The Window To The Soul

We are told that body language is the key to what we are really thinking, that we should watch what people do with their hands, or the way they're standing, if we are to cut through the layers of ambiguity inherent in what is coming out of their mouths. Politicians are master manipulators of this and are often well aware of the ways in which they can use stance, posture and gestures to reinforce their agenda.

The face in particular is a crucial focal point, especially given that we tend to be drawn to facial reactions when we converse. The eyes are apparently the windows to the soul; and a simple bite of one's lip can give the impression that you are totally blown away by what you are hearing, in a way that words alone never could.

This site, on Vedic face reading, gives lucid examples of how interpreting someone's face might be beneficial in a social situation…

"You are in line at Starbucks and you meet an attractive person, you flirt with
them briefly, wondering, “is this someone I should ask out on a date?"

And leads into explanation of how the face is also a key point in identifying with the ethereal self…

"The basic idea behind Vedic face reading is that your gross physical body is
lying on your subtle body which has been in development for many lifetimes."

Regardless of the fact that this suggests there might be more to us than cells, atoms and neurons, it also raises interesting questions about the continuity of the self; namely that our supposedly unambiguous body language gives licence to a dependable impression of the ‘you’ or ‘me’ underneath.

This works fine if there is indeed an immovable, indubitable self underneath. But what of the body via which this clear spring of language is transmitted? It is constantly changing. Your skin will be replaced something like seven times over in your life, your eyes change colour between birth and old age.

A materialist theory would have to suggest that the truth, or at least one’s perception of it, may not be so reliable given that the membrane through which it is diffused is in constant flux. As we can not submit to dualism, that the mind might be separate from the body or the flesh from the soul, we can relieve the self from its shell, if we are to believe in the self at all. Therefore a reliance on body language to give us a direct link to the truth of the self is a reliance on a set of parameters that are continually being modified and re-edited.

It might be more appropriate then to view the subject as a house. We drive past the house one day and we point it out. A few years later, we drive past again, but this time the outside walls have changed colour, the windows have been replaced and a new set of occupants have moved in!

It’s still the house though isn’t it? The number on the front door is still the same and spatially it occupies the same plot of land. But what if the former occupants were to return? Would they look around and say “Ah yes, this was our house. But this is not our home anymore.”?

This might apply similarly to people; you may look at an old photo of yourself and identify the subject as being you, albeit many years ago. You may have changed in appearance and you may have changed in outlook, but it’s still you right?

Maybe not. Maybe it’s time we stopped investing so much provenance in the idea of the immovable, indubitable, centred self. Maybe it would be more progressive to accept that dualism can not be the solution, that if the body changes over time, then so must the whole of what you are. Therefore the self has changed too; the ‘you’ of now can not be the same ‘you’ of before.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to abandon all sense of self, or aim to dissolve the self in the way eastern philosophies such as Buddhism often promote. It might mean, however, that we can take comfort in the fact that we are not tied to the past in the way we often think, that we are far more mercurial in our relation to time and space.

Most importantly though, if we are to successfully abandon dualism and accept that there is no mind, soul, spirit, subtle body or ethereal self separate to the body, then we must accept that change is total and all-encompassing. Of course, this brings up a whole set of questions about whether we should be held responsible for our actions in the past; but that is best left for another time.

The Science of Consciousness

"While neural activity of a certain kind is a necessary condition for every manifestation of consciousness, from the lightest sensation to the most exquisitely constructed sense of self, it is neither a sufficient condition of it, nor, still less, is it identical with it." (Ray Tallis, writing for New Scientist)

In recent years, big players in the world of philosophy of mind have joined forces with neuroscientists and psychologists to try and work towards building a complete science of consciousness. This has so far resulted in a stream of unfinished theories that show the proponents, philosophers especially, dismsissing valid lines of enquiry beacuse they seem to be speculative or out of tune with pre-defined schools of thought.

The above quote seems to be representative of the core issue: subjective supposition is totally at odds with scientific methodology and objective measurement. That is to say, you may hypothesise that a person without a brain can not be conscious, therefore consciousness must reside in the brain. But objective measurement of the brain will only be able to expose the presence of neural activity which, although essential to consciousness, is not synonymous with it. Therefore consciousness is immeasurable and fundamentally unfit for scientific attention.

There is surely no reason to abandon all hope though. This is a very modern field of emergent enquiry and those involved must not be scared to a lay a few well held beliefs on the line now and then if they are to discover truly valuable lessons. After all it was only a few decades ago that seemingly chaotic systems in the natural world seemed to be utterly repellant to the classes of categorisation available within classical Newtonian physics. In the end, the establishment was forced to revolutionise its own deep-routed convictions to allow for the evidence that had become apparent.

But what methods are there to measure consciousness itself? Well, there's nothing much at the moment... EEG scans can measure brain waves, facial observation technology can decipher a range of emotions and first person psychoanalytic testing can shed a certain amount of light on how and why we behave as we do; but none of these provide a direct route. They only interpret symbolic or representative phenomena. We don't know how to qunatify consciousness so we have no way of measuring it. However, some have glimpsed the kind of innovations that might become available in the future.

Needless to say, philosophers and scientists are not going to start producing cohesive findings in such a complex and diverse field until they move towards shedding the restraints of their allegiances to ideological silos or 'isms'. What's needed is a little open-mindedness and the willingness to start from the ground up.

Comparative Mythology

From The Singularity: A Crucial Phase in Divine Self-Actualization? by Michael E. Zimmerman

Some may construe post-humanism as an appalling instance of hubris, in which individuals propose taking enormous risks both with themselves and with the human species, in order to pursue an impossible goal. Others, however may construe post-humanism as calling for alignment of personal energy with a cosmic evolutionary imperative: to preserve self-conscious organic life—currently threatened by anthropogenic environmental disaster—long enough to transfer it to a more enduring substrate needed to support an evolutionary process that culminates when the entire universe is made conscious. If this astonishing goal ever begins to bear fruit, future theologians would presumably rethink traditional conceptions of cosmos and history, humankind and God.

Ancient Thoughts

It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that extropian and transhumanist concerns are very recent manifestations in the timeline of philosophical thought. It would be reasonable to conclude that such concerns can only have been born out of the collision between 20th/21st century technological developments, post-industrial infrastructure and the captivating imaginations of science fiction writers who saw this stuff from miles off (and didn't need to give any rationale to their hypotheses).

Indeed, if you're focused on the esoteric language of the Singularity and the characters who speak it, you would be entirely forgiven for thinking that this is an intellectual/cultural movement that could only exist now, in this space between foresight and actuality.

But give a thought to the religious thinkers from centuries gone, the Mahayana Buddhists with their beautiful concept of the Bodhisattva who holds back from entering nirvana until everybody has found enlightenment. Then there's Hindu belief in the cycle of aeons or yugas... a constant revolution of phases in which humanity grows towards transcendence and then starts again after reaching a Singularity, of sorts. And if you think this chimes with Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument, then consider the Gnostics who propose that we are indeed living in an artificial reality controlled by a demiurge or creator God.

It's not too much of a leap of thought before you begin asking whether we might have already reached the event horizon of superintelligence, perhaps many times over, leaving us to wander as we will through a programme... perhaps a programme of our own design.