Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Dee Bayliss: "What is altruism ultimately...but enlightened self interest."
Dee, as someone who is too mean and selfish to give to anything, more or less, I was heartened by your words. Instead of feeling a bit mingy for failing to contribute to the tsunami/earthquake et al appeals, when so many other Australians did, I can now feel quite smug, knowing that they really only gave out of self interest. How bloody selfish of them. I feel vindicated.

David Grace it could be that "soul" is just an inadequate shorthand expression for higher cognitive processes for which earlier generations would not have had an adequate naturalistic explanation. Melvin Konner looks at the whole issue of the biological self in a social and political context.

Ilan putting it simply, Bloom is stating that science has now given us tools to observe and measure what the ancients would have ascribed to outside forces or to deities.

And one of the aims of Aquinas was in fact to prove the existence of the intrinsic soul. Scholasticism relied on dialectic, which puts up theses and antitheses (opposing arguments if you like) and which then attempts to resolve them by discussion. There is a problem of course when one of the propositions put forward is actually an article of dogma.

Michael a naturalistic explanation for human behaviour does not automatically assume that a form of social Darwinism is therefore to be a "natural" outcome, as the Konner article explains. Nor does it automatically sentence humanity to a bleak future. If what we have is all we have as many of the liberal and socialist theorists have proposed, if there is no Heaven or Paradise to attempt to give justification or apology for preventable human suffering or degradation of the Earth, no pie in the sky when we die, no Rapture to come, then the prerogative is to ensure that the world operates in as advantageous a way as possible for everyone-and I think you and I share that view anyway.

If Greg Moylan had bothered to actually read the article I posted in its research context he would have realised that the use of the Prisoner's Dilemma was merely a device for eliciting and measuring particular brain activities. But of course he has to muddy the waters by introducing a parade of straw-men in the shape of anthropologists and sociologists plucked out of the air. None of whom are mentioned in the article which is the account of a neuroscience experiment.

Diverse stimuli such as music and problem-solving using objects have been likewise used in other such experiments which seek to measure the relationship between activity in the cortex and the physical activities involved in such simulations.

Philosopher Paul Draper says:

"Consciousness and personality are highly dependent on the brain. Nothing mental happens without something physical happening."

- (Paul Draper, "Opening Statement" in William Lane Craig and Paul Draper, Does God Exist? (videotape, West Point, NY, 1996))

And what is altruism ultimately in evolutionary terms among social creatures but enlightened self-interest?

Oh, David Grace:.."I cannot accept as a truthful...those who advocate hate or violence."

What a huge statement. You are talking about our whole society.

Thank you. Congratulations. When we all accept this, we will be in a position at last to take progress.

Well done, David Grace.

F Kendall, and that is why really good science doesn't talk about truth. It says these are the facts that we have gathered, and to us the best way to make sense of these facts is this theorem. This theorem would break down if these other facts or phenomena were found. Truth doesn't appear in the formula. However the service that science pays to truth is that it helps us to avoid blind alleys to our search for truth, by debunking false ideas.

I think there is an underlying truth, which is unknowable but which gives us meaning in our life. We each approach this truth in our own way, and so yes that is personal, but there is a real truth which we can orient ourselves to. what I am saying is that I can't accept that everyone's truth is equally valid. I can't accept as a truthful path someone who advocates hate, or violence for instance.

If you read and listen to people who have searched deeply for the truth, you will find similar ideas in their writings and teachings, whether they be scientists, religious leaders, philosophers or political thinkers. These common ideas give some clues about what truth might be, but these are only shadows on a cave wall.

David Grace: Although I largely agree with your post, I would suggest that truth is a funny and misleading word. Truth is personal, and facts are objective.
I can truthfully recount what I saw and believe of an incident, but the facts of it may well be larger and include what I did not observe, invalidating mine. I can truthfully observe and testify to, say, a man as a wifebeater, because I saw him physically threaten her, but, my conclusions would not be factual, because I could not see the gun she had aimed at him. My truth may be different from your truth.
I'm just suggesting that "truth" and "fact" are often used as synonyms: but, they are not. Science is concerned with fact...and has difficulty with truth.

This article seems to be based on the idea that if science can't find an explanation for a phenomenon then it is false. This worries me. This worries me as much as when I hear others tell me that if their particular world view can't find an explanation for something then the phenomenon is false. Just because science can't explain a soul, does not mean that there is not one. Science can't explain many phenomena, but it doesn't mean they are false- another good example would be consciousness.

To my mind, good truth seeking starts from a position of humility that we can't possibly know everything, and no matter how strong our tools are, they will fail at some point.

One of the amazingly strong and positive attributes of the scientific method, is that it doesn't try to prove something is true, but provides the means to show that a theorem or idea is wrong. Science is always striving for the truth, by rejecting things that can be shown to be wrong, but not saying what is true or not.

Some truths aren't amenable to the scientific method, and then other ways need to be used to try to get closer to a clearer understanding of them. These might include ideas of how best to organise a society, how best to organise your own method of living and your place in this world. Another example is the existence or non existence of deities.

Once again, to my mind the best ways of understanding these things are humble, asking questions, learning from others, being a seeker.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are truths, and our role in life is to try to get as close to these as possible, but I don't think there is any human method that will allow us to find truth.

When anyone tells me they've found truth, I know they are lying or have been misled.

One of the problems with science is that it must only accept something when proved, and the concept of soul hasn't been yet-according to them. But has there been a scientist who has only remained in his field of work totally and not stepped outside to his "normal" life that includes things like family and friends and his/her own soul circle ?. Most of us have our own concept of soul and those who don't, say atheists are as adamant in their beliefs as religious people are. Their non-belief becomes a religion. I disagree with the conclusion that if a soul is immortal or immaterial it doesn't exist. It just hasn't been proved to exist on scientists terms.

The scientific view is practised throughout the world though and has been forever. How else can you account for the revulsion people express when a suicide bomber blows up in a crowded cafe, and the calm acceptance of a jet fighter firing a missile into a group of people. One method of death is a highly scientific and anti-septic while the other is crude and messy. But both kill equally.

If this view from science were to gain ground then it would be yet another step for the wicked men who are driving so much evil in the world today-who appear to be without soul- whether they are politicians in the west or an Afghan cave. To reduce men and women to just bodies.

This article is extraordinarily naive in terms of an attempt at moral philosophy. Perhaps Bloom should go back and have a look at some of Thomas Aquinas' works. His Summa Theologica answers nearly all of the questions raised by bloom and does not rely on the so called 'existence of a soul' to hold true.

Morality is something pertaining to reason. Morality is a science of good action - not the whims of the sentiments. If people like Bloom would actually do the reading required to make a cogent argument about these serious issues rather than spout the 'lifestyle choice' philosophy that parades among the pages of our magazines as serious thought, we would all be much better off in an age in which people really are lost and looking for answers. I am not religious but there really is nothing new under the sun and the answers people are looking for have already been worked out.

It is not in the interests of the powerful in society for us to start making moral choices - we might start using our cars less and spend less money on self centred consumerism and idle entertainment - God forbid!

Terrence Ed. If you don't want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don't want to use your real name. Please email Margo your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. Webdiary will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used.

Dee Bayliss, your posts always bring joy to me, ranging from a wry smile to downright hilarity. This time it's downright hilarity. The article you link to describes the Prisoner's Dilemma game, upon which its research is based, as "a decades-old model for cooperation based on reciprocal altruism".

The "Prisoner's Dilemma" is a construct of Games Theory, a branch of mathematics often used in business, which tests how people act in their perceived self-interest in the face of invidious choices (hence dilemma). The choices open to the "prisoner" have absolutely nothing to do with altruism but are entirely about calculation of maximum benefit to him/herself through either co-operation or defection. See here for a brief explanation.

Only a sociologist or anthropologist could be silly enough to misunderstand the Prisoner's Dilemma game so to use it as part of a test for altruism. Then again, only a sociologist or anthropologist would be silly enough to use the oxymoron "reciprocal altruism".

The issue of 'the ghost in the machine' has perplexed humanity for millennia. There will never be an easy answer, but the way I see it goes somewhat like this.

Scientists find it extremely difficult to come to terms with quantum mechanics - it is counter-intuitive. Still, it's now commonly accepted. That ultimately we are soulless is counter-intuitive as well - it runs counter to every cell in my body. Regardless, there is a mounting body of evidence about the mechanical nature of people and none tangible for an argument otherwise.

The dualist perspective will need to be discarded eventually because it is impossible to reconcile all that matters when each of us divide the world along such wildly different lines.

This is why, at the root, there exists such unbalance in things like IR reforms, immigration policy, Islamic, Christian or any sort of fundamentalism. We can dance around these topics all we like, but history will repeat until there is a dramatic shift in our perception of humanity.

Margo, purely an observation of how institutions function. They appropriate anything (especially concepts considering their status depends on it) that threatens the nature of their control and just using plain common sense who finances the institutions?

Knowledge is not neutral, Knowledge is power.

Language is Identity, so therefore the stated objectives are based on false psychological premises.

And also because I sense Webdiary runs the risk of loosing its Identity.

Their objectives sounds like double speak to me.

Margo: I'm pleased to publish the articles from them we choose. Their writers are fine, independent thinkers, and their work is open to comment and critique by Webdiarists. The Project empowers the writers, not the institutions which take their work. Instead of newspapers commissioning them, they can chose to run the work the writers do. I like that model. I'm all for empowering the 'content provider', to use Fred Hilmer's awful and telling phrase. The first huge challenge to Webdiary's identity was when it went onto a comments system in September last year. I've been grappling with that ever since, and am pretty comfortable that I've now largely sorted the free speech-v-civil discourse tension that threatened to blow Webdiary apart at one stage. Jack Robertson's stint as my first comments editor was crucial in that process - see Jack R to pull beers at Club Chaos and Webdiary 'no abuse' trial - week one.

Project Syndicate is an international association of 244 newspapers in 114 countries, devoted to the following objectives:

-bringing distinguished voices from across the world to local audiences everywhere;

-strengthening the independence of printed media in transition and developing countries;

-upgrading their journalistic, editorial, and business capacities.

TO

- increase institutional thought control and diminish independant thought originating outside its control

- keep the masses' dependent and docile

- further objectives of the corporate state

Margo: On what basis do you make these claims, Charles?

Altruism has a measurable biological basis in humans.

So a time may come when war and violence, among other anti-social concepts, may be seen as symptoms of brain disease, and may be treatable the way other neurological conditions are.

The author's "common-sense view that some objects have souls and others do not" shows the danger of using relativistic, if not dangerous, terms like "common-sense". All he is saying is something like "some objects are animate and others are not". The mysteries of life, passion, love (and hate) will not be solved by drawing imaginary lines between "bodies" and "souls".

I have no idea what Greg Moylan is on about. The classic paper on this topic is R. Axelrod & W.D. Hamilton (1981) Science 211, 1390-1396. The summary (in full) states:

Cooperation in organisms, whether bacteria or primates, has been a difficulty for evolutionary theory since Darwin. On the assumption that interactions between individuals occur on a probabilistic basis, a model is developed based on the concept of an evolutionarily stable strategy in the context of the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Deductions from this model, and the results of a computer tournament show how cooperation based on reciprocity can get started in an asocial world, can thrive while interacting with a wide range of other strategies, and can resist invasion once fully established. Potential applications include specific aspects of territoriality, mating, and disease.

Interestingly, Axelrod and Hamilton also state (p 1394):

True altruism can evolve when the conditions of cost, benefit, and relatedness yield net gains for the altruism-causing genes that are resident in the related individuals.

And:

...cooperation based on reciprocity can thrive and be evolutionarily stable in a population with no relatedness at all.

Anyone interested in further reading can go here for John Maynard Smith on the same topic. Robert Axelrod's homepage is here, and a tribute to Bill Hamilton is here.

F Kendall, thanks for the congratulations...I think...

I'm not saying that following seeking truth is easy or that you will not find yourself in conflict with the society around you. Most of the thinkers I most admire did or do, but that doesn't mean that the search is not worth it.

You're right that if we all tried to follow the path our soociety would progress which makes it all the more sensible to follow it, despite the size and difficulty of the task

And I agree that what I said probably puts me at odds with a large part of society, but I really like and admire the people I meet on the path that I am following even if we are all fringe dwellers.

Dee, I read the very interesting article on sociobiology, that you referred me to, but I found it difficut to relate it to your statement that "soul" is just an inadequate shorthand expression for higher cognitive processes for which earlier generations would not have had an adequate naturalistic explanation." Perhaps you could explain how you make the linkage.

However I think we do have a soul, and that means that we are not machines and we are alive. My bet is that it is a process rather than a thing, which explains why there is no soul in a dead body, and also leaves open the idea that all living things have souls. What happens to the soul after the body dies is a question quite beyond me, and to me is quite unimportant.

It could also be what distinguishes a very sophisticated machine that we develop and a living thing, when the processes it uses are complex enough to develop a soul it is living.

On the topic of altruism, why aren't people like Titmuss discussed more? He wrote a classic book called the "Gift Relationship" in the early 70's which talks about this topic A review of the book in the New Statesman is here. One of the things he found was that a gift relationship, made better sense not only morally, but often also economically than a market based system. It's well worth a read.

Phil science is not "blinkered"; the "soul" as you see it is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain phenomena and is irrelevant to scientific research (i.e. people can believe what they wish about the origins and nature of phenomena but science is more interested in measuring and understanding phenomena and perhaps being able to use that understanding to practically benefit people) and can you not see the value of harnessing that evolving knowledge?

For instance, in ways of treating debilitating psychiatric illnesses or conditions like Parkinson's Disease. In better understanding the way in which children learn, and why some children learn faster or more slowly than others, and why some children have different preferred learning modes to others. In understanding that some criminal or anti-social behaviours may be biologically based.

All of the above are far more worthy of scientific attention than speculation on and confusion engendered by the notion of immeasurable and falsifiable entities such as "souls".

And if "souls" exist as "ephemera" or "qualia" then are you not limiting them by defining them anyway?

This is just another example of the confusion of science with the philosophy of naturalism. Genuine science would investigate the nature of the soul without being blinkered by naturalistic philosophy which says that the soul cannot exist. It would allow room for theology to explain the non or super natural.

I think the Project Syndicate association is a good idea - the more quality commentary available the better.

F Kendall giving to tsunami relief operates under the same set of conditions as our prehistoric ancestors would have faced when presented with conflicting choices on scarce resource distribution. A mother may well have been faced with a choice between sharing a small amount of food with her own offspring with the likelihood that each of the offspring would get a larger share if the food was not distributed to anyone else, and thus would survive longer, or distributing it to other members of the group. Was the imperative there the more likely survival of her own offspring or a very short-term alleviation of the needs of a larger number of others? Remember loaves-and-fishes stuff is the stuff of legend, not reality.

David I am trying, like Paul Draper apparently is in his quote, to get away from the idea of ghosts in machines.

More and more evidence is emerging that activities which we might have in the past attributed to entities such as "souls" or "superegos (Freud)" or "conscience" are biologically based and serve some evolutionary purpose.

"Soul" is often confused or conflated with "personality". Humans as they develop from infancy become aware of their "me-ness" as distinct entities. Most humans by the age of about 3-5 then develop what psychologists call a "theory of mind", a perhaps clumsy way of describing the realisation that other humans (such as parents and siblings) are individuals like them who also have their own "me-ness".

However it is increasingly evident that personality is a complex interaction between genes, brain biochemistry and environment, and not something bestowed by an outside entity.

Researchers often struggle with the language used to express outputs and concepts which cannot yet be scientifically quantified so that
it seems as if they are still engaging with those fuzzy ghosts. So when a researcher uses words like "mind" and "emotions", he or she is using them in a different way to the way they are used by theologians or metaphysicists.

Thus this article looks at TOM and "moral sense" without delving into the difficult notion of what exactly constitutes "morality", because it is inevitably going to mean different things to different people.

Animals, particularly mammals but also many bird species, clearly demonstrate many social and altruistic behaviours, but conventional religious belief would deny they had "souls" and would ascribe their behaviour to something called "instinct". This type of terminology is as vague and unhelpful as the notion of a "soul".

Would it not be better to postulate that the complexity of human behaviour has been an outcome of the development of an increasingly complex brain over millenia? That perhaps actions which we would ascribe as "good" and "evil" which in clinical terms may demonstrate social maturity or sociopathy, have an underlying biological basis and hence are open to measurement?

And David what is "truth", what is the difference between "truth" and fact, and whose "truth" is it?

An interesting convergence that both the Pro-Choice and some Christians use very similar justifications to support their arguments. Pro-Choice personhood is relevant otherwise we are just mere bags of flesh and for some Christians unless we have a soul we are just mere bodies of flesh.

Both implying such things are outside of moral consideration or make moral consideration redundant.

Funny how both can happy ignore other pertinent factors, showing it is quite easy to argue a case when you oversimplify or exclude other relevant factors . For Pro-Choice those bags of flesh that aren’t persons will be persons –btw we already treat some post natals as persons when in fact they don’t have functional personhood which Singer points out-and for Mr Bloom those flesh bodies still have complex thoughts and feelings who can still empathise with their fellow flesh bodies and work out that if I cooperate with these other flesh bodies not only can I feel good but get tangible benefits as well.

So Mr Bloom sorry to disappoint many people use moral systems thinking there is no soul or that in fact you even need a divine entity to justify using a moral system in the first place.

Maybe it was just my mood at the time, now that I read the other responses and taken off my political hat I can read the article for what it is an interesting concept.

Music and sound form the essence of my world and from this perspective I cannot conceive of music without concepts such as spirit and soul. If you could take the millions of songs written on a tonal framework and transpose them all into one key, what would you be able to observe?

What would be available to the intellect would be melodies, harmonies, rhythms with many similar patterns, there are only so many ways of combining the elements of music, but what would not be evident is the personality of the song and its originator.

So to with the 27 Piano Concerto’s by Mozart each one on paper can be studied, each one can be practiced mechanically and mastered technically by just about anyone with the right physical characteristics, but try composing them, no other human being can successfully put himself into the body and mind of another creative artist.

Reduce any creative phenomena to its basic elements and what you have can be studied and observed but the creative spirit that sets the motion is a very difficult thing to come to grips with.

Why a Jazz Musicians improvisation on a standard song is different to Bach’s improvisation on a fugue can be studied in terms of observable data, but again what sets the music in motion cannot be seen and in some cases can’t be heard unless the language is understood.

Yet without this something, call it spirit or soul, music and the creative act is meaningless, and without this something life is meaningless.

The result of depriving people of culture can be observed and is all around us, the language we use also is a product of soul and again looking at words as abstractions tells us very little, as Hamish made me aware of certain Australian Authors he brought to life an aspect of the Australian Soul that was not immediately evident to me.
So while the Soul cannot be seen the reality of its presence can be observed in all cultural manifestations and the psychological being of the people who make up certain groups is dependant on it.

Here is a recent Chimps study that looked at whether given a choice would chimps (18 tested) help out their fellows with no cost to themselves. And since they didn't (none out of 18 ) it was supposed to call into question any altruism.

I wonder, given the fact that many humans don't help out their fellow humans when they could, does that call into question our altruism?

Yes many do, but if you weed out those who do it for social reasons or because they feel it is the 'right' thing to do and get some sort of pleasure or self worth out of it, how many would we have left?

Graham you are close. "Pedicide" is child-murder.

A good take on a difficult concept Raglar. I think you are on the right track, and that the "ethics" you speak of would match the sort of behaviours which would make an evolving co-operative society possible.

And now a cautionary tale for those who believe in the immutability of dogma and the permanency of revelation.

About four thousand years ago the ranchers of England, all of whom appear to have been theists, were convinced that the way to ensure the passage of their deceased loved ones to the afterlife was to bury them in communal long-passaged graves.

Then at some stage they encountered some technologically advanced missionaries probably from the Mediterranean. Along with their seed varieties, superior tools and weapons, distinctive bell-shaped pottery and attractive textiles, they brought with them a brand new religion which among other things demanded that its adherents bury their dead individually in round barrows.

Along with the superior trade goods, these sturdy farmers and graziers promptly adopted the religious faith of their trading partners. So the long barrows of their discarded gods were swiftly replaced by the round ones of their new gods. And these round barrows lasted as a graveyard fashion well into Saxon times.

So did the souls of those long-dead Englishmen still go to the afterlife? Were the souls of these long-dead Englishmen the same after the arrival of the missionaries as before?

Raglar Hanavak, your comments seem splendid. I applaud them and thank you.

We hear a lot about morals in this article, but nothing of ethics. There is a big difference and it may explain something of soul and its relationship to science. Morals are something that is a part of your social programming and varies from culture to culture. Ethics can be seen throughout nature. The times when you see carnivorous animals and herbivorous drinking from the same waterhole in times of drought without fear is an example. Throughout human society, this can be seen in every scenario of life. Yet when it comes to human ideology, ethics are thrown out the window and ideological morals come to the fore.

What is called the soul, could well be the ethical genetic programming of a particular species, which rarely changes and is only over ridden buy the ideological program of a particular ideology. This is the current situation worldwide, religious morals which differ widely are being pushed ahead of genetic ethics. In this way we can measure soul as the ethical side of humans, and morals as the paranoid fearful programming of religious ideologies.

We all know that within us dwells something that gives us no end of pain, by constantly telling us when our ethics slip and our immoral programming clicks in. It is only the religious that can justify their deceit and violence against their own religious morals. All others have conscience to deal with, the religious moralise and hand the responsibility to their god.

The animals of the world show us true soul (ethics), whilst the humans race shows its morals, in defiance of soulful ethics.

"According to the story, Descartes was so struck with grief that he created an automaton, a mechanical doll, built to appear identical to his dead daughter."

I wonder how exactly did the Captain know that the doll Francine did not have a soul? Descartes, being the clever chap that he was, may just have given her one.

Perhaps the Captain was guilty of pediocide? (warning: made up word)

Phil Uebergang, we've gone over this many times before. Your gripe with science seems to be that it cannot be used as an adjunct to religion. Rather than accept that this is inherent to the very nature of science, you seem to consider it some kind of wilful disobedience. Mystifying.

"This is just another example of the confusion of science with the philosophy of naturalism."

What confusion? Science by definition is a naturalistic philosophy, how is it not?

"Genuine science would investigate the nature of the soul without being blinkered by naturalistic philosophy which says that the soul cannot exist."

Firstly, science does not say that the soul cannot exist, it only says that along with all other supernatural phenomenon, it can say nothing useful about it.

Secondly, Phil get real. I mean that literally not dismissively. Can you conceive of any way in the real world that a scientist could devise a method for investigating the nature of the soul? Weigh it maybe?

"It would allow room for theology to explain the non or super natural."

You mean that there isn't enough room in all the world's religions to do so?

Charles any musical composition can be rendered either as musical notation, which is a mathematical tool like algebra, or as a physical or digital analogue. That observation does not answer your observations, but science is even grappling with that.

So I daresay that you, Mozart and my son have as the article says "significantly higher activation in the right and left cerebellum, frontal and temporal lobes" and "increased expression of specific serotonin transporter and dopamine receptor genes." Those of us impaired in those functions may be somewhat envious, though maybe not if the danger exists of the trade-off being impaired daily task completion- ("The typical behaviours of creative individuals, such as novelty seeking and harm avoidance, as well as, high emotional, sensual and physical over-excitability, often result in the abandonment of projects.")

Something else which then becomes obvious is that the "soul" you perceive is going to be therefore different to the "soul" possessed by, say, the Dalai Lama, who as far as I know does not engage in creative or artistic activities. Therefore is not "soul" or "the soul" a subjective entity? And being a subjective entity is it not limited and defined by personal perception? And like all personal perceptions can it then be challenged?

Dee “Phil science is not "blinkered"; the "soul" as you see it is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain phenomena and is irrelevant to scientific research (i.e. people can believe what they wish about the origins and nature of phenomena but science is more interested in measuring and understanding phenomena and perhaps being able to use that understanding to practically benefit people) and can you not see the value of harnessing that evolving knowledge?”

But you’re wrong Dee, because as I suggested in my previous post the effects of lack of Soul can be measured, in terms of cultural deprivation. What Mozart or any other creative artist leaves behind him/her can be studied and observed and what is left behind in terms of Society and Psychology can be studied.

What is invisible to our human perceptions does not make it invisible to a universal perception.
So yes the concept of Soul can be studied by scientific research, its not the research that is the problem its your confinement of the parameters that are included in your definition of research that is the problem

To quote Dr Leavis: "Irresponsible (and nasty) trifling."

For my money: bullshit. I'll stick to naive realism and "That, for Bishop Berkeley."

If you hve a sole, please leave it with the chef.

Dee, like I said in my first post, if I told you what truth is I'd be lying or being misled myself.

Hmmm, the difference between truth and fact. A fact is something you can point to and prove, a truth is something that allows you decide what the fact means.

No one owns the truth, including scientists, so it is no-one's truth.

I don't know the truth, but I do have a fair idea of what it is not, and I have science to thank for a lot of that. Science tells what can be shown to be false, and when it has a theory, it shows how the theory can be falsified. When it doesn't have enough facts to develop a falsifiable thery, or when what is being discussed can't be falsified, good science remains silent.

Like any tool, there are times when Science is not the right one to use, and I think talking about souls might be one time when the best that science can do is stay silent. Like you say a lot of what is known about the soul is subjective, and is not amenable to the methods used by science. This isn't to disparage science,just acknowledging its limits, much as I would never use a religious approach to try to discuss a scientific theorem, like evolution.

It is possible to use a scientific approach to one problem and a quite different approach to another, it is just a matter of using the right tool for the job.

I am quite familiar with the references you gave me, but they are looking at how our physical body works. Have you ever thought that your assumption that there is no ghost in the machine might be wrong? Perhaps there is one, and it is worth study.

Dee Bayliss: "Graham you are close. 'Pedicide' is child-murder."

Pediocide, to my mind, would be the murder of a doll. Although surprisingly enough, I've never had need of the term until now.

Dee: “Charles any musical composition can be rendered either as musical notation, which is a mathematical tool like algebra, or as a physical or digital analogue.”

This is actually not the case at all; the musical notation you speak of is only a rough guide, the notes on the printed page need to be interpreted for them to come alive.

The composer transcribes the sounds that germinate in his/her imagination and puts them to paper, but I am sure that just about any composer will tell you of the huge gulf that can exist between the original conception and the interpretation, and this is why a whole separate discipline of conducting has developed.

Now to add to the difficulty, how can we know what exactly was germinating in the mind of the composer when no record of the composers intentions has been left in either written documents or recorded sound?

This raises incredibly complex issues in regard to authentic performance practise, some issues are raised here:

“Labels such as "authentic performance" and "composer's intentions" have likewise been mostly abandoned, but this time primarily for philosophical rather than practical reasons. There are two basic facts underlining this decision. The first is that knowing precisely how a work was originally performed, especially one rather distant in time, is not really possible. The second is that, perhaps with a few exceptions, composers do not state their intentions with regard to hypothetical performances hundreds of years in the future. The idea that the composer "wants" the music to sound today exactly as it did for the first performance is simply a philosophical one. Judging by their own actions, one might conclude that Schumann and Mendelssohn would have expected or even wanted their music to be "updated" for new stylistic eras. This is partly an issue in the wake of Beethoven, a composer who had some difficulty achieving a performance in practice which fit what he had in mind. One can interpret this fact either as a call to redouble one's efforts to achieve precisely what he had in mind, or more generally to develop performance ideas in such a way as to make the once impossible rendition possible. Which exactly is the intent? For Bach's Mass in b, which was never performed in his lifetime? For music of even earlier composers, who probably did not anticipate it being heard ten years after their deaths?”

“To return to a fundamental issue, even the hypothetical perfect reproduction of the original performance presents theoretical problems. At some level of precision, and for relatively early music this level is not very fine at all, the notation and available sources will not dictate every detail. Phrasing, nuance, the most delicate inflections of single notes... these are not included in notation. The performers must make these decisions, especially as they reflect their own physical gifts or inclinations. Singers will not sound identical, even if their technique is the same. This is part of what makes music a living art, something which must be continually reinterpreted in order to exist (until the invention of recordings). More than that, the composition of a piece, especially one which we would want to hear centuries later, was a creative act made in the context of creative musicians. In this sense, if musicians today are to abandon any creativity when rendering old music, then they are not authentic, because that is not the frame of mind under which the original was made. The same frame of mind is indeed impossible today, because the piece will never be new again. Of course, for many individuals, it will seem new, and that is part of what has made the revival aspect of early music so successful and exciting.”

Again this is just the tip of the iceberg. What relationships does composition and interpretation have to consciousness?

Is human perception the same today as it was in the past?

Dissonance and Consonance changes with historical time, so that what is consonant to us would be considered dissonant to the ears of people of the past.

What would be considered a suitable interpretation of a work written today may be considered inappropriate a hundred years from now.

The reference to the functions of the brain is beyond me at this point in time so I can’t really comment intelligently.

Dee: “Something else which then becomes obvious is that the "soul" you perceive is going to be therefore different to the "soul" possessed by, say, the Dalai Lama, who as far as I know does not engage in creative or artistic activities. Therefore is not "soul" or "the soul" a subjective entity? And being a subjective entity is it not limited and defined by personal perception? And like all personal perceptions can it then be challenged?”

Again what you raise here is even more complex than my earlier inquiry in to the art of interpreting the notation of past performances.

You make a very good point by comparing my use of the word “soul” with how the Dalai Lama might define “soul”.

Again if I had the time and resources I would certainly love to pursue how the two meanings of the word converge and differ.

I will leave another link though, to what I think may give us some insight into perception.

Dee, I realise the complexity of the issues involved on an intellectual level, but a whole other side of me responds beyond my mind and intellect.

Descartes daughter and the doll offer a very interesting analogy for me.
I once heard a composition based on the Brady Bunch theme, you know the one, “There’s a story of a lovely lady etc.”

Now the composer did it in the style of a Mozart Piano Concerto, and he did a brilliant job in a technical sense.

Now listening to it I really didn’t know wether to laugh or cry. I am sure the composer wanted me to laugh but there was something very telling about this composition and it is what I allude to in my previous post on how difficult it is to put yourself into the body and mind of a creative artist.

This particular composer did put himself into the mind of the composer but the result was totally lifeless just like Descarte's Doll. I know exactly what the captain felt when he saw that doll, I understand the revulsion he felt, maybe as a one off composition the novelty is fun, but the tragedy is when the novelty wears of and a whole society or community respond to each other as dolls.

The creative soul and the collective creative soul, while not easy to define is very real to me. Again when Hamish brought to our attention, the Australian soul of the past with authors such as CJ Dennis, Henry Lawson and Banjo Patterson and compared it to William Shakespeare I know exactly what he meant.

Shakespeare in this context can be just as lifeless as Descartes doll and just as lifeless as a Mozart Piano Concerto based on that horrible theme of the Brady Bunch.

As a human collective we are so much more than interacting atomized intellects, without a concept of “soul” the individual and society is rendered impotent, and within the political context of our times impotence is exactly the desired state our leaders want us in, and this is definitely no accident.

My earlier response to the political ramification of how language and identity interact with institutional control is very real.

Sadly while I realise the importance of the scientific method, I also believe it is contributing to this impotence by not acknowledging the foundations of human reality.

What makes me smile is that there are scientific fundamentalists every bit as dogmatic and unable to question their own truths as there are in the religious circles. Science is just a tool, a very good tool I'll agree but a tool nevertheless.

Trying to subject everything to scientific analysis is as sensible as using a hammer on a screw cos you don't like screwdrivers.

Dee, why not subject others here to all the scientific analysis?

If a bank manager, lawyer, economist etc states a view you don’t accept or understand do you make them the centre of psychological or psychiatric analysis?

Everyone should be entitled to their opinion without fear of being labelled.

Anyone in this business scientific centred culture runs the risk of isolation, and that’s where the problem is.

It’s called social control by making any deviation from the psycho-social- economic model appear eccentric and to instil conformity and fear of deviation.

I suspect that trying to define "soul" in human terms is beyond our current capabilities. We first need to step outside the subjective introspection of ourselves and attempt something less ambitious with other species. An objective study that doesn't confuse itself with semantics, wishful thinking, arrogance and mumbo jumbo.

I don't know whereabouts along the spectrum of consciousness to select candidate species for investigation, but I'd be tempted to start with my two smart Kelpies and work down.

What do people mean when they expect their soul to keep living after they die? Usually, we have some expectation that our conscious mind, our awareness and experienced emotions, will exist after we die. However, there is no reliable evidence whatever that a conscious mind can exist without a physical structure like a brain to support it. If we don't believe in Santa Claus, we shouldn't believe in conscious minds without physical brains. Unless soul is defined differently, I guess we shouldn't believe in these either.

Charles, you said, "I realise the complexity of the issues involved on an intellectual level, but a whole other side of me responds beyond my mind and intellect."

It is precisely your mind/brain/intellect which is responding. Even if it feels like it is coming from "elsewhere".

First I need to get ahead of myself somewhat in quoting this Ockham's Razor transcript where Professor John Bradshaw says of the phenomenon of synaesthesia:

Several hundred people have written to tell me how they experience synaesthesia. They are overwhelmingly female, very often left-handed, with a poor sense of direction, and to them, an embarrassing tendency to occasional feelings of unreality or depersonalisation, of deja vu, and of psychic or paranormal experiences.

Nothing comes from nowhere and there is increasing evidence in a variety of areas of neuroscience to explain aspects of creativity.

Anecdotal evidence does not make a scientific experiment but there seems to be a number of measurable cognitive traits which go with aspects of creativity.

So it is quite possible that you, as an obviously creative person, share some of the characteristics of the synaesthetics described by Bradshaw. And it might well include a tendency to experience intermittent mild dissociative states (a trait shared with 90% of the population according to the American Psychological Society) which can feel like handing over control, so to speak, to an exterior influence.

As far as other aspects of creativity are concerned it seems musical appreciation and behaviour appears to be innate, as is the appreciation of visual art. Individual response to visual works seem to rely on an inbuilt preference for certain types of symmetry independent of cultural conditioning.

But creativity can have a downside as well. There seems to be a relationship between certain neurological "hard-wired" conditions, biochemically based psychiatric illnesses and creativity.

Synaesthesia is not only linked with creativity but also with autism.

Perhaps your longing for the recognition of the 'soul' can best be summed up by Edward O Wilson when he says:

If the sacred narrative cannot be in the form of a religious cosmology, it will be taken from the material history of the universe and the human species. That trend is in no way debasing. The true evolutionary epic, retold as poetry, is as intrinsically ennobling as any religious epic. Material reality discovered by science already possesses more content and grandeur than all religious cosmologies combined. The continuity of the human line has been traced through a period of deep history a thousand times as old as that conceived by the Western religions. Its study has brought new revelations of great moral importance. It has made us realize that Homo sapiens is far more than an assortment of tribes and races. We are a single gene pool from which individuals are drawn in each generation and into which they are dissolved the next generation, forever united as a species by heritage and a common future. Such are the conceptions, based on fact, from which new intimations of immortality can be drawn and a new mythos evolved.

One thing Descartes failed to do was explain how our selves actually work. The thing I respect about the "small minority of philosophers and scientists" Paul Bloom cursorilly dismisses is that they are actually trying to figure it out without resorting to the non-natural, sub-natural or supernatural.

That trying to figure out a natural explanation for our humanity "is offensive" and "violates the tenets of every religion" is no argument so far. Personally I don't think it does "(conflict) with common sense" either. That there is a little creature inside me independent from the meat conflicts with my common sense, but to each their own metaphysics I suppose.

For anyone who wants an attempt to explain how we work naturalistically - extremely readable and well-researched - try Steven Pinker. I have come to consider The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate as a trilogy of sorts.

Guy, but the argument "You don't know the reason, I don't know the reason, other information says it is unlikely to be X, therefore it is not X" is not valid either.

Robyn Clothier, people are on very shaky ground if they assume that what cannot immediately be explained via natural causes must have a supernatural explanation.

We have lots of reliable evidence for natural phenomena, none for supernatural phenomena. Simply by probablity, an unlikely natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one.

As an example, we have lots of experience with the fact that people lie, "construct" memories, or make up stories that suit their particular agendas, sometime with others' help. We also have lots of evidence to indicate that minds need physical brains. By contrast we don't have any reliable evidence that minds can exist without brains. As such, the possibility that there was some kind of self-deception, deliberate deception, or someone (wittingly or otherwise) revealing the information that "couldn't have been known", has to be more likely than a dissociation of mind and body.

Presuming a supernaturual cause when the cause is unknown is a bit like the "God of gaps" argument: what science cannot explain must be the work of God. However, over time as science has found the causes of things previously attributed to God, which leaves less and less room for God. Also, when the argument is spelled out in full it says "you don't know the reason, and I don't know the reason, therefore it must be X". Yet, there is no logical basis for claiming to simultaneously know and not know the answer to an empirical question.

Dee, in which scientific paper did you find that "99.9% of the interaction of humans with their environment takes place in the domain of the measurable and the practical and concrete."

What type of method was used to obtain these remarkably accurate results? I'm just curious.

There is a lot that is not explained by science. Phenomena that are difficult to quantify. That doesn't necessarily mean that the phenomena are not real, just that there is no current scientific way of explaining them.

Until there are ways to use scientific methods to measure them, the best that science can say is that they are outside scientific discussion.

Charles, I am not analysing you per se However if people want to relate personal experiences or observations as part of their argument then I will analyse them as best I can.

An economic or political argument can stand outside of the person making the argument because economics and politics have measurable dimensions, but the concept of a "soul" cannot because it is such a subjective concept.

It would be very nice if those souls were real and proveable. It's a bit like my daughter at three, after having seen the movie, wishing she could meet ET. Charming, but most likely not going to happen.

David, 99.9% of the interaction of humans with their environment takes place in the domain of the measurable and the practical and concrete. Most of these interactions are not even particularly noteworthy to the brain, so they become unconscious (like driving a car). That's learned behaviour. Breathing is not, it is intrinsic, but none of these activities would be regarded as particularly "scientific" though they can be measured, described and replicated.

And that is nothing to do with any sort of "-isms".

Robyn, as Guy says, the sensations described have a natural explanation, and also occur to a much reduced extent in people with sleep disorders.

Sorry, Malcolm, I don't know her but I first heard about her on the ABC's Compass program. She seemed to be fine when that was filmed.

Guy Curtis, thank you for those links. Ineffective anaesthesia would account for Pam Reynolds' accurate recollection of sounds and things said during her procedure, but not her ability to describe things seen in the operating theatre. There is nothing to suggest she had been shown the instruments beforehand, and even if she entered the theatre on foot while staff were opening the sterile packs and arranging the instruments, it is unlikely she would be close enough to study them in detail.

So far, it would seem to me, science has shown that a healthy brain and a full expression of self/soul/personality are linked, but it has not shown us enough to say, as Bloom does, that "there is no doubt that this is its source." However, the moral judgement by others of those without perfectly developed and healthy brains is another question entirely.

Interestingly enough, Robyn Clothier, your link does not say how long Pam was "dead". Not long enough to become Pam spam apparently. My guess is these guys work really quickly, I'd say no more than 5-7 minutes. And how is Pammy? No permanent damage?

Robyn Clothier, there are perfectly reasonable explanations for near death experiences (like these) that don't rely on mind-body dualism or the supernatural. In general, I think the fact that you can simulate near death experiences via drugs that have known effects on the brain means that these are most likely purely biochemical processes.

There are even easily accessible reasonable explanations of Pam Reynolds's specific experiences (like these).

How then to explain the experience of people like Pam Reynolds?

Dee, my point about Bank Managers, Lawyers etc is that they can present a view without being subject to being appropriated by the scientific community via institutional thought which essentially serves the corporate state.

You are misconstruing my argument, off course I don’t doubt the possibility of genuine scientific enquiry, but I am highly dubious when certain techniques of psychiatric analysis are selectively used only on certain people from certain backgrounds. Why not analyse Rupert Murdoch? Surely, he would make interesting reading. Why not create experiments showing why anyone would want to spend most of their lives living inside a Bank.

I would suggest perhaps this could show a certain type of pathology.

Another experiment could show why the business community endorsed the rape, pillage and murder of Iraq and another experiment could show why musicians, poets, authors are unlikely to send people to their deaths.
Another experiment could show the connections between the invention of weapons and mass destruction and the scientific community.

And another enquiry could explain why the scientific community continuously ignores the fact that perhaps the greatest scientist of all time was also a musician.

Here is the definition of Soul that best expresses my meaning of the word

The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

Now you say that an economic and political argument can stand outside the person making the argument because they have measurable dimensions, but that the soul which is an expression of the creative artist cannot stand outside because it is a subjective concept and has no measurable dimension.

I am no economist but my understanding is that the science of economics is far from having concrete measurable parameters that are consistent with observation, now this you could argue is also true of a creative product, but any act of creativity still leaves a concrete manifestation of its creator, whether that something is sound, visual, tactile.

What I have been stating throughout this discussion is that human creativity is animated by this something, I choose to call it soul for lack of a better word. I have never stated that it can be measured accurately only that the physical presence of the parameters of music make it possible to interpret the inner ideas of a composer, these inner ideas are a recreation of what originally was a process where the composer transcribed sounds that germinated in his inner ear and mind.

Now I would suggest to you that this process of music making via Composer/Performer/audience does leave a measurable dimension, but the scientific community hasn’t worked out how to measure it.

Now that music exists must mean that something has been left behind, that something has been left behind must mean that it can be measured.

Now explain to me how economic and politics is more conducive to being measured.

And explain to me why the process of Composer/Performer/Audience cannot be measured.

Hi Robyn, I agree you can't absolutely say that because something is unlikely it is impossible.

However, I do contend two things: (1) that when the answer is uncertain we should have the tentative hypothesis that the most likely explanation is better than a less likely one. And, (2) we do have to decide to disbelieve some things, otherwise we would have to believe all things, including things that are contradictory (lead in paint can't make people stupider and smarter). You can't prove negative propositions such as "souls/Santa Claus/The-Loch-Ness-Monster do not exist", therefore you have to have consistent citeria for belief and disbelief. Good criteria for belief would include the well-established principle that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof - I don't think individual anecdotal reports in poorly-controlled settings suggesting something contrary to what a mountain of reliable evidence indicates counts as sufficient proof of the extraordinary.