Is There Scientific Evidence Of A Soul?
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2006
by Josh Greenberger
Is There Scientific Evidence Of A Soul?
Is everything really explainable by scie
Or does the human body show physical evidence of a Divine Origin?
The axiom a "whole is equal to the sum of its parts" holds true in physics and mathematics as well as biology. It seems so logical that one wonders why such an axiom even needs to be postulated. But is it really all that logical? There is a case in which the sum of an entity's parts do not seem to add up to its whole. No, I'm not talking about black holes, quantum particles, virus mutations or * infomercials. I'm talking about the human being. The biological components of the homosapien do not seem to add up to what we call the human being.
Strictly on a biological level, it all gives the impression of fitting together very nicely. For example, we all know that the heart pumps blood, and it is usually strain or the deprivation of oxygen to this natural pump that results in heart attacks. By the same token, it is the deprivation of oxygen to the brain which can lead to a stroke or even death. The components which come into play here become more obvious upon a more detailed analysis of the circulatory system.
The heart consists basically of four chambers -- the right and left atriums, and the right and left ventricles. The heart's function is to keep the blood oxygenated by pumping it past the lungs, which absorb oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. Although beating approximately 2.5 billion times in an average lifetime is quite an amazing feat, how the heart accomplishes its task is not at all that mysterious. The heart's components -- chambers, veins, arteries, etc. -- propel the circulatory system, a mechanical process which we quite readily understand.
Similarly, the liver, our largest organ, serves as the body's chemical factory. Some of the chemicals it produces are: albumin, which regulates the exchange of water between blood and tissues -- complement, proteins which help the immune system fight infection -- coagulation factors, which help the blood clot when blood vessels are damaged -- globin, a part of the pigment known as hemoglobin, which carries oxygen throughout the body. In addition, the liver produces cholesterol and special proteins that help carry fats around the body.
This is of course an oversimplified description of an extremely complex organ. In fact, the liver's complexities make a practical artificial liver a lot farther from reality than an artificial heart. Yet, in spite of its complexities, the liver's basic functions are not really great mysteries. That is, although precisely how the liver produces and regulates the body's chemistry may still be far from understood, the notion of producing chemicals or regulating circulating fluids are not exactly mystical concepts. Such chemical functions are performed on a daily basis in laboratories and in many man-made devices.
To sum it up, what the above two organs have in common is that in their cases the "whole is equal to the sum of its parts" -- i.e their underlying mechanical principles work satisfactorily as a whole within the context of the living body as well as isolated components within a laboratory setting.
The brain, however, is a little different. The brain and spinal cord comprise the central nervous system, and control virtually every vital function of the body -- thought, speech, heart beat, breathing, body temperature, etc. It is believed that the cerebral cortex (the outer portion of the cerebrum) is where movement, sensation, memory and perception, among other things, are processed. Some of these functions are similar to those of other organs in the sense that, in spite of their awesome complexity, their mechanical processes have parallels in man-made objects or in the laboratory.
Computers are excellent examples of how huge amounts of data and images can be stored and transferred in man-made objects. Electrical impulses are utilized in both computers and the brain, although their processes may not necessarily be identical. So, with respect to the purely mechanical process of memory and the transmission of data or impulses, the brain and nervous system hold no great mysteries. As with the liver, the precise processes employed by the brain may be far from understood, but man understands many of the functions performed and has in some cases reproduced their effects.
But this is where the familiarity with the brain ends. After all the sophistication and miracles of modern medicine, biology and biogenetics, the concept of intellect remains a total mystery. There is no substance known to man, either within the human body or the lab, that will produce intellect. To scan the brain, as some scientists have done, with an imaging device and track down the parts of the brain that come into play under certain intellectual pursuits is not the same as isolating a substance that produces intellect. We may know that the brain is the seat of the intellect, but that says nothing about what intellect is or what substance, if any, produces it. A rough analogy might be, determining what part of an engine contains combustion says nothing about how fuel is produced or where it comes from.
Upon dissection of the human brain, aside from some jelly-type matter, nerve fibers and perhaps neurotransmitters, all of which come into play in our thought and motor functions, there emerges not a shred of evidence of a substance that produces a sense of humor, the appreciation of art, or the ability to differentiate between good and evil. Even if not the precise method, at least a clue as to how these human qualities are produced would, I think, have been in order at this advanced stage of the twenty-first century. But nothing! Zilch! This seems to fly in the face of the principle a "whole is equal to the sum of its parts:" whereas the human brain seems to be the seat of consciousness, its biological components do not seem to possess the potential of producing such a quality.
Is it possible that "consciousness" actualy is a separate entity and has no physical roots? And can it's effect on humans be taken as proof that such an entity exists? "Black holes," despite the fact that they cannot be directly detected, are universally accepted as science.
A black hole in astronomy is a celestial object of such extremely intense gravity that it attracts everything near it and prevents even light from escaping. Because light and other forms of energy and matter are permanently trapped inside a black hole, it can never be observed directly. It can only be detected by the effect of its gravitational field on nearby objects. Yet, as undetectable as they are, black holes are considered as real and as scientific as planets and stars.
In the same way, consciousness can be "proven" to have its own existence by the effect it has on humans, giving them qualities such as reasoning abilities, appreciation of art, humor, etc. Unlike a black hole, however, since we cannot prove the existence of any physical substance or process that can produce such features, consciousness takes on a unique existence -- an effect without a physical origin. Call it what you will, but this precisely coincides with the age-old concept of a "soul."
I realize that a soul in itself may not be a scientific concept. But when you can prove its features and qualities as surely as you can prove a black hole's effect on its environment, you have effectively proven its existence. Unlike a black hole, it's origin does not appear to be physical, but, very much like a black hole, it definitely reveals itself within its environment.
Unscientific, at this point, would be to deny that an entity exists that gives human beings their unique intellectual features. There is no question that it exists. The only question is, what do you call it? If "soul" is to religious sounding for you, call it what you will, but there is definitely something at work here that is not of a physical nature.
If you don't believe a "soul" has been proven here, you may want to start questioning things like black holes. Nobody will prove them to you any better.
by Josh Greenberger
from shopndrop.com
This Article has been viewed 10,521 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsSo basically it can be concluded that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a soul, but there is also no complete scientific evidence against its existence.
Much like anything in science, findings can be disproven or elaborated upon. The major problem with the people of this world is that everyone thinks they know the truth - when really none of us do.
Atheists do not believe in God, however - the existence of God cannot concretely be disproven.
Although I believe science has the best idea of what's really going on, I am not entirely opposed to the notion that we might be wrong, that everything I know might be false. This is what it is to exist.
The way I see it, the brain could be like a car, and the soul the driver.
Just because we can see certain parts of the brain operate under certain conditions, that does not make them the thing responsible. If a car is moving, and something is in front of it, it will go around it, and although you will see the wheels move to accommodate this, it will be the driver who is responsible for the wheels doing this.
Also, when a car is faulty, there may be certain things that it cannot do, such as if the steering mechanism is broken, no matter how much the driver tries to move the steering wheel, it can still not cause the car to turn, and the similar is with the brain and the human body, if the body is damaged, then even if the soul would like to make something happen, it may not be able to make it happen, due to the damaged or faulty part of the body.
"The biological components of the homosapien do not seem to add up to what we call the human being." -- I should say "Huh?" at this point, but I actually do follow your line of reasoning.
The human being has a rich interior (psychic) life, and more than that, his psychic life is demonstrable in the artifacts of what we call civilization. So, if you were to operationally define the soul as consisting of what we make, the relationships we form, what we think, imagine, and can even put into action, then why not call that a soul? I think in some ways you make a good case for the existence of a soul.
Yeah, and by the way, don't bother replying under "anonymous," it negatively impacts your credibility.I do call it soul. But some people have a problem with the word soul. So I say call it what you want; but it's what makes humans what they are.
Josh
Yes, really. Like I said. it's too long of a discussion for this space. I realize this doesn't answer anything. But I really don't have the time to get into it.
Josh
black holes evidence was actually the the lack thereof any evidence as if it was just a void in space... well it is anyway. not that im saying we don't have a soul im simply pointing out your flaw in your argument. we haven't discovered what intellect even "is" and therefor cannot point out what evidence or lack of evidence adds up to it... we do know what a void of light/radiation is and therefor can hypothesize as to why it is there... intellect could simply be a series of cause and effect decisions based on past knowledge just like a processor decoding 101101001
I myself believe in a soul don't get me wrong I just think your argument is wrong...
Everything is energy, which is what Quantum Physics says. So if we go by this science, we are all light particles and the body is just a condensed form of it. Definitely, it will take science a long time to arrive at this conclusion about the soul, or the "life force" or the light that acts as the electric current to this body. There are many things which cannot be explained like yogis who can go into a suspended state of consciousness for hours, days, weeks, months or years. Some yogis can stop their heartbeat while they are consciously talking to people. This has been personally tested by American scientists when Swami Rama gave himself for observation. Nice article. Thank you.
Sadly there is so much BS concerning the soul online that really confuses you more than anything else! I have to admit, this gentlemen explained it in a way that is objective and makes sense..Thank you!!
Forrest Iwaszewski
I'm an agnostic and I see both points of view. I am not convinced either way, but I do laugh a little when I hear die hard athiests (who can be as dogmatic as the zealous Christians) when they say that there isn't any evidence and that people believe because they are afraid. Honestly, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. Nothing has been proven yet and probably never will be, because a spiritual world just doesn't seem like something that is provable. But there are reportedly millions who have had detailed near death experiences and out of body experiences. Research near death experiences. It's very interesting. These people have very similar experiences which lead to the determination that it is either a function of the brain at death or something spiritual. Many people claim to be able to see the future and talk to dead people. Not all of them are fakes as I have personally known some who claim this ability and are very impressive and who are also very genuine people. And lastly, there are the experiences that every day people have, like seeing a spirit yourself, being warned of something in a dream that turns out to come true, being near a family member as they lay dying and listening to them experience a death bed vision where they see their dead sister telling them it's their time. So yes, these experiences may be tricks of the mind, or processes in our brain, or any number of other logical explanations, but don't sit there and tell me that human beings don't have a logical basis for their beliefs. They experience and therefore they believe that what they experience is the truth. Experience is really all that we have, and I guarantee that someone who has had a near death experience would tell you they have all the proof the need. And really, isn't it you then that has the explaining to do.Excellently put. Just to add a little --
An adamant disbelief in God (when it's obvious someone had to create all this) often comes from a desire to live a life without accountability; all the proofs and reasoning will not work.
On the other hand, since free will (and choosing the right path) is the whole point of creation, proof generally comes after an honest search; you often have to work for it.
As a wise Jewish sage once said: For a believer, there are no questions; for a disbeliever, there are no answers.
I respect that you have religious beliefs, but as this is a debate I can't help but voice my beliefs.
"An adamant disbelief in God (when it's obvious someone had to create all this) often comes from a desire to live a life without accountability; all the proofs and reasoning will not work."
This is completely wrong. There is no obviousness about it at all. In fact the concept of God is impossible (in my opinion). A sentient conciousness is so because it learns and identifies itself through others and their perceptions. You literately learn how to be you through your experiences and to an extent, genetics. If there is only one god who knows all, he wouldn't have gone through the process that creates your personality, he'd be nothing more than a database. Further more to suggest that someone had to have created the world is a contradition. Fine, god created the world, who created God? If it's so logical that someone created us and the world, why is it not logical that god was created. To suggest that us and the world had to have been created but God is eternal and all knowing is completely flawed. To suggest that he existed first, but you had to have been created. That just doesn't make sense. You see the contradiction.
Although you probably wouldn't thinks so after the last paragraph, I actually believe in the human soul. Well, I'm leaning towards that belief anyway. But I have absolutely no belief in God.
I could be wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence (at all) or arguement that supports God.
My last point has to be concerning the "living without accountability" comment. Come on, you know this isn't true. There are laws that enforce accountability. And that aside, I am a moral person without a criminal record who doesn't mean anyone harm at all. And it is in no way fueled by a punishment/reward that I might get when I die.
Before I incur endless abuse for this post though, I would like to say that I mean no disrespect and in no way mean to offend anyone. I simply wanted to post my opinion.
Cheers,
Al
You got the Axiom wrong. In a linear system -- where the parts don't interact -- the "Whole is equal to the sum of the parts" (like in math.) In non linear-systems -- biological ones, like "livers" (lots of interaction going on there) -- the "Whole is greater than the sum of the parts." There is no complex brain without the complex system of organs and tissue that it supports and supports it. The human body is one big interactive system. No complex brains without complex bodies. You’re right that you oversimplified.
Consciousness is an emergent process of brains. Consciousness without a brain is not known to exist.
Black holes were predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observing their effects on other stellar bodies.
What are the "observed effects" of souls that prove their existence?
You've offered up a selection of analogies that in no way prove the existence of a soul.
You also present bold non-scientific erroneous unsupported assertions, and logical fallacies in your post as well, but I really don't have time to get into it right now."but I really don't have time to get into it right now."
If your other observations show the same lack of understanding of this article as you've shown so far, do yourself a favor and don't list any more.
Hey Platt, Ad hominem is an attempt to derail the debate without addressing the issues. The only thing to understand in this article is that it is full of equivocations, bad analogies, circular reasoning, over simplification, begging the question, and false facts, to name some of the fallacies. Tell me, do you really understand Josh's post? Does this "article" really seem like a sound argument being presented?
Btw, I was putting the kids to bed, so I didn't have the time. Now I do. What's your take on the subject of "souls?" and "The whole being the sum of the parts?"I understand Josh's article quite well and it makes a lot of sense. It's your response that I don't understand and I doubt if you have any idea what you're talking about. You seem to have a smooth way of saying nothing:
You say, "Consciousness is an emergent process of brains."
What the gibberish does that mean? (That's a rhetorical question; it doesn't mean a damn thing.)
You talk utter nonsense and want someone to respond to the specifics of your "arguments?" Make some sense, maybe you'll get a sensible response.
Here's what I think of your response to the article: It's circular reasoning, over simplification, false facts, short sighted, and missing the point.
See how easy it is to just throw out derogatory remarks? How about some substances?
The article cited facts and logic to back up it's arguments. You, on the other hand, try to make a point with completely nonsensical statements then you add a bunch of meaningless invectives as if that helps your nonexistent argument. What planet are from: Planet phoniuous?
Hey, AdrianWBourne ---
"What are the "observed effects" of souls that prove their existence?"
You're a thinking human being.
Boy this article really flew way over you head. How small are you?
You say "Ad hominem is an attempt to derail the debate without addressing the issues." Then you add "this article is ... full of equivocations, bad analogies, circular reasoning, over simplification, begging the question, and false facts, to name some of the fallacies."
You haven't substantiated any of your claims, then you do exactly what you're accusing the author of. How insincere can you get?
The author has substantiated his claims in an entire article. So instead of addressing any of his issues you go into the semantics of "linear systems," when the author's issue with "parts" and "wholes" were just meant as an introduction to the article and not a substantiation of anything. So in addition to insincerity, we're now talking of just plain pettiness.
Furthermore, in no system is a whole ever more than its parts. It may produce more work as a whole, or it may cause more to come into the system, but in the end if you take it apart you will find whatever parts are present at the time of disassembling (unless the disassembling process causes something additional to be lost or added).
Not so with the intellect. Intellect seems to be present in a human being when he's whole, but no matter how you dissect him you never find the intellect or any substance that caused it. What part of this is beyond YOUR intellect? Maybe with you its' different. Maybe in your case the intellect isn't there even when you're in one piece.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.