Dissociative Identity Disorder and the Soul

[ProfessorDavey]

The AI in the car does not happen through random variation. It happens through intelligent intervention, intent and deliberate design. Evolution (of cars and AI) is also a part of the process btw.

But the point about the AI is that the car, as designed, has no ability to make those decisions - it learns to do so. So, in effect, its decision making ability evolves by itself, without a directed intelligent intervention.

[Sriram]

But the point about the AI is that the car, as designed, has no ability to make those decisions - it learns to do so. So, in effect, its decision making ability evolves by itself, without a directed intelligent intervention.

What do you mean 'without a directed intelligent intervention'...?!  The AI is designed by human intelligence as also its learning ability....  The Free will, learning and independence is all part of the design and intent of humans.   

[ProfessorDavey]

What do you mean 'without a directed intelligent intervention'...?!  The AI is designed by human intelligence as also its learning ability....  The Free will, learning and independence is all part of the design and intent of humans.   

But the level of intelligence attained is significantly beyond that imbued by the designer, for example through machine learning. The point being that complexity (more intelligence) arises within the system from a more simple (less intelligent) state. This counters the argument that anything complex must be designed by something more complex still.

And a further point is that the AI autonomous vehicle will be able to make decisions about the direction to take and therefore this type of decision making is not limited to humans (or living things) alone.

[Sriram]

But the level of intelligence attained is significantly beyond that imbued by the designer, for example through machine learning. The point being that complexity (more intelligence) arises within the system from a more simple (less intelligent) state. This counters the argument that anything complex must be designed by something more complex still.

And a further point is that the AI autonomous vehicle will be able to make decisions about the direction to take and therefore this type of decision making is not limited to humans (or living things) alone.

That is the intent....that complexity should arise through a learning process. It is part of the design.....   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But consciousness is a state of awareness

And is that mechanistic?

- the mechanistic part is the physical elements that are required for consciousness to exist,

But those are not conscious. Are you saying that the whole of consciousness is mechanistic I ask this because you have mentioned the mechanistic part of consciousness

  i.e. the mechanistic neuronal activity - hence add ing a second mechanistic is totally redundant. It implies that there is consciousness that is the result of mechanistic elements and consciousness that is independent of any mechanistic elements. And of course you have no evidence for the latter, albeit there is huge amounts of evidence for the former, albeit there is much more we need to understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

Then what is this mechanistic 'part' of yours? It seems you are saying there is a non mechanistic part.

Secondly I wonder if you understand emergence here since the mechanistic parts you describe are not conscious of themselves.

Are you saying that consciousness itself is mechanistic If so, give us some physical units which describe it.

[ProfessorDavey]

And is that mechanistic?

It is a term we ascribe to something we perceive - the notion of whether it, of itself, is mechanistic or not isn't the issue as that makes no sense. The issue is whether this perception could be achieve through somethings that is not mechanistic. There is no evidence it could.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a term we ascribe to something we perceive - the notion of whether it, of itself, is mechanistic or not isn't the issue as that makes no sense. The issue is whether this perception could be achieve through somethings that is not mechanistic. There is no evidence it could.

I'll take that, given how evasive you have been on previous issues and here changing 'consciousness' into 'perception', as a yes, consciousness is a physical mechanism. You will be able then to give the physical units I have asked for then.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'll take that, given how evasive you have been on previous issues and here changing 'consciousness' into 'perception', as a yes, consciousness is a physical mechanism. You will be able then to give the physical units I have asked for then.

Nope - that isn't what I said - I didn't morph consciousness into perception - I said that consciousness is the name we humans give to a particular type of perception, specifically sentience or awareness. It is a human-ascribed thing, and as such the notion of mechanistic or non-mechanistic isn't relevant. The point is that we have no evidence that what we call consciousness can be derived except through mechanistic means.

And if you want to shift from what we call consciousness itself (the human derived term) through to the mechanisms that we know underpin it then sure you can provide all sorts of units, as these will be the units associated with the range of hugely complex neuronal and associated sensory interactions that occur in our nervous system and sensory cells. So for example we can start with membrane 'action' potential, which is the key mechanistic element that allows neuronal signals to transmit signals. Action potentials, like other potential differences, are measured in Volts.

[jeremyp]

To claim there is no evidence is wrong.
I presume you mean that there is no scientific evidence, and in this you fail to acknowledge the limitations of human scientific discovery.

No. He means there is no evidence. He's right, otherwise you would have presented the evidence instead of trying to pretend there is a distinction between evidence and scientific evidence in this context.

As I have pointed out many times on this forum, the evidence for the human soul lies in the capabilities of the human mind - which go far beyond what can be achieved or defined within a purely scientific model.

What capabilities of the human mind require the existence of a soul?

[ProfessorDavey]

No. He means there is no evidence. He's right, otherwise you would have presented the evidence instead of trying to pretend there is a distinction between evidence and scientific evidence in this context.

Indeed - and the whole point that theism and religion are based on faith/belief demonstrates the lack of evidence. If you have evidence you don't need faith/believe as you have actual knowledge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - that isn't what I said - I didn't morph consciousness into perception - I said that consciousness is the name we humans give to a particular type of perception, specifically sentience or awareness. It is a human-ascribed thing, and as such the notion of mechanistic or non-mechanistic isn't relevant. The point is that we have no evidence that what we call consciousness can be derived except through mechanistic means.

And if you want to shift from what we call consciousness itself (the human derived term) through to the mechanisms that we know underpin it then sure you can provide all sorts of units, as these will be the units associated with the range of hugely complex neuronal and associated sensory interactions that occur in our nervous system and sensory cells. So for example we can start with membrane 'action' potential, which is the key mechanistic element that allows neuronal signals to transmit signals. Action potentials, like other potential differences, are measured in Volts.

Still doesn't help us. The problem is that you could have all the Action potentials elegantly laid out and still not have awareness. There is of course no need for awareness. Secondly what is the evidence for awareness? That is evidence which would be satisfactory to science.

Of course we could get Into the "illusion" shtick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed - and the whole point that theism and religion are based on faith/belief demonstrates the lack of evidence. If you have evidence you don't need faith/believe as you have actual knowledge.

The evidence is human wrong doing measurement by counting the number of contrary behaviours.

As normal I can recognise any scientific evidence you can.

[Aruntraveller]

Who defines contrary behaviour?

In fact, as you posited contrary behaviour, why don't you define it?

[Alan Burns]

Not so if the car is an autonomous vehicle with sophisticated AI embedded. In which case the car is also able to make its own decisions about which direction to go in.

You miss the point again
The embedded AI derives choices from the human mind that designed the vehicle.  The car does not make its own decisions - they were all pre programmed by its maker.

[Alan Burns]

... - belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

I fully agree - which is precisely why I use the word "knowledge" rather than "belief".
I cannot just believe in an entity with whom I have a personal relationship.
No doubt you will try to claim that I must be deluded, but you do not see inside my mind.

[Alan Burns]

Let us take the condition referred to by Torridon in the second post in this thread. The operation to sever the corpus callosum in the brain can result in two separate personalities analogous to the situation in D.I.D. Torridon cites an instance where the personality of one hemisphere became a Christian*, whereas the other became atheist.

Where is human freewill in such a situation? Would you say that the hemisphere that became Christian was exercising free will, whereas the other was possessed by a demon after the operation?

*Torridon uses the word 'religious', but his final comment indicates that he had Christian or Muslim in mind.

Having severed physical links within the brain, it is reasonable to assume that the soul's control of certain parts of the brain may no longer be functioning - leading to a scenario where some of the brain will be functioning entirely by physical reactions alone.  Hence the appearance of two personalities - one still influenced by the soul and the other acting entirely through biological reactions.

[Sebastian Toe]

Having severed physical links within the brain, it is reasonable to assume that the soul's control of certain parts of the brain may no longer be functioning - leading to a scenario where some of the brain will be functioning entirely by physical reactions alone.  Hence the appearance of two personalities - one still influenced by the soul and the other acting entirely through biological reactions.

How do you determine which one is which?

[torridon]

Having severed physical links within the brain, it is reasonable to assume that the soul's control of certain parts of the brain may no longer be functioning - leading to a scenario where some of the brain will be functioning entirely by physical reactions alone.  Hence the appearance of two personalities - one still influenced by the soul and the other acting entirely through biological reactions.

This reads as if a corpus callosotomy procedure consists of severing the connection between the soul and the brain.  This is not the case, there is no soul connection that could be severed.

All mammals (that includes us of course) have two brains that are bridged by a small amount of connective tissue that allows communication so they act effectively as a single brain  With that connection gone, you end up with two distinct brains not communicating directly with each other.

This is an instance of real world biology showing up ideas of immaterial souls to be no more than naïve magical thinking.

[ProfessorDavey]

Having severed physical links within the brain, it is reasonable to assume that the soul's control of certain parts of the brain may no longer be functioning - leading to a scenario where some of the brain will be functioning entirely by physical reactions alone.  Hence the appearance of two personalities - one still influenced by the soul and the other acting entirely through biological reactions.

It is not reasonable to assume anything of the sort. What you claim is a completely bonkers assertion for which you have not one iota of evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

I fully agree - which is precisely why I use the word "knowledge" rather than "belief".
I cannot just believe in an entity with whom I have a personal relationship.
No doubt you will try to claim that I must be deluded, but you do not see inside my mind.

All sorts of people have unshakable belief in things that are simply untrue, including, of course, claims of relationships with invisible friends or gods. At best, all this indicates is a kind of subjective 'true for me' claim - in other words god is subjectively true for me as I believe it. It doesn't have any credence in an objective sense - i.e. that god actually exists for everyone in an objective manner.

So no Alan - you do not have knowledge of god in any objective sense - what you have is belief. And as I pointed out previously if religions and theists actually had knowledge they wouldn't couch their religions and theism in the language of faith and belief - if you really did all have knowledge their would be no need for faith or belief would there.

[Alan Burns]

This reads as if a corpus callosotomy procedure consists of severing the connection between the soul and the brain.  This is not the case, there is no soul connection that could be severed.

All mammals (that includes us of course) have two brains that are bridged by a small amount of connective tissue that allows communication so they act effectively as a single brain  With that connection gone, you end up with two distinct brains not communicating directly with each other.

This is an instance of real world biology showing up ideas of immaterial souls to be no more than naïve magical thinking.

Lets take your example to a hypothetical extreme
Just imagine if one half of the brain could be transplanted to another body - as with other organs.
Would you exist simultaneously as two separate people? - I think not.

The brain is just a complex biological machine - every atom and molecule within this machine is replaceable.  What is not replaceable is the conscious entity which is accountable and from which all thoughts, words and actions are invoked

[ProfessorDavey]

Lets take your example to a hypothetical extreme
Just imagine if one half of the brain could be transplanted to another body - as with other organs.
Would you exist simultaneously as two separate people? - I think not.

Good question - and gets to the heart of what defines a person. The consensus seems to settle on higher neurological function, hence brain death being considered to define the death of the person even if other organs can be maintained.

But there is also the consideration of neural continuity - in other words a person is someone with a unique and continuing neurological function. So I'm not you can make such a glib 'I think' not answer.

Let's try a slightly more relevant sophisticated thought experiment - Imagine someone is brain dead (call this person A), but all other organs are functioning. You remove the dead brain and replace it with two half brains from two separate people (call them persons B and C). Let's assume there is no connectivity between each half of the brain as percorpus callosotomy, but that each half brain is now able to interact with the rest of the body so we have a living body that is no longer brain dead.

Who is the person or persons thus derived - it is person A - I wouldn't think so as their brain is dead and gone.

Why would we think this is person B rather than C, or C rather than B - surely both B and C are equally present. Or is it person D.

[Sriram]

Let us imagine that you are siting inside a robot. That robot has certain software, memories and data loaded into it. You are functioning with that.

Assume that the hard disk or microprocessor or software of the robot is suddenly changed such that the old memories are replaced with some others and the data is now different.  Obviously your functioning and experience with the new memories and software will be different to the earlier ones.

But you still remain the same.

[torridon]

Lets take your example to a hypothetical extreme
Just imagine if one half of the brain could be transplanted to another body - as with other organs.
Would you exist simultaneously as two separate people? - I think not.

But this is what the experience of people who have undergone this procedure reveals - what was previously a single locus of identity, perception and experience becomes two and the two grow more distinct over time, developing their own personalities, preferences, cognitive abilities and so forth. So how would a single soul map to this new reality ?

[BeRational]

Good question - and gets to the heart of what defines a person. The consensus seems to settle on higher neurological function, hence brain death being considered to define the death of the person even if other organs can be maintained.

But there is also the consideration of neural continuity - in other words a person is someone with a unique and continuing neurological function. So I'm not you can make such a glib 'I think' not answer.

Let's try a slightly more relevant sophisticated thought experiment - Imagine someone is brain dead (call this person A), but all other organs are functioning. You remove the dead brain and replace it with two half brains from two separate people (call them persons B and C). Let's assume there is no connectivity between each half of the brain as percorpus callosotomy, but that each half brain is now able to interact with the rest of the body so we have a living body that is no longer brain dead.

Who is the person or persons thus derived - it is person A - I wouldn't think so as their brain is dead and gone.

Why would we think this is person B rather than C, or C rather than B - surely both B and C are equally present. Or is it person D.

I would expect B and C together