The “Argument from Psychophysical Laws” was maybe the most challenging concept I encountered in my first-year Philosophy class (the same class that produced this essay). Derived from Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia’s challenge to the belief in immaterial souls, it begins by establishing a principle named “RED”. In order to understand “RED”, we must conjure up the experience of observing a red object; usually, we may then assume that, “if X has physical property P, then X’s soul has a reddish sensation.”

The argument posits the conditional, “if immaterial souls causally interact with the material world, generalizations like RED are fundamental laws of nature.” The next premise affirms, “generalizations like RED are not fundamental laws of nature.” Therefore, the conclusion follows that, “immaterial souls don’t causally interact with material things.” If this is true, there is no reason to believe in immaterial souls. They would not be capable of affecting our bodies, and presumably our identities, in any way.

I, however, maintain that humans possess souls and that our bodies will also be resurrected at the end of time. Since our resurrected forms will also correspond to our earthly identity, I also believe it safe to assume our psychological self will survive. Therefore, mind, body and soul, will all survive corruption and not suffer death. That is my “theory of survival”, and so I therefore acknowledge belief in an afterlife.

Although questions regarding all my theories emerged throughout the class, I will only discuss the matter of souls because it was the most challenged belief out of all these. In retrospect, my worldview did not alter, but it certainly became more complex. It was good to ponder this, for regardless of the difficulty I faced trying to articulate my position, the process ultimately ascertained my original conviction.

In order to disprove the argument, I will take two principal directions. First, I will demonstrate how generalizations like “RED” are laws of nature, rejecting the second premise of the argument above. Nevertheless, I will grant I may be wrong about this claim, so I will argue, further, that even if generalizations like RED are not laws of nature, souls may still exist and interact with material bodies. In this scenario, I do not reject a specific premise but rather, claim the argument is invalid; its conclusion does not follow from its premises. The skeptic may, perhaps, be convinced by either one of the two allegations. If they reject one, he could, I believe, concede to the other.

The RED generalization is possible through the existence of so-called “psychophysical laws”, from which the argument derives its title. The argument states psychophysical laws that govern the interaction between body and soul cannot possibly exist in nature. It would be insuperably complex, and it is simpler to admit sensations and perceptions are merely physical. The simpler explanations of the world are likely to be the more accurate ones, and so we must consequently reject the idea of psychophysical laws responsible for body-soul interactions.

I instead affirm that these “laws” may not be complex like the argument would have us believe. The soul may operate within the body in perhaps the very same way a skeleton provides the underlying structure for our muscular system. The state of the soul affects the state of the body, and vice-versa. Through a process we do not yet understand, the soul converts non-physical impulses into physical reactions among neurons regularly firing in the brain. Now, one may begin to wonder whether this does not imply an even further complication of mind-body relationship. Rather, I maintain that non-physical things become physical all of the time. Take the concept of knowledge, for instance. Pure “Knowledge” in and of itself does not exist within space. It only “becomes” physical when neurons develop pathways recording knowledge in physical memory. Similarly, “love” is not a concept that exists in space, but one may feel its effects through biological reactions.

A possible objection to this could be that ideas like love and knowledge only exist within the human physiological experience. However, I believe the same can be said of souls; they only exist in this world when they are, in a figurative sense, “attached” to a body.

While we have not discovered the laws that govern mind-body interaction, there are still numerous laws of nature that are absolutely mysterious but which we all accept as true. Gravity is the most apparent one, for we cannot exactly explain how massive objects attract each other; they simply do. While we have theorized the existence of quantum particles called “gravitons” (Krestin), the “material” essence of gravity is still in the realm of speculation. We could say the same of the other three fundamental forces of nature; we do not exactly know how electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces emerge, but we can observe their effects. Indeed, the “emergent properties of the universe” remain one of science’s greatest unsolved mysteries. Many intellectuals throughout our history have theorized the existence of the soul based on the experience of sensations beyond the scope of the material, and so, it is at the very least least probable they were not entirely without reason. After all, we may reasonably claim to feel the effects of possessing a soul, even if the soul ellicits thoughts and feelings without sensible or perceivable interaction, in the same way we observe how bodies behave obeying the contactless force of gravity.

Notwithstanding this, one may choose to argue there is a difference between these ideas: we can explain the causal relationships of gravity using mathematical equations, while we cannot do the same for the soul. Still, I consider the lack of an accurate semantic an insufficient reason to discard the plausibility of souls. For all we know, we have not yet discovered the best language to describe the immaterial.

That is not the only way we can arrive at the conclusion souls interact with physical bodies. We may point to any number of scientific facts still awaiting explanation. Why is it that, according to the “double slit experiment”, electrons behave like particles or waves depending on whether or not they are being watched (Marianne)? How is it that most of the universe is made from a “dark energy” and “dark matter, which we cannot measure and scarcely know anything about (Seife)? As many “worshippers” of scince would remark, just because science has not yet explained something does not mean it will not be able to do so in the near future—therefore, I can say, while science does not currently demonstrate how the soul relates to the body, there is no reason to think we might not discover new and surprising paradigms that may resolve that mystery.

In any case, we must return to our original argument and consider that the objector may still doubt me. Are “RED”ish sensations even laws of nature? I will grant that they may not be, but that this does not matter at all, because the Argument from Psychophysical Laws is not even valid. We cannot assume the conclusion, “Immaterial souls don’t causally interact with material things” if “generalizations like RED are not fundamental laws of nature” because in order for the soul to interact with the body, it need not conform to the laws of nature at all. Indeed, laws of nature only apply to matter and energy, and we cannot suppose the same natural laws govern a spiritual world we know nothing about.

However, that does then raise the question, how do souls operate through a body which does, in fact, obey the laws of nature? On the one hand, the answer to this question is beyond our realm of understanding at present. It may, in turn, provide a humble solution to the problem soul theory’s “complexity”. It is possible that the soul’s relation to the body is extremely simple, albeit undiscovered. Perhaps, or even indeed, the “physical” is incapable of discovering the conclusive proof of the “spiritual” and immaterial, but can only describe it through the experience of its effects. On the other hand, it is still possible to list various arguments in favor of the existence of souls, regardless of the fact their exact manner of “operation” remains unknown.

Recall that the state of the soul is able to affect the state of the body without any physical contact. Think also of how immaterial concepts like love become physical once they exist in thought. We may then wonder: how and why do events in nature elicit corresponding responses in humans? Why, for example, do we experience joy, grief, hope, or anger? In one sense, of course, the answer is obvious. According to our evolutionary history, we developed emotional responses advantageous for our survival—the zest to keep on living in the face of difficulty, the anger to defend ourselves when attacked, and the sadness when one of our own perishes—a scientist can reasonably trace the origins of these responses. But there are certain emotions in the range of human experience which cannot be so simply described.

For a clear example, consider the case of an author completing his first novel. Let us suppose he has just finished the epilogue and is ready to send his work to a publisher. Then, by an unfortunate accident, he deletes the document where the entire novel was stored. Being careless, the author did not save the manuscript anywhere else, and now the only copy of the writing is gone. The frustration experienced is beyond reason; perhaps tears and shouts of disapproval ensue. But ultimately, does this man’s novel add anything to his chances of survival? Is not all art useless, from a strictly naturalistic point of view? It is difficult to conceive how the artistic impetus could have survived evolution. While you may, in opposition, state that creativity and ingenuity are necessary and beneficial qualities for the survival of a species—thus justifying their presence in the human mind—I would only respond that the human desire to beautify and ornament the world is not, in fact, necessary. Indeed, “decoration” can even be an obstruction to innovation and practicality; beauty might be detrimental to our survival.

According to a traditional theistic faith, God breathed life into humans and made us in His image, making us unique among all creatures. All the traits which were perplexing under naturalism suddenly alight when we imagine the possibility of our spirtual essence, our immaterial home. This leads nicely to an argument I created and titled, the “argument from unreasonable emotions”:

1. Human beings have a many traits that do not appear to have evolutionary origins.

2. The traditional conception of the soul includes the notion that unique aspects of the human mind belong to the spiritual identity.

3. The connection between these aforementioned traits and their origin within the immaterial essence of a person implies the existence of the soul.

C. There are immaterial souls.

Another argument that may help spark credence to the belief in souls is what I consider to be “the argument from consciousness”:

1. Science cannot explain how and why humans are conscious creatures.

2. A belief in the immaterial soul implies our most profound identity—and consequently, our self-awareness—reside in the soul.

3. Traditional beliefs about souls do explain the reason for consciousness.

4. Traditional beliefs about souls are accurate.

C. Souls exist.

The simplest response to this argument would be to reiterate the principle I established in the former discussion, that science may in the future develop an explanation for consciousness even though we do not currently possess it. However, this line of reasoning does not deny a specific premise of the argument. I would even pose the question: what if, just maybe, the reason for consciousness and the undiscovered source of soul-body interaction are one and the same? What if consciousness actually emerges from the soul’s interaction with the body? It would certainly justify why both of these subjects remain mysterious. This is simply food for thought, and I admit, it is a weaker argument. But maybe, it will still aid in the ultimate goal.

My third and final argument for the existence of the soul is related to linguistics. My reasoning here is still rather primitive, so bear with me. Maybe in the future, I can develop this initial sketch of an argument more cohesively.

For this argument I rely on Noam Chomsky’s concept of the “Language Acquisition Device”. The Oxford Encyclopedia defines it like so:

(The Language Acquisition Device is) “a hypothetical mechanism, based on generative grammar, introduced in 1964 by the US linguist and philosopher (Avram) Noam Chomsky (born 1928) to explain how children acquire internalized knowledge of grammar with remarkable speed on the basis of fragmentary and degenerate input data. The language acquisition device is assumed to be a biologically based innate capacity for language, independent of any specific natural language, that enables a child exposed to adult speech to implement certain general principles for discovering the grammatical rules of the specific language in question.”

With this in mind, I introduce my “argument from language”:

1. The Language Acquisition Device assumes the preexistence language.

2. At some point, words were developed.

3. Unless the offspring of the creatures who first developed the language possessed the Language Acquisition Device, this language could not be passed on to future generations.

4. It is impossible for the means by which humans express themselves and the selfsame method of expression to have evolved simultaneously.

5. Language was passed down from generation to generation.

6. There may be, in the absence of another reasonable explanation, an immaterial origin to the Language Acquisition Device.

7. It is possible for a soul to grant the body complementary qualities necessary for language to evolve.

8. It is possible for a soul to grant the offspring of the first “language-bearers” those qualities necessary to gradually develop an understanding of language.

9. These “possibilities” align with the reality of what happened in the past.

C. Souls then exist.

In response, it would seem plausible to claim the process we use to understand language is very demonstrably physical; after all, the left hemisphere of the brain controls it. But notice how my particular focus is on the question of how infants first begin to process language; I believe it is only in light of this subject that this theory makes sense.

To close the discussion for the present moment, I will liken the idea of the soul to a pleasant symphony. As we know, the music instruments produce is nothing beyond vibrating matter. Tuned to the right frequencies, consonances emerge, inexplicably lovely to our ears. Likewise, humans are tuned to a set of conditions allowing God’s “breath of life”, the soul, to dwell within us. This soul is as real, meaningful, and curiously strange as the satisfaction of the right harmony. Yes, the orchestra is merely made up of pieces of wood and brass assembled in a particular manner. But that does not change the otherwordly sensation of a beautiful symphony, the floating, mystical combination of all that physical “stuff”. And the soul, according to my view, is like an emerging melody from our weary clump of flesh—it is our heavenly essence, unseen, yet most clearly and evidently perceived.

Works Cited

Krestin, Greg. What is Gravity Made Of? PBS NOVA Science Trust, 7 July 2014, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/what-is-gravity-made-of/. Accessed November 9 2021.

Marriane. Physics in a Minute: the double slit experiment. Plus Magazine, 19 November 2020, https://plus.maths.org/content/physics-minute-double-slit-experiment-0. Accessed November 9 2021.

Seife, Charles. “What Is the Universe Made Of.” Science, vol. 309, no. 5731, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2005, pp. 78–78, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3842149.

Overview: Language Acquisition Device. Oxford Reference, https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100051869. Accessed November 9 2021.