Okay, but what is receiving this perception? Explaining things by means of a supernatural observer element neatly provides a destination for these experiences (in this case, the incorrect experience of a moving light) to go to. How does a purely neurological system produce this seemingly miraculous state of being conscious?
I am willing to concede that there are no souls, but how does this explanation invalidate the perceived need for one?
“Resorting to” them is not the issue. A person who has always been taught that they are there won’t change their mind without a good reason why they are not needed. If it can be shown that everything that goes on in the brain is purely neurological/temperature effects/cosmic rays/whatever, then there will be no need to continue the belief in a supernatural in the first place.
And part of my job is figuring out how to get a computer to do what I want it to do. The vast majority of what goes on inside the computer is compliant with the laws of digital logic and arithmetic. Things go wrong when a situation is encountered that the programmer didn’t account for.
Oh, I got it, it is very much like the words of David Hume. If you’ve never read his Treatise, you’d probably find it quite interesting. Honestly, if I’ve ever had a recommendation that fit better than this, I can’t remember.
To quote Star Trek: “Brain, brain and brain.” Actually, it’s forming the perception, not receiving it. If there has to be a “receiver” of consciousness, and the soul is conscious, then there would have to be a receiver for the soul’s consciousness, and a receiver for the receiver’s consciousness, ad infinitum. Not a very productive line of reasoning.
What’s miraculous about it? How does adding the word “supernatural” to it help us to understand it?
The best conclusion from the evidence is that consciousness is generated by the brain. Why do we need to add entities to the explanation?
That’s backwards. One does not posit additional entities and require them to be disproven. Prove that consciousness can’t be generated by a brain, and then we’ll talk.
Nope. Electronics. I just like philosophy. I also harp on decision processes and economics, too, but not so much here. But lest you think I’m just being abstract, Hume’s Treatise is a compelling work for practical as well as abstract reasons. In fact, just recently I saw that a college was offering a research position to someone willing to do work on modern science’s support of Hume and Kant’s positions on the mind, consciousness, etc. Someone interested in science as you are, I know you’d like his critique of induction (which heavily influenced Popper to the point of direct mention), his discussions on cause and effect, his position on the self (so popular as to have spawned its own eponymous term: the Humean bundle), his comments on mathematics, etc. Plus, he’s got a really dry sense of humor that seems to appeal to some people. In fact, crap, the philosophy of science is a fascination subject in its own right. Normally, unless someone expressed a direct interest in philosophy I wouldn’t mention it, but your statements here are so closely aligned to Hume’s that I felt it needed mention.
No there wouldn’t. A soul would be the element of consciousness. It would be that which ultimately perceives. It would not be merely an itty bitty person inside the real one.
To say that a soul needs a soul needs a soul ad infinitum is equivalent to saying that a photon needs a source of energy. Just as the photon is the energy, so the soul (if it exists) is the consciousness.
Imagine a world where neither of us exists. (Maybe the distant past would be a good example.) What is going on in that world? People are going about their business; their brains are processing input and generating output; everything is going along just fine without either of us. The world could exist with neither consciousness. Our living bodies could exist with neither consciousness. All of humanity could exist with no consciousness. Why are we somehow here experiencing it?
Entities make the difference between a clockwork world where things just happen and a world where somebody is there observing it. Entities need not have a separate supernatural existence if we can explain the observer in purely physical terms.
No, don’t push all of the burden of proof onto the believer side. Look at both sides of the debate, and you will see that both sides’ claims are equally unbelievable to the other.
I realize the impossibility of proving a negative. The burden of proof for the believers’ side is to show that the supernatural exists. So far, I know of no convincing evidence. But the burden of proof for the nonbelievers’ side is to show that all brain processes can be fully accounted for with known physical effects. That also has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction.
That’s an interesting and valuable observation, and may explain why it is so hard for people to get the concept of burden of proof. While we should start with a blank slate, or with a set of evidence, most people start by assuming what they believe or what they have been taught is true, and see no need to “prove” it (or demonstrate it, more accurately.) Since the existence of supernaturalism is a given, for them, they demand you prove it does not exist. It seems to me demands that someone proves god does not exist come from a similar thought process.
I started as a programmer/computer architect, so I understand where you are coming from. It is the computer designer’s job to make your assumption true. It isn’t easy. In fact, the reason humans are so bad at debugging is that we assume everything is rational - where bugs, mistakes, and design flaws make things irrational. We have found that we cannot verify a microprocessor design without a significant set of random tests, because these tests explore corner cases people just never think of. We all have simplified mental models, which let us do something useful. The trickiest part of debugging, especially hardware debugging, is when the problem is in something that doesn’t exist in our mental model.
So, to get back on topic, if our model of ourselves is of a little person in our heads, I can see how information shouted from outside can be a part of it. The little man shouting “I’ve decided to move your arm” after the arm has started to move is not in the model, and seems hard to accept.
If the “soul” can be the element of consciousness, then so can the brain, so it is unneccessary to posit a soul. Your stated reason that the brain cannot be the sole source of consciousness was that there must be an “observer” (or "receiver, as you called it), that cannot be part of the brain. If all entities (such as a brain) require “observers” in order to be conscious, then souls (being an entity as well, and being conscious) would also require “observers”. If entities do not require “observers”, then the brain can be the sole source of consciousness, and there is no necessity for a soul. You can’t have it both ways.
Again, in order to posit an additional entity (soul), and claim it is necessary, you need to provide either evidence of this soul, or some reason that it is necessary. And if the stated reason for its necessity is redundant and/or results in a paradox, it is obviously incorrect.
It’s interesting that that was my point with regard to the brain - it is the consciousness. Why are you unable to consider that the brain could be the consciousness, but perfectly willing to consider the soul to be? I’ve pointed out the absurdity of the position that consciousness requires an “observer”, and we have come full circle to you arguing that it does not - which was my point.
I don’t understand the question. You say a world could exist without consciousness, and ask why consciousness exists. Why do the sun and moon exist? Why do squirrels exist? Why do rocks exist? The only reasonable answer to such question is “Why not?” To suggest that something is “miraculous” simply because it exists is fallacious. Since the universe exists in it’s current form, I would suggest that it would be miraculous if it didn’t.
I think you misunderstand me. I asked why we need to add entities. We already have an entity that explains consciousness, i.e. the brain. The question was, why do we need an additional entity, i.e. the soul?
I’m sorry, but you’re simply incorrect. You are the one positing a soul, and demanding that it be disproven. That’s illogical. By that standard, I could say that a magic purple quantum octopus lives inside my brain, and demand that you disprove it.
My position, however, that we have brains, is easily demonstrated by empirical evidence. I am not simply saying, “I’m right unless you can disprove it”.
Absolutely not. We don’t have to know everything about the brain to know that there is a lot of evidence showing that it is the source of consciousness. You are engaging in a God of the gaps argument.
If all physical entities require an observer, then the brain cannot be conscious but the soul can. Either physical entities require one or they don’t; I am not trying to have it both ways. Read what I said: the soul would itself be consciousness, in the same way as a photon is energy.
Your question is flawed. Not unable, and certainly not unwilling. I believe the proper response is “mu”, but I’ll elaborate. The brain receives stimuli. It processes the impulses that travel through its neurons. That information has to go somewhere. A system that receives and processes input need not have that specific property we call consciousness (and I’m not talking about “Mr. Data, what are you doing right now”) so there must be some reason why a human being does.
No you haven’t, and no I haven’t. You pointed out the absurdity in the way you understood my statement: that if no entity can be conscious, we run into an infinity of souls-of-souls. It is not an absurd statement to say that only supernatural entities can be conscious, even if it is a false statement.
I’m not stating that it is miraculous solely because it exists. Okay, let me take “miraculous” out of the statement. A world could exist where everybody goes about their business but nobody is conscious. But the world that actually exists includes conscious people. I seek to understand why.
Okay. Explain to me why I am a conscious entity sitting here reading this thread instead of a machine that processes text without any awareness that the universe exists. Tell me why I am not living in zombieland.
I don’t think you understood me. I am not positing that there is a soul; I am positing that either there is or there isn’t. You asked me repeatedly why I think I need one, so I answered as best I could with the arguments that might be made for their existence. If you were actually raised with the belief that there were magic purple quantum octopi inside peoples’ brains, then you would have a valid argument, but the way it stands I’m pretty sure is fallacious.
Either way, I could point you to Gray’s Anatomy and disprove the MPQO. It’s not so easy with souls because we are not debating a physiological or anatomical feature.
But we do have to know as much as we can about everything that goes on inside it. The title of this thread is an example. “Is thinking the motion of atoms in the brain”. Atoms sometimes exhibit random motion, do they not? Until we know what randomness is, we do not know enough to say for sure that we do or do not live in a clockwork universe. In a clockwork universe we could absolutely rule out souls.
Fair enough, although might I point out that using this as an absolute closes us off to the idea that there is a god anyway. I do not believe there is a god separate from all people and I am not trying to posit one. But if there is one, science will never find him/her/it, instead reaching either a dead end, a paradox, or a solution that only approximates the available data.
A little side note here outside of the discussion: surely you remember a while back I debated in several threads on the nature of consciousness from the POV of a definite believer in the supernatural. One of the posters, well several really but this one in particular, in the debates gave me the impression of somebody way over on the nonbeliever side. Since then, I found out that this poster is an agnostic, which was a wake up call for me… my arguments were so biased that a neutral or undecided person looked like an adversary.
In reality, all you are saying is, “A brain requires an observer, but a soul does not because it’s magic.” You haven’t explained in any way what being a non-physical entity would entail, and in fact, you can’t do so. You have not provided any reason why entities to which you ascribe the property “non-physical” (which is really a meaningless phrase) are immune from the requirements that you put on “physical” entities.
I don’t understand why you don’t think I read what you said. I noted your point and responded to it. My response was, if the soul itself can be consciousness, why can’t the brain itself be consciousness? So far, the only answer you’ve given is that the soul isn’t “physical”, which is a meaningless answer.
Actually, that’s probably not the correct use of “mu”, but I digress…
Can you support that last sentence? WHY does it “have to go somewhere”, and where do you think it “has” to go?
I already posted one possible explanation:
“One of the roles of consciousness therefore seems to be to monitor the self and the environment, and control our thoughts and behavior. Much of the time our response to things in the environment and within ourselves is automatic, learn and do things without conscious awareness. It is when things go wrong and we are faced with important choices when consciousness becomes useful by devoting extra cognitive resources to information that may be especially significant.”
Not absurd, but meaningless. What does “supernatural” mean? You have provided no definition for this term whatsoever. When we learn how something works, it immediately becomes part of our understanding of the natural world. The sun and the moon were thought to be supernatural until we learned their nature. Now they are thought to be natural. The word “supernatural” is simply a place-holder for things that aren’t known. It’s a word used to falsely claim immunity from scientific inquiry. The soul is “supernatural”, therefore we can’t question the concept or even provide the most rudimentary definition of what it supposedly is.
I don’t think you really do. I think you seek to rationalize your already-existing belief in souls.
O.K., let me take a stab at what I think you are asking. You want to know how the brain generates the phenomenon that we experience as consciousness. Is that what you’re asking? If I’m not mistaken, that is still a mystery. And here’s the problem I’m having with your reasoning - you seem to be saying that since we don’t understand the exact mechanism by which consciousness (or awareness) is generated, that it must be “supernatural”, and that it can’t come from the brain, even though damaging or destroying the brain quite obviously damages or destroys consciousness. And again, that’s “God of the gaps” reasoning.
Apparently not. I got the distinct impression that you were suggesting the soul had to be disproven. I got that impression from this statement:
It looks a lot like you are suggesting that it is proper to believe in souls until it is disproven. I disagree.
Well then the logical default position, in the absence of evidence, would be that there isn’t.
I don’t think the beliefs one was raised with have any bearing on the truth. People believe all sorts of things; it doesn’t make them necessarily true.
No, you can’t disprove the MPQO. It’s magic, so it exists undetectably among the brain structures already listed in Gray’s Anatomy. See how easy it is to make something unfalsifyable when you resort to the “supernatural”?
That’s a non-sequitur. You haven’t contradicted my statement: “We don’t have to know everything about the brain to know that there is a lot of evidence showing that it is the source of consciousness.”
I have a question. I asked it of SentientMeat earlier but since he is unavailable, I wonder if someone is left to take up the slack. What concerns me is how we define “physical”, “natural”, and “supernatural”. This is the reason I brought up so-called emergent properties earlier. In one sense, they are physical, but in another, they are not; it is not clear to me what support there is in this thread for their existence. If by physical we mean “whatever exists” then I am not going to bring up some realist/idealist debate (which are fruitless anyway, even if I think they’re fun), but this is where I start to lose focus. Are the properties of water just so because that’s how oxygen and hydrogen combine, or are the properties of water so because it is water and not “hydrogen and oxygen”? Can we explain the properties of water only by appeal to their component parts and forces, or is water what it is, a thing-in-itself, that defies such a reductionist explanation? If it defies a reductionist explanation, is what makes water, water, supernatural, even though it isn’t magick?
POS computer froze up while I was looking up the definition of “non-sequitur”. :mad: Damn IE.
Let me see if I can reconstruct my reply.
Is a photon magic because it is energy? No. A soul would be the definition of an observer. No magic needed.
I am using “non-physical” to refer to that which is not made up of matter or energy, which is not confined to the space-time continuum, and therefore not subject to the laws of physics. If such a thing exists, and that is a big if. (I understand that the definition of “exists” is a whole 'nother debate unto itself.)
It can; I just don’t understand how.
Makes sense, doesn’t it? From the receptors to whatever is conscious, there must be a path that information follows. To find the destination, even if it is nothing more than a feedback loop, is to find the essence of consciousness.
IOW, the brain evolved a higher cognitive function to step in and help out with the decision making process. I wouldn’t have it any other way, and in fact have noticed myself that some actions require paying attention and some seem to run on auto-pilot. It is still not obvious to me why paying attention has to equal consciousness, rather than just a more complex and elaborate auto pilot.
Of course. As a matter of fact, there is always the possibility that science will someday discover something above and beyond neural circuitry that explains consciousness. Then it won’t be “supernatural” anymore.
I’m answering the same points I answered half a year ago, so yes, there is a disproportionate amount of pro-dualism evident. But maybe you noticed that in my first post on this thread, I refuted two of my own arguments for dualism. They were the reason I believed. All that’s left to explain is how the brain generates consciousness, and I will happily abandon dualism.
Basically, yeah - how it does, or how it can.
Are you saying that since we don’t understand the mechanism, it must be physical?
AFAIK the evidence on that matter is inconclusive.
If “supernatural” means “unknown to science”, then every unknown is by definition god of the gaps.
It is proper to have an open mind until one side or the other is proven, or failing that, to retain your personal beliefs until convinced otherwise.
Yes I agree. Ocam’s Razor would seem to rationalize that dualism is false. Yet it would also rationalize that consciousness itself is not needed yet here we are…
IOW we’re back to the IPU argument. You cannot prove that your IPU exists and I cannot prove it doesn’t. That argument leads nowhere.
How does that not follow? Your statement basically amounts to “we can form an opinion without all the evidence.”
Water is water because of a few quantum physical laws that are quite clearly defined. Water is clear because its energy level diagram has only weak transitions in the visible region. It is liquid because of the balance between its mass and the distribution of electrons. It crystallizes into the hexagonal system because of its molecular shape.
The laws of physics dictate that particles interact in such a way that water reacts with sodium. Upon a water molecule encountering two sodium atoms, randomness applies but only to determine which one it will react with.
This is exactly the point of this whole argument. Behind all of this philosophy-speak and neurobabble is a simple point: Philosophers seek truth and scientists seek mechanism.
While I agree with the fact that scientists don’t ask why enough [or at all], in this case I can’t accept the solution of some scientists–Crick, for example–to metaphysical problems. Evidence or no, there is not enough substance to string together a logical argument about existence. Can scientists possible explain existence?
Conversely, while philosophers ask how plenty often, they often misinterpret science’s results. In addition, they assume a lot in thought experiments about reality. This begs the question, ‘Can philosophers reveal any truth about existence at all?’
The answer to both questions is no, because scientists and philosophers operate in different realms. Science is a classical attempt to make the abstract concrete, and in today’s world they do one hell of a job of developing the structure of the world. Philosophy is a romantic attempt to make the ethereal discernible, and they do a hell of a job of developing the minds of the world.
You’re the one who said it was supernatural, not me.
I’m having trouble with your meaning here. The definition of observe is to be or becomes aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice. So a soul is anything that becomes aware of or notices something? So then would a person be a soul? Would a cat or a dog be a soul? Cats seem to notice things all the time. So I guess they are souls, right? Makes it easy to prove souls exist, but kind of negates any reason to even have a word “soul”, since it doesn’t refer to any unique thing.
Is there any conceivable way to observe such a thing? If not, how does it differ from non-existence? Do you have any evidence that such things exist? If not, what is the point of discussing them?
Then you agree with me that a supernatural observer is not necessary, correct?
Don’t know what you mean by “whatever is conscious”. The brain itself is conscious. The brain is the “destination”. The path that sensory input follows is known, but very complex, and a little more involved than I want to get into right now. Besides, I’m no expert - if you’re really that interested, the website I just linked to covers the rudiments.
There isn’t one magic spot where the “observer” lives. Different mental tasks - vision, hearing, speech, etc. are handled by different parts of the brain. You might feel like it’s just “you” doing everything, but in actuality, it’s completely different areas in your brain.
Yes, I understand - we already covered this. I don’t think it’s fully understood. But “not fully understood” does NOT equal “magic and supernatural”.
Sure, it’s possible, but since we don’t have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight from the future, there’s no point in just making stuff up for which there is no evidence.
Your question is too vague. We’re talking about a very complex organ here. If you ask a specific question, like “How does the brain produce anger?”, or “How do we see things?”, you can probably get an answer from that website. “Consciousness” is too vague. How am I aware of sounds? My inner ear vibrates and causes electrical signals to be sent to the area of my brain that processes auditory stimuli, and TA-DA! - I am conscious of the sound. Depending what I am conscious of, it’s handled in a different way by my brain.
I’m saying that we have plenty of evidence that consciousness comes from the brain, and NO evidence that it comes from souls.
All I can say is that I vehemently disagree. You have to ignore a mountain of evidence to come to that conclusion.
Quite true. If you claim that every unknown is evidence of God, then you are engaging in “God of the gaps” reasoning. Or in this case, I guess we could call it “soul of the gaps” reasoning.
But not so open that your brain falls out.
An irrational position, IMO. A rational outlook is to remain skeptical until there is evidence, not to assume everything true until disproven. But this is getting boring; we’ve had this argument countless times in this forum.
Glad you agree.
No, that’s a misapplication. Occam’s Razor says not to add unneccessary entities to explain a phenomemon. We already KNOW that consciousness exists; it is the very thing we are trying to explain.
And your response was something about whether the universe is deterministic - a non sequitur. A “non sequitur” is when your response has nothing to do with the question, like on The Simpsons when Ralph Wiggum says, “My cat’s breath smells like catfood.”
And let me also address your characterization of what I said, because the way you worded it, i.e. “without all the evidence”, suggests that you object to that. But you should not object, because in science we never have ALL the evidence. We can only obtain more and more evidence until it becomes more and more clear that a given proposition is true. Anything we know could be proven wrong tomorrow. In fact, many things that were thought to be true in the past have turned out to be either wrong or incomplete. You NEVER have 100% proof in science, and I think that’s where you are leading yourself astray. You seem to want 100% ironclad proof, which is impossible.
Imagine you are a detective investigating a murder. Joe and Jane are the 2 suspects. The murder weapon was found in Joe’s car with his fingerprints on it and the victim’s blood, and Joe cannot account for his whereabouts at the time of the murder. Jane was at a party at the time of the murder, and 30 other people can testify that they saw Jane there.
Now, the evidence against Joe is circumstantial - IT’S NOT 100% IRONCLAD, but there is no evidence against Jane WHATSOEVER. So are you going to arrest JANE? That makes no sense.
I was thinking about this some more, and I can actually answer that question better. A likely explanation for why we are not just automatons is that we have the ability to plan. What makes humans able to survive so well is that we can imagine future events and prepare for them. If we just ran on auto-pilot, like a fish or a worm, we would long since be dead as a species. So there’s the “why” in an evolutionary sense.
Water was just an example, and a poor one at that (emergent properties are usually not considered to be molecular properties). The more general question is whether these phenomena exist at all. I’ve always like Hofstader’s mention of anthills and ant communities, where “higher” organization is found that is not explained by the behavior of any individidual ant. Of course, the counter might be that we just haven’t understood ants enough to formulate a working hypothesis. But I think it is a question worth considering.
So a photon is anything that has energy or moves? Is a truck barrelling down the freeway a photon?
There’s no reason why it couldn’t have one. (Please understand that I don’t mean to imply that a human is The Supreme Lifeform and no “lower” animal can be conscious.)
I don’t know of any sure way to do so that 1.) a living person can do and remain living, and 2.) is not just as easily explained neurologically.
The only evidence I know of for any phenomenon that would seem to require a nonphysical observer are the works of Dr. Monroe and Dr. Ian Stevenson. (Wanted to dig up cites but ran out of time ) I don’t know if Monroe has ever found conclusive results but I do know that Dr. Stevenson’s results are inconclusive.
Correct, but neither is an appendix.
I found the sites useful and informative, but they didn’t answer the question of how consciousness is generated.
I did not mean to imply that there was one spot, just that there must be one system that generates the phenomenon or else the whole thing acts an interface. Another thought that comes to mind is, 1.) if a bunch of human brains were interconnected to form a sort of hive mind, would the hive form a single consciousness, 2.) what if they only had headsets and communicated verbally, and 3.) why would numbers 1 and 2 be any different. So if our brains are a sort of hive of neurons, why do we experience reality as a unified entity?
Obviously “supernatural” was a poor choice of words. Perhaps I should replace “magic and supernatural” with “not yet discovered by science”.
I think it’s quite specific…
IOW, the signal passes from eardrum to cochlea to x number of neurons in sequence, and just out of nowhere you’re conscious of it. You’re taking it for granted that a signal in the brain enters conscious awareness. That to me sounds like magic.
I will review this thread to see if you have cited that already before asking for one, because it’s possible I could have missed a link or two. :o
That’s just wordplay.
Like I said, as soon as it is shown to me why such an entity is totally unnecessary, I will happily abandon it.
Then you acknowledge we have no factual answer that such a thing does not exist, only a “probably not”?
Your example would apply more accurately if Joe framed Jane. Also, giving Jane an alibi is akin to disproving dualism directly, which cannot be done because it is proving a negative.
You’re implying that the ability to plan somehow generates consciousness? How is that not magic? What about that software (don’t remember what it’s called) that plans road trips - is it conscious? What is our planning capability but a very elaborate system of weighing variables and choosing options? How does that differ from our brains’ “autopilot” circuits except by complexity?
You’re the one who brought up the photon thing; who are you arguing with, yourself?
Not “have one” but “is one”. By your definition, a cat IS a soul. IOW, your definition didn’t make sense.
That wasn’t the question. The question was, do you have any evidence that anything “not made up of matter or energy, which is not confined to the space-time continuum, and therefore not subject to the laws of physics”, exists?
BTW, are you talking abou the “microtubule” guy?
I’m sorry, is that a joke? I take it you agree then that the “soul” is not necessary to explain consciousness, and therefore gets discarded by Occam’s Razor.
It answers the question much better than positing a soul does.
Good questions. The answer is, nobody knows. Some have speculated that a sufficiently complex artificial intelligence would be conscious, but I don’t think it’s gotten much past the science-fiction stage. As pointed out earlier by another poster, we really have no way to test whether any other beings possess consciousness, other than by asking them. I don’t actually know for a fact that you are conscious, nor do you know for a fact that I am conscious. So it really complicates the problem.
The leading theory right now is, as I said, that it’s an illusion of sorts. A major function (perhaps the main function) of the mind is to recognize patterns and fill in pieces of data to create a unified whole. It helps us survive. Rather than a hopelessly confusing random mix of billions of sensory inputs, we perceive things in big chunks, so that we aren’t completely lost trying to make sense out of a mess of data. And if data is missing, we fill it in, like assuming there’s a light moving across the room instead of just two individual lights flashing.
In the second link I posted, the doctor has some interesting anecdotes regarding patients of his. Many times, brain damage can cause people to be missing whole chunks of their personality or of their sensory ability. BUT THEY DON’T FEEL ANY DIFFERENT. Like the guy who injured half of his brain, was asked by the doctor if he had a lot of dents in the left side of his car, and seemed astounded that the doctor would know that. He felt normal, even though half of his body wasn’t working right. Think about it: they are different, yet they feel the same. What’s going on there? Obviously, their “feeling” that they are complete is false. We always feel whole and unified, because it’s easier to deal with life that way. We evolved to be that way. People or animals who felt confused and conflicted all the time didn’t survive as well as the ones who felt whole and complete. But it’s demonstrably true that that’s not really how our brains work. We don’t always instantaneously perceive everything perfectly, contemplate it, form a decision, and then tell our bodies what to do from a central command location. Sometimes we just react, and make up a rationalization after the fact. Sometimes we piece together a whole from incomplete pieces, and believe that’s what happened.
Oh, c’mon. You seem to know quite a bit about brain anatomy. Surely you’re not going to ask for cites as to the connection between brain structure and cognitive function. If I hit myself in the right spot in the head with an icepick right now, it can change my personality. You’ve really never read anything about brain mapping, and how scientists know which brain structures correspond to what cognitive functions? This is so well documented that it’s just ludicrous for you to ask for a cite. I’m not gonna play that game with you.
It’s a salient point. “Open minded” doesn’t mean believing anything with no evidence.
I already did. Tell me how the concept “soul” explains consciousness better (or even as well, for that matter), than the brain.
Acknowledge that I can’t disprove unfalsifiable concepts? Gladly. That’s the definition of “unfalsifiable”, and the reason we avoid that in science.
I don’t see how.
An alibi is not proof positive. Witnesses can lie or be mistaken. Police can be wrong about the time of death. The point in the analogy is that there is NO evidence that Jane committed the murder, as there is no evidence that souls exist. So if you have a choice between a thing with a lot of evidence, but maybe still not ironclad, and a thing with NO evidence, you still don’t pick the one with no evidence.
I’m explaining why we are not automatons, which was the question you asked.
I thought we got this straight already. “Unknown” does not equal “magic”. I don’t know why you keep insisting that it does.
Like I said, some have speculated that a sufficiently complex computer program would be conscious. Myself, I don’t like to engage in wild speculation. I prefer the answer “I don’t know” to just making stuff up. Maybe some people can’t handle “I don’t know”, though. Some people seem to have a deep psychological need for an answer to everything, even if that answer is completely unsupported in reality, even if they have to just make something up and believe it with no real idea if it’s the truth or not.
I remember from my childhood that I used to ask my brother questions, and he always had an answer to every question. It wasn’t until I got older that I realized that half the time, when he didn’t really know the answer, he was just making one up.
No of course not. Therefore I hereby refine my definition of a soul by saying it is a particular type of hypothetical entity that is capable if imbuing a brain with consciousness by means of an interface that does not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy. I never meant to define it as simply anything that can observe.
No, because at this point in time, I know of no such thing having been directly observed.
Quantum entangled microtubules are an avenue of research that should be pursued IMO. This is where my statement about a clockwork universe fits in; it’s not really a non-sequitur. The alternative to a clockwork universe is one where “somebody” (perhaps a multitude of “somebody”'s) is here experiencing and directing it. The Quantum Consciousness theory, or a variation thereof, provides a means to simultaneously explain consciousness (the observer) and free will (which way a particle detangles) in one fell swoop. It looks too convenient to pass up without research, even though it is probably untrue.
Not a joke! “Isn’t necessary” != “doesn’t exist”. Yes, Occam’s Razor discards the soul.
I would ask you how it does, except that we don’t know how it does. :dubious:
This is also “making stuff up”, which is not easy to avoid doing. But I will take it into consideration as a perfectly valid theory.
True, and in fact it’s even more complex than that: we cannot say for sure that we ourselves are conscious, since we must use our brains to arrive to that conclusion, and our brains have the same information available to them that a non-conscious automaton might have. Which seems to invalidate the whole argument. :eek: We can sidestep that by defining consciousness as what a brain does, but that’s not good enough because not everything the brain does enters conscious awareness. Or we could postulate a soul that somehow allows its existence to be known to the brain, but that’s also not good enough because it brings us right back to the brain having no way to know if its perception of a soul is real.
Okay, I see what you’re saying here. I’m used to thinking that perception is what consciousness receives, but you seem to be implying that the perception is the consciousness.
I did read the cite, and no, of course they don’t feel any different. There is no reason why postulating a soul requires that they should, because it would be silly to assume that souls would expect certain specific brain structures. Otherwise, cats, dogs, fish, and worms (that’s another point I forgot to address earlier: I see no reason why fish and worms cannot be conscious) would feel like something’s lacking just because their brains are less complex than ours, whereas insects that see polarized light and dolphins that echolocate would then feel like they have something extra (and IME a human can do both of these things but not very well).
I have no idea what game you are referring to. You implied the existence of a mountain of evidence that destroying the brain destroys consciousness, when in fact there is as yet no way to distinguish between “consciousness ceased to exist” and “consciousness went elsewhere”. How familiar I am with the brain has nothing to do with the fact that saying such evidence exists is no less ludicrous than asking for a cite.
And anyway, you seem to be contradicting yourself since first you say patients with brain damage don’t notice any difference and then you go on to say that damaging the brain damages consciousness.
I’m not sure how to do that.
Fair enough, since “framed” would involve planting evidence. Maybe if the word on the street was that Jane admitted to it… even that is nothing more than an appeal to “x thousand people can’t be wrong” but it’s the best I can do.
I’ll admit to being guilty of that.
To be fair, I’ve had my doubts for a while now.
Actually, something that occurred to me just tonight is, in order for anything “outside space-time” to even be possible would seem to require a belief in fate, because the future would have to be predetermined. As I am not a fatalist, it appears I cannot believe in my own definition of souls. :smack:
FTR, I wasn’t ignoring your post, just not familiar with Hofstader. It sounds like we are saying the same thing about hive minds and neurons?
But lest you think I’m just being abstract, Hume’s Treatise is a compelling work for practical as well as abstract reasons. In fact, just recently I saw that a college was offering a research position to someone willing to do work on modern science’s support of Hume and Kant’s positions on the mind, consciousness, etc. Someone interested in science as you are, I know you’d like his critique of induction (which heavily influenced Popper to the point of direct mention), his discussions on cause and effect, his position on the self (so popular as to have spawned its own eponymous term: the Humean bundle), his comments on mathematics, etc. Plus, he’s got a really dry sense of humor that seems to appeal to some people. 
In fact, crap, the philosophy of science is a fascination subject in its own right. Normally, unless someone expressed a direct interest in philosophy I wouldn’t mention it, but your statements here are so closely aligned to Hume’s that I felt it needed mention.
) I don’t know if Monroe has ever found conclusive results but I do know that Dr. Stevenson’s results are inconclusive.