Scientific Test of the Soul

[iolo]

I think the idea that souls are the "seat of intellect" has gone out of favor as more and more is learned about the brain. The prevailing idea is now that it represents the consciousness of the being; it is that entity which uses the intellectual power of its brain to solve the white and red light problem. Proponents of this view would argue that there is such an entity when a human is taking the test, but with the chicken there is nothing "inside", just a network of conditioned responses predicated on anticipation of reward. The test as designed is not equipped to demonstrate the existence of that variable, however.

The problem for this back-peddling view is that there is now clear evidence that not just the problem solving intellect but every aspect of the "mind" from emotions and personality traits to sense of personal identity and conscious experience is a neurological by-product. People with specific brain lesions can actually be instructed to engage in highly specific physical interactions with objects in front of them that they perform perfectly (likely inserting envelopes into a slot randomly rotating on a 360 degree axis) despite not having any conscious experience of seeing the slot. IOW, consciousness is not needed to control actions but is more of a by-product experiencing our brain execute processes. The importance of conscious processing for most of what people think, feel, and do is highly over-rated. It is more of an observer than a director of the brains operations.

If we believe words are somehow things, we belong in a nuthouse. If we regards language as a means to fantasy-enjoyment, we'd do better with drugs. Language is a wholly-inadequate tool that has taken us over and hugely slowed human progress, and the best we can do is try hard to clarify and improve it: to do anything else is self-indulgence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem for this back-peddling view is that there is now clear evidence that not just the problem solving intellect but every aspect of the "mind" from emotions and personality traits to sense of personal identity and conscious experience is a neurological by-product. People with specific brain lesions can actually be instructed to engage in highly specific physical interactions with objects in front of them that they perform perfectly (likely inserting envelopes into a slot randomly rotating on a 360 degree axis) despite not having any conscious experience of seeing the slot. IOW, consciousness is not needed to control actions but is more of a by-product experiencing our brain execute processes. The importance of conscious processing for most of what people think, feel, and do is highly over-rated. It is more of an observer than a director of the brains operations.

If we believe words are somehow things, we belong in a nuthouse. If we regards language as a means to fantasy-enjoyment, we'd do better with drugs. Language is a wholly-inadequate tool that has taken us over and hugely slowed human progress, and the best we can do is try hard to clarify and improve it: to do anything else is self-indulgence.

So ban all art?

 

[iolo]

If we believe words are somehow things, we belong in a nuthouse. If we regards language as a means to fantasy-enjoyment, we'd do better with drugs. Language is a wholly-inadequate tool that has taken us over and hugely slowed human progress, and the best we can do is try hard to clarify and improve it: to do anything else is self-indulgence.

So ban all art?

How does that follow? If we read literature for fantasy enjoyment we read only very low-level literature. As in all human life, people who have something to say do their best to use the language ass well as possible, knowing that it has huge limitations.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So ban all art?

How does that follow? If we read literature for fantasy enjoyment we read only very low-level literature. As in all human life, people who have something to say do their best to use the language ass well as possible, knowing that it has huge limitations.

There is a huge philosophical problem with your view. We don't have access to a language that maps 1:1 to the real world, and we sure as hell can't communicate it. We're left with half-arsed compromises and gross simplifications. We're also suffering from a wide array of biases. We don't brain well.

Here's an example to show what I mean. In 1968 USA was deeply divided on the race/civil rights issue. It was such an inflammatory subject that it was impossible to have a reasonable conversation about it across opinion divides. Enter a science fiction movie about apes turning the tables on humans and making them the master of the Earth. It was possible to have a discussion about the moral issues in that film without starting a race riot. After all, we're only talking about a silly little sci-fi flick targeted at young boys. We're not discussing racism and civil rights. Are we? The art and metaphor allows us to break from our preconceptions and look at the the world with fresh eyes. Art, above all, has the ability to help us shift perspective and see things from another's point of view. Which is oh, so important.

It's not the only thing art is for. But the idea that everything important should be said using plain language, I'd say is verging on retarded.

 

[iolo]

How does that follow? If we read literature for fantasy enjoyment we read only very low-level literature. As in all human life, people who have something to say do their best to use the language ass well as possible, knowing that it has huge limitations.

There is a huge philosophical problem with your view. We don't have access to a language that maps 1:1 to the real world, and we sure as hell can't communicate it. We're left with half-arsed compromises and gross simplifications. We're also suffering from a wide array of biases. We don't brain well.

Here's an example to show what I mean. In 1968 USA was deeply divided on the race/civil rights issue. It was such an inflammatory subject that it was impossible to have a reasonable conversation about it across opinion divides. Enter a science fiction movie about apes turning the tables on humans and making them the master of the Earth. It was possible to have a discussion about the moral issues in that film without starting a race riot. After all, we're only talking about a silly little sci-fi flick targeted at young boys. We're not discussing racism and civil rights. Are we? The art and metaphor allows us to break from our preconceptions and look at the the world with fresh eyes. Art, above all, has the ability to help us shift perspective and see things from another's point of view. Which is oh, so important.

It's not the only thing art is for. But the idea that everything important should be said using plain language, I'd say is verging on retarded.

All I said that a language created by near-apes is not very useful now. Others - mathematics, for example - are more useful but also more limited.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All I said that a language created by near-apes is not very useful now. Others - mathematics, for example - are more useful but also more limited.

Language is about communication. Maths only works as communication if the person you are communicating with also speaks maths. The nice thing about art is that it allows us to communicate often with zero pre-requisites. Poetry is extremely effective at communicating and manipulating emotions. If you study poetry and figure out how it works it's remarkable efficient... in the hands of a skilled poet. Just because a skill is soft, doesn't mean it's worthless.

 

[iolo]

All I said that a language created by near-apes is not very useful now. Others - mathematics, for example - are more useful but also more limited.

Language is about communication. Maths only works as communication if the person you are communicating with also speaks maths. The nice thing about art is that it allows us to communicate often with zero pre-requisites. Poetry is extremely effective at communicating and manipulating emotions. If you study poetry and figure out how it works it's remarkable efficient... in the hands of a skilled poet. Just because a skill is soft, doesn't mean it's worthless.

Unfortunately, beyond the most banal sentimentally, the current majority of English-speakers can no more read poetry than they can flap their ears and fly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Language is about communication. Maths only works as communication if the person you are communicating with also speaks maths. The nice thing about art is that it allows us to communicate often with zero pre-requisites. Poetry is extremely effective at communicating and manipulating emotions. If you study poetry and figure out how it works it's remarkable efficient... in the hands of a skilled poet. Just because a skill is soft, doesn't mean it's worthless.

Unfortunately, beyond the most banal sentimentally, the current majority of English-speakers can no more read poetry than they can flap their ears and fly.

The most widespread use of poetry today is within advertising. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Only growing. So I'm going with that you just forgot that?

 

[iolo]

Unfortunately, beyond the most banal sentimentally, the current majority of English-speakers can no more read poetry than they can flap their ears and fly.

The most widespread use of poetry today is within advertising. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Only growing. So I'm going with that you just forgot that?

You mean rhyme?

 

[bilby]

The most widespread use of poetry today is within advertising. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Only growing. So I'm going with that you just forgot that?

You mean rhyme?

I would argue that advertising uses both. Poetry is language used to evoke an emotional response, and the primary purpose of advertising is the same, so it's hardly shocking or controversial that advertisers are also poets.

"Carlsberg. Probably the best lager in the world" doesn't rhyme. But it requires a certain degree of snobbishness to deny that it is a short poem.

 

[iolo]

You mean rhyme?

I would argue that advertising uses both. Poetry is language used to evoke an emotional response, and the primary purpose of advertising is the same, so it's hardly shocking or controversial that advertisers are also poets.

"Carlsberg. Probably the best lager in the world" doesn't rhyme. But it requires a certain degree of snobbishness to deny that it is a short poem.

If you think language is being well used when it helsp thieves steal your money, God Bless You!

 

[bilby]

I would argue that advertising uses both. Poetry is language used to evoke an emotional response, and the primary purpose of advertising is the same, so it's hardly shocking or controversial that advertisers are also poets.

"Carlsberg. Probably the best lager in the world" doesn't rhyme. But it requires a certain degree of snobbishness to deny that it is a short poem.

If you think language is being well used when it helsp thieves steal your money, God Bless You!

Why would you imagine that I think that?

Fire is a great thing when you are sitting around one with friends, toasting marshmallows. It is not so great when it is destroying your home. But that doesn't mean that it's not fire.

Poetry can be used for both good and for ill. Advertising is, in my opinion, highly immoral. But poetry, which is amoral, is one of the tools used by advertisers, and it remains poetry even when pressed into an immoral purpose.

Denying those parts of reality that we dislike doesn't make them go away.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I would argue that advertising uses both. Poetry is language used to evoke an emotional response, and the primary purpose of advertising is the same, so it's hardly shocking or controversial that advertisers are also poets.

"Carlsberg. Probably the best lager in the world" doesn't rhyme. But it requires a certain degree of snobbishness to deny that it is a short poem.

If you think language is being well used when it helsp thieves steal your money, God Bless You!

We're discussing the effectiveness of a tool. Not the morality in its usages. It's like being against nuclear power because you think atomic bombs are bad. Also, reality doesn't give a fuck about your opinion of it. People won't stop learning and using poetry to convince just because you think it feels dishonest.

 

[iolo]

If you think language is being well used when it helsp thieves steal your money, God Bless You!

We're discussing the effectiveness of a tool. Not the morality in its usages. It's like being against nuclear power because you think atomic bombs are bad. Also, reality doesn't give a fuck about your opinion of it. People won't stop learning and using poetry to convince just because you think it feels dishonest.

I thought we were discussing the effectiveness of language to relate to reality. That it is used to exploit mugs is yet more of your delight in unreal fantasy. I don't share it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We're discussing the effectiveness of a tool. Not the morality in its usages. It's like being against nuclear power because you think atomic bombs are bad. Also, reality doesn't give a fuck about your opinion of it. People won't stop learning and using poetry to convince just because you think it feels dishonest.

I thought we were discussing the effectiveness of language to relate to reality. That it is used to exploit mugs is yet more of your delight in unreal fantasy. I don't share it.

Yes. The operational word is "relate". I'll raise you "qualia". Emotions and impressions are hard to communicate. It's one thing intellectualising this. But it creates emotional distance. When, what you need to communicate these things effectively is emotional intimacy. Intellectualising is the opposite of what we need.

Edit:... therefore poetry and copy edits

 

[Malintent]

One cannot test for the non-existence of a soul. One must devise a test for the existence of a soul, and failing all tests, conclude it unlikely that one exists.
That test would rely on a set of physical characteristics that can be measured.

What would those be?

 

[Random Person]

The conundrum here is how a soul is defined.

If it is defined as a non-physical thing that can't be detected by any physical means then there can be no proof either way.

 

[Malintent]

The conundrum here is how a soul is defined.

If it is defined as a non-physical thing that can't be detected by any physical means then there can be no proof either way.

a thing that has no impact on the physicalis indistinguishable from a thing that does not exist.
It is reasonable to start with the presumption that the thing in question is nonexistent.

 

[Random Person]

The conundrum here is how a soul is defined.

If it is defined as a non-physical thing that can't be detected by any physical means then there can be no proof either way.

a thing that has no impact on the physicalis indistinguishable from a thing that does not exist.
It is reasonable to start with the presumption that the thing in question is nonexistent.

Ha, if we have souls then they would make an impact on the physical. It is reasonable to start with no presumptions.

 

[Underseer]

One cannot test for the non-existence of a soul. One must devise a test for the existence of a soul, and failing all tests, conclude it unlikely that one exists.
That test would rely on a set of physical characteristics that can be measured.

What would those be?

It's not entirely true that this cannot be tested. Sean Carroll argues that there are no forces that could account for something like a soul.




That is in addition to the arguments against substance dualism in those videos I posted earlier.