Evolutionary purpose of the soul?

[ProbePhage]

This might not belong in this forum because it's not really an argument, but a question of curiosity posed to my fellow "evolutionists" (to use the creationists' term for those of us who put stock in science).

I'm wondering what the purpose of the soul is. By soul I mean that "experiencer", the perceived ghost inside of us who actually experiences everything that the human perceives through his/her senses and his/her thoughts.

I could picture a world just like ours, with advanced human civilization, but where people had no souls. They still communicated, socialized, and advanced just like our own civilization, based on their evolved intelligence, but there was no "experiencer". The world would otherwise be exactly like our own.

But it actually couldn't be exactly the same. Because that "soul" does in fact have a physical effect on the world. If it did not, I could not be discussing it right now, for it is my brain that has the conception of it. My brain is aware of the subjective experiencer that it calls the soul, or it would not be trying to communicate the concept to others via the Internet.

So given that it does have an effect on the world, it probably serves a purpose. What is that purpose? I suppose the key to answering that question stems from the answer to another question: to what extent does it effect the physical world? We know it can, or I wouldn't be discussing it right now, but what else does it do that it's required for, where a simply "mechanical" brain would not suffice?

Any answers to these questions?

 

[ForeRunner]

There is no evidence of such a thing as a "soul", everything you described comes from the higher functions of the brain. No soul required.

 

[ProbePhage]

There is no evidence of such a thing as a "soul", everything you described comes from the higher functions of the brain. No soul required.

You misunderstand me. I did not claim that a "thing" such as the soul exists. In fact, I defined "soul" in my post to be the perceived "ghost" in the body (key word perceived, i.e. apparent, not necessarily an actual thing). And in fact I was assuming it came from the higher functions of the brain (I am both an evolutionist and an atheist).

My question still stands, strong as ever: what's it for?

 

[Phred]

 

[ForeRunner]

I am not really certain what you are asking? It doesn't really need to be "for" anything, it could just essentially be a side-effect of bigger brains that are better at using tools and are capable of language.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

according to the natural world, the soul does not exist. it cannot be perceived by the empirical or rational, so as far as evolution is concerned it does not exist.

 

[kingreaper]

I have read hat there is a respected hypothesis on this: self-awareness evolved to allow the simulation of others thought processes, thus allowing the prediction of others action in a societal or other situation

 

[Vance]

From the standpoint of many Christians who fully accept evolution, the soul is what God "breathed" into Man, thus making Man in His image. Where this would have happened along the evolutionary path would likely never be known. Thus, even for those who believe in a soul AND believe in evolution, the soul would not necessarily serve any purpose of physical evolutionary development.

Those evolutionists who are not Theists would most likely not believe in a soul, so your question would be meaningless to them.

 

[TheUndeadFish]

Because that "soul" does in fact have a physical effect on the world. If it did not, I could not be discussing it right now, for it is my brain that has the conception of it. My brain is aware of the subjective experiencer that it calls the soul, or it would not be trying to communicate the concept to others via the Internet.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is evidence for souls. You seem to be saying: because we can imagine the concept of a soul, then souls must exist. But it should be obvious that humans can imagine a lot of concepts that don't necessarily exist.

Before we can discuss souls in relation to evolution, there needs to be better evidence for the existence of souls and what exactly their effects are on us.

 

[Jet Black]

I think he is kind of equivocating the soul with the comcept of self.

 

[Moo]

There will be an Infidel Guy show on next week about souls for those interested in the topic:

10/15/04 @ 8PM ET: "Are Souls Real? Dr. Jerome Elbert"

www.infidelguy.com

 

[Dragar]

The ghost in the machine...

Dragar

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

So far as I know, the concept of "soul" is not a scientific term. I have, at least, never met one who had discovered it. From what the Natural World would say, we are made of materials (in this case DNA). Thus something like a "soul" would belong in the supernatural.

New Theology has brought many problems with the term "soul" and thus why we have so many questions about it. But the "soul" is not a scientific term at all, rather a religious one.

 

[ProbePhage]

according to the natural world, the soul does not exist. it cannot be perceived by the empirical or rational, so as far as evolution is concerned it does not exist.

From the standpoint of many Christians who fully accept evolution, the soul is what God "breathed" into Man, thus making Man in His image. Where this would have happened along the evolutionary path would likely never be known. Thus, even for those who believe in a soul AND believe in evolution, the soul would not necessarily serve any purpose of physical evolutionary development.

Those evolutionists who are not Theists would most likely not believe in a soul, so your question would be meaningless to them.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is evidence for souls. You seem to be saying: because we can imagine the concept of a soul, then souls must exist. But it should be obvious that humans can imagine a lot of concepts that don't necessarily exist.

Before we can discuss souls in relation to evolution, there needs to be better evidence for the existence of souls and what exactly their effects are on us.

Okay, for the last time, I defined soul in my original post. TheUndeadFish, under my operating definition, the soul is what you are terming "the imagination of the concept of the soul".

How come whenever I try to discuss this concept, no one seems to have any idea what I'm talking about? Am I the only actual consciousness in the world or something? Or am I just completely inept at conveying this idea? It's really frustrating...

 

[ProbePhage]

NamesAreHardToPick, you did it too! Arrggh!

 

[David Gould]

What you are discussing here is 'The Zombie Problem'. Why aren't we all zombies? As you suggested, it is possible to imagine a world which looks identical to our own but where there is nobody home in the bodies moving through it.

But this, as Dragar pointed out earlier, assumes that there is in fact a ghost in the machine. There is not. We are, in fact, all zombies. So the world you imagine is actually the world that exists.

 

[USincognito]

You're delving into mind brain dualism, which I reject. As far as I'm concerned you're referring to conciousness, which is just the brain functioning.

 

[Asimov]

Okay, for the last time, I defined soul in my original post. TheUndeadFish, under my operating definition, the soul is what you are terming "the imagination of the concept of the soul".

How come whenever I try to discuss this concept, no one seems to have any idea what I'm talking about? Am I the only actual consciousness in the world or something? Or am I just completely inept at conveying this idea? It's really frustrating...

Hehehhe, let me see if I'm getting you straight. You (probephage) are asking why humans would evolve the concept of the soul. For what reason do we believe the soul exists. Is that what you are asking??

If this is so, I think the concept of the soul comes from the primitive belief about the unexplained. We don't know why we think, therefore it must be some magical undefinable thing that resides within us/heaven.

 

[ProbePhage]

What you are discussing here is 'The Zombie Problem'. Why aren't we all zombies? As you suggested, it is possible to imagine a world which looks identical to our own but where there is nobody home in the bodies moving through it.

But this, as Dragar pointed out earlier, assumes that there is in fact a ghost in the machine. There is not. We are, in fact, all zombies. So the world you imagine is actually the world that exists.

But it isn't! I would say that you are in denial of your own consciousness. To me it's plain as day.

It doesn't look like this subject is going anywhere though.

 

[David Gould]

But it isn't! I would say that you are in denial of your own consciousness. To me it's plain as day.

It doesn't look like this subject is going anywhere though.

You are correct. I am 'in denial of my own consciousness'. The self does not exist.

I will draw on Daniel Dennett to asist me here. To examine and counter the zombie argument, which is the argument you are making here, he thought up the notion of zimboes. Zombies, Dennett argues, just do not cut it. To have a Daniel Dennett zombie operate in exactly the same way as a non-zombie Daniel Dennett it would have to have the same operating tools as him. For example, it would need to have the ability to detect and recognise other people. It would also need to be able to make judgements about its own judgements. And to do that, it would need to have a detection and pattern recognition machine that was pointed at its own judgements. For this to function correctly, it would need to detect itself.

This thing would believe itself to be conscious, and would act as though it were. Yet we have not added anything called 'consciousness' to it. It is a zimboe. Dennett's argument is that something that acts exactly like us would believe itself conscious.

We are zimboes. Or in other words, we are sophisticated zombies.