Mind: emergent property or "Ghost in the machine"?

[Oncedeceived]

But what reason is there to think a soul exists? It does not give information to the brain, as demonstrated with neurological disorders or damage.

The fact that a brain is damaged and unable to transmit or receive messages does not mean that a soul does not exist. Think of a cell phone for instance, if the phone is not working correctly does that mean that there are no calls coming in or that it just can't receive them?

I think that a soul exists due to the Spiritual nature of the human being. We, according of course to the Christian World View, have not only a physical body but a spiritual one as well. Scripturally, we take on that body in death or during the Rapture which ever comes first.

I can not give you a reason for a soul other than in Spiritual terms because it is a Spiritual attribute.

 

[Grummpy]

Oncedeceived

The fact that a brain is damaged and unable to transmit or receive messages does not mean that a soul does not exist. Think of a cell phone for instance, if the phone is not working correctly does that mean that there are no calls coming in or that it just can't receive them?

I think that a soul exists due to the Spiritual nature of the human being. We, according of course to the Christian World View, have not only a physical body but a spiritual one as well. Scripturally, we take on that body in death or during the Rapture which ever comes first.

I can not give you a reason for a soul other than in Spiritual terms because it is a Spiritual attribute.

IE you have no evidence for the soul, just your belief.

By the way, when I say mind I mean the conciousness we all experience(unless I am unique), The "I" inside our head.

Grumpy

 

[Tomk80]

The fact that a brain is damaged and unable to transmit or receive messages does not mean that a soul does not exist. Think of a cell phone for instance, if the phone is not working correctly does that mean that there are no calls coming in or that it just can't receive them?

I think that a soul exists due to the Spiritual nature of the human being. We, according of course to the Christian World View, have not only a physical body but a spiritual one as well. Scripturally, we take on that body in death or during the Rapture which ever comes first.

I can not give you a reason for a soul other than in Spiritual terms because it is a Spiritual attribute.

Here is the problem I am having with this.

A soul is never defined, but I would posit that what Grumpy mentions as the "I" of a person, is what is generally meant with it. Now, this has mulitple characteristics, like personality, consciousness of self, memories etc etc.

All aspects that are in everyday language have been tied to it, have been shown to be affected by brain damage. So all components of this "I" have a physical counterpart which, if damaged, will not function anymore.

Now, I would propose that the reasoning that this means that the "I", "mind" or "soul" is a result of the brain (ie, that there is no duality between body and "soul") is supported by this evidence. On the other hand, that the "soul" would exist as a seperate entity does not have any evidence in favor of it. Hence, the best conclusion drawn at this point in time is that a duality between body and mind or soul does not exist.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Now, I would propose that the reasoning that this means that the "I", "mind" or "soul" is a result of the brain (ie, that there is no duality between body and "soul") is supported by this evidence. On the other hand, that the "soul" would exist as a seperate entity does not have any evidence in favor of it. Hence, the best conclusion drawn at this point in time is that a duality between body and mind or soul does not exist.

This logic isn't sound--you're making an informal fallacy known as "appeal to ignorance", which roughly goes: "We know nothing about X, therefore X is false."

The logically correct conclusion is that we don't know whether or not a duality exists, not that monism is true. (Since duality is more complex of a proposition, science is correctly biased to disregard it until such time as evidence appears. This bias has no resounding bearing on reality or faith.)

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

There have been examples of patients being pronounced dead..i.e. no heart rate, no brain activity and so forth; when a patient can tell what transpired during the time of death.

I think it's fine to believe in the soul, but a mistake to try to back up belief with facts...this commonly leads to unscientific thinking.

It's equally likely, for example, that our instruments that detect brain activity fail to capture the actual brain activity leading to the detection. Just because science can't presently explain something doesn't mean that the only remaining conclusion is something entirely outside the realm of science. People use this argument with evolution all the time. The fact that science isn't exact and that our theories are imperfect isn't evidence that the underlying assumptions of those theories are wrong, or that some otherworldly conjecture must be true.

Trickster

 

[Tomk80]

This logic isn't sound--you're making an informal fallacy known as "appeal to ignorance", which roughly goes: "We know nothing about X, therefore X is false."

No, the logic is "There is no evidence for X, hence there is no reason to assume X exists."

The logically correct conclusion is that we don't know whether or not a duality exists, not that monism is true. (Since duality is more complex of a proposition, science is correctly biased to disregard it until such time as evidence appears. This bias has no resounding bearing on reality or faith.)

Trickster

We also do not know hether there is a china teapot circling the earth. Sure, we haven't got any evidence that it does, but science is not equipped yet to look at the whole of the space surrounding the earth at the same time in such detail.

All evidence that we do have, indicates that the "self" changes in a predictable way when parts of the brain are damaged. There is no evidence of a duality. The best conclusion drawn is then monism, instead of dualism. It is not a conclusion drawn from unknowns. It is a conclusion that is purely drawn from what we know of the brain and it's relation to people's "self".

 

[TricksterWolf]

No, the logic is "There is no evidence for X, hence there is no reason to assume X exists."

More precisely, there is no reason to assume anything. I agree only that scientifically, we should make such negative assumptions in order to facilitate the ease of theory development--this is a logical extension of Occam's Razor. But personally, it is foolish to leap to such conclusions. Not-knowing that you don't know something is the deepest form of ignorance.

Your original words were stronger, insisting that we should draw the conclusion that the soul does not exist solely from a dearth of evidence. Let me refresh your memory:

Hence, the best conclusion drawn at this point in time is that a duality between body and mind or soul does not exist.

Assuming the soul does not exist, and assuming nothing, are two entirely different things. I have no idea whether or not a soul exists, and I'm comfortable there.

Trickster

 

[Chalnoth]

Here I think an argument from ignorance is actually a pretty good argument. My reasoning is simple: there was never any evidence for the existence of a soul. The idea came out of ancient times when humans had a lesser understanding of how the world around them worked.

We have also been shown, time and time again, that when we make assumptions about areas where we have not made any experiment, we have been wrong time and time again. It is exceedingly rare for an idea made up in the absence of evidence to be correct.

Therefore, since the idea of a soul was made up in the absence of evidence, and since we can attribute all of the expected physical properties of the soul to the brain today, it becomes exceedingly unlikely that the soul exists.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Here I think an argument from ignorance is actually a pretty good argument. My reasoning is simple: there was never any evidence for the existence of a soul. The idea came out of ancient times when humans had a lesser understanding of how the world around them worked.

We have also been shown, time and time again, that when we make assumptions about areas where we have not made any experiment, we have been wrong time and time again. It is exceedingly rare for an idea made up in the absence of evidence to be correct.

Therefore, since the idea of a soul was made up in the absence of evidence, and since we can attribute all of the expected physical properties of the soul to the brain today, it becomes exceedingly unlikely that the soul exists.

You're mistakenly using the term "evidence" interchangeably with "scientific evidence", revealing a bias for discarding non-scientific data as meaningless. There's a lot of personal (subjective) evidence for the existence of the soul, or we wouldn't still be having this debate thousands of years later.

Trickster

 

[Chalnoth]

You're mistakenly using the term "evidence" interchangeably with "scientific evidence", revealing a bias for discarding non-scientific data as meaningless. There's a lot of personal (subjective) evidence for the existence of the soul, or we wouldn't still be having this debate thousands of years later.

And there's hard, scientific evidence that shows that personal, subjective evidence is meaningless. I particularly like this article:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

Since people are so prone to suggesting and making up random stuff, evidence that only has support in the personal arena is almost certain to be false.

 

[TricksterWolf]

And there's hard, scientific evidence that shows that personal, subjective evidence is meaningless. I particularly like this article:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

Since people are so prone to suggesting and making up random stuff, evidence that only has support in the personal arena is almost certain to be false.

"Meaningless" is a pretty strict criterion here, as it is individuals who ascribe meaning to things. Do you honestly think the fact that memory is flawed implies that all non-scientific data has absolutely no value? We all make decisions on the basis of this sort of data all the time. If subjective experiences weren't valuable for something, they wouldn't continue to be so common today. Most of what we learn and know as individuals is subjectively weighed, not repeatably measured.

There is much subjective evidence for the soul; the fact that this evidence is not able to be independently measured by science does not lessen its value to the philosopher, nor does it make it without meaning.

Trickster

 

[Chalnoth]

"Meaningless" is a pretty strict criterion here, as it is individuals who ascribe meaning to things. Do you honestly think the fact that memory is flawed implies that all non-scientific data has absolutely no value? We all make decisions on the basis of this sort of data all the time. If subjective experiences weren't valuable for something, they wouldn't continue to be so common today. Most of what we learn and know as individuals is subjectively weighed, not repeatably measured.

You're right, there is some use for subjective experiences. But none of that use is applicable to evidence. The simple fact that memory can be, and very frequently is, demonstrably wrong means that those things for which the only evidence is subjective experience are most likely wrong.

There is much subjective evidence for the soul; the fact that this evidence is not able to be independently measured by science does not lessen its value to the philosopher, nor does it make it without meaning.

Well, the discipline of philosophy doesn't limit itself to describing reality, so that's not much support for the idea of using subjective experience.

 

[TricksterWolf]

You're right, there is some use for subjective experiences. But none of that use is applicable to evidence. The simple fact that memory can be, and very frequently is, demonstrably wrong means that those things for which the only evidence is subjective experience are most likely wrong.


Well, the discipline of philosophy doesn't limit itself to describing reality, so that's not much support for the idea of using subjective experience.

Reality is a loaded word. I personally draw no strong conclusions about the soul, but I admit the experience of consciousness is compelling enough to suggest to me that there is more to the phenomenon than I understand. I'm not comfortable dismissing it as an artefact of the way my brain works, when I know very little about how my brain works, and when there exists no solid theory to explain how this state of consciousness actually arises. The emergent property "theory" is nearly as much of a negative speculation as ID.

I had a professor of Psychology many years ago who was an atheist and a hard determinist, and even he didn't think that mind was simply an emergent property. He didn't believe in a soul that transcends the body, but still he felt there was too much we didn't know to make a solid judgment on the root cause of conscious experience. And he was an expert on the topic of consciousness, for what it's worth.

Trickster

 

[birdan]

An interesting article on someone being induced to experience a "shadow person". Though a bit bizarre, this would seem to be a "mind" sensation, but originates purely through stimulation of a certain area of the brain.

http://physorg.com/news77992285.html

 

[Chalnoth]

Reality is a loaded word. I personally draw no strong conclusions about the soul, but I admit the experience of consciousness is compelling enough to suggest to me that there is more to the phenomenon than I understand. I'm not comfortable dismissing it as an artefact of the way my brain works, when I know very little about how my brain works, and when there exists no solid theory to explain how this state of consciousness actually arises. The emergent property "theory" is nearly as much of a negative speculation as ID.

No, it's not, because in this case there are only two options: either the "mind" as we know it is a purely physical phenomenon, and thus an emergent property, or it is a result of at least some amount of non-physical phenomena, which we call spiritual.

And furthermore, unlike ID, there is lots of good reason to believe that the mind is a purely physical property: that physical alterations of the brain can have profound effects on personality. I particluarly like Alien Hand Syndrome.

With lots of evidence of physical changes affecting personality, and no evidence of any non-physical component (which would be something that, by definition, could not be affected by physical changes), there is just no reason to believe in any non-physical component to contiousness (such as a soul).

 

[TricksterWolf]

No, it's not, because in this case there are only two options: either the "mind" as we know it is a purely physical phenomenon, and thus an emergent property, or it is a result of at least some amount of non-physical phenomena, which we call spiritual.

And furthermore, unlike ID, there is lots of good reason to believe that the mind is a purely physical property: that physical alterations of the brain can have profound effects on personality. I particluarly like Alien Hand Syndrome.

With lots of evidence of physical changes affecting personality, and no evidence of any non-physical component (which would be something that, by definition, could not be affected by physical changes), there is just no reason to believe in any non-physical component to contiousness (such as a soul).

Wait--you're arguing that the mind is purely physical, and not at all representational or abstract? Could you take a picture of it and send me the link please? I'd love to see what a mind looks like.

Seriously, there are some interesting arguments against emergence of the mind. One suggests that emergence is a psychological phenomenon, classifiable and identifiable only by observers based on their interest in the phenomenon and ability to separate it into smaller processes; therefore, the mind cannot be emergent because the presence of a mind must exist before something can be labeled emergent at all. Others suggest that the concept of emergence is itself logically incoherent and flawed, and thus not a real description of physical processes (emergence may be far less well-defined that you might think).

Here's a link to some ideas on the subject:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

As I've said before, I don't know what the answer is. I'm far less certain that my mind is a byproduct of my brain's activity than you are, and that's okay. My experiences with consciousness give me pause to consider there may be more than science currently understands, so I choose to form no strong conclusions at this time.

Trickster

 

[Tomk80]

Wait--you're arguing that the mind is purely physical, and not at all representational or abstract? Could you take a picture of it and send me the link please? I'd love to see what a mind looks like.

In essence, I can also not send you a picture of a running computer program. Why, because it is made up of electricity running around on my computer, turning bits on and of. That's what happens in the brian also, brain cells are turned on or off.

Seriously, there are some interesting arguments against emergence of the mind. One suggests that emergence is a psychological phenomenon, classifiable and identifiable only by observers based on their interest in the phenomenon and ability to separate it into smaller processes; therefore, the mind cannot be emergent because the presence of a mind must exist before something can be labeled emergent at all.

That is, quite honestly, a nonsense argument. It pretends that something cannot exist untill we slap a label on it. This is obviously an absurd thought.

Others suggest that the concept of emergence is itself logically incoherent and flawed, and thus not a real description of physical processes (emergence may be far less well-defined that you might think).

Why would it be logically incoherent and flawed?

[qutoe]Here's a link to some ideas on the subject:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
[/quote]
Okay, I'll read it.

As I've said before, I don't know what the answer is. I'm far less certain that my mind is a byproduct of my brain's activity than you are, and that's okay. My experiences with consciousness give me pause to consider there may be more than science currently understands, so I choose to form no strong conclusions at this time.

Trickster

And that's all fine. But that still doesn't take away that we only have evidence for a monistic, and no evidence for a dualistic view on brain and mind.

 

[Chalnoth]

Seriously, there are some interesting arguments against emergence of the mind. One suggests that emergence is a psychological phenomenon, classifiable and identifiable only by observers based on their interest in the phenomenon and ability to separate it into smaller processes; therefore, the mind cannot be emergent because the presence of a mind must exist before something can be labeled emergent at all. Others suggest that the concept of emergence is itself logically incoherent and flawed, and thus not a real description of physical processes (emergence may be far less well-defined that you might think).

Here's a link to some ideas on the subject:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

This is basically only quibbling over the definition of emergence. It really doesn't have any bearing on the reality of the situation, which is whether the "mind" is purely a result of physical processes or there is a spiritual (non-physical) component.

As I've said before, I don't know what the answer is. I'm far less certain that my mind is a byproduct of my brain's activity than you are, and that's okay. My experiences with consciousness give me pause to consider there may be more than science currently understands, so I choose to form no strong conclusions at this time.

Oh, I can guarantee you that there is vastly more to the universe than what science currently understands. But that doesn't mean we should jump to non-physical explanations when there is no reason to think they exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

IE you have no evidence for the soul, just your belief.

Not exactly. If my belief in a soul is different than yours, how do we determine which of us is correct? You claim that the lack of evidence of a soul supports your belief but the lack of evidence doesn't make me believe that there is no soul. Our brains function the same way..our c-fibers fire the same exact way...so why does the I in my brain claim there is a soul and the I in your brain claims there is not?

By the way, when I say mind I mean the conciousness we all experience(unless I am unique), The "I" inside our head.

Is your "I" conciousness the same as my "I" conciousness? Both are inside of our heads, but your I and my I are different and yet you are telling me that they are only material asspects of the brain that we both have, that work the same way yet we have different views on a vast number of things. My pain registers the same way as your pain but I can't feel your pain in the same way you do even if I am under the same influence that causes that pain.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here is the problem I am having with this.

A soul is never defined, but I would posit that what Grumpy mentions as the "I" of a person, is what is generally meant with it. Now, this has mulitple characteristics, like personality, consciousness of self, memories etc etc.

All aspects that are in everyday language have been tied to it, have been shown to be affected by brain damage. So all components of this "I" have a physical counterpart which, if damaged, will not function anymore.

In what way does it not function anymore? If the personality is changed is the I changed? No, I still exists. The brain may not work in the same way but the I still is in our heads. If I can't remember former experiences, it is the I in me that can't remember and "I" know that I can't remember. Who is it that knows it can't remember what "I" should remember?

Now, I would propose that the reasoning that this means that the "I", "mind" or "soul" is a result of the brain (ie, that there is no duality between body and "soul") is supported by this evidence.

The "I" in my mind considering the same thoughts that you have presented disagrees. I read your post, your thoughts of the I in your head and yet the I in my head disagrees. We can have the same information put into our brain yet the "I" in our heads can disagree with the findings of that information. We can look at a picture and see the very same things in that picture but we can not know what that picture is activating in the other's brain. Why, because we don't just look at that picture and have just the same image, we bring with that event our experiences, memories and conciousness and that affects how we see and feel about a picture. The same places in the brain are firing when we look at the picture but the I in our heads may see it very differently.

On the other hand, that the "soul" would exist as a seperate entity does not have any evidence in favor of it. Hence, the best conclusion drawn at this point in time is that a duality between body and mind or soul does not exist.

Again, this is your "I"'s opinion based on what you perceive as "no evidence" whereas my "I"'s opinion is that just because there is no material evidence for the soul does not mean that the soul does not exist. Just because I can not feel your pain, I can understand that it exists and that you feel it, although I can't.