5 ms·

If you believe in a soul, and if you believe that a single celled organism (SCO) has a soul, then you can indeed delegate decision making to a non-corporeal ent

If you believe in a soul, and if you believe that a single celled organism (SCO) has a soul, then you can indeed delegate decision making to a non-corporeal entity. Not saying that's wrong but I struggle to accept that.

jfk13 6y ago
Or you might believe that a single celled organism can reasonably be understood as a state machine responding to inputs, but that a human -- or a tree, or a cat -- is not merely a scaled-up version of this same model. We are far from knowing whether this is the case. So you can believe one extreme or the other (or something in between), but either way it's an article of faith, not an established fact.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Please clarify because I don't know - are you invoking the existence of a soul in the decision making process? If so, you're bringing in something that's purely a matter of faith as no evidence has ever been found of a soul (AFAIK). If no soul then be it single-celled or human, we're back in the mechanistic world and one is, somehow, just a more elaborate version of the other.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    We have no more evidence that what we experience as consciousness and decision-making arises from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine than we have for the existence of a soul. Some people believe that when the machine becomes sufficiently complex, consciousness will emerge. Others don't. Either way, it's a matter of faith.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      So the answer is yes, you're invoking the existence of a soul. It is not honest to duck a simple but pivotal and explicit question. > We have no more evidence...arises from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine than we have for the existence of a soul. Evidence of a soul: 0%. Evidence of atoms: 99.999999999999999999% or higher.
      - jfk13 6y ago
        I'm not invoking the existence (or non-existence) of anything. I'm just noting that we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works. (Who said anything about atoms? I didn't.)
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        > we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works Couldn't agree more, but that wasn't your original assertion, to wit first para of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962220 > Who said anything about atoms? I didn't. You: "...from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine" So what's a 'purely mechanistic state machine' going to be made of if not atoms.
        mensetmanusman 6y ago
        Energy
        YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
        A link to the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Note this one in particular: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Also, don't forget: when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        I appreciate the intervention, and I really must learn to let things drop, that said I've been trying to work out what the heck he's saying. I haven't knowingly responded to a weaker argument.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

jfk13 6y ago

Or you might believe that a single celled organism can reasonably be understood as a state machine responding to inputs, but that a human -- or a tree, or a cat -- is not merely a scaled-up version of this same model. We are far from knowing whether this is the case. So you can believe one extreme or the other (or something in between), but either way it's an article of faith, not an established fact.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Please clarify because I don't know - are you invoking the existence of a soul in the decision making process? If so, you're bringing in something that's purely a matter of faith as no evidence has ever been found of a soul (AFAIK). If no soul then be it single-celled or human, we're back in the mechanistic world and one is, somehow, just a more elaborate version of the other.
- jfk13 6y ago
  We have no more evidence that what we experience as consciousness and decision-making arises from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine than we have for the existence of a soul. Some people believe that when the machine becomes sufficiently complex, consciousness will emerge. Others don't. Either way, it's a matter of faith.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    So the answer is yes, you're invoking the existence of a soul. It is not honest to duck a simple but pivotal and explicit question. > We have no more evidence...arises from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine than we have for the existence of a soul. Evidence of a soul: 0%. Evidence of atoms: 99.999999999999999999% or higher.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      I'm not invoking the existence (or non-existence) of anything. I'm just noting that we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works. (Who said anything about atoms? I didn't.)
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        > we are far from understanding what consciousness is, let alone how it works Couldn't agree more, but that wasn't your original assertion, to wit first para of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962220 > Who said anything about atoms? I didn't. You: "...from the operation of a purely mechanistic state machine" So what's a 'purely mechanistic state machine' going to be made of if not atoms.
        mensetmanusman 6y ago
        Energy
        YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
        A link to the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Note this one in particular: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Also, don't forget: when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        I appreciate the intervention, and I really must learn to let things drop, that said I've been trying to work out what the heck he's saying. I haven't knowingly responded to a weaker argument.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]