As mentioned in the first entry of this series [here], my goal with this series of entries is to present a theory of the soul that is consistent with both the Bible and current scientific understanding of the brain and how it functions. In this entry, I want to put forward one of the important principles that underlies my theory of the soul: the soul should be conceptualized as a living organism.
I titled
this entry "No Ghost in the Machine."
That's a favorite phrase of detractors of dualism. Neuroscience has looked into the brain and
found no "soul" living inside.
Thus they love to say there is no magical, mystical, mythical, and
childish spiritual component of human beings.
This is then simplified into the derision equating the soul with a
ghost. I take offense at this statement
for two reasons, which I will address in the subsequent paragraphs.
First, the
idea that you could crack open the skull and find a little soul running around
inside the brain is pretty ridiculous when you think about it. There are a couple of really fundamental
problems with that concept and I really don't think scientists make their
derisive comment seriously anyway. If
we're talking about anatomical exploration in a cadaver, of course the soul
isn't found - it left the body long before the dissection began. If we're talking about exploration of the
brain during surgery (i.e. when the person is alive), then there are even more
obvious problems. You can't do a
complete exploration of the brain in surgery, so it's pretty hard to rule
anything out. But really now, what
instrument do you use to observe the presence of a soul that is spiritual? Visual observation? X-ray?
MRI? PET scan? Electrical stimulation? An electromagnetic field meter? Listen for the soul to yelp when you poke
it? There is no tool you can use to
directly measure the existence of a spiritual soul. I'll talk about this more in a future entry,
but I'm pretty sure every scientist who expresses the "no ghost"
derision knows that they don't have the tools to measure the presence of a
soul. But it makes such a fun soundbite
that it is hard to resist saying it.
However,
the more important reason I take offense to this statement is the impression it
leaves regarding the "composition" of the soul. The soul is equated to a ghost. I suppose there's something to that
connection, as I guess ghosts are generally considered to be the disembodied
souls of those long dead. I have no idea
if disembodied souls hang around and cause havoc or try to communicate with the
living. My problem is the way ghosts are
portrayed does a great disservice to the concept of the soul. I guess there are all kinds of styles of
ghosts in the media and in reports. But
a common portrayal of a ghost is as a semi-transparent somewhat human-shaped
blob. For my purposes, the important
thing is the semi-transparent aspect.
Specifically, ghosts apparently don't have...brains, muscles,
bones...guts. The point is, it makes you
imagine that a ghost is kind of all one substance - like smoke or jello. And then, by implication, we imagine that the
soul - if the soul and ghost are the same - is also "one
substance." This is a major problem
to me and, in my opinion, leads down a long pathway of wrong-headed thinking
about the soul from the very start.
One key
aspect of my theory of the soul is that the
soul is complex. By complex, I mean
that the soul has many parts. I consider
the spiritual realm to be more advanced than the physical realm. If so, it makes sense to consider that the
soul could be at least as complex as the physical body. The soul could have organs. It could have systems, like a nervous system. I don't mean to suggest that the soul has an
actual brain or heart. I just mean that
the soul ought to be considered in a very complex way, not as some homogeneous
substance. For example, the body has a
brain with complex interconnecting neurons in it. The soul could also have complex
interconnecting "circuitry" in it and thus could interact with the
body in very complex ways.
I can
understand why this concept might be uncomfortable to some. Of course, for those who don't think a soul
exists to begin with, to hypothesize a complex soul seems further off
course. I can't argue that point,
although I would just say that some of the reasons that people reject the idea
of the soul is because of claims made about the soul that arise from the
mistaken (in my opinion) view that the soul is homogenous. I'll bring up one of those issues at the end
of this entry. But for those who are
staunch dualists, the idea that the soul is complex may seem
disconcerting. This is partly, I think,
based on the fact that the Bible doesn't provide any details about
"parts" of the soul. That is
definitely true, although terms like "mind", "heart", and
sometimes even "mouth" or "feet" seem to have some
reference to the soul or functions of the soul.
But to those who come at dualism through their belief in the Bible, I
will just offer that my theory of the soul, while it must be consistent with
what the Bible teaches, is, by necessity, going to include a lot of details
that are not described in the Bible.
This is analogous to the anatomy of the physical body. There are many principles of physiology, such
as the oxygen exchange in hemoglobin or the filtering characteristics of the
kidneys, that have no link to the Bible.
The same is going to be true for my theory of the soul.
I want to
give a quick example of the implication of the "soul as organism" idea.
This idea will need to be fleshed out in future entries. As part of my theory of the soul, I propose
that the connection between the soul and the brain (and/or whole body) is
complex and can include principles like the lateral inhibition we observe in
neuronal circuits. Lateral inhibition
describes a neural circuit where the inputs to one or more neurons cause
neighboring neurons to be inhibited or less excitable. This is kind of like the "high
contrast" function in a drawing program.
It has the effect of emphasizing edges and points. If the soul has something like lateral
inhibition in its connection with the brain, it means that even if the soul
connects to multiple points in the brain (for example), it might emphasize - or
attend to - only certain aspects of the brain and down-regulate attention to
other aspects. I propose that this is
part of the reason why your conscious attention has a focus to it and also why
and how you can switch the focus of your conscious attention so quickly. We'll obviously have to come back to that
concept and dig much deeper into it, but I just put it forward as an example
where the idea of a homogenous soul does a great injustice to any reasonable
theory of the soul. If consciousness resides
in a homogeneous soul, how could our conscious awareness have a specific focus
to it? And how could that shift to
something else? In my theory of the
soul, a fundamental aspect is that the soul can be, and likely is, at least as
complex as the physical body.
By the
way, I believe this should also have an implication about what we think about
God. Since most people's conception of
God is that God is spiritual and, even, "spirit", I think the
"transparent ghost" thinking sometimes gets applied to God. God is surely not a homogeneous ethereal thing. God is not a lump of lead or even a beautiful
diamond. God is surely at least as
complex as the creatures and universe He created. There must be "parts" to God. After all, God is living. Does God have
organs? Who knows. But surely God is the ultimate example of a
complex organism, not a homogeneous substance.
This has implications, among other things, to how we think about the
idea that "God is changeless."
That's an important Biblical concept.
But we think of a changeless living organism very differently than we
think about a changeless lump of lead.
Anyway, food for future thought.
I
mentioned earlier that the idea of a homogeneous soul has led to some concepts
that ultimately resulted in many to reject dualism. Here is one of those key concepts: the indivisibility of the soul. I don't know if Descartes started this idea
or if he borrowed if from others, but he said, for example "we cannot
conceive of half a soul, as we can in the case of any body." This was a big mistake, in my opinion. In my theory of the soul, it is absolutely possible to imagine a
"damaged soul" or a soul with a "lost or damaged
part." A "soul amputee"
if you will. Can you cut the soul in
half and create two souls? Haha - it
will take us a long while to get to that issue.
But in my opinion, any theory of the soul must allow for the soul to
grow and change and be damaged, yet survive.
I don't really know if the word "organism" can rightly be
applied to the soul (or if we need a new word for it), but, at least for
starters, it is a useful concept. In the
same way that the body has parts, and can exist without some parts but not
others, I propose that the soul is the same way. Of course the soul is not damaged by a bullet
or a baseball bat like the physical body would be. But it can be altered, even damaged, by
activity in the spiritual world.
The complex
"soul as organism" can develop habits. The soul can learn. The soul can grow. All of these concepts are important. A homogeneous soul is difficult to fit into
any of these concepts, yet it is clear from the observation of human behavior,
and the growing understanding of the neuroscience of the brain, that if there
is a soul, it must have some or all of these features. Those who have rejected dualism because they
were forced to consider the soul as homogeneous and indivisible were right to
reject that kind of dualism, in my opinion.
But if that is the only reason you rejected dualism, then I ask you to
reconsider. Consider a dualistic view of
the human being where the soul is just as
complex as the body. I think you
will find that it is much more difficult to dismiss such a concept out of
hand. At the very least, maybe I will
intrigue you enough that your curiosity will force you to keep reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment