20 Mar 2017 02:58 UTCMon 20 Mar 2017 - 2:58 am UTC
Is there any Theory of consciousness that say there is an atom or sub atom participle that our soul is bonded to it and when electricity pass through it (or any other thing that happen to it in brain) you will experience the various feelings and thoughts. (some cells in brain never replace for entire life)
20 Mar 2017 04:06 UTCMon 20 Mar 2017 - 4:06 am UTC
Hello, and thank you for bringing your interesting question to Uclue.
I'm not aware of any theories that specifically match the details of your question. But there have been quite a number of ideas about how the human soul is linked to physical matter like atoms.
PHYSICAL THEORIES OF THE SOUL: DEMOCRITUS, EPICURUS, LUCRETIUS
summarizes the thinking of some of the early philosophers. Here is a bit of the abstract:
"...Epicurus and his followers believed that the Soul, just like the body, wassomehow material, consisting of atoms as well. The body, by keeping Soul-atoms together without much dispersion, allows them to vibrate with the motions that generate sensations..Lucretius also describes the atomic theory in his De rerum natura and observes the materiality of the Soul. At last (last but not least), Epicurean "pleasure" is the greatest good, but the one and only way to attain such pleasure, is living modestly and be of the limits of one's desires.This can lead everyone to attain a state of equanimity (ataraxia) and freedom from fear of death, as well as absence of body pain (aponoia). The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form..."
Let us know if that sort of document is useful to you. If it is, perhaps we can find a few others to post as an answer to your question.
All the best,
20 Mar 2017 22:44 UTCMon 20 Mar 2017 - 10:44 pm UTC
the details that say about electricity passage is not part of theory that I am looking for I added them for explaining what I mean. (that consciousness residing only in one atom in brain)
20 Mar 2017 23:11 UTCMon 20 Mar 2017 - 11:11 pm UTC
Thanks for your clarification. If you haven't seen this already, you might want to explore this book:
The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
Some of the content is available online, but for a full look, you'll need the book itself. There's also a description of the book on Wikipedia:
Certainly, the title suggests its relevant to your question and your quest for understanding. Let us know your thoughts on it.
20 Mar 2017 23:24 UTCMon 20 Mar 2017 - 11:24 pm UTC
to be sure I had added two comments consecutively did you read both
20 Mar 2017 23:27 UTCMon 20 Mar 2017 - 11:27 pm UTC
Yes, I saw them both. I haven't seen anything yet that hits the nail on the head in terms of consciousness in a single atom. I'm trying to get you as close as I can.
Hope these links are helpful, at least a bit.
By the way, your question hasn't been formally answered yet. If it isn't answered after a week or so, it will automatically expire and you'll receive a full refund.
21 Mar 2017 01:42 UTCTue 21 Mar 2017 - 1:42 am UTC
I am not sure this is on the right track either but it is very interesting:
The following paper is published in Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 12, No.4-5, pp60-76
Is Consciousness Only A Property Of Individual Cells?
We perceive colour, shape, sound and touch 'bound' in a single experience. The following arguments about this binding phenomenon are raised:
The individual signals passing from neurone to neurone are not bound together, whether as elements of information or physically.
Within a single cell, binding in terms of bringing together of information is potentially feasible. A physical substrate may also be available.
It is therefore proposed that a bound conscious experience is a property of an individual cell, not a group of cells. Since it is unlikely that one specific neurone is conscious, it is suggested that every neurone has a version of our consciousness, or at least some form of sentience.
However absurd this may seem it is consistent with the available evidence; arguably the only explanation that is. It probably does not alter the way we should expect to experience the world, but may help to explain the ways we seem to differ from digital computers and some of the paradoxes seen in mental illness. It predicts non-digital features of intracellular computation, for which there is already evidence, and which should be open to further experimental exploration.