Spirals
When I was about 7 or 8, I visited my Aunt and Uncle, who had a summer cabin on a lake in Minnesota. One day my Uncle took me fishing, and with patience and a little help I caught myself a fine little bass. I was terribly excited to know that my fish would be part of dinner that evening, so when it came time for the fish to be cleaned, I was eager to watch. My Uncle was an expert with a knife, and I watched with morbid fascination as my flopping little fish was quickly reduced to a couple of white filets. As I hurried my filets to my Aunt for frying, I couldn’t help but wonder, where did the fish go? Of course I knew exactly where the fish went. I had watched the whole thing. And yet I couldn’t shake the feeling that I’d been had. A living, breathing fish had been reduced to parts, and something had been lost.
Last time, I discussed how our understanding of the brain is incompatible with the idea that we are souls in machines. I also hinted that things are not quite as clear as they seem. This lack of clarity has to do with parts and wholes. Like the fish mentioned above, when we reduce the brain to parts, something seems to go missing. We call it consciousness.
The biggest difficulty with consciousness is that it is an internal experience. We know when we are conscious ourselves, and we can reasonably assume others experience consciousness in the same way, and yet consciousness cannot be objectively seen, measured or quantified in any precise way. When we observe brain function as a whole, we are reduced to watching people’s behavior in the hopes of inferring the inner workings of the mind. With MRIs we can watch regions of the brain light up when we engage in certain behaviors. As a result, we understand how different regions of the brain generate various functions and behaviors.
When we reduce the brain to parts, we understand things extremely well. The brain consists of neurons, which connect to each other via synapses. We have about a hundred million neurons, and more than a quadrillion (1015) synapses in our brains. We understand how neurons and synapses work. We understand how neurons communicate with each other. What we’ve found is that thoughts are sparks of electricity traversing a vast neural network. Ideas flow from one region of the brain to another. What we think, what we feel, and who we are is a lightning storm of sparks.
How then do we go from simple neurons to a conscious being? The short answer is we don’t know. This is not to say we know nothing. We actually know a great deal about how the conscious brain works. For example, we can watch the brain shift from rational problem solving to unconscious. fear-driven survival mode. We have learned that consciousness is not an on or off state, but rather comes in varying degrees.
But when we go from whole to parts, whatever it is that “we” are seems to go missing.
There are some who look at this mystery and declare that there lies the human soul. But to take such a position is to declare that the human soul is trapped by ignorance. It is slowly killed off as science discovers new pieces to the puzzles of the mind. A “soul of the gaps” isn’t very satisfying. Neuroscientists are convinced that mind and brain are one of the same. Our thoughts, feelings and personality are all emergent properties of neurons and synapses. There is mystery to the brain, but no magic. There is no ghost in the machine.
But of course, evolution tells us that we are not machines. We are organisms connected to the world around us. In the same way, neuroscience tells us our brains are not computers. We do not follow blind programming, following some sort of decision tree. Instead our brains process information holistically, and the choices we make are likewise holistic. There is no single switch which makes us choose option A over option B. Our brains also do something computers generally don’t. Because the connections between neurons strengthen and weaken depending on how they are used. This means the structure of our brains are affected by the ideas flashing around our head. Our brains shape our thoughts, and our thoughts shape our brains.
It is a subtle and beautiful picture of ourselves. Not machines, not computers, but sentient living creatures connected to the world around us. Still this is small comfort to those who seek a soul which transcends the physical world. We may not be machines, and yet science still seems to tell us that in the end we are no more than flesh and blood. Atoms, molecules, neurons, synapses. Parts.
And yet that isn’t what we are at all.
Growing up, I spent most of my summers at that lake in Minnesota. One of my favorite memories is when I would take the canoe out on the lake around twilight. Usually, in that hour between light and dark, the lake would take on a glass-like calm. It was then that you could paddle out onto the lake, gliding through the water with the only sounds being the whoosh of your oar, the occasional glup of a fish eating at the surface, and the lonely calls of distant loons.
When you paddle through calm water, the water rushes in behind your oar creating vortices. This always happens. It is basic physics. But in calm water you can see these spirals of water clearly, and they can last a very long time. The interesting thing about these water spirals is how they spin through the water. You can watch them form, drift slowly, and die as if it is a single entity.
But in reality, these spirals are a form the water takes. The spiral is made of water, but not the same water for its whole existence. Water molecules are caught up by the spiral, make a swirling dance within it, and then return to the stillness of the lake. The spiral moves on, flowing through the calm.
Humans, as with all living things, are much the same. Our bodies are a dance of atoms and molecules. We move through the world as a single pattern. But the physical world flows through us. The air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, becomes a part of us for a time. They join us in our dance only to leave after a time. We flow on until, like spirals of water, we fade into the calm.
We are not simply atoms and molecules, neurons and synapses. We are a form the physical world takes. Break us down into parts, and you will find nothing but parts. But to do so means losing our form. It is this form which represents the essence of who we are.
Our souls are not hiding in our bodies. Our souls are our bodies. Our souls are spirals in the universe.
But if this is so, what happens when our spiral fades back into oblivion? Is it possible for our form to survive beyond our fading? This is a question philosophers and theologians have pondered throughout the centuries. It is a philosophical rabbit hole, and like Alice we could pursue the white rabbit down the hole if we wish.
Or perhaps to find out where we are going, we need to look at where we’ve been. For that, we need to go back to the beginning. But that is for next time.
Be Brave. Be Human. Flow.



November 14th, 2007 06:03
Hi Brian,
I think the impression that this series of essays has made on me is the sheer determination to claim that science has the answers, and that if science cannot weigh, measure and quantify, then it is dismissable as non-existent.
There is a flavor of ruthless non-religion or even anti-religion.
And yet, there is also a strain beneath it all, as if you are asking, “Is this all there is ?”
I looked at the sites you so kindly provided to the Dover School Board case. I found a most interesting exchange between counsel and a Dr Kenneth Miller, Phd in cell research biology. He argues forcefully for the standing of Evolution as a valid theory from the known evidence, and against the validity of Intelligent Design.
In his testimony he makes statements about the scientific pursuit of knowledge into the nature of the universe and his personal religious beliefs. From page 62, line 25 to page 65, line 9, a most interesting and illuminating exchange is documented.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=578
In “Ghost in the Machine”, you claim to show
“how our understanding of the brain is incompatible with the idea that we are souls in machines”.
You cannot show any such thing. You could say that “Science cannot prove the existence or the effects of a soul”. That is the limit of what you can scientifically say. Anything beyond that is opinion or belief.
It might appear you are telling me I do not have a soul, while at the same time you are saying it is problematic for science because it is undetectable.
If you are telling me that, then you have left science and are embarked on the preacher’s trail.
I do think you are actually on the preacher’s trail, in your own way. In “Spirals”, you say .
“It is this form which represents the essence of who we are. Our souls are not hiding in our bodies. Our souls are our bodies. Our souls are spirals in the universe.”
This is a statement of belief, of philosophy of existence. It is not a statement of science, which can be tested, and proven to be true or false. It is not a statement that I can agree with, but it is a statement of faith nonetheless.
I see you struggling with the limits of (scientific) knowledge, and what the meaning of those limits are.
In this endeavour, you can only determine the truth of that meaning for yourself. It is not one for which one can offer a proof to another. Each of us has to holistically fix that meaning for ourselves.
It is this endeavour that makes us human, and not merely meat.
One of my old professors used to say,
“In the going, we are already there”
Best wishes to a fellow seeker,
Denis
November 14th, 2007 14:15
Dennis,
You are right, science goes too far when it claims all which is unseen can be dismissed as non-existent. Such a claim is philosophically unsound, and it goes against the spirit of objectivity which science holds dear. But at the same time, religion must be careful not to play the game of The Invisible Dragon in the Garage.
The traditional view of the soul which many hold today stems from René Descartes. Descartes held that the soul (or mind) was immortal, nonmaterial, and not constrained by the laws of physics. He asserted that the mind interacted with the body via the pineal gland. In this way, mind controlled the body like a puppet. We now know the pineal gland is part of the endocrine system, and produces melatonin. It does not control the functioning of the brain. Furthermore, neuroscience demonstrates that there is no single central control mechanism in the brain. Regions interact, and no region has ultimate veto power.
Does this mean that all concepts of the soul must be rejected? No. Does it mean that Descartes’ concept of the soul can be rejected? Yes.
That does not mean my idea of soul as form is any more worthy. I wouldn’t claim it to be anything more than poetry, and probably bad poetry at that.
Science and religion both have shadows which haunt them. The shadow which haunts science is nihilism (which is not equivalent to atheism). Science is caught in this trap when it reduces everything to mechanistic cause and effect and declares that love is simply biochemistry, or that the purpose of our children is simply to propagate our DNA. It is a trap because science is very good at understanding mechanism. Love IS a product of biochemistry, and our children ARE a propagation of our DNA. However accepting that does not merit the conclusion that mechanism must be all there is.
The shadow which haunts religion is absurdity. Religion falls into that trap not when it speaks of the unseen, but when it clings to ideas which are verifiably false. The Church fell into this trap when it silenced Gallileo to cling to the idea that the earth was universally central and unmoving. Creationists do this when they claim all modern animals have ancestors which rode on the ark, to cling to Biblical literalism. It is a trap because religion does provide a frame of reference from which we can derive meaning in our lives. But this foundation does not mean religion is untouchable by inconvenient truth.
In I Corinthians, Paul wrote “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” We humans have the ability to learn and grow, but we can only do this when we let go of childish ideas. This is a challenge for both science and faith.
I like the quote from your professor.
Fellow seekers indeed,
Brian
November 18th, 2007 01:19
[…] Last time I discussed now neuroscience shows us that that we are not soul puppets, nor are we computer brains. We are instead sentient forms through which matter flows. I referred to our forms as souls, and not everyone approved. Fair enough. What I didn’t discuss was the whole philosophical rabbit hole of what “we” or our “soul” may or may not be. The main reason I didn’t go into it was that concepts of the soul are almost always supernatural. For something to be supernatural, it must lay beyond scientific study. There are several interpretations for what that means, and they strike at the heart of the conflict between science and faith. […]