Are atheists more content with their souls?

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

The obvious use for conscious decision-making is that it consciously makes decisions. Any other explanation involves explaining why it doesn't do what it appears to do, and appears to do what it doesn't.

Fine, but is conscious decision-making obviously free will? Put another way, one of those old Dale Carnegie techniques was to pretend what you wanted was the other guy's idea. The human mind is eminently suggestable. Where does the free will bit come in?

Zillah

_Brian_ wrote:

I'm no scientist and can't pretend to have knowledge of any areas of science,but.

Classic

I had an image in my mind that every living thing takes up space ,the fact that we can communicate with each other ,must mean we are all different.
Could this kind of difference not be regarded as soul ,the element that can't be predetermined by man.

Sure, why not, its a valid a meaning of the word "soul" as anything else. Although, by your logic would everything that isn't the exact same as everything else not have a soul? And what if two things were exactly the same, do they no longer have souls?

I don't see a soul as something that belongs to something else ,but something that exists because it does.

Doesn't everything exist because it does?

JC 2K3

Scofflaw wrote:

meat puppets

I'm sorry for the OT outburst but, MEAT PUPPETS! YEAH BABY!!!!


Free will is something non-contemplatable from our frame of reference.

311

Zillah wrote:

Sure, why not, its a valid a meaning of the word "soul" as anything else. Although, by your logic would everything that isn't the exact same as everything else not have a soul? And what if two things were exactly the same, do they no longer have souls?

The only reason why something wouldn't have a soul is if it didn't occupy a space ,i.e Two beings in the same place at the same time.

The difference would be the space occupied.

Zillah

Wait...why is space so important? Why not matter or energy or complexity?

311

Zillah wrote:

Wait...why is space so important? Why not matter or energy or complexity?

I think I already said that earlier.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Fine, but is conscious decision-making obviously free will? Put another way, one of those old Dale Carnegie techniques was to pretend what you wanted was the other guy's idea. The human mind is eminently suggestable. Where does the free will bit come in?

Well, for conscious decision-making to have any point, it has to capable of actually making the decision - it's too expensive to survive otherwise.

Making the decision is free will. Not in the sense of "utterly unconstrained", but I think that option is frankly impossible in reality. At no point have I argued for it. There are always hidden influences.

If you prefer, you could consider that to be "partial free will". I'm not really concerned with how much input our conscious decision-making process has to the actual decision-making, as long as it has some.

cordially,
Scofflaw

18AD

Free-will and pre-determinism are only constraints on your thinking processes.

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, for conscious decision-making to have any point, it has to capable of actually making the decision - it's too expensive to survive otherwise.

Well to take this point on board, you'd have to first concede the fact that there is such a thing as "conscious" decision making, and not simply the illusion of it.

Then we just start our seemingly endless debate again.

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

Well to take this point on board, you'd have to first concede the fact that there is such a thing as "conscious" decision making, and not simply the illusion of it.

Then we just start our seemingly endless debate again.

Well, we can save ourselves a certain amount of time with some simple programming:

GOTO 88

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

How does the brain produce consciousness?

Apparently; we don't know!

doesn't really prove anything, just thought the article in general was pretty good!

5uspect

I'm reading Stephen Pinker's How the Mind Works at them moment. So far he has come to more or less the same conclusions that you all have here. Are we just a collection of mindless reflexes working together in a complex neural network or is there something else that accounts for consciousness?

Unfortunately its not always the easiest read but its still a very interesting book. Has anyone else got any good sources? Scofflaw you mentioned you've read most of the literature on free will.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

I'm reading Stephen Pinker's How the Mind Works at them moment. So far he has come to more or less the same conclusions that you all have here. Are we just a collection of mindless reflexes working together in a complex neural network or is there something else that accounts for consciousness?

Unfortunately its not always the easiest read but its still a very interesting book. Has anyone else got any good sources? Scofflaw you mentioned you've read most of the literature on free will.

I know in Philosophy, Colin McGinn argues that we will never understand consciousness but other philosophers like Danniel Dennet say that we can or that we will.

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

I'm reading Stephen Pinker's How the Mind Works at them moment. So far he has come to more or less the same conclusions that you all have here. Are we just a collection of mindless reflexes working together in a complex neural network or is there something else that accounts for consciousness?

Unfortunately its not always the easiest read but its still a very interesting book. Has anyone else got any good sources? Scofflaw you mentioned you've read most of the literature on free will.

Now that would be a claim! Er, no - I try to keep up with the scientific thinking, but without working in the field I'm sure some of my information is out of date or wrong. I don't think I've read a book on the subject since Winston's Prehistory of the Mind.

I've never really touched the philosophical or theological literature on the question...

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Something which might be interesting:

Wednesday, February 7th 2007 at 8pm in the Aston Suite, Alexander Hotel (across the road from the Davenport Hotel, our usual venue), Merrion Square, Dublin 2

A talk by Dr Gary O' Reilly, School of Psychology, UCD, who'll be speaking on the topic of:

Intelligence: A critical view of its nature and evolution

Dr O' Reilly's talk will introduce theory and research in the field of human intelligence. He will present a critical view on how psychologists currently understand human intelligence based on research utilising IQ-type tests and other sources of information. His talk will attempt to provide an evolutionary context to the field thus allowing us to consider key and often controversial questions such as:

• Is intelligence inherited?
• How credible are claims of racial differences in intelligence? and
• Is there such a thing as Emotional Intelligence?

Dr O' Reilly is a Senior Lecturer and Deputy Course Director of the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology in the School of Psychology, UCD.

Entrance fee is €3 for members and concessions; €6 Non-members, at the door.

5uspect

Thanks guys

Tim Robbins wrote:

I know in Philosophy, Colin McGinn argues that we will never understand consciousness but other philosophers like Danniel Dennet say that we can or that we will.

I'd be more inclined to agree with Dennet there, I can imagine that improvements in artificial intelligence research will eventually lead us to build a conscious intelligence or let one evolve, tho that doesn't mean we will understand how our creation works!

Zillah

5uspect wrote:

I can imagine that improvements in artificial intelligence research will eventually lead us to build a conscious intelligence or let one evolve, tho that doesn't mean we will understand how our creation works!

Although, how can we ever be sure that such a creation is self-aware, rather than just complex enough to appear intelligent? I'm willing to work on the assumption that other humans are sentient, because I am, and they use the same system as I do. Such does not hold for a computer program, no matter how complex.

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote:

Although, how can we ever be sure that such a creation is self-aware, rather than just complex enough to appear intelligent? I'm willing to work on the assumption that other humans are sentient, because I am, and they use the same system as I do. Such does not hold for a computer program, no matter how complex.

Peace be with you.
A computer program is not self replicating.
A computer virus is self replicating but only with the help, of electricity and other engineering concepts that are controlled by man not nature.
The assumptions that other humans and animals are sentient is because you are making a judgment on your perception of their emotions.
Many Humans cannot perceive the emotions of a fly or know that much about them so have no problem killing them. However, something like a dog most people would find it very difficult to wallop it so hard it died.

We can only empathise with a subset of animals but that does not mean only that subset have sentient. That's my view and why I don't kill flies or spiders.

Plants don't have any observable sentient, or nothing like the complexitity or mammals that gives us sentient, so we can make a good guess that they don't have it.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Peace be with you.
A computer program is not self replicating.
A computer virus is self replicating but only with the help, of electricity and other engineering concepts that are controlled by man not nature.
The assumptions that other humans and animals are sentient is because you are making a judgment on your perception of their emotions.
Many Humans cannot perceive the emotions of a fly or know that much about them so have no problem killing them. However, something like a dog most people would find it very difficult to wallop it so hard it died.

We can only empathise with a subset of animals but that does not mean only that subset have sentient. That's my view and why I don't kill flies or spiders.

Plants don't have any observable sentient, or nothing like the complexitity or mammals that gives us sentient, so we can make a good guess that they don't have it.

I'm reluctant to kill plants, either. I wouldn't say that sentience as we understand it is the only reason to a right to life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Although I kind of agree with you on the rest of your post (well not so much agree, but can see where you're coming from)

Tim Robbins wrote:

Peace be with you.
A computer program is not self replicating.
A computer virus is self replicating but only with the help, of electricity and other engineering concepts that are controlled by man not nature.

This is hogwash!

Computer Virus = A particular instance of a computer program. Therefore, to say a program is not self replicating while saying that a particular subset of programming is self replicating, makes little sense.
[Irony] edited to make that sentence make sense.

And when I last checked I couldn't shoot lightning bolts out my hands.
Only nature can do that!

[edit]Oops quoting wrong post and poster

I think anything we can teach a machine (or even any machine we build to teach machines,etc,etc), could only be a combination of our own conscious experiences. They could maybe come up with more complicated combinations, but to say that this would eventually lead to something with "better" understanding of consciousness than us, is wrong (in my opinion)

[Edit] edit to put in "conscious" experience

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote:

Plants don't have any observable sentient, or nothing like the complexitity or mammals that gives us sentient, so we can make a good guess that they don't have it.

Gotta love the get out clause

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

Peace be with you.

Salaam.

A computer program is not self replicating.

Completely irrelevant to my point.

A computer virus is self replicating but only with the help, of electricity and other engineering concepts that are controlled by man not nature.

Also completely irrelevant.

The assumptions that other humans and animals are sentient is because you are making a judgment on your perception of their emotions.

Did you read my very short post? I already stated that the reason I'm willing to accept a sentience on the part of other humans is because they're fundamentally similar to me. This has nothing to do with superficial emotion or empathy, this is a philosophical position.

Many Humans cannot perceive the emotions of a fly or know that much about them so have no problem killing them. However, something like a dog most people would find it very difficult to wallop it so hard it died.

*whack* YELP YELP YELP *whack* *squish*

joe_chicken wrote:

This, by no means, suggests I agree with Zillah -- to say that this would eventually lead to something with "better" understanding of consciousness than us, is wrong

What...the hell is going on here? Am I like, not using English or something?

5uspect

Zillah wrote:

Although, how can we ever be sure that such a creation is self-aware, rather than just complex enough to appear intelligent? I'm willing to work on the assumption that other humans are sentient, because I am, and they use the same system as I do. Such does not hold for a computer program, no matter how complex.

Yes, but do you agree that all humans are sentient, like you, because we essentially share the same hardware. What drives the hardware, be it swarms of mindless reflexes in a vast neural network or perhaps something different is also something that is required to allow you to feel self aware. Surely this software can be emulated? You're right tho, actually testing self awareness is very difficult, even testing that an animal is self aware is often difficult. I remember reading about gorillas and other apes which pass the tests in their prime but fail them in their youth and old age.

Zillah

5uspect wrote:

Yes, but do you agree that all humans are sentient, like you, because we essentially share the same hardware.

I cannot, in any way, fathom the nature of sentience. As far as I can grasp, there is no way in which matter can become aware. I fully accept that complexity of systems can result in a being exactly like me, that acts completely as if it is sentient. But I simply cannot grasp self awareness. The only reason I will even accept the possibility is because I have the very convincing example of my own sentience. Were it not for that, I'd dismiss the entire concept. (Obviously that would require me to no longer be sentient, but lets ignore that for now.)

You're right tho, actually testing self awareness is very difficult, even testing that an animal is self aware is often difficult. I remember reading about gorillas and other apes which pass the tests in their prime but fail them in their youth and old age.

Its absolutely impossible. You can test whether something appears to be self aware or not, but there is no method for testing actual sentience. We must simply assume or not, based on our own experience of it.

5uspect

I wouldn't say impossible, but I see your point.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I cannot, in any way, fathom the nature of sentience. As far as I can grasp, there is no way in which matter can become aware. I fully accept that complexity of systems can result in a being exactly like me, that acts completely as if it is sentient. But I simply cannot grasp self awareness. The only reason I will even accept the possibility is because I have the very convincing example of my own sentience. Were it not for that, I'd dismiss the entire concept. (Obviously that would require me to no longer be sentient, but lets ignore that for now.)

Ah, the irrefutability of observation.

Zillah wrote:

Its absolutely impossible. You can test whether something appears to be self aware or not, but there is no method for testing actual sentience. We must simply assume or not, based on our own experience of it.

Same as porn, then - can't define it, but know it when we see it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Ah, the irrefutability of observation.

I didn't say that my own sentience proved other humans had it also, I said I was willing to assume.

Ok so I didn't technically say "assume". I said it made me consider the posibility, which is even less definitive than "assume".

Same as porn, then - can't define it, but know it when we see it.

No.

Sentience is the phenomenon of having a sense of self, an awareness. You cannot see it in others. You can see symptoms of it, but those symptoms are not exclusive to sentience.

For example, I could design (hypothetically) a computer program that behaves exactly like a sentient human, but that by no means proves it has a sentience like a human.

5uspect wrote:

I wouldn't say impossible, but I see your point.

What method would you use to test sentience?

I_and_I

I feel that you can never go wrong if you use reason and simple common sense, we all posses both attributes but use them differently. The way I see it is if it boils down to it that I die and end up in front of some allmighty creator I am gona look him straight in the eyes(or whatever) and say "Hey, look now! You made me and you gave me common sense and reason and I chose to use them and presume nothing for sure, I lived my life for myself and those close to me and not for something I could never confirm to even exist. So if there is a flaw somewhere it is with you and not me!". If that lands me in hell then so be it but, I won't be sorry. So yeah I am content with my "soul". Great question by the way.

5uspect

Zillah wrote:

What method would you use to test sentience?

I couldn't possibly begin to think where to start. That doesn't mean its impossible, its just a failure of my imagination.

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

I couldn't possibly begin to think where to start. That doesn't mean its impossible, its just a failure of my imagination.

It's an active field, it seems, despite Zillah's doubts.

You are correct, of course, that just because you or I personally cannot see how it can be done, does not mean it cannot be done. I could neither paint the Mona Lisa, nor design a tokamak fusion reactor, but both these things exist. Arguments from personal incredulity or ignorance are better suited to Creationists.

cordially,
Scofflaw