does God excist? are all those people wrong? is God made up? to help us overcome this fear that when we die, theres nothing, we just stop excisting/

help us out

tom
15

I am not familiar with the UK english term "Excist". Please explain.

I think he means Exist.. or perhaps Excite? Execute? Excerpt? excise? Exciton? exclave? excoginate (which I do plenty of!)? excoriate? exculpate? excursive?

How about "Does God Exasperate?"
or this one "Does God Exacerbate?"
or this one "Does Tony1 Exaggerate?"

Originally I was going to tell Kmguru off for being cheeky... but I can't, because I was far cheekier.... so I'm going to scold myself now and then send myself to my room to think about it.

:rolleyes:

Here is the question. If you ask God to give you one million dollars in cash, right there in a brown paper bag:

Can He?
Will it be counterfeit?
Will the serial number all be the same?
If, not, what serial number He will use?
What will be the molecular composition of those notes?
Will those notes be legal?

I'm not arguing any existence here, but this is an interesting way of putting forth that question:

Have you ever seen a billion dollars?

But you know it exists, right?

I've never seen one billion dollars close up (maybe on TV?)

But other people have so we trust other people that if they've seen it, it exists. that is, we have to make sure they're not lying, or hallucinating. But most people survive that test.:eek:

If you have one dollar, how illogical is it to have 999,999,999 more?

If you have a world that never shows any evidence of something 'Godly' (it can't right?), you have a world with at least one person.

Then it isn't illogical to say there are 999,999,999 more people.

There is not one part of God we can measure so how can we assume there is one whole God?

Would that be an English Billion or American Billon?

If so I've see 50 Billon in Bonds, of course it was only a print and I can't tell you who's they were.

How do we know anything exists?

how do we know we exist?

anything we can image exists...

simple...

i think a'll start a new tread

;) We know some things are real because we can make a distinction between what we know and what we imagine, just as you have. Justifying Atheism doesn't have to mean questioning everything.

;) I think the billion dollars is American, for obivous reasons. Why settle for second best? lol

Is that just one God or a group of Gods? If one exists then there must be others, one for each galaxy. Several billions of them...logically speaking ofcourse....

I think he means Exist.. or perhaps Excite? Execute? Excerpt? excise? Exciton? exclave? excoginate (which I do plenty of!)? excoriate? exculpate? excursive?

It may be more in the true spirit of SCIFORUMS to not outline the educational disparities of those who submit their opinions. Instead we should try to encourage people to submit their opinions and try to create an atmoshphere in which people can learn without being threatened by ridicule from those who are in a posistion to enlighten. I am learning too. Whether one chooses to learn is entirely up to them.

youssa in bad doodooo if you think god not exists

One God for each Galaxy should do, dont you think....jar...jar...

The existence of UFO/aliens will have a much much higher chance than the existence of god(s).

machaon,

If you read my first post, you should notice that the paragraph at it's end was so that people should know to take it light heartedly not be dragged down by woe and scorn.

I understand you don't like the nature of someone being negative towards someone, but I wasn't doing so to annoy or put to Shame Toms spelling (as we all spell things wrong at some point.) I did it to try and lessen the seemingly cheeky response of Kmguru to that first post as I know he too meant it light heartedly.

So stop being such a stick in the mud.

Kmguru,
I once had this really fudged metaphysical, electing a god for each parallel a person creates, you could have everyone on this planet being a deity on at least one world :p

Hindus had 330 million Gods when I think the world population was 330 million. So then beat me by a few thousand years.

Fair enough. I will try to be more perceptive in the future.

Originally posted by Congratulations
;) We know some things are real because we can make a distinction between what we know and what we imagine
Really?,tell me... is this world a hallucination or a reality?

So what if a God from another dimension wages war on the God of our dimension, and ports his minions over... or is that what God and Satan are, anyway?

;) ;) ;) Oh, do stop the silly Hogwash!! All you silly people!

Well, in my opinion, God does exist. Not some dude with a long white beard who lives in clouds. But, a ball of energy. Our equivalent if we used all our brain power. It isn't superior, just a force. See my religion under Agnostic.

Personally, I don´t believe in God(s) or afterlife or anything spiritual
:o

Lucky for you Yang´s_Matrix, if you would have been a Mormon (or similar groups) you would have to shell out 10% to 15% of your income to spread their/your word.

Sooner or later you will end up about 10,000 or more of these groups, each with their version of God. So much for one God...

Tom and Atomka,

I think the main question is not, whether there is a god, but whether we will still exist as self-aware individuals after our biological death. My opinion in this matter is described at my website.
---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my updated weltanschauung (world outlook) is described at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm - related forum discussions are listed at: http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/links.htm

Gods do not exist.

But this does depend on the definitions of the words ‘god’ and ‘exist’.

Take for example a zero dimensional object. In effect this is a point located by coordinates in a 3 dimensional matrix. It has no material substance since it has no dimensions. So does it exist? You see the problem?

We must agree that the point certainly exists since we can indeed locate it and use it for practical applications. E.g. it defines the starting point or corner of a true 3 dimensional object.

Can God be located in a 3D matrix? No. Are there any known means or senses that can detect, locate or measure the existence of a God? No.

Can someone imagine that a god exists? Most certainly. Do any such immaterial imaginary objects exist in reality? No.

Gods can only exist in a person’s imagination. Imaginary objects do not exist in reality.

In otherwords God exists in a person's mind. Like DNA, the total neural expression of God differs from person to person. May be....

Ha ha, that wasn't quite what I had in mind. But yes, without a definitive description of God and his properties then people will fill in the blanks using their imagination. That of course leads to as many perspectives of god as their are people. Just look at the major religions and their escalating numbers of cults and sects, each having their own interpretation of what god is and what he desires.

Gods are whatever people imagine.

In our minds yes, or more to the point in the part of our mind that the limited conscious parts fail to recognize.

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself."

-- Sir Richard F. Burton


Me too.

whf

Cris,

Your definition of “exist” is just related to material items, where god would not belong to.

Would you say, that ethical values “exist” (e.g. “the great American values” where G.W.Bush refers to)? I think such values are certainly relative, but they do exist and many people share the belief in their existence. In a similar way god can exist, but its appearance is relative too and a localization is not possible.

---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my updated weltanschauung (world outlook) is described at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm - related forum discussions are listed at: http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/links.htm

First of all, what is god?, been an atheist or a thiest one canot claim that something exists or does not exist without knowing what that something is!!.

For Chris to claim flatly that "god does not exist" is just as meaningless as for anyother theist to claim that it does, without having a concrete explanation of what god is.

God is plainly a mental perception of the unexplainable, since we don't have an explanation for something as simple as "reality, existence, the cosmos" ancient civilizations determined that it had to have come from some other form of existence which is far superior to our own, therefore god is invented!. By manipulating this idea with quilt, men have been able to "control" the masses by creating morals in the name of this entity.

That's however how I can view the question of god, gods or supernatural. I'ts unknown, and with every scientific breakthrough that we as a civilization come up with to disprove this entity, more and more wild assertions of this entity will be made up. i.e.; god exists in other dimenssions, etc:confused:

I am convinced that God makes me lose at SkeeBall because I don't believe in Him.

*Originally posted by Cris
Imaginary objects do not exist in reality. *

I imagine you have a brain.

Godless,

I agree, it is not very important and exciting to discuss whether god exists or not. But it is important and exciting to think about whether we will still exist as self-aware individuals after our biological death as I would assume.

---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my updated weltanschauung (world outlook) is described at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm - related forum discussions are listed at: http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/links.htm

Originally posted by Hermann
Godless,

I agree, it is not very important and exciting to discuss whether god exists or not. But it is important and exciting to think about whether we will still exist as self-aware individuals after our biological death as I would assume.

---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my updated weltanschauung (world outlook) is described at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm - related forum discussions are listed at: http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/links.htm

Thanks I have to look at this for awhile, because it's a bit long.

God has nine billion names and images and idealics on each of us. To claim Thee or deny Thee demands and requires an impossible definition that cannot be encoded or decoded for absolute truth. It is neither quantifiable or digitizable to measure.
(I'm pretty sure the '9 Billion' statement is true. I read it in a school book so it must be.)

"God is a theorem, not a postulate."

"Lucky for you Yang´s_Matrix, if you would have been a Mormon (or similar groups) you would have to shell out 10% to 15% of your income to spread their/your word."

Lucky me
:p

Cris,

if you point your finger in the air, that is a point in space with xyz co-ordinates. Something may rest there at 0,0,0 co-ordinates, but nothing with zero dimensions. I don't think we can imagine anything with such dimensions since everything in our world is measured. Something with zero dimensions would actually be 'nothing' for to imagine something of substance, it would already have dimensions.

Like the air in front of you, you do not see it but you know it exists. It becomes more physically apparent when you run and you can feel the air. What about feelings, I cannot feel your emotions , but I think you must have emotions ( I hope :) ) I can't see your emotions, though you tell me about them; so can I label them imaginary? Is it real when someone actually 'feels' someway, or is it merely become subjective with respect to the event caused by it? ie your feelings are not real because only you feel it?

So say, I 'feel' god, is it my imagination like how I can feel the "air/wind' when I run or your emotions? I think that it exists, but I can not know, because I base my conclusion on someone else's imperial experience? Or do I say I DO know because someone else experienced it?

hey, I just as confused as the next guy.

GoD EXIST .........
and there is ONLY ONE god ........... ( thats what our religion say .. and i beleive it .. )

Okay, there is but one God. I agree.

Now, YOUR religion, as taught to you, says you do XYZ and mine says, ABC. Which of us is right?

This is the war in Afaghanistan-today, now, this minute. bin Laden says that there is ONE god and HIS way of worshiping including female circumcision is the ONLY correct way of worshiping this ONE god. We are idolotors, corruptors of youth, hedonistic abusers, in short we are the GREAT satan. So HE has been appointed by GOD to destroy us. To that end, he stands accused (although stops short of accepting blame) for destroying the WTC on 11 SEP 01 and killing 3100 office workers. WE have decided to retaliate and root him and ALL "Terrorists" (good luck finding a defintion to that term) "wherever they may be" or so sayeth the Shrub.

My point? Oh Yeah I guess I did have one, after all, IF there is only one God, and I worship him in what YOU may consider an unconventional way, however it venerates this single creator and harms no other individual in anyway (other than to pollute my childrens minds, but they're fair game under the chattle/property laws) MY worship is [also] correct--isn't it?

Fatty, hi and welcome to sciforums. Something with zero dimensions would actually be 'nothing' for to imagine something of substance, it would already have dimensions. So what you are trying to say is that a point located by 3 coordinates does not exist.

And Hermann,Would you say, that ethical values “exist” (e.g. “the great American values” where G.W.Bush refers to)? I think such values are certainly relative, but they do exist… A different view of something existing, but a similar problem.

Fatty, again,What about feelings, I cannot feel your emotions , but I think you must have emotions ( I hope ) I can't see your emotions, though you tell me about them; so can I label them imaginary?But while this might appear the same as above it is different.

And Godless,For Chris to claim flatly that "god does not exist" is just as meaningless as for anyother theist to claim that it does, without having a concrete explanation of what god is. And I’ll get to that in a moment.

Hermann, again,Your definition of “exist” is just related to material items, where god would not belong to. So we need to define immaterial existence as well.

This really raises the question of what we mean when we say “exist”.

It looks like that if we can name something then it can exist. Hmmm, that’s kind of a wide scope. It’s a bit like a noun, right? An idea is a noun, a god is a noun, an emotion is a noun, etc. But that isn’t quite what we mean; we are being confused by our usage of the English language.

A point in space must exist since we can locate it. It has a physical location. Does it matter that it does not have any substance? I don’t think so. We could say a point is immaterial, but that isn’t the normal expectation for such a term. However, a point can be defined and it’s physical position located, it is real.

Emotions are much easier to define. They certainly exist and are purely material. They are the manifestations of neurobiological processes. With appropriate instruments it is possible to measure such processes.

But ideas and concepts, do they exist? Yes of course and these again are entirely material. They exist purely as patterns of neural networks within a human brain. Many humans can have copies of similar patterns and be able to communicate the similarities between one another. If we had the required instruments we would be able to point to the specific neurons and state that these patterns represent a specific idea.

But what about gods? Godless has accused me of being irrational because I did not justify my claim, and he is technically correct, but to equate me with theists is not valid.

All things that exist are within the material domain. Even a point, for it to exist, must be located in a physical domain. Thoughts, ideas, concepts, emotions, are all manifestations of the material world (brain patterns if you like). But we have absolutely no experience, knowledge, or any detection methods, that would allow us to show that something other than a material object exists or can exist.

So how about imaginary objects? Here we must carefully distinguish between the brain patterns that form that part of the imagination concerned and the concept of the target image. If I imagine a god then clearly those brain patterns exist, but the target image has no substance or material manifestation, it is not real.

So unless anyone can show how non-material objects can exist then I stand by my claim that gods are purely imaginary and are therefore not part of reality and hence do not exist.

Cris

hi.." God exists"..i always thought something that had a beginning and an end..like say human..could only be considered as 'exisiting'..
God...is been considered to be there...before..now and after...
so i dont think you can classify god to be exsisting..but..he surely is there..somewhere..

in hinduism...god is given three forms..
1. the creator = Bramha
2. the preservor = Vishnu
3. the destroyer = Shiva

more like Generator
Operator
Destroyer

still searching...>>>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Godless
God is plainly a mental perception of the unexplainable,

Read the Bhgavad Gita, there you will find explanations.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Cris,

I strongly disagree, when you say "All things that exist are within the material domain". In my opinion ideas and concepts are purely non-material and are properties of the soul, even when they are written in the brain or in publications. I think, e.g. our forum discussions are discussions between souls - we need computers and the internet just because our souls are captured by the body during life. Before and after our biological life direct communications should be possible.
In conclusion, ideas, concepts and souls are non-material - and God (whatever it means) is non-material as well.

---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my updated weltanschauung (philosophy of life) is described at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm - related forum discussions are listed at: http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/links.htm.

Hermann,

Demonstrate how an alleged soul can develop and store information (e.g. ideas and concepts). What mechanism is used? Show why the brain is not an adequate mechanism for this task such that a soul must be involved. Explain why your answer is any different from a human fantasy.

Re: Your assertion that souls are non-material: Justify your conclusion by demonstrating how something non-material can exist and can be substantively differentiated from a human fantasy.

Cris

Cris,

It is quite difficult to answer your questions. How can we understand the functioning of the spiritual world by methods and models of the material world?

If you write a letter via PC, the print-out on paper will be the final product where the message is stored. But before, the message was stored in your PC and someone from outside (without deeper knowledge) could think, the PC with its fantastic capabilities has composed the letter by itself - not knowing, that you are the author standing behind.
The message is also stored in your brain and you think, the brain with its fantastic capabilities has composed it by itself - not knowing that your soul is standing behind as the real author (not just another computer).

We think we have a deep understanding of our material world. But is it really a deep understanding or just a perfect description? Do you really understand why two magnets apply a force against each other through an empty space. There is no spring in between, which could make the force understandable. Does the magnetic field really exist or is it just a nice model living in our fantasy?

---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my updated weltanschauung (philosophy of life) is described at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm

Hi Hermann,

I know we’ve been here before hence my slightly different approach.

It is quite difficult to answer your questions. How can we understand the functioning of the spiritual world by methods and models of the material world? 1. Because we only have knowledge of the material world.

2. If the supernatural realm is entirely separate from the material world then we can never know about it.

3. If the supernatural does interact with the material world then that implies that a material model can be constructed to detect the interaction.

If you have knowledge of the supernatural realm then either you must exist entirely within the supernatural realm and I am only imagining that you have posted here, or you have a material method of detecting supernatural interactions with the material.

Assuming you are not supernatural then you need to demonstrate the interactions or state how you are able to claim the supernatural exists or admit you have no knowledge of the supernatural and that your claims are only personal fantasies.

re your PC analogy: The message is also stored in your brain and you think, the brain with its fantastic capabilities has composed it by itself - not knowing that your soul is standing behind as the real author (not just another computer). And what about the lifetime of brain growth that started soon after your conception that began with a few neural connections and through a lifetime of sensory input developed and grew through trial an error billions of new neural networks that finally enabled you to write the letter. This is purely material, there is absolutely no need for a soul or a supernatural element.

The human brain is a superb piece of biology, do not denigrate this amazing evolutionary product or overlook the massive progress made by pure human intelligence, by assigning these achievements to a fantasy spirit world.

We think we have a deep understanding of our material world. But is it really a deep understanding or just a perfect description? I’m not sure we do think that. I see human progress, science, and human evolution to be near the beginning of our potential. It would be arrogant of us to assume we have a deep understanding.

However, in all our knowledge and science, we have only ever been able to detect a material world. If there is something else then it is currently undetectable in which case neither you nor I have any way to know the supernatural can or does exist.

Do you really understand why two magnets apply a force against each other through an empty space. There is no spring in between, which could make the force understandable. Does the magnetic field really exist or is it just a nice model living in our fantasy?I don’t have a clear idea, of gravity, or the weak or strong nuclear forces either. But I know they exist because science can demonstrate their effects, it really doesn’t matter what we call them. Can you do the same thing for a supernatural force? What demonstration can you provide that is at least equal to showing how magnetism exists?

Take care
Cris

Hi Cris..and all..
i read this somewhere...
there are 4 levels of consiousness...
1. Unconsious..
2. Consious..
3. Super consious..wherein the person knows of the existence of god..
4. Devine consious..wherein he realises that god resides within himself..itself..
so would nt these explain..what you were explaining
------------------------
1. Because we only have knowledge of the material world.

2. If the supernatural realm is entirely separate from the material world then we can never know about it.

3. If the supernatural does interact with the material world then that implies that a material model can be constructed to detect the interaction.
--------------
its like you wake up from the material world to enter the realm of the spiritual (supernatural)..
so through walking the materialistic path..you finally reach the spiritualistic...
just a thought...
please comment..
thanks..

One can spend 8 hours a day for the next ten years trying to lift a 2 liter sealed bottle of coke only using his mind....with negative results.

It aint happening....give up.... :D

Cris,
when we talk about Supernatural phenomenon,it means which is not natural and to be more precise which is not of this world,to be more precise,it exists or occurs in the world at a different frequency or a level,for that you"ll have to upload yourself to That world then only you"ll be able to understand that phenomenon.

And may death is nothing more then entry into another dream with different rules to escape the trauma of this program.

bye!

Cris,

You feel certainly something when you make the statement “I am”. This is not just a short sentence, but something what we normally call self-awareness. Do you really think, that you can provide a computer with such “feeling”? If not, why should the slow evolution have been smarter than you – assuming such feeling is a feature of the brain hardware and not a feature of the attached soul?

---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my updated weltanschauung (philosophy of life) is described at: http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm

Hi Hermann,

You feel certainly something when you make the statement “I am”. This is not just a short sentence, but something what we normally call self-awareness. Yes I accept that.

Do you really think, that you can provide a computer with such “feeling”? If not, why should the slow evolution have been smarter than you – assuming such feeling is a feature of the brain hardware and not a feature of the attached soul?I actually do expect that computing power will soon equal and surpass the current abilities of the human brain. The most powerful computers today have an equivalent intelligence to that of an insect. Moore’s law has held up very well since the 1940’s with a steady doubling of computer power every 18 months, and that period has seen several major paradigm shifts. E.g. vacuum tubes to transistors, transistors to Ics, Ics to VLSI, etc. Current forecasting of computer power predicts some 2 million times increase in current power by around 2030 or before. This would be sufficient to equal the human brain.

If you can imagine your current PC with an increase in power of 2 million times, or perhaps imagine 2 million PCs in your home all intrically linked and working together, then that will give you some idea of the complexity and power needed.

I do not see anything special regarding the human brain apart from the sheer number of neurons and the number of connections, that is an oversimplification but you get the main idea.

Most animals are not self-aware, although claims for partial self-awareness have been made for some of the primates. It would appear that there is a minimum brain complexity needed for self-awareness to kick in. When computing power, both hardware and software achieve the same complexity as the human brain then self-awareness should also kick-in.

We then may have a problem: Independent intelligent machines will be our equals in terms of brainpower but without the disadvantages of a biological shell. Computing power is also likely to continue to increase implying that machines will exceed human brainpower quite quickly. Humans will no longer be the dominant species on the planet.

I see that as a problem for humans since biological evolution even with genetic engineering is unlikely to be able to result in the increases in cranium size needed to equal the rapidly increasing intelligence of the machines. If we are to compete and survive alongside our AI friends then we also need to adopt the same technology. In other words we must devise a means to transfer our brain function to a computer-based structure.

The development of AI is proceeding and computing power will at some point exceed the power of the human brain. These are considered by all authorities in the field to be inevitable. Only the timescale remains a question. At some point, most likely within the next 50 years humans will no longer be the dominant intelligence on the planet.

The biggest question is how will these machines decide to treat us. If we can become their equals then the question will be quite different.

I really do not see any future for humans in our current biological and inefficient forms.

The issue of a soul will be simply irrelevant and forgotten.

Sorry – more than I intended.

Cris

you"re confused...


brain's neural nets pattern is a software part of us.that software part is nothing but soul.the signals i mean.the death is nothing but unloading of the whole pattern,to be reloaded again into the world after the erasure of previous memories.
a backup is there in form of sub-concious memory.

the analogy is dreams of our own:
============================================
we dream,in the morning we wake up and we forget the whole thing,the dream part i mean,quickly.

life-->we die,ie we wake up,or we are unloaded--->all memories erased--->again reloaded.

that is why i say for becoming immortal we have to tell our brains and make them realise that this whole thing is just a facade.


bye!

Hi Cris,

I agree with you, that computers will become much more intelligent than humans. Right now they can play chess better than humans and in future they will be able to compose symphonies and to write intelligent texts including speeches for presidents. Any mechanical or intelligent action of humans, which can be analyzed by humans (e.g. as duty or as reaction to something) can also be programmed. This implements also most programming work and makes it possible that computers replicate themselves. Therefore in the far future perhaps only some key programmers will be needed.

But we should not mix up sources with processors and memories. Computers and robotics have fantastic processors and memories, but they are no real sources. Everything what they do has been programmed - to be understood in a very wide sense.

The real human source is its soul and it manifests itself in the feeling “I am”. There is no need, that humans perform in their life better than computers and robots, but they have a principally different quality.

I could imagine that in far future, when we made more progress in copying the human brain (just as processor with memory), it may be possible that a human soul attaches to a computer, which would allow living on earth when no biological life is possible anymore. But then computers are becoming “humans”.

Hermann
---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my updated weltanschauung (philosophy of life) is described at: http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm

Hi Hermann,

But we should not mix up sources with processors and memories. Computers and robotics have fantastic processors and memories, but they are no real sources. Everything what they do has been programmed - to be understood in a very wide sense.

The real human source is its soul and it manifests itself in the feeling “I am”. There is no need, that humans perform in their life better than computers and robots, but they have a principally different quality. Two main issues then: Source, and programming.

Source: It is not really clear what you mean here. I know you are claiming that a soul is the source but what is the soul generating? Are you claiming the soul generates ideas and emotions? But where does the soul receive its information? If you forget the idea of a soul for which there is no factual support then you should find my explanation below both far more simple and supported by evidence.

A source to my mind means external information. And for that information to be of use there needs to be a mechanism to process it. A brain is the processing mechanism and it receives all information through the bodily senses. If a soul existed and somehow claimed a new body at birth or conception then one might imagine that this intelligent entity would already be capable of ideas and knowledge. But that isn’t what we observe in a newborn child. Such a child has virtually no abilities whatsoever apart from basic bodily autonomous functions, and basic brain functions that support feeding, defecating, and activation of the senses. From day one the child cannot speak, and cannot control any of its limbs, in any coordinated manner.

All the abilities a child eventually acquires come from feedback loops formed by sensory inputs and ever-changing neural connections. When any random limb movement or vocal action receives a positive reaction then the associated neural connections are reinforced. This long process of trial and error results in what we see as the learning process. As abilities to perceive and understand external input improve then these add to further neural connections.

As the child grows then memories (neural connection patterns) absorbed from earlier experiences combined with the extensive processing abilities of the brain provide the new human with the opportunity to form new ideas, and to speculate. At an appropriate level of absorbed experiences and knowledge the child becomes self-aware. It can say “I am”. Where is there a need for such a thing as a soul? There isn’t.

Computer Programming: I work with the designers of compiler optimizers and SQL RDBMS optimizers, etc. These pieces of software are delving into artificial intelligence techniques where the results are often beyond the capabilities of a single human to accurately predict the outcome. The increasing complexity of our problems now require us to use semi-intelligent software to generate yet more software. Humans are gradually being removed from the programming function.

Around 10 years ago I watched a program using a neural network technique learn to calculate the square root of any number. It was only given a basic knowledge of symbols and then some examples of what square root equations looked like. From there it spent many hours learning until it could finally perform the calculations on any numbers. There was no human interaction apart from the initial examples. What impressed me the most was when the author stated that he really didn’t know how the program had reached it’s conclusions. It had learnt by forming random neural paths and adapting based on self-feedback, exactly like a human child.

But that was 10 years ago and neural nets are far more sophisticated now and computing power much higher.

So I think you are quite wrong to imply that because something is programmed it cannot generate original thought. In my simple example a computer program was able to learn how to generate a general-purpose algorithm by itself. Now consider the abilities of such a program given computing power of a 100,000,000 times the most powerful computers of today, and that is expected within the next 20 years.

Self-awareness I suspect is a matter of adequate processing power and the ability to learn from sensory input. A human is no more than a biological machine. And there remains no credible evidence to suggest otherwise or that a supernatural element has any function to perform. If a computer has the ability to learn then its intelligence and ability for original thought should be no different to a human, since humans have to perform the same learning processes.

Have fun
Cris

Thumps up on that!!;)

The short word for all that you wrote though, is epistemology.

The term which means the philosophycal study of human knowledge.

This is the one that theist forget, or evade. They simply believe that by having faith, one automatically learns.

Godless,

Aye, I know, and I've mentioned it in these forums a number of times. Generally all the discussions here that concern belief by faith and belief by reason are all rooted in epistemology - i.e. what is it that constitues knowledge.

Religionists have been holding out for millenia in tying to assert that evidence is not needed to be able to recognize knowledge. The claims simply deny logic, but then of course they tend to deny that logic has any value as well. Sigh!

Cris (note no H)

If God is definied as an infinite and all-knowing being, I see that as illogical. To be infinite there has to be nothing outside of god, which means you have to simply declare the universe itself to be god. Doing this still leaves you with the little problem that parts of god (me, for example) aren't fully aware of other parts of god (whatever's going on in your mind, for example), and so he doesn't seem very all-knowing even if he's infinite.

If you have another definition for a god, maybe it'd make more sense, but I probably wouldn't term it a god myself. As you can probably guess I'm an atheist. ;) On the other hand I probably have a lot of beliefs that make no logical sense, and there's no reason a belief in god should have to be harmful, so who am I to question religion.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Read the Bhgavad Gita, there you will find explanations.


Even not caring for the directly religious aspects, I think the Gita does have some good perspectives on reality. My main objection is to the idea that lack of connection to your body/mind means you should try to separate from them... seems kind of funny and pointless to try so hard to get somewhere when you've just been told you're really already there.

Originally posted by Cris
A human is no more than a biological machine. And there remains no credible evidence to suggest otherwise

I have to disagree with you there. (Although I used to think that way, I admit.) Tell me one thing: how do you account for subjectivity? You can never have someone else's experience, because as soon as you have it, it becomes yours.

The brain is a biological machine. The mind is tied to the brain in a very basic way, but there's also a conscious aspect. Thoughts are related to patterns in the brain, but those patterns aren't the thoughts themselves, the thoughts involve the conscious aspect. This isn't supernatural, it's just not physical... we can't see this non-physical level because it's where we are that gives us the perspective to observe the physical. Certainly the mind is strongly related to the physical and many modern theorists say the mental aspects naturally arise from certain types of physical formations... but people have been trying forever and have yet to explain consciousness and subjectivity in physical terms. If you can, please do and you can get famous.

The brain is a biological machine. The mind is tied to the brain in a very basic way, but there's also a conscious aspect. Thoughts are related to patterns in the brain, but those patterns aren't the thoughts themselves, the thoughts involve the conscious aspect. Why the restrictive mind/brain?

Why not mind/person (the brain being part of the person)?

Does substituting 'person' for 'brain' in the above change it's sense?

Curious.

Take care.

Chagur,

Why the restrictive mind/brain?

Why not mind/person (the brain being part of the person)?

Does substituting 'person' for 'brain' in the above change it's sense?Yes it does if you are assuming that ‘person’ means your whole body. Although I’m not sure that is what you meant. If you remove parts of your body, are you any less ‘you’. No, since it is your mind and memories that we normally take to indicate ‘you’.

It follows that if we could remove all your bodily parts and leave just your brain, perhaps connected to some sensors, then provided you hadn’t gone insane at this point your brain will still provide the essential ‘you’.

You are your mind and that is also your brain.

Consider what would happen if we started removing parts of your brain, perhaps that part that contains the memory of your past and identity. Without an identity would you still be you? I’d argue that you would no longer be you at that point.

Cris

Hi Hoth,

Welcome to sciforums.

Tell me one thing: how do you account for subjectivity? You can never have someone else's experience, because as soon as you have it, it becomes yours.I’m afraid I don’t follow your reasoning. Please explain a bit more.

The mind is tied to the brain in a very basic way, but there's also a conscious aspect. Thoughts are related to patterns in the brain, but those patterns aren't the thoughts themselves, the thoughts involve the conscious aspect. I believe you are incorrect in every aspect.

1. The mind is what the brain does.
2. The neural networks (brain patterns if you like) are the physical manifestation of thoughts and memories.
3. Thoughts, mind, consciousness, are all products of the brain.

What do you think the neural networks do if they are not responsible for thoughts and memories? Thoughts are not some abstract floating energy field; they are formed specifically by the physical properties of the brain.

This isn't supernatural, it's just not physical... Define not physical if it isn’t supernatural?

Try this link from Drake University -

http://www.educ.drake.edu/romig/cogito/brain_and_mind.html

A few quotes from the article –

1. The Mind is What the Brain Does.
2. Mind-Body dualism is rejected by modern cognitive scientists.
3. The structure and functions of the brain largely determine the nature of mind.
4. The neuron is the primary building block of the brain.
5. The Processing Brain is Primarily a Meaning Maker.

Have fun
Cris

Messin' with the brain. That is how this hamster intends to escape the limits of this hamster. Add a little here, nip a little there. Store some memories in chips. Use other chips to make the biological memories more accessible. Add a math chip to do the calculations for which the wetware seems so poorly equipped.

Will CyberHamster be Imahamster? Will CyberHamster’s identity change with each revision of chip software?

This hamster’s identity has always seemed to change. Sometimes quickly. Go from executive one day to bum the next. Is it the same person? Sometimes death is easier to accept than change.

This hamster intends to shed identity as a snake sheds a skin it has outgrown.

Cris, this hamster found the Drake University link interesting. However some of the information is outdated (examples provided below). Much speculation was presented as fact. The author seems too intent on presenting a complete theory of mind. This hamster feels the story is far more cloudy than one would gather from reading this article. (Good topics for the Nature of Thought thread. Wish you would participate. This hamster has enjoyed your posts.)

“The human brain is composed of approximately 100 billion neurons each having 1 to 10 thousand synaptic connections to other neurons (providing an incredibly large number of possible connections)”

And yet later this hamster reads…

“The brain consists of approximately 10 billion neurons”

“Cro-magnon cave paintings at Lascaux, France, made about 17,000 years ago, provide one of our earliest records of human "mind." The paintings provide rich pictures of hunting scenes, showing the animals in great detail, but there is an almost total absence of human figures. It suggests that early man did not have a firm concept of self. “

“Studies of chimpanzee behavior show that primates other than man (some of whom share up to 99% of the genetic material carried by humans) show no evidence of consciousness Chimps exhibit social behaviors, even primitive communication, but show little ability to use symbols and no sense of self.”

“Evolution is facilitated by a genetic mutation rate of about 10%”

This hamster finds the above quotes highly questionable.

Overall an interesting read but to be chewed carefully before swallowing.

Hi Hamster,

Thanks for your comments.

Yes I was looking for something that wasn't so lost in scientific terminology that made it difficlut to read but not so simple that my point wasn't made.

I need to dig deeper and this would probably be good material for the science forums, it is time I returned there I think. But I do seem to enjoy controversy more than the discipline of dry science, and religion definitely stimulates more controversy than almost anything else.

Take care my furry friend.
Cris

Cris, this hamster has never learned to provide the right level of information. Tend to be a pedantic little critter.

Explaining complex systems to newcomers has caused this hamster distress. Should one start with a simple explanation that would be understood but that contained fundamental errors? This hamster’s approach has been to preface explanation by saying that the following story is largely fiction. Once they understood the simple story, this hamster would tell a better story. Few were willing to listen to the hamster’s final story. Hehe.

There is an art to teaching and explaining that is beyond this hamster. Cris does it well.

Originally posted by Chagur
Why the restrictive mind/brain?

Why not mind/person (the brain being part of the person)?

Does substituting 'person' for 'brain' in the above change it's sense?

Yes, I think that substitution would be a big mistake. You seem to be identifying your body as you, which works in regular life but doesn't make much sense in philosophy. It's your body, but if you somehow ended up in another body you'd still be you... and if someone else got transplanted into your body you would cease to identify with that body since it'd be someone else's.

The brain itself is the weird part of the body. It seems to be very deeply linked to the self, seems to create the self, but you still can't say you are your brain because you never actually directly experience being your brain. The only thing you directly encounter is thought, which clearly lies with the mind rather than the brain even though there's of course the causal relationship between the two. As far as I can see, the mind is where the actual person exists.

Originally posted by Cris
Define not physical if it isn't supernatural?

The only definition I can give is "thought-like"... thoughts are the only things I've observed that aren't physical. (You could also choose to conclude as Hindu thought does that your observation of thought means that the consciousness itself is at a higher lever than thought, in another sort of state... but that can't be observed since there's no way of getting an outside perspective on that.)

1. The Mind is What the Brain Does.

If that means the mind is what the brain creates, maintains, and triggers thoughts in, then yes, I agree.

2. Mind-Body dualism is rejected by modern cognitive scientists.

Dualism in the Cartesian sense of the mind and body being unrelated types of things is obviously false. If the mind and body were entirely different types of things, they couldn't possibly communicate. Yet, we know thoughts are based on brain patterns. Also at least many of us recognize the mind can't exist without the brain... which dualists wouldn't accept.

At the same, the purely physical approach is also false. If the brain is basically no different in nature than a rock, that can explain all the patterns in the brain but it doesn't explain how there could be anything to be conscious of that. A neuron can't be aware of itself.

I'll just give you several of the reasons people have pointed out for why the mind can't be simply physical:

1) Qualia - You can sit in a closet and learn everything there is to know about a color, for example all the wavelengths that produce blue, but that can never be the same thing as experiencing it. The wavelength of light we call blue, and the stimulus it causes in the brain, are not the experience of blue themselves. Another example is emotion... emotion corresponds to brain states, but the brain states themselves are not the actual experiences of anger, happiness, sadness, etc. -- the related brain states simply prompt the qualitative experience that is itself mental rather than physical.

2) Subjectivity / privacy - It's possible, if everything in the mind is in fact produced by the brain, that a theoretical machine could perfectly deduce from chemical reactions in the brain what a person is thinking. This could never duplicate that person's experience of those thoughts. You hook yourself up to another theoretical machine that would stimulate those same thoughts in you, but those would be your thoughts as a result of being experienced by you. That's what I mean by subjectivity.

And another commonly pointed out one, just because it's an interesting idea:
3) Intentionality - Unlike patterns of neurons, thoughts can be about things other than themselves. I can have a thought that's about sciforums, and it there will be activity in my brain related to that, but the brain activity itself can never have the intentionality. The pattern of firing neurons can't be about sciforums, because that aboutness is a mental concept. Maybe it makes it a little clearer if I point out that beliefs and reasoning involve this... machines produce results, but to have those be about something requires a mental aspect to provide the intentionality. (This actually seems a lot weaker to me than the qualia and subjectivity ideas... because if you give up the idea of free will you might be able to attempt some sort of way of saying there is no intentionality and seeming intentionality is just random chance. Or maybe I just don't understand it well enough.)

Most modern philosophers who study the mind will tell you that there are emergent mental aspects to the physical brain. (A few still cling to total physicalism/materialism or total dualism of course, but I reserve the right to ignore them. ;))

3. The structure and functions of the brain largely determine the nature of mind.
4. The neuron is the primary building block of the brain.
5. The Processing Brain is Primarily a Meaning Maker.

I agree with all that. Note in #3 right there you've shown a distinction between the brain and the mind yourself. Thanks, you've made my point for me. ;) The brain seems to determine thought, but the brain itself is not and cannot be those thoughts themselves. If you open up a person's brain you can find all the neurons firing, but you can never find the actual thoughts they create -- the thoughts aren't physical, they're mental.

My guess is that despite our disagreement about the workings of the mind, most of the folks here would agree that our brain along with the rest of our body is made entirely from the set of ninety-two or so naturally occurring atomic building blocks.

Having accepted that, imagine that we could devise a machine that scans the human body to create a database of the location, type, orientation, etc. for every atom in the body. Imagine also that we could build a machine that extracts atoms from raw material and places them one by one into their proper location as directed by the above database. In principle, we could use a municipal waste dump as a source for our atoms. Trash goes in one end and a duplicate human comes out the other end. This process creates the perfect clone; an exact reproduction that includes every memory held by the human at the moment they were scanned.

From spectrographic studies we know that the identical atoms which make up our body also exist in distant space (in fact, the atoms that make up our body were created in distant space). So, in theory we might give instructions to a race of alien beings on how to build a copy of our atomic-extraction-reconstruction machine on their distant planet. Once they finish tightening the last screw on their machine, we could send them the database of information to reconstruct a human on their planet, perhaps using a pile of their municipal waste as the resource of raw atoms. Obviously, what I'm describing is similar to the fictional "teleportation" device from the Star Trek television series.

Now suppose I want to go on an extra-terrestrial holiday. I download my data to the distant planet and I receive back a sort of "check sum" verification that the reproduction was a success. I now exist in two places. At this point I could safely kill myself on planet earth and the copy of me is free to lie about on a distant beach until my vacation is over and it is time to reverse the process and "return" to earth.

Though these imaginary machines sound fantastic, I'm reminded that some scientists believe each and every molecule in our body is replaced over a period of roughly every seven years. Our body quite naturally performs a task similar to what I envision that a machine might be made to do. It is thus very probable that atom for atom, I am an entirely different person at age 44 than I was at age 22. The 22 year old Michael was killed sometime before my 30th birthday and replaced with an identical copy.

But this begs a digression on the topic of how one atom might be tagged as unique from another atom? A 60kg human contains roughly 39kg of oxygen, 11kg of carbon, 6kg of hydrogen, 2kg of nitrogen, 1kg of calcium, 0.6kg of phosphorus, along with the lesser trace elements. It is my tentative contention that every atom in your body is identical to every atom of the same type in my body, the same as every atom from my 22 year old body was identical to every atom of the same type in my 44 year old body (This reminds me that a well-known physicist, whose name now escapes me, once suggested that perhaps there is only one electron; it just continually zips around every atom in the universe in an endless loop). Since we humans are made up from identical building blocks, it appears that the practice of killing the original once a perfect copy has been produced, is above moral reproach. (Though hopefully the "killing" will be done by nearly instantaneously randomizing the atoms in the body of my original, rather than just whacking me with a fire-axe!)

Hmm…as I finished that last paragraph I began to think of the implications should we ever be able to prove that our universe is only one among an infinity of universes which make up the so-called "multiverse". If an infinite number of randomly varying universes could be proved to exist, there would be no question that an exact duplicate of me exists in at least one other universe. In fact, an infinite number of identical replicas of me would certainly exist! And if it were true that an infinite number of "me" already exists, then my suicide here on earth would be of no consequence. By my teleportation argument above, one less "me" here on earth could easily be countered by the concept of infinity. If you remove one member from an infinite set of identical members, you are left with the same infinite set. My suicide here on earth will not in the least reduce the infinite set of my identical replicas!

And as I finished that last paragraph I began to think how spooky it would be if our earth were in fact only a hard copy "backup" created by another planet. Well...yes, that's my signal that it's time to think about something else for a while :)

Some folks might be disheartened to think that their most sincere hope and most tender love is constructed from nothing more than piles of carbon, phosphorus, and the like. I don't find this idea disheartening; I find it fascinating! It's often been said that a single neuron does not have the capacity to think or to love, but a complex interconnected network of 100 billion neurons does have the ability to love. I certainly cannot state this any better than did Francis Crick in his "Astonishing Hypothesis":

“You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. It does not come easily to most people to believe that I am the detailed behavior of a set of nerve cells,
however many there may be and however intricate their interactions. But I know I am in there somewhere, looking out on the world.”

A postscript;
In the words of Neils Bohr, "Everything I say should be considered a question, rather than a statement."

Michael

Cris, Hoth & orthogonal...

as well as anyone else interested in mind/brain topics...

The recent posts offered here have been a pleasure to read. Although I'm not the originator of the Nature of Thought thread, I have no doubt that your contributions would be welcome there as well.

Stimulating stuff.

Thx,

Counterbalance

Orthogonal the well-known physicist with the time-traveling electron-positron was a hamster hero Richard Feynman who exemplified scientific brilliance and creativity spiced with playful zest.

Good Man Hamster (er...oh whatever),

It was Feynman? Gosh, I'd totally forgotten where I read that, but it makes perfect sense that he would have said it.

Thanks,
Michael

Orthogonal, I would say that a clone of yourself with the exact same memories and thoughts would not be you. It would think just like you, but you yourself would not be conscious of the identical set of thoughts in its mind... only of the thoughts in your current mind. You would not suddenly gain the ability to control a body that exists light years away and become a mind that exists light years away, because it would still not be yours, just a duplicate that everyone else would see as you. That's what subjectivity is all about... you can't do anything physical to make it possible to be conscious of multiple minds... you're stuck being conscious of only one mind, and not of any copies. Restoring a backup would work nicely to let everyone else think you were still alive, but there's no reason to think your consciousness would suddenly be transfered over to the backup.

Cris

Re. "...if you are assuming that ‘person’ means your whole body"

It's the only way I can 'think' of 'me' ... or anyone else. I cannot 'think' of you
as a 'person' ... You are simply a construct from those who I have interacted
with over the years who seem to have had similar thoughts and similar ways
of expressing them.

Re. "You are your mind and that is also your brain."

Don't agree. I consider 'myself' to be the sum of all the experiences I have
had over the years ... as experienced with this body and it's unique way
of interacting with the environments it has found itself in over the years.
My 'brain' is what has evaluated, integrated, and stored the sensory inputs
the rest of 'me' has provided it with.

Re. "Without an identity would you still be you?"

Where does 'identity' come into the picture? What does it mean?
Without the totality of my memories I would not be 'me'. Is that what you
mean by 'identity'; the uniqueness of my life experience as evaluated and
integrated, then stored in my uniquely structured brain?

Hoth

Re. "You seem to be identifying your body as you, which works in regular
life but doesn't make much sense in philosophy."

What 'philosophy' are you talking about that doesn't find sense in 'regular' life?

Re. "... if you somehow ended up in another body you'd still be you... "

If you ended up in a female's body (I'm assuming you are a male, if not,
reverse 'female') do you really think 'you' would still be you?

Re. "The only thing you directly encounter is thought,"

The only thing I 'directly encounter' is my body, 'me'.

Re. " ... the mind is where the actual person exists."

Please define: 'actual person'

Take care all.

Great input Orth, wow, the good old days of Star-Treck brought back some memories. Loved that show.

A little more sci-fi:

The other day at work I thought of something outrageous, totally mystical and yet apealing to discussions.

*"We are one individual, with billions of personalities" Each individual that exists is I, and each individual that has perished is one of my personlities that has expired. I am god!*

Well the thought crossed my mind, then I cracked up laughing as I know of the imposibilities of it. However if ancient civilizations had believed such rhetoric, it would more than likely would be some tipe of belief today.

Originally posted by Chagur
Re. "... if you somehow ended up in another body you'd still be you... "

If you ended up in a female's body (I'm assuming you are a male, if not,
reverse 'female') do you really think 'you' would still be you?

Yes, if I ended up in a female body I'd certainly still say I'd be me. I wouldn't be the same, but I'd still be me in the basic sense even though not in the externally observable sense.

This also answers the part about defining "person"... what I call "me" is that which is conscious. The stuff I'm conscious of (like my body) is very important to me and I strongly identify with it, but if I got switched to an alien body and even got a new set of memories with my old ones being wiped out, I'd still be conscious... I'd still exist in most basic sense, I'd just be very different.

Originally posted by Chagur
Re. "The only thing you directly encounter is thought,"

The only thing I 'directly encounter' is my body, 'me'.

You've never directly encountered your body. (In fact when it comes right down to it you can't absolutely prove it exists, you just have to do like G.E. Moore and say you know it without proving it.) You can only encounter conceptions of your body through thought. Every bit of sense data you get through your body and of your body has to be expressed in the mind for you to actually experience it... thus it's only the mental part that you're directly encountering.

Hello Holth,

Suppose…
I surreptitiously scanned your body, and only a moment later introduced you to an exact duplicate of yourself. But I immediately have second thoughts about what I've done, so I decide to kill the duplicate. Unfortunately, I've lost track of which one of you was the original and which was the duplicate. Of course I can't now tell the difference, so I ask the both of you to decide which one of you should be killed.

Holth, I'm asking you to imagine yourself in this situation. You are fully capable of playing both roles. Neither of you has a clue that he is the duplicate. Please let me know how the both of you will jointly agree to the killing of one of you.

Regards,
Michael

Obviously, both of us would say to kill the other one. ;) We'd both think the other one must be the duplicate. From the perspective of the clone, I would seem like the duplicate, just as the clone would seem like the duplicate to me... and to you the outsider, we'd seem just the same. However, once the duplication process occurs I would not be conscious of the thoughts going on in the mind of the other version... and the other version would not be conscious of the thoughts going on in my mind. There would be no dual consciousness, just as there'd be no ability for my mind to cause the clone's leg to move. You can have two things that look totally identical and have totally identical compositions, but if they're in different places they automatically have distinct perspectives.

If you as the creator want to kill one of us, it makes no difference to you or the world which one you kill. We'd seem exactly the same in every observable way. Objectively you'd call us the same person. Whichever one of us you shot, that one would be quite upset and would think you made the wrong choice. Subjectively I myself would still have only one consciousness though, and so if you killed the one that I was conscious of then I would not be conscious anymore, I'd be dead. Naturally that means I'd prefer you kill the one I'm not conscious of so that I can continue to go on experiencing this strange property we call consciousness.

"We are one individual, with billions of personalities"

Funny you should say that, Godless, i've been thinking that too, something along the lines of if there is only one consciousness which we each imagine we use separately that might reflect in each as being many personalities imagining we are one.

Holth,

Your answer was well stated.

However, I don't understand where your question of a "dual consciousness" arose. If you were to be identically replicated, your thought would no more cause your replica's leg to move than your thought would cause my leg to move.

Ahhh...now I think I see what you're thinking! You believe that since you and your replica were identical at the moment the replica was created, that you both must remain forever identical. I see it quite differently. From the moment your replica was created, his life track will begin to diverge from yours.

Think of the so-called, "butterfly effect", which is used to explain how tiny differences become amplified in a complex system to produce vastly different results. The idea is that a butterfly flapping it's winds in Europe might end up producing a storm in the Americas. Said another way:

"For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost.
For want of a horse, the battle was lost.
From loss of the battle, a war was lost."

In other words, seemingly insignificant and random events would cascade to change the course of the life of both you and your replica. Think of the case where twins are delivered only minutes apart from the same mother, yet they end up with different careers and with different life fortunes. Granted, you and your replica are not merely twins, you are instead identical in every respect at the moment the replica was created. But after the replication you and your replica become two autonomous beings. What if you and your replica decided that neither of you would die? What if you both instead agreed to meet again twenty years later at the very same spot? Can you imagine how different your two lives would become in the intervening years?

More abstractly; you and I came from the same ancestor. Never mind that I'd rather think I was related to shower-mold than own up to my common ancestory with certain other humans on this planet! But in a sense, we are all simply members of a single, six billion celled human organism. Seen from a distance of a billion light years, the ten thousand mile difference between myself and a man in China is as insignificant as the distance between a skin cell on the tip of my nose and another on my left ear. All humans came from the same mother, we are co-dependant and interrelated to a high degree, we all share the space contained in this tiny speck of a planet, and yet we see ourselves first and foremost as individuals. In the above context, this notion of individuality seems quite a silly illusion. I suppose if the cells in my body each had a consciousness, they would think that they also have individual free-will.

So Holth, does this make sense to you? Well, maybe not the last paragraph :)

Michael

Originally posted by orthogonal
However, I don't understand where your question of a "dual consciousness" arose. If you were to be identically replicated, your thought would no more cause your replica's leg to move than your thought would cause my leg to move.

Exactly. That's why I'm saying I would not be the same person as the replica, just as I'm not the same person as you. Relating back to your earlier mention of the idea of long-distance space travel by having a replica of yourself created light years away and then destroying the version of you that's here on Earth: this is why I'd be very unwilling to let someone disintegrate me in the name of faster space travel -- I'd have no reason to believe that I would become conscious of the duplicate which wakes up light years away. :)

Yes, I agree once the clone is created it starts to become different. I didn't mean to imply that it would have to stay the same, I was just using that to illustrate the point. My point was that even if it were theoretically possible for the replica to be exactly the same composition and even exactly the same thoughts for a moment, the duplicate still wouldn't be me since I would only be aware of the thoughts in my mind and still not of the duplicate thoughts in the replica's mind.

Of course with a real life clone, like identical twins, they end up with a lot of very different thoughts and different lives.

In the above context, this notion of individuality seems quite a silly illusion. I suppose if the cells in my body each had a consciousness, they would think that they also have individual free-will.

The notion of individuality may not be that important from the perspective of the universe, but then again neither is life itself or much of anything. Individuality is very meaningful from the perspective of how you actually interact with that universe. You can never be anyone but yourself. With or without free will, you can still only observe things from your one consciousness which seems to be restricted to looking at a single mind, and can process the universe only through that mind.

If cells were conscious, then from their perspective individuality would be important. For example a conscious cell inside me wouldn't care much if I live another 60 or 70 years if the cell itself is going to die within a week. It would only consider the larger me important because of its tight connection and interaction with other parts of me during its life... in other words, the cell would only care about me because of my relation to it during its life.

By the way, there's no "l" in Hoth. ;)

Hoth,

I'm pleased that we still have a fundamental conceptual disagreement. You object that an exact duplicate of you created in a different physical location is not you. (I'm pleased we disagree, because if we agreed, this pleasant discussion would be over) :)

Suppose you and I face each other in a conversation while standing on the surface of an otherwise empty and infinite geometrical plane. But as I'm in the middle of speaking, I suddenly find you standing ten feet to the left of me. So, I walk over to you and we continue having our conversation. But a moment later, while you are in mid-sentence, you again disappear before my eyes, and I hear your voice coming from twenty feet behind me. I turn around and walk over to you and we continue our conversation uninterrupted. Now remember, you object that an exact duplicate of you created in a different physical location is not you.

Now comes the fun part of this argument! You abruptly disappeared only to reappear ten feet to the left of me, but in fact, it could have been me that disappeared only to reappear ten feet to the right of you! We have no way of deciding if it was you or if it was I that was instantly killed and reproduced in another spatial location. All you know is that my position suddenly shifted before your eyes. All I know is that your position suddenly shifted before my eyes. Neither of us has any way of knowing which of us was so unlucky(?) as to have been killed and reproduced.

Your argument that the spatially distant, yet otherwise exact reproduction of you produced let's say, on planet Zenon, could never really be you, prompts me to ask yet more questions. Would you be the same person if you took just one step to the right? Now imagine that instead of taking one step to the right, my reproduction machine scans you where you stand and recreates you one step to the right by placing each and everyone of your original atoms back into the same relative physical position in your body. Your earlier argument was that this reproduction would not be the same as you. But may I point out that each time you take a step to the right, you are in fact producing the exact same result as does my machine; you are physically displacing every atom in your body by the distance of one step. If by chance my argument begins to sway you to think that you might be the same person if either you or the machine moved you one step to the right, then why would the principle not be the same if the machine moved you to planet Zenon? It doesn't matter if you "transmit" your body into the next room using your own legs or my machine "transmits" your body to the planet Zenon.

But I already hear your complaint! When you or my machine moves you one step to the right, exactly the same set of atoms is displaced one step to the right. But when you are displaced to the remote planet of Zenon, it is necessary to recreate you using a local source of atoms found on planet Zenon. I return now to my earlier assertion that an atom of calcium in your left thighbone is exactly identical and indistinguishable from an atom of calcium found perhaps in the shell of a clam-like creature which at this moment is lying at the bottom of an ocean of hydrogen peroxide on the planet Zenon. Atoms have model numbers affixed to them, but not serial numbers! Please remember what I wrote earlier about the fact that your body completely exchanges its molecules over the course of seven years. Also remember that most of the atoms that make up our body have been recycled many times from past life. When I look at my arm; I am looking at the long dead bodies of fish, mammoths, carpenter ants, and even humans. It would be strange for me to claim that all these atoms that were part of so much past life are somehow unique and necessary to my own special being. Think further that the atoms in my arm were recycled from distant stars before they were recycled from the nearly countless earthly forms of life. What makes me unique is not the specific atoms that make up my body, it is the unique way in which these atoms are organized! Organization is property of information. An important property of information is that it may be transmitted, thus, I may be transmitted!

Sorry about the "l", Hoth, I don't know where I picked that up!

Regards,
Michael

Good seed, Orthogonal. Fits with the hamster contention that identity is largely an illusion. The hamster will misuse Orthogonal’s example in future discussions. Hehe.

My answer here is going to go in two different directions... I'll start with the simpler part first, which is just looking at problems with your idea.

If I understand correctly, you're trying to say that pattern determines self. It seems to me like there's a major flaw in this theory: The pattern of your body isn't the same over time either, any more than the exact physical components. The current pattern of your body (including brain) could have far more in common with your identical twin (imagining you have one, since plenty of people do) than with your 7 year old self. Does this mean your 7 year old self was an unrelated thing which you shouldn't call you, and instead you should call your twin you?

Besides, if consciousness were based on relative similarity of pattern (since patterns are never exactly the same over time you can't argue that it requires exactly the same pattern) then we'd be conscious of everything to certain differing degrees, depending on how related to us the pattern of the thing is. For example we'd see half the thoughts in the minds of our close relatives, a quarter of the thoughts of cousins, and maybe be conscious of occasional stray thoughts from chimpanzees that semi-resemble our pattern. I don't know about you, but I've yet to be conscious of anything thought outside of my mind.

Do you believe you're the same person as the one you have memories of? Your pattern doesn't resemble that person's pattern very closely. Your current pattern is closer to my pattern than it is to the pattern you had when you were a month old. Yet, I'm guessing you'd be more inclined to call your month old self you than to call me you.

If the molecules of your body change, and the pattern of your body changes, the only way there can be a consistent self is for consciousness (which is clearly nonphysical, as explained way back there) to provide the link.

Now, in a separate post just to keep the thoughts and direction separate (and maybe to pad my post count, can't hurt ;)), I'll take on your scenario and end up exploring what consistency and continuity are really about.

In your scenario, it seems like you're still looking at it from the outside perspective. Seems like you keep taking objective positions, while I'm talking about something (consciousness) that can only exist subjectively. (There can't be an objective consciousness, you'd have to be talking about a god... and that would lead off into discussing the original subject of this thread, which of course we wouldn't want. ;)) Basically, here's what I'm saying: I'll agree that a duplicate of you will still be you... but a duplicate of me won't be me. That's because your consciousness means nothing to me... I presume you have one, but it's logically no different to me if you somehow have a different one than you did a minute ago since it makes no difference at all in how you think and what the observable external results of those thoughts are. With me, on the other hand, my thoughts only matter if I can observe them. That's how I define me... as those thoughts I can observe. If my thoughts are observed by another consciousness and not me, I won't exist because I won't be conscious of the thoughts anymore... despite the fact that from the perspective of other people there will in fact have been no objective change.

The answer to how we know which of us has been zapped out of existence and recreated is that neither of us present asking ourselves the question after its happened will know or care, because it won't have been either of us... the only one who would care would be the consciousness that got zapped out of existence already. The replacement being wouldn't realize or care that it was replacing another consciousness, nor would it make any difference to the person they're talking to.

The fact that when your machine moves me it uses the same atoms to recreate me makes no difference at all, because every proton or electron or quark or 11 dimensional bubble (whatever they have in string theory these days) is the same anyway. I agree with you that pattern determines what we see, and the essential physical nature of things. However, as I explained in the above post I don't think pattern is a valid way to define self. Consciousness determines self, and consciousness seems to be determined by continuity. Continuity is the issue, and when you zap me out of existence and re-create me a foot away you've eliminated the continuity of my existence. With the continuity gone, I don't think I could call it me anymore.


Here's another way, maybe more elegant, of looking at the continuity idea. Maybe it'll help you understand. Remember from the "time" thread the idea I mentioned that the universe is a 4 dimensional place without time, time just being a physical dimension like the others? This way, all the infinite 3D moments we observe are little slices of a 4D solid in the same way our 3D world is made up of an infinite stack of 2D planes. In the same way the 3D world touches a plane at all points, including the inside, a 4D world would touch every point of our 3D world, including the inside of every object.

Question: What touches a 3D object (such as a human) on all sides, including the inside?
Answer: The same object (or person) in the moment previous and the moment next in time.

In this way, you can think of yourself across time as a 4 dimensional solid. The idea of continuity in your existence is simplified here in that it just means you're all part of that one 4D shape. Going back to your machine that disintegrates me and then creates a replica a foot to the left... this is a break in the solid, a gap, so it can no longer be said to be the self.

do u think a God excists?

NO

do u think this thread has its own mind?

Perhaps....:D

Hi Cris,

I come back to your message from 02-06-02 (page 3), which caused also a lot of other interesting contributions. It seems that I am the only one who has a completely different opinion.

You and all the others believe, that you can analyze yourself – but you can’t!

Even when there would be a machine, which can do everything what I can do and this much better and much faster, I would still feel very superior, because “I am”.

By the example of a growing child you tried to prove that there is no soul, because all features have been developed by experience. Assume you become suddenly blind, deaf and dumb, but scientist could implant tools which can give you back all these performances. In this case you would need quite a long time until you will be able to use the new tools. The same happens when a soul is captured by a biological body. Therefore your example does not prove anything.

I am still convinced that after my biological death I (my self) will be free, self-aware, able to think and to remember without material tools like processors and memories. There will be also a communication between free individuals, but only limited access to souls captured by biological bodies. The brain is nothing more than a computer which allows you to communicate via your body. I am just sorry, that I cannot prove this view to you (yet), but there is also no way to disprove it.

Regards
Hermann

---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my updated weltanschauung (philosophy of life) is described at: http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm

Hoth,

I'm going to go and start a few posts back in my response to your general position. This will be lengthy, but you won't mind, right? :)

Post from 02-08-02 07:55 AM:

At the same, the purely physical approach is also false. If the brain is basically no different in nature than a rock, that can explain all the patterns in the brain but it doesn't explain how there could be anything to be conscious of that. A neuron can't be aware of itself.


Since I view the mind in terms of information, I find it easiest to allude to computer analogies when trying to make my point clear to others. With that in mind, consider a program in the memory of a computer. The program constitutes a sophisticated algorithm. However, the algorithm is contained in a physical medium that could be roughly organized into circuit elements and interconnections between them. Does any single capacitor of the RAM contain the sophisticated algorithm? No. Does any particular atom of the computer have anything to do with the algorithm? Probably not (unless it's a quantum computer.) However, when you take the bulk of the memory circuit and view its information contents collectively, you see the algorithm encoded in it. It's the same with mind vs. brain.


I'll just give you several of the reasons people have pointed out for why the mind can't be simply physical:

1) Qualia - You can sit in a closet and learn everything there is to know about a color, for example all the wavelengths that produce blue, but that can never be the same thing as experiencing it. The wavelength of light we call blue, and the stimulus it causes in the brain, are not the experience of blue themselves. Another example is emotion... emotion corresponds to brain states, but the brain states themselves are not the actual experiences of anger, happiness, sadness, etc. -- the related brain states simply prompt the qualitative experience that is itself mental rather than physical.


Again, a computer program may produce some intermediate results as part of its algorithm. These results are not output (and therefore not visible to the user.) However, they carry direct meaning for the algorithm. They are still encoded in the sate of a few transistors or capacitors here and there. Even though the actual state of the circuits (or even the actual implementation of the processor) are irrelevant to the algorithm, the information pertinent to the algorithm is still a state of that circuit.


2) Subjectivity / privacy - It's possible, if everything in the mind is in fact produced by the brain, that a theoretical machine could perfectly deduce from chemical reactions in the brain what a person is thinking. This could never duplicate that person's experience of those thoughts. You hook yourself up to another theoretical machine that would stimulate those same thoughts in you, but those would be your thoughts as a result of being experienced by you. That's what I mean by subjectivity.


If the theoretical machine was hooked up to you at one end and to another person (with identical neural structure) at the other, it would be capable of literally copying you. From the moment the copying process starts, the other person will be a complete replica of you, and will indeed experience your qualia in the exact same way and to the exact same degree that you do.


3) Intentionality - Unlike patterns of neurons, thoughts can be about things other than themselves. I can have a thought that's about sciforums, and it there will be activity in my brain related to that, but the brain activity itself can never have the intentionality.


Wrong. Information in its very nature is always about something. So as long as your brain is an information processor, it will be intentional due to that very fact. To take an easy example, consider the information that enters your eyes. The photons themselves are meaningless, it is what they represent that matters. The information carried by the photons is about the object that emitted them, and thereby based on the photons the brain perceives the object.


If you open up a person's brain you can find all the neurons firing, but you can never find the actual thoughts they create -- the thoughts aren't physical, they're mental.


That's because you don't know what you're looking at (you do not get sufficient information from your measurements.) The brain is a distributed processor, so looking at a single neuron or even a thousand neurons is like looking at a single transistor or a thousand transistors in a 100,000,000,000-transistor CPU and complaining that you can't deduce the algorithm being executed.

Post from 02-10-02 11:59 PM:


The current pattern of your body (including brain) could have far more in common with your identical twin (imagining you have one, since plenty of people do) than with your 7 year old self. Does this mean your 7 year old self was an unrelated thing which you shouldn't call you, and instead you should call your twin you?


That's right, you shouldn't call your 7 year old self you. Because it isn't. You are no longer a 7 year old. You are a very different person now. You can say that the 7 year old was you X number of years ago (which you can't say about the twin.)


Besides, if consciousness were based on relative similarity of pattern (since patterns are never exactly the same over time you can't argue that it requires exactly the same pattern) then we'd be conscious of everything to certain differing degrees, depending on how related to us the pattern of the thing is. For example we'd see half the thoughts in the minds of our close relatives, a quarter of the thoughts of cousins, and maybe be conscious of occasional stray thoughts from chimpanzees that semi-resemble our pattern. I don't know about you, but I've yet to be conscious of anything thought outside of my mind.


To perceive anything there must be incoming information. There is no way for you to perceive thoughts of others -- even if they are identical to yours. Of course, your thoughts are overwhelmingly determined by your unique experiences and sensory input.


If the molecules of your body change, and the pattern of your body changes, the only way there can be a consistent self is for consciousness (which is clearly nonphysical, as explained way back there) to provide the link.


Not necessary. Just as an algorithm copied form one computer to another does not change, so doesn't information encoded by your brain from one instant to the next (well, not much anyway.) Your mind relies on large collections of matter and thresholded average behavior of many neurons; minute changes in the underlying substrate cannot have much of an effect on your mind.

Post from 02-11-02 12:39 AM


If my thoughts are observed by another consciousness and not me, I won't exist because I won't be conscious of the thoughts anymore... despite the fact that from the perspective of other people there will in fact have been no objective change.


The humor is that your duplicate will make the exact same argument (literally, since he would hold all the same beliefs that you do.) So to your duplicate, he would not exist in you. Symmetry can be ironic, can't it?


However, as I explained in the above post I don't think pattern is a valid way to define self. Consciousness determines self, and consciousness seems to be determined by continuity. Continuity is the issue, and when you zap me out of existence and re-create me a foot away you've eliminated the continuity of my existence. With the continuity gone, I don't think I could call it me anymore.


Then you must have a problem dealing with discontinuity in consciousness. What happens to you when you're asleep? Knocked out? Blacked out? In a coma? Keep in mind that even while you are in a dreamless sleep (essentially unconscious), you are still zooming through space at X thousand kilometers per second. When you wake up, you are no longer even close to your original four-dimensional shell.


In this way, you can think of yourself across time as a 4 dimensional solid. The idea of continuity in your existence is simplified here in that it just means you're all part of that one 4D shape. Going back to your machine that disintegrates me and then creates a replica a foot to the left... this is a break in the solid, a gap, so it can no longer be said to be the self.


This argument does not apply to information. Information does not depend on substrate, and can be copied or transferred as many times as desired without being changed in any way.

Bambi,

Phew! That saved me a lot of time. I owed Hoth a good reply since he has taken much effort in his posts.

But your eloquence and precision are much more fun to read and see than anything I would have posted.

A pleasure reading you, here and all your other posts elsewhere.

Cris

Cris,

You're making me blush. :o

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much progress here, we're just repeating ourselves. There's nothing wrong with your answers, Bambi (or Cris), they all make perfectly good sense from a certain perspective. The problem is you're still answering the wrong questions, or more precisely you're answering from a perspective that isn't even involved in the issues I'm talking about. Everything you say is a valid theory for explaining other people, but not the self. Other people can be explained in purely physical ways, yes, but you can't explain yourself in purely physical ways. That's why the problem of other minds in philosophy remains without any proof, while self-existence doesn't tend to get disputed much. (The nature of the self is disputed, but not the existence of some sort of self.) Observing other people, you can never know for sure if they're simply physical things with brains but no mind or consciousness, no self-awareness. The world could make sense exactly as it is, and science could explain everything, without other people being conscious. Examining myself, on the other hand, I can't dispute my self-awareness because in questioning it I've already proved it.

Problem is, you're doing what's good in science -- you're being objective. Science is all about observing things, and that works great for the universe, observing the universe from a detached objective viewpoint is what science is about. Objectively observing your own consciousness, however, is sort of like an eye trying to look at itself (in a universe without mirrors, that is) -- it's a totally irrational idea. You have to get away from objectivity for a while.

Bambi, your computer analogies completely miss the point. The computer is not conscious. Algorithms are not conscious. (Um, at least so far as I know.) If you dispute that humans are conscious, well, I can concede that you aren't maybe ;) but I can't possibly concede that I'm not since that'd be irrational. The computer analogy perfectly shows how other people can exist as completely physical things, I agree with you there, but it can't explain the self. The only way the algorithm in a computer can take on any kind of purpose, or in fact actually be considered an algorithm, is through me being conscious of what it's supposed to be doing. The algorithm itself has no consciousness, the computer is not self-aware. If there's no one there to observe the computer, it's simply chemical interactions that mean nothing and only result in more chemical interactions. (Some of those producing a certain shape such as a number to appear on the screen. The process leading up to it, however, wouldn't be about the number.)

The humor is that your duplicate will make the exact same argument (literally, since he would hold all the same beliefs that you do.) So to your duplicate, he would not exist in you. Symmetry can be ironic, can't it?

The mind could experience the exact same things in the exact same way, but if I'm no longer conscious of it I couldn't care less. If my consciousness is gone (perhaps replaced with another) then I have no way to be aware of the existence of this replica or be aware that it doesn't know for sure if it's the same consciousness as it was before duplication, or to be aware if it's amused when it thinks about the objective symmetry.

Yet again, you're taking the objective perspective while I'm talking about something that's a purely subjective thing/quality. I agree with you from the objective level, but considering the only way I can ever experience the objective level is through the subjective level I find the subjective level to be the important issue.

This argument does not apply to information. Information does not depend on substrate, and can be copied or transferred as many times as desired without being changed in any way.

Information by its very nature is always interpreted by the mind. Without any people (self-aware beings of any type, that is), it would never be about anything, the concept of information wouldn't exist. Think about it, how can a particle be about something? It can only be about something if there's a life form to draw the connections.

This should be a simple enough example: Photons aren't about the things they happen to have bounced off of. They're just photons, meaningless particles, naturally occurring things. Nature didn't develop photons so that people could see things, photons just happened to exist and the way they move about happens to allow us to "see" things. The mind interprets the brain effects of those photons hitting the retina as being about something -- the photons aren't about anything but themselves until they reach the mind. The body simply uses a complicated process based on the angles at which the photons enter the eye, the concentration of photons, etc, to allow the mind to determine the location of things unrelated to the photon.

Then you must have a problem dealing with discontinuity in consciousness. What happens to you when you're asleep? Knocked out? Blacked out? In a coma?

Here's another place where I can see we're not even thinking of similar concepts. Discontinuity in consciousness is never an issue. You never lose consciousness, you simply lose anything to be conscious of. (Think about it, you can't injure someone's consciousness, it's not physical. You injure someone's body and brain, thus preventing them from being able to think, thus leaving them with no thoughts to be conscious of.) Even in death you simply don't have anything to be conscious of. Consciousness is better understood as a property.

The issue of how that property of consciousness, and specifically of my consciousness, gets attached a mind is the issue I was using four dimensional continuity as the best attempt at a solution for.

Keep in mind that even while you are in a dreamless sleep (essentially unconscious), you are still zooming through space at X thousand kilometers per second. When you wake up, you are no longer even close to your original four-dimensional shell

In each infinitesimal moment of time I move only an infinitesimal distance. At each instant in time my 3-D shape touches the location where my 3-D shape was at the previous instant in time. That keeps the 4-D shape intact... through time I carve out a solid 4-D object, as long as I don't make any instantaneous jumps across space with no infinitesimal intermediate steps involved.

I'll start a new thread, to try to look at what seems to me to be the basic problem issue here. Maybe an illustration will help get the perspective understood at least: http://www.sciforums.com/f35/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5763

Originally posted by Hoth


The problem is you're still answering the wrong questions, or more precisely you're answering from a perspective that isn't even involved in the issues I'm talking about.


Or perhaps it is the only possible valid perspective.


Other people can be explained in purely physical ways, yes, but you can't explain yourself in purely physical ways.


If other people can indeed be explained in purely physical ways, then so can you. You are trying to argue that just because you are aware of your internal state but not the internal state of others, then it makes you structurally different from the others. Which is a nonsequitur. As a matter of fact, you have no reason to suspect that you are any different. Until any such reason for suspicion is uncovered, any postulate as to the difference is spurious.


That's why the problem of other minds in philosophy remains without any proof, while self-existence doesn't tend to get disputed much.


That is because the "problem" is fundamentally flawed and cannot be proved in principle by the virtue of its very postulation. To prove the "problem", one would have to prove a negative.


The world could make sense exactly as it is, and science could explain everything, without other people being conscious.


That would only be true if the world is one giant simulation designed to fool you as its sole inhabitant. Somewhat paranoid, it seems.


Examining myself, on the other hand, I can't dispute my self-awareness because in questioning it I've already proved it.


That doesn't make sense. Another person can publically question your self-awareness or their own as well. Are you assuming that a simulation capable of consistently representing the entire human race is incapable of simulating consciousness in a single simulated being? Are you making the argument that consciousness is not possible as a physical process? If so, based on what are you making such an argument?


Objectively observing your own consciousness, however, is sort of like an eye trying to look at itself (in a universe without mirrors, that is) -- it's a totally irrational idea. You have to get away from objectivity for a while.


That is why attempting to examine your own consciousness and thereby deduce something about it is a flawed idea to begin with. The only way you will ever reach valid deductions is by objectively examining someone else's consciousness.

Now, as for your own consciousness, I'll argue that under your paranoid alternative there is no security even there. How do you know that you just questioned your existence? Because it's in your short-term memory, I presume. What if your short-term memory is being faked and/or being meddled with? What if a theoretical machine took the memories and experiences of another person and injected them into your brain (without destroying your own memories) -- wouldn't you have the knowledge of that other person's experiences, memories, etc. that are of equal quality to yours? Where would be the difference between what you know about yourself and what you know about that other person? In fact, wouldn't you have problems determining which of the two people you actually are? Sure, you can claim that you still retain the self-referential capability of introspection; however where is the argument that self-reference is impossible in an information processor (and therefore must be a quality of something immaterial?)


The computer is not conscious. Algorithms are not conscious. (Um, at least so far as I know.)


Where's the proof that conscience is not itself an algorithm? Where's the proof that computers cannot in principle be conscious?


The only way the algorithm in a computer can take on any kind of purpose, or in fact actually be considered an algorithm, is through me being conscious of what it's supposed to be doing. The algorithm itself has no consciousness, the computer is not self-aware.


Why, and why not?


If there's no one there to observe the computer, it's simply chemical interactions that mean nothing and only result in more chemical interactions.


They may not mean anything to all the people who are not there, but they might as well mean something to the entity they constitute.


(Some of those producing a certain shape such as a number to appear on the screen. The process leading up to it, however, wouldn't be about the number.)


What if those processes produced the post I just made? Would you say that this entire post isn't about anything? Would you say that this post carries information only because you are there to interpret it? How is this post any different between the moment that you are alive and the moment you are dead?


The mind could experience the exact same things in the exact same way, but if I'm no longer conscious of it I couldn't care less.


And what if the machine allowed you to be aware of that other consciousness? What if it allowed you to switch, at will, between observing your own state and the state of that other individual?


I agree with you from the objective level, but considering the only way I can ever experience the objective level is through the subjective level I find the subjective level to be the important issue.


Which ignores the systemic complexity of your brain. Information has to be filtered through and integrated between many mechanisms before you get to introspect it. There is no separating line between the objective and the subjective in the absolute sense you seem to imagine.


Information by its very nature is always interpreted by the mind.


But the mind by its very nature is an information interpreter (or processor, in my terminology). So why can't the mind be material, again?


Without any people (self-aware beings of any type, that is), it would never be about anything, the concept of information wouldn't exist. Think about it, how can a particle be about something? It can only be about something if there's a life form to draw the connections.


This is inconsistent. First you claim that self-awareness is required for aboutness, and next you claim all that is required is a life form. Which is it? When a barfly notices a hand moving to swat it and evades it, has the information it received via its eyes been without any intentionality? When an electrical pulse travels through a wire and detonates a bomb, has it been without effect? Isn't meaning simply another synonym for material implication?


Photons aren't about the things they happen to have bounced off of. ... The body simply uses a complicated process based on the angles at which the photons enter the eye, the concentration of photons, etc, to allow the mind to determine the location of things unrelated to the photon.


Two problems here. The angles, concentrations, wavelengths of the photons are all information carried by the photons -- whether there is any eye there to intercept information or not. The second problem is that if the location of things unrelated to the photon is determined by the body then the body has ample opportunity to react to the information with no need for some ethereal mind. In fact, the body can even react without involving higher brain functions in the process, in what is called a reflex.


You never lose consciousness, you simply lose anything to be conscious of.


Even yourself?? When you are unconscious, you aren't being conscious of nothing to perceive -- you literally loose the time and have no memory of it whatsoever.


(Think about it, you can't injure someone's consciousness, it's not physical. You injure someone's body and brain, thus preventing them from being able to think, thus leaving them with no thoughts to be conscious of.) Even in death you simply don't have anything to be conscious of. Consciousness is better understood as a property.


This postulates consciousness as some sort of an absolute and independent entity with no reason to do so. Moreover, if I understood you correctly, consciousness does not involve the ability to think, feel or perceive. If so, then what exactly is consciousness that isn't already encompassed by all that it is not?

Think of a buzzer and the sound it makes. The sound only gets emitted as long as the buzzer is active.