2. The Physiology of the Soul
Introduction
Historical early evidence of the “essence” of life, thought to be the soul, was found in death. It was often thought that the soul left the body lifeless, and we were thereafter no longer human in death. Modern science however discards essentialism and vitalism, our personalities are rather accredited to our brain functions. In this essay I will investigate if the early proofs of the soul are arbitrary, and if there are other methods to address the question.
Purpose
Initially, it's important to define how the evidence should be presented and analysed. The evidence found from historical texts will be tested against the scientific method. The text will explore the possibility of methodically investigating the soul depending on whether previous evidence is arbitrary or not for the soul's proof.
Methodology of Natural Science
Scientific method is used to derive whether a theory can be tested with a hypothesis as a starting point. This hypothesis, through experiments, should provide results for or against the hypothesis. The methodology can be deductive, meaning we derive a conclusion from what is generally considered true. It can also be inductive which is that what follows from impressions or clues ("Nationalencyklopedin").
Scientific work deals with matter and mechanics meaning that science is concerned with what physically exists and causal relationships. Research and theories can thus be falsified, which is important for scientific methodology. Therefore it follows that if a hypothesis cannot be falsified, it cannot be scientifically addressed and consistently does not belong to science (Chalmers, 2013, pp. 54-64).
Early Soul Evidence and Definitions
In the following sections, the text will explore the possibility of soul evidence and whether early evidence for the soul aligns with modern scientific methodology. The immediate issue with the soul evidence will become apparent due to the soul's immateriality, with this conflicting with modern biology. According to the National Encyclopedia, the soul is what drives our will and shapes a person. This view holds the soul's substance as independent from the body. It is equated to our ego that shapes our person, but perspectives on its form differ. Ancient thinkers like Descartes claimed the soul had no form to relate to. On the other hand, within folklore and spiritual circles, the soul was believed to be a spirit or a ghost ("Nationalencyklopedin").
An alternative view described by the National Encyclopedia equates the soul with the physical self. The soul, therefore, cannot be separated from the body in contrast to our first description. The soul is equated to the consciousness rather than an essence that gives life to our consciousness. What is significant for both descriptions is that the soul does not have a fixed form that can be studied under a microscope ("Nationalencyklopedin"). Before addressing this further, I want to focus my text on soul evidence in historical religious and philosophical context.
Religious and Philosophical Evidence of the Soul
The first evidence the text will present and analyze from the scientific working method are philosophical proofs from history. The philosopher of interest is René Descartes who devoted meditations on being and consciousness. Descartes writes in his meditations about the soul and the body as two different objects separate from each other. The body is material but only an extension according to Descartes. The soul according to Descartes is whole and indivisible, and his primary evidence for it is that he thinks. Descartes argues that he can doubt his body and surroundings but not the soul. He cannot doubt it because he thinks or "is". He alternately uses the terms mind and soul as the same thing (Johnson).
The first problem with Descartes' argument to disprove or prove the existence of the soul is its materiality. Descartes describes the soul as something that does not have its own substance, which is something we cannot scientifically address. The second problem is that he cannot prove that the soul/mind is not the same thing as the brain. We can scientifically address the brain, but this has no substantial connection to soul evidence as it is not material according to Descartes (Johnson).
Descartes' proof for the soul is based on the notion that the thing that controls our will is the soul rather than exploring whether the brain, the physical body, is the thing that controls our will. He falls into a form of essentialism where he argues for an essence in the body that gives it life. Descartes wants to describe the soul as a rational spirit and thus describe the mechanics of mind and body. However, his description does not fit the view of the mind from a modern perspective. Vitalism, which Descartes also employs, is considered to have no role in modern biology (Godfrey-Smith, 2016, pp. 15-19).
The mechanics Descartes describes in the body are not linked to the body’s own material. Descartes means to argue that our biological functions are solely in place due to the essence of the soul (Johnson). When examining the religious evidence for the soul we find that they are structured much like the evidence for the soul in earlier sections. In different religious schools of thought, like philosophy, the soul is the essence that gives life to our bodies at birth. Unlike some philosophical views however, the soul is eternal and of higher regard than in connection to living people. The soul is also meant to be what connects us to divinity in religious scripture. Hence, we must be born with it to live a life with God ("Soul," Britannica). This argument is purely theological and philosophical, therefore lacking a scientific basis. There is no material evidence to scrutinize in scientific trials, the proofs are not falsifiable, and they follow no acceptable scientific procedure to be accepted in the world of science.
A common perception of the body and soul relationship in the various religions is duality. Instead of a concrete depiction of the soul, the body and soul are distinguished. Thus, the soul becomes something believed not to be visible in the body. The argument is that without the soul, the body has no life and therefore the soul must exist ("Soul," Britannica). An objection is that we have many bodily processes that are not visible, but this does not mean that they are not material and mechanical processes that can be described scientifically. Peter Godfrey-Smith writes in Philosophy of Biology that biology deals with parts, with a mechanical view, in a system. The religious and philosophical evidence and explanations fail in their soul/body descriptions (Godfrey-Smith, 2016, pp. 15-19).
The arguments fail in regards to being able to be considered scientifically accurate. They do not lay the groundwork for the possibility to be tested scientifically and therefore forfeit verification or falsification. Godfrey-Smith means that the theological and philosophical worldview were replaced by the mechanical worldview in a paradigm shift that applies causality based on physical phenomena (Godfrey-Smith, 2016, p. 60).
Concluding Thoughts
It is evident from earlier beliefs that pondering and formulating thoughts is not a reasonable way to explore whether the soul truly exists. The brain is an organ that researchers have done extensive research on. How it functions in the body and shapes our personalities is what is of interest in modern science (Godfrey-Smith, 2016, p. 19). In the field of neuroscience, the idea of distinguishing between what is not material contra the physical and mechanical has been essential for ushering this new paradigm. The recipe for consciousness is found in the body and its physical surroundings (O’Shea, 2005, pp. 2-3).
An experiment that follows the development of different people over time, their environment, while conducting brain mapping is possible. This idea and study would not be dissimilar from a recent study on brain mapping in reference to political ideologies (National Library of Medicine). To further explore our biology, we must formulate theories and find results that meet alternative views and theories.
One approach would be to work transdisciplinarily with the question of our consciousness. Fields like psychology, neurology, and biology could produce results stemming from the materiality of the brain, our brains' interaction with our environments, and this interaction's relation to our behavior. Peter Smith-Godfrey presents in Chapter 8 of his book a study where the fields of evolutionary psychology and cultural evolution have met to conduct interdisciplinary research (Godfrey-Smith, 2016, pp. 131-138). With research that brings together researchers from different backgrounds, we have ample opportunities to not only disregard the idea of a soul but also to answer the consciousness problem within modern science.
Works Cited List
Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What Is This Thing Called Science? (4th ed.). Hackett Publishing. pp. 54-64.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2016). Philosophy of Biology. Princeton University Press. pp. 15-19, 60, 131-138.
Johnson, I. (n.d.). René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy. Retrieved October 12, 2023, from http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/descartes/descartesmeditationshtml.htm#firstmeditation
Levinson, R. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2023, from https://books.google.se/books?hl=sv&lr=&id=lJWKAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA165&dq=what+is+scientific+method&ots=eFxeUkp-4Q&sig=DzVVNIBGAaETNCOFO5UqNY6Jydw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20scientific%20method&f=false
Nationalencyklopedin. (n.d.). Vetenskap. Retrieved October 13, 2023, from https://www-ne-se.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/uppslagsverk/encyklopedi/l%C3%A5ng/vetenskap
National Library of Medicine. (2011). Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults. Retrieved October 12, 2023, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
O’Shea, M. (2005). The Brain: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 2–4.
“Soul.” (n.d.). In Britannica. Retrieved October 13, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/soul-religion-and-philosophy