Does the transporter disprove the soul?

[Teaos]

Does the transporter disprove the soul?

Now the soul is never really mentioned directly in Star Trek and certainly not for humans who seem to be atheists or at least agnostic.

But other races seems to believe in some sort of soul, Klingons for one, and there are probably humans around who still do.

Now my understanding of the soul is that it is something everyone has, it gives them their everlasting life ect ect, we all know the basics of it.

Now since the transporter works by breaking the body of who ever is in it down bit by bit, carefully storing the information and then sending the data to where ever where the body is then carefully put back together bit by bit in the exact order shown.

Now since we have yet to be able to point to the soul or find any scientific proof of its existence how can it travel with the body across transporter pads if it cannot be scanned and replicated by the pad.

This scenario also brings up several interesting points.

What happened to Scotty's soul when he was in the buffer?

Did Rikers transporter clone have a soul? If so the Transporter can obviously make new ones.

Of course this is all simply explained away if there is in fact no soul, but since many of the species seem to believe in something like a soul how do they explain these things?

[Captain Seafort]

If anything the transporter proves the soul - take "Lonely Among Us".

DATA
I knew we had to have the
captain's physical pattern here,
He was the last one beamed out.

RIKER
Is what you're thinking possible?

STAR TREK: "Lonely Among Us" - 8/21/87 - ACT FIVE 59.

124 CONTINUED:

DATA
Unknown at this time, sir. I
hope the captain remembers his
pattern is here.
(steps back)
If he has, his energy has moved
into the transporter relays by
now...

RIKER
(nods)
Wish we had some sign he's there.
(waits; then)
We've no choice but to risk it.

They effectively used Picard's transporter pattern to create a new body for his soul, which then had to be ouijaed into the transporter so they could be reconnected. Spock's fal-tor-pan in ST3 made more sense than that - at least Vulcans were established telepaths.

[Teaos]

Well thats screwed up.

So what about Rikers transporter clone? Did he not have a soul or did the transporter some how make another one, and if so you are able to see it and study it.

And where was Scottys sould while he was in the buffer?

[Thorin]

Well thats screwed up.

So what about Rikers transporter clone? Did he not have a soul or did the transporter some how make another one, and if so you are able to see it and study it.

And where was Scottys sould while he was in the buffer?

You've gone into dodgy territory. Simply, we don't know what a soul, or what consciousness is. We don't know how, why, or what gives us the actual ability to experience existance.
Personally, I'd say that, somehow, transporters keep the soul. Perhaps the soul is a by-product of quantum processes in the brain (though how it gives individual existance is baffling, to say the least), and it that is the case, quantum processes are kept giving the same consciousness, rather than a clone. Riker could be explained by saying his soul just split in two, both fully felt they were the same one, and in essence are. To give an example, if there are an infinite number of special 0 dimensional points in our brain that collect together to create conscoiusness, then if those split in half, there are still an infinite number, and still all come together to create a consciousness, and the same one.

Basically, for the only thing in the universe that I can think of, involving infinity when thinking about souls and our experience of existance, actually makes it easier to understand.

[Teaos]

quantum processes

So your answer is Quantum...

I wont pretend to really get that last point you made about 0 dimensions.

An idea I had was that souls are created by intelligence, that way you can still have evolution, it is when a species evolves to the point of asking the question of "where do we come from" that they create a soul.

Thus when the transporter clone had its first thought it created a whole new soul.

Still doesnt explain what a soul is really but can get around some of the problems seen in the show.

[stitch626]

Lets see... a soul is just a living being, so my answer to your question is no.

[Teaos]

The quote Seafort provided would seem to disprove that.

[Graham Kennedy]

Souls as such are supernatural entities. As such, one cannot reasonably expect them to behave in consistent or logical ways. I imagine believers simply assume that the soul chooses to follow the matter stream through the transporter and join the reassembled body at the other end. In Riker's case simply assume that the soul chose to divide in two. And no that's not half a soul each, souls are infinitely divisable and each fraction is a whole soul as good as any other. Why? Because god wills it, that's why.

Setting aside the supernatural, they do reference something like "neural energy" from time to time. Whatever the hell that is meant to be, I assume the transporter was able to provide the duplicate Riker with some just as it was able to supply him with matter to make the body from and energy to recreate the nerve impulses and such.

[Thorin]

Do you know, everyone either believes in the super natural (and by extension, a 'higher being'), or they don't believe in free will. Two mutually exclusive groups.

[Graham Kennedy]

Um, that's not true what you just said.

[Teaos]

Yeah thats not true, unless you are refering to scientific fate, which is well known to be impossible.

[Thorin]

Um, that's not true what you just said.

The laws of physics state that free will cannot exist as that means processes whereby we make decisions are then not determinstic. Quantum processes have a set path through the life of the universe. If we have free will, we are changing those processes. Not having free will means everything we do is pre-determined, our 'brain' makes the decisions, not us. Our brain makes the decisions, and we simply experience it via 'consciousness'.
The other group is chosing that free will exists, in which case nothing is pre-determined, which goes against the laws of physics. Against the laws of physics = supernatural.

EDIT: I've just noticed how poorly I've worded my description of the quantum processes, as they're not determinsitic, but even though they are based on probability that still doesn't mean we have free will. We are not going with the 'randomness' or 'probabilistic' nature of quantum physics.

[Graham Kennedy]

Um, that's not true what you just said.

The laws of physics state that free will cannot exist as that means processes whereby we make decisions are then not determinstic. Quantum processes have a set path through the life of the universe. If we have free will, we are changing those processes. Not having free will means everything we do is pre-determined, our 'brain' makes the decisions, not us. Our brain makes the decisions, and we simply experience it via 'consciousness'.
The other group is chosing that free will exists, in which case nothing is pre-determined, which goes against the laws of physics. Against the laws of physics = supernatural.

I will say it again. It is not the case that all non-religious people believe this.

In fact it's quite rare that I meet a non-religious person who believes this.

[Thorin]

You either believe the laws of physics, or you do not. They are a whole group. To not believe them inherently leads towards the non-understandable [accepting for the 2nd law of thermodynamics that not everything can be understood] and the supernatural.

[Graham Kennedy]

You either believe the laws of physics, or you do not. They are a whole group. To not believe them inherently leads towards the non-understandable [accepting for the 2nd law of thermodynamics that not everything can be understood] and the supernatural.

One can believe in the laws of physics and still believe in free will. I know many who do.