# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/161 "2014-03-21T04:32:38Z")
> [@mandala](#): > > That is assuming that consciousness is somehow representative of life. It is not. A brain dead person with no EEG can be kept alive for long periods; such cases have shown the ability to regulate metabolism and other activities you would associate with “life”. Primitive lifeforms are fully alive with no/rudimentary nervous system. They are incapable of conscious self-awareness, but nevertheless fully alive. So what makes them alive? In the OP you were talking about sentient organisms having a “soul.” Now it seems that somehow you are alleging anything that is alive has a soul. But really, I don’t think your questions or posts so far have been sufficiently coherent to have a worthwhile discussion with you on the subject. Your ideas seem to be very confused. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/162 "2014-03-21T10:39:18Z")
> [@mandala](#): > > Every religion I have read about (Eastern and Western) talk about every sentient organism having a ‘soul’. It is one thing all religions seem to agree on - everyone has a soul, and something happens to it upon death. The most developed / abstract philosophical systems (Hindu Vedanta, Madhyamika Buddhism) teach that the soul only exists at a transactional level; the fundamental reality being that individual souls are merely reflections of the ‘universal soul’, aka God/Isvara. > > But no system I know of denies the existence of the soul as the real experiencer of events, with the body literally being the garment he wears. > > My purpose in starting this thread is to obtain a rational scientific viewpoint on this matter. > > - Does science believe there is something akin to a soul, as described by most religious traditions? > - Is mainstream science agnostic about its possible existence, or dismissive based on scientific evidence? > - What, if any, scientific experiments have been undertaken to settle this question one way or the other? > - Is the brain (in case of humans) believed to fully explain consciousness, and thus the qualities attributed to a soul by religious thought? How does science explain lifeforms that live without a nervous system of any kind? > > I am looking for a scientific perspective on this topic, but I welcome personal thoughts too, particularly from athiests. > > _Mods: Please move if inappropriate for this forum._ > > Thanks! What is the difference between Life and soul? When one dies we say he no longer has Life, If life is different than soul where does it go? ---
**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 21, 2014, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/163 "2014-03-21T11:55:47Z")
Actually few Asian religions think of us as having souls. This is a consequence of Westerners imposing their ideas on their translations. ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/164 "2014-03-21T14:42:09Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Actually few Asian religions think of us as having souls. This is a consequence of Westerners imposing their ideas on their translations. Eh? Can you clarify, please? ---
**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 21, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/165 "2014-03-21T15:26:13Z")
A soul is a thing, a self, maybe a little homunculus. The Buddha was adamant about his “no self” teaching. (Look it up). ---
**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 21, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/166 "2014-03-21T20:11:38Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > A soul is a thing, a self, maybe a little homunculus. The Buddha was adamant about his “no self” teaching. (Look it up). Buddhism is only one of many Asian religions - you said “few Asian religions”, but I can guarantee that of the others (offf the top of my head, Asian religions include Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastianism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Central Asian Shamanism, various minor animist folk religions such as Ainu Koshinto and Mun). Even if you _meant_ East Asian, I don’t think most of those don’t believe in souls. And while Buddha may have taught “no self”, this doesn’t preclude the concept of the soul being commonplace in actual Buddhists traditions - Pure Land traditions, for instance, are some of the most popular forms of Buddhism in absolute numbers and they absolutely believe in souls. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/167 "2014-03-21T20:19:14Z")
“Science” may not address this issue directly, but basic logic, based on scientific observation might be able to provide a meaningful proposition. Animals in general clearly have a drive to survive and propagate. Because of this, they must have awareness of their environment and some sort of crude or complex perception of the importance of their own existence: a species whereof the individuals do not give a shit about themselves does not remain a species for very long. Hence, the drive to survive begets self-awareness (I am pretty convinced that my cat has a fairly well-developed sense of self). By that logic, this “soul” thing is merely an individual’s survival instinct, made evident to us by way of our ability with language, abstract reasoning and introspection. It can be directly ascribed a biological genesis, there is nothing mystical about it. Because of this, it is not genuinely obvious that any manufactured thinking machine will ever become “self-aware” in the sense that we know it, but it might also never be possible to distinguish self-awareness from a really effective simulation. Granted, “science” is a tasty hunk of emmentaler, rife with unfilled spaces. Many of these uncertainties have contained postulations in the past, and many past postulations have been filled in with cheesy goodness. The fact that an enormous body of doubt and mystery exists is not an indictment of science or a reason to stuff crap into the holes, it is fodder for us to continue to spelunk. ---
**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 21, 2014, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/168 "2014-03-21T23:26:42Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > The Buddha was adamant about his “no self” teaching. (Look it up). “Self” = “Ego” in that context. Nice try. 😛 > [@For You](#): > > Animals in general clearly have a drive to survive and propagate. Because of this, they must have awareness of their environment and some sort of crude or complex perception of the importance of their own existence: a species whereof the individuals do not give a shit about themselves does not remain a species for very long. Hence, the drive to survive begets self-awareness (I am pretty convinced that my cat has a fairly well-developed sense of self). > > By that logic, this “soul” thing is merely an individual’s survival instinct, made evident to us by way of our ability with language, abstract reasoning and introspection. It can be directly ascribed a biological genesis, there is nothing mystical about it. Not sure if I’d agree with that definition. Even the most basic creatures, such as sponges & tapeworms, possess a survival instinct. But those creatures don’t have a large enough nervous system to possibly have formed consciousness, let alone self-awareness. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/169 "2014-03-21T23:53:39Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > “Self” = “Ego” in that context. Nice try. 😛 > > Not sure if I’d agree with that definition. Even the most basic creatures, such as sponges & tapeworms, possess a survival instinct. But those creatures don’t have a large enough nervous system to possibly have formed consciousness, let alone self-awareness. Consciousness simply requires the ability to feel pain, at a minimum. ---
**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 22, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/170 "2014-03-22T01:01:16Z")
There is consciousness, or being aware of your existence, and there is sentience, the ability to feel sensations and emotion. I think consciousness came late in evolution. Pain is one of the more interesting sensations because it seems closely linked to displeasure centers in the brain. We don’t just “feel” the sensation, we also feel sorry for ourselves and maybe experienced other emotions like fear. I can look at the sky and see the sensation of the color blue, without making a value judgment (maybe a little pleasure unless we are a farmer praying for rain) but pain always brings about a negativity. ---
**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 22, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/171 "2014-03-22T01:05:59Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > “Self” = “Ego” in that context. Nice try. 😛 > > Not sure if I’d agree with that definition. Even the most basic creatures, such as sponges & tapeworms, possess a survival instinct. But those creatures don’t have a large enough nervous system to possibly have formed consciousness, let alone self-awareness. Well you didn’t look it up or didn’t understand it. So let me help you. We are not conscious egos or souls or selves. We die and are born anew from moment to moment. Sit quietly and watch it happen as one thought come and another goes, a memory arises, a sensation is noticed, in an interweaves tapestry that does not remain constant and has no permanence. This is a serious subject; the way you seem to deal with it with cavalier waves of the hand reminds me of the arrogance of the French aristocracy. ---
**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 22, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/172 "2014-03-22T01:11:03Z")
What we call primitive organisms function almost entirely the way a machine or a computer functions – by pre-programmed reflexes. Some time in evolution sentience made its appearance. Animals began to experience the world around them rather than just process incoming data, and began to have opinions (fear, revulsion, attraction). This renders the evolution of complex and flexible behavior possible and eventually led to consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/173 "2014-03-22T01:25:56Z")
Frank, your ontology is like an amorphous cloud. What about the OP’s question or some kind of finality? ---
**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 22, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/174 "2014-03-22T01:37:30Z")
Please translate that and give me some specific questions. ---
**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 22, 2014, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/175 "2014-03-22T04:14:57Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > We are not conscious egos or souls or selves. We die and are born anew from moment to moment. C’mon, that’s just one philosophical theory of many, and isn’t remotely accepted universally. > [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > …deal with it with cavalier waves of the hand reminds me of the arrogance of the French aristocracy. “Arrogance of the…” huh? what? 😕 Methinks YOU are the one taking this soul shit too seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2014, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/176 "2014-03-22T05:41:28Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > . . . Some time in evolution sentience made its appearance. Animals began to experience the world around them rather than just process incoming data, and began to have opinions (fear, revulsion, attraction). This renders the evolution of complex and flexible behavior possible and eventually led to consciousness. Agreed. Earlier forms of life operated (and still operate) on tropisms. Insects (by and large) don’t choose their behaviors, but are “hard-wired.” The more complicated vertebrates have evolved pain and pleasure as punishments and rewards, to induce behavior, but without trapping them (us) into compulsory behavior. We’ve able to act in ways that cause us pain, if necessary. This additional flexibility is beneficial to our survival, even if, in more ordinary situations, we’re well governed by avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. ---
**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 22, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/177 "2014-03-22T06:03:27Z")
It’s a question of moving the stimuluses/rewards from the strictly external - pain, light, chemicals - to the internal - dopamine, serotonin, endorphins…we are still complex networks of tropisms, we just internalized so many that it looks like we’re not responding to each and every external stimulus the same way. But I’m reasonably sure that if you count the internal chemoscape of punishment and reward, most of us would be surprised how tropic we really are. I suppose even pain is an internal one, the first to evolve. That’s something I’ve reasoned out from being one of those people with fucked-up serotonin production, and observing how SSRI changed my actual behaviour - I am, evidently, quite the slave to my internal chemical make-up. ---
**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 22, 2014, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/178 "2014-03-22T07:24:08Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > C’mon, that’s just one philosophical theory of many, and isn’t remotely accepted universally. > “Arrogance of the…” huh? what? 😕 > > Methinks YOU are the one taking this soul shit too seriously. My point was merely that belief in the soul is not nearly as universal as the OP tried to imply. ---
**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 22, 2014, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/179 "2014-03-22T07:28:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > It’s a question of moving the stimuluses/rewards from the strictly external - pain, light, chemicals - to the internal - dopamine, serotonin, endorphins…we are still complex networks of tropisms, we just internalized so many that it looks like we’re not responding to each and every external stimulus the same way. But I’m reasonably sure that if you count the internal chemoscape of punishment and reward, most of us would be surprised how tropic we really are. I suppose even pain is an internal one, the first to evolve. > > That’s something I’ve reasoned out from being one of those people with fucked-up serotonin production, and observing how SSRI changed my actual behaviour - I am, evidently, quite the slave to my internal chemical make-up. I don’t think so. Sensations are not data, nor are they an interface for data. They are something else that still needs a lot of work. We are trophic, but only a little so; we have a great deal of flexibility in how we respond to things and this has tremendous natural selection advantages. ---
**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 22, 2014, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512/180 "2014-03-22T07:34:30Z")
This is interesting; give someone a dose of a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor for a few weeks and in many people things like suicidal thoughts go away, without much really noticeable change in personality (they often report being happier). One has to wonder at that. It is plainly a good thing, but just what is going on. We can trace the effect of the chemical on brain makeup but how does that lead to the mental things we observe? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-perspective-on-the-soul/683512.md?page=10)