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

[JohnR7]

I sold my soul for a cookie

Why? Did you lose your cookies and then decide that you needed to buy them back again?

 

[AV1611VET]

says you. but so far i have seen no reason to believe such a thing exists. like i said, no one has yet presented a logical argument in this thread that favors the existence of a soul. all we've seen is opinion (above) and scripture.

Can you give me a logical arguement that favors the existence of love?

 

[Abongil]

Why? Did you lose your cookies and then decide that you needed to buy them back again?

No, because a cookie has more worth to me than my soul.

 

[Marz Blak]

...Brain tumours can induce aspects of paedophilia....

I actually knew that! I saw it on Law and Order.

 

[Chalnoth]

Can you give me a logical arguement that favors the existence of love?

Of course. We're social animals. Things like love and altruism increase the survival capacity of the group, and thus increase the survival capacity of the individual. It's really as simple as that.

And don't forget that other social animals show all of the same emotions that we do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

says you. but so far i have seen no reason to believe such a thing exists. like i said, no one has yet presented a logical argument in this thread that favors the existence of a soul. all we've seen is opinion (above) and scripture.

I realize this is truly a philosophical question(s). But what say you???

You start a thread claiming a totally philosophical question and then demand more than opinion.

So what "logic" would you find acceptable?

 

[Chalnoth]

Any logic that does not require the premise, "The Bible is true."

 

[peck74]

You have not answered the question.

If the soul houses (and is the source of) emotions, how does alcohol, which changes the chemistry of the brain, affect emotions?

I don't see how the effects of alcohol can be used in any type of argument against "mind" as a non-emergent substance/property, since how do you then explain (or explain away) the placebo effect? No substance is introduced, yet physical/mental effects are produced. Mind is so opposite to matter, the problem resides in attempting to theorize how something as stupid as a bunch of atoms that have no inner experience can somehow magically produce intelligence simply by being arranged in a certain way. Whenever I see “emergent property” being slung around I instantly think “magic”, because it’s the equivalent of throwing your hands into the air and screaming, “I don’t know how, but it just happens that’s all!” Regardless if you invoke “emergence” or invoke God, mind remains a mystery.

 

[Chalnoth]

The placebo effect does nothing more than prove how easy it is for people to fool themselves. It says nothing about how physical or unphysical the mind is, it just gives a specific property of the mind.

The statement that it is an emergent property also has nothing whatsoever to do with magic. Many emergent properties of many diverse systems can be calculated today with computer simulations. Emegent properties are common, well-documented phenomena for a diverse array of complex systems.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any logic that does not require the premise, "The Bible is true."

That way we would be just animals, accountable only to ourselves, and not to some transcendent creator-god, right? Sin would have no place in our vocabulary, right?

 

[Elduran]

That way we would be just animals, accountable only to ourselves, and not to some transcendent creator-god, right? Sin would have no place in our vocabulary, right?

Right, that's pretty much how I feel, except that as a species I believe that we are not "just animals", rather we are animals that have advanced to the point where we have complex cultures and some fairly incredible technological advances. But otherwise, yes, that's where I feel we are.

 

[peck74]

The placebo effect does nothing more than prove how easy it is for people to fool themselves. It says nothing about how physical or unphysical the mind is, it just gives a specific property of the mind.

The statement that it is an emergent property also has nothing whatsoever to do with magic. Many emergent properties of many diverse systems can be calculated today with computer simulations. Emegent properties are common, well-documented phenomena for a diverse array of complex systems.

First of all, I was correct in my assumption you would ignore the placebo effect and try to explain it away. Secondly, if people can “fool themselves” as you put it, this placebo effect proves two things:

• The effect of alcohol or any other substance does nothing to substantiate a materialist/emergent property point of view or theory.
• It indicates that it is entirely possible that the mind controls the physical – that is – not controlled (determined) by it. At least it’s a big “chink” in materialist armor.

Now, since we are speaking of the psychical and not the physical, what psychical emergent property can you describe coming from lifeless matter? It boils down to the old logic that dictates the effect never exceeds the cause – i.e. assuming matter “creates” what it does not have (I call this magic). Sure, you can think in physical-only terms, and say that “I can build something bigger than myself, so the effect can exceed the cause” well no, because you can never build something bigger than you can imagine building.

 

[joey444]

You know what I never got?


Dogs feeling sad.

 

[David Gould]

First of all, I was correct in my assumption you would ignore the placebo effect and try to explain it away. Secondly, if people can “fool themselves” as you put it, this placebo effect proves two things:

• The effect of alcohol or any other substance does nothing to substantiate a materialist/emergent property point of view or theory.
• It indicates that it is entirely possible that the mind controls the physical – that is – not controlled (determined) by it. At least it’s a big “chink” in materialist armor.

No, it is not.

The brain does not simply get altered by chemical input. The input of light alters the brain; the input of sound alters the brain. Certain lights and certain sounds are associated with certain things - this is how when we look at a cat, we can tell that it is a cat.

When a doctor tells you, 'This will cure you,' those sounds alter the brain. The way they do so is:

Dependent on the brain state at that precise moment which means that they are dependent on what things are associated with those sounds.

In other words, everything that is happening here is physical. Sound waves - they are physical. Specific associations in the brain - physical (we can map them in the brain).

The placebo effect is a physical effect. There is nothing mystical about it. There is no 'chink' here in materialist armour.

Now, since we are speaking of the psychical and not the physical, what psychical emergent property can you describe coming from lifeless matter? It boils down to the old logic that dictates the effect never exceeds the cause – i.e. assuming matter “creates” what it does not have (I call this magic).

First of all, there is no logical argument that you can make that demonstrates that it is impossible for an effect to exceed a cause. The butterfly effect, for example, and chaos theory are all about effects which exceed their causes.


And non-matter 'creates' matter all the time. Quantum fluctuations.

Sure, you can think in physical-only terms, and say that “I can build something bigger than myself, so the effect can exceed the cause” well no, because you can never build something bigger than you can imagine building.

What a load of nonsense. So what you imagine is actually part of you? If I imagine myself to be really strong, that means that I am really strong? And this is what passes for logic among supernaturalists? What a joke.

Assuming this is even relevent, You can build something faster than you can imagine, better than you can imagine, stronger than you can imagine and bigger than you can imagine. Things that come about accidentally and which surprise even their creators are things like this.

Indeed, emergent properties are exactly this: properties which cannot be predicted in advance.

And imagination is a physical thing. It is a process in the brain.

 

[Chalnoth]

That way we would be just animals, accountable only to ourselves, and not to some transcendent creator-god, right? Sin would have no place in our vocabulary, right?

No, we are also accountable to the society in which we live.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, that's pretty much how I feel, except that as a species I believe that we are not "just animals", rather we are animals that have advanced to the point where we have complex cultures and some fairly incredible technological advances. But otherwise, yes, that's where I feel we are.

Except most animals hunt for food, while we hunt for food, pleasure, and sport.

If an animal decorated the wall of his den with a human head, would we think, "Wow --- look at that. Maybe those animals aren't so backwards after all".

Why do we kill an animal if it kills us --- then demand mercy if a human kills us?

If you say it's because he's acquired a taste for blood now, and won't stop killing us, then lock him up in a cage for the rest of his life - (after due process of law, of course, including a jury of his peers).

Do you see how facetious this is?

 

[Chalnoth]

First of all, I was correct in my assumption you would ignore the placebo effect and try to explain it away. Secondly, if people can “fool themselves” as you put it, this placebo effect proves two things:

• The effect of alcohol or any other substance does nothing to substantiate a materialist/emergent property point of view or theory.
• It indicates that it is entirely possible that the mind controls the physical – that is – not controlled (determined) by it. At least it’s a big “chink” in materialist armor.

The placebo effect is a known complication in medical research, but does not say at all that every single effect can be the result of people fooling themselves.

When people perform medical research on people, they will have a group that takes a placebo to ensure that they are properly-accounting for the placebo affect. Thus any difference between the group taking the placebo and the group taking the real medicine is an effect of the medicine (both groups receive all of the exact same information, and think they are taking the same medicine).

Thus your hypothesis about the placebo effect being responsible for all changes in our minds due to chemicals or damage is disproved by mountains of medical research that take the placebo effect into account.

For a more down-to-Earth example, take spiking drinks with vodka or date rape drugs. These things would do nothing if the effects of these physical materials on the mind were just up to the placebo effect, as those drinking these tainted beverages don't know what has been done.

Now, since we are speaking of the psychical and not the physical, what psychical emergent property can you describe coming from lifeless matter? It boils down to the old logic that dictates the effect never exceeds the cause – i.e. assuming matter “creates” what it does not have (I call this magic). Sure, you can think in physical-only terms, and say that “I can build something bigger than myself, so the effect can exceed the cause” well no, because you can never build something bigger than you can imagine building.

That logic is faulty. Effects can, and frequently do, exceed causes in nonlinear dynamical systems (which our brains are). It's the whole butterfly effect explanation.

And I work with problems that I can't imagine all the time. How is this? Well, it's simple: I can't imagine them just because I can't hold all of the required information in my head at once. So I write the information down, or put it on a computer. I can imagine every small step of the problem, but can never see the whole thing at once. Thus I end up with a result that is "bigger" than anything I can imagine.

 

[Chalnoth]

So were the Nazi's ultimately accountable to the Jews, or to the Germans?

The Nazi's were never the only group of people in the world. Their actions incurred the wrath of many others, and rightly so. They were accountable to the world community.

I submit that reducing us to the status of "glorified animals" is nothing more than anti-Semitism in disguise.

This was uncalled for.

 

[J0hnSm1th]

No one is born without a soul nor does anyone lose it according to Scripture. Although when someone has not been saved their soul is considered lost meaning that it is forever separated from God.

It will be interesting if science fiction ever becomes reality. For example; a chimpanzee is genetically altered so that it has much higher intelligence. It is then able to communicate with us and express its sentience. Would this chimp have a soul?

One novel i read spoke of "the mind" as being the emergent property of complex computers (mechanical or biological). So much so that future computers have governers built in to prevent them spontaneously becoming sentient. Would such machines have souls? (yes i realise that its currently hypothetical).

 

[Chalnoth]

They would have souls as much as we have souls (as in, not at all). Though I expect a machine intelligence would feel pretty alien to us, as machines are good at thinking in certain ways that we are horrible at, and we are good at thinking in other ways that machines are horrible at.

As far as intelligent primates go, I highly recommend looking up some videos of current primates that have been taught sign language, such as Koko.