The soul?

[Dickson]

Just curious:  most atheists agree that there's no soul, right?  

Does biology/neuroscience account for differences in personalities, interests, etc?

I'm not too worried about any thoughts on the afterlife (afterlife isn't really a lynchpin of my own personal theology) but I am curious about what y'all think is bouncing around inside of us.

[Will]

I suppose it depends on your definition of soul. Do we believe in a supernatural essence of self that survives after death? No way, Jose. Do we believe that people are individual and sentient, intelligent and imaginative, etc.? Sure.

[Jolly Sapper]

...
Does biology/neuroscience account for differences in personalities, interests, etc?
...

Forgot to mention the pressures of society, individual upbringing, and personal choices/experiences.

I would have to say that yes, all of these factors are very accountable for differences in personalities.

[rlrose328]

I don't believe it is a "soul" that accounts for personality, interests, etc.  It is our conscious mind, our subconscious mind, and all that our brain contains that makes us who we are.  It's all there, in the grey matter in our skulls.  

Some has been measured -- Scientists Seek Personality's Roots in Brain -- using scientific and psychological testing.  THIS I can see... THIS I can understand.  An invisible entity/presence/THING that makes me, me?  No... I can't understand that.  It makes no sense to me.

My brain contains all that is me, was me and will be me while I'm alive.  And when I cease being alive, it will be gone.  

[Asmodean]

If you define soul as a concious autonomous entity living within my body, then no, I most certainly do not believe in it. If you define soul as "what makes me me" (Jolly Sapper's list is a good start), "soul" is just a word to describe several factors working together to define my personality and as such, I would believe in it just as I believe in "chair" being a combination of seat, back and legs.

[curiosityandthecat]

Soul = Thetan

http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#The_Spirit

Soul ~ Jiva

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiva

As for what's bouncing around inside of us, it's mostly nothing (atomically speaking). Some basic proteins, a bit of electricity and a whole lot of water. The differences in people are likely the combination of many things: structure/build of the neocortex, genetic predisposition, environment, nurturing, Pavlovian training, experience, even the level to which we're happy being ignorant or to which we desire to ask the "deeper" questions.

In my opinion, we only want there to be a soul because we think that being self-reflective, sentient, intelligent beings aware of their own mortality is ... unfair or cruel. All we have is our knowledge of life and we, as a species, are afraid of the unknown. It follows that we would be extraordinarily afraid of death (generally). We also create stories to help us pass down knowledge or teach lessons. Combine all these things and, voila, you have the idea of a soul.

The way to go about it isn't "We have souls. What information can we present to back this up?" Rather, it should be "We have this information. Does it point to a soul or is one even necessary?"

Something to think about: if we build a sufficiently intelligent machine, one capable of independent, free thought and creativity, one that is "aware" of itself and interested in protecting itself, would that machine have a soul?

[Squid]

I got soul...and the funk... ...

No but seriously, the brain sciences have produced a plethora of information about the inner workings of that 3 lb mass in our skulls.  Were there any particular points you were interested in discussing Dickson?

[myleviathan]

Just curious:  most atheists agree that there's no soul, right?  

Does biology/neuroscience account for differences in personalities, interests, etc?

I'm not too worried about any thoughts on the afterlife (afterlife isn't really a lynchpin of my own personal theology) but I am curious about what y'all think is bouncing around inside of us.

This is a very interesting thread. My first thought impulse is toward twin studies. Twins tend to have similar likes and dislikes, personalities and interests even when raised seperately. Twins raised seperately are the most interesting, because it shows just how genetic personality can be. Here are a few links I have googled:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A960948260
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na ... twins2.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/twin1.htm

I also think that the limbic system of the brain should be mentioned. The limbic system is an anatomical set of structures in the brain that controls emotion. Here's a quote from about.com (http://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/a/aa042205a.htm):

The limbic system is a set of evolutionarily primitive brain structures located on top of the brainstem and buried under the cortex. Limbic system structures are involved in many of our emotions and motivations, particularly those that are related to survival. Such emotions include fear, anger, and emotions related to sexual behavior. The limbic system is also involved in feelings of pleasure that are related to our survival, such as those experienced from eating and sex.

Certain structures of the limbic system are involved in memory as well. Two large limbic system structures, the amygdala and hippocampus play important roles in memory. The amygdala is responsible for determining what memories are stored and where the memories are stored in the brain.

Here is a link to a scholarly journal article that suggests in the summary that certain structures of the brain are tied to certain emotional responses: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/rep ... /3/384.pdf

In light of this information - what is considered "me" is entirely composed of how I am chemically and physiologically wired. I don't think the idea of a soul really offers much to explain the uniqueness of who I am when compared to the brain.

[Dickson]

Interesting responses.  Thanks all.  

No but seriously, the brain sciences have produced a plethora of information about the inner workings of that 3 lb mass in our skulls.  Were there any particular points you were interested in discussing Dickson?

Other than why I've been sooooo fucking busy lately, and your awesome "worldview," Squid, I'm not looking for any particular soul-speak.   Just wondering what yous guys think is bouncing around inside of us.  

I understand that biology/ upbringing/ environment have a huge impact on a person's personality.  But, I think there are innate differences in us from the beginning before these things have a chance to mold us.

For some reason, my memory is taking me back to the high school trip to Germany I took years ago.  We toured Dachau, and even though the 4 inches of freshly-fallen snow made the place look beautiful, I distinctly remember feeling the torment that took place there.  The crematorium was thick with . . . (I'm struggling for the right word) . . . spiritual residue.  It's like the souls of the dead were still there--even though the claim that no one was killed at Dachau is still subscribed to by some, I disagree.

Myleviathian (who, in my opinion, has the best avatar on the boards):  good call on the twin studies.  I'll have to chew on those for a bit.

[myleviathan]

But, I think there are innate differences in us from the beginning before these things have a chance to mold us.

Why do you think so? Biology/genetics play a role right from conception. A zygote starts as two cells. Are you implying those two cells have some sort of spiritual presense about them?

For some reason, my memory is taking me back to the high school trip to Germany I took years ago.  We toured Dachau, and even though the 4 inches of freshly-fallen snow made the place look beautiful, I distinctly remember feeling the torment that took place there.  The crematorium was thick with . . . (I'm struggling for the right word) . . . spiritual residue.  It's like the souls of the dead were still there--even though the claim that no one was killed at Dachau is still subscribed to by some, I disagree.

It's possible your innate propensity, and openness to spirituality caused you to feel the way you did at Dachau. You knew you were in a place where people were killed, and you could see the thick black soot. However you may have passed over a beautiful spot where a mass grave may have been located, and you wouldn't have the same feeling you did at the crematorium. Your senses likely made you feel the way you did, not a spirutual presense.

Myleviathian (who, in my opinion, has the best avatar on the boards):  good call on the twin studies.  I'll have to chew on those for a bit.

High five, Dickson.

[LARA]

I've never read any convincing accounts of reliable evidence that would make me believe in the traditional view of a soul that survives the body after death, but I would propose that information can be carried by any physically detectable thing in existence and what makes up our personalities, though it primarily derives from biological and chemical processes, is information.  

Under this supposition, I could suspend my disbelief for a second and believe that my three dimensional physical form is actually analogous to the avatar of some sort of computer operator from another dimension and suggest that we could call that operator my soul.  Of course, I have just as much evidence for that as I have for the floating teapots, pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters that have been jokingly proposed by other atheists, so it's just another raindrop in the ocean of the imaginary and valid as any other silly proposal.  

As far as the example you gave of the graveyard, I would have to say that you have prior knowledge of the significance of this place and the visual and emotional information, gravestones, names, etc. triggered a strong emotional response.  Another visitor could get the same emotional response you experienced and have a realization of the same poignant depth of the reality of life and death without having to believe in a soul.

[Squid]

Our genetics set up our "template" for who we will be.  This will lay the foundation so to speak with particular predispositions whether they be toward a certain overbearing mood or our increased risk of CVD (cardiovascular disease).  Then epigenetic factors may possibly play parts in turning off and on different genes along with random mutation (maybe an extra copy here or deletion there and so on).  From that we start building upon that template and our environment as we develop and grow will customize it to produce our "personalities" along with our likes, dislikes, dispositions, habits et cetera.

With that being said all of the neuroscience literature I'm aware of would lead to the conclusion of no evidence for some entity referred to as a "soul".  Studies have given us naturalistic explanations to some things which were once (and for many, still are) evidence of an after-life and a "soul" such as NDEs/OBEs - however both have been found to be explained through a complex interaction of brain function, oxygen deprivation, spatial filter degredation and so forth.  OBEs have been recreated repeatedly in independent laboratories as well as what some would refer to as religious experiences (see Michael Persinger's work).

As has been mentioned previously - twin studies suggest a common genetic component for people's religious/spiritual tendencies.  There is also some evidence that differences in belief are more than just personal choice, evidence-based assessments and such - a few researchers have found distinct biochemical differences in those who hold strong belief in religion and those who do not.  However, such research is still very new and much inquiry remains.

Then there's the "there has to be more" factor - the want to have something beyond this life.  A sort of unsuccessfully coping with our own mortality.  When someone is looking for any proof of an afterlife and very much wants there to be one - they will find it no matter how loosely tossed together the evidence may be.

I'll see if I can find some studies I've posted around this here interwebs before on the subject along with some posts I made in a debate involving locus of control and belief in god(s).

[D_Advocate]

It all depends on what you mean by “soul”. I will stick to a simple definition. The soul is the difference between being alive and being irreversible dead. That does not necessarily mean that such difference is an entity in its own right. Arguably it could be, although it was never observed or proven to exist as a separate entity.
The question is a legitimate one and one that the Arabs asked Mohammad. He quoted God as saying that, well only God knows, obviously, not a very satisfactory answer. The question was not who knows and who doesn’t by the way. Again zero value added from Mohammad and his Koran. But that is another topic.
Someday, science will tell us the difference between a live cell and a dead one or a live bacteria and a dead one. Someday, science will be able to transform a dead bacteria to a live one. Until then, the sould will continue to be a mystery.

[Squid]

Someday, science will be able to transform a dead bacteria to a live one. Until then, the sould will continue to be a mystery.

Some interesting research in this regard:

A bacterial spore was revived, cultured, and identified from the abdominal contents of extinct bees preserved for 25 to 40 million years in buried Dominican amber. Rigorous surface decontamination of the amber and aseptic procedures were used during the recovery of the bacterium. Several lines of evidence indicated that the isolated bacterium was of ancient origin and not an extant contaminant. The characteristic enzymatic, biochemical, and 16S ribosomal DNA profiles indicated that the ancient bacterium is most closely related to extant Bacillus sphaericus.

Cano, R. & Borucki, M. (1995). Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber.  Science, 268, 1060-1064.

Bacteria have been found associated with a variety of ancient samples, however few studies are generally accepted due to questions about sample quality and contamination. When Cano and Borucki isolated a strain of Bacillus sphaericus from an extinct bee trapped in 25â€"30 million-year-old amber, careful sample selection and stringent sterilization techniques were the keys to acceptance. Here we report the isolation and growth of a previously unrecognized spore-forming bacterium (Bacillus species, designated 2-9-3) from a brine inclusion within a 250 million-year-old salt crystal from the Permian Salado Formation. Complete gene sequences of the 16S ribosomal DNA show that the organism is part of the lineage of Bacillus marismortui and Virgibacillus pantothenticus. Delicate crystal structures and sedimentary features indicate the salt has not recrystallized since formation. Samples were rejected if brine inclusions showed physical signs of possible contamination. Surfaces of salt crystal samples were sterilized with strong alkali and acid before extracting brines from inclusions. Sterilization procedures reduce the probability of contamination to less than 1 in 10⁹

Vreeland, R., Rosenzweig, W. & Powers, D. (2000). Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal.  Nature, 407, 897-900.

Dehydration or desiccation is one of the most frequent and severe challenges to living cells. The bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans is the best known extremophile among the few organisms that can survive extremely high exposures to desiccation and ionizing radiation, which shatter its genome into hundreds of short DNA fragments. Remarkably, these fragments are readily reassembled into a functional 3.28-megabase genome. Here we describe the relevant two-stage DNA repair process, which involves a previously unknown molecular mechanism for fragment reassembly called 'extended synthesis-dependent strand annealing' (ESDSA), followed and completed by crossovers. At least two genome copies and random DNA breakage are requirements for effective ESDSA. In ESDSA, chromosomal fragments with overlapping homologies are used both as primers and as templates for massive synthesis of complementary single strands, as occurs in a single-round multiplex polymerase chain reaction. This synthesis depends on DNA polymerase I and incorporates more nucleotides than does normal replication in intact cells. Newly synthesized complementary single-stranded extensions become 'sticky ends' that anneal with high precision, joining together contiguous DNA fragments into long, linear, double-stranded intermediates. These intermediates require RecA-dependent crossovers to mature into circular chromosomes that comprise double-stranded patchworks of numerous DNA blocks synthesized before radiation, connected by DNA blocks synthesized after radiation.

Zahradka, K., Slade, D., Bailone, A., Sommer, S., Averbeck, D., Petranovic, M. et al. (2006). Reassembly of shattered chromosomes in Deinococcus radiodurans.  Nature, 443, 569-573.

Although the vast majority of ice that formed on the Antarctic continent over the past 34 million years has been lost to the oceans, pockets of ancient ice persist in the Dry Valleys of the Transantarctic Mountains. Here we report on the potential metabolic activity of microbes and the state of community DNA in ice derived from Mullins and upper Beacon Valleys. The minimum age of the former is 100 ka, whereas that of the latter is ≈8 Ma, making it the oldest known ice on Earth. In both samples, radiolabeled substrates were incorporated into macromolecules, and microbes grew in nutrient-enriched meltwaters, but metabolic activity and cell viability were critically compromised with age. Although a 16S rDNA-based community reconstruction suggested relatively low bacterial sequence diversity in both ice samples, metagenomic analyses of community DNA revealed many diverse orthologs to extant metabolic genes. Analyses of five ice samples, spanning the last 8 million years in this region, demonstrated an exponential decline in the average community DNA size with a half-life of ≈1.1 million years, thereby constraining the geological preservation of microbes in icy environments and the possible exchange of genetic material to the oceans.

Bidle, K., Lee, S., Marchant, D. & Falkowski, P. (2007). Fossil genes and microbes in the oldest ice on Earth.  PNAS, 104, 13455-13460.

Enjoy!  

[TheDutchAthiest]

If 'soul' is defined as your feelings, thoughts etc. I don't think there is a soul. Your brain does the job.