Introduction:
In this post, I am going to argue that souls exist. By souls, I don't mean the conventional, religiously based conception of souls. By soul, in this post, I simply mean that there is an aspect of humanity that is more than purely physical. I also hope to show that our evidence for the existence of souls is stronger than our evidence for the existence of the natural world.
In other words, I am about to argue that the evidence for the existence of your soul is better than the evidence for the existence of natural objects, for example, the statue of liberty.
Primer:
In my opinion, this argument will be somewhat difficult to understand, because it requires an uncommon kind of abstract and introspective thought. This is not to say that those who disagree simply cannot understand the argument; I simply ask that sufficient time is taken to think about what I have to say.
To 'prime the mind' to consider the subject material, consider the following scenario:
You see the painting, correct? Excellent. Now, inside of your brain, does that image exist in the form that you perceive it right now?
In this post, I am going to argue that souls exist. By souls, I don't mean the conventional, religiously based conception of souls. By soul, in this post, I simply mean that there is an aspect of humanity that is more than purely physical. I also hope to show that our evidence for the existence of souls is stronger than our evidence for the existence of the natural world.
In other words, I am about to argue that the evidence for the existence of your soul is better than the evidence for the existence of natural objects, for example, the statue of liberty.
Primer:
In my opinion, this argument will be somewhat difficult to understand, because it requires an uncommon kind of abstract and introspective thought. This is not to say that those who disagree simply cannot understand the argument; I simply ask that sufficient time is taken to think about what I have to say.
To 'prime the mind' to consider the subject material, consider the following scenario:
Lets say that an amazingly complex computer was invented. The computer is so complex
that it can make observations concerning its environment and make decisions. Now, here is a question: Would that computer be conscious? Would the computer have a first person perspective?
Here is a second question: How would we be able to tell?
Think about that for a few moments. How would we be able to tell whether or not the computer had first person perspecive?
If you don't personally think that computers could become complex enough to attain a state of self-awareness, what about growing a brain in a carefully regulated laboratory environment? Would that brain be self aware? What about animals? Are dolphins or elephants self aware? Do they see the world the way we see it? Do they 'think out loud' in their mind? I don't think there is any way to know definitely whether or not dogs, for example, are conscious. This concludes the primer section of this post. Now that we are thinking within the realm that my argument will reside within, the actual argument.
Why Souls Exist
First Person Perspective
Consider your own first person perspective. Think about the 'image' that you observe when you look at the world (http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-screen.html). Is it possible for you to point at this image?
To illustrate my point, check out The Starry Night, by Vincent van Gogh:
You see the painting, correct? Excellent. Now, inside of your brain, does that image exist in the form that you perceive it right now?
Obviously, in a sense, yes. There are neural pathways in your brain that correspond to The Starry Night as your eyes transfer sensory input into your brain, and the brain interprets that information to generate a model of the world.
This is not what I am interested in, though. I am interested in knowing whether or not The Starry Night exists inside of your brain in the form that you see it right now. For example, if we dissected a brain, would we find an image of The Starry Night inside? Would we find the 'blue' of the painting anywhere? What about the 'yellow' of the moon?
The obvious answer is no. When autopsies of brains are done, we find nothing that is blue and yellow and takes on the form of the images we look at from our first person perspective.
This is not what I am interested in, though. I am interested in knowing whether or not The Starry Night exists inside of your brain in the form that you see it right now. For example, if we dissected a brain, would we find an image of The Starry Night inside? Would we find the 'blue' of the painting anywhere? What about the 'yellow' of the moon?
The obvious answer is no. When autopsies of brains are done, we find nothing that is blue and yellow and takes on the form of the images we look at from our first person perspective.
Again, I'm not saying that the image doesn't exist in a translated and corresponding fashion inside of the brain. It most certainly does. But that is also irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.
There is no image inside of your brain that you could reach out and touch that looks anything like The Starry Night as you observe the painting.
There is no image inside of your brain that you could reach out and touch that looks anything like The Starry Night as you observe the painting.
When you stop at a traffic light, I challenge you to point out where in your brain a 'red light' is. You cannot touch 'red' inside of your brain.
Another example are the thoughts that we have. As you read this blog post, I suspect that you are 'thinking out loud' in your mind. I suspect that many readers will continue to think to themselves "Josh! All of this is going on due to neural pathways in the brain!" I get it. That was my inclination at first while I was thinking about this too. Please hear me out!
Our First Person Perspective Exists
This may seem like a no brainer, but I am saying more than just our first person perspective exists.
I am saying that the image in your mind when you observe The Starry Night exists in the form that you observe it.
This is the entire point of my argument, so I will say it again:
When you observe The Starry Night, the image that you are perceiving exists in the form that you are perceiving it.
How do we know the 'image' exists in the form that we are observing it? Because there it is. Look at it.
Sure, that image is most certainly dependent upon neural pathways in your brain. No doubt. But if we look inside the brain we don't see that image, and the image exists. You cannot point at any spot in the universe that looks like the 'screen' that you observe when you look at the world.
Spelling Out The Argument
Here is the argument spelled out:
1. The image that we 'see' when we observe the world exists.
2. The image does not exist in the natural world.
3. Therefore, there is a component of our existence that exists outside of the natural world.
Note: This part of us that exists outside of the natural world is directly tied to the natural world via brains and sensory input.
Pretty much, dualism.
Discussion
Remember how I brought up whether or not it would be possible to tell whether or not a computer is conscious or self aware? We can't tell, because self consciousness, the images we observe from the seat of our first person perspective, the thoughts we think in our minds, and the 'screens' (Again, see the blog post entitle "Screens" for my definition of screens) we generate do not exist in the natural world in the form that they exist in our minds.
Our 'screens' never observe screens.
Again I'll say it. We can't tell whether or not a computer is conscious because we can't point at consciousness. Any test that we could use to figure this out would probably disqualify humans too.
Conclusion
Our evidence for the part of our existence that exists outside of the natural world is better than our evidence for the existence of the natural world itself. This is because our evidence for the existence of the natural world is dependent upon our first person perspective. We can't observe the natural world without screens.
Our brains certainly could be purely natural collections of cells. If that were the case, we would be able to observe the entirety of human existence in the natural world. The simple fact, however, is that we cannot observe the entirety of human existence in the natural world, because we cannot point out screens.
Therefore, humans are unique, combinatorial entities which are comprised of parts that are in and outside of the natural world. The part that is outside of the natural world seems to be dependent upon the natural part to observe the natural world, although I don't really know how we would test this to obtain convincing results. Our evidence for the part that is outside of the physical world is better than our evidence for the natural part, because our evidence for the natural part is exhibited to our conscious state in the form of screens.
Further Thought
Some readers may be familiar with Dr. William Lane Criag's favorite argument for God's existence, the cosmological argument. If you are not familiar with his particular spin on the argument, watch Dr. Criag's opening statement in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xcgjtps5ks.
Dr. Craig argues that a reasonable culprit for the agent which gave the universe its beginning is "an unembodied mind."
Dr. Craig argues that a reasonable culprit for the agent which gave the universe its beginning is "an unembodied mind."
Before considering my own argument for the existence of souls, I found Dr. Craig's argument problematic. Why would we assume that something that is a part of our existence be a prime suspect for whatever agent generated physics and space-time? That mysterious agent would more probably NOT be something that we are familiar with, as opposed to something that we are familiar with.
However, if we think that souls exist outside of nature, which are at the same time tied to nature, Dr. Craig's argument starts to make more sense. It would certainly offer an explanation for the soul-body dualist existence we seem to be experiencing.
What could be responsible for the origin of 'minds' which exist outside of the natural world, create the natural world, and then tie the two realms together? Why not another mind which is outside of space-time and has the ability to create? Minds are not subject to the various frailties present in naturalistic candidates for the existence of the universe.
Based on my argument, we also need an explanation for the existence of screens. Because natural things do not appear to be able to create supernatural things, such as screens, it makes more sense to think that something supernatural created screens.
Maybe I'm a theist. Maybe I think God created the universe and people. Maybe it makes sense that humans are created in the image of God, in that a part of them is a mind which exists outside of the natural world.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Thanks for reading.
-JTS
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI always enjoying reading your thoughts and commentary on these illusive and potential truths. I would like to provide my own interpretation on this same topic for conversation's sake. My interpretation is founded solely in my personal experience. I have no author or journal to cite but I will go ahead and note the thoughts anyway!
The screens concept is intriguing and, in my mind, it underlies a major lack of knowledge that neuroscientists are looking to fill. How does the brain store images and how do those viewed/stored images differ from the original or intended image intended by the creator?
It is intuitive to me that each first-person perspective would receive identical input (if subjected to the content in a scientifically identical scenario: timing, placement, mindset, etc.) but the view and interpretation of it would differ due to differences in electrical wiring from one individual's brain to the next.
All computers display the Starry Night painting the same in my eyes. And I will assume that they do so for you as well (assuming you are looking at it from the same web link and quality). This is in spite of my belief that you and I see different images when looking at the same painting. Hence, not only are our screens different, but too are our initial experiences with the content that generated the screen.
This begs the question: what entity accounts for the difference in experience across individuals? Is it the inherent genetic differentiation across organisms that explains this or is it some supernatural force even more internal than that, such as a soul?
The computer analogy can be used, awkwardly enough, for both cases. The computer may display an image in a way that we can comprehend. However, we cannot point to a bluish-green painting within its hard drive.
The computer's own experience is translated, like everything else, into a compact format that is stored internally. The computer can not look at the 0's and 1's and discern an image. The computer does so unconsciously without thinking just as we see the Starry Night when we think about it, rather than seeing whatever compact format ooze in our brains represents the image. Even if we are made purely of cells and ooze, the only experiences we can perceive would be those which are exposed to our senses. I cannot see inside my or your head so I cannot know what goes on within it.
Computer engineers can, indeed, translate a computer's 0's and 1's into a meaningful image and this is exactly what the computer is 'trained' to do on its own. I would argue that our brains are 'trained' to do the same thing. The only reason an outsider cannot translate a brain's memory 'documents' into the original image is because brain engineering does not yet exist. We possess a lack of understanding about this complicated electrical system from its mass molecular composition all the way down to the storage format and efficiency that memory utilizes.
DeleteIt makes sense to me, evolutionarily, why such a system would develop naturally. Memory provides clear and obvious advantages to an organism from imprinting through to danger assessment.
The fact that each brain is wired differently may explain the variation in interpretation across individuals that results in varied screens. The advantages of evolving interpretations that fit the individual may explain why this variation is permitted in natural selection.
An animal that interprets a scenario differently than its kin may gain an advantage by associating more appropriate feelings to the stimulus, i.e. a small fish that sees a large fish as a feeding opportunity than as a threat, as is seen in aquatic 'cleaning stations'. This provides organisms with an additional facet through which natural selection may occur to increase the species' likelihood of survival.
In regards to the dependency of the natural world's existence on screens, I'll say this. If all living organisms were to die off, I believe the universe would keep on existing. It seems that our interpretations of nature are used to help us navigate through it. There are philosophers who would argue that things only exist for those who are presently experiencing them. However, that seems counterintuitive to me since one individual can observe the consequences of another individual's actions on nature. Therefore, the affected bit of nature must have persisted throughout the duration of time in which no observers were present in order for the next observer to see the previous observer's impact.
Let me know your thoughts!
-Philip
Thanks for the thoughts!!! I read your responses once, and you bring up lots of good topics.
DeleteI will have to spend some time pondering. I'll get back to you soon.
-Josh
If screens (i.e. the 3 bullets spelled out in "Spelling Out The Argument") imply souls, wouldn't that imply all animals all have souls? (Or at least all animals with some sort of sensory input?)
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous!
DeleteMaybe animals have souls, maybe they don't. A huge part of the argument is that we have no way of telling whether or not organisms other than ourselves have screens, or are purely bio-chemical in nature.
Further, I personally can't tell whether or not anyone other than myself have screens, because you can't observe them in the natural world.
Short answer- no idea! Thanks for the comment!
-JTS
As you say, you can't tell whether or not anyone other than yourself has screens (maybe we're all robots), but if you think I exist and I have screens, then it seems very likely to say that animals exist and have screens (as you define them).
DeleteAs a side note to make sure I understand what you're saying, I'd like to put words in your mouth and have you correct me.
Memory seems inherent to your definition of screens. For example, the fact that my taste buds respond to a strawberry seems very physical. This is not much different than a camera producing a current in response to light. I.e., it doesn't require anything supernatural. But the fact that I can mentally recall the taste at will is different than the original physical process. I can say that the taste "exists". In the vision example, I can say that the green tree "exists" in my mind.
However, I know (or think I know) that other people exist. And their "screens" exist. If they didn't have a memory, I'd be less inclined to say they "exist". I couldn't deny that their atoms exist, but I might say "they're not all there."
Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, but it sounds like "senses + memory" = "screens".
Now back to animals. I have just as much evidence that animals have screens as I do that other people have screens. They cannot talk, but interacting with them has led me to believe that they have senses and memory (and a personality).
I guess part of my sensitivity is this - I can't draw a definitive line between humans and animals when it comes to screen existence. Either we all have screens or none of us do.
From another perspective, making a leap from screens to souls is a big leap. Here is a somewhat straw man argument, but I hope it illustrates my point.
Friction does not exist in the natural world. Friction is an emergent phenomenon that arises from millions of particles interacting on an atomic/subatomic level, but when 2 particles "bump" past each other, there is no "friction". So friction is something that doesn't exist in the nature either. When you talk about dualism, it seems like the same argument could be made of friction:
> 1. The image that we 'see' when we observe the world exists.
Friction 'exists' when we model things at the macroscopic level.
> 2. The image does not exist in the natural world.
Friction does not exist in quantum mechanics.
> 3. Therefore, there is a component of our existence that exists outside of the natural world.
Therefore friction is a component of our existence that exists outside of the natural world.
Now for the straw man part... I don't think that friction has a soul.
Maybe I'm missing something, though.
Hi Anonymous!
DeleteThanks so much for reading my work and taking the time to leave such a detailed comment! I will break my response into a few parts to address the various issues you bring up.
First, memory is not inherent to screens, other than the screen of memory. The screen of vision, for example, is completely separate from memory. In addition, the screen of vision is only reliant upon senses and brain activity for content, NOT for the existence of the screen itself.
The screen of vision does not equal senses + memory. The screen of vision 'displays' sensory input, but the screen itself is more than what is 'projected' upon it.
Part two of the response:
DeleteHello again!
This response has to do with whether or not we can know whether or not other people's screens exist. Think about the following questions:
1. Can you point at another person's screen?
2. Can you point at the green that another person has on their screen when they observe a green leaf?
3. Can you point at the image one produces in their mind when they remember something?
The answer to all of these, in my opinion, is no, you can't point at them. You can certainly point at a person's brain, which is related to all of those things, but not 100% equal.
It is widely accepted among philosophers that it is impossible to know whether or not minds, other than your own, exist.
I would agree, however, that if we think that other human's minds and screens exist, then animals would also have them. I see no reason to place humans in a special category.
I really like this: "I guess part of my sensitivity is this - I can't draw a definitive line between humans and animals when it comes to screen existence. Either we all have screens or none of us do."
DeleteYou put that very nicely, and I completely agree.
You are absolutely right- jumping from screens to the existence of souls is an unjustified leap, depending on your definition of souls.
DeleteAt first, I used the term 'souls' in this post with my own, limited definition for the word. I have decided to change that because it is more confusing than helpful to use the term.
Last part of my response:
DeleteI don't see any connection between friction and screens. Friction is a macroscopic description of the interaction between particles.
Screens are not made up of anything at all in the physical world. If they were, we could point at what makes them up.
You say "In regards to the dependency of the natural world's existence on screens, I'll say this. If all living organisms were to die off, I believe the universe would keep on existing."
I totally agree, if the natural world exists, then if all living organisms died off, the natural world would persist. What I meant, or should have said, is that our knowledge of the natural world is dependent on our screens.
Maybe that much isn't even true, because I think that brains are capable of everything they currently do completely without screens. As in, brains are not dependent on screens for any function whatsoever.
This is what makes the existence of screens so interesting, especially from an evolutionary standpoint. Why would something completely unnecessary be a fundamental part of humans?
The one problem I see with your logic is that, just because we cannot observe the screen (yet) in the natural world does not mean it's not a result of the natural world, and therefore not supernatural. An example is hallucinations, where we know that what we are experiencing isn't 'real' per se, but the experience is as real as any other because the chemicals causing its perception are the same chemicals responsible for alerting us to natural stimuli. I think that to argue that this 'screen' is our soul is basically to say that the soul is responsible for all memory (correct me if I'm misinterpreting).
ReplyDeleteAs to whether or not animals have souls, here is a fascinating article on the evolution of consciousness: https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/485558/?client=ms-android-verizon
Alternatively, perhaps what we call free-will is the supernatural within us. The problem is, it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove we actually have free will.
What if the soul, or the 'supernatural' element is simply life itself. After all, Life is different from sentience. What makes me think of this is actually your post on abortion (brilliantly written by the way). You argued that we cannot say at any given point that the baby has begun to live because the cells that came together were themselves living and so there is no set beginning to the life, only to the human-ness, and so the beginning of the child's life is the beginning of the child's humanity (aka conception). So then, individual life is an illusion. Almost as though Life itself is its own thing, acting as light in that it acts as both wave and particle, a part and a whole. And it is passed on from clump of matter to clump of matter motivating homeostasis. Basically, a symbiote. Of course, this would look nothing like the soul as we typically think of it. Rather than being the heart of 'who we are' it would instead be it's own entity, unifying and driving sentience, but with its own motivations. And I don't think it would necessarily be supernatural. But i think it could account for the feeling that there is more within us than just the natural 'us'. Then again, I might be thinking about it all wrong.
Something I just thought of as important: I think it's important to define what we are talking about when we talk about the 'soul'. People use soul to mean a bunch of different things, including: motivation, free-will, the self (What is consistently 'us' through time despite the death of cells/birth of new cells, etc.), what goes on living after the body dies, and probably more, but those are the ones that immediately come to mind.
ReplyDelete