"The brain is just how the soul expresses itself"

[Febble]

I don't, but I accept the academic literature that states that they do. I have unfortunately never met anyone with blindsight.

OK, well, here's my point: we know that they are not conscious of visual information in the way that normally sighted people are because of their behaviour.

So when you said:

Blindsight patients can access visual information without conscious awareness, e.g. the capacity to make colour discriminations may be preserved in blindsight. This would seem at odds with your statement "If someone...behaved as though they were conscious of things, then to say that they were not conscious would be an absurdity"

(my bold)

...it isn't "at odds" because if they behaved as though they were conscious of visual information, then we wouldn't think they had blindsight.

 

[sandandfoam]

OK, well, here's my point: we know that they are not conscious of visual information in the way that normally sighted people are because of their behaviour.

So when you said:



(my bold)

...it isn't "at odds" because if they behaved as though they were conscious of visual information, then we wouldn't think they had blindsight.

I disagree, for example when DF made her reaching movements to the slot she was behaving as if she were conscious of visual information. Wasn't she?

 

[Febble]

I disagree, for example when DF made her reaching movements to the slot she was behaving as if she were conscious of visual information. Wasn't she?

Well, again, I have to ask: how did the experimenters know that she wasn't?

The answer, as I recall, was that she was unable to tell which way the slot was turned unless she reached for it, and was unable to say, after successfully posting the shape in the slot, which way it has been.

In other words, from her behaviour - not from her reaching behavior alone, from which we might assume conscious awareness of what she was doing, but from behaviour that indicated her lack of insight into the process by which she was able to get it right.

 

[sandandfoam]

Well, again, I have to ask: how did the experimenters know that she wasn't?

The answer, as I recall, was that she was unable to tell which way the slot was turned unless she reached for it, and was unable to say, after successfully posting the shape in the slot, which way it has been.

In other words, from her behaviour - not from her reaching behavior alone, from which we might assume conscious awareness of what she was doing, but from behaviour that indicated her lack of insight into the process by which she was able to get it right.

I'm only learning about this so please bear with me if I'm off track. But. Couldn't the experimenters know that she wasn't conscious of it because of the damage to the occipito-temporal cortex and ensuing interruption of the ventral stream?
Don't these case studies show that blindsight occurs where the dorsal stream to the posterior parietal cortex is intact following damage either to the occipito temporal cortex, an interruption of the ventral stream or both?
My understanding is that the ventral stream is associated with cognitive function and the dorsal stream with motor function. Take away the consicous function, leave the motor function intact can't we say that we know she is unconscious of her behaviour which results from motor not cognitive function because of the nature of her lesion and is this not at odds with what was originally said i.e. "If someone...behaved as though they were conscious of things, then to say that they were not conscious would be an absurdity"

 

[Febble]

I'm only learning about this so please bear with me if I'm off track. But. Couldn't the experimenters know that she wasn't conscious of it because of the damage to the occipito-temporal cortex and ensuing interruption of the ventral stream?

Well, if so, only because of previous studies that showed that blindsight was associate with ventral stream disruption. The reason we know about the different functions of the dorsal and ventral stream is by observing behaviour. We couldn't even talk about blindsight if it wasn't apparent from some aspect of behaviour that it wasn't normal sight.

Don't these case studies show that blindsight occurs where the dorsal stream to the posterior parietal cortex is intact following damage either to the occipito temporal cortex, an interruption of the ventral stream or both?

Sure, and it's a fascinating topic. In any case there are lots of ways in which we react without being (usually) conscious of reacting - the startle reflex, for instance. But my point is that if all we observed in an organism was the a startle reflex, we might be iffy about attributing consciousness to it (maybe a dim kind of sentience). But if it started to tell you about the experience of being startled, I would see no reason not to assume it was conscious of having been startled. We would, in other words, know it was conscious of having been startled because it said it was.

This is Dennett's point - we think we can imagine something that looks just like a conscious thing, but isn't. But when you try to pin it down, there is no reason to think that something that looks like a conscious thing wouldn't be. At least I am not convinced that there is. Certainly blindsight isn't an example because it is precisely because we know that the person isn't conscious of normal visual information that we know that they have blindsight.

My understanding is that the ventral stream is associated with cognitive function and the dorsal stream with motor function. Take away the consicous function, leave the motor function intact can't we say that we know she is unconscious of her behaviour which results from motor not cognitive function because of the nature of her lesion and is this not at odds with what was originally said i.e. "If someone...behaved as though they were conscious of things, then to say that they were not conscious would be an absurdity"

Well, now that we know what we know, we can infer, via inductive reasoning, that someone with that lesion will have blindsight, from the lesion alone, with a reasonable degree of being right (our knowledge isn't THAT good yet, though! We'd want to test, i.e. observe evidence of blindsight as well as evidence of the lesion).

But I think we've gone off track - my point was that if someone DIDN'T show evidence of blindsight, despite a blindsight lesion - we couldn't say "Ah! They only LOOK as though they have normal sight, actually they only have blindsight". Because if they had normal sight they'd be able to tell the orientation of the slot was without reaching. And if they could do that, then we'd have to infer that they were conscious of the orientation of the slot. Which is perfectly possible in principle - with training, it might be possible to teach blindsighted people to become aware of orientation by reaching and noting the direction tended to turn their hand, then simply by imagining reaching, and noting the direction they felt they would turn their hand. But if they were then able to report the direction of the slot just by looking, we'd then have to say they had become conscious of the orientation of the slot.

But again, we would be drawing the inference of consciousness from the behaviour.

 

[sandandfoam]

Frubles for you. Great response. Thanks.

 

[rocketman]

But again, we would be drawing the inference of consciousness from the behaviour.

So we are ruling out a purely mechanical awareness? So we are ultimately making a subjective inference...

 

[Febble]

So we are ruling out a purely mechanical awareness? So we are ultimately making a subjective inference...

I am not sure what you mean by "we are ruling out a purely mechanical awareness". And we are making an inference from correlations between objective observations of behaviour, reports of subjective experience (what Dennett calls "heterophenomenology") and measure of neural function.

 

[rocketman]

I am not sure what you mean by "we are ruling out a purely mechanical awareness".

Mechanically 'aware' in the way that a sensor can be tripped to activate something

And we are making an inference from correlations between objective observations of behaviour, reports of subjective experience (what Dennett calls "heterophenomenology") and measure of neural function.

So we accept that we are dealing with another self-aware conscious like our own without ever really proving it.

 

[Febble]

Mechanically 'aware' in the way that a sensor can be tripped to activate something

But what did you mean by "we are ruling out"? I didn't understand the relevance of the comment to my post. Sorry about that, probably need coffee....

So we accept that we are dealing with another self-aware conscious like our own without ever really proving it.

Science doesn't deal in proofs. We don't prove things in science. We fit models to data. Proofs are for mathematicians, who can define the universe to which their proof applies. Scientists can't, because they are stuck with the one that is really out there.

But we can certainly correlate, and in some cases, by manipulating one of the variables (probing the brain with an electrode, or a TMS wand, for instance) we can establish the direction of causality.

 

[rocketman]

But what did you mean by "we are ruling out"? I didn't understand the relevance of the comment to my post. Sorry about that, probably need coffee....

By your reckoning when we accept that someone else is conscious we accept that they have a similar awareness/experience to our own, and they are not a zombie, yes? So we rule out that they are a zombie even though we don't really know. It seems so subjective.

I think what is confusing me is that you have a slightly different take on Dennett than most people I know who follow him. If we are inferring a self-awareness like our own, then our consciousness has to compare it's own subjective quality against the possibility of another, and dare we infer such a thing onto others? According to Dennett, our subjective experience only 'seems' to be subjective. Thus, we are in no position to infer anything subjective, we can at best infer an objective mechanical awareness. (hope that makes sense..)

My Dennett-loving friends say I've got this line of thought right but they disagree that the mind is of any consequence so what I said doesn't matter to them. To which I reply that I find the whole maverick anti-qualia Dennett idea itself to be subjective Ironically acceptance of it relies on using the subjective insight of the mind, for me it does anyway....

Oh dear, I need a coffee too....

Science doesn't deal in proofs. We don't prove things in science. We fit models to data. Proofs are for mathematicians, who can define the universe to which their proof applies.

I know. Funny you should mention a platonic concept in a thread about the soul. I wonder if we'll ever find the exact circutry between our ears that can imagine such universes. Personally I'm doubtful.

 

[Luke_17:2]

The brain is the physical, the mind is the abstract.

The soul and the spirit influence the mind. The brain is the physical manifestation, imo.

 

[s2a]

Hello rocketman,

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

You said:

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 .. "

Cool.

So, basically..."who knows?" is the revelation of answerable "truth" in this question?

What insight should any skeptic (that espouses a similar perspective) glean from such vagaries of "truth"?

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.

"Apparently"? "Some sort"? "Somehow"? Why, you almost sound like a skeptic. ;-)

Jeez...at least my guesses are predicated upon observation of natural phenomena...not just some faith-based speculations proffered as (otherwise) immutable truths.

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?

Indeed.

"Who knows"?

I commend your lent candor in earnest reply...as might be sometime similarly offered by any "unbeliever" in considered reply.

But then again, I tender no claims (of any level/measure) of absolute certitude (or divine revelation of "truth" ) as to any "ultimate" dispensations of alleged "souls"...be they piously human...or animally atheistic.

[Pssst. I had a pet rock in the '70s. It never wept nor spoke, nor argued any philosophy of any kind whatsoever.Go figure/

 

[rocketman]

So, basically..."who knows?" is the revelation of answerable "truth" in this question?

Ecclesiasties is a funny old book. The way it is written in places is like a question and answer session. The other verse I gave (12:7) gives the answer, that is, all souls return to God.

What insight should any skeptic (that espouses a similar perspective) glean from such vagaries of "truth"?

I don't want to tell you how to interpret the passages, it's up to you.

"Apparently"? "Some sort"? "Somehow"? Why, you almost sound like a skeptic. ;-)

Yes, I use those words because there is obviously some ambiguity in the texts. Just being honest. I can only infer it's not essential to know the exact nature of animal souls just yet.

Jeez...at least my guesses are predicated upon observation of natural phenomena...not just some faith-based speculations proffered as (otherwise) immutable truths.

So I gave my opinion as to what it means. The key thing I think, theologicaly and scholastically, is that there is some kind of difference between animal and human souls. That alone is enough to reinforce the 'special creation' status of humans as portrayed elsewhere throughout the related books. But you are free to read it any way you like.

[Pssst. I had a pet rock in the '70s. It never wept nor spoke, nor argued any philosophy of any kind whatsoever.Go figure/

Don't be too hard on him. Maybe he didn't like you.

just kidding

 

[s2a]

Hiya rocketman,

When I said:
So, basically..."who knows?" is the revelation of answerable "truth" in this question?

You offered:

Ecclesiasties is a funny old book. The way it is written in places is like a question and answer session. The other verse I gave (12:7) gives the answer, that is, all souls return to God.

The "answer" is found within Ecclesiasties 12:6-7(?):
"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. "

???

What?

Please do forgive my lacking faith and indiscriminate "understanding" of Scripture. What is/are the "silver cord"; the "golden bowl"; the "shattered pitcher"; or the "broken wheel""?

What?

Are these supposed metaphors for otherwise tangible things? If so, what?

A "funny old book"? No doubt. Care to explain/define the "meaning" lent by such a "funny" reference?

I said:
What insight should any skeptic (that espouses a similar perspective) glean from such vagaries of "truth"?

You replied:

I don't want to tell you how to interpret the passages, it's up to you.

Really? "It's up to me", at this point?

I have shared my "interpretations". Still seems like jabberwocky and bunk to me...

The onus of providing [any] compelling argument (or "interpretation") remains upon you, as accounted (as the Word of Jesus) in Mark 16:15-16--
"He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."


I observed:
"Apparently"? "Some sort"? "Somehow"? Why, you almost sound like a skeptic. ;-)

You replied:

Yes, I use those words because there is obviously some ambiguity in the texts. Just being honest. I can only infer it's not essential to know the exact nature of animal souls just yet.

OK. I acknowledge your conceded "ambiguity" in inexact reply. Perhaps...it's but a matter of "interpretation" of a funny old book? What if I'm right, and you're wrong? then what?

I said:
Jeez...at least my guesses are predicated upon observation of natural phenomena...not just some faith-based speculations proffered as (otherwise) immutable truths.

You replied:

So I gave my opinion as to what it means. The key thing I think, theologicaly and scholastically, is that there is some kind of difference between animal and human souls. That alone is enough to reinforce the 'special creation' status of humans as portrayed elsewhere throughout the related books. But you are free to read it any way you like.

Gee, thanks. I have "read" Scripture as being irrelevant and unhelpful in this regard. I now count you in a similar class of provisor of facile and yet extraordinary claims...

 

[rocketman]

s2a asked me in this thread:

Is there ANY valid science (of measurable, quantifiable, testable means) that even begins to hint or suggest that paranormal "souls" exist beyond the clams of faith-based religious adherents?

For instance, we cannot completely account for a lot of the apparantly random firing activities of some neurons for example. That's not to say that mainstream science doesn't think there won't be a logical explanation, probably quantum. Nor is it understood what the effect of all of these events actually do in the brain. Random patterns can synchronise when stimulated by sensory input so it might just be background noise.

 

[rocketman]

Please do forgive my lacking faith and indiscriminate "understanding" of Scripture. What is/are the "silver cord"; the "golden bowl"; the "shattered pitcher"; or the "broken wheel""?

Indiscriminate? Who would dare say such a thing Off with their heads!

It's all just a poetic way of saying that a life is coming to an end. I recommend some healthy courses in related ancient hebrew studies (secularly of-course) to add just a touch more 'discriminate' prowess to your portfolio.

The onus of providing [any] compelling argument (or "interpretation") remains upon you, as accounted (as the Word of Jesus) in Mark 16:15-16--
"He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

What an interesting interpretation you have there! It says nothing about teaching you of the esoteric side issue of animal souls, only about passing on the good news to you. Do you really want me to do that? Whats that, you do!? Oh, for a minute there....

Anyway, to quote my trusty NIV footnotes; "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20 " (waits patiently for s2a's witty response..)

Perhaps...it's but a matter of "interpretation" of a funny old book? What if I'm right, and you're wrong? then what?

That's fine. Goes to show that your pet rock was right not to mess with you on the big issues.

Gee, thanks. I have "read" Scripture as being irrelevant and unhelpful in this regard.

So you agree with my initial asessment? Well done.

I now count you in a similar class of provisor of facile and yet extraordinary claims...

Well, that's more than my pet brick says to me. Thanks.

 

[s2a]

s2a asked me in this thread:

For instance, we cannot completely account for a lot of the apparantly random firing activities of some neurons for example. That's not to say that mainstream science doesn't think there won't be a logical explanation, probably quantum. Nor is it understood what the effect of all of these events actually do in the brain. Random patterns can synchronise when stimulated by sensory input so it might just be background noise.

So...you offer only unburdened and untested abject speculations as support/validation of...what?

Care to make some testable, or substantiative claim?

ANY?

Any at all?

Quantum thinking?

Is this a testable hypothesis?

C'mon...get real...

 

[rocketman]

So...you offer only unburdened and untested abject speculations as support/validation of...what?

Not sure if we are on the same track here. Many who pupport the idea of a soul believe that there will be things happening in the brain that can not fully be accounted for by physical processes. Thus, the trick is to eliminate all mysteries surrounding causation between our ears before we can say there is no soul (categorically that is). If you have read through this thread you will find that I have said repeatedly that we won't find direct evidence of the soul, but I doubt we will find all causes of brain activity either. That's my fearless prediction. The implications of which will be up to the individual what they want to believe, which is where we are at now anyway. This thread feels like it's repeating....

Quantum thinking?

Is this a testable hypothesis?

C'mon...get real...

Penrose certainly thinks it will explain a great many of the current mysterious unknowns bewteen our ears. And while he doesn't believe in a soul as such, he is open to the idea that we are more than the sum of our parts, as are many in the field. He has a head for complex things like this ( he was one half of the team that figured out there must be black holes long before any were detected, and much to the humour of many at the time). I tend to have plenty of respect for his thinking on thinking.

 

[s2a]

Hiya rocketman,

When I said:
So...you offer only unburdened and untested abject speculations as support/validation of...what?

You replied:

Not sure if we are on the same track here. Many who pupport the idea of a soul believe that there will be things happening in the brain that can not fully be accounted for by physical processes.

Many?
Many of what?
Many of whom?
Many of "science"?
Many of "faith"?

Thus, the trick is to eliminate all mysteries surrounding causation between our ears before we can say there is no soul (categorically that is).

I never considered any valid methodological process as revealing some "mysterious" explanatory "trick"...

If I claim that an 4000 lb. invisible elephant lives in your home, what means/methods of invalidation would you employ to discredit my claim? Would you assume my claim as "true" unless/until you could otherwise disprove it by evidence and applied human reason?

If you have read through this thread you will find that I have said repeatedly that we won't find direct evidence of the soul, but I doubt we will find all causes of brain activity either.

No, I get that. But your doubts are predicated upon a specified religious faith...and not within a more scientific (and objective) perspective of alternate possibilities/probabilities.

At best...EVER..."science" can (may) only serve to demonstrate that deities (or pious belief of same thereof) are [ultimately] unnecessary as any (otherwise) requisite explanation of natural manifestations/outcomes/events.

That's my fearless prediction.

;-)

Easy enough...when there are no attached/requisite burdens of either proof or evidence to account for, beyond personalized belief itself.

The implications of which will be up to the individual what they want to believe, which is where we are at now anyway. This thread feels like it's repeating....

Indeed.

I posed:
Quantum thinking?

Is this a testable hypothesis?

C'mon...get real...

You said:

Penrose certainly thinks it will explain a great many of the current mysterious unknowns bewteen our ears.

Such is the realm (and definable constraints) of philosophy...versus testable hypotheses and theory...

And while he doesn't believe in a soul as such, he is open to the idea that we are more than the sum of our parts, as are many in the field.

Again...bully for him. I'd also prefer to believe that any individual is a greater sum than any singular moments/circumstanes/experiences that serve to compile a singular life into some sort of message or metaphor...

He has a head for complex things like this (he was one half of the team that figured out there must be black holes long before any were detected, and much to the humour of many at the time). I tend to have plenty of respect for his thinking on thinkin

g.

I know. Hawking is one of my "heroes" in his own similar right and recognition.

Funny thing is...and this is a funny thing....

..."Black holes" were just a hypothetical "thing", up until the time that overwhelmingly available evidences PROVED the (previously predicted) existence of "Black Holes.

Ain't science cool that way?

It offers predictions predicated upon the available evidences...then tests those predictions for validation or falsification. Cool.

How might we, as skeptics, apply similar standards to any "God theory"?

You tell me...