Jump to content
Science Forums

Rade

Members
  • Content Count

    1,232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Everything posted by Rade

  1. Hello again Turtle: Your example of the mirror test is one reason why I am unsure that Hofstadter would claim that "self-awareness is destined to arise", and I do agree with your comment that "self-awareness and consciousness are hierarchically distinct". Hofstadter refers to self-referential feedback loops. Now perhaps I do not understand what he means, but I would hold that self-referential for Hofstadter has two meanings (1) self-recognition and (2) self-awareness, which are not the same mental process. So, back to mirror experiments, two have been published that suggest magpie bir
  2. Hello, to answer your question, I do not think Hofstadter claims that ... "self-awareness is destined to arise" . I believe he would say that because life did arise (e.g., a logical truth statement of a fact of reality) that by definition of the concept life, there must be a priori, (​as you nicely word) "a sufficiently complex and interconnected matrix (of life) that can support a hierarchical self-referential feedback loop". I hold that such a "complex and interconnected matrix" derives from a concept of a soul as defined by Aristotle, as I have discussed a number of times in my previous
  3. In reply to the above post.... I find that Hofstadter puts unjustified constraints on his concept of the 'soul' as it relates to the concept of life. I say this because for Hofstadter, the ant is 'small-souled' while the cucumber and bacteria cell are 'soul-less'. Hence the reason he finds no moral objection to eating cucumbers for dinner, but shuns eating fish. Hofstadter's philosophic lapse is that while he associates the soul of living entities with patterns that trigger (a priori) the emergence of life [which is what I presented above motivated by the definition of soul of Aristotle],
  4. In fact I had a thought-provoking discussion with my son a couple of years ago, about what the criteria are for defining life. It is in fact not a straightforward thing to define. He was given, in biology class, a list of criteria, most but not all of which must be satisfied for something to be said to be alive. But is not possible to come up with a clean, unambiguous definition, oddly enough. So if you associate the soul with life, you are likely to run into the same definitional problem, it seems to me. === Yes I agree, the Biology textbook definitions of life are wanting. This i
  5. Yes, the soul ONLY is present from one moment (conception) to another (death). After death, the soul is no loner present. The soul is not invariant, not if you want it to be associated with concept of genetic code. The reason being that mutations occur within the genetic code, thus the soul must change after each mutation if the soul has an association with genetic code.
  6. Thank you for your comments, they force me to clarify my argument. 1. My first post on this topic took the definition of a soul as presented by Aristotle, to which I added my definition of life, which lead me to argue that the concept of soul presented by Aristotle 2000+ years ago suggests an association with the modern day understanding of information encoded within RNA and DNA molecules. As you say, it would be a contradiction for the soul of Aristotle to be limited to the information itself, that is, the nucleotide sequence, there must be something else. A clue comes from the meaning o
  7. I agree with all the above statements. Let me clarify. 1. The processes associated with encoded information within nucleic acids are known as transcription and translation. The encoded genetic information in the nucleotide sequence of RNA and DNA is the capacity that allows the two processes to occur. That capacity is what Aristotle defined to be the soul. Recall the definition of soul presented by Aristotle...."the first actuality of a natural body that has life potential". It then follows that life is impossible for any natural body with such potential without a first actuality,
  8. Yes, the argument presented does associate the soul with a biochemical process, the process of information encoded within the molecular structure of nucleic acids, RNA and DNA. The great importance of RNA and DNA is not the matter and energy of their atomic bonding structure, but the information contained within the nucleotide sequence (A,T,C,G,U). The scientific theory involved includes the study of cybernetics.
  9. No, I did not define the concept soul, I used the one presented by Aristotle. I defined life, I defined what it means to be a living entity. What is difficult to accept about my definition of life, or the definition of soul presented by Aristotle ?
  10. Lost track of this thread. An example of evidence that is non empirical (not based on perception) would be the first known evidence of alternating current, which appeared within the mind of N. Tesla well before there was any physical observation or model of the process. Tesla wrote that he first conceived of the physical possibility of AC in his mind while sitting on a park bench. He then invented in his mind a model of the AC process. Tesla was a unique genius who build models of physical processes in his mind, changing gear ratios, shapes, input, etc. Only after Tesla completed testin
  11. Sorry, but brain activity does not make a single cell bacteria species alive. Brain activity is not necessary for there to be life. You confuse life in general with human life in the specific. All forms of live have a soul, yes, even bacteria. I defined life, read it again. Concerning nucleic acid molecules after death, at death the capacity of the molecules to code information comes to an end, the soul vanishes. There are no souls outside a living entity as I have so defined it, a conceptual realization very difficult for some people to except.
  12. I will argue that 'the soul' is the information (constraint on variety) present within the genetic code, thus the soul is not material in-of-itself, but is causally responsible for life activities because as defined by Aristotle it is the first actuality of a natural body that has life potential. By this argument, life is defined as a process of self generated action mediated (constrained) by the information contained within nucleic acids (via evolution first RNA, then DNA). Because the soul is a first actuality of a natural body, it is a capacity to mediate the development of the life process
  13. Let us look at this statement of DD exactly as written: "...let me instead put forth the idea that the truth must be totally consistent with what is known, if what is known changes, then the truth can change. Under this constraint, the truth becomes merely an accurate representation of what is known... "This leads me to the rather strange definition that the truth is exactly what you believe to be true." ==== The problem with the argument is obvious. First the claim is made that truth must be consistent with, and a representation of, what is KNOWN. OK, that is fine. And let us
  14. Dear DD, First, take a look via Google search at the online journal called "Progress in Physics". You will see many papers published that are no more 'strange' than your presentation. Please request that peer review comments are sent to you so you can share with us. I sincerely believe that you will not have any problems getting a paper published in this journal if the topic deals with a 'missing' aspect of Einstein equation of relativity. You can for the most part refer the reader to your book for details about how you derive your fundamental equation. I suggest you focus on how yo
  15. Why do you look for feedback here ? You make a claim that Einstein equation of general relativity is not complete, that it is missing your radial term. OK, let us suppose you are correct. There must be 100s of professional physicists in the world that would consider themselves to have advanced knowledge of general relativity, and I suspect none of them read this forum. So, write up your ideas presented here and submit them to a peer reviewed journal that deals with general relativity theory. You may need to submit to more than one journal to find a journal editor that will submit your
  16. No. It is the role of reason to eliminate choices. The purpose of acquiring knowledge is to have a conscious grasp based on the facts of reality that any given choice is contingent to all possible choices that can be.
  17. It is a shame your very interesting OP question was taken so far off topic. Could you please define what you mean by 'soul' ? Moderation note: 20 posts from this thread have been moved to It's Self-Evident That It's Absurd That The Brain Can Give Rise To Thoughts And Feelings because they are off-topic.
  18. Well, no, the soul is not just another word for consciousness, they are in fact two separate concepts. Your continued argument is thus based on a false premise, and any argument based on a false premise is a false argument.
  19. The scientific link between the concepts 'brain' and 'consciousness' is well established...for example, see this recent publication and the cited references. http://montilab.psych.ucla.edu/publications/Crone_etal_15_EffConn_DOC.pdf If anyone is aware of a published paper that studies 'consciousness' as being present in other human organs, such as liver, kidney, heart, intestine, etc. please do share.
  20. Thanks for the reply. I would like to comment on the statements above. I agree that the definition of free will suggested by me does have the concept of choice embedded in it...imo, any proper definition of the concept must. But free will is a very specific action, a knowledge based choice response. A machine can be programmed to make a choice and not know it, thus by definition it does not act via free will. In my definition of free will, the embedded choice represents a self- mastery decision by the "I" of the individual human mind to know, or not to know, e.g., to think or not to
  21. To CraigD... In post #30 you wrote: "If no one can know what you’ll do next, your choice of what you do next can’t reasonably be attributed to anyone but you." In post #28 I wrote: "Free will is an action were one can do x, one knows that it can do x, and one decides to do x, rather than not-x." Let us combine the two, thus: Free will is an action were you can do x, you know you can do x, and you decide to do x, rather than not-x, and no other person can know which decision you will make. Have we an operational definition of the free will concept ?
  22. To CraigD... I used the word 'malfunction' because this was the term used in the post I replied to by FarmingGuy. I would argue that what you term 'criminal and socially condemned behaviors' are malfunctions in an evolutionary sense because if one commits such behaviors, one goes to jail for a long period of time, which results in a significant constraint on reproductive potential of that individual. It is not true that the fact that genes that predispose people for violent behavior are present in the human populations demonstrates that these genes are evolutionarily advantageous for th
  23. The decision making process has been programmed by nature (via genetics), and because of this, malfunctions to that genetic program are expected, thus the reason we see so many examples of free will choices made by humans that result in malfunction of behavior, such as serial killers, rapist, etc. However, just because thinking (to know) as a process is genetically programmed, this does not mean that specific actions of thought do not involve free will, they must, by my definition. And yes, it is true that we only "think" we are making a choice. Thinking is a fundamental attribute o
  24. How quickly six years can pass. Let me offer a definition of the free will concept that meets the above post requirement as "a relevant underlying component of ones actions". Free will is an action were one can do x, one knows that it can do x, and one decides to do x, rather than not-x.
  25. Nonsense. You just DEFINED explanation to be: " anything which provides answers to some collection of questions". The definition of explanation you use for your presentation does not require that the provided answers MUST SPECIFY when the any specific knowledge statement is true or false. What appears to be totally beyond your comprehension is that the concepts of truth or falsity do not reside solely in mental judgements as you define explanation. Your answer reveals that you have no idea exactly what your definition of explanation is logically missing before you can claim any represe
×
×
  • Create New...