Are we souls or are we machines?

[firstfloor]

http://www.ted.com/talks/neil_burges...e_you_are.html

It looks like a machine to me.

[seer]

http://www.ted.com/talks/neil_burges...e_you_are.html

It looks like a machine to me.

It's pretty cool though. But I don't know it this could be applied to humans. Humans have thoughts, and can act on those thoughts. It looks like animals operate on instinct alone. We probably still use instinct, but thinking in language and pictures elevates our process.

[Roy]

It's pretty cool though. But I don't know it this could be applied to humans.

The presenter gave examples where they have already successfully applied it to humans.

Roy

[seer]

The presenter gave examples where they have already successfully applied it to humans.

Roy

Yes, and that was why I said we probably still use instinct on some level. As far as I know animals do not reason with language or concepts. When I get my dog a treat I don't think he is saying to himself (even in doggy language) oh boy, oh boy, I'm going to get a treat! Of course, if I am wrong - then we are mere biological machines - and like I said in the past - we would have no choice in how we respond to stimuli or the conclusions we form - right or wrong. And of course, as Dawkins so clearly pointed out, moral responsibility is out the window.

[oxmixmudd]

http://www.ted.com/talks/neil_burges...e_you_are.html

It looks like a machine to me.

It is not an 'either/or' situation.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

The presenter gave examples where they have already successfully applied it to humans.

Roy

But he does not answer what motivates or causes these cells to fire. This is just the mechanics of how the brain works to solve certain problems. But it says nothing about why or how we chose to do a task at any given moment, or why we would want to do a given task at a given moment. Not that such things can't also have certain levels of mechanical processes behind them.

But the real issue is the question represents a flawed conceptualization. We are physical beings and in that regard we will function according to physical processes and causes. But that is not ALL we are. And so the question is misleading. It is not an either/or situation.


Jim

[phank]

But he does not answer what motivates or causes these cells to fire.

Nonetheless, this HAS been the subject of considerable research elsewhere. At the neural level, "decisions" seem to result from almost evolutionary processes. Plenty of conflicts, and the "winning" neural clusters are influenced by many factors, ranging from immediate sensory input to past successful experience, with inputs from memory. "Higher level" thoughts (like motivations) are implemented at the neural level as net influences on individual and group firings.

This is just them mechanics of how the brain works to solve certain problems. But it says nothing about why or how we chose to do a task at any given moment, or why we would want to do a given task at a given moment. Not that such things can't also have certain levels of mechanical processes behind them.

Well, it does say these things in an emergent way. Consider that a picture on your screen is, at a low level, nothing but the firing or not firing of individual pixels and wavelengths. The pixels know nothing of the picture, and you the interpreter of the picture may know nothing of each pixel, yet at SOME point the two are the same thing.

But the real issue is the question represents a flawed conceptualization. We are physical beings and in that regard we will function according to physical processes and causes. But that is not ALL we are. And so the question is misleading. It is not an either/or situation.

Yes, ALL we are is physical beings. But physiology itself can be arbitrarily complex. It's a category error to point to some level of complexity and say "beyond here is a qualitatively different process". It's all the same process seen from different frames of reference. I agree it's not an either/or situation, but rather very much a BOTH situation, depending on how you wish to look at it.

[oxmixmudd]

Nonetheless, this HAS been the subject of considerable research elsewhere. At the neural level, "decisions" seem to result from almost evolutionary processes. Plenty of conflicts, and the "winning" neural clusters are influenced by many factors, ranging from immediate sensory input to past successful experience, with inputs from memory. "Higher level" thoughts (like motivations) are implemented at the neural level as net influences on individual and group firings.

There is no scientific evidence that allows you to say the physical is all we are unless you first assume the physical is all we are. It is simply unknown what Our conscious sense of awareness and self is, how it is formed, if it is formed as a product of physical processes, or if it is solely a result of physical processes. Hence the question: "Are we souls OR machines", allowing for only the two possibilities, is malformed.

Well, it does say these things in an emergent way. Consider that a picture on your screen is, at a low level, nothing but the firing or not firing of individual pixels and wavelengths. The pixels know nothing of the picture, and you the interpreter of the picture may know nothing of each pixel, yet at SOME point the two are the same thing.

A property of awareness and will and self which being described as 'emergent' is simply another way of saying 'we don't know where it comes from'. What we can measure is the firing of neurons which indicates how certain information is stored on and/or retrieved from the brain. That is fine, but I can also say that certain information is stored in and retrieved from my droid or my computer, but we clearly know there is little connection between the physical mechanisms storing and retrieving THAT data and the why of who I am, or what I want. The brain's mechanical function may be no more a part of 'who I am' or 'why I am' than the computer on which I type this post. And at present there is nothing to tie the two together directly in terms of purely physical causes.

Yes, ALL we are is physical beings. But physiology itself can be arbitrarily complex. It's a category error to point to some level of complexity and say "beyond here is a qualitatively different process". It's all the same process seen from different frames of reference. I agree it's not an either/or situation, but rather very much a BOTH situation, depending on how you wish to look at it.

If we are immortal beings that live forever outside the body, then there is something about us that transcends the physical. One can assume we are or are not, but one can't say that scientifically we can decide the question at the present time. And this is especially true as regards this particular set of observations!

And so, as I said, the mistake is in making it an either/or question. What one CAN say is that we are not ONLY a soul. There are aspects of who we are that are simply physical. But then, we've known that since the dawn of recorded civilization.


Jim

ETA: I recognize that brain damage can cause changes to personality. When I say who I am/what I am, I'm talking on a very basic level.

[lilpixieofterror]

http://www.ted.com/talks/neil_burges...e_you_are.html

It looks like a machine to me.

Why can't our physical body be like a machine and the rest of us be less like one? Why this either/or mentality?

[seer]

Why can't our physical body be like a machine and the rest of us be less like one? Why this either/or mentality?

Well this was speaking of our mind. Our rational ability. And if it is a machine then it can't possess libertarian free will. Machines don't possess freedom. So it is kind of a either/or.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well this was speaking of our mind. Our rational ability. And if it is a machine then it can't possess libertarian free will. Machines don't possess freedom. So it is kind of a either/or.

Our physical body can be compared to a machine in many ways. We intake energy and use it to move, like a machine does. We have a way to move, as a machine does. etc. Unlike a machine though, we are not bound to simply reacting or following orders. While I'm sure all of us sometimes find our computer has a mind of it's own, that is usually the results of something like a computer virus, improper usage, hardware failure, etc. My computer can not tell me not to do something without a physical failure somewhere in it, I can refuse to follow an order without anything being wrong with me. Thus we are not like machines in that sense.

[phank]

There is no scientific evidence that allows you to say the physical is all we are unless you first assume the physical is all we are. It is simply unknown what Our conscious sense of awareness and self is, how it is formed, if it is formed as a product of physical processes, or if it is solely a result of physical processes. Hence the question: "Are we souls OR machines", allowing for only the two possibilities, is malformed.

Consciousness studies are making pretty good strides lately, and there's plenty of evidence to base multiple models on - and so there are multiple models. I agree you can't just say the physical is all there is, because of the problems of proving a negative. But you CAN say that the physical is (1) all that has been actually found; and (2) apparently sufficient to generate consciousness.

A property of awareness and will and self which being described as 'emergent' is simply another way of saying 'we don't know where it comes from'.

Well, no more than we can look at all the pixels and have no idea where the image "comes from".

What we can measure is the firing of neurons which indicates how certain information is stored on and/or retrieved from the brain. That is fine, but I can also say that certain information is stored in and retrieved from my droid or my computer, but we clearly know there is little connection between the physical mechanisms storing and retrieving THAT data and the why of who I am, or what I want.

No, you can't say that for the same reason you corrected me above. If you do not know the connection between neural activity and the patterns of the net result of billions of such activities that we call consciousness, doesn't mean there IS no connection. Again, there must be SOME connection, at some level of abstraction, between the image and the pixels that comprise it.

The brain's mechanical function may be no more a part of 'who I am' or 'why I am' than the computer on which I type this post. And at present there is nothing to tie the two together directly in terms of purely physical causes.

I'm not sure I understand that this statement is intended to mean. Here's an experiment. Throw away your computer and see if you are still you. Next, keep the computer and throw away your brain. See if there is any difference.

And so, once again, all we know of is purely physical causes, and our best models find them sufficient.

If we are immortal beings that live forever outside the body, then there is something about us that transcends the physical.

No, you can't say that either. You might speculate that there is some physical substrate OTHER THAN your physical body, on which your mind is running. At least that gives you something to look for that has fairly well-defined properties. But in the process, you must explain why people have desperately WISHED this to be true for millennia, yet nobody has found the slightest indication that it's true. Alas, all indications so far are that as people we are physical bodies, and that as minds we are chemical processes within our brains, and when these physical processes stop, so do we. Forever. But like you, I'd love to believe otherwise. I'm as hungry for evidence (or rather, for ways to evade all the evidence we have).

One can assume we are or are not, but one can't say that scientifically we can decide the question at the present time. And this is especially true as regards this particular set of observations!

I don't think we can EVER say this scientifically. Proving a negative is the issue once again here. EVEN IF you have an explanation which fully explains all observations and makes nothing but accurate predictions, that doesn't mean your explanation is either correct or complete. At best, it's only sufficient.

And so, as I said, the mistake is in making it an either/or question. What one CAN say is that we are not ONLY a soul. There are aspects of who we are that are simply physical. But then, we've known that since the dawn of recorded civilization.

If there are non-physical aspects, and if you can isolate, identify, and test one, every prize in science will be yours. Unfortunately, "you can't prove me wrong" is STILL not a positive argument for anything whatsoever.

[granpa]

when people ask these sort of questions the thinking seems to be something like:

people are made of atoms.
atoms dont have morals.
therefore people are just machines and arent subject to moral laws.

the flaw is obvious.
atoms also dont possess thoughts or emotions.

just because you are 'made of' something doesnt mean you dont possess properties that arent in those particles.
this is called 'emergent properies'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
In physics, emergence is used to describe a property, law, or phenomenon which occurs at macroscopic scales (in space or time) but not at microscopic scales, despite the fact that a macroscopic system can be viewed as a very large ensemble of microscopic systems

[phank]

Exactly so. Emergence is well defined, well understood, and not at all mystical. It is in NO WAY an admission of ignorance, like "just because" or "goddidit".

[magellan004]

Yet another thread where materialism/naturalism seems to be taken for granted.

Until materialists can prove that the material world exists their assumption that material things do exist and have been seen, tested etc is purely unscientific.

What we do know for certain is that the spiritual world does exist. Whether the physical world is more than an idea that stems from the spiritual world is an issue for science.

Magellan