The Problem With The Supernatural

[drkitten]

I'll refresh myself on the Chinese room argument later but unless something major has happened recently it's certainly not an ironclad argument.

Of course it's not an ironclad argument. (So you needn't bother.) It doesn't need to be an ironclad argument for a rational person to believe it. It simply needs to be not-demonstrably-wrong.

There's a middle ground between "provably true" and "provably false." With our current state of understanding, and into the foreseeable future, the statement "consciousness arises from computation" occupies that uneasy middle ground where rational people can disagree about it. As does the statement "the soul exists and causes consciousness."

 

[drkitten]

I would contend that all avenues of understanding could be kept in the realm of philosophy forever if one is so inclined to arrange their definitions in order to make it so.

Agreed. But I'm not quite arrogant enough to claim ownership of the Oxford English Dictionary. If you think they got the word wrong, write them and let 'em know. I think they're on Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, UK.

 

[rittjc]

The problem with the supernatural is that it can NEVER in any way be proven.

Consequently, no attempt to do so is any more than a waste of time in 100 percent of all cases, no exceptions.

Here is the point:

Be it religion or any other beliefs, what test could any scientist design to PROVE that an observed mystery phenomenon is truly supernatural or simply the result of a perfectly natural process we do not yet understand? In other words, how can we distinctly differentiate between an as yet unknown natural explanation for a mystery phenomena as opposed to a genuinely supernatural cause of that same phenomena?

Think carefully about it. It is a critical question worthy of serious scientific consideration.

Long-term experience has proven repeatedly for thousands of years that just because we cannot explain something at the moment, does not qualify the assumption that it is obviously supernatural in origin or character based on that fact.

Anthropologic studies demonstrate this in the documented beliefs of primitive peoples, many of whom still believe in supernatural causes of things we now know the scientific explanation of beyond doubt.

Those who want to believe in religious miracles or other supposed supernatural mysteries take solace in the fact that no scientist can disprove them and thus often feel smug, pompous, arrogant and firmly secure in their beliefs. Such individuals seem entirely clueless to the obvious fact that this in no way justifies anything whatsoever in which they believe.

The supernatural cannot be proved simply by the fact that you cannot find another more rational explanation at the moment.

This is the general law derived from my own observations:
You can prove that a supernatural belief is false in some cases, but you can never prove that any supernatural belief is true in any cases.

It's that simple.

The challenge, "How else can you explain it?", just isn't a valid challenge anymore.

The natural and supernatural cannot be differentiated by any kind of scientific test that anyone can devise, now or forever.

I would like to hear some thoughts on this subject from other skeptics of the supernatural, whether or not they agree.

Same thing with evolution. It can never be proven. The thing is that supernatural is required as the physical has a beginning and and end so you can guarantee that evolution was not that process.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Don't suppose you could find the kid's table could you?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If you think they got the word wrong, write them and let 'em know.

Which word? I didn't have a single word in mind when I said that. Several, even many, words could be at issue.

There's a middle ground between "provably true" and "provably false." With our current state of understanding, and into the foreseeable future, the statement "consciousness arises from computation" occupies that uneasy middle ground where rational people can disagree about it. As does the statement "the soul exists and causes consciousness."

But what I'm looking for is what attribute does the word "soul" have that makes that a valuable statement. Sugar is sweet because it is sugar does not add anything. And it appeared to me that rather than adding anything to the explanation of consciousness the word "soul" merely brought in further baggage that only expanded the need for explanation.

Do you necessarily believe that consciousness must, at it's source, involve violations of some conservation laws? Some of the baggage (immaterial) on the list of attributes of the soul would imply violations of conservation laws.

 

[my_wan]

The problem with the supernatural is that it can NEVER in any way be proved.

Consequently, no attempt to do so is any more than a waste of time in 100 percent of all cases, no exceptions.

The logic is a little backward depending on how you define "supernatural". Ostensibly any reasonable definition of "supernatural" requires its nonexistence. If I could read minds or some other skill defined as supernatural then there is no reason I couldn't prove that. What can never be proved is that it is impossible to read minds (proving a negative). There is therefore reason to investigate even extremely unlikely hypotheses. What is absurd is to cling to the same hypotheses that have repeatedly proved false under a definition that defines itself as false, which is what woo does.

Once EEGs are made small, cheep, and sensitive enough we will replace remote controls, computer mice, light switches, etc with direct intention. Technology will eventually supply us with many of the same powers we now consider woo. I want my telephone/internet/tv in my sunglasses controlled directly by my intentions/brain. Jewelry is unlikely to remain just jewelry.

 

[zooloo]

Yup. I believe I more or less stated that myself. It does, however, provide a deeper explanation than simply "consciousness exists."

Telling me that the drink is sweet explains nothing. Telling me that the drink is sweet because it contains sugar at least provides an explanation for the aspect in terms of its constituents. I still don't know why sugar tastes sweet, but I do know why the drink is.

It seems to me you are, in regards to using the word soul, in effect saying it's sweet because of sweet stuff in it.

The soul remains undefined in any meaningful way. What is your rational evidence you can cite to render the opinion that the soul exists and causes consciousness?

 

[drkitten]

It seems to me you are, in regards to using the word soul, in effect saying it's sweet because of sweet stuff in it.

Largely. But that's not as meaningless as you seem to think. See below.

The soul remains undefined in any meaningful way.

Not at all. Tradition has given us an extensive, if somewhat vague, definition of the "soul"; for example, we "know" that it is immaterial and therefore that it will not be found via anatomical dissection. We "know" that it is eternal and therefore does not develop as part of childhood. And so forth.

But beyond that, we "know" that the soul is a substance, or at least a kind of "stuff." Saying that a drink tastes sweet "because of sweet stuff in it" is actually more useful than you think; it suggests that the reasons for the sweet taste should be found, for example, in the composition of the drink, and not in the circumstances under which it is drunk. If
the reason for the sweetness is in the ingredients, then drinking it out of a different container should not change the essential sweetness.

A drink is sweet because it has sweet stuff in it. But a girl isn't sexy because she has "sexy stuff in her." A child isn't smart because he has "smart stuff" in him. An elephant isn't big because it has "big stuff" in it. If RecoveringYuppy is correct, and consciousness is merely a function of computation, then any suitably-configured collection of molecules could become conscious -- and consciousness could be produced or destroyed by messing with the configuration. But if consciousness is caused by the presence of an immaterial soul, merely rearranging the components will not create consciousness.

The soul-hypothesis suggests that consciousness is a property of composition, not of arrangement, behavior, or quantity. That's hardly "meaningless" -- and in fact, directly contradicts much of what has been written about computation-as-consciousness (which is a behavioral criterion).

Actually -- at the risk of beating a dead horse -- RY is somewhat self-contradictory in his arguments. He talks on the one hand about "emulating intelligence" as a criterion, which of course is behavioral. But he also talks about "a computer with connections similar to the brain" as being sufficient for consciousness -- and that, of course, is a criterion of arrangement. This is just the hardware/software distinction, of course. Would brain-like hardware automatically be conscious, or is there some special software that the hardware would need to run to achieve consciousness? (The answer, of course, is currently "we don't know," with a very real possibility that this is completely the wrong line of inquiry to begin with.)

So we have at least three different and incompatible theories as to how consciousness arises. It's the hardware, or it's the software, or it's the soul independent of the hardware and software. It's hardly meaningless or empty to suggest that the third possibility is the uniquely true one.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Actually -- at the risk of beating a dead horse -- RY is somewhat self-contradictory in his arguments. He talks on the one hand about "emulating intelligence" as a criterion, which of course is behavioral. But he also talks about "a computer with connections similar to the brain" as being sufficient for consciousness -- and that, of course, is a criterion of arrangement. This is just the hardware/software distinction, of course. Would brain-like hardware automatically be conscious, or is there some special software that the hardware would need to run to achieve consciousness? (The answer, of course, is currently "we don't know," with a very real possibility that this is completely the wrong line of inquiry to begin with.)

The line between hardware and software is not at all distinct. Software can be encoded directly in to connections. Computation is a process, so yes a program has to be running. How hard, firm or soft those programs are doesn't seem particularly important to me. I expect there will be a wide range of options on this front, just as there appear to be a wide range of conscious brains on the planet.

If RecoveringYuppy is correct, and consciousness is merely a function of computation, then any suitably-configured collection of molecules could become conscious -- and consciousness could be produced or destroyed by messing with the configuration.

And isn't that the case?

 

[drkitten]

The line between hardware and software is not at all distinct.

It's a continuum, yes. But that doesn't make the two concepts identical.

Penrose has proposed, for example, that "consciousness" requires a specific type of QM support in a particular neural structure. If Penrose is correct, as he almost surely is not, then no program running on a general-purpose Turing Machine can be conscious. Of course, a strong-AI proponent would disagree.

And isn't that the case?

That messing with the body can create or destroy the soul? Quite the contrary, according to traditional philosophy.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, create or destroy consciousness.

 

[drkitten]

No, create or destroy consciousness.

Well, if the soul is the source of conciousness (as traditional philosophy holds), and if messing with the body will not affect the soul (also as traditional philosophy holds), then messing with the body will not create or destory consciousness, but merely the expression of consciousness.

Q.e.d.

Of course, you can disagree with the premises. That doesn't make people who agree with the premises "unreasonable."

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Maybe not, but it does overcomplicate and I really haven't seen anything to support the original assertion that brought me in to the conversation that the "soul" explanation is the best explanation. In fact, I've only see how it complicates the explanation.

 

[Senex]

Dr. Kitten,

I'm sorry that you now find yourself on the defense when your beliefs on a small issue has gathered momentum against you. The only reason to believe in a soul is to believe that you will survive death and move on to a better place after you die. That's not conventional wisdom on this site. You're a pretty sharp fellow when other issues are discussed.

You say animals don't have souls but many of us believe in evolution. My dog is not a deep thinker, but he thinks like a person. If you believe in souls and evolution then when were souls given out. Souls is an excuse for god in your theory. You believe in god. There is no evidence for god. Why would god let choose to have evoltution and at an abrbitrary time decide to give these animals souls and not others.

Souls = ********. If my dog doesn't have a soul than you don't have a soul. We all developed from the same animal kingdom.

 

[drkitten]

I'm sorry that you now find yourself on the defense when your beliefs on a small issue has gathered momentum against you.

Wrong on at least three counts, Senex. I'm not on the defensive, they're not "my" beliefs, and I don't see any momentum gathering. I do, however, see a lot of people trying to engage in various forms of special pleading.

The only reason to believe in a soul is to believe that you will survive death and move on to a better place after you die.

Also wrong, I'm afraid. How may Hindus think that they will survive death and return to exactly the same place?

You say animals don't have souls but many of us believe in evolution.

Wrong again. I'm not the one saying that animals don't have souls -- Aristotle, and centuries of philosophers following him, are the ones saying that.

I merely point out that no one has yet managed to disprove Aristotle. If the best I can manage to do is to recognize that Aristotle is a pretty sharp cookie, I'm happy with that.

My dog is not a deep thinker, but he thinks like a person.

This is utter nonsense, but I will forgive you for it. Certainly, dogs show a lot of behavior that could be considered "intelligent" under a broad definition, there's a lot of stuff that they don't do that people naturally do. Are you familiar with Gallup's "dot test," for example? If you see yourself in a mirror and have a smudge (or a dot of paint) on your face, you will recognize it as belonging to your face, not to the face of the person in the mirror. Gallup showed that only a few other species -- most notably, some of the great apes (chimps, bonobos, orangutans, and humans), but also dolphins and elephants -- will "pass" this test. Dogs and cats, in particular, will not; there seems to be a fundamental difference between your "consciousness" and a dog's. Where you see yourself in the mirror, your dog "sees" another dog.

Something else that dogs don't do is have a theory of mind. Humans (and some great apes), for example, will engage in deception. Dogs don't (or at least have never been observed to). Only humans appear to be able to envision situations that are not present (engage in hypotheticals. I could come up with dozens more examples of how human cognition is unique.

That you might not like the soul-hypothesis isn't an argument against it, and doesn't make it wrong.

 

[drkitten]

I really haven't seen anything to support the original assertion that brought me in to the conversation that the "soul" explanation is the best explanation.

It's really quite simple. Souls are known to be rational and conscious. That's part of the definition, and you can check the OED if you like. That doesn't mean, of course, that souls exist any more than it means that unicorns (which are known to have one horn and be fond of virgins) exist. But so far, the non-existence of souls is not proven, either. It remains an open question.

So the explanation "Humans are conscious because they have souls" explains exactly as much as the statement "this drink is sweet because it contains sugar." We explain the properties of the whole by reference to the properties of a part which is known to contain that property.

In contrast, "Humans are conscious because they are computers" is entirely inadequate as an explanation; there are other computers that are not conscious.

"Humans are conscious because they are computers running the right software" is only marginally better. At least this distinguishes myself from my Pentium; I'm running the right software and it isn't. But this suggests that "the right software" exists and that if we could write it, we could make my Pentium conscious. In this regard, it's just like a "soul"; some people believe that the right software exists, others don't. However, unlike souls, this still leaves open the question about why (some) "software" is conscious. "Souls" are conscious by definition; no further exploration is needed. Software, however, is not. Some software is almos certainly not conscious. So what distinguishes "conscoius" software from "unconscious" software?

 

[Senex]

Wrong on at least three counts, Senex. I'm not on the defensive, they're not "my" beliefs, and I don't see any momentum gathering. I do, however, see a lot of people trying to engage in various forms of special pleading.

That you might not like the soul-hypothesis isn't an argument against it, and doesn't make it wrong.

Well, I think I made my point without getting ugly and picking apart sentences you wrote. You wrote some sentences that were easily taken apart.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Not that this refutes or changes your argument, but just an interesting aside: Aren't dogs thought to have been mistested in that experiment? Like the color of the dot used was outside their visual range or something.

FWIW I think I saw one of my dogs have it's Aha! moment with a mirror. It was a new puppy checking out the house. Raised it's ears when seeing itself in the mirror, picked something up in it's mouth, dropped it, lost interest in the mirror and moved on.

I'd also swear I saw one of them lie twice in a row. The runt of the pack was being chased around the yard. When the game got too intense it barked as if something was coming in the driveway. Nothing was but the other dogs stopped and looked. The runt immediately ran over to the food bowls and acted like something was in them.

Just isolated anecdotes, of course.

 

[drkitten]

Not that this refutes or changes your argument, but just an interesting aside: Aren't dogs thought to have been mistested in that experiment? Like the color of the dot used was outside their visual range or something.

I haven't seen that particular criticism levelled; a much stronger criticism is simply that dogs, unlike humans, rely on smell as their primary sense, and so would naturally be much less interested/responsive to a visual-only image like a mirror. Humans are known to have a very difficult time recognizing their own voice, and I don't know how many humans could identify their own smell. But, of course, that simply strengthens the point that dogs and humans think differently....

 

[zooloo]

Not at all. Tradition has given us an extensive, if somewhat vague, definition of the "soul"; for example, we "know" that it is immaterial and therefore that it will not be found via anatomical dissection. We "know" that it is eternal and therefore does not develop as part of childhood. And so forth.
<snip>

You use know within quote marks, why?