"The brain is just how the soul expresses itself"

[Kungfuzed]

I respect your opinion but I don't see any evidence that higher decision making functions have been mapped. Demonstrate the actual mechanics of that and you'll be up for a nobel. Knowing that there is activity in the brain in and around decision making time does not in and of itself preclude the something else is at work - until we get an understanding that will allow us to predict what the bio circuts will decide based on their physical state before the input is received. Obviously we are yonks away from that trick.

No, I'm saying nobody can yet point to a brain function or group of functions that 'decide'. We are nowhere near even knowing what biological logic-gates might be involved, or whether it is quantum and so on. All bets are still on as far as I'm concerned.

As long as there is some stone unturned, some physical aspect we dont understand, there is a chance for a non-physical soul to exist? Sounds like you've created a soul of the gaps.

 

[Febble]

Well, what are we waiting for? Let's take your knowledge of the logic gate designs which create awareness and produce high level decision insights and let's go and make a fortune.

Well, you've just moved the goal posts - you were talking about "high level decision making" earlier. And people are already making a fortune out of that.

Awareness is not the same as "high level decision making", but I think we nonetheless know a fair bit about how it works, in principle at least.

Lizzie, if you are trying to tell me that you are optimistic that we will one day "get an understanding that will allow us to predict what the bio circuts will decide based on their physical state before the input is received' then I suppose I can understand that.

Well, what I mean is that we already understand, again in principle, how prior state affects the handling of input.

I'm actually neither optimistic nor pessimistic. I think the brain just 'is' and will never reveal a soul or a lack thereof.

Well, no. If the soul doesn't do anything we won't be able to detect it. But, as I said (in either this thread or another) - if it doesn't do anything, it can't be held responsible either. But if it does do something, then we should be able to detect it. So far, all the evidence is that what we do is done by our brains.

 

[rocketman]

As long as there is some stone unturned, some physical aspect we dont understand, there is a chance for a non-physical soul to exist? Sounds like you've created a soul of the gaps.

I said:

"I think the brain just 'is' and will never reveal a soul or a lack thereof."

So it's soul-of-the-gaps and determinism-of-the-gaps all at the same time. Which means it will be up to the individual to decide for themselves. That's my fearless prediction.

 

[rocketman]

Well, you've just moved the goal posts

I don't think so. I'm trying to tell you Lizzie that if we could predict exactly what the bio circuts will decide based on their physical state before the input is received, then we would have a true understanding of the logic gates involved. Science is also about predictions, and that kind of prediction is the necessary next level if we want to rule out a soul all together.

To (re)quote a recent article in the Oct 2007 edition of Scientific American where two leading theorists pitted their arguments against each other:

"Neuroscience needs a theory that predicts, based on physical measurements, which of the following organisms is conscious: a fruit fly, a dog, a human fetus five months after conception, an unresponsive Alzheimer’s patient, the World Wide Web, and so on. Some experts, including Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, are working on such theories. But we are still so ignorant about the brain that we can only speculate."

The true root of higher order decision events is still not known, that is, the actual root origination. Some theorists take a 'software' approach, others take a 'hardware' approach to the problem, even though the brain appears to be both and neither - but apart from citing which circuts fire up, it is still unknown what 'chooses' the firing pattern. It's early days yet.

So far, all the evidence is that what we do is done by our brains.

My personal opinion is that there will always be a physical 'analogue' event in our brains for anything that an undetectable soul might be able to do, which wouldn't be much. Therefore, those who suspect a soul should also suspect that there may be some functions for which there is no observable root origination.

When we have accounted for the 'choosing' of all firing patterns in a causal way then we can rule out a soul. If we cannot that doesn't mean we've proven we have one (soul of the gaps), but it wouldn't mean we didn't either. Maybe we'll never know in this life. As Penrose concluded it may be that quantum phenomena is the answer given that all known logic gate designs do not account for what we are.

I'll stick with the idea of a soul myself

Peace.

 

[Febble]

I don't think so. I'm trying to tell you Lizzie that if we could predict exactly what the bio circuts will decide based on their physical state before the input is received, then we would have a true understanding of the logic gates involved. Science is also about predictions, and that kind of prediction is the necessary next level if we want to rule out a soul all together.

Well, what I meant is that you brought in the issue of awareness. If we are talking about decision making, then yes, we do have a pretty good understanding of how that works. However, to be aware of making a decision, there also needs to be an encoded representation of the decider. That's also fairly well studied (and we know what happens when it goes wrong, e.g. delusions of alien control, or, conversely, illusions of autonomous control.)

To (re)quote a recent article in the Oct 2007 edition of Scientific American where two leading theorists pitted their arguments against each other:

"Neuroscience needs a theory that predicts, based on physical measurements, which of the following organisms is conscious: a fruit fly, a dog, a human fetus five months after conception, an unresponsive Alzheimer’s patient, the World Wide Web, and so on. Some experts, including Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, are working on such theories. But we are still so ignorant about the brain that we can only speculate."

Well, now you are talking about consciousness, not decision making! I'm not sure which of these things it is you want to discuss. But to be able to measure consciousness, we need first to decide what we mean by it. There are various candidates. But this is a matter of definition, not speculation. We can't speculate about a thing we can't define. Once we define it, then we can set about measuring it (and we do).

The true root of higher order decision events is still not known, that is, the actual root origination. Some theorists take a 'software' approach, others take a 'hardware' approach to the problem, even though the brain appears to be both and neither - but apart from citing which circuts fire up, it is still unknown what 'chooses' the firing pattern. It's early days yet.

I don't know what you mean by "the true root". It is not true that "it is still unknown what 'chooses' the firing pattern. We know a huge amount about how firing patterns reach the threshold for action, and what influences which patterns reach that threshold first.

My personal opinion is that there will always be a physical 'analogue' event in our brains for anything that an undetectable soul might be able to do, which wouldn't be much. Therefore, those who suspect a soul should also suspect that there may be some functions for which there is no observable root origination.

Well, there is not to postulate anything for which there can be no evidence. It just doesn't seem to be terribly useful, when we can have good predictive models instead. We could all have been created last Tuesday, memories included. It's just rather a useless model.

When we have accounted for the 'choosing' of all firing patterns in a causal way then we can rule out a soul. If we cannot that doesn't mean we've proven we have one (soul of the gaps), but it wouldn't mean we didn't either. Maybe we'll never know in this life. As Penrose concluded it may be that quantum phenomena is the answer given that all known logic gate designs do not account for what we are.

I'll stick with the idea of a soul myself

Peace.

We certainly can't rule out a soul-of-the-gaps. But we certainly can't infer a soul from gaps either, and in any case, those gaps are shrinking rapidly.

My own view is that the mystery of consciousness is a myth. Not that consciousness is a myth, but the mystery is.

cheers

Lizzie

 

[rocketman]

Hi Lizzie. I appreciate your input. I see a pattern forming here where I mention what we don't know and you mention what we do know, or in the case of logic gates etc, what we think we know. I don't want to get stuck in a loop here so I'm just going to make the categorical claim that we have not yet solved the so-called 'soft' and 'hard' problems of consciousness, nor can we be certain about the precise causes which bring forth our decisions. I don't blame you for your optimism but let's not say that MRIs or PETs or EEGs can tell us why you and I chose to post here. Not yet anyway!

A good non-technical look at where we are up to in our understanding of the brain for those who are interested:

10 Unsolved Mysteries Of The Brain | Mind & Brain | DISCOVER Magazine=

We certainly can't rule out a soul-of-the-gaps. But we certainly can't infer a soul from gaps either, and in any case, those gaps are shrinking rapidly.

Yay, so we are in general agreement, except that you are optimistic that we will figure it all out one day.

 

[Febble]

Hi Lizzie. I appreciate your input. I see a pattern forming here where I mention what we don't know and you mention what we do know, or in the case of logic gates etc, what we think we know. I don't want to get stuck in a loop here so I'm just going to make the categorical claim that we have not yet solved the so-called 'soft' and 'hard' problems of consciousness, nor can we be certain about the precise causes which bring forth our decisions. I don't blame you for your optimism but let's not say that MRIs or PETs or EEGs can tell us why you and I chose to post here. Not yet anyway!

Well, as I said, my position is that I think the mystery of consciousness is a myth. I don't buy the "Hard Problem" argument. I think the Hardness is an artefact of the fact that we ourselves are both subject and object of the study. That is not to say that I think we know even a fraction of what there is to know about how the brain works, or that we ever will. Nor is it to say that there are not some very interesting problems to which we do not yet have a single direction in which to search. But I think the idea that there is some qualitatively Hard Problem about consciousness is a mistake. I think Chalmers got that wrong.

 

[rocketman]

Well, as I said, my position is that I think the mystery of consciousness is a myth. I don't buy the "Hard Problem" argument. I think the Hardness is an artefact of the fact that we ourselves are both subject and object of the study. That is not to say that I think we know even a fraction of what there is to know about how the brain works, or that we ever will. Nor is it to say that there are not some very interesting problems to which we do not yet have a single direction in which to search. But I think the idea that there is some qualitatively Hard Problem about consciousness is a mistake. I think Chalmers got that wrong.

Ah! So you are a one of the mavericks. Cool.

For those who don't know what we are on about, a quote from the Jan19th, 2007 edition of Time:

"The Hard Problem is explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation. The problem is hard because no one knows what a solution might look like or even whether it is a genuine scientific problem in the first place. And not surprisingly, everyone agrees that the hard problem (if it is a problem) remains a mystery." (our friend Lizzie excluded)

Personally I agree that explaining exactly how subjective experiences arise from neural computation is still a mystery. I think the term 'mystery' is a better one than the term 'problem' because we still don't even know what questions to start asking.

 

[Zeno]

Respectfully, I wish I could help you but again I can only point out that I am not claiming there is any. Nor did the article by the neuroscientist I quoted. In fact my thrust all along has been that we will never find it, nor do I believe we will find it's physical counterpart either.

Ah, I am seeing a recurring trend of invulnerable stances. Luckily this thread (unlike previous threads) is explicitly questioning a claim. See here:

Thus, the idea of a human soul is unnecessary to explain/predict human experience and behavior

Your argument that we will never find 'non-physical influences on our consciousness' nor will we ever find a physical 'seed of consciousness' is irrelevant to the intentions of the thread. Everyone is in agreement that human consciousness and awareness of self cannot be explained in terms of single action potentials or chemical interactions at individual synapses. Everyone is also in agreement that we are far from knowing everything there is to know about the brain.

I will cede to you that irrefutable "proof" on the existence of a soul is not possible. Much in the same way I could not "prove" to you that I am indeed not an inter-dimensional alien nor could I prove to you that when you awaken tomorrow morning, the earth will still have gravity.

However, Spinkle's argument is much more illuminating for the following reason. His claims could potentially be falsified by evidence. (I know you're doubting whether this evidence is attainable). Nothing in what we already know about the brain requires a non-physical explanation (do not take this opportunity to detail what we have yet to learn, I am well aware).

This fact could change at any moment which would invalidate some very important aspects of Spinkle's argument. For example, if tomorrow someone demonstrated that action potentials could propagate randomly (by randomly I mean not relying on axons, gap junctions, or synapses), that would be pretty non-physical as far as our current understanding goes.

The same cannot be said for your argument. Too bad we don't have a time machine, eh? If you want to assert your right to be pessimistic or to believe in a "soul of the gaps," that is wonderful and all. It is just not relevant.

 

[rocketman]

Your argument that we will never find 'non-physical influences on our consciousness' nor will we ever find a physical 'seed of consciousness' is irrelevant to the intentions of the thread.

If you are refering to me not only have you misunderstood my original response to the OP but you have failed to criticise Mr S for spreading the discussion out into other areas also.

However, Spinkle's argument is much more illuminating for the following reason. His claims could potentially be falsified by evidence.

Such as? I think first of all he would need to leapfrog the rest of science and show that every single thing in our brain is deterministic. Then we can talk about how that could be falsified.

This fact could change at any moment which would invalidate some very important aspects of Spinkle's argument..... The same cannot be said for your argument.

???

I'm saying we may never find first causes for some of the things that happen between our ears. So what.

If you want to assert your right to be pessimistic or to believe in a "soul of the gaps," that is wonderful and all. It is just not relevant.

Given that neither side can prove their personal opinions absolutely, exactly what is relevant in this discussion O keeper of the relevance standard?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Such as? I think first of all he would need to leapfrog the rest of science and show that every single thing in our brain is deterministic. Then we can talk about how that could be falsified.

It need not be deterministic to be physical. Lots of physical systems are not deterministic.

 

[rocketman]

It need not be deterministic to be physical. Lots of physical systems are not deterministic.

Sorry if I confused anyone. I was using the mathematical version, not the philosophical one:

"In mathematics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. Deterministic models thus produce the same output for a given starting condition" from wiki

This ties in with what I was saying earlier about it being necessary to know how things work before we can predict the outcomes. 'Deterministic' is probably not the best choice of words I confess but it will have to do.

To make it even more complicated, there does appear to be randomness in the firing of neurons in our brains:

Single Neurons Can Induce Phase Transitions of Cortical Recurrent Networks with Multiple Internal States -- Fujisawa et al. 16 (5): 639 -- Cerebral Cortex

 

[s2a]

The brain has no life but what God gives it. It cannot cause a body to walk or talk. Our spirits (souls) use our temporary physical brains as tools in which to walk, talk, etc. The brain in and of itself has no life of it's own. For instance it cannot reason on it's own of course or cause a finger to move at will, a miracle in and of itself.

Similarly, a computer has no life but what we give it or program into it.

Let us then discuss the "souls" resident within all creatures with identifiable (or describable) brains that can also "walk".

Shall we now peruse the "soul" of a salamander, or the "spirit" of an arachnid? Are these brains imbued with some knowledge/understanding of "God", and if so, should they not be seeking salvation too?

Does god give life to non-human brains? Does god grant "souls" to non-human brains? What does Scripture say about any alleged discriminations/dispensations of "souls" in this regard?

 

[rocketman]

What does Scripture say about any alleged discriminations/dispensations of "souls" in this regard?

Not much.

Eccl 3:18-21 (NIV) " I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

(NIV translation footnote): Or " Who knows the spirit of man, which rises upward, or the spirit of the animal, which .. "

Eccl 12:6,7 (NIV) " Remember him—before the silver cord is severed, or the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, or the wheel broken at the well, and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. "

So, same bodies as animals, but apparantly a difference of some sort in the souls, all of which originiate with God somehow.

Another interesting souls scripture is what Jesus said in Matt 10:28 (CEV) " Don't be afraid of people. They can kill you, but they cannot harm your soul. Instead, you should fear God who can destroy both... " Maybe animal souls get destroyed. Such things are obviously not essential knowledge for our salvation, or more would have been made of them. To paraphrase Ecclesiasties: Who knows?

 

[FFH]

Let us then discuss the "souls" resident within all creatures with identifiable (or describable) brains that can also "walk".

Shall we now peruse the "soul" of a salamander, or the "spirit" of an arachnid? Are these brains imbued with some knowledge/understanding of "God", and if so, should they not be seeking salvation too?

Does god give life to non-human brains? Does god grant "souls" to non-human brains? What does Scripture say about any alleged discriminations/dispensations of "souls" in this regard?

Hold on I've got the perfect scripture.

All things were created spiritually, using more refined matter than that which makes up our temporal bodies, before they were created physically.

All things seem to have life, which God gives them, even rocks.

This is Jesus Christ (God the Son; the God of the Old and New Testament and of this world) speaking in these revelations, given by inspiration, to Joseph Smith.

Doctrine and Covenants 128: 23 (LDS Scripture)
Let the mountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid rocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy! And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers!


Christ also spoke of this, while on earth, suggesting rocks had a life of their own.

Luke 19: 40
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[Febble]

Ah! So you are a one of the mavericks. Cool.

Well, I'm a fairly recent convert to maverickdom.

Personally I agree that explaining exactly how subjective experiences arise from neural computation is still a mystery. I think the term 'mystery' is a better one than the term 'problem' because we still don't even know what questions to start asking.

Well, I think that is the myth - that we don't know what questions to start asking. I think we do. Daniel Dennett raises a lot of them in "Consciousness Explained". My conversion to Easy Problem-hood came about when it dawned on me that most questions that people pose about consciousness are ill-formed. They treat "consciousness" as though it's an entity of some sort (even a soul) that DOES something. Whereas if we think of consciousness in terms of being conscious OF something, then whole sets of perfectly addressable questions pose themselves. Asking "is a bacterium/robot" conscious?" is certainly a Hard Problem, because it isn't really a Problem at all - no problem is presented to solve. Whereas asking "what could a bacterium/robot be conscious OF?" is a perfectly addressable question. And, most important, is the questions "is a bacterium/robot conscious of itself?"

Which gives us not only a way of addressing questions about consciousness, but a program of investigation into how consciousness might have evolved into the complex consciousness we experience, which is consciousness inter alia, of our state of consciousness.

 

[FFH]

There is a definite difference between our spirits and the spirits of rocks, trees and animals.

We know the difference between right and wrong, all other creatures do not.

The brain is made up of living cells, which have a spirit of their own, but they cannot reason, they can and will only do what God commands them to do.

We are less than the dust of the earth, in this regard, because the dust of the earth moves at the command of God, we won't and don't move when God tells us to move, speak or even write what he wants us to write, at least most, if not all of us.

Ouch !!! (Just read this and you'll see what I mean)

Helaman. 12: 7-8, but read the rest of this chapter it's very humbling(Book of Mormon)
7 O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.

8 For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God

Click on this link and read the rest of the chapter for a full understanding of this principle: Helaman 12

 

[Febble]

Sorry if I confused anyone. I was using the mathematical version, not the philosophical one:

"In mathematics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. Deterministic models thus produce the same output for a given starting condition" from Wiki <snip link>

This ties in with what I was saying earlier about it being necessary to know how things work before we can predict the outcomes. 'Deterministic' is probably not the best choice of words I confess but it will have to do.

To make it even more complicated, there does appear to be randomness in the firing of neurons in our brains:

<snip link or my post won't post>

There probably is genuine randomness (in the sense of quantum indeterminacy) in neural firing, but more interesting is that there is non-linearity, as in Strange Attractors and chaos theory.

 

[rocketman]

There probably is genuine randomness (in the sense of quantum indeterminacy) in neural firing, but more interesting is that there is non-linearity, as in Strange Attractors and chaos theory.

It's a fascinating area.

Ps, you will be able to post links after 15 posts.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I am suggesting that we simply do not know what will be possible in 20 years, let alone 50. So it can be quite speculative to say something will be impossible.

In 200 years you won't be able to tell if your best friend is conscience or not. He can tell you he is, but you won't be able to verify it.