What is the soul?
There is a question that has plagued people for all of history, in one form or another: What is the soul? I thought I'd take some time to muse on the topic, not that I necessarily have some great insight into the matter, but simply that it was on my mind this morning for some unknown reason.
Firstly, I'd like to lift from a comment I left in Hellbound Alleee's blog (italics are H.A.'s words) :
Brucker, what reason to you have for believing that there is an essence of who we are?Since the discussion came to an end after my comment (I doubt I "stumped" her, she probably got bored and moved on.), I figured I might as well continue it here, since there are concepts I think are worth mulling over.
I think Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" is rather convincing. I don't know that the sorts of conclusions Descartes inferred from this position follow so logically as he might hope, but the central concept is there.
I feel that I can know that I exist, despite the fact that I can perform no experiment to tell me if my true essence is the sum parts of my body, just the brain, a disembodied spirit, or the hallucination of Hindu's Brahman. From a radically skeptical perspective I can doubt just about anything other than the basic fact that I exist as a conscious entity.
How about this: we have a body that perceives, metabolizes, feels emotion, and has a memory?
Who is this "we" that owns this body? Do you "have" a body, or are you a body? Choose your words carefully when talking about consciousness and self-identity.
There is no reason to believe in an "essence," a "soul," a "spook," a "homunculous," or a "self." If there is a reason, you should be able to point to something other than a body.
Is there reason to believe in your blog? I read some words on my computer screen, but is your blog on my computer? If so, does it cease to exist when I turn my computer off? Perhaps it's on a web server somewhere? If you took me to this server, would see your blog, or would I just see some boxes sitting in a room humming softly to themselves as electrical impulses passed through them?
The world has room enough for things that are not located spatially such that one can "point" to them, without having to even consider the spiritual realm. Indeed, where is the Internet? If you can't point to it, does that mean it doesn't exist?
There isn't a little man inside feeling and seeing. We already have everything we need in our bodies to do those things.
I agree. I would in no way advocate the concept that the soul is some sort of smaller self contained within the larger self. The soul is frankly something that I cannot define, but suspect resides in the physical body in much the way software resides on one's computer.
As I said, there are some things that Alleee said that I agree with. Our physical bodies are in no way lacking anything needed in order to function. (Well, one might argue that there is that mysterious "spark" of life that makes us alive, and is the difference between a live body and a dead one.) Despite what some philosophers have said about the soul being attached to the body via the pineal gland, it seems to me that if the soul is an entirely discorporate entity, a specific spot for the soul to attach itself to the physical body seems like a strange concept. Indeed, in Hindu philosophy, the purusha (soul?) is in no way connected to the prakriti (body?), and as such, when studying that religion, it was hard for me to understand the relationship between them, if indeed there was one at all.
As I said, I think there may be a possibility that what we term the "soul" may in fact be as much a part of the physical world as the "mind" is, or the "sense of self". That is to say, they exist, and in some way are localized within the brain, but rather than being a specific tangible object are instead an abstract concept that is an outgrowth of the function of that organ. (If I haven't made this clear, I'm not claiming it to be the case, only speculating it as a possibility that has merit to me.) I think the Internet comparison is a good starting point. The computer that I am now using has internal memory and a hard drive. To some extent, both of these are currently storing information about the program "Internet Explorer 6.0" which I often use to access this web site and create posts. Is IE6 a real thing? Most computer users with a good amount of knowledge know exactly what IE6 is when I refer to it, which suggests it is a real thing. Yet it has no mass, nor does it (as a concept) occupy physical space. Before my computer was set up with all of its software, the hard drive and the memory chips started out empty of information. After the software was installed, these components of my computer had the exact same gross physical characteristics they did before the installation. No mass was added, the shape did not change, and everything stayed in pretty much the same location until it was time to ship it off somewhere to eventually end up under my desk. If I wiped the memory clean, then like a dead body without a soul, it would still be there, looking exactly the same, but no longer functioning.
It's weird to me, but 100 posts into my other blog, after writing thoughts for a year (and more elsewhere) and creating page after page of information, I really have "created" nothing. Electrons have shuffled around, disks have spun, photons have fired out from monitors, but indeed, nothing was created. Go back to those hundred posts and replace every character with a "space", and in the purely physical sense of "you should be able to point to something", all would be the same as it was before.
Years back, I had a computer that had some serious problems, and ceased to function. When this happens, you've got a hunk of largely useless plastic and silicon. I got a new computer, a bigger (memory-wise), faster, and generally better one; and what did I do with the old computer? I opened it up, removed its hard drive, and hooked it up to the new computer. I cleaned out any viruses or spyware, took off the files and programs I wished to keep and voila, I had a new computer that carried all of the pertinent information from my old computer! Could the soul function like that?
But Brucker, you say, when you die, there is no hard drive to remove and plug in, your brain deteriorates like the rest of your body. True, but on the computer I am using now, most of my files are kept on a server down the hall. I could shut down my computer, smash it with a sledgehammer, come to work tomorrow with a new computer and pretty much pick up right where I left off. A lot of my personal stuff is kept on the Internet in places like this site. All of these storage sites are backed up repeatedly with redundancy. The building I am in could burn down, blogger.com could go offline, and I'd probably be able to get all this stuff back in a matter of days. Who says our souls, as "software" are not being constantly "backed up" on another plane of existence?
Software concept aside (as much as I obviously enjoy toying with it), who said the soul has to be "other than the body"? Most sane people believe in the "mind", but this thing is not floating somewhere out in space, but accepted by just about everyone to be located between one's ears. But the mind is more than that. My mind is here in my writing, and as such, pervades wherever someone logs on to one of my blogs, anywhere in the world. My mind is in the words that I speak through my mouth, and thus is experienced by anyone within a certain range when I talk. My mind is in the people that I influence through communication. It is part of my body, and it is filling out my sphere of influence. If my "mind" and "soul" may in fact be the same thing, then no wonder the soul is such an important thing for God and other "spiritual" forces to control.
Perhaps the thing that most fascinates me about the soul as information, be it static (like a file) or dynamic (like a program) is that knowing what we do about how flexible information is in the physical world, I see no reason that the concept of a soul has to defy materialist philosophy. A materialist would strive to deny that souls exist, based on the premise that things which you cannot clearly define, point to, and perform scientific experiments on are not real. (This is probably an oversimplification.) If the concept of a "soul" is only suffering from a bad reputation afforded it by inaccurate definition, then it may be no more or less real than the "mind". A materialist of course may deny the existence of "mind", but I think that puts them on shaky ground, as so many people are more than prepared to accept that concept, and not prepared to deny it.
4 comments:
It seems to me that you're trying to pin down a non-concept, insofar as you seem to associate the "soul" with the "self". There is no such thing as "the self", except insofar as it is a very secondary construct of the brain, necessary in order to ensure that the organism takes care of itself first, and does not confuse itself with other things and tries to unduly take care of, say, a tree, or a rock. But why should that fact have any particular relevance? Your "soul", seen in this way, is a substitute for thinking individualistically. Since Christianity is anti-individualist, I doubt few Christians would agree with your version of the "soul"...
"It seems to me that you're trying to pin down a non-concept, insofar as you seem to associate the 'soul' with the 'self'. There is no such thing as 'the self', except insofar as it is a very secondary construct of the brain"
I think you're missing my point, at least in part. I'm saying that I don't see why it's vital that all important things have to be any more than a "secondary construct".
You're a Canadian, right, Francois? What is "Canada"? Abstractly we can say that it's the bulk of the landmass that exists in the western hemisphere above the United States, with a few minor exceptions such as Windsor. But is Canada just the land, or is it the people who live on the land? The people who have Canadian citizenship, regardless of where they live? Is it the ice that forms over the bodies of water in the northernmost regions during the winter? Is it the rocks and soil that lie below the surface of the land? Is Canada her government and laws, or the people and things subject to those laws?
If the answer to these questions are less than 100% clear, that doesn't dimminish the importance of Canada.
"But why should that fact have any particular relevance?"
I think you answer this question yourself. That sense of identity is what allows us to differentiate between what we are and what we are not, and act accordingly. In the case of "Canada", while the true meaning may be vague on some level, the Canadian government knows it doesn't have to deal with the problems of traffic congestion in California, because California is clearly NOT Canada.
Much of morality involves making choices about what we will allow happen to our own "self" and the "selves" we come into contact with. While a spiritual person might say that an immoral individual has "an evil soul"; from the perspective we are discussing here, one might say that person has "a deficient concept of self".
"Your 'soul', seen in this way, is a substitute for thinking individualistically. Since Christianity is anti-individualist, I doubt few Christians would agree with your version of the 'soul'..."
I assume you mean "...I doubt MANY Christians..." but either way, I don't know what your point is. Whether or not other Christians would agree with this is not really my main concern. My purpose in writing on these topics is to muse on the nature of things that I think many people take for granted. Most Christians assume the soul exists, and that it's something ethereal. Most atheists assume the soul does not exist at all. What if both were wrong?
What the existence or non-existence of the soul has to do with individualistic thinking, I couldn't imagine.
"I think you're missing my point, at least in part. I'm saying that I don't see why it's vital that all important things have to be any more than a "secondary construct"."
Then why put any importance on the "soul"?
"You're a Canadian, right, Francois? What is "Canada"?"
"Canada", like any "country", is a construct of the ruling class used to delimit its parasitic territory against that of other ruling classes, based on arbitrary "borders".
"If the answer to these questions are less than 100% clear, that doesn't dimminish the importance of Canada."
To me the answer is 100% clear, and you need to choose a better analogy. ;)
"I think you answer this question yourself. That sense of identity is what allows us to differentiate between what we are and what we are not, and act accordingly."
That sense of self is not of any particular importance, at least not anywhere near the importance you give it.
"While a spiritual person might say that an immoral individual has "an evil soul"; from the perspective we are discussing here, one might say that person has "a deficient concept of self"."
Do you think these people have a part missing in their brain? Or do you just mean something vaguer that really has no relevance to the construct of the self in the brain?
"I assume you mean "...I doubt MANY Christians..." but either way, I don't know what your point is."
My point is that putting an emphasis on a conception of the organism as independent is not concordent with Christian doctrine.
"Most Christians assume the soul exists, and that it's something ethereal. Most atheists assume the soul does not exist at all. What if both were wrong?"
"What the existence or non-existence of the soul has to do with individualistic thinking, I couldn't imagine."
Geesh. Have you not read my first comment? Let me explain this again:
1. You define the soul as the construct of the self in the brain.
2. The idea of the self is at the basis of individualism.
3. Therefore your "soul" is strongly related to individualism.
Nothing complicated here. Stop evading the issue and please try to justify how your "soul" has anything to do with Christianity (or atheism, for that matter).
"Then why put any importance on the 'soul'?"
Depends on the manner in which you are asking the question. As a Christian, there's a lot that's important to the soul, mostly the concept that it's supposed to be the part of you that you will keep in the afterlife, and you could discuss it in some depth.
However, since you are an atheist, I'm going to assume that's an area of no consequence to you. In a completely materialistic way, the "soul" is no more or less important than the "sense of self", if indeed they are essentially the same thing. You have to decide for yourself how important that is. Probably most people live lives that are just fine and fulfilling without ever thinking about either of those concepts. You can also live a complete life without ever thinking about how oxygen keeps you alive.
The soul (if indeed it exists) is something you don't need to think about to have and to use, it's just there. Even though it's so trivial in that fashion, though, it's something of utmost importance.
"'Canada', like any 'country', is a construct of the ruling class used to delimit its parasitic territory against that of other ruling classes, based on arbitrary 'borders'."
Tell me, then, Yes or No, is the following "Canada" and why?
1) Canada?
2) Canada?
3) Canada?
4) Canada?
5) Canada?
6) Canada?
7) Canada?
8) Canada?
"That sense of self is not of any particular importance, at least not anywhere near the importance you give it."
What amount of importance do you think I am giving it, and why is it unwarranted?
"Do you think these people have a part missing in their brain? Or do you just mean something vaguer that really has no relevance to the construct of the self in the brain?"
They could be missing a part of their brain, but that's not what I mean. As the sense of self is an artificial construct that is a side-effect of the brain's function, then what's going on is abnormal functioning, for whatever reason.
"My point is that putting an emphasis on a conception of the organism as independent is not concordent with Christian doctrine."
I still don't follow you. Anyway as I think I said, my point is not about Christian doctrine anyway.
"1. You define the soul as the construct of the self in the brain.
2. The idea of the self is at the basis of individualism.
3. Therefore your 'soul' is strongly related to individualism."
Okay, so? How does the issue of having a soul or not relate to being able to think as an individual? Sure, I'm perhaps implying that the soul is what makes us individuals on some level, but whether that is an ethereal "soul" in the more classic theological sense or simply a side-effect of physical brain function, what difference does it make? Heck, even if I'm wrong and there is no "soul", then why would that make me any more or less of an individual?
"Nothing complicated here. Stop evading the issue and please try to justify how your 'soul' has anything to do with Christianity (or atheism, for that matter)."
I touched a bit on this at the beginning of my reply. One thing I do feel Christian doctrine teaches is that the soul continues after the death of the body. While the physical brain ceases to exist, the software resident within that hardware could certainly be transferred to a new medium, just as files can be transferred from one computer to another. (Since I wrote this post, my current home computer has had a failure of the motherboard. The files that I talk about in the post will now live on in yet another incarnation.)
So, in Christian doctrine, the soul is removed from the body, put into a new body and taken to the presence of God to be judged. After judgment, it goes to one of two places, where it will spend eternity.
As an atheist, the answer to the question of what purpose the "soul" has is more difficult to address. If there is no such thing as the supernatural, then clearly the "soul" (if existing at all) would not be something that matters much in deeper matters such as an afterlife. You die, and life is over, just like it is for any other animal.
There is a sort of possibility that one could consider from a science-fiction approach, however. Many sci-fi authors have considered the idea of a person at the moment of death having their "soul" removed from their body and put elsewhere, perhaps in another body, or perhaps in a sophisticated enough computer. I have no idea how realistic it is that such technology could come to be, but it's intriguing.
Post a Comment