When does a baby recieve it's soul?

[TjW]

That's why we carry dumbass sticks.

AKA the "clue by four"?

 

[Rasmus]

I'm simply saying that I can explain how Timmy's brain functions, with it's inputs and outputs and processes, or how Johnny's brain does- but I can't explain how my brain does. What turns a mess of chemical reactions and electrical potentials into consciousness?

First of all, your experiment assumes that you do understand all the relevant parts of how a brain works and then are able to model them precisely.

If you did that, then it would be entirely possible that your hamsters created concousness.

The computer would probably not be conciouss as long as you only simulated the brain. If you actually build a machiene that had all the properties of a brain, it would most likley be concious.

The problem, of course, is to actually get there.

I read about evolution-models in hardware design once. Using a programmable processor and an evolutionary model for developing the chip layout, the system arrived at a particualr chip that was running some kind of timer, IIRC.

It turned out that the final design was a lot more efficient than anything that would have been designed by engineers given the same task. The researches then tried to isolate those parts of the chip that were responsible for the desired function. It turned out, that parts of the chip were involved, that were not connected to any electricity. The researchers concluded that the mere presence of them must have influenced the running system (maybe by changing magnetic or electrical fields ever so slightly)

Now, my memorieds here are vague and goggle wasn't exactly helpful.

But I wouldn't be suprised if it was discovered that braincells can influence each other without being conected in any obvious way. That wou,d mkae it awfully hard to model the entire thing.

Rasmus.

 

[JohnF_73]

I remember reading the same (or similar) article in the UK magazine FOCUS. They showed a layout of a circuit designed by digital evolution, and said it was more efficient (though more complex) than the human designed one.

However, we couldn't figure out why.

There was one section of the circuit board which connected only to itself, not to anything else on the board. And you'd think... surely we can remove that bit. But if you did, then the circuit didn't work.

Disclaimer : I'm not an engineer and my memory is human, and FOCUS isn't woo-proof.

 

[wtslim]

I fear we're getting into off-topic territory a bit here. Apologies to those who were expecting to read about babies...

I am by far no expert - but since there is nothing in the brain but the chemistry (including the electricity, of course) it just cannot be anything else.

To say that "it just cannot be anything else" is to end science right there. I find this irrational. There could be any number of other natural components in the brain that we are presently unable to detect.

To suggest that the mind comes from anything other than the brain seems silly to me.

To suggest that anyone has answered the question "where does 'mind' come from?" seems silly to me.

So what kind of thing (or non-thing?) are you advocating? What would go beyond brain chemistry?

I don't know. As I stated previously, I'm not a cutting-edge theorist by trade. But I hope that scientists aren't presently saying to themselves, "brain chemistry is the only answer to all our questions about the human traits of sentience, individual personality, feelings, etc.." Chemistry/electricity may be the best paths available to them currently, but I doubt that they have completely closed themselves off to new naturalistic theories.

It seems you haven't necessarily closed yourself off either, as you mention in another post...

But I wouldn't be suprised if it was discovered that braincells can influence each other without being conected in any obvious way.

The obvious ways brain cells might be connected are chemically or electrically, but if no answer is found in either realm, theorists would likely start to look for other naturalistic explanations for this "influence." This might be well ahead in the future, so we aren't really qualified or prepared to even conceptualize such matters as yet. My point here is that science never says "this is all we know about X topic, and all we'll ever know. We must only explore these avenues."

I do dissagree. The above sentence doesn't actually tell me anything. There's a dozen ways of interpreting it. It does in no way tell me why that person is able to learn to play music with absolute ease.

No one has discovered yet what it is about the human condition that affords some people extreme talents in areas like music, while others who attempt the same, even with incredible effort, never achieve anything close. It's presently a mystery.

In context, perhaps after hearing details of the life of a musical prodigy such as Itzhak Perlman or Jimi Hendrix, I don't believe it's unclear to state "this person seems to have music in their soul." This is a way to identify that there is something truly unique, mysterious and special in this person's physical construction. The statement doesn't have to mean that the mystery can never be uncovered using naturalistic means (i.e. that it's purely mystical or paranormal), only that it's something we presently don't understand, and have no extremely precise way of discussing.

For kicks, I tried this out on another skeptic, and she seemed to get my gist without any further argument or conversation. I guess the word "soul" is offensive to some, for whatever reason. I can respect that. I don't wish to force my understanding of the term on others, only to engage in some lively discussion.

I know I'm not the first to offer a secular usage of the word "soul." There is plenty of literary/philosophical precedent out there, as others have suggested in this thread. In the end, it's a subjective rhetorical argument. That being the case, I'm content agreeing to disagree.

WTS

 

[exarch]

To suggest that the mind comes from anything other than the brain seems silly to me. As others have pointed out, that is hardly a complete answer to all of our questions and a lot remains to be learned and discovered.

[...]

So what kind of thing (or non-thing?) are you advocating? What would go beyond brain chemistry?

[...]

no, of course not. And nobody is saying that now. But whatever new answers there will be, they will all somehow boil down to what the brain chemistry is doing.

To misquote the ID-ers when they are misunderstanding science:
What good is half a brain?

I think even as a thought experiment, that is a very good question to start with, and definitely an interesting path to follow when trying to figure out how the brain works. Don't look at the space shuttle and think you'll figure out any time soon how every part functions. Start looking at the Wright brother's creation, a very simple mechanism, although not very effective compared to what we have today. Then move on to biplanes, all the way up the ladder to jet planes and space shuttles. Always seeing the same parts returning, and similar functions repeating, but every time looking a little bit different, and working in just a slightly more sophisticated manner. More fail-safes, and also more weaknesses and things that can go wrong. At least you'll know, when you've come to the end of that path, that even the space shuttle in all it's intricacy definitely wasn't assembled by a tornado blowing through a junk yard, it's still a machine with 100'000 moving parts all made by the lowest bidder. It's a remarkable feat of engineering, but it's still only engineering.

Anyway, I think that's enough quotes taken out of context for one evening.

 

[exarch]

In context, perhaps after hearing details of the life of a musical prodigy such as Itzhak Perlman or Jimi Hendrix, I don't believe it's unclear to state "this person seems to have music in their soul." This is a way to identify that there is something truly unique, mysterious and special in this person's physical construction. The statement doesn't have to mean that the mystery can never be uncovered using naturalistic means (i.e. that it's purely mystical or paranormal), only that it's something we presently don't understand, and have no extremely precise way of discussing.

Maybe it's just me, but if I would hear someone say "Jimmy Hendrix has music in his soul", I would instantly lump that person in the same group of people as those annoying wannabe art critics who are at a gallery trying to impress bystanders by spouting crap like "negative space" or "unquantifiable redness" or "crystallized emotion" or other nonsense like that, trying to sound intelligent. They usually haven't got a clue what they're talking about either, but they sure think they sound SO incredibly smart when saying it, and their friends are all going "Why yes indeed, you're absolutely right", meanwhile thinking up some of their own nonsense to quote right back at them.

But that's just me, you know.

 

[Rasmus]

To say that "it just cannot be anything else" is to end science right there. I find this irrational. There could be any number of other natural components in the brain that we are presently unable to detect.

I was saying "brain chemistry" when I actually meant "anything so long as it's naturalistic". I was oversimplyfying and not making that obvious.

To suggest that anyone has answered the question "where does 'mind' come from?" seems silly to me.

Well, answering it with "from the brain" seems as plausible as saying that babys come from their mother. You could of course go into a lot more detail, and eventually find bits and pieces that you cannot explain fuly - but the initial answer still remains true.

It seems you haven't necessarily closed yourself off either, as you mention in another post...

Not at all. But I am sure that we won't find an answer that resides outside what the body is and does.

No one has discovered yet what it is about the human condition that affords some people extreme talents in areas like music, while others who attempt the same, even with incredible effort, never achieve anything close. It's presently a mystery.

So what do you think the word "soul" does to solve that mystery?

In context, perhaps after hearing details of the life of a musical prodigy such as Itzhak Perlman or Jimi Hendrix, I don't believe it's unclear to state "this person seems to have music in their soul."

Yes: If you have other information that tells you what you are talking about, then you have a pretty good chance of understanding what someone means when they talk about soul.

I have no clue who Perlman is. You're telling me he has music i nhis soul tells me he is probably a musician. (Might turn out he is a composer, or a conductor. Maybe a dancer?)

This is a way to identify that there is something truly unique, mysterious and special in this person's physical construction.

How truly unique can it be, when oyu just used two different people in your example? Was I supposed to understand that you meant to say that their music was somehow unique?

Can two people have music in their soul if what they do is very much alike?

The statement doesn't have to mean that the mystery can never be uncovered using naturalistic means (i.e. that it's purely mystical or paranormal), only that it's something we presently don't understand, and have no extremely precise way of discussing.

You are getting further and further away from what I wou,d understand it to mean ...

For kicks, I tried this out on another skeptic, and she seemed to get my gist without any further argument or conversation. I guess the word "soul" is offensive to some, for whatever reason. I can respect that. I don't wish to force my understanding of the term on others, only to engage in some lively discussion.

I don't find your using of the term offensive. I just think it's a bad choice of words, since you could always find a more precise way of expressing what you want. In fact, you are doing it all the time when constructing your examples.

I know I'm not the first to offer a secular usage of the word "soul." There is plenty of literary/philosophical precedent out there, as others have suggested in this thread. In the end, it's a subjective rhetorical argument. That being the case, I'm content agreeing to disagree.

I can live if you use the word.

Rasmus.

 

[Ducky]

True. But then again I can't prove that there 'isn't' a purple kangaroo jumping around in the forrests of north east Minnesota either.

I have witnessed this. The purple kangaroo was named "Quohog" and was very helpful in encouraging me to finish the last of the bottles of rum.

By the way, when you run out of rum, he's a total ass. Dude peed all over my clothes and carpet just to spite me...

 

[hellaeon]

Regarding music and the soul, I have been playing for a number of years on the drums in an underground music scene. My bands enjoy relatively decent success given the music and the scene I am within. We are considered competent muso's. I think it has nothing to do with music being in my soul or that jazz (no pun intended), its more so, practice makes perfect and I study the trends within the scene to help market my band. Most of the bands that stay dormant and get nowhere are bands with too much emphasis on just half the deal like 'spirit' in the music, doing it for the love etc, then complaining when their 'true' dedication to the core of the style gets them nowhere.

wtslim you mentioned: "No one has discovered yet what it is about the human condition that affords some people extreme talents in areas like music, while others who attempt the same, even with incredible effort, never achieve anything close. It's presently a mystery."

Its just the same as me trying to do advanced maths and I struggle with it, while someone else just gets it first go. Yet that same person struggles in the said bands to get anywhere and are amzing musos, yet I seem to get on the right bills, get geood crowds, know the right people etc etc and would readily admit my bands are not based in the complete high end of musicianship 100% of the time.

perhaps this is more an experience thing? But doesnt that come back to practice makes perfect?

thoughts

 

[uncy]

If I'm not mistaken, the book of Leviticus says somewhere, it's been awhile..., that the soul is not of thy flesh, but of thy blood. Since it takes about 18 days for the circulatory system to form in a freshly conceived fetus, then abortion is ok as long as it's within the first 18 days. This also means the, "Day After Pill," is ok.

 

[PBTree]

On skepchicks, someone posted a SNL-skit about cloning. Something about cloned babies having a hyphenated sign, like Leo-Aries.

Maybe all politicians are clones and we haven't been told (another coverup).

This would certainly explain their hyphenated sign. R-Souls.

 

[Aepervius]

About this soul thing

I am not a skeptic in any sense of the term. I am an atheist, and all those stuff where people suppose the existence of new entity (God, UFO, Soul, Sasquash, Telepathy, real purple jumping kangaroo) I always dismiss derisivly unless they bring controllable evidence (which never happen). So for soul, they do not exists, we are only a mass of brain tissue really well connected and a lot of chemical reaction. Seeing how the simplest animals with neuron function, and how it goes as the neural tissue get more complex as you go toward more neural tissue, I see no evidence of the need of another "super" entity over the physical brain.

Now if there are satanist which believe in souls and wwant to buy one, YES I have one to sell ! My Price : Plenty of Money, Women .

 

[drfrank]

I remember reading the same (or similar) article in the UK magazine FOCUS. They showed a layout of a circuit designed by digital evolution, and said it was more efficient (though more complex) than the human designed one.

However, we couldn't figure out why.

There was one section of the circuit board which connected only to itself, not to anything else on the board. And you'd think... surely we can remove that bit. But if you did, then the circuit didn't work.

Disclaimer : I'm not an engineer and my memory is human, and FOCUS isn't woo-proof.

A mystic engineer one showed me a sacred magic circuit that is made only of two lengths of wire that are physically separate from each other. However, the power of electrickery was astoundingly transferred from one to the another.

I believe he called it a... transformer

For my money, the circuit board may just exploit the inductance properties in this section in some odd way that wouldn't be obvious to a human designer, so this story could well be true.

 

[CurtC]

There was one section of the circuit board which connected only to itself, not to anything else on the board. And you'd think... surely we can remove that bit. But if you did, then the circuit didn't work.

This story doesn't pass the sniff test for me. I assume this was a computer program that "evolved" the circuit - right? The computer program (SPICE simulator or whatever) only understands what humans have programmed into it for how electricity behaves. It would be fairly straightforward to take that model and tweak around with its circuit parameters to figure out how it was doing its thing.

And if it was not electrically connected, and no explicit inductance coupling either, then a standard SPICE simulator wouldn't handle that, and you'd have to use a high-end FE field simulator, which are good at coupling effects but not good at whole circuits.

And I can't imagine that it could be done in hardware instead of software evolution - the cycle to get a piece of silicon fabbed is too expensive and has too long of a turn-around time for that.

The story just doesn't seem to hold up.

 

[Rasmus]

And I can't imagine that it could be done in hardware instead of software evolution - the cycle to get a piece of silicon fabbed is too expensive and has too long of a turn-around time for that.

It was hardware, though. Don't ask me about the specifics, but apparently they were using some kind of "programmable chip" where you could easily change it's internal setup.

This time google did tell me that there is something called a ""Field Programmable Gate Array", which apparently does just that. Again, from memory, the experiments setup was of such kind, that a separate computer (software, so to speak) evaluated the performance of a chip'S layout and generated the setup for the next generation; the actual circuits were real, though.

Rasmus.

 

[wtslim]

"annoying wannabe art critic"??? <i>Ad Hominem</i> Alert!!

Maybe it's just me, but if I would hear someone say "Jimmy Hendrix has music in his soul", I would instantly lump that person in the same group of people as those annoying wannabe art critics who are at a gallery trying to impress bystanders by spouting crap like "negative space" or "unquantifiable redness" or "crystallized emotion" or other nonsense like that, trying to sound intelligent. They usually haven't got a clue what they're talking about either, but they sure think they sound SO incredibly smart when saying it, and their friends are all going "Why yes indeed, you're absolutely right", meanwhile thinking up some of their own nonsense to quote right back at them.

But that's just me, you know.

Based on that outburst, I'm not sure I want to know...

Comparing me to an <i>art critic</i>? C'mon, Exarch, I'm a reasonably congenial fellow. I never called you any dirty names!

What's down the slippery slope, "new ager?" "Closet fundamentalist?" "Intelligent design proponent," for cripes sake??

Let's agree to keep the pointed jabs to ourselves and stay on-topic, k?

 

[CurtC]

This time google did tell me that there is something called a ""Field Programmable Gate Array"

Yeah, that makes it a lot more practical. I tend to think of circuits hard-wired on silicon, but a program to evolve a design on an FPGA I guess could be done.

It's kinda interesting that the ID folks point to complexity itself as the hallmark of design, while our real-world experiences show that intentional design tends to be straightforward, while things that evolve tend to be complex and Rube-Goldbergesque.

 

[wtslim]

Whoops, annoying newbie alert!

Apologies for the misplaced HTML in my previous post! I got it right the first couple of times I tried it, but had a brain-spaz that time around.

I've been reading the JREF forum for quite some time, but have to admit I'm still a newbie when it comes to posting here.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Soapy Sam]

"I fear we're getting into off-topic territory a bit here. Apologies to those who were expecting to read about babies..." - wtslim

Don't worry about this . It happens in all interesting threads. There are lots of facets to the question and lots of opinions accordingly.

Mu own view is that the "soul" is there from the start. From the moment of fertilisation. Except of course, I don't think it's a soul. I think it's a process, namely life - which is chemistry at least as much as the moving picture on a TV screen is chemistry. Nothing nuclear going on inside a TV set , and everything else is chemistry. The outputs of chemical action get more complex as the chemistry does. In my view one such output is life and another is awareness, which is, I think what you mean by "soul" in this thread.

While I'm going to pass on the hamster question (eek!), I have been criticised in another thread because in my view awareness is an emergent property of life and can only be created by going through the process of ontogenic development. (Quote Haeckel at me if you please). Accordingly, while I'm certain computers can eventually reproduce most complex behaviour currently seen as the sole ability of living things, I am far from convinced that they will ever produce a consciously aware entity. Some folk on the forum see this as quasi mysticism. So you see we are all different here. Vive la difference!

Nb-HTML is not permitted since the upgrade last year.

 

[writerdd]

I'm sure someone must have said this already, but I dind't read the entire thread.

There is no such thing as a soul.