The Soul.. does it exist?

[CollectsBooks]

Recently I was reading Sam Harris' book titled, "Waking Up", and was forced to reconsider a doctrine I have always taken for granted: that of the soul.

One section of the book deals with "consciousness divided". He described an experiment with a young man who underwent a corpus callosctomy procedure. The question, "What would you like to be when you grow up?" was directed to each hemisphere separately. The left hemisphere answered "a draftsman" while the right signaled that he wanted to be a race car driver. Two centers of volition existed within the one. Really, we aren't even sure if there's only two.

Harris then posed the question, "What if one hemisphere seemingly accepted the divinity of Jesus while the other seemingly did not?" How could that affect one "soul"? I am presupposing the soul is traditionally equated with consciousness. Otherwise, if it were independent of consciousness, how could we even know we had it? How does the scenario of two apparent personhoods in one body reconcile with the idea of one soul? I say two personhoods because could we really take one as "more true" than the other? If one wished the other be surgically removed, would it not bring into question the validity of the other's will?

Any help with this would be appreciated. I'm sure many here are more learned in this subject than I am. Thanks!

 

[quatona]

Recently I was reading Sam Harris' book titled, "Waking Up", and was forced to reconsider a doctrine I have always taken for granted: that of the soul.

One section of the book deals with "consciousness divided". He described an experiment with a young man who underwent a corpus callosctomy procedure. The question, "What would you like to be when you grow up?" was directed to each hemisphere separately. The left hemisphere answered "a draftsman" while the right signaled that he wanted to be a race car driver. Two centers of volition existed within the one. Really, we aren't even sure if there's only two.

Harris then posed the question, "What if one hemisphere seemingly accepted the divinity of Jesus while the other seemingly did not?" How could that affect one "soul"? I am presupposing the soul is traditionally equated with consciousness. Otherwise, if it were independent of consciousness, how could we even know we had it? How does the scenario of two apparent personhoods in one body reconcile with the idea of one soul? I say two personhoods because could we really take one as "more true" than the other? If one wished the other be surgically removed, would it not bring into question the validity of the other's will?

Any help with this would be appreciated. I'm sure many here are more learned in this subject than I am. Thanks!

First off, I don´t know that there´s something like a "soul".
But, hypothetically assuming there is such a thing (and it´s just another word for "consciousness") - I am not really understanding why it shouldn´t be conflicted between two different desires/goals. I also don´t seem to understand how the fact that different parts of the brain take care of different functions and criteria means "two personhoods".

 

[CollectsBooks]

First off, I don´t know that there´s something like a "soul".
But, hypothetically assuming there is such a thing (and it´s just another word for "consciousness") - I am not really understanding why it shouldn´t be conflicted between two different desires/goals. I also don´t seem to understand how the fact that different parts of the brain take care of different functions and criteria means "two personhoods".

Each side doesn't just take of different functions, but also the same (like memory), that by dividing continue independently of one another. A person could still function with only one whole hemisphere. Because each becomes it's own unique center of consciousness with it's own will, that does come in conflict with the other at times, I don't see an issue saying two personhoods.

 

[quatona]

Each side doesn't just take of different functions, but also the same (like memory), that by dividing continue independently of one another.

...but apparently, as long as both are there, there´s a way for them to work together, with each throwing in different criteria.

A person could still function with only one whole hemisphere.

Your two eyes send different information to your brain, as well; and a person could still function with one eye. I don´t see the problem.

Because each becomes it's own unique center of consciousness with it's own will, that does come in conflict with the other at times, I don't see an issue saying two personhoods.

Hmm, I find myself seeing pros and cons for each and everything all the time. But, yes, maybe I have a split personality.

 

[CollectsBooks]

...but apparently, as long as both are there, there´s a way for them to work together, with each throwing in different criteria.

Your two eyes send different information to your brain, as well; and a person could still function with one eye. I don´t see the problem.

Hmm, I find myself seeing pros and cons for each and everything all the time. But, yes, maybe I have a split personality.

Lol I'm sure my fiancee would say I have at least a couple personhoods myself.

 

[juvenissun]

Recently I was reading Sam Harris' book titled, "Waking Up", and was forced to reconsider a doctrine I have always taken for granted: that of the soul.

One section of the book deals with "consciousness divided". He described an experiment with a young man who underwent a corpus callosctomy procedure. The question, "What would you like to be when you grow up?" was directed to each hemisphere separately. The left hemisphere answered "a draftsman" while the right signaled that he wanted to be a race car driver. Two centers of volition existed within the one. Really, we aren't even sure if there's only two.

Harris then posed the question, "What if one hemisphere seemingly accepted the divinity of Jesus while the other seemingly did not?" How could that affect one "soul"? I am presupposing the soul is traditionally equated with consciousness. Otherwise, if it were independent of consciousness, how could we even know we had it? How does the scenario of two apparent personhoods in one body reconcile with the idea of one soul? I say two personhoods because could we really take one as "more true" than the other? If one wished the other be surgically removed, would it not bring into question the validity of the other's will?

Any help with this would be appreciated. I'm sure many here are more learned in this subject than I am. Thanks!

The experiment is not really completed. The question remained should be: When the young man was asked: "what you like to be" in a normal condition, what would his answer be? Is it one of the two? or the third? Even so, the real question has not started yet: How does the young man make a choice or a compromise between the two different answers?

A human is made of many many different cells. Each type of cell has its own special function. But are we just the collection of those functions? Or we have some functions that is way beyond the functions of our cells? Each soul is an integrated identity, the combined effect is the true person.

 

[juvenissun]

Each side doesn't just take of different functions, but also the same (like memory), that by dividing continue independently of one another. A person could still function with only one whole hemisphere. Because each becomes it's own unique center of consciousness with it's own will, that does come in conflict with the other at times, I don't see an issue saying two personhoods.

We do make actions or decisions in-cohesively. But, that is exactly how each person becomes a unique person. A lightening may strike out ones left brain and set the right brain in control afterward. That is fine if God allows that to happen. The person is still the person.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Recently I was reading Sam Harris' book titled, "Waking Up", and was forced to reconsider a doctrine I have always taken for granted: that of the soul.

One section of the book deals with "consciousness divided". He described an experiment with a young man who underwent a corpus callosctomy procedure. The question, "What would you like to be when you grow up?" was directed to each hemisphere separately. The left hemisphere answered "a draftsman" while the right signaled that he wanted to be a race car driver. Two centers of volition existed within the one. Really, we aren't even sure if there's only two.

Harris then posed the question, "What if one hemisphere seemingly accepted the divinity of Jesus while the other seemingly did not?" How could that affect one "soul"? I am presupposing the soul is traditionally equated with consciousness. Otherwise, if it were independent of consciousness, how could we even know we had it? How does the scenario of two apparent personhoods in one body reconcile with the idea of one soul? I say two personhoods because could we really take one as "more true" than the other? If one wished the other be surgically removed, would it not bring into question the validity of the other's will?

Any help with this would be appreciated. I'm sure many here are more learned in this subject than I am. Thanks!

Wouldn't an analogy like that would be provided by a person with multiple personalities be more apt than one exemplified by an artificial means of "separation"? The point being, the young man with who underwent the corpus callosctomy can, from another viewpoint, be said to have been 'changed' from his original mental state. In other words, he was damaged further, so it seems a bit contrived to speculate the nature of a 'soul' from an analogy that had a previous history of a possible 'normalcy.'

 

[CollectsBooks]

Wouldn't an analogy like that would be provided by a person with multiple personalities be more apt than one exemplified by an artificial means of "separation"? The point being, the young man with who underwent the corpus callosctomy can, from another viewpoint, be said to have been 'changed' from his original mental state. In other words, he was damaged further, so it seems a bit contrived to speculate the nature of a 'soul' from an analogy that had a previous history of a possible 'normalcy.'

So cognitive "normalcy" points to the soul how, exactly? I mean, it doesn't answer the question. His original mental state didn't point to an immaterial essence if it was materially impaired.

 

[CollectsBooks]

Each type of cell has its own special function. But are we just the collection of those functions? Or we have some functions that is way beyond the functions of our cells? Each soul is an integrated identity, the combined effect is the true person.

You ask a good question, but the conclusion is a pretty big leap. How do you arrive to that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Recently I was reading Sam Harris' book titled, "Waking Up", and was forced to reconsider a doctrine I have always taken for granted: that of the soul.

One section of the book deals with "consciousness divided". He described an experiment with a young man who underwent a corpus callosctomy procedure. The question, "What would you like to be when you grow up?" was directed to each hemisphere separately. The left hemisphere answered "a draftsman" while the right signaled that he wanted to be a race car driver. Two centers of volition existed within the one. Really, we aren't even sure if there's only two.

Harris then posed the question, "What if one hemisphere seemingly accepted the divinity of Jesus while the other seemingly did not?" How could that affect one "soul"? I am presupposing the soul is traditionally equated with consciousness. Otherwise, if it were independent of consciousness, how could we even know we had it? How does the scenario of two apparent personhoods in one body reconcile with the idea of one soul? I say two personhoods because could we really take one as "more true" than the other? If one wished the other be surgically removed, would it not bring into question the validity of the other's will?

Any help with this would be appreciated. I'm sure many here are more learned in this subject than I am. Thanks!

It's interesting that this is what it took for you to consider the nature of a soul. There's all kinds of problems with the concept...the one you've read about is really a small one.

The biggest problem is...why should you even believe it exists? I know that all of christianity is tied to the concept of a soul...without it there's really no reason for christianity. Is that a good reason to believe it exists though?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Does number 1 exist? What is its nature. "I am number one." What does this mean? Is it concrete or abstract? Maybe there can be non physical aspects to the self...

 

[juvenissun]

You ask a good question, but the conclusion is a pretty big leap. How do you arrive to that?

According to your information, it is not enough to deny the existence of soul. At best, it suggests we might have more than one soul. But that is not a reasonable result judged by other might-be consequences.

So, no matter how much conflicts we might have within ourselves, each person has only one soul even we might have multiple personalities within each one of us. A soul is a complex net consequence of everything about that person.

 

[paulm50]

Recently I was reading Sam Harris' book titled, "Waking Up", and was forced to reconsider a doctrine I have always taken for granted: that of the soul.

One section of the book deals with "consciousness divided". He described an experiment with a young man who underwent a corpus callosctomy procedure. The question, "What would you like to be when you grow up?" was directed to each hemisphere separately. The left hemisphere answered "a draftsman" while the right signaled that he wanted to be a race car driver. Two centers of volition existed within the one. Really, we aren't even sure if there's only two.

Harris then posed the question, "What if one hemisphere seemingly accepted the divinity of Jesus while the other seemingly did not?"

And what if it didn't? Science says "What if" and then goes to prove it. Leaving at "what is" and assuming the rest isn't science.

First off, I don´t know that there´s something like a "soul".
But, hypothetically assuming there is such a thing (and it´s just another word for "consciousness") - I am not really understanding why it shouldn´t be conflicted between two different desires/goals. I also don´t seem to understand how the fact that different parts of the brain take care of different functions and criteria means "two personhoods".

For me it's more about conscience, morality and how we live. Not this magic part invented to tell people they'll go to heaven.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And what if it didn't? Science says "What if" and then goes to prove it. Leaving at "what is" and assuming the rest isn't science.

The 'what if' in this context is philosophical. Science can't directly address the soul without evidence, observations, measurements; it can't form testable hypotheses about the soul without these - or at least, some clear description of what it is said to be.

For me it's more about conscience, morality and how we live. Not this magic part invented to tell people they'll go to heaven.

I'm curious to know what believers in the soul think it is - e.g. what properties and attributes does it have? is it objectively real, or just a concept, an abstraction to describe aspects of the self? if it is objectively real, does it interact with the physical body? (because if it interacts with the physical world we can physically detect it); does it have anything to do with our personality, our preferences, our beliefs? if so, does it change when they change? Does it really persist after bodily death? if so, in what sense does it persist? etc.

 

[Winepress777]

The Soul.. does it exist?

Recently I was reading Sam Harris' book titled, "Waking Up", and was forced to reconsider a doctrine I have always taken for granted: that of the soul.

One section of the book deals with "consciousness divided". He described an experiment with a young man who underwent a corpus callosctomy procedure. The question, "What would you like to be when you grow up?" was directed to each hemisphere separately. The left hemisphere answered "a draftsman" while the right signaled that he wanted to be a race car driver. Two centers of volition existed within the one. Really, we aren't even sure if there's only two.

Harris then posed the question, "What if one hemisphere seemingly accepted the divinity of Jesus while the other seemingly did not?" How could that affect one "soul"? I am presupposing the soul is traditionally equated with consciousness. Otherwise, if it were independent of consciousness, how could we even know we had it? How does the scenario of two apparent personhoods in one body reconcile with the idea of one soul? I say two personhoods because could we really take one as "more true" than the other? If one wished the other be surgically removed, would it not bring into question the validity of the other's will?

Any help with this would be appreciated. I'm sure many here are more learned in this subject than I am. Thanks!

Mine does!

(Gen 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

(Mat 10:28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

(Lam 3:58) O Lord, thou hast pleaded the causes of my soul; thou hast redeemed my life.

...and nobody is going to destroy my soul

 

[True Scotsman]

Recently I was reading Sam Harris' book titled, "Waking Up", and was forced to reconsider a doctrine I have always taken for granted: that of the soul.

One section of the book deals with "consciousness divided". He described an experiment with a young man who underwent a corpus callosctomy procedure. The question, "What would you like to be when you grow up?" was directed to each hemisphere separately. The left hemisphere answered "a draftsman" while the right signaled that he wanted to be a race car driver. Two centers of volition existed within the one. Really, we aren't even sure if there's only two.

Harris then posed the question, "What if one hemisphere seemingly accepted the divinity of Jesus while the other seemingly did not?" How could that affect one "soul"? I am presupposing the soul is traditionally equated with consciousness. Otherwise, if it were independent of consciousness, how could we even know we had it? How does the scenario of two apparent personhoods in one body reconcile with the idea of one soul? I say two personhoods because could we really take one as "more true" than the other? If one wished the other be surgically removed, would it not bring into question the validity of the other's will?

Any help with this would be appreciated. I'm sure many here are more learned in this subject than I am. Thanks!

I equate the soul with consciousness. Since consciousness is a product of the brain, it's not surprising that damaging the brain changes our consciousness. The right and left hand hemisphere's do different jobs and somehow our brains integrate the imputs from both halves. The left hemisphere is the logical, linear sequential side and the right brain is the more intuitive, artistic, creative side. Most people have one side being the dominant side. I for instance am a right brained dominant person. I'm very creative and artistic. If my right brain were damaged I wonder if the left would take over those functions that my right brain does now or if I'd have to find a new line of work?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So cognitive "normalcy" points to the soul how, exactly? I mean, it doesn't answer the question. His original mental state didn't point to an immaterial essence if it was materially impaired.

Collects,

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. In my previous post, I was not attempting to answer your OP. Instead, I was offering what, to me, is a point of conceptual consistency and clarification which needs to be in place BEFORE attempting to address your inquiry.

I wasn't saying that any kind of 'cognitive normalcy' points to the existence of a soul. Rather, assuming there is the possibility that a soul exists, it seems to me that a person's original state of mind represents more closely his or her soul, before any kind of major cognitive disruption takes place, such as that which can happen during brain surgery. So, instead, I've offered the analogy of multiple personalities as your beginning point by which to ask about the complexities of the possible existence of a human soul.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Winken]

I'm curious to know what believers in the soul think it is

The mind, will and emotions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The left hemisphere is the logical, linear sequential side and the right brain is the more intuitive, artistic, creative side. Most people have one side being the dominant side. I for instance am a right brained dominant person. I'm very creative and artistic.

The lateralization isn't really so much between logical and artistic as between language and fine motor skills (left) and visiospatial attentional skills (right). However, the two halves do behave differently in the way they function - the left hemisphere is more self-contained, whereas the right integrates more across the brain (presumably making greater use of the corpus callosum). See 'Two distinct forms of functional lateralization in the human brain'.

If my right brain were damaged I wonder if the left would take over those functions that my right brain does now or if I'd have to find a new line of work?

That depends entirely on the areas affected and the degree of damage. Some functions are wholly specific to one hemisphere, some are partly so, and some are shared. Some functions can be partially or wholly replaced by the opposite hemisphere if necessary - i.e. you can learn to use the unaffected hemisphere to replace the old skill. For example, the function of some parts of the language areas in the left hemisphere can be learned by the right hemisphere if damaged, but the function of other parts are wholly left hemisphere and cannot be learnt by the right. Presumably this is because certain core functionality is wired early in development and the limited plasticity of the adult brain is insufficient to replicate it.