SOUL - Who? What? Where?
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Light,
Given all this evidence and recognizing the awesome power of such an organ how is it that anyone can then say, but it is all due to something supernatural, that is invisible, has no evidence for its existence, and was derived in ancient times when ignorance and superstitions ruled the world.
Come on – it is simply a matter of basic credibility. The soul is fiction, it doesn’t exist.
Can’t say I really care. We have an organ between our ears with some 200,000,000,000 neurons, where each is firing at around 300Hz, i.e. a vast parallel processing network that is approximately equivalent to the processing capability of some 20,000 high-end modern day computers. Now, given the direct correlation between loss of certain functions when the brain is damaged it is not difficult to see that it is the brain that accounts for thought, consciousness, memory, emotions, etc.
Given all this evidence and recognizing the awesome power of such an organ how is it that anyone can then say, but it is all due to something supernatural, that is invisible, has no evidence for its existence, and was derived in ancient times when ignorance and superstitions ruled the world.
Come on – it is simply a matter of basic credibility. The soul is fiction, it doesn’t exist.
You may be interested, then, to know that there are monistic worldviews which incorporate the existence of the soul. What, beyond being "supernatural," is the nature of a soul as you see it? The reason I wonder is that I generally view the soul as the defining characteristic of the self. In other words, suppose I had your memories, your physical form, your name, and was for all intents and purposes an exact copy of you. How would you differentiate between me and you? What would disginguish us? Despite being completely identical in every way, there are nonetheless clearly two of us.Cris said:
What distinguishes us is none of the things which constitutes us, because these things are all the same. Rather, we are distinguished by identity - you recognize yourself as yourself and me as not yourself, even if an independent observer could not do the same - and this identity is what I agree to call the soul. There is no separate plane of existence implied here, only the acknowledgement of a fundamental uniqueness. What do you think of that?
Cris said:
Did you read the link I posted on the previous page?
On Gray's Straw Dogs?
http://www.amazon.com/Straw-Dogs-Thoughts-Humans-Animals/dp/1862075964
sam,
No, but just did. It didn't help much. My first priority is survival, truth usually assists with that, but I'm not fussy. I believe we are on the verge of using our intelligence to direct our own future evolution rather than allowing it to progress randomly as it has up until now. Not sure where the issue of objects and subjects enter the picture.
No, but just did. It didn't help much. My first priority is survival, truth usually assists with that, but I'm not fussy. I believe we are on the verge of using our intelligence to direct our own future evolution rather than allowing it to progress randomly as it has up until now. Not sure where the issue of objects and subjects enter the picture.
Cris said:
How can evolution be directed?
By definition, evolution is a random undirected process and truth is a luxury that has no association with evolution.
If you believe that evolution works, it means that we are animals (objects) at the mercy of processes that are beyond our control. Evolution itself will direct that in order to survive we must turn into vicious killing machines to compete successfully with the growing population. The ultimate aim after all is survival.
If however, you believe that we can control our destiny, then the mind is NOT under evolutionary control, since we are transcending the effects of evolution to rewrite our history (subjective) and hence ironically undermining our own survival.
edit: just to be clear, I'm talking about evolution in terms of the mind here.
Cris said:
Your vision is simplistic - once again I think you would be hard pressed to find persons working in the field that make such statements
- to use an analogy you could also say that without an engine a car doesn't move (or a faulty engine it moves in a faulty fashion) however it is clearly understood that a car, whether functional or dysfunctional, has no opportunity to go anywhere without a driver
- in other words to establish the brain is self driven (ie the brain is the final and last word about us in terms of consciousness) is highly tentative since according to a molecular breakdown of substances consciousness doesn't even exist
- this is the problem of molecular evolutionists - they attribute the phenomena of consciousness to matter despite having a complete lack of theoretical foundation to define it, what to speak of explaining how it pertains to the brain
Baum,
I simply do not use the term, it is too misleading.
I believe I simply refer to that as individuality and leave it at that.
There would be no differentiation until after the moment of identicalness the two entities went separate ways and began to form new memories. Memory is identity.
Well OK. I simply see that as a unique set of neural patterns – that is you – I don’t have a name for it. If those patterns were perfectly duplicated so we had the same then our identities would be identical, until we deliberately introduced different memories to create uniqueness.
Promising. And there is more to this. Since conceiving the concept of mind-uploading some 6 years ago, and then discovering I wasn’t alone, I have played endlessly with the problem of having an exact digital copy of myself. In case this is new to you. It is proposed that in the near future we will be able to very accurately scan a brain and create a perfect digital image that could then be uploaded into a processing engine that behaves exactly the same way as a human brain. None of this would be biological. Given this scenario we would become effectively immortal since we could easily make backup copies of our image and have that restored if we were to meet with some fatal disaster. But that backup copy could also be uploaded into another engine and used to create another identical copy, ad infinitum. How then do we solve the problem of identity? Who exactly is who? Issues of property ownership etc would arise.
LOL - and to think you have a problem with ID scientists being fanciful
Sam,
Why not? It is only a series of changes that lead to something else.
No it isn’t. There is no requirement that it be random or undirected. With the introduction of an intelligence into evolutionary processes many dead ends are eliminated much earlier, and more positive changes are recognized sooner and are actively encouraged. Genetic engineering will certainly follow this path. For example - Perhaps ultimately if left to itself random evolution might solve the problem of cancer in say a few million years, but with the introduction of intelligence the problem is likely to be solved within years.
Sure it is. Knowing that an asteroid is certain to hit and destroy the earth eventually I can take steps to leave the planet before it occurs and hence secure my survival. Believing that an imaginary god (a falsehood) will magically re-direct its path, does absolutely nothing to ensure my survival. In this sense truth is something I cannot afford to ignore.
Not sure what you mean here. Evolution is fact.
No that is false. Our intelligence and consequential knowledge has the ability to direct future changes to the way we wish, i.e. we can take control.
Total nonsense.
Intelligence and our ability to reason leads us not to kill each other but allows us to see that community and cooperation increase our chances of survival.
Everything evolves. Change is inevitable. It simply does not have to be random. And I’m not saying we can control a final outcome, that isn’t what evolution is about.
No, you are simply totally screwed up on the concept of evolutionary processes.
samcdkey said:I'm assuming you can observe some difference between yourself and an ape.
Correct assumption and it addresses neither of the questions.
samcdkey said:
If by 'spiritual' we're talking appreciation then it might be. If we're talking metaphysical mumbo jumbo then the statement is meaningless.
samcdkey said:Hopefully one of these you will realise that your plane of consciousness includes a subconscious and an unconscious; something which is not as advanced in apes.
"Plane of consciousness"? Sounds D&D-ish.
sam, light,
Try this thread for more on mind uploading. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2585
And a more serious forum looking at computer-brain interfacing - http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=SF&f=47
The concept is new to you guys huh? Are you not aware of Robosapien concepts? I.e. one of the next probable stages of human evolution.
Try this thread for more on mind uploading. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2585
And a more serious forum looking at computer-brain interfacing - http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=SF&f=47
The concept is new to you guys huh? Are you not aware of Robosapien concepts? I.e. one of the next probable stages of human evolution.
sam,
1) The uploaded mind is placed into a mobile unit, android style and communities of uploads can live somewhat like regular humans do now. Probably inter mixing with AI’s that would likely be indistinguishable – shared technologies.
2) The uploaded mind joins a virtual community and exists only in partitions of a large computer network. Interactions would occur but in entirely computer based scenarios (virtual reality) – certainly matrix–style.
There are two primary routes expected.
1) The uploaded mind is placed into a mobile unit, android style and communities of uploads can live somewhat like regular humans do now. Probably inter mixing with AI’s that would likely be indistinguishable – shared technologies.
2) The uploaded mind joins a virtual community and exists only in partitions of a large computer network. Interactions would occur but in entirely computer based scenarios (virtual reality) – certainly matrix–style.
light,
The problem with theists is that they are so narrow and closed minded that they do not explore the many varied other potential posibilities that we might discover and develop. All the time they are stuck with - God did it - and vainly hope for paradise after death then they will never grow. The god concept is really very naive and primitive.
I was into the Robosapien view of the future from eighth grade through high school, but I eventually lost my taste for it. I always loved to wonder about the implications of conscious machines and people living without organic bodies, but as I learned more about history, it seemed less and less likely that the global situation would support the adoption of that kind of technology should it prove feasible. I see a dark age coming over the next centuries, the result of climate change and cultural strife; and as someone pursuing a scientific career, I hope it won't come so quickly as to put me out of a job! But I digress.Cris said:
Cris said:
I went through part of the thread.
This seems more about immortality than evolution. Do you fear death?
The way I see it, one would essentially live in an artificial world with a real mind- forever. Is that right?
Cris said:
Is virtual reality satisfying when you know it's virtual?
Cris said:
It seems to me that even atheists have illusions of immortality. Interesting that you have a desire to exist forever in a virtual world with a false reality. How do you see people evolving further in such a case? Through memes?
baumgarten said:
Yes I see that too. I think we underestimate the ability of man to use power for destruction and personal gain.
Here is an interesting article on the future of human evolution
http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html
Last edited:
Come now, certainly not all theists are so narrow-minded. A lot of people in general have poorly developed world views, but I am not so sure of how theism bears on this. I have met many superstitious people who blindly appeal to a religious authority for their beliefs, but I also have encountered a fair share of thoughtless individuals who have simply jumped on the atheist bandwagon because it is fashionable to dislike religion, and have never earnestly desired to understand their own philosophy. And the concept of a God has at least caused me to investigate my reality much more thoroughly than if I had never known of it. It has made me more of a critical thinker, and it has caused me to question more, than perhaps anything else. I have tottered between atheism and theism for years as the debate has played within me, and my desire to reconcile the apparently contradictory teachings of religion and science has caused me to gain a deeper understanding of both.Cris said:
Maybe there is something to the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." As I have observed the people in my life, I have found that many of them will simply do either what they want or what you convince them that they want, using whatever justification seems convenient. An invisible man who controls everything is a very convenient justification. But those who desire a deeper satisfaction, those willing to question, will not be deterred by such obvious oversimplifications. Waiting beneath the naive face of mythology is the philosophical work of deep thinkers and the story of the human condition. It has been the same story the world over, whether under Jehovah, Ahura Mazda, or the Greek pantheon. But if that story were to vanish from our memories - if God died forever and never again did the invisible man haunt us from atop the castles of our leaders and oppressors - ninety-five percent of the people in the world would still need to be told what to do and how to behave.
The difference would be that five percent of the people in the world could no longer enrich their lives with much of the hidden wisdom of the past. The thoughtless would remain thoughtless; they would be otherwise compelled to blindly obey, as the communist leaders of the U.S.S.R. and its allies managed without the backing of God during the Cold War. Some other "religion" would inspire the next great atrocity. Our historians would record the great event, and our thinkers would attempt to find meaning among the madness. And so would be planted the seeds of the mythology of the future, the rebuilding from scratch of our civilization's collective unconscious. And that, regardless of what you believe about God, would be a tragedy.
Cris said:
Yes, but natural selection selects for characteristics that ensure survival of the species, not the individual.
I understand what you are saying but won't selecting exclusively for fitness characteristics lead to eugenics?
What if you existed in a virtual reality at the time? Would you still know? And how would you move out? (if you were androids, it would be easier, I guess. btw, how would these uploaded minds be powered?)
Yes but again, that is eugenics.
OK
Utilitarianism would actually show the desirability of conserving limited resources.
Ok
I'm learning.
By the way, what about animals? In an artificial society, do animals have a role?