Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Here's another new-fangled idea : the Earth is not flat; and another one : the Earth is not the centre of the Universe.  No doubt if you are prepared to go far enough back you will be able to find some intelligent people who believed otherwise.  Our knowledge base is increasing exponentially currently, even 10 years ago is already way out of date in the sciences of the mind.

Science has indeed shown some early human thinking to be wrong.  But there is no logical reason to reject ideas just because they are old.

But modern science is still far from showing that Leibniz's ideas about perception are wrong.  Indeed the more I read about his philosophy on the human mind, the more it concurs with my own thinking:

The capacities that make human minds superior to animal souls, according to Leibniz, include not only their capacity for more elevated types of perceptions or mental representations, but also their capacity for more elevated types of appetitions or mental tendencies.  Self-consciousness and abstract thought are examples of perceptions that are exclusive to rational souls, while reasoning and the tendency to do what one judges to be best overall are examples of appetitions of which only rational souls are capable.  The mental capacity for acting freely is another feature that sets human beings apart from animals and it in fact presupposes the capacity for elevated kinds of perceptions as well as appetitions.

Another crucial contribution to the philosophy of mind is Leibniz’s frequently cited mill argument.  This argument is supposed to show, through a thought experiment that involves walking into a mill, that material things such as machines or brains cannot possibly have mental states.  Only immaterial things, that is, soul-like entities, are able to think or perceive.  If this argument succeeds, it shows not only that our minds must be immaterial or that we must have souls, but also that we will never be able to construct a computer that can truly think or perceive.

[Stranger]

Another crucial contribution to the philosophy of mind is Leibniz’s frequently cited mill argument.  This argument is supposed to show, through a thought experiment that involves walking into a mill, that material things such as machines or brains cannot possibly have mental states.  Only immaterial things, that is, soul-like entities, are able to think or perceive.

This is just an argument from incredulity

Only immaterial things, that is, soul-like entities, are able to think or perceive.

and "it must be magic".

Unless you understand how consciousness works, asserting that it can't be material and must be something else is just that: an assertion without basis.

[wigginhall]

Yes, the Leibniz mill  argument (going into a large water-mill is a bit like going into the brain, and you can find no evidence of thinking), is famous as an argument against materialism.    However, it is really a more sophisticated form of incredulity.   Leibniz is saying that it is inconceivable that a mill-like structure could produce mental stuff - so what?  Black holes seemed inconceivable at first, but now we accept them.  You can't use incredulity as a measure of ideas.

The other issue is one that still plagues Alan's ideas - how then does mind emerge?   Presumably, all this incredulity must lead to something useful.   OK, we have the soul - how does this produce perception?  Saying 'just like that' is OK for Tommy Cooper, but not really here.

Meanwhile, neuroscientists continue to investigate perception and its neural basis.   

[torridon]

Science has indeed shown some early human thinking to be wrong.  But there is no logical reason to reject ideas just because they are old.

But modern science is still far from showing that Leibniz's ideas about perception are wrong.  Indeed the more I read about his philosophy on the human mind, the more it concurs with my own thinking: ...

so perhaps you would be more comfortable in the seventeenth century; Leibniz was a brilliant mind but of course he did not have the benefit of all the insights that have accrued since then.  New research always challenges us, not everyone can live with it apparently.

[wigginhall]

Leibniz also had the idea of monads, that is, independent substances which are simple, i.e. without parts, and which are the only things which exist.   Amongst other things, this seems to lead to the view of reality as an illusion, (I think). 

No-one doubts that L. was an utter genius, but that doesn't mean that his ideas are just accepted without criticism.

It still amazes me that Alan's suggestions don't actually help us to understand perception in the slightest.  Just saying that soul does it, does not get us anywhere.   How do we investigate the soul?  Stand on one leg, and whistle, I suppose.

[SusanDoris]

How AB can prefer the opinions of those hundreds of years ago, or even more recently, to those of modern scientists is mind-bogglingly sad. 

[Shaker]

How AB can prefer the opinions of those hundreds of years ago, or even more recently, to those of modern scientists is mind-bogglingly sad.

The issue there is that science is cumulative and built on the graveyard(s) of past theories or principles and philosophy isn't. Nobody discusses the luminiferous ether nowadays save in a historical context as an example of an outdated/discredited/superceded idea, whereas the whole of Western philosophy has been memorably described (by A. N. Whitehead, I think) as footnotes to Plato - nearly two and a half thousand years ago.

[Alan Burns]

It still amazes me that Alan's suggestions don't actually help us to understand perception in the slightest.  Just saying that soul does it, does not get us anywhere.   How do we investigate the soul?  Stand on one leg, and whistle, I suppose.

My ideas form around the need for our conscious awareness to perceive the content of our brain cells.  You could perhaps define the soul simply as "that which perceives, thinks and interacts with our brain cells".  The interaction in this case being driven by conscious thought processes rather than pre determined reactions to our senses.  We can't define a conscious thought in material terms, and we do not yet have the facilities to investigate the working of spiritual entities.

[SusanDoris]

There are no spiritual entities anyway!

[Enki]

I have asked Alan several times over a period of months to explain, in some detail, what this 'soul' of his consists of, exactly how its perception capability works, its location, how it connects with the material mind etc. Answer comes there none except his very vague suggestion that quantum indeterminacy and quantum tunneling might have a part to play in this, which produces its own problems as regards free will and still doesn't explain in any way the idea of this 'soul', of course. He never gives any evidence that can possibly demonstrate the existence of this 'soul' yet he seems to be at pains for others to take it on board.

So,

1) Because he simply describes this 'soul' as "that which perceives, thinks and interacts with our brain cells" without any attempt to define exactly how it does this

2) Because he produces no evidence to back his claim either of its existence or how it achieves its purpose

3) Because I can see all sorts of inconsistencies in his claim, including the large and growing body of evidence for perception and consciousness(including self awareness) in certain other species

4) Because I don't even intuitively feel that said 'soul' exists

why on earth should I accept it?

If I was simply going to be swayed by Alan's assertions, then, surely, I should be equally swayed by the assertions of others, however contrary to Alan's assertions and however far fetched and inconsistent they may be.

[wigginhall]

Well, if you are looking for a cure for dementia, or at least a way of slowing it down, which would you pick?  Ongoing research into the brain, or Alan's hoped for 'facilities to investigate the working of spiritual entities'?

Or should the billion euros being invested in the EU Human Brain Project be diverted into research on the soul?   Yeah, you might as well invest it in methods of using turkey shit on farms.   

[floo]

Well, if you are looking for a cure for dementia, or at least a way of slowing it down, which would you pick?  Ongoing research into the brain, or Alan's hoped for 'facilities to investigate the working of spiritual entities'?

Or should the billion euros being invested in the EU Human Brain Project be diverted into research on the soul?   Yeah, you might as well invest it in methods of using turkey shit on farms.   

Knowing how devastating dementia can be, there is no contest.

[wigginhall]

I think the point here is that these ideas have practical consequences.   If Alan is right, that the brain cannot be involved in perception, then surely resources should be switched away from research into the brain, and its connection with perception and cognition in general. 

The fact that, for example, some people can become face-blind, or can't speak, because of brain damage, is not all that interesting, as the soul will pick up the slack.

So maybe an EU research project into the Human Soul, cost a billion euros?

[floo]

I think the point here is that these ideas have practical consequences.   If Alan is right, that the brain cannot be involved in perception, then surely resources should be switched away from research into the brain, and its connection with perception and cognition in general. 

The fact that, for example, some people can become face-blind, or can't speak, because of brain damage, is not all that interesting, as the soul will pick up the slack.

So maybe an EU research project into the Human Soul, cost a billion euros?

Talking of 'face blind', in my old age I am less good at recognising faces, which is a bit embarrassing.

[Brownie]

Dementia is very sad and hard on the nearest and dearest.  However is was considered to be 'normal', in days gone by, for some people to lose their marbles as they got old.  Nowadays, the word, 'Alzheimers' is bandied about but originally it meant 'pre-senile' dementia, ie affecting younger people.  My neighbour's mum developed (if that is the right word) Alzeheimer's Disease when she was in her early sixties.  Thankfully she was never aggressive, she just became more and more vague, not knowing anything or recognising anyone, and was eventually bedridden.  It was terribly sad for all concerned, her husband was devoted to the last.   

More research needs to be put into Alzheimer's Disease, which means more money.   

I've nowt else to say.  A friend of mine's mum was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and eventually died but my friend found it difficult to accept that her previously intellectual mother was no more.  She did die peacefully, I am glad to say.  My aunt also had the same diagnosis but she was 90 and I am not sure that is an accurate diagnosis, Alzheimer's is supposed to be 'pre-senile dementia'.  She had lived a long healthy life and was fit for most of it, it was only at the very end she did not know what she was doing, and was well cared for.

We all hope it never happens to us.

Largely, I agree with floo on this one.  Of course we can pray, if we believe in prayer, but we need to be practical and support medical research.   They are not mutually exclusive.

[wigginhall]

Well, my point is that Alan's ideas are actually dangerous, if you apply them to scientific research.   He is saying that the brain is not involved in perception, therefore why should we do more research into this?   

But thankfully, neuroscientists continue their research, and perception and other cognitive functions, are part of that.   

Alan's ideas are really 17th century ones, or in fact, pre-scientific.

[Alan Burns]

Well, if you are looking for a cure for dementia, or at least a way of slowing it down, which would you pick?  Ongoing research into the brain, or Alan's hoped for 'facilities to investigate the working of spiritual entities'?

If memory is derived from information in our physical brain cells, and these cells become damaged, then "that which perceives the content of our memory cells" will no longer perceive that information - hence dementia.  So I would never advocate the withdrawal of any means of repairing damage to the physical part of our brains.

The brain is essentially providing a control panel from which the human soul can drive the machine.

[wigginhall]

If memory is derived from information in our physical brain cells, and these cells become damaged, then "that which perceives the content of our memory cells" will no longer perceive that information - hence dementia.  So I would never advocate the withdrawal of any means of repairing damage to the physical part of our brains.

But presumably, if you are right that the brain cannot organize perception, then research by neuroscientists into perception and other forms of cognition, is pointless, and should be stopped. 

[Alan Burns]

There are no spiritual entities anyway!

At some time you will come to realise that you are a spiritual entity Susan.  You are so much more than mere flesh and blood.

[Alan Burns]

But presumably, if you are right that the brain cannot organize perception, then research by neuroscientists into perception and other forms of cognition, is pointless, and should be stopped.

The brain does a great job in organising the data to be perceived, but it can never be more than a sophisticated tool which provides the means of perception to the human soul.

[Dicky Underpants]

What I am saying is not new.

German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) describes the impossibility of a material mind being able to perceive:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lei-mind/

CS Lewis describes the impossibility of a conscious decision to be defined only by deterministic molecular activity in his book Miracles.

Materialism isn't new either, so what's that comment got to do with the price of fish? Citing C.S. Lewis is unlikely to win many converts from here over to your cause - some of us are reasonably enough acquainted with his work to realise that his writings on Christianity are so full of logical howlers and schoolboy errors in thinking as to make one wish to throw the books away in disgust.
I have to admit to an ambivalence regarding his work, since I recognise him as being a distinguished literary talent (Till We Have Faces is still worth a read, as is Out of the Silent Planet, despite the attempts to smuggle a bit of Christianity into the mix). Against my better judgment, I was persuaded to read his "Surprised by Joy" recently. It's interesting, and you feel that his philosophical perceptions are well honed when he starts talking about Hegel and the absolutely inextricable way our consciousness is bound up with the whole of the universe etc. You think "He's really quite subtle". A few pages later, and you find him talking about "The Enemy" (Satan, of course) and how this supposed evil entity seduced him away from the Christianity of his youth. 'The Enemy' was supposedly waging a full-scale attack on the modern world using the twin avenues of OCCULTISM and MODERN SCIENCE. It is quite difficult to put one's finger on just how he jumped to this bizarre conclusion.

One thing about the 'Joy' in Lewis' title: he seems to be using the word in a very personal, idiosyncratic sense (attempting to evoke its meaning by his early mental states of uplift when imagining vast northern wastes and being imbued with a sense of longing). Since you have referred to your own "Joy" about feeling loved by Christ, and have also acknowledged the influence of C.S. Lewis, I wonder whether there is some correlation between what you mean by 'Joy' and what Jack the Whipper meant by it?

[Stranger]

My ideas form around the need for our conscious awareness to perceive the content of our brain cells.  You could perhaps define the soul simply as "that which perceives, thinks and interacts with our brain cells".  The interaction in this case being driven by conscious thought processes rather than pre determined reactions to our senses.  We can't define a conscious thought in material terms, and we do not yet have the facilities to investigate the working of spiritual entities.

≡ It's too hard to understand perception, so I'll make up a magic word for my ignorance and pretend it's the answer.

[torridon]

My ideas form around the need for our conscious awareness to perceive the content of our brain cells.  You could perhaps define the soul simply as "that which perceives, thinks and interacts with our brain cells".  The interaction in this case being driven by conscious thought processes rather than pre determined reactions to our senses.  We can't define a conscious thought in material terms, and we do not yet have the facilities to investigate the working of spiritual entities.

So this soul sits there like a back seat driver while the brain is busy doing all the work, conscripting information flows, organising and synchronising them.  To pursue the driving metaphor, if the brain is doing all the driving, your soul, wanting to have experience, instead of looking out the window for itself, you seem to have it peering into the back of the driver's head to try and work out what's outside.  If a soul has these supernatural powers to look at a brain and derive second hand experience from a brain's primary information flows, why doesn't it just use those powers to see for itself instead of looking at a brain ?

[wigginhall]

Reference to Leibniz's Mill reminded me of other arguments  like this.   For example, there are some interesting discussions about tasting chocolate.   If you were eating chocolate, and I cut open your skull, and licked your brain, would it taste of chocolate?   Or, alternatively, would we find neurons that were sort of chocolatey?

I don't think anybody really thinks like that.   Of course, we don't know how the chocolatey taste is constructed in the brain, but that's OK, there are lots of things we don't know as yet.  Researchers push on into the unknown, and see it as a challenge. 

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/suppl_1/i68.full

[Dicky Underpants]

Interesting post, Dicky.   It always struck me that Christianity teetered on the brink of dualism, whereby God creates the good, and Satan the bad.   However, of course, that is not allowed in Christianity, it is more like Zoroastrianism, I think.   But if you read AB's posts, they sound very dualist.   God wants us to love him, but alas, Satan comes along and seduces all the atheists.   It does sound very primitive.

wiggi

I've heard that the text in John's gospel "Ye are of your father the Devil etc" may well derive directly from Zoroastrianism. I think this gospel in particular "teeters on the brink of dualism" (it has a definite Gnostic feel) but tries to encourage an acceptance of the world by the idea of the Incarnation.
As for the 'primitive' nature of Alan's views: there is a certain worthiness in his attempts to encourage a 'spiritual' view of life. But when you see the rag-bag nature of the end-product (Satan, souls controlling consciousness, and even a reference to the Second Coming), I'm not any more inclined to take him more seriously than I would the Jehovah's Witnesses - who incidentally don't believe in any amalgam of souls and bodies.