The "souls" of bacteria and other creatures?

[ateista]

I would submit one of the distingishing charactics of life is awareness.

It depends on what you mean by “awareness”? The bacteria and the biological viruses certainly exchange chemicals with their immediate environment. Are they “aware” of their environment?

I consider a computer to be inanimate, so it cannot possibly be aware of anything. So how does this say anything about the virus itself?

So are the atoms that are our “building blocks”. They are inanimate, too.

Sure, you can turn the computer off and back on, which you cannot do with biological beings. The computer virus is much more “aware” of its surroundings than a biological one is. The biological one only can “sense” its immediate surroundings, the computer virus can scan the whole memory, the disk drives, even can detect a whole network - and act accordingly. In this sense it is much more “aware” than a biological can ever be.

 

[ateista]

Given your discussion of the rock above, I don’t think an agreement is possible.

If you say so.

Though I would like to know what did you find unreasonable about the problem of the rock. But only if you want to discuss it. Please do not feel obligated.

 

[davidv]

If you say so.

Though I would like to know what did you find unreasonable about the problem of the rock. But only if you want to discuss it. Please do not feel obligated.

What I found unreasonable was that it was inconsistant with everything I know to be true. I did some more research and would propose that in order for something to be alive it must legitimately fit in one of the groups defined here.

 

[ateista]

What I found unreasonable was that it was inconsistant with everything I know to be true. I did some more research and would propose that in order for something to be alive it must legitimately fit in one of the groups defined here.

Maybe you missed the point. As I said I do not argue that a piece of rock is alive. I just pointed out that it might be impossible to make an informed decision.

The problem with your URL is that it unduly restricts the concept of life to the currently existing life forms here on Earth. When contemplating the question of “life” it should include the existing life-forms (which my definition does), but cannot restrict it to them. What I suggested was not inconsistent (after all it did not argue that the existing life-forms are not alive), but a generalized way of looking at the picture.

If and when we find an alien life-form (if we ever do), which might not fit into the categories enumerated in the those articles (and which might not even be carbon-based), we would “declare” those entities non-alive even if they would exhibit a conscious and logical mind. Now that would be unreasonable.

To say that only the currently existing life forms are valid is a narrow way to look at reality. (By the way, based upon your definition God is not “alive” either… )

 

[Ghosty]

In that case it is unnecessary to use two words: the “body” (or matter) and the “soul”. What is the point? Either the soul can be separated as a specific part of the body and in that case it could be “pinned down”, or not, and in that case the concept is unnecessary…

The reason for the distinction is that some things have bodies without souls, such as rocks. We account for the difference between living, self-acting bodies and “lumps of matter” by bringing in the soul. The soul can’t be seperated as a specific part of the body because it is continuous with the whole body, just as “circle” can’t be seperated out as a specific part of a particular bronze circle since it is part of the definition of the whole thing. You can’t say which “part” of the bronze circle is “circle”, but you can certainly identify when “circle” has left the bronze, as when it’s bent into the shape of a square, and it is similar in the case of the material soul.

What’s more, “body” does not simply equal matter, since the souls of plants and animals are material as well. In fact, the souls of animals are arguably the highest form of matter-without-spirit; they are living, acting matter with will and determination. The philosophy of the Catholic Church (most especially Thomism, which is the most “materialistic” of the Catholic philosophies) does not accept the modern division of matter and soul as two totally different things. The reason our soul is different from our matter has to do with the spiritual nature of our souls, not with the fact that it is a soul.

As for viruses and such, I see no reason why they can’t be considered alive, or having souls, but they would certainly be material souls, and the crudest form of material soul at that.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Elizabeth2]

“A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth.” Pope Benedict XVI

What a great quote Buffalo, makes me think of St. Thomas More

 

[Elizabeth2]

“But I will look for some means of going to heaven by a little way which is very short and very straight, a little way that is quite new”. Therese of lisieux

Another great quote.

 

[ateista]

The reason for the distinction is that some things have bodies without souls, such as rocks.

As I posted above, you cannot decide if a rock is alive or not. It may be alive, but its time-flow is millions of times slower than ours, and thus, its activity cannot be observed. The lack of observation does not “prove” that its activity is nonexistent.

We account for the difference between living, self-acting bodies and “lumps of matter” by bringing in the soul.

No, not “we”, just theists. Biologists have dispensed with the concept of soul as animating principle. I doubt if there is a biologist today who subscribes to this concept.

As for viruses and such, I see no reason why they can’t be considered alive, or having souls, but they would certainly be material souls, and the crudest form of material soul at that.

To be alive is to have an active interaction with the environment. (If you put a dark cloth out in the sun, its temperature will change. That is not an active, two-way interaction.) In that vein the viruses are alive, even if they miss some of the features we usually attribute to life. Before viruses were discovered, only DNA based entities were considered alive. It was presumed that nothing simpler can be “alive”.

The discovery of viruses forced the biologists to update their definition.

No comes my question: computer viruses actively interact with their environment, of that can be no doubt. Therefore they must be considered “living” according to the definition above.

Now, you can have two options. One is to disagree with the definition, and offer a different one. Or, two, explain where the soul of the computer virus “resides”.

 

[davidv]

Maybe you missed the point. As I said I do not argue that a piece of rock is alive. I just pointed out that it might be impossible to make an informed decision.

The problem with your URL is that it unduly restricts the concept of life to the currently existing life forms here on Earth. When contemplating the question of “life” it should include the existing life-forms (which my definition does), but cannot restrict it to them. What I suggested was not inconsistent (after all it did not argue that the existing life-forms are not alive), but a generalized way of looking at the picture.

If and when we find an alien life-form (if we ever do), which might not fit into the categories enumerated in the those articles (and which might not even be carbon-based), we would “declare” those entities non-alive even if they would exhibit a conscious and logical mind. Now that would be unreasonable.

To say that only the currently existing life forms are valid is a narrow way to look at reality. (By the way, based upon your definition God is not “alive” either… )

I did not intend to restrict life to only the known. I intended the link to portrary a taxonomy, agaisnt which we could test anything proposed to be alive, to see if we could fit it into an existing category or justify creating a unique category within the the top of the hierachy.
Given that either the taxonamy of biology or your your proposed definition might not include God, suggests to me that as we attempt to categorize anything as “alive” we of necessity are restricted to something less than all that exists.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Well, for a soul, what does a ‘thing’ need? Does it need to be alive, in our sense of the word? Does it need to be individual? Does it need to have consciousness of itself? If you answer those, then you can verify what does and doesn’t have a ‘soul,’ or some sort of super-material being.

There’s probably more that would need to be defined to what makes a soul and what doesn’t, but those are the ones I could think of at the moment.

 

[Ghosty]

As I posted above, you cannot decide if a rock is alive or not. It may be alive, but its time-flow is millions of times slower than ours, and thus, its activity cannot be observed. The lack of observation does not “prove” that its activity is nonexistent.

You’re positing an unknown that goes against all observation. Isn’t that a bit superstitious of you?

No, not “we”, just theists. Biologists have dispensed with the concept of soul as animating principle. I doubt if there is a biologist today who subscribes to this concept.

I wasn’t including you in the “we” at any rate. As for a biologist, you might want to ask the head of the Human Genome Project his thoughts on the subject; he is a firm Christian and one of the leading biologists in the world. I don’t know if he’s written anything about the soul as animating principle, but clearly he believes in it at least implicitly if he’s a Christian.

Be careful about such sweeping doubts, as they don’t prove much even when they’re correct. Biologists usually not well equipped to deal with the question of the soul anyway, and in any case it’s far outside the purview of their specialty, which is the mechanical workings of the body.

Now, you can have two options. One is to disagree with the definition, and offer a different one. Or, two, explain where the soul of the computer virus “resides”.

If the computer virus has a soul, which it very well might for all I know, it would reside in the matter of the program itself. In this case the “matter” would include the electronic information which makes up the active virus, since what we call energy falls into the philosophical category of matter.

So we’re back to the same answer I gave for “where is the material soul in a body”: it’s continuous with the body and inseperable from it, whether that body be made of atoms or energy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Benedictus]

So we’re back to the same answer I gave for “where is the material soul in a body”: it’s continuous with the body and inseperable from it, whether that body be made of atoms or energy.

So, then, it seems to me that a soul under this definition isn’t so much a ‘thing’ as it is an idea. That is, it is an artificial construct of philosophers.

I don’t really know if I believe in souls or not, but I’ve been thinking that the definition of the soul used in the Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition is horribly outdated given the progress of scientific knowledge.

 

[Nita]

Anything that has “life” (that is living) has a soul - in philosophy. It is the soul that is the source/principle of the following signs of life.
A little textbook info:

There are three grades of life:
VEGETATIVE LIFE - signs of, or characterized by:Reproduction
Nutrition (process by which a living being transforms what is not itself into itself)
Growth (organic, not external accretion)

SENSITIVE LIFE (animal):
Reproduction
Nutrition
Growth
*Locomotion (immanent activity - activity which begins within the organism, terminates within the organism, and is for the good of the organism itself)
*Sensation
*Sense Appetites

RATIONAL LIFE (human):
Reproduction
Nutrition
Growth
Locomotion
Sensation
Sense Appetites
*Intellect
*Will

"We can see, then, that though from one point of view we can reasonably talk about man’s vegetative powers as powers which he shares with creatures in the two other grades of life, …the vegetative powers in man are radically different from those powers as found in plants and animals, … Man’s rationality touches upon and colors every aspect of his being, not excluding the vegetative powers of his soul.

Source for all the above is “Philosophical Psychology” by D.Q. McInerny

Nita

 

[ateista]

You’re positing an unknown that goes against all observation. Isn’t that a bit superstitious of you?

Does it? We can observe that rock for our whole life and it would only be a fragment of a second on its time-scale. But I think there is a misunderstanding here. I did not say that the rock is alive, I merely said that we might be unable to make an informed decision about it - due to the difference in the time-flow.

I wasn’t including you in the “we” at any rate. As for a biologist, you might want to ask the head of the Human Genome Project his thoughts on the subject; he is a firm Christian and one of the leading biologists in the world. I don’t know if he’s written anything about the soul as animating principle, but clearly he believes in it at least implicitly if he’s a Christian.

That would be interesting. I seriously doubt if he would ever make a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and state that a lump of atoms needs a “soul” to exhibit functions attributed to life.

It is very true that there are many excellent scientists with all kinds of religious affiliations (or lack of any). What is interesting that within their specialty they do not consider their faith to be relevant to their subjects. Astronomers, even if they are Christian do not accept a “six-day” creation - which a biologist may very well believe. A biologist would be unlikely to consider a “life-force”, which an astronomer may accept without question.

Biologists usually not well equipped to deal with the question of the soul anyway, and in any case it’s far outside the purview of their specialty, which is the mechanical workings of the body.

Very true. Biologists are concerned with “life” - not the soul - and in their explanation they simply do not consider that hypothesis.

As the old story of Laplace went, when he published a book about the celestial movement of the planets, Napoleon asked him why did he never mention God? Laplace answered: “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis”.

If the computer virus has a soul, which it very well might for all I know, it would reside in the matter of the program itself. In this case the “matter” would include the electronic information which makes up the active virus, since what we call energy falls into the philosophical category of matter.

That sure would trivialize the concept of a soul - to the point of total incoherence. After all the working of the program can be fully explained by the instructions of the code. There is absolutely no “mystery” involved.

 

[Ghosty]

That sure would trivialize the concept of a soul - to the point of total incoherence. After all the working of the program can be fully explained by the instructions of the code. There is absolutely no “mystery” involved.

There’s no reason for any “mystery” regarding the soul, least of all material souls. It’s commonly assumed outside of Catholic philosophy that the soul must be some magical property, but in Catholic thinking it’s actually quite mundane and utterly natural. It’s “mysterious” to the sciences because it’s not in the purview of mechanical sciences, but it’s not all that mysterious to philosophy.

The spiritual soul is a bit more difficult to grapple with, but it’s no less natural and mundane. The spiritual soul just has properties that we know and experience, but can’t be reduced to material mechanics (such as our ability to store and understand ideas beyond the apparent functioning of matter; see Dr. Searle’s writings on this problem for a non-religious materialist grappling with these obvious difficulties).

That being said, I’ve not really given much thought to computer viruses, and I don’t know that I would finally conclude that they do have a material soul. My answer was simply what would apply if indeed they do have a soul.

Benedictus:

So, then, it seems to me that a soul under this definition isn’t so much a ‘thing’ as it is an idea. That is, it is an artificial construct of philosophers.

That assumes we take a Nominalist approach to ideas, which is not the Catholic approach, and is itself extremely flawed and self-contradictory. It would be way outside of the topic of this thread to go into why the premise that ideas are artificial constructs is flawed, but I will simply say that we don’t create things by thinking about them, but rather we think about things that exist in some way.

I don’t really know if I believe in souls or not, but I’ve been thinking that the definition of the soul used in the Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition is horribly outdated given the progress of scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge deals only with the bio-mechanical aspects of life, which Thomistic thinking doesn’t even touch on. The two fields are quite distinct, just like painting and optics; we don’t suddenly change the colors on the Mona Lisa just because we’ve discovered that blue is simply a shade on the same light spectrum as red. Likewise, we don’t abandon metaphysics just because we’ve learned some new details about physics.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ateista]

There’s no reason for any “mystery” regarding the soul, least of all material souls. It’s commonly assumed outside of Catholic philosophy that the soul must be some magical property, but in Catholic thinking it’s actually quite mundane and utterly natural. It’s “mysterious” to the sciences because it’s not in the purview of mechanical sciences, but it’s not all that mysterious to philosophy.

Well, philosophy is just an abstact science of 1) what exists? (metaphysics), 2) how do we know it? (epistemology) and 3) so what? (ethics). The assumption of a “life-force” was originally coined a long time ago, when people did not understand the concept of emerging attributes - where a property of a complex entity could not be reduced to the properties of the “building blocks”.

The spiritual soul is a bit more difficult to grapple with, but it’s no less natural and mundane. The spiritual soul just has properties that we know and experience, but can’t be reduced to material mechanics (such as our ability to store and understand ideas beyond the apparent functioning of matter; see Dr. Searle’s writings on this problem for a non-religious materialist grappling with these obvious difficulties).

Again, we have to return to the emerging attributes. (It is interesting that you say “mechanical sciences”. Science so much more complicated than simple “mechanics”.)

When you consider the arrangement of atoms in a molecule, you do not assume anything like a “soul” to explain why the chemical properties of six carbon atoms will be so drastically different if the atoms are in a hexagonal shape (graphite) and when they are at the vertices of an octahedron (diamond).

Chemistry cannot be fully reduced to physics, and we understand that, and do not create a new philosophical concept to explain it. Chemistry will provide sufficient explanation.

When the molecules are arranged in a complex form, the characteristics cannot be reduced to simple chemistry, the explanation will be left to biology - not to philosophy. Now, it is true that biology is a very young science, hardly beyond the descriptive stage. But it develops by leaps and bounds.

By the same token, the working of mind (which is virtually unmapped territory) is best left to the sciences. Neuro-biology will find the answers - eventually. Philosophy has no say-so in the matter.

That being said, I’ve not really given much thought to computer viruses, and I don’t know that I would finally conclude that they do have a material soul. My answer was simply what would apply if indeed they do have a soul.

Of course, you realize that computer viruses are only the very first step of emulating / creating artifical life forms. The end will be true artificial intelligence, the actual creation of robots or androids whose behavior will be on-par, maybe even beyond our human capabilities. What kind of “soul” do you think they will have?

And what kind of explanatory power does the concept of “soul” have? What use is its assumption? Philosophical musings cannot be expected to give answers to the problems of nature.

 

[Ghosty]

Again, we have to return to the emerging attributes. (It is interesting that you say “mechanical sciences”. Science so much more complicated than simple “mechanics”.)

All of the sciences we’ve discussed are based on material mechanics. The properties may be more or less complex, but they are all materially mechanical. Chemistry, biology, quantum physics, all of them are based on material mechanics and studying their properties. Science itself must be confined to the mechanical if the scientific theory is to apply at all.

By the same token, the working of mind (which is virtually unmapped territory) is best left to the sciences. Neuro-biology will find the answers - eventually. Philosophy has no say-so in the matter.

This is more superstition and dreaming. We’re dealing with facts, not fantasy.

When the far-off day comes when neuroscience can answer Dr. Searle’s “Chinese Room” conundrum, then you can speak of the victory of science over the hypothesis of the soul. As it is now, however, we haven’t even begun to scratch the issue, and all evidence is pointing towards it NOT being reducible to neuroscience (as Dr. Searle has ably pointed out). I see no reason to hope in some far-off day when we have perfectly valid and working theories right now; they just aren’t reducible to materialism, but I’m quite comfortable with that since materialism is a very weak position to hold anyway.

In short, I’m more than happy to work with the advancements of science as they come along, but I’m not superstitious enough to believe that some fantastic answer will “some day” fall out of scientific research and solve a metaphysical conundrum. It very well may, but there are no signs of that happening right now, and I prefer to deal with reality; I’m too much of a scientist not to.

Of course, you realize that computer viruses are only the very first step of emulating / creating artifical life forms. The end will be true artificial intelligence, the actual creation of robots or androids whose behavior will be on-par, maybe even beyond our human capabilities. What kind of “soul” do you think they will have?

More science-fiction fantasizing, IMO. Nothing we know of AI, even in its theoretical applications, points towards the development of true artificial intelligence. Again I recommend reading Dr. Searle’s work on this subject, as he’s pretty much blown away the idea of truly simulating the human mind, and he’s an utter materialist. The biggest problem he faces is that, having demolished material theories on how to replicate the human mind, he’s left without any material theories to explain the human mind. That’s where Thomism comes in, and remains the most empirical and solid theory to date, IMO.

And what kind of explanatory power does the concept of “soul” have? What use is its assumption? Philosophical musings cannot be expected to give answers to the problems of nature.

Well, speaking of the spiritual soul, it has the explanatory power of explaining where “circle” goes when we stop thinking of an actual circle, and why we can recognize “circle” in two utterly divergent things, such as a carrot and a coin. It also explains why thinking of circles in my brain has a completely different neurological signature than your thinking of circles in your brain; we’re thinking the same thing, but the properties of the “thought” in our brains are utterly different. “Circle”, therefore, must have a component of its existence found beyond the senses and the physical organs, and that is where the intellectual soul comes in.

There are many other ways in which the soul is a useful and functional hypothesis, not to mention the best one we have, but that example should be sufficient to answer your question I hope.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ateista]

This is more superstition and dreaming. We’re dealing with facts, not fantasy.

On the contrary, we are dealing with reasonable extensions of current knowledge and setting up possible hypotheses based upon it. It is not “sheer” fantasy.

Well, speaking of the spiritual soul, it has the explanatory power of explaining where “circle” goes when we stop thinking of an actual circle, and why we can recognize “circle” in two utterly divergent things, such as a carrot and a coin. It also explains why thinking of circles in my brain has a completely different neurological signature than your thinking of circles in your brain; we’re thinking the same thing, but the properties of the “thought” in our brains are utterly different. “Circle”, therefore, must have a component of its existence found beyond the senses and the physical organs, and that is where the intellectual soul comes in.

There is a much simpler and totally materialistic explanation for it.

Take two humans, who do not speak each other’s language. When they meet, they will start to engage in a simple exercise, for example, lifting their arm, and say its designation in their own language. Then point to their legs, and utter its name. Doing so they will start the communication and “implicitly argee” that the different combination of vowels and consonants all refer to the same physical objects. That is how mutual understanding is achieved.

Sure, the neural imprints will be totally different. What of it? The implicit agreement gives “meaning” to the different words. There is absolutely no need for any “non-material” assumptions.

 

[Ghosty]

On the contrary, we are dealing with reasonable extensions of current knowledge and setting up possible hypotheses based upon it. It is not “sheer” fantasy.

I never said it wasn’t reasonable speculation, I said it was fiction. Speculation is not theory, and certainly not working theory. The difficulties in making a real A.I. are growing larger and faster than they are being resolved, and it is ardent materialists who are finding these problems. While we MAY overcome them someday, there is no indication that we’re even headed in the right direction.

It is perfectly reasonable to speculate that by launching a rocket in a random direction in space it might find life. It’s quite another to say “surely you must realize that we’re on the verge of discovering an unknown alien civilization”.

Take two humans, who do not speak each other’s language. When they meet, they will start to engage in a simple exercise, for example, lifting their arm, and say its designation in their own language. Then point to their legs, and utter its name. Doing so they will start the communication and “implicitly argee” that the different combination of vowels and consonants all refer to the same physical objects. That is how mutual understanding is achieved.

Sure, the neural imprints will be totally different. What of it? The implicit agreement gives “meaning” to the different words. There is absolutely no need for any “non-material” assumptions.

All you’re talking about is the communication of the idea of “circle” between two humans, not the existence of the idea and our ability (apparently unique in the animal world) to apply the concept of “circle” to many unlike things, as if it’s an ideal template unrelated to any particular experience. This goes not only for physical things, like a plastic ring and a metal coin, but also totally non-material things, like a time loop. “Circle” retains its essential properties in all these ideas, but is not at all communicated between them; the make-up of the plastic ring is utterly different from the theoretical time-loop. When we know “circle” from the ring, we can apply it to time, and any number of other unlike objects, and the “implicit agreement” comes not from communication between two individuals, but by communication within my mind between two utterly unlike concepts. This is why, IMO, communication in itself is not the unique element of human language, but rather poetry and metaphor is.

That we can communicate these ideas to one another through sensory-based communication is unremarkable, and not at all like what I’m discussing. What you’re describing is simply another way for these ideas to be presented to us, not an explanation of how these ideas exist in our minds, or what they are. There is much more than “implicit agreement” going on when I can apply a material concept (plastic ring) to a non-material concept (time) and come up with something that shares an essential, ideal element from both (circle).

For some related discussion on these matters, here’s a thesis by a friend of mine who is a Dominican, and who studied under Dr. Searle:

opwest.org/Archive/2006/FadokThesis.doc

Peace and God bless!

 

[ateista]

I never said it wasn’t reasonable speculation, I said it was fiction. Speculation is not theory, and certainly not working theory. The difficulties in making a real A.I. are growing larger and faster than they are being resolved, and it is ardent materialists who are finding these problems. While we MAY overcome them someday, there is no indication that we’re even headed in the right direction.

It is perfectly reasonable to speculate that by launching a rocket in a random direction in space it might find life. It’s quite another to say “surely you must realize that we’re on the verge of discovering an unknown alien civilization”.

But I never said that it is imminent. Certainly there are many difficulties to solve. However, the whole discipline of information technology is barely a few decades old. We shall have to wait and see how it develops.

The funny thing is that I was absolutely certain that some day a computer will beat the world’s chess champion, and was also pretty sure that by that time I will be long dead. I was right in the first assumption and very wrong in the second. (Shows that my predictive powers leave a lot to be desired. )

Of course beating the world champion in a very complex, but finite game is a far cry from a true A.I. My certainty that A.I. is possible comes from my world-view. The human brain is a finite computer (of incredible complexity for sure). The number of neurons is finite, the state each neuron can assume is also finite. The mind is the working of the brain, and as such it is also finite. Now you may hypothesize that there is also an “immortal soul” beyond that. But that is sheer fantasy, something that you accused me of doing.

All you’re talking about is the communication of the idea of “circle” between two humans, not the existence of the idea and our ability (apparently unique in the animal world) to apply the concept of “circle” to many unlike things, as if it’s an ideal template unrelated to any particular experience. This goes not only for physical things, like a plastic ring and a metal coin, but also totally non-material things, like a time loop.

Is it unique? Hardly. Animals are quite capable of recognizing the shape of circles, squares, etc. There are innumerable experiments attesting to that. You may hypothesize that they also have immortal souls, or accept that the recognition of a shape (regardless of the material) is nothing mysterious.

This is why, IMO, communication in itself is not the unique element of human language, but rather poetry and metaphor is.

There is no difference. Linguistically inclined people (poets, etc.) are coming up with all sorts of “games”. When someone comes up with a metaphor, it becomes fashionable for a while, and then disappears as any non-essential lingistic game is apt to do.