# Scientific perspective on the soul **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512 "2014-03-12T04:00:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/61 "2014-03-13T06:03:57Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Sure, there’s one aspect which never changes – the continuity of self-awareness. Every day, “you” are “you” and “I” am “I”. Aside from alcoholic blackouts or Hollywood-style amnesia, that part of the mind’s conscious self-awareness never changes, as far as anyone can determine. > > How’s that for a starting point? Is it acceptable to define “the soul” as that, and that alone? Not really, your senses never change to other “senses” and the you are you assumption is not always correct, people mistake people for other people all the time. This is just an exercise of confirmation bias. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/62 "2014-03-13T06:19:35Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Sure, there’s one aspect which never changes – the continuity of self-awareness. Every day, “you” are “you” and “I” am “I”. Aside from alcoholic blackouts or Hollywood-style amnesia, that part of the mind’s conscious self-awareness never changes, as far as anyone can determine. > > How’s that for a starting point? Is it acceptable to define “the soul” as that, and that alone? It seems to me we change from moment to moment, both our physical makeup and our life experiences and other aspects of our being or personality. That there is an underlying “self” is an illusion derived from our access to memories. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/63 "2014-03-13T06:21:12Z")
> [@mandala](#): > > - Does science believe there is something akin to a soul, as described by most religious traditions? Science is an abstraction. It does not believe anything. “Scientists” would have to collect some data on the soul to comment scientifically. psik ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/64 "2014-03-13T06:26:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > A scientist would likely also be the first to recognize that we are not qualitatively different than any other of nature’s creatures, but different only in degree. To quote again the words of Clifford Geertz, “Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance [that only] he himself has spun.” A scientist would also likely be the first to recognize that such beliefs are matters of faith, and that matters of faith have their genesis in fears and longings, hopes and wishes that we are both special and specially protected, and not in rational evidence. We get hungry and thirsty and warm and cold just like others animals. We see, hear, inhale and exhale, eat and drink, digest and metabolize our food, have sex and conceive young and raise them, age and die, and even eliminate waste the same ways as animals. Of course we are animals. The question is what sort of animal. Are animals sentient? Most are (at least among mammals and birds) in that they experience their world via qualia and respond via a combination of instinct and emotion. It is said we are intelligent, and this is true in some ways but in other ways one wonders if maybe we have defined “intelligent” to fit us. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/65 "2014-03-13T06:35:11Z")
> [@sunstone](#): > > The concept of a soul lies outside of the basic areas addressed by science, just as the idea of God and heaven. That’s not true; they “are outside of science” _because they don’t exist,_ not because there’s anything inherently untestable about them. If they _did_ exist there’s no reason to assume that they or other “supernatural” things would be untestable by science. Historically in fact many believers both scientists and non-scientists assumed that many such religious beliefs would be testable and provable - they only retreated to the “beyond science” position when science kept disproving their religions. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/66 "2014-03-13T06:39:49Z")
Descartes said the soul is housed in the pituitary gland. As far as I know this has never been tested, and I can think of ways it might be. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/67 "2014-03-13T06:44:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s not true; they “are outside of science” _because they don’t exist,_ not because there’s anything inherently untestable about them… Doesn’t lack of existence make them untestable? But then maybe it just means we haven’t gotten the technology to do the test yet. When did the van Allen belts come into existence? Did they not exist because we had not found them yet? psik ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/68 "2014-03-13T06:50:30Z")
I don’t think it’s possible or desirable to define what can be tested by science and what cannot; the tendency in the West to do this is just so scientists can be polite to religionists. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/69 "2014-03-13T07:45:10Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Sure, there’s one aspect which never changes – the continuity of self-awareness. The continuity is a lie. Dennett goes into this in some detail in _Consciousness Explained_, but basically the continuity of your state at any single point in time is an unbound lie you tell yourself, based on your memories and also your internal states - all _post hoc_. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/70 "2014-03-13T08:01:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The continuity is a lie. Dennett goes into this in some detail in _Consciousness Explained_, but basically the continuity of your state at any single point in time is an unbound lie you tell yourself, based on your memories and also your internal states - all _post hoc_. In other words, [Last Thursdayism?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Last_Thursdayism) ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/71 "2014-03-13T09:17:02Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The continuity is a lie. Dennett goes into this in some detail in _Consciousness Explained_, but basically the continuity of your state at any single point in time is an unbound lie you tell yourself, based on your memories and also your internal states - all _post hoc_. I wouldn’t say the continuity is a lie but only an illusion; there is a reality that generates it. It is just that people misinterpret the chain of consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/72 "2014-03-13T10:17:50Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > I wouldn’t say the continuity is a lie but only an illusion; same-same. Lies-to-self are still lies. > [@](#): > > there is a reality that generates it. A multiplicity of realities, actually. > [@](#): > > It is just that people misinterpret the chain of consciousness. There is no “chain” - that’s not a misinterpretation, it’s completely wrong. It’s a web, not a chain. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/73 "2014-03-13T10:18:56Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > In other words, [Last Thursdayism?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Last_Thursdayism) In a personal sense, kind of, yes. But I prefer to think of it as an ever-refreshing narrative that acknowledges and pays homage to its predecessors. We are _pastiche_. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/74 "2014-03-13T10:39:58Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Sure, there’s one aspect which never changes – the continuity of self-awareness. Every day, “you” are “you” and “I” am “I”. Aside from alcoholic blackouts or Hollywood-style amnesia, that part of the mind’s conscious self-awareness never changes, as far as anyone can determine. > > How’s that for a starting point? Is it acceptable to define “the soul” as that, and that alone? Hang on a mo; why are we skipping the two things you’ve mentioned? The application of drugs and physical damage to the brain both would seem to fall under Voyager’s point that it’s parts of the brain that personality seems to arise from. Affecting the matter shouldn’t alter who “I” am unless “I” am a construct of that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/75 "2014-03-13T10:51:55Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > same-same. Lies-to-self are still lies.A multiplicity of realities, actually.There is no “chain” - that’s not a misinterpretation, it’s completely wrong. It’s a web, not a chain. Sheesh you know how to nitpick. You know what I mean and can’t correct it but do anyway. I am not impressed. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/76 "2014-03-13T11:01:56Z")
When we sit quietly and “watch” our minds function (actually just recall the state our mind was in a moment ago) we observe thoughts, emotions, incoming sensations, memories, all in a loosely connected (somewhat causation driven but somewhat random too). We call this the chain of consciousness although as has been pointed out “net” seems a better description. It is not a soul nor any sort of homunculus, or a self. It is a process – like a wave – perpetuating itself or being perpetuated in some other way. It also constantly changes, but we nevertheless perceive personality there – that the way our mind goes differs from how other minds go – but this personality too constantly changes, we suppose because of life events. This is what we perceive: that there is brain stuff (neurons firing and neurochemicals being moved about) modern science I guess “tells” us, but the links they have proposed, while intriguing, leave a lot unanswered, and seemingly unanswerable (especially how brain creates the experiences we call qualia). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/77 "2014-03-13T11:02:21Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Sheesh you know how to nitpick. :dubious: Says the guy who started off by correcting _me_ > [@](#): > > You know what I mean and can’t correct it but do anyway. I can correct it, you just don’t like that I did. > [@](#): > > I am not impressed. And I should _care_ about impressing your newbie self because…? ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/78 "2014-03-13T11:28:26Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > :dubious: Says the guy who started off by correcting _me_I can correct it, you just don’t like that I did.And I should _care_ about impressing your newbie self because…? Mmm. You perceive that I corrected you about something, so you scrutinize everything I post so you can find something to “correct,” even if it has to be invented or just a nit? ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/79 "2014-03-13T14:28:41Z")
Welcome to the internets, where we take sentences out of context. Try emphasis mine, it is more genuine. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/80 "2014-03-13T14:33:54Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Mmm. Hrmm. > [@](#): > > You perceive that I corrected you about something, so you scrutinize everything I post so you can find something to “correct,” even if it has to be invented or just a nit? Nope. Nice try, though, but no - I disagreed with you drawing a distinction between lies and illusions, when it came to personality. That’s not “picking nits”, that’s disagreeing that it needed correcting in the first place. “Lies” covered it quite well. Yes, they are illusions, but illusions _are_ lies. Perhaps you’d agree to settle on the word “deception” as a middle? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512.md?page=5)