Are we souls or are we machines?

[oxmixmudd]

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Phank, you always misunderstand my intent. I am not interested in proving to you that there is a God. That takes faith and is not a subject for science. What I am interested in showing you that your assumption there is not a God is nothing more than that - an assumption. God is not subject to scientific analysis, and Belief is fundamental to knowing Him.

In this case, the assumption there is only the physical as regards us/humanity is what I am debating. I'm not trying to prove there is a soul. I simply am saying that these kinds of analysis do not prove there is not a soul. Because if a soul is what I think it is, then it is just as impossible to pin down with physical observational tools as God is.

The question in the op assumes some kind of dichotomy between being a machine and having a soul, as if both are impossible. The only point I am making is that is simply not the case. One does not imply the negation of the other. If you think I'm trying to go beyond that simple statement, you are mistaken.


Jim

[USIncognito]

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

There was an infamous member of the JREF forum who had a schtick that went something like this:

"Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
You obey the laws of physics."

Somehow that demonstrated that because, even atheists accept such a syllogism, they weren't really atheists, but "A-theists" who didn't realize they were being controlled by a diety.

Here's another example I found on an archived thread that I'm not going to link to (JREF had looser rules when it came to profanity back then).

"TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR"

TLOP is the only acronym in that quote.

[Leonhard]

We have a soul, but it is made of tiny machines.

[Whag]

Belief is fundamental to knowing Him.

Jim

That, too, is an assumption and a huge one.

I asked you this before, but I don't think you ever got around to responding: how do you know God better than us? What do you (or Hans Kung, or Jim Bakker, or Alvin Plantinga) know about God that we don't? There should be some way to put that into words.

[technomage]

We are physical beings and in that regard we will function according to physical processes and causes. But that is not ALL we are.

One has to go beyond science to achieve such a conclusion.

[Whag]

One has to go beyond science to achieve such a conclusion.

The self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit confirms that human beings are more than machines. The rub is that one must have faith to get that assurance, which for many would be hard to come by given that science seems to confirm that the brain shapes personality. Take away someone's personality and what do you have left?

[technomage]

The self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit

Is outside of the realm of science.

Take away someone's personality and what do you have left?

The only demonstrable methods of doing so is to damage the person's brain, or cause them enough emotional/physical stress so as to induce a psychological condition.

[Whag]

The only demonstrable methods of doing so is to damage the person's brain, or cause them enough emotional/physical stress so as to induce a psychological condition.

Which has happened quite a lot since we've been able to analyze psychological states.

Think of the remarkable case of Phineas Gage. I also think of my devout Christian grandmother who never said a curse word in her life. When dementia came, she cussed like a sailor. In many ways, dementia is harder to process than death because the physical basis of personality is laid so bare before us.

[technomage]

....my devout Christian grandmother....

I grieve with you for your loss.

[phank]

Phank, you always misunderstand my intent. I am not interested in proving to you that there is a God. That takes faith and is not a subject for science. What I am interested in showing you that your assumption there is not a God is nothing more than that - an assumption. God is not subject to scientific analysis, and Belief is fundamental to knowing Him.

I think the misunderstanding is mutual in this case. I don't see that any gods have anything to do with this question, which (as I interpret it) is whether the physical interactions of billions of neurons, after at least hundreds of million years of evolution, can reach a point of sophistication and complexity that we can subjectively interpret as consciousness. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to look for more than we already can see is there.

In this case, the assumption there is only the physical as regards us/humanity is what I am debating. I'm not trying to prove there is a soul. I simply am saying that these kinds of analysis do not prove there is not a soul. Because if a soul is what I think it is, then it is just as impossible to pin down with physical observational tools as God is.

But as far as I can tell, you are projecting what you WISH to see, onto a biological system which is fully sufficient to explain all observations without any such projection. Yes, of course you CAN project any additional untestable qualities onto it that you find congenial, and nobody can ever prove you wrong. But Occam's Razor tells me that if nothing more than we can physically observe is required, chances are nothing more is there. Whatever "there" means in the case of an external soul.

The question in the op assumes some kind of dichotomy between being a machine and having a soul, as if both are impossible. The only point I am making is that is simply not the case. One does not imply the negation of the other. If you think I'm trying to go beyond that simple statement, you are mistaken.

No, as far as that goes I agree with you, there simply IS no dichotomy. Kind of like trying to decide whether a tree has leaves or whether it's green, and you only get to pick one! I think minds are what brains do for a living, and souls (like gods) are what minds do to try to explain themselves.

[technomage]

Occam's Razor tells me that if nothing more than we can physically observe is required, chances are nothing more is there.

While I, of late, tend to agree with you as far as the existence of the soul (or o other supernatural claims), I must point out that Occam's razor and faith both share one flaw: both project their own assumptions onto an evidentiary picture that addresses neither view.

[lilpixieofterror]

Which has happened quite a lot since we've been able to analyze psychological states.

Think of the remarkable case of Phineas Gage. I also think of my devout Christian grandmother who never said a curse word in her life. When dementia came, she cussed like a sailor. In many ways, dementia is harder to process than death because the physical basis of personality is laid so bare before us.

It's rather easy Whag, when one part is messed up, everything else suffers.

[lilpixieofterror]

But as far as I can tell, you are projecting what you WISH to see, onto a biological system which is fully sufficient to explain all observations without any such projection. Yes, of course you CAN project any additional untestable qualities onto it that you find congenial, and nobody can ever prove you wrong. But Occam's Razor tells me that if nothing more than we can physically observe is required, chances are nothing more is there. Whatever "there" means in the case of an external soul.

You do know that Occam was a Christian and he used the razor in reference to Christian faith, right?

[technomage]

You do know that Occam was a Christian and he used the razor in reference to Christian faith, right?

An argument that is valid in several contexts is not "contaminated" because of its originating context.

[lilpixieofterror]

An argument that is valid in several contexts is not "contaminated" because of its originating context.

Of course, but I just think it's kind of funny that so many skeptics try to use it as though it should disprove religious faith when it is just as at home with religious faith as it is in secularism.