I disagree. How will it be grown or assemble for that matter? The only known way to grow a human body is by using fertilized eggs. The instructions encoded in the chromosomes of a fertilized egg is the only thing that can make it develope. How can you grow a body without it resulting in a human being? I think you are making a false dichotomy between the body and the soul, as if you could make a body without a soul dwelling in it and then revive it.
You need to think outside the “box”, and look beyond what is “known today”. This is a thought experiment, where we are not bound by the technology which exists today. For example we can imagine a perfect copy-machine, which copies anything om the atomic or sub-atomic level. We could make a perfect clone of someone. Now comes the question: does the copy have a soul? If someone asserts that it has a soul, then the next question is “where did it come from”? Did the material copy machine also copy the soul? Makes no sense, a material copy cannot also make a copy of an immaterial soul. Did God imbue the copy with a soul? If so, when? When the first atom is copied? When the last atom is copied? Somewhere in-between? All sorts of interesting questions.
The whole point of the experiment is to show that the concept of the “soul” is superfluous and unnecessary. No one can demonstrate the existence of a “soul”, moreover I have never even seen a coherent definition of it.
No, the soul would provide the ideal functionality. Please do not confuse the cause with the effect.
I must confess that I am still working through this philosophy myself, and I thank you for your responses; they do help me. I will concede your critiques of my theory within the domain of science, and I must agree that there is no objective, repeatable method to detect a soul. However, I will contend that your method is not objective either. I speak not of the data, but the application of that data.
Thanks. That is why I asked, because I did not understand. We can return to it later, to flesh out just what the soul is and how does it provide the functionality. But let’s see the rest of yout post first.
Ok. If I can be of assistence, I will be happy to provide.
I think it is objective, so I will give reasons why I think so. But I admit that so far I left it vague, intentionally so. So let’s get down to the details.
My list is somewhat different and very short. 1) It is ability to conceptualize. Nothing more. Also there is an auxiliary ability which is useful, but not essential: 2) the ability to communicate. The ability to conceptualize, to form abstractions is the hallmark of a sentient being. The lack of ability to communicate does not impair the status, but it makes others unable to recognize the fact.
I think we need a proper definition of the soul. To say that it “provides” the perfect functionality only describes what the soul (allegedly) does, but does not tell us, what the soul actually is.
The Greeks invented the philosophical concept of soul. So we have to go back and reactivate the meaning. For Aristotle, the soul is not a being, a freestanding independent substance. Only a concrete being, like “this rock” or “this human being”, is a substance. The soul is the “form”, the structure, the organization of parts, that is the basis for abilities, for actual functioning - in Aristotelian terms, the soul provides the “potentiality” for the “actuality”. This distinction between potentiality and actuality is one of the great philosophical achievements.
I see no reason to ponder the speculations of ancient people, even if they were geniuses like Aristotole was. Using words like “form” does not add to the understanding. Also the concept of “potential existence” is an oxymoron. Something either exists actually, or does not exist at all. In the latter case we can speculate about “how would this thing be, if it actually existed”. That would lead to “concepts”. If something does not exist, it cannot have attributes. Existence cannot be treated as an attribute (like Anselm did with his “greatest conceivable being” as an attempt to prove God’s existence). It is nonsensical to say: “there is a nonexistent red ball on my imaginary desk, placed on an expensive book which has not been written yet”. Or to say: “I have yellow pencil in my hand, and, oh, by the way it actually exists”. The first proposition is meaningless, the second one is redundant.
How would you know that? The lifespan of a rock is 70 million years, so for the rock one second of its life equals our whole lifespan. We cannot even discover if the rock is alive or not, much less conduct a conversation with it.
But there is no such thing as “essential” in a vacuum. “Essential” only exists in a context. What is the “essence” of a rubber ball? For the child the essence is that it can be used to play with it. For the manufacturer it is that it can be sold for money.
I think I will like this. What does “conceptualize” mean? How may we determine a being’s ability to conceptualize once communication is established?
Quoted for interest
Conceptualize: create abstractions or mental equivalents, or concepts. How do we detect it? By using the Turing test. If there is a communication channel, we can conduct information exchange and come to a conclusion about each other. In the information channel we “throw” propositions to each other (conversation). From the answers we can deduce if the other party understood our propositions. Fortunately information can be measured, so we do not have to resort to mere speculation to find out if there is an understanding between the two parties.
I am glad you like it. Too bad I cannot claim ownership. I borrowed the example from the “Andromeda Strain” by Michael Crichton.Quoted for interest
Information cannot be measured. What units could it possibly be quantified in? The intercourse of information does not lend itself to a deduction, rather an inference. Are not we, as adults, accustomed to speaking to beings of lesser mental stature than ourselves. When I tell my dog to sit, he sits. He hasn’t mastered ‘stay’ yet. When I ask my niece if she would like a sticker, she takes one. She does not respond to broccoli however. When I talk to another university graduate about linguistics, he tells me to stop talking gibberish; his field was engineering. Please help me; it again seems like there are so many ways to muck up this investigation.
Of course it can. That what information theory is all about (not to be confused with information technology). The measuring unit is, of course, bits. Try this experiment: take a newspaper, and place a piece of paper horizontally on it, so only the upper half of the printed line is visible. You will have absolutely no difficulty in deciphering the whole line. There is so much extra information (redundancy) built into the language, that you can deduce the hidden part. Another example: when you use the phone, there is always some noise on the line, sometimes making the comprehension diffcult. For you, the talk is the information, the noise is just that: noise. For the techincian, who investigates the quality of the transmission, it is the noise which is the information, and the talk (if overheard) is the noise. This example is supposed to show that information is not “absolute”, it is always relative.
Obviously. You can infer (deduct) that the dog’s comprehension is less than yours.
And from that fact you can make further inferences about her preferences.
And by that you gain even more information about your partner. If I would switch over to a different language (one you probably do not speak), you could rightfully complain that I am not supposed to switch the communication channel midstream. Don’t forget, the communication channel is supposed to convey information from me to you and from you to me. That is sometimes a major problem in mutual understanding. For example, if you would use the word “spiritual” I would have no idea what the word means. I heard the word, obviously, but it is meaningless for me. (Let’s not get into a conversation about it. It was just an example).
You are right. The process is long. That is why the Turing test leaves it intentionally vague: it talks about a sufficiently long conversation. Only you can decide what is “sufficiently” long for you. You need to hit as many topics as you can. You can and should employ tricks, place traps to see if your partner simply “parrots” something, of if he really understands your propositions. You can ask the same question with different wording after a time, and see how the other person replies. If he says: “hey, you just asked that 5 minutes ago” you made a serious headway into establishing that he understands what you say. If and when we shall have a computer which is sufficiently advanced to pass the Turing test, then the fun will really begin. I don’t think I will live that long, unfortunately. Of course, about 20 years ago I did not think that I will see a computer beat the world chess champion either, and was wrong. I hope I am wrong again. Time will tell.
The problem with using bits as the measuring unit is that bits quantify everything typed into a computer, not just the meaningful stuff. It still requires the human brain to do the sorting. And since information is not absolute, rather always relative, it is not objective.
Certainly, but that does not help me decide whether either of them are human.
And by engaging in these unhelpful behaviours, any of us could maliciously deprive another of human status.
Again, if I decide what is a sufficiently long conversation, then I, and only I, decide who and what is human to me. This process is far from objective and repeatable.
Let’s make sure that we use the same vocabulary. “Absolute” and “relative” are not the same as “objective” and “subjective”. There is no such thing as “absolute” meaning, but there is “objective” meaning. That is what I tried to explain. If I have a proposition in mind, put it into the communication channel, you receive it, and if your understanding it is very similar to what I intended, then we have a successful communication and the proposition gained “meaning”.
It does give you a “hint”, so to speak. That is why your Turing test is not sufficiently long.
Yes, it could happen. But I am assuming an open mind, and a willingness to arrive at the correct solution. I would suggest that in the case of ambiguity, let’s err on the side of including someone who might not merit including, rather than excluding someone who should be included. You know: I would prefer to let a 1000 guilty ones to go free, rather then to convict one innocent. I know that not everyone agrees with me.
Yes, it is objective. And it is repeatable by both you and others. If you wish to close the “test” prematurely, that is your business. Unfortunately it would be unreasonable to assume that all of us want to arrive at an objective result. Sadly, many people would want to have their preconceived ideas seem to be corroborated, rather then to let the chips fall where they may. But that is not the problem of the method, it is the problem of the ones who conduct the experiment.
You may have misunderstood Aristotle.
Of course, Aristotle did not use the English word “rational” but a maybe not so equilavent Greek phrase which revolves around the Greek word “logos”. So the real question is: what does “logos” mean?
This is perfectly fine. Now why should anyone invent a “mystical sounding soul” to describe these normal, physical abilities? Taking the violin player as the example, that player has certain muscle control, a very accurate pitch (recognizing sounds), etc… These abilities are all grounded in our physical structure, the brain and the body. The activity of body is our motion, breathing, circulation of blood, distributing the nutrients, etc… The activity of the brain produces the mind, our thoughts, concepts, ideas, and so on. (Contrary to what Aristotlele belived that the brain is just a cooling organ for blood).
Sure. He only knew one species of animals which was able to conceptualize, create abstractions, or in other words: sentience. As such he speculated that sentience equals humanness. No argument from me. He was perfectly justified to hold this theory, due to the general lack of science of his time.
As I said to Spirithound, “meanings” are not absolute, they get “established” between two (or more) partners who use a communication channel. When I use the word “integral” speaking to another mathematician, it carries a totally different meaning than speaking about an “integral part” of a machine.
You may need to step back a little on this concept of soul.
No doubt they all speculated and came to some conclusions. Of course they also speculated that lightning is the “flaming sword of God”, that diseases were caused by demonic possessions. that the semen is really a miniature “homunculus”, that there are 4 elements (air, water, earth and fire)… the list of speculations is endless. Of course those people should not be blamed for that. They tried to make sense of the world, and since there were no sciences back then, these speculations were the best they could do.
That would be very sad and disappointing. But I am optimistic and hope for a better result.So while what you’re attempting is worthwhile, this is a warning that however you define what it is to be human, like everyone else in history ultimately it may only convince you.
That’s the issue – the concept appears to be based in our raw feelings about ourselves as animals. We can’t put these feelings into words any better than a dog or golden eagle might, and by trying we end up with all these different rationalizations.
I am sure there cannot be a concensus as long as people want to include undefined categories (soul) in the definition.
Yes, in this case we have established successful communication, but that does not mean that the proposition has objective meaning. The meaning is still dependent on the subjects allowing it to have that meaning.
And therefore subjective. A meter is a meter, no matter where I go. My agreement is not necessary; it is objective. When I am speaking to the high-school students, I can choose to accept their meanings of slang, or not. It is subjective.
Again, how long is long enough? Do we simply talk until we both decide we’re human? If an experiment has no set end-point, it is not objective.
How wide should our margin of error be?
Yes, it is objective. And it is repeatable by both you and others. If you wish to close the “test” prematurely, that is your business. Unfortunately it would be unreasonable to assume that all of us want to arrive at an objective result. Sadly, many people would want to have their preconceived ideas seem to be corroborated, rather then to let the chips fall where they may. But that is not the problem of the method, it is the problem of the ones who conduct the experiment.
But you know, I’m less worried about the humans who show up borderline on the Turing test than the humans who are unable to engage it at all.