Evolution and the soul

[pig]

Not so Ed. A supernatural soul could not be detected but its interaction in animating the physical body could.

In fact, if you think about the information rate, a signal large enough to overcome thermal noise in cells would light up like a Christmas tree on any medical scan.

The absence of this evidence means we can scientifically rule out many theories of soul, for instance all forms of substance dualism.

The soul is a spiritual substance not an electron stream, so you cannot detect it with instruments.

 

[inocente]

The soul is a spiritual substance not an electron stream, so you cannot detect it with instruments.

That’s exactly what I said. But the soul must interact with the body, and that interaction could be detected.

For instance, suppose you believe the soul is the immaterial source of thoughts, then for you to speak or write down a thought, which are physical actions, the thought must first cause some physical effect in your body. This physical interaction would be detectable, and easily within the range of current instruments.

The lack of detection allows us to rule out any type of immaterial soul which interacts with the body. The soul (if it exists) must instead in some way be the body, for example the form of the body as the CCC has it.

 

[pig]

That’s exactly what I said. But the soul must interact with the body, and that interaction could be detected.

For instance, suppose you believe the soul is the immaterial source of thoughts, then for you to speak or write down a thought, which are physical actions, the thought must first cause some physical effect in your body. This physical interaction would be detectable, and easily within the range of current instruments.

The lack of detection allows us to rule out any type of immaterial soul which interacts with the body. The soul (if it exists) must instead in some way be the body, for example the form of the body as the CCC has it.

Cannot remember where but I once saw an imaging technique mapping activity in the brain, the conclusion was that thoughts are not housed in separate different areas but similar ideas can be seen causing activity in any part of the brain.
If ones brain material was causing a particular thought then the thought is first the material, and the material for a particular thought should, logically, remain in one place. But it is not so. A though moves across the brain activating different places and has no set location.
So the thought originates fully formed and uses whatever areas of the brain it wants without being affected.
The soul and body are joined.

 

[inocente]

Cannot remember where but I once saw an imaging technique mapping activity in the brain, the conclusion was that thoughts are not housed in separate different areas but similar ideas can be seen causing activity in any part of the brain.
If ones brain material was causing a particular thought then the thought is first the material, and the material for a particular thought should, logically, remain in one place. But it is not so. A though moves across the brain activating different places and has no set location.
So the thought originates fully formed and uses whatever areas of the brain it wants without being affected.
The soul and body are joined.

You’re making a wrong inference. A thought isn’t a static thing or a cargo being moved around in the brain. A thought is the firing of trains of neurons, it is the dynamic activity itself, and so it’s expected that it moves across the brain.

If a thought originated fully formed then it would necessarily arrive as a net energy pulse which could be detected (and which, btw, would break the principle of conservation of energy, since the energy would not have a physical origin). But no energy pulse has ever been detected, so your theory is ruled out by the evidence.

Sorry about that, but evidence is evidence.

 

[pig]

You’re making a wrong inference. A thought isn’t a static thing or a cargo being moved around in the brain. A thought is the firing of trains of neurons, it is the dynamic activity itself, and so it’s expected that it moves across the brain.

If a thought originated fully formed then it would necessarily arrive as a net energy pulse which could be detected (and which, btw, would break the principle of conservation of energy, since the energy would not have a physical origin). But no energy pulse has ever been detected, so your theory is ruled out by the evidence.

Sorry about that, but evidence is evidence.

Don’t get ya. A thought comes from somewhere. Does not need to be an energy pulse. Just a mysterious spiritual-like prompt to stimulate all the necessary neurons to fire at the correct time. A thought just waiting on random neurons to fire correctly would be an evolving thought with spare legs and heads appearing and disappearing all over the place. As it is a thought is formed at once, complete, and can use many or any neural networks.

 

[inocente]

Don’t get ya. A thought comes from somewhere. Does not need to be an energy pulse. Just a mysterious spiritual-like prompt to stimulate all the necessary neurons to fire at the correct time.

A neuron is stimulated to fire by incoming electrical pulses. Where does your “mysterious spiritual-like prompt” get the electrical energy? Not to mention how does it marshal that energy to exactly the right neurons in exactly the right order?

*A thought just waiting on random neurons to fire correctly would be an evolving thought with spare legs and heads appearing and disappearing all over the place. As it is a thought is formed at once, complete, and can use many or any neural networks.
*

You agree that neurons within a train of thought are stimulated to fire by other neurons, so why can’t other neurons start a thought? Why introduce another completely different way of doing things with this “mysterious spiritual-like prompt” business?

 

[LaramieHirsch]

If my interpretation is correct, he questions why human beings proclaim to have a ‘soul’ when animals do not have one-- being that, in his case, human beings are products of the evolutionary process, which we have traits derived from animals.

Human beings are not animals. We are half animal, half angel.

I’ve found that many racial supremacists utilize the theories of evolutionary biology to justify that the white race is the most developed, and thus, the most likely race to get to Heaven. Of course, most of those folks don’t even practice any kind of faith.

I mean, if we use evolution to explain men (instead of Scriptures or Catholic Tradition), then we find that the different races are different evolutionary steps in the formation of what we know of human beings.

And then, we have the question of: who has the best morality genes? Who is best genetically predisposed to be in a moral ethnicity? I’ve even heard some racial supremacists argue that certain ethnicities are biologically suited to be a parasite class–through evolution.

I ascribe to none of this, of course. Instead, I enjoy sharing E. Michael Jones’ take on our soul. He rejects the idea of evolutionary biology affecting how our souls work.

“Our thoughts, however, are a function of our minds, and, although we can affect our minds by manipulating the chemistry of our brains through alcohol and drugs, the logic of our thoughts is independent of the functioning of our brains…”

“The mind can apprehend Logos; the brain cannot. The moral code is part of the Logos; it is not “inscribed in our genes.” If it were, Moses would not have needed the 10 Commandments (especially since his followers had super DNA) because what happens genetically happens automatically…”

“God has inscribed much information into the genetic code, but the moral law is not to be found there. It is part of the Logos than can only be apprehended by the intellect and implemented by the will…”

---

If we follow E. Michael Jones’ thought on this–that the soul/mind is independent of the brain, and that the mind (not the brain) will seek out Logos–perhaps we can discount the idea that animals have a mind. Or perhaps not. Now that I think of it…I’m not sure about animals, to be honest.

-L.H.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A neuron is stimulated to fire by incoming electrical pulses. Where does your “mysterious spiritual-like prompt” get the electrical energy? Not to mention how does it marshal that energy to exactly the right neurons in exactly the right order?

You agree that neurons within a train of thought are stimulated to fire by other neurons, so why can’t other neurons start a thought? Why introduce another completely different way of doing things with this “mysterious spiritual-like prompt” business?

Probably because this electrical pulse explanation reduces to causal determinism. Where does free will, the capacity to (name removed by moderator)ut into or originate novelty in the causal order, come from? This capacity is left unexplained.

Furthermore, explaining all the functional processes does nothing to explain the “hard problem” of consciousness. We can imagine all of these neural processes taking place without the need for someone, i.e., a conscious subject, to be a present witness.

Certainly, an assumption could be made that consciousness is merely a “cast off” of the processes taken together. However, that is only an assumption.

 

[pig]

A neuron is stimulated to fire by incoming electrical pulses. Where does your “mysterious spiritual-like prompt” get the electrical energy? Not to mention how does it marshal that energy to exactly the right neurons in exactly the right order?

You agree that neurons within a train of thought are stimulated to fire by other neurons, so why can’t other neurons start a thought? Why introduce another completely different way of doing things with this “mysterious spiritual-like prompt” business?

I’ll give you two examples;

1. In my job I rely heavily on inspiration. An inspired idea is fully fledged. It doesn’t start as one neuron emitting an electron, then another etc. The idea pops fully formed into the mind, from where I do not know.
   In your explanation how does the first neuron fire and why. Where did the net extra energy pulse thing come from?
2. Because this is a catholic board; when Jesus rebuked St. Peter what did he say; Get behind me satan!, - but wait a minute, it was St. Peter speaking, his thoughts, his neurons firing, but Jesus said it was satan. Did satan inspire the idea in St. Peters mind? When Jesus said to St. Peter that he had prayed for him, that the devil had requested to sift Peter as you sift chaff what was it the devil had in mind for Peter? Was it purely physical testing or would he try to impress Peters thoughts also.

 

[inocente]

Probably because this electrical pulse explanation reduces to causal determinism. Where does free will, the capacity to (name removed by moderator)ut into or originate novelty in the causal order, come from? This capacity is left unexplained.

I think it’s time to stop listening to ye olde time free will denying clockwork universe philosophers when we’ve known for a century that determinism isn’t the same as fatalism.

*Furthermore, explaining all the functional processes does nothing to explain the “hard problem” of consciousness. We can imagine all of these neural processes taking place without the need for someone, i.e., a conscious subject, to be a present witness.

Certainly, an assumption could be made that consciousness is merely a “cast off” of the processes taken together. However, that is only an assumption.*

Philosophers might find it hard, but that’s because they’re trying to solve it in one bound without any research. Exploring the brain has only just begun, for instance fMRI scanners have only been around for twenty years, so a bit of patience is needed, it’s too early to expect explanations of high order processes.

Consciousness has great value for survival as it provides a dynamic means to adapt. Think about all the conscious effect needed to learn a complex task (e.g. driving, or speaking another language). You couldn’t have done that without consciousness.

 

[inocente]

1. In my job I rely heavily on inspiration. An inspired idea is fully fledged. It doesn’t start as one neuron emitting an electron, then another etc. The idea pops fully formed into the mind, from where I do not know.

We’re not conscious of most of what goes on in our heads. Ideas form in thoughts outside conscious awareness, then suddenly enter consciousness.

In your explanation how does the first neuron fire and why. Where did the net extra energy pulse thing come from?

Neurons fire because something happens in the nervous system, e.g. we perceive something move, a sound, a pain, or because of another thought. There is no extra energy because everything involved is in the physical universe. Whereas a supernatural soul is outside nature, so the energy of a thought would suddenly pop into the physical universe, but none shows up on instruments.

2. Because this is a catholic board; when Jesus rebuked St. Peter what did he say; Get behind me satan!, - but wait a minute, it was St. Peter speaking, his thoughts, his neurons firing, but Jesus said it was satan. Did satan inspire the idea in St. Peters mind? When Jesus said to St. Peter that he had prayed for him, that the devil had requested to sift Peter as you sift chaff what was it the devil had in mind for Peter? Was it purely physical testing or would he try to impress Peters thoughts also.

If satan was in Peter’s mind then Peter would be a robot without free will. I think Jesus is just speaking figuratively, definitely not speaking to satan as He says "You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns”.

 

[pig]

We’re not conscious of most of what goes on in our heads. Ideas form in thoughts outside conscious awareness, then suddenly enter consciousness.

But you only changed the words inspiration to ‘thoughts outside conscious awareness’; you might have said fairies or leprechauns either. It does not offer any more explanation than saying inspiration.

Neurons fire because something happens in the nervous system, e.g. we perceive something move, a sound, a pain, or because of another thought. There is no extra energy because everything involved is in the physical universe. Whereas a supernatural soul is outside nature, so the energy of a thought would suddenly pop into the physical universe, but none shows up on instruments.

How do you determine exactly if a thought has a super-natural origin or not; the instruments would only show neural activity; they cannot, I presume, point to the cause.

If satan was in Peter’s mind then Peter would be a robot without free will. I think Jesus is just speaking figuratively, definitely not speaking to satan as He says "You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns”.

He would be a robot if he was possessed but the devil can tempt without possession. The devil is a spiritual being, he has no physical reality to cause neurons to fire - you might say. But his conversations on earth were real enough to fire neurons: Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. 10 Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: …

 

[fnr]

How do you determine exactly if a thought has a super-natural origin or not; the instruments would only show neural activity; they cannot, I presume, point to the cause.

What one can say is that in cases of brain damage affecting one particular location in the brain, the function of those neurons stop. Lesions in a brain affect our consciousness. If so, using Ockham’s razor, since it’s unnecessary to invoke a spiritual mechanism, we should say that that conscious activity is based in the physical material of the brain. Otherwise, we’re imposing a particular bias based on trying to fulfill our desire that our souls be similar to our conscious selves.

The devil is a spiritual being, he has no physical reality to cause neurons to fire - you might say. But his conversations on earth were real enough to fire neurons:

An exclusively spiritual being doesn’t need neurons as we understand them to think. In fact, since we have no idea how a spiritual being thinks, we shouldn’t say that we can infer anything from their speech about how our minds work. We are both spiritual and physical beings, and all available evidence points to our consciousness being an emerging from the human nervous system.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Consciousness has great value for survival as it provides a dynamic means to adapt. Think about all the conscious effect needed to learn a complex task (e.g. driving, or speaking another language). You couldn’t have done that without consciousness.

This is a claim, that, as far as it goes, is incredibly lacking in substance.

Salmon spend two years in the ocean then return to the same spot where they hatched in order to spawn again. Are you claiming salmon could only do this complex task with consciousness? Can your consciousness accomplish the same? Monarch butterflies do something similar, only extended over two generations. That would be impossible if consciousness were required because it is not the same butterflies, it is a second generation, that return to their birthplace.

There are languages in the animal world. Bees use body movements. Are they demonstrating the necessity of consciousness in this process?

Certainly, we could not have done these things without consciousness because we are our consciousness. We are subjectively aware beings. That very subjectivity defines who and what we are. That, however, is a far cry from proving that consciousness is a necessary condition for those complex tasks to be realized at all by any creatures. Consciousness may be the way that conscious beings are able to do those things, but that does not show those things could not be done without consciousness. Even the phenomenon of blind sightedness demonstrates that complex tasks, done by humans, can be accomplished without consciousness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…all available evidence points to our consciousness being an emerging from the human nervous system.

All available evidence doesn’t “point to” anything about consciousness. Certainly, there is speculation about emergence, but it is only that.

In Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Douglas Hofstadter, ascribes something like emergent consciousness to an ant colony since the colony has goals and processes that are not reducible to those of individual ants. The problem with his argument is that consciousness as a primary characteristic need not be present in the colony itself because those goals and processes may have been “assigned” by the design of a higher consciousness, i.e., God., so need not be operative in the colony as emergent from ant activity.

 

[inocente]

But you only changed the words inspiration to ‘thoughts outside conscious awareness’; you might have said fairies or leprechauns either. It does not offer any more explanation than saying inspiration.

Errr… you claimed that ideas pop fully formed into your mind, I pointed out that as you are not consciously aware of most of what goes on in your head, all you can rationally claim is that ideas pop fully formed into your consciousness.

But by all means explain exactly how inspiration works in your supernatural soul, and I’ll then give my explanation to the same level of detail. (From past debates with others, I predict the supernatural explanation won’t explain much. )

*How do you determine exactly if a thought has a super-natural origin or not; the instruments would only show neural activity; they cannot, I presume, point to the cause. *

Conservation of energy.

He would be a robot if he was possessed but the devil can tempt without possession. The devil is a spiritual being, he has no physical reality to cause neurons to fire - you might say. But his conversations on earth were real enough to fire neurons: Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. 10 Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: …

Are you saying satan is a physical or a spiritual being.

 

[inocente]

This is a claim, that, as far as it goes, is incredibly lacking in substance.

Salmon spend two years in the ocean then return to the same spot where they hatched in order to spawn again. Are you claiming salmon could only do this complex task with consciousness? Can your consciousness accomplish the same? Monarch butterflies do something similar, only extended over two generations. That would be impossible if consciousness were required because it is not the same butterflies, it is a second generation, that return to their birthplace.

There are languages in the animal world. Bees use body movements. Are they demonstrating the necessity of consciousness in this process?

Certainly, we could not have done these things without consciousness because we are our consciousness. We are subjectively aware beings. That very subjectivity defines who and what we are. That, however, is a far cry from proving that consciousness is a necessary condition for those complex tasks to be realized at all by any creatures. Consciousness may be the way that conscious beings are able to do those things, but that does not show those things could not be done without consciousness. Even the phenomenon of blind sightedness demonstrates that complex tasks, done by humans, can be accomplished without consciousness.

I’m not making any claims, as I said theorizing about consciousness seems a waste of time until more research is done, until then it’s just laying bets. You seemed to be questioning whether there’s any point to consciousness and I put forward a possibility.

Salmon and butterflies are only capable of memorizing a limited task, they can’t learn Greek or rocket science or motorcycle maintenance. Similarly, while bees’ cognition is surprising advanced (at least it surprises me) their language is limited to saying where the flowers are.

Whereas our abilities to learn and conceptualize are essentially unlimited, and I don’t see how that could be without consciousness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not making any claims, as I said theorizing about consciousness seems a waste of time until more research is done, until then it’s just laying bets. You seemed to be questioning whether there’s any point to consciousness and I put forward a possibility.

Not my claim at all. I am saying physiological processes do not explain consciousness. Consciousness is crucial to what and who we are, but that reality is not reducible to physics or chemistry.

As to not making any claims, this - “A thought is the firing of trains of neurons, it is the dynamic activity itself…” is a claim.

A thought may be associated with or correlated to a firing of neurons, but to say it is only the firing of neurons is an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Not my claim at all. I am saying physiological processes do not explain consciousness. Consciousness is crucial to what and who we are, but that reality is not reducible to physics or chemistry.

As to not making any claims, this - “A thought is the firing of trains of neurons, it is the dynamic activity itself…” is a claim.

A thought may be associated with or correlated to a firing of neurons, but to say it is only the firing of neurons is an unsubstantiated claim.

What would be wrong if it was only a ‘huge parallel’ firing of neurons?
We don’t know the answer but at the current state of our knowledge it seems as the most probable scenario.

 

[fnr]

All available evidence doesn’t “point to” anything about consciousness. Certainly, there is speculation about emergence, but it is only that.

What can one conclude about brain lesions in traumatic injury or stroke patients when their families talk about how their emotional states are not the same as they once were? The husband who loses his temper easily following a small stroke? What about synesthesia… people smelling blue and tasting cold?

As to evidence, the instantiation of neural activity in a brain does not say that the “form” of consciousness is non-physical.

In Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Douglas Hofstadter, ascribes something like emergent consciousness to an ant colony since the colony has goals and processes that are not reducible to those of individual ants. The problem with his argument is that consciousness as a primary characteristic need not be present in the colony itself because those goals and processes may have been “assigned” by the design of a higher consciousness, i.e., God., so need not be operative in the colony as emergent from ant activity.

Science has really no need for teleology, and seems to be doing pretty well without it.