Hacker News Reader

Comment by dvh | Hacker News Reader

Do humans have souls?

If that's a sincere inquiry and not witty criticism of the implicit assumption in the title that they do, you might look for the book written by/about the first heart-lung transplant recipient.

I saw an interesting interview with her many years ago. She talked about experiences where she seemingly channeled the personality and preferences of the donor for a time following the surgery.

That's an interesting example of information being stored in parts of our body besides our brain which is a theory gaining more popularity. I wouldn't be surprised if further study confirmed this.

A soul usually implies a religious / supernatural energy that survives our death. It's an inherently non-testable theory.

I think the question if "do humans have souls?" is just an example of how the question "do elephants have souls?" can have no testable answer, just personal opinion based on your belief system.

She also had interesting dreams about the guy who donated her organs and similar. Some belief systems would see that as in line with souls being real.

It's all a simulacra in 4D anyway. I think it's fine to go with whatever mental models float your boat in that regard.

(Mind you, I reserve the right to do the same thing and don't feel compelled to agree with anyone else about such topics.)

Seems to me that mind alteration due to an organ transplant is solid evidence against the existence of the soul.

I didn't chime in to initiate debate on the subject. I was merely suggesting a potential resource for someone potentially interested in exploring the topic for themselves.

I generally do not debate such things.

Thanks, I think it was a relevant anecdote.

I don’t think “souls” are stored in a hunk of meat. Sounds like religious people searching for evidence.

You are entitled to your opinion. And religious people are equally entitled to look for evidence that supports their world view, if they so desire.

I feel like having evidence of faith undermines the idea of faith.

And some folks feel like having evidence that corroborates their beliefs is good for their sanity. Or they simply enjoy learning about such things.

Different strokes for different folks.

But it’s not evidence... so what does that say about their sanity.

Please don't do religious flamewar on HN. It's tedious, and leads to worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Two things need to be answered in order to answer this question, in my opinion. 1.) Define a soul, and 2.) how much of a human can you remove, or how far can you zoom in before what you're looking at doesn't have a soul?

I would argue that cells don't have souls, and by extension, humans don't have souls. But if you disagree, do atoms have souls? If no, and humans are made of cells which are made of molecules which are comprised of atoms, where does the soul come in? At any rate, I accept that's a very scientific perspective - but it's my perspective.

What's your definition of a soul?

Cells don't have intelligence, but people obviously do, so it's possible for all of something's parts to lack something that the whole has.

I don’t believe in a soul in the classical sense. I believe consciousness (which many people attribute as being part of the soul) is just a complicated loop of observe-interpret-act-reflect, which I suppose is programmed by our experiences during our life.

Intelligence in the sense that you’re describing it is basically the increasing complication of a system that adapts to its environment.

So I would say cells by that definition do have intelligence, but it’s not complex.

I do think an emergent property of complexity is consciousness, but the “soul” as many people think of it is more than just consciousness. The idea of the soul as something detached from the body and non-transient is just wishful thinking.

> I would argue that cells don't have souls, and by extension, humans don't have souls.

It must be an emergent property. Cells don't have nationality either, but through some complex interactions people have nationality.

Nationality is just something we made up though. Nations are also something we made up. Only the earth exists, and its geography.

We could give cells nationality if we wanted to.

The article says, "To modern science it is, if anything, the hard problem of consciousness, also commonly thought to be the province of just one species."

That's as good a definition as any, doesn't require religious belief, and it doesn't depend on whether Chalmers is right, Dennett is right, or whether your soul (i.e. phenomenal consciousness) survives your death.

Do any scientists claim only humans are conscious though? I can't think of any.

A couple of related essays on the topic:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131016213539/http://davidjarvi...

https://web.archive.org/web/20131016213547/http://davidjarvi...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com