Thoughts from 12.18.2010:
________________________________

I am currently of the opinion that there is something permanent and mental in nature that exists within the human body and, perhaps, in all animate things or in all things. it is hard to say and the proof for this is certainly hard to come by if not an impossibility. This is in direct contrast to the second part of this page under the "Older, more skeptical, thoughts" heading.

Perhaps there is some form of data structure or energy that exists in the body during certain states but I think that this mind or soul can leave, return, or be permanently separated from the body.

I do not think there are any hard rules about life and death but rather that death is a final separation but not necessarily the final incarnation. If God exists and can do anything, we could be, upon our deaths, be reinserted into our lives at some point in order to make a better choice or put onto another planet or into another life form.

The possibilities are endless but I do believe that there is something lasting and indestructible that we came from and will return to, however it may happen.

The term "soul" may not truly capture the nuances of this feature of reality and, I wholly admit that the skeptic is correct to doubt that there need be something more than the energy/matter we observe through science.

It is more a belief derived from inward journeys and the returning nature of consciousness and experience. One can be separated from the body at will- though most are too wrapped up in human life or too afraid in order to do so.

t is not hard and there are vast expanses of reality that can be explored. I don't think there are rigid rules here and I believe we each create our own reality as a function of our intentional states about it.

There is a feedback loop in the system that presents us with what we expect and deserve based on the choices we make. I do think there is something eternal here that we can all touch and, perhaps, we all will touch.

It is comforting, easy, loving, and gentle. Although we may be scared of death and the leaving behind of the body, one gets a very direct impression in certain states, that there is absolutely nothing to fear at all, ever. Forgetting is fear and anger, remembering is love and comfort.

I admit that these recent reflections are mystical and in the rationalist strain, but this is where I am at the moment and I find more solace in these paradigms than in those where I think I know the world is simple, clear, and explained well.



Older, more skeptical, thoughts:
___________________________________

A classic problem in philosophy has been the distinction of mind and body- of a mental substance and a physical substance. I assert that it is the nature of introspection and lingering religious biases that has fortified the notion of an immaterial mind. How does this notion arise? How does it defend itself?

The departure from dualism came in the face of experimental impotence. Scientists rejected, or held irrelevant, the notion that the mind was incapable of being studied. If the mind is, as many have asserted, immaterial, then it is beyond the reaches of science and observation. Empirical research and method are discarded, leaving people to just sit and wonder.

Those who decided to forge ahead were the psychologists, the biologists, and those philosophers who saw that the problem was not literally in the mind, but in the mind of those who would halt inquisition and progress.

They began by observing the input and output relationships of people. How did they react to stimuli? Neuroscience opens the brain and looks for clues as to it’s intricate mechanisms. Biology as a whole looks to evolution to show just how the brain came to be, and shed light on the mystery that has become the human mind.

Why are we so special? Well, there are a number of reasons why we appear to be very different from other organisms on earth. The question of whether or not these creatures have immaterial minds has often been a topic of contention, but we will avoid that for now. One glaring difference in the animal kingdom is the fact that we are at the top of the food chain.

Therefore, we have reasonable developed arrogant culture and religion that glorifies us as distinct from the rest of nature. These ideas are beginning to crumble under the pressure of observation and experimentation. We can now see how evolution, child psychology, and other areas of research are capable of coming together to form a more perfect model of how we came to be, and how our minds developed over the millions of years that evolutionary forces proceed.

Human society has been struggling with the notion of evolution for about one hundred years now. It would be a historical anomaly for human civilization to accept anything as a good theory before five or six hundred years of intellectual persecution. And I fear that this idea will be persecuted for perhaps that long, not because of the theory itself, but because of the theory’s implications.

If we evolved from something in nature, say a primordial ooze of amino acids sparked into existence by the application of electrical and solar energy, then this means we are a direct continuation of an ongoing process.

Also, it is a cyclical process, one that brings something to the top and often plunges it back into the abyssal depths of lowly creatures that have been pushed out of dominance. It makes us wonder about our purpose, our special place in the universe, the uniqueness of our minds.

Evolution makes us ponder things that were once answered for us and made sense. Evolution tears down walls of tradition and sacred thinking, leaving a bold new path before us that shines with the light of truth. But, this path is a dangerous one. Down it’s rough surface we may find demons, we may find monsters that try to bite at us from nihlism and other theories that dismiss existence as pure nothingness.

Arguments Against the Existence of the Soul:
_______________________________________________

Here I have outlined my reasons for the non-existence of the soul and of any non-physical substance, "mind", or otherwise. The arguments are each from different angles, and all pose serious questions and problems for the notion that there is such a thing in existence in us, or in anything.

[1]. If one holds that evolution is true, a very testable and proven scientific tenet, then where in the process of evolution does the soul come into being? This implies that a soul comes into existence because of intelligence or complexity? A virus, at the lowest end of the evolutionary chain, seems to be a small, physical machine designed to survive and reproduce. At the other end of the evolutionary chain are humans. At what point in between does this immaterial, non-physical substance of mind come into being?

[2]. Oxford University in England has many small parts, many divisions and colleges. All of these buildings, professors and students come together in the area of England known as Oxford. However, there is no central administration, no real "Oxford college". In the same way, our brains are composed of many parts, mathematical reasoning, abstract reasoning, sound interpretation, sight interpretation, motor control, memory, speech, and a number of other things that seem to be one compounded thing.

But, it is like saying that there is an "Oxford University", there is no such thing, only small parts that make up the whole of the brain. In the same way, people often call the soul the consciousness or essence or personality of an individual. These blanket terms are merely misstatements that are not describing one thing in particular, but a conglomeration of smaller systems and areas of the brain that are combined so that we can perceive as we do. Therefore, in this sense, the belief that there is a soul is merely an illusion based on our complexity and organization.

[3]. How does something non-physical affect something that is physical? If one uses a non-physical cue stick to ht pool balls, how does this interaction take place? In the same light, how does a non-physical soul influence or interact with a physical body? Wouldn't this have to defy the laws of physics?

[4]. How does disease or damage affect the soul? If a person becomes physically impaired by means of disease or injury to the brain, then does this also affect the soul/non-physical substance? When a person is beaten on the head and becomes retarded, does the soul too become retarded?

[5]. Build a human from nothing but the particles that make up humans, and at what point does the soul appear in the construction of the atoms? Gradually replace human parts with machine parts that simulate the human parts, and at what point does the soul disappear?

[6]. The headless humans example. If a human, after being decapitated was kept on life support, what is the status of the soul? Does a brain constitute a soul? If a brain constitutes a soul, then how can a zygote have a soul? How can a zygote be a human until the point at which it develops a brain?

[7]. Genetic approach to the soul. Does either the sperm or egg posses the soul? The maternal and paternal genes begin to replicate and divide in a complex, but well understood process commonly referred to as "conception". Conception, however, is a long, delineated process in which there is no one single point at which the human is "conceived". What relation do genetic traits have to the soul or mind?