Amos,

at different points with different words you have written that science could be better and more complete if it accepted more than merely actions of neurosn to explain the mind.

Since ages, something called psyche, anima, soul, life energy, life force has been postulated by many different people from different faiths. They have differed about which was animated (humans, animals, plants, wells, rivers, mountains,...). They have differed about what happens to the anima after death: (1) Does it get recycled as the same entity but in different form, (2) does it return to the big pool of energy to be recycled in different forms (so that my soul might be like a drop in the ocean, each litre of water contains some units of my former soul), (3) does it get lost for good (4) does it get a permanent storage at once (Greek mythology), (5) does it go to a kind of sleep/inexistence before being restored and getting a permanent place.

All those are interesting ideas and I can't say they are wrong for I don't know. My personal guess is all are wrong, but I am an agnostic here.

My quarrel with you is not at all that these thoughts have no place at all, for I consider them worthwhile to think about. I only do not consider these ideas to have a proper place in science. The reason for that is simple: They do not lead to testable predictions. How could we differentiate between the many different position as to what happens when a human has died? (And I haven't mentioned yet the many differing ideas about where the souls come from and at which moment in time, when a new human is 'made'). I do not have enough fantasy to see a research program here. Tell me, how for instance a grant proposal in broader scope science could look like with empirically testable predictions and I might have to reconsider my position.

Up to then, I still think the best position is to accept that our knowledge is not complete but not to close that gap by a passepartout explanation fitting every conceivable question. But that's only me.

Former parapsychologist Susan Blackmore has written a fine essay (New Scientist 22 June 2002) about research in neuropsychology/neurophysiology. An explicit critique of much of the current theories but also an implicit critique of ideas postulating something like consciousness. (end of message in particular to Amos)

Since I have mentioned Susan Blackmore, a woman I admire much, some might want to read her chapter Why I have given up. It is useful for those who like to think scientists have a close mind. Without exception all those things and feats mentioned by Two Bears have been studied by one or more scientists. They just did not find a corroboration for the claims.

Whenever you read a sentence like 'scientists are baffled', 'science has no explanation', 'scientists are puzzled', much more often than not the sentence is outrightly wrong for anybody with just a bit of knowledge in the field. These sentences are in the texts because they feel good to the believers.

Or does a truthful sentence like 'I haven't bothered to check whether there is a scientific explanation' or 'I know of a possible scientific explanation but I'm sure buyers of my books wouldn't like to read about it' tickle your fancy in the same way as the more mysterious 'Scientists have failed to find any normal explanation'?

Wolfgang