proof of the soul (for Jay74)

[Samkhya 0]

Let's begin by distinguishing between mind and soul. Mind is the sum of subjective phenomena that we perceive within our body, and especially within our heads. These phenomena include pleasure, pain, memories, wills, reasonings, etc. Soul is the subject that perceives it. Soul is the inner witness. Soul is Purusha, as taught by Sâmkhya philosophy (which is not hopelessly false, upon some reflection).

 

It is a fact that each person has a unique viewpoint on the world. Each person witnesses the world and its own body and mind in a unique way.

 

And this unique viewpoint each person has goes on existing even if the body undergoes radical changes.

 

What I want to know is: is the brain the support, the base of soul? If the brain is the support of soul, what in the brain gives rise to soul? Is it merely the components of the brains (atoms, molecules, cells) or is it the relationship between all these components?

 

It can't be merely the components, because in a corpse, there are exactly the same components as in a living body, but there is no soul in the corpse. If the components alone gave rise to the soul, it would give rise to it as long as the components are together. But it does not happen.

 

Beside, the matter out of which the body is made in the youth is not the same as that out of which the old body is made. But the witness, the unique viewpoint on the world, has remained the same. If the components of the brain gave rise to the soul, there would be a different woul in the youth and in the old age.

 

So it can't be just the components that give rise to the soul. Is it the relationship between the components? For instance, communications between brain cells?

 

But the problem is that, if it is this relationship, it can be duplicated. It can be reproduced, multiplied. It can be in a thought experiment at least.

 

Here is an analogy: suppose I draw a circle with a chalk. I tell you that the chalk out of which the circle is made does not matter. What matters is the relationship between the parts of the circle: the center and the bend (the perimeter). What matter is that each point on the perimeter is at the same distance from the same. Bearing this in mind, you can pick up your own chalk and draw another circle. You can also draw a circle with a pencil, and so on.

 

Here we are saying something similar with respect to the brain: what matter is how the parts interact. Therefore, there can be many instances of a given pattern of interactions.

 

But the problem is that the unique viewpoint a person has on the world can't be multiplied. It is unique. I can't conceive of seeing me from the inside and from the outside at the same time. I cannot conceive of dreaming and not dreaming at the same time. Such absurdities would happen if my viewpoint were multiplied. We can't conceive of many viewpoints on the world that would be, at the same time, a unique viewpoint.

 

Therefore, the relationship between the components of the brain does not account for the viewpoint or witness being unique.

 

Therefore neither the mere components of the brain, nor the relationship between them can be the support of the soul.

 

Therefore, the soul does not come from the brain. The soul is an independent part of the person.

[jay74 0]

http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fneuroscience%2Fans_003.html

 

The following question was submitted by Darrin, a high school student from Toronto, Canada.

 

What's left to be done and what can be concluded about what in our brains allows us to have consciousness? I'm under the impression that we still don't know if we have some sort of a soul or if our brains are purely chemical. How would one find out either way? How could you prove that we don't have souls? Are there any papers on this topic already? Who else can I ask about this? Thanks a lot for any information you can give me.

 

answer

 

The following answer was provided by scientist Crista Barberini.

 

The question concerns a topic of enormous interest to many people, both in the field of neuroscience and in general. The question is best divided into two parts: the issue of "consciousness" and the issue of "souls."

 

The issue of "consciousness"—what it is, how to define it, how to quantify and measure it in humans and other animals, and ultimately, how to find the activity in the brain that corresponds to it—has received more attention in recent years. The topic is highly controversial, and currently, there's no consensus among neuroscientists even on such basic things as what the definition should be (for example, does consciousness involve self-awareness, the ability to imagine the future, both, or neither?), let alone whether the few studies that exist have successfully shown a neural correlate of consciousness. It's also important to note that many neuroscientists don't think the topic is a valid one for neuroscience, that is, that "consciousness" is not a quantifiable, clearly defined entity that scientists can measure, but instead is a poorly defined concept used in other fields and areas, such that "consciousness" doesn't necessarily correspond to a particular neural function.

 

At the forefront of researchers who have spent some time thinking about this issue is Francis Crick (who won the Nobel Prize many years ago for his work with DNA). References to some of his articles are included below. In addition, the University of Arizona has hosted a conference on consciousness every year for the past couple years; the proceedings of that conference would serve as a nice summary of the current viewpoints on this topic. (You'll find the proceedings at http://www.imprint.co.uk/tucson.html, and you can find out more about consciousness studies at http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu.)

 

Regarding the issue of "souls," no neuroscience research is being done on this topic, and the questioner will not find an answer to the question of whether humans have "souls" within this field. While each neuroscientist is a different human being with a different set of beliefs, religious or otherwise, such that I can't speak for all neuroscientists, it is safe to say that most if not all neuroscientists would agree that the question of whether we have "souls" is not a scientific one. This is easy to see if one notes that a scientific question is one that involves a hypothesis that one can test by doing an experiment; if this is not the case, the question is not scientific (instead, it could be, for example, philosophical or religious). What experiment could one do to prove or disprove the existence of a "soul"? While each individual will have things they may take as evidence for or against the idea that we have "souls," one will find that there is no objective criterion that people will agree on, and that the things people take as evidence do not (and cannot) qualify as scientific experiments.

 

The proper subjects of scientific enquiry are those things which exist entirely within this physical world, and which are clearly definable and quantifiable. For anything that doesn't unquestionably fall into this category, science has (or at least should have) no comment.

 

References

 

Crick, F., and C. Koch. "Consciousness and neuroscience." Cerebral Cortex 8(2):97-107, 1998.

 

Crick, F. "Visual perception: rivalry and consciousness." Nature 379(6565):485-6, 1996.

 

Crick, F., and C. Koch. "Are we aware of neural activity in primary visual cortex?" Nature 375(6527):121-3, 1995.

[jay74 0]

http://www.sci-con.org/tiki-view_articles.php

[Samkhya 0]

You don't even bother to comment on my proof...

[jay74 0]

I was pretty busy today. Your reply requires some time to understand. I glanced at it and definitely have some questions.

[jay74 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It can't be merely the components, because in a corpse, there are exactly the same components as in a living body, but there is no soul in the corpse. If the components alone gave rise to the soul, it would give rise to it as long as the components are together. But it does not happen.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have to disagree here. When a person dies it always ends up with the brain not having oxygen and gets permanently damaged. So when a person dies the section of the brain which regulates the body dies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

 

So basically a person who is considered a vegetable sustains loss of brain activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state

 

Will you consider such person having a soul?

Based on the above soul is somewhat tied to the brain.

 

 

 

 

 

[Samkhya 0]

The article which you are referring to defines brain death as the cessation of brain activity. It does not define brain death as the disappearance of one of the components of the brain (though such disappearance may be the CAUSE of brain death).

 

It's like... a dialogue ends up when there are no more words being exchanged. What ends up is a relation between those who talk. We would not say that a dialogue ends up when one of persons involved disappears... (though for one person to go away may be the CAUSE of the end of the dialogue) A cause is not to be confused with a definition.

 

Likewise, brain death is the end of a set of relations between the components of the brain. What is called "activity".

[Samkhya 0]

I don't know whether people in a vegetative state still have a soul. Perhaps the soul has gone away. But the soul will come back as soon as the brain can sustain again psychic activity.

 

The soul is tied to people who sleep, because the soul mistakenly identifies itself with some parts of the matter, namely our body.

[jay74 0]

As far the body evidence points out that Brain is the most crucial part of the entire system. If the Brain undergoes irreparable damage then for all practical purposes person is dead.

 

A person can live without heart beat can still be considered live. A person in coma is just in a suspended state with all his brain functions intact.

 

So all these points to the fact that if there is a soul it has to be in the brain. Iam intermingling Consiousness with Soul here.

From WIKI-

The bilateral removal of the Centromedian nucleus (part of the Intra-laminar nucleus of the Thalamus) appears to abolish consciousness, causing coma, PVS, severe mutism and other features that mimic brain death. The centromedian nucleus is also one of the principal sites of action of general anaesthetics and anti-psychotic drugs.

 

 

Even with all the understanding of the brain sceintists can reason why brain functions the way it does.

 

 

[Samkhya 0]

The way I define the soul is in accordance with findings in neuroscience. In other words, advances in brain science does not threaten dualism as I conceive it. Though I believe in a soul, I am aware that mental phenomena need the brain to manifest themselves, at least as long as the soul identifies itself with the body.