It seems that in our modern times, there are very few who feel that it is necessary nor even reasonable to hold the idea of the soul in high esteem. From the scientific foundations of our youth to the material-philosophical hazings of adulthood- the impetus is ever against us in the endeavor to pin down what is contained in “us,” if anything at all.
We are taught, by implication, that our behaviors, thoughts, and emotions are products of neural activity in specialized cortical regions. It is nearly inevitable that, like watching a magician on the stage, we become the educated cynic in the audience, only moderately impressed with the unfolding he sees. What basis do we have to believe there is anything more to the life experience and humanity itself other than the firing of neurons and a cycle of births and deaths ad nauseum?
Material science has, in modern times, been forced to confront and assimilate a contradiction.
As it turns out, much of what we see and study scientifically isn’t really as it truly is, but as it is experienced by our brains. This isn’t to say it is invalid- what is valid within one “shell” may not apply to another shell, but can be reliably manipulated and studied regardless.
Solid matter is not really solid at all- but is mostly comprised of space. Atoms are held together not by some sort of physical glue, but energy itself. The human body (and brain) operates via electricity and chemical operations, which consist of the transfer of energy at different levels. From a biological sense, plants acquire energy from light, and we consume those plants or the animals that consume those plants, so that the same energy is pushed through our material bodies, allowing them to operate on the material plane. It is impossible to escape the implication that we are, in fact, comprised of energy and dependent upon light, at the subatomic (and material) level.
Our mind is like a Mason’s square, allowing us to interpret how energy is distributed on the level of human experience, and to calculate how we may move and operate within it. This is the purpose of our earthly consciousness. And yet, where does consciousness reside? Is it merely a function of the brain?
There are a vast number of scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding the phenomenon, and no two scientists seem to agree.
On the quantum level, all laws of the more immediate “levels” of reality fall apart. Even more puzzling, there are stars which seem to possess some sort of conscious Will of their own (http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state).
What actually takes place in our lives and our interaction with “existence itself” is only valid on one level- the human level, confined to a mind and a brain. To suppose that this particular “level” of reality is the beginning and the end of “us” seems contradictory to even the most ambiguous discoveries of modern science.
To further illustrate this idea, it is a known phenomena that particles behave differently when they are observed (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm). Not behaving on their own accord as a fact of material mechanics is certainly an inconvenient fact for those who expect a “well-behaved” universe.
It would seem that the only thing well-behaved we can study is the very square by which we measure- and little else. To live life in acknowledgement only of our ability to navigate and create is to forget what we are navigating and creating for. Is our drive to live motivated merely by the mechanical components of our bodies replicating and persisting?
Is consciousness truly limited by the components of our brain? If consciousness affects the behavior of individual particles without any physical intervention, could we, in fact, be more than our physical bodies?