Discussion of the issue of the existence of the soul. Is there anything beyond the familiar matter and energy?
I asked three different people whether and who they think has a soul.
The first, an academic in the field of humanities, expressed her firm opinion that there is no such thing as a soul.
The second, a religious engineer, revealed his opinion that only man has a soul.
The third, a simple, religious man, claimed that animals also have souls. Also for bacteria? I asked him. He frowned and said - every creature that knows how to take care of itself. That is, in his opinion, every organism has a soul.
It is not difficult to understand why man invented such or other higher powers and why he adopted the idea of the existence of a soul. The idea that death brings with it deprivation is frustrating. It is better to believe that there is something in us that remains after our death and a more advanced development of this consolation speaks of reincarnation, that is, another physical existence after death.
Let us examine whether life, as we know it, requires belief in an ethereal essence accompanying the body.
Living things gradually evolved from complex molecules with the property of self-replication - according to the laws of physics and chemistry. During evolution, these creatures became more complex and some developed a nervous system and brain. Those with the most developed brains - we humans are at the head of them - have also developed self-awareness as part of awareness of their surroundings - an important trait for survival.
The one who claims that only humans have a soul - the border between us and apes is extremely small. Man evolved gradually through several varieties, from a common ancestor between us and chimpanzees, who lived several million years ago. Genetically we are closer to chimpanzees than animal species of the same species. Is it the gradual development of language and manual and creative skills that gives soul? hard to believe. I will state here that I take upon myself the right not to refer to the Torah of creation and those who believe in it.
The believer that every organism has a soul - the border between the beginning of life and the dead is extremely thin. Indeed some believe that matter also has a soul.
The definition of life can perhaps shed light on the question of the soul. How do we define life?
The answer according to biologists is very simple. Life fulfills several conditions;
A. Reproducibility - this is the most basic condition.
B. Metabolism - this is the technology in which life works.
third. Existence of mutations - this condition seems irrelevant, but without the mutations, all creatures, existing and extinct, would not exist. The first molecules that replicated themselves would do so until they filled all possible niches and that was it... nothing more would evolve.
In all definitions of life there is no relevance to the question of the existence of the soul.
The gradual transition between the different forms of life does not allow us to determine the boundary between creatures with a soul and creatures without a soul, assuming that it exists at all.
And someone can ask where are all the souls of the creatures that were and where are all the souls of the creatures that have not yet been created and are there souls for new species that have not yet evolved and why do we even need to assume the existence of a soul? Is it just to do us good for the soul? And will the future computers that will have consciousness also have a soul?
The described cases of reincarnation (subjective descriptions of previous lives for which we found apparent biographical confirmation) - other explanations were found for them.
The reports of ghosts (like UFOs) - have not been verified.
The reports of those who came back from the dead, as if they were floating above themselves and watching their bodies and those around them - originate from hallucinations of the mind.
Most physicists and biologists deny the existence of the soul, because there is no need to recognize its existence according to a scientific scale. Our subjective feeling speaks of the existence of consciousness, but consciousness is part of the level of organization of a developed brain and is a product of its activity and not something outside of it.
But physicists do not really understand the essence of matter and among biologists there are those who believe that after all there is something... the very existence and essence of the universe is sublime among us and perhaps the answer to the question of existence will also answer the question of the soul; As for the first question, so also for the second the answer must be found within nature and not outside of it.
60 תגובות
R. H. Forgive me for insisting...
From your response (10) it is implied that you attribute desire also to the lamp in the car which lights up when there is no fuel, did I understand you correctly? If so, according to the definition/logic that guided you in writing that sentence, does desire also refer to a pencil that stands on its tip and then falls in a certain direction or according to the same principle to a spinning wheel or even a coin?
R.H.:
The truth?
I really don't understand that this is not the conclusion.
If you want - you are welcome to point to two things (besides the laws of nature themselves) that you think are fundamentally different.
Not mandatory - but it can be an interesting exercise and may help to understand your intention.
Well, you know that this is not really the conclusion of my words, but let's see, enough with this discussion.
This is also the whole difference between a computer and a stone, and therefore your words can be summed up in the sentence "Stone, stones, everything is stone" or in the sentence "There is nothing substantial in the world except the very existence of the world"
Exactly, I also mean that "substantial" is not quantitative and that complexity is quantitative.
Beyond that there is also the matter of the correct combination. The Hungarian cube has only one combination where each face has one suit. For me, the difference between an ordered cube and not an ordered one is "not essential" but "qualitative".
As above, the difference between Einstein's brain and the brains of dogs (assuming the number of nerve cells and connections are the same) or a brain built randomly from a collection of nerve cells as in the number of cells in Einstein's brain (he probably won't create the theory of relativity) is not in substance but in quality.
Good:
I have already explained what I see as "substantial" because I referred to the two ends of the spectrum that the term "substantial" is always discussed in connection with - substantial versus quantitative.
I don't know what you call "complexity" but if it is a size that can be described as a number then "complexity" is a quantitative size.
In this case - complexity is not part of what I define as essential difference.
A substantial difference is a non-quantitative difference - a simple, easy and useful definition.
That's why I defined the difference between Einstein and a dog as fundamental and explained it by arguing that it doesn't matter how many dogs we take (and what complexity we get - because I don't think there is a reasonable definition of complexity that won't increase with the number of dogs we take, and I'm ready, for that matter, to add dogs Even as many animals as you want of any kind and as many retards as you want) - we will not be able to come up with something that confronts Einstein in deciphering the secrets of creation.
Well I got tired too. I think we understand each other even if we disagree.
The truth is that we have not defined what "substantial" is. After all, we both agree that there is a difference between the mind of Einstein and the mind of a dog. The dispute lies in the word "substantial".
I will explain my intention and you will probably not agree, but this is my view. When I say that the difference is not essential, I do not mean the output of the brain, it is clear that Einstein's brain produced the theory of relativity and that of the dog produced barking. My intention is that the structure of the brain and its ways of working in both productions are very similar. I don't need to tell you that both brains are made up of very similar nerve cells. In both brains the nerve cells are connected to each other by billions of connections. Both brains produce identical chemical and electrical activity. Both brains also produce many identical outputs, for example hunger, pain, joy and sadness. And hence the amazing difference between them (and again I do not deny that there is a difference) is not in terms of the composition (ie the essence) but lies in the complexity of Einstein's brain compared to that of the dog.
Let's go back to the computer example. The difference between an ancient PC XT with 60kb and the one I'm typing on right now is mainly the size of the memory and the processing speed and there's not a fundamentally new computer here, it's still basically the same binary computer with the same principles.
And that was a summary of what I meant by the word "substantial".
R.H.:
I think I'm starting to get completely tired.
Michael Phelps' achievement is quantitative.
Solving a problem is a binary thing - either you solved it or you didn't.
And don't try to be clever and translate Phelps' achievement into a binary expression in the style - either you got to X or you didn't get to X, because there is a sequence between 0 and X and there is no such sequence between "you solved" and "you didn't solve".
If you are talking about the difference between Einstein's brain and the brain of a retard - I think it is essential, but why did you suddenly start talking about a retard? After all, earlier you talked about how there is no fundamental difference between Einstein's brain and the reflexes of a bacterium!
By the way - what about the difference between Einstein's brain when he was alive and the brain of a retard after his death? Is this difference essential in your opinion?
And what about Einstein's brain after his death and his brain while alive?
I think the difference between Einstein's brain and the brainlessness of a bacterium is fundamental.
I think the difference between Einstein's brain and the brain of some dead person is fundamental.
I think the difference between Einstein's brain and what is in 100 billion flies glued with superglue is essential.
I think the difference between Einstein's brain and the brain of a dog or a monkey is fundamental.
I think that these differences cannot be described in numbers or, in other words - they are not quantitative and neither a trillion trillion trillion dogs will compete with Einstein in developing physical theories.
God,
I don't understand what you mean by that. Michael Phelps also does things that no one else can do even though his muscle structure and ours are almost identical. In the above case there is a fairly clear mechanical physical explanation of the muscle's dimensions and its training.
Do you think there is a fundamental difference except for a different arrangement of neuronal connections between Einstein's brain and the brain of a person suffering from mental retardation? (And again, this is not Buddhism or saying that everything is the same and the differences don't matter).
R.H.:
It's very simple!
Not all physical things are the same!
Let's take for example the subject of riddles that I like to use to reveal the face of imposters and use it differently this time.
You claim that my brain activity is physical.
I claim so too.
I solved the puzzles, so solving the puzzle is a physical process.
Other people didn't solve the puzzles.
Their brains also work physically.
In other words, the non-solution is also physical.
Are the two things the same?
Is a solution the same as no solution?
Now - pay attention - these are often riddles that have been lying here on the site for years! Many heads smashed into them for a long time without success while I solved each of them very quickly. Is being able to do something the same as not being able to?
As I said - this blurring of boundaries is what stands behind the greatness of the science produced by Buddhism.
from the devil,
You say: "Don't try to get mystical statements out of me.
You know I've always said that in the end everything is physical." So how do you claim that a certain brain activity (for example the will) is essentially different from another activity such as the reflex? The key word here is essentially. Obviously there is a difference, and you and Camilla don't treat me as some postmodernist or Buddhist who claims that everything is the same.
This is similar to the fact that in essence the simplest cells are similar to the most complex cells. In both, the most important operations are almost the same (replication, transcription, translation, etc.). In a similar way, the calculation made in reflex is essentially similar to that made in more complex operations such as choice or consciousness (and yes, I know there is consciousness). Both involve neurons that are interconnected and process information. The difference is in the size and complexity of the brain that performs the calculations (and if you insist that this is the essence for you, then fine.)
Camila, please don't put things in my mouth that I didn't say, and also please don't tell me what exactly I should insist on. Where did I say that everything = everything??? After all, she is the one who brings things to absurdity with the far-fetched story about the mobile phone and the bags. In my opinion, the ones who are stuck here are you who are not freed from thinking that will or consciousness is some kind of unexplained magic and not simply an extension of neural activity that exists in poor creatures and that has become more complex and sophisticated with the growth of the brain and the proliferation of neuronal connections.
And the truth is, I have the impression that we've exhausted the discussion a bit because in the end it's not really scientific about the truth of facts (which we all agree on) but more philosophical, about an approach and interpretation of the facts, and we probably won't be able to agree on that.
R. H. (39)
As I already explained in response 36, it is not a mistake to say that in the end all behavior is based on the same principles, it is just very unproductive. If you lump together software that only performs arithmetic calculations and software that, in addition to arithmetic calculations, also knows how to fly an airplane (and I hope you will agree with me that your pocket calculator does not know how to fly an airplane) then to get stuck like you only with the statement that there is no essential difference between them because both programs basically operate on the same fundamental principles is It is not a mistake, but it is empty of content because in doing so, you eliminated any possibility of distinguishing between any software, and the special characteristics that arise from certain organization and connectivity, which sometimes also involves greater complexity, are the interesting things that distinguish one software from another, and it is exactly these characteristics that we mean. When you defined desire in the way you defined it, you brought this definition to the point of absurdity where every object in which desire can be discovered, thus emptying the concept of its content. The question asked in response-42 regarding the distinction between colors illustrates exactly the absurdity of ignoring the subjective difference in the feeling that arises in us when we perceive different colors. According to your opinion, in all these cases the brain does the same basic operation of neuronal activity and therefore you should insist that the difference between the perception of different colors is artificial and does not exist in reality, in fact the situation is even worse because every sensory perception involves neural activity and therefore if you continue your line of thought you One must come to the conclusion that there is no difference between the different senses and even between information that comes from the outside world and information that comes from yourself (imagination, dreaming, hallucinations). In the latter cases, not only is your lack of discernment boring and useless, but it is even downright dangerous to your health. So I repeat that I agree with you that it can be said that on a certain level there is no fundamental difference between software that only does simple calculations and software that flies an airplane, the difference between us is that I put a V on this claim and moved on to interesting things, while you insist on staying stuck with the statement that all software is the same . I want to know what you will do when the next time you want to buy a mobile phone they give you a bag with several pocket calculators, a speaker, earphones and a camera connected with adhesive paper and tell you that there is no difference between the two "devices" because they have the same functionality and basically work on the same principles Exactly and how will you react when they respond to your complaint, that with the first you can call and talk to your friends while with the second you can't, which is just an arbitrary and artificial difference you created in your head. According to what you have written so far, you will probably buy the calculator bag. If you still don't understand how stupid this is I don't know how to explain it any better.
By the way, R. H. - to be clear:
You introduced the inaccuracy in comparing bacteria to birds instead of the first bird compared to the dinosaur from which it evolved - an inaccuracy that you "answered" (partially) in response 40 - when you asked "Does a chimpanzee survive or is more suitable for life on earth than an amoeba or a fly?".
I could have explained to you at this point what you wrote in response 40, but unlike you - I did not underestimate you to the point that I thought you understood what evolution is, so I answered you in the same vein and compared birds to bacteria without going into subtleties that were not essential to the discussion.
And what did you do? You interpreted the fact that I used your wording yourself (so as not to slip into trivia) to create a presentation as if I do not understand what evolution is!
By the way - the same type of scenarios that you claimed in response 40 did not exist - is a scenario that actually happened and even a lot.
Almost all types of mammals and birds today are descendants of species that did not survive.
Not that it belongs to us, but since you brought it up, it would be useful to set things straight.
R.H.:
I explained why I talked about snooze and I don't want to repeat it.
In response 40 (not 41) you answered yourself and not me. I already said that too.
In this response you explained to yourself that the issue is not the complexity for its own sake (something I never said) and you also explained in what context the advantage should be taken (which is the context I meant in the first place and you had no reason to think otherwise).
I talked about the evolutionary advantage that desire should give (in the right context) and I will ask you now specifically because something is slowly starting to emerge that I find it hard to believe: do you not accept the theory of evolution? Don't you accept that for a trait to become common in the population of a particular species it needs to confer an advantage on the individuals who have it?
If - as I think - this is not the case and you do accept the principles of evolution - you are ready to address the question I asked about the evolutionary advantage granted by desire and there is no need for you to start arguing about the principles of evolution.
Regarding the real comparison between the birds and the bacteria, I entered only to show that in your answer to the question about the wings of the birds - not only did you not answer the question, but you also did not answer correctly.
You didn't answer the question because you simply missed the whole idea of the question.
You did not answer correctly - because you compared apples to nails.
Regarding the difference of a hint - there really is a limit to everything.
Do you really disbelieve in the existence of consciousness?
I brought in the matter of the 100 billion flies only to explain (and I am surprised that I have to explain that this is what I explained) that it is not only about the same level of complexity as I mentioned to you - between the two of us - only you talk about it - both in your claims and in your responses to me. I showed you that complexity is not enough.
I didn't try to claim that you can't take materials from a fly and build a brain like a human. In my opinion, this can also be done using materials from a tractor or corn. that's not the point. The 100 billion glued flies are meant to demonstrate a high complexity that does nothing because it lacks the right organization - one that would create consciousness.
Don't try to get mystical statements out of me.
You know I've always said that in the end it's all physical.
I don't know what you got out of my answer to the question about the difference between the 3+3 computer and a pilot's computer.
In my opinion, there is indeed a rather large difference, but it dwarfs the difference between a human and a flight computer.
This does not mean that all things do not rely on the laws of physics. It just means that some things are fundamentally different from other things. A plane is different from a stone and a person is different from a plane and if everything is the same then there is nothing to talk about at all.
In fact - from the insight that everything is the same grew the wonderful science that Buddhism gave us.
Moti,
Such an experiment (the effect of thought on ice crystals) is not reliable for Nabi because I do not know how they did it and if it meets any scientific criteria. satisfied now?
from the devil,
So first of all thanks for the compliments snooze etc.
Secondly, you got the answer to your flying bacteria in 41, but you shot straight from the hip without reading.
Third thing, you say, "And if it's where the birds come from - isn't that an advantage over the bacteria situation?"
And I ask, what advantage exactly do the birds have that are able to direct themselves in flight over a poor bacteria like E. coli?
Are they alive anymore? Are they more resistant to environmental conditions? Are they more common? Can they live in anaerobic conditions? Do you think there is more chance of a catastrophe that will destroy the bacteria and the birds will remain, or the other way around? You are like many others captive to the dogma that complexity means evolutionary progress.
Fourth thing, you and Camila are talking about a fundamental difference, but you haven't presented even the slightest hint of its essence. consciousness? What is consciousness? Is it something disconnected from the cells like belief in the soul? I remember that you opposed the belief in the existence of a soul.
5) You say: "If you stick 100 billion flies to each other you will probably get something that is made up of a human brain (even though it is made up of fly brains) and this block will not be smarter than one fly."
really? Do you really think there is such a difference between a nerve cell of a fly or for that matter a mouse and a human nerve cell? There is simply more in a person and they are organized correctly. So, in my opinion, if you take enough mouse cells and build them with all the connections and connections that exist between human cells, then yes, you will get a production smarter than a mouse.
Again I will ask software that calculates 3+3 is essentially different from autopilot software? Or just the organization of things and the complexity are different?
R.H
In 17 you wrote: "What are transcendental feelings? Hey, is cocaine transcendental?” you don't need cocaine go to..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RBxLNMBBjw&feature=autoplay&list=WL4C54437858606D38&index=5&playnext=2 I hope you understand.
In the same place: "that I don't believe that it is possible to influence ice crystals with thought and therefore all the conclusions derived from them are meaningless"
R. H. What is the difference between this sentence? To the sentence: "I do not believe that man is descended from monkeys
And therefore all the dangers derived from each are meaningless"?
It can be said another way: "Such an experiment is not credible to the Prophet because I do not know how they did it and if it meets any scientific criteria."
Moti:
You get confused.
I think you mean this article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/new-species-in-galapagos-2011091/
This is clearly an example of normal natural selection and nothing else.
The Pharisees with the more suitable source are more successful and survive more.
There is no situation here that a bird that sees different food changes its origin or that of its offspring.
What you propose is not an improvement of the theory of evolution but a regression.
R. H. (38):
Dahil Rabback!
Did you really not get my point?
I must point out that when I wrote the response I thought (already at the time of writing) that if someone wanted to be a snooze they could say what you said but I decided not to switch between bacteria and lizards because I didn't think you would have a hard time understanding.
What did you want me to write? Lizards?
And are the birds' wings used by them to be dragged by the air currents wherever the air comes or wherever the birds come? And if it comes to the birds - isn't that an advantage over the bacteria situation?
What I was trying to show is that your argument against the brain can be directed at anything that evolution has created and I guess the error in this kind of reasoning is something you can find yourself.
R. H. (39):
Yes. It stems from a fundamental difference. It's not just because of the complexity. If you glue 100 billion flies to each other you will probably get something that is made up of a human brain (even though it is made up of fly brains) and that lump will not be smarter than one fly.
The fundamental difference can be seen perfectly in the example I gave from the person himself.
A real physiological difference between the reaction to a blow to the kneecap and going to work is in the fact that the reaction to a blow to the kneecap does not come from the brain but from the spine.
But - as demonstrated by the other examples presented by Camilla - even involvement of the brain does not always result in the existence of desire. Desire is created only when there is a need for the activity of consciousness.
In other words - you know for yourself when will is involved in the actions of your body and it really amazes me that even though there are actions that you know are guided by will and other actions in which you do not feel any sense of will - you arbitrarily decide to state that there is no difference.
It's like you would claim that there is no difference between green and red even though you experience them differently. If there is no difference - then how come you notice the difference anyway?
R. H. (40):
I just want to remind you that you are the one who claimed that the reason is pure complexity. not me. I claim that there is a fundamental difference here and I even demonstrated it in my response to response 39.
R.H
Everything that exists now is successful, it doesn't matter how much it is, you can't guarantee me that the human race will survive the 21st century.
Michael
In 18 "There is no motivation behind the mechanism of evolution" there is an article called: "Evolution is here" I may be wrong because I also can't find it under this title on the internet from anywhere, tell me what is in it, maybe you will be consumed by it too.
There we are talking about birds that feed on grains that change their origin from season to season according to the size of the grains available to them in that season and here we are talking about a change made from one generation to the next.
The same article pointed out from this example that the individual's motivation is also added to natural selection.
I don't know how much it affects the process, but there is an effect.
It is known that Drouin's theory is slightly improved according to the development of science.
Like the DNA that was unknown at the time to Darwin and today for example they found a commonality between us and the ancient fish which is one of our first ancestors. And this is through shared DNA.
And also from 35*XNUMX XNUMX another thing,
You're starting a slightly different discussion here about the advantage/disadvantage of ovulation that I'm not sure belongs here. But I will state my position briefly:
1) Selection in nature is in many cases slow and weak and does not take place like a sword. That's why you sometimes find a company that on the face of it is not suitable and not successful by any standard. See for example panda, giant deer and others.
2) An increase in complexity does not always lead to an increase in survivability and maybe even the opposite is true. Mice are more successful than monkeys, insects are more successful than mice and bacteria are more successful than insects. There is no scenario where all the insects will disappear but the mice will. On the other hand, there is almost no scenario in which the monkeys will not become extinct without the help of man (as for man, I deliberately do not go into it because he changed the game a little with his technology and became very successful with it).
3) So why is there an increase in complexity? The answer, in my opinion, is beautifully formulated in Larry Gold's book - "The Strong Hand", which claims that evolution progresses in "drunkard's steps" back and forth randomly. Since there is a lower barrier to complexity but no upper barrier, it seems that there is "progress" towards complexity, but this is an illusion. There is no progress arrow.
4) Another evidence of this is the many cases of loss of complexity during evolution such as the whales and the snakes that lost limbs, the rat that lost poor people and us without the tail.
And Camila one more thing,
You say "I think this is a very unsuccessful and useless definition and even quite boring, a definition that is not capable of creating a distinction between things that we would clearly like to distinguish between." You can define desire however you want, but this will not change the fact that it is created by a neural process similar in essence to the one that creates the reflex, except for its complexity.
Do you think that a computer program that calculates how much is 3+3 is essentially different, or is carried out by other components compared to an autopilot computer program? Here, too, all the difference is in complexity.
35,
Bacteria don't need wings because they fly like and inside an aerosol. Sometimes they even create seed-like bodies of plants that fly from place to place (although probably not in a deliberate way like the birds but according to the air currents like seeds).
Camila and Michael,
I admit that I have a hard time understanding what you mean. I will try to refine the question. Do you think the difference between the more or less automatic behavior of a fly and that of a human (or for that matter reflex versus conscious action) stems from something other than the different level of complexity of the brain/nervous system in both cases? And if so, what is this thing?
withering:
Indeed - I get the impression that you understood my intention and also the source of my reservations about R.H.'s approach.
I would only like to emphasize one aspect that is missing from your summary and that is that Goal Driven behavior is not the result of "just" increasing its complexity - it is only possible when there is a mechanism in which the world can be represented in its current state, the world in its desired state, and the ways that can be taken to move from one to the second
This is what I called in my previous comments "a dynamic model of reality".
Michael, R.H.
I would like to check if I understand your positions and perhaps the gap between you:
It's easy for me to sympathize and agree with Michael that desire is a subjective experience, and it really doesn't matter right now if it's an illusion because the world is completely deterministic or if our freedom of choice is real. There are already some basic studies that show that it is possible to know what an animal (including a person) wants to do even before it has actually done it and even before it becomes aware of its choice. But as mentioned it doesn't matter, there is the subjective experience of desire that each of us knows and that is different in our feeling (that is, qualitatively different) from behaviors that have a different origin such as reflexes for example. It is true that if we adopt a materialistic approach then every behavior is the product of processes based on physics and chemistry and we can talk about a continuum of different degrees of complexity of a medium of transfer and processing of information (nervous system for example) but note R. H. that in this case you put in the same category much more From what you meant in my opinion, because then you not only combine the same desire that Michael talks about with reflexes, but also with any behavior, even one that we are not aware of such as the activity of the autonomic system and even a completely passive reaction such as falling down the stairs or as a result of being hit by a vehicle. Even in the latter cases, there is an automatic reaction and because you did not make a distinction, the body "wants" to fall down automatically, just because its structure and the form of information transfer are such in the same case when the choice is made, for example, between falling forward or backward (due to sensitivity in the initial conditions). If we continue this line to the point of absurdity, then every object, living or inanimate, has a "will" in this sense. Although it seems to me legal to define desire in this way, I think it is a very unsuccessful and useless and even rather boring definition, a definition that is not able to create a distinction between things that we would clearly like to distinguish between.
The distinction between Event Driven and Goal Driven is precisely a qualitative distinction that is definitely only due to an increase in the structural complexity of the creature, and it would really be interesting to know what leads to this difference at the neuroanatomical level (which is probably the most relevant level in this case) and what complexity makes it possible, but it seems to me that it is not correct to link Between a continuum in structural complexity and between the existence of features/behavior that are considered a leap forward, such as self-perception (self) or the existence of a feeling of desire that is manifested in behavior that is not observed in bacteria or reflexes, such as the same deliberation regarding possible future outcomes that may influence our decision to do Something. In conclusion, my feeling is that the two approaches you presented are legitimate (they do not contain an error or internal contradiction) but the approach presented by Michael, and which I admit is much more similar in my opinion even before I started reading the comments, seems to me much more interesting and useful because it represents reality in a more refined way (in terms of description resolution).
R.H.:
Difference only in quantity and organization?
The difference between one and zero is one - in terms of the addition operation and infinity in terms of the multiplication operation.
Indeed - the difference between a creature without a brain and a creature with a brain is only a difference of one brain.
There is no doubt that the will gives creatures with a brain an advantage and looking at evolution in terms of advantage/disadvantage is the accepted view.
I was actually one of the first to introduce additional things such as by-products into the discourse on evolution, but in order to claim that it is a by-product you have to explain how it necessarily stems from something else.
Your comparison to the animals seems incredibly demagogic to me.
Do wings give birds an advantage? So how do you explain that there are more bacteria without wings than birds with wings?
from the devil,
I didn't mean to give you tests in zoology. My goal was to show that there is such a limit. If we ask ourselves what the difference is between the two sides of the border, it seems that there is no difference in essence, but only in quantity. Creatures without nerve cells or a small number will be defined by you as automata, while those with a central nervous system will have the dynamic model (What if). That is, the whole difference is in the amount and organization of the nerve cells.
Likewise, in my opinion, the difference between a reflex and the feeling of desire. As I wrote above, both are created in the same way - nerve cells receive stimulation, analyze it and send a command to the muscles. Reflex is a fast process carried out by a limited number of nerve cells, while the "will" is processed in the brain by (probably) a huge number of connecting cells and processing processes.
Regarding the evolutionary question, I think that looking at everything through the glasses of "advantage/disadvantage" is too simplistic. Do you think willing creatures have a survival advantage over automatic ones? Does a chimpanzee survive or is more suitable for life on earth than an amoeba or a fly?
R.H.:
I don't know where exactly the line passes, but if I had to decide, I would say that the existence of a central nervous system is the line (and don't ask me now which animal has a central nervous system and which doesn't - that's a zoological test I haven't done and probably won't).
But tell me: what do you think is the reason why the kick following the knee strike is not controlled and does not involve a feeling of desire while going to work to earn money is controlled and would not happen without a feeling of desire.
Why did evolution need to give us a sense of will in the first place? - After all, it was enough for the automatic collection of actions to start - just like that kick.
Okay, so we disagree on that. In my opinion there is no difference between automated and non-automated operations except for their complexity. This is similar to the difference between a 10-line computer program and a multi-megabyte computer program running a game with characters who make dynamic attack and defense decisions in response to the player's actions.
In any case, you didn't answer me where in your opinion, from an evolutionary point of view, the limit of automatic actions passes, who is the first creature that is not automatic?
R.H.:
No.
Human behavior depends on the dynamic model and is not automatic.
A kick following a hit under the knee is automatic, so you have no option to prevent or delay it.
Activities that are not automatic are characterized by the fact that you can decide on them.
And by the way, I don't see a fundamental difference between reflexes and writing on the science website. Both involve nerve cells that receive inputs, analyze them and act on them. The only differences are the speed and the number of cells involved, which gives us the illusion of "awareness".
You say you didn't go down and you call a dynamic model for what I called non-automatic behavior, it seems to me that it is the same thing. Anyway, I ask you again, what is your evolutionary limit for a dynamic model? Do flies have a dynamic model? Do C. elegans worms with the 302 cells in their nervous system have such a model? If not, then again, the dynamic model simply depends on the complexity of the nervous system. If so then the existence of the model depends on a network of nerve cells which again is a matter of purely genetic complexity.
R.H.:
You didn't go down.
The difference is actually the existence of a dynamic model.
There is also some model in bacteria (and it is burned into their DNA).
A dynamic model of reality - one that can be "played" on in What if there are only creatures with brains.
Even creatures with brains have automatic reactions. They are called reflexes. When someone hits you below the kneecap you automatically kick them. It is not a will. The same is true when you pull your hand away from the fire.
When you write a comment on the science website - you choose the words using a model of the readers and try to predict their effect on them.
You delete, debate, reformulate, while playing with this model and while trying to find out with yourself what you actually feel.
from the devil,
I think I got to the root of our disagreement and correct me if you disagree. You say "I am aware that there is "suicide" among bacteria as well, but again - this is not a choice but one more of their many automatic behaviors."
That is, you distinguish between automatic behavior of bacteria/computers and that of the person which is not automatic. I disagree with this distinction. In my opinion, human behavior is also automatic and dictated, although it has such a high complexity that it hardly allows for prediction or understanding.
In your opinion, where is the line between automatic and automatic behavior? Amoeba? on the fly? In a mouse, a monkey? Or only a person has non-automatic behavior? Second question, if you agreed on the border point (let's say the fly is the most developed creature with automatic behavior) what differentiates it to the next level that is not automatic? If you say for example that it is the complexity of the nervous system, then you actually agreed with me that the whole difference is a complexity that creates an image of some free will.
Year:
First of all - you agreed with me on the main point, which is that suicide is an expression of desire.
So I don't understand why you even asked the question.
The other options are not necessarily going with the flow and it is enough to think about the person who invented hummus to understand that he could not eat hummus just by going with the flow (but there are many other situations where it is not a matter of going with the flow).
By the way - there are also situations where eating hummus (or anything else) is nothing more than a slow way to commit suicide. All eating disorders are like that.
Machel,
There are some difficulties in 18 and now I don't have time to address them, if the subject wants I might come back to them later.
It seems to me that suicide, self-mutilation, avoiding the birth of children, any action that explicitly goes against the natural, existential imperative, these are the only ways in which there is an expression of free will, while every other choice, profession, food, and the other possible activities are nothing but drifting with the current, i.e. are not a real expression of desire, and they do answer your explanation.
The options you brought against suicide do not seem relevant to me.
R.H.:
Goal-directed behavior is not a simple development of event-directed behavior.
This is a completely different thing that requires the existence of a dynamic model of reality.
This is what I keep repeating.
Year:
with ease!
I even thought of bringing it as an example because it is a behavior that is not automatic in humans!
A person is suffering from something and we do not see a way to stop the suffering and comes to the conclusion that in this situation - it is better to die than to live.
Among the many options of "eating hummus", "going to the cinema", "taking drugs", etc. - he chooses suicide.
I am aware that there is "suicide" among bacteria as well, but again - this is not a choice, but one of their many automatic behaviors.
Machal, how do you integrate suicide into the explanation of your desire?
from the devil,
Regarding Event driven and Goal driven, I agree and I think this is due to the complexity. Goal driven is a development of the first. After all, there is no debate that we make more complex calculations and decisions.
Regarding the last sentence, you didn't understand my intention, I'm not talking about mutations at all. In any genetically homogeneous bacterial culture that started with one bacterium that grew in one mixing tube (so that the conditions are the same) you will find after several generations phenotypic variation between the individual cells. This variation is due to noise and chaotic behavior of the gene expression and it increases with time. There are many so-called bi-stable cases in which there are two stable states and each bacterium "chooses which state to be in." This choice results in another sequence of events that ultimately results in increasing diversity. Note that nothing has changed from the genetic point of view of the sequence.
See for example:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.micro.62.081307.163002
R.H.:
When I said chaos I meant exactly the same thing.
Chaotic equations are deterministic equations that are hypersensitive to language conditions.
I think the difference between the ability to plan and the absence, between the existence of a mental model of the world and its absence - and on the physical level - between the existence of a brain and its absence is so clear that it really surprises me that you claim otherwise.
I repeat and emphasize: no bacteria will examine alternative courses of action and choose one of them. With the bacteria - the connection between the external stimulus and the physical response is direct. Their action is always a direct and automatic response to the "here and now" and is not the result of planning. It is always event driven and never goal driven.
There is no "nonconformist" bacterium: there is a bacterium that has a mutation that will cause it to act in an automatic manner different from the automatic manner in which its fellows act, but this does not describe a will or a rest of spirit or anything similar.
God,
When I said chaos I meant the equations that describe the control of gene expression in bacteria and not the gradient which is constant. As a result, even a minimal change in the initial conditions, for example a slightly different position in relation to the gradient, will cause some of the bacteria in the culture to behave differently from the majority of the population. The majority of the population will "want" to move forward with the gradient, some will move around in place, and there will be small groups that will move in different directions even against the gradient. Although the mechanism is the same in all of them and they are all descendants of one single bacterium there is still variation that results in different behavior and different choices. In my opinion there is no fundamental difference between this and the complex and still mysterious mechanism of what we describe as desire.
It is clear that there is still a long way to go to predict why you get up in the morning and choose the blue shirt and not the green one, and what is the molecular mechanism that led to this. However, as mentioned, I believe that in principle it will also be based on gene expression, epigenetic processes and communication signals in the brain that lead to crossing a threshold, the result of which will be the selection of the blue shirt. As in a bacterium, crossing a threshold in the level of gene expression results in a change in the rotation of the rod and a movement against the gradient in a bacterium that we could call a non-conformist 🙂
Moti:
You didn't understand me at all. What you described is the definition of desire that emerges from some of your references (and contradicts the definition that emerges from other references).
R.H:
First of all - from Muti's words in his last response, you can see that I was talking from the beginning about the desire as he meant it in his first response (and before he got involved in contradictory claims).
In my eyes, desire is a subjective thing, so I insisted on this point in your words.
So what is a subjective thing?
Contrary to what they used to say - subjective, in my opinion, is not what is accessible only to the individual and is not accessible to the outside world (because in my opinion - in the future - we will be able to decipher through measuring devices - the subjective as well) but what is part of the mechanism that exists in our minds and whose role is to motivate us to action.
This mechanism is related - not to the external reality - but to its representation in the model that exists in our mind.
The desire - which, as mentioned - is a subjective matter in its definition - evolved to make us strive to achieve certain goals, but it does not directly activate tools to achieve the goals.
Right now I want to eat - but I also want to write a comment - I decide what is better for me to do right now and give up temporarily (or at all) fulfilling one of my desires.
The desire to go eat does not make me get up and devour someone - even though it would satisfy my hunger.
He only indicates to me - over the model of reality that exists in my mind - to which point I should reach at a certain point.
Because it refers to a model and not to reality and because it is not a direct factor in the activation of execution mechanisms - I can plan.
I can - unlike a bacterium - walk contrary to the gradient - reject gratifications.
The bacterium follows the gradient.
You talk about chaos but it doesn't belong - the chaos prevents us from knowing what the gradient is at each point, but that doesn't change the fact that the bacterium follows the gradient even if we don't know what it is.
The gradient is not just a concentration of one substance but a weighting of concentrations of substances - there may be a gradient of concentration of food in a certain direction but there is also a gradient of concentration of bacteria that will compete for the food in the same place, so another direction will be chosen but - still - it will be a gradient.
There is a goal function, there is a derivative of changing the value of the function according to the position, the bacteria will go according to the direction where the value of this function increases the fastest.
Not so a creature that is actuated by will.
A creature that is activated by desire will plan (with one degree or another of sophistication) the steps to reconcile its goals and sometimes also the steps to long-term satisfaction of the desire (because it understands that the desire may exist in it in the future as well).
He will consider these and other courses of action and try to predict their effect on the world in the model in his mind, and in the end he will choose one course over the others.
His choice - at different times and in the same situations - may change as a result of lessons he learned about the world - lessons that are expressed in a change (usually - but not always - for the better) of the model.
Moti:
The desire - as I described it - like any model of the representation of reality in our mind - is not a transcendent thing - it is part of the physical operation of the body and it ceases to exist when the body ceases to exist.
As you could tell from Sompolinski's words - a small electric current is enough to create in us a feeling of wanting to raise our hand. It is not a desire that comes from the soul - it comes from the electrical grid!
It is all about the soul.
As for evolution - as I said - there it simply does not exist (and the fact is that evolution does not work for the benefit of the individual. Generally - whoever is mutated will be harmed! Evolution exists because there are exceptions to this rule and here and there there are beneficial mutations).
Anyway - there is none MotiBation behind the mechanism of evolution.
R. H. and Michael
Let's do some kind of order of the "will" that R. H. is talking about, such as a computer, germs, etc., and also Michael "the "will" is "obedience to the laws of nature" It can be defined as an instinct that does not pass through the control of the cortex, it is not the "will" ” that I am on.
I'm talking about his secret desire to influence reality and which against all odds
brings you to success. Life summons such situations to almost every person, why deny it? Such a desire changes the Genesis sequence and changes the evolution sequence.
This is the use of the same center in the brain that Dr. Persing found.
A person has the right to choose but not the ability to choose. For the ability to choose, a person needs a whole lifetime, and even more, and to slowly progress towards achieving freedom from his dependence on matter, and from being a slave to the whims of his intentions.
And this is the answer to the discussion that Michael started in the article "What is heard".
You asked what value remains with the soul during all incarnations? You assumed that memory is the most significant value, otherwise it has no meaning for the soul and that is true.
I say that there is no need for the memory of the various experiences from the previous life, it is necessary to preserve only the abilities that you acquired by overcoming the instinct, the one in you because the one that you instilled honestly through hard and strenuous work does not get lost.
It doesn't matter what situation you were born into, your challenge is to live them in a way that will give you the best result of having freedom of choice.
Motty, the problem is that I do not believe that it is possible to influence ice crystals with thought, therefore all the conclusions derived from each are meaningless. What are transcendental sensations? Hey, is cocaine transcendental? So the receptors and the mechanism that stimulates the cells is known so there is nothing transcendental about it except our subjective feelings or qualia which is basically an illusion.
God,
To your question, how do you define what subjective feelings are? A bacterium feels heat like you feel heat and there are bacteria that sense and react to light, food, pressure and many other things. So if you're talking about physical sensation, yes bacteria feel. Are bacteria sad? I do not think so. It evolved with the increase in complexity of the brain.
Regarding the second issue, I'm not as extreme as Muti, I don't think that there is a will in replication. My definition of desire is that if there is a choice between several options, the person who made the choice (a bacterium, a computer or a person) can be presented as "wanting".
What is your definition of desire?
Moti:
What you are doing, like - to a certain extent - what RH is doing - is to take the content out of the word "desire".
If the whole meaning of "will" is "obedience to the laws of nature" then this is a redundant word.
When we talk about evolution, we are talking exactly about obedience to the laws of nature, therefore there is no point in your claim in the response that ignited the debate (response 4) "When you said replication, you did not refer to the will, which in my opinion is the key word that ran throughout all of evolution" (since obedience to the laws of nature is exactly the "will" you are talking about)
R.H
It is true that this is indeed a rumor, but I am talking about a rumor that can affect reality. Like experiments done at the quantum level, the results of which are influenced by the observer, the so-called "superposition".
See also experiments done by a Japanese named: "Masaru Emoto" - the effect of thought on the shape of water crystals when they turn to ice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33IiYb8htHk&feature=related .
75% of man is water.
I would like to draw your attention to the article: http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html (recommended by Michael) Ibid (Persinger's "helmet of God". Generates spiritual experiences) Persing found an area in the brain that, when stimulated by electromagnetic inspiration in a helmet, that person felt transcendental sensations, etc. see there.
That is, as Michael claims in his article, it is physical and it disappears with death. I do not disagree with that. What I claim is why ignore these feelings, is this area of the brain if we learn to activate it correctly not able to give us another angle to see reality and our visual spectrum is a tiny part of the general electromagnetic spectrum. Why cancel as in the article: Dukigs, who is an Athais Haredi who performed the same experiment, did not allow himself to feel these sensations, therefore he felt something, but barely.
The difference between an ultra-Orthodox atheist and an ultra-Orthodox religious is like the difference between a policeman and a criminal. The criminal is "the insider in the policeman's dungeon" there is no possibility that evil and good will live together and if that one is bad then surely I am the good.
And for our own discussion, I am the Italian with the sky-high IQ and he is the fool who believes in nonsense. Never argue with an ultra-Orthodox.
I agree with you that thought and desire and saying is an energy that has not yet been quantified (amount).
Michael
There is no desire in replication? It is an instinctive drive that does not depend on the will that carries it. You are right as I have felt that way about a lot of urges
That I was not able to impose my will on them, nevertheless, this is a primary impulse that exists in every animal and plant, and therefore it will be easy to find its physical and chemical factor. This is reminiscent of the "background radiation" that has existed since the Big Bang, which exists everywhere even underground
R.H.:
I do not agree with you, but I prefer to focus on the question that you avoided addressing and where I opened my previous response:
Do you think bacteria have subjective feelings?
Michael,
1) "Is this a reason to cancel the meaning of all words that do not discuss quantum theory or relativity and claim, for example, that in a certain sense - both desire, life and thought are not fundamentally different from the equation of relativity and quantum theory?"
I'm not sure I understand your argument and the connection to this being a reason to claim there is no air pressure or temperature. To your question, yes I think there is no difference in principle between thought and equations in quantum theory just as there is no difference between a calculation made on a computer and equations in quantum theory (but, again, I'm not sure that's what you meant).
2) Don't you see a difference between a bacterium that is drawn towards a concentration of nutrients and a hungry person who has some seeds and decides to stay a little hungry and instead of eating to his fill, give some seeds to a friend and sow some others?
No, I don't see a difference. If you check (and believe me this is what I do every day) then bacteria do not behave like disciplined soldiers either and within a bacterial population there is a huge variety of variation in gene expression and behaviors such as movement along a concentration gradient. Then the question arises as to why not everyone behaves exactly the same and this is due to the chaotic nature of things and minor differences in initial conditions and "noise" that results in great variation in the final output.
R.H.:
Pay attention to what you wrote: "desire is just our subjective feeling".
So I'd rather stop here and ask if you think a bacterium has subjective feelings.
After all, from the beginning there was no debate between us about the fact that man - like the bacterium - is a creature that operates by virtue of the laws of physics without any transcendental help, but is this a reason to cancel the meaning of all words that do not discuss quantum theory or relativity and claim, for example, that in a certain sense - also desire, Aren't both life and thought fundamentally different from the equation of relativity and quantum theory? Is this a reason to claim there is no air pressure or temperature?
And in relation to your compliments. Don't you see a difference between a bacterium that is drawn towards a concentration of nutrients and a hungry person who has some seeds and decides to stay a little hungry and instead of eating to his fill, give some seeds to a friend and sow some others? After all, there are those who will behave this way and there are those who will behave differently - so what differentiates them? Does the same distinguishing thing also exist between bacteria that in response to the gradient of the change in nutrients automatically change the direction of their movement?
These are different layers of the organization of matter and the layer where desire and consciousness are created is in my view a layer that justifies reference.
from the devil,
I do not agree with Moti at all and I do not argue with him either.
You said that only superior beings with a brain have will, but in my opinion, will is merely our subjective feeling that arises from the complexity of the brain and is an extension of a programmed process just like in a bacterial cell or a computer that operates according to an algorithm. In my opinion, the complexity did not bring about a fundamental change and did not create things that are "beyond" despite our feelings that there are feelings, desires and thoughts. All I wanted to point out is that it is possible to identify desires even in very simple creatures and not limit it to those with brains.
And I don't understand why you can't say that a computer wants. How would you define desire? Do you see a profound essential difference between: a. A lamp in a car that lights up when there is no fuel. B. A bacterium that moves according to glucose concentration cascades c. A hungry dog running for food? Everyone has a decision-making process that stems from a "hunger" for some need and all that differentiates it is the complexity. Does only the dog "want"?
R.H.:
You're just putting yourself in a minefield.
You provide a new definition of "desire" - one that is different from anything accepted. No one will agree with you on the claim that the computer "wants" something. Desire is an experience - qualia - something that only complex minds have. Muti ascribes such a "will" to everything in nature, and this is nonsense of the first order.
In the course of evolution, every configuration that chemistry summons to an organism is created, and many of them cause its destruction in general.
Muti ignores this when he talks about the "desire". He only refers to one case out of millions that succeeds and ignores the millions that fail because the "choice" of the possibility of failure does not fit him into the crazy script of the "will".
R.H.:
You can talk about "desire" but it is not "desire" in the meaning that is usually meant.
At all - it is not clear to me why you are currently entering this debate - do you agree with Muti?!
Moti,
Desire is simply an abstract definition of choosing between several options. Does the computer that chooses to do X and not Y have no desire?
God,
Even in bacteria we can talk about "desire". A bacterium that is attracted to glucose and escapes from a poison, bacteria that choose (by molecular mechanisms) whether to divide or not, which sugar to use from the existing variety, etc. are simple and basic forms of will even without a brain. In fact, every cell in the world is a small processor that receives input, processes it and outputs an output.
Moti:
You are completely wrong.
Desire is also a result of evolution.
Not all animals feel desire the way we do.
Bacteria, for example, work for their own survival without the same "will". They have no will because they have no brain and the brain is the one that "wants".
But the mind is a completely physical thing. You should listen to what Professor Sompolinski has to say on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
Evolution does not need any will and therefore it also works in computer programs.
Here are some examples:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000292
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Science09_Schmidt.pdf
When you said replication, you did not refer to desire, which in my opinion is the key word that ran throughout evolution, it is not self-evident that the collection of elements and atoms that reside in harmony side by side and that make up, for example, a certain virus will have a common desire to continue to survive, which a car does not have, for example. Is this desire something external to the above collection or does it arise from the material itself and if so, to which force can it be attributed among the four fundamental forces of nature, i.e. is it a derivative of gravity or the weak force or etc. What do you think about this? After all, if there is no desire, there is also no desire to improve the ability to survive, which means to improve the cluster, which means to transform into another improved creature, which means evolution. It is true that you may say that the mutations in dna are random. I will disagree with you and say that the desire affects the mutations, see Super Position.
Correction of an error I meant sections B and C
As far as I'm concerned, Sections A and B are not the volumes for defining life, because if they build (and this will probably happen sometime in the next 20-30 years) software with artificial intelligence, then it will be alive, without metabolism and without mutations (although they may develop the software with the help of programming evolutionary)
There are many proofs of the existence of a soul that cannot be explained, such as hypnosis sessions (going back) and reincarnations... Those who are interested in a logical explanation for the existence of the soul are welcome to visit the site of many Amnon Yitzchak (don't worry, he doesn't shout lol)