Dissociative Identity Disorder and the Soul

[jeremyp]

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.

No they weren't. The human programmers can't possibly program every possible decision an AI self driving system has to make.

[jeremyp]

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.

Why not? It seems obvious to me that two individuals (with reduced function, of course) would exist after such an operation.

[Alan Burns]

No they weren't. The human programmers can't possibly program every possible decision an AI self driving system has to make.

They program the logic, which makes the AI just an extension of the programmer's own abilities to consciously interact with this world.

[torridon]

They program the logic, which makes the AI just an extension of the programmer's own abilities to consciously interact with this world.

This is state of the art computing from about 40 years ago. The logic in an AI comes not from programmers, but from its own learning process.  This is why it is called 'machine learning'.

[jeremyp]

They program the logic, which makes the AI just an extension of the programmer's own abilities to consciously interact with this world.

Nope. Frequently, AIs make surprising (and sometimes good) decisions that even their creators don't understand. They often consist of artificial neural networks that are trained by the programmers but there isn't necessarily explicit logic in there to perform a task.

[Alan Burns]

This is state of the art computing from about 40 years ago. The logic in an AI comes not from programmers, but from its own learning process.  This is why it is called 'machine learning'.

And the "learning process" is entirely derived from the programmer's logic embedded within the software.  Any AI is derived from human intelligence.  And I should add that human intelligence is entirely derived from the intelligence of our Creator.

[torridon]

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

So, in a split-brain patient, you now have to ask, which conscious entity is accountable for the words, thoughts and actions, given that there are now two of them.

[ProfessorDavey]

And the "learning process" is entirely derived from the programmer's logic embedded within the software.

No more than human intelligence is derived from the coding in the simple molecule of DNA. 

And I should add that human intelligence is entirely derived from the intelligence of our Creator.

Yawn - unevidenced assertion. Nope, human intelligence is derived from the evolutionary process as it confers a survival advantage.

[jeremyp]

And the "learning process" is entirely derived from the programmer's logic embedded within the software.  Any AI is derived from human intelligence.  And I should add that human intelligence is entirely derived from the intelligence of our Creator.

But you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that your "Creator" exists or that human intelligence arises from it. Furthermore, if intelligence needs something to program it e.g. a human or a god, then we must conclude that something programmed God and so on ad infinitum.

Presumably you are going to argue that God needed no programmer, but in that case, why would humans need programmers?

You really haven't thought this through properly.

[Alan Burns]

Nope. Frequently, AIs make surprising (and sometimes good) decisions that even their creators don't understand. They often consist of artificial neural networks that are trained by the programmers but there isn't necessarily explicit logic in there to perform a task.

Take away the programmers and there is no AI
Take away God and there is no existence

[Alan Burns]

Yawn - unevidenced assertion. Nope, human intelligence is derived from the evolutionary process as it confers a survival advantage.

You seem to be suggesting that anything which is seen to confer survival advantage must have been due to an evolutionary process - presumably driven by unguided events.

Do you see any possible flaw in this line of thought?

[Alan Burns]

So, in a split-brain patient, you now have to ask, which conscious entity is accountable for the words, thoughts and actions, given that there are now two of them.

The conscious entity which is he human soul is not able to split.
The literature I have seen on the split brain syndrome appears to suggest that some functions of the body seem to have a mind of their own - not under the control of the conscious entity.

[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 -

That suggests that the soul can only "control" the physical brain in a fixed way through predetermined physical neural pathways.
Do you think that is correct?

[torridon]

Take away the programmers and there is no AI
Take away God and there is no existence

Baseless assertion courtesy of dodgy analogy

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be suggesting that anything which is seen to confer survival advantage must have been due to an evolutionary process - presumably driven by unguided events.

Do you see any possible flaw in this line of thought?

Nope - I think you are misunderstand or misrepresenting evolution by natural selection.

Firstly all traits we have as humans are generated by evolution, as they were not present in earlier stages of the evolutionary process, all the way back to the emergence through evolution of the very first life forms.

Secondly the point about evolution is that random and unguided events happen all the time. Some confer survival advantage, some are completely neutral in terms of survival and some are detrimental to survival. If an individual possesses a trait that confers survival advantage then is is ... more likely to survive to a point where it can produce offspring. If that trait is hereditable it will be passed on those offspring and they will have greater chance of survival. Over time the trait becomes becomes more and more common in the population, eventually to the extend that a new variety, strain or even species emerges where this trait is dominant.

Of course if a trait is detrimental it will disappear as it make the individual less likely to survive. Neutral traits, may or may not survive.

Evolution becomes more complication when, firstly, some traits are co-inherited with others and also when a change in environmental conditions occurs. The latter may reveal a trait to be beneficial (or detrimental) when is wasn't so under previous environmental conditions. So if a species of fresh water organism has a trait that confers survival under high salinity conditions it may be neutral in freshwater. But if there is a storm surge or change in sea levels that means its environment becomes contaminated with sea water, only those organisms with the salinity-resistant trait will survive.

That's evolution by natural selection, and, no, there is no flaw in this line of thought, albeit I think there is a major flaw in your thinking in that you seem to think that the random process of variation/mutation etc only produces positive traits - it doesn't - it produces positive, negative and neutral traits. The point is that those positive traits are retained if hereditable. 

[Sriram]

You are missing the point about phenotypic plasticity and the ability of organisms to adapt to specific environmental requirements.....

[ProfessorDavey]

You are missing the point about phenotypic plasticity and the ability of organisms to adapt to specific environmental requirements.....

Which is, in itself, an evolutionary trait - and a very useful one under certain circumstances. In many cases this is just controlled be standard genomic approaches - so genes being turned on or turned off, or proteins being active or inactivated under particular environmental challenge.

But in other cases this is achieved by epigenetic mechanisms by which either DNA or histones are methylated and/or acetylated. But the enzymes that actually do the methylated and/or acetylated (or the reverse) are coded for in the DNA. And if their promoters may be regulated themselves by external factors - e.g. pH, osmotic conditions, temperature, you then end up with a situation in which a change in environmental conditions drives epigenetic changes in DNA. Of course this will only be selected for if that trait confers survival advantage.

So the whole notion of what you call phenotypic plasticity whether by epigenetics or more standard control of genome function is a product of good old fashioned evolution by natural selection.

[Alan Burns]

I fully understand what you are saying about evolutionary theory.

My contention is with your statement:

human intelligence is derived from the evolutionary process as it confers a survival advantage

which suggests that the fact that it gives survival advantage is sufficient reason for it to have been a result of the evolutionary process.
In order to justify this statement, you need to show that human intelligence  - involving the conscious manipulation of thought processes - can be generated from the consequences of physical mutations alone.  It comes down to the question of human free will - which I see as a necessary attribute for the guidance of intelligent thought processes to occur and which is impossible to define in purely material terms.

[ProfessorDavey]

My contention is with your statement:which suggests that the fact that it gives survival advantage is sufficient reason for it to have been a result of the evolutionary process.

You seem to be confused again about the process - and you keep folding into 'reason' indicating a desire or intent or direction. The point is that changes happen randomly - some confer a survival advantage and if hereditable these survive and if sufficiently advantageous become so dominant that there is a wholesale shift in the phenotype of the organism sufficient for us to say there is a new strain, variant, species etc. Other random changes don't provide an advantage and may linger within the gene pool or even vanish. So a mutation that renders an individual to be sterile is going to vanish pretty darned quickly.

In order to justify this statement, you need to show that human intelligence  - involving the conscious manipulation of thought processes - can be generated from the consequences of physical mutations alone.  It comes down to the question of human free will - which I see as a necessary attribute for the guidance of intelligent thought processes to occur and which is impossible to define in purely material terms.

Of course it can. Everything you describe are features of our incredible complex neurology, which has arisen by the self same evolutionary process. For a social animal species such as humans, the ability to communicate, empathise, teach, learn etc etc are incredibly important for survival. So when randomly a trait emerges that makes that better - for example synaptic remodelling that allows memory - then those traits, provided they are hereditable, will be retained and if particularly advantageous will become dominant.

And why is this 'impossible' to define in purely material terms - I think it is perfectly possible, albeit we don't know enough yet about the full mechanisms. To argue that it is impossible implies there must be something non-material and as much as you really, really, really want this to be true you haven't got one iota of evidence to support any alternative assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be confused again about the process - and you keep folding into 'reason' indicating a desire or intent or direction. The point is that changes happen randomly - some confer a survival advantage and if hereditable these survive and if sufficiently advantageous become so dominant that there is a wholesale shift in the phenotype of the organism sufficient for us to say there is a new strain, variant, species etc. Other random changes don't provide an advantage and may linger within the gene pool or even vanish. So a mutation that renders an individual to be sterile is going to vanish pretty darned quickly.
Of course it can. Everything you describe are features of our incredible complex neurology, which has arisen by the self same evolutionary process. For a social animal species such as humans, the ability to communicate, empathise, teach, learn etc etc are incredibly important for survival. So when randomly a trait emerges that makes that better - for example synaptic remodelling that allows memory - then those traits, provided they are hereditable, will be retained and if particularly advantageous will become dominant.

And why is this 'impossible' to define in purely material terms - I think it is perfectly possible, albeit we don't know enough yet about the full mechanisms. To argue that it is impossible implies there must be something non-material and as much as you really, really, really want this to be true you haven't got one iota of evidence to support any alternative assertion.

We eagerly await that day when conscious awareness can be separated from intelligence. The problem is that self awareness seems only limited to er, self
and self witness is not accepted as testimony or evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

We eagerly await that day when conscious awareness can be separated from intelligence. The problem is that self awareness seems only limited to er, self
and self witness is not accepted as testimony or evidence.

Not really true - psychologists have plenty of ways of looking at conscious awareness, which often involves correlation of subjective stated perception (or other behaviours from non human species) and objective assessment of neural activity. And conscious awareness and intelligence aren't the same thing at all. Intelligence relies on humans setting out specific questions, the correct answers to which confer intelligence. It is a human-centric measure, unlike conscious awareness.

On the issue of it being 'self' and testimony etc, again you are simplifying - if a person claims something associated with their conscious awareness that isn't discounted, and certainly not if it correlated with objective measurement. However that doesn't mean it is objectively true, rather than just subjectively perceived. So conscious awareness can result in 'true for me' perceptions, that don't translate into 'true for everyone'.

[Alan Burns]

And why is this 'impossible' to define in purely material terms - I think it is perfectly possible, albeit we don't know enough yet about the full mechanisms. To argue that it is impossible implies there must be something non-material and as much as you really, really, really want this to be true you haven't got one iota of evidence to support any alternative assertion.

The impossibility arises from the conscious awareness of thought processes being unable to exert influence or control of the neurological events which have already occurred.   In the physically driven material scenario there can be no conscious control of our thoughts - yet we have the ability to draw verifiable conclusions.

I make no apology for repeating this  - but it is in answer to your assertion that there is not one iota of evidence to support the power of the human soul to give us the freedom we need to think things out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really true - psychologists have plenty of ways of looking at conscious awareness, which often involves correlation of subjective stated perception (or other behaviours from non human species) and objective assessment of neural activity. And conscious awareness and intelligence aren't the same thing at all. Intelligence relies on humans setting out specific questions, the correct answers to which confer intelligence. It is a human-centric measure, unlike conscious awareness.

On the issue of it being 'self' and testimony etc, again you are simplifying - if a person claims something associated with their conscious awareness that isn't discounted, and certainly not if it correlated with objective measurement. However that doesn't mean it is objectively true, rather than just subjectively perceived. So conscious awareness can result in 'true for me' perceptions, that don't translate into 'true for everyone'.

There is still the problem that a mere machine gaining perception and information from light, sound, chemical, temperature and pressure sensors can yield the same kind of correlations with electrical activity inside the machine without the need of conscious awareness. We await confirmation of your idea that such methods will unearth conscious awareness. The real proof will be the ability to transfer consciousness in the same way that empirical data is transmitted In my opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

The impossibility arises from the conscious awareness of thought processes being unable to exert influence or control of the neurological events which have already occurred.   In the physically driven material scenario there can be no conscious control of our thoughts - yet we have the ability to draw verifiable conclusions.

Except that what we describe as conscious awareness (actually redundancy of wording here as conscious is self awareness) is just that - a term humans ascribe to our perception of a complex process of neurological activity. There is no 'conscious awareness' in a truly objective sense, merely a term we use to describe someone that is objective - a certain type of complex neuronal action. As an analogy - we may describe 'seeing' something - but 'see' is merely a human-derived term to describe the process of light sensing by sensory cells in a visual organ and they transference of that sensing into electrical impulses that are then processed within the brain - the resulting process we describe as seeing.

I make no apology for repeating this  - but it is in answer to your assertion that there is not one iota of evidence to support the power of the human soul to give us the freedom we need to think things out.

There is not one iota of evidence that the human soul actually exists (beyond its colloquial use to describe emotion). You try to work in the world of evidence - but if you want to play that game you need to have evidence for your starting assertion, namely that the soul exists - and of could you have no evidence for this.

[jeremyp]

Take away the programmers and there is no AI
Take away God and there is no existence

Take away God’s creator and there is no God.