DNA Pioneer locates 'Cells of our Soul'

Medicine, Science & Technology Forum

THE joint discoverer of DNA’s double helix has published research that explains away the soul and attributes human consciousness to a set of neurones in the brain.
Francis Crick claims he and his co-researchers have found the group of cells responsible for generating consciousness and an individual’s “sense of self”.
The announcement, in the science journal Nature Neuroscience, comes amid the build-up to next month’s 50th anniversary celebrations of the discovery of the double helix by Crick and James Watson, for which they won a Nobel prize.

Their discovery, that the blueprint for life and evolution lay in a simple molecule, is still seen as a threat to religion by groups such as creationists.

If proven, Crick’s new claim would represent another big triumph for science over religion. The apparent inability of science to explain where humans get their sense of self-awareness has long been used by religious leaders as evidence of an eternal soul.

For Crick it would also represent the culmination of years of research into consciousness, much of which has been targeted on disproving the notion of a soul. In earlier research he once said: “The scientific belief is that our minds — the behaviour of our brains — can be explained entirely by the interactions of nerve cells.”

Crick’s new research indicates he has proved his case. The paper is based on years of experimentation including studies of patients with brain injuries, tests on animals and psychological research. Some of the most valuable data came from the therapeutic use of tiny probes put into the brains of people suffering from epilepsy to assess their seizures.

The paper describes how different parts of the brain mesh together to generate consciousness. It adds: “For the first time we have a coherent scheme for the neural correlates of consciousness in philosophical, psychological and neural terms.

“Actual consciousness may be expressed by only a small set of neurons, in particular those that project from the back of the cortex to parts of the frontal cortex.”

Christof Koch, professor of neuroscience at California Institute of Technology, who co-authored Crick’s latest research, said: “It is clear that consciousness arises from biochemical reactions within the brain.”

Some see Crick’s attack on the soul as part of a wider attempt by scientists to undermine the fundamental beliefs of most major religions.

The Rev Michael Reiss, professor of science education at the University of London, who is both a priest and a scientist, said Crick had only discovered the neuronal components of consciousness.

“It is like saying that a cathedral is a pile of stones and glass,” he said. “It is true, but too simplistic and it misses the point.”

However, Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University, supported Crick’s belief that consciousness arises from biochemical reactions.

He said: “Science and religion conflict because they both try to explain the physical world, but most religions suggest there is some grand intention — and there is no evidence for that. Religion is an untestable hypothesis.”

Baroness Susan Greenfield, a pharmacology professor who is director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, said it was important for scientists to show respect for other beliefs even when they disagreed with them. “Among some researchers science is becoming the new religion,” she said. “That is a silly attitude.”

Crick, who at 86 will discover the truth of his theories sooner than most other scientists, has said that one day all humanity will come to accept that the concept of souls and the promise of eternal life were a deception — just as they now accept that the Earth is not flat.

I agree with Sean. To me it's not even morally correct.

holy cow.. I don't even remember writing that reply. I was just about to write something just like it. I must need more sleep..

Sean: Its called absolute subjectiveness. The idea that there is no objective reality except for what we create ourselves. Sorry to burst your bubble but its not actually a new idea .
As for the locating of something called 'the soul'. It seems a little dangerous to dabble in that area as far as I see it. As Marx said it: "Religion is Opium for the Masses" Take away religion and you're suddenly confronted with the possibility that people lose both purpose and direction. People should not try to forget that most of our ethical and moral believes are based on Religious scripture. Does that make it right? No, not necessarily, Right and wrong are /also/ creations of religious mumblings but what we must accept is that it might very well make it /necessary/.
It is important for everybody to realize that a lot of people don't want to think about the way the world fits together. Even more importantly (before somebody says 'its not about what they want' which is another topic entirely) many people can't. Excuse the derogitory inclination of my words but you meet people, on a daily basis, who cannot reason at a level where morality and ethical principles are understood as a philosophical abstraction. These people need religion.
Destroy religion and you might very well destroy our very society. Without the belief, that many people have, in an afterlife the only reason that they wont perform criminal activities is because they fear the repocussions of society. That means a lot more people would enter into a life of crime which, in turn, would mean, less crime would be punished and there were are at the begining again as more people enter into a life of crime (and so forth and so on).
Maybe people like Crick should spend less time experimenting and more time thinking about the implications of their research and findings. Right now our technological and scientific exploration far outstrips our ethical and moral abilities to deal with it and research like this will just widen the gap.

Yeah.. I wasn't trying to introduce it as a new idea.. just didn't know the "proper" name for it

I agree that for most people, religion is a necessity in modern society. I understand that the fear of hell is, for a great number of people, the only reason for a code of ethics. However, I do not think that the fact that society thrives on ignorance is reason enough to prevent the pursuit of the truth. I understand that this is only my opinion, and i have no right to speak for the masses, but personally, I would die infinitely more content having learned the truth of my existence even if it did mean the decay of society.

"It's only after we've lost everything, that we're free to do anything."

--Fight Club

I wouldn't call DNA a simple molecule. It's an incredibly complex chemical code.

Believing that religion is good even if untrue also falls into the category of the "useful lie".

I don't subscribe to the description of "useful lie" because I have know way of knowing that religion is, in fact, a lie. I just don't know, but I'm content with not knowing.

If you don't believe it, but say that you do because you think it's a good thing for others to believe, then it's a useful lie.

I don't see it as a triumph. I don't think I really fully agree with the Christianity model as it has stood throughout it's history (I guess I've been growing more and more towards my own unique interpretation...), but I wouldn't call this work a "triumph over religion", because I feel that the soul REQUIRES a physical mechanism in order for it to operate with any sustained coherence within the physical realm. Basically, I would view this discovery as a person finding the cockpit of a plane, or the driver's controls in a car. You could even say that what the discovery is, is the DRIVER itself. But all it is, is the physical manifestation of the driver. His intentions are beneath his physical appearance, and I submit that the discovery of those cells in the brain are quite similar.

Hope that made sense to someone...

made sense and I agree 100%

yeah, sounds good to me too.