly not have emerged from materialist stuff, so it may well be beyond natural law as presently understood. Evolution as known so far deals with laws of ordinary material entities.

..

..

Formulate this as quesitons, and neutrally.

On the one hand I would then be led to propose that rather than pursuing endless futile debates about theories of mind, that one accept that some people posses it and those who completely deny its existence simply do not themselves possess it.

Of course anyone can claim they know anyhting and noone else knows it, and then all science and philosophy is rendered futile as an interpersonal endeavor and so one would need boundaries agreed upon, though of course the materialist/naturalist who denies the existenc eof mind whould place those boudaries where they are now - designed to exclue direct knoledge of one;s awareness.

What is the a resolution of this concundrum? That one catalgoue what indeed is claiemd to exist by pysicisits and philosophers and detemrine whether there is a hierarchy - that which is claimed to exist for sure eq awareness, that which is sensed but not fully 'known' to exist, eg freedon of the will, and that which is deduced rather than known eg the existence of Platonic Truths..'the soul'. etc, and to accept that our reality is not amenable to complete consensual descritpion and that debate is futile on those issues on whichthe difference is not due to a difference of logic or opinion

Although philosophical debate can clarify issues, it will not settle the issue of whether there is or is not awareness since it is a fact to those who possess it, and this factis inacessible to those who not possess it, but the notion tha thtis is fact is not porvable , and is denied by some who are accepted as peers in the philosophy or science category.

In this way the acceptance that there is a sui generis stuation involved does not necessarily ean the end of science and philosophy as an interperesonal endeavor.

Proposed survey, as a prelude to the experiment on some of the respondents:

§ I feel it is interesting to investigate via a survey whether indeed the fact-status accorded by scientists (limited to those with what others will call "strong opinions" on this issue) is indeed different in degree than as regarding other disagreements. The survey is meant to establish a fact - the degree of uniqueness of the disagreement on this issue among scientists - and so it is a scientific fact-determining survey.

§ It would also be interesting to survey various opinions and correlate to whether they categorize themselves as dualist or materialist.

...

maybe I am better off writing it up as though I am on the other side, challenging those who believe in Mind...!!??

Completely different related topic/survey/experiemnt:

1) Pleasure which is all internally-originating vs the need for outside actual effect: When we have a pleasureable experience, whether from music or seeing a loved one, the stimulus is external but the pleasure is internal, and is caused most directly by some chemical etc in our brain, in a process which only originates with the external stimulus. Which types of pleasure are experiencable wihtout an external stimulus? What pleasure is experienced during a dream of a pleasureable experience - how do they compare? Can thispleasure be electrically-stimulated in someone who had never experienced the reality?

Eg, seeing somone's face generates good feeling, but that is my brain generating chemicals making me feel good, and I can perhaps feel the same in a dream etc. Pheremones perhaps are needed form an extenral source to induce some feelings or can these be recalled? Is it possible that there is some way another entity can directly affect my feeling!??

How can I discover all the ways in which my brain can induce feelings in my mind, without actually encountering the stimulus even once, eg someone who never heard music (perhas deaf) can they experience it internally without the electrical impulses connected to the ear etc? And can we get the entire range of feelings, like hitting all the keys of a piano is succession?

Would it help to have a genetic or brain map and ask all humans to tell us what gives them pleasure or annoys them etc, and measure correlations to their genetic and brain structure and then try to see whether others with the same structure will feel the same way even if they had never before been exposed to that stimulus? ie detrmine from their genetics or other features that they will absolutely love salsa dancing or rap music or watching ballet or playing ice-hockey or poker despite them never having heard of these activities before.

Also re exercising abilites: eg or knitting or sculpting,

Also re capabiliteis: they will be adept at carpentry or computer programming

Obviously the possibility of doing this would lead to various startups offering this as as a service to individuals, recruiters, salsa-teachers etc. And to services offering to stumalte a given brain to experience its greatest pleasures.

2) Other minds: Is it at all possible that there can be an effect of another mind which is NOT attirbutable to ne's own mind? like a continuaiton of 1) except for minds. ie a way for our mind to (feel that it knows) know that it is not the mnd gnerating these feelings? ie using mind rather than just brain is there a way that we can prove to ourselves that we are not a brain in a jar, ie to our satisfaciton, ie we will fee that it is a fact, or is this impossible even at mind-level?

....

3) I had a thought the other day: try to reconstruct it: Was it something to do with facial expressions? And how we react to seeing these expressions is an indication/manifestation of a deep neuro programming., and so it adds a level otherwise inaccessible using today's technology...

If there was no consciousness in the universe, but intelligence evolved, eg computer-type-brains operating acording to the naturalist's scheme of things, would they think of solipsism , and consider it a rational possibility, indeed to maybe be the real minimalistic assumption? Or is only those with minds who think soliosism is rational and the minimalistic assumption scenario?

But how do I find this out without revealing the bias I have or wanring quesitoners of a trap regadring those iwhtout minds?

I can simply ask if the respondent thinks if solipsism is reasonable, and see if there is a corelation.

I can also ask: is it possible that the notion of solipsism would not arise or not seem reasonable if humans were indeed purely-mechanisitic? [and the minded would say yes and the non mided woulld say no, sinc the fact is that there human who claim solipsism is reasonable and yet they are mechanistic!.]

.........

I need to cleanly associate a specific quote from prominent physicists which indicates their belief in these specific points, and then ask respondents to the survey what they think of the ideas expressed in these quotes:

..-----

Can't make assumption as to which statment would be agreed upon universally vs which is only for the dualist type etc, so I need to ask this of physicists on the survey. eg "does solipsism seem reasonable as a logical possiblitly" ie I cannot know what another scientific brain would feel is true about our reality without fininding out from them.

I can write the above in the cover letter.

So I should ask on the survey about each idea whether it is all physically/logically possible, whether it is rued out by logic or by something your brian knows or by physics/science, not whether it is plausible or you believe it ec

.....

Reformulate these as quesitons: life is not a scientific concept etc, soul does not exist to many scientists, and to those for whom mind is a meaningful concept they don't expect it to be include in scientific theory, same for soul..., and some are materialists naturalists and claim only that which is describable by scinece exists and so the type of awareness that doesn't fit into science doesn't exist, and certainly not the soul or etc that religious people speak of does not exist.

So it makes no sense to object to the evo theory due to its not encompassing mind, life, soul ,, since it is not designed to do so. The scientific claim of evo theory should be 1) it provides a paradigm within which one could see how in a universe operating solely according to laws of nature non life produces life which then reaches higher orders of organization, and 2) based on that model one can make predictions which are then verified, rather than a) mind and soul do not exist since they are not encompassed within scientific theory or b) since the scientific model theories give accurate prediction about the body, it means that there is no soul or mind.

Those who propose the existence of mind which is not material might want to determine when it arose or how it became a property of humans, what it is et, but can accept two facts:

1) the physical universe including our bodies operate according to natural law and evolved via bb and evo

2) in addition there is a mind, and maybe soul