Science Musings Discussion
How does the soul differ from the mind?
I take the religious concept of soul to be the pre-technological sense of the information written in living DNA. This is certainly immortal, or close enough for practical purposes under Darwinian evolution. Apart from an individual's peculiar experience, which cannot be anticipated, it is what defines that individual. What else could be meant by the term "soul"?
Uniquely among Earth's species, humans add to this molecular DNA soul the new information that they write in other media, then pass down from generation to generation. As digital technology begins to approach the information density of DNA, individuals will record their entire lifetime experience and pass that down to their descendants, along with their written interpretations of it and their learned lessons. Our automobiles already capture their service histories in onboard chips. Soon we'll capture our health records that way. Then everything we want, including a readable copy of our own genome, will be captured.
It's information that will "come in handy even if we never use it." But the DNA will still be the irreducible essence of every individual and the true soul, in my view.
http://
www.digitalphilosophy.org...on_the_soul.htm
Seems to me that when talking about 'soul' we seek to articulate the essence of a person, that which most fully captures the particularity separating one from another. So what contributes to that uniqueness?
The oft-mutated and recombined DNA of countless ancestors arrives as the orginality of one little zygote we each once were. Yet from its first cell division experiences shape the growing embodiment of that uniqueness, beginning with the motherly amniotic fluid and accompanying sounds, sensations and chemistries, for good and ill. Once born, each gesture and the way the world responds further sculpts that being. As a child I had nightmares arising from horrific images of WWII and so my soul is in part a mirror of that far flung conflict though I was born years after its end. Friends along the way, advertising and junk tv, our sense of purpose, values and belonging along with moments of despair and hatred all combine through the astounding architecture of mind/body to form the essence I am and we each are. From this perspective I suggest each person's soul is a particular mirror of the cosmos. We each mirror life through the ways life has presented our life to be mirrored. Thus looking fully at any 'soul' one's ultimate response can only be wonder and compassion.
So Chet's phrase 'the soul must be discerned in the totality of the body's animated organs and their interaction with the environment' seems to capture the gist. Fleshing out that one pithy summary requires all the powers of our discernment and imagination in a growth process of human civilization, mirroring that of we individuals.
Jack, a succinct answer to your question about the soul is difficult, but here is my attempt. As I’ve stated previously, I’m probably one of the few on the blog who is a dualist, i.e. I believe in a soul that survives the body after death. Most scientists are monists, who believe the soul (or personality) is extinguished at death.
Continuing with the discussion, about six million years ago, our line of primates diverged from the chimpanzee. Our line underwent about fifteen speciation (or branching) events (including many leading to dead ends, i.e. extinctions). Finally, about 200,000 years ago, modern humans emerged. Meanwhile, our cranial capacity had grown from about 500 cc to 1300 cc (very important!). In the meantime, I believe our line underwent a significant upgrade, we acquired souls! Our souls enable us to have a personal relationship with our Creator. Most scientists are unable, unwilling, or both, to believe this!
The Bible is our guide to establishing a relationship with our Creator. Very simply put, the Bible says – "I’m God and you’re not, but let’s have a conversation anyway." In summary, I believe as humans, we have an extra entity (dimension) not shared by other animals. That entity is the soul.
PS – I hope all in Chet’s community will feel free to rebut, comment, or discuss, either on this blog or my email.
Hi Barry P.
I recently shared a ferry ride across Georgia Strait up here in British Columbia with a man who reminded me of you, erudite, articulate, curious about the world and convinced that the most important wisdom on Earth is found in a compendium whose most recent entries are more than a thousand years old. You also bring to mind a Harvard geophysicist, name momentarily evading me, an acknowledged world class expert on Earth's history and processes who has a relationship with a personal God. Then there's Kenneth R. Miller, authour of Finding Darwin's God. His book gives a pretty good synopsis of evolution and shreds creationist arguments with aplomb. He, too, has a relationship with a personal God. I talked with him once at a conference and he said he 'just believes' and that's it. My brother in law, a petroleum engineer, once asked if I believed we're worm food once we die. When I agreed he replied, 'well I just believe there is an afterlife'. I'm fascinated how folks who otherwise live in the fastidious realm of cause and effect, who demand rigorously achieved data to build their understandings and make their decisions, can talk about 'just knowing', end of story.
Having checked out your homepage, (thanks for the face to attach to these abstract words!) I see you do engineering analysis. I wonder if you'd like to share with us a reverse engineering of your beliefs - in souls, in God, in the definitive authority of the bible. As a professional trained to note the endless changes and variations in phenomena, I'd be intrigued to watch you turn your expertise on your own developmental processes. We have a pretty good idea of WHAT you believe, the question here is HOW you came to believe what you do.
Cheers, Geoff
Geoff, I work out of town three days every week and I'm leaving in a few hours. I'll compile my response when I return.
Geoff asked me to elaborate on the "how" of belief in souls, in God, and in the definitive authority of the Bible, from a personal perspective.
BACKGROUND
I became engaged in spiritual matters very early on, making my first "altar call" at age five, followed by subsequent calls (or "recalls") at ages eleven and sixteen. Clearly, those actions were more a fleeing from hell, than a seeking after God. However, I did have a sense of my sinfulness and the need for conversion.
From age seventeen to thirty-five, I was more or less spiritually dormant, pursuing my studies in engineering, mathematics, physics, and my career at Los Alamos. At age thirty-five, my interest in spiritual matters was reawakened and I became a more or less orthodox Anglican. At this point (I’m now sixty-five), my quest is less a fleeing from hell and more a seeking after God.
ANSWERING GEOFF’S QUESTIONS (AND MAYR’S SHADE)
Studies have shown that most of the top scientists in America are atheists (see Larson and Whitham, "Scientists and Religion in America," Scientific American, Sept 1999).
A quotation in the article by the late Ernst Mayr (page 90), citing two principal reasons for unbelief were as follows: "Oh, I became an atheist very early. I just couldn’t believe all that supernatural stuff" and "I just couldn’t believe that there could be a God with all this evil in the world."
I would answer Geoff’s questions and Mayr’s shade with the following items:
(1) Whether the big bang was a one-time event or one of a sequence of events (per Gabriele Veneziano), this occurrence is (to me) certain evidence of the actions of a transcendent Creator. It seems to me, that these facts alone, should make every physicist, at the very least, a Deist.
(2) Simply stated, the Bible says "I’m God and you’re not, but let’s have a conversation anyway." In my opinion, given the evidence for "creatio ex nihilo" by the transcendent God described in the Bible, Mayr’s objections to other transcendent actions (the supernatural stuff), described in the Bible, lose their force.
(3) With regard to conversations with God, my personal faith in God has been strengthened by praying to God and having those prayers answered. In particular, I have asked for help in solving problems at school and work, with significant and (to me) astounding results.
(4) With regard to Mayr’s second question, evil and the human condition are also addressed in the Bible. Man’s pride and self will, as causes of human misery, as well as God’s plan of redemption, are themes that run throughout the Bible.
(5) The next two items are my beliefs, stated without an attempt at proof. The notion of transcendence is absolutely central to my system of beliefs. I believe in the existence of a transcendent "universe," within which our physical universe is embedded.
(6) Sola gratia, sola scriptura, sola fide. I believe that Bible study and prayer will lead to a personal connection with our Creator. The existence of our souls makes us unique among the animals and enables us to connect to God.
Thanks, Barry. Your synopsis sheds light on your process for the likes of me. I see a two-stage aspect. First, when your bodymind was relatively unformed, the church became a refuge from an unhappy childhood. Every feeling person must share a sense of gratitude that you found a salve for your wounds. Yet who knows who BarryP might be today if you'd found a a more naturalistically-inclined sanctuary? This sense of solace lay dormant many years and then was revived by a more cogent Barry, again in times of need. And from what you say, it worked and works for you.
My story mirrors Mayr's. Though raised in a 'Christian' home, the God hypothesis just never took with me. I can recall kneeling by my bed saying prayers and seeing the yellowing Scotch-taped pages of a very old, tattered book turning in my mind. Later, as a teenager I investigated this more rationally and found nothing to overturn earlier intuitions, instead an ever-burgeoning natural world beckoned, within it room for plenty of "I/we don't know (yet)".
There we have it. Two perspectives on our one life. Each of us with our own deep convictions and years of meaningful experience. I feel the naturalistic understanding works best and as you feel does the supernaturalistic one. We could debate such matters till the cows come home. Perhaps it's time to recall the exhortation of another religious sage. The Buddha is said to have counselled people not to preoccupy with ultimate things but to devote their precious energies to the here and now, to living skillfully and well together.
Of course ultimate things like the origins of the universe are worthy of our investigation, but when dialogue becomes a kind of WWI trench warfare, we can turn to the many areas of science which mutually intrique, inspire and enlighten us.
So here we are, Barry, Geoff and others, gazing respectfully at one another across yawning epistemological chasms, yet connected deeply by other aspects of our humanity, brought together by the internet and the good offices of one Chet Raymo. Onwards!
PS. I've heard it said that on the question of whether animals have souls, philosophers tend to fall into two camps, those who live with animals and those who don't.
Geoff, I loved your comment about animals. An ultra-orthodox priest and friend, from my Santa Fe parish, just passed away. He was convinced that his late beloved dog Theodore would join him in heaven.
Good stuff, guys. I'll contribute a personal journey in next Sunday's Musing. Thanks.
Commenting by HaloScan
