The Astonishing Hypothesis (the 4 1/2 -th Proof of Immortality)

[shkrobius]

Fifteen years ago, Francis Crick published a remarkable little book, "The Astonishing Hypothesis". The main thesis of this book was that the soul (aka consciousness) is the product of the brain: a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and

Comments

[shkrobius]

Why do you think that your brain can? You obviously can, but you are not your brain.

Any animal can decide what is good or bad for it. That's a long shot from having a moral compass. If anything, this compass is misaligned with this built-in good/bad perception. You yourself have suggested me that morality is external, being imposed by the society onto a person. In such a case, the society has arrived at the objective laws of its existence as a society of a certain kind. But such laws are the content of the broadcast. I do not see the point of your objection. There is no contradiction here.

[shkrobius]

>>the brain has not changed in the last 10,000 years.

Nobody has the slightest idea whether it is changing -- and on what time scale -- so I'm afraid "science" does not tell you anything.

The message has been the same from day one. At best, it would be us adapting to this broadcast rather than the other way round (if such an adaptations ever happens). Surely, the broadcast can be viewed as yet another environmental factor; a biological entity tapping into it will adapt accordingly to get the maximal advantage out of it. Being receptive to this broadcast would be critical for the survival, both collective and individual (or maximizing of the footprint of one's soul, which may become another objective, as it is the survival by other means). The body has its agenda (survival of itself and its lineage), the new entity formed through the interaction of this body with the broadcast has its own agenda, overlapping but non-identical.

[shkrobius]

Crick's idea is that "you" aren't just the product of your brain (as a TV image is the product of a TV set), but the brain is the active agent in making you "you". There is no broadcast; your brain generates everything that is "you"; it is not a reflector, it is the projector. In this picture, the environment is passive: the brain interpreting its environment

[neatfires]

I'm still not quite sure, what you're suggesting here.

The first interpretation seems that there is a rational entity outside human mind, whereas the latter is merely a receiver. In this case, constructing an AI capable of rational decisions would disprove this hypothesis. (Well, not disprove, but put a big question mark above it.) I do not mean blindly replicating the brain, but building an intellect based on well-understood principles that are designed to yield a rationally-thinking machine.

The second interpretation is that what you're saying is equivalent to the determinism principle: the Nature is the rational entity behind every human's soul, whereas the soul is just a device without any independent reasoning capabilities. I can't find this hypothesis astonishing, though, as it is a well-known and widely accepted interpretation of the human nature. Also, I wouldn't call the brain a receiver in this role. Under this hypothesis, is no broadcast signal, which could only be received by the brain. The brain is just a part of the

[shkrobius]

The reasoning is by the external agent only. The soul is not a device but part of this flow of reasoning that the brain receives and acts upon. Perhaps some technical operations can be performed, too, independently. It is not Nature that is this rational entity; Nature itself is considered to be the product of rational thought organizing it. The brain is, of course, part of Nature. "Independent reasoning" is a misnomer in this picture, because no reasoning is truly independent. There is a lot of commonality to it, and some variation. But that is true about anything we would agree to call reasoning: there would be significant overlap, as otherwise you would not recognize what I say as reasoning. This commonality is explained by the universality of the broadcast. The illusion of individuality and independence of reasoning is created by the individuality and independence of the brains receiving the broadcast. Crick's brains do not produce independent reasoning either. At best, these produce weakly correlated reasoning. In reality, of

[ipain]

I cannot think of the approach suitable for disconnecting of the brain from Nature...

blind-deaf cases provide such an opportunity, synchrophasotron for the humanitarian sciences was a nickname for the soviet blind-deaf school at zagorsk. everything slows down to a single thread. its not about nature or brain, it is about transmitting culture.

[shkrobius]

You are shutting off the environment rather than Nature. Brain is part of nature, and you cannot shut that off.

[ipain]

well, brain is part of nature even if it is dead or not functioning. but you were talking about "disconnecting" of brain, and that is what happens.

i didn't really get difference between 'passive' environment and 'active' Nature (is nature is smth diff?), but co-acting brains in pro-active environment build 'soul'.

[shkrobius]

Nature is not just the environment. It is, for example, the process through which both the brain and the environment originated, the organization of the brain itself, and the carrier of the principles of its organization. Everything leading to the brain, everything interacting with the brain, the brain itself. Nature with a small "n" is usually reserved for the natural world on earth. Nature, as it is used here, is more universal.

[sowa]

I don't have any coherent argument for this, but this idea springs up to my mind every time I think about these issues: my mind and my consciousness is just a receiver. Probably, for me this idea goes back to the adolescence. The question of the freedom of will remains; apparently, at some moments, I am able to switch channels. But this can be an illusion created by the broadcast.

But I don't think that the Nature is the broadcaster; in fact, I don't know what the Nature is.

[ipain]

my mind and my consciousness is just a receiver. Probably, for me this idea goes back to the adolescence.

may be its time to learn smth new

[shkrobius]

I confess that this is not the fifth proof of immortality at all. This is the forth proof from Plato's Phaedo that I reworked to make it especially difficult to dismiss from Crick's perspective, because it is based on exactly the same machinery and exactly the same process. So we are on the firm Platonic grounds here. "Receiving" is a name I gave to recollection of the eternal truths. Interesting, how little of Plato really sinks in. The belief seems to be that if an "artificial intelligence" arrives at geometry this proves that geometry is synthetic and this machine is capable of rational thought. The possibility that the geometry is preexistent and as such can be discovered by a machine capable of logical operations but incapable of rational thought does not cross the mind

[sowa]

Well, I did not thought about this as a proof of immortality. In a sense the immortality is given, it is an a priori knowledge. (I cannot really argue this point.)

What I found to be very striking, is a consonancy of your theory with my feelings. They may be related to my profession. When, once upon a time, I find a really new mathematical idea, I do not feel that it is a result of my own effort (of my brain). I feel that I just managed to tune to the right station, waited long enough, and the idea arrived. From the outside, whatever this means.

[i_eron]

I do not see how one can "disprove your suggestion", because it is too vague. It involves Nature as an "elusive medium" and it does not define the physical (?) nature of the broadcast into our "receiver" brains. I can instead try to ask you to define it better so that the idea would have a chance to penetrate my thick skull

[shkrobius]

This is not a theological idea, it is a philosophical one and it has been suggested by Socrates in Phaedo. The value of this idea is in realization of futility of arguments like those made by Crick. His suggestion is to embark on a very vast, expensive, and challenging reductionist program of proving that conciousness is the product of autonomous brain. I am suggesting that this effort cannot, on principle, even if it fully succeeds technically, answer the question it is supposed to shep light upon. Whether knowledge is synthetic or by recognition, whether the rational though is by internal or external agency cannot be discovered through experimentation

[chaource]

If "Nature" is defined here as the sum total of the brain, its interactions with the environment, then you seem to disagree with Crick only in the detail: you say that the brain is affected by the environment, where as Crick allegedly believed that the brain is independent of the environment. But if you add also the "principle behind it all", then your statement becomes too vague. "Principles" are imaginary devices we use to understand something, and I don't think a brain of one person can be connected in a "direct" fashion to imaginary devices created by another person

[shkrobius]

Sorry, but I disagree. I do not think that principles are imaginary devices. I also see nothing objectionable in considering a genome to be a message. In fact, would I need to send someone a message over 4 Gyr, this is what I would choose. If you ponder it, you will see that no other medium of such longevity presents itself on earth. My choice would also be a self-replicating, constantly adaptible message that ensures the transmission against fantastic odds. Surely, it is a message to however is capable of deciphering this message.

I am certainly vague about the details of the operation, but I do not have to be precise. The only point was to demonstrate that Crick's hypothesis cannot be tested, because any experiment allows for the alternative explanation. I have to tell you that his book is also vague, despite its lenght. I do not see that as a problem (it is unrealistic to expect such details); the problem is more serious: testability. Even with all of the details filled in, the hypothesis can neither be proved nor disproved.