Human or not?

[JimG]

Just a short reply to show that I read your post, I take it seriously, and I would like to ask for one clarification to see if I understood you correctly. It seems to me that the gist of what you say can be summarized like this:

Since the mind-brain complex can create abstract concepts, and since the abstract concepts are non-material in nature, therefore there must be something non-material to the brain-mind complex, because a purely material entity cannot create non-material abstract concepts.

Is this a fair representation of what you say?

Pretty much, except that I do not reduce the person to only mind-brain. The entire body is a part of our sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. We aren’t just body or just mind, but both, as an integrated whole, and we are conscious of being an integrated being, not just as an object, but as a subject–a self.

I might carry it a step further, and say that, not only are we conscious (as are other animals), we are also conscious of our consciousness.

It also seems to me that an entirely materialist view of human nature leads to determinism, which in effect makes discussion pointless.

 

[ateista]

Pretty much, except that I do not reduce the person to only mind-brain. The entire body is a part of our sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. We aren’t just body or just mind, but both, as an integrated whole, and we are conscious of being an integrated being, not just as an object, but as a subject–a self.

I might carry it a step further, and say that, not only are we conscious (as are other animals), we are also conscious of our consciousness.

It also seems to me that an entirely materialist view of human nature leads to determinism, which in effect makes discussion pointless.

I have no problem with this except where you say that the materialist worldview implies determinism… which is not true - materialist worldview is a not a mechanical one, it does not view the world as a huge Newtonian clockwork, which goes on its deterministic path from the past to the future.

But the rest I accept. I don’t have time to reflect on it now, but I will do so sometime tomorrow. Good night and sweet dreams to you!

 

[john_doran]

Now, really. Is that the Earth-shattering “reasoning” which points to an immaterial soul? That knowing about an accident is not the same as experiencing an accident? That knowing about someone who won the jackpot on the Powerball is not the same as winning the jackpot? This is not simply trivial, it is much worse than that.

right: if knowledge of all the physical facts doesn’t entail knowledge of the facts of consciousness, then the facts of consciousness are clearly not physical.

but, hey - maybe if you speak even more derisively about the argument rather than actually provide some substantive counter-reasoning, it’ll turn out to be a bad argument…

ateista:

You also claimed that you are a rational being. Well, my friend, in my humble opinion you are as far from being rational as Mako is from Jerusalem. If you don’t know what that phrase “means”, no problem. Just send out your immortal soul to the repository of abstract objects - after all they are next to each other in the never-nowhere land, and retrieve it. Should take no time at all, after all they both lack spatio-temporal attributes. While you are there, you may attempt to get this phrase’s etymology, too (which is just another abstract object). Let me know when you succeeded.

Good luck and good-bye. It was nice talking to you.

see above.

 

[ateista]

I agree that the mind is not independent of the underlying hardware. It depends on the hardware for (name removed by moderator)ut. But it does something beyond the nature of the hardware: it creates immaterial concepts from material (name removed by moderator)ut.

The basic tenet of materialism can be summarized in an acronym: “STEM”. It stands for Space, Time, Energy and Matter. These form the basis of **material **existence. But of course, they are not all, there is also information, which entails ideas, concepts, stories, fiction, mathematics, music, and a plethora of other subjects.

Information is non-material existence. It does not exist the same way a “chair” exists. I consider it very unfortunate that we only have one word: “existence”, which does not allow to differentiate between the two fundamentally different types of existence.

STEM exists without intellect. The trees in the forest are there, whether there is anyone looking at them or not. Information does not exist apart from a perceiving intellect. If there is no one around, and a CD player is left in the forest in operation, there is no music, there is only vibrating air. Furthermore information has no “objective” meaning, its meaning depends on the mind / understanding of the perceptor.

To illustrate this, consider a telephone line. When two people converse, for them the information is each others’ voice. The hiss on the line is simply noise. For the engineer who examines the line for clarity, it is the noise which is information and the conversation is the noise. Nor it is necessary that the “consumer” of the information should be “intelligent”. The noise a running mouse makes in the grass is vital information for a predator.

Furthermore: information does not exist without some physical medium to carry it. There is no such thing as “pure”, totally immaterial information, though there is the physical attribute that allows the information to be recognized. Music is not possible without the air to transmit it, but air vibrations are not music without a listener.

So non-material existence is not a problem for a materialist.

What is a problem is the assumption that non-material existence is somehow independent from the carrying medium or the perceiving agent. Even more important problem is the assumption that information can somehow act on the material world without a material acting agent. Example: the description of a bomb will never “blow up”. There must be someone, acting on the information to create an explosion.

Will contiune later.

 

[JimG]

The basic tenet of materialism can be summarized in an acronym: “STEM”. It stands for Space, Time, Energy and Matter. These form the basis of **material **existence. But of course, they are not all, there is also information, which entails ideas, concepts, stories, fiction, mathematics, music, and a plethora of other subjects.

So it would seem that you accept the fact of non-material objects, but not that they have a real existence.

Of course, as a non-materialist, I disagree with this conclusion, even though I do agree that for human beings at least, the perception of ideas requires a material agent.

There is even a Thomistic axiom I believe, to the effect that “there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses.” So for humans, a body, including a nervous system, sense organs, and brain, are necessary. This is how we come into contact with, and receive impressions of, the material world.

But you also noted that “Information does not exist apart from a perceiving intellect,” and I agree with this, in the sense that without an intellect to gather, integrate, and abstract sensory data, it is just random data. A perceiving intellect makes it intelligible data; it turns data into ideas. I would say that is the precise function of the intellect. But I consider the intellect, and the ideas it produces, to be real though not material.

It seems to me that the mental effort required to generate thought and ideas actually produces something not material, and something which can only be produced by a being with intelligence, not merely a brain. That’s why I’m doubtful that even the most complex and integrated computer hardware and software would be able to produce a machine which would be able to ponder its own thinking, its own existence, or its own sense of self in the manner that we have been doing here.

Many years ago I read Alan Watt’s book The Supreme Identity, which attempts to explain Eastern philosophy to Westerners. My recollection is that he faults Christianity for conflating the ego and the self with the soul. To him our key attribute is the Self. The Self is our supreme identity. The human sense of self, obtained through introspection or meditation, is to him, something so remarkable as to require not only a book but entire philosophical systems to explain it. After wading through several chapters, it became clear to me that what he means by ‘the supreme identity’ is that our self is really God–or at least what Western philosophies would call God. He thought that one sufficiently self-aware, when looking through a telescope some day, might perceive a distant galaxy and say to himself, “that’s me!”

Now, I’m sure I discredit Watts by so short and direct a summary of his thought process, and I don’t intend to make the summary so brief that it becomes a caricature of what was really a pretty thoroughly laid out argument; but that’s what I recall.

The point is, everyone seems to agree that human beings are a remarkably different sort of animal. So different that Watts was able to consider us as expressions of God. Materialism, on the other hand, considers the phenomenon of self-reflection, consciousness, and the ability to generate immaterial thoughts, as merely an epiphenomenon of a complex brain. I think that the complexities of the brain are insufficient to explain what we experience.

So I have to consider myself comfortably in the middle, with a view of humanity as part material, part immaterial. Not God, but not purely STEM either.

In any case, I will be out of town and offline for a few days. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Xpi]

first thought experiment:
When the body is gone, we no longer have a human being, for a human being is body and soul. After death we cease being human until such time as we are reunited with our bodies.

second thought experiment:
The human person, as being, does not depend on the malfunctioing of mind and body while living prior to death.

 

[ateista]

So it would seem that you accept the fact of non-material objects, but not that they have a real existence.

What does the phrase “real existence” mean? Non-material concepts (information) do not have “material” existence, on this we can agree. In what sense do fictional ideas, like dragons, fairies, elves, leprechauns “exist”? Sure, they exist as fictional characters in some folk tales. But otherwise?

Do they “exist” in the same sense as God “exists” or angels, demons, devils “exist”? I don’t think that you believe this, even though I do.

Do they exist in the same sense as “married bachelors” and “square circles” exist?

Here is the basic question: How many different types of “non-material existences” are?

There is even a Thomistic axiom I believe, to the effect that “there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses.”

Well, that is actually the basis of empiricism. Though empiricism does not mean that we could not have imagined a “dragon” unless we actually saw one.

So for humans, a body, including a nervous system, sense organs, and brain, are necessary. This is how we come into contact with, and receive impressions of, the material world.

I agree.

But you also noted that “Information does not exist apart from a perceiving intellect,” and I agree with this, in the sense that without an intellect to gather, integrate, and abstract sensory data, it is just random data. A perceiving intellect makes it intelligible data; it turns data into ideas. I would say that is the precise function of the intellect. But I consider the intellect, and the ideas it produces, to be real though not material.

Again, I have to ask: what does “real existence” mean?

It seems to me that the mental effort required to generate thought and ideas actually produces something not material, and something which can only be produced by a being with intelligence, not merely a brain.

What does intelligence mean to you? Animals, who are not intelligent in the human sense, are able to learn and change their own behavior. Dogs can recognize their owners, they “understand” some words. That is some rudimentary intelligence. Dolphins seem to have a sophisticated language. Some apes were taught sign-language, and they are able to conduct a conversation.

That’s why I’m doubtful that even the most complex and integrated computer hardware and software would be able to produce a machine which would be able to ponder its own thinking, its own existence, or its own sense of self in the manner that we have been doing here.

I certainly accept that this your hypothesis. What can you bring up to substantiate it?

Looks like you anticipated my next topic, comparing the computers and the human mind-brain. Since the editor does not allow too long posts, I will do it in a separete one.

And, of course happy Thanksgiving to you, too!

 

[seekerz]

Maybe the complexity of this discussion is really beyond me, but it seems logical that a human being is always a human being.

In my opinion, he/she may be a living human being, a disabled/altered human being or even a dead human being…a human is always and for eternity human.

Just an note on the comment about Terri Schiavo, persistent vegetative state or not (an that diagnosis is open to real questions), she was, and still is, human.

 

[ateista]

Maybe the complexity of this discussion is really beyond me, but it seems logical that a human being is always a human being.

In my opinion, he/she may be a living human being, a disabled/altered human being or even a dead human being…a human is always and for eternity human.

Just an note on the comment about Terri Schiavo, persistent vegetative state or not (an that diagnosis is open to real questions), she was, and still is, human.

Sure, but the question was “what” makes us human?

 

[ateista]

So, the next problem to contemplate is the difference between humans and computers from a **structural **point of view. Please bear with me, some of this is rather technical in nature. I also understand that you believe that the human mind is “more” than I will say - namely that there is a “soul”. That is fine, but whether there is “more” to humans or not is irrelevant. If this post can substantiate that the simpler (materialistic) view is sufficient, then there is no need for the hypothesis of a “soul”.

Computers have hardware and software. The hardware is the processing unit, the memory and the peripherals or (name removed by moderator)ut/output (I/O) devices. The software is the operating system. The processing unit, the memory and the operating system are not necessarily distinct. There are cellular computers, composed of hundreds or thousands of cells (of course the number of cells could be billions or trillions).

Each cell has a finite number of states. Each cell is connected to some other cells. Each cell communicates with its neighbors, and each cell changes its internal state based upon its previous state and the information received from its neighbors.

Surprisingly, there is no functional difference between an old-fashioned sequential computer and a cellular - parallel - one. Whatever problem one can solve, the other one can also solve. There is nothing new about this. Von Neumann proposed a neural computer and proved, that it can solve any problem that a sequential computer can, and it can reproduce itself. E. F. Codd even gave much more elegant proof to the question.

So we know that computers can solve problems and they can reproduce. They can also learn, there are many programs that evolve, change and learn, modify their own internal structures. They can also change themselves randomly - if given some peripherals that can detect light or sound.

The simplistic view that computers are fully predictable, that they cannot do anything that was not programmed into them is simply false. Not even the currently existing, extremely rudimentary computers - barely a few decades old.

They can even recognize faces, which is a very interesting problem. We have no idea how we recognize a face, and yet we do. The point is that it is not relevant that the recognition happens in a totally different manner. It is not necessary that the computer uses the same algorithm.

The next question is: can they generalize and conceptualize? Why not? To generalize and conceptualize is to recognize certain features, and disregard others. In a sense they can already do that. The JPEG algorithm which stores pictures in a compressed format is something along those lines. It discards part of the information, and retains the rest. The result is so close to the original that the naked eye cannot detect the difference. In a sense it is a very rudimentary form of “conceptualization”. (Side note: severly autistic people cannot conceptualize. When someone mentions a “dog”, their mind will bring up all the dogs they have ever seen, and not just a “generic” dog as we do.)

Nothing I posted above is speculation. What comes now, is speculation, to a certain degree.

Can a computer ever pass the Turing-test?

To those who might not be familiar with it, here comes: The Turing test says that if one can conduct a sufficiently long conversation with “someone” and during the conversation this “someone” cannot be told apart from a human being, than this “someone” has consciousness.

The conversation must be conducted “deviously”. The same question should be asked, formulated differently to test if the respondent recognizes whether the differences are superficial or not. Anything is accepted to “trick” the other party.

Today, no program can pass the Turing-test, though some take quite a long time to “unmask”. There are many computer programs that act in a very complicated manner, some of them can even give good psychiatric “advice”.

I believe that eventually the computer will pass the Turing test.
What is needed?

1. Memory. Check.
2. Learning. Check.
3. Ablilty to conceptualize. Sort of…

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. As soon as the first computer will pass the Turing test, the concept of the soul will be obsolete.

---

Humans have body and mind. Part of the body is the brain. If you substitute the word “cell” with “neurons” the previous paragraphs you will get the description of the functioning of the brain.

The post above is not a proof. It is merely a substantiation of the hypothesis that the concept of the soul is not necessary to the idea of “consciousness”.

 

[catharina]

For any who pursue Theology with the same intensity that others might use in pursuing Philosophy, a look at the following might prove to be enlightening. God, Who gave us both religion (faith) and reason, inspires the following teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit: Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

(read through #368 plus footnotes)

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[SJAB1958]

You spoke of body parts being replaced by different parts, either transplants or artificial.

My body begun as a fusion of my parents egg and sperm.

But the body I wear today is not the body I have always had, over time every part is replaced atom by atom, molecule by molecule.

My experiences, thoughts, feelings and memories all become part of my soul, which exists forever.

It is the soul and what it contains that makes me human, not the vehicle in which it travels.

 

[ateista]

You spoke of body parts being replaced by different parts, either transplants or artificial.

My body begun as a fusion of my parents egg and sperm.

But the body I wear today is not the body I have always had, over time every part is replaced atom by atom, molecule by molecule.

Yes.

My experiences, thoughts, feelings and memories all become part of my soul, which exists forever.

They are all part of your mind, which will disappear at time time of your death. Do you have any evidence to support that your “soul” will exist “forever”? In what manner is this hypothesis different from wishful thinking?

It is the soul and what it contains that makes me human, not the vehicle in which it travels.

It is the mind and what it contains that makes you human, not the vehicle in which it travels. The underlying material can be replaced, but as long as the **information **and **functionality **are preserved, it is essentially the same.

 

[drmcpike]

first thought experiment:
When the body is gone, we no longer have a human being, for a human being is body and soul. After death we cease being human until such time as we are reunited with our bodies.

With this conjecture, I think you have easily exceeded in silliness the XIVth c. theological blunder of Pope John XXII, wherein he speculated that the enjoyment of the beatific vision would be denied to the souls of the faithful departed prior to the resurrection. Way to go!

 

[drmcpike]

This idea has been abandoned a long, long time ago. It was found an unncessary concept, like the idea of the “ether”. Life is simply defined as complex responses to complex stimuli, nothing more.

I haven’t read most of the posts here (beyond the first page), but I’ll indulge nonetheless in asking for clarification on this curious (or perhaps just naive?) comment.

Which/whose idea of the soul was abandoned? When exactly, “long, long ago,” was it abandoned and by whom? (I know it wasn’t abandoned by Dennett or Churchland or any of their colleagues - they haven’t been around for a “long, long time.”) What reason did the actual “abandoners” give for their abandonment?

 

[agangbern]

When the body has no soul, then it is not human. It may, for some reasons, as in through the manipulation of one “brilliant” scientist, manifest the basic characteristics of a human being, but without a soul, the entity is not human. I am referring specifically to the soul that the Lord God breathed into the entity we call MAN.

How do we know that the entity has still a soul? At the moment of conception (of man) inside the woman, the Lord God breaths into him a soul. The soul manifests itself through the body of man. When the body is destroyed to the point that it would no longer manifest the soul, then we consider that body of man as dead, and it is no longer human. But while the same body has the potential or actual power to manifest the soul, then it is alive, and “it” is human.
What are some basic actual manifestations of the soul through the body? One is the longing for God. Whether he would admit it or not, he longs for God. Another is his desire for beauty and truth.
This longing for God and desire for beauty and truth is unique to a human being. It is because of these that man starts thinking and makes reasoned decisions, though at times his reasoning process gets wrong. He desires and thinks not because a scientist programmed him to do so, or puts him on, but simply as he is moved within by his soul.

 

[ateista]

I haven’t read most of the posts here (beyond the first page), but I’ll indulge nonetheless in asking for clarification on this curious (or perhaps just naive?) comment.

Which/whose idea of the soul was abandoned? When exactly, “long, long ago,” was it abandoned and by whom? (I know it wasn’t abandoned by Dennett or Churchland or any of their colleagues - they haven’t been around for a “long, long time.”) What reason did the actual “abandoners” give for their abandonment?

I had to go back and check what was that post referring to. The “soul” as **an animating concept **was discarded by biologists. No biologist needs the assumption that without an animating “soul” we would all be inanimate as a rock.

Viruses are defined as “living” by some biologists, and “complex crystalline structures” by others. What is “living” and what is not is simply a matter of choice. “Living” things exhibit complex responses to complex stimuli, “non-living” things do not. Where one draws the line in “complexity” is merely a matter of preference.

 

[Pete_1]

I had to go back and check what was that post referring to. The “soul” as **an animating concept **was discarded by biologists. No biologist needs the assumption that without an animating “soul” we would all be inanimate as a rock.

Viruses are defined as “living” by some biologists, and “complex crystalline structures” by others. What is “living” and what is not is simply a matter of choice. “Living” things exhibit complex responses to complex stimuli, “non-living” things do not. Where one draws the line in “complexity” is merely a matter of preference.

Maybe it could be said that because we have an incomplete definition of what or what not is living it is a matter of choice?

 

[ateista]

Maybe it could be said that because we have an incomplete definition of what or what not is living it is a matter of choice?

Sometimes there is only a functional definition.

Suppose I point to a rock and assert: “That rock is alive. It moves, it eats, it propagates its life form (by splitting into smaller pebbles), it even engages in deep philosophical discussions.”

The trouble is that its life span is about 70 million years, and it performs these acts so slowly, that one second of its lifetime equals our whole life-span. Can you prove that the rock is not “alive”?

 

[drmcpike]

I had to go back and check what was that post referring to. The “soul” as **an animating concept **was discarded by biologists. No biologist needs the assumption that without an animating “soul” we would all be inanimate as a rock.

Viruses are defined as “living” by some biologists, and “complex crystalline structures” by others. What is “living” and what is not is simply a matter of choice. “Living” things exhibit complex responses to complex stimuli, “non-living” things do not. Where one draws the line in “complexity” is merely a matter of preference.

Well, that’s interesting! But with due respect, I think you should try not to get ahead of yourself. Perhaps there is a time and a place for bruiting your biologistic dogmas, but I’d appreciate if you would answer my questions first. When you say “biologists,” who exactly do you mean? The modern discipline of biology surely hasn’t been around for a “long, long time,” has it?

I’m worried that your viewpoint is very limited in understanding the history of the concept you are attacking and you therefore don’t really know what it is you’re attacking (a common problem for those who try to refute ancient philosophy using modern science). Your claim that: ‘No biologist needs the assumption that without an animating “soul” we would all be inanimate as a rock,’ for instance, is directed towards whose conception of the soul exactly? Surely not Aristotle’s? (Do you know anything about Aristotle’s conception of the soul?)

The following quote/paraphrase is from Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling: “If someone who decided to take up dancing, asked if he could start off his learning process with a difficult dance that dancers usually only attempt after having been through long years of apprenticeship, people would laugh at him; not so in the world of spirit. What then is education? I thought it was the curriculum the individual runs through in order to catch up with himself, and whoever will not go through this curriculum is helped very little by being born in the most enlightened age.” If you don’t know the book, you’re missing some context, but hopefully you can see the point.