> If we are to discuss intelligence, we must first make our peace with
> the relationship between body and soul. Some, of course, are not aware
> that there is a problem. Let them be happy in their ignorance. Do not
> disturb.
>
> Others are aware of a pseudo-problem that they lay to a poor choice of
> words, a misuse of language. They tend to be very, very clever. They
> turn on a spigot, and a rush of words befogs the question.
>
> Soul (spirit, essence, psyche, mind, consciousness, awareness,
> intelligence, intellect, mentality, self, individuality, persona,
> personality, conscious mental field, self awareness, sentience,
> executive function).
>
> All these words imply an uneasiness with soul. All these words imply
> an object, or something approaching an object. Something we might
> carry about in a watch pocket and take out for display at an
> appropriate time.
>
> Such a diarrhea of the mouth. There is no talking to them. They have
> surrounded themselves with such a fortress of words that they cannot
> hear.
>
> ---- ---
>
> Definition of soul:
>
> 1. (philosophical) the immaterial essence, animating principle, or
> actuating cause of an individual life.
> 2. (theological) the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all
> rational and spiritual beings, or the universe.
>
> --- ---
>
> In more recent metaphysics less has been heard of the soul and more of
> the mind; the old problem of the relationship of soul and body is now
> that of the relationship of mind and body.
>
> A few have carefully parsed the question: Chalmers, an optimist, says
> we need a new physics. McGinn, a pessimist, replies, "Save your
> breath".
>
> The practical issue, in questions of intelligence, arises when we ask,
> "Does the soul (mind) have causal powers?" The scientist demands,
> "No!" The religionist asserts, "Yes!" Descartes said, "Yes". The
> Princess Elizabeth said, "No". There it rests.
>
> The late Sir Francis Crick looked for the neural correlate of
> consciousness (NCC). He failed, but not for lack of trying.
>
> If we should isolate a neuron, such that every time it burst you
> should experience a patch of blue, a quale, and if we should go
> further, and connect a button to the neuron so that every time you
> pushed the button, you should be aware of a patch of blue, would you
> feel in touch with your soul? Most would say, "No!"
>
> Would you even feel that you understood why you experienced the blue?
> Again, Chalmers says, "We need a new physics to understand the
> experiencing". Again, McGinn replies, "Saved your breath".
>
> You, a soul, experience a world. You know not why.
>
> Let us explain intelligence as a circuitry of neurons. Let us put
> qualia one side as a matter of religion.
>
> ray