Evolution and the soul

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheoloJer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
It is the most probable “natural” scenario, but even then there is no “hard” evidence that a huge parallel firing need generate anything like consciousness. Even then, why “my” consciousness? Why am “I” arising in this particular parallel firing in this particular body and not in some other one?
 
Science has really no need for teleology, and seems to be doing pretty well without it.
Pretending teleology does not exist is not the same as “doing pretty well without it.” What is the purpose of (ends for) a bird’s wings? The answer to that is a teleological one, i.e., to enable a bird to fly.
 
The Catholic Church teaches that all living things have souls (a spirit), as a spirit is the motivator of all that is living. Humans have the highest order of souls: Rational. Animals have sensitive souls, and plants have vegetative souls.
Proving that Aristotle is still a useful guide. The soul being the “form” of the body. Humans having an intellectual soul, the soul being the “who” that communicates with others. The Philosopher did not believe that the soul survived the body, however. Thomas has a different view, based on his biblical faith, which he squared with Aristotle, because Thomas was also a platonist. IAC, the modern view of the living being as a kind of machine, rather begs the question. For we must consider the “laws” that underlie that mechanism, which are essentially mysterious, and which do seem to “speak” to us, and for all we know, to animals as well. and even to the stones.
 
What would be wrong if it was only a ‘huge parallel’ firing of neurons?
Your Question itself would make no sense if we were “only a ‘huge parallel’ firing of neurons.” Nothing is right or wrong for a system of a ‘huge parallel’ firing of neurons. You can’t make any such judgement or choice. Any allusion of choice is just a neurological feedback loop trying to keep you actively searching for more food and gain better prospects for reproduction.

If you follow the logical result you could not believe in your own ability to choose. How can you have it any other way? How can you insist that we are just physically deterministic machines and yet claim you can make original thoughts not born of a random misfiring of a few neurons? This is arguing from reason that reason does not exist.

Catholics believe that there must be something more than the measurable or mathematically derivable uniquely our own called a soul that does bring us the use of choice and reason. If it could be described mathematically or measured physically, thus within the realm of scientific knowledge, it would be part of the material deterministic world and not be able to act independently of it.

The soul’s effects are present, but we can’t see it. That is why it’s under the class of things named spirit for it is like a breath of wind that we do not “see”, but is evident by what it does.
 
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.
Is there a difference between mind and consciousness? All you’ve managed to say is that ideas/inspiration pops into my mind. And I know that already. I told you that.
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. :D)
ok. In 1424 Joan of Arc experienced visions which told her to drive out the English and Burgundians, explaining that God supported Charles’ claim to the throne, supported Orleans’ captive overlord Duke Charles of Orleans, and had taken pity on the French population for the sufferings they had endured during the war.

Joan claimed the Archangel Michael was also present during the visions.

The vision, inocente. The visions. Tell me how did spiritual creatures speak to Joans mind.
Conservation of energy.
Who created energy?
Are you saying satan is a physical or a spiritual being. :confused:
What do you think? And answer the question please; how did he tempt Jesus if you think he could not speak/communicate with the mind of Jesus?
 
It is the most probable “natural” scenario, but even then there is no “hard” evidence that a huge parallel firing need generate anything like consciousness. Even then, why “my” consciousness? Why am “I” arising in this particular parallel firing in this particular body and not in some other one?
Why am “I” this soul and that soul? What’s the difference?
A spirit in a metaphysical understanding refers to the consciousness or personality. Why it can not be the brain and the nervous system?
 
Your Question itself would make no sense if we were “only a ‘huge parallel’ firing of neurons.” Nothing is right or wrong for a system of a ‘huge parallel’ firing of neurons. You can’t make any such judgement or choice. Any allusion of choice is just a neurological feedback loop trying to keep you actively searching for more food and gain better prospects for reproduction.

If you follow the logical result you could not believe in your own ability to choose. How can you have it any other way? How can you insist that we are just physically deterministic machines and yet claim you can make original thoughts not born of a random misfiring of a few neurons? This is arguing from reason that reason does not exist.

Catholics believe that there must be something more than the measurable or mathematically derivable uniquely our own called a soul that does bring us the use of choice and reason. If it could be described mathematically or measured physically, thus within the realm of scientific knowledge, it would be part of the material deterministic world and not be able to act independently of it.

The soul’s effects are present, but we can’t see it. That is why it’s under the class of things named spirit for it is like a breath of wind that we do not “see”, but is evident by what it does.
When you build a sentence, where it’s happening?
 
Pretending teleology does not exist is not the same as “doing pretty well without it.” What is the purpose of (ends for) a bird’s wings? The answer to that is a teleological one, i.e., to enable a bird to fly.
It seems to me your description of teleology is back-casting what we already know. A bird uses its wings for flight, but it wasn’t preconceived flight that made bird ancestors grow wings, but selective advantage brought by evolution. Same goes for legs, fins, and other means of locomotion.

To give a counter-example to the utility of teleological explanation of animal anatomy, what’s the purpose of an eye that’s no longer in use? Nothing, in evolutionary terms. To illustrate that this happens, here’s an abstract of a paper by W.R. Jeffrey (Journal of Heredity 2005:96(3):185–196; doi:10.1093/jhered/esi028; online at dx.doi.org):🙂
The evolutionary mechanisms responsible for eye degeneration in cave-adapted animals have not been resolved. Opposing hypotheses invoking neural mutation or natural selection, each with certain genetic and developmental expectations, have been advanced to explain eye regression, although little or no experimental evidence has been presented to support or reject either theory. Here we review recent developmental and molecular studies in the teleost Astyanax mexicanus, a single species consisting of a sighted surface-dwelling form (surface fish) and many blind cave-dwelling forms (cavefish), which shed new light on this problem. The manner of eye development and degeneration, the ability to experimentally restore eyes, gene expression patterns, and comparisons between different cavefish populations all provide important clues for understanding the evolutionary forces responsible for eye degeneration. A key discovery is that Hedgehog midline signaling is expanded and inhibits eye formation by inducing lens apoptosis in cavefish embryos. Accordingly, eyes could have been lost by default as a consequence of natural selection for constructive traits, such as feeding structures, which are positively regulated by Hh signaling. We conclude from these studies that eye degeneration in cavefish may be caused by adaptive evolution and pleiotropy.

The nervous system of humans cannot be conceived of as end-directed in causal logic that includes all relevant observations and theories consistent with those observations (though to say that God had no role in evolution is silly since time is a property of the spacetime of our universe and he exists outside it; we just can’t detect the difference with our spacetime-constrained minds). Our nervous systems came into being over gradual time, with evolutionary advantages being granted to our ancestors that allowed their genes to propagate. The “form” of human consciousness didn’t exist prior to the neural structures able to bear it.
 
Why am “I” this soul and that soul? What’s the difference?
A spirit in a metaphysical understanding refers to the consciousness or personality. Why it can not be the brain and the nervous system?
You need to ponder this question a little deeper. The type of neurological parallel firings that occur in my body also occur, we presume, in other similar human bodies. Why am I, the consciousness that makes me who I am, in this particular body an not some other one? Parallel firings do not explain that.

If you claim that the reason is because you just happen to be in whatever particular body you exist in, that answer is begging the question. Why am I in this body and not some other? There is no reason or explanation in parallel firings that explain why these firings result in me and not someone else. The only reason I know these particular firings result in me is because I am in this body and not some other. I could have been “housed” in any body and then been convinced that those firings would have naturally resulted in me, but they did not. Other bodies have similar firings and could have resulted in me, but they just happened to not result in me. Why not?
 
It seems to me your description of teleology is back-casting what we already know. A bird uses its wings for flight, but it wasn’t preconceived flight that made bird ancestors grow wings, but selective advantage brought by evolution. Same goes for legs, fins, and other means of locomotion.
Degeneration (given laws of entropy) would seem to be an easy one to answer by adaptation to environmental change, but the opposite process of actually constructing complex functional systems, like neural systems that integrate multi-sensual cues, from very basic cell functioning means that the capacity for such systems had to exist, at least potentially, in the prior forms in order for complex forms to evolve from basic precursors. The fact that such an incredible variety of complex functions as found in all plants and animals existed “potentially” in the first life forms, which themselves developed, accidentally, would seem to be an incredible stroke of blind fortune, when teleology would seem to have a more cogent and satisfying explanation. Especially since, as you say, the role of God from outside space/time cannot be summarily denied.

The difficulty gets even bigger when you factor in the astronomical improbability of basic functional proteins blindly assembling themselves from constituent amino acids required by the life forms that initially carried the capacity to evolve into the huge variety of life that exists today.
 
Originally Posted by wmw View Post
Your Question itself would make no sense if we were “only a ‘huge parallel’ firing of neurons.” Nothing is right or wrong for a system of a ‘huge parallel’ firing of neurons. You can’t make any such judgement or choice. Any allusion of choice is just a neurological feedback loop trying to keep you actively searching for more food and gain better prospects for reproduction.
If you follow the logical result you could not believe in your own ability to choose. How can you have it any other way? How can you insist that we are just physically deterministic machines and yet claim you can make original thoughts not born of a random misfiring of a few neurons? This is arguing from reason that reason does not exist.
Catholics believe that there must be something more than the measurable or mathematically derivable uniquely our own called a soul that does bring us the use of choice and reason. If it could be described mathematically or measured physically, thus within the realm of scientific knowledge, it would be part of the material deterministic world and not be able to act independently of it.
The soul’s effects are present, but we can’t see it. That is why it’s under the class of things named spirit for it is like a breath of wind that we do not “see”, but is evident by what it does.
When you build a sentence, where it’s happening?
Super followup. An irrelevant question following an irrational question. Tell me if you can convey any relevant notion as to where or anywhere any thought happens to the question of souls?
 
Degeneration (given laws of entropy) would seem to be an easy one to answer by adaptation to environmental change, but the opposite process of actually constructing complex functional systems, like neural systems that integrate multi-sensual cues, from very basic cell functioning means that the capacity for such systems had to exist, at least potentially, in the prior forms in order for complex forms to evolve from basic precursors. The fact that such an incredible variety of complex functions as found in all plants and animals existed “potentially” in the first life forms, which themselves developed, accidentally, would seem to be an incredible stroke of blind fortune, when teleology would seem to have a more cogent and satisfying explanation. Especially since, as you say, the role of God from outside space/time cannot be summarily denied.

The difficulty gets even bigger when you factor in the astronomical improbability of basic functional proteins blindly assembling themselves from constituent amino acids required by the life forms that initially carried the capacity to evolve into the huge variety of life that exists today.
The answer is just an algorithm. You can watch complexity emerge from randomness, as long as there’s an underlying set of conserved genes and an objective function that helps the best-scoring organisms survive. Earth isn’t a closed system. If it was, we’d never have existed. The sun provides the energy that the system needs not to just collapse into entropic heat death.

Check out the following movies that show how complexity (and even optimization) can take place without reference to an end-state:
Ant Colony:
youtube.com/watch?v=SMc6UR5blS0&feature=related
Tree Speciation:
youtube.com/watch?v=ZpW_ojpmTWk
Simulated Organisms with Simple Neural Networks:
youtube.com/watch?v=2kupe2ZKK58
 
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.
I meant I wasn’t making a claim about consciousness.

The claim that a thought is the firing of neurons alone is the null hypothesis, the default position.

There are many potential claims where thought requires more than that, such as needing a supernatural soul or contact with another universe or waves from the fifth dimension, but the common denominator is the firing of neurons. That is what substantiates the claim, along with the fact that there’s no evidence so far for any of those other things being needed.

Anyone arguing for something more can always finance research to try to find evidence for their claim, no one’s stopping them.
 
Is there a difference between mind and consciousness? All you’ve managed to say is that ideas/inspiration pops into my mind. And I know that already. I told you that.
Really, you’ve never heard of subconscious = “the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one’s actions and feelings”?
*ok. In 1424 Joan of Arc experienced visions which told her to drive out the English and Burgundians, explaining that God supported Charles’ claim to the throne, supported Orleans’ captive overlord Duke Charles of Orleans, and had taken pity on the French population for the sufferings they had endured during the war.
Joan claimed the Archangel Michael was also present during the visions.
The vision, inocente. The visions. Tell me how did spiritual creatures speak to Joans mind.
*
That’s not an explanation of inspiration, it’s an anecdote.

Defendant: I was inspired to go on the killing spree by the spirit of Joan of Arc.
Judge: Oh well that explains it, you’re free to go, case dismissed.

:rolleyes:
Who created energy?
Off-topic. Either you don’t understand me or you’re playing games, either way I’m losing the energy to go on. 😃
What do you think? And answer the question please; how did he tempt Jesus if you think he could not speak/communicate with the mind of Jesus?
The author was inspired to use metaphors.
 
Really, you’ve never heard of subconscious = “the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one’s actions and feelings”?
How do I know the sub-conscious exists if I’m not aware of it?
That’s not an explanation of inspiration, it’s an anecdote.

Defendant: I was inspired to go on the killing spree by the spirit of Joan of Arc.
Judge: Oh well that explains it, you’re free to go, case dismissed.

:rolleyes:
Judge: now inocente, we’re going to burn you at the stake unless you withdraw these anecdotes.
inocente: I’m not lying, I’m telling you the truth.
Off-topic. Either you don’t understand me or you’re playing games, either way I’m losing the energy to go on. 😃
Energy cannot be destroyed; The law should have been written Energy cannot be created by me, etc., etc., etc.
The author was inspired to use metaphors.
Satan is a metaphor?
 
How do I know the sub-conscious exists if I’m not aware of it?
Aspects of it are observable through techniques such a neuroimaging and fMRI of the brain. A neuroscientist would be in a better position to describe how the observation works.
 
How do I know the sub-conscious exists if I’m not aware of it?
Have you never driven to work listening to the radio and thinking about the day ahead, and when you park realized you don’t remember how you got there or even which route you took? It can only be that your mind managed the task without you being consciously aware of it.

Articulating the idea of something not conscious, or, actively denied to awareness, with the constructs of language has been a process of human thought and interpersonal influence for millennia. For example, influences on thinking that originate from outside of an individual’s consciousness were reflected in the ancient ideas of temptation, divine inspiration, and the predominant role of the gods in affecting motives and actions. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind
 
Have you never driven to work listening to the radio and thinking about the day ahead, and when you park realized you don’t remember how you got there or even which route you took? It can only be that your mind managed the task without you being consciously aware of it.
I have not. Since there is only one route there I take. But I often do not remember villages I pass through nor remember anything much about the route.
But inocente, though I traveled this route hundreds of times, and gone around the same blind bend hundreds of times, on some very very rare occasion on that bend I will lift off the gas for no reason and tap the brakes only to find an oncoming car with wheels over the line or some such thing. I couldn’t have known, it was just a little inspired thought.
 
genstein
I really want to try to avoid an evolution debate, but at the same time, would like to address a video that I saw while watching a youtube video earlier tonight.

It was from a youtube channel called ‘Discovering Religion’ and one of the episodes was basically a venting episode. In this case, the narrator was venting on what grinds his gears-- and one of them included the concept of the soul and evolution…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. He wants to know how do we know a soul exists?

The link is right here:
What Grinds My ( I mean ‘His’) Gears

I will point out that perhaps this source seems kind of biased, due to his vent against concepts like conversion experiences, thanking God, etc. (then again, I could be wrong).
I am not sure what Christians mean when they refer to the “soul”. Is that the same thing as “the self”, namely the subjective sense of being which one has in a cognitively functioning state? If so, then it is more accurately described as “consciousness” and certainly could not possess all of the attributes Aquinas associates with “soul” (will, intellect, memory, eg.)

Similarly, if the soul is “the self” or consciousness, then what meaning does the statement " I have a soul" have? If a person “has” a soull, that seems to imply that “the self” possesses a soul. It is almost the same as the Cartesian notion of “a ghost in the machine”.

In fact, I get the impression that “the soul” is an abstraction without any real meaning. Wittgenstein might ask what makes the statement “humans have a soul” true or false. I think the only answer Christians have for that is faith because I can’t see how it can be verified as a true statement by any objective criteria.
 
I have not. Since there is only one route there I take. But I often do not remember villages I pass through nor remember anything much about the route.
But inocente, though I traveled this route hundreds of times, and gone around the same blind bend hundreds of times, on some very very rare occasion on that bend I will lift off the gas for no reason and tap the brakes only to find an oncoming car with wheels over the line or some such thing. I couldn’t have known, it was just a little inspired thought.
Sorry but no. You’re subconsciously noticing something is a bit out of the ordinary and reacting. Your conscious mind is far too slow to make these kinds of decision. It gets alerted though, and thinks something magic is going on.

Taking decisions out of consciousness is important where fast reaction is needed, and lots of practice helps achieve that, which is one reason why practice makes perfect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top