"The brain is just how the soul expresses itself"

[rocketman]

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

"who pupport the idea of a soul' ... I know you can read.

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

No, no, no. I said "Thus, the trick is to eliminate all mysteries surrounding causation between our ears before we can say there is no soul (categorically that is)." Where 'trick' = task.

But your doubts are predicated upon a specified religious faith...and not within a more scientific (and objective) perspective of alternate possibilities/probabilities.

Lol! No they are not, although it's true I do have an unspecified religious faith. My concept of the soul is based upon my own intuition, which must be satisfied before I swallow any religious concepts. Also, part of my line of work involves the development of complex AI systems, and I have long had an interest in the nuts and bolts of these things from a physical standpoint. I agree with Penrose's mathematics that show that all presently known forms of computation cannot be used generate anything like 'true' AI and consciousness. Appeals to quantum outs aside, I seriously don't believe we'll ever simulate true consciousness let alone be able to categorically dismiss a soul altogether, and while that is only my opinion, I think it's as valid as any out there at the moment.

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

You seemed to be trashing the idea of quantum thinking. I just wanted to point out that it has a certain credibility in many circles.

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

You tell me...

I never mentioned God. But if I did, I'd suggest that he would have to make himself known to you, not that you would be able to prove him to be all by yourself.

 

[FFH]

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"?

Obviously not a scientific validation, but this scripture keeps coming to mind.

Alma 30: 44 (Book of Mormon)
But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Chaos has never become ordered, without intelligent intervention, divine or otherwise.
~ FFH ~

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Nick,

You quoted the 'car analogy', as I pursued it, and replied:

I believe you are missing my assertion that conscious experience cannot be observed or measured. The car analogy is inaccurate for that. It simply illustrates that there is something else besides the engine if the engine can't account for the entire driving event.

I agree with you that the car analogy is inappropriate for dealing with the issue that "conscious experience cannot be observed or measured". However, my purpose in this instance was to address a separate issue: that is, whether or not our behavior and experience is derived solely from the (very complex) machinations of our brains.

Just to recap:

My point was that IF supernatural causes were involved in our behavior/experience, there are many possible ways we could conceivably detect them. If, however, the human soul (a non-physical agent) has an effect on our behavior/experience that is too subtle to be detected experimentally, then it might still exist, but so might undetectable chimpanzee, rodent, and cell phone souls.

Consciousness is non-quantifiable, which means it can't be measured. Sounds like something outside of the domain of science--something supernatural.

I think I see what you're saying, and I take the problem seriously. In that spirit, I submit to you a few things for your consideration:

1. Consciousness comes in degrees: different animals have it, and at different stages of development or in different circumstances, people have it to a higher or lesser degree. In every well-studied instance it has been determined that degree of consciousness depends upon physical, not supernatural, circumstances.
2. Experience--even the experience of being conscious--is quantifiable in some respects. For example, I could take caffeine, cocaine, or ethanol (alcohol), and rate my level of consciousness in each case on a scale of one to ten.
3. Experience (including the subset of experience we call consciousness) can be indirectly measured in other people and animals by observing brain function and behavior.
4. It is difficult to define, quantify, measure, and comprehend many phenomena that are within the domain of science (both Zeno and Febble pointed out the problem of definitions). There are natural/physical reasons why we have non-quantifiable "fuzzy" intuitions and feelings about the world.
5. Many animals may have experiences which we cannot share and which are no less compelling than 'consciousness'. It would be somewhat arbitrary to insist that consciousness must be supernatural while all other experiences are natural.

 

[Storm]

My point was that IF supernatural causes were involved in our behavior/experience, there are many possible ways we could conceivably detect them.

Such as?

 

[sandandfoam]

Nick,

1. Consciousness comes in degrees: different animals have it, and at different stages of development or in different circumstances, people have it to a higher or lesser degree. In every well-studied instance it has been determined that degree of consciousness depends upon physical, not supernatural, circumstances.
2. Experience--even the experience of being conscious--is quantifiable in some respects. For example, I could take caffeine, cocaine, or ethanol (alcohol), and rate my level of consciousness in each case on a scale of one to ten.
3. Experience (including the subset of experience we call consciousness) can be indirectly measured in other people and animals by observing brain function and behavior.
4. It is difficult to define, quantify, measure, and comprehend many phenomena that are within the domain of science (both Zeno and Febble pointed out the problem of definitions). There are natural/physical reasons why we have non-quantifiable "fuzzy" intuitions and feelings about the world.
5. Many animals may have experiences which we cannot share and which are no less compelling than 'consciousness'. It would be somewhat arbitrary to insist that consciousness must be supernatural while all other experiences are natural.

Is part of the problem of discussing consciousness is that the term covers too many things? For example I find it somewhat difficult to seperate consciousness from memory - If I were to talk to you about something I am conscious of I could likely be talking about a very very recent memory. The time it takes to form the words is a gap from the experience therefore it is a past experience I am relating. I find it conceptually quite difficult but do you know what I mean?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

With regards to the blind man in a cave / beautiful sunset example:

I don't follow you. Any understanding of the sunset would be based on similar experiences that can be related to. But you will never truly know that experience. We have no means of communication for that.

I agree, the only way to 'truly know' a beautiful Arizona sunset would be to experience it for oneself--physically. This fact is compatible with the notion that physical causes are the root of our experience.

The fact that we can't completely quantify our experience is not a problem. We can't quantify the experience of many animals whose behavior shows that they experience things as much as any human (perhaps many things that a human cannot experience). The conclusion is that science is an objective method for investigating the world whereas our experience comes from a mammalian brain that has evolved to survive, not to worry about x-rays or warped spacetime or all the other things that we cannot conceive with our minds, though we can understand them through science.

How do you know a mouse is conscious? To say "it just seems conscious" seems like bad science. What do you measure? How do you verify?

I'm not sure that a mouse is conscious, but......I assume that you consent to the inference that other people besides yourself experience things, too. Right?

The same inference can be extended to any organism that shows signs of experience and has the necessary hardware for it. The differences and similarities between our experience and the experience of other humans and animals can be guided by behavioral, anatomical, and evolutionary data. You measure things like brain activity in various areas and you verify by doing it on lots of subjects.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Such as?

As I explained earlier in the thread:

Imagine that we have some cars and some unobservable drivers. How could we tell that these unobservable drivers exist?

1. Observe something in the car that violates established laws of physics (e.g. the gas pedal lowers on its own)
2. Observe that two physically identical cars behave differently (e.g. both cars start out in park, one drives off obeying traffic laws, while the other drives aimlessly into things, or just sits there in park; perhaps one driver is more skilled than the other)
3. Observe that the 'intentions' of the car cannot be altered by physically changing the car (e.g. no matter how you play with the engine or brakes, the driver will still do his best to avoid running into a crowd of people)

Any of these observations would falsify the hypothesis that the behavior of cars is exclusively the result of physical causes. The same argument could be made for any physical system, including brains, both animal and human.

We could add a fourth observation in the case of a brain or machine capable of communicating its experience or at least exhibiting signs of unique experiences:

4. Observe that the experiences indicated by the behavior of the machine (e.g. it says 'I see the color blue', or its feelings/experiences are evident by its behavior) do not correspond to anything physical about the machine.​

Despite a wealth of research, none of these observations have been made with respect to any physical system that I know of, even human brains. Clearly, human brains, chimpanzee brains, and cell phones are not inhabited by these sorts of supernatural 'drivers'.

Now, you could postulate some things about the human 'soul' that makes it different from the supernatural 'drivers' above:

1. Maybe we just haven't found the part of the brain where a non-physical action occurs; or, maybe the soul is actually a passive 'receiver' who doesn't interact with the brain but who experiences what it's like to be sitting in it nonetheless.
2. Maybe souls are too similar to be distinguished by the different ways in which they control brains; also, maybe brains with certain physical characteristics are always inhabited by a soul.

....and so on. I have no doubt that, if we try hard enough, we can make all sorts of ad-hoc hypotheses about the human soul in order to make it immune to empirical falsification.

However, I am equally certain that we could postulate an unfalsifiable soul for the chimpanzee brain, cell phones, or any physical system. So why should we take the existence of an unfalsifiable human soul more seriously than the existence of an unfalsifiable cell phone soul?

Also, Zeno pointed out many posts ago:

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.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Is part of the problem of discussing consciousness is that the term covers too many things?

Yes, I think so. Good point.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Again, show me a study published in a peer-reviewed journal that presents evidence for non-physical influences on our consciousness or decision-making.

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.

I realize that you did not claim there is any scientific evidence for supernatural influences on our experience. However, the notes by the professor of physics at the Christian college that you cited do claim that there are supernatural influences on our brains. I am merely pointing out that there is no evidence to support this claim.

I will ask a direct question: isn't it true that our current knowledge does not preclude 'something else' at work not just in the human brain, but also in the chimpanzee brain, the dolphin brain, and Earth's magnetic fields?

I've already addressed this with my response to your alien idea. So here it is again my friend:

"I cannot rule that out, but it would be a lot more believeable if the aliens were here telling us that they can percieve of their 'sense of self' going on indefinitely."

Okay, so we agree that our current scientific knowledge does not preclude the existence of 'something else' at work in a vast array of natural phenomena.

So, given that we cannot disprove 'something else' at work in any of these phenomena, on what rational basis would one consider supernatural influences on humans more likely than supernatural influences on lots of other things?

 

[rocketman]

I realize that you did not claim there is any scientific evidence for supernatural influences on our experience. However, the notes by the professor of physics at the Christian college that you cited do claim that there are supernatural influences on our brains. I am merely pointing out that there is no evidence to support this claim.

I agree with you that there is no evidence of a scientific kind, and I agree with him that there is 'something else' going on with us.

Okay, so we agree that our current scientific knowledge does not preclude the existence of 'something else' at work in a vast array of natural phenomena.

So, given that we cannot disprove 'something else' at work in any of these phenomena, on what rational basis would one consider supernatural influences on humans more likely than supernatural influences on lots of other things?

[By supernatural influence I am assuming you mean the influence of a soul] That's a good question from a reductionist point of view. I believe the answer comes from our own mouths. I would simply say that our inexplicable quest to understand the so-called 'human condition' and the millennia of feedback and claims from subjects (people) regarding a vast array of soul-related intuitions warrants at least some attention. Add that subject-generated body of claims to the observed complexity of human behaviour, including the only known instances of declared self-self-awareness and there is certainly work to be done. (if only animals could talk) It seems irrational to me to dismiss these things simply because humans are the only likely candidates.

Human condition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I pointed out in another thread recently, Joshua Greene from Harvard is working to pinpoint the causes of 'moral' decisions in the brain so that he can "rule out a soul". Were he doing this for any other animal or object it would be rather odd indeed.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

[By supernatural influence I am assuming you mean the influence of a soul] That's a good question from a reductionist point of view. I believe the answer comes from our own mouths. I would simply say that our inexplicable quest to understand the so-called 'human condition' and the millennia of feedback and claims from subjects (people) regarding a vast array of soul-related intuitions warrants at least some attention.

I agree that it warrants attention...however, many things warrant attention. The tortoise's inexplicable ability to navigate hundreds of miles across featureless oceans certainly warrants attention. This doesn't really address 'on what rational basis would one consider supernatural influences on humans more likely than supernatural influences on lots of other things'.

Add that subject-generated body of claims to the observed complexity of human behaviour, including the only known instances of declared self-self-awareness and there is certainly work to be done.

Sure, but once again, 'there is certainly work to be done' with regards to many phenomena. It would be inconsistent to, on the one hand, say that a supernatural entity responsible for human behavior ought to be taken seriously because 'there is work to be done' in human behavior; and, on the other hand, not seriously consider a supernatural entity responsible for tortoise behavior despite the fact that 'there is work to be done' there as well. (Of course 'tortoise behavior' is just one possible example of many.)

 

[rocketman]

I agree that it warrants attention...however, many things warrant attention. The tortoise's inexplicable ability to navigate hundreds of miles across featureless oceans certainly warrants attention. This doesn't really address 'on what rational basis would one consider supernatural influences on humans more likely than supernatural influences on lots of other things'.

Respectfully, I don't think you understood my answer. I'm sorry I don't know how to articulate it any better. :sorry1:

Sure, but once again, 'there is certainly work to be done' with regards to many phenomena. It would be inconsistent to, on the one hand, say that a supernatural entity responsible for human behavior ought to be taken seriously because 'there is work to be done' in human behavior; and, on the other hand, not seriously consider a supernatural entity responsible for tortoise behavior despite the fact that 'there is work to be done' there as well. (Of course 'tortoise behavior' is just one possible example of many.)

I don't know what else to tell you Mr S. When I find a scientist like Mr Greene trying his level best to disprove the existence of a soul in something other than a human then I'll let you know.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Respectfully, I don't think you understood my answer. I'm sorry I don't know how to articulate it any better. :sorry1:

I apologize if I have failed to understand you...I'm not being dense on purpose.

I don't know what else to tell you Mr S. When I find a scientist like Mr Greene trying his level best to disprove the existence of a soul in something other than a human then I'll let you know.

I seems to me that his lack of interest in disproving animal souls is mainly due to the lack of people who believe in such things. If you are saying that the widespread belief in human souls is a compelling reason to investigate the phenomenon, then I agree with you. The mere fact that many people believe it is not a compelling reason, i.m.o., to take seriously the existence of a human soul above and beyond the existence of other supernatural possibilities.

It is to be expected that human beings would portion out cosmic significance in such an anthropocentric way.

(By the way, I should point out that I do not take the possibility of supernatural agents behind human or animal behavior very seriously--just to be clear. I'm not endorsing tortoise souls. )

 

[rocketman]

It is to be expected that human beings would portion out cosmic significance in such an anthropocentric way.

I totally agree with you on that point Mr S. The trouble is, if one does come to the conclusion that humans are special somehow (let's not go there) then the person making the claim is never going to shake the stigma of anthropocentrism. That's whats so tricky about this whole thing. No wonder Dennett argues as he does. It's a pity we don't have another sentient (or better yet, sapient) species on the planet that we can communicate with so that we can compare notes.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Nick,

You quoted the 'car analogy', as I pursued it, and replied:

I agree with you that the car analogy is inappropriate for dealing with the issue that "conscious experience cannot be observed or measured". However, my purpose in this instance was to address a separate issue: that is, whether or not our behavior and experience is derived solely from the (very complex) machinations of our brains.

And my contention is that if there are certain "experiences" that cannot be measured in the brain that directly correlates to our experience, then there is also a piece besides the physical brain that is involved in our cognitive experience.

Just to recap:

My point was that IF supernatural causes were involved in our behavior/experience, there are many possible ways we could conceivably detect them. If, however, the human soul (a non-physical agent) has an effect on our behavior/experience that is too subtle to be detected experimentally, then it might still exist, but so might undetectable chimpanzee, rodent, and cell phone souls.

My personal theory is that our volition and will fits within the uncertainty in quantum particles. There are several theories of quantum consciousness, primarily by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff (who sits across from us at UofA basketball games!). I do not think they agree with me on a philosophical level, but their theories have some interesting aspects. I personally think the non-locality of quantum contributes to our conscious awareness and the uncertainty is part of our decision making.

Of course, to suggest these things in any sort of scientific symposium, would result in me getting barbecued, because I have no evidence to support these ideas.

I think I see what you're saying, and I take the problem seriously. In that spirit, I submit to you a few things for your consideration

Consciousness comes in degrees: different animals have it, and at different stages of development or in different circumstances, people have it to a higher or lesser degree. In every well-studied instance it has been determined that degree of consciousness depends upon physical, not supernatural, circumstances.

I agree that different animals have it (based on intuition), but how do we know?

Experience--even the experience of being conscious--is quantifiable in some respects. For example, I could take caffeine, cocaine, or ethanol (alcohol), and rate my level of consciousness in each case on a scale of one to ten.

I agree.. our conscious experience is dependent on the physical brain. If I jump into a pool of water, my conscious experience will reflect that. Drugs certainly modify our conscious experience. But can a cocaine user describe what their high is like experientially to someone who has never done drugs in a way that they can comprehensively understand the experience?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And my contention is that if there are certain "experiences" that cannot be measured in the brain that directly correlates to our experience, then there is also a piece besides the physical brain that is involved in our cognitive experience.

I don't see how that logically follows. You're saying that it is impossible, in principle, for the experiences resulting from a mammalian brain to be difficult to measure? A mammalian brain, without supernatural help, can only produce experiences that can be "measured"?

Don't you agree that the experiences of all primates, cetaceans, etc. "cannot be measured"? If all those animals have experiences that cannot be measured, then do they have a supernatural component, too?

My personal theory is that our volition and will fits within the uncertainty in quantum particles. There are several theories of quantum consciousness, primarily by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff (who sits across from us at UofA basketball games!). I do not think they agree with me on a philosophical level, but their theories have some interesting aspects. I personally think the non-locality of quantum contributes to our conscious awareness and the uncertainty is part of our decision making.

Of course, to suggest these things in any sort of scientific symposium, would result in me getting barbecued, because I have no evidence to support these ideas.

I've heard of Penrose's ideas about quantum consciousness. Those are pretty interesting theories. I thought that quantum effects were pretty much washed out at the macroscopic level of proteins and cells, but I guess I have to read more about it.

I agree that different animals have it (based on intuition), but how do we know?

I'm not saying we know. I'm saying that if it's valid to infer that other humans have experiences, based on anotomical/behavioral similarities between other humans and oneself, then the same method of inference can be extended to non-human animals.

I agree.. our conscious experience is dependent on the physical brain. If I jump into a pool of water, my conscious experience will reflect that. Drugs certainly modify our conscious experience. But can a cocaine user describe what their high is like experientially to someone who has never done drugs in a way that they can comprehensively understand the experience?

That is a good question, but it doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not our experience comes from our physical brains. The fact that the best way to understand an experience is to physically induce the experience in oneself isn't incompatible with the claims I'm making.

 

[s2a]

Hiya rocketman,

When you claimed:

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.

I only asked...
Many?
Many of what?
Many of whom?
Many of "science"?
Many of "faith"?

You tendered some banal aside

"who pupport the idea of a soul' ... I know you can read.

I can (read). I'd like to "read" of the "MANY" that may substantively support your claim. I read no (provided) names, nor any accounted backgrounds of affiliation/interest attached to those names. Pity.
Your claim is so broad, unspecific, and generalized...it's not unlike my claiming that there are "many people" that "believe" that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are "the 'Best sandwiches in the world'"!

If I were one to confidently assert such a claim of superiority in sandwich building, I would at least be bold enough to name some definitive sandwich-making authorities/experts to support my claim.

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

You replied:

No, no, no. I said "Thus, the trick is to eliminate all mysteries surrounding causation between our ears before we can say there is no soul (categorically that is)." Where 'trick' = task.

Well...OK.

Let's then look towards a valid and proven methodology in which to fairly exercise and fairly test this "task" set before us...a method that will serve to "categorically" eliminate false or invalid causations. Got one handy?

I said:
But your doubts are predicated upon a specified religious faith...and not within a more scientific (and objective) perspective of alternate possibilities/probabilities.


You found humor in this observation, and rebutted:

Lol! No they are not, although it's true I do have an unspecified religious faith. My concept of the soul is based upon my own intuition, which must be satisfied before I swallow any religious concepts.

Cool. So...you are yet another of the "Church of one's own special revelation and wisdom attached to NO other organized faith or religion...INC.

Just like...almost everyone else...yawn.

"Truth" is then a personal, not a universal or ubiquitous concept that applies to all, many, or even a distinctly adherent few? "

Conceptual souls" are therefore matters of personal" intuition" alone? I'm intrigued by this "intuition" of yours. Do "souls" then only inhabit those people that can "intuit" (incorporate) them within their own existence? Do "souls" exist from within, or from without those lacking in a special "intuition". Is this where the "Ghost of Christmas Past" comes from?

Also, part of my line of work involves the development of complex AI systems, and I have long had an interest in the nuts and bolts of these things from a physical standpoint.

Cool. Really. It sounds like interesting work (I'm not being facetious).

I agree with Penrose's mathematics that show that all presently known forms of computation cannot be used generate anything like 'true' AI and consciousness.

Bully for the self-serving philosopher in us all. Just the same, I would not be the first skeptic to step forward and suggest that you have single-handedly served to invalidate Godel's theorems by your own personalized conclusions/opinions...or the generalized confirmation of "Moore's Law" in practical observation and effect.

Nothing seems less "impossible" than in imposing philosophical limitations upon prospective computational leaps in (otherwise) consistently observed progression.

Appeals to quantum outs aside, I seriously don't believe we'll ever simulate true consciousness let alone be able to categorically dismiss a soul altogether, and while that is only my opinion, I think it's as valid as any out there at the moment.

Sorry. I can only read your rebuttal as..."I can't substantiate my belief with any relevant or substantive facts. I have nothing but my personal opinion to offer."

And no...not all opinions are EQUALLY valid or "just as good as any other". They're not. That's why we TEST hypotheses and theories.

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

You said:

You seemed to be trashing the idea of quantum thinking. I just wanted to point out that it has a certain credibility in many circles.

NOPE.

I asked you whether or not "quantum thinking" presented any sort of testable hypothesis. You instead choose to inaccurately misrepresent my inquiry as a rote dismissal. I invite you (again) to answer the question as initially put to you.

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

You tell me...

You begged...

I never mentioned God. But if I did, I'd suggest that he would have to make himself known to you, not that you would be able to prove him to be all by yourself.

My bad. You cited Eccl 12:6,7 (and, somewhat obtusely, Matt 10:28) as validation of your presented summary conclusion, when you said:
"So, same bodies as animals, but apparantly a difference of some sort in the souls, all of which originiate with God somehow."

I invite you now, for my own erudition, and for the sake of other members reading along within this thread...

...Do you believe the "god" (as accounted) in the Bible to be THE GOD of all things, or not?

This is NOT a trick question, or one that demands an especially convoluted and evasive answer. For example...my convicted answer would be...NO.

What's yours?

 

[rocketman]

Hi s2a

Your claim is so broad, unspecific, and generalized...

Of-course it is! Good grief man, what on earth are you rambling on about? I was simply saying that people who believe in a soul generally believe that it acts in a supernatural way. Surely that is a fact of common knowledge. Here's what I said again, with the folowing sentence for context:

" 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). "

Let's then look towards a valid and proven methodology in which to fairly exercise and fairly test this "task" set before us...a method that will serve to "categorically" eliminate false or invalid causations. Got one handy?

Why not ask Joshua Greene from Harvard. He reckons he will find the cause of 'moral' judgement in the brain so he can 'rule out the existence of a soul' once and for all, something he's very keen to do.

So...you are yet another of the "Church of one's own special revelation and wisdom attached to NO other organized faith or religion...INC.

Lol, unspecified does not have to mean non-specific.

Conceptual souls" are therefore matters of personal" intuition" alone? ...

My point was that you don't have to have a religious reason for believing in a soul or similar. Lots of people fall into that category, especially outside of your great country. Now, does intuition make it so? No, of-course not. But in the absence of evidence it's a good place to start. Are you laughing at that? Well don't. As Joshua would say:

"Intuitively, we think of ourselves not as physical devices, but as immaterial minds or souls housed in physical bodies. Most experimental psychologists and neuroscientists disagree, at least officially."

The experts are spending millions of dollars to disprove this intuition, so far unsucessfully, so let's not dismiss it as mere caprice just yet. Throw in a knowledge of what circuts cannot do (possibly easier for me than you I'm guessing) and there is, at a minimum, room to consider.

Just the same, I would not be the first skeptic to step forward and suggest that you have single-handedly served to invalidate Godel's theorems by your own personalized conclusions/opinions...

Mathematics is personalised? New one on me.

Sorry. I can only read your rebuttal as..."I can't substantiate my belief with any relevant or substantive facts. I have nothing but my personal opinion to offer."

I didn't realise it was an issue. The opposite side cannot substantiate in a categorical way their beliefs. Perhaps Greene will change all that.

"Officially, we scientists already know (or think we know) that dualism is false and that we are simply complex biological machines. But insofar as we know this, we know this in a thin, intellectual way. We haven’t seen the absence of the soul. Rather, we have inferred its absence, based on the available evidence and our background assumptions about what makes one scientific theory better than another."

He is hell-bent on ruling out the idea of a soul once and for all. Currently he is unable to do that.

And no...not all opinions are EQUALLY valid or "just as good as any other". They're not. That's why we TEST hypotheses and theories.

The tests are not over.

I asked you whether or not "quantum thinking" presented any sort of testable hypothesis.

Sorry. Generally speaking, not with our current equipment. Now why am I even answering this? I don't get it. I'm not advocating quantum thought. When I mention it I do so to remind others just how far the gap is between what we know and don't know. And when I say that I trust Penrose's 'thinking on thinking' I'm refering to his math which shows just how much we don't know about thinking.

My bad. You cited Eccl 12:6,7 ...

Oh, ok, sorry, I did mention him, well, sort of. But I don't even see what that has to do with this thread. If by 'god theory' you mean supernatural then just say so. But that's too broad a subject for this thread. As for where I did mention scripture, when you asked about it I offered you a 'look up' service, free of charge. It was offered in a neutral spirit, and although we shared/swapped a few opinions on it, it had little to do with the meat of this thread.

What's yours?

Irrelevant.

Cheers.

 

[s2a]

Hi rocketman,

When I said:
Your claim is so broad, unspecific, and generalized...

You replied:

Of-course it is! Good grief man, what on earth are you rambling on about?

Ummm...specifics?

I was simply saying that people who believe in a soul generally believe that it acts in a supernatural way. Surely that is a fact of common knowledge.

"Common knowledge" rarely presents any sort of validated fact. A "fact of common knowledge" may only serve to enunciate a greater ignorance, or (errant) "belief". "Urban legends" abound as "common knowledge"...but most are readily debunked.

Here's what I said again, with the folowing sentence for context:
"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). "

I got that (in context).

I submit that the only resident "mysteries" are those that are inserted by specious claims on the part of religious adherents...whom neither provide nor require "evidence" as (compelling) "proof" of their faith-based claims/beliefs.

If I insist that you "categorically disprove" the abstractly claimed existence (and faith-based beliefs) of "fairies" or "unicorns"...and...you either can't, or won't (being the obstinate unbeliever you may be!), should we then logically induce and conclude that all unproven (or otherwise outstanding disproved) claims are therefore deserving of equal legitimacy and consideration as "fact"? Really? Do we really (reasonably) want to go there?

If you are lost, and you encounter someone like me along your currently directionless path, and you [then] ask for accurate directions (from me) as to your planned destination...I may (or may not) possess the knowledge and/or experience to (accurately) deliver what you seek.

I may, or may not, "know" how to best direct you towards your desired destination. In either likelihood, I would not suggest that you must (or should) account for any/all circumstantial "causations" that might evince themselves along the "way" that i provide.

The FACT remains that there is an expeditious and direct path to your desired destination (whether I can provide it or not),...or you are perhaps (then) hopelessly ill-equipped (or ill-informed) to ever purposefully attain your unnavigable goal.

Maybe the destination you hope to arrive upon...doesn't actually exist (like Shangri-La). Then what? Fault the "map" that promised such a destination? Fault the helpful locals that lent earnest (but flawed) direction? Or, look within to find accountable fault in seeking a thing or place that doesn't exist?

I reiterate...there is NO evidence of ANY kind that even hints or suggests that a (claimed) "human soul" exists. NONE. It's OK to WISH for such a thing...but to insist that it MUST exist--absent any compelling proofs or evidences--is to map a hopeful path to "Shangri-La", or "heaven", or "Eden".

Faith is not a methodology, a plan, or even a mapped path to any destination borne of wish and hope alone. It's not. Faith may claim to present a journey of "discovery", but it's preferred destination is "eternity"...which renders any other measure of mortally humanistic time/effort to be otherwise infinitesimally moot and irrelevant. What's a day, month, year, or even a human lifetime of 50-100 years compared to, say...10 TRILLION years? (that's 10,428,571,429 times the measure of one 75 year-old mortal's life span).

When I said:
Let's then look towards a valid and proven methodology in which to fairly exercise and fairly test this "task" set before us...a method that will serve to "categorically" eliminate false or invalid causations. Got one handy?

You offered:

Why not ask Joshua Greene from Harvard. He reckons he will find the cause of 'moral' judgement in the brain so he can 'rule out the existence of a soul' once and for all, something he's very keen to do.

Ummm...so what?

Joshua Greene is a psychologist and a philosopher serving to validate his own "research" into the aspects of (however they may relate between) emotional and "cognitive" processes in moral judgment. His rote dismissals of Adam Smith and David Hume as "sentimentalists" color his projected sense of objectivity. His concerted efforts to synthesize the perspectives of Haidt and Kohlberg within a more contemporary view (as opposed to those espoused by Plato and Kant) is noted...but hardly revolutionary, and nonetheless...irrelevant.

Philosophy...very much akin to faith-based beliefs and religion, may serve to describe a designed or abstract perspective...but does not serve as a methodology in ascertaining/establishing any relevant and/or burdened proof of "fact".

I observed:
So...you are yet another of the "Church of one's own special revelation and wisdom attached to NO other organized faith or religion...INC".

You begged off...again...

Lol, unspecified does not have to mean non-specific.

Ahhh...the specificity afforded (or not) by the obtuse and purposefully evasive...

I inquired:
Conceptual souls" are therefore matters of personal" intuition" alone? ...

You rebutted:

My point was that you don't have to have a religious reason for believing in a soul or similar. Lots of people fall into that category, especially outside of your great country.

OK. I'll bite. What non-religious reason would a "believer" in/of "souls" present as justification/rationale of such an "understanding" or "assumption"?
[Note: I consider "spiritualism" as but another "religious" caveat espousing supernaturalistic "causation" of circumstantial phenomena].

Now, does intuition make it so? No, of-course not. But in the absence of evidence it's a good place to start.

Your position is noted...but hardly compelling.

Are you laughing at that? Well don't. As Joshua would say:
"Intuitively, we think of ourselves not as physical devices, but as immaterial minds or souls housed in physical bodies. Most experimental psychologists and neuroscientists disagree, at least officially."

Yawn.

I would "philosophically" observe that "most people" consider themselves (or their deeds) as somehow/hopefully/designedly significant or durably impacting upon the cosmos (and other people/places/things). Of the BILLIONS of people that have lived within the last two centuries...how many can you account of that are especially memorable or significantly impacting upon the overall human condition today? A dozen? Two dozen? One hundred? Out of...BILLIONS?

"I'm a SOUL MAN!"

The experts are spending millions of dollars to disprove this intuition, so far unsucessfully, so let's not dismiss it as mere caprice just yet.

Really? Which "experts", and where? Could you please be specific in supporting your allegation?

Throw in a knowledge of what circuts cannot do (possibly easier for me than you I'm guessing) and there is, at a minimum, room to consider.

I promise not to poorly estimate or speculate upon your resident capacities, if you promise same in return. ;-)

I observed:
Just the same, I would not be the first skeptic to step forward and suggest that you have single-handedly served to invalidate Godel's theorems by your own personalized conclusions/opinions...

You took a giant step sideways, and said:

Mathematics is personalised? New one on me.

C'mon. I won't insult your intellect, if you lend some deference for my own.

 

[s2a]

I said:
Sorry. I can only read your rebuttal as..."I can't substantiate my belief with any relevant or substantive facts. I have nothing but my personal opinion to offer."

You replied:

I didn't realise it was an issue.

Ahem...this is a forum of debate...not a subway wall of scrawled graffiti.

The opposite side cannot substantiate in a categorical way their beliefs.

This flawed assertion presupposes that non-belief actually (and therefore) constitutes a "belief". Skepticism is NOT a belief, a faith, or a philosophy. I suspect you are well aware of that...but perhaps not...

Perhaps Greene will change all that.

Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
Next.

"Officially, we scientists already know (or think we know) that dualism is false and that we are simply complex biological machines. But insofar as we know this, we know this in a thin, intellectual way. We haven’t seen the absence of the soul. Rather, we have inferred its absence, based on the available evidence and our background assumptions about what makes one scientific theory better than another."[/QUOTE

OK. Greene's opinion is noted as being neither authoritative nor especially illuminating.

He is hell-bent on ruling out the idea of a soul once and for all. Currently he is unable to do that.

So?

Is that really the best you have to offer? The failing perspective of a singular individual? My next door neighbor has three post-graduate degrees...and he still thinks that George Bush will (eventually) be historically validated as a "Great President".

I'm...skeptical of that "hope" enjoying any validation...

I noted:
And no...not all opinions are EQUALLY valid or "just as good as any other". They're not. That's why we TEST hypotheses and theories.

You said:

The tests are not over.

I know. Ain't it cool? In science...they NEVER are....

When I reiterated:
I asked you whether or not "quantum thinking" presented any sort of testable hypothesis.

You replied:

Sorry. Generally speaking, not with our current equipment.

I applaud your rare candor in answer.

Now why am I even answering this? I don't get it. I'm not advocating quantum thought. When I mention it I do so to remind others just how far the gap is between what we know and don't know.

Is that really necessary? Does the introduction of some spurious and untestable concept better serve to reinforce this alleged "common knowledge"?

And when I say that I trust Penrose's 'thinking on thinking' I'm refering to his math which shows just how much we don't know about thinking.

I think...that "thinking about thinking", is the best sort of thinking our species can immediately hope to engage and pursue. I've already noted Penrose beforehand.

I recounted...
My bad. You cited Eccl 12:6,7 ...

You said:

Oh, ok, sorry, I did mention him, well, sort of. But I don't even see what that has to do with this thread.

Well...you cited that verse, not me...;-)

If by 'god theory' you mean supernatural then just say so.

OK. I'll "say so".

Yet...it seems to go without saying, dontchathink? Is there any contemporarily popular faith-based religion/belief/concept that regards deities as less than "supernatural" in origin or influence in the "natural" cosmos?

But that's too broad a subject for this thread. As for where I did mention scripture, when you asked about it I offered you a 'look up' service, free of charge. It was offered in a neutral spirit, and although we shared/swapped a few opinions on it, it had little to do with the meat of this thread.

I agree. Your referenced C&V offered nothing to support your position or perspective. Predictable...

When I asked:
I invite you now, for my own erudition, and for the sake of other members reading along within this thread...

...Do you believe the "god" (as accounted) in the Bible to be THE GOD of all things, or not?

This is NOT a trick question, or one that demands an especially convoluted and evasive answer. For example...my convicted answer would be...NO.

What's yours?

You evaded any pointed answer by saying...

Irrelevant.

Cheers.

Well met then...L'achiam!

Irrelevant or not, your tactical evasion serves to further impugn your projected credibility of any expressed convictions or lent opinions.

Ironic that the skeptic can avoid employing equivocations...and that the advocate of supernaturalism and "souls...regards these pusillanimous pulchritudes of parsimony as a convenient dodge in serving a provision of evasion to a direct inquiry.