"Souls"

I don't get it.

Seriously. I have no idea what he's trying to argue, other than that souls exist because we feel things. The 'why' remains very obscure (as does his definition of 'feeling').

I could almost see his point if he was referring to emotion instead of sensation. 

Quote from: optimisticcynic on March 22, 2010, 09:12:31 AM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on March 16, 2010, 01:14:06 PM

So again, you haven't demonstrated that your feelings and emotions are anything other than natural reactions to external and internal stimuli.

okay let me ask a question. how many steps must a system have to have the sensation of pain? can dominoes feel pain? in theory at least could a system of pipes that use water pressure instead of electricity feel pain?

Do the dominoes or the system of pipes have a central nervous system, or something similar?  Your questions still aren't making any sense in the context of this discussion.  You think that sensation is proof of the soul because you can't detect sensation in inanimate objects?  I don't get it. 

Sensation is an adaptation for survival.  Pain tells the brain there is tissue damage occurring so the brain can tell the part being damaged to stop doing whatever it is doing. 

a nervous system is just a system that allows inputs to create outputs that increase the likeliness of the system to reproduce. theoretically you you could use water and valves to take the place of nerves. use valves for diodes and transistors and you can already have the major components to a computer.  what you are saying is similar to saying that the reason a rock rolls down a hill is because it wants to be at a lower energy state. the rock in reality does not want anything. it just rolls down because of how forces act on it. it doesn't want anything. I am not saying that we should not react to pain. it should be more like a rock that falls, no sensation needed. you touch something hot. that sends a signal to the brain that  causes the system to send a signal to stop you from touching something hot.  a nervous system does not need sensation to react to stimuli.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 22, 2010, 10:33:05 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on March 22, 2010, 09:12:31 AM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on March 16, 2010, 01:14:06 PM

So again, you haven't demonstrated that your feelings and emotions are anything other than natural reactions to external and internal stimuli.

okay let me ask a question. how many steps must a system have to have the sensation of pain? can dominoes feel pain? in theory at least could a system of pipes that use water pressure instead of electricity feel pain?

Do the dominoes or the system of pipes have a central nervous system, or something similar?  Your questions still aren't making any sense in the context of this discussion.  You think that sensation is proof of the soul because you can't detect sensation in inanimate objects?  I don't get it. 

Sensation is an adaptation for survival.  Pain tells the brain there is tissue damage occurring so the brain can tell the part being damaged to stop doing whatever it is doing. 

a nervous system is just a system that allows inputs to create outputs that increase the likeliness of the system to reproduce. theoretically you you could use water and valves to take the place of nerves. use valves for diodes and transistors and you can already have the major components to a computer.  what you are saying is similar to saying that the reason a rock rolls down a hill is because it wants to be at a lower energy state. the rock in reality does not want anything. it just rolls down because of how forces act on it. it doesn't want anything. I am not saying that we should not react to pain. it should be more like a rock that falls, no sensation needed. you touch something hot. that sends a signal to the brain that  causes the system to send a signal to stop you from touching something hot.  a nervous system does not need sensation to react to stimuli.

If their is no pain, there are no consequences to harming yourself. If you do not feel pain, then how would you learn that touching something hot is harming you?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 22, 2010, 10:33:05 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on March 22, 2010, 09:12:31 AM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on March 16, 2010, 01:14:06 PM

So again, you haven't demonstrated that your feelings and emotions are anything other than natural reactions to external and internal stimuli.

okay let me ask a question. how many steps must a system have to have the sensation of pain? can dominoes feel pain? in theory at least could a system of pipes that use water pressure instead of electricity feel pain?

Do the dominoes or the system of pipes have a central nervous system, or something similar?  Your questions still aren't making any sense in the context of this discussion.  You think that sensation is proof of the soul because you can't detect sensation in inanimate objects?  I don't get it. 

Sensation is an adaptation for survival.  Pain tells the brain there is tissue damage occurring so the brain can tell the part being damaged to stop doing whatever it is doing. 

a nervous system is just a system that allows inputs to create outputs that increase the likeliness of the system to reproduce. theoretically you you could use water and valves to take the place of nerves. use valves for diodes and transistors and you can already have the major components to a computer.  what you are saying is similar to saying that the reason a rock rolls down a hill is because it wants to be at a lower energy state. the rock in reality does not want anything. it just rolls down because of how forces act on it. it doesn't want anything. I am not saying that we should not react to pain. it should be more like a rock that falls, no sensation needed. you touch something hot. that sends a signal to the brain that  causes the system to send a signal to stop you from touching something hot.  a nervous system does not need sensation to react to stimuli.

Slow down, use punctuation, put different ideas in separate paragraphs.  You've been trying to get people on this website to understand this idea of yours for a really long time without much luck. I keep hoping you'll articulate it better, so I can understand.   

We evolved to have sensation, sensation helps us survive. It's not about what something does or doesn't need, it's the way it evolved to be.  If you build something mechanical you may or may not need to put some type of sensor in it, which would react the way you "need" it too react,  but humans weren't "built". Obviously our nervous systems do need sensation to react to stimuli.  People who have a genetic disorder that causes them not to feel pain injure themselves frequently, and sometimes fatally.  They have to learn to check themselves for injuries, something someone with the normal ability to feel pain doesn't have to do. 

I still don't understand why biological systems should be the same as the electronic systems OC describes. You keep saying they should be the same, but what is that claim based on?

I have been playing a game with a enemy that it try's a plan and it doesn't work it changes the plan. it does not need pain to stop doing something. a system not a consciousness needs no pain to react. now if the system can react in a way that changes itself it again does not need to feel or even be conscious. if we look at a single chemical reaction. is it conscious? does it have sensation. how about two, or three. lets go up to n. if n does not have consciousness or sensation why does n+1 have it. and if it isn't the chemical reactions and instead is the way they are put together then why don't electronic systems behave the same since it would then be the way the system reacts not the way the components of the system work. yes a conscious mind needs stimuli such as the sensation of touch or pain to react by why is there a conscious mind? what differentiates it from a completely random system enough so we can say it is a thinking mind. does it react in ways that increase its chance of creating more of itself? well that really isn't that different from a random one it is just apply the law of statistic to a collection of systems. the ones that reproduce will be the more common.

What your trying to say is still being expressed in an entirely unintelligible manner....For example:

"I have been playing a game with a enemy that it try's a plan and it doesn't work it changes the plan."

"now if the system can react in a way that changes itself it again does not need to feel or even be conscious."

"yes a conscious mind needs stimuli such as the sensation of touch or pain to react by why is there a conscious mind?"

I'm going to guess on these, but I'm really not sure:

"I have been playing a game with a[n] enemy[,] [in which] it try's a plan and [if that plan] doesn't work[,] it changes the plan."

"[even] if the system can react in a way that changes itself[,] it again[,] does not need to feel or even be conscious."

""yes[,] a conscious mind needs stimuli such as the sensation of touch or pain to react[, but why do we arbitrarily assign this as] a conscious mind?""



I think your problem stems from your concept of conscious, but again, I'm really lost as to what your saying....

I guess I can try to respond though....

If a system has the equivalent functions of a sensory organ we currently recognize to feel pain, it can feel pain. If you use the overgeneralized and oversimplified term "chemical reaction", we can only assume that its a system that does not have the complexity to feel what we consider pain.

And from the immortal words of PZ Meyers "You can have an entirely natural biology that is subject to investigation by science that is not some kind of clockwork, predestined sequence of events. I decide what to put on my sandwich, but "I" is an unpredictable product of very complex neurological activity, colored by history over a baseline of biological predispositions."

I have been playing a game with a enemy that it try's a plan and it doesn't work it changes the plan. it does not need pain to stop doing something. a system not a consciousness needs no pain to react. now if the system can react in a way that changes itself it again does not need to feel or even be conscious. if we look at a single chemical reaction. is it conscious? does it have sensation. how about two, or three. lets go up to n. if n does not have consciousness or sensation why does n+1 have it. and if it isn't the chemical reactions and instead is the way they are put together then why don't electronic systems behave the same since it would then be the way the system reacts not the way the components of the system work. yes a conscious mind needs stimuli such as the sensation of touch or pain to react by why is there a conscious mind? what differentiates it from a completely random system enough so we can say it is a thinking mind. does it react in ways that increase its chance of creating more of itself? well that really isn't that different from a random one it is just apply the law of statistic to a collection of systems. the ones that reproduce will be the more common.

You need to prove that they should behave the same, not simply assume that they do. Asking 'why' isn't proof that such differing systems should behave the same way. When you have a convincing argument as to why electronic and bio-chemical systems should behave the same way, then you can start building an argument as to why souls exist. Until then, you're just assuming they should be the same, and then assuming that a soul causes the difference, without demonstrating either point.