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
(
Read more... )
Comments 40
(The comment has been removed)
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.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
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.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
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
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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'.
Reply
Reply
But I don't think that the Nature is the broadcaster; in fact, I don't know what the Nature is.
Reply
may be its time to learn smth new
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Leave a comment