I’d like to explain a few threads of thought that have been milling about in my head for the last year or so. This may appear to be a bit more long-winded and entangled than my other “rants”, but I’d urge you to bear with me – if only for the selfish reason that I think that these are interesting subjects. (and you might find so too) 
It’s also important to note that I’m going to be using a very complicated topic to explain a much simpler topic, and while this may seem counterproductive, I still submit that it is interesting enough to warrant the long walk.
Do human beings have souls? This question permeates our culture to the very core. I’d guess (and pardon my lack of scientific research in this regard) that most people believe to some degree that they are “special”. They probably also believe that the people around them, their friends and family for example, are “special”. They may even extend that belief to all of their fellow human beings. The concept of a “soul” is one way to represent this “specialness”.
In fact, the idea of a “soul” can bring to mind a few different concepts. It can be seen as a visual; a glowing blue orb of light that exists somewhere beyond the detection of modern science and yet somehow influences our physical, material brain with its immaterial “presence.” (This kind of concept is often employed in games as a form of health – or as a really poor way to try to adapt classic literature. see: Dante’s Inferno)
Another version of “soul” could be metaphorical. Perhaps there is no visual representation at all; in this version a “soul” is just something intangible that represents what is “special” about humans.
Religion may be present in either version, with the more hardcore religious choosing to believe that souls are “real”, while the moderates may treat them as an “imaginary” construct.
We certainly haven’t been able to prove that souls exist. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence that supports the idea of a soul. (when applying strict scientific protocol, i.e. ignoring the new age quantum quacks, et al) There are plenty of things that we don’t understand about the brain, but there is much that we do understand. And what we do understand can largely account for our conscious experience.
The idea that a bundle of millions of neurons in our heads somehow represents our entire conscious experience irritates a lot of people. It can be a hard concept to wrap one’s mind around. As a believer in a vague concept of souls, I was also slow to take to the idea that consciousness could arise from what amounts to a very complex “machine”. But after a lot of reading and pondering, I began to accept the idea.
I’m not arguing that everyone should immediately “jump on the bandwagon” and give up the notion of souls. But explaining my thought process helps illuminate a few points. First, my previous conclusion that a “soul” was required for my life and the lives of others to be considered valuable turned out to be false. Realizing just 1% of how the brain works, is a mind-expanding experience. The complexity of the brain is, paradoxically, mind boggling. The fact that we all have this amazing, complex, conscious organ rattling around in our heads is reason enough for me to feel that our lives are “special” and meaningful.
Secondly, the concept of a “soul” works just fine for me as a metaphorical term to describe something like “the unique firing patterns of an individual’s brain”. Did you know every brain is wired different from birth? While some regions are known to represent certain “functions” with some degree of regularity (e.g. memory, emotion), the vast majority are spread out over many regions of the brain. It’s hard for me, as a computer scientist, to avoid comparing the brain to a system of software… but it became even harder when I started to realize how insanely complex the brain is.
In any case, I’m quite comfortable with other folks believing that everyone has a “soul”, assuming that represents “some quality that makes humans unique”. We may differ on the exact details of that metaphor, whether it represents an actual soul, or the wonder of brain-produced consciousness – but overall our intention is very similar.
Come with me on a little thought experiment… Imagine that creatures from another world have come to visit Earth. These aliens are best described as a big pile of noses and tentacles – with no eyes. They can’t see, but their sense of touch and smell is remarkable. (which is odd, considering that they smell distinctly like rotting cod) Their conscious experience and entire culture revolve primarily around smelling things. They have constructed great “towers of scent” on their home world, of particularly strong odours that would put most humans in a coma. They have fetishes for particularly squishy objects.
Now imagine how one of these beings may interact with a human. They have no ears, they can not make sense of sound. (other than being able to pick up vibrations in a very vague way) They communicate by emitting odours, which we can not make sense of. They may even take offense to odours that we would emit accidentally.
These aliens are not very polite, so they might decide to abduct one of our fellow humans and dissect his body. Upon opening the skull of our theoretical victim, they would find a squishy mass. Its smell might be intriguing, and it may also feel somewhat pleasurable to for one of them to wrap a tentacle around it, or perhaps to juggle it… but they can perceive no value in this component, no otherworldly powers or magical presence.
What I’m driving at, is that human value is attributed by other humans. That fact that we think our lives are valuable and interesting, and that our fellow human beings also have value – comes all from us.
So if our perception of the value of other human beings comes from within, surely the same must be true of the value of art.
Our visual, literary and audial art would be of no value to our nose-tentacle alien friends. They might not even be able conceive that it was intended as art. And yet, while the same is true of most other inhabitants of this planet (i.e. animals), we still value art greatly.
Why do humans value art so much?
Much like how we attribute value to our fellow humans beings, whether they are “luminous beings” (as Yoda puts it) or wonderfully complex machines – we “invent” value for art.
Human beings are masters of reading into things. Have you ever patted a cheerful dog on the head, and then wondered exactly what was going on in there? Many of us also find ourselves talking to cats or dogs, even though we’re aware that they can’t possibly understand our language. Sometimes an animal will react to us in a way that seems almost human. We know this to be an illusion, and yet it can seem very compelling in the moment.
We see human faces everywhere, in the front of cars, in buildings, in the clouds. It’s hard not to see a human face in a given object, if someone points it out.
Human perception is what gives art its meaning. Much like my thoughts on holistic game design, humans don’t perceive other humans as a “pile of components”. We also generally don’t look at films as a pile of scenes or a pile of frames. Or at books as a pile of sentences. We can be aware that a person is made out of a brain, and lungs, and bones – but we never let go of the idea (provided we’re not psychopaths) that they are conscious, unique – and we attribute to them a “soul”.
If our alien friends decided to examine our entire artistic history, they would find absolutely nothing of value.
Do games have souls?
We perceive any work of art or entertainment to have more value than the sum of its components. That value is invented by us, by our mind’s ablility to draw connections between disparate elements – to make sense of the world around us.
One could imagine an equation like this:
Where X ends up becoming equal to “a soul” for a lot of people.
The same could be said of art…
I would argue that X in this case is invented by the person experiencing the art. The “magic” of it comes from the synthesis of the components that exist in the external world mixed with the perceptions of a given “experiencer”.
Much like how we attribute value to our fellow human beings, regardless of how much value we can scientifically prove; humans attribute meaning and value to art.
Exactly how much meaning and the quality of the meaning can be debated from here to the end of the world without much progress, because that is entirely subjective. Our perceptions may be influenced by the work itself, but they will also be largely impacted by our personalities, our current financial situation, the prevailing views of the day, our cultural background, etc. Popular views on particular works will change over time, to raise certain pieces up as “classics” or to retroactively condemn works that were immensely popular when they were first presented.
What is objectively true, is that humans attribute value to and derive meaning from art.
Games are as a valid an artform as any: they are ripe for interpretation and thematic meaning – many players have experienced and will continue to experience the presence of something beyond the base components in the work.
With apologies to Ebert; it has already happened, it is happening at this moment and will continue to happen for many, many years to come – regardless of how many old brains, which have become rigid and resistant to new ideas, complain about it.
WaywardG wrote a Comment on April 18, 2010 at 2:24 am
You present some compelling arguments and much food for thought. While it may be true that no one has yet discovered proof of a ‘real’ soul, it can just as easily be said that no one has yet discovered proof of the impossibility of such. Granted, lack of proof that something doesn’t exist is in no way proof that it does, but until proven otherwise, the possibility is still there. Modern neuroscience may well, if it hasn’t already, prove than that the human brain doesn’t require a soul to think and feel, to experience existing data and synthesize new, to love. . . However, neither is this proof of the non-existence of the soul. Faith and reason may never reach the same conclusions with the limited perspective we have, but I for one believe we cannot reach our greatest potential by forsaking either in favor of the other. I applaud your courage in raising a potentially controversial topic in a rational manner, and hope the same can be said of me and anyone else who contributes to this discussion.
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on April 18, 2010 at 3:36 am
Yeah, you touch on an interesting point. There are a lot of ideas that are in the same boat as souls. (i.e. ideas that don’t have a lot of rational evidence in their favour, and yet could still be argued to be “possible”) Then again, you could say that of just about any idea. (it may not be likely that there is a HitlerBot 9000, but there totally -could- be an invisible one in your backyard – one that watches you sleep every night
)
Personally, I enjoy mysticism and similar things – when they’re presented as fantasy. Art and entertainment are great ways to explore hypothetical ideas, without the risk of convincing someone of something that may not be likely to be true.
My opinions are based on the assumption that it’s best to have as accurate a picture of the world around you that you can, so that you can make informed decisions about it. It’s probably possible to imagine a hypothetical situation where that might not apply…
But I think if we were all better at separating fiction from reality, the world might be a happier place. This applies to everything from fanboys raging about minor changes in a SciFi franchise all the way to people who are willing to blow themselves up because they believe they’re going to live forever.
I’d rather explore something like “the idea of living forever” in… a game for example, where it’s clear that the idea is hypothetical. I love getting completely “lost” in a film, novel or game… I suppose in some degree that’s “escapism”, but really any thought experiment or day dream can generate the same effect.
I’m supposing that it’s mainly humans’ abilities to project themselves into other frames of thought that makes art “magical”.
WaywardG wrote a Comment on April 18, 2010 at 6:54 am
I’ll admit that arguing over whether there is or isn’t a HitlerBot 9000 could go on forever without any real progress, but let me ask you this: how could a world in which this was no HitlerBot 9000 invisibly stalking me be tolerable? Joking aside, lack of proof of non-existence does technically make any number of things possible, but some things not seen resonate more strongly than others, for lack of a better way of putting it. For example, in theory, a clever HitlerBot 9000 that is determined not to be discovered may be just as difficult to prove as a soul, but I’m almost certain a great many more people have had, to their perceptions, very real experiences concerning souls than HitlerBots. Popular opinion is no more a spiritual proof than a scientific one, but it is usually an indicator that something deserves a closer look, if only to make sure you’re seeing it right. As you mentioned, faith without reason, especially faith in someone else’s faith or faith in someone else’s reason, can lead to dangers ranging from fanboyism through genocide. Faith is no more infallible than any of the senses, but if a few people see flying pink elephants, we don’t dismiss sight as a backwards and worthless sense. In a less extreme example, what we believe we see with a cursory glance or hear while distracted can easily be interpolated by our previous experience as something contrary to what it is if we pay it more attention. The same can be said of faith. Perhaps we only believe in souls because we desire immortality or fear death or any combination of reasons, but how can we know if we don’t pay them more attention in the only way we are capable?
Alec Holowka wrote a Comment on April 19, 2010 at 12:26 am
That’s fair.
I certainly think that people should investigate their feelings and thoughts, regardless of whether they come from reason or faith or someone else.. I also wouldn’t suggest that society should try to -force- anyone into believe any one thing. But I do think a solid rational base should be encouraged. (mainly through good education)
Faith can also be a really wonderfully beneficial thing. Any creative project requires a lot of faith to finish, for example. Even getting up in the morning and deciding to walk to work can require a minor “leap of faith” sometimes.
I think the problem is where faith starts to overwrite rationality, or when someone’s faith in an irrational idea is so strong that they feel the need to attack any rational questioning of it.
Internally I associate “rationality” with “questioning” quite often. Not pedantic questioning, but serious, well-thought-out questions about why something is the way it is – are very important. And if the response to an honest question like that is dismissal or anger, it is often because the question has upset someone’s “faith”.
It’s like we all want some kind of safety bubble of “belief” and if anyone pops it, intentionally or accidentally, we resent them for it. I don’t think anyone I’ve met has been immune to this. (I’m certainly not, I’ve got very defensive about some stupid ideas in the past)
But since questioning, and reexamining our reality leads to a great understanding of the world around us, better quality of life, more accurate morality etc… it seems like we should strive to worry less about our “belief bubble” – and contemplate the alternatives.
Even if we’re still stuck in the bubble after, at least we tried… and potentially learned something.
Raymond Arnold wrote a Comment on April 19, 2010 at 9:32 am
This was an interesting read. I pretty much agree with you on everything here. Most of it was background knowledge/ideas I was already familiar with, but for someone without that background knowledge your ending conclusions would have come out of nowhere.
I spent a lot of yesterday being infuriated by Ebert’s recent lengthy article that boils down to “I don’t like video games and don’t have the time to actually play them and they don’t make any sense to me.” So this was a good antidote.
WaywardG wrote a Comment on April 19, 2010 at 4:12 pm
You raise an interesting point about ‘belief bubbles’. While the limited space inside a bubble may feel safe, if the stuff the bubble is made of is weak, then this safety is, more or less, an illusion. This illusion is so enticing, it would seem that many people are content to latch on to the first bubble that happens to float by. It’s been my experience that becoming disillusioned is always painful. It is easy to become offended and cast blame upon those who disturb or break our bubbles, whether it was intentional or, as I believe is more often the case, accidental, so fragile are most bubbles. There are a few common reactions to bubble breakage, such as denying the force that did the breaking and retreating to an identical bubble, just as fragile but more remote, or putting as much distance as we can between our old bubble and the new one we retreat to, again just as fragile and remote, but at least it’s different from the one associated with pain. Neither of these knee-jerk reactions encourage our growth as individuals, and may even lead to regression. I believe the healthier reaction is to attempt to understand why our bubble wavered or broke, and seek a larger, stronger bubble, bolstered in our search by our new understanding. This process will be repeated many times in the course of a lifetime, perhaps even due to the testing of our own bubbles in the search for greater understanding. In fact, in this process, we may build for ourselves a belief bubble so strong that it becomes highly resistant to outside influence, yet is still, ultimately, limited in scope. This strong bubble could be built from either faith or reason, and the only way to renovate in order to find more room in which to grow is the application of the opposite from within, hence my previous statement about our growth being limited without the balanced application of both faith and reason. As our bones and tendons tell us through adolescence and our muscles tell us through exercise, growth is accompanied by pain, and spiritual growth is no exception. I’m no masochist, but I have recognized pain for what it is, and no longer fear it. Or, at least, that is the attitude I strive to achieve. Either way, I find it is an attitude that makes it easy to forgive, both myself and others.
Kevbo wrote a Comment on May 3, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Interesting opinions that I haven’t fully read through but I’ll get around to reading the full post tomorrow at work
One interesting experiment that has recently been conducted is where they found that a certain part of your brain controls morality and justice. They found that if this part of the brain is damaged or removed, the human would have no real sense of morality or justice. They mentioned this in relation to some people’s notion that the soul is where morality comes from and they found it was just another part/function of a part of the brain.
Personally I am not sure if there is a soul, I’m usually very skeptical and negative about the human species since I mainly hear/see the bad side of them. I would like to have more ‘faith’ in our species and believe that there is more to life than self interest but I have found little proof of that concept