The Problem With The Supernatural

[drkitten]

You use know within quote marks, why?

As so-called "scare quotes," because I recognize that in a philosophical context like this, precision of writing is important.

In particular, I recognize that there is room for reasonable doubt regarding the question of whether or not the soul exists; some people are quite vehement that it does, others are equally vehement that it does not, and the question remains unresolved.

On the other hand, there is no reasonable disagreement that the soul is immaterial, because that's what the word means. (Similarly, we "know" that Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit, that unicorns have a single horn, that Superman is sensitive to kryptonite, and that Hamlet's mother is named Gertrude.) You can tell me that Superman doesn't exist and I will agree. No rational person will agree that Bilbo Baggins is a Nazgul.

 

[Senex]

OK, drkitten believes in a soul. The only reason for a soul is to say that the soul lives on after death and goes somewhere. Probably heavon or hell but ask Drkitten what he believes.

The truth is you are stone cold dead forever after death. Where did anyone come up with the idea of a soul. That person was a woo.

There isn't a smidgen of evidence in god. Nothing -- nada -- empty. Let's challenge Drkiten for evidence in god. Evidence for god doesn't exist and never will. Evidence for having a soul isn't anymore likely than I might fly with what is in my garage to the next Yankees home game.

Can Drkitten respond?

 

[my_wan]

On the other hand, there is no reasonable disagreement that the soul is immaterial, because that's what the word means. (Similarly, we "know" that Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit, that unicorns have a single horn, that Superman is sensitive to kryptonite, and that Hamlet's mother is named Gertrude.) You can tell me that Superman doesn't exist and I will agree. No rational person will agree that Bilbo Baggins is a Nazgul.

I used to argue with my mother about the nature and ontology we associate with a spirit or soul. My contention was that even if we assumed spirits and spiritual laws exist they would have to be defined within the context of physical laws. That even spiritual laws would have to be defined by the limits of what physical laws could say. For instance strictly speaking physical law by itself can't even define which car hit which in an accident. This holds even under Galilean Relativity. Our laws presuppose free will.

She believed that spiritual matters lay outside of and totally independent of the physical universe altogether. She once found a definition of spirit somewhere that stated, "like the air, not possessing solid form". To this I pointed out that God is often described in the bible as light and that this air analogy fits well with a physical interpretation of a spiritual world if you suppose one exist. The only other option is to assume the physical world is not really physical at all but an allusion created within the spiritual world using spiritual laws. That would mean that physical laws are a subset of spiritual laws making the whole argument one of semantics.

 

[The Atheist]

I know a number of quite reasonable people who believe that consciousness can only be explained as the result of a supernatural cause (it's the "soul," which distinguishes them from crude matter). And, unfortunately, "soul" is current the best and most explanatory description of consciousness that we've got going; despite the fact that it simply substitutes one undefined term for another, it doesn't make a pretence of minimizing the issue. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a fully satisfactory expanation, but it's the best of a bad lot.

I don't need a "mathematical equation" for consciousness, but a causal explanation would be nice. "God created our souls in his image" is at least causal. "Luck" isn't, nor is a vague wave of the hands and a muttering of the mystic incantation "neural architecture."

(bolding mine)

Fascinating discussion now. I had a look at the start and saw nothing of interest, but this is a subject I don't mind joining the derail with. No doubt someone will ask for it to be split if they desire.

I'm having a wry chuckle at the accusations of "woo" and theism being thrown at you. I'm copping a lot of the same myself, lately.

I did enjoy this one:

If you choose to hold your ground I stick by my opinion creation will be explained by math someday and will continue the discusion if you wish. Just remember you are now the woo guy believing in souls.

Anyway:

I have a friend - I don't think he'd mind me calling him a friend! - who just happens to be one of the smartest people on the planet, a 100% Roman Catholic, and a research theoretical neuroscientist. I checked out his work independently and he is recognised as a world authority in his field, with a huge variety of international publications, along with the obligatory MSc in Physics and PhD in his field.

He is quite adamant that his belief in god is all about the fact that neither he, nor any of his colleagues, can offer any physical explanation for the "soul"; neither does he believe one will be found. This is a bloke who "found god" because he felt that the christian god offered the only realistic explanation.

My opinion, which isn't even worth being called humble - I'm a businessman, not a bleeding scientist - is that the answers will be discovered and will have a physical origin and explanation. I saw someone put it well the other day, when he posited that "consciousness" was merely Instinct v9.1 rather than Consciousness v1.0.

I'd probably personally favour "communication & language" being a simple evolutionary trait and consciousness evolving from that.

How would you go on the premise that "soul" or "consciousness" is a construct from the ability to communicate? I'm a fan of Orwell's theory that language is the basis of thought rather than the other way around and I can see how what we perceive as "soul" could merely be a function of the brain using language as it developed. That being the case would mean that true artifical intelligence is possible.

I think that's an important qualifier to any debate on "soul". If it doesn't have a supernatural aspect, we must, at some stage be able to create an "artificial" kind, although, obviously, once we manage it, it won't be artificial. (Which even almost gets us back to the OP question!)

 

[Senex]

(bolding mine)

Fascinating discussion now. I had a look at the start and saw nothing of interest, but this is a subject I don't mind joining the derail with. No doubt someone will ask for it to be split if they desire.

I'm having a wry chuckle at the accusations of "woo" and theism being thrown at you. I'm copping a lot of the same myself, lately.

I did enjoy this one:

Anyway:

I have a friend - I don't think he'd mind me calling him a friend! - who just happens to be one of the smartest people on the planet, a 100% Roman Catholic, and a research theoretical neuroscientist. I checked out his work independently and he is recognised as a world authority in his field, with a huge variety of international publications, along with the obligatory MSc in Physics and PhD in his field.

I don't believe in souls -- Let's get ready to Rumble...

 

[Jeff Corey]

Sorry to drop in so late, but I think that Drkitten may believe, similar to me, that there no evidence for souls, but private evidence for "consciousness".
Why are some of you accusing the Good Dr of believing in wooish things?

 

[my_wan]

Sorry to drop in so late, but I think that Drkitten may believe, similar to me, that there no evidence for souls, but private evidence for "consciousness".
Why are some of you accusing the Good Dr of believing in wooish things?

It seems to be a difference in the willingness to even try and frame a legitimate question about souls. I'm with DrKitten in that there is nothing wrong in defining the relative differences in strength in ideas we can discredit. DrKitten was intellectually honest in not trying to claim that this relative difference should translate to belief or even evidence. Trying to frame new ways to question is what science does no matter how heretical the idea being questioned. Suggesting that the question itself is science or truth is heretical and woo does this. It is merely a prerequisite to do science. DrKitten never even claimed to frame a legitimate question but merely defined the strengths of questions already asked. If to be a skeptic precludes me from even trying to ask questions about heretical concepts then I would be forced to disavow skepticism. Skepticism is a tool to avoid being deluded about finding answers where none exist, not a rule against asking questions.

 

[drkitten]

OK, drkitten believes in a soul. The only reason for a soul is to say that the soul lives on after death and goes somewhere. Probably heavon or hell but ask Drkitten what he believes.

It would probably have been a better idea to ask me what I believed before you made a statement about what I believed. Because, I'm afraid that once again you got it wrong.

I don't believe that there is a soul; I'm agnostic about it, in the strong sense; I believe not only that I don't know, but that you don't know -- and that you cannot know.

The truth is you are stone cold dead forever after death.

Really? The "truth"? Despite the fact that there's no more evidence to suggest the non-existence of the soul than there is to support the existence?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Despite the fact that there's no more evidence to suggest the non-existence of the soul than there is to support the existence?

The traditional definition, which seems to be what you're talking about, is against the evidence. We've all seen consciousness destroyed and the traditional definition of a soul says it can't be destroyed. And the original conception of immaterial runs into violations of conservation laws.

 

[drkitten]

We've all seen consciousness destroyed.

Have we? Your eyes must be better than mine; I've never even seen consciousness at all; my only knowledge of it comes from my personal experiences, and of course, that hasn't been destroyed.

I admit that I've seen bodies that no longer appear to experience consciousness -- but that doesn't mean that the consciousness itself has been destroyed, any more than the Internet goes away when my computer turns off.

 

[drkitten]

I'm having a wry chuckle at the accusations of "woo" and theism being thrown at you. I'm copping a lot of the same myself, lately.

God must love fools, for He made so many of them....

My opinion, which isn't even worth being called humble - I'm a businessman, not a bleeding scientist - is that the answers will be discovered and will have a physical origin and explanation. I saw someone put it well the other day, when he posited that "consciousness" was merely Instinct v9.1 rather than Consciousness v1.0.

That's a popular opinion, although very rarely is it expressed that well. I may steal that line myself. The problem, of course, is "what changed between version 9.1 and 9.0?" If you suggest that 9.1 was conscious, but 9.0 wasn't, then presumably there's something that happened in between, something that we can point to as the cause of consciousness, and
we've got the unsolved and potentially unsolvable problem of how qualia (such as consciousness) can emerge from the purely physical.

How would you go on the premise that "soul" or "consciousness" is a construct from the ability to communicate?

I'd have to look at it more closely, but initially, I'm not impressed. One of the fundamental problems is that Orwell's theory is empirically wrong, which makes it somewhat shaky as the basis for further theorizing.

I think that's an important qualifier to any debate on "soul". If it doesn't have a supernatural aspect, we must, at some stage be able to create an "artificial" kind, although, obviously, once we manage it, it won't be artificial. (Which even almost gets us back to the OP question!)

Yup. But the flip side is the implication that if we can't create an artificial "soul," then it has a supernatural aspect. Obviously, we can't prove inability to do something. But the longer we work on something without success, the more likely its impossibility becomes. Most scientists are currently convinced that we can't build perpetual motion machines....

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, you were talking about evidence,meaning what's evident. And complaining about special pleading earlier.

Most people, seeing a car totalled in accident, don't go off looking for a loophole by saying "maybe it's essence of carness is floating around somewhere".

 

[Senex]

I don't believe that there is a soul; I'm agnostic about it, in the strong sense; I believe not only that I don't know, but that you don't know -- and that you cannot know.

Now that you have seen the light again we can be friends again. Souls are silly and shouldn't come between friends.

Souls can't be seen or measured or shown to have existed by any measure. Religious people use souls as a fantacy vehicle to show how people who believe in their woo will live forever after their body is buried in the ground. Some people believe that 90+ virgins will be at their disposal after death. These people won't be surprised after death because once they die they are dead and won't be conscious to realize they were tricked. Tricked is tricked. I suggest you don't be tricked by anyone who promises you life after death. Once you die that's it. Throw out your embarrassing pornography if you are sick. Someone will discover it and have to decide what to do with it. Do what I do and have a "porn buddy" who knows where your stash is and will throw it out before your family moves in.

 

[drkitten]

Most people, seeing a car totalled in accident, don't go off looking for a loophole by saying "maybe it's essence of carness is floating around somewhere".

We also don't have a multi-millenium philosophical tradition telling us that "carness" is immortal and can never be destroyed. Part of the appeal of the soul hypothesis is that it doesn't involve Argumentam ad Really-us Bad-us Analogiam.

 

[tsg]

That's a popular opinion, although very rarely is it expressed that well. I may steal that line myself. The problem, of course, is "what changed between version 9.1 and 9.0?" If you suggest that 9.1 was conscious, but 9.0 wasn't, then presumably there's something that happened in between, something that we can point to as the cause of consciousness,

It's only a problem if you assume there is a definite dividing line between conscious and not. It may be that 9.0 is merely "mostly conscious", and 8.97.04r2 only slightly less conscious than that. And there may be a 9.2 that is even more conscious than we are now.

and we've got the unsolved and potentially unsolvable problem of how qualia (such as consciousness) can emerge from the purely physical.

This assumes that qualia exist at all.

 

[drkitten]

This assumes that qualia exist at all.

They do. That's axiomatic -- I've experienced them. So (I assume) have you.

 

[tsg]

They do. That's axiomatic -- I've experienced them. So (I assume) have you.

If you are talking about the broad "what it is like" definition of qualia, then there is nothing to preclude them from being a purely physical response. If you are talking about the more narrow definitions, there's nothing axiomatic about it.

 

[Jimbo07]

They do. That's axiomatic -- I've experienced them. So (I assume) have you.

Unless, of course, consciousness is illusory, right? We may have imposed the words qualia and consciousness on things that we simply lack the ability to communicate about with other animals. It may represent more of a limit to our abilities, than some difference in kind.

Taffer and I had a lot of fun with the computer analogy in another thread, but let me go with the version analogy posed here:

If v9.1 cannot communicate its new features with v9.0, those features are not backward compatible. There may simply be a new desktop interface, but you haven't gone from 16 to 32 bits!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Unless, of course, consciousness is illusory, right?

An illusion is still a thing that requires an explanation though.

 

[drkitten]

If you are talking about the broad "what it is like" definition of qualia, then there is nothing to preclude them from being a purely physical response.

... and equally nothing to suggest it. Add to that the fact that no system known to be "purely physical" can be observed to exhibit qualia, and your assertion becomes even more shaky.