Another foray into the hazy interface between science and
religion, beware...
If you are of a "certain age", then you probably have a
famous"intro" already etched into memory - in neurons
adjoining "in the beginning". Can't you (almost) hear the
distinctive voice of Rod Serling from beyond the grave...
"there is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to
man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as
infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow,
between science and superstition, and it lies between the
pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is
the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call
the Twilight Zone..."
Is that Rod's spirit, somehow speaking into your mind's ear;
and even if not, just how is memory of things long past
related to the soul-concept and its ability to transfer
information non-physically, whether it be it about Serling,
or simply about survival?
Among "Science Magazine's "The Top Ten Science
Breakthroughs of 2004" and coming in at "only" Number
Three is "the story that wasn't"... a.k.a. "the cloning of
human embryos."
Imagine that. Cloning humans these days won't even make you
runner-up in the rankings of any given year ! Ha !
Actually cloning humans is not exactly what happened in
Korea, but leave it to the atheistic far-left AND the
religious far-right to put their own reactionary spin on
anything that touches on the concept of soul. Some of these
special-interest spins are almost comical in intensity. The
implications of this story may appear to threaten the core
of some beliefs, but in reality, should not threaten anyone
with half a brain, or a soul.
"Science" magazine later clarified the story to say that
although other mammals have been cloned, the South Korean
scientist's work was the first to demonstrate a technique
which could work with human cells for other purposes than
propagation. Hwang's research was not an attempt to
genetically duplicate a human, but was rather aimed at
creating an adequate supply of embryonic stem cells for
research purposes. Neither side took much notice of that.
The lines had already been drawn, and the religious
far-right had already decided that it would rather protect
the unborn than relieve the misery of those already born but
afflicted with disease - (according to the spin of the
atheistic far-left) which disease which now will be cured
through stem cell research (at least now that Hwang has
somewhat negated Bush, the puppet of the far-right
(according to the other camp) and his pre-emptive strike
against stem cell technology).
This story has brought out the worst of both extremes - the
atheists and the religious far-right. Check out this little
bit of over-stepping: "The fact it can be done begins to
move us away from some of the mysteries surrounding human
beings; things like the existence of a soul, which frankly
is pure imagination," a British researcher glibly told the
BBC News... or try this one: "Award should go instead to the
so-called "creation scientists" (is that a
self-contradiction in terms, or what) for discovering that
all previous science is false; and in fact the world is
little more than a giant ant farm amusement box, created
6000 years ago by a cloud dwelling egomaniac, who likes to
play tricks like making rocks appear older than they are".
But even if it had been a successful cloning experiment for
propagation, which it was not, does that step (which will
happen, if it hasn't already) even hint at disproving the
idea of a "non-physical continuance" (i.e. the legacy which
is soul) ?
Well that really depends on how carefully one chooses words.
The reason that successful cloning would potentially shed
any at light all on the idea of the soul is that soul was
formerly (pre-Sheldrake) the one thing which was said by
religions to make us uniquely human, and was given to us by
God (or for some agnostics and Buddhists it is a product of
an evolutionary process which is god-like).
Despite any similarity between a soul and an evolved
Morphogenetic Field, our soul didn't need to "evolve," even
if we did - or so say other spiritualists, who accept some
science but not all. This is hard to distinguish from the
Sci-Fi related notion that soul migrated to earth from
elsewhere (with of without the cosmic road map supplied by a
higher power).
So instead of only two camps, two very divergent camps on
this issue, there are at least seven or eight possibilities
regarding a non-physical identity and recurrent legacy and
vis-a-vis a
creator:
1) Soul was given to a previously soul-less creature by God
the standard view of organized religion
a) Only appears in a human once (Western view)
b) Appears cyclically with accumulating baggage (East)
2) No soul at all and no God, pure animal existence
But even some agnostics accept the reality of soul
3) Soul, derived by natural process (the meme-soul)
a) Step-wise progression, lower animals having
substantial soul
b) Critical mass reached for humans, lower animals
having no comparative higher level soul
4) Soul as a universal feature, having migrated here
from elsewhere
a) Under the guidance of God
b) By itself
5) God as being the accumulation of all-souls
a) Soul preexisting but evolving rapidly (reincarnation)
b) Everything is derived from laws, nothing
pre-existent
There is overlap here, but consequently, because of this
complexity nothing that can be said which is going to please
everyone.
We share almost 99% of our genes with apes and chimps, but
some of those on the far-right want to believe that these
"relatives" have zero soul, except maybe the meme-type of
transference (related to "form" not morality), in the
tradition of Sheldrake. In effect, this is one reason why
the reality of "evolution" is so painful to some, at least
those of limited intelligence. They have yet to figure out
how to deal with the idea that man evolved, much less than
how soul could do something similar.
And even if soul did "evolve" like the physical counterpart,
that fact itself does not also imply that apes have 99% of a
human soul... Or perhaps more importantly to some of those
who are also card-carrying NRA members it does threaten the
prospect that their favorite game quarry will now be
off-limits.... such as, say the magnificent elk having
87.23% of a soul. They don't mind shooting a beautiful
mature animal, even though they do not need it for
sustenance, yet they will not allow stem cells to be
extracted from a fetus, to advance the state of medicine.
The logic astounds.
If one really wants to refine the concept of a non-physical
continuance or legacy, and even find some physical evidence
(over and above Sheldrake) then - first and foremost, we
need to get a handle on the concept of "paradigm shift," and
particularly on the more basic question of our "true"
identity. Are we human beings who have evolved the ability
to have a spiritual experience, OR are we spiritual beings
who are confined to an animalistic existence, OR are we a
bit of both (or neither)?
And most importantly for the future, would we (if we are
spiritual beings) benefit from a better engineered
"vehicle" - whether it be from genetics OR a combination of
mechanical components with a mechanical brain (AI computer)
more on that provocative idea later.
One can think of paradigm-shift as a change from one way of
thinking to another; but the concept has become far more
versatile than that. True, it is a revolution, a
transformation, a sort of metamorphosis but not just limited
to a "way of thinking." The concept of paradigm shift also
applies to the underlying mechanics of transformation, and
how it is driven by gradual agents of change to suddenly
become different in all respects from what existed before -
the "tipping point" or "critical mass" are two other ways of
expressing the concept.
Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift
today. The signs are all around us - the computer, the
internet, and most important to those "select" individuals
who may be reading this - alternative energy and especially
"infinite energy" of the LENR or ZPE variety.
Jed Rothwell's new book, and the highly speculative final
chapters, got me thinking about the future and how LENR
combined with advancements in personal computer and
wireless communication have and will continue to impact both
personal and business environments, but on a grander scale
and as a catalyst for paradigm-shift in our real identity.
As a society we are shifting from a mechanistic, exploitive
manufacturing, dependent industrial society to an organic,
service based, self-sufficient, information centered
society, and increases in technology will continue to
advance but at an ever-increasing rate. It will be
mind-boggling. Change is inevitable. It's the only true
constant. And that applies to our own evolution as a
species. I will do Rothwell one better with the prediction
that within a short period after widespread LENR
implementation, some of us (all voluntary) will poised to
enter the 22 Century as a new species, either as a
genetically refined elite, not too different physically OR
in a more mechanical appearance. And yes, the AI
super-computer which controls any mechanical implementation
will be equipped with a "soul" receptacle, and this will be
"after" that technology has been actually proven to be able
provide all the features needed for the type of continuance
we seek.
In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving
and will continue to do so, but now at an increasing rate.
Change is difficult, and most humans naturally resist
change; however, a process has been set in motion which is
now poised to actually change our true identity. And, unlike
drama, the process is unstoppable, despite the heroics of
any future Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity.
The soul is a cultural construct. That is unquestionable. It
may or may not have been implemented on another (higher)
level, but for some purposes that is irrelevant. It has
societal benefits as long as people believe in it. When
people stop believing, it will either be refined or dropped,
but they will never stop believing because it is a form of
identity and continuance, which will always be beneficial.
>From a personal standpoint, I can't imagine why cloning has
much bearing on the concept of soul. The threat to religion
goes way beyond cloning. The human body is a vessel that
creates a space for the soul, but there could eventually be
a better vehicle of our own creation, whether it be composed
of carbohydrates (through cloning) or advance materials
(through manufacturing).
If that is the case, then we will be compelled to redefine
the God-concept in an alternative way: as cyclical, epochal,
ever-advancing, recurring - as more than the sum of all
present souls, but less than the many superlatives that some
would like to burden the concept with. At that point the
method by which the physical body is created- whether in
factories, beakers, body shops, or booty calls- may well
have no bearing on the resulting product.
Fifteen years ago, I became very enamored with this idea
that evolution was pointing the way for us humans to shed a
biological identity in favor of "manufactured" identity...
BUT that such a paradigm-shift did not at all require
society to change its spiritual orientation much, as
reactionary observers might imply. I have a 500 page
manuscript to prove it, which was presented to practically
every publisher in New York. I have a nice pile of rejection
letters somewhere, and most of them are surprisingly
complementary. But all say the same thing - where is the
market for this concept - there is no target audience as it
offends almost every "sensibility" - or "Sci-Fi readers
don't buy philosophy." Here is a few paragraphs from one of
the chapters, shortened from 25 pages to one:
Pure Thought, Human Brains and "Artificial" Intelligence
Of course machines can think
They just don't - yet
And perhaps when they can, they will choose
not to; just like us.
-Oliver Selfridge
What is really so special about the thinking ability of an
exceptional human?
Until the advent of electronics, the most compelling reason
to be precise in defining intelligence was pedantic, but
with the introduction of advanced computers, it seems that
vanity has become a revealing issue. It is clear that very
shortly in time, IQ testing of the Binet variety will not
provide humans with any advantage. Realizing this growing
capability of machines, a few humans have exerted great
effort in the past decade to try to erect a contrived
barrier that would somehow "sanctify" only one kind of
intelligence.
The sanctification of a particular class of thinker goes
beyond the limits of science, of course, but more
alarmingly, it obscures the profound and consequential
question: our true essence and identity. A crucial debate in
twenty-first century morality will likely center on whether
our future as thinking beings is irrevocably tied to the
continued adaptability of an animal species; or
alternatively whether technology will deliver us from that
organic heritage, should it ever become unquestionably
advantageous, in "our" broader identity as "sentient
beings". We can scarcely afford to limit our options in this
regard, given the demonstrable frailty of biological life in
the face of cosmological whim..
Intelligence is certainly more than problem solving and more
than admirable emotional ability combined with problem
solving. The capability to observe and generalize, to form
analogies, to think symbolically, to be creative, and to
communicate ideas orally and visually all signify aspects of
intellect. The psychologist J.P. Guilford cataloged 120
different types of responses that are associated with
intellectual ability. If one could weight these factors
properly, it might be possible to arrive at an adequate but
overly complex method for certifying intelligence. Howard
Gardner has systematically grouped intelligence into seven
broad types, which has helped to structure the objective
indicia. A most simplified but adequate definition has been
suggested by Christopher Evans, that being the ability of a
system to adjust to a changing world. A similar conclusion
is Jeremy Campbell's notion of "worldliness." Yet these
simple definitions may themselves be unnecessarily
subjective.
Defining any reasonably broad term can involve a certain
amount of semantic recursion, and intelligence and
information are reflexive words that can be mutually
dependent upon each other for meaning. Any system that
utilizes information in a goal-directed way has some claim
to intelligence - and even the "goal" part of the equation
is only important to demonstrate that the information, the
critical element, has objective significance. Using
self-contained information to alter a future state,
particularly for gain (either individual gain or
group-oriented gain), is the key to intelligence.
But information perceived and retained, even if it is not
used immediately, can also signify a latent level of
intelligence. Everything gets back to "information" as a
generic basis. Information has both epistemological and
theological connotations, as it conveys the substance, more
so than the details, of relationships from an accumulated
past. Information should be distinguished from mere data -
which is temporal, random, unorganized and sterile - rather,
it connotes essence, record, symbol, and generalization. It
is
from an overly narrow perspective that data-information has
been argued to useless without the subjective concept of
"meaning."
>From this viewpoint, Theodore Roszak asserts that "ideas
create information," but there is a more inclusive level of
understanding that goes the other way. In an expansive
field-delineated sense, information can be seen as an end
into itself, its own idea, incorporating both data and
"virtual" meaning - suggestive, even, of a free-floating
agency without other participation as in the meme-ideal. The
'virtual meaning" implicit in information is not only
potential meaning but the ability to self-generate
individual collaborators, information accumulators, over
time. It will be used in this broad context throughout this
analysis.
The difference in perspective on the nature of information
adds a new dimension to the famous solipsism of Bishop
Berkeley - the one which suggested that the falling tree
makes no sound if there is no human present to hear it. The
pragmatist maintains that the falling tree creates an
objective flurry of vibrations at acoustic frequencies, even
if there is no human present to confirm a subjective sound,
for several related reasons. Most obviously, it would be
extreme conceit to suppose that all sentient forms, seen or
unseen could be identified, if not nullified by one narrow
class of observer, Homo sapiens. For the traditionalist,
moreover, it negates most perceptions of divinity to suggest
that "some" intelligence is not always present, as the good
Bishop was aware.
Secondly, despite the fact that subatomic events are
minutely altered by the very act of perception (the basis of
an extended uncertainty principle which is multiplied to
theatrical proportions by philosophical discourse), the
effect is trivial and statistically correctable to an
accuracy exceeding instrumentation. Physical activity at the
lowest level, where atoms bump into atoms, has a large scale
continuity that is assumptive of perception rather than
independent of perception). Otherwise, there would be
numerous unacceptable consequences- such as lapses of cause
and effect which would be quite glaring in a predominantly
deterministic universe. If lapses exist, they are isolated
and probably nonrandom.
A few observers have argued that reality cannot exist
independently from the observer based upon an exaggerated if
not mocking interpretation of quantum uncertainty - aware
that like atheists they can tarnish the majority opinion
with little risk of being disproven. The 4D approach to the
nature of information, presented here, compounds the
analysis by asserting that as events recur and accumulate
past a critical level, a degree of retentiveness becomes
intrinsic; that is, a field emanates and propagates its own
vitality.
This outlook suggests that habitual activity becomes a
tentative subfield which is self-perpetuating to a degree
through correlation effects, having the capacity over
extended duration to organize and induce its own image into
its proximity. Information, then, is both virtual
intelligence and causative, as it is capable of stimulating
self-referential changes in 3D reality which can eventually
engender a physical information accumulator.
.... more later
Jones
Oh. And one further ironic thing about Rod Serling and his
legacy, which will live-on for a long time and has already
been reincarnated in such writers as Stephen King, soul or
no soul.
In his last interview, four months before his untimely
death (from a heavy cigarette habit) Serling was asked about
the soul, life after death ,and reincarnation. He said, "I
don't believe in reincarnation. That's a cop-out. . . . I
anticipate death will be a totally unconscious void in which
you float through eternity with no particular consciousness
of anything."
BTW there is enough trivia about Serling for two books.
Harlan Ellison, Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, Richard
Matheson, Sidney Sheldon and J. Michael Straczynski all
wrote episodes for him. The opening and closing music was
done by The Grateful Dead. His cast of actors who would
often work for union minimums include: Robert Redford, Ron
Howard, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Carol Burnett,
Charles Bronson, Dennis Hopper, Robert Duvall, Julie
Newmar, Burt Reynolds, Martin Balsam, Art Carney, James
Coburn, Peter Falk, Buster Keaton, Jack Klugman, Cloris
Leachman, Lee Marvin, Burgess Meredith, John Astin, Roddy
McDowell, Vera Miles, Mickey Rooney and Jonathan Winters....
to name but a few.
