And I do agree that if you are unable to prove something as false than it is a moot point from the beginning since you cannot prove it as true either.

What I meant to say though, is that Dr. Hameroff is not the only one who holds this view. Many other academics (philosophers and scientists alike) seem to subscribe to the idea…. Though I do agree that sometimes science would be better off not trying to involve itself in matters of philosophy/theology (See Frank’s blog post on “Is-Ought contrast”)

If there is no way to explain the mind without the soul, we should be looking for it. But if the soul is not required to explain the mind, then why invoke it? We’re not quiet ready to say how the mind emerges from neurons, but at least we have testable hypotheses when it comes to neurons. There are no testable hypotheses about the soul. Whether or not our inability to probe something means it doesn’t exist, I don’t know.

If we can’t point to a certain brain structure and say “that is conciousness” than who is to say that “consciousness” is housed in the brain. Furthermore, who is to say that consciousness dies when the brain (and body) do. (These are Watanabe’s thoughts- not mine).

Not that I buy into the rational… but I guess it is possible..