A definition for 'Soul'

[o_don]

Don't worry. I'll have it soon. Just never heard your objection before. I'll have your argument pinned against the wall :P

[o_general levy]

Travis you are so gonna get pwned lol

[o_lithium]

Soul is an illusion we make for ourselves for the afterlife.

[o_robg]

Hello!

It's always hard talking calmly and rationally about something which can be so raw and volatile. I would however - as a small aside - note that in the Profile sections of each of the 3 main debaters that Innoc has fun stuff for his profile, Levy has nothing really and Travis has a very downcast profile.

Interesting how that relates to their respective views on the soul - if you feel miserable/angry alot then perhaps you may not think the soul serves any useful purpose. Anyway. A few brief points:

a) (For the record) I believe that there is such a thing as a soul, I suppose if pressed I'd say each person is a combination of mind/body/soul but I'm not that bothered.
b) Using "arguments" based on the soul to attempt to prove/disprove an afterlife are unlikely to get anywhere. They are still based on limited knowledge and understanding and assumptions. And to assume is to make an ass out of u and me
c) Christianity, out of all belief systems/lack of beliefs, is the only one which (if understood correctly) inspires and utilises humility. It's the only one where you don't try and be a good person*. Therefore, saying it promotes arrogance either displays an error on your part, or an error on the part of the person on whom you base that assumption.
d) Pulling up Christian beliefs for what some church members did hundreds of years ago is bizarre in the extreme.
e) I'd love to know how rational about things like this when we fall in love. I'd say it's not just a meeting of bodies, nor just a meeting of minds. It's described throughout the world and throughout history as a joining of something deeper. The moment you truly, truly believe that there's nothing more to that than processes which can currently be explained scientifically, you can either go mad with it (as Nietzsche did - the second to last paragraph of section 5 here is a summary of him) or amorally abuse it (like the Marquis de Sade - first paragraph of this page is a summary). The one thing you cannot do is truly disbelieve in a soul and carry on as before.

Oh, and:

Originally Posted by Travis Dane

Well if god wants us to believe in the soul, then why doesn't he come down and tell us straightforward that it exists? He doesn't, so obviously the soul doesn't exist. Teehee. Some nice religious logic for you.

God's primary purpose isn't to make us believe in a soul, where did you get that from? His heart was (and is) to provide salvation and a means for reaching everyone on earth with a message for salvation, so He came and died and jump-started a load of uneducated fishermen into sparking off the greatest people-movement ever known: the church.

* I will explain further if necessary. Don't jump to conclusions about this statement without asking more. Try this on grace, and then this to put it in context.

[o_general levy]

I think Don gave up.....

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

/me waves at Rob

/me goes back to opening up Eggo boxes looking for another set of ROFL Waffles...

[o_lithium]

Waffles , hah. Walmart

[o_travis dane]

Originally Posted by RobG

b) Using "arguments" based on the soul to attempt to prove/disprove an afterlife are unlikely to get anywhere. They are still based on limited knowledge and understanding and assumptions. And to assume is to make an ass out of u and me

I'll give you that, but it's still fairly possible to philosophise about it.

c) Christianity, out of all belief systems/lack of beliefs, is the only one which (if understood correctly) inspires and utilises humility. It's the only one where you don't try and be a good person*. Therefore, saying it promotes arrogance either displays an error on your part, or an error on the part of the person on whom you base that assumption.

I'd argue over that. The concept heaven\hell injects fear for doing something which is out of line according to said religion. Regarding the links you posted, well, I was pretty much immidiately put off when it started with:

God exists. He is perfect in holiness, never does anything wrong.

I recently read a quote that puts it better than I could say:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

e) I'd love to know how rational about things like this when we fall in love. I'd say it's not just a meeting of bodies, nor just a meeting of minds. It's described throughout the world and throughout history as a joining of something deeper. The moment you truly, truly believe that there's nothing more to that than processes which can currently be explained scientifically, you can either go mad with it (as Nietzsche did - the second to last paragraph of section 5 here is a summary of him) or amorally abuse it (like the Marquis de Sade - first paragraph of this page is a summary). The one thing you cannot do is truly disbelieve in a soul and carry on as before.

Would it be ruining the moment when I say it's just chemicals in the brain?

[o_etzell]

Originally Posted by Travis Dane

Would it be ruining the moment when I say it's just chemicals in the brain?

Would it be ruining the moment to say that I think you're aiming too high, Travis?

[o_don]

Originally Posted by Don

Hmm Travis you raise an intelligent point. However stubborn as I am I will not accept it.
I must give this a good pondering before I can respond back to you !!

I have finished my pondering, and have come up with an answer.

Yes I agree with you in the sense that a child may not understand language at the very early stages in life, and in a sense the parents are giving them rules. Consider the scenario:

Mama: Say Mummy, Muuummy.

Baby: Mummy. (dribble)

Mama: Yes. Good

Now the baby is just repeating what it has heard. Arguably it does not understand that it is giving a greeting to its mother, not consciously anyway. It is a machine in this sense. But the difference with humans is that they gain an understanding of language at some point, and (I would say around the age of 2 or 3) would know that they are greeting someone and understand the meaning of the word 'hello'. A machine (in a conversation) would reply in this form:

User: Hello.
Machine: Hello.

The machine does not understand the greeting, or that it is being greeted. It is given the input 0 and so will compute an output 1.


Machines lack this understanding, and will never have it. There will never be artificial intelligence as such.

Humans however do gain this understanding at some stage in development and this is the key factor that does and will always separate machines from humans.

[o_skanky butterpuss]

Etzell - Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:19 pm


Don - Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:52 pm


Wtf do you think you are, Deep Thought?!

[o_travis dane]

Originally Posted by Don

But the difference with humans is that they gain an understanding of language at some point, and (I would say around the age of 2 or 3) would know that they are greeting someone and understand the meaning of the word 'hello'. A machine (in a conversation) would reply in this form:

User: Hello.
Machine: Hello.

The machine does not understand the greeting, or that it is being greeted. It is given the input 0 and so will compute an output 1.

And what exactly makes you conclude a machine cannot learn a concept like greeting? A child does what it is instructed to do. If it's being told 'Hello' signifies a greeting, it'll from that moment on recognize it as a greeting, how does this differ from a machine, which can also be instructed (or instruct itself, like a child also has a tedency to do) to associate words with meanings? Said comment can apply on pretty much anything a human being learns throughout it's life-span. You're making social interaction out to be a lot more complicated than it really is. I would define a greeting the exact same way a computer would possible define it: An action that has a positive consequence as a result if performed on people meeting a certain criteria, considering external factors as environment, relationship, time, mood, health, and over hundreds of other variables.

It just so happens to be that the human brain is especially equipped to perform task such as social interaction, where computers will encounter significant problems trying to emulate. There are two ways we can go from here, either the current micro-chip progress curve continues as it has for decades, and we'll eventually have powerful enough computers to adequatly emulate the behaviour of a human brain, or we have to take a more radical turn in computer design, and start developing computers that are similar in design to the human brain evolution has shaped through millions of years of evolution. Which basically means stepping down from the binary system, and look at more dynamic, robust and modular architecture. An interesting fact I like to bring up in discussions such as these, is the effects of alcohol on the brain. Consider a person has drank an extravagant amount of alcohol, enough to kill an X amount of cells in his brain. He'll wake up the next day, possibly with a headache, but otherwise perfectly fine. Now try and do the same thing with a computer, take out just a single chip of a whole. It will be very likely that it'll run into trouble within milliseconds, if not immediately. There lies the true power of the human brain, flexability and robustness.

Had the intention to talk about more interesting facts in this post, but I'll save it for a later moment in time. After all, I wouldn't want to force Don into another brainstorm which would take months .

[mervaka]

Originally Posted by Travis Dane

And what exactly makes you conclude a machine cannot learn a concept like greeting?

handshakes \o/

all thats really needed is a way of a machine learning protocol rather than being told it

[o_don]

It is true skanky. I did not sleep, I did not wash. I travelled to all four corners of the earth in search of an answer, until I found solace on a Nepalese mountain. Inspired by a wild flower the answer came to me in an instant, I reached nirvana and came back again. I was in a meditative trance for 3 months and left refreshed and fulfilled. I flew back 2 weeks ago and became something of a celebrity. Dubbed 'el genioso' and 'the great one' by local tabloids I gracefully accepted an OBE from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and modestly declined the Congressional Medal of Honor from the U.S.
Only now having recovered from two solid weeks of media frenzy and press interviews could I find the peace of mind to finish the task.

Here are some snaps from my adventure:

[o_don]

Originally Posted by Travis Dane

And what exactly makes you conclude a machine cannot learn a concept like greeting? A child does what it is instructed to do. If it's being told 'Hello' signifies a greeting, it'll from that moment on recognize it as a greeting, how does this differ from a machine, which can also be instructed (or instruct itself, like a child also has a tedency to do) to associate words with meanings?

A machine cannot grasp a concept like a greeting. It may have a program which tells it:

User Input [Human] - "Hello" [excited]


[Program] 'Hello' ...searching database... = greeting.

[Program] ... Opening greeting archive ... Greeting options - Hello, Hi, Howdy, Whats up, Can I help you? etc


[Program] Formulating appropriate manner of response to greeting ... computing (using variables such as user facial expression, pitch and pronunciation) ... user delivery is excited therefore respond using excited

[Program] Manner of delivery selected, Greeting selected.

[Program] - "Hello there!" [excited]


The computer or machine has used this program to effectively give a suitable response back. The human is given the impression that the machine is aware of what is going on. The machine however has no concept of what the greetings mean. Sure, it may have an archive where in code a greeting = 'An acknowledgment or expression of good will.' It may also be able to calculate from user facial expression, tone of voice etc. an appropriate response. It may even, if it is super advanced put into account its current state of feeling, so a machine in depressed mode may not respond positively to a friendly greeting. But the greeting means to the computer whatever the programmer has defined a greeting as in program terms. Does the computer understand the meaning of the word greeting like the programmer does, or even like the human user does? No. It does not have the emotive capacity; it may know that greeting = friendly, but it does not know why. It may know that facial expression x is associated with happy, but it does not have the emotive capacity to understand why.


Does it actually know what it is doing? I find that hard to believe.

The distinction seems to be getting thinner and thinner between the inner mind processes of human and machine, but there is still an element lacking in machine which it can never have.

[o_deadly furby]

The word soul is a manmade name to help define self realization to himself.

[o_ekim]

That argument is so circular it hurts.

[o_yomamashouse]

Humans have always wanted to find their place in the universe and through steadfast belief in things like divine beings we find some sort of comfort. Even though there is no real proof to indicate that a greater force is at work there has always been one thing that has made me wonder, why are humans the only creatures on the planet that don't fit into the balance of nature? We may be (as some would define it)better than the animals now because of our current dominance but that will end up being our downfall. We are the only creatures who's extinction would benefit the Earth rather than throw it out of balance.

Its too bad Einstein proved light travel impossible for humans because i really would have liked to get to another inhabitable planet and meet aliens. Although for their sake maybe that wouldnt be a good idea since humans have a tendency to destroy everything in their path.

[o_yomamashouse]

Originally Posted by ekiM

That argument is so circular it hurts.

It is like a break down the brick wall with your bear hands contest, neither side can win, unless one of the contestans is the incredible hulk.

I used to be religous and believe in god but as i got older i started to notice that everything that was called god's work was explainable by science. I also noticed that there was a great deal of other religions, all with different gods and that was really what turned me off of religion in general. While they didn't always openly voice it i knew they thought that their religion was the right one and that everyone else was just misguided, they couldnt have thought maybe all of these gods exist. How could they say that though? What did they have to prove that they were right and that their religion was really the right path? If there is one thing humans should have learned from the thousands of years we have been alive it is that you shouldn't say something is right until you can prove it and that just because something is beyond your understanding doesnt mean a divine being is responsible for it. We have, at an increasing rate, begun solving many of life's mysteries. It started at small things like how fire works and movd on to the very strcuture of all that exists, matter. I think Travis mentioned earlier that if you extrapolate a bit you can see that we are going to be learning more and more in the years to come. We dont know exactly what it will be because that is like a blind person imagining color, unless they used to have vision they never will be able to.

[o_travis dane]

Originally Posted by Don

A machine cannot grasp a concept like a greeting. It may have a program which tells it:

User Input [Human] - "Hello" [excited]


[Program] 'Hello' ...searching database... = greeting.

[Program] ... Opening greeting archive ... Greeting options - Hello, Hi, Howdy, Whats up, Can I help you? etc


[Program] Formulating appropriate manner of response to greeting ... computing (using variables such as user facial expression, pitch and pronunciation) ... user delivery is excited therefore respond using excited

[Program] Manner of delivery selected, Greeting selected.

[Program] - "Hello there!" [excited]

I need not to mention what you put forth is way too simplified an example of how such a process might come to be, but for the sake of this discussion it will do.

But the greeting means to the computer whatever the programmer has defined a greeting as in program terms.

A note I'd like to make here, is that computers could very well be capable to learn indepently of an engineer, the signification of any action, given they have the opportunity to observe it for a long enough period of time to gain understanding of said action, pretty much exactly like an infant does.

Does the computer understand the meaning of the word greeting like the programmer does, or even like the human user does? No.

I have been pondering about what exactly you mean with the 'meaning' of a word. I've put forth what my definition of a greeting is, and that it would be very similar, if not the same, to that of a machine's. I am not aware of any other 'higher' meaning to this word, and if you are, then either you are a higher lifeform disguised as a homo sapien, or I am a computer, also disguised as a homo sapien. Both options being equally fascinating .