What is life?

[jimkhong]

A human has a sentient consciousness of itself and its environment. A human body comprises trillions of individual cells, each with its own lifecycle, and presumably its own sentient consciousness, albeit limited in comparison to a human. Due to this, the cell should also have a soul (in Greek and Anquinian definition).

If so, are there two different levels of souls occupying the same person and the same space - one at the cell level and one at the human body level? Is there then one being or a multitude?

Or does the human soul comprise the sum of the souls of all the cells in the body just like a human body comprise all the constituent cells - plus a little bit more? If so, will a cell that fall away from the body and is still alive, acquire a soul at that moment of separation?

And no, I am not accepting 42 as the answer.

 

[GEddie]

“Life: A spiritual pickle preserving the body from decay.”

—Ambrose Bierce.

There is only one human soul occupying your natural body (psychikon soma; psyche = soul; soma = body).

Soul is life!

That soul, or life, has three levels, however: vegetative, which is the life in your organs and cells; animal, which is the life of the body that allows seeing, smelling, movement, feeling etc; and human (in essence, the mind).

In Hebrew, these aspects are represented as nephesh (translated as soul or life); ruach (translated as breath or wind); and Neshamah, respectively.

ICXC NIKA

 

[hazcompat]

So, waiting, I have won from you the end:
God’s presence in each element.
GOETHE

 

[D_Martin]

“presumably its own sentient consciousness”

There is your problem, its presumably, where is your proof that a single cell organism feels, or has a soul? Or could it be living things in the physical that might not be creatures execute instructions of life? Though yes a single cell organism may respond to its environment but so do planets respond to their environment also, as in the presence of gravity for example. Does that mean they are living organisms? Does that mean because they respond they have souls?

 

[jimkhong]

“presumably its own sentient consciousness”

There is your problem, its presumably, where is your proof that a single cell organism feels, or has a soul? Or could it be living things in the physical that might not be creatures execute instructions of life? Though yes a single cell organism may respond to its environment but so do planets respond to their environment also, as in the presence of gravity for example. Does that mean they are living organisms? Does that mean because they respond they have souls?

Interesting point. Planets do not respond to grativy. One of the four fundamental forces of the universe, gravity, acted upon them. Otherwise they do not move of their own accord.

A cell however will act on its own accord, even if according to its genetic instruction, whether there is or is not any stimuli from its environment. If there is no stimuli from its environment, a cell will act to search for food, etc. A cell is undeniably alive. A planet is not, Gaia theory notwithstanding.

 

[jimkhong]

That soul, or life, has three levels, however: vegetative, which is the life in your organs and cells; animal, which is the life of the body that allows seeing, smelling, movement, feeling etc; and human (in essence, the mind).

My understanding of Aquinas is that the three levels you mentioned are not three levels of life but three orders of life, which are mutually exclusive categorisation of life. Unless you are referring to another school of thought.

In any case, the problem is that much of philosphy was written before the discovery of cells. And I have not come across anyone who has considered whether cells have souls. Using Aristotle and Aquinas’ definition, it would seem that any living body (I interpret that to mean animals) would have a soul (Lat anima), right down to the unicell protozoa, which is an independent organism. So, would cells already in a living body has souls?

 

[GEddie]

My understanding of Aquinas is that the three levels you mentioned are not three levels of life but three orders of life, which are mutually exclusive categorisation of life. Unless you are referring to another school of thought.

In any case, the problem is that much of philosphy was written before the discovery of cells. And I have not come across anyone who has considered whether cells have souls. Using Aristotle and Aquinas’ definition, it would seem that any living body (I interpret that to mean animals) would have a soul (Lat anima), right down to the unicell protozoa, which is an independent organism. So, would cells already in a living body has souls?

Touché, I am not a Thomist nor indeed a philosopher.

And classical philosophy, as well as Scripture, indeed have no knowledge of body-cells. (If they had, no doubt S. Paul would have compared us to body cells in the Church, rather than to limbs, nose, eyes etc.)

Of course animals have a soul; an animal by definition is a being possessing anima. But as soul is life, and neither human nor animal cells can remain alive when removed from their body; it would seem to follow that body-cells do not as such possess a soul.

ICXC NIKA

 

[jimkhong]

neither human nor animal cells can remain alive when removed from their body; it would seem to follow that body-cells do not as such possess a soul.

Oh, but the point is that they do. Modern science have been cultivating animals cells outside of the body, including human ones, for over a century now. In the right conditions, cells can survive in nature as well.

 

[fred_conty]

Oh, but the point is that they do. Modern science have been cultivating animals cells outside of the body, including human ones, for over a century now. In the right conditions, cells can survive in nature as well.

First of all, the soul of a human is intellect and will. That is proper to man and to angels. Angels don’t have individual body cells yet have intellect and will. So in spirituallity we address the soul. The body cells, whether dead or alive, have no practical spiritual application, except to indicate the fitness of the body.

This is similiar to body organs. They have no practical spiritual application except to indicate the fitness of the body to maintain a soul. So one organ or the other which has died is unimportant as long as the body is fit enough to maintain the soul. Of course on a practical everyday level, it does mean something to the person. But on a basis of whether the soul remains or leaves, it doesn’t.

As far as the individual cell having a soul, whether it has or not, it won’t make a difference to the soul of man. And if the cell had an individual soul, it certainly would not be like the soul of a man, but more like the soul of a plain animal, not having it’s own individual heaven or hell. For the individual cell of a body, when the body is resurrected, will take part in happiness or unhappiness of the soul when the body is resurrected and joined to the soul on the last day.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[jimkhong]

First of all, the soul of a human is intellect and will. That is proper to man and to angels. Angels don’t have individual body cells yet have intellect and will. So in spirituallity we address the soul. The body cells, whether dead or alive, have no practical spiritual application, except to indicate the fitness of the body.

This is similiar to body organs. They have no practical spiritual application except to indicate the fitness of the body to maintain a soul. So one organ or the other which has died is unimportant as long as the body is fit enough to maintain the soul. Of course on a practical everyday level, it does mean something to the person. But on a basis of whether the soul remains or leaves, it doesn’t.

As far as the individual cell having a soul, whether it has or not, it won’t make a difference to the soul of man. And if the cell had an individual soul, it certainly would not be like the soul of a man, but more like the soul of a plain animal, not having it’s own individual heaven or hell. For the individual cell of a body, when the body is resurrected, will take part in happiness or unhappiness of the soul when the body is resurrected and joined to the soul on the last day.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

Agree with you, but it still doesn’t answer the question whether a cell has a soul (anima).

 

[GEddie]

Agree with you, but it still doesn’t answer the question whether a cell has a soul (anima).

There is only one human soul in each body, and it is a psyche, not anima.

All live body-cells participate in the psyche. Cells such as hair or the outermost layer of the skin do not. Neither do microbial cells attached to body, even though they may help body remain alive.

While human cells can be cultured outside their body, they can remain alive only as long as science fulfills the regulatory needs the body once did . Human body cells cannot stay alive out in nature on their own. To hold the life or psyche requires the body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

If so, are there two different levels of souls occupying the same person and the same space - one at the cell level and one at the human body level? Is there then one being or a multitude?

Occam’s Razor seems applicable to your question. Why multiply entities and introduce unnecessary complications? Why isn’t one soul sufficient?

 

[GEddie]

2 or 3 levels of soul – maybe, according to Judaism.

Separate souls for each cell – never. One soul per body!

ICXC NIKA

 

[jimkhong]

Occam’s Razor seems applicable to your question. Why multiply entities and introduce unnecessary complications? Why isn’t one soul sufficient?

Not sure where Ockam’s Razor comes in. Are you saying that we are not yet ready to explore this hypothesis as underlying models have not yet been developed.

 

[D_Martin]

Interesting point. Planets do not respond to grativy. One of the four fundamental forces of the universe, gravity, acted upon them. Otherwise they do not move of their own accord.

A cell however will act on its own accord, even if according to its genetic instruction, whether there is or is not any stimuli from its environment. If there is no stimuli from its environment, a cell will act to search for food, etc. A cell is undeniably alive. A planet is not, Gaia theory notwithstanding.

Where do you get that thinking from? Morning-glories respond to their environment (open and close daily) so do sun flowers (face the sun daily) how is it you deduce this lack of information and observation you have?

 

[tonyrey]

Not sure where Ockam’s Razor comes in. Are you saying that we are not yet ready to explore this hypothesis as underlying models have not yet been developed.

An undeveloped hypothesis needs to be justified before Ockam’s Razor is rejected.