For those that liked the thought experiment I posted above and consider that it lends support to the argument against a soul, let me burst your bubble for a moment and say that there is at least one reasonable counter-argument to it.

The whole experiment relies on the topic of this whole thread: reductionism. The ability to consider a system in terms of its constituent parts and the behaviour of a system from the functional relationship of the behaviours of its constituent parts. The obvious counter to this is then synergism: that the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

The counter argument would go something like this: yes, you can replicate the chemical reactions and physcial properties of the cell, but you cannot replicate the effect that cell has on every other cell simply by its presence in the system. A replica nano-cell would not have the same effect on the system because it is fundamentally different and cannot recreate that synergy. Now, this might sound a bit 'airy-fairy', but there are certainly synergistic systems in nature. Some would argue then that the soul (and consequently free will derived from it) arise because the collection of our cells together creates a synergy not explained by any or all of the cells considered individually.

... but then...

I have two more counter arguments to that:

1) my body replaces most of its cells about once every 9 years (as does every human body). Does that mean that every 9 years, I am someone different? What if medical science found a way to create cells artificially (made from exactly the same materials as my own cells) but that the process was carried out in a petri dish, rather than inside my body. Assuming that those cells could replace dying cells (perhaps delivered via gene therapy techniques), would I be the same person or a different person? I see no reason to suggest that a soul depends on whether a cell created to replace one in my body was created inside my body or outside of it.

2) synergy may be nothing more than an illusion created by our inability to percieve and model very subtle effects created by nonlinearities in the interactions of elements of a system.


I'll leave it to the reader to decide which they think is more reasonable: synergy (and subsequently 'souls') or consciousness (and possibly free will) arising from functional behaviours of our bodies.

Cheers,

Timkin

When any of you ever manage to figure this out, choose one of the following.
a) The Matrix will still have you.
b) You will still be a flesh-bag.
c) You still won't be physcic or immortal or anything at all interesting.
d) You will have slightly less time before you die.

Quote:

If the subject themselves noticed no functional or perceptive difference in their being, then what is the more reasonable explanation: that there was no change to them, or that they were somewhere along the line disconnected from their soul but they didn't notice it.

The former...which I kind of realised as I wrote my last post.

Quote:

Given the way in which I described the experiment (that cells were slowly replaced with nano-cells), at which point would they report this finding?

If there was some part of the brain that housed the "executive" then the observable subject consciousness might experience progressive loss of control and awareness up to a point, followed by a recovery to full capacity. Now that would be scary to watch, because you could guess what had happened there.

Quote:

If we do have a soul though, why would it necessarily be connected to one or more cells. Wouldn't it more likely be a part of every cell? Then if that is the case, what is it about those little bags of chemicals that connects them to a soul?

String?

Quote:

That well may be the case; that a replica nano-cell may be impossible to create. In which case, yes, the simple practicalities prevent it. But then, that would imply that free will arises purely from the complexity of the system.

Sorry, I wasn't contending that such a practical obstacle would imply anything about free will at all - I was just suggesting that it might be impossible to carry out your experiment. Not just measuring the state of the system, but making the change without disturbing it significantly. (This leads on to the "dynamic state versus wiring" question, which I don't know anything about).

I don't know what "quantum consciousness" means.

Quote:

Wasn't that a choice to sit there? ;)

Precisely :)

Quote:

In all seriousness though, I think that most of our actions during the day are driven by external forces and internal desires and that in fact, we make very few decisions requiring any form of evaluative judgement.

I'm inclined to agree, but that doesn't help much from a practical living standpoint. I suppose I'm more interested in this than the potential AI implicitations (or than philosophy as an amusement). But of course, this is off-topic for this board.

Quote:

Since we are capable of believing that we have free will and our observations of the world and our part in it don't negate the illusion of free will, then for the most part, we should be content.

I'd go further an say that we can't not believe we have free will, in a practical sense. I'd like to hear from anyone who believes otherwise (and remains active in human society without someone to look after them).

Quote:

Of course, it would throw our legal systems into a tailspin if we managed to prove that we didn't have free will! ;)

Maybe for a while....but I don't think there's much actual relationship between any given moral standard and any given legal system. Law is, to my mind, primarily about power relationships and agreements that avoid continual conflict. We'd work around it.


rob

Quote:

Original post by Rob AlexanderI'd go further an say that we can't not believe we have free will, in a practical sense. I'd like to hear from anyone who believes otherwise (and remains active in human society without someone to look after them).

I don't believe that we have free will, as I posted before (repeated in the quote box below).

As far as I'm concerned, determinism does not preclude choice per se. If I subjectively make a decision, and really I didn't make a choice at all, I still made a choice in my mind, and that's all that matters to me [smile]

Quote:

Original post by lucky_monkey My views on free will: I'd like to think it exists (that egocentric thing I mentioned before...) For all intents and purposes, whether we have it or not doesn't matter. The illusion is just as good as the reality (unless you know it's an illusion). A deterministic world is virtually indistinguishable from a non-deterministic world since the universe is a complex, nonlinear dynamic system. There is underlying order, but on the surface there appears not to be. For free will to exist there must be an extra-physical element to our makeup, or there must be some "as-yet unidentified ingredient of matter" to quote the OP. Given the last two points, and using Occam's razor, it is more likely that the world is deterministic.

With regards to the actual mechanics of exchanging cells, I heard (and will try to dig up a reference or two) that there are all sorts of strange optical properties in cellular fluids and structures, one being the capacity of superradiance, which allows the collectuve cells to resonate and communicate. It explains how hormones and some drugs can work far more quickly than the flow of blood would allow.

I'd like to make a brief comment on behaviourist strong AI, is there not a huge difference between something that can fool us into thinking it thinks, and something which fools itself?