Souls?

[(Q)]

Wes - a dictionary?

 

[superluminal]

How about a concept being a pattern of information that relates in a specific way to other patterns of information such that the other patterns are enhanced in a heuristic goal-seeking way? Seriously. Yes?

 

[Raithere]

What's a concept raith? What is its substance? Though it is comprised of chemicals, how can it mean something? How can a "part of a larger system" dilineate one meaning from another? Why does it bother?

The problem, as I see it, Wes is that you keep insisting that meaning must come from somewhere else, something non-physical or extra-dimensional, but you're not providing how meaning is thus derived.

I understand what you mean when you talk about an extra dimension of freedom but what exactly have you added? All you've changed is the geometry, from (x,y,z,t) to (x,y,z,t,i) or whatever extra dimension you add. I don't see where this fundamentally changes how the structures within the geometry interact. You've only changed the coordinate system, how they interact has not changed.

To my understanding, meaning is simply the mapping of a set of relationships. The most simple mapping is, of course, 1 to 1 or A = B. For instance, I use the username Raithere here in the forum but my real name is Joe. So now you have a mapping of a relationship, Raithere = Joe. We can add to that, stating Joe = Raithere = the person who typed what you are now reading. Or in English: Who is Joe? Joe is the person who typed what you are now reading.

That is all that meaning is. It's just that the simplicity gets obscured because we have an unimaginably large number of mappings in our minds. Raithere is made up and as far as I know is original. But Joe is not. The symbol Joe will have many more mappings, other people named Joe, GI Joe, Joe Blow, Joseph, Jose, Giuseppe, etc. The symbol people has many, many more. Etc.

We also don't typically concern ourselves with the process; it's all but automatic but think about it. What happens when you are learning a new concept? You map it to preexisting relationships in your mind. Only once we are able to map it can we say we understand it. Only once it is set within a larger framework of relationships does it have meaning.

This is why learning is progressive. You can't start out trying to teach quantum physics to kindergarteners, not because they are incapable of learning the concepts themselves, but because you haven't built up the necessary framework of relationships. If you taught them an entire segment of quantum physics it would just sit there, detached from their primary experience and understanding. They cannot relate it to anything else.

It's also why computers are stupid. They only have the mappings that we give them. While the learning networks I mentioned earlier are a step they simply do not have the capacity and agility of a human mind in forming these mappings. But functionally there is no difference. It's not a categorical shift; it's merely a matter of degree.

This translates directly to the structure of the brain and how it functions. While areas become specialized, the brain is actually very plastic, particularly so when we are young. Physical connections grow with use; the brain actually adapts to function according to input and use. Blindfold yourself for a week and start learning Braille and your brain will start remapping (both physically and functionally) your visual centers to read Braille. Remove the blindfold and your brain will remap again to better process the visual signals from the eyes.

Data comes in through the senses and gets mapped in the structures (again, physical and functional) of the brain. The brain continues to map incoming data, building sets of relationships, patterns by which meaning is derrived. The process is not lost in extra-dimensional space somewhere, unobserved, it occurs right there in the observable brain.

What need is there for this unobserved function? What does it do? How does it interact?

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

How about a concept being a pattern of information that relates in a specific way to other patterns of information such that the other patterns are enhanced in a heuristic goal-seeking way? Seriously. Yes?

But what makes the pattern aware, or why/how does it "care"?

 

[Raithere]

But what makes the pattern aware, or why/how does it "care"?

Awareness is simply the input of data, information garnered through the senses (whatever they may be). Self-awareness can be explained by self-recursion; the pattern can perceive itself and is aware of its own state of being... this would be my definition of consciousness. The pattern "cares" because it has evolved to aid in the survival of the organism in which it evolved.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/mandler.cons.html

~Raithere

 

[Gustav]

heh
by my own volition i think i shall raise my hand.
wow! what do you know, up in the air it goes.

could this be a mental state iniating a physical one?

is it possible for the neuroscientists on this board to conceptualize and explain how my mental state affected the physical state?

The principle of volition is a philosophic axiom, with all the features this involves. It is a primary — a starting point of conceptual cognition and of the subject of epistemology; to direct one's consciousness, one must be free and one must know, at least implicitly, that one is. It is a fundamental: every item of conceptual knowledge requires some form of validation, the need of which rests on the fact of volition. It is self-evident. And it is inescapable. Even its enemies have to accept and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. (Leonard Peikoff)

 

[Gustav]

Awareness is simply the input of data, information garnered through the senses (whatever they may be). Self-awareness can be explained by self-recursion; the pattern can perceive itself and is aware of its own state of being... this would be my definition of consciousness. The pattern "cares" because it has evolved to aid in the survival of the organism in which it evolved.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/mandler.cons.html

~Raithere

self recursion? do you mean that i am aware that i am aware? or perhaps that i am aware that i am aware that i am aware?

The pattern "cares" because it has evolved to aid in the survival of the organism in which it evolved.[/url]

~Raithere

care to elaborate?

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

The discovery of something is not necessarily a determinate of its existance.

How so? If it has been discovered then clearly it exists.

People knew that there was a continent beyond the Atlantic before Columbus.

I think you mean that they speculated; that is not the same as knowing.

Furthermore, consider mathematics and the Natural Laws of the Universe, like gravity, these are static unchanging invisible realities which were always there, even before the great physicists "discovered" them.

It is quite acceptable to realize that things will exist before they are discovered, however, one cannot claim knowledge of such things until they are discovered, but before then claims to their existence is simply imaginative speculation.

in the case of gravity you have an invisible law deeply effecting physical/material objects.

Something doesn’t have to be visible to be detectable and discoverable.

The disobedience of Adam, a spiritual choice, causes the fall of all humanity and cosmos into a state of physical ailment and weakness, and our praeternatural powers were lost. This is why men do not have the innate survival skills of other animals.

Clearly this is false since man is one of the most successful species on the planet and has no predator that he cannot overcome – save perhaps some microorganisms that we are currently pursuing.

Physical objects in turn may effect spiritual change in the intermediate domain, for example, the material action of human sin can cause the soul to enter a state of spiritual death.

Sorry, but that simply sounds like meaningless mystical gibberish. I don’t see how this follows from the earlier premises that you were trying to introduce.

Only visible things are subject to physical change, whereas invisible things are not under the power of change, at least not in a way familiar to us.

Not sure what you mean by any of this. Oxygen for example is invisible but is subject to physical change.

Also, you are asking for something to be discovered whose nature is not discoverable,

You have just defined one of the key properties of something that does not exist, such things are undiscoverable – what is the difference?

 

[ProCop]

No.

"For instance, when laboratory rats in one place have learned how to navigate a new maze, why do rats elsewhere in the world seem to learn it more easily? Rupert Sheldrake describes this process as morphic resonance: the past forms and behaviors of organisms, he argues, influence organisms in the present through direct connections across time and space."
- http://www.sheldrake.org/books/

Again, no. Sheldrake hypothesizes that all knowledge can be transferred by MR.

This is true.

As of yet there is no evidence to warrant this conclusion.

That's because much remains unknown. Specifically, how structures in the brain (physical structures, mind you) provide a template for language. It's not an invitation to go off into la-la land.

It seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about. You found some unproven hypothesis that resembles something that could sort of, superficially, resemble your notion of a soul and you're off running with it as if it were evidence.

~Raithere

- Rats have only basis skills: finding food, sexing, sleeping) navigation in a (any) maze is a basic still.

Let me clarify what my argument is about:
Rat1 (R1)---learns a skill(S) to master Maze1 (M1) ---> skill is added to its soul

(soul of rat (compared to the human is like a one cell organism compared to a mammal) (simpler than the human soul)

Twenty years later Rat2 (R2) (born in different continent) (untrained) is introduced to the M1
R2 can familiarize with M1 far quicker than with a maze no rat ever was trained for (=finding of a scientific experiment condacted by recognised experienced scientist and repeated and checked by different laboratories)

Cannot be due telepathy (R1 is long dead), (and still the knowledge of M1 is in R2 brain...)

Most plausible explanation of this is in the religion contained concept "soul". Shandrake (whom I have never quoted or refered to during this discussion (only acknowleged that link to the discussed experiment came from an article on Shandrake) who explains this by Mrophogenetic fields (soort of the knowledge of M1 hang in the air and R2 grabs it from there) seem much less plausible to me (then the concept of the soul).

It can be concluded that the R2's soul feeds the R2 brain with M1 knowledge. If you put away the presupposition that the soul (an immaterial element) doesn't exist than soul is the concept which is most complient with the findings of this experiment.

But the concept of soul is a humbag provided by religious fanatics so let's through it away...and wait untill the science gets understanding how such things (bv. language acqusition) work. Well it is going to be a long wait...

 

[LightEagle]

The posting makes interesting reading and points out a few seemingly obvious contradictions. I would, however, like to point out a few things from a different perspective. If God does not exist, then it follows logically that there is no basis for morality. A nine month old baby is raped by 9 men in South Africa and people are apalled. Why? If there is no God and we only act to proliferate our genetic material, then from a rational point of view their actions are justifiable. What about love, hate, jealousy? If all we are here for is to soullessly proliferate out genetic material, then why not polygamy? Why all the romantic crap? Why try and win a woman's heart if she is nothing but a sink for your sperm to carry on your genetic line, to proliferate the human species? A soul is transcendental. Many seemingly contradictory conscepts exist in science: light is both a particle and a wave, one particle removed from another reacts immediatly when the other's properties are changed (such as the spin of an electron) which would imply that something is moving faster than the speed of light to "carry" the information from one particle to the other, to name but two examples. No evidence of a soul does not preclude its existence. Facts are facts, but there are many interpretations for one single fact. Origins of planets are but one example. Thus I disagree with the conclusions drawn from seemingly rational logic. Everything can not be explained and physical evidence does not exist for everything that is contained within this universe, let alone something perhaps beyond.

 

[Hermann]

Hi Cris,
When you ask about the existence of souls or of god there will be always many confusing definitions. Much more important seems to be the question: Is there a spiritual world outside matter and will we still exist as active and self-aware individuals after our biological death? This question can easily be answered by yes or no.
Regards
Hermann (www.users.bigpond.com/hermann.raith)

 

[(Q)]

Is there a spiritual world outside matter and will we still exist as active and self-aware individuals after our biological death? This question can easily be answered by yes or no.

How is that easily answered if there are "always many confusing definitions?"

You must therefore have a clear definition for the spiritual world, yes?

 

[Gustav]

Awareness is simply the input of data, information garnered through the senses (whatever they may be). Self-awareness can be explained by self-recursion; the pattern can perceive itself and is aware of its own state of being... this would be my definition of consciousness.

~Raithere

let me attempt to hazard a guess on what this "input of data" and "own state of being" could be....

1 - the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli
2 - the integration of information by a cognitive system
3 - the ability of a system to access its own internal states
4 - the focus of attention
5 - the deliberate control of behavior
6 - the difference between wakefulness and sleep

hmm
perhaps i can match these abilities to hal in the form of analogies

hal is wired with all types of sensor devices. interpretation of data input from the devices occurs. log files are checked and inconsistencies are subject to correction. anti viral routines guard against the execution of unauthorized code...etc

hal old chap
i proclaim you conscious

*pardon the presumptuousness

 

[superluminal]

wes,

I agree with rathiere's last post:

Awareness is simply the input of data, information garnered through the senses (whatever they may be). Self-awareness can be explained by self-recursion; the pattern can perceive itself and is aware of its own state of being... this would be my definition of consciousness. The pattern "cares" because it has evolved to aid in the survival of the organism in which it evolved.

 

[Gustav]

First things first, you have to know your enemy. Zombies come in two flavors: fast and slow. Fast are definitely cool, but you'll need more than a baseball bat and a pair of running sneakers to survive that zombie attack. Slow zombies - well why the heck would anyone die from a slow zombie? If you can't get away from a slow zombie, you earned dismemberment .... (dr zeus)

 

[geeser]

If God does not exist, then it follows logically that there is no basis for morality.

how so we had morality long before religion, early man had to get along with his neighbour, infact my morals are vastly superior to any religious persons, I do good because I wish to, not because it will gain me favour with a god.

A nine month old baby is raped by 9 men in South Africa and people are apalled. Why? If there is no God and we only act to proliferate our genetic material, then from a rational point of view their actions are justifiable.

certainly not from a rational point of view, those men were probably all good godfearing christians, who actually believe in a god, if they absolutely new like I there is no god, they would have thought twice before undertaking such a nasty crime, they all believe they can be absolved of sin. thats why they did'nt worry about what they were doing.

What about love, hate, jealousy? If all we are here for is to soullessly proliferate out genetic material, then why not polygamy?

why not?, because most humans only ever find one life partner, that they wish to be there husband/wife and make a family, it has nothing to do with a deity it's all down to the right mix of chemicals, we are after all just another animal.

Why all the romantic crap?

it makes it more fun, and because we can.

Why try and win a woman's heart if she is nothing but a sink for your sperm to carry on your genetic line, to proliferate the human species?

DO YOU NEED A LIFE!, she is'nt, she is the other half of you the mother of the children you share.

A soul is transcendental.

a soul does not exist.


"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death". - Albert Einstein

 

[wesmorris]

wes,

I agree with rathiere's last post:

I'm shocked!

I agree with Gustav's rebuttal. I mean I'm aware that I agree with it. Either that or I'm aware that I'm aware I agree with it. Which is it?

Either of you should then be able to explain at least one of the following in terms of a recursive whatever or a big keen association chart or something.

1 - the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli
2 - the integration of information by a cognitive system
3 - the ability of a system to access its own internal states
4 - the focus of attention
5 - the deliberate control of behavior
6 - the difference between wakefulness and sleep

GO!

 

[Cris]

Lighteagle,

If God does not exist, then it follows logically that there is no basis for morality.

I see no logic in that statement. It is two unconnected assertions.

Morality is defined as the evaluation of good and bad. The determination of what is good and what is bad can only be reasonably assessed by man. For example, he must be able to determine that food is good and poison is bad – these are simple rational considerations. In terms of events like murder again we can rationally assess the effect of such activities on society if these things were not checked. In the end it becomes an issue of survival. The issue of whether a god exists or not appears entirely irrelevant to an argument for morality.

A nine month old baby is raped by 9 men in South Africa and people are apalled. Why? If there is no God and we only act to proliferate our genetic material, then from a rational point of view their actions are justifiable.

But we don’t do we? Proliferation of genetic material is animal instinct, man is substantially different since he has the ability to reason.

What about love, hate, jealousy?

These are basic emotions, why would these change depending on whether a god exists or not?

If all we are here for is to soullessly proliferate our genetic material,

Because that is your own biased inaccurate perception of man without god. We are naturally social creatures and not mindless machines.

then why not polygamy?

Ok, why not polygamy?

A soul is transcendental.

No, it is a fantasy concept.

No evidence of a soul does not preclude its existence.

True but more importantly it does not indicate whether a soul exists, or could exist.

Facts are facts, but there are many interpretations for one single fact.

Incorrect. A fact has specifically only one single explanation.

Origins of planets are but one example.

You are confusing speculations with facts.

Everything cannot be explained

I think you mean that as yet we cannot explain everything. There might come a day when we can explain everything, so strictly speaking your statement is false.

and physical evidence does not exist for everything that is contained within this universe,

That must be false also. If something exists then it will be detectable and therefore there will be evidence. Our challenge is to discover the evidence for everything and we have not achieved that yet.

let alone something perhaps beyond.

the universe is everything – there cannot be a “beyond everything”.

 

[superluminal]

wes,

Either of you should then be able to explain at least one of the following in terms of a recursive whatever or a big keen association chart or something.


“ Originally Posted by Gustav
1 - the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli
2 - the integration of information by a cognitive system
3 - the ability of a system to access its own internal states
4 - the focus of attention
5 - the deliberate control of behavior
6 - the difference between wakefulness and sleep
”

1 - the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli
The mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity do all of these things, along with many robotic devices. Assembly line robots do it all the time.

2 - the integration of information by a cognitive system
What is a cognitive system? House flies integrate information all the time.

3 - the ability of a system to access its own internal states
My PC does this.

4 - the focus of attention
Manufacturing robots, house flies.

5 - the deliberate control of behavior
What's deliberate? I have a telescope that tracks star motion with unrelenting devotion an deliberation.

6 - the difference between wakefulness and sleep
My computer goes to sleep. Just like me. It even dreams (runs low level background maintenance tasks).

I've written software that does all of these things. Searches for a target, categorizes things that are NOT targets and discriminates between them, alters its search and acquisition behavior deliberately based on the environment (fog, rain, background lighting, etc...) integrates information in the visual field, accesses its internal states for comparison against target movement history, focuses on a suspected target when identified, and goes to sleep if target information is determined to be unavailable (until an external stimulous alerts it to start acquiring again).

These aren't very special attributes of self aware consciousness. Or are they? Are we just extremely elaborate extensions of all of these processes? I think we are.

 

[Gustav]

The brain continues to map incoming data, building sets of relationships, patterns by which meaning is derrived. The process is not lost in extra-dimensional space somewhere, unobserved, it occurs right there in the observable brain.

~Raithere

interesting. i found something that is eerily similar

When Roomba senses that it's trapped and can't move, it employs pre-programmed escape drills to free itself, and Artificial Intelligence makes Roomba smart enough to know not to fall down the stairs. Best of all, the Roomba Discovery has the built-in intelligence to return to its own charging Docking Base when it gets tired to recharge its battery. It will even go back to the included Docking Base when it is finished cleaning a room.

What need is there for this unobserved function? What does it do? How does it interact?

~Raithere

indeedly doodly

*poor roomba. he got tired and had to eat some electricty