I'm not a biologist but I believe that there is something sort of like a soul around all living things. The soul may either be eternal or large enough to last for a very long time, with magnitude and direction beyond our reach. Think about it, we can see, read, write, communicate, and build. In a concise sense, we are intelligent. The thing that bothers me is that intelligence comes from intelligence. Computers are build by humans, computers can never come from the natural forces of nature. I hate to dabble into this topic but my roomate is sort of a writer/philosophist who writes a lot about interesting things like these. He's quite a writer, he's published many books and even going to attend Oxford someday. Me, I'm just a fuckin chemist, a sharp difference from him. I hate to drag God in this topic but it usually comes up in conventions such as these, I won't be going into that. However, the demi God appollo predicted battles for the Greeks for 200 years with accuracy. If nothing comes from nothing, including intelligence, then there surely is something responsible for the manifestations of the ungoings of the world we live in, and we are part of the game or caught in the midst.
Intelligence alone is not even enough quantification to say there is a soul, conciousness is probably the bigger reason. Yes, there is a difference, computers are intelligent but not concious, not even concious of their intelligence.
Indeed, humans are intelligent. Not really. Sure, an intelligent human is born from the flesh of another human--its mother. However, we evolved from other animals, which many of us wouldn't consider to be intelligent, or on par with that of human intelligence. Computers can't come from nature? What do you think you are? You are a computer. You evolve traits and characteristics which benefit your genes. Intelligent electronics benefited your genes. Your intelligence is consequence of natural selection--not God. Your inability to imagine intelligence coming from non-intelligence is not a good reason for believing in God or a soul. Who here said that nothing comes from nothing? Nobody said that. Nobody said anything like that. It is said that complex things can arise from less complex things. Through time, this means that very simple organisms can evolve into organisms of much greater complexity (and intelligence). It does not justify belief in a god or soul.
Where is the line drawn between nature and non-nature? And what exactly is this non-nature? If the things we make aren't natural, then are we not natural as well? Why does one have to draw arbitrary lines in the sand?
You are quite right about a lot of things you've said, but in true francois fashion you ommitted the other important factor known to be conciousness. Yes, its possible that complex things can be derived from less complex things, its even a way things are arranged. However conciousness is a very different thing, it is common in both less complex organism and higher complex organisms. Yes, bacteria has conciousness, otherwise it won't constitute all living things, plus it metabolizes and reproduces. The real question is what is conciousness? Conciousness is different from intelligence, you can have high intelligence and not have high conciousness. By all ideal definitions and spectrums of intelligence, computers and robots are 100% smarter than humans, they calculate faster and solve problems right down to the grid. But they still don't have that self awareness, which highlights just how far apart certain types of intelligence and conciousness can be on the spectrum. Another example, some computers can solve complex calculus derivatives while dogs cannot, but a computer may not even know who is 3 ft away from him. In principle, conciouness is the amount of things you know, but its not that simple, and it doesn't seem like something that just started overnight. obviously there's been many animals that lived on Earth before us, but I think the story of conciousness is may even be deeper and further than that.
When i say soul, i'm talking about life energy. So plants have a soul, they are alive for example and have their own consciousness. We are alive and have our own level of consciousness etc.
Whoa whoa whoa. Holy shit. Bacteria are not conscious. You're saying that they are because they constitute all living things? Did that really make sense? I'm still trying to figure out what that means. Bacteria constitute all living things? I suppose bacteria are found in many living things. Aren't mitochondria and chloroplasts, in essence, ancient bacteria? Is that what you mean? If so, then yes, bacteria are found in nearly all living animals. However, it doesn't make them conscious. They're more like self-contained, cooperating automatons. They do not think. If you think they do think, you are very confused. Even individual brain cells, which constitute the brain, are not conscious. A neuron is not intelligent. Put a a hundred billion of them together and put them through the right processes, and then that's a different story. Yeah, I think you and I may have different ideas of what conscious is. I think of consciousness as a self-awareness. Humans are self-aware. Computers are not. No. You are quite wrong here. The computers of today are not more intelligent than humans. Eventually, non-biological computers will become vastly more intelligent than normal, biological humans, but that time has not yet come. I think you'll have difficulty finding an expert who will tell you that your Pentium D is smarter than you are. Computers are faster than humans are many things. But they are not flexible enough. They are not nearly as good as humans at pattern recognition. They can't recognize faces as well as we can. But that will all eventually change. Eventually you will be right. Eventually non-biological computers will be much smarter than normal, unaltered humans. But that time has not yet come. It will be a while yet. No. They are not aware. Eventually they will be, however. After all, humans are computers too. Granted, we're extremely complex computers and it took us many millions of years of evolution to get where we are. Wait. Weren't we talking about God and the soul? Weren't you trying to build up an argument to show me that it's likely that a soul or God exists? What's your point? Why did you start talking about consciousness, and what on earth does it have to do with God or the soul?
Francois, you are right, but really my main point is to tell you that there is a difference between conciousness and intelligence. Yes, bacteria is concious in its own way and level. Bacteria multiplies and feeds, and according to biology any freakin thing that multiplies asexually or sexually and feeds is a living thing, and you can't exactly have a living thing without conciousness, otherwise we might as well revaluate the whole idea of conciousness. Bacteria has been known to adapt to antibiotics, a faded sign of some form of conciousness. Computers are intelligent but they are not concious. And yes, I think conciousness and the soul are very closely related, but I can't explain and I don't know anything further about that. A priest might be better to explain, or maybe someone who knows about science and human cognition.
You seem quite certain that bacteria are not conscious. How can you be so sure? This type of absolute assertion is folly, particularly without scientific evidence. I direct your attention to the following: Liversidge, A. 'Bacterial consciousness: why spirochetes think as we do'. Omni: Oct 1993. Marguilis, L and Dorian Sagan. Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Microbial Evolution. University of California Press: Berkeley, 1997. Interview [Part IV] with Prof L Marguilis, author of the above, in Astro Magazine, 12 Oct 2006, discussing bacterial consciousness.
You might want to revaluate that, better don't let computers hear you say that. We are just like computers because everything we know was thought to us as well, right from when we were younger. In fact the only difference is that computers are faster and more accurate than humans.
I suppose I would agree. But you can't be conscious if you're not intelligent. I wouldn't say they are separate things. Okay, if you think bacteria are conscious, then we have very different ideas about what consciousness is. Bacteria are little robots. They are little computers. They are not conscious, just like my Intel Duo is not conscious. It just follows rules that are programmed by its DNA. It's purely mechanical. You can think of bacteria as little robots. You really can. Yes, you can. Many living things are not conscious. Trees are not conscious. Protists are not conscious. They react to stimuli, but the sensory equipment is not sophisticated enough to qualify for consciousness. Human sensory equipment and processing is sophisticated enough to qualify for consciousness. I think you ought to. No, no, no. That's not a sign of some form of consciousness. That's evolution. Evolution is not conscious. It's a process. I think I realize what your trouble is. It's hard for you to imagine that we acquired intelligence and consciousness through natural selection. But trust me, that's how it happened. A natural process built up to us having a consciousness which we perceive as existing inside our heads. I doubt Earth is the only place where it happened to. It's just part of what our universe does. In certain pockets of the universe, matter organizes in ways in which consciousness emerges. That's just what our universe does. It's natural, and it has nothing to do with God. You think computers are smart, but not conscious, but you think bacteria are conscious, but not intelligent? I'm really at a loss. I really don't know how to respond to this. If you can't explain it and you don't know anything about it, why do you think the consciousness and the soul are related? Shouldn't you have a reason for believing something? It's okay for you to say, "I believe because I want to believe." That's fine, because it's honest. But you wanting to believe has no bearing on reality. As for me, I don't think the consciousness has anything to do with the soul or God. There's no logical reason to believe there is. A priest? Just don't let the priest do the thinking for you.
that's idiotic, why would a priest know anymore about consciousness than the next person? He doesn't, just thinks he does. you can say the whole universe is conscious, after all we are here on this planet wondering what is going on. All the building blocks worked together, that is consciousness. If you want to call that a soul.
It looks like we have as many definitions for the words being debated as we have people posting to this thread. I doubt we can get very far until that issue is resolved. I don't think that a classical christian soul exists. I do think that a physical blueprint for how your body would work in a perfect environment exists (DNA and other cell chemistries), which is similar in certain ways to the classical judeao-christian soul mythos. I also have found that certain aspects of the human body, both undersood and not yet understood by modern science, align to the idea of soul. Lastly, when you die, the effect that you had on the world around you doesn't die at the same moment. You do live on after death, in ripple effects that spread out across all of space (eventually). IMO, the idea of "you are the universe and the universe is you" is a valid one. You are a factor of your nature and your nurture, which are both in turn children of thier environments. Those environements are also partially formed by the people living in them - the two factors most commonly named as the founding of our human personalities are formed in a cyclical creation. Does our 'self', our awareness identified by the names we have been given or that we have applied to ourselves, continue on intact after the death of our bodies? I kind of doubt it, but I know very little.
not gonna happen. Besides, that movie was horrible--a prime example of Hollywood's (spurred by the mob IQ) naive butchering of an elegant and tragic sci-fi novel. Read the book--by Isaac Asimov.
They are not seperate things but they can be at opposite ends of the spectrum. Computers and robots, which have replaced human labor drasticaly over the years worldwide, have relatively little awareness than we do, but they are pretty much 100% more efficient than humans. In the future robots and computers will be even more "humane" and possess even better processing and evaluation powers. However, no matter how advanced robots come off the production line they will never have our own type of conciousness, they will never be able to reproduce, have feelings, have their own conciousness, or metabolize like us. In fact by all definition of human conciousness robots will never have conciousness. But people could say different entities have different conciousness; bacteria should also have conciousness if that is a factual statement. Bacteria is conscious because bacteria has a reason, its not exactly the same as a rock is it? So let me ask you, where does consciousness start? How can you say they are not concious? Trees will die if they don't have sunlight and water. If something is not concious, how can it die? You think the brain always has to be a jelly-like round matter located in the head of an organism LOL Give anybody reason and they have consciousness. Bacteria is alive, and you cannot be alive without some form of consciousness, no matter how low. Biological evolution permits that something has to be alive to adapt and evolve. Have you ever seen a stone adapting? What reason does it have? Computers are not only smart but smarter than humans. They, like humans, evaluate with everything they are thought. There is no difference from the two except that computers have no reason to adapt for anything, they don't react to stimuli, which is why they are fucking unconcious. What the hell. Do you think I have seen a soul either? I don't even know what a soul is so how can you expect me to somehow rationalize this topic with my chemistry brain? The Soul is a socio-cultural norm, which predates to ancient times and still is a modern world idiom of some sort. Nobody fuckin knows what the soul is. In fact I would rather accept the definition from religion because what religion calls soul is what some people will call consiosuness. This is why I stay away from topics like these, people believe me, NOBODY knows what the fuck they are talking about. I won't even take it that far
Yes. I've seen them falling downhill, and also being shaped by the wind and by water. If you can explain to me, at a molecular level (ie, removing intent from adaptation), how my own physical adaptation and the "adaptation" of the rock when rolling downhill are different, I'd be surprised. Is life adaptation the alteration of molecules based on interaction with other molecules? No, because stone molecules are changed based on their interaction with wind/water, etc. Is it the change of system state based on physical forces? No, that would also count the rock/gravity interaction. What is it, then? I agree with your implied assertion that the common biological definition of "consciousness" is limited and flawed, however, you have made up your own definition for the word without cluing everyone else in. You're arguing about the state of consciousness without first agreeing on what consciousness is! What I have seen suggests that consciousness is an outcome of the chemical processes that all living things go through. As such, the level of consciousness can be roughly mapped to the level of organism complexity, independent of that organism's ability to show that awareness in a way that we can understand and measure. However, when I talk to biologists, the word consciousness is more akin to "successful completion of self-awareness tests", which trees and bacteria cannot complete. Until I have significant evidence to suggest otherwise, in a format that fits the scientific audience, I will adhere to their definition, while politely voicing my concerns about its accuracy.
Oh come on now. Don't start equating evolution or natural selection with how gravity forces a stone to roll down a hill and erode its edges. And how can say, "Bacteria is conscious because bacteria has a reason." What reason does Bacteria have except the reason that we anthropomorphically give it. And still, you can't equate "having a reason" with "having a consciousness." I'm not going to even address this because I think you know better? The evolution of consciousness belongs on a different thread and we have recently discussed this under a Biology forum.
why not? I've talked about this with a number of people, and I always get "oh come on, now!" response. But actually try and work out a real answer, instead of just tossing the question aside as silly. What in biology, once you are elbow deep in the nuts and bolts of its chemistry, is different from non-biological chemical (and physical) reactions? Is it just that we are higher in concentration of organic compounds than that rock? Is that it? Carbon and Hydrogen mixed in a soup, and we call it special? So what's different? The order and pattern of the very same compounds that exist in that rock (though in different quatities)? Is that the soul? Is that pattern the basis of consciousness? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound Growth, stimulus response, metabolism, homeostatis, reproduction, mutation, motion? What about viruses? Prions? Fire? Lipid Spheres? Crystaline minerals? How can we classify what is alive when we modeled our definition of life around what we already have assumed is and isn't alive?
Francois, you forgot to ask if Chatha believes in teletubbies at the base of pluto, as I recall that is one of your favorite analogies for complete idiocy...or was that wonderfully repetetive phrase reserved only for me? And what it is with the justification of a belief in a god or a soul? The thread is, 'Do You Believe In a Soul', not justify everything you believe. One of the first comments you made on this thread was something to the effect of "you people are all fucking childish, there is no soul, blah, blah, blah". How do rude comments like that benefit a discussion? If you don't believe in a soul why didn't you just say so? What's the point of making a comment like that?What is justification for you? Things that I have experienced in my life justify my belief in a soul, but who are you to tell anyone that their form of justification is wrong? Because you don't understand? Because your experiences have led you to believe something else? It doesn't make you any more right then the next person. Being condescending doesn't make you more evolved or more intelligent or more complex. This shouldn't be an argument, that is stupid, it's circular, no one is right. You can't prove that there isn't a soul and I can't prove that there is, so neither one of us can claim to be right. The lack of evidence doesn't equal truth. Lack of evidence doesn't equal proof. If there is no God or Goddess or High Power or whatever you want to call it and since you seem to be so certain that you are right and know exactly what you are talking about then let me ask you this, what came first? The chicken or the egg? You asked me a while ago why I didn't want to tell you why I believed in a soul, you said 'we are having a discussion aren't we?'. The answer is no, we weren't having a discussion, a discussion is by DEFINITION: consideration of a subject by a group, an earnest conversation. We were not having an earnest conversation. Neither of us showed any respect for the other and you especially enjoyed throwing about your wonderfully pointless questions like "Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? Teletubbies? Santa Clause? Pillow Pants?". You never even asked what my definition of a soul was. And even if I did believe in the tooth fairy does that make you better then me? I am probably going to regret even getting involved in this conversation again, I sure did the first time. Oh well. Hopefully I didn't contradict myself in this statement or make you feel the need to dissect and quote everything I just said. Underlying point: you don't know anymore about the existence or non-existence of a soul then the next person.
