Human or not?

[john_doran]

In that case I have to ask: what is your functional definition of “rationality”? I don’t want to make incorrect assumptions.

i don’t give rationality a functinal definition at all: i think functionalism is wrong.

rationality is a property of an immaterial entity, which exists apart from, and is the basis for, certain behaviours or functions.

ateista:

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.

i don’t know what you mean by this. is this a response to my argument? if so, how does your example of the robot repudiate the logic of functionalism, which entails that functional properties are not present when the functions are not present?

ateista:

You mean every person is human but not every human is a person?

sort of, but not quite: every individual human has the same humanity as every other; each person has a different personality, or personhood, from every other.

ateista:

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.

you miss the point: you said that you thought brain-death was when “death” occurs; if that were true, what’s the difference between brain-dead people on life-support, and brain-dead people in the morgue, or in a coffin?

ateista:

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?

call the soul i’m talking about, the rational soul.

 

[JimG]

ateista:

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?

Sorry for the confusion. The word ‘soul’ simple means ‘life principle.’ Only human beings have a ‘rational soul.’

 

[ateista]

This is what you said before:

not really - i don’t give “rationality” the functional definition you seem to give “sentience”.

This is what you say now:

i don’t give rationality a functinal definition at all: i think functionalism is wrong.

Needless to say, I am confused.

rationality is a property of an immaterial entity, which exists apart from, and is the basis for, certain behaviours or functions.

Huh? What entity? And you say that this immaterial entity somehow interacts with material objects? Without a detectable interface? Simply “magic”? What connection does your word of “rationality” have with “rational” or “reasonable”? I don’t detect any connection.

you miss the point: you said that you thought brain-death was when “death” occurs; if that were true, what’s the difference between brain-dead people on life-support, and brain-dead people in the morgue, or in a coffin?

Actually, I said that all her higher brain functions were gone. She was not completely brain-dead. Some vegetative functions still remained.

call the soul i’m talking about, the rational soul.

“Rational” as being capable of “reasoning”? Looks like our vocabulary is different.

 

[ateista]

Sorry for the confusion. The word ‘soul’ simple means ‘life principle.’ Only human beings have a ‘rational soul.’

I am still confused. The dividing line between life and non-life is a matter of definition. We call something “living” if it exhibits complex responses to complex stimuli. Nothing more, nothing less. No need to drag a “soul” into it.

Humans are capable of abstraction. Humans have self-awareness. Animals have some lower level of awareness. The difference is amply explained by the complexity of the brain.

 

[JimG]

Humans are capable of abstraction. Humans have self-awareness. Animals have some lower level of awareness. The difference is amply explained by the complexity of the brain.

That remains to be seen. So far, there seems to be a sharp dividing line between even the smartest chimp, or the smartest computer, and a human being. In an earlier post, you posited that slowly dividing a human’s brain in half would result in two distinct persons. If that’s been done, I would sure like to see the results.

I think you also indicated that you weren’t sure whether free will actually existed. This is a matter which can likely be investigated only from subjective experience. Are your thoughts or actions free, or are they determined by your biological processes? Are your responses to these posts a matter of self-directed thinking or are they stimulus and response?

 

[ateista]

sure. but then, i think that hamlet, the play, is an abstract object…

What does that mean? The Hamlet is a collection of symbols, which create certain electro-chemical modifications in the mind of those who are able to read and comprehend it. If you take all the letters and randomly transpose them, the information will be lost. The same “building blocks”, the letters will still be there, the pattern (their sequence), however, is lost.

what do you mean, “where”? does it matter? “where” is the feeling of what it is like to be you?

The “feeling of what is it to be me” is the information represented by the electro-chemical workings of my brain. In the old times people thought that the brain is simply a device for the cooling of the blood. Today we made huge progresses in mapping the brain. We can identify parts, which are responsible for processing visual information, auditory information, etc. Other parts which are responsible for feeling pleasure and pain. If a part of the brain is damaged, part of our processing power is gone. If another part is damaged, our whole personality is wiped out. These are facts, which substantiate that the mind is the function of the brain.

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.

What is that entity? Entities do not just “exist”, they exist as “something”, with attributes to describe them. How can it be verified that it is more than just empty speculation?

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”?"

The physical characteristics which we percieve as color are still there. The shape of the football does not change when no one is looking. You can close your eyes, and touch it, and realize that the shape did not change. To assume otherwise denies the independent existence of objective reality.

and as far as i’m concerned, brain is not sufficient to explain mind.

Do you have any reason to think so? Something that you can share, and it can be independently verified? I gave you reasons why I consider the brain and its function of the mind as sufficient explanation for our consciousness. What are your reasons?

 

[ateista]

That remains to be seen. So far, there seems to be a sharp dividing line between even the smartest chimp, or the smartest computer, and a human being.

Absolutely. But we are talking about thought experiments.

In an earlier post, you posited that slowly dividing a human’s brain in half would result in two distinct persons. If that’s been done, I would sure like to see the results.

It has been done, as a treatment for some medical condition. The separation has not been performed over months, of course. However, the brain’s ability to compensate for injury has been observed, and it is reasonable to assume that during such surgery it would be present, as well. So at the end you would have two almost identical copies.

I think you also indicated that you weren’t sure whether free will actually existed. This is a matter which can likely be investigated only from subjective experience. Are your thoughts or actions free, or are they determined by your biological processes? Are your responses to these posts a matter of self-directed thinking or are they stimulus and response?

Indeed, we cannot know that. The only way to prove the existence of libertarian free will would be to take a snapshot of the universe, roll it back, and observe if the people would make the same decisions. And that, of course, is impossible. We assume that we do have free will.

Our actions are somewhat influenced by our condictioning. I cannot allow a cashier to make an error, which would allow me to take more change than I deserve. I might want to… but my upbringing kicks in, and “forces” me to speak up, and give the extra money back. So even if we do have free will, it is limited.

 

[inthecloud]

I have thought of the same problem too. Download the human memories of a living person and personality into a machine. In a techinicaly sense it your be alive. It would be like a new artificial non organic life. The next stage of life’s evolution.
The question if that life would have a soul in the spiritualist sense.
A atheist would say no. Soul is a fiction. However I experimented weirds things that made doubt a purely materialistic explanation.

 

[jmcrae]

If I recall it correctly, the medical definition of death is the cessation of brain functions, not the stopping of the heart.

To nitpick, it is the cessation of those particular brain functions that control things like breathing, heart-beat, etc., such that the person would have to be kept alive by means of some kind of machinery.

Terri Shiavo was never on any kind of mechanical life support - these particular brain functions were working just fine. But she had lost her memory, and she was low-functioning, due to the effects of the accident that she had experienced. It was not known whether she had gone blind, as well - they didn’t know whether she could see anything, or not. Sometimes she responded as if she could see, and at other times, she did not.

 

[ateista]

To nitpick, it is the cessation of those particular brain functions that control things like breathing, heart-beat, etc., such that the person would have to be kept alive by means of some kind of machinery.

That is good nipicking. Thank you.

 

[AgnosTheist]

To nitpick, it is the cessation of those particular brain functions that control things like breathing, heart-beat, etc., such that the person would have to be kept alive by means of some kind of machinery.

Terri Shiavo was never on any kind of mechanical life support - these particular brain functions were working just fine. But she had lost her memory, and she was low-functioning, due to the effects of the accident that she had experienced. It was not known whether she had gone blind, as well - they didn’t know whether she could see anything, or not. Sometimes she responded as if she could see, and at other times, she did not.

It was much much more than memory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Shiavo#Initial_medical_crisis


look, the entire central brain mass disintigrated, severely annihilating her cognition, perception, and awareness.

 

[john_doran]

This is what you said before:

This is what you say now:

Needless to say, I am confused.

no need to be…what i meant all along was that i do not believe that functionalism is a viable account of mind.

ateista:

Huh? What entity?

the soul.

ateista:

And you say that this immaterial entity somehow interacts with material objects?

yes.

ateista:

Without a detectable interface?

“detectable” how? not by physical instrumentation, obviously, but certainly by induction: without an immaterial principle of intellection, we wouldn’t be able to be acquainted with abstract objects (i.e. objects with no spatiotemporal properties), or make free choices.

ateista:

What connection does your word of “rationality” have with “rational” or “reasonable”?

without rationality, one can be neither rational nor reasonable.

ateista:

Actually, I said that all her higher brain functions were gone. She was not completely brain-dead. Some vegetative functions still remained.

sigh. why do you keep avoiding my question? was terry schiavo dead before they pulled the plug on her, or not? and if she was, then what exactly was the difference between her, in her hospital room, and the corpses in the hospital morgue?

“Rational” as being capable of “reasoning”? Looks like our vocabulary is different.

yes, and maybe. what do you think “rational” means?

 

[john_doran]

Do you have any reason to think so? Something that you can share, and it can be independently verified? I gave you reasons why I consider the brain and its function of the mind as sufficient explanation for our consciousness. What are your reasons?

you have, in fact, not given any reasons for believing that mind is reducible to brain, save for the simple stipulation that “you have no need of that hypothesis”.

but whatever.

here’s something from one of my old posts that’s on point:

there are a few arguments for the soul (or at least an immaterial component for rational beings):

A) even if you everything about the brain of another person and all of the neurophysiological processes responsible for behaviour - all of the neuronal firings and what they signify - there would still be something you didn’t know: what it was like for that person to have those experiences. that is, the subjective experience of any given sensation will always be irreducible to neurobiology. as an example, imagine that you are a scientist living 100 years from now when our neuroscience is complete, and that you have never heard the sound of a violin; if you were to identify and document the memory and experience of, say, a concert violinist, you still wouldn’t know what it’s like actually to hear a violin. which means that there’s something to consciousness that is not superevenient on physical brain-states.

B) there are other examples of this same phenomenon: we can conceive, for instance, of a possible world where the individuals in it have exactly the same brain-states as our own, but who have different conscious experiences, whether it’s because they experience the color red when they are looking at blue objects, or middle c when they heard b-flat; it is also possible to conceive of a world where there are people physically identical to us who actually have no conscious experience accompanying/causing their behaviour. which, again, entails that brain-states and consciousness are not identical.

C) we are acquainted with propositions - i.e. we know that propositions like “seventeen is a prime number”, and “no proposition can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect”, are true. propositions are abstract objects - i.e. they have no spatiotemporal location. we could not be acquainted with propositions if our intellectual faculties were purely physical. therefore there is some immaterial principal of knowing in us.

D) we are morally responsible for our actions. we could not be morally responsible if we are determined to do what we do. but if human beings are purely physical beings, then they are subject to exhaustive physical laws, which would determine their behaviour. which means that we*** cannot*** be purely physical beings - there must be some immaterial component to us that allows us to avoid determination by physical laws, and make free choices that are morally (un)recitifiable.

of course, none of these arguments entail the robust christian concept of the soul, but they’re a starting point.

 

[ateista]

“detectable” how? not by physical instrumentation, obviously, …

You stated that there is at least a one-way interaction between the soul and the brain. Without an interface there can be no interaction. If so, there must be an interface which at least partially resides in the brain. And that part is subject to detection by physical means.

…but certainly by induction: without an immaterial principle of intellection, we wouldn’t be able to be acquainted with abstract objects (i.e. objects with no spatiotemporal properties), or make free choices.

That is sheer speculation. What do you mean by “abstract objects”? Are you talking about “abstract concepts”?

sigh. why do you keep avoiding my question? was terry schiavo dead before they pulled the plug on her, or not? and if she was, then what exactly was the difference between her, in her hospital room, and the corpses in the hospital morgue?

I did not evade. Death is a gradual process. Some of her bodily functions were still in operation.

what do you think “rational” means?

Using reason, observation, facts and arriving at logical corollaries. Not resorting to mysticism, using only necessary assumptions and if the assumptions lead to an unacceptable conclusion, the rational arguer should be willing to discard / modify the assumptions. Not resorting to arguments from authority. Not using circular arguments. Not using faith as an epistemological tool.

 

[ateista]

you have, in fact, not given any reasons for believing that mind is reducible to brain, save for the simple stipulation that “you have no need of that hypothesis”.

I did more that that. I pointed out that the functions of the mind can be mapped pretty precisely to specific areas of the brain, and causing physical damage to the brain will erase those functions.

It is also well known that minor damage to the brain does not necessarily result in permanent loss of the capabilities. There is a huge redundancy built into the brain, and other parts can assume the functionality of the damaged parts.

I will get back to the other parts of your post later.

 

[john_doran]

You stated that there is at least a one-way interaction between the soul and the brain. Without an interface there can be no interaction. If so, there must be an interface which at least partially resides in the brain. And that part is subject to detection by physical means.

that doesn’t make any sense: how could the non-physical component of a physical/non-physical interface be ***physically ***detectable?

and why would there need to be a physical part of the brain that actually looked like an “interface”? and if it doesn’t look like an interface, how would we know that it’s functioning as one?

and who cares if we never find it? i don’t believe that there’s an immaterial component to intellection because of the way the brain looks or works, or on the basis of any other kind of empirical data; so the absence of that kind of data is logically irrelevant to my belief in the soul.

ateista:

That is sheer speculation. What do you mean by “abstract objects”? Are you talking about “abstract concepts”?

not really…there are necessary truths - propositions that are true in every possible world. not every possible world contains matter. which means that necessarily true propositions, at least, (in fact all propositions) are non-corporeal entities. that is to say, objects with no spatio-temporal properties.

same goes for sets and properties and a whole bunch of other stuff.

ateista:

I did not evade. Death is a gradual process. Some of her bodily functions were still in operation.

right. so she wasn’t dead, despite being brain-dead. ergo, brain-death is not death.

ateista:

Using reason, observation, facts and arriving at logical corollaries.

that’s what i think, too.

ateista:

Not resorting to mysticism,

this, as well.

ateista:

using only necessary assumptions and if the assumptions lead to an unacceptable conclusion, the rational arguer should be willing to discard / modify the assumptions.

waitasecond…if the assumptions are “necessary”, then how can the conclusions to which they logically lead be “unacceptable”? wouldn’t the logical response to an “unacceptable” conclusion entailed by necessary premises, be to modify one’s acceptance of that conclusion? i mean, if i think that there’s a god, but then some rationally ineluctable disproof of god’s existence is provided to me, i may find the conclusion “unacceptable” in some kind of emotional sense, but surely you don’t think that i should modify the assumptions of that disproof, instead of abandon my belief in god. do you?

ateista:

Not resorting to arguments from authority. Not using circular arguments. Not using faith as an epistemological tool.

cool. me, too. but who’s doing that?

 

[john_doran]

I did more that that. I pointed out that the functions of the mind can be mapped pretty precisely to specific areas of the brain, and causing physical damage to the brain will erase those functions.

sure. but:

A) the soul isn’t required for most (any?) physically observable functions: it’s needed for the exercise of free choices and for intellection regarding abstract objects; and

B) even if brain-damage did cause cessation of the observable components of free choice and abstract intellection, such cessation doesn’t entail that free choices and abstract reasoning occur “in” those parts of the brain any more than the damage to your tv’s picture that results from damage to its power cord entails that the tv’s picture is “in” the cord…

 

[inthecloud]

Thinking about it, Atheista’s machine will be intelligent artificial life but will not be fully human.
On a pure biological basis, of example, the computer will be not suffer the biological pressures of a biologial brain. Hormonal urges for example. Circulation problems. We do not know how the DNA affects the functioning of the neurones of a specific brain vs others.
And yes, I know, for the scientific empirist epistemology proposed by Atheista, mystical experiences not measurable so they not matter but I save seen somethings that are unexplainable on a purely materialistic view. I have seen some people do amazings things, not for show or profit that cannot be explained by a purely biochemical/electrical brain. I doubt a computer could replicate those experiences at all. That is the reason I have wandered at time into deism but not into atheism.

 

[jmcrae]

What does that mean? The Hamlet is a collection of symbols, which create certain electro-chemical modifications in the mind of those who are able to read and comprehend it. If you take all the letters and randomly transpose them, the information will be lost. The same “building blocks”, the letters will still be there, the pattern (their sequence), however, is lost.

You are thinking that Hamlet consists of text. It does not.

Even if every copy of the text were to be lost, Hamlet would continue to exist. It could be written out again by those who have been involved in producing it for the stage, and by those who have experienced it several times before.

 

[ateista]

that doesn’t make any sense: how could the non-physical component of a physical/non-physical interface be ***physically ***detectable?

Like this:

1. The beauty of symphonic music is definitely non-material. (Beauty is a concept.)
2. The beauty can be percieved when one hears the music (or for very talented people, when reading the notes).
3. This can happen only via physical means (hearing or reading).
   Therefore the material and abstract realms have a detectable physical interface. The same should apply to the soul - if it existed.

If there is an interaction between two entities, then there must be an interface, and if one of the entities is material or physical, then the interface is detectable by physical means.

i don’t believe that there’s an immaterial component to intellection because of the way the brain looks or works, or on the basis of any other kind of empirical data; so the absence of that kind of data is logically irrelevant to my belief in the soul.

I don’t understand. You said that the brain-states - the mind - is incapable of making abstraction or conceptualization, so definitely made a judgement about the capabilities (or lack of them) of the mind. So far you did not present any substantiation for this claim.

not really…there are necessary truths - propositions that are true in every possible world. not every possible world contains matter. which means that necessarily true propositions, at least, (in fact all propositions) are non-corporeal entities. that is to say, objects with no spatio-temporal properties.

same goes for sets and properties and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Ah, that is interesting. As far as I am concerned, that is incorrect speculation. There is no such thing as an abstract concept - outside the mind. There is no such thing as objective “meaning” of a word. The meaning of a word is whatever the recipient makes of it.

waitasecond…if the assumptions are “necessary”, then how can the conclusions to which they logically lead be “unacceptable”? wouldn’t the logical response to an “unacceptable” conclusion entailed by necessary premises, be to modify one’s acceptance of that conclusion? i mean, if i think that there’s a god, but then some rationally ineluctable disproof of god’s existence is provided to me, i may find the conclusion “unacceptable” in some kind of emotional sense, but surely you don’t think that i should modify the assumptions of that disproof, instead of abandon my belief in god. do you?

The word “unacceptable conclusion” simply meant that it is in variance with reality. (A very good example of the previous paragraph - the meaning I assigned to this expression was perceived differently by you - no doubt becasue I did not elaborate on it).

A) the soul isn’t required for most (any?) physically observable functions: it’s needed for the exercise of free choices and for intellection regarding abstract objects; and

Why do you think that the mind is incapable of these actions? (If there truly is a free will).

B) even if brain-damage did cause cessation of the observable components of free choice and abstract intellection, such cessation doesn’t entail that free choices and abstract reasoning occur “in” those parts of the brain any more than the damage to your tv’s picture that results from damage to its power cord entails that the tv’s picture is “in” the cord…

Did you just say that the mind/brain is nothing that a receptor for the soul? It is almost as naive as the ancient Greeks’ idea that the brain was nothing but a cooling device for the blood.

Why should you make this unwarranted assumption? If the neurons of the brain can be excited by electrical impulses and the person percieves this as pleasure or pain - depending on the area affected - why go any further? It is the specific area of the brain with its neurons firing in a specific manner (state of the mind) which is the actual area where the abstract concepts: “pleasure” and “pain” are realized.

Observe a chess player - and there are not many things that are more abstract than chess. While contemplating his next move, his brain’s electical activity is very high - mostly in the subconscious area. The movements of his eyes keep scanning the board, the electrical activity of his brain is in high gear, and he finds his move. According to your hypothesis all that activity is just an interaction directed to his “immaterial soul”?