Spirits, Souls, and Science

[ENIGMA]

In the Science and Faith thread, I posted:

Science could examine the viability of such a prospect by considering what properties such a hypothetical "spirit" entity would have and see if such properties are compatible with our current set of knowledge.

There are several properties that a spirit/soul is claimed to posess, such as being permenant, that it retains the identity or the essential essence of a person, that it is an indivisible unit (One cannot have 2.84% of their soul judged and sent to hell for instance), etc. From these properties, one can begin to examine whether such a construct is compatible with our knowledge.

What constitutes the identity or essential essence of a person? Presumably memory and personality come into it at some point since one would be hard pressed to argue that someone who went to sleep with a normal disposition and memories of being a computer programmer and woke up with a strong desire to erradicate Jews and memories of being a failed artist, getting imprisoned, writing a book, getting into German public office, and invading Poland, remained the same person through the night (or a person with the same essential essence) in any real sense.

The usefulness of such thought experiments of such breakdowns is that they provide cases to determine what the underlying structure is as opposed to just what the "black box" outputs. The illusion that one is blasting aliens on a distant planet becomes rather shattered when the "Blue Screen of Death" pops up and freezes one's computer in the middle of your game.

Actual cases of such breakdowns provide a ground on which to test such hypotheses. There are numerous cases where brain damage in certain areas of the brain dramatically changed personality, wiped out long term memory, prevented the synthesis of short term memory into long term memory (placing those who suffer such damage in a perpetual loop of sorts, since they are unable to retain any knowledge, even about the existence of their condition, for any significant length of time), and several even odder effects.

When brain damage causes memory loss, on what basis can one consider that brain destruction (the inevitable result of death) reverses the process. When brain damage causes dramatic personality change, what personality is really the "underlying essence" and how does brain destruction lead to such a result? Etc.

While one could construct conceptualizations that fail to trip these questions, such as having the brain not hold any of these things but just serve as a transmitter of such items from the "spirit world" here, even the alternate conceptualizations have their own problems. The notion that there is a single underlying spirit entity to manage our behaviors and actions through our brain is challenged by the findings of neuroscience where it has been determined that severing the corpus callosum (the brain connection between the two halves of the brain) the result is ultimately two seperate co-brains that can only "communicate" through common input (whether from the outside world or from analyzing bodily changes made by the other). Show just the emotional side of the brain a picture of Hitler and the person gets angry or upset to some degree. Ask them why they are angry or upset and (the verbal/logical side) of the brain is unable to give a real explanation since it didn't see the real stimulus.

The above scenario implies that splitting the brain by severing corpus callosum splits the underlying "self" of the person. If one considers that underlying self is the indivisible spirit or soul, then the notion simply falls apart.

...which was never really addressed.

So, with the above in mind, is there any concept of the soul/spirit of a human being that is consistent both with the experimental results mentioned and with what the religions teach?

If so, what is it?

If not, then how do those who believe in such entities reconcile this problem?

[QED]

I have yet to understand how any idea of the self continues. That does not mean it doesn't. But we have no way of knowing.

Yet I get the feeling that I'm in a tiny minority for thinking that it's utterly crazy to think that there would be some kind of continuation for that which we, admittedly, all hold so dear -- namely our awareness.

I'm thinking of the way life was once just Cyanobacteria, then we have those weird Cambrian critters, and later Dinosaurs etc. then us. (furiously hitting the Fast Forward button). Somewhere in that extraordinary chain arose a living thing that could get its head around the idea that it was alive and that one day it would die -- as countless animals had done so before. Where in the chemistry from bacteria up does this transfer from plain nano-machinery to exotic, eternally existing, machinery arise?

Maybe we want to argue it was always there -- but the really simple life at the outset was most likely not much more than bag of atoms. Are atoms conscious?

It is easy to get your head around if you think of it being the Self (root consciousness) and the self (the sense of the individual). The latter dies with the body the former is extant in all and identical in all.

So I'll get labelled as being uber materialistic -- an easy stone to throw by a theologian, but we do have a reasonable grasp of what bits go into living things -- and although it gets very confused and messy in big argumentative things like humans, I say again: we can work from the bottom-up and ask these questions of far simpler life forms.

[Cathar1950]

I have to say I am sympathetic and being a materialist, non-dualist it is hard for me to argue against you and I am more apt to argue for you.
It is fun to imagine. I think Whitehead and Bohr would both say everything feels or is felt including atoms and subatomic particles. I guess that would include bacteria and us. I tend to think what is call spiritual is intense feeling and imagination that is expressed as a deep attachment to existence as we understand or grasp our awe. I see the concept of God as extending our reach as well as giving comfort. But sometimes it is less.
Maybe as some sci-fi writers have suggested God is in the making and develops awareness that covers all of the universe and existence and travels back in time to create the universe. Or maybe there are ancient gods that are aliens and they are returning to enslave us or eat us.
Maybe we do have a holographic universe that is enfolding and every now and then we imagine and feel it. Maybe there are many dimensions that we are not aware of. I don’t know and I don’t know of anyone else that can be certain.

QED

Yet I get the feeling that I'm in a tiny minority for thinking that it's utterly crazy to think that there would be some kind of continuation for that which we, admittedly, all hold so dear -- namely our awareness.

I tend to feel the same way but I do love the company of my friends and family and the smiles of my children, the smell of flowers and their beauty. But I think they sound crazy too.

[QED]

Well, I can sort of imagine something greater than the atoms and physical forces that govern their behaviours, but there's a heck of a lot already being played out here in the "material world". Looking at the array of subatomic particles and their collective effects (and all the structure we get as a consequence) there seems to be no shortage of action. Just because we get a glimpse of this action while we're alive doesn't suggest to me in anyway that we should expect to see anything thereafter.

There's so much history behind us, and by "us" I'm thinking about all the jiggling atoms -- so many individual births and deaths. Life in between is something that keeps repeating in harmony with a process that the universe can support. People can only be guessing at other processes, but why should there even be a link for the continuity they are hoping for?

[Cathar1950]

Well, I can sort of imagine something greater than the atoms and physical forces that govern their behaviours, but there's a heck of a lot already being played out here in the "material world". Looking at the array of subatomic particles and their collective effects (and all the structure we get as a consequence) there seems to be no shortage of action. Just because we get a glimpse of this action while we're alive doesn't suggest to me in anyway that we should expect to see anything thereafter.

There's so much history behind us, and by "us" I'm thinking about all the jiggling atoms -- so many individual births and deaths. Life in between is something that keeps repeating in harmony with a process that the universe can support. People can only be guessing at other processes, but why should there even be a link for the continuity they are hoping for?

Maybe because we miss our loved ones?

[QED]

People can only be guessing at other processes, but why should there even be a link for the continuity they are hoping for?

Maybe because we miss our loved ones?

Don't we just. But we should all know that that's no reason for there to be a link. Only religion tells us it's OK to travel this hopefully. I find that very distasteful. I would even like to say dishonest -- but that's assuming that all our religious texts are from the pens and minds of men alone. I find that an overwhelmingly likely scenario, but it seems that the majority of people think otherwise. I better take another blood pressure pill.

[Cathar1950]

Distasteful or not people desire to continue for many reasons and some are psychological and even pathological.

I don't know how many times I have heard some one say "they are smiling down at us" when we thinking of a loved one. This person would be burning in the flames of hell if you judge them by some standards yet they were loved and even their religious friends do not think of them in hell. Our common folk religion has attitudes and feelings that help them cope. Your average joe hardly think about religion or life after death except comfort and something that makes them feel life is not a wash, they love their families. When someone I know dies , I don't know what becomes of any of us. I Hurt because it felt good to know them and they enriched my life and made the world a better place. I remember and live on.

But I have to agree there is not much support for anything after our brain quits but others live on. The only link I see is in the ones living.
Religion is not for the dead. Hope for life after death is not for the dead.
The sacred writings ar the work of men and women and we make them sacred nothing else.
Do I think it is the word of God? No, it is the words of man and some people think it is the word of God. It has no validity beyond the believer.
It is often an apology given that the writers were either telling the truth or they were lying or insane. I believe here is another alternative. That they believed what they wrote or at least enough that for them that the end justified the means and were wrong, mistaken or didn't know even if they were correct if by chance(low probablity) they were right. .

[pyrite]

In the Science and Faith thread, I posted:

Science could examine the viability of such a prospect by considering what properties such a hypothetical "spirit" entity would have and see if such properties are compatible with our current set of knowledge.

There are several properties that a spirit/soul is claimed to posess, such as being permenant, that it retains the identity or the essential essence of a person, that it is an indivisible unit (One cannot have 2.84% of their soul judged and sent to hell for instance), etc. From these properties, one can begin to examine whether such a construct is compatible with our knowledge.

What constitutes the identity or essential essence of a person? Presumably memory and personality come into it at some point since one would be hard pressed to argue that someone who went to sleep with a normal disposition and memories of being a computer programmer and woke up with a strong desire to erradicate Jews and memories of being a failed artist, getting imprisoned, writing a book, getting into German public office, and invading Poland, remained the same person through the night (or a person with the same essential essence) in any real sense.

The usefulness of such thought experiments of such breakdowns is that they provide cases to determine what the underlying structure is as opposed to just what the "black box" outputs. The illusion that one is blasting aliens on a distant planet becomes rather shattered when the "Blue Screen of Death" pops up and freezes one's computer in the middle of your game.

Actual cases of such breakdowns provide a ground on which to test such hypotheses. There are numerous cases where brain damage in certain areas of the brain dramatically changed personality, wiped out long term memory, prevented the synthesis of short term memory into long term memory (placing those who suffer such damage in a perpetual loop of sorts, since they are unable to retain any knowledge, even about the existence of their condition, for any significant length of time), and several even odder effects.

When brain damage causes memory loss, on what basis can one consider that brain destruction (the inevitable result of death) reverses the process. When brain damage causes dramatic personality change, what personality is really the "underlying essence" and how does brain destruction lead to such a result? Etc.

While one could construct conceptualizations that fail to trip these questions, such as having the brain not hold any of these things but just serve as a transmitter of such items from the "spirit world" here, even the alternate conceptualizations have their own problems. The notion that there is a single underlying spirit entity to manage our behaviors and actions through our brain is challenged by the findings of neuroscience where it has been determined that severing the corpus callosum (the brain connection between the two halves of the brain) the result is ultimately two seperate co-brains that can only "communicate" through common input (whether from the outside world or from analyzing bodily changes made by the other). Show just the emotional side of the brain a picture of Hitler and the person gets angry or upset to some degree. Ask them why they are angry or upset and (the verbal/logical side) of the brain is unable to give a real explanation since it didn't see the real stimulus.

The above scenario implies that splitting the brain by severing corpus callosum splits the underlying "self" of the person. If one considers that underlying self is the indivisible spirit or soul, then the notion simply falls apart.

...which was never really addressed.

So, with the above in mind, is there any concept of the soul/spirit of a human being that is consistent both with the experimental results mentioned and with what the religions teach?

If so, what is it?

If not, then how do those who believe in such entities reconcile this problem?

i find this interesting, but who's to say the soul and mind are not intertwined? something as obscure as a soul could still find its home in a physical vessel like the brain, the division of which could lead to damaging the soul. why is it assumed that the soul/spirit is indivisible?

[Confused]

People can only be guessing at other processes, but why should there even be a link for the continuity they are hoping for?

Maybe because we miss our loved ones?

Don't we just. But we should all know that that's no reason for there to be a link. Only religion tells us it's OK to travel this hopefully. I find that very distasteful. I would even like to say dishonest -- but that's assuming that all our religious texts are from the pens and minds of men alone. I find that an overwhelmingly likely scenario, but it seems that the majority of people think otherwise. I better take another blood pressure pill.

Ok, lets consider a hypothetical situation. You are 19 years old, your mother who was one of the most devout Christians, I mean a true Mother Theresa type Christian, gets in a car accident and dies. You spend the next year morning her but you are a good Christian just as she was. Now you are 21 years old, getting ready to graduate from college early with a degree in XXX. You are engaged to the most beautiful girl in the world and will be married the week after graduation, in two weeks. Everything goes perfect. You get a great job, your marriage is perfect, you both go to church every sunday and wednesday(for bible study) and volunteer for all sorts of activities. Now here you are 26 years old and slowly over a period of time your health starts failing. You have some weeks were you can't get out of bed, stomach cramps, etc and end up in the hospital many times for organs failing etc.. But the doctors can't seem to figure out what is causing all this. No one sees the wife has taken out a million dollar life insurance policy on you and has been sleeping with the pool boy. Little by little she has been poisoning you. Now, if a soul exists beyond death and it is still aware of it's previous existence, do you think mom would have been checking up on her little boy? I mean, he was her life. How can she call herself a good mother if she is sitting in heaven doing whatever souls in heaven do while watching her son get poisoned to death and do nothing about it. Like demand God step in and alert the doctors or start haunting the daughter-in-law.

I know that was a pretty silly example, but in reality, if the conscious mind survives after death and move on towards heaven, then I want to know why all our relatives haven't been watching out for us? How happy can heaven be if you are aware of those you love suffering still?

[Confused]

Pyrite writes:
i find this interesting, but who's to say the soul and mind are not intertwined? something as obscure as a soul could still find its home in a physical vessel like the brain, the division of which could lead to damaging the soul. why is it assumed that the soul/spirit is indivisible?

If you can tell me how you can define a soul or a spirit, then I will attempt to answer why it is assumed it is indivisible.

[pyrite]

Pyrite writes:
i find this interesting, but who's to say the soul and mind are not intertwined? something as obscure as a soul could still find its home in a physical vessel like the brain, the division of which could lead to damaging the soul. why is it assumed that the soul/spirit is indivisible?

If you can tell me how you can define a soul or a spirit, then I will attempt to answer why it is assumed it is indivisible.

this is a very difficult request... how can we define something so intangible as the soul? we all have an understanding of what the term implies - is this not sufficient for the nature of the discussion?
based on my understanding of the soul, indivisibility does make sense, but so does it being stored in a physical vessel.. and if the vessel is damaged in some way, would not the soul be also? (think of it in terms of damage to the soul rather than a division of the soul).
i can personally accept the concept of a soul on these terms