Philosophy of the Soul

[Ham n' Eggs]

This is a question I've been curious about. What do philosophers who accept evolution and believe in souls/afterlife have to say about where the soul came into existence.

Step 1: take a look at this very short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_6mpl3htvw

Step 2: just for the sake of making the example stronger imagine the video went back 55 million years instead of 3 million years and ended in a straight continuous line to something very much like this: Plesiadapis cookei.

It is thought that this species or something very much like it is our evolutionary ancestor.

At what point do philosophers say that the sole began to exist when every offspring in the line from Plesiadapis cookei (or something very much like it) all the way to modern day humans was the same species as their parents in exactly the same way that every human child today is the same species as their parents.

Is there any respectable scholarly philosophy that accepts evolution and allows for the existence of a "soul"? If so how does it deal with this problem of where the soul comes from?

 

[woolfe9998]

Indeed, one could extend the line even further back to rodents or whatever primates evolved from, to other mammals, and to whatever mammals evolved from, and go all the way back to single cell organisms. The same question applies all the way down the line.

I'm not sure what "philosophers" you are specifically referring to. Since you aren't mentioning a particular religion, it is harder to answer your question. For example, in some religions they believe non-humans have souls. By that logic, even a bacteria or plant may have a soul. In Christianity, non-human animals aren't supposed to have souls. Frankly, there isn't any way in the context of Christianity to answer your question or to make evolution compatible with biblical creation. The two are simply at odds. Then again I don't know that your question pertains to Christianity or a specific religion. You need to do a better job of identifying who you are referring to. Try providing an example.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The soul is not something you have. It is what you are.

 

[Ham n' Eggs]

hmm, this seems like a trickier question than I thought.

I was thinking in terms of the types of philosophers that you'd find at a university... such as the ones that taught one of the few philosophy classes I took at college e.g. metaphysics class or philosophy of science class. They were academic types.

I wasn't intending to narrow it to a particular religion though although maybe that's needed here. Are questions about the origins of the 'soul' the types of questions that academic philosophers are tackling, publishing papers on?

 

[Ham n' Eggs]

Indeed, one could extend the line even further back to rodents or whatever primates evolved from, to other mammals, and to whatever mammals evolved from, and go all the way back to single cell organisms. The same question applies all the way down the line.

agreed

 

[sm625]

I believe I am a philosopher who accepts evolution so I can answer this. I believe the soul is a resonance between the quantum microtubules in the brain and the greater universe. I view the brain as a sort of universal consciousness lens. The soul is the sum value of all the quantum entanglements formed inside the brain when it is alive and working. When the brain dies, those entanglements dissipate and reappear spontaneously in other parts of the universe, including inside the brains of others, potentially even everyone. Of all the billions and trillions of quantum entanglements inside your brain, I imagine there are at least a few from each person who existed previously.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"The soul" isn't really a topic for philosophy, per se. It's a religious idea. Philosophers talk about substance dualism vs monism, mind/body dualism, materialism, reductionism, naturalism, algorithmic computability and such. "The soul" is not really a well-formed idea, and reason cannot act upon an idea until it is well-formed.

 

[sandorski]

I think the Roman Catholic Church has some kind of "explanation" as to how it is possible. Pretty sure I heard someone state it in a debate before, but don't recall what it was.

 

[soulcougher73]

Proof of soul please.

 

[MongGrel]

I believe I am a philosopher who accepts evolution so I can answer this. I believe the soul is a resonance between the quantum microtubules in the brain and the greater universe. I view the brain as a sort of universal consciousness lens. The soul is the sum value of all the quantum entanglements formed inside the brain when it is alive and working. When the brain dies, those entanglements dissipate and reappear spontaneously in other parts of the universe, including inside the brains of others, potentially even everyone. Of all the billions and trillions of quantum entanglements inside your brain, I imagine there are at least a few from each person who existed previously.

I actually have read some interesting theories along the same lines in the past.

Even among Surgeons and Anesthesiologist's during surgeries.

There are so many things out there that still have not been explained of course, quantum mechanics is still not largely defined, dark matter is unexplained.

Atoms at one time where thought to be the smallest particle, what is below quantum mechanics would be the next question, and how it relates.

Ham n' Eggs is an interesting new member, just watch the P&N landmines

 

[JEDIYoda]

"The soul" is not really a well-formed idea, and reason cannot act upon an idea until it is well-formed.

nice opinion! But proof of your opinion is not there....or is it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

nice opinion! But proof of your opinion is not there....or is it?

You are cordially invited to present a well-formed idea of what the soul is, but none of us are gonna be holding our breath.

 

[woolfe9998]

"The soul" isn't really a topic for philosophy, per se. It's a religious idea. Philosophers talk about substance dualism vs monism, mind/body dualism, materialism, reductionism, naturalism, algorithmic computability and such. "The soul" is not really a well-formed idea, and reason cannot act upon an idea until it is well-formed.

Yes, it isn't a coherent idea. Which is why I asked the OP which philosophers he's referring to.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Is there any respectable scholarly philosophy that accepts evolution and allows for the existence of a "soul"? If so how does it deal with this problem of where the soul comes from?

Yes. As CT pointed out, your 'soul' is not something 'separate' from your body. When a body stops the souls rests. Christians hope for bodily resurrection.

Colloquially a 'soul' is "that which can haunt your ass." A ghost of a human only makes sense if a ghost of Lucy or the Plesiadapis cookei makes sense.

1 Peter 3: 18-20

Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

 

[Ham n' Eggs]

Well I guess I sort of have an answer to my question. I've seen that quite a few of you seem to know more than a bit about philosophy and I figured that if there were philosophers working on the 'Soul/evolution' problem that it would be a quick answer.

But yeah, if philosophy isn't really working on that because you can't really define what a soul is then it makes sense that the 'soul/evolution' issues isn't really an area of active study.

 

[Ham n' Eggs]

Ham n' Eggs is an interesting new member, just watch the P&N landmines

thank you
and thanks for the advice, I find the P&N stuff to be a bit tempting but I don't really want to get too fired up with that stuff.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Well I guess I sort of have an answer to my question. I've seen that quite a few of you seem to know more than a bit about philosophy and I figured that if there were philosophers working on the 'Soul/evolution' problem that it would be a quick answer.

But yeah, if philosophy isn't really working on that because you can't really define what a soul is then it makes sense that the 'soul/evolution' issues isn't really an area of active study.

it's really got a lot of answers because there are three distinct definitions of the word: what we need from you is what you are getting at.

 

[disappoint]

The soul is not something you have. It is what you are.

"The soul" isn't really a topic for philosophy, per se. It's a religious idea.

So you're religious?

It's amusing to me watching everyone flail about aimlessly trying to understand what is in actuality a very simple concept.

The soul is an idea. The idea originated out of fear. Specifically the fear of death. Death has set up in people's minds a sort of cognitive dissonance. I've explained cognitive dissonance multiple times on these boards with the Fox and the Grapes of Aesop's fable fame before so I'll spare you all that again and instead take the education into how your mind functions a step further with a quote from rational wiki:

Most people will — eventually — change their beliefs on a subject after enough contradictory evidence emerges, because sometimes it is so solid and undeniable that it is easier to give up a complex worldview than having to constantly generate excuses why this evidence is false. Other individuals, especially when they have support networks of others reinforcing a delusion or worldview, will go to such great lengths to rationalize away dissenting ideas that after a certain point, an admission of error would cause the collapse of an entire web of mutually-supporting beliefs.

This would leave the brain with no ability to do its work, as everything it thought it knew would now be useless, resulting in agony/extreme fear of death and the activation of emergency self-protection mechanisms. Those mechanisms cause the individual to either go into an introverted reaction, with all-encompassing ignorance and cutting off any contact to those conflicting parts of the real world (See: Zen)(dissapoint's note: Zen can be a form of dissociation), or an extroverted reaction of trying to attack and destroy the sources of the conflicting information for heresy (typical for Abrahamic religions).

By comparison, a human being who would actually go through such an event without that protection would end up in a state of complete inability to accept himself/herself and to choose the “right” actions for even the simplest situations, making it impossible for him/her to continue living. So the former protective reactions are still the better (because it means survival) of three really bad choices.

Sauce:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[elitejp]

Im not sure about what philosophers think as im sure there are more than a few ideas floating around between them and rarely would it be a consensus.

As for the definitions of soul that have been given on this board I will make it easy from a christian point of view seeing as a soul would be more of a religious term rather than an evolutionary term.
In Christianity both the terms soul and spirit are used and in one passge it is stated that they can be separated. I refer to this for the fact that if they can be separated then they must be different and understood differently

Soul: includes your mind will and emotions. Its what gives us free choice to do good, evil or anything in between. No one controls us.

Spirit: is who you really are. When your body dies you dont go with it. Your spirit and soul will remain. The spirit is often likened to a hand in a glove(body). You take off the glove but that doesnt mean you lose your hand as well.

Just something to think about.

 

[elitejp]

The soul is an idea. The idea originated out of fear. Specifically the fear of death.

Why do people fear death if either you stop existing or you start existing in someone else? I would figure either scenario to be a "no big deal" sort of outcome.

 

[jackstar7]

Why do people fear death if either you stop existing or you start existing in someone else? I would figure either scenario to be a "no big deal" sort of outcome.

We have a built-in evolutionary impulse against "stop existing".

Hence why we have so many constructs to try and mitigate the inherent fear associated with that notion.

 

[disappoint]

Why do people fear death if either you stop existing or you start existing in someone else? I would figure either scenario to be a "no big deal" sort of outcome.

Fear of the unknown. Also suffering loss of loved ones.

 

[Joepublic2]

If you want an analytical answer I think you're going to be disappointed because you're asking science to provide an answer to something that's, at least for the time being, beyond human understanding. I'm taking soul to mean that which is unique to you and you alone, the essence of you or what makes your consciousness tick. The exact nature of consciousness and our ego (which I would call our sense of distinction from other consciousnesses and from the rest of our universe) is still very much a mystery, much less from what it if anything it originates.

If you want a non analytical answer of where the soul came from you could trying using psychedelic drugs, preferable with an experienced person you trust who can help guide your experience. That's really the best answer I can provide.

Everybody should experience a meditative or drug induced ego death IMO because it helps to put their ego/existence into perspective. A lot of (most I'd say) religions were created around such experiences.

Why do people fear death if either you stop existing or you start existing in someone else? I would figure either scenario to be a "no big deal" sort of outcome.

I think a lot of people fear the process more than they fear the result, and don't really make a distinction between the two in their mind.

We have a built-in evolutionary impulse against "stop existing".

Hence why we have so many constructs to try and mitigate the inherent fear associated with that notion.

Don't leading current scientific theories of the universe say that information is never really destroyed?

 

[jackstar7]

Don't leading current scientific theories of the universe say that information is never really destroyed?

Doesn't sound testable...

Also, consciousness is still undefined.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So you're religious?

My first response was my attempt to make a religious idea realistic. I'm sorry that escaped your notice.

The soul is an idea.

What isn't an idea?