Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shake · 11-22-2002, 10:47 AM

I quote from Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach:

Quote:

Where is the Sense of Self
Looking back on what we have discussed, you might think to yourself, "These speculations about brain and mind are all well and good, but what about the feelings involved in consciousness? These symbols may trigger each other all they want, but unless someone perceives the whole thing, there's no consciousness."

This makes sense to our intuition on some level, but it does not make much sense logically. For we would be compelled to look for an explanation of the mechanism which does the perceiving of all the active symbols, if it is not covered by what we have described so far. Of course, a "soulist" would not have to look any further - he would merely assert that the perceiver of all this neural action is the soul, which cannot be described in physical terms, and that is that. However, we shall try to give a "non-soulist" explanation of where consciousness arises.

Our alternative to the soulist explanation - and a disconcerting one it is too - is to stop at the symbol level and say, "This is it - this is what consciousness is. Consciousness is the property of a system that arises whenever there exist symbols in the system which obey triggering patterns somewhat like the ones described in the past several sections." Put so starkly, this may seem inadequate. How does it account for the sense of "I", the sense of self?

He then goes on to say that the "I" can act as another symbol in the brain, a sort of "sub-brain" to use his phrase. The ability to switch levels and be "outside" of the system of our brains and analyze ourselves, he argues, is what sets us apart from machines. Even the most powerful computer could not think or be truly intelligent, because at the base there are hardware limitations that do not allow it to operate on two levels are humans do. We can understand that we are just cells and it doesn't bother us. We are more than the sum of our parts ... no machine would be able to get past the fact that at the lowest level, it's wires and electronic components built to act in certain ways laid down by some rigid rules.

Anyway, for clarification on the points I've tried to capture here, see the chapters in GEB called Brains and Thoughts and Minds and Thoughts, the latter is where the above quote is from.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Shake ]

crocodile deathroll · 11-23-2002, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shake:
I quote from Hofstadter's Godel, Escher,
Our alternative to the soulist explanation - and a disconcerting one it is too - is to stop at the symbol level and say, "This is it - this is what consciousness is. Consciousness is the property of a system that arises whenever there exist symbols in the system which obey triggering patterns somewhat like the ones described in the past several sections." Put so starkly, this may seem inadequate. How does it account for the sense of "I", the sense of self?

Bach: He then goes on to say that the "I" can act as another symbol in the brain, a sort of "sub-brain" to use his phrase. The ability to switch levels and be "outside" of the system of our brains and analyze ourselves, he argues, is what sets us apart from machines. Even the most powerful computer could not think or be truly intelligent, because at the base there are hardware limitations that do not allow it to operate on two levels are humans do. We can understand that we are just cells and it doesn't bother us. We are more than the sum of our parts ... no machine would be able to get past the fact that at the lowest level, it's wires and electronic components built to act in certain ways laid down by some rigid rules.

Anyway, for clarification on the points I've tried to capture here, see the chapters in GEB called Brains and Thoughts and Minds and Thoughts, the latter is where the above quote is from.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Shake ]

I am of the view the sense of "I" is an abstract entity and is a product of symbols in a system that in temporarily compartmentalized along a worldline of a complex system. But if one winds the clock back 100 years then you were not predetermined to exist as one certain individual you have the potential to become anyone, like a roulette ball has the potential to land on any number. So you could well of become Napoleon or a serf instead and be observing the world from that vantage point.

Heathen Dawn · 11-24-2002, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keraleeyan:
we cannot base our beliefs on what we want to be true;

Here I disagree with you completely. We can; and it is even desirable to do so. For me, the thought of no life after death is appalling; therefore, there is life after death.

-RRH- · 11-24-2002, 11:29 AM

Even if we cannot scientifically explain the soul, we should, at some time, discover the influence of the soul on physical matter. Presumably, with the brain as instrument of the soul, once we understand the workings of the brain enough, we will be able to identify the physical influence of the soul. Let's say, for example, the soul is selectively altering the movement of atoms to affect the firing of neurons within our brain.

At the very least, to accept this idea, you must believe that an intangible soul is regularly interacting with the physical world.

Plus, consider all the things the brain does do for us, and what can be affected by drugs or brain injuries. Memory, judgement, emotional state can all be affected by drugs. When you start eliminating these things, what is left for the soul to do?

crocodile deathroll · 11-24-2002, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RRH:
Even if we cannot scientifically explain the soul, we should, at some time, discover the influence of the soul on physical matter. Presumably, with the brain as instrument of the soul, once we understand the workings of the brain enough, we will be able to identify the physical influence of the soul. Let's say, for example, the soul is selectively altering the movement of atoms to affect the firing of neurons within our brain.

At the very least, to accept this idea, you must believe that an intangible soul is regularly interacting with the physical world.

Plus, consider all the things the brain does do for us, and what can be affected by drugs or brain injuries. Memory, judgement, emotional state can all be affected by drugs. When you start eliminating these things, what is left for the soul to do?

Or how dumb physical matter emerges itself as a "soul"

Marduk · 11-24-2002, 03:59 PM

"we cannot base our beliefs on what we want to be true;
but we all do anyway.

Starboy · 11-24-2002, 04:19 PM

How will they explain the soul when man makes a living creature?

Keraleeyan · 11-25-2002, 01:36 AM

To Shake:
Thanks for the post. I have not read the book you mentioned, but will try to
find it .
You wrote:
"He then goes on to say that the "I" can act as another symbol in the brain,
a sort of "sub-brain" to use his phrase. The ability to switch levels and be
"outside" of the system of our brains and analyze ourselves, he argues, is
what sets us apart from machines."

This ability for self reflectiveness was previously supposed to set "us"
apart from 'animals' as well , I think.With what we know about apes now, I
understand that such an assumption is no more widely held. Am I right?

Oxymoron · 11-25-2002, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn:


Here I disagree with you completely. We can; and it is even desirable to do so. For me, the thought of no life after death is appalling; therefore, there is life after death.

"No, I don't suffer from denial"

Personally, I find wave/particle duality appaling. That in no way stops my microwave oven from functioning. In the end, you either accept the world as you find it or make up stories to isolate you from it. I would suggest that the latter route is tantamount to madness.

However, I do have a fond memory of Ford Prefect in one of the Hitchiker books pretending to be a lemon, jumping in and out of a lake which he thought to be a gin and tonic. He said something to the effect of "there's no point going mad trying to stay sane".

Valmorian · 11-25-2002, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn:


Here I disagree with you completely. We can; and it is even desirable to do so. For me, the thought of no life after death is appalling; therefore, there is life after death.

Yup, you can certainly believe that. It has absolutely no bearing on whether such a belief is ACCURATE, however.

Might as well believe you're invincible. Why not?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-24-2002, 11:29 AM	#24
-RRH- Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Winnipeg Posts: 2,047	Even if we cannot scientifically explain the soul, we should, at some time, discover the influence of the soul on physical matter. Presumably, with the brain as instrument of the soul, once we understand the workings of the brain enough, we will be able to identify the physical influence of the soul. Let's say, for example, the soul is selectively altering the movement of atoms to affect the firing of neurons within our brain. At the very least, to accept this idea, you must believe that an intangible soul is regularly interacting with the physical world. Plus, consider all the things the brain does do for us, and what can be affected by drugs or brain injuries. Memory, judgement, emotional state can all be affected by drugs. When you start eliminating these things, what is left for the soul to do?

11-24-2002, 03:59 PM	#26
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"we cannot base our beliefs on what we want to be true; but we all do anyway.

11-24-2002, 04:19 PM	#27
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	How will they explain the soul when man makes a living creature?

11-25-2002, 01:36 AM	#28
Keraleeyan Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Kerala, India Posts: 12	To Shake: Thanks for the post. I have not read the book you mentioned, but will try to find it . You wrote: "He then goes on to say that the "I" can act as another symbol in the brain, a sort of "sub-brain" to use his phrase. The ability to switch levels and be "outside" of the system of our brains and analyze ourselves, he argues, is what sets us apart from machines." This ability for self reflectiveness was previously supposed to set "us" apart from 'animals' as well , I think.With what we know about apes now, I understand that such an assumption is no more widely held. Am I right?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.