A
ateista
Guest
Actually, they can. The self-modifying programs can. There is no way to predict how these programs evolve.
- Status
P
Pete_1
Guest
Cool do you have any info on that. I doubt they have free will, although they may be able to modify themselves. E.g a virus (biological), unpredictable, able to mutate rapidly but no free will, and arguably not living.Actually, they can. The self-modifying programs can. There is no way to predict how these programs evolve.
A
ateista
Guest
This is a good point. Whether viruses are alive or not, is simply a matter of definition. What do you define as “free will”, and how can its existence be substantiated? The info on self-modifying programs is rather technical in nature. I have not researched them for a long time now, but I am sure we can google it.
P
Pete_1
Guest
I couldn’t attempt a defenition of free will, i’ll take alook on the vatican site.
A
ateista
Guest
And, of course, that is your prerogative. Biologists abandoned the idea, seeing no use for it. (Laplace - a famous mathematician wrote once a book about the movements of celestial bodies. Napoleon asked him why does he never mention God in his book. Laplace answered: “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.”) If you still consider it valid, I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. What would you do, if I tried to present an argument which is based upon the concept that the Earth is the middle of the Universe? You would probably just shrug it off, knowing that the hypothesis is an antiquated one, long ago abandoned by even the Catholic Church.
By definition the mind is the action of the brain.
You seem to imply that being “only” a compter is somehow a lesser existence.
Why would it be? Computers are not necessarily inferior, though today even the most sophisticated ones lag far behind what a human mind can produce. But the human brain (the hardware) contains billions of cells, and even the most complicated computers have only a few hundred processors. Still, you should ponder, how can a “mere” computer beat the world’s champion of chess? This should be a fair warning to all who think that a computer can never challenge us.
J
JimG
Guest
Beating a human chess champion is a relatively trivial matter. It only involves sequencing through numerous moves, countermoves, and outcomes. It’s pretty much linear. I’d be more impressed if a computer were able to form an abstract thought, or reason with me about the meaning of Plato, or the themes of a play.
And I don’t think that biologists should have a place for the soul. It is not something that they can study, and should not be a part of the science, any more than angels ought to be a part of physics.
Now, if a computer can be shown to have the power of abstract reasoning and free will, I will re-examine my position. But so far, I don’t know of any that can even participate in an Internet forum, as we do.
And I don’t think that biologists should have a place for the soul. It is not something that they can study, and should not be a part of the science, any more than angels ought to be a part of physics.
Now, if a computer can be shown to have the power of abstract reasoning and free will, I will re-examine my position. But so far, I don’t know of any that can even participate in an Internet forum, as we do.
A
ateista
Guest
I agree with you. Though the program had to do many judgement calls for evaluating a position. So it is more than trivial.
I was convinced that eventually a computer program will beat the world champion, but I never thought that it will happen in my life. Which of course shows that I am lousy prophet. Yes that would be much more impressive. However, I am sure it will come. The whole technology is extremely young, barely 50-60 years old. And the computers have at most a few hundred processing units, while the brain has billions of them.
Who should study what “life” is, if not the biologists? That is their discipline, after all. Who should study the movement of celestial bodies, if not the astronomers? If the soul is the animating force which is responsible for life, it is definitely the job of biologists to look for it. And they discarded it as a useless assumption.
Furthermore there are lots of problems with the “animating” concept. If life is created by the soul, then every bacterium has to have a “soul”. What happens if a bacterium splits into two? Does the “soul” also split? Or is a new “soul” assigned to one of them? Ot both of them? If a sperm cell has a “soul” and the egg also has one, what will happen at the tie of fusion? Will the “souls”… merge? Or a brand new “soul” gets created? According to john doran, the soul gets assigned at the moment of fertilization. But the sperm and the egg are also living organisms, and as such they must have their own “souls”? Do human beings have one “soul”? And how does that soul correlate to the trillions of “souls” of each individual cell?
The whole concept of a “soul” is just a mess. Even the believers cannot agree just what it is. Until a coherent definition comes forth, and some evidence for it, I am not going to take the whole concept seriously.
First you have to define what “free will” is, and then you should be able to bring forth arguments that it actually exists.
J
john_doran
Guest
cool.
sort of like when i go to sleep? or when i am rendered unconscious by a blow to the head? or if my brain is damaged, and i begin acting like a 4 year old? or if a get amnesia?
for one thing, your original question was about “humanness”, not personhood; so whether you’re right about the latter (you’re not), nothing about your original thought experiment even remotiely implies a change in humanity.
whether or not it was a murder depends on the intent of the individual(s) who caused her death.
but it was the death of a human being.
even if you’re right, so what?
what do you mean the person’s pattern? what do you mean the person’s pattern? you beg the question by assuming what you hope to prove: namely that the person before the change is the same as the person after the change…Our agreement to the answer of the first two questions could be put on common ground, if we could agree that the person’s pattern is the same regardless of the construction material. There is no need to refer to the concept of soul, the concept of pattern would suffice, unless of course the word “soul” actually means the pattern.
ensoulment happens whenever a human being is produced, whether by ordinary conception, or by cloning or any other process; if the result of some procedure is a rational animal, then something has been done that has resulted in the prduction of an ensouled body.
J
JimG
Guest
Soul is philosophically defined as the animating principle of a living being. For animals and plants, soul has traditionally been considered as a material principle. For human beings, soul is considered a non-material substance, or spirit.
If a bacterium splits in two, then yes, its (material) soul also splits. For a human being, the soul is non-material, has no parts, and is not capable of splitting. A non-material substance cannot be studied directly by biology in any case.
The key question with regard to human beings is whether they differ in kind, or only in degree, from other animals. I would say that because we are capable of forming ideas, concepts, and abstract thoughts, which are non-material, there must be a part of us which is also non-material.
But if we are only matter, then I think that there is no escape from determinism, whatever shape it may take. For if we are only matter, then every thing we think or do or decide is ultimately only a matter of physics.
If a bacterium splits in two, then yes, its (material) soul also splits. For a human being, the soul is non-material, has no parts, and is not capable of splitting. A non-material substance cannot be studied directly by biology in any case.
The key question with regard to human beings is whether they differ in kind, or only in degree, from other animals. I would say that because we are capable of forming ideas, concepts, and abstract thoughts, which are non-material, there must be a part of us which is also non-material.
But if we are only matter, then I think that there is no escape from determinism, whatever shape it may take. For if we are only matter, then every thing we think or do or decide is ultimately only a matter of physics.
A
ateista
Guest
I wish the quotation method of the editor would refer back to the original post as well… this way it is rather hard to follow the thread. But be as it may, I am very glad for the agreement. I don’t think I have ever been this close to agreement. Let me make sure: looks like both you and I consider a human being a sentient (or self-aware) being, regardless of the construction material. This would include “regular” humans born after the fusion of sperm and egg, cloned humans, androids (artificial beings created in a vat), cyborgs (the combination of organic and non-organic materials), robots (totally inorganic beings), and even space aliens - as long as they exhibit self-awareness? Is this a correct evaluation of what you said?
Those are reversible processes. If the situation is irreversible, then the being cannot be considered “human”, since it does not (can not) exhibit self-awareness.
I cannot separate humanness and personhood.
I agree with the second part. But when did the death occur? When she lost her higher brain functions? Or when her persistent vegetative state ended?
Well, pretty simple. If even the advocates of “ensoulment” can not agree, when it happens, why should it be taken seriously?
Why is it question begging? If the entity exhibits the same characteristics (self-awareness) before the change and after the change, it is the same entity.
So, if we were to discover a being who is a rational animal (a sentient being) then that being would have a “soul” by definition? I still do not understand what this “soul” is supposed to be. Other posters in this thread asserted that every living organism has a “soul”, something that “animates” it. In this case every living cell has its own “soul”, the sperm and the egg being no exception. That is contrary to your assertion that “ensoulment” happens when the sperm and the egg are “fused”… again, if you - who advocate this concept - are contradicting each other, why should I entertain such a concept?
A
ateista
Guest
By what philosophy? What living being? Every bacterium is a lining being. Every cell in my body is a living being. Am I composed of trillions of living beings, each one having a “soul”? My atheistic philosophy does not even understand the concept of a “soul”. You are piling up the incomprehensibles… now we have “material” souls and “non-material” souls? I don’t understand what you mean.
So biologists should be able to discover the “souls” of bacteria? They never did… because there is no need for this hypothesis.
Yes, humans are different in kind, I agree with you. Humans are capable of self-awareness, while animals are not - as far as we know it. But self-awareness is not “non-material”, it is simply the realization of “I” and “not-I”, the distinction of self and the environment.
That is a not true. The laws of physics do not explain the charateristics discovered by chemistry, and chemisty cannot explain laws and rules discovered by biology.
J
JimG
Guest
How do you know that self-awareness is not a faculty of a non-material aspect of human nature?
I agree that self-awareness is “the realization of “I” and “not-I”, the distinction of self and the environment." But here you have raised the idea of personhood–that within a living being which is able to use the word “I” of itself as a subject.
And when you use the word “realization,” you are speaking of some idea which you or I or someone else may have of his or her personhood. What IS this realization? What is this ‘idea,’ in itself? Can it be described biologically? Can you bring about certain definable biochemical conditions which will invariably produce this idea and no other?
You can also have an idea, such as the idea of “humanity” which contains within itself no particularity at all, but is rather used to describe the nature of a group in the abstract. Can an abstract idea be reduced to particularity by the biology involved? Or does an abstract idea call for a non-material idea generator?
As for the physical sciences, it seems to me that biology must ultimately be reducible to biochemistry, and biochemistry to chemistry, and chemistry to physics. At the lowest level, it’s all atoms (or quarks, or strings, or branes), all subject to the laws of physics.
As to traditional philosophy and the distinctions between the material vs the non-material, I would have to refer you to such writers as Frank Sheed or Mortimer Adler or Peter Kreeft.
J
john_doran
Guest
almst: i consider a human being to be a rational, embodied being. of course, one may define “sentience” robustly enough so that i might agree that only rational beings are capable of it…
where does “reversibility” come from, and why should anyone believe it to be a requisite characteristic of humanity?
of course, whether or not someting is “reversible” has got nothing to do with whether or not it’s actually reversed, so you’re still committed to the view that something unconscious or incapable of expressing “self-awareness” is human until it regains consciousness and expresses self-awareness, since the only way to tell if some putative non-human-making process has been reversed is if it is, in fact, reversed.
sure you can: every person in the room is equally human, but not every person in the room is the same person.
in other words, if two things can be non-identical with regard to personhood, but identical with regard to humanity, then personhood and humanity are distinct.
not to be blithe, but death occurred when she died…i assume it’s when her heart stopped.
so, “science” can’t be taken seriously because not all of its various advocates can agree about their various scientific positions? indeed, because scientific progress actually requires such disagreement?
J
john_doran
Guest
i assumed you weren’t identifying “pattern” with “sentience”, but with whatever makes a person the person she happens to be; if you had been doing the latter, then you can’t simply assume that the “pattern” of personality will survive radical change to the physical form that instantiates it.
yes.
the seat of the rational intellect and free will. among other things.
well, i don’t know about the soul as animating principle, but even if it does perform that function in every living being - cells included - what you and i talking about is the human soul, no? the thing that makes human beings human.
and variance in opinion with regard to the nature of something is no reason to disregard that thing or the opinions regarding it; unless, of course, you are willing to accept as a consequence of such a position, that quantum field theory is not to be taken seriously because there are many conflicting opinions as to what that theory actually says the world must be like…
A
ateista
Guest
I cannot “prove” it in a strict sense. After all it is a negative statement, and those are usually impossible to prove (there are exceptions). But I can give you some arguments why it is a problematic assumption. To make the argument short, let’s suppose that the two halves of the brain are separated in a surgery. If such an operation is done “quickly”, the two halves will be very different. However, if it is done slowly (over the period of many months) the brain will compensate for the gradual loss of the connection, and eventually you will get two, almost identical copies of the original. Now let’s transplant one of the halves into a new body, or keep it alive artificially and provide some I/O mechanism to communicate with it. There will be two distinct humans. Was the “soul” split by the scalpel? Or was there a a new “soul” assigned at some point?
I say that the assumption of a “soul” is not necessary to explain self-awareness. The complexity of the brain is sufficient. This is also supported by the fact that higher primates exhibit behavior which can be called a limited self-awareness. I have some more arguments, and I will present them in my reply to john doran.
That is incorrect. The emerging attributes cannot be explained by the “lowel” level of science. Chemistry cannot be completely reduced to physics.
A
ateista
Guest
That looks good to me.
Now of course not everyone behaves rationally all the time. And when asleep, unconscious or in coma, people do not exhibit rationality either, so your approach is subject to the same criticism that you directed toward mine.I think we have some minor miscommunication here. Not “reversibility” in general, rather the fact that self-consciousness or rationality is merely “suspended” in sleep, etc. but if and when the person wakes up - it “returns”. That is why I see no problem with sleep, etc. since it is not a permanent state, unlike irreversible coma, death and the persisitent vegetative state.
Well, of course not the “same” person, and of course not “same” human either. I just use the words “human” and “person” interchangeably. They are both “buckets”.
If I recall it correctly, the medical definition of death is the cessation of brain functions, not the stopping of the heart.
It depends where the disagreement lies. If the scientists cannot agree upon the subject to be examined, then they cannot be taken seriously. Sort of like astrologists, or proponents of ESP, telekinesis, or auras, what have you.
If someone offers a new hypothesis, like the “soul”, the bare minimum is to get a coherent definition of it, so it can be subject to study.
J
john_doran
Guest
not really - i don’t give “rationality” the functional definition you seem to give “sentience”.That looks good to me.
oh, i get it - i just don’t think i made myself clear…
your original point was that the person in a persistent vegetative state no longer exists because she isn’t behaving or functioning as that person did in the past (which is in keeping with your duck principle: if it isn’t acting like a person, then it isn’t).
you then hoped to avoid the objection that functionalism entails that sleep or unconsciousness involves a loss of functional properties (in this case, personhood), by suggesting that the prospect of regaining functional properties allows one logically to commute those functional properties to non-functional periods.
my point is that this does not logically follow from the basic pronciple of functionalism that you espouse, which is, as you put it, if it doesn’t act like a person, then it isn’t a person. in order to make the logic work, you’d have to modify your principle to be something closer to “if it acts like a person, or may act like a person in the future, then it’s a person”. the problem then is to motivate such a revision to the functionalist premise: if the logic of the principle doesn’t require such a modification, then what good reason is there for making it?
but even if the subsidiary principle is warranted, it doesn’t help you avoid the problem that, logically, one cannot say that a process is “reversible” or, if you prefer, has been simply “suspended”, until the process has actually been reversed, or ***actually ***reinstated. which, of course, means that, logically anyway, your revised duck principle still entails that failure to exhibit functional behaviours means that the functional properties aren’t present. which means that a sleeping/unconscious/developmentally challenged individual is not a person.
look, “person” is to “human” what “german shepherd” is to “dog”.
you remember incorrectly. look, logically that doesn’t make sense: if terry schiavo was already dead, then what was done to her that was so problematic? i mean, why hadn’t the hospital put her in a body-bag in the morgue already?
not the same thing: there’s no disagreement among proponents of “ensoulment” that there is such a thing as a soul - the disagreement simply lies as to the point the soul enters the body. the “subject matter” of the examination is fixed.
this is a different objection to the one you initially made, which was that the troubling discrepancy was that between people concerning “ensoulment”.
how is the definition of “soul” that i am using in any way incoherent?
A
ateista
Guest
Wouldn’t you say that “Hamlet” is the same information / pattern no matter if it is read or performed? The information does not change when the carrying material changes. That is why we recognize our friend through the phone regardless of his physical changes. Pattern = information.
Unfortunately I cannot accept that as a working definition. First we don’t even know if “free will” exists, or not. It is just an assumption, which cannot be verified. More on this later.
So our cells would have their own “little” souls, and the whole entity would have “big” one? Would that be a separate soul, or just the aggreate of the “small” ones? Why this complication? What makes us humans is our mind - which is the interaction of the cells in the brain. Why look any further than that?
No, the situation is not that dire. Quantum mechanics is just a set of mathematical equations. The equations are used to predict the outcome of an experiment - and they do that really well. The different schools simply disagree about the interpretation of the equations, how do they relate to the real world.
Strictly speaking these interpretations are unnecessary. Look at it as a cable car: the starting and ending points refer to actual, physical points on the hillside. The intervening points do not. To “map” these points unto the hillside is possible in many ways, for example one may map them to the points directly below the car, or to the point which is closest to car, etc. Which one is “right”? Any or all or none of them. They simply do not matter as far as the starting and ending points are concerned.
The same with quantum mechanics. It works, because it brings you from “A” to “B”. We like to visualize the world, but that is not always possible. As long as the math works, it does not matter if it “means” anything.
Now let me ask you this: if every rational entity is supposed to have a soul, where is that soul in the case of an AI, or robot? We agreed that humans, clones, androids, cyborgs and robots all can exhibit a mind, therefore they all belong to the group of rational (or sentient) beings.
The robot is somewhat a special case, since it contains no organic material, it can be turned on or off at will. If the memory is persistent, the turn off / turn on will not disrupt its reasoning process. If you maintain that the reasoning power is the working of the soul, what happens to the soul when the robot is turned off? Does it go “dormant”? Or a brand new soul is created every time the robot is turned on? If a new software is loaded, will it carry a new soul along with it?
These are the questions which make question of the whole concept of a soul. As far as I am concerned, the concept of the mind or software is sufficient to explain sentience or reasoning power. There is no need for the hypothesis of the soul.
J
john_doran
Guest
sure. but then, i think that hamlet, the play, is an abstract object…
the way you yourself are describing it (and things like it) is as a noncorporeal type: hamlet exists as a type, while every individual written or recorded copy, or performance of it, is a token of that type.
and we don’t even know if other minds exist, or the past, or the real world…
more on that later.
because that doesn’t account for rationality or free will.
i know. and nor is the situation that dire when it comes to discussions of the soul…
and that’s your interpretation of QM. it’s called “instrumentalism”, and it is rejected by almost all scientists…
what do you mean, “where”? does it matter? “where” is the feeling of what it is like to be you?
the same soul persists through non-functional periods, because the soul is an ontologically distinct entity, and not simply a description of the behaviour of a body.
you might as well ask “where does the color of my apple go when i turn out the lights?”, or “where does the shape of my football go when no one’s looking at it”?"
atesita:
and i think those are the questions that reduce your understanding of consciousness and personhood, to absurdity.
and as far as i’m concerned, brain is not sufficient to explain mind.
A
ateista
Guest
In that case I have to ask: what is your functional definition of “rationality”? I don’t want to make incorrect assumptions.
I reflected on this at the end of my previous post. But one more remark: I don’t see the need of actually reversing the suspended state into active state. The possibility is enough. See the problem of the robots in the previous post.
You mean every person is human but not every human is a person?
I would not have had any problem with it. Since she was brain-dead, the whole artificial process of preserving her in the vegetative state was just a huge waste of money - for political purposes.
That was not my impression. Some posters said that every living entity has a soul, while humans have a different kind of soul. That does not seem consistent to me. How do I differetiate between the different kinds of souls?
- Status