Does your cat or dog have a soul? What about a flea?
In the last century, science has undergone several revolutions, with profound implications for answering this ancient spiritual question.
Traditionally, scientists speak of the soul in a materialistic context, treating it as a poetic synonym for the mind. Everything knowable about the "soul" can be learned by studying the functioning of the human brain. In their view, neuroscience is the only branch of scientific study relevant to one's understanding of the soul. The soul is dismissed as an object of human belief, or reduced to a psychological concept that shapes our cognition and understanding of the observable natural world. The terms "life" and "death" are thus nothing more than the common concepts of "biological life" and "biological death."
Of course, in most spiritual and religious traditions, a soul is viewed as emphatically more definitive than the scientific concept. It is considered the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing, and is said to be immortal and transcendent of material existence.
The current scientific paradigm doesn't recognize this spiritual dimension of life. The animating principle in humans and other animals are the laws of physics. As I sit here in my office, surrounded by piles of scientific books and journal articles, I cannot find any reference to the soul or spirit, or any notion of an immaterial, eternal essence that occupies our being. Indeed, a soul has never been seen under an electron microscope, nor spun in the laboratory in a test tube or ultra-centrifuge. According to these books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death.
While neuroscience has made tremendous progress illuminating the functioning of the brain, why we have a subjective experience remains mysterious. The problem of the soul lies exactly here, in understanding the nature of the self, the "I" in existence that feels and lives life. But this isn't just a problem for biology and cognitive science, but for the whole of Western natural philosophy itself.
What we have to understand is that our current worldview −- the world of objectivity and naïve realism -- is beginning to show fatal cracks. Of course, this will not surprise many of the philosophers and other readers who, contemplating the works of men such as Plato, Socrates and Kant, and of Buddha and other great spiritual teachers, kept wondering about the relationship between the universe and the mind of man.
Recently, biocentrism and other scientific theories have also started to challenge the traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, the old scientific paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But our worldview is catching up with the facts, and the old physico-chemical paradigm is rapidly being replaced with one that can address some of the core questions asked in every religion: Is there a soul? Does anything endure the ravages of time?
Life and consciousness are central to this new view of being, reality and the cosmos. Although the current scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence, real experiments have suggested just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of atoms and particles, which spin around for a while and then dissipate into nothingness like a dust funnel. But if we add life to the equation, we can explain some of the major puzzles of modern science, including Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, entanglement, and the fine-tuning of the laws that shape the universe as we perceive it.
Importantly, this has a direct bearing on the question of whether humans and other living creatures have souls. As Kant pointed out over 200 years ago, everything we experience -- including all the colors, sensations and objects we perceive -- are nothing but representations in our mind. Space and time are simply the mind's tools for putting it all together. Now, to the amusement of idealists, scientists are beginning dimly to recognize that those rules make existence itself possible. Indeed, experiments suggest that particles only exist with real properties if they are observed. One point seems certain: the nature of the universe can't be divorced from the nature of life itself. If you separate them from each other, reality ceases to exist.
We are more than the sum of our biochemical functions. Even the tiniest flea is an incredibly complex living creature, with mouth-parts adapted to feeding on the blood of your cat or dog. They have long legs that allow them to jump up to 13 inches (200 times their own body length, making them one of the best jumpers of all known animals). They have little eyes and antenna, and possess sensory cells that transmit messages to the brain. In fact, they possess all the structures that coordinate sense perception and experience (they can even be trained to perform amazing tricks).
Whether person or flea, the experimental findings of quantum theory suggest that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality, paramount and limitless. Without consciousness, space and time are nothing. From this viewpoint, by virtue of being a living creature, you can never die (see "What Happens When You Die?" and "Is Death the End?"). And the same thing goes for your little dog, too.
Voltaire, the great enlightenment writer and philosopher, once said, "Nobody thinks of giving an immortal soul to a flea." Now, nearly 300 years later, the mass of accumulated scientific evidence suggests we may have to.
Robert Lanza, M.D. has published extensively in leading scientific journals and has over two dozen medical and scientific books, including "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe." You can learn more about his work at www.robertlanza.com.
Follow Robert Lanza, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RobertLanza
Andrew Z. Cohen: The Evolutionary Need to Understand Consciousness
Tom Morris: Interview with a Philosopher: On Beer and Thought
Michael Graziano: The Spirit Constructed in the Brain
To refuse to affirm the existence of a "soul" is, I assert, comparable to refusing to affirm the existence of an extraterrestrial "ether". I do not deny that there is life and consciousnesss, just as I do not deny that I perceive a universe that has stars in it, but to claim the existence of things that I cannot perceive does not sit well with my sense of self.
You are agnostic regarding the existence of a thing called a "soul." Whatever that thing is or might be, it has a logical definition in your mind.
Carry forward your comparison of your agnosticism about the soul to the hypothesis of luminiferous aether. For centuries scientists puzzled over the nature of light. Wave or particle? How was it propagated? etc. Those scientists most certainly did affirm the existence of an ether. It answered most questions, but really not until Einstein did the whole picture come into focus. I assume that you do not affirm the existence of an aether? So how does affirming or not affirming the existence of a soul compare with that of the aether?
You limit the existence of things to those that you can "perceive." That most often refers to sensory information. What sensory information about the soul might you perceive which would cause you to either affirm or not affirm the existence of a soul?
And what are the qualities of this "incorporeal essence"? How can we verify the existence of this essence? If I have an experience of this "essence" and you have an experience of it, how do we know we're experiencing the same thing?
The thing is, "soul" is a concept, a label. There is nothing to be gained by becoming attached to such a label, anymore than there is to become attached to the scientific labels. None of these concepts every touch or alter the true nature, not a single iota.
Whatever it is, it is.
How do we gain this kind of experience? What would that kind of experience be like?
"In the last century, science has undergone several revolutions, with profound implications for answering this ancient spiritual question."
OK Robert, your intro has merit, but you don't follow up with a profound implication: humans are close to building a thoughtful machine. Mind-body dualism is just another way of talking about a mystery: how does thoughtless matter give rise to though? This mystery may soon end. In the last century, as you say, more is now understood about, for example, how dead matter can give rise to life, and how information theory is key to thought. When humans build a self-aware machine, that should be the final nail in the coffin of naive dualism, even if the machine then wonders about its soul. Wondering about mysteries is a delightful mental function.
About all I want you to hear as my last words are, “What a show, what I great time I had while I was here.”
The reason must are not happy at life’s end is all about resentments. Packing a load that should have been dumped years ago right up to the last second…
Wayne
The thought is problematical in that it substitutes for actual being (that is, it substitutes for what is ineffable).
Well stated.
There is nothing to add.
However perhaps your ellipsis "We are flows..." could be restated as we are like flowers in connection to your statement "[e]ver-expanding diamond." Either way it's fine.
Namaste
.
One of the most rudimentary laws of physics is that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Since we're all composed of matter and energy, would that scientific principle lend credibility to a belief in eternal life? In an extremely esoteric sense, yes it does; but not in the Christian sense that your "soul" will live forever in Heaven or Hell. It's quite accurate to say that the atoms composing your body will survive your death and may someday be incorporated into other lifeforms or inanimate objects. In THAT sense, you might live forever. But when most people use the phrase 'eternal life, " they generally mean "eternal consciousness" - i.e., that your current 'self' or 'ego' or "soul" will exist forever intact and will be conscious of its existence. Such a belief is in no way bolstered by the law of conservation of mass-energy.
"The current scientific paradigm doesn't recognize this spiritual dimension of life...According to these books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death."
That is because nobody has to date presented any reliable evidence to support the claim that a soul exists.
"Indeed, experiments suggest that particles only exist with real properties if they are observed. ..If you separate [the universe and life] from each other, reality ceases to exist."
In fact, the source relied upon provides evidence refuting the author's theory: the Weizmann Institute experiment used a non-living observer in their experiments, which indicates that the reality of universe exists regardless of whether there is life present to observe it.
"the experimental findings of quantum theory suggest that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality"
No, they do not (see above).
There is ample evidence that something 'transcendent' exists within human beings that is not material and is fundamental to everyone and to all of life.
This has been verified:
1. Subjectively, as recorded in texts from the Upanishads to Emerson, from the experientially oriented Zen "researchers" of the East to contemporaries such as Ken Wilber and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. You can EXPERIENCE the timeless essence of human consciousness that is transcendental and beyond spacetime, and it is universally described as a self-evident, Absolute, infallible state of knowledge, a field of pure consciousness at the basis of existence.
2. Objectively, as brain researchers identify neurophysiological correlates to the experience of transcendence (see the latest issue of the neuroscience journal Cognitive Processing, for starters), and from reams of physiological research on TM showing evidence for a fourth state of consciousness ("turiya" in ancient Sanskrit), in which one's awareness opens to that transcendental essence and the physiology undergoes a transformation into a state of coherent, restful alertness.
The Weizmann experiement (which you misinterpret) doesn't have much significance among quantum theorists.
Are you referring to Lavallee et al. "Intracerebral source generators characterizing concentrative meditation" 12 Cognitive Processing 2: 141-150?
That study was of a grand total of 14 people, featured no randomization and no blinding. I am not sure why you consider that to be a good study. Perhaps you could explain it.
Do you have any reliable studies to support your claims? Even better would be if you could be so kind as to clearly define your terms.
I did not cite the Weizmann experiment; rather the author of the article did and he used it as evidence to support his belief that "the nature of the universe can't be divorced from the nature of life itself". I was pointing out that the experiment itself did not use living observers and, consequently, that that study does not say what the author claims it says.
Two twins, aged 18.
Twin One begins to work on her Ph.D. in cosmology, string theory, etc. She goes to undergrad, gets high marks, goes to Oxford then to CERN, then teaches, studies under Steven Hawking, eventually wins the Nobel in Science. A singular life of achievement. She even writes books about it and is a successful author.
Twin Two begins a similarly disciplined course of study in meditation, studying mind from an internal attitude of "consciously working in consciousness" to bridge the gap between her concrete mind and the other consciousness dimensions. This is a process of synchonization of her consciousness with that dimension. (BTW: this is a very real approach in raja yoga that casual readers would miss and even fewer undertake, just like the Ph.D. path, which is the path of synchronizing the mind with the knowledge-base of science re cosmology and math.)
Thirty years from today, they both have a knowlege-base few others have in their respective disciplines.
If there are at least two other dimensions (according to multiverse theory), one physical, one in consciousness, which twin will be closer to her goal of knowing another dimension?
Actually not according to current theories. The Universe itself will one day end. Big Crunch, Big Rip, Big Freeze, Big Bounce or Heat Death. One of those will end it all. Fortunately, we will all be long extinct before that big day....
Yours,
Mr. Know It All
This does not deny the possibility of non-conditionality. That would stand alone without change and without any threat to its continuity. However it cannot be found within or through phenomena and it is certainly not locatable within the passage of time. Where and what is it? And, can it be substantiated without recourse to thought or its products or methods?
Thinkers do not accept the inevitable; they turn their efforts toward changing it.
The soul loves to meditate, for in contact with the Spirit lies its greatest joy. If, then you experience mental resistance during meditation, remember that reluctance to meditate comes from the ego; it doesn't belong to the soul.
Let my soul smile through my heart and my heart smile through my eyes, that I may scatter rich smiles in sad hearts.
Never do anything that taints your mind. Wrong actions cause negative or evil mental vibrations that are reflected in your whole appearance and personality. Engage in those actions and thoughts that nurture the good qualities you want to have.
He who is persistent will realize God. So try your best to make meditation a regular experience in your life.
Most people consider the course of events as natural and inevitable. They little know what radical change are possible through prayer. Every morning I offer my body, my mind and any ability that I posses, to be used by Thee, O infinite creator, in whatever way Thou dost choose to express Thyself through me. I know that all work is Thy work, and that no task is too difficult or too menial when offered to Thee in loving service.
Many people excuse their own faults but judge other persons harshly. We should reverse this attitude by excusing others' shortcomings and by harshly examining our own.
It would help if you made some sort of demarcation between these concepts. How do they differ from each other?
It seems that "soul" is distinct from "spirit", since joy arises from contact. Resistance comes from the "mind", again a separate thing; and it is the "ego" that is the source of reluctance to meditate. And then it seems that the "heart" is how the soul manifests into the outer world.
That is five separate and distinct non-physical components to the human being. Perhaps you view "Spirit" as being something not human, so outside of our own make-up; but that still leaves four to account for.
As a non-physical component, there can be no attributes that accrue to the physical: e.g., length, depth, breadth, volume, location in time or space.
BTW, the sincere practice of meditation does not require any of the mental gyrations which you propose. It certainly does not rely on connecting with something somehow non-physical external to the individual.
There is a whole set of terms which have no clear meaning attached to them: "mind", "thinking","consciousness", "spirit", "awareness", and, yes, "soul". Can anyone truly differentiate these concepts? Combine the mind-set of dualism with the inability to define and understand the relevant concepts, we discover that we are in the land of everyone's- point-of-view-is- valid! In that context, the doors are wide open to allow every wild "new age" interpretation. Read the comments here and we can see that beside the appeal to Eastern dualistic religions, we are confronted with support from the rarified scientific field of quantum physics. Look, even to begin to comprehend some of these postulated hypotheses, requires significant grounding in advanced mathematical thinking. Dr Lanza and so many commentators bandy these ideas around as if they had half a clue.
The core difficulty that the world-view of dualism has, and this has been pointed out since Descartes, is the inability to explain how it is that the two parts of "ME" can be joined together. Dualism can not explain the never-ending, recursive introspection that we experience.
Romans 8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Science defines only things that are already in nature. It creates nothing. Waiting for science to define that which already exist is funny.
I would have never had sex if I listened to you waiting science and Froid. Man never had any of this before science?
LOL
A scientific understanding of a phenomenon can increase our appreciation for the universe around us, and free us from superstitious beliefs. What is created through science is a greater ability to interact with the universe around us in a manner to our liking, such as with spaceflight, or lifesaving medical practices.
No one has ever claimed that mankind did not have sex before science. Those who benefit from science are, perhaps, more likely to pass their genetic makeup on to future generations than those who do not benefit from science.
The Age of Reason, The Dark Ages or even The Greeks. Some call it "history".