I was taught, which I no longer believe, that the mere ability to reason proved possession of a soul. However, if an animal brain contained an algorithm capable of simulating reason, then it would also be able to simulate conversion to Catholicism.
We think that a clockwork soldier is not conscious because we can fully account for all of its physical features and movements without ascribing any consciousness to it whereas I cannot account for a fellow human being's behavior, including his linguistic behavior, except by assuming that he is conscious like me.
In Cartesian philosophy, animals are unconscious automata whereas, in Catholic theology, they are conscious but without souls so it is intellect and will that are supposed to differentiate the immaterial and immortal soul. Of course merely mechanical interactions do not generate either consciousness or reason. However, neuronic interactions within organisms responding to their environments demonstrably can do so.
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Careful! In Anthony Boucher's "The Quest for St. Aquin," we see am AI, possessing intellect, reason, and will, deducing by pure reason alone the existence of God and thus that the AI should also believe in God. And "St. Aquin's" conversion was genuine, not simulated. I find that more convincing than trying to unsuccessfully teach a dog, cat, chimp, or tiger about God. Such animals would first need to CONSCIOUSLY know ideas about God before they could simulate belief in him. No, the analogy using animals is too strained to be convincing.
Sean
Sean,
An artificial intelligence would be an intelligence and thus would be able to reason to conclusions, also to disagree with others about the conclusions to be reached.
I know almost nothing about algorithms but I think that:
there are limits to what they can do;
they have to be designed;
therefore, they are evidence of intelligence if not in the algorithm itself then in its designer;
an algorithm in an animal brain would have to be induced artificially, e.g., by genetic engineering.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Actually, I agree with you about algorithms as applied to alleged artificial neural networks. Which helps to explain why I remain skeptical about the possibility of AIs.
And I'm not at all sure it is even possible to use genetic engineering to seriously raise the intelligence of animals.
Sean
Sean,
In my imaginary algorithmic example, the animals would merely be simulating intelligence, thus, according to Scholastic philosophy, would lack souls. But I think that even genuinely intelligent animals (us) lack souls anyway.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Iow, a dog could have implanted a recording of it allegedly giving us a learned philosophical disquisition, but not would be AWARE of doing so. And would thus not have a rational, immortal soul.
And I do believe you, as well as all human beings, do have souls.
Sean
Sean,
So there could be a being with a human body and brain but without a soul and that being would not be able to think above an animal level?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, I don't believe that to be possible. Even persons tragically born severely mentally retarded remain human beings.
Sean
Sean,
But that wasn't the question. If a soul is necessary for intellect/reason/rational thought, then a being with a human body and brain but no soul would be unable to reason?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That better clarifies what you meant. Yes, going by your premises, that would be the case. But I simply don't believe a living human body with a brain can somehow not have a soul.
Sean
Sean,
But, on theistic premises, God could create the body and brain and not put a soul in them.
Occam's Razor requires scientists to accept that a human brain generates human consciousness, including reason, without any need to refer to another, immaterial, entity.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except I don't believe "science" can truly explain something as "immaterial" as the human consciousness. Science can tell us how living things physically evolve but not not what makes a human mind a MIND.
Sean
Sean,
But whether the mind is immaterial is precisely the point at issue. Am I right to say that, on theistic premises, God could create a living human body with a brain but not put a soul in it?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't know what you want me to say. God COULD, if he so wished, NOT have created and infused a new soul at the moment of conception when a fertilized egg became a new human life with a body and a brain. But I don't believe He would do so.
Sean
Sean,
But He could. So a brain with a soul would think and a brain without would not. But the empirical evidence is just that a brain thinks. There is no need to postulate a soul.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but I still disagree. I say it makes no sense to say a rational does not need a soul in order to be rational. However unfashionable Scholasticism might be, that IS my basic philosophical stance.
Sean
Sean,
But the empirical evidence is that:
organisms sensitive to their environments began to sense them;
cooperating protohumans communicated by sounds which became language;
manipulation of the environment led to thinking about it;
neuronic interactions in human brains generate thought;
every aspect of consciousness, language and thought is explained by material interactions between organisms and their environments;
there is no need to postulate an immaterial entity interacting with each human organism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I don't believe in materialism, and the phenomena you listed can be explained in ways which does not deny the existence of souls.
Sean
Sean,
If you believe in souls, then you explain consciousness and thought with reference to souls but this does not convince anyone who does not believe in souls and who applies the scientific principle of Occam's Razor: do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I don't believe "science" can answer the ultimate questions, the issues usually considered as belonging to philosophy and theology.
Sean
Sean,
But we can only find out what science can do by letting scientists try it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I agree with that, as a general rule. No nos would be the kind of gruesome "experiments" carried out by the Nazi "scientists."
Sean
Sean,
I think we are agreed that animal consciousness does not require a soul, although Descartes thought otherwise. Thus, it is only human intelligence that Scholastics regard as requiring a soul. But intelligence, like consciousness, seems to originate in the brain and no way do we yet fully understand the brain which is not just an easily explicable mechanical apparatus. So:
we cannot rule out that neuronic interactions alone generate intelligence;
this is the simplest explanation, therefore to be preferred.
Paul.
Post a Comment