Great Bible verses!

[trish]

I have no acquaintance with neurology either. I’m mostly drawing upon some past familiarity with automata theory to which the MacCulloch and Pitts theory of neural nets belongs. Artificially constructed neural nets are especially good at learning. They do this by changing the “weights” or firing frequencies of various circuits (which is kinda like rewiring themselves). They are used in all sorts of technology where pattern recognition is essential. Artificial neural nets are synchronized; i.e. all the neurons have the same cycling time and fire or not fire together. The human brain has a structure similar to these eponymous neural nets, but organic neurons have no fixed cycle period and are not synchronized. That’s what makes them hybrid (both analog and digital). Artificial nets are computationally equivalent to Turing machines and will only yield computable output. Hybrid nets can sometimes yield non-computable output. Animal brains literally do rewire themselves, growing new connections and weeding old ones.

Memory and time are always limiting factors in real-world computation. Each of us has something like ten billion neurons and we still find long division difficult to do in our heads. On the other hand we can do all the “calculations” required to get under a fly ball and catch it in real time. Our resources are allocated to where evolution found them most useful and our pleasures are often found nearby.

And that’s about everything I know about neural nets

[broncofan]

Memory and time are always limiting factors in real-world computation. Each of us has something like ten billion neurons and we still find long division difficult to do in our heads. On the other hand we can do all the “calculations” required to get under a fly ball and catch it in real time. Our resources are allocated to where evolution found them most useful and our pleasures are often found nearby.

Not really related to the thread but I can second that thought about how easily we can make all sorts of intuitive calculations but how we find our limits very quickly when we try to make it explicit. I used to calculate pot odds in poker, which was somewhat taxing, and failed to take into account a lot of relevant information. I found that when I maintained my general awareness and took into account more relevant factors with less precision I won more often. It's like I evolved for the specific purpose of playing hold'em poker.

[trish]

It's like I evolved for the specific purpose of playing hold'em poker.

More likely evolution made sure you had the mental skills required to be a fair judge of character, make a shrewd bargain, recognize a liar for his tells and charm the ladies. All the things you need to play Texas hold'em and more. Like I said, our pleasures are found nearby.

[Stavros]

I read a chapter or two of a book by a neuroscientist named Stanislas Dehaene called Reading on the Brain. One of things he discussed was the enormous amount of neural real estate that is taken up simply by the act of reading words on a page. He performed brain scans on illiterate and literate people and found significant structural changes in the brain based on the learned ability to read. He also found evidence that the ability to read displaces other abilities, such as spatial reasoning.

Maybe as a species we required a greater ability to reason than other organisms, and greater brain plasticity to adjust to novel circumstances. As society became more modernized and we required less rigorous use of our spatial ability we have found alternate uses for our extra neural capacity. Perhaps the ability to appreciate literature or poetry was never selected for but was a collateral consequence of having significant brain plasticity and good executive function. Once we developed the ability to read and transmit ideas, something that became valuable in the last several thousand years, we could then appreciate the novelty of uncommon combinations of words that appeal to some sense of aesthetic.

I'm not sure we need a soul to appreciate poetry but it is an activity whose utility is not easy to explain unless you believe it arose collateral to something else.

Although I understand the logic of what you describe, it still does not answer the question, and seems to me so chilled a description of humans as to be inhuman. I would put to you and Trish the same question -if we are machines and even if we have adapted to the modern world in which we live, why do some people prefer Beethoven to Black Sabbath? How can you account for the diversity of taste if we are all, in essence, the same? I am not allowing for cultural differences in music between, say, Arabic and Chinese music and 'western pop', but say within one cultural environment. The mechanics doesn't make sense.

[Stavros]

When the brain ceases to function the mind vanishes.

I don’t know what a person’s soul is supposed to be. A specific platonic ideal corresponding to a specific person’s mind? A mind dies, but the plationic ideal lives on in the world of ideals forever? Can a platonic ideal be sinful? Would it be subject to eternal punishment? I don’t know any use for the notion of an eternal soul. So I tend to stay away from it. Does it explain poetry? If so, how does that explanation work?

I suspect reincarnation is not something you believe in; yet scientifically you cannot prove that the soul or the 'spirit' does not live on after the death of the body even though billions do believe it. I once had a discussion with a neurologist whose response to the question was simply 'we do not know' which is one reason he was opposed to capital punishment on the grounds that there might not be any such thing as instant death -be it by hanging or electrocution, and he was an atheist.

I think people who believe their soul lives on need to believe it to comfort themselves, whether or not it means they believe in 'heaven' as a place like a garden in summer, or a condition or eternal peace. Hell is a different matter and merely a reflection of the world we live in, where your worst behavioural traits are repeated because you cannot/refuse to change, with no hope of redemption (Dante), the point being you 'can change' in this life to avoid the notional hell and these days without becoming a Roman Catholic (grazie!) although it may be why people convert to faiths, to give meaning and structure to changes they feel they need to make to their lives.

[trish]

Although I understand the logic of what you describe, it still does not answer the question, and seems to me so chilled a description of humans as to be inhuman.

I think this speaks to the poverty of our popular conception of a “machine.” All natural systems are machines of one sort or another. A molecule, a single living cell, a plant, an animal, an ecosytem, a galaxy, a pulsar etc. All are open systems which function without exception in accord with natural law. In comparison the machines so far designed and constructed by human beings are simple, cold and impoverished; yet it is the machines we build that the term calls to the popular mind.

I would put to you and Trish the same question -if we are machines and even if we have adapted to the modern world in which we live, why do some people prefer Beethoven to Black Sabbath? How can you account for the diversity of taste if we are all, in essence, the same? I am not allowing for cultural differences in music between, say, Arabic and Chinese music and 'western pop', but say within one cultural environment. The mechanics doesn't make sense.

Our experience with machines built by humans is that they are all mass produced and hence identical in every detail. When a single such machine is prepared with an initial state it’s behavior is predictable and always the same. Turn the crank on the Jack in the Box and it will play pop goes the weasle and when the song comes to “pop”__ out pops Jack. Push him back in, close the lid, wind again and the same thing will happen every time.

This is not a necessary feature of more complex machines: for two reasons. One, complex machines can be chaotically sensitive to initial conditions and the environment. Two, complex machines can be chaotically sensitive to their own internal initial states. Our very own solar system is chaotic in both senses. If we could push the planets and moons around into new positions, start it up and follow its progress for awhile and then do the experiment again, pushing the planets back as close as possible to the initial conditions of the original experiment, start it up and follow its progress, eventually the second run will diverge from the first. Twins growing up in the same family will develop their own personalities and distinguishing traits. I don’t know how souls can explain this, but chaotic sensitivity to the environment easily accounts for the divergence in the courses of their lives.

I suspect reincarnation is not something you believe in; yet scientifically you cannot prove that the soul or the 'spirit' does not live on after the death of the body even though billions do believe it. I once had a discussion with a neurologist whose response to the question was simply 'we do not know' which is one reason he was opposed to capital punishment on the grounds that there might not be any such thing as instant death -be it by hanging or electrocution, and he was an atheist.

I cannot even prove electrons exist. But the standard theory of elementary particles (which entails the existence of electrons) is able to quantitatively account for and predict the behaviors a plethora of natural phenomena which cannot be accounted for by any other set of hypothesis. Hence I’m inclined to agree that electrons exist.

What can the concept of soul do for us? Does the existence of an eternal soul account for how we survive after death? Does it think? How does it think? Is it in a different state when thinking one thought and in another state when thinking another? Does it proceed from state to state with time? How are those states realized? Does the soul have parts? How does the soul transition from one state to another? Why isn’t it a machine? If it turns out that souls are just machines subject without exception to (perhaps newly discovered) natural law and it allows us to account for observable natural phenomena hitherto unaccounted for, then by all means I might be inclined to assent to that souls exist.

But this is not the case. The concept of a soul is presented to us something outside the realm of nature, not subject to her mundane laws. It is an amorphous transcendent thing. It is supernatural. Not of this world. This conception of a soul practically defines out of existence. So how can I possibly assent to its probable existence without some extraordinary evidence?

I think people who believe their soul lives on need to believe it to comfort themselves, whether or not it means they believe in 'heaven' as a place like a garden in summer, or a condition or eternal peace. Hell is a different matter and merely a reflection of the world we live in, where your worst behavioural traits are repeated because you cannot/refuse to change, with no hope of redemption (Dante), the point being you 'can change' in this life to avoid the notional hell and these days without becoming a Roman Catholic (grazie!) although it may be why people convert to faiths, to give meaning and structure to changes they feel they need to make to their lives.

The conventional notions of Heaven and Hell always struck me as insane. We are finite beings. Our sins can only cause a finite amount of damage. Why does God demand eternal punishment for our finitely puny transgressions? What’s the worst thing I can do? Kill a bunch of people whose souls will live on forever anyway? But wait. That’s not the worst thing I can do. I can persuade someone to become an atheist. That will damn their soul forever. I CAN do infinite damage! But wait again. I can only do infinite damage because of God’s stupid rule that sins unrepented before physical death deserved infinite punishment.

But yes, I agree that many people continue to believe in souls because they cannot conceive of nor face their future non-existence. I imagine it will feel exactly the way it felt before my mother and father conceived me

(This has been a fun conversation so far. Unfortunately, after today and perhaps tomorrow, I'll be away from these boards for about a fortnight. If I no longer reply to questions during that period, please don't take offense).

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=trish;1433044]
I think this speaks to the poverty of our popular conception of a “machine.” All natural systems are machines of one sort or another. A molecule, a single living cell, a plant, an animal, an ecosytem, a galaxy, a pulsar etc. All are open systems which function without exception in accord with natural law. In comparison the machines so far designed and constructed by human beings are simple, cold and impoverished; yet it is the machines we build that the term calls to the popular mind.

-A fair point, but are you talking really about machines? Can a galaxy be a machine? Are galaxies systems? Organisms?

Our experience with machines built by humans is that they are all mass produced and hence identical in every detail. When a single such machine is prepared with an initial state it’s behavior is predictable and always the same. Turn the crank on the Jack in the Box and it will play pop goes the weasle and when the song comes to “pop”__ out pops Jack. Push him back in, close the lid, wind again and the same thing will happen every time.

This is not a necessary feature of more complex machines: for two reasons. One, complex machines can be chaotically sensitive to initial conditions and the environment. Two, complex machines can be chaotically sensitive to their own internal initial states. Our very own solar system is chaotic in both senses.

-'Chaotically sensitive' seems to me an oxymoron, it may be meaningless.
-Is the solar system 'chaotic' or 'unpredictable'? Is it even unpredictable if science argues that when certain conditions apply it is inevitable that a star will collapse in on itself, burn to a crisp, explode, etc? But I assume the gases on Venus, Jupiter and Saturn are blowing around chaotically.

Twins growing up in the same family will develop their own personalities and distinguishing traits. I don’t know how souls can explain this, but chaotic sensitivity to the environment easily accounts for the divergence in the courses of their lives.

-Don't understand 'chaotic sensitivity to the environment'.


What can the concept of soul do for us? Does the existence of an eternal soul account for how we survive after death? Does it think? How does it think? Is it in a different state when thinking one thought and in another state when thinking another? Does it proceed from state to state with time? How are those states realized? Does the soul have parts? How does the soul transition from one state to another? Why isn’t it a machine? If it turns out that souls are just machines subject without exception to (perhaps newly discovered) natural law and it allows us to account for observable natural phenomena hitherto unaccounted for, then by all means I might be inclined to assent to that souls exist.

-the soul can be likened to consciousness; so you don't need a corporeal existence to exist. What after all is consciousness for Hegel? It is something eternal that searches, yearns for its absolute realisation. Not so different from Nirvana perhaps?

But this is not the case. The concept of a soul is presented to us something outside the realm of nature, not subject to her mundane laws. It is an amorphous transcendent thing. It is supernatural. Not of this world. This conception of a soul practically defines out of existence. So how can I possibly assent to its probable existence without some extraordinary evidence?

-But that is because you deny you have a soul!

The conventional notions of Heaven and Hell always struck me as insane. We are finite beings. Our sins can only cause a finite amount of damage. Why does God demand eternal punishment for our finitely puny transgressions? What’s the worst thing I can do? Kill a bunch of people whose souls will live on forever anyway? But wait. That’s not the worst thing I can do. I can persuade someone to become an atheist. That will damn their soul forever. I CAN do infinite damage! But wait again. I can only do infinite damage because of God’s stupid rule that sins unrepented before physical death deserved infinite punishment.

-Cf Dante: his Comedy is a narrative of a journey that has already happened; Dante is not concerned with an Inferno after death as he is in presenting a vision of sin for the here and now -the sinners in Inferno cannot be released because they do not accept that they sinned in the first place, they are therefore doomed to repeat their mistakes, as Dante sees them -and many people would argue that most, but not all of the sins in Inferno are indeed sins. People aspire to change, to stop shoving needles in their arm, to stop drinking their families income away, to tell truths instead of lies, not rob their own church funds, or the state. For Dante, faith is an enabling tool which offers believers a means of changing their negative life for a positive one. It doesn't mean Hell actually exists, it is a prescription for the here and now. But it can have deeper meaning if you believe after death everything will be better, for who would want to die and then find they are still addicted to heroin?

But yes, I agree that many people continue to believe in souls because they cannot conceive of nor face their future non-existence. I imagine it will feel exactly the way it felt before my mother and father conceived me

(This has been a fun conversation so far. Unfortunately, after today and perhaps tomorrow, I'll be away from these boards for about a fortnight. If I no longer reply to questions during that period, please don't take offense).

-Enjoy your trip and Happy New Year!

[trish]

-A fair point, but are you talking really about machines? Can a galaxy be a machine? Are galaxies systems? Organisms?

A molecule, a living cell, a plant, an animal, a galaxy are physical systems which transition through a discrete set or a continuum of states without exception in a manner consistent with the laws of nature. If they are open systems these transitions are dependent upon the interactions between the system and its environment. Whether we call such things machines or not isn’t that important to me as long as we can agree on the description.

-'Chaotically sensitive' seems to me an oxymoron, it may be meaningless.
-Is the solar system 'chaotic' or 'unpredictable'? Is it even unpredictable if science argues that when certain conditions apply it is inevitable that a star will collapse in on itself, burn to a crisp, explode, etc? But I assume the gases on Venus, Jupiter and Saturn are blowing around chaotically.

Chaotic dynamic systems have a precise mathematical definition which is rather technical (one can consult Alessandra Celletti’s Stability and Chaos in Celestial Mechanics). But the precise definition (imo) is not necessary for our discussion. The solar system can be shown to be both unpredicable and chaotic. The essential point for our discussion is that any two nearly identical copies of our solar system will evolve along exponentially divergent paths. It is not at all surprising that two twins might develop different tastes in literature. In fact what we find surprising is that sometimes twins, separated at birth and brought up in different families sometimes demonstrate behavorial similarities. Dynamic systems can display diversity and similarity. Neither diversity of tastes nor similarity of tastes among human beings presents a serious problem for the view that humans are open systems.

-the soul can be likened to consciousness; so you don't need a corporeal existence to exist. What after all is consciousness for Hegel? It is something eternal that searches, yearns for its absolute realisation. Not so different from Nirvana perhaps?

Consciousness is to the brain as a ripple is to water. When the supporting corporeal substrate is vaporized, the phenomena manifested by the substrate no longer exists.

But this is not the case. The concept of a soul is presented to us something outside the realm of nature, not subject to her mundane laws. It is an amorphous transcendent thing. It is supernatural. Not of this world. This conception of a soul practically defines out of existence. So how can I possibly assent to its probable existence without some extraordinary evidence?

-But that is because you deny you have a soul!

More precisely, I deny we at present have any extraodinary evidence for the existence of an eternal soul.

-Cf Dante: his Comedy is a narrative of a journey that has already happened; Dante is not concerned with an Inferno after death as he is in presenting a vision of sin for the here and now -the sinners in Inferno cannot be released because they do not accept that they sinned in the first place, they are therefore doomed to repeat their mistakes, as Dante sees them -and many people would argue that most, but not all of the sins in Inferno are indeed sins. People aspire to change, to stop shoving needles in their arm, to stop drinking their families income away, to tell truths instead of lies, not rob their own church funds, or the state. For Dante, faith is an enabling tool which offers believers a means of changing their negative life for a positive one. It doesn't mean Hell actually exists, it is a prescription for the here and now. But it can have deeper meaning if you believe after death everything will be better, for who would want to die and then find they are still addicted to heroin?

This reminds me of Neitzsche’s prescription for living: the eternal return. If you believe you have to relive every humiliation and every exhilaration over and over again infinitely often, then you might be inspired to live an exhilarating life as a Neitzchean overman.
Personally I find it equally inspiring to think we only one chance to get it right and then it’s over.
These are just three prescriptions for belief. Their recommendations have the following form: if you believe, then your life will go better, or be more comfortable, or you will be a better person etc. But which prescription is recommended on the basis that it is a true belief?

Happy New Year!

And you as well.

[yodajazz]

Any lesson maintaining that we obey authority to the letter of the law, even if we don't understand it's "deeper" reasons, or even if the authority is very likely a fiction is not an invaluable lesson, but rather is a lesson that devalues human intellectual engagement.

What we can learn from such a book is how people lived, what they thought, the stories they took to heart, the paths they took, We learn about and modify ourselves when we examine how we relate to those histories. But giving any interpretation of any ancient text authority over our moral beliefs and behavior is beyond the pale.

Actually, human advancement, are dependent on people following rules. Measurements are a major example. The vast majority of the people agree on a concept such as defining themselves a nation, as an example. The individual agrees to sublimate their actions, to a higher authority. a mundane example would be observing speed limits. Even though most might drive a little over the limit, the greater society accepts them as reasonable. Ancient texts set the standards for principles of living. Certain rules changed over time. Look at slavery for example. The Bible did not forbid slavery. But it set forth principles of treating people humanely. Many centuries later, religious people were at the center of the struggle to end slavery. The principles eventually changed the rules. Some people look at the fact the slavery was not banned, and thus judge the Bible as morally useless. However when the text was written 2-3k years ago, slavery was a moral alternative to killing prisoners of war, among other things. In the story of Joseph, he was sold in to slavery, later thrown into prison, but eventually rose to become the second or third most powerful person in the most powerful nation in the world at that time. This not the same as 'modern American slavery'.

I think there may be some confusion over "sexual rules" and more general moral principles. The concept that a 'God' created all people out of one, is one unifying principle that goes against war and general hatred. Mankind is still working on these issues. Some of the principles found in ancient text are still at the heart of the struggle to evolve human consciousness.

[martin48]

More deep stuff - simple machines can be chaotic (e.g., the compound pendulum), in that their state is non-deterministic; though more likely states exist (strange attractors). What really is at issue "Are living organisms merely machines, in the same way my computer is or a steam engine, or a simple thermostat - the last making decisions in accordance with its environment)?" So now we need to define "life" before we can proceed. Tricky one - we can say what attributes a living creature needs to have and the boundaries are always fuzzy. NASA tried to define life - bless them! Edward Trifonov (a biologist at the University of Haifa, Israel) found over 150 definitions. His conclusion was "Life is simply self-reproduction with variations".

Consciousness - generally agreed that consciousness involves some sort of self-awareness. It also involves sensing the environment and reacting to it. More than that, it gets even fuzzier than defining Life.

If we can't agree on definitions, then it becomes impossible to argue meaningfully. But that wont stop us.

We have evidence in terms of our observations of the world that there are non-living things and living things, we also have experience of self-awareness or conscious thought (and we believe that others share this experience.). At present, we can offer solid, widely-agreed definitions, let alone theories. Maybe we have will.

But what evidence do we have of a soul - that somehow survives our death - none. It is a belief, based on faith only.

And a Happy New Year too.

A molecule, a living cell, a plant, an animal, a galaxy are physical systems which transition through a discrete set or a continuum of states without exception in a manner consistent with the laws of nature. If they are open systems these transitions are dependent upon the interactions between the system and its environment. Whether we call such things machines or not isn’t that important to me as long as we can agree on the description.



Chaotic dynamic systems have a precise mathematical definition which is rather technical (one can consult Alessandra Celletti’s Stability and Chaos in Celestial Mechanics). But the precise definition (imo) is not necessary for our discussion. The solar system can be shown to be both unpredicable and chaotic. The essential point for our discussion is that any two nearly identical copies of our solar system will evolve along exponentially divergent paths. It is not at all surprising that two twins might develop different tastes in literature. In fact what we find surprising is that sometimes twins, separated at birth and brought up in different families sometimes demonstrate behavorial similarities. Dynamic systems can display diversity and similarity. Neither diversity of tastes nor similarity of tastes among human beings presents a serious problem for the view that humans are open systems.

Consciousness is to the brain as a ripple is to water. When the supporting corporeal substrate is vaporized, the phenomena manifested by the substrate no longer exists.

More precisely, I deny we at present have any extraodinary evidence for the existence of an eternal soul.

This reminds me of Neitzsche’s prescription for living: the eternal return. If you believe you have to relive every humiliation and every exhilaration over and over again infinitely often, then you might be inspired to live an exhilarating life as a Neitzchean overman.
Personally I find it equally inspiring to think we only one chance to get it right and then it’s over.
These are just three prescriptions for belief. Their recommendations have the following form: if you believe, then your life will go better, or be more comfortable, or you will be a better person etc. But which prescription is recommended on the basis that it is a true belief?

And you as well.