Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

[Corvus]

We are all familiar with the story, though it's likely most of us have never read the book. Yet the novel poses some deep questions many of us may have forgotten in the commercialisation of the story. As we all know, the story is about a creation of science, a monster sown together from the parts of dead bodies and brought back to life through the power of electricity - an impossible situation prevented by the law of biogenesis. Regardless, this raises such questions as,

"Do we have souls?"

"What is a soul?"

"In which part of the body does the soul reside?"

"Would Frankenstein's monster have a soul? Would a machine? What if the machine was a replica of a man?"

There are others, but these are the ones I wish to focus on.

[perspective]

"Do we have souls?"

I don't believe that there is anything physical that we could define as a "soul". I think humans perceive "soulness", and all in very different ways.

"What is a soul?"

The perception of a soul is a combination of chemical reactions - mostly neurological synapses, brain waves, and hormonal chemicals.

"In which part of the body does the soul reside?"

The entire body is responsible for providing neurological feedback, so I guess we could think of the soul as residing in the entire body - from tip of your toes to the top of your head, all of your millions and millions of nerve endings play a part in our perception of the world, and in return, our perception of ourselves....a fascinating book that I'm currently reading: Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzales.

from the book:

Through close analysis of case studies, Laurence Gonzales describes the essence of a survivor and offers twelve "Rules of Survival." In the end, he finds, it's what's in your heart, not what's in your pack, that separates the living from the dead. Fascinating for any reader, and absolutely essential for anyone who takes a hike in the woods, this book will change the way we understand ourselves and the great outdoors.

It goes on to explain how our neurological impulses become ingrained and familiar and turn into feelings, inclinations, emotions. It's actually quite fascinating, and the studies it refers to make it obvious that the physical, chemical, biological occurrences are not theoretical - but real.

"Would Frankenstein's monster have a soul? Would a machine? What if the machine was a replica of a man?"

We are not so sophisticated yet that we could develop a man-made object capable of feelings. We are not even CLOSE to being allowed to politically, ethically. But the bigger barrier is that we are still learning, discovering, and fighting rhetoric in the quest of understanding the body's physical properties and how it all relates to the "intangibles" - feelings, emotions - essentially, the "soul" of a person.

[otseng]

"Do we have souls?"

Yes.

"What is a soul?"

The part of us that is not physical. It is responsible for such things as the conscience, intuition, personality, free will, and (complex) emotions.

"In which part of the body does the soul reside?"

Since I do not believe the soul is physical, I don't believe it resides anywhere. However, while we have a living body, the soul is "attached" to a single body. After the body is dead, the soul is disembodied.

"Would Frankenstein's monster have a soul? Would a machine? What if the machine was a replica of a man?"

No, I don't believe it's possible, since I believe souls are created by God.

I think I more realistic scenario (though it could be hundreds of years away) is when science is able to build living things on the atomic level. When it is able to construct a human replica completely from the basic elements, then we will find out if humans can have a soul from a naturalistic explanation.

[using reason]

How would you determine that an entity created by naturalistic means has a soul, when we cannot state with any absolute certainty that anyone has a soul today? We can claim we know people have souls, but how do you prove it? If you cannot prove it, how would you know the difference?

Perhaps the entity acts immorally? Well, we have leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam. We have serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer. We have parents that kill their kids. So, acting immorally will not be the answer.

So, I really do not understand how we tell the difference.

[otseng]

How would you determine that an entity created by naturalistic means has a soul, when we cannot state with any absolute certainty that anyone has a soul today? We can claim we know people have souls, but how do you prove it? If you cannot prove it, how would you know the difference?

My definition of what constitutes a soul includes the conscience, intuition, personality, free will, and (complex) emotions.

So, my prediction is that an entity created by purely naturalistic means would not exhibit the above qualities.

[using reason]

But you have the same problem. You can state that you believe it would not have a conscience, but how do you quantify it? Unless it no different than a robot or computer, an entity that walks, talks and thinks would show the same characteristics of a normal person.

[otseng]

But you have the same problem. You can state that you believe it would not have a conscience, but how do you quantify it? Unless it no different than a robot or computer, an entity that walks, talks and thinks would show the same characteristics of a normal person.

There'd be no way to quantify it, but a test can still be made to find out if the entity has a soul (that is based on my definition of the soul).

It'd be similar to the Turing test. But it'd be more than just a conversation, but interacting with it. If after interacting with it and it can be distinguished that it is not fully human, then it doesn't have a soul.

[using reason]

How do you test for a conscience?

[otseng]

How do you test for a conscience?

Some ways:
If it can feel guilty for doing something wrong.
If it blushes when caught doing something wrong or shameful.
If it can choose to follow a sense of morality.
If it can innately determine if something is right or wrong.

[The Hungry Atheist]

How do you measure how much guilt somebody's feeling, or whether or not they're making a 'choice'? And blushing when caught doing something wrong? Is measuring the blood flow in somebody's face really going to be an effective way of determining the existence of a soul? And it's not inconceivable that a computer program might be designed that can analyse certain situations and determine the rightness or wrongness of various outcomes.

Things like free will and conscience, and I think consciousness itself, are not things I can imagine being accurately and definitively measurable.