|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:50 pm
"Ah,souls,like so much else in old religon,is what ancient man used to discribe how the way their world worked at the time. They did not know how their universe worked at the time and created religon to try and think of a way to explain to. To say that one being created all existance and created us with souls. I believe we go somewere when we die,but were is uncertian. And if one supernatural being existanced and created all that is,then how did it come into existance? I am open to all forms of religon,and when it comes to Souls,i would have to say im on a neutral stance when it comes to weather or not they exist."
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:55 pm
Artto I still don't know what the supposed effects of a soul are. I believe the obvious effect of the soul is the fact that we have individual likes, dislikes, personalities, wants, needs, and so forth. Needs that surpass the five senses. Like the need to know where we came from. There is no evolutionary need to look to our origins, or to look beyond our day to day struggles to find the "purpose" or "meaning" beyond survival and procreation in it. In fact, some of our spiritual needs seem to be counter-productive to what evolution would suggest. I think this is a supposed effect of the soul. Everyone has a different theory on this. That is why you are not getting any answers that are clear-cut. If you were to take a minute, and consider the "minute" possibility that you have a soul, what do YOU think its effects would look like, if any?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:12 pm
divineseraph Because it is absurd, to begin with- So our brain, in order to function, has to tell itself that it exists as an "I"? Our brain is supposed to tell itself that it is sad, with sadness chemicals that tell it it's sad, in order to know it's sad in the first place? It is cyclical and paradoxical. No, a certain neural pathway triggers the release of those chemicals. Consciousness is a bit more interesting and debatable, but I don't see any problem with feelings, thoughts and emotions. It's all just responses (albeit complex) to stimuli. Eltanin Sadachbia Everyone has a different theory on this. That is why you are not getting any answers that are clear-cut. If you were to take a minute, and consider the "minute" possibility that you have a soul, what do YOU think its effects would look like, if any? That's just it, I can't think of any that couldn't just be the effects of the brain. Sure, there's art, philosophy and such, but those are just the results of the complex nature of our brain - side effects of sorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:44 pm
Artto divineseraph Because it is absurd, to begin with- So our brain, in order to function, has to tell itself that it exists as an "I"? Our brain is supposed to tell itself that it is sad, with sadness chemicals that tell it it's sad, in order to know it's sad in the first place? It is cyclical and paradoxical. No, a certain neural pathway triggers the release of those chemicals. Consciousness is a bit more interesting and debatable, but I don't see any problem with feelings, thoughts and emotions. It's all just responses (albeit complex) to stimuli. Eltanin Sadachbia Everyone has a different theory on this. That is why you are not getting any answers that are clear-cut. If you were to take a minute, and consider the "minute" possibility that you have a soul, what do YOU think its effects would look like, if any? That's just it, I can't think of any that couldn't just be the effects of the brain. Sure, there's art, philosophy and such, but those are just the results of the complex nature of our brain - side effects of sorts. But how is that neural channel opened in the first place? Something must say either "bad feeling" or "good feeling" under context of the situation- If the brain itself says that, then it must reasonably do so with the chemicals it releases to feel those things- If it's a separate chemical, what causes the release of those? We end up, in a closed physical system, with a paradox relating to how the brain must tell itself it is sad to feel sad, which requires sadness in the first place. It's circular and absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:53 am
divineseraph But how is that neural channel opened in the first place? Something must say either "bad feeling" or "good feeling" under context of the situation- If the brain itself says that, then it must reasonably do so with the chemicals it releases to feel those things- If it's a separate chemical, what causes the release of those? We end up, in a closed physical system, with a paradox relating to how the brain must tell itself it is sad to feel sad, which requires sadness in the first place. It's circular and absurd. No it's not. The neural channel is opened by an outside stimulus. Let's say you've got a simple microprocessor. You want to add two numbers. You write something like R1 <- 2 + 2. Now the processor adds the two numbers and writes the result into R1. You're going along the lines of: How does the processor know that the result is 4? He has to have 4 written in R1, before he can know that, but he can't know what to write into R1, before he knows it! It's a paradox! But you forget, there was the outside stimulus of R1 <- 2 + 2, which triggered the writing of 4 into R1. The human brain is (presumably) the same. Just replace R1 with "release of sadness chemicals" and R1 <- 2 + 2 with, let's say, someone saying something bad about you. The brain doesn't fire accordingly to what we feel, we feel according to what neurons in the brain are firing. It's not both. You would, however, get this paradox if you posited a soul - you would separate our feelings from our brain. You say the brain tells "us" what to feel, but the thing is we are our brain. No soul, no paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:15 pm
Artto divineseraph But how is that neural channel opened in the first place? Something must say either "bad feeling" or "good feeling" under context of the situation- If the brain itself says that, then it must reasonably do so with the chemicals it releases to feel those things- If it's a separate chemical, what causes the release of those? We end up, in a closed physical system, with a paradox relating to how the brain must tell itself it is sad to feel sad, which requires sadness in the first place. It's circular and absurd. No it's not. The neural channel is opened by an outside stimulus. Let's say you've got a simple microprocessor. You want to add two numbers. You write something like R1 <- 2 + 2. Now the processor adds the two numbers and writes the result into R1. You're going along the lines of: How does the processor know that the result is 4? He has to have 4 written in R1, before he can know that, but he can't know what to write into R1, before he knows it! It's a paradox! But you forget, there was the outside stimulus of R1 <- 2 + 2, which triggered the writing of 4 into R1. The human brain is (presumably) the same. Just replace R1 with "release of sadness chemicals" and R1 <- 2 + 2 with, let's say, someone saying something bad about you. The brain doesn't fire accordingly to what we feel, we feel according to what neurons in the brain are firing. It's not both. You would, however, get this paradox if you posited a soul - you would separate our feelings from our brain. You say the brain tells "us" what to feel, but the thing is we are our brain. No soul, no paradox. No, my question is how is the data put in? It requires a conscious operator to input the stimuli in the first place. My question isn't so much about the calculator, but about the finger pressing the buttons. It's how stimulus, which in essence is neutral, simple flashes of light and color and sound, translated into an emotion in the brain, if the brain would have to inform itself prior to the event what chemicals it released to feel what it felt. A calculator example does not work, as we are dealing with several issues- Biological systems are not binary, firstly. Secondly, we're dealing with subjective emotions based on stimuli, not a program. Secondly, a program can not have consciousness like a biological system, as per the arguments of Searle with his Chinese Room argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:08 am
divineseraph No, my question is how is the data put in? It requires a conscious operator to input the stimuli in the first place. My question isn't so much about the calculator, but about the finger pressing the buttons. It's how stimulus, which in essence is neutral, simple flashes of light and color and sound, translated into an emotion in the brain, if the brain would have to inform itself prior to the event what chemicals it released to feel what it felt. It's not neutral. If you see a tiger jumping at you, that's bad. Some of our emotions are more complex, because we have a very complex brain, and are a social creature. We are hard-wired to interpret some things as bad, other things we learn to be bad. It's evolved that way, so that we survive. divineseraph A calculator example does not work, as we are dealing with several issues- Biological systems are not binary, firstly. Then it's a neural net calculator. That really doesn't matter. divineseraph Secondly, we're dealing with subjective emotions based on stimuli, not a program. I don't see a difference, in the big picture. And the program was an analogy anyway. divineseraph Secondly, a program can not have consciousness like a biological system, as per the arguments of Searle with his Chinese Room argument. I don't buy that, since we don't even know why consciousness is and when and why it occurs. Consciousness might be just some weird law of physics. The Chinese Room argument is a thought experiment. That means, it's interesting to think about it, but it doesn't really prove anything. There are also many counter-arguments to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:33 am
Artto divineseraph No, my question is how is the data put in? It requires a conscious operator to input the stimuli in the first place. My question isn't so much about the calculator, but about the finger pressing the buttons. It's how stimulus, which in essence is neutral, simple flashes of light and color and sound, translated into an emotion in the brain, if the brain would have to inform itself prior to the event what chemicals it released to feel what it felt. It's not neutral. If you see a tiger jumping at you, that's bad. Some of our emotions are more complex, because we have a very complex brain, and are a social creature. We are hard-wired to interpret some things as bad, other things we learn to be bad. It's evolved that way, so that we survive. divineseraph A calculator example does not work, as we are dealing with several issues- Biological systems are not binary, firstly. Then it's a neural net calculator. That really doesn't matter. divineseraph Secondly, we're dealing with subjective emotions based on stimuli, not a program. I don't see a difference, in the big picture. And the program was an analogy anyway. divineseraph Secondly, a program can not have consciousness like a biological system, as per the arguments of Searle with his Chinese Room argument. I don't buy that, since we don't even know why consciousness is and when and why it occurs. Consciousness might be just some weird law of physics. The Chinese Room argument is a thought experiment. That means, it's interesting to think about it, but it doesn't really prove anything. There are also many counter-arguments to it. But what tells our brain that this stimuli IS bad in the first place? Our brain? Our brain tells itself it is bad, so it can release chemicals to feel bad? And what tells that part that tells itself it is bad? And what tells that part? There is the paradox. Have you read the argument? It's quite flawless- The argument it counters is that something that can replicate emotions and human speech through a logic system, if we can not tell it from a real person, must be conscious, or be actual artificial intelligence. This is not true, as the system has no comprehension of what it is saying, like a man who does not know chinese, but has a book that says "If X, then Y"- He doesn't know what questions he answers, or what responses he puts out, but he is replicating human speech and emotions. He is unconscious to the context. Likewise, a binary system can be made with a series of used soup cans in a field, "programmed" intricately to replicate human speech by clanging together on input. Is this system conscious, because it follows a logic system? Obviously not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:39 am
divineseraph But what tells our brain that this stimuli IS bad in the first place? Our brain? Our brain tells itself it is bad, so it can release chemicals to feel bad? And what tells that part that tells itself it is bad? And what tells that part? There is the paradox. What tells the processor that 2+2=4? I don't see what's so hard to get here... divineseraph Have you read the argument? It's quite flawless- The argument it counters is that something that can replicate emotions and human speech through a logic system, if we can not tell it from a real person, must be conscious, or be actual artificial intelligence. This is not true, as the system has no comprehension of what it is saying, like a man who does not know chinese, but has a book that says "If X, then Y"- He doesn't know what questions he answers, or what responses he puts out, but he is replicating human speech and emotions. He is unconscious to the context. Likewise, a binary system can be made with a series of used soup cans in a field, "programmed" intricately to replicate human speech by clanging together on input. Is this system conscious, because it follows a logic system? Obviously not. Yes I read the argument. Have you read the responses? And of course, a computer designed specifically for replicating speech and similar specific functions wouldn't be considered conscious. But if you were to actually replicate the human brain in an artificial medium and teach it all those things, it could very well be considered conscious. The brain is, after all, basically just a network of neurons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:23 pm
I see what Arto is saying, but I see what Seraph is saying as well.
Certain calculations are always going to render a solution and so the brain is just calculating and relaying the most logical solution. A computer can figure out the answer of certain problems by putting two and two together. You don't necessarily need a "who" to input the problem.
Yet, the computer needed to be programed to recognize outside stimuli and interpret them into problems and render solutions. What if the initial program that rendered the brain an accurate processor was the soul?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:47 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia Yet, the computer needed to be programed to recognize outside stimuli and interpret them into problems and render solutions. What if the initial program that rendered the brain an accurate processor was the soul? It's evolved to be hard-wired that way. Our basic fears and wants are hard-wired. Everything else is acquired, learned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:28 am
Artto Eltanin Sadachbia Yet, the computer needed to be programed to recognize outside stimuli and interpret them into problems and render solutions. What if the initial program that rendered the brain an accurate processor was the soul? It's evolved to be hard-wired that way. Our basic fears and wants are hard-wired. Everything else is acquired, learned. And I say it's not. Your words against mine. You'll cite science, but I'll say that what we're dealing with can't be observed and is therefore outside of the realm of science. We're back at square one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:43 am
divineseraph Artto Eltanin Sadachbia Yet, the computer needed to be programed to recognize outside stimuli and interpret them into problems and render solutions. What if the initial program that rendered the brain an accurate processor was the soul? It's evolved to be hard-wired that way. Our basic fears and wants are hard-wired. Everything else is acquired, learned. And I say it's not. Your words against mine. You'll cite science, but I'll say that what we're dealing with can't be observed and is therefore outside of the realm of science. We're back at square one. Well, if you think evolution didn't happen, then I think we're done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:32 pm
I see were the both of you come from. I was once a religous man at one point in my life,but after an acident that occured i never turned to religon again. But enough about me,were on the topic of souls,now shall we continue? Gut.
Now,you say that souls are what drives the human spirit and is actual proof of the existance of an all powerful being. But why did god give us souls,what reason is for our existance? And what of that of the animals of the rest of the world,why do humans have souls and they do not? That could be an explination for the theory of Evolution.
And you,the one who says that humanity and every other thing in the universe evolved. Well then,what caused this world to be so special? what caused it too form at this exact spot that makes it an ideal place for evolution? Surely someone out there created this world for an idea habitat for something.
Try and ponder what i have said this day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:32 am
Extuis And you,the one who says that humanity and every other thing in the universe evolved. Well then,what caused this world to be so special? what caused it too form at this exact spot that makes it an ideal place for evolution? Surely someone out there created this world for an idea habitat for something. It's the other way around. We evolved on this planet in this universe. The conditions don't fit us, we fit the conditions. If we didn't, we wouldn't be here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
