Do we have souls or are we complex machines?

[NinjaGeek]

So I don't know if any of you remember my previous thread about the afterlife, but I decided in order to figure out if there is an afterlife I must first figure out if humans have a soul. Again I have taken no philosophy classes, or read any philosophy books, so I'm just going to post my thoughts and hopefully get some meaningful responses. Sorry if this has been discussed to death, this is sort of a personal quest for answers. Basically I want to consider bother possibilities and try to determine which seems more logical based on what we know about the universe. Might be a long post, but if you could read through it and share your thoughts, I'd appreciate it.

Option A) We're complex machines, and free will is an illusion created by the uncountable number of variables in our life. Now the issue with us being complex machines, is that theoretically we'll one day be able to build the equivalent of a human brain. Which means theoretically one could after being dead, be repaired thousands of years later and be brought to life.

But this asks the question, would it be us, or someone else with our memories that thinks it's us? I think it's pretty obvious that if you built a machine with an identical brain to yourself, you would still be separate entities with the same thoughts. But then what if you split both brains in half and switch them? Which one are you? Or have 2 completely new beings been created. Since our brain cells die and replicate technically we've already been replaced by different parts several times over the course of our life. Theoretically, we could have already "died" and it's only the memories of our past actions that makes us believe it's been us this whole time. Hell every time a braincell dies we could become a new person, with the life span of a fraction of an instant. I could be dieing repeatedly while typing this, and the new me would have the exact same memories of contemplating existence before dieing away itself.

This idea of what makes us, us can't really be explained by the machine theory in my opinion. But then again it could just be a concept beyond our understanding, and it's the memories of previous actions that generated the illusion of being a single continuous entity that continues living.


Option B) The idea that person has a soul, something we cannot yet detect that somehow is attached to this complex machine to give us free will and the idea of "us" as a continuing being that is attached to the body. While it explains some concepts not answered by the machine theory, until science can explain us it's just another "magic did it" explanation, thats really useless.

So my question is, is there anything that hints at humans having a soul? I'm not too far into my quantum physics class, but I've heard that atheist scientists who have gone deep enough into quantum physics have said their has to be a god. No official source for this info, so if anyone has heard this in a more official form, I'd be interested to hear who said it, and why they said it. I do know deeper in quantum physics there are certain experiments that are influenced based on whether a human observes the results or not, and even if a machine records it, it doesn't matter if the information is made somehow unattainable to humans.

Does this suggest that there's something more to us? That we're more than the our machines that help us do experiments? Is it possible that with greater understanding, we can replace the magical word "soul" with a more scientifically explained word that makes logical sense.



The reason all this is important, is from what we know on the universe things don't usually just magically disappear forever. If our consciousness is something like that of a soul, it's safe to reason that the soul wouldn't just be obliterated after death, and life would continue in some way. However if there is no soul, then it makes sense that dieing isn't the end of us, as our particles and matter continue on, we just lost the ability to think and perceive the world. We just "break" and cease all function and thought, unless repaired one day.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Soul/spirit is a vague concept and means different things to different people. It is not at all scientific, yet we know what people generally mean when they use terms like: soul destroying.

I use terms like that yet have absolutely no belief in a soul that goes on to some kind of afterlife. There is also the concept of the "racial soul" which refers to a shared collection of traits which an ethnicity feels sums up the essence of their people. That's a reasonable, poetic and metaphorical use of the term.

It becomes a lot less clear when talking about an actual thing that is a soul and which can leave the body and go somewhere. That is a lot less poetic. It seems only to mean "mind" in this context. Nothing inspiring about that at all.

 

[waif]

You should watch the movie Ghost in the Shell. It deals with this concept.

But this asks the question, would it be us, or someone else with our memories that thinks it's us?

...and so the question would be, is there a difference?
I say, if it looks like a duck...
I endorse the view that we are basically the sum of our memories and genes. So...if someone else has your memories and genes, they are you.

Hell every time a braincell dies we could become a new person, with the life span of a fraction of an instant. I could be dieing repeatedly while typing this, and the new me would have the exact same memories of contemplating existence before dieing away itself.

I guess you do, sorta. I mean, that's what brain damage is - it kills your brain cells. And we all know that brain damage can fundamentally alter someone's personality. So while there won't be any noticable changes without a blow to the head, you do change an itty bitty bit...

Option B) The idea that person has a soul, something we cannot yet detect that somehow is attached to this complex machine to give us free will and the idea of "us" as a continuing being that is attached to the body. While it explains some concepts not answered by the machine theory, until science can explain us it's just another "magic did it" explanation, thats really useless.

I think it's wishful thinking. We are essentially a series of electric impulses in our nerve cells. People want to think we have souls because "a series of electric impulses" doesn't sound all that impressive.
But think about it - all living things must have at some point evolved from something unicellular. Did that thing have a soul? The concept is ridiculous.

I'm not too far into my quantum physics class, but I've heard that atheist scientists who have gone deep enough into quantum physics have said their has to be a god.

Just because there's a god doesn't necessarily mean we have souls...

 

[NinjaGeek]

...and so the question would be, is there a difference?
I say, if it looks like a duck...
I endorse the view that we are basically the sum of our memories and genes. So...if someone else has your memories and genes, they are you.

Hell of a big difference to me, if I cease to exist I don't care if there's something else exactly likely, although I guess I don't care about anything if I don't exist.

I guess you do, sorta. I mean, that's what brain damage is - it kills your brain cells. And we all know that brain damage can fundamentally alter someone's personality. So while there won't be any noticable changes without a blow to the head, you do change an itty bitty bit...

all cells in your body are constantly dividing and dieing. Over the course of your life you will be an entirely different person in the sense, that the raw materials that made you up, will have been completely replaced with new ones.

I think it's wishful thinking. We are essentially a series of electric impulses in our nerve cells. People want to think we have souls because "a series of electric impulses" doesn't sound all that impressive.
But think about it - all living things must have at some point evolved from something unicellular. Did that thing have a soul? The concept is ridiculous.

I don't think it's necessarily because it sounds more impressive, it's more to do with that if we have souls that hints at the fact that there might be more after death, if not, death is the end. And if we have souls I don't see whats so ridiculous that all unicellular organisms have them too? Hell if souls do exist, all the sperm cells (or maybe the egg cells) could potentially have souls. Without really defining what a soul is and what it's purpose is, why is the concept of there being as many souls as there are living things ridiculous?

Just because there's a god doesn't necessarily mean we have souls...

Valid Point

 

[Blowtus]

Certainly, some questions that will become of great interest to humanity as our technological capacity increases... what is it that makes me, me - and is it important? Should 'I' care if the physical structure of my body is destroyed, if it is reproduced within seconds somewhere else in the world? Or even if it stays and interacts only in 'information form' as such?

A ship that sails the oceans for years, and eventually has had every part renewed at least once, is still easily considered 'the same ship'. If that ship is destroyed and a replica created, it is not. The grey area between the two poles is the troublesome bit

 

[waif]

Hell of a big difference to me, if I cease to exist I don't care if there's something else exactly likely, although I guess I don't care about anything if I don't exist.

The point is, do you stop existing? After all, your memories and genes are still contained in a body identical to your.

all cells in your body are constantly dividing and dieing. Over the course of your life you will be an entirely different person in the sense, that the raw materials that made you up, will have been completely replaced with new ones.

that's true. But you won't get a significant change unless you kill a lot of cells at once (brain damage, injury, w/e)

I don't think it's necessarily because it sounds more impressive, it's more to do with that if we have souls that hints at the fact that there might be more after death, if not, death is the end. And if we have souls I don't see whats so ridiculous that all unicellular organisms have them too? Hell if souls do exist, all the sperm cells (or maybe the egg cells) could potentially have souls. Without really defining what a soul is and what it's purpose is, why is the concept of there being as many souls as there are living things ridiculous?

Well, you obviously have to define soul. This is a point we can't debate any further without a definition of soul.

, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being. In these traditions the soul is thought to incorporate the inner essence of each living being, and to be the true basis for sapience, rather than the brain or any other material or natural part of the biological organism.

So...bacteria, sperm cells, etc obviously aren't self-aware. At some point in the course of evolution, humans became self aware. So...did we evolve souls? If we did, that means God didn't give them to us (unless you're into "God created the Earth in 7 days a couple thousand years ago" theory).

 

[ian.de]

I often argue that souls do not exist when I am discussing religion with people who either think they are religious or aren't sure and say something like, "well there has to be more than just this."

I don't think there has to be more and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Aside from fear of mortality and religious superstition, the idea of a soul is ridiculous.

If I take away your frontal lobe you wont be the same person. You wont have the same thoughts, memories, personality, mannerisms, or anything else that makes you, you. So unless this soul is contained entirely in your frontal lobe then I see no reason for having one even if it does exist.

If you argue that your soul is your life force or something then I suppose I can't disprove that since that is an ambiguous definition.

We are one big walking chemical reaction, and that to me is more incredible than anything that is explained by God, magic, or supersition.

 

[Vimana]

I have no idea what exactly a soul is.

 

[Black Friday]

I don't think we have a soul. The only way we can live on is through the ripples we leave because of our life.

 

[waif]

a soul, perhaps, is whatever starts those electrical impulses in our neurons?

 

[kmik]

Dualism is totally moronic. It's intellectually insulting to even discuss that

 

[waif]

i'm gonna come out and admit that I have no idea what that means. Please elaborate a little.

 

[Justin S.]

kmik is likely referring to "mind-body" dualism. While I wouldn't go so far as "totally moronic," it certainly is extremely worn, especially in popular conceptions.

 

[waif]

ah. cool. right...thanks to wikipedia, I can say that i agree with some idea of what I'm talking about.

I agree. It is sorta stupid. I can see why people might believe in it, though.

 

[Einherjar86]

"Could a mathematical formula improve our existential stamina?"

That's one of my favorite Borknagar lines.

I believe we have a soul, but I believe it's one of those things that's nearly impossible to argue.

I believe that consciousness is the largest trace of evidence that we have souls. Moral understanding, the concept of right and wrong, virtues, etc... These are the abstractions that are signs of the soul, for me.

Computers can be programmed for making such decisions, but they still must follow the blueprints provided by their creators. That said, I know that modern computers are much more complex than that, and some might equate human beings to such computers. I do NOT think that humans are computers, but I do believe that when computers reach a certain level of consciousness the idea of a soul can be created. This is where the argument becomes difficult.

When a computer is programmed near to the point of being human, it has difficulty making decisions because of the common, everyday conflicts that we face as human beings. This is shown beautifully in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. However, computers are still, and always will be programmed with statistics and specific data that allow them to weigh every situation and basically follow the most plausible, feasible path. As a computer, it will not be able to consider that a less plausible path might be correct. Humans have this ability. It's a recognition that, occasionally, that 0.01% chance is the right one. If computers are faced with two options that weigh the same, they won't make a decision, or will make it randomly. Humans possess a higher sense of intellectual judgement beyond statistics. Computers don't possess such abilities, at least not yet. We're not complex machines. We have the capability to see things beyond mere terms of "best" or "most likely."

 

[Blowtus]

One could argue that humans only 'possess a higher sense of intellectual judgement' because of the programmed in overlay our environment has created for us. When we program computers to make 'higher order' type judgements, it is simply that the internal mechanics are more simple and obvious than our own - *at this point in our understanding of the brain.*
If at some point, notions of 'justice' and the like were to be shown as many simple connections within the brain, would you then argue against this notion of 'soul'?

 

[NinjaGeek]

that's true. But you won't get a significant change unless you kill a lot of cells at once (brain damage, injury, w/e)

The point was not that you would see a change in how we act and think, but would we as people become different. If you build an exact replica of someone, thoughts and all, then shoot the original, to the outside viewer nothing has changed, but to the original, life is done and over with. So my point was that if we are eventually composed of completely new raw materials, how do we know we're not just copies of our younger self which has died?

Well, you obviously have to define soul. This is a point we can't debate any further without a definition of soul.

All I meant is since we don't know what happens to a soul after death, it's hard to judge if all living creatures having a soul is a ridiculous assumption or not.

So...bacteria, sperm cells, etc obviously aren't self-aware. At some point in the course of evolution, humans became self aware. So...did we evolve souls? If we did, that means God didn't give them to us (unless you're into "God created the Earth in 7 days a couple thousand years ago" theory).

Interesting point, I guess this brings up the question, do you need to be self-aware to have a soul? Just because you don't have a big enough brain to contemplate your own existence, doesn't mean you don't have a unique life force or energy inside you.

Also belief in souls doesn't necessarily have to coincide with belief in god.

 

[NinjaGeek]

"Could a mathematical formula improve our existential stamina?"

That's one of my favorite Borknagar lines.

I believe we have a soul, but I believe it's one of those things that's nearly impossible to argue.

I believe that consciousness is the largest trace of evidence that we have souls. Moral understanding, the concept of right and wrong, virtues, etc... These are the abstractions that are signs of the soul, for me.

Computers can be programmed for making such decisions, but they still must follow the blueprints provided by their creators. That said, I know that modern computers are much more complex than that, and some might equate human beings to such computers. I do NOT think that humans are computers, but I do believe that when computers reach a certain level of consciousness the idea of a soul can be created. This is where the argument becomes difficult.

When a computer is programmed near to the point of being human, it has difficulty making decisions because of the common, everyday conflicts that we face as human beings. This is shown beautifully in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. However, computers are still, and always will be programmed with statistics and specific data that allow them to weigh every situation and basically follow the most plausible, feasible path. As a computer, it will not be able to consider that a less plausible path might be correct. Humans have this ability. It's a recognition that, occasionally, that 0.01% chance is the right one. If computers are faced with two options that weigh the same, they won't make a decision, or will make it randomly. Humans possess a higher sense of intellectual judgement beyond statistics. Computers don't possess such abilities, at least not yet. We're not complex machines. We have the capability to see things beyond mere terms of "best" or "most likely."

When I say complex machines, I'm talking hundreds if not thousands of years ahead of our current technology, maybe more who knows. Computers now are for the most part subject only to the input we give them. Humans on the other hand take insane levels of data all the time, most of which we don't use. Is it really surprising that with a life times worth of observing all kinds of actions, we could make much more complex decisions than a computer as we know it today could?

 

[Freanan]

I think in this thread it is still not clearly defined what a soul is supposed to be.

If you mean some kind of hidden "soul matter/force" in the physical world, which makes your neurons do what they do, and which will drive out of your body after you died, i think it is nonsense

If you mean soul as a perceived entity that we see if we look at a higher abstraction level than physical body functions, sure we have one, i think nobody would argue against it...

The third version would be a soul in an idealist sense, where there would be the platonic idea of your soul explicitly "outside" or "behind" the physical, viewable world, of which your physical neurons would only be a kind of shadow or realisation in the physical world.
This one is neither provable nor disprovable and i have no real opinion about it. It would be cool, but although you cannot disprove it, Ockham's Razor is against it.

 

[waif]

I brought in a wikipedia definition, but that is an issue - there's no real standard definition.

Ninjageek, if you could define soul, it would make this easier...