![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miriam_eSorry it has taken me a while to post this. I spent the last few days mostly sleeping. I didn't realise how tired I'd let myself become. What follows is a slightly improved version of my old "Soulless" post. Hopefully it is easier to read and understand.
What do people think of when the soul is mentioned? Most would say that it is your essence -- this consciousness, this feeling of "I", that feels emotions, understands the world, the one who makes moral decisions and accumulates or loses karma.
If that is what the soul is then the soul dies with your body, because it is fairly easy to show that those things are a function of that wonderfully complex organ, the brain. Alter the brain and you alter your consciousness, your emotions, your understanding, your moral sense. Stop the brain's action that is consciousness and naturally your conscious self disappears.
There is the case of the French businessman who woke up one morning to find that he could no longer read -- he could still write, and although he could remember what he had just written, he was unable to make sense of what was on the page. During the night a blood clot had jammed in a blood vessel feeding the part of his brain that understood writing, and starved of oxygen and food, it had died. A central part of his understanding of the world had vanished from his conscious reality.
The construction worker who was a pleasant guy, happily married, and liked by all others. One day, at the worksite, he was standing over a crowbar in a hole packed with explosive. The explosive went off and fired the crowbar through his head, under one cheekbone and out the top of his head. Amazingly, he survived, but it radically altered his personality. He was not the congenial person of before and was now given to fits of rage. His morality and personality had been altered by changing the architecture of the brain.
Split-brain surgery, done many years ago in an attempt to control awful attacks of epilepsy, worked by cutting the corpus callosum, a bundle of nerves that let the two halves of the brain communicate with each other. It resulted in two separate consciousnesses inside the one skull -- where there was one, there were now two. If the soul is something insubstantial, then how does a knife create two souls from one?
Every time you go to sleep at night your brain goes through cycles roughly every 20 minutes or so where consciousness actually disappears for a while, then reappears in the weird, internally stimulated state of dreaming. On waking, normal consciousness restarts, the memories stored from the previous day providing the illusion of continuous existence. If the soul is this feeling of personal existence then this stops every night as the brain alters its own operation.
A bad blow to the head stuns the nerves which make up the brain, causing consciousness to stop till they recover. (I wish movies wouldn't show this as a common way to put someone out of action -- in actual fact a blow that causes such a blackout has almost certainly caused brain damage and is extremely dangerous.) Consciousness is incredibly fragile.
Anesthetic chemicals administered during surgery alter a patient's brain function causing their consciousness to cease for a while. The person administering the anesthetic has to be very careful because it brings you close to death.
When you take various psychoactive drugs your brain's function is altered which changes your consciousness and quite often your personality and your ability to make moral judgements. Morality is not only affected directly by drugs, but also indirectly through lack of them. Withdrawal from some drugs can cause shortness of temper, vindictiveness, and depression.
Clearly your conscious, moral, emotional self is really an action that your brain performs. It can no more survive your death than a horse's gallop can continue after the horse dies. If consciousness, understanding, morality, and this "I" are the soul is, then it dies with your brain and your body.
Wait! you say. The soul doesn't have to be consciousness. It could be something less tangible; something not related to our feelings or brain actions; something far more ethereal.
Yes, but that now becomes a waste of time. If I told you that I could keep one of your fingers alive after you died, you would wonder what was the point. Of what use is a finger without the consciousness to operate it? It is this feeling that is important -- it is what we are. Such an unconscious soul, even if it did continue beyond our death is irrelevant.
Without a soul, all gods and all religions become unnecessary. Their very reason for existing evaporates.
*poof*
What do people think of when the soul is mentioned? Most would say that it is your essence -- this consciousness, this feeling of "I", that feels emotions, understands the world, the one who makes moral decisions and accumulates or loses karma.
If that is what the soul is then the soul dies with your body, because it is fairly easy to show that those things are a function of that wonderfully complex organ, the brain. Alter the brain and you alter your consciousness, your emotions, your understanding, your moral sense. Stop the brain's action that is consciousness and naturally your conscious self disappears.
There is the case of the French businessman who woke up one morning to find that he could no longer read -- he could still write, and although he could remember what he had just written, he was unable to make sense of what was on the page. During the night a blood clot had jammed in a blood vessel feeding the part of his brain that understood writing, and starved of oxygen and food, it had died. A central part of his understanding of the world had vanished from his conscious reality.
The construction worker who was a pleasant guy, happily married, and liked by all others. One day, at the worksite, he was standing over a crowbar in a hole packed with explosive. The explosive went off and fired the crowbar through his head, under one cheekbone and out the top of his head. Amazingly, he survived, but it radically altered his personality. He was not the congenial person of before and was now given to fits of rage. His morality and personality had been altered by changing the architecture of the brain.
Split-brain surgery, done many years ago in an attempt to control awful attacks of epilepsy, worked by cutting the corpus callosum, a bundle of nerves that let the two halves of the brain communicate with each other. It resulted in two separate consciousnesses inside the one skull -- where there was one, there were now two. If the soul is something insubstantial, then how does a knife create two souls from one?
Every time you go to sleep at night your brain goes through cycles roughly every 20 minutes or so where consciousness actually disappears for a while, then reappears in the weird, internally stimulated state of dreaming. On waking, normal consciousness restarts, the memories stored from the previous day providing the illusion of continuous existence. If the soul is this feeling of personal existence then this stops every night as the brain alters its own operation.
A bad blow to the head stuns the nerves which make up the brain, causing consciousness to stop till they recover. (I wish movies wouldn't show this as a common way to put someone out of action -- in actual fact a blow that causes such a blackout has almost certainly caused brain damage and is extremely dangerous.) Consciousness is incredibly fragile.
Anesthetic chemicals administered during surgery alter a patient's brain function causing their consciousness to cease for a while. The person administering the anesthetic has to be very careful because it brings you close to death.
When you take various psychoactive drugs your brain's function is altered which changes your consciousness and quite often your personality and your ability to make moral judgements. Morality is not only affected directly by drugs, but also indirectly through lack of them. Withdrawal from some drugs can cause shortness of temper, vindictiveness, and depression.
Clearly your conscious, moral, emotional self is really an action that your brain performs. It can no more survive your death than a horse's gallop can continue after the horse dies. If consciousness, understanding, morality, and this "I" are the soul is, then it dies with your brain and your body.
Wait! you say. The soul doesn't have to be consciousness. It could be something less tangible; something not related to our feelings or brain actions; something far more ethereal.
Yes, but that now becomes a waste of time. If I told you that I could keep one of your fingers alive after you died, you would wonder what was the point. Of what use is a finger without the consciousness to operate it? It is this feeling that is important -- it is what we are. Such an unconscious soul, even if it did continue beyond our death is irrelevant.
Without a soul, all gods and all religions become unnecessary. Their very reason for existing evaporates.
*poof*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I love this stuff.
Date: 2008-09-09 09:12 am (UTC)To me the word "soul" refers to the combined experience of thought, emotions and physical sensations. Spirit is the part of the human being that keeps the physical body animated. The spirit feeds the soul and vice versa. Is the spirit conscious? Or is the trick to make consciousness aware of the spirit?
In a uni subject a few years ago we looked into the idea of two consciousnesses: the everyday one that we're all well acquainted with, and the one that observes. It observes everything, even the activities of the conscious mind. It is the consciousness that artists, writers and shamen cultivate. Psychology calls it "primary process". This consciousness tends to be silent more often than not, and yet produces the writer's voice that even he/she feels is alien to him/herself.
At least this is how I understand it for the moment.
Re: I love this stuff.
Date: 2008-09-09 11:18 pm (UTC)I tend to use all those words (brain, mind, soul, and spirit) too. In my use, brain is the physical structure that performs the actions that are described by the other three. For me, mind is the set of all actions performed by the brain, and includes soul and spirit, as well as consciousness. My own definition for soul is almost the same as consciousness, but in everyday conversation I tend to use it to denote emotional experience. Spirit, for me, is fairly fuzzy but centers on desire.
All those mean different things for different people of course, because of the way we have avoided good definitions in those areas. I hold mysticism as the main cause of that. Too often it depends upon confounding clear thought instead of illuminating it. I don't think these terms will be properly defined until neuroscience in partnership with artificial intelligence research has gone quite a bit further in its investigations into how the brain works.
I'd more or less agree with your point about two aspects to consciousness -- that which experiences and that which observes the self experiencing -- but I don't see them as distinct. It seems to me that the mind that watches itself is really the same as the thing it is watching, which sounds paradoxical until you think of it as feedback. Once through the system is immediate experience; what an athlete or musician calls "being in the moment". The second time through the system is the output from that immediate experience fed through the system again. This can be taken to more and more abstract levels, but I remember hearing of some experiments that showed a fairly low limit to the number levels of recursion people could perform. I can't remember what that number is. I'll have to chase it up.
The Dual System of Memory etc
Date: 2008-09-11 03:54 pm (UTC)OTOH it could be the persecutory superego... or the phenomena is both. Meh whatever. The point is that we watch ourselves and others like security guards in a prison these days. (Foucault wrote whopping big books on it I'm told.)
At any rate, there does seem to be two different and separate memory systems. One is our everyday time coded memory, and the other memory system, when activated, brings memories forward without a sense of time having passed. It is more vivid and sometimes overwhelming. It is not subject to rational thought. It's probably this memory system that produces some of the most upsetting symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, grief, and schitzophrenia. This memory system can be accessed through drugs, trance, and ritual. It is not a lesser part of the mind but an older one which does not produce the favoured mind skills of our time and culture - rationality and language.
On the subject of definitions for psychological experiences, it is worth remembering that both Hindu and Buddhism religions have been debating such matters for a couple of thousand years longer than psychology or psychiatry have been around. They both have well developed definitions of different states of mind and spirit.
Spirit, for me, is fairly fuzzy but centers on desire.
Me too! :)
For me (based only on personal and highly subjective experience) I think of the heart's desires as the gateway to the spirit. The spirit speaks through the heart.
I hope this rambling made sense. It's 1.51am and I need sleep.
Re: The Dual System of Memory etc
Date: 2008-09-11 10:54 pm (UTC)I should learn more about the definitions of mind states Buddhism and Hindu use, though my suspicion is that purely subjective exploration of the mind quickly leads one to get lost in a hall of mirrors. Freud was a perfect example of how lost one becomes using subjective methods alone. Psychology, on the other hand, uses objective methods to describe subjective experience, which is why psychology has learned more about thought and emotion in the last several decades than all the purely subjective approaches have in thousands of years.
What you said about different memory systems has an important and familiar ring to it. I need to think more on that.
Thanks for the very cool thoughts.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 10:15 am (UTC)What follows constitutes time wastage, but I'm saying it anyway:
I buy into a lot of what you propose. It makes perfect sense. But I'm also keeping my options open about eternity, largely because we know so damned little about this reality and the universe. It is entirely possible - maybe even probable - that we are part of a sub-process so minor to something so large that we don't have a hope of comprehending where we really stand. Possibly we exist as an act of distributed processing for a larger entity, whose reality is one - by dint of its 'size' - which we will never comprehend, but to which our contribution plays a part. The entire thing may be very much like a Mandelbrot set. It's a favourite toy theory of mine.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 11:55 pm (UTC)Keeping options open only makes good sense. This is what is so good about writers and philosophers: they are able to make excursions out into previously undreamed possibilities. You probably know, for instance, that there is a serious effort by a few scientists to see if there is any logical or experimental way to tell if this world is some kind of simulation. I don't think it is likely -- Occam's razor and all that -- but I applaud that it is given serious thought. I wrote a not-terribly-good story a while back from the point of view of a god who creates a universe. (Grace (http://miriam-english.org/stories/grace2.html) In that particular case I used it to expose a major flaw in all religions: a god, should it exist, would almost certainly not think in the way religion supposes.
Exploring such things strikes me as terribly important. They also add weight behind my dismissal of religion of course. If there are so many possible ways to see the world then dogmatically believing in any random one becomes folly. That isn't to say that we should then suspend all judgement. Some of the explanations are a lot more credible than others. The most credible is the one that simply takes the world as it appears to unbiased observation. Science is incredibly successful at systematically removing biases from observation. It isn't perfect but it is far better than anything else developed.
I wouldn't count on us never understanding the universe. We humans are pretty amazing at using symbols to understand things that would appear to be beyond understanding, and when we develop artificial intelligences to walk hand in hand with us on that journey, who knows what doors will open to us. The next few decades will be very interesting indeed. Exciting times!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 04:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 03:17 pm (UTC)You're a thoughtful person, and that's nice. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 12:33 am (UTC)Right back at ya. :)
I'd be interested in your idea of the soul, but there is no hurry. When you feel comfortable I'd be happy to hear.
I know it can feel a bit pointless to share such viewpoints with me, considering my personal need for objective evidence in accepting things, but I love to learn about all kinds of ways of seeing the world. I am an obsessive collector of concepts. They enhance my understanding of other people and the world around me. The collector in me doesn't care about truth or validity -- I want to store it all. The organiser in me is the one that ranks things, but being able to do that job well requires as much knowledge about things and viewpoints as possible.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-14 02:29 pm (UTC)I think I see it certainly like an observer, really *the* Observer as it concerns me. Not the thinker, or the decider.
I think it's the reason this body took root and grew.
I think it likely will take the information and experience and wisdom accumulated in this life once I'm done being me and choose another place to express it's energy.
I know I've heard from various sources about different configurations for souls. The Egyptians believed there were multiple souls for each person (though I don't know enough of the details to fill you in on that). I know the Huna system (that's the Hawaiian shamanic system) believe there are three. I could look up the details on that if you'd like.
I've heard the world "oversoul" used and as far as I know the definitions for that word vary but in at least one instance it seemed to be a collection of consciousnesses that worked together in supporting the one incarnation.
All of these things interest me.
Energy doesn't just cease, it continues, though it may transform in infinite ways. I think consciousness often accompanies energy and passes through transformations (like death). It may come out changed but it can and does continue.
That's how I see it, feel it.
I'm sorry I've not got much more detail to offer. Do feel free to ask what you feel like asking though.
I'll do what I can with the questions.
:)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-15 04:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-18 03:26 pm (UTC)ps: off topic
Date: 2008-09-14 02:32 pm (UTC)Re: ps: off topic
Date: 2008-09-15 05:00 am (UTC)I looked through the notes for Selena City just now and hadn't realised how much I'd forgotten over the past year. I think I need to read the whole story again so that I can finish it convincingly. I know how it is supposed to end (the end of the story was the second thing I wrote notes for when mapping out the story), but I have forgotten much of the stuff in the middle that contributes to the characters.
Thanks for prompting me to work on it again.
Re: ps: off topic
Date: 2008-09-15 02:48 pm (UTC)Thanks for sharing it with us.
Re: ps: off topic
Date: 2008-09-19 12:31 am (UTC)The stumbling block which had prevented me finishing is gone. I'd intended a small interlude where Adele had to help a woman on the brink of a possible schizophrenic episode, which gave me an opportunity to talk about mental illness and the taboos and misconceptions surrounding it. An old lover of mine has difficulty with mental illness, so this is a subject close to my heart. Unfortunately the more I worked on it the more upsetting and difficult it became to write. So I've now dropped that part and moved straight along with the end of the story. This might reduce it down to a single chapter...
I had hoped to finish today, but I went off on a merry ride reading some wonderful documents on the early days of computing. Damn my easy distractibility! Tonight I have the next dose for this damn infection, so I'll get very little done on the weekend apart from sleep. But the story is happening again. I'm quite excited... and grateful.
Re: ps: off topic
Date: 2008-09-21 08:33 am (UTC)Thank you.
My OBE....
I had one of those freaky Out-of-Body experiences many years ago.
http://darkenchanter.net/silicona.htm#rcm
It has caused me to believe in souls and the possibility of life after death.
However the existence of souls *does not in any way* prove the existence of a God-in-the-Christian-Mode or validate any of their theology. (Even ancient Shamanistic religions had 'mind journeys.")
Also, of course, you can interpret my unsettling experience anyway you want - after all it did not happen to you.
Respectfully,
Michael.
Re: My OBE....
Date: 2008-09-10 01:05 pm (UTC)As it happens I've been reading a wonderful book on the psychology behind our surprising inability to know what will make us happy. The book is full of neat experimental results that show how remarkable our brain is at whittling data down to the absolute minimum needed to efficiently store memories, but also how that astonishing talent makes us prone to many common errors of judgement.
Oh, and the book is Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert. I heartily recommend it.
Understanding these kinds of consciousness illusions teaches us how our brains work, the same way optical illusions explain visual processing. It is really valuable stuff.
Re: My OBE....
Date: 2008-09-11 05:59 am (UTC)I will check out Daniel Gilbert's book. (I occasionally buy self-help books, but always check that the author(s) are qualified psychiatrists, etc.) I've long been fascinated by how the mind works.
This link may interest you a tad:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910090829.htm
Cheers, MFG.
Re: My OBE....
Date: 2008-09-11 12:28 pm (UTC)The thing about illusions is that they rarely ever feel wrong. They feel convincing even when you know they can't be. Unfortunately if we have thousands of years of mythology telling us that the illusion is real then it becomes even more difficult to disbelieve what feels like direct experience. Seeing is believing, right? Well, often it isn't.
The objective measurements of the AWARE project may help with medical diagnosis, but I can't see that its subjective survey will achieve much. Of course, it doesn't hurt to try to learn more. Unfortunately I suspect all they will learn from questioning those experiencing near death is how good the mind is at expanding dwindling activity into apparent meaningfulness, or how mental "pins and needles" can be misinterpreted.
I know it probably sounds like I'm denigrating out-of-body experience, but I'm not. I love the fact that we each have two blind spots, one in each eye, which can only be detected by careful experiment. It thrills me that we can uncover so much about the way our nervous system works by picking up on these sorts of illusions. Out-of-body experience is important because it tells us something about the way our minds work. Understanding such illusions helps us learn about ourselves and avoid errors. With surprising numbers of people angling to destroy us all in religiously inspired war we need all the help we can get. :)
In the end you have to look at thousands of years of people enthusiastically wanting to believe in out-of-body experience, telepathy, ESP, astrology, and water divining. And you have to wonder, after all that time and experience, why are they not used reliably, repeatably anywhere?