Human or not?

[ateista]

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 concept of the “soul” is ill-defined. Why should I worry about how many “definitions” of a soul are there?

 

[puzzleannie]

Let’s play two thought experiments.

Suppose we talk about a human. We know it is a human, because he acts just as see other humans act - where the word “act” is taken in a very generic fashion.

Suppose that human loses a limb in an accident, and the lost limb is replaced by prosthesis. Obviously the individual is still the same (though might be somewhat impaired). Now continuing this (admittedly) gruesome process, we start replacing organ by organ the individual’s bodily parts with transplants or artificial prostheses - while leaving his brain alone.
?

I think this is actually the plot of the George Bernard Shaw play “Man and Superman”. It is also a plot element in This Hideous STrength, the last book in C S Lewis’ space trilogy. so others have already devoted time and thought to this proposition, might be worth reading those who have gone before.

 

[drmcpike]

The concept of the “soul” is ill-defined. Why should I worry about how many “definitions” of a soul are there?

It certainly appears to be ill-defined in your mind, i.e., you appear to ignorant of said definition. Ergo I take it you’re tacitly admitting that you don’t know what you’re talking about when you attack this concept?

 

[drmcpike]

The concept of the “soul” is ill-defined. Why should I worry about how many “definitions” of a soul are there?

And perhaps I should add, since, with all due respect, you give evidence of being a little “slow on the uptake,” you shouldn’t worry about how many “definitions” of a soul there are, at least I don’t see the point of doing so. However, since you apparently claim that any such a concept is otiose, unless you’re intent upon merely wallowing in your own ignorance, isn’t it incumbent upon you to have some such concept in mind that you’re arguing against, and to explain to your interlocutors what that concept is? Or do you just not like the comination of letters s-o-u-l? Would you prefer p-s-y-c-h-e?

 

[ateista]

And perhaps I should add, since, with all due respect, you give evidence of being a little “slow on the uptake,” you shouldn’t worry about how many “definitions” of a soul there are, at least I don’t see the point of doing so. However, since you apparently claim that any such a concept is otiose, unless you’re intent upon merely wallowing in your own ignorance, isn’t it incumbent upon you to have some such concept in mind that you’re arguing against, and to explain to your interlocutors what that concept is? Or do you just not like the comination of letters s-o-u-l? Would you prefer p-s-y-c-h-e?

I accept “mind” which is defined as the electro-chemical activity of the brain. Which starts to exist at a certain point in our development, and which ceases to exist at the point of death. This concept has been properly defined, and its existence well demonstrated.

If it pleases you, and gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority (demonstrated by the civilly chosen but nevertheless condescending words), you can say that I am ignorant of the concept of the soul (though I am familiar with soul-music, for example). I certainly am, because this concept has not been presented in any coherent fashion, let alone demonstrated in any acceptable manner.

And to further your feeling of superiority I will freely admit that I am also ignorant of gods, angels, demons, elves, dragons, leprechauns in the real world, though I am familiar with them in the fantasy world of human concoctions. As soon as you have evidence for their actual existence, I will be delighted to examine it and make a decision if they are convincing or not.

Are you satisfied now, or should I grovel a little more?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep the discussion civil, people, or I will have to close the thread. Thank you.

 

[agangbern]

The concept of what is human and not human ultimately would be influenced by one’s beliefs. Those who believe nothing except it can be studied empirically may consider as human any entity that is capable of demonstrating thought processes. We ought to respect them in their belief. Catholics believe that it is the presence of the soul (the kind breathed by God to man in Genesis) in the body that makes one human. We also have to respect that belief.

 

[Benadam]

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.

An emotion is not a complex response nor is the mind’s activity. Where is your mind?

 

[ateista]

An emotion is not a complex response nor is the mind’s activity. Where is your mind?

Oh, yes it certainly is. It can be demonstrated that emotions and chemicals produced by the brain occur simultaneously, and putting chemicals into the brain will create emotions. Notably the mind-altering drugs.

Cocaine is similar to chemicals produced by the brain, when one is freshly in love. (Some people are addicted to this chemical, and jump from one bed to the next). Morphine and heroin are remarkably similar to the chemicals which are produced by the brain after a long and successful marriage.

Also, if certain areas of the brain are stimulated by mild electric current, the result is very strong emotion. Remember the rats and mice. They were allowed to step on a switch which stimulated the pleasure center of the brain. They did not stop until they literally collapsed due to exhaustion.

Some indian tribes used hallucionatory drugs (mescaline etc.) which produces states otherwise known as religious “rapture”.

The mind is the electro-chemical activity of the brain.

 

[ateista]

The concept of what is human and not human ultimately would be influenced by one’s beliefs. Those who believe nothing except it can be studied empirically may consider as human any entity that is capable of demonstrating thought processes. We ought to respect them in their belief. Catholics believe that it is the presence of the soul (the kind breathed by God to man in Genesis) in the body that makes one human. We also have to respect that belief.

I agree with the respect part.

The question is that the “soul” is not something that can be measured or demonstrated. If you see “something” that looks like a human, acts like a human, then how do you find out if that being has a soul or not?

 

[Benadam]

Oh, yes it certainly is. It can be demonstrated that emotions and chemicals produced by the brain occur simultaneously, and putting chemicals into the brain will create emotions. Notably the mind-altering drugs.

You describe electrochemical activity in the brain which can be located. The mind is not complex. If it were you could distinguish various parts. Have you known anyone to partition the mind into complex parts that distinguish it’s various operations? Can you tell me where my mind is?

 

[ateista]

That only demonstrates that emotions can be ‘experienced’ as a response to chemicals…but so can the reverse be demonstrated so it doesn’t demonstrate that emotions are these electrochemical processes. If that were true we could procduce an emotion in the lab.

I have no idea what the bolded part means.

As for the lab question: “emotions” are nothing else than the reactions produced by the brain as a response to certain circumstances. There is no such thing as “love”, “honesty”, “bravery” etc. if there is no sufficiently complex brain to produce them. There is no abstract “love”.

But you know it is impossible to produce an emotion because an emotion is not part of the physical world and is a proof that the power to emote is not physical but requires ‘sentience’.

What we call sentience is the ability of a brain to be self-aware. For that to happen, the complexity of the brain must reach a certain limit. Some primates exhibit something like a rudimentary from of sentience, lower animals only exhibit some awareness.

You mistakenly ascribe the movement of leaves and tree limb that you can see as the wind that you cannot see.

On the contrary, we recognize that the movement of the leaves is due to the physical presence and movement of air molecules, which are too small to see by the naked eye.

again that these physical manifestations that are clearly united to realities that are not physical does not imply in any way that they are one and the same or that they can share definition. In fact that they are distinguished by there very being in different realms makes obvious they cannot share definition.

I don’t see what you mean here either. What is that “non-physical” you speak of?

You describe electrochemical activity in the brain which can be located. The mind is not complex. If it were you could distinguish various parts. Have you known anyone to partition the mind into complex parts that distinguish it’s various operations? Can you tell me where my mind is?

The mind is the activity of the brain, just like power exhibited by a car engine is the activity of the various moving parts. The question: “where is the mind in the brain?” is just as incorrect as to ask: “where is the power in the engine?”. If you switch off the engine, the power disappears. If you switch of the brain (death) the mind disappears.

 

[Benadam]

I have no idea what the bolded part means.
No I can point out the power. It is the gasses combusting that require more space so parts are moved. Now if that power was experienced as a feeling of exuberance or something by the engine… then that analogy could work

 

[drmcpike]

I accept “mind” which is defined as the electro-chemical activity of the brain. Which starts to exist at a certain point in our development, and which ceases to exist at the point of death. This concept has been properly defined, and its existence well demonstrated.

If it pleases you, and gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority (demonstrated by the civilly chosen but nevertheless condescending words), you can say that I am ignorant of the concept of the soul (though I am familiar with soul-music, for example). I certainly am, because this concept has not been presented in any coherent fashion, let alone demonstrated in any acceptable manner.

And to further your feeling of superiority I will freely admit that I am also ignorant of gods, angels, demons, elves, dragons, leprechauns in the real world, though I am familiar with them in the fantasy world of human concoctions. As soon as you have evidence for their actual existence, I will be delighted to examine it and make a decision if they are convincing or not.

Are you satisfied now, or should I grovel a little more?

Sorry to offend you, but the point is not at all about my superiority or my desire for you to grovel. It really is about your ignorance - that is, your not-knowing about the position you are criticizing. This isn’t meant to depress you or upset you, but to invite you to reflect on your own education (cf. the Kierkegaard quote I posted). To me you sound like the product of a Gradgrind-type educational experience - see:
doceo.co.uk/background/gradgrind.htm

Gradgrind is a caricature, but I’m sure(?) you get the point. Anyhoo!.. I think you’re granting that, indeed, you do not know when, “long, long ago,” the notion of the soul was rejected or by whom or what their arguments were, or even what notion of soul these unidentified persons were supposedly rejecting. Is this correct? If it is, perhaps we have reason to believe that you are the one who is indulging their “warm, fuzzy feelings” in maintaining that you have no use for such a concept. (And I say this as a reasonable contention, not an unfounded ad hominem attack, as I believe was the case for your accusation of me.)

 

[agangbern]

I agree with the respect part.

The question is that the “soul” is not something that can be measured or demonstrated. If you see “something” that looks like a human, acts like a human, then how do you find out if that being has a soul or not?

My post #116 in this thread proposed an answer to that. Let me quote it here below:

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]

emotions can also produce the electrochemicals that are associated with them. This has been demonstrated through hypnosis for example.

They go hand-in-hand. Hypnosis is just another way to to convey information to the brain/mind.

If I were to post something inflammatory, you would read it (infomation), the neurons in your brain would fire, your brain would produce the proper chemicals - and you would experience anger.

What about anger? joy? the brain isn’t experiencing the emotion is it? I mean since I’m sure under certain circumstances the brain can be producing the chemical yet the person who owns the brain may not experience anything. Did the emotion exist?

That would be interesting to see if it would be possible to demonstrate.

I’ll go with that. When the leaves and limbs of electrochemicals are observed what is analogous to the molecules of air?

Actually, the “air-molecules” are analogous to the chemicals, and movement of of the leaves is the emotion.

The ‘experience’ we call emotion. You really aren’t going to argue that when the words that describe what we feel are used that what we describe doesn’t exist ?

Of course emotions exist. The word “emotion” describes a certain brain-state.

No I can point out the power. It is the gasses combusting that require more space so parts are moved. Now if that power was experienced as a feeling of exuberance or something by the engine… then that analogy could work

That is not the “power”. It is what produces the power. The only difference in the analogy of brain/mind and engine/power is that the engine can be switched off and restarted, the brain cannot.

 

[ateista]

My post #116 in this thread proposed an answer to that. Let me quote it here below:

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.

I probably missed it when you first posted it, sorry.

Let me reflect on the bold part, since that is what I percieve as the main thrust of you argument.

1. Desire for God. If that is a necessary piece, then I am not a “human” being and nor are the millions of atheists, who do not believe in God. How can one “desire” something that one does not believe in? That is absurd.

You say “Whether he would admit it or not” - and that could be highly offensive, because it seems that you accuse all atheists to be dishonest. I don’t think, however, that this is what you meant, I think it was just an unfortunate selection of words.

1. Desire for beauty. There is no such thing as “abstract beauty”. Different people find different things beautiful.
2. Desire for truth. Again, there is no such thing as “abstract truth”. There are millions of statements, propositions, which correspond to reality, and those are called “true statements”.

 

[ateista]

It really is about your ignorance - that is, your not-knowing about the position you are criticizing. This isn’t meant to depress you or upset you, but to invite you to reflect on your own education (cf. the Kierkegaard quote I posted).

This is not the way I see it. I see a concept offered, which is not defined in a coherent format. There are discrepancies in the different definitions.

Let me translate it into a different format: some people might believe in the existence of “dragons”. Some would insist that dragons have one head, others might assert that they have seven heads. Some would say that the dragons breathe fire, others might not. Some would say that dragons subsist on the bodies of virgins offered to them as sacrifices.

I do not need to know the specifics of these different types of dragons, to summarily reject their existence. It is incumbent upon the proponents of dragons (or souls, or angels, demons… whatever) to present a coherent definition, and then arguments to support that these entites actually exist - and not just the product of their mind.

 

[john_doran]

I do not need to know the specifics of these different types of dragons, to summarily reject their existence.

even ignoring the fact that you’d need to know what “dragon” means in order to know that your interlocutor wasn’t referring to something that you believe exists, if you actually reject the existence of dragons, you need to support your rejection with argument.

rejecting the existence of something isn’t the same thing as simply not having a belief that such a thing exists…

ateista:

It is incumbent upon the proponents of dragons (or souls, or angels, demons… whatever) to present a coherent definition, and then arguments to support that these entites actually exist - and not just the product of their mind.

been there, done that: you didn’t like the definition and arguments, and summarily rejected the very coherence of corollary issues (e.g. the existence and nature of abstract objects) that have occupied the thoughts of some of the brightest empiricist atheist philosophers of modern times…

ever heard of w.v.o. quine? hilary putnam? they thought that abstract objects needed to exist because they are indispensable to the practice of science and math (maybe you’ve heard the apothegm, “to be is to be the value of a variable” - variables that range over abstract objects are ineliminable, and thus propositions containing them commit us to an ontology containing them, as well).

but whatever…you are now returned to your regular scheduled programming…

 

[drmcpike]

This is not the way I see it. I see a concept offered, which is not defined in a coherent format. There are discrepancies in the different definitions.

Let me translate it into a different format: some people might believe in the existence of “dragons”. Some would insist that dragons have one head, others might assert that they have seven heads. Some would say that the dragons breathe fire, others might not. Some would say that dragons subsist on the bodies of virgins offered to them as sacrifices.

I do not need to know the specifics of these different types of dragons, to summarily reject their existence. It is incumbent upon the proponents of dragons (or souls, or angels, demons… whatever) to present a coherent definition, and then arguments to support that these entites actually exist - and not just the product of their mind.

Perhaps that is not the way you see it precisely because of your ignorance. I hope I can convince you to at least seriously consider this possibility. Now we can start off with a very simple way in which your approach is wrong-headed: There are clearly diverse images of dragons as mythical creatures, but your conclusion that no dragons of any kind exist clearly doesn’t follow. And in fact, as I’m sure you’ll agree, komodo dragons most certainly do exist.

This may seem trivial, but consider further. Imagine meeting someone who sincerely maintained that seven-headed fire-breathing virgin-eating dragons do exist. (Do it… now.)

Now, wouldn’t we be quite startled by such a person? It’s a strange thing to even try to imagine. Now imagine that I was that person. Suppose we had had the interchanges that we have had to this point; you have good evidence, I believe, that I am at least to some degree a reasonable person (in spite of my rhetorical sharpness, which I half-heartedly apologize for ). Now suppose I were to respond to your quote about dragons by sincerely maintaining that seven-headed (etc.) dragons jolly well do exist. How would you react? Would you think I was serious, that I was worth arguing with? Or would you be unsurprised and think to yourself in your pedestrian way, “well, that was to be expected… believing in dragons is no different from believing in souls - someone who believes in souls should be expected to believe in dragons - he lives in a fantasy world in the one case, so why not in the other”?