DNA pioneer locates ‘cells of our soul’

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.


what do you guys think?

I dont know how the hell someone came to the conclusion that the soul is consciousness but if it gives religious leaders one less thing to nag about then it must be good.

That's Bollox, I have, just this second checked with a ruler..

The earth is perfectly flat..check for yourselves..

Therefore this entire research is in doubt

Proving the car exists doesn't necessarily mean the driver doesn't exist.

Ah yes the eternal "but are you sure we`ve found it yet?"

well it's nice to see that there are still more scientist interested in disproving more pleasant aspects of existance rather than focusing on curing diseases...i don't by it, i'll stick with the theologian scientist in the fact he discovered an aspect of the human soul...but a few neurons firing doesn't explain too much...

it just dawned on me that it hasn't been proven yet...until then it's just another atheist who chooses to waste money on disproving something harmless in life rather than focusing on improving that which harms life...at least those suffering from uncurable diseases can feel better now knowing that there's scientists who'd rather tell them they have no soul rather than trying to offer them a cure...

Religion harms life now and then.
Besides its their own choice what they want to study. I dont point fingers at people and say that they should be a doctor or nurse rather than a accountant or a bus driver...and its not disproving anything, its just proving that consciousness is centred in the brain.

what a novel idea! we're conscious beigns?, and it's centered in our brain?!?!...if not we wouldn't be walking, talking, thinking on and on...we'd be like those comatose patients that have no consciousness..what happened to them..they're "soul neurons" stopped firing?

consciousness is not a new discovery! now the subconscience mind would be something to explore...

so if out-of-body experiences really can happen, then does that mean that we do have a soul? or is the OBE all happening in unexplained parts of our brains?

ive actually tried astral projection, it didnt work while i was awake, but soon after i slept, i think i had a dream in which i experienced it

Which could be from the same source as consciousness is, not that you`d believe it.The whole point is that its there we can point to it rather than saying well we can prove it but its the most rational theory.

bah...i've never been a rationally realistic person...why should i understand others who are? They prefer to rationalize reality, i prefer to rationalize surreality, it's much more fascinating, and less demanding.

and much more fictional.

not fiction...just an alternative point of view

lol. I would like to Say Dr Crick should have been a comedian.
Because his research doees not prove anything really...

Good point....

Alternative to logic.

Religion has brought more death and destruction than any science, even Hiroshima was only a tiny drop of blood in the sea compared to the red tides of human suffering during the crusades and the inquisitions.

Finding out how human consciousness is created IS the key to curing many many neurological disorders. Would you deny a schitzophrenic a cure? Would you dismiss the idea of bringing back the memory of an amnesia victim? You may enjoy living in ignorance and you are allowed to do so but don't you dare for one second (Jordyn) maintain that the world would be a better place if scientists weren't there having to face the complexities of reality for you.

Do you really think i respect you enough to tell me what to believe, think or assume?...you've taught me nothing except there are people more pompous than i am...What makes you worthy to even attempt judgement on me, are you so wise to judge my ignorance, comparing it to your limited life experience? You are just a person on the otherside of the computer expressing an opinion...nothing more...how am i maintaining anything other than my opinion from personal experience and observation?

How are scientist facing reality for me? Do i need my realities defined, are you suggesting that some men in white coats know what's better for my life than i do, i should follow them blindly as other follow prophets and priests? I follow no person who has not given me a just reason to do so.

Until it's a personal request a person is only doing it for themselves, whatever they gain from it...some scientist discover and explore to see if they can, see what is out there, expanding the world for those willing to learn...some genuinly want to help life, other's are the "i told you so now publish me and make me famous"...i respect the scientist who wants to see if they can, discover something not yet known...i admire those who wish to help the world, doing more for others than themselves.

Is it really that important to know if a soul exists or not, how much time, money, resources and whatever else consumed him in proving something that has been already grasped, and what does it achieve in the end? Aren't there better quests for knowledge and intelligence?...science does a lot of good for the world, and it's a noble proffession, but modern scientists aren't always noble of deed...or reason.

how much did hitler and his scientists discover?

i think it's your ignorance to assume i do not value the contributions science has made for improving the quality of life...what is he trying to do? I guess he can work with those who clone life to make sure they all have a soul... will that make a lab rat a human?

No but it might lessen any preduice against clones (or the souless abominations of nature as they will be called) if the soul is shown to be present in all humans.