The ghost in the machine
Physically, we are made up of cells, billions of them. Each of these is made up of atoms: tiny elements composed of electrons exchanging pions with the protons and neurons in the atom nucleus. The particles in the nucleus, protons and neurons, are collectively (together with mesons) dubbed hadrons, and each of these consists of a colorful variety of quarks interacting through gluons (which interact with themselves as well). The electrons busily orbiting around all that are a type of lepton, of which the other two are the muon and the tau. There are lots of other funny names. Billions and billions of very very tiny things inside your body are constantly swapping information! Right now they're cooperating, making you you, but after a while they will disperse, ceasing you to exist.
Now, where does the soul go? Where is the undefinable thing that makes me uniquely me? I am definitely different from you, I can feel this... there is something more to me than just a bunch of particles, isn't there? Is my soul floating around in between the atoms, a ghost in the machine? But in between the atoms are other atoms, but not the soul.
The soul, according to religious and philosophical tradition, is what makes a person unique, and it is immortal, and the basis for sentience. The soul is ethereal. However, any one person would say that his or her soul is part of him/her. The soul is a burning flame inside, or the throbbing heart, certainly not something floating around somewhere else, in an ethereal otherworldly dimension or something, right? We can really feel it hiding inside of us, always near, never quite here. Thus, if it's hiding inside, it's part of the body - and perhaps therefore made up out of particles? If it exists, it has to be made of something... be it as ethereal as it may, if it's made of nothing, it is nothing, unexistent! So it has to be made of something. Particles? ...such a complex device must certainly be made up out of a lot of particles exchanging information! But then it would be either hiding among other particles, or inside other particles. We've already defined all of the groups of particles - quarks, atoms, cells, heart, liver, lungs - the soul is not among them.
Religious references often refer to humans (and a handpicked selection of favorite animals) as being souls instead of having souls. Well this looks like a more plausible, less sorcerous approach! Essentially, without any ethereal or religious connotations (which have an unlucky tendency of differing from interpretation to interpretation and ultimately lead me to conclude that a soul is made out of nothing), the above proposition introduces the soul as a collection, we are all souls, soul is a type of word that describes the state of being human, with all its hopes and fears and expectations. Like any other difficult word, like consciousness, need, love, soul is a language construct which we cannot really explain but do use to describe our human condition, the ability of reflecting upon oneself, of hoping for something more beyond our earthly life.
It's not much, but at least it's something to start with, of which we can be certain: the soul exists in a sense that it is a difficult word in the dictionary that describes the human condition nicely.
Photography: Bob Ainsworth (from http://morguefile.com)
The beast with a million brains
We use words to describe all sorts of things, from simple to complex. If we feel hungry, we have a tendency to say we need or we want food. It's a fuzzy feeling tugging at the back of our hungry brains. When a cat or dog is looking up at you sheepishly from the kitchen floor, we say it wants or needs food.
Now think of a small bug or insect. It's much harder to think of the fly or ant wanting or needing anything, "they're not smart enough!", "they're just programmed to do so!", "they don't have a will of their own!", we say. Small things have no soul we say, they don't think for themselves, they have no want or will. We can program ants or flies in computer models and see them moving around with a few simple rules of programming code. No soul or will here. Eat or be eaten.
Our own brains are much more complex. We know very little about them, and for the time being we certainly can't duplicate them in computer models!
With our brains we can self-reflect, think about what we're doing or have been doing, or think about the future. We can think about the world, or think about ant behaviour. We can act and react, ponder choices and make decisions, all based upon processed information in our brains. We can even trouble ourselves with questions like "if the universe is constantly expanding... then into what is it expanding?", or think about a life after life. We can think about tons of odd things, but we can never fully grasp ourselves or our brains. For this we would actually need a second brain evaluating and storing and examining everything going on inside the first brain... and a third brain to examine what is going on in the two previous brains... and so on! Not even with a million brains would you be able to fully grasp and understand yourself. So we're a mystery to ourselves.
Perhaps this is where the soul lurks? In the fact that we attribute nothing magical to simple programs like ant-brains and fly-brains, but need powerful words like soul and want and need to describe the cloudy and complex thinking processes going on in our own heads? (a)
It's hard to live with the fact that we have a body made up of atoms and a fleshy computer inside our head, and nothing more. Is the soul hiding in some uncovered part of the brain? Unlikely. Is it an ethereal ghost floating between the atoms? Equally unlikely. A word in the dictionary to express our feelings of uniqueness?
Contrarily, a superintelligent alien would probably look down at us as silly soulless ants running around without will or want!
It really doesn't matter all that much. Whether or not the soul actually exists is only important if it is either saved or doomed when you die.
Playing dice with God
"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." - Blaise Pascal
For those of us that like to plan ahead, I offer Pascal's Wager, a charming example of game theory. Now, when death grows near, we humans have a limited number of plausible scenarios awaiting us, in which there either is a God, or there isn't:
- God exists, and you believe
Great! Now your soul is accepted into heaven for all eternity, you gain infinite bliss! - God exists, and you do not believe
Not great! Now you are punished for your heretic faithlessness and spend eternity in hell... - God does not exist, and you believe
Sad! Luckily, since souls go heavenless, you don't have a self anymore to regret it - you're worm food! - God does not exist, and you do not believe
Now you neither win nor loose so it didn't matter anyway.
Thus, according to Pascal, the best bet is to believe.
However there's one game variable you cannot control, and that is God itself. So far we have assumed that either God does not exist, or otherwise vehemently punishes and banishes unbelievers to the fiery pits of hell... but for all that matters this supreme being might be thinking the other way around! Blaise Pascal's theorem has a logical fallacy in that it assumes God to behave how man described Him... but really, what do we know... Maybe the Big Kahoona has something of a scientific attitude itself, rewarding honest involvement and sound reasoning (this eventually even leading to skepticism and disbelief), and rather punishing blind faith, persecutive zeal, or devoutness derived from a hope of some personal and egocentric gain in the end... Now you're in trouble! What to choose? What to do? For all you know you might be a sidekick character in a divine game of Dungeons & Dragons...
Truth is, whichever option you choose, you can never be really certain about your fate in the afterlife, as long as you are alive. So why worry in the meantime? Maybe Pascal was wrong about having to choose either of any option.
Playing dice: fear, uncertainty and doubt
There are actually more pressing choices to be made. At some of the more crucial points in life we wonder if this is really all there is to it. "What is the point of it all? Does life have meaning?", we dare ask. But if we cannot even be certain about our fate in a supposed afterlife, can we be certain about anything in life? Often at these times, people tend place their trust in lexical constructs like fate, destiny, and predetermination, hoping and praying that all is for the best, that things will be fine, that stuff happens for a reason.
But do things really happen for a reason, or does everything seemingly works at random - like in a complex process called evolution? Again, we cannot be certain unless we have some hard evidence refuting the contrary. Evolution at the very least makes it highly unlikely that things were planned or "designed" in advance with a set "purpose". Neither do they happen at random! Evolution is... evolution, slowly getting better at the game. For us humans it has lead up to a point where we can use our brains to ask ourselves some very complex questions and define our own purpose in the world. Let's examine a few simple examples.
- Is it predetermined by fate that small children in third world countries should die of starvation, or be rent apart by stray bullets? Was this their God-given predetermined fate? A test of the Almighty?
- If a car approaches you at high speed, will you remain standing, bracing you feet and closing your eyes, placing the outcome in the hands of predetermination? Would this not be very very foolish?
The chances of a crucial event (like the ones above) working out right all by itself look rather slight. The modern world is an impatient place. Moreover, the modern world is a place where things are for sale, where everything is for sale, a place filled with empty, meaningless consumption objects, fake TV reality shows, starvation, war and cruelty. In this world we yearn for some higher cause, we yearn for something more real than the staleness of reality, something that makes our individual selves worthwhile in a globalised world of human worker ants, something that makes life worth living. Yet hoping that something to be fate and predetermination seems like utter folly to me (nearly as foolish as believing in nothing). Nothing magical (take a Disney Christmas sled) is going to come by and solve things. If we do not actively help third world children, they will die of starvation, it's as simple a fact as that. If you do not jump out of the way of an approaching car, you get run over. If you don't step up to people, you will never meet new ones. If you work hard things will likely still evolve with bumps along the way but in the end you have a better shot at gaining something. Don't stand around believing in belief!
This is a rather simplified way of looking at things (and probably only relevant to people with enough money and personal freedom to read articles on the internet), but the core of it is this: you likely gain more in life actively pursuing your goals than waiting for fate and destiny to drop by - which seems to me an excuse for indecision, fear, uncertainty, doubt. Leaving the decision-making to others is a comfortable way to acquit any responsibility, guilt and doubt you might have, but those others usually screw up. Your fate, and your soul, and that of those less fortunate, lies not in a set of Tarot cards, or a crystal orb, but in your own two hands. We are gifted with the ability to reason, resolve choice and make decisions, which makes us stand out over the eat-or-be-eaten principle. Regardless of what we believe, acting is more fruitful than believing - even in the most uncertain of situations, like a life with an uncertain afterlife. God does not play dice, neither should we allow things to play dice with us. What is even better than taking action, is doing right, even when in doubt (naturally, it is entirely humanlike for right to be a very fuzzy, very relative concept).
But do look before you leap.
Conclusively, do things have meaning? Yes. They have meaning because we invest in them, because they are part of our personal history. Does stuff happen for a reason? Yes. It happens because everything else you've been doing has led up to this point regardless of the fact that it is good stuff or bad stuff. Take a look around! The world is actually a very beautiful place. Find yourself a purpose to make it worthwhile.
Photography: sideshowmom (from http://morguefile.com)
The dethroning of the real
Trite but true, reality, the world around us, can sometimes look like a bleak and soulless place, a stage decoration of consumption. Since the dawn of mass production we have become accustomed to the fact that everything is for sale, and we are told everyday to want all of it, right now. Fullfilment and happiness are concepts achieved through the acquisition of funny lavalamps, fancy trinkets, colorful baubles, and adventurous tourist trips to faraway countries. We are told everyday by computer-enhanced people on the cover of pulp magazines what is wrong with our bodies and how various ointments and pills can remedy that, what is wrong with our partners and our sexlife (shouldn't you be searching for a newer, better, younger Mr. or Ms. Right too?). We live surrounded by TV-commercials trying to sell us something, a film and movie industry solely interested in making as much money as possible, fake reality-shows. A consumer culture.
This soullessness is not as much the result of the uprise of science and the corresponding downfall of religion - science in itself has a magical and wondering property - but of the dethroning of the real - the fact that we live in a society often bent on profit. We can surround ourselves with technolgical gadgets, the best food and the warmest of houses, but none of this will eventually warm the hollowness at the centre of us. Sometimes we seem to have lost meaning and value.
I'll offer some of my personal favorite examples:
According to Walter Benjamin
Walter Benjamin, Marxist literary critic and philosopher, argued that mechanical reproduction (photography) has destroyed the aura of art, der Verfall der Aura. Aura here implies authenticity and elusiveness, the feeling of seeing an original work of art, here and now, just a few meters away from you, but infinitely far as well - untouchable. But, with the introduction of reproduction, this aura is destroyed: everyone is able to own a poster copy of the Mona Lisa. Everyone has seen it in books, can own a copy of it, has a tale or two to tell about it. What remains is a mob of tourists drumming in front of the original no longer regarding it as something religious, but as something exhibited, something with a name plaque, something that must be photographed and owned.
According to Roland Barthes
In his Mythologies, Roland Barthes, literary critic, social theorist and semiotician, examines the aspects of mass culture, from film and advertising to zoos and fashion. What we perceive as real throughout these media, he argues, is in fact artificial, illusory: a myth. I'll add some modern day examples. Imagery of food in magazines is generally constructed from totally different things that look like especially sumptious food, on picture. What we read in magazines on love and the differences between man and woman is in no way truth, but a reflection of current fashion trends, and a marketing product to sell perfumes, fancy dresses, city trips, and of course more magazines! Warfare presented on the news looks like a cool Nintendo game. The American president appearing on television is shot with a hazy lens and dramatic lighting, sitting near the fireplace and the American flag, like some demigod slash family guy mixture; his speeches and the things he says composed by someone else. He is an image. If you own a fancy car you are successful. Different washing products advertised with different qualities that are exactly the same and produced by the same multinational baffle you with a false freedom (or uncertainty) of choice - supermarkets are full of these illusions of free will.
According to Jean Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard, cultural theorist and philosopher, describes the termination of history in the 20th century, with the mass becoming a silent majority that passively absorbs and consumes. Reality, he argues, has been subtly replaced by a simulation of it: the hyperreal. Old folktales, often harsh and cruel, have been repackaged by modern-day, soft-toned, easily grasped Disneyfied versions, while the original tales that had have meaning to us throughout history are now lost to most people. Young people listen to recycled, flattened and popularized remixes of old hits without even being aware of the original. Britney Spears, a famous marketing product pretending to be an icon of the successful American girl, is most likely regarded as the author of I Love Rock N Roll. And in a few years, the ringtone is probably even more famous.
There is a ghost wandering around in the machine; it's called money, and one of the most important things in modern life we empathise with.
The soul: projection and empathy
In The Mind's I Douglas R. Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett present us with a story by Terrel Miedaner. In it, we meet a small, cute machine on wheels that purs like a cat when it charges its batteries or when you pick it up, which has lights that grow brighter when endangered, until it flees and hides, which emits a soft, crying, wailing sound when badly damaged, dripping fluid.
Obviously, we are tempted to empathise with the small machine being hammered to death in the story, just because it is small, cute, and displays very strong optical and auditive emotions when it's life is in danger. We would almost project a soul into it, a machine! But ask yourself this: would you chase the machine around, corner it, and then viciously club it to death while it wails at you to stop?
The soul and the display of feelings and emotions are strongly connected. Hofstadter remarks: We are so subject to emotional appeal yet so able to be selective in our attribution of soul. How were the Nazis able to convince themselves it was all right to kill Jews? How were Americans so willing to "waste gooks" in the Viet Nam war? It seems that emotions of one sort - patriotism - can act as a valve, controlling the other emotions that allow us to identify, to project - to see our victim as (a reflection of) ourselves.
He later on states: We are all animists to some degree. Some of us attribute "personalities" to our cars, others of us see our typewriters or our toys as "alive," as possessors of "souls."
Hofstadter concludes his comment on Miedaner's story with: When does a body contain a soul? In this very emotional selection we have seen "soul" emerge as a function not of any clearly defined inner state, but as a function of our own ability to project.
But if you're looking to sell yours, here's where to do it!
Footnotes
(a) Note that I'm talking of soul as a lexical construct to describe our emotive state here, not as something that grows in size the more intelligent a being gets. As far as I am personally concerned, all things ranging from plants to bugs to humans to algorithms are capable of having a soul at one time or another as an expression of desire or projection of emotion.
Tom De Smedt, 2006