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

shernren · Sep 15, 2006

Chalnoth said:
Well, I'm not upset that I was mistaken, though. I'd rather have it refuted right away than have somebody latch onto the story and start trying to argue it.

Fair enough.

rmwilliamsll · Sep 15, 2006

peck74 said:
You guys just can’t wrap your head around the fact that RM + NS means RANDOM! And you know what? MET is easy to understand – gee let’s see, RM + NS – that’s the whole thing. It means undirected, non-goal oriented, chance, luck, magick. It means you believe that all the enormous, almost incomprehensible complexity of life (brain for example, or vision, or flight) came about completely by blind, dumb, stupid, non-intelligent, unthinking chance. It’s the magic of RM, then the magic of NS, and don’t forget the magic of co-option, plus the magic of time, all the while without a shred of macro evidence to back it up. Yeah, that’s great science.

You are using the word random in two very distinctly different ways. The first is the idea of no direction, no purpose, no teleology. this is best understood in terms of a random walk or the drunkard's walk. The problem is that order and apparent direction do emerge out of both of these examples, the same way that order does emerge out of evolution, via an exploration of genomic space model. You can read Dennett's excellent metaphor of Darwin's and Mendel's library in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_You can google "random walk" and see the ideas that consistently emerge from it to present order to our minds. You can understand that the drunkard's walk ends up in the gutter and why.

the second way you are using the term random is in the sense of no attributed cause, or unknown cause, or unknowable cause for the effects seen. In this sense too evolution is not random, that is why everyone keeps pointing out the part RM-->NS and saying see it is not only orderly but creates specific patterns. The reason is that, for the larger part, the TofE does attribute a cause and effect relationship to RM+NS and the orderliness of life(the increasing fitness of life to its environment). It is the individual matings, the particular mutations that are random. Not in the sense of not knowing why or what causes them, we do know what causes animals to mate and what causes many mutations, but in the sense of being unpredictable in their occurrences, both when and what exactly.

If you really want to dialog here rather than to preach, lose the meaningless inflammatory words like magick, they do not add anything to the discussion and demonstrate only that you distain the field, not that science is magick.

Chalnoth · Sep 15, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
You are asking Bible believing Christians to answer a question that you have already determined to be philosophical, and yet you are asking for a logical answer than does not require the Bible to be true. I think not only is that an impossible requirement due to who you are asking but impossible due to the nature of the question itself.

Just how do you propose to eliminate experience as a basis of logic and how does one answer without it?

Well, no, I've been arguing that it is not a philosophical question at all. I'm arguing that we can measure and detect that everything that is attributed to the Christian soul exists within our physical brain, and thus the Christian soul cannot exist.

Chalnoth · Sep 15, 2006

Oncedeceived said:
I think that humans are more than more intelligent than other animals. I think that elephant and dolpins are incredibly intelligent animals. I think that both have very "humanlike" emotions and intelligence. The soul goes beyond emotions and intelligence. Emotions and intelligence are important aspects that are more developed in humans but I think that humans have a capacity that transends the physical world. The fact that we can even consider the universe in a non-physical way puts us at a different level than other animals.

Abstract thought is perhaps what allows us to have developed a complex society complete with science and technology. However, I don't think it's been proven that animals don't have the capacity for abstract thought. It is, after all, a very hard thing to test for. But chimpanzees have been observed staring in wonder at unusual natural formations (like a waterfall).

Oncedeceived said:
Do we feel that animals for instance have a moral right to justice? Do we feel animals have a moral right for happiness? Do we feel animals have a moral right to existance?

Many people do. But it should be no surprise that we put humans before animals. It is the most human thing in the world to prefer one's own group over others.

And-U-Say · Sep 15, 2006

Hi nice to meet you too! Thanks for the prayer. I'm not up against much, because if there were any actual evidence to back up their claims they'd be dangerous. I have to admit I just enjoy ruffling the feathers of evangelical atheists (and what else do you call someone who comes to a Christian forum to refute the spiritual?) from time to time. Gets boring quick though, because it's the same thing over and over again. The same arguments, the same flawed logic. Usually when their back is up against a wall, you get this: “Evolution isn’t random!” “You’re just a YEC who wants a theocracy!” “You’re an enemy of science!” “You just don’t understand evolution!” Followed by tautological statements and axioms. But anything to do with mind or spirit is anathema to them.

The hubris displayed in this post is sickening. A couple of points...

1) You speak of refuting the spiritual. First, there would have to actually be a "spiritual" for you to make any claims to special knowledge therein. I was a hard core christian for longer than you have been alive and I can safely say that there is nothing regarding your religion, its tenets, its beliefs, or its text that you know that I don't. The only difference between you and me is that I reached a point where I actually allowed myself to question it, you have not and may never reach that point.

2) This thread seems to be about the existance of a soul, and your various comments about "the same old thing" have been almost completely absent from it (evolution isn't random, etc.) . So why bring these points up? Do you find it difficult of uncomfortable to address the actual topic? Which brings us to...

3) This thread is rife with comments on the evidence that there is no soul. That all the historical claims as to what the "soul" controls or the behaviours it exhibits can be readily explained by recent neurological research (some of it simple and some of it complex). Yet you have completely ignored this evidence and stuck to your soul claim without reason or discussion. Something akin to "it just is, so there". You are having your arguements demolished and you seem to be blissfully unaware of it. And you even think you are "winning". You remind me of the newbie golfer bragging that he has a higher score than anyone else.

Rather than comment on how things are going so well, you may want to actually address the issues and offer up something more than an opinion or dogma as to justify your beliefs.

Oncedeceived · Sep 15, 2006

Chalnoth said:
Well, no, I've been arguing that it is not a philosophical question at all. I'm arguing that we can measure and detect that everything that is attributed to the Christian soul exists within our physical brain, and thus the Christian soul cannot exist.

You wrote:

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

It is a philosophical question. There are many philosophical questions that can be somewhat tested but few can be determined by Science.

Chalnoth · Sep 15, 2006

That was Grummpy that wrote that, not me. I totally disagree.

Oncedeceived · Sep 15, 2006

Chalnoth said:
Abstract thought is perhaps what allows us to have developed a complex society complete with science and technology. However, I don't think it's been proven that animals don't have the capacity for abstract thought. It is, after all, a very hard thing to test for. But chimpanzees have been observed staring in wonder at unusual natural formations (like a waterfall).

Chimpanzees have been observed standing on a box to reach fruit and when the box is removed and a paper is introduced the Chimp tries to use the paper to stand on to get the fruit.

Chimpanzees also have been given food by humans and the chimps then understand that the human will have food. When the researchers wore blindfolds or buckets on their heads and held fruit the animals were very puzzled when they didn't get the same response from the researchers. They didn't understand that the researchers had to see them to respond.

Although this is nothing conclusive it does show the limitations of these intelligent creatures to understand and use abstract thought.

Many people do. But it should be no surprise that we put humans before animals. It is the most human thing in the world to prefer one's own group over others.

What is the most "human thing"? What makes us human and what makes us worth more than other animals in our own eyes. Are we not intelligent to understand that our survival depends on theirs? Would it not be more in line with animal instinct to use our own intellect for our survival by the same theory that assumes that we have learned to be moral by alturistic mechanisms. It seems to me that since we are at the top of the food chain and do understand the implication that we are dependent on lower life forms to survive that we would place as high a value on animals and other creatures as we do on ourselves.

Oncedeceived · Sep 15, 2006

I'd like to ask those who disagree with the CWV (Christian worldveiw) that a soul exists if they feel that there was ever a time that they did not feel they were themselves? Has anyone ever felt that the person they were as a child is not the same person that exists today?

Oncedeceived · Sep 15, 2006

Chalnoth said:
That was Grummpy that wrote that, not me. I totally disagree.

Oh, sorry. So you feel that it is not a purely philosophical question. Do you feel that there is a distinction between your "self" and someone else's self?

TricksterWolf · Sep 15, 2006

Grummpy said:
This subject came up in a different thread. It is of great interest.

Is the mind an emergent property of the physical structure of the brain? Could this be the result of evolutionary processes?

OR

There is a "Ghost in the machine", a soul, if you will,made of a different stuff and having different properties than the matter making up the brain. As this is necessarily a supernatural entity, is it bestowed only on man?

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

Grumpy

I don't think this question is easily answered. I'm a scientist by trade (and have a strong background in neuropsychology), but I'll be the first to defend that the human mind is a pretty effective black box. You can't really see what's going on, and only the individual is able to interpret their own experiences. This is what makes psychology such an inexact science. I don't think the scientific answer is to assume that mind is simply an emergent property.

Are "Ghost in the shell" and "emergent phenomenon" the only two choices? I don't know the answer, but I don't think either of those two explanations is likely to be correct. If the mind were an emergent property alone, I don't think the experience of consciousness would be as fascinating a subject for us--it would seem more natural than it does. Consciousness is more than simple meta-memory; it's the experience of wrestling with one's feelings in making decisions, the feeling of time passing, and the inspiration and wonder that psychology is so poorly equipped to quantify (even decision-making processes are weakly understood). Likewise, to assume that there exists a separate dualistic entity contradicts direct evidence that people's beliefs and behavior and emotions across the board can be affected by chemical and physical changes to the brain.

The real answer is probably stranger than either of these, or perhaps it's just unknowable. I don't think science should ever stop looking, but I don't agree that every problem is solvable by science either.

Trickster

Chalnoth · Sep 15, 2006

TricksterWolf said:
Are "Ghost in the shell" and "emergent phenomenon" the only two choices? I don't know the answer, but I don't think either of those two explanations is likely to be correct. If the mind were an emergent property alone, I don't think the experience of consciousness would be as fascinating a subject for us--it would seem more natural than it does.

The problem with using consciousness as a criteria is how do I know that you are conscious? How do you know that I am? The truth is that we just assume that other humans are conscious, because we see those actions as being familiar to us, and we each believe ourselves to be conscious.

But how can we know that chimpanzees aren't conscious? Or gorillas? Or dogs? The Christian belief typically is that humans differ from these animals by a soul, but how can we know wether or not they are conscious? Where do you draw the line between simple learned responses and true consciousness?

I'll present a small personal story:
When I was still living at home, we had a dog named Sparky. Once, when we went on a trip, we left Sparky in a kennel for a few days. After breaking him out of the kennel and arriving home, the very first thing that Sparky did is he ran up the stairs, jumped onto Mom's bed, and pooped. This was the first time he did this, and Mom never let Sparky in her room again afterwards.

So tell me, was this act a conscious act? Maybe he just hadn't gone to the bathroom in a while? How can we really know?

So I propose that the easiest way to tell whether the "mind" is completely physical or not shouldn't be tested by considering what our minds can do, but rather by considering what affects physical substances can have on our minds.

As has been argued previously in this thread, the simple fact that chemicals can affect peoples' personalities is evidence against a supernatural soul.

JGL53 · Sep 15, 2006

What if, ultimately, there are no seperate categories of reality like mind, matter and such - what if there is only The One? What if the phenomenal universe in a temporal manifestation of The One?

If so, problem solved. If not, how do you prove it? And is there any reason why this can't be so? OK, then - as I said, problem solved..

TricksterWolf · Sep 15, 2006

[The problem with using consciousness as a criteria is how do I know that you are conscious? How do you know that I am? The truth is that we just assume that other humans are conscious, because we see those actions as being familiar to us, and we each believe ourselves to be conscious.]

This is exactly my point. Assertions of any sort about the nature of consciousness are invariably made on the basis of one's own experience of consciousness, since we don't have access to one anothers'. I don't think that "consciousness is a simple emergent property" is something that can be scientifically proposed when the property itself can't even be scientifically observed. The default is simply "we don't know what consciousness is".

Yet, we all know that consciousness exists, because we each experience it. I know some people may insist it doesn't exist, but the experience, the feeling is undeniable. It's an interesting conundrum--an experience that seems to be firmly in the realm of "concrete reality", yet clearly is not scientific because there is no means available for making independent observations. This is much like Jodie Foster's experience at the end of the movie Contact, an experience that even an atheist must take on faith.

Trickster

TricksterWolf · Sep 15, 2006

JGL53 said:
What if, ultimately, there are no seperate categories of reality like mind, matter and such - what if there is only The One? What if the phenomenal universe in a temporal manifestation of The One?

If so, problem solved. If not, how do you prove it? And is there any reason why this can't be so? OK, then - as I said, problem solved..

Certain things can't be logically disproven by science because they contradict the minor assumptions that science makes (reality exists, is measurable, is consistent, can be discovered). These things are the realm of religion and philosophy. You can't disprove solopsism, or show that life isn't "just a dream".

The mind can be studied scientifically, however--it's just a very limited science. Behaviors, physiology, and self-reports of emotion and thought can be studied. Not actual consciousness.

Trickster

peck74 · Sep 15, 2006

And-U-Say said:
The hubris displayed in this post is sickening. A couple of points...

The only difference between you and me is that I reached a point where I actually allowed myself to question it, you have not and may never reach that point.

Before commenting on my hubris, why dont you take a look at your own ivory tower elitism, and maybe Ill meet you somewhere in the middle.

peck74 · Sep 15, 2006

Hi caravelair,
In your opinion, is Darwinian evolution a guided, non-random process, or an unguided, undirected process? vbmenu_register("postmenu_27085789", true);

peck74 · Sep 15, 2006

TricksterWolf said:
[The problem with using consciousness as a criteria is how do I know that you are conscious? How do you know that I am? The truth is that we just assume that other humans are conscious, because we see those actions as being familiar to us, and we each believe ourselves to be conscious.]

This is exactly my point. Assertions of any sort about the nature of consciousness are invariably made on the basis of one's own experience of consciousness, since we don't have access to one anothers'. I don't think that "consciousness is a simple emergent property" is something that can be scientifically proposed when the property itself can't even be scientifically observed. The default is simply "we don't know what consciousness is".
Trickster

Excellent post Trickster. This is my dilemma in thinking about consciousness. How do you even define it? Can you even define what intelligence is? I witnessed a discussion on the ARN forum some time ago, and I was shocked that neither side of the debate could even come up with a definition of intelligence. How can someone claim mind is an emergent property of matter without even knowing what mind is? I used to think oh, its just a matter of time till we find the portion of the brain responsible for mind But now I wonder if mind is an intangible. That is, can it *ever* be defined? Is it more like truth or love Something that exists yet there is no way of experimentally verifying its existence. What do you think? Also, you mentioned you work in the field yes? Ive always wondered about something, maybe you have an idea about it: why is that when we dream, we dream of a material world with physical laws? I know that sometimes those laws are broken in our dreams, but to clarify, why is it that when we drink alcohol in a dream, we get drunk in a dream? We can get hurt, even bleed in our dreams, yet its all just mind stuff. I just find it odd that in our dreams we have a material body, exist in a material world, all the while the experience is happening 100% in the mind. Any theories?

TricksterWolf · Sep 15, 2006

Chalnoth said:
The problem with using consciousness as a criteria is how do I know that you are conscious? How do you know that I am? The truth is that we just assume that other humans are conscious, because we see those actions as being familiar to us, and we each believe ourselves to be conscious.

But how can we know that chimpanzees aren't conscious? Or gorillas? Or dogs? The Christian belief typically is that humans differ from these animals by a soul, but how can we know wether or not they are conscious? Where do you draw the line between simple learned responses and true consciousness?

I'll present a small personal story:
When I was still living at home, we had a dog named Sparky. Once, when we went on a trip, we left Sparky in a kennel for a few days. After breaking him out of the kennel and arriving home, the very first thing that Sparky did is he ran up the stairs, jumped onto Mom's bed, and pooped. This was the first time he did this, and Mom never let Sparky in her room again afterwards.

So tell me, was this act a conscious act? Maybe he just hadn't gone to the bathroom in a while? How can we really know?

So I propose that the easiest way to tell whether the "mind" is completely physical or not shouldn't be tested by considering what our minds can do, but rather by considering what affects physical substances can have on our minds.

As has been argued previously in this thread, the simple fact that chemicals can affect peoples' personalities is evidence against a supernatural soul.

[As has been argued previously in this thread, the simple fact that chemicals can affect peoples' personalities is evidence against a supernatural soul.]

This is only an argument against the soul if you see the soul as an immutable source of personality, which I doubt many people do. That would be a rather absurd proposition, given that people's personalities change predictably under select circumstances--brain disease, severe emotional distress, and chemical intervention, for three.

Chemicals causing behavioral changes has nothing to do with many of the things the soul is supposed to imply, such as: life-after-death, general spirituality, and the potential for the actions of people to include non-causal or non-physical instantiating components. I'm not saying I agree with all of these concepts, but none of them are disproven by the fact that chemicals may induce personality changes. That's just saying that one's personality is mutable by outside factors, which is clearly true.

That argument is usually made to Christians who believe in a just, good God, that only judges people on some immutable quality that is also the cause of the decisions they make. The idea of being able to alter someone's personality might indicate that someone could remove someone from Grace by kidnapping them and damaging their brain, which wouldn't be 'fair'. But this only works for a very select set of views on God, fairness, and the soul.

Trickster

TricksterWolf · Sep 15, 2006

peck74 said:
Excellent post Trickster. This is my dilemma in thinking about consciousness. How do you even define it? Can you even define what intelligence is? I witnessed a discussion on the ARN forum some time ago, and I was shocked that neither side of the debate could even come up with a definition of intelligence.

Fluid intelligence (or what people usually mean by it) is usually defined as the ability to dynamically learn new things. As it is operationally defined, it is partly based on cultural values of the majority or dominant group in a given culture. Intelligence is intended to be correlated with ability to learn new things and perform well at unfamiliar tasks. It's an overrated measure.

peck74 said:
How can someone claim mind is an emergent property of matter without even knowing what mind is? I used to think oh, its just a matter of time till we find the portion of the brain responsible for mind But now I wonder if mind is an intangible. That is, can it *ever* be defined? Is it more like truth or love Something that exists yet there is no way of experimentally verifying its existence. What do you think?

Truth is pure philosophy. Love has many forms, most of which can be studied scientifically, some which are a part of consciousness. Mind is indeed a mystery. I choose to assume it exists in others or I would feel terribly lonely.

peck74 said:
Also, you mentioned you work in the field yes? Ive always wondered about something, maybe you have an idea about it: why is that when we dream, we dream of a material world with physical laws? I know that sometimes those laws are broken in our dreams, but to clarify, why is it that when we drink alcohol in a dream, we get drunk in a dream? We can get hurt, even bleed in our dreams, yet its all just mind stuff. I just find it odd that in our dreams we have a material body, exist in a material world, all the while the experience is happening 100% in the mind. Any theories?

We dream in physical laws because the framework of our dreams is our recent experiences. We are familiar with physical laws, and dreams generally meet our expectations. For example, if you play a computer game all day long (bad!) you will likely dream about the game that evening. There are often messages in dreams, but the general setting is derived from recent experience.

Trickster

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

you are not reading this.

avid reader

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency