YOUR SOUL

No, seriously. For the most part, science tends to skirt around questions of the metaphysical for a plethora of reasons. No small cause of this is the likelihood that people really won't like the answer science would arrive at, no matter what that answer may be. See the science denialism post for more on that. Another large factor in the lack of scientific research on the metaphysical is a guiding principle that science cannot ever definitively prove a negative result. No matter how much money you spend, zoologists and hunters you employ, aerial thermal sweeps your preform, and woodland cameras you set up, you cannot prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist- you can only say that there's an overwhelming lack of evidence in the face of volumes of research to support bigfoot's existence, therefor, it is highly plausible that bigfoot does not, at the time of this research, exist in the regions surveyed. Shorthand: in all likelihood, Bigfoot doesn't exist. There's an inherent trap in the science's negative result principle, in that someone could argue that Bigfoot sensed the hunters and Zoologists coming and evaded them; Bigfoot's fur insulates its heat signature from thermal scans; Bigfoot's keen sense of smell alerted it to the presence of the cameras, which were contaminated with the odor of humans, thus leading Bigfoot to avoid photographic detection. Science, stretched for resources in manpower and money, must then ask which is more likely: that an eight foot tall manbeast with senses far keener than any other North American mammal is continuing to evade scientific detection in the face of thinning woodlands, or given that the only evidence present after years of searching is purely anecdotal, bigfoot doesn't exist? The simplest, and most likely, explanation is that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and as such, science dismisses arguments to the contrary, which plead for valuable resources that could be put to other, more fruitful causes.

So, when I say that little research has been done regarding the human soul, you should have some grasp of the background behind that statement. There is a unique exception, however, that you may have heard of in popular culture- the story of the soul weighing 21 grams. In 1901, one Duncan MacDougall had a hypothesis that the human soul had measurable mass, and that one might measure this mass by detecting its departure when the body died, as conventional wisdom holds that the soul doesn't stick around once the party's over in the body. To preform the measurements, MacDougall obtained an industrial scale allegedly sensitive to 2/10ths of an ounce, or about 5.7 grams, on which to weigh terminally ill patients and their beds before, during, and after the moment of death. His sample size was pretty small- only six patients, only four of whom produced a result. Now, according to the Wikipedia page (so take it for what it's worth), the average weight loss at the time of death was about 15 grams, or roughly three times the scale's sensitivity.

To date, to my knowledge, the experiment has not been repeated, and there is no peer-reviewed data regarding weight loss at time of death in any other literature anywhere, though there were some experiments where sheep tended to increase in mass immediately post-mortem. Some initial reactions to the data include that the patients may have lost fluid due to the relaxation of various sphincters at the time of death, to which one must acknowledge that the scale was weighing the patient and bed in totality, and that the transfer of various fluids from the patient to the bed would not have affected the total weight. The next counter-argument is that the loss of weight is due to the final exhalation at time of death. Assuming complete collapse of the lungs and complete ejection of total lung capacity (very unlikely), that would be, at best, a loss of about 7 liters of air. At 0 degrees Celsius and sea level altitude, one liter of air has a mass of 1.29 grams, so that should only account for about 9 grams- not that the expulsion of air would show up on the scale, but if it did, it wouldn't account for a range up to 21 grams. More scientific attacks on the experiment tend to come from the angle that the experiment wasn't methodologically sound- and they're right. The scale wasn't as sensitive as I would've personally (and as I'm sure others) liked it to be, and the sample size was horribly small, but that doesn't mean that Dougall didn't hit on something, it just means that data could be easily anomalous or skewed. I, personally, would like to see perhaps a meta-analysis a patient weights immediately pre-and-post mortem- that doesn't seem like something that would be too difficult to preform, given that most hospital beds have scales built into them these days.

So what was being lost? Well, it's hard to say for certain, but there's been some studies that suggest that data, in the form of information stored on discs, has weight.[1] When researchers measured data storage devices, like USB drives, CDs, and DVDs loaded with white noise recordings, the devices lost weight during the deletion of the media, and retained that weight loss for a period that generally seems to be about 30 minutes. In one case, the deletion of 2 GB of data from a flash drive, the loss of weight was measured at a milligram. According to the researchers, the weight is greater than expected due to loss of water, thermal excitement, and various other physical phenomena. So, was the weight loss memory loss from a dying brain? According to a Scientific American article I found, the brain is estimated to hold around 2.5 Petabytes of data, or 2,621,440 Gigabytes. Assuming the weight ratio of weight loss of roughly 1 milligram per every two gigabytes is both constant and conserved in the human brain, and that complete memory erasure occurred at the time of death, then the total weight loss should be 1,310,720 mg- that's 1.3 Kg, or just about 3 pounds, which is considerably more than MacDougall measured. Brain cell death is not immediately total, however, and goes on for give or take ten minutes after death- at least, that's the point at which irreversible brain death and damage occurs. So the weight loss may not have manifested immediately, but some part of it may, indeed, have been memory loss due to the death of brain cells post-mortem.

Unfortunately, this is pretty much where I've hit a dead end. I've rode the conjecture train as far as it can take us without leading us over a cliff to the land of make-believe and raw, unadultered speculation. Some will probably say that I've already run too far with this, but I found it too tantalizing not to explore. One has to wonder, supposing MacDougall's results were more than just artifact, what did he actually pick up on? Could science, some day, empirically measure a soul? We'll never know unless science gets more funding! So, support those who support science in the public arena! Donate to science organizations and projects. Grow your own knowledge, do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and share what you've learned here. As always, feel free to leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions.


[1]http://www.ece.tamu.edu/~noise/research_files/Memory_weight_FNL.pdf
[2]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory-capacity/