There isn't any science of the soul

Being scientifically-minded and liking the notion of an immortal soul (dying and living forever beats dying and being gone forever), I used to believe that a "science of the soul" was possible.

Meaning, we humans could experiment with our own consciousness -- tweaking normal ways of thinking, perceiving, feeling, and such until evidence of soul'ness was unmistakable. Mostly this would happen through closed-eyes meditation, "going within" one's self until the essence of consciousness, soul, was separated from the non-essential aspects.

Dualism, of course, is the basic philosophical premise of a science of the soul. Soul is distinct from body; spirit is something other than matter; consciousness isn't dependent on the brain. 

So no matter how much someone (like me, for over three decades) may consider that they are experimenting with soul, the plain fact is that they're still alive in a physical body, able to do whatever they're doing because they have a physical brain.

How, then, is it possible to study a science of the soul? 

Seemingly the only way to prove that soul exists separate from the body is to no longer have a functioning body. In other words, to die. At which point there is no connection with earthly life any more (assuming soul-consciousness exists).

Thus the conundrum. While alive, every person has, or is, a brain. Meditating, or doing anything else, is made possible by brain functions. This includes efforts aimed at investigating the possible nature of soul.

Yet soul is supposedly separate and distinct from the brain. A science of the soul that uses the brain as its laboratory is akin to studying sobriety by having subjects drink beer after beer. If what you're researching necessarily vanishes when the research method is applied, there's no genuine science happening.

I've just started reading Patricia Churchland's newest book, "Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain." I'm liking it a lot. 

Churchland acknowledges that it is difficult, even for her, a professor of neurophilosophy, to truly embrace this almost-certain fact: our brains are us. There is no "me" separate from the brain. Any sensation that there is arises from... 

The brain.

In other words, the brain has come up with the concept of soul. Along with so many other concepts of things that can't be shown to exist: fairies, angels, unicorns, god, honest politicians (couldn't resist throwing that in).

Why is soul so unlikely to exist? Basically, because consciousness is directly related to brain activity. Churchland reviews lots of neuroscientific evidence supporting this fact, though each of us knows this experientially.

Anesthesia makes us unconscious. Alcohol, marijuana, caffeine, and countless other substances alter our consciousness. Lack of sleep makes it difficult to concentrate. And so on. 

Yet belief in a soul separate from the brain persists. Belief, though, is different from knowledge. Where is the evidence that soul actually exists? Churchland explains that such hasn't been produced, because there is no science of the soul.

In principle, a dualist could experimentally work out the details of a soul theory, finding out how souls work and what their properties are. Hypotheses could be tested. Experiments could be run.

In principle, there could be a natural science of the soul that would explain why souls lose consciousness when the body inhales ether or why souls hallucinate when the body ingests LSD. In practice, however, there is no science of the soul.

Apart from flimsy contrasts with the body (such as "the soul is not physical," "the soul has no mass or charge," "the soul has no temperature"), there has been no advance since Descartes's 350-year-old hypothesis. 

The odd thing is that dualists, even deeply convinced dualists, are not even trying to develop soul science, as though merely saying "the soul does it" for every it is explanation enough. It is not nearly enough. 

We cannot be certain that no distinct soul science will ever flower, but as things stand, brain science seems to have the leg up on soul science. This suggests that soul theory is floundering because there is no soul. If you had to place a big-money bet, on which hypothesis would you put your money?

Boo-hoo. There's no soul. All I am, and you are, is body/brain. Well, why cry about that? What is, is. Let's embrace reality. 

Churchland talks about the joy of giving up a belief in soul. I resonate with this, feeling much the same way myself. In another blog post I'll explain why being a brain is a damn fine thing to be.

Comments

[Steve Mays]

Have you read Immortality by Stephen Cave?

[Brian Hines]

Steve, i haven't read the book. Checking it out on Amazon, it looks very interesting. I added it to my wish list. HIs thesis makes sense, that the quest for immortality is a prime, if not THE prime, driver of human intention/civilization.

[Sandra]

Brian,
these links could possibly match the topic

http://youtu.be/C3D3pdDWO38

http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/SAND2012-self.shtml

quote
SAND 2012 (Science and nonduality)
The Nature of the Self
Main Conference Oct 25th-28th, 2012
Pre-conference workshops on Oct 24th and 25th and
post conference workshops on Oct. 29th
Embassy Suites Hotel, San Rafael, CA

Mystics in all ages and cultures describe the self as infinite, stable and ever-present phenomena. Modern physics describe the world as a self-moving, self-designing pattern, an undivided wholeness, a dance. We, as a society, relate to the self mostly as an individual, unique, time bound form. Our common sense, as individuals and society, hasn't caught up with this picture and it still based on long-held biases and stories. The Earth is clearly round but we still act as if it was flat…

We live at the dawn of a scientific revolution, every day brings new findings from a wide range of scientific disciplines about what it means to be human. Modern science now gives us the detailed descriptions of the mechanisms our brain needs to construct what we call the self.

Could it be this illusionary image of ourselves as separate beings that is keeping us in this perpetual state of anxiety, scarcity, fear, dissatisfaction and leading us, as a society, at this very delicate point in evolution?

“If you awaken from this illusion, and you understand that black implies white, self implies other, life implies death--or shall I say, death implies life--you can conceive yourself.” (Alan Watts)"
unquote

[777]

One than better stay in illusion, . . .
if the kitchen of 'connecting' might be to hot.

I said when I came here :

Winning the lotto you have a chance of 1 : 20 Billion

To SIMPLY exist is a chance of
1 : x

x being the figure derived from placing zeros on each quark in the universe
at light speed with a Gray computer to place on each of them and start to do this from the bigbang until NOW
and then a trillion times SO.

Thus , that chance is tiny and is impossible
You do not exist!

The only explanation is Solopism
You are alone !

When there is a trick, method to see rather fast what species you are,
it deserves the name "Science of the Soul"

Read my lips :
It can only be done through a gurl or guy who already did it

and better hurry

-

[cc]

"the brain has come up with the concept of soul."

It conceives the concept because its eventual non-existence is inconceivable.

[cc]

Could it be this illusionary image of ourselves as separate beings that is keeping us in this perpetual state of anxiety, scarcity, fear, dissatisfaction and leading us, as a society, at this very delicate point in evolution?

An organism is inseparable from its environment, but the condition of its environment can be awful, regardless of whatever "illusionary image" it may have of itself. You're assuming that imagining oneself separate is the cause of environmental and societal degradation, but for all we know, it may be the most appropriate strategy for survival at this point.

[Jim Sutherland]

Hi Brian. I have looked at your Blog a few times in the past, but this is my first time I have responded to anything I read. I did read your RS book when it was published, and enjoyed it. I know your present take on Charan Singh, and your RSSB position. I also was initiated by Charan, Proxy by Roland De Vries, 4 months before Charan left the body. Most members on Dr. Lane's site know me, and consider me as a trouble making flake, and I have been banned on Exsat site years ago. But, not to worry, because I don't intend on changing your position, or staying here and fencing with your members. But, I would like you to know, that WE, ( those who once took initiation by Charan Singh ) have not all become ignorant walking Zombies. Some of us had real lives before we ever knew about the Sant Mat Path, or Charan Singh, and initiation did not make some of us insane, or ignoramuses, as self proclaimed cult busters accuse us of, if we ever admit being Initiates of any Radhasoami Guru, regardless of whether we consider ourselves, exers, or present card carrying members still visiting the Dera each year and carrying dirt on our heads and wiping bird poop off leaves at the Dera. For instance, here is a Brother who is a Charan Singh Initiate who was initiated in 1978. Perhaps you know him? Would anyone consider this Chap a lunatic, because he just happens to be a Charan Singh Initiate, but doesn't go around trying to be a cult buster, or put RSSB out of business? Just food for thought, to those who have become self righteous. http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Alan-Miller/e/B001KCI4XW

Cheers, Isydopen Jim Sutherland

[Mike Williams]

"WE, ( those who once took initiation by Charan Singh ) have not all become ignorant walking Zombies"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EReWi009IL4

[tucson]

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you... strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book.

(This is just a joke. It is not directed at anyone personally)

[Brian Hines]

Jim, who says that all initiates of a RSSB guru are zombies? I don't. I don't know anyone else personally who does. It's possible for anyone to get offended by finding someone on the Internet who says something that offends them.

My wife and I own an electric car. We're vegetarians. We don't like cougars and wolves being killed here in Oregon (or anywhere). We fight for strong land use laws.

Because of those things, we and others like us get called all kinds of names. How is that different from an initiate of RSSB being called some name? It isn't possible to control what every person in the world thinks of you, or me.

[Sandra]

“It's possible for anyone to get offended by finding someone on the Internet who says something that offends them.”
and
“It isn't possible to control what every person in the world thinks of you, or me.”

I agree.

Furthermore - it’s all a matter of self-esteem:
If the self-esteem of somebody regarding the way of life he(she) has chosen is depending on other people’s opinion, he will of course be bothered by other people’s statements.
Who has a big portion of self-esteem and self-confidence will never feel offended by other people’s view.
On the contrary – he will be glad to hear other opinions so that he will be able to balance pros and cons of his own thinking.

O yes, I know, there are a lot of “selfs” in my comment...
Assuming that there are not billions of small selfs, but only one SELF, my comment is futile. And all discussions of ME, YOU become unnecessary.

Howsoever –
The more I think about this and that, the more I come to the conclusion that all I think and say is pure brainfuck.
But it’s a nice part of the game we all play here on this planet.
And as such it’s OK.

[cc]

It's a good joke, tucson, but you've corrupted it. The little girl represents science, but in the original version, the man represented religion.

[cc]

Who has a big portion of self-esteem and self-confidence will never feel offended by other people’s view.

I think self-esteem is the problem, not the solution. To think well of yourself is to be deluded because we know there is no self. That is, because we know we create images of who we and others are, we must be mindful of how these images serve us. The more highly or lowly we regard ourselves and others, the more likely we are to be mistaken, and if there's one thing we reliably and persistently do, it's make mistakes.

Esteem, high or low, has to do with trust and affection, not intelligence. We hold dogs in high esteem because they're loyal and trustworthy, not because they're paragons of rationality.

[Jim Sutherland]

A recent interview by a Radhasoami Charan Singh Initiate, who has a few more hobbies than "Electric cars and Vegetarinism." About 3/4 into the interview, he mentions his 1978 initiation by Charan Singh, as well as mentioning Kirpal Singh. Interesting interview, about interesting subjects other than Guru bashing. Amazing what brains imagine, that have been meditating. :-)

http://projectcamelotportal.com/files/Revolution%20Radio/Whistle-Blower-Radio-With-Kerry_Cassidy-2013-07-05.mp3

[Sandra]

cc,
good point. Thanks for taking up my thought of self-esteem. I agree that self-esteem cannot be a solution when we know that there is no (small) self (ME, YOU)

Quote
Alan Watts “The book on the taboo against knowing who we are”

“…technical progress becomes a way of stalling faster and faster because of the basic illusion that man and nature, the organism and the environment, the controller and the controlled are quite different things. We might “conquer” nature if we could first, or at the same time, conquer our own nature, though we do not see that human nature and “outside” nature are all of a piece. In the same way, we do not see that “I” as the knower and controller am the same fellow as “myself” as something to be known and controlled. The self-conscious feedback mechanism of the cortex allows us the hallucination that we are two souls in one body – a rational soul and an animal soul, a rider and a horse, a good guy with better instincts and finer feelings and a rascal with rapacious lusts and unruly passions. Hence the marvelously involved hypocrisies of guilt and penitence, and the frightful cruelties of punishment, warfare, and even self-torment in the name of taking the side of the good soul against the evil. The more it sides with itself, the more the good soul reveals its inseparable shadow, and the more it disowns its shadow, the more it becomes it.
Thus for thousands of years human history has been a magnificently futile conflict, a wonderfully staged panorama of triumphs and tragedies based on the resolute taboo against admitting that black goes with white. Nothing, perhaps, ever got nowhere with so much fascinating ado. As when Tweedledum and Tweedledee agreed to have a battle. The essential trick of the Game of Black-and-White is a most tacit conspiracy for the partners to conceal their unity, and to look as different as possible. It is like a stage fight so well acted that the audience is ready to believe it a real fight. Hidden behind their explicit differences is the implicit unity of what Vedanta calls the Self, the One-without-a-second, the what there is and the all that there is which conceals itself in the form of you.
If, then, there is this basic unity between self and other, individual and universe, how have our minds become so narrow that we don’t know it?”
unquote

[cc]

"The self-conscious feedback mechanism of the cortex allows us the hallucination that we are two souls in one body – a rational soul and an animal soul, a rider and a horse, a good guy with better instincts and finer feelings and a rascal with rapacious lusts and unruly passions."

If Alan Watts really had this insight and was conscious of the hallucinatory nature of self, he was "enlightened", no more identified with the observer than the observed, incapable of feeling separate from his cirmcumstances. But I can only speculate as to whether he was so enlightened because the oneness of which he spoke, though logically true, is experienced as duality. We don't experience logic - we experience ourselves as separate from our environment, able to alter it and ourselves to our specifications. This hallucination is our glory and our curse. To never see it for what it is, is to never awaken to what and where we are.

[Sandra]

cc,
Yes, one can suggest and claim all kind of things – theoretically. It’s only words.
And yes, if there wasn’t duality we could never know that “oneness” exists. If oneness was the only existing condition, we could never know what duality means. In this sense duality helps us to conceive oneness, at least theoretically.
The idea of oneness is very helpful, it facilitates the social intercourse as well as the relationship of humans with the whole environment. The mere thought of oneness, I am you and you are me, I am the universe (multiverse) and the universe is me, hinders me from harming you, animals, nature, whatever.

[Jon]

There is a distinction between 1: an understanding of oneness and 2: a sense of oneness.

An understanding of oneness (put simply) is the understanding of the non-pluralism of the universe. The apprehension that the universe is a great momentum - a great happening - an event that allows for no independent parts/no plurality of first causes. This outlook can be found in the philosophies of ancient Greece and Rome as well as the eastern traditions - from Lao Tzu and the Buddha to Heraclitus and Marcus Aurelius.

A sense of oneness is merely a sense that can emerge when the narrative faculty of the brain is dimmed or absent. There is a shift to the sense of existence as a flow or happening. It could be said that this arises when the particular gives way to a greater context. The particular recedes and the wider sense of momentum/emergence is apprehended. We have all tasted this to some extent; think of a time when you went on vacation. You're walking by the sea, the waves are crashing, the air is misty and cool - everything is new - you feel alive, exalted, and extremely present. Suddenly it's as if you are appearing in a 3D film - all there is is the shifting scenario - the whole scenario is alive. At this point the sense of the tightly constructed memory-based self has given way to the happening of the moment - the momentum of the universe.

There is nothing remotely mystical about this - research is ongoing that points to this as involving distinct networks of the brain - distinct from the narrative network that involves conceptualisation, language etc.

Now, the claim that this is (or indeed that there is such a thing as) nondual consciousness is, in my opinion, highly dubious. I suspect that it's rather the case that it represents the *absence of the dualistic projections of the mind*. But what is certain is that this sense can and does arise in certain situations. And I am sure that this is what is referred to in spiritual circles as satori or 'one taste' etc.

[Sandra]

Brilliant post, Jon. Thanks.
As far as I am concerned – I prefer to meditate with open eyes. It’s a great joy to savor a beautiful landscape. When I look at my vegetable field I also have this sense of feeling present, a live-scenario which provoces feelings of bliss. It’s uncomparable and IMO a thousand times better than meditating with eyes closed staring into the dark. In doing so I’ve always felt that I wasted my time.

[777]

cc said :

And yes, if there wasn’t duality we could never know that “oneness” exists.

Yes,
"It takes Two to dance the Tango"