View Full Version : A Ghost in the Machine: The Existence of the Soul
Social Junker
2004-07-28, 02:46
I dedicate my 1000th post to disproving the existence of the soul. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Thanks to Dark_Magneto, who originally posted this in a topic in SoD. It's a long read, but an interesting read, and it might also be an old read, I don't know, wasn't in the archive.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html
what if the soul, or spirit, is all that exists? its function is to perceive form, but since form is also spirit, then its function can be said to be to percieve itself perceiving in an infinitely regressive system. then the matter that makes up our universe (and brains) is simply lower order perceptions of the one soul. the highest states of consciousness are those which have taken no form (they have yet to be perceived). as such, they are the states that do the perceiving - sensory perception and higher-brain reasoning from the subjective perspective.
the very glaring disconnect between mental processes in the material world and those correlative processes in the subjective world cannot be overcome. they are flip-sides of the same coin. the resultant conclusion is inescapable perspective or the lack thereof.
AngryFemme
2004-07-28, 14:19
There is no Ghost in the Machine. There is no Cartesian theatre in our brains where everything just "comes together". Cogito ergo sum has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. We'd "be", even if we didn't realize we "were".
Daniel Dennett has several fascinating reads on the subject. Esp. "The Mind's I".
AI evolving into feeling entities capable of some strain of emotion seems totally feasible.
quote:Originally posted by Eil:
what if the soul, or spirit, is all that exists? its function is to perceive form, but since form is also spirit,
Prove that.
quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:
AI evolving into feeling entities capable of some strain of emotion seems totally feasible.
Not to me. Unless souls consented to incarnate in those robots, which no normal soul in his/her right mind would do. Supposing this is possible.
Would YOU ?
Consider this. Tissues can be cultivated nowadays ; in a few years more, whole organs, i.e. bladders, could probably be cultivated in laboratories. Parts of the skeletons and articulations can be replaced today. Microchips for implanting in the human body are being developed right now which are able to monitor and even influence people's thoughts and actions.
But how are scientists going to put an "I" into an artificial organism based on AI ? If you believe that thinking by itself causes the "I" to come into being of sorts - computers and chips don't think. There are just electrical currents.
[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 07-28-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 07-28-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Uncus:
Prove that.
you just did it for me.
The_Rabbi
2004-07-28, 17:52
quote:Originally posted by Eil:
you just did it for me.
VERY nice.
quote:Originally posted by Eil:
you just did it for me.
I don't see how. I did, just by writing "Prove that." ?
Optimus Prime
2004-07-28, 21:53
What Eil's retarded ass is doing is taking energy, the only thing that exists, and calling it soul/spirit. Quit with the fucking wordgames you idiot.
Social Junker
2004-07-28, 23:37
quote:Originally posted by Uncus:
- computers and chips don't think. There are just electrical currents.
So is the human brain--electrochemical currents. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)
AngryFemme
2004-07-29, 04:20
quote:Originally posted by Uncus:
Not to me. Unless souls consented to incarnate in those robots, which no normal soul in his/her right mind would do. Supposing this is possible.
Would YOU ?
Consider this. Tissues can be cultivated nowadays ; in a few years more, whole organs, i.e. bladders, could probably be cultivated in laboratories. Parts of the skeletons and articulations can be replaced today. Microchips for implanting in the human body are being developed right now which are able to monitor and even influence people's thoughts and actions.
But how are scientists going to put an "I" into an artificial organism based on AI ? If you believe that thinking by itself causes the "I" to come into being of sorts - computers and chips don't think. There are just electrical currents.
[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 07-28-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 07-28-2004).]
You're still thinking like Descartes here. THERE IS NO "Mind's Eye". Quit romanticizing it. The only reason we appear to be altruistic, feeling individuals is because that is what best served natural selection into evolving us into thinking, philosophical humans.
And yeah, what Social Junker said (and beat me to the punch) - the brain is just electrochemical currents.
Look up Alan Turing's abstract conception of a mechanical computer (called a Turing Machine) and grasp it's computational methods. Then take an evolutionary view of consciousness and suppose this AI could be "programmed" for altruism. Then suppose that it's main purpose is replication and tweak it's knobs for intellectual productivity.
The result would be a machine that could eventually evolve, blindly through trial and error (no finish line in sight), into developing a sort of fringe emotion complex.
Consider this: Everything in your entire life that you have conciously digested (from birth until right this second) - is data. From learning how to act civilized to feeling jealousy over a lover or having compassion - these are all learned and applied experiences. The same stream of "data" could be fed into a machine with a working memory and a capacity to learn from trial and error.
Robert Wright goes into MUCHO detail about AI in "The Moral Animal".
NightVision
2004-07-29, 04:58
If that was the case then why couldent we transfer ourselves into computers and just be done with it? Or could we? We cant yet, but what about transfering your conciousness to a computer would yuo ahve to be awake the whole time?
Dark_Magneto
2004-07-29, 06:05
quote:Originally posted by NightVision:
If that was the case then why couldent we transfer ourselves into computers and just be done with it? Or could we? We cant yet, but what about transfering your conciousness to a computer would yuo ahve to be awake the whole time?
The question is really, would it be you or just a copy of you?
If they can transfer the information, then they could likely copy it just as well and not have to remove it from the original source (your brain). That leads me to think that it would just be a copy of your mind.
I think the mind is a product of multiple factors, like your brain structure and chemical composition, the way the neural pathways are set up and the synapses, all that good stuff. It's a system that is rooted in organic chemistry, so i doubt that would translate into digital form very well. The entire physiology of the brain is gone when you go digital.
quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:
You're still thinking like Descartes here. THERE IS NO "Mind's Eye".
Where did you see that ?
quote:Quit romanticizing it. The only reason we appear to be altruistic, feeling individuals is because that is what best served natural selection into evolving us into thinking, philosophical humans.
Where did I mention such things as altruistic, feeling individuals ?
quote:And yeah, what Social Junker said (and beat me to the punch) - the brain is just electrochemical currents.
Look up Alan Turing's abstract conception of a mechanical computer (called a Turing Machine) and grasp it's computational methods. Then take an evolutionary view of consciousness and suppose this AI could be "programmed" for altruism. Then suppose that it's main purpose is replication and tweak it's knobs for intellectual productivity.
The result would be a machine that could eventually evolve, blindly through trial and error (no finish line in sight), into developing a sort of fringe emotion complex.
Consider this: Everything in your entire life that you have conciously digested (from birth until right this second) - is data. From learning how to act civilized to feeling jealousy over a lover or having compassion - these are all learned and applied experiences. The same stream of "data" could be fed into a machine with a working memory and a capacity to learn from trial and error.
Robert Wright goes into MUCHO detail about AI in "The Moral Animal".
Suppose this, suppose that...
Either you didn't actually read my post or you don't get what I am talking about. Either way, what you wrote is not relevant to what I was talking about.
Social Junker
2004-07-29, 22:08
quote:Originally posted by Uncus:
Not to me. Unless souls consented to incarnate in those robots, which no normal soul in his/her right mind would do. Supposing this is possible.
Would YOU ?
Consider this. Tissues can be cultivated nowadays ; in a few years more, whole organs, i.e. bladders, could probably be cultivated in laboratories. Parts of the skeletons and articulations can be replaced today. Microchips for implanting in the human body are being developed right now which are able to monitor and even influence people's thoughts and actions.
But how are scientists going to put an "I" into an artificial organism based on AI ? If you believe that thinking by itself causes the "I" to come into being of sorts - computers and chips don't think. There are just electrical currents.
[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 07-28-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 07-28-2004).]
I think you are splitting hairs, Uncus. The brain is just a biological computer full of biological "chips", powered by electrochemical currents. So why is it so hard to believe computers or "AI" could one day have emotions?
The emotions you are feeling right now are due to chemicals in your brain. If this was not true, what would be the point of anti-depressant drugs (SSRIs-Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors). Are these drugs treating the soul, or simply boosting serotonin levels in the brain?
Did you read the above article? If you did, remember the priest who had a stroke from ascending to the surface too fast while diving? Before, he was a kind, compassionate man of God, but afterwards, he was incaple of feeling sad about anything, he was in a constant state of low-grade euphoria. He would make jokes about his sister having cancer! His parents said something along the line of, "Whatever made our son the person we knew before is gone, it's not him anymore". Where is the soul? In this case, it seems when the brain is damaged, so is the "soul".
quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:
I think you are splitting hairs, Uncus. The brain is just a biological computer full of biological "chips", powered by electrochemical currents. So why is it so hard to believe computers or "AI" could one day have emotions?
BECAUSE those emotions you feel, is YOU feeling them. For a computer to be able to feel emotions, it must have a "I", an ego.
Besides, from the point of view of reasoning, what lets you jump from chips and currents (supposing that's what the computer is - which I am not too sure about) to emotions ?
quote:Did you read the above article? If you did, remember the priest who had a stroke from ascending to the surface too fast while diving? Before, he was a kind, compassionate man of God, but afterwards, he was incaple of feeling sad about anything, he was in a constant state of low-grade euphoria. He would make jokes about his sister having cancer! His parents said something along the line of, "Whatever made our son the person we knew before is gone, it's not him anymore". Where is the soul? In this case, it seems when the brain is damaged, so is the "soul".
I didn't read it, can't afford to. I tend to avoid long articles, as there are so many things to do, and my signal/noise ratio is much too low, so thanks for summarizing it for me.
Apparently this priest's mind had been damaged, something like those prefrontal lobotomies they used to do. The "I" of the individual was from that moment on, unable to impinge on and keep a close contact with his surroundings through his brain and nervous system.
If you wanted to prove that that man's soul had been damaged, yes I suppose you could say that ; in any case his personality was. But this is also so much like those pain-drug experiments where they changed your personality.
Anyway, this evidently does not disprove the existence of the soul. Quite to the contrary, if you take the soul to be something which is unique and possessed by that individual and that individual only - a kind of immaterial fingerprint. His parents could see it wasn't there anymore, couldn't they ?
[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 07-29-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:
What Eil's retarded ass is doing is taking energy, the only thing that exists, and calling it soul/spirit. Quit with the fucking wordgames you idiot.
Where is he doing that ? There must be something I am not getting. But anyways, material energy clearly is not soul or spirit.
Social Junker, just one more thing: I was not certainly not splitting hairs, I was making a point. If you thought I was splitting hairs, you must have missed the meaning of my post.
quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:
So is the human brain--electrochemical currents. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)
And neither does the human brain think. The thinking - inspecting, examining, combining, comparing, cataloguing of thoughts - is done by You.
The electrochemically produced currents in the brain are the accompanying phenomena of thinking.
AngryFemme
2004-07-30, 02:45
quote:Originally posted by Uncus:
Suppose this, suppose that...
Either you didn't actually read my post or you don't get what I am talking about. Either way, what you wrote is not relevant to what I was talking about.
We're all supposing, here. There is no Absolute Truth to this topic. What I wrote was completely relevant. I did read your post, and I do know what you are talking about.
The last question you posed was:
"But how are scientists going to put an "I" into an artificial organism based on AI ? If you believe that thinking by itself causes the "I" to come into being of sorts -"
Scientists aren't going to "put" an "I" into an artificial organism. The "I" is going to be a result of the finished product once all the programmed software (think: the appropriate emotion sequence, i.e: altruism, as a general rule) is put into place and the circuits are all firing correctly. What the scientists would NOT be able to predict (without faulty tampering and pre-set emotion/reaction knobs secretly put into place) is what kind of "Personna" would come into birth. Once it did develop, it would be in a constant state of metamorphosis, responding to both it's physical surroundings and it's emotional "pre-sets". It would be extremely difficult to define (much like it is now, when you call it a "soul"), and through this constant change ...dare I call it evolution... a completely unique entity with it's own feigned "free will" will have developed. We could all sit around it in a circle and chant obnoxiously: "You are not real! We made you! You have no real soul!" - and it would vehemently disagree, because it would FEEL as if it had one.
( Especially if we program it over and over and over and over again in it's fledgling stages that if it didn't believe it had a "soul", we would send all of it's most precious, functional hardware to melt for eternity in the fiery, mechanical junkyard known as A.I. HELL )
I mentioned "The Mind's I" because that phrase is what came to mind after reading your post referring to the "soul" in the possessive pronoun sense, giving it an ethereal disconnection from your brain and body. You spoke of souls "consenting", and rationalizing decisions, and even said (i quote):
"...which no normal soul in his/her right mind would do..."
You subscribe to Cartesian Interactionist Dualism: The view that: (1) the mental and the material comprise two different classes of substance and; (2) each can have causal effects on the other
Thus, the Descartes reference from earlier that seemed to get you so wound up. You asked:
"Where did you see that?"
That is where I saw it. Then, you asked:
"Where did I mention such things as altruistic, feeling individuals ?"
You didn't. I did. I was just making an example about the AI experiment you found to be so utterly impossible.
I don't believe, as you stated, that: "Thinking in and of itself is what will cause the AI to come into "being". I only claimed that we truly ARE altruistic, feeling individuals. That is why it is so blindingly difficult to accept that there is no "I" at the helm, dictating blind control over the brain and body, which houses the things that make us "human" - our emotions and our advanced level of consciousness, which differs us from the other non-moral animals.
quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:
What Eil's retarded ass is doing is taking energy, the only thing that exists, and calling it soul/spirit. Quit with the fucking wordgames you idiot.
wtf? yeah, i'm playing word games, but
1. what's wrong with that?
2. in a subject that i approach with bemusement, what else should i do with my words -- fret and panic over every possible nuance of meaning, oh wise one?
3. what do you consider flinging unfounded and unprovoked insults? careful articulation? you're playing too, whether you're too bitter and neurotic to admit it or not.
4. suck my shitty asshole.
dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. the reason you say 'energy' is the only thing that exists is because you think it's the only true external reality.
i say 'soul' because i think it's the only true external and internal reality. now do me a favor, irrefutably deny the subjective experience, or sit the fuck down and shut up.
now, as far as 'energy' vs. 'soul'... if you're going to argue which word is more accurate and specific -- simply ask, 'which one better encapsulates the experience of life?' i'm aware of my own bias, but i'd have to say there's no comparison.
i mean, in the context of a topic regarding the validity of objectivism versus the existential dilemma, you can say in support of the former that the law of thermodynamics accurately describes the empirical world. specifically, it outlines how energy is never created or destroyed, but only transformed.
or, you could say in defense of the latter, that the law of thermodynamics is incomplete without a corollary explaining the basis for our cleavage to empiricism in the first place. namely, the universally apprehended nature of entity-centric experience. that corollary is obvious: spirit is never created or lost, but only transformed. this is a deeper understanding of the same principle of entropy and how it relates to the abstract foundation of conscious experience. after all, why would you say that empiricism is necessary, if all that exists is energy?
optimus prime is a transformer - you should understand this stuff! then again, maybe you possess what angryfemme's been talking about. there goes her argument...
another example: you could say that the love a mother feels for her child is a highly ordered and complex system of interacting chemical, biological, and electromagnetic reactions occuring in the cerebellum of the mother organism as neural activity.
OR you could say that the love a mother feels is the complete surrender of her soul.
p.s. - the fool underestimates his opponents. consider your next post carefully, 'i eat shits like you for breakfast.'
JMcSmoky
2004-07-30, 16:18
You can neither prove nor disprove the existance of souls, so what's the point of arguing? You will never convince another person to discount their own intuition. I have a strong feeling that our brains are merely switchboards that connect our "selves" (or "souls" if you prefer) to our physical bodies, but if you want proof, I have none.
quote: (from article above)
Specifically, if the human mind is the product of a "ghost in the machine" and not simply the result of electrochemical interactions, then the mind should not be dependent on the configuration of the brain that houses it. In short, there should be aspects of the mind that owe nothing to the physical functioning of the brain.
That doesn't follow logic. That's like saying that a broken television should still show a picture as long as the cable is connected.
[This message has been edited by JMcSmoky (edited 07-30-2004).]
Dark_Magneto
2004-07-30, 18:54
quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:
You can neither prove nor disprove the existance of souls, so what's the point of arguing?
Actually, it depends upon one's definition of a soul.
I can and have disproven within reason the idea of a soul that contains your memories, personality traits, or any other defining characteristics of your personhood by simply citing medical case studies of brain disorders and demonstrating mind/brain dependence. It's a little lengthy, but I can reproduce the material here if you wish.
Digital_Savior
2004-07-30, 19:01
Please do. Interested in seeing it, without doing the footwork for evidence retrieval, for a change !
JMcSmoky
2004-07-30, 21:55
quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
Actually, it depends upon one's definition of a soul.
I can and have disproven within reason the idea of a soul that contains your memories, personality traits, or any other defining characteristics of your personhood by simply citing medical case studies of brain disorders and demonstrating mind/brain dependence. It's a little lengthy, but I can reproduce the material here if you wish.
If your modem is damaged, how would you know if there's a problem with your ISP?
Dark_Magneto
2004-07-31, 01:55
It's long been known that specific types of brain damage can cause massive personality and mental changes. Granted, other parts of the brain can be removed without noticeable ill effect on the mind, but so can relatively unimportant parts of other systems be damaged--the knees, heart, etc.--without causing those to fail. And even those "unimportant" parts, when removed, often impair the system's function in more subtle ways than can be easily detected.
In general, the nervous system provides very strong evidence for complete mind-brain dependence (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#part2). Conditions like Alzheimer's disease and amnesia can damage or even destroy parts of the mind in perfect unison with the appropriate brain sections.
"This patient, who suffered damage to both his hippocampus and his temporal lobes (thought to be important for storing memories) at age 46, has total anterograde and near-total retrograde amnesia: he cannot form new memories or recall old ones. He is trapped in a permanent present, a void of consciousness without memory.
Indeed, he has no sense of time at all. He cannot tell us the date, and when asked to guess, his responses are wild--as disparate [as] 1942 and 2013.... This patient cannot state his age, either. He can guess, but the guess tends to be wrong. Two of the few specific things he knows for certain are that he was married and that he is the father of two children. But when did he get married? He cannot say. When were the children born? He does not know. He cannot place himself in the time line of his family life. (Damasio 2002, p. 69-71)
(As Dr. Damasio tells us, the patient's wife divorced him over 20 years ago, and his children are long since grown up and married.) Does this man still have a soul? In what sense is he conscious? He is adrift in a world of darkness, a blank void with neither past nor future, merely an ever-moving present that continually fades from sight."
Damage to the frontal lobes can produce massive changes in both personality and mental abilities. Brain damage can even produce a person who's incapable of acquiring new memories - in effect, a mind trapped in the same time and place, one which will revert to his or her old memories every 15 minutes and nonchalantly ask his loved ones why they've aged so much after 20 years of asking them the same question.
A young priest once suffered a stroke that rendered him incapable of feeling sadness. Formerly compassionate and empathetic to his leukemia-stricken sister, he now made jokes about it and didn't understand why he should feel guilty about it. As his father commented, "... He looks like our son and has the same voice as our son, but he is not the same person we knew and loved... He's not the same person he was before he had this stroke. Our son was a warm, caring, and sensitive person. All that is gone. He now sounds like a robot."
"This wrenching story illustrates how a human property as fundamental as compassion arises from the brain and can be destroyed by altering the brain. A warm, caring, intelligent young man of God, as the result of brain damage, underwent a complete and drastic personality change. He became indifferent to his duties, unconcerned about the potentially fatal illness of a loved one, even light-heartedly joking about it with his grief-stricken parents, who said that he was "not the same person [they] knew and loved", not the same person he had been before his stroke. "
The author of that article, which explains a mass of other difficulties and cites many case studies, closes with this apt statement:
"The materialist can explain the effects of frontotemporal dementia without difficulty. How does the dualist explain it? What is happening to these people's souls? Is the deterioration of the brain causing changes to the soul - or are personality traits a quality of the brain and not the soul? But that implies that these traits will be lost upon death. In that case, in what sense will the soul in the afterlife be the same person it was during life?"
Not only does brain damage harm the mind, but certain bizarre conditions can even produce, for all intents and purposes, two damaged minds for the price of one healthy one.
"Research shows that in such split-brain cases, the brain generates what seems to be two separate consciousnesses. Research on split-brain patients led brain scientist and Nobel laureate Roger Sperry to conclude, 'Everything we have seen indicates that the surgery has left these people with two separate minds, that is, two separate spheres of consciousness. What is experienced in the right hemisphere seems to lie entirely outside the realm of the left hemisphere.'" I will expand on this particular point below
"Research shows that in such split-brain cases, the brain generates what seems to be two separate consciousnesses. Research on split-brain patients led brain scientist and Nobel laureate Roger Sperry to conclude, 'Everything we have seen indicates that the surgery has left these people with two separate minds, that is, two separate spheres of consciousness. What is experienced in the right hemisphere seems to lie entirely outside the realm of the left hemisphere.'"
I will expand on this particular point below.
Case studies in severed corpus callosum (http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/Wonder/split_brain.html) (the "split brain experiment" alluded to above) more or less spell the death knell for the soul. First, a bit of background on what we can learn from the different hemispheres in healthy people:
http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/Wonder/images/split2.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/Wonder/images/split2.gif">Left brain dominates for language, speech, and problem solving
Right brain dominates for visual-motor tasks[/b]
[i]"1. Each hemisphere was presented a picture that related to one of four pictures placed in front of the split-brain subject.
2. The left and right hemispheres easily picked the right card. The left hand pointed to the right hemisphere's choice, and the right hand pointed to the left hemisphere's choice.
3. The patient was then asked why the left hand was pointing to the shovel. Only the left hemisphere can talk, and it did not know the answer because the decision to point to the shovel was made in the right hemisphere."
This experiment indicates both sides of the brain are capable of individual thought in some capacity, as if each one had an independent mind. Now we just need to find out whether this curious effect is merely an artifact of our consciousness, or really at odds with self-awareness being the result of a single, indivisible paranormal spirit.
Certain epileptic patients that don't respond to conventional treatment sometimes get the brain halves severed from each other. Amazingly, both halves can go on to develop unique tastes, preferences and beliefs. This indicates once the data link is cut, both can effectively function as "half a soul." In turn, this is quite difficult to reconcile with any remotely traditional model of dualism.
Courtesy of the <A HREF="http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/UBNRP/Split_Brain/Behavior.html]Macalester College psychology department:
"Before the operation he integrated information between the two hemispheres freely, but after the operation he had two separate minds or mental systems, each with its own abilities to learn, remember, and experience emotion and behavior. Yet, WJ, was not completely aware of the changes in his brain. As Gazzaniga put it: "WJ lives happily in Downey, California, with no sense of the enormity of the findings or for that matter any awareness that he had changed." As previously explained (experiments), words flashed to the right field of vision of patients like WJ could be said and written with the right hand. In contrast, patients couldn't say or write words flashed to their left field of vision [even though they could pick out the object with their hand]."
One brain hemisphere is verbal but has difficulty with certain other functions, while the other can't really talk but has other traits that make up for it. Each of those can, in their own way, identify and describe reality around them, but neither hemisphere has access to the self-awareness or thoughts of the other. Splitting them produces all kinds of anomalous results, like this:
"The patients give evidence of having two differing minds. The best example of this is patient Paul S., whom you read about on the home page. Paul's right hemisphere developed considerable language ability sometime previous to the operation. Although it is uncommon, occasionally the right hemisphere may share substantial neural circuits with, or even dominate, the left hemisphere's centers for language comprehension and production. The fact that Paul's right hemisphere was so well developed in it's verbal capacity opened a closed door for researchers. For almost all split brain patients, the thoughts and perceptions of the right hemisphere are locked away from expression. Researchers were finally able to interview both hemispheres on their views about friendship, love, hate and aspirations.
Paul's right hemisphere stated that he wanted to be an automobile racer while his left hemisphere wanted to be a draftsman. Both hemispheres were asked to write whether they liked or disliked a series of items. The study was performed during the Watergate scandal, and one of the items was Richard Nixon. Paul's right hemisphere expressed 'dislike,' while his left expressed 'like.'"
In light of these and other facts, the existence of the soul is effectively falsified unless one postulates an enormous number of ad hoc hypotheses to salvage it from the data. A modus operandi that tells us nothing about truth, and in fact usually obscures it.
If the soul existed, people wouldn't suffer Alzheimer's disease, couldn't be anesthetized, wouldn't have radical personality changes caused by tumors, and would, if brain hemispheres were split, either die or show a mysterious, spooky data link was still operating at a distance to make both hemispheres consistent with a single mind.
The difference can best be described as thin-client/mainframe vs. personal computing. In one device, the "consciousness" would run on an inaccessible device some distance away from the client, getting its instructions from a network connection. Damaging the client (i.e. body) would leave the files and processes (consciousness) on the mainframe as safe as ever, but it would only produce erratic results in the client.
If a part of the client's processor was damaged, you would feel as fine and clear-headed as you usually would, but your sources of input from the physical world would progressively fail until the link was severed, at which point you would experience conscious, total sensory deprivation (assuming no other source of input was provided, this is a nightmarish scenario).
You couldn't lose any memories, personality and self-awareness, because it would be safe and indestructible on the server. At worst, you could only lose the ability to express it to others successfully as the body went, but it would affect all memories equally, not apparently destroy some while leaving others entirely untouched.
As a further analogy, you could destroy your client's ability to present Microsoft Word documents to others, but you could never find that a specific .DOC was missing on the mainframe from damage entirely limited to the client side.
This is not what occurs--in fact, the exact opposite is observed. People really forget things because of brain damage. Chemical changes in the brain can induce depression and other personality changes. Self-awareness itself goes bye-bye if you're knocked on the head, anesthetized or asleep. And, of course, the "soul" is somehow split in two, directly correlated with physical splits to the brain itself. Thus, there's only one conclusion you can honestly draw from the neurological evidence. You're not an indestructible entity using a fragile gateway to the physical world--you are the gateway, on which every single aspect of yourself is stored. Once it goes, so do "you." So enjoy it while it lasts.
Social Junker
2004-07-31, 05:44
quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
Thus, there's only one conclusion you can honestly draw from the neurological evidence. You're not an indestructible entity using a fragile gateway to the physical world--you are the gateway, on which every single aspect of yourself is stored. Once it goes, so do "you." So enjoy it while it lasts.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
TheDragonContinues
2004-07-31, 07:43
I'm very glad I clicked this link...very interesting shit. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)
Dark_Magneto
2004-08-01, 19:40
And that, in a nutshell, is why souls don't exist.
Unless of course you want to postulate a soul that doesn't do anything and isn't responsible for anything; which would just make it some superfluous third-party vestige that has nothing to do with you as a person at all (in which case it could be reasonably removed from the equation altogether, leading us back to the verdict).
[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 08-01-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
You're not an indestructible entity using a fragile gateway to the physical world--you are the gateway, on which every single aspect of yourself is stored. Once it goes, so do "you." So enjoy it while it lasts.
Oh - if you are the gateway, then WHAT is using you for a gateway ?
Social Junker
2004-08-01, 21:43
quote:Originally posted by Uncus:
Oh - if you are the gateway, then WHAT is using you for a gateway ?
Nothing is using us as a gateway, the human brain is the gateway. Let's say I had one of those conditions mentioned, where I couldn't remember anything except for 2 minutes. Upon my death, would the soul that was using my brain for it's gateway to this world, suddenly remember what I've been doing for the last 20 years I was that way? Because a soul is nothing without your memories.
No, he didn't say "the human brain is the gateway", he said "you are the gateway" which is absolutely not the same thing. So the question "then what is using you for a gateway", or "what are you a gateway for", is logical.
stumblemonkey
2004-08-02, 07:16
Why do we all lose 21 grams when we die? I wouldnt think a soul would weigh anything though. mass is a human concept.
[This message has been edited by stumblemonkey (edited 08-02-2004).]
yourlokalcommie
2004-08-02, 07:47
quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:
I dedicate my 1000th post to disproving the existence of the soul. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Thanks to Dark_Magneto, who originally posted this in a topic in SoD. It's a long read, but an interesting read, and it might also be an old read, I don't know, wasn't in the archive.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html
All I can say is thanks for the awesome link, what a great read! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)
Dark_Magneto
2004-08-02, 08:06
quote:Originally posted by stumblemonkey:
Why do we all lose 21 grams when we die? I wouldnt think a soul would weigh anything though. mass is a human concept.
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp)
MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiousity, but nothing more.
An interesting counterpoint to this item is another widespread belief of those long-ago times, one which held that the human body gained weight after death — the exact opposite of what Dr. MacDougall was attempting to prove
JMcSmoky
2004-08-02, 19:51
I don't understand what links studies about brain damage with the existance of souls. Maybe a soul can't properly communicate with a damaged brain. With the spilt-brain patients, what if the soul is forced to communicate with each half of the brain separately since there is no connection between the two. Maybe souls are dependent on a healthy, normally-functioning brain.
I'll use the television analogy again:
Think of your brain as a television, and the signal it is receiving through the cable as your soul. If the television (brain) is damaged, the picture will surely be distorted and will not be a true representation of the cable signal (soul). The true signal (soul) is still there, but isn't recognizable since the television (brain) is damaged.
Social Junker
2004-08-02, 23:19
If the soul was real, why would it have to depend on the brain at all?
i don't see the connection between souls and memories. it's never made that much of a difference to the existence of the soul in my experience. i can't remember what i had for lunch 253 days ago, does that mean my soul has forfeited its connection to the perennial sacred truth underlying the simulacrum of the material world? the soul is the inviolable aspect of awareness that survives the meaningless events that accumulate and conspire towards its defeat. it's the hidden eye.
JMcSmoky
2004-08-02, 23:54
quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:
If the soul was real, why would it have to depend on the brain at all?
Maybe it has something to do with the LAWS OF PHYSICS that must be followed in this material universe of ours.
Social Junker
2004-08-03, 01:18
quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:
Maybe it has something to do with the LAWS OF PHYSICS that must be followed in this material universe of ours.
Oh yes, of course, physics, it all makes sense now...
quote:Certain epileptic patients that don't respond to conventional treatment sometimes get the brain halves severed from each other. Amazingly, both halves can go on to develop unique tastes, preferences and beliefs. This indicates once the data link is cut, both can effectively function as "half a soul." In turn, this is quite difficult to reconcile with any remotely traditional model of dualism.
(bold by myself)
In this article, the soul has been confused with the personality. Obviously, the tastes, preferences and beliefs developed by the two halves of this patient's brain are elements making up his personality. What you like or don't like, prefer or don't prefer, want to believe or don't want to, these are proper to your personality.
What is usually understood by the term "soul" is the indestructible part of you, the part that can't die. So calling such a half brain "half a soul" is not exactly the right way of seeing it. They are the physical counterpart each of half a personality.
He was only "refuting" the notion of the soul carrying memories and other personal preferences. He cannot refute anything else, much like nobody can refute the notion that an invisible elf exists in the planet GORTHARK-5...
Peckerhead
2004-08-04, 00:41
i would let another guy suck me off but i would not touch him at all ok
Social Junker
2004-08-04, 04:01
quote:Originally posted by Uncus:
Certain epileptic patients that don't respond to conventional treatment sometimes get the brain halves severed from each other. Amazingly, both halves can go on to develop unique tastes, preferences and beliefs. This indicates once the data link is cut, both can effectively function as "half a soul." In turn, this is quite difficult to reconcile with any remotely traditional model of dualism.
(bold by myself)
In this article, the soul has been confused with the personality. Obviously, the tastes, preferences and beliefs developed by the two halves of this patient's brain are elements making up his personality. What you like or don't like, prefer or don't prefer, want to believe or don't want to, these are proper to your personality.
How can the soul and personality be separate? Isn't your personality what makes you "you"? "What you like or don't like, prefer or don't prefer, want to believe or don't want to", aren't these things you would consider vital to your identity?
If these things are not a part of your soul, then what is? Is the soul just pure energy with no human features? Then why believe in an afterlife?