Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

we could start with the dictionary definition:
1.
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

The problem being that you haven't got anywhere near providing any reason to think that such a thing exists. Just endless blind faith assertions...

[Alan Burns]

The key term being 'regarded': how come then I regard claims of 'soul' as being superstitious nonsense?

The fact that you are able to regard it as superstitious nonsense is sound evidence that your ability to do this conscious "regarding" is derived from something other than the uncontrolled deterministic activity of your physical brain.

[floo]

The soul is only another name for consciousness, imo.

[Stranger]

The fact that you are able to regard it as superstitious nonsense is sound evidence that your ability to do this conscious "regarding" is derived from something other than the uncontrolled deterministic activity of your physical brain.

This is yet another unsupported assertion. You have spectacularly failed to provide a logical argument that this is the case.

Just saying that X is "sound evidence" of Y does not make it so.

[Alan Burns]

Could you give a few tips for the unsouled?  I've tried looking under the bed for it, and in the garden shed, all I found was an old lawn-mower.  Anyway, how can I find this soul thingy?

It resides in the same place as all your dreams, ambitions, opinions, .....

[Alan Burns]

This is yet another unsupported assertion. You have spectacularly failed to provide a logical argument that this is the case.

Just saying that X is "sound evidence" of Y does not make it so.

To "regard" anything requires a conscious act of free will, which is not consistent with uncontrolled deterministic electro-chemical activity the physical brain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And if a computer did manage to replicate human type behaviour, it would be just mimicking the conscious awareness of humans with no internal awareness of its own.

But your “argument” was that computer software can replicate the behaviours of species other than our own, and that we must therefore be somehow special.

First, that’s not true – software is a long way behind replicating the behaviours of many species.

Second, you have no argument of any kind to support your contention that sophisticated software wouldn’t one day have the same experience of “internal awareness” that we have. The evidence is that self-awareness is just sophisticated information processing – which is conceptually at least what software does.

Why do you feel the need to keep making the same evidence-denying assertions? 

I do not doubt the ability of species to adapt to a particular environment.

Then why claim that they are “pre-programmed”?

I think you have hit upon the definitive difference between humans and chimps - their spiritual awareness of their soul

Both of which you’ve invented with no supporting logic or evidence of any kind. What I “hit upon” was the opposite of that – ie, your broken reasoning. You look at people, see that our behaviours are more complex than those of other species and conclude therefore that there’s a magic ingredient involved (“spiritual”, “soul” etc). There’s nothing to support that notion, and moreover it’s undermined by the simple observation that our complexity in relation to that of chimps is proportional to chimps’ complexity in relation to, say, goldfish.   

Similarly, if advanced aliens landed tomorrow whose complexity in relation to us was analogous to ours with chimps, they too (if they weren’t very bright) could apply your thinking to conclude that we were the just the "pre-programmed" reactors who only felt like we had "free" will, whereas they – and they alone – had the special magic dust you call “soul”.

Can you really not see that you’re just describing points along a spectrum of behavioural complexity here – quantitative differences rather than qualitative ones?

Really? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But your “argument” was that computer software can replicate the behaviours of species other than our own, and that we must therefore be somehow special.

First, that’s not true – software is a long way behind replicating the behaviours of many species.

Second, you have no argument of any kind to support your contention that sophisticated software wouldn’t one day have the same experience of “internal awareness” that we have. The evidence is that self-awareness is just sophisticated information processing – which is conceptually at least what software does.

Software can never replicate self awareness because it is not definable in programming terms.  It is certainly not defined by "sophisticated information processing".

Both of which you’ve invented with no supporting logic or evidence of any kind. What I “hit upon” was the opposite of that – ie, your broken reasoning. You look at people, see that our behaviours are more complex than those of other species and conclude therefore that there’s a magic ingredient involved (“spiritual”, “soul” etc). There’s nothing to support that notion, and moreover it’s undermined by the simple observation that our complexity in relation to that of chimps is proportional to chimps’ complexity in relation to, say, goldfish.   

Similarly, if advanced aliens landed tomorrow whose complexity in relation to us was analogous to ours with chimps, they too (if they weren’t very bright) could apply your thinking to conclude that we were the just the "pre-programmed" reactors who only felt like we had "free" will, whereas they – and they alone – had the special magic dust you call “soul”.

Can you really not see that you’re just describing points along a spectrum of behavioural complexity here – quantitative differences rather than qualitative ones?

Really?

The concept of spiritual awareness is not arrived at by a greater degree of complexity.  It is simply a gift from God.  You may choose to open the gift and use it, or ignore it.  The choice is yours.

[Stranger]

To "regard" anything requires a conscious act of free will, which is not consistent with uncontrolled deterministic electro-chemical activity the physical brain.

That's just another assertion.

You have totally failed to make the argument that consciousness is inconsistent with "deterministic electro-chemical activity the physical brain".

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Software can never replicate self awareness because it is not definable in programming terms.  It is certainly not defined by "sophisticated information processing".

Two contentions (that software “can never replicate” self-awareness, and that self-awareness “certainly isn’t” sophisticated information processing) that you cannot possibly know to be true.

First, whether or not self-awareness is currently not definable in programming terms tells you nothing about whether it ever could be.

Second, the evidence we do have suggests that self-awareness precisely is sophisticated information processing. Have a look at the Tegmark talk that Wiggs linked to a while back for example if you have any interest in being better informed about this.     

The concept of spiritual awareness is not arrived at by a greater degree of complexity.  It is simply a gift from God.  You may choose to open the gift and use it, or ignore it.  The choice is yours.

Un-argued and un-evidenced assertions again. You’re all over the place here – on the one hand you try to look for explanatory gaps in the observable universe and use them to justify “soul”, “spiritual” etc, and on the other when that fails you just assert them into existence anyway.

No doubt you find this kind of stuff personally comforting, but you offer nothing that would make anyone else think you’re not entirely wrong.   

[torridon]

You seem to be making a case for other animals to have souls.

Oh, no I'm not.  I'm pointing out that the traditional notion of a soul, the subject of selfhood, awareness, agency etc, an either/or thing which individual organisms either have or don't have, is a poor and inadequate model for explaining the diversity of life and the range and nature of conscious experience.  It might have been good enough 100 years ago, but our understanding of these things has long since moved on.

[Enki]

And as I have pointed out before, all these examples of apparently sophisticated animal behaviour are common to each of the species, indicating programmed behaviour dictated by their physical genes.   Nowhere in the animal kingdom will you find the sheer diversity of behaviour and variety of personality, even within family groups, as you would expect from the spirit of each human soul freed from the shackles of deterministic control.

Not at all. Individuals from many species show a varied range of such characteristics, just as human beings do, in fact. You really need to examine some of the evidence which increasingly shows the diversity in bird behaviour and  personality wthin members of the same species. A good book to start with is 'The genius of Birds' by Jennifer Ackerman, which, in its copious notes, gives details of the many studies and experiments which back up what the author expresses. Alas, you again give no evidence for this 'human soul' of yours, whatever it is supposed to be, just assertion.

[Gordon]

The fact that you are able to regard it as superstitious nonsense is sound evidence that your ability to do this conscious "regarding" is derived from something other than the uncontrolled deterministic activity of your physical brain.

Nonsense, Alan - that I can think this at all is just one aspect of my biology doing what it naturally does, on the same basis that my pancreas produces the insulin I need (I'm not diabetic).

You might find this very recent episode of Philosophy Bites interesting since it involves and interview with a neuroscientist (Chris Frith) about consciousness - no mention of 'souls' involved, but some interesting stuff about consciousness.

http://philosophybites.com/2017/02/chris-frith-on-what-is-the-point-of-consciousness-.html

[Enki]

Software can never replicate self awareness because it is not definable in programming terms.  It is certainly not defined by "sophisticated information processing".The concept of spiritual awareness is not arrived at by a greater degree of complexity.  It is simply a gift from God.  You may choose to open the gift and use it, or ignore it.  The choice is yours.

I've just shown this statement to my wife, who expressed incredulity that anyone could believe such ideas as you regurgitate here, especially in your last four sentences. Now I told her that personal incredulity is no argument or evidence for or against any idea but she still retains her personal incredulity nevertheless. However, if I am not wrong, I do believe that you use your own personal incredulity as some sort of argument that you are correct in your thinking, so tell me, on the same basis, does this mean that she is also correct? 

[Alan Burns]

I've just shown this statement to my wife, who expressed incredulity that anyone could believe such ideas as you regurgitate here, especially in your last four sentences. Now I told her that personal incredulity is no argument or evidence for or against any idea but she still retains her personal incredulity nevertheless. However, if I am not wrong, I do believe that you use your own personal incredulity as some sort of argument that you are correct in your thinking, so tell me, on the same basis, does this mean that she is also correct? 

I know that I regularly get accused of personal incredulity in my arguments.  But if you read my posts, you will find that most of my arguments are backed up by logic, realistic probabilities and personal experiences.   For example Bluehillside has just accused me of personal incredulity in my belief that computer software will never achieve self awareness.  I have spent over forty years of my working life programming and developing computer software and I know I am capable of giving an informed expert opinion on this subject - it is not just blind belief.  Computers are quite capable of mimicking the external appearance of what may appear to be conscious awareness, but internally it is just lots of atomic particles behaving in accordance with the rules of science.  Conscious awareness needs a recipient of information which is beyond the workings of any man made system.

[wigginhall]

It resides in the same place as all your dreams, ambitions, opinions, .....

Well, they're obviously produced in the brain.    Is that it?  The soul is produced by the brain - so what's all the argument about?

[torridon]

I know that I regularly get accused of personal incredulity in my arguments.  But if you read my posts, you will find that most of my arguments are backed up by logic, realistic probabilities and personal experiences.   

Really ? we must have missed that.  All we see is assertion and personal anecdote and incredulity with no evidence and no reason and no detail.  So what if your track record in programming has not produced conscious machines, we wouldn't expect that from the linear programming methods used in everyday applications.  But a machine architected specifically to mimic the way a brain processes information would be a different matter altogether. If you have ever posted up any sort of justification or detail to back your notions up, then please point it out.

[Stranger]

I know that I regularly get accused of personal incredulity in my arguments.  But if you read my posts, you will find that most of my arguments are backed up by logic, realistic probabilities and personal experiences.

I have read your posts and this is not the case. Your posts are actually full of empty assertion and riddled with logical contradictions.

For example Bluehillside has just accused me of personal incredulity in my belief that computer software will never achieve self awareness.  I have spent over forty years of my working life programming and developing computer software and I know I am capable of giving an informed expert opinion on this subject - it is not just blind belief.

It really doesn't matter how long you have spent programming (I have spent a good many years myself), unless you know how self awareness is achieved, your claim is simply illogical. You may not be able to imagine how data processing can give rise to awareness but that is only personal incredulity, not a logical argument.

Conscious awareness needs a recipient of information which is beyond the workings of any man made system.

Yet again you repeat one of your mantras - totally devoid of any meaning. Computers are the recipients of information all the time - I'm typing information into one right now. Clearly you mean something else but repeating the mantra is pointless...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I know that I regularly get accused of personal incredulity in my arguments.  But if you read my posts, you will find that most of my arguments are backed up by logic,…

Logic that’s consistently been shown to be wrong.

…realistic probabilities…

You have made no effort to show a probabilistic method to evaluate your various claims.

…and personal experiences.

That you attribute to un-argued, un-evidenced and un-defined causes with no interest at all in considering (let alone excluding) the various other (but no doubt less exciting) possible causes for those "experiences".

For example Bluehillside has just accused me of personal incredulity in my belief that computer software will never achieve self awareness.  I have spent over forty years of my working life programming and developing computer software and I know I am capable of giving an informed expert opinion on this subject - it is not just blind belief.

Yes it is blind belief. However much experience you have, you have no means to demonstrate that something could never happen in the future. All sorts of phenomena that were once thought mysterious are now well understood. If you want to do more than just assert as an article of faith that “self-awareness” is never capable of being modelled artificially then – finally – you need to make a cogent argument that explains why it’s necessarily qualitatively not modelling apt. 

And no - "we haven't figured it out yet" is not an argument for never figuring something out in the future.   

Computers are quite capable of mimicking the external appearance of what may appear to be conscious awareness, but internally it is just lots of atomic particles behaving in accordance with the rules of science.

Which is pretty much an explanation of what “conscious awareness” is. However uncomfortable for your personal faith beliefs, if you want to step away from the evidence and posit magic answers like “soul” to fill the explanatory gap you’ve created then it’s for you to explain why consciousness is actually something else.

Conscious awareness needs a recipient of information which is beyond the workings of any man made system.

But that’s just the same mindless assertion you keep repeating over and over again. The clue is in the term self-awareness – consciousness is self aware, so there’s no need to magic up a little man at the controls (that’s beset by many more problems than it would solve in any case by the way) to fix a non-existent problem.

Do you have any sense at all of how ludicrous your efforts here are?

Anything at all?

[SusanDoris]

Until somebody defines what they mean by 'soul', I think the discussion will go round in circles.
I believe the word 'soul' was used to cover several different Hebrew words of different meaning e.g. yachiyd - uniqueness (sole in the other sense), tselem - a kind of self image, nephesh - instincts, appetites, drives which we share with the animal world, and - neshama - human mind but with alleged divine inspirational qualities (similar to the New Testament 'psyche' concept).

Whichever way anyone looks at the word and defines it, 'soul' is simply a word, a sound, which enables us to talk about one aspect of our totally integrated personality, character, or whatever other word one wants to use.

How AB can really, deep down, think that he is right and not see the sense and reality of posts here which point out facts is quite sad, I think.

[Sebastian Toe]

we could start with the dictionary definition:
1.
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

"Or animal"
So according to your preferred definition. Animals have souls!

[ekim]

we could start with the dictionary definition:
1.
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

You could, but you should then declare what you mean by 'spirit'.  I don't know which dictionary definition you have used but I should have thought that a Christian would be more concerned about the meanings of such words 2,000 years ago and used by Jesus who was a Jewish Rabbi.  He would not have used the word 'soul', the Germanic origin of which, I believe, meant 'life'.

[ekim]

Whichever way anyone looks at the word and defines it, 'soul' is simply a word, a sound, which enables us to talk about one aspect of our totally integrated personality, character, or whatever other word one wants to use.

How AB can really, deep down, think that he is right and not see the sense and reality of posts here which point out facts is quite sad, I think.

Unfortunately words are all he has on a discussion site.  I doubt whether Alan feels sad.  He is probably fired up in believing he is doing his Lord's work.

[Rhiannon]

Unfortunately words are all he has on a discussion site.  I doubt whether Alan feels sad.  He is probably fired up in believing he is doing his Lord's work.

Yes, clearly AB is very happy with his world. On the face of it at any rate. Why would he want to be reasoned out of it? Think about how his world would come crashing down if he lost his faith - his marriage possibly, his support network, and the magic pill that makes all the bad stuff go away.

[wigginhall]

You could, but you should then declare what you mean by 'spirit'.  I don't know which dictionary definition you have used but I should have thought that a Christian would be more concerned about the meanings of such words 2,000 years ago and used by Jesus who was a Jewish Rabbi.  He would not have used the word 'soul', the Germanic origin of which, I believe, meant 'life'.

It's interesting that Freud often uses the German word 'Seele', which naturally translates to English 'soul'.   Of course, Freud was an atheist, and was using it to indicate the psyche or mind.   However, his English translators were determined not to use 'soul', as they thought it would give the wrong impression.   Many years later, this became a big issue, and it has been said that reading Freud in English gives the wrong impression, as there are many terms given bad English versions.  Thus 'Besetzung' was often translated horribly as 'cathexis', when in fact it means 'interest'.  I suppose they were trying to make it scientificalistic.

It just increases the confusion over soul, as it has been used non-religiously.   There is a famous book called 'Care of the Soul' (Thomas Moore), which is not AB's soul.