killyaselfie:


So between option 1and 2, you choose the most unsupportable and unfounded option. The brain is responsible for everything you people ever attribute to the mythological soul. You have no soul.
The mind itself is nothing but a product of arrangement and interaction of matter. And it doesn’t matter how much you believe otherwise. I am yet to see a person devoid of a living and functional brain interacting with people as his “soul” expresses mind and emotion. Mind, emotion, etc are functions of the brain and only the superstitious or indoctrinated continue to say otherwise. Damage to the brain alters conciousness, emotions, intellect, will etc but y’all continue to pretend that it is something called a soul.

Not to appeal to authority, but these two put it succinctly.

This is what Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, called “The Astonishing Hypothesis.” In Crick’s words, “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal iden­tity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene summarizes the situation as follows:
Most people are dualists. Intuitively, we think of ourselves not as physical devices, but as immaterial minds or souls housed in physical bodies. Most experimental psychologists and neuroscientists disagree, at least officially. The modern science of mind proceeds on the assumption that the mind is simply what the brain does. We don’t talk much about this, however. We scientists take the mind’s physical basis for granted. Among the general public, it’s a touchy subject.


PS: the software is not intangible. Instruction written on a material surface is not intangible.

Here are the two options again

The question was knowing which position is correct from
1. The intangible Soul/Mind/Spirit as the fundamental source of living activities
OR
2. That the tangible organs/genes/brain/chemistry as the fundamental source of living activities

If you had understood that the Software in a machine is Not tangible the case would have been simple for you to comprehend. The software is simply DIRECTIVES and INSTRUCTIONS given to a machine to make it behave in a certain format. The medium of interface or reception of such directives or instructions is the memory of the computer.

Is it possible that an AI computer/humanoid robot can be created that wouldn't need to be fed any kind of instructions/directives?
If such is possible, then you have a valid point!

If tampering with the CPU or RAM affects the working of a computer, could it be the evidence that computers are not controlled by Softwares?

LordReed:


I specifically pointed out same sex attraction but instead of focusing on that you went with what I didn't mention.

You mentioned it as an example of the so called ancient fables!

Do you think we should retain others but reject same sex attractions?

killyaselfie:


For your proof to be valid, you have to present an isolated thought in the physical world independent of a brain or tell me how I can observe it in the “more to reality physical world”

It's a very subtle subject so let us take it step by step: are we agreed that even if a thought is produced by the interactions of matter, a thought is not itself matter? Because what I am trying to do here is simply establish the existence of non-material things.

For this purpose it does not matter that that they are produced by matter, no pun intended.
What matters is that we agree that thoughts -

1. exist and -
2. are not matter.

TenQ:


Is it possible that an AI computer/humanoid robot can be created that wouldn't need to be fed any kind of instructions/directives?
If such is possible, then you have a valid point!

This is a very good question and should be directed to Diridiri on account of his comments on self-learning AI.

TenQ:

You mentioned it as an example of the so called ancient fables!

Do you think we should retain others but reject same sex attractions?

It was the focus of that piece of conversation.

Your question is weird.

DeepsightX:


It's a very subtle subject so let us take it step by step: are we agreed that even if a thought is produced by the interactions of matter, a thought is not itself matter? Because what I am trying to do here is simply establish the existence of non-material things.

For this purpose it does not matter that that they are produced by matter, no pun intended.
What matters is that we agree that thoughts -

1. exist and -
2. are not matter.

Thoughts exists as functions of matter.

TenQ:

Here are the two options again

The question was knowing which position is correct from
1. The intangible Soul/Mind/Spirit as the fundamental source of living activities
OR
2. That the tangible organs/genes/brain/chemistry as the fundamental source of living activities

If you had understood that the Software in a machine is Not tangible the case would have been simple for you to comprehend. The software is simply DIRECTIVES and INSTRUCTIONS given to a machine to make it behave in a certain format. The medium of interface or reception of such directives or instructions is the memory of the computer.

Is it possible that an AI computer/humanoid robot can be created that wouldn't need to be fed any kind of instructions/directives?
If such is possible, then you have a valid point!

If tampering with the CPU or RAM affects the working of a computer, could it be the evidence that computers are not controlled by Softwares?

What’s your point? The software may be intangible but it still requires a material object to be functional.
If the soul is like software, you have to show where these instructions are written. Before you say that these instructions are written on the brain, keep in mind that the heart was once thought to be the seat of intelligence and that’s why they wrote, “the heart of man is wicked”. The only reason you will respond with brain is because that’s what science has shown to be responsible for what “the soul” is said to be responsible for.


What kind of AI/Humanoid doesn’t/wouldn’t depend on instructions?

killyaselfie:


Thoughts exists as functions of matter.

Not disputing that at this moment amigo. Yet it seems that you are unwilling to address the question as to if thoughts are matter. So are thoughts matter or not? For the purpose of this question, let us assume that we agree already that thoughts are functions of matter. Are they therefore matter?

DeepsightX:


Not disputing that at this moment amigo. Yet it seems that you are unwilling to address the question as to if thoughts are matter. So are thoughts matter or not? For the purpose of this question, let us assume that we agree already that thoughts are functions of matter. Are they therefore matter?

You are trying to goad me to say thoughts are immaterial which doesn’t mean anything. Thoughts are products of matter and yes, they are matter because it’s the exchange of chemicals (matter) between neurons(matter) that give rise to thoughts.

Earlier, the conversation was about if shadows are material or immaterial when they are just the effects of the interaction between material objects.

Yes, “immaterial” things may exist somewhere somehow because I can’t seat on a grain of sand and claim to know what the beach is made of, but we need a criteria to infer their existence. Preferably one that doesn’t misinterpret material interactions as evidence for the immaterial.

killyaselfie:

Thoughts are products of matter and yes, they are matter because it’s the exchange of chemicals (matter) between neurons(matter) that give rise to thoughts.

I am not sure that this is a known definition of matter. Does a thought have weight or occupy space. What kind of matter is it - solid, liquid or gaseous?

As far as I know, this is the definition of matter:

Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. It can be in the form of solids, liquids, or gases.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/physical-property-of-matter-definition-examples-quiz.html

No one is trying to goad you into anything that is not already obvious. You can't succeed with your claim that thoughts are matter. That is simply scientifically false.

TenQ:

Okay, I see where the misunderstanding is coming from.

What is the Soul?
The Soul is the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of a person: the source of our WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION! These three effects of the Soul is called the MIND! Someone like me sees the soul as the Software of the Body (hardware). The software thus must interact with the hardware of the brain in other to control the body.

From the explanation above, I should ask you the question of what you consider as the MIND?
Is it just the physical brain?

The mind is not the brain. The mind is an emergent phenomenon birth by the interaction of the brain and other bodily systems. So while it is not the physical systems themselves it is firmly entrenched in them much like software. There is no way to have software without the hardware that contains it. In the case of the mind it is not an external influence injected into the body to control it but mechanisms of control that arise from the workings of physical systems.

Add to this diridiri's great summation of what the self is:

diridiri:

The self, as it appears to me, is an algorithm build to repair the gaps formed by our memories and our capacity for inner examination. It's most critical function then is to create a consistent "being" - comprised of our thoughts, feelings, actions, reactions and relationships. Functionally this makes sense: most mental operations executed by the brain are sequential, and the output generated by them depends heavily on the output generated at a previous iteration. Our reactions to experiences depend heavily on our previous reactions to similar experiences, and our personalities are constructed by our experiences and our reactions to said experiences, which are also strongly correlated to our personalities at the time. For a self-feeding algorithm such as this to function properly, we must consistently perceive ourselves in one single stream of consciousness, so as to avoid mental confusion.

The picture should be a little more clearer on how the body and the mind are an integrated unit.

However you still haven't answered the original question I put to you.

killyaselfie:

keep in mind that the heart was once thought to be the seat of intelligence and that’s why they wrote, “the heart of man is wicked”.

This could be considered merely the flavor and nuance of language. I dont think anyone doubts that what is meant there is simply the "inner mind" and its still used in that context even today.

PS: It is not just wicked but "desperately" wicked.

DeepsightX:


I am not sure that this is a known definition of matter. Does a thought have weight or occupy space. What kind of matter is it - solid, liquid or gaseous?

As far as I know, this is the definition of matter:

Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. It can be in the form of solids, liquids, or gases.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/physical-property-of-matter-definition-examples-quiz.html

No one is trying to goad you into anything that is not already obvious. You can't succeed with your claim that thoughts are matter. That is simply scientifically false.

No it isn’t false. Thoughts depend on/are material and you can find the properties of said matter if you want to. Thoughts do take up space, whether as chemical composition/ arrangements in the brain or when transferred to another medium such as paper.

Please, show how thoughts are immaterial without reference to anything material.

DeepsightX:


This could be considered merely the flavor and nuance of language. I dont think anyone doubts that what is meant there is simply the "inner mind" and its still used in that context even today.

PS: It is not just wicked but "desperately" wicked.

Or it could be that they really thought the seat of intelligence is the heart and it only became “a flavor or nuance of language” when shown otherwise. Given how the heart races and how the muscles in the chest cavity contracts when people are anxious, or fearful, or in love, it’s not far fetched to take them verbatim when they spoke about the heart.

killyaselfie:


No it isn’t false. Thoughts depend on/are material and you can find the properties of said matter if you want to. Thoughts do take up space, whether as chemical composition/ arrangements in the brain or when transferred to another medium such as paper.

This is truly weird: I am not sure you can validly sustain the idea that thoughts take up space by conflating a thought with either its written representation on paper or the chemical reactions ancillary to it. I would urge you to be careful because it seems to me that you are willing to venture into very illogical and also anti-scientific territory in the pursuit of your determination to exclude the existence of the immaterial.

Please, show how thoughts are immaterial without reference to anything material.

This is not the question. Please do not avoid it. I said, are thoughts matter, even if produced by matter. And you said yes. I went on to ask what type of matter, solid, liquid or gases, and if they have mass and occupy space. Now you are venturing to push the envelope by saying that they do?

killyaselfie:


Or it could be that they really thought the seat of intelligence is the heart and it only became “a flavor or nuance of language” when shown otherwise. Given how the heart races and how the muscles in the chest cavity contracts when people are anxious, or fearful, or in love, it’s not far fetched to take them verbatim when they spoke about the heart.

Even at that, there is a sense in which that is still correct.

LordReed:


The mind is not the brain. The mind is an emergent phenomenon birth by the interaction of the brain and other bodily systems. So while it is not the physical systems themselves it is firmly entrenched in them much like software. There is no way to have software without the hardware that contains it. In the case of the mind it is not an external influence injected into the body to control it but mechanisms of control that arise from the workings of physical systems.

Add to this diridiri's great summation of what the self is:


The picture should be a little more clearer on how the body and the mind are an integrated unit.

However you still haven't answered the original question I put to you.

This means that there isn't much difference in our understanding except that you'll prefer to use "the mind" as an inseparable fusion of the hardware and software, whereas, I prefer to use "the soul" as a detachable software from the hardware of the body. I hope I'm correct with this view.

And you are correct that the soul/mind cannot survive without its hardware.

For Christians then, all animals have their souls and when they die, they cease to exist. Humans on the other hand have in addition their spirit body: such that when they die, their soul even though disconnected from their body is not disconnected from their spirit body. I am not saying this that you might agree with it: I am just stating how Christians relate to the concept of body, soul and spirit. God Himself is a Spirit! Angels, Demons too are spirits who all have their unique souls/personalities.

killyaselfie:


What’s your point? The software may be intangible but it still requires a material object to be functional.
If the soul is like software, you have to show where these instructions are written. Before you say that these instructions are written on the brain, keep in mind that the heart was once thought to be the seat of intelligence and that’s why they wrote, “the heart of man is wicked”. The only reason you will respond with brain is because that’s what science has shown to be responsible for what “the soul” is said to be responsible for.


What kind of AI/Humanoid doesn’t/wouldn’t depend on instructions?

One may not be able to localise or locate exactly where the soul resides in the body because it isn't tangible. But one can say that there seems to be a strong interface between the operations of the soul and the nervous system (including the brain).

It's like an attempt to pinpoint exactly where the software of a computer is. There is not one simple answer as the software can be in the HDD, RAM, ROM, ALU, GPU or the CPU since the certain activity of the software can be active or passive at any given time.

Yes, for a software to interact with the hardware, there must exist at least one point of interface just like for the soul to control the body, there must exist at least one physical interface.

Interestingly, even in a computer, it is impossible to View where the software is written in the HDD except you have both the inner workings of both the software compiler and the engineering of data storage in the HDD. To even do this, you will need a code reader and a decompiler (which is another software created specifically for such purposes).
If we are to use another Soul-Software to decode instructions written on a hardware for which we have no clue of how it interacts, it is for now an impossible task.

TenQ:

Just as your Physical Identity is your BODY, your Soul is your Internal/Personal Identity.

I can not argue that you might identify me by my physical body, TenQ, though grabbing the trunk of an elephant does come to mind, but I would object to your claim that my Internal/personal identity is some sort of soul.

Personal Identity is simply how one identifies oneself, as in, how one sees or describes oneself, and nothing to do with some imaginary soul. I may drive a huge car for instance, earn good money and live in a big house and identify my self as successful, but none of that would be describing what you term a soul. One may also identify oneself as a Samaritan when one might truly be a Levite of a Priest.

TenQ:

One may not be able to localise or locate exactly where the soul resides in the body because it isn't tangible. But one can say that there seems to be a strong interface between the operations of the soul and the nervous system (including the brain).

Really? Perhaps define soul.

LordReed:

It was the focus of that piece of conversation.

Your question is weird.

I think it is weird to you because you atheistic mind has been able to accept same sex attractions as NORMAL but you at least for now reject bestiality or cannibalism or necrophilia as normal (which is good).

You have described same sex attractions as relics of the archaic fables: I didn't want you to cherry-pick.

DeepsightX:


This is a very good question and should be directed to Diridiri on account of his comments on self-learning AI.

For once, it looks like the Atheists here are admiting that a kind of Software seem to run the hardware of living beings. We shall soon get to the point where we ask them if the simplest Software can self assemble itself.

I hope Diridiri know that self learning is a product of instructions, data and training of the computer to take future decisions based on previous data?

budaatum:


Really? Perhaps define soul.

In summary: We do not have sufficient information similar to that which we have with softwares acting on a computer: thus, we can only generalise

What is the Soul?
The Soul is the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of a person: the source of our WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION! These three effects of the Soul is called the MIND! Someone like me sees the soul as the Software of the Body (hardware). The software thus must interact with the hardware of the brain in other to control the body.

budaatum:


I can not argue that you might identify me by my physical body, TenQ, though grabbing the trunk of an elephant does come to mind, but I would object to your claim that my Internal/personal identity is some sort of soul.

Personal Identity is simply how one identifies oneself, as in, how one sees or describes oneself, and nothing to do with some imaginary soul. I may drive a huge car for instance, earn good money and live in a big house and identify my self as successful, but none of that would be describing what you term a soul. One may also identify oneself as a Samaritan when one might truly be a Levite of a Priest.

Perhaps you have gotten me wrong.
By personal Identity/Internal Identity, I mean
1. how you recognise yourself as you
2. how you don't confuse yourself with another person
3. The person you describe as ME, MYSELF, I
4. Your consciousness

It has nothing to do with how you want to perceive yourself. It certainly has nothing to do with ones status

TenQ:

I hope Diridiri know that self learning is a product of instructions, data and training of the computer to take future decisions based on previous data?

I hope so too because he already sounded as though he was smugly scoffing on this point.

TenQ:

Perhaps you have gotten me wrong.
By personal Identity/Internal Identity, I mean
1. how you recognise yourself as you
2. how you don't confuse yourself with another person
3. The person you describe as ME, MYSELF, I
4. Your consciousness

It has nothing to do with how you want to perceive yourself. It certainly has nothing to do with ones status

Are you saying my consciousness is my soul?

TenQ:

In summary: We do not have sufficient information similar to that which we have with softwares acting on a computer: thus, we can only generalise

Do you not see a problem with this? Why would I generalise about something I admit to having insufficient information about? Is that not the same as ignorantly asserting?

Consider how you would react if I generalise about what you in fact have more information about. Would I not sound rather ignorant if my insufficiently informed generalisation does not conform to your own knowledge or the actual facts?

I think one should just admit one does not have sufficient information and go look for more information instead of believing ones insufficiently informed generalising and then asking others to believe it too.

DeepsightX:


This is truly weird: I am not sure you can validly sustain the idea that thoughts take up space by conflating a thought with either its written representation on paper or the chemical reactions ancillary to it. I would urge you to be careful because it seems to me that you are willing to venture into very illogical and also anti-scientific territory in the pursuit of your determination to exclude the existence of the immaterial.

There is nothing weird about what I am saying until you show how thoughts are independent of material things. There is nothing anti-scientific about matter generating thought. Neurons, chemical signals, electrical signals products of matter or matter themselves.
Still, stop trying to disprove the fact that thoughts are matter (as in material) and explain how thoughts are examples of the immaterial which is the bone of contention. You are the one who is supposed to have proven this in a few short sentences!!

DeepsightX:

This is not the question. Please do not avoid it. I said, are thoughts matter, even if produced by matter. And you said yes. I went on to ask what type of matter, solid, liquid or gases, and if they have mass and occupy space. Now you are venturing to push the envelope by saying that they do?

Yes, thought are matter. You can figure out the state if you want.
https://southsidemedical.net/how-brain-chemistry-affects-mental-health/
Which Chemicals are Involved with Brain Chemistry and Mental Health?
Happiness, sadness, excitement, euphoria, and even fear are emotions that are triggered and maintained by chemicals in the brain known as neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters are the brain’s way of communicating with the body’s nerve cells. When there isn’t enough or there is too much of one kind of neurotransmitter present, it can lead to what are called ‘bad nerves’.

The chief neurotransmitters produced by the brain are:

Dopamine
Dopamine is the chemical in the brain that is associated with the pleasure and reward centers of the brain. High amounts of dopamine lead to feelings of pleasure or euphoria.
Serotonin
Serotonin is the chemical associated with rest and sleep. However, it’s also associated with your moods, sexual arousal and even hunger.
Glutamate
Glutamate is associated with learning, memory and feelings of excitement.
Norepinephrine
Norepinephrine acts as both a neurotransmitter as well as a hormone. Norepinephrine is a stress-responsive chemical that creates the “fight or flight” response when we are feeling stressed out. Low levels of it can cause ADHD and depression.

Unlike electricity, the brain's chemical messengers, the neurotransmitters, are difficult to identify from first observations. The action of electricity could be confirmed or disproved by home-style tests; but the activity and nature of a chemical compound that may be involved in the brain's signaling system demand more rigorous examination. The compound must meet a half dozen specific criteria to be considered a neurotransmitter—as opposed to, say, a "second messenger" in the brain, which broadcasts signals within a cell rather than conveying a signal from one cell to another. (Distinctions such as this, which may seem overly fine at first, have a way of turning out later to be crucial for understanding new, otherwise inexplicable data.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234149/
To be recognized as a neurotransmitter, a chemical compound must satisfy six conditions: It must be (1) synthesized in the neuron, (2) stored there, and (3) released in sufficient quantity to bring about some physical effect; (4) when administered experimentally, the compound must demonstrate the same effect that it brings about in living tissue; and (5) there must be receptor sites specific to this compound on the postsynaptic membrane, as well as (6) a means for shutting off its effect, either by causing its swift decomposition or by reuptake, absorbing it back into the cell. Of course, before any of these items on the checklist come into question, the compound must somehow be detectable in the human brain—not always an easy matter, in view of the minute quantities involved.

TenQ:


Now, just as you feed your body with food and other nutrition for it to grow well, you also feed your soul but this time with Knowledge and Experience!

I would claim it is my mind that I feed with knowledge and experience and learning with my entire being too for it to grow well, me being a huge fan of ask and knock and seek with all one's heart and soul and mind and being.

Can we agree that where you say soul I say mind? It has to do with the level of control one has over either, I think.

DeepsightX:


Even at that, there is a sense in which that is still correct.

I guess it's in the same sense that geocentrism is correct.

TenQ:

One may not be able to localise or locate exactly where the soul resides in the body because it isn't tangible. But one can say that there seems to be a strong interface between the operations of the soul and the nervous system (including the brain).

Dude, tell us what a soul is and how we can see or detect it before claiming there is a "strong interface" between it and the liver, brain, kidneys or whatever.