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]

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.

Nature is "elusive" only in a sense that if I say something very specific (that the broadcast is microwaves), you can shield the microwaves and disprove there is a broadcast. You can think of "Nature" in this context as a sum total of all physical interactions of the brain with the body and the environment + the machinery of the brain itself + the process through which all of these have emerged. The broadcast is the rational principle behind it all. It is incoded in Nature, the brain is decoding it to the best of its ability, just like digital TV is decoding digital broadcast. It is incapable of rational thought; all it does are some sort of decoding operations that may include any number of logical operations.

[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.

In my view, "soul" is best understood as the word conventionally used to visualize the functioning of a human brain, which would otherwise be too complicated or impossible to describe.

Here is what I think after reading some books about human evolution: The brain contains significant information that is genetically determined and also a significant capacity to grow and to adapt to the environment. The things that a particular person can or cannot learn, and the capacity for learning, are genetically determined; they would have been pretty much the same no matter what the environment. However, there will be no learning at all unless the environment provides the right inputs. (Some birds learn their songs entirely from other birds, while some birds always sing the "right" song no matter what other birds around them sing. The birds of the first variety will not sing much at all if not placed into the environment of other singing birds. Humans who are not placed into a human society before a certain age will never learn to speak.)

I would not want to use the word "message" to refer to the genotype of a particular individual or to the environment into which the individual happens to be born, because these things are random, and the word "message" presupposes an intent.

[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.

[i_eron]

I completely agree about the futility of Crick's argument. I understand your "receiver" idea as a theological rather than philosophical (I hope I use the terms correctly). One cannot disprove a supernatural outside influence on our brains by any scientific study of them. This kind of argument is as pointless as the argument about the age of the Universe.

However, I now suspect you mean something else. You say you are vague only because if you suggest microwaves one can disprove it experimentally. Just as well, I haven't noticed any change after putting my head into a large aluminum saucepot :-). So, please be more specific. Do you mean an outside interaction of the kind that can be, in principle, experimentally verified? There is no need to specify which kind. Or do you mean a supernatural one, that is, one that forever will elude a scientific examination?