|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Group: bionet.neuroscience · Group Profile
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Mar 30, 2008 19:05
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:45:49 -0700 (PDT), "rscan@ nycap.rr.com" nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>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
Hubris R US :
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_10.html
NICHOLAS HUMPHREY
Psychologist, London School of Economics; Author, The Mind Made Flesh
I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an
inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is natural selection, and the purpose has been to
bolster human self-confidence and self-importance-so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.
If this is right, it provides a simple explanation for why we, as scientists or laymen, find the "hard problem" of consciousness
just so hard. Nature has meant it to be hard. Indeed "mysterian" philosophers-from Colin McGinn to the Pope-who bow down before the
apparent miracle and declare that it's impossible in principle to understand how consciousness could arise in a material brain, are
responding exactly as Nature hoped they would, with shock and awe.
Can I prove it? It's difficult to prove any adaptationist account of why humans experience things the way they do. But here there
is an added catch. The Catch-22 is that, just to the extent that Nature has succeeded in putting consciousness beyond the reach of
rational explanation, she must have undermined the very possibility of showing that this is what she's done.
But nothing's perfect. There may be a loophole. While it may seem-and even be-impossible for us to explain how a brain process
could have the quality of consciousness, it may not be at all impossible to explain how a brain process could (be designed to) give
rise to the impression of having this quality. (Consider: we could never explain why 2 + 2 = 5, but we might relatively easily be
able to explain why someone should be under the illusion that 2 + 2 = 5).
Do I want to prove it? That's a difficult one. If the belief that consciousness is a mystery is a source of human hope, there may
be a real danger that exposing the trick could send us all to hell.
IMO "consciousness" is a quale on dynamic brain state.
Same as "blue" is a quale on sensor driven brain state.
As such they are the same as all qualia : low level illusions.
"Soul" then is false folk lore theory on the quale "consciousness".
BTW.
What rythms with "hubris"? With "soul"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
