Have We Evolved a Soul?

[jimmydasaint]

This is a simple thought without any heavyweight, or even lightweight, external validation. We know that the concept of soul is widespread in most religions. However, if you believe that evolution required neither a Divine 'push' and occurred as the result of a chain of rare accidents, then how would you regard the concept of soul?

 

I am happy to define a soul in the following terms:

 

1. The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

2. A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

 

Dictionary

 

IMHO, I see what I personally think to be the manifestations of a soul, the following: compassion, empathy, love, hate...

So, the love I have for my children and the fact that I hate the unjust comes from a source other than pure rationality.

 

However, if you believe in the primacy of evolution without a Creator, then is it a must that you believe that no human, including yourself has a soul?

 

Any views?

Edited September 3, 2011 by jimmydasaint

[The Skilled Noob]

I've already heard of what you are suggesting and guess how much proof there is of it? NONE ZIP NOT NOTTAOJDSOJSOD NEIN

[ydoaPs]

Yes, we have a soul and it is made of thousands of tiny robots.

[Greatest I am]

Yes.

I think we have evolved a soul.

I also hold a firm belief in a cosmic consciousness that evolve from the first true human.

This cosmic consciousness has no choice but to accept all of us our souls, after death, but does have a choice in accepting some before death if the conditions are right.

A quick visit, so to speak.

Like all apotheosis or things of the spiritua realm, I have no proof to offer.

 

Regards

DL

[jimmydasaint]

I've already heard of what you are suggesting and guess how much proof there is of it? NONE ZIP NOT NOTTAOJDSOJSOD NEIN

 

I did not suggest any proof at all. There is no clear, absolute proof for many phenomena that we see. I am asking the question do we have a soul? Now, if you believe in the evidence for evolution of organisms through a selectionist/genetic drift explanation which is a part of the Modern Synthesis, then you should arrive at a conclusion where you can see consciousness and the manifestations of a brain that seems to be working on a feedback and feed-forward mechnism.

 

As a believer, which I am, the whole of one's life is about nurturing the soul and improving it for its journey into the afterlife. The domain of religion is the soul.

 

However, in this esteemed forum, the emphasis is on the hypothetico-deductive method and the evidence built up as a result. There is no scientific evidence of a soul, so the ineluctable conclusion that a scientist must reach is that he is a soulless but conscious creature, just like any lion, giraffe or snail.

 

I hope you can give me an answer on this point

 

Yes.

I think we have evolved a soul.

I also hold a firm belief in a cosmic consciousness that evolve from the first true human.

This cosmic consciousness has no choice but to accept all of us our souls, after death, but does have a choice in accepting some before death if the conditions are right.

A quick visit, so to speak.

Like all apotheosis or things of the spiritual realm, I have no proof to offer.

 

Regards

DL

 

Thanks for the thoughts. There were plants and animals before humans. Why did the Cosmic Consciousness not accept their souls or consciousness and incorporate it into itself? This seems pretty 'Hegelian' to me as if we are heading towards a fixed end as a species. Thanks for the contribution. Jimmy

 

 

.

Edited September 4, 2011 by jimmydasaint

[DevilSolution]

I've already heard of what you are suggesting and guess how much proof there is of it? NONE ZIP NOT NOTTAOJDSOJSOD NEIN

 

 

2. A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

 

sure, this is provable, the great thing is within this definition your "soul" could be bad, because ovcourse not everyone follows religious doctrines for morals and hence ones morals can act according to the *greedy algorithm* or even the old testament which as we should all know isnt exactly the greatest moral path finder. This would certainly provide evidence for us evolving a *soul* because almost every human attribute can be dissected from how we evolved, according to science the brain evolved a moral tendency and an emotional area of the brain to help us survive as a species.

 

the above has zilch to do with religion but everything to do with science, and weather or not 2. is an agreeable definition of a soul is debatable, but im not debating it, im showing the skilled noob the proof of the pudding.

 

number 1 has no place in science, one item is not material and material simultaneously and thats an "idea", ideas are infinite but have nothing to do with religion.

 

perhaps a more appropriate definition of a soul is that we encompass idea's that have no proof within the place holder of "god" therefor the soul could simply be the creation of the "idea" and any "idea" that cant be proven at the present moment in time would go into the soul. Where and how we became imaginative and creative is a totally different ball game.

Edited September 7, 2011 by DevilSolution

[chilehed]

Can rocks become conscious if you make a big enough pile of them?

[DevilSolution]

Can rocks become conscious if you make a big enough pile of them?

 

what's your thought?

 

[Greatest I am]

 

However, in this esteemed forum, the emphasis is on the hypothetico-deductive method and the evidence built up as a result. There is no scientific evidence of a soul, so the ineluctable conclusion that a scientist must reach is that he is a soulless but conscious creature, just like any lion, giraffe or snail.

 

I do not know of any scientist who would make such a definitive statement without proof and at the same time, fall for a logical fallacy.

 

It is impossible to show that man is without a soul. Just like it is impossible to prove that there is no God

 

 

I hope you can give me an answer on this point

 

 

 

Thanks for the thoughts. There were plants and animals before humans. Why did the Cosmic Consciousness not accept their souls or consciousness and incorporate it into itself? This seems pretty 'Hegelian' to me as if we are heading towards a fixed end as a species. Thanks for the contribution. Jimmy

 

 

.

 

What makes you think that the lower consciousness would be discernable under the consciousness of mankind. I would think that, if there, we just match what would be there and could not discern it as a lower form. Don’t get me wrong. Neither one of us can know the answer to this one. While in apotheosis. I did not discern a lower consciousness than man’s.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[jimmydasaint]

I do not know of any scientist who would make such a definitive statement without proof and at the same time, fall for a logical fallacy.

 

It is impossible to show that man is without a soul. Just like it is impossible to prove that there is no God

 

IMHO it is very tempting for scientists to draw that conclusion and consider all mental processes as epiphenomena (including the emotions) so that all can be attributed to chemical processes emerging from the raging chemical sea of the brain. I think Near Death Experience experiments could be a way to explore the idea of a soul separating from the physical with which it has been intersticed up to the point of 'death'. However these experiments could be regarded as pseudoscience.

Soul Experiment

 

What makes you think that the lower consciousness would be discernable under the consciousness of mankind. I would think that, if there, we just match what would be there and could not discern it as a lower form. Don’t get me wrong. Neither one of us can know the answer to this one. While in apotheosis. I did not discern a lower consciousness than man’s.

 

Well, for one, can we discard the spiritual experiences of tribal people as any less than the followers of Abrahamic faiths? For example, who is to say that shamans are not in contact with animal spirit guides? Without proof, surely their claim of a consciousness consisting of ancestors and animal spirits is as valid as your claim, or mine?

Shamans

 

Regards

Jimmy

[Greatest I am]

IMHO it is very tempting for scientists to draw that conclusion and consider all mental processes as epiphenomena (including the emotions) so that all can be attributed to chemical processes emerging from the raging chemical sea of the brain. I think Near Death Experience experiments could be a way to explore the idea of a soul separating from the physical with which it has been intersticed up to the point of 'death'. However these experiments could be regarded as pseudoscience.

Soul Experiment

 

 

 

Well, for one, can we discard the spiritual experiences of tribal people as any less than the followers of Abrahamic faiths? For example, who is to say that shamans are not in contact with animal spirit guides? Without proof, surely their claim of a consciousness consisting of ancestors and animal spirits is as valid as your claim, or mine?

Shamans

 

Regards

Jimmy

 

 

Believing in a cosmic consciousness, I have no problem with thinking that the ancient shaman were in contact with the same entity that I found.

 

Why rely on animal guides when human ones sre available?

 

Animals, while intelligent, are not particularly bright. Man is.

 

 

The God they found though is not of the same description as what I found.

 

I think that the ancients, in their ignorance, added on way too many imaginary attributes.

 

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Mrs Zeta]

It may be possible to conciliate the spiritual concept of the soul with biology/evolution.

 

The definition of the soul in this topic was given as:

 

1. The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

2. A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

 

This would include qualities such as envy, doubt, irony, truth, fame, reason, laugther, devotion, awe etc. All of these are based upon biological/anatomical qualities of the brain.It has to be, as there is no other explanation for these It may be that there is not enough proof to explan the mechanism of each one of these qualities, yet. But I can see no reason why a scientific explanation wouldn't be offered soon.

 

I wonder: Why is soul immortal? What makes it to be immortal, when everything in nature is not immortal? Would forthcoming technologica developments play a role in defining and explaining a concept that we can only currently describe using foggy terms?

[jimmydasaint]

It may be possible to conciliate the spiritual concept of the soul with biology/evolution.

 

The definition of the soul in this topic was given as:

 

1. The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

2. A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

 

This would include qualities such as envy, doubt, irony, truth, fame, reason, laugther, devotion, awe etc. All of these are based upon biological/anatomical qualities of the brain.It has to be, as there is no other explanation for these It may be that there is not enough proof to explan the mechanism of each one of these qualities, yet. But I can see no reason why a scientific explanation wouldn't be offered soon.

 

I wonder: Why is soul immortal? What makes it to be immortal, when everything in nature is not immortal? Would forthcoming technological developments play a role in defining and explaining a concept that we can only currently describe using foggy terms?

 

I admire your hope that scientific studies of the brain can offer an explanation for the qualities that you have listed. However, my one criticism would be to ask where one would look? Although the brain can be mapped in terms of active genome (total number of active genes), proteome (total array of proteins produced) or metabolome (complete set of metabolites), from where do envy, doubt or laughter arise? I suspect we are looking at two levels of organisation and I would offer the opinion, and analogy, of taking apart the engine of a Lamborghini to find out where the roar comes from, only to find that the complete car must be seen in a holistic manner and the pedal pressed down to feel the noise.

 

I suspect that the immortal nature of the soul is a definition arrived at from religious people and has been heavily influenced by Christianity and Roman pagan beliefs of the soul and an afterlife. I think that you believe that Science will demystify the soul as a by-product of an active brain and therefore the soul is a 'luxury' belief. I do not believe this myself, but have clarified my position in the OP. Thanks for the answer.

Edited September 10, 2011 by jimmydasaint

[Mrs Zeta]

I know where the roar of the Lamborghini comes from, and how it is created (friction of mechanical parts, air flow through certain tubes etc). But I don't know where it goes in the sence that once created, a roar (soul in the analogy) remains 'somewhere'. A simple traditional example is the violin (body) and music (soul). When the violin is broken, where does the music 'reside'? But in both examples the roar and the music are created by something physical in the first place.

[questionposter]

Even with a dictionary, we cannot concretely define these things. Based on the fact that you can view your own consciousness and body's subconscious both objectively as well as ll the difficulty when trying to find it in scientific experiments, this whole "soul" and "spirit" and "consciousness" thing is way more complex than we have knowledge for. If there are no mystical forces, then this whole thing is likely mechanical-like, but not in the sense that it's "this chemical reaction automatically triggers that, which will trigger that", it's more complex than that, it's not just some "robotic" programming.

[questionposter]

Even with a dictionary, we cannot concretely define these things. Based on the fact that you can view your own consciousness and body's subconscious both objectively as well as the difficulty when trying to find things like a "soul" scientific experiments, this whole "soul" and "spirit" and "consciousness" thing is way more complex than we have knowledge for. If there are no mystical forces or etc. which I don't think there is, then this whole thing is likely mechanical-like, but not in the sense that it's "this chemical reaction automatically triggers that, which will trigger that", it's more complex than that, it's not just some "robotic" programming.

Edited October 22, 2011 by questionposter