Still, there were a couple of interesting topics brought up that got me thinking. They have to do with the idea of a soul, and how to reconcile that with various situations. Personally, I have trouble with the word “soul” because it’s so inimately tied to religious connotations. On top of that, people generally describe a soul as “non-physical”, which leads me to ask what that actually means, usually to unsatisfying answers. Anyway, the topics that really made this conversation interesting to me were these: What would be the implications of being able to transfer consciousness between people/bodies? What are the implications of a soul in evolutionary terms?
First scenario – If you believe in a soul, do you think that it might be possible (in theory) to move consciousness from one body to another. To put it another way, if we had the ability to exactly reproduce the electrical workings of your brain in another body (or even some mechanical replica), would that still be you? Is there something beyond this that makes you, you? It’s an interesting possibility. For people who think that there is a non-physical soul that is really “you”, how would this get transferred, or would it? If it did not, what happened to it? If it did, are there some rules involved in how much of your brain activity needs to be transferred before the soul makes the jump too? What about if we just copied your consciousness over, and now there are two places your soul needs to be associated with? For those that think that you couldn’t transfer a soul this way, I want to know why. What is it about this body that ties it to my soul? If I lose some part of my physical body, I assume that I retain my soul. Then what’s the tie to my physical body? And if we can reproduce my consciousness, did we implicitly reproduce my soul somehow? If we copy my consciousness into a mechanical replica, do you have the same moral obligations to it that you do to me? What a metaphysical can of worms this is.

Second scenario – Does evolution lead to rejecting the idea of a soul? Most soul-advocates would agree that animals do not have one (except sometimes the family dog, which we’d like to see again in the afterlife). Many of them also want to be science-savvy and open-minded about evolution, but I have to ask, are the two compatible? To accept evolution is to accept that we share a common ancestor with creatures that have no soul. So then, somewhere along the way some creature must have had no soul, but given birth to one that did have a soul. Is this what we’re really saying? Where did that soul come from? At which point in the evolutionary line did we become just-human-enough to deserve a soul? Did that child have the same moral responsibility to its mother that we grant to fully human parents and children, or was its mother just an animal?

I don’t have good answers for most of this stuff, but it sure is mind-bending to think about and discuss. If you have good answers for what I see as logical problems with a soul here, let me know. I’m very interested.