[See here for introductory comments.]
The Efferent System
of the Soul: “The Will”
The
efferent, or "motor system", of the soul is basically what we might
generally refer to as "the will".
This is where free will is generated and implemented. The efferent system is where the interaction
between the spiritual "soul-world" and the physical "flesh-world"
happens. The efferent system is, at
least in my view, the most mysterious component of the soul and probably the
most mysterious thing in the entire universe.
To me, the entire “mystery of the soul” really comes down to this aspect. In fact, I think it is at this point that
many people decide the soul is too mysterious for rational belief and
they jettison their belief in the soul, and with it, anything
supernatural. They become physicalists, and
probably determinists, as they stand at the edge of this great mystery. Belief in the soul becomes childish in their
eyes. Instead of gazing on this mystery
in amazement, they walk away. I get
it. Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia
understood this very problem almost 400 years ago. It’s not new.
My goal in this series of blog posts on the soul is to get some of you
to take a second look at this mystery.
What if the immaterial world actually does influence the physical
world? All I’m asking is for a chance to
put forward a concept for consideration.
As think
there are at least two major parts to the Efferent System of the Soul. One
part is the aspect that performs the mechanics of the
"spiritual-physical link."
Somehow the decisions made by the soul have to produce an influence on our
physical actions. How in the world is it
possible that some non-physical entity could impact what we do? In fact, as I've discussed elsewhere [here],
we can narrow it down much further: at
some point, this action has to affect one or more neurons in the brain. How? To be honest, I had some theories on this that
I was embarrassed to put into writing, and I thought “surely others have
thought about these ideas and have written about them.” Eventually, after a few years of searching, I
found some others who have written about these concepts in the past 40 years or
so, and so I feel like I can now describe these ideas and at least I will have
company when I am ridiculed. But I’m not
going to dive into those details here – you’ll have to wait a bit for that!
<it will be linked here>
The second part of the efferent system is
the actual decision-making component.
This component is the entity that generates an uncaused cause [see here]. This is the entity that generates
a decision that is unpredictable, but not
random. And, just like the unity
feature of consciousness [here], there is nothing else in the universe (that we
know of) that is like this. There is no
other force or condition or outcome that is not either "caused" or "random". As a result, it is impossible to come up with
an analogy without introducing human will into the analogy, thus creating some
circular logic. Some would say that the
uniqueness and downright craziness of thinking there could be something that appears random (i.e. unpredictable), and
yet is not random, should drive us
all to doubt the idea of free will. But,
as I have discussed elsewhere, for me, free will is a given - it is the
starting point - because I experience it moment by moment. I do not throw it out just because it is
conceptually difficult, if not impossible, to fully describe. I can't explain why bumblebees fly either,
but I see them flying so I don't entertain the possibility that "since I
can't make sense of it, they must not be flying." I know that there are whole libraries full of
books denying the existence of free will.
I’m not going to argue the point here.
My point in this entry is to just say “Here’s where I think free will
exists.”
I
actually don't know if it is right to call the efferent component, "the
will." There are a lot of terms
used for this concept, often poorly defined (probably because of the circular
argument problem). I think this
component might also be analogous to what some refer to as human "agency". Or, from a spiritual standpoint, it might be
proper to call it the "spirit" of a person. Or even "heart." Whatever you call it, it is the seat of moral
responsibility. The existence of
"the will" is why we can hold human beings responsible for their own
actions in a manner different than a dog or a worm or a computer. Whatever you call it, the general content of
our moral decision-making (what kind of a person we are), and the
implementation of those moral decisions, is established in this component.
How is "the
will" or "agency" established in each human? Are we born with it? Is it set by God? Is it just random chance? This line of thinking, which ends with the
idea that you'd have to create your own self in order to have free will, is, in
my opinion, a very tough argument for libertarians like me to counter. It's a body blow that I have to absorb
because I can't answer that question.
I take some solace in the fact that the concept of God has the same
issue. Did God create Himself? If not, then how did He come into being and
who decided what God's character was going to be like? When it comes to God, of course, we simply
say that God had no beginning - He always was.
There is no question that God has free will <well…actually, see
here>. So did God freely choose His
character? There's no answer to
that. I have an idea about the
infinitesimal "beginning" of human free will, but that will have to
wait for some future entry. But I don't
reject the idea of God just because I can’t answer these questions because, in
many ways, this whole mystery (how did God create Himself?) is exactly what makes God, God. In the same way, the conundrum of
"creating yourself" is exactly what makes free will, free. Like Blaise Pascal, I like this mystery. To me it is exciting. More mysterious and exciting and even
"spooky" than quantum entanglement!
I will
just say one thing with respect to the question "are we born with
it?" in relation to our free will.
I think there are a lot of reasons to believe that this part of the soul
grows and matures, roughly analogous
to physical development. I think that
the maturing of the soul could provide an explanation for why we persist in
thinking there is some kind of "age of accountability" for
humans. This is a common difficulty in
raising kids. At what point are they
responsible for their own actions and should be punished or praised
accordingly? There is certainly nothing
that happens outwardly that indicates a sudden transition from "not
accountable" to "fully accountable." At some age, kids are "tried as
adults." We pick ages
(5...12...18...etc.) for this "transition" because we have no other
means of making this determination. But
some kids seem to mature quicker than others.
And what about kids with mental disabilities? One size doesn’t fit all, but we don’t have
good options. These are all good
questions, and a soul - specifically a "will" - that grows and
matures over time provides part of a framework for understanding how to address
these questions.
Remember
that in my theory of the soul, the efferent system is generally exercised in a
manner that is sparse, infrequent, and
weak. This is partly what I was
trying to point out in my entry on "It's a Dog's Life." The brain can run on its own without
requiring input from the Efferent System of the Soul, and, I think most of our
life operates "physically."
Thus, when we start digging into how the soul actually influences the
brain, the mechanics of this influence have to take the "weak and
infrequent" nature into account.
However, when we focus on character qualities that are uniquely human -
say something like forgiveness or even altruism - we expect the soul is
involved. That's where we should expect
to see the action of the immaterial soul on the physical brain.
I'm going
to stop here with this initial description because this takes me back to my
purpose: to present a theory of the soul
that is consistent with neuroscience and scripture. The key thing is that the Efferent System of
the soul is the one concept where science could have real explanatory power. Specifically, I claim the soul exists in each
person and is influencing neurons (albeit infrequently). That concept can theoretically be subjected
to experimentation. If my hypothesis is
correct, then this soul-neuron interaction is happening in every human being who
is alive at this very moment. Thus, there
are lots of potential study subjects! At
the very least, neuroscience can establish significant guidelines as to where,
when, how, etc. this interaction could happen.
That’s why, for me, it is important to have a theory that fits both the Christian concept of a soul but also fits within the guidelines established by neuroscience.
And now
on to the third major component of the soul:
processing and memory.
