The entire construction of the Television depends on scientific reductionism to begin with. Natural phenomena like electricity was reduced from other natural phenomena and then used to construct something useful.
When an engineer designs a rollercoaster, they first need a reductionist understanding of classical physics, or people will likely die when the cars fly off the track.
Reductionism is the core of almost all of our advances in the last 200 years, especially when it comes to medical science that saves thousands of lifes every day.
Nothing is lost in reduction, more understanding is gained, the initial impression of the so-called "whole" still exists.
One thing is physcial engineering. Something very different is proving/disproving theoretical concepts and ideas. (that is the realm of philosophy) When gunning for the big philosophical questions (which is often what you do around here), severe reductions have to be implemented. And not in the sense of picking the pieces apart, because most likely, we dont even know what all the pieces are. More in the sense of reducing highly complex matters to a single or a couple of variables that can be tested in some way. The results then must be viewed in the context of heavy reduction, and may not necessarily reflect the conecpt one is after. Furthermore science must reduce to something it can do. Reductionism must be applied until it is practical to do it. And the answer may then be so fragmented that interpreting it relies heavily on assumptions upon assumptions.
There is a difference between material science, observing physcial objects and developing practical solutions and tools and philosophical/spiritual concepts. Physically, we can find things that work. This does not guarantee that how we think it works is actually how it works, but we know enough to apply it. Concepts and non-observable (without tons of machinery each depending on several assumptions) phenomena are much more slippery both to prove and disprove theories about.
Bottomline, because reductionism works in many cases, do not mean it works in all cases. And it makes a difference just what exactly is being reduced. There is a reason scientists haven't issued the declaration that ends all of these concepts like souls and spirits, and why they pack their articles with disclaimers when they move into borderline territory.
Anyway, I know you are the science zealot that never accepts any limits on science's usefulness in ontological situations. Which is too bad, as not even most scientists reject these limits. And when you are on about basically philosophical arguments, dont be surprised if the debate proceeds on philosophical premises. My argument is that if you are truly true to science, you have no opinion on this matter, as there is not nearly enough evidence, and evidence present are far from unquestionable or unproblematic in this matter. Gunning against religion, spirituality and/or holism the way you do is basically a philosophical position, where you seem to grab anything you can get hold of to throw at the opposite position.
The jury is out, and so am I on the subject.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
One thing is physcial engineering. Something very different is proving/disproving theoretical concepts and ideas. (that is the realm of philosophy) When gunning for the big philosophical questions (which is often what you do around here), severe reductions have to be implemented. And not in the sense of picking the pieces apart, because most likely, we dont even know what all the pieces are. More in the sense of reducing highly complex matters to a single or a couple of variables that can be tested in some way. The results then must be viewed in the context of heavy reduction, and may not necessarily reflect the conecpt one is after. Furthermore science must reduce to something it can do. Reductionism must be applied until it is practical to do it. And the answer may then be so fragmented that interpreting it relies heavily on assumptions upon assumptions.
There is a difference between material science, observing physcial objects and developing practical solutions and tools and philosophical/spiritual concepts. Physically, we can find things that work. This does not guarantee that how we think it works is actually how it works, but we know enough to apply it. Concepts and non-observable (without tons of machinery each depending on several assumptions) phenomena are much more slippery both to prove and disprove theories about.
Bottomline, because reductionism works in many cases, do not mean it works in all cases. And it makes a difference just what exactly is being reduced. There is a reason scientists haven't issued the declaration that ends all of these concepts like souls and spirits, and why they pack their articles with disclaimers when they move into borderline territory.
Anyway, I know you are the science zealot that never accepts any limits on science's usefulness in ontological situations. Which is too bad, as not even most scientists reject these limits. And when you are on about basically philosophical arguments, dont be surprised if the debate proceeds on philosophical premises. My argument is that if you are truly true to science, you have no opinion on this matter, as there is not nearly enough evidence, and evidence present are far from unquestionable or unproblematic in this matter. Gunning against religion, spirituality and/or holism the way you do is basically a philosophical position, where you seem to grab anything you can get hold of to throw at the opposite position.
The jury is out, and so am I on the subject.
Peace
Dan
I think there is plenty of evidence, not to mention an absence of evidence. Maybe it started with William Harvey, maybe there was evidence before that. Certainly there was no inclination of souls/spirits prior to the concept.
But, I think part of the problem is bordering on Pyrrhonism. "You can't know anything, not even this." reflects the ultimate end of pyrrhonic scepticism.
As David Hume expresses, if we can't trust our senses of smell, touch, taste, sound, etc... to describe objects in the real world, or if those objects do not exist in a separate autonomous reality, and are only figments of our consciousness. Then how can we be sure that our thoughts, which we perceive by a sense, are also real? A sense of purpose, a soul, spirit or God, is put into the same dilemma. We are consequently in a state of lethargy until the very real forces of nature concludes our fate.
There is another sceptical topic of a like nature, derived from the most profound philosophy; which might merit our attention, were it requisite to dive so deep, in order to discover arguments and reasonings, which can so little serve to any serious purpose. It is universally allowed by modern enquirers, that all the sensible qualities of objects, such as hard, soft, hot, cold, white, black, &c. are merely secondary, and exist not in the objects themselves, but are perceptions of the mind, without any external archetype or model, which they represent. If this be allowed, with regard to secondary qualities, it must also follow, with regard to the supposed primary qualities of extension and solidity; nor can the latter be any more entitled to that denomination than the former. The idea of extension is entirely acquired from the senses of sight and feeling; and if all the qualities, perceived by the senses, be in the mind, not in the object, the same conclusion must reach the idea of extension, which is wholly dependent on the sensible ideas or the ideas of secondary qualities. Nothing can save us from this conclusion, but the asserting, that the ideas of those primary qualities are attained by Abstraction, an opinion, which, if we examine it accurately, we shall find to be unintelligible, and even absurd. An extension, that is neither tangible nor visible, cannot possibly be conceived: and a tangible or visible extension, which is neither hard nor soft, black nor white, is equally beyond the reach of human conception. Let any man try to conceive a triangle in general, which is neither Isosceles nor Scalenum, nor has any particular length or proportion of sides; and he will soon perceive the absurdity of all the scholastic notions with regard to abstraction and general ideas.[1]
The great subverter of Pyrrhonism or the excessive principles of scepticism is action, and employment, and the occupations of common life. These principles may flourish and triumph in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to refute them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real objects, which actuate our passions and sentiments, are put in opposition to the more powerful principles of our nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined sceptic in the same condition as other mortals.
David Hume An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
One thing is physcial engineering. Something very different is proving/disproving theoretical concepts and ideas. (that is the realm of philosophy) When gunning for the big philosophical questions (which is often what you do around here), severe reductions have to be implemented. And not in the sense of picking the pieces apart, because most likely, we dont even know what all the pieces are. More in the sense of reducing highly complex matters to a single or a couple of variables that can be tested in some way. The results then must be viewed in the context of heavy reduction, and may not necessarily reflect the conecpt one is after. Furthermore science must reduce to something it can do. Reductionism must be applied until it is practical to do it. And the answer may then be so fragmented that interpreting it relies heavily on assumptions upon assumptions.
There is a difference between material science, observing physcial objects and developing practical solutions and tools and philosophical/spiritual concepts. Physically, we can find things that work. This does not guarantee that how we think it works is actually how it works, but we know enough to apply it. Concepts and non-observable (without tons of machinery each depending on several assumptions) phenomena are much more slippery both to prove and disprove theories about.
Bottomline, because reductionism works in many cases, do not mean it works in all cases. And it makes a difference just what exactly is being reduced. There is a reason scientists haven't issued the declaration that ends all of these concepts like souls and spirits, and why they pack their articles with disclaimers when they move into borderline territory.
Anyway, I know you are the science zealot that never accepts any limits on science's usefulness in ontological situations. Which is too bad, as not even most scientists reject these limits. And when you are on about basically philosophical arguments, dont be surprised if the debate proceeds on philosophical premises. My argument is that if you are truly true to science, you have no opinion on this matter, as there is not nearly enough evidence, and evidence present are far from unquestionable or unproblematic in this matter. Gunning against religion, spirituality and/or holism the way you do is basically a philosophical position, where you seem to grab anything you can get hold of to throw at the opposite position.
The jury is out, and so am I on the subject.
Peace
Dan
great post dan.
the only thing i can add is that a scientist will admit when he/she cannot explain something. science will not dismiss the spiritual aspect because dismissing claims defeat. when science enters an area it cannot explain; it mearly says it needs more information and more research. if science were to say the soul doesn't exist; the book is closed and research in that direction stopped. stopping research when something cannot be explained is not the scientific way.
Do you ever feel an aching on the top of your head, to find out later it's a sinus cold. Touching the cheek of an amputee can often give them the sensation of touching their phantom limb, phantom limb syndrome. Very cold objects can often be perceived, or sensed, as being very hot objects.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
great post dan.
the only thing i can add is that a scientist will admit when he/she cannot explain something. science will not dismiss the spiritual aspect because dismissing claims defeat. when science enters an area it cannot explain; it mearly says it needs more information and more research. if science were to say the soul doesn't exist; the book is closed and research in that direction stopped. stopping research when something cannot be explained is not the scientific way.
There are no vital spirits concocted in the heart
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It is acceptable that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But something that is absent of evidence has no place in public policy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Do you ever feel an aching on the top of your head, to find out later it's a sinus cold. Touching the cheek of an amputee can often give them the sensation of touching their phantom limb, phantom limb syndrome. Very cold objects can often be perceived, or sensed, as being very hot objects.
I get aching on the top of my head all the time Ahnimus, and I know it is a symptom of the disease.
I understand about phantom limb sydrome. The sensation and perception of objects as hot when cold and the like are also things that I experience regularly.
Another point is that if we look at the concept of soul, and it's modern etiology it's descendant from the holy bible. So much of the bible has already been proven wrong.
And I will direct some of you to the statement made by Christoph Koch in his book Quest for Consciousness
"What about religion? Most people on the planet believe
in some sort of immortal soul that lives on after the body
has died. What do you have to say to them?
Well, many of these beliefs can’t be reconciled
with our current scientific world view. What is
clear is that every conscious act or intention has
some physical correlate. With the end of life,
consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no
mind. Still, these irrevocable facts do not exclude
some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God.
Christof Koch (born November 13, 1956, Kansas City) is an American neuroscientist educated in North Africa and Europe. He received a PhD in nonlinear information processing from the Max Planck Institute in Tübingen, Germany in 1982. He currently holds the position of Lois and Victor Troendle Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Biology, California Institute of Technology, where he has been since 1986. From 2000 to 2005 he was the executive officer of the Computation and Neural Systems program at Caltech.
He has been active since the early 1990s in the promotion of consciousness as a scientifically tractable problem, and has been particularly influential in arguing that consciousness can now be approached using the modern tools of neurobiology. His primary collaborator in this endeavour was the late Francis Crick. He was the local organizer of the 2005 meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness.
Most of you should know Francis Crick, but if not....
Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004) was an English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist, who is most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".[2] His later work, until 1977, at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, has not received as much formal recognition. During the remainder of his career, he held the post of J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. He remained in this post until his death; "he was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end" said his close associate Christof Koch[3]. His second wife, Odile Crick died on July 5th, 2007.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
that's like trying to describe an orgasm to someone that's never had an orgasm. i can use every word in the english language and you still wouldn't understand.
we can build robots with artificial intelligence and the ability to learn through repitition. we can piece together a human almost like frankenstein and bring life to that being yet we cannot give either a soul. thus we cannot create a human being.
that's like trying to describe an orgasm to someone that's never had an orgasm. i can use every word in the english language and you still wouldn't understand.
we can build robots with artificial intelligence and the ability to learn through repitition. we can piece together a human almost like frankenstein and bring life to that being yet we cannot give either a soul. thus we cannot create a human being.
Ah, but you cannot describe a soul, therefor you cannot know if another being also has a soul, since as you state, it is ineffible. How can you be sure that a machine, cannot have a soul, or at least the sense of having one?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Anyway, I got soul. I don't believe in a "soul" or "spirit", I do believe I experience the same things others do (sort of more or less) but I don't ascribe it (those feelings) to a "soul", I ascribe them to my brain and I believe when I die and my brain stops functioning, this supposed soul will also die.
I get aching on the top of my head all the time Ahnimus, and I know it is a symptom of the disease.
I understand about phantom limb sydrome. The sensation and perception of objects as hot when cold and the like are also things that I experience regularly.
Right, so where I was going with it is; How can one be sure that what they sense is actually what they sense? If one senses a soul, how can they be sure that it is a soul?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, I can certainly share my take if you want it.
When it comes to souls, I am really undecided as it depends on how you define it. In the christian sense, no I dont believe in souls. However a lot of information is stored in the body which is disintegrated upon death and recombined into new organisms or rock for that matter. So some part of us may "live on" in that sense. Souls as seperate entities from our bodies I dont believe in.
When it comes to spirituality, I acknowledge it as an essential part of being human, something humans everywhere and always have been doing, experiencing, believing. It's most important feature is perhaps providing us with meaning, which is something we crave in everything we do. We need the whys, not just the hows of science.
But also, there is something at the core of the religious/spiritual experience that so many are experiencing. I dont know what that core is, although I am positive it has nothing to do with any religion's take on it. I believe that practitioners of all religions are experiencing essentially the same thing, but they attribute it differently depending on their culture and dominant religion in the area.
So I am really a fence-sitter on most of the issues there. Well apart from what I have described as my beliefs here, of course. I leave the door open for spirituality, although I generally reject religious dogma.
Peace
Dan
Thanks Dan, I appreciate you replying.
So you're saying that you think that there is another level of human awareness or being that hasn't been adequately covered by science and you're not happy with the religious explanation either?
With regard to souls do you consider that you have one yourself and if you do how are you aware of it? And if not how are you aware that you do not have one? I'm asking this question already agreeing with you that the religious explanation of souls is not one that I believe either. I guess the reason I ask is that I really believe that people have a soul or an "essence" that is intrinsic and unique to them and I have difficulty believing that it is ONLY the brain and brain function that makes a human who they are in essence. My problem being that I really cannot pinpoint why it is that I believe this. And I cannot adequately explain to myself or others how it is that I believe this.
Right, so where I was going with it is; How can one be sure that what they sense is actually what they sense? If one senses a soul, how can they be sure that it is a soul?
I could see where you were going with it love. I cannot be sure that what I sense is a soul, just as I cannot be sure that it isn't. My awareness is that I have a soul and that others around me also have souls. I do not know why I have this awareness, or why I attribute it to being a soul. What I do know is that should science irrefutably confirm that the soul is only a series of brain functions or clinically describe some other series of biological functions and events that contribute to this sense we have of soul, I would still probably not be able to embrace the explanation and give up the idea of the soul.
Consider for a moment, the opera, or a certain piece of Beethoven. Many people experience a kind of exaltation from these experiences. Often they will be described as spiritual, as the one who oversees a valley from atop a mountain. Most of us are moved in this way by some stimulus, although any stimulus may not work for all people. What then, is the criteria for a stimulus being coupled with this exaltation?
Let's go back to orgasm for a moment. What is the coupling to an orgasm? Experiments on rats have shown that direct stimulation of the nucleus accumbens (nAcc) is orgasmic. In this case, the coupling is between the Acc. and a lever the rat pushes. We can see the mechanism is neural.
Neuroplasticity explains the variation from being to being in their coupling of exaltation to a stimulus. How do we know that BMW makes vehicles? The percepts are coupled within our brains, so that we make this connection.
If we suppose that this mechanism is true for the Opera. Then exaltation and Opera are coupled within the brain, thus when said person experiences the Opera they also experience exaltation. Now suppose that Soul is coupled with Exaltation in a recurrent structure. Opera leads to Exaltation leads to Soul. Where Soul only needs to be a concept, an explanation for Exaltation. In the same manner that BMW leads to Cars.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Consider for a moment, the opera, or a certain piece of Beethoven. Many people experience a kind of exaltation from these experiences. Often they will be described as spiritual, as the one who oversees a valley from atop a mountain. Most of us are moved in this way by some stimulus, although any stimulus may not work for all people. What then, is the criteria for a stimulus being coupled with this exaltation?
Let's go back to orgasm for a moment. What is the coupling to an orgasm? Experiments on rats have shown that direct stimulation of the nucleus accumbens (nAcc) is orgasmic. In this case, the coupling is between the Acc. and a lever the rat pushes. We can see the mechanism is neural.
Neuroplasticity explains the variation from being to being in their coupling of exaltation to a stimulus. How do we know that BMW makes vehicles? The percepts are coupled within our brains, so that we make this connection.
If we suppose that this mechanism is true for the Opera. Then exaltation and Opera are coupled within the brain, thus when said person experiences the Opera they also experience exaltation. Now suppose that Soul is coupled with Exaltation in a recurrent structure. Opera leads to Exaltation leads to Soul. Where Soul only needs to be a concept, an explanation for Exaltation. In the same manner that BMW leads to Cars.
Ok but why do some people experience exultation at the opera?
Why would exultation occur for you and not for me? What leads to the individual experience of exultation?
Ok but why do some people experience exultation at the opera?
Why would exultation occur for you and not for me? What leads to the individual experience of exultation?
Training.
Vector coded networks learn from training. By presenting to it the stimulus and reward.
Suppose as a child, your parents enjoyed the Opera. They expressed exaltation at the Opera, both in anticipation and during. A child will quickly realize this is something to be enjoyed, and the neuroplasticity does it's thing.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Keep in mind, the adult brain as 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion synapses.
If each neuron has even 5 different firing rates (frequencies or states). My suggestion is conceptually oversimplified.
There is a googolplex of different possible neural configurations in the brain.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
An artificial neural network (ANN), often just called a "neural network" (NN), is a mathematical model or computational model based on biological neural networks. It consists of an interconnected group of artificial neurons and processes information using a connectionist approach to computation. In most cases an ANN is an adaptive system that changes its structure based on external or internal information that flows through the network during the learning phase.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Vector coded networks learn from training. By presenting to it the stimulus and reward.
Suppose as a child, your parents enjoyed the Opera. They expressed exaltation at the Opera, both in anticipation and during. A child will quickly realize this is something to be enjoyed, and the neuroplasticity does it's thing.
See and that's where I have a problem, because I do love Opera and it does make me emotional, but I can tell you right now, there was absolutely NO OPERA in my household as a child. So where did I "learn" my exultation from?
Similarly, with regard to souls, I cannot say that there was much, if any, discussion of souls in my house as a child. Certainly if anything, there was a complete lack of religious education or fervour. There was definitely death. So I watched a lot of people die as a child. But I can't say that we were all encouraged to "pray" for the souls of the dying or that their souls had gone somewhere else. If anything I was encouraged to believe that once a person is dead they are dead and gone forever and that nothing "spiritual" or "other worldly" happens. Their body stops. Biological function stops and they are gone. So how do we then attribute this to training?
See and that's where I have a problem, because I do love Opera and it does make me emotional, but I can tell you right now, there was absolutely NO OPERA in my household as a child. So where did I "learn" my exultation from?
Similarly, with regard to souls, I cannot say that there was much, if any, discussion of souls in my house as a child. Certainly if anything, there was a complete lack of religious education or fervour. There was definitely death. So I watched a lot of people die as a child. But I can't say that we were all encouraged to "pray" for the souls of the dying or that their souls had gone somewhere else. If anything I was encouraged to believe that once a person is dead they are dead and gone forever and that nothing "spiritual" or "other worldly" happens. Their body stops. Biological function stops and they are gone. So how do we then attribute this to training?
Yea, like I said, there is no "only cause", childhood is not always the cause of our beliefs and desires. With 100 trillion different synapses, 10^4 synapses per neuron and 100 billion neurons. It's improbable to pin-down exactly what the cause is from the perspective of neurobiology. But what we do know is that our brains are made up of these neurons, layed out in networks, and without them, we have no sensation, no desires and no beliefs. We can describe how they work, as was done above. Knowing how neurons and networks behave, gives us a perceptual model to work from, causes now become imaginable, and this knowledge might assist in intropsecting the true causes.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ah, but you cannot describe a soul, therefor you cannot know if another being also has a soul, since as you state, it is ineffible. How can you be sure that a machine, cannot have a soul, or at least the sense of having one?
i can describe a soul but not in a way to convince you. your mind is already made up. my time would be better spent debating with a fish.
i can describe a soul but not in a way to convince you. your mind is already made up. my time would be better spent debating with a fish.
You still cannot be sure that another human has a soul, let-alone a machine. It's very possible that a machine could have the same sense and describe it in the same way you do. It may even say the same thing to me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i can describe a soul but not in a way to convince you. your mind is already made up. my time would be better spent debating with a fish.
I guess that makes two of us. Since your mind is already made up concerning souls and the construction of human beings.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
There is a difference between material science, observing physcial objects and developing practical solutions and tools and philosophical/spiritual concepts. Physically, we can find things that work. This does not guarantee that how we think it works is actually how it works, but we know enough to apply it. Concepts and non-observable (without tons of machinery each depending on several assumptions) phenomena are much more slippery both to prove and disprove theories about.
Bottomline, because reductionism works in many cases, do not mean it works in all cases. And it makes a difference just what exactly is being reduced. There is a reason scientists haven't issued the declaration that ends all of these concepts like souls and spirits, and why they pack their articles with disclaimers when they move into borderline territory.
Anyway, I know you are the science zealot that never accepts any limits on science's usefulness in ontological situations. Which is too bad, as not even most scientists reject these limits. And when you are on about basically philosophical arguments, dont be surprised if the debate proceeds on philosophical premises. My argument is that if you are truly true to science, you have no opinion on this matter, as there is not nearly enough evidence, and evidence present are far from unquestionable or unproblematic in this matter. Gunning against religion, spirituality and/or holism the way you do is basically a philosophical position, where you seem to grab anything you can get hold of to throw at the opposite position.
The jury is out, and so am I on the subject.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
it's a level of awareness. i can feel my soul.
What a coincidence!
I can feel your soul too!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I think there is plenty of evidence, not to mention an absence of evidence. Maybe it started with William Harvey, maybe there was evidence before that. Certainly there was no inclination of souls/spirits prior to the concept.
But, I think part of the problem is bordering on Pyrrhonism. "You can't know anything, not even this." reflects the ultimate end of pyrrhonic scepticism.
As David Hume expresses, if we can't trust our senses of smell, touch, taste, sound, etc... to describe objects in the real world, or if those objects do not exist in a separate autonomous reality, and are only figments of our consciousness. Then how can we be sure that our thoughts, which we perceive by a sense, are also real? A sense of purpose, a soul, spirit or God, is put into the same dilemma. We are consequently in a state of lethargy until the very real forces of nature concludes our fate.
There is another sceptical topic of a like nature, derived from the most profound philosophy; which might merit our attention, were it requisite to dive so deep, in order to discover arguments and reasonings, which can so little serve to any serious purpose. It is universally allowed by modern enquirers, that all the sensible qualities of objects, such as hard, soft, hot, cold, white, black, &c. are merely secondary, and exist not in the objects themselves, but are perceptions of the mind, without any external archetype or model, which they represent. If this be allowed, with regard to secondary qualities, it must also follow, with regard to the supposed primary qualities of extension and solidity; nor can the latter be any more entitled to that denomination than the former. The idea of extension is entirely acquired from the senses of sight and feeling; and if all the qualities, perceived by the senses, be in the mind, not in the object, the same conclusion must reach the idea of extension, which is wholly dependent on the sensible ideas or the ideas of secondary qualities. Nothing can save us from this conclusion, but the asserting, that the ideas of those primary qualities are attained by Abstraction, an opinion, which, if we examine it accurately, we shall find to be unintelligible, and even absurd. An extension, that is neither tangible nor visible, cannot possibly be conceived: and a tangible or visible extension, which is neither hard nor soft, black nor white, is equally beyond the reach of human conception. Let any man try to conceive a triangle in general, which is neither Isosceles nor Scalenum, nor has any particular length or proportion of sides; and he will soon perceive the absurdity of all the scholastic notions with regard to abstraction and general ideas.[1]
The great subverter of Pyrrhonism or the excessive principles of scepticism is action, and employment, and the occupations of common life. These principles may flourish and triumph in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to refute them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real objects, which actuate our passions and sentiments, are put in opposition to the more powerful principles of our nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined sceptic in the same condition as other mortals.
David Hume An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Describe it
great post dan.
the only thing i can add is that a scientist will admit when he/she cannot explain something. science will not dismiss the spiritual aspect because dismissing claims defeat. when science enters an area it cannot explain; it mearly says it needs more information and more research. if science were to say the soul doesn't exist; the book is closed and research in that direction stopped. stopping research when something cannot be explained is not the scientific way.
Do you ever feel an aching on the top of your head, to find out later it's a sinus cold. Touching the cheek of an amputee can often give them the sensation of touching their phantom limb, phantom limb syndrome. Very cold objects can often be perceived, or sensed, as being very hot objects.
There are no vital spirits concocted in the heart
I get aching on the top of my head all the time Ahnimus, and I know it is a symptom of the disease.
I understand about phantom limb sydrome. The sensation and perception of objects as hot when cold and the like are also things that I experience regularly.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
And I will direct some of you to the statement made by Christoph Koch in his book Quest for Consciousness
"What about religion? Most people on the planet believe
in some sort of immortal soul that lives on after the body
has died. What do you have to say to them?
Well, many of these beliefs can’t be reconciled
with our current scientific world view. What is
clear is that every conscious act or intention has
some physical correlate. With the end of life,
consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no
mind. Still, these irrevocable facts do not exclude
some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God.
http://www.questforconsciousness.com/Koch_Feature.pdf
Christof Koch (born November 13, 1956, Kansas City) is an American neuroscientist educated in North Africa and Europe. He received a PhD in nonlinear information processing from the Max Planck Institute in Tübingen, Germany in 1982. He currently holds the position of Lois and Victor Troendle Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Biology, California Institute of Technology, where he has been since 1986. From 2000 to 2005 he was the executive officer of the Computation and Neural Systems program at Caltech.
He has been active since the early 1990s in the promotion of consciousness as a scientifically tractable problem, and has been particularly influential in arguing that consciousness can now be approached using the modern tools of neurobiology. His primary collaborator in this endeavour was the late Francis Crick. He was the local organizer of the 2005 meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Koch
Most of you should know Francis Crick, but if not....
Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004) was an English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist, who is most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".[2] His later work, until 1977, at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, has not received as much formal recognition. During the remainder of his career, he held the post of J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. He remained in this post until his death; "he was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end" said his close associate Christof Koch[3]. His second wife, Odile Crick died on July 5th, 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
that's like trying to describe an orgasm to someone that's never had an orgasm. i can use every word in the english language and you still wouldn't understand.
we can build robots with artificial intelligence and the ability to learn through repitition. we can piece together a human almost like frankenstein and bring life to that being yet we cannot give either a soul. thus we cannot create a human being.
Ah, but you cannot describe a soul, therefor you cannot know if another being also has a soul, since as you state, it is ineffible. How can you be sure that a machine, cannot have a soul, or at least the sense of having one?
There's a way
Anyway, I got soul. I don't believe in a "soul" or "spirit", I do believe I experience the same things others do (sort of more or less) but I don't ascribe it (those feelings) to a "soul", I ascribe them to my brain and I believe when I die and my brain stops functioning, this supposed soul will also die.
naděje umírá poslední
Right, so where I was going with it is; How can one be sure that what they sense is actually what they sense? If one senses a soul, how can they be sure that it is a soul?
Thanks Dan, I appreciate you replying.
So you're saying that you think that there is another level of human awareness or being that hasn't been adequately covered by science and you're not happy with the religious explanation either?
With regard to souls do you consider that you have one yourself and if you do how are you aware of it? And if not how are you aware that you do not have one? I'm asking this question already agreeing with you that the religious explanation of souls is not one that I believe either. I guess the reason I ask is that I really believe that people have a soul or an "essence" that is intrinsic and unique to them and I have difficulty believing that it is ONLY the brain and brain function that makes a human who they are in essence. My problem being that I really cannot pinpoint why it is that I believe this. And I cannot adequately explain to myself or others how it is that I believe this.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I could see where you were going with it love. I cannot be sure that what I sense is a soul, just as I cannot be sure that it isn't. My awareness is that I have a soul and that others around me also have souls. I do not know why I have this awareness, or why I attribute it to being a soul. What I do know is that should science irrefutably confirm that the soul is only a series of brain functions or clinically describe some other series of biological functions and events that contribute to this sense we have of soul, I would still probably not be able to embrace the explanation and give up the idea of the soul.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Let's go back to orgasm for a moment. What is the coupling to an orgasm? Experiments on rats have shown that direct stimulation of the nucleus accumbens (nAcc) is orgasmic. In this case, the coupling is between the Acc. and a lever the rat pushes. We can see the mechanism is neural.
Neuroplasticity explains the variation from being to being in their coupling of exaltation to a stimulus. How do we know that BMW makes vehicles? The percepts are coupled within our brains, so that we make this connection.
If we suppose that this mechanism is true for the Opera. Then exaltation and Opera are coupled within the brain, thus when said person experiences the Opera they also experience exaltation. Now suppose that Soul is coupled with Exaltation in a recurrent structure. Opera leads to Exaltation leads to Soul. Where Soul only needs to be a concept, an explanation for Exaltation. In the same manner that BMW leads to Cars.
Ok but why do some people experience exultation at the opera?
Why would exultation occur for you and not for me? What leads to the individual experience of exultation?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Training.
Vector coded networks learn from training. By presenting to it the stimulus and reward.
Suppose as a child, your parents enjoyed the Opera. They expressed exaltation at the Opera, both in anticipation and during. A child will quickly realize this is something to be enjoyed, and the neuroplasticity does it's thing.
If each neuron has even 5 different firing rates (frequencies or states). My suggestion is conceptually oversimplified.
There is a googolplex of different possible neural configurations in the brain.
An artificial neural network (ANN), often just called a "neural network" (NN), is a mathematical model or computational model based on biological neural networks. It consists of an interconnected group of artificial neurons and processes information using a connectionist approach to computation. In most cases an ANN is an adaptive system that changes its structure based on external or internal information that flows through the network during the learning phase.
Simplified Structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Artificial_neural_network.svg
Full Text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network
NETTalk is a good example of such a system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NETtalk_(artificial_neural_network)
Gary Cottrell's (Computer Science and Engineering Professor UCSD) Slides (PDF)
http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/classes/sp07/cse150/lectures-pdf/ch20-neural-nets.pdf
This describes a purely feedforward network. For more information on recurrent networks, backpropagation and so forth, check out this article.
http://www.brains-minds-media.org/archive/290/
See and that's where I have a problem, because I do love Opera and it does make me emotional, but I can tell you right now, there was absolutely NO OPERA in my household as a child. So where did I "learn" my exultation from?
Similarly, with regard to souls, I cannot say that there was much, if any, discussion of souls in my house as a child. Certainly if anything, there was a complete lack of religious education or fervour. There was definitely death. So I watched a lot of people die as a child. But I can't say that we were all encouraged to "pray" for the souls of the dying or that their souls had gone somewhere else. If anything I was encouraged to believe that once a person is dead they are dead and gone forever and that nothing "spiritual" or "other worldly" happens. Their body stops. Biological function stops and they are gone. So how do we then attribute this to training?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Yea, like I said, there is no "only cause", childhood is not always the cause of our beliefs and desires. With 100 trillion different synapses, 10^4 synapses per neuron and 100 billion neurons. It's improbable to pin-down exactly what the cause is from the perspective of neurobiology. But what we do know is that our brains are made up of these neurons, layed out in networks, and without them, we have no sensation, no desires and no beliefs. We can describe how they work, as was done above. Knowing how neurons and networks behave, gives us a perceptual model to work from, causes now become imaginable, and this knowledge might assist in intropsecting the true causes.
i can describe a soul but not in a way to convince you. your mind is already made up. my time would be better spent debating with a fish.
You still cannot be sure that another human has a soul, let-alone a machine. It's very possible that a machine could have the same sense and describe it in the same way you do. It may even say the same thing to me.
I guess that makes two of us. Since your mind is already made up concerning souls and the construction of human beings.