5 ms·

This is the thing that mystifies me the most about the ideas of consciousness and the soul. If we are more than our mind, then how do we explain how changes to

This is the thing that mystifies me the most about the ideas of consciousness and the soul. If we are more than our mind, then how do we explain how changes to our brain, artificial or natural, can drastically change who we are. What does that mean for an afterlife, if we can't even really say who we are in this life.

paol 11y ago
Well, that's why the null hypothesis is that there is no metaphysical soul.
- rcthompson 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure that the majority of people on the planet do not consider this their null hypothesis.
  - labster 11y ago
    The majority of people on the planet do not know what a null hypothesis is.
- lliamander 11y ago
  The null hypothesis is this: "There is a 'self' which persists through time and is the locus of one's identity." It is this 'self' that people generally mean when they talk about the soul. We have a hard time giving a metaphysical analysis of what this soul is, but that does not mean it does not exist. As it is, the soul (in this functional sense) provides an explanation for too many things that would otherwise be inexplicable.
  - akavi 11y ago
    That's definitely not what most people mean when they refer to the "soul". And using "soul" to mean that is both confusing and unhelpful.
    - lliamander 11y ago
      It is certainly included in most people's definition of the soul, and it is difficult to satisfy the definition I provided above and still be a material reductivist.
chrischen 11y ago
Your afterlife starts when your physical brain is revived in the distant future, or when you deviate from the branch of the universe in which you die. In this case some people see you die but you continue living in a different universe. Crossing universes doesn't just happen when you die, it is happening every instant. Obviously when you die your consciousness won't cross into the next instantaneous universe in which you are dead (by definition your consciousness does not exist there anymore so it's not a possible reality to cross into). See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortal... for more details. We aren't more than our physical brains, at least not when you include the encoded set of experiences in your brain.
bendbro 11y ago
I think most tech savvy millennials already subscribe to determinism in some form.
- chrischen 11y ago
  Quantum physicists do not. Determinism has been experimentally disproven.
  - balfirevic 11y ago
    Parent commenter might have meant materialism instead of determinism.
  - GolDDranks 11y ago
    That's not right. The combination of 1) local 2) realist 3) determinism has been disproven by Bell's theorem. But I it's still a "pick two" kind of choice. I, personally think that by Occam's razor, the Everett interpretation ("Many Worlds") makes the most sense, because it's simplest. And actually it retains all of the above three, but it introduces "self-locating uncertainty" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907), which effectively has the same kind of effect from our perspective.
    - chrischen 11y ago
      If you subscribe to many-worlds, then you subscribe to quantum theory, which means you subscribe to quantum indeterminacy. Non-determinism is literally the name of the principle.
      - bendbro 11y ago
        Is quantum indeterminacy related to the Uncertainty Principle? Also, isn't it assumed that quantum effects don't bubble up to the classical level?
      - zardo 11y ago
        But the only thing that's undetermined is which universe you will find yourself in. In many worlds the multiverse is determined. It's a space-time graph (tree?) with a root at the start of time and leaves at infinity.
gerbilly 11y ago
A monk asked a Zen master: “What happens when you die?” The Zen master replied: "I don’t know.” The monk said: “What do you mean. Aren’t you a Zen master?” And the Zen Master replied: “Yes, but I’m not a dead one.”
- melvinmt 11y ago
  "After some years we will die. If we just think that it is the end of our life, this will be the wrong understanding. But, on the other hand, if we think that we do not die, this is also wrong. We die, and we do not die. This is the right understanding. Some people may say that our mind or soul exists forever, and it is only our physical body which dies. But this is not exactly right, because both mind and body have their end. But at the same time it is also true that they exist eternally. And even though we say mind and body, they are actually two sides of one coin. This is the right understanding." - Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind
  - jrapdx3 11y ago
    Wonderful quote, great wisdom. Interestingly, the passage speaks to ideas that exist across cultures, and throughout the centuries. It's remarkably similar to the philosophy of Spinoza, particularly embodied in his seminal work, the Ethics published in 1677. For example, in the Ethics Spinoza wrote (roughly translated) "eternity cannot be defined in terms of time, or have any relation to time". I puzzled over this idea for many years, extending to decades. More recently I've thought it prescient, in a way anticipating the concept of "space-time". Indeed that may not be coincidental given Einstein's statement that he was strongly influenced by Spinoza. So it's not a surprise, in fact even reassuring that such insights permeate human thought, as the Zen Mind nicely demonstrates. Edit: grammar
  - gerbilly 11y ago
    These questions are among the questions that the Buddha refused to answer one way or the other because he considered them distractions from the meditative life.[i] The real goal of Buddhism is the elimination of suffering in oneself and others and is purposefully silent on the 'big questions.' [i] http://www.faculty.umb.edu/michael_lafargue/104/204/budd/rdngs/btxt1.htm http://www.faculty.umb.edu/michael_lafargue/104/204/budd/rdn...
gulpahum 11y ago
Stephen Hawking has concluded in his book "The Grand Design": "So it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion." [1] Machines don't have afterlife. So, enjoy every moment you live right now! :) [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/stephen-hawkings-grand-bo_b_708958.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/stephen-hawkings...
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
  I don't buy the we're smarter than we've ever been argument. It sounds very much like the religious people who feel certain of witnessing the end of the world. > Einstein had a strong feeling for the presence of awe and wonder at the far horizon of the cosmos and saw evidence for the existence of a unifying, rational presence in the mathematical order of the cosmos. But since then the universe of theoretical physics has become random, complex, paradoxical, and barren of divine presence. At least the atheist brigade remains constant. That's a comfort.
  - SpaceCadetJones 11y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
- cgio 11y ago
  Hawking makes a careful statement and employs the word "seems" not as a padding but intentionally. I take his statement at face value and still don't get to the confident deductions you make. For one "seems" is allowing room to account for something currently or forever invisible. And then how can you assert that machines don't have an afterlife?
jsprogrammer 11y ago
What do you mean, "who we are", in your second sentence?
- FreedomToCreate 11y ago
  I mean i relation to our mind. If I took a hammer to your skull, I could fundamentally alter your personality. So the person you are right now is variable, depending on the state of your brain. So with that has a fundamental fact, who are you really but the state of your brain at the moment?
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    How do you measure a personality? What are its constraints? It appears to me that I am more than my brain. I have a body that I think I can control. If you define "you" as a sequence of states of matter, then the rest of your body should count too. >So the person you are right now is variable, depending on the state of your brain. So with that has a fundamental fact, who are you really but the state of your brain at the moment? This feels a bit circular to me.
  - lliamander 11y ago
    A: "it seems the evidence of the prosecution overwhelmingly identifies you as the robber of the convenience store. What evidence do you provide in your defense?" B: " 'I' am nothing other than my present brain state. Since the entity that robbed the convenience store possessed a different brain state, we cannot be the same person." Not sure how that would fly. Maybe there is a meaningful concept of personhood that transcends specific brain states?
    - ux-app 11y ago
      >Not sure how that would fly I think it's generally accepted that, barring mental illness, we're accountable for our previous brain states.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
xg15 11y ago
I wouldn't say it is proven yet, but I think the possibility that our whole consciousness might be a based on biology is loaded with a lot more fear that is justified. For the sake of the argument, let's assume it is true - there is no metaphysical soul, and all aspects of the self we asdociate with it - memories, character, consciousness, etc... - are the product of electrochemical reactions inside the body. In other words, we are "deterministic" and whatever we do could be perfectly predicted by following the laws of physics. I think this wouldn't actually devalue the consciousness very much. "Cogito ergo sum" still applies. There still exists a phenomenon called "consciousness" and there still exist entities who can choose an action, given their memories and the impressions of the world they experience. Technically, yes, humans would be reduced to "mere machines", however machines which are incredibly more complex and nuanced than everything we are capable to build or understand as of now. Also machines who are thinking about themself and have performed all the accomplishments of human history. And I don't think any of this would be going. The need to consider subjective experiences and well-being wouldn't go either, btw. The need to have a solid ethical foundation and sound morals would be as strong as ever. If anything it could become broader and give more justification for e.g. animal rights. But I can't see anything bad with that.
- adrusi 11y ago
  Yes. The claim that explaining consciousness as purely a result of biology (physicalism) devalues consciousness is the same as the claim that explaining the color red as result of photons released when electrons settle into lower energy states devalues redness.
- kotach 11y ago
  Studies on twins, especially those that observe separated ones, pretty much show how much bodies behave in a deterministic way, from diseases, to relationships, names, jobs, wishes.
monomyth 11y ago
If you break your leg, you will change the way your walk, but not the brain (of course it will change adapting to what has happened, but that's not he point here). Going up a level: if you change your brain you will change the way you think, but not the fact you can think. Going up another level: by changing your mind, you might not change your consciousness.
mjklin 11y ago
It may be the case that a healthy brain is necessary for a healthy personality. It is not clear, however what follows from this. If a person's brain stops functioning normally, does he become less human? If a dolphin or monkey can demonstrate more intelligent actions than the brain-damaged person, does this make them more human than they are? More worthy of life? These are the kind of questions they ask in your local philosophy department.
Jimmy 11y ago
Almost no philosophers today (who specialize in the philosophy of mind) believe in an immaterial soul. They believe that there is nothing beyond the physical when it comes to consciousness.
- mjklin 11y ago
  How about Roger Scruton? http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/03/brain-drain/ http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/03/brain-drain/
unclebucknasty 11y ago
Perhaps, like the rest of the body, the brain is more an interface between the physical world and the "true self" (call it "soul" if you prefer). That includes relationships with others' interfaces. In this view, changing the brain merely changes how we perceive the world, our behavior in it and, thus, how we are perceived by and relate to others. Interestingly, it can also change our sense of our own self in relation to the world. When you consider disorders like depersonalization and derealization, they seem to be exactly a defect in this sensory system. The nature of who you are hasn't changed, but your sense of who you are has.
Houshalter 11y ago
There's zero evidence of an afterlife or souls of any kind. And overwhelming evidence that your behavior is controlled entirely by your brain. You are your brain. Nothing more. This life is the only one you will get!

paol 11y ago

Well, that's why the null hypothesis is that there is no metaphysical soul.

rcthompson 11y ago
I'm pretty sure that the majority of people on the planet do not consider this their null hypothesis.
- labster 11y ago
  The majority of people on the planet do not know what a null hypothesis is.
lliamander 11y ago
The null hypothesis is this: "There is a 'self' which persists through time and is the locus of one's identity." It is this 'self' that people generally mean when they talk about the soul. We have a hard time giving a metaphysical analysis of what this soul is, but that does not mean it does not exist. As it is, the soul (in this functional sense) provides an explanation for too many things that would otherwise be inexplicable.
- akavi 11y ago
  That's definitely not what most people mean when they refer to the "soul". And using "soul" to mean that is both confusing and unhelpful.
  - lliamander 11y ago
    It is certainly included in most people's definition of the soul, and it is difficult to satisfy the definition I provided above and still be a material reductivist.

chrischen 11y ago

Your afterlife starts when your physical brain is revived in the distant future, or when you deviate from the branch of the universe in which you die. In this case some people see you die but you continue living in a different universe. Crossing universes doesn't just happen when you die, it is happening every instant. Obviously when you die your consciousness won't cross into the next instantaneous universe in which you are dead (by definition your consciousness does not exist there anymore so it's not a possible reality to cross into). See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortal... for more details. We aren't more than our physical brains, at least not when you include the encoded set of experiences in your brain.

bendbro 11y ago

I think most tech savvy millennials already subscribe to determinism in some form.

chrischen 11y ago
Quantum physicists do not. Determinism has been experimentally disproven.
- balfirevic 11y ago
  Parent commenter might have meant materialism instead of determinism.
- GolDDranks 11y ago
  That's not right. The combination of 1) local 2) realist 3) determinism has been disproven by Bell's theorem. But I it's still a "pick two" kind of choice. I, personally think that by Occam's razor, the Everett interpretation ("Many Worlds") makes the most sense, because it's simplest. And actually it retains all of the above three, but it introduces "self-locating uncertainty" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907), which effectively has the same kind of effect from our perspective.
  - chrischen 11y ago
    If you subscribe to many-worlds, then you subscribe to quantum theory, which means you subscribe to quantum indeterminacy. Non-determinism is literally the name of the principle.
    - bendbro 11y ago
      Is quantum indeterminacy related to the Uncertainty Principle? Also, isn't it assumed that quantum effects don't bubble up to the classical level?
    - zardo 11y ago
      But the only thing that's undetermined is which universe you will find yourself in. In many worlds the multiverse is determined. It's a space-time graph (tree?) with a root at the start of time and leaves at infinity.

gerbilly 11y ago

A monk asked a Zen master: “What happens when you die?” The Zen master replied: "I don’t know.” The monk said: “What do you mean. Aren’t you a Zen master?” And the Zen Master replied: “Yes, but I’m not a dead one.”

melvinmt 11y ago
"After some years we will die. If we just think that it is the end of our life, this will be the wrong understanding. But, on the other hand, if we think that we do not die, this is also wrong. We die, and we do not die. This is the right understanding. Some people may say that our mind or soul exists forever, and it is only our physical body which dies. But this is not exactly right, because both mind and body have their end. But at the same time it is also true that they exist eternally. And even though we say mind and body, they are actually two sides of one coin. This is the right understanding." - Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind
- jrapdx3 11y ago
  Wonderful quote, great wisdom. Interestingly, the passage speaks to ideas that exist across cultures, and throughout the centuries. It's remarkably similar to the philosophy of Spinoza, particularly embodied in his seminal work, the Ethics published in 1677. For example, in the Ethics Spinoza wrote (roughly translated) "eternity cannot be defined in terms of time, or have any relation to time". I puzzled over this idea for many years, extending to decades. More recently I've thought it prescient, in a way anticipating the concept of "space-time". Indeed that may not be coincidental given Einstein's statement that he was strongly influenced by Spinoza. So it's not a surprise, in fact even reassuring that such insights permeate human thought, as the Zen Mind nicely demonstrates. Edit: grammar
- gerbilly 11y ago
  These questions are among the questions that the Buddha refused to answer one way or the other because he considered them distractions from the meditative life.[i] The real goal of Buddhism is the elimination of suffering in oneself and others and is purposefully silent on the 'big questions.' [i] http://www.faculty.umb.edu/michael_lafargue/104/204/budd/rdngs/btxt1.htm http://www.faculty.umb.edu/michael_lafargue/104/204/budd/rdn...

gulpahum 11y ago

Stephen Hawking has concluded in his book "The Grand Design": "So it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion." [1] Machines don't have afterlife. So, enjoy every moment you live right now! :) [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/stephen-hawkings-grand-bo_b_708958.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/stephen-hawkings...

0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
I don't buy the we're smarter than we've ever been argument. It sounds very much like the religious people who feel certain of witnessing the end of the world. > Einstein had a strong feeling for the presence of awe and wonder at the far horizon of the cosmos and saw evidence for the existence of a unifying, rational presence in the mathematical order of the cosmos. But since then the universe of theoretical physics has become random, complex, paradoxical, and barren of divine presence. At least the atheist brigade remains constant. That's a comfort.
- SpaceCadetJones 11y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
cgio 11y ago
Hawking makes a careful statement and employs the word "seems" not as a padding but intentionally. I take his statement at face value and still don't get to the confident deductions you make. For one "seems" is allowing room to account for something currently or forever invisible. And then how can you assert that machines don't have an afterlife?

jsprogrammer 11y ago

What do you mean, "who we are", in your second sentence?

FreedomToCreate 11y ago
I mean i relation to our mind. If I took a hammer to your skull, I could fundamentally alter your personality. So the person you are right now is variable, depending on the state of your brain. So with that has a fundamental fact, who are you really but the state of your brain at the moment?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  How do you measure a personality? What are its constraints? It appears to me that I am more than my brain. I have a body that I think I can control. If you define "you" as a sequence of states of matter, then the rest of your body should count too. >So the person you are right now is variable, depending on the state of your brain. So with that has a fundamental fact, who are you really but the state of your brain at the moment? This feels a bit circular to me.
- lliamander 11y ago
  A: "it seems the evidence of the prosecution overwhelmingly identifies you as the robber of the convenience store. What evidence do you provide in your defense?" B: " 'I' am nothing other than my present brain state. Since the entity that robbed the convenience store possessed a different brain state, we cannot be the same person." Not sure how that would fly. Maybe there is a meaningful concept of personhood that transcends specific brain states?
  - ux-app 11y ago
    >Not sure how that would fly I think it's generally accepted that, barring mental illness, we're accountable for our previous brain states.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

xg15 11y ago

I wouldn't say it is proven yet, but I think the possibility that our whole consciousness might be a based on biology is loaded with a lot more fear that is justified. For the sake of the argument, let's assume it is true - there is no metaphysical soul, and all aspects of the self we asdociate with it - memories, character, consciousness, etc... - are the product of electrochemical reactions inside the body. In other words, we are "deterministic" and whatever we do could be perfectly predicted by following the laws of physics. I think this wouldn't actually devalue the consciousness very much. "Cogito ergo sum" still applies. There still exists a phenomenon called "consciousness" and there still exist entities who can choose an action, given their memories and the impressions of the world they experience. Technically, yes, humans would be reduced to "mere machines", however machines which are incredibly more complex and nuanced than everything we are capable to build or understand as of now. Also machines who are thinking about themself and have performed all the accomplishments of human history. And I don't think any of this would be going. The need to consider subjective experiences and well-being wouldn't go either, btw. The need to have a solid ethical foundation and sound morals would be as strong as ever. If anything it could become broader and give more justification for e.g. animal rights. But I can't see anything bad with that.

adrusi 11y ago
Yes. The claim that explaining consciousness as purely a result of biology (physicalism) devalues consciousness is the same as the claim that explaining the color red as result of photons released when electrons settle into lower energy states devalues redness.
kotach 11y ago
Studies on twins, especially those that observe separated ones, pretty much show how much bodies behave in a deterministic way, from diseases, to relationships, names, jobs, wishes.

monomyth 11y ago

If you break your leg, you will change the way your walk, but not the brain (of course it will change adapting to what has happened, but that's not he point here). Going up a level: if you change your brain you will change the way you think, but not the fact you can think. Going up another level: by changing your mind, you might not change your consciousness.

mjklin 11y ago

It may be the case that a healthy brain is necessary for a healthy personality. It is not clear, however what follows from this. If a person's brain stops functioning normally, does he become less human? If a dolphin or monkey can demonstrate more intelligent actions than the brain-damaged person, does this make them more human than they are? More worthy of life? These are the kind of questions they ask in your local philosophy department.

Jimmy 11y ago

Almost no philosophers today (who specialize in the philosophy of mind) believe in an immaterial soul. They believe that there is nothing beyond the physical when it comes to consciousness.

mjklin 11y ago
How about Roger Scruton? http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/03/brain-drain/ http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/03/brain-drain/

unclebucknasty 11y ago

Perhaps, like the rest of the body, the brain is more an interface between the physical world and the "true self" (call it "soul" if you prefer). That includes relationships with others' interfaces. In this view, changing the brain merely changes how we perceive the world, our behavior in it and, thus, how we are perceived by and relate to others. Interestingly, it can also change our sense of our own self in relation to the world. When you consider disorders like depersonalization and derealization, they seem to be exactly a defect in this sensory system. The nature of who you are hasn't changed, but your sense of who you are has.

Houshalter 11y ago

There's zero evidence of an afterlife or souls of any kind. And overwhelming evidence that your behavior is controlled entirely by your brain. You are your brain. Nothing more. This life is the only one you will get!