The Rising Soul

[Darri]

I would like to present the results of a conversation I had with
a friend earlier tonight. We were discussing the soul in all it's
intangibility.

I will state a few required premises upon which I hope most of us
will agree and follow with a short reasoning.

So without further ado.

Given that evolution is the mechanism by which life on earth reached it's
complexity and thereby taking as given, geological time as a crucial
factor in that process.

Given that if life were to arise again in the "same" conditions as
it did here on earth, the chances of us apes appearing would be
ridiculously small.

Although I don't have any hard evidence for this, I would like to assume
that many, if not most of the world's spiritually inclined would agree,
that apes in general possess some kind of soul, even cats and dogs
(and so forth).

Now then, lets do a little reasoning (hopefully not too flawed).

When asked to elaborate on animals and souls, I have found that most
agree that an ant does not possess a soul, so that somwhere in between us
apes and the ants is a point, at which the soul comes into existance,
quite naturally it would seem.

From the above one might argue (and I hereby do) that the soul and all it's
(mostly) social manifestations (the best examples being most religions and
the whole new age school of thought) are inherently from within and not in
any way bestowed upon us by some devine entity or by any other supernatural
means.

I therefore dare call it illogical to accept both evolution and the immortal soul.


Looking forward to your remarks,
Björn Darri

[spelling corrected, english not being my first language]

 

[Robin]

Hi Darri,

Before I make start let me make it clear that I do not believe in the immortal soul and completely accept your first premise:

Given that evolution is the mechanism by which life on earth reached it's complexity and thereby taking as given, geological time as a crucial factor in that process

However I don't agree that it is illogical to believe in evolution and the immortal soul. Let me propose a perfectly logical scenario:

Supposing the universe was created by a deity with the intention of creating (perhaps among other things) the human being.

We know from computer science that it is possible to use random mutation and natural selection to achieve very precise and pre-defined goals. In fact the computer science analogy suggests that evolution might be the logical choice for a deity creating life.

Now suppose further that we do not contain any spiritual component - we are just machines. It should therefore be possible with the right equipment to observe, transmit, store or replicate any of the physical conditions that make up what we colloquially call the 'soul'.

Any of those conditions that met the criteria for which the deity designed the universe would be kept and used for whatever purpose the universe was designed. This would be the immortal soul. For example if the deity valued love or compassion these qualities would be kept.

 

[Zombified]

Many people accept both the scientific theory of evolution and the religious/spiritual notion of a soul.

Many religious/spiritual people would not agree that ants don't have souls. Buddhists and Hindus, for example, and probably a lot of New Age types.

Now here are some questions for you:

Does a single cell have a soul?

If it does, then even single-celled animals may have souls, so why not all animals?

If not, then what if the cell is a fertilized egg? At what point in its division does it acquire a soul, assuming it's got the genetic material of an animal complex enough to have a soul eventually?

If the possession of a soul by a cell depends on its species, then why? Is it merely the genetic code that determines a soul?

If the possession of a soul by a cell depends on its reproductive function, then what about a stem cell? Do all stem cells have souls? Including the billions in your body right now? If it could be used to make a clone, does that imply the stem cell has a soul? If not, then at what point in the cloning process does it acquire one? (Note that a cat has been cloned, and you've said cats have souls... so if souls exist, this is not a merely hypothetical question.)

Does a single fertilized egg that eventually divides into twins have two souls?

Does the problem of the transition from unsouled to souled therefore exist within the development of a single organism, never mind evolution?

Do you like soul food?

 

[Darri]

Supposing the universe was created by a deity with the intention of creating (perhaps among other things) the human being.

We know from computer science that it is possible to use random mutation and natural selection to achieve very precise and pre-defined goals. In fact the computer science analogy suggests that evolution might be the logical choice for a deity creating life.

I guess that would depend somewhat on how powerful the deity is, I admit that evolution as a life-sculpting-mechanism would seem very appealing to a deity bound by the laws of nature, as where the god of the Bible could simply snap a finger to create life in any form. I'd say a deity using evolution to create humans would (in light of my second premise) have to be at least omniscient to be able to predict the outcome of the process given only the initial conditions

Now suppose further that we do not contain any spiritual component - we are just machines. It should therefore be possible with the right equipment to observe, transmit, store or replicate any of the physical conditions that make up what we colloquially call the 'soul'.

Yes.

Any of those conditions that met the criteria for which the deity designed the universe would be kept and used for whatever purpose the universe was designed. This would be the immortal soul. For example if the deity valued love or compassion these qualities would be kept.

I really like this analogy, the soul being like a software library evolved through genetic programming, it has a certain ring to it, especially to a programmer like me .


/Darri

 

[Darri]

Many religious/spiritual people would not agree that ants don't have souls. Buddhists and Hindus, for example, and probably a lot of New Age types.

Oops, my example group just got reduced by a couple of billion individuals.

I see that I should have used the single celled life form in my example instead of ants, I really don't know if Buddhists and Hindus consider bacteria to be a soul-possessing life form but if not, then I guess my argument still stands.

<<snip>>

Does the problem of the transition from unsouled to souled therefore exist within the development of a single organism, never mind evolution?

Absolutely.

Do you like soul food?

Depends on how it's cooked.


/Darri

 

[Robin]

From Darri:

I guess that would depend somewhat on how powerful the deity is, I admit that evolution as a life-sculpting-mechanism would seem very appealing to a deity bound by the laws of nature, as where the god of the Bible could simply snap a finger to create life in any form. I'd say a deity using evolution to create humans would (in light of my second premise) have to be at least omniscient to be able to predict the outcome of the process given only the initial conditions

The idea of my CS analogy was to show that the deity does not have to be so omnicient that she can calculate every vector of improbability. She would only have to manipulate the fitness function to get the right outcome.

Now I also assume that my deity can snap her fingers and create life, angels for example, but that angels do not suit the deity's purpose. They were created good whereas the deity needs a being that has chosen good.

OK this is getting weird I will be putting on sandals and a beard any moment now.

Oh well one thing is clear, with all these colds and infections I am getting at the moment, if I am software I am definitely microsoft.

(Note to any flamers who might have just tuned in - I am being speculative and light hearted here, I do not actually believe this stuff)

 

[hammegk]

If you accept as a premise -- objective, physical, reality exists -- you should deny the existence of soul unless you are a dualist of some persuasion.

An idealist should agree the concept of soul, less the religious baggage, would be a reasonable word to associate with the objective monism.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

Wind the clock back 200 years

Rewind the clock back to 1804 before you "sense of self" existed. What conditions were required for you sense of self to exist at all? given that your father in his lifetime produced 2 trillion sperm and your mother was born with one million eggs, and the same rule applies to the several generations that were born before him to the year 1804.
With each generation it is 2,000,000,000,000*1,000,000 hypothetical human "souls" which could of been born but weren't.
IMHO if one "soul" was contingent on a single sperm meet eggs scenario then I think your existence is not just lucky but far too lucky. because with those odd you should not be here.

CDR

 

[Robin]

The proposition that started this topic was that it is illogical to accept both evolution and the immortal soul.

I proposed a model whereby an immortal soul and evolution did not imply any contradiction or vast improbability.

It does not rely on any dualism problems or require us to assign souls to individual cells and avoids Mr Wotjyla's problem of exactly when humans became imbued with a soul.

I don't see that anybody has refuted it, so obviously the next step is to turn it into a book which should make a fortune in the current climate.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

Brain patterns

Then again the human brain is more of a pattern than an object. Every brain has inherent within it a pattern of hundreds of years of evolution. Innermost is the reptilian brain and then there is the neomammalian brain and the primate brain. All human brains fit this pattern

The self is an information process that emerge out of a such a very generic pattern. ATM your self is locked in to the memory line of one brain, but at death all those memories will be totally erased and would be from your point of view indistinguishable to never been born at all in the first place.

What can prevent another brain from emulating your sense of self just like this one has proven it did in the past?

Time is another thing, the average views time as a single absolute fluid wave that travels from the past to the future. Where in reality it is nothing more than a fixed an asymmetrical dimension with now fluidity at all like a ruler sitting on a desk has no fluidity. The present is entirely subjective and is nothing more than a space time frame of reference that comes to one observer's conscious attention. When the person dies, that frame of reference he calls the "past < present > future " dies also since all memories are negated, and there is no means of that person personally referring back to his/her past. The person would be redissolved back into the same elocutionary brain pattern that made it possible to be generated into existence.

CDR

 

[Robin]

From CDR:

What can prevent another brain from emulating your sense of self just like this one has proven it did in the past?

Sheer improbability for one thing.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

From CDR:



Sheer improbability for one thing.

Just the fact we are here disgussing it is sheer improbility for another thing, because as I emphasised in an earlier post With each generation it is 2,000,000,000,000*1,000,000 hypothetical human "souls" which could of been born but weren't.
That's the those odds against a single sperm meet eggs scenario, then against those odds don't you think your existence is a bit of paradox?

CDR

 

[crocodile deathroll]

When did the soul emerge in the cosmos?

A question I would most like to ask is - When in the history of the universe did that the "soul" appear (BTW I view the soul as just another term for self awareness and not like in some religious traditions ) .

I suspect that anytime much less than the present observed era would not be compatible with the existence of souls because of the overabundance of supernova events emitting very frequent and lethal bursts of deadly radiation. Only the hardiest micro-organisms could exist in very well sheltered conditions like the early earth; and they do not have souls as they are not self aware.

I could argue this with a theist who would argue that "of course the soul exists right from the start, because God and his Angels possess one". I am an atheist, but being an atheist I feel it would be ridiculous to think a soul exists in the extremely hostile conditions shortly after the big bang. But there is conscious self awareness now. I must of been somewhere in between.

I am more of the view that emergent complexity has a lot to do with it with one of many of nature's phase transitions. The brain is a very fine example of such a complex entity. But I also feel there has to be a critical minimal limit for the existence of self awareness like a 13 week old fetus and no earlier. Or X number of years after the big bang and no earlier???

This when it first appeared in the universe would IMO be an event of major cosmic importance because it would be the first time the godless universe would be aware of its own existence. giving it some egocentric property for the first time in 12 billion years at the very least.

CDR

 

[Soapy Sam]

"I therefore dare call it illogical to accept both evolution and the immortal soul."

I agree. Evolution is a scientific fact, as well established as any fact can be. Evidence all around us, not to mention filling libraries worldwide.

The immortal soul is a hypothetical entity with no more supporting evidence than Santa Claus.

Believing in both is not just illogical, it's perverse.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

A Survival Function

IMO organisms that possessed self awareness would of had a clear survival advantage over organisms that didn't - like insect wings. The function being able to remember a predator and form a picture in the mind of a predator was a major breakthrough for our evolutionary history.

Whether it is immortal or not is irrelevant, but to have a totally different explanation for the soul other than a function of survival by stating that a God(s) gifted us with a soul regardless of the environmental circumstances is illogical for sure. It would be rather like asserting God gave insects its first wings and they could not of possibly had their wings without God's intervention (sic).

CDR

 

[Robin]

From Soapy Sam:

The immortal soul is a hypothetical entity with no more supporting evidence than Santa Claus.

Believing in both is not just illogical, it's perverse

It is certainly perverse, but not illogical as I have shown. In the second post in this topic I have shown how it is possible to have an immortal soul that does not imply a contradiction with evolution or even any improbability.

The point I am trying to make is that you if you try to start arguing for evidence of non-existence of the soul or god or any ill-defined supernatural entity you condemn yourself to a long slippery slope of fruitless back and forthing. The thing you are arguing against just gets redefined to get round any objections.

 

[Zombified]

The point I am trying to make is that you if you try to start arguing for evidence of existence of the soul or god or any ill-defined supernatural entity you condemn yourself to a long slippery slope of fruitless back and forthing. The thing you are arguing for just gets redefined to get round any objections.

There was a typo. I fixed it for you.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

I define a "soul" as a function and not a thing. It is a function of self awareness and contemplation. Like some organisms perform the function of swimming and others perform the function of flying as well as we perform our function of contemplation. This is what gives us our survival edge in the animal kingdom as much as flying bestrows to birds their survival edge. Without this function we would be as soft and vulnerable as a sparrow without wings.

As for the soul being immortal or not. I feel that makes as much sense as asking the question "is the function of swimming or flying immortal?".

CDR

 

[Robin]

There was a typo. I fixed it for you.

Very cheeky. In this case the sense is probably exactly the same. Generally speaking though arguing a positive is more fruitful than arguing a negative.

Also it is true, strictly speaking, that if we define a person's soul as a person's brain structure and state then it is theoretically possible to make it immortal, just not currently technically feasible.

 

[Zombified]

Very cheeky.

I'll take that as a compliment.

In this case the sense is probably exactly the same. Generally speaking though arguing a positive is more fruitful than arguing a negative.

They are not really the same thing, though. If a positive claim is made, and then it is refuted or objected to, who will be changing the definitions involved in the original claim in order to get around the objection? It's generally the believer out there moving the goal-posts. It gets worse when an argument in favor of some particular definition is then touted as support for a completely different definition of the same word.

Also it is true, strictly speaking, that if we define a person's soul as a person's brain structure and state then it is theoretically possible to make it immortal, just not currently technically feasible.

Here is a fine example. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we agreed that this was the case. Obviously, recording the contents of a person's brain and programming it into a simulator is not what most theists have in mind when you say 'immortal soul'. Could we infer anything about the theist notion of an immortal soul from an agreement based on these specific definitions? No. If you were to make any claims about immortal souls in general based on this specific interpretation, that reasoning would be very suspect.