- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou may do so, but not 'we'. It is interesting that until this point in the thread you have not presented any such reasons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my first post to this thread which was to poster checkbaiter, I presented a reason for people believing in a immaterial / material dualism of man.
That first post included these words:
Samuel the prophet died and was buried in Ramah ( 1 Sam. 25:1). Years latter something of him was brought up from the realm of death. Five times we are told it was Samuel (1 Sam. 28).
Do you believe this happened as the Bible states it ?
I don't want to be rude and call you an ... exaggerator. But just because you may have dismissed a reason doesn't mean I gave none.
Then I gave a second post which included links to three lectures about soul / body dualism. It included this information:
Dr. Moreland has a few in depth lectures on the human soul on YouTube:
1.) "What's Consciousness ... and Evidence for the Existence of the Soul"
2.) "Neuroscience and the Soul - Full Interview with J P Moreland"
3.) "The Soul: Does it Exist?" Interview with J P Moreland " (Greg Koukle from Stand To Reason is the interviewer )
This is why I don't put any trust in your score card as to how people you disagree with are doing in the discussion.
This was all before I began conversing with you. You're not the only participant in the thread.
My first post to YOU, included a rebuttal to our "problem" of continuity of personality being somehow a blow against the belief in the existence of a human SOUL as an immaterial entity.
That post include these words:
Does that mean that if you commit a crime today, you may argue with the court next week that it wasn't YOU that was responsible ?
What does such an understanding do for moral responsibility if "me" continually goes away every so often?
The implication was the moral responsibility of a continued single conscious personality was good reason to believe in Soul / Body dualism.
Then I resumed some discussion of the problem with checkbaiter. Then I turned my attention to you again. And the next post included classical reasons why some thinkers have found belief in the SOUL to be reasonable. The same reason YOU suggested argued against it.
It was a longer post. But it included these words"
The comment caught my eye because, interestingly, the continuity of personality is an argument used by some philosophers for the existence of a soul rather than as you used it , against.
I don't need to go further. But your criticism that only when YOU deem it (just recently), I gave reasons for a validity of a belief in the SOUL is your own untrustworthy, biased, self serving and false accusation.
In what way is it not an ad populum argument? It sure seems like one to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say it PROVED that what was believed was right.
It is evidence that it is not intuitively the case that we should not believe in an immaterial soul.
If I said "So many people believed so. Therefore it is true" that would be an ad populum logical fallacy.
Please refrain from wasting both our time by arguing against imagined opponents who aren't here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will reserve the right to refer to some criticisms from people about the issue of the existence of the soul. Besides, you like to hold many of your beliefs close to the vest and not come out and show your cards.
You waste people's time by saying too much " I didn't say that" and "I didn't say this" and " I didn't say the other." Sometimes I have heard so much about what you DIDN'T say that I don't know what it is you ARE saying. And I think you like it that way.
And the charge of ""passive aggressive," which some had liked to charge around here, could well be leveled at you. As long as I have known you on this Forum I have known you to hole yourself up in some vague but contrary position which is generally opposed to what any theist believes. And then you seem to wait for the theist to guess, drag out of you, read between the lines, or locate what your actual position is.
I get sick and tired of your time wasting " I didn't say that " and " At no time did I say this " and "I never said the other " and your reluctance to move a discussion forward with positive outlay of your beliefs.
Address me, or make your own points. Don't address arguments that haven't been made by anyone present. (essentially strawmen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't jump on you in a similar way when you assumed ":going to heaven" to be problematic to your identity was a problem to me. I didn't jump on you saying " Address me." I simply informed you that the "going to heaven" matter was not a concept I held.
You made an assumption that as a Christian, I "probably" held such a concept, which YOU find problematic to the concept of Soul, Consciousness, and Identity.
Get use to others assuming that perhaps a certain difficulty is to be addressed.
Erecting a strawman argument is one thing.
Suggesting that a typical criticism can be addressed in the course of the discussion, is another. It may not be an attempt to make a strawman argument.
Now quite a bit of time has been spent in this post on processes rather than substance. I'll reserve a little more time to see if you have some substance to deal with.
About the machine preaching the Gospel (light hearted comment)
I would probably respond in the same way I do when humans do just that. I really don't see how this question is relevant to the thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. What else ?
You seem to be of the opinion that if you ask me something that you think might make me uncomfortable then somehow I will change my views. That is not how it works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What else ?
You used the word religious. Clearly you meant something by it. Clearly I also meant something when I used it. Why ignore it just because we haven't defined it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant something by every word I write. I said we didn't define it.
What else ?
me: ... I may point out your secular religious devotion to the near omnipotence of mankind.
tw: Go ahead and try to point it out. It isn't there to be pointed at so you will have to make it up as usual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is there to point out.
Your implied devotion to the omnipotence of Scientists being able to do almost anything is sacred devotion which is faith based and rather religious.
I highlighted this attitude which is described as Scientism:
the uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or investigation
I will apply the description to your attitude as long as you cavalierly suggest that a machine will be built one day which possesses consciousness, self awareness, first person introspection.
Other opinions about a sacred religious like devotion to Scientism:
Scientism is generally taken to be something along the lines of a way of thinking in which the virtues, scope or benefits of science are exaggerated or extended to the point of cultishness, ideology or fanaticism. My aim in this essay is to make this general idea more precise, or, to put it another way, to explain how charging someone with scientism can be a meaningful criticism.
From Scientism and Scientific Belief
http://machineslikeus.com/news/scientism-scientistic-belief
One way we might try to characterize scientism is in terms of belief in certain propositions relating to science. In particular, scientism might be defined as belief in propositions that take certain extreme pro-science positions (i.e., positions that evaluate science favorably), such as:
Observation is the only source of genuine knowledge.
Eventually, all fields of knowledge will be sciences.
Human progress and scientific progress are identical.
One day all humankind will hold the scientific worldview and no other.
The question of how we should live can and should be answered by science.
I think it is not unfair to think that as long as you have participated in the Spirituality you have displayed some of these characteristics.
1.) Observation is the only source of genuine knowledge.
It should replace Theistic belief in revelation.
2.) Eventually, all fields of knowledge will be sciences.
You strongly imply theism needs to be replaced by science.
Everyone on the Forums should know these are your sentiments or your strong leanings.
3.) Human progress and scientific progress are identical.
Yes. That's pretty much your outlook for all these years here.
4.) One day all humankind will hold the scientific worldview and no other.
Well, I think you labor for something like that engaging Christians and scie...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Well, I think you labor for something like that engaging Christians and science minded Christians often here. Why else would you find "most certainly" a human invented consciousness is to come.
Putting God out of a job, by creating conscious self aware entities, is a "religious" devotion to Scientism. I consider you religious. Sorry.
me: But pulling apart the cell uncovered DNA and the code of life. If we think THINKING is going on in the neurons of the brain cells then it is REASONABLE to drill down lower and lower, deeper and deeper in the chemical and electrical processes going on to isolate where down there the thoughts are.
tw: Yes it is reasonable. It is not reasonable to demand that the thoughts be at the atomic level or subatomic level or that they be a property of matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one that boasted that the storage of memories has been discovered. I bet that what you would like to point to as such "memories", is matter.
If you do want to know the electrical processes going on in the brain, I have directed you to a course on the matter. The way it works at the chemical and electrical level is pretty much well known and available for anyone interested to learn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am interested to learn about it. That doesn't mean that I will count those material / energy processes as in every way identical to mental states.
I have a belief in the existence of the Andromeda galaxy.
Can you tell me if that belief is closer to my left ear or closer to my right ear?
I don't think that BELIEF can be located spatially at all.
It resides in my immaterial conscious soul.
Not only can we not locate in space where that BELIEF is.
We cannot locate where it is when I am not THINKING about that BELIEF. I have some beliefs that I am not presently thinking about at all.
You have beliefs that you are not now thinking about. And you would not necessarily be thinking about them when your brain is hooked to electrodes measuring brain activity.
Can you locate the physical presence of that BELIEF in the grey matter ? You said we are well on our way to understanding what thinking is. That is questionable. But a BELIEF may not be in your thinking at a given moment anyway.
Beliefs are a part of mental states.
If and when I look at your suggested course I will examine to see if such an intangible mental content is reduced by these scientists as nothing but an electrical / chemical activity.
Length calls for me to stop writing here.
09 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipSorry, but that is not a reason. You only accept it as evidence because you already believe the conclusion. If you didn't believe the conclusion you would not accept it as a reason. Therefore it is not a valid reason even for you.
I don't want to be rude and call you an ... exaggerator. But just because you may have dismissed a reason doesn't mean I gave none.
Then I gave a [b]second post which included links to three lectures about soul / body dualism.[/b]
OK, I'll admit I forgot about those and did not watch them. Still, one would think that if they contained any interesting points you would have bothered to summarize them rather than spend most of the thread going after strawmen?
I don't need to go further. But your criticism that only when YOU deem it (just recently), I gave reasons for a validity of a belief in the SOUL is your own untrustworthy, biased, self serving and false accusation.
OK, again, I'll accept the criticism as valid.
In what way is it not an ad populum argument? It sure seems like one to me.
I didn't say it PROVED that what was believed was right.
It is evidence that it is not intuitively the case that we should not believe in an immaterial soul.
it is not intuitively the case that we should not believe in an immaterial soul.
If I said "So many people believed so. Therefore it is true" that would be an ad populum logical fallacy. [/b]
OK, fair enough as you are demonstrating only what many people think by referring to the statistics of many people. I should have looked closer at what you were trying to demonstrate. I agree with the conclusion but do not think it is a good indication that we do actually have a soul. Misconceptions about the mind are remarkably pervasive and easy to demonstrate. I rather like Sam Harris' demonstrations of this.
I will reserve the right to refer to some criticisms from people about the issue of the existence of the soul.
You do have the right, but it is a waste of time for us both unless you believe people holding those criticisms are reading along - which I doubt, but it may be the case, so maybe I should just start ignoring any comments not addressed to me.
Besides, you like to hold many of your beliefs close to the vest and not come out and show your cards.
Not true in the slightest. The real problem is that you imagine a whole lot of beliefs I do not hold and then imagine that I must be hiding them. I have many times offered to answer to the best of my ability any question you have regarding my beliefs, and I have attempted to answer any and all of your questions to me in this thread regarding my understanding of how the brain works.
You waste people's time by saying too much " I didn't say that" and "I didn't say this" and " I didn't say the other."
I really don't know what else to do. If you imply that I said something I didn't, and I leave it alone, then it looks to anyone else reading this thread that I did say it. I feel that I have to make sure that I my actual position is clear and not the position you imagine I hold.
And then you seem to wait for the theist to guess, drag out of you, read between the lines, or locate what your actual position is.
I made my position very clear at the beginning of the thread. I do not think the mind can continue beyond the physical bodies death, and I do believe that the mind consists entirely of information being processed by the brain similar to the way a computer program runs. I also think that much of how the brain works is already known to science and that all of it will eventually be reasonably well understood.
What else would you like to know? What am I not being open and honest about?
Ok. What else ?
I don't know what else to say. I really don't know how I would react to a machine preaching the gospel. I would find it interesting that machines can suffer from the same delusions as humans, but then I think that is to be expected. What else would you like me to comment on? I am not 'holding my beliefs close to the chest', I simply don't know what you are expecting me to say.
I think it is there to point out.
Your implied devotion to the omnipotence of Scientists being able to do almost anything is sacred devotion which is faith based and rather religious.
Where have I ever implied devotion to the omnipotence of Scientists being able to do almost anything? In fact you yourself claimed that you had as much respect and love for science as I do.
the uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or investigation
Something I am definitely not guilty of.
I will apply the description to your attitude as long as you cavalierly suggest that a machine will be built one day which possesses consciousness, self awareness, first person introspection.
Then you are applying the description incorrectly. Just because you don't believe something is possible, does not make my understanding of it and my reasonable belief based on my knowledge that science will find out more about it "uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or investigation ". Not even close.
Scientism is generally taken to be something along the lines of a way of thinking in which the virtues, scope or benefits of science are exaggerated or extended to the point of cultishness, ideology or fanaticism.
Again, that does not describe me in the slightest.
One way we might try to characterize scientism is in terms of belief in certain propositions relating to science. In particular, scientism might be defined as belief in propositions that take certain extreme pro-science positions (i.e., positions that evaluate science favorably), such as:
1. Observation is the only source of genuine knowledge.
2. Eventually, all fields of knowledge will be sciences.
3. Human progress and scientific progress are identical.
4. One day all humankind will hold the scientific worldview and no other.
5. The question of how we should live can and should be answered by science.
1. Not me. I do not believe my understanding of mathematics was obtained via observation.
2. Not me.I do not think mathematics is a 'science'. Although I think history can and does include a lot of science I would not classify it as a science.
3. Not me. I fully realise that politics and morality do not proceed in line with scientific progress.
4. It certainly doesn't look that way so far, but one can still hope. When we finally get universal education then maybe. I wonder if by 'scientific worldview' you mean something other than having a good scientific education?
5. Not me. Again I think science can be used in many ways, but it doesn't dictate.
I think it is not unfair to think that as long as you have participated in the Spirituality you have displayed some of these characteristics.
1.) Observation is the only source of genuine knowledge.
It should replace Theistic belief in revelation.
False dichotomy. I do think theistic belief in revelation is fundamentally flawed. That doesn't equate to 1.
2.) Eventually, all fields of knowledge will be sciences.
You strongly imply theism needs to be replaced by science.
Everyone on the Forums should know these are your sentiments or your strong leanings.
Again, wrong. I do not believe nor imply that theism should be replaced by science. I believe and strongly imply that theists are wrong. I believe and strongly imply that science works. I do not believe nor imply that one replaces the other.
3.) Human progress and scientific progress are identical.
Yes. That's pretty much your outlook for all these years here.
No, it isn't. You clearly haven't read my political views over in debates. I have a very positive view of current scientific progress and a very dim view of current human progress. I strongly disagree with almost all current political systems. I would like to see some sort of working socialism. The best I have seen so far would be the nordic countries, but I don't think they are perfect. I would also like to see a relaxation of country borders. I find the segregation of the worlds people politically and economically to be grossly unfair - yet strangely agreed to even by the most 'loving' of Christians.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry, but that is not a reason.
-----------------------------------------------------
It is a true reason which you do not believe. Sorry. ... No then again, I am not sorry.
You only accept it as evidence because you already believe the conclusion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That could be a genetic fallacy.
It also could be an indication of your hypocrisy.
At any rate, as I read through God's revelation, I noticed that the soul of Samuel existed after the death of Samuel.
If you didn't believe the conclusion you would not accept it as a reason. Therefore it is not a valid reason even for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think the default position is to not believe the Bible.
No more time will be spent on this. I gave a reason in my first post. You don't think the word of God has valid reasons. I do indeed.
OK, I'll admit I forgot about those and did not watch them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving down then
OK, again, I'll accept the criticism as valid.
----------------------------------------------------------
skip down. ..
Misconceptions about the mind are remarkably pervasive and easy to demonstrate. I rather like Sam Harris' demonstrations of this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b] ... but it may be the case, so maybe I should just start ignoring any comments not addressed to me.
---------------------------------------------------------
You ignore a lot of comments addressed TO you too.
me:
Besides, you like to hold many of your beliefs close to the vest and not come out and show your cards.
tw: Not true in the slightest. The real problem is that you imagine a whole lot of beliefs I do not hold and then imagine that I must be hiding them. I have many times offered to answer to the best of my ability any question you have regarding my beliefs, and I have attempted to answer any and all of your questions to me in this thread regarding my understanding of how the brain works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not just discussing how the brain works but if there is an immaterial mind. And probably I could locate some questions that you didn't reply to.
me: You waste people's time by saying too much " I didn't say that" and "I didn't say this" and " I didn't say the other."
tw: I really don't know what else to do. If you imply that I said something I didn't, and I leave it alone, then it looks to anyone else reading this thread that I did say it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You just said that you doubted that anyone else is READING the thread. Or did you mean that you doubt anyone else reads my comments but of course people are reading yours ?
I feel that I have to make sure that I my actual position is clear and not the position you imagine I hold.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mind that because I do the same.
I don't think a few words here will easily change my perception of your debating style which I have seen in action for years.
For now you're just going to have to take my critique as unfair.
Let's just say, "I know the feeling" ... a mutual feeling.
me:
And then you seem to wait for the theist to guess, drag out of you, read between the lines, or locate what your actual position is.
tw: I made my position very clear at the beginning of the thread. I do not think the mind can continue beyond the physical bodies death, and I do believe that the mind consists entirely of information being processed by the brain similar to the way a computer program runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And early you pointed out "problems" with a Theists belief the soul as the Bible speaks.
If conciousness is considered part of the soul, then there are two basic problems to deal with:
Let me then suggest a problem with what you have written above.
Why should we trust the mind as being rational and true, especially in its more theoretical activities?
Since you said "Evolution did it" concerning the emergence of the mind I don't think I misjudge you to be a believer in that process in its grandest conceptualization - responsible for life and consciousness in man.
You would not trust the printout of a computer if you knew that it was programmed by random forces or by nonrational laws without a mind behind it. Why would you trust the output processing of a computer randomly programmed by unintelligent accidents?
Why then do you trust your mental processes in sensing truth about the world? There is a problem with assuming an emergent thinking ability arose from randomness, should be trusted to be rational.
The Christian who believes that the mind is made according to the likeness and in the image of God, has a better explanation as to why such a mind can be trusted to be rational. Our Creator is rational.
Why should ever larger, ever more complex combined lumps of matter suddenly somehow give rise to a rational thinking apparatus? And that unguided !?
I also think that much of how the brain works is already known to science and that all of it will eventually be reasonably well understood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What else would you like to know? What am I not being open and honest about?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to know that if intelligence went into the invention, programming and operation of a computer why you don't believe intelligence went into the making of brains and minds ?
My assumption is that that such a belief would introduce an undesirable possibility concept of a Supreme Being.
But the explanation is more palatable than the idea of no intelligence is behind the functioning of the brain and the mind.
What else would you like me to comment on? I am not 'holding my beliefs close to the chest', I simply don't know what you are expecting me to say.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll tell you what I am expecting. I am expecting you to say in your reply that I do not understand Evolution. I am expecting you to distance the word "random" from Evoliution.
I am expecting you to distance the phrase "unguided" from Evolution.
Generally, I am expecting from you some form of criticism telling me that I just do not understand Evolution.
Surpise me. And now that you have been alerted, maybe, just maybe you will not just write "I didn't say that it is unguided" or " I at not time said it was random " and wait.
me: Your implied devotion to the omnipotence of Scientists being able to do almost anything is sacred devotion which is faith based and rather religious.
tw: Where have I ever implied devotion to the omnipotence of Scientists being able to do almost anything? In fact you yourself claimed that you had as much respect and love for science as I do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said I had as much love for science as you did.
I don't share your expectation that we will create conscious machines.
You said:
I do think conciousness is not a physical entity but rather emergent from physical entities. I do think it is entirely dependent on those physical entities and quite obviously so.
This is "epiphenomenalism". And it presents problem to the origin of the mind. It holds that when matter reaches a suitable structural arrangement through evolution, mind will emerge.
I don't believe that without the direction of a superior Intelligence, it will never happen. And I don't believe a mind to emerge in this fashion should be trusted to be rational or true in its deliverances.
Anyway, the belief that technology will be able to do so would definitely be intelligently guided - by human minds intent on intelligent design.
That's all the time I will write this morning.
You did say that these were difficult issues. I'll credit you with that.
I don't have much time for proof reading for typos this morning.
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipI cannot reasonably be expected to reply to every single thing in your lengthy posts. I do not however hold my views close to my chest or refuse to answer questions. If you feel I have ignored an important question then ask it again and make sure I know it is important and I will do my best to answer it.
You ignore a lot of comments addressed TO you too.
We are not just discussing how the brain works but if there is an immaterial mind.
They are related topics. I thought my views on whether there is an immaterial mind were crystal clear. I'll try and summarize them again and you can ask for more clarification if you wish.
I believe the mind consists of information similar to a computer program. I believe the brain is a sophisticated parallel computer. I believe memories are stored in the brain in chemical patterns. I believe that just as destroying a computer will destroy any software on it, destroying the brain destroys the mind. I believe that the mind could potentially be copied out of the brain but there is no reason to think that does actually happen currently, and I believe such a concept leads to identity questions. I believe that how the brain works at the basic molecular level is fairly well known. There are projects underway to understand it at a higher level. ( https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/ ) . The main reason we have not yet been able to create a concious brain is that we do not yet have parallel computers at that scale (or single threaded computers fast enough to simulate one). There is nothing in our current scientific understanding of the brain to indicate it will not be possible in the future. It is not 'scientism' to think that it will be possible.
That memories are stored in the brain is demonstrable scientific fact backed up by numerous experiments and observations. That thinking can be identified and even decoded is demonstrable scientific fact.
You just said that you doubted that anyone else is READING the thread.
No, I did not. I said I doubted that anyone reading this thread holds the views you were arguing against.
Let me then suggest a problem with what you have written above.
Why should we trust the mind as being rational and true, especially in its more theoretical activities?
I don't think we should be too trusting. I am well aware of common errors people make and that some of them are practically unavoidable. That is why we have processes such as science which help to weed out errors by getting other people to replicate or double check things.
Since you said "Evolution did it" concerning the emergence of the mind I don't think I misjudge you to be a believer in that process in its grandest conceptualization - responsible for life and consciousness in man.
Not 'believer'. Merely 'understander'.
You would not trust the printout of a computer if you knew that it was programmed by random forces or by nonrational laws without a mind behind it.
I trust computers based on the known reliability of their outputs, not based on who programmed them. As a programmer myself I am very skeptical of most printouts because I know well that we often get things wrong in our programs.
Why then do you trust your mental processes in sensing truth about the world?
As I say above, it is irrelevant to me who made the brain as to whether it is trustworthy. What is important is whether or not the results prove to be reliable. My own mental processes are far from perfect but I hope that I can distinguish the more reliable results from the less reliable ones. I also hope that others will point out any flaws in my thinking just as I point out flaws in yours.
The Christian who believes that the mind is made according to the likeness and in the image of God, has a better explanation as to why such a mind can be trusted to be rational. Our Creator is rational.
But that leads to the obvious problem that if your reasoning is valid then you cannot know whether your reasoning is rational. Self defeating.
Why should ever larger, ever more complex combined lumps of matter suddenly somehow give rise to a rational thinking apparatus?
Evolution.
And that unguided !?
Yes.
I would like to know that if intelligence went into the invention, programming and operation of a computer why you don't believe intelligence went into the making of brains and minds ?
Because it simply doesn't follow that similar things are necessarily made by the same processes. I know how computers were made and I know how human minds come about and I have no reason to believe I am wrong in either case. Certainly the similarity of brains and computers does not lead me to believe I am wrong.
My assumption is that that such a belief would introduce an undesirable possibility concept of a Supreme Being.
Your assumption is wrong.
I'll tell you what I am expecting. I am expecting you to say in your reply that I do not understand Evolution. I am expecting you to distance the word "random" from Evoliution.
Why should I say what you clearly already know? Odd then that you still went ahead and said it, knowing full well that you were wrong.
I am expecting you to distance the phrase "unguided" from Evolution.
No.
Generally, I am expecting from you some form of criticism telling me that I just do not understand Evolution.
You said:
It is saying that we KNOW things like MINDS do not arrive from matter luckily being arranged in trillions of combinations.
Although I do believe that randomness is involved in just about everything that happens in the universe, I do not believe our minds were arrived at through pure luck. Evolution is not pure luck, it is a process. When you make comments like the above quoted one, it does suggest that you do not understand evolution or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.
I said I had as much love for science as you did.
I don't share your expectation that we will create conscious machines.
That only reflects differences in our educations and not differences in our supposed devotion to the omnipotence of Scientists being able to do almost anything.
If I said I don't think we will achieve affordable fusion power in the next 5 years but you think they will would that be a demonstration of your Scientism? Or would it merely reflect differences in our understanding of the relevant science and progress on that front?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought my views on whether there is an immaterial mind were crystal clear. I'll try and summarize them again and you can ask for more clarification if you wish.
I believe the mind consists of information similar to a computer program. I believe the brain is a sophisticated parallel computer. I believe memories are stored in the brain in chemical patterns. I believe that just as destroying a computer will destroy any software on it, destroying the brain destroys the mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In storage of a digital computer, on a very low level the information is stored in ones and zeros read as binary numbers. That is base 2, Of course with base 2 any number in base 10 (which we usually use) can be represented (physical storage space permitting).
And the number/s can be defined to represent whatever we decided each number stands for, ie. a place, a feeling, a mood, a belief, a thought, a desire, a sensation etc. etc.
If there is a chemical representation of information in the brain like the binary representation of numbers, WHAT determined the system by which a chemical arrangement or whatever represents which number ?
Is there some tables defining what number/s mean what of an infinity of possible things to be represented ? Is there a chemical representation of a binary number/s code that stands for my conscience feeling that I have borrowed, say, my neighbor's lawn mower too long and should return it ?
Without intelligent design how was a number system devised and/or translated to and from various chemical arrangements to be meaningful symbols of things?
And if the brain is that similar to computer operation WHERE did the language come from to "write" this information in its chemical coding ?
Computer languages consists of lexical tables defining verbs such as READ, WRITE, COPY, START, END, DO WHILE, DO UNTIL, etc. Or they could be less humanly friendly words representing the same kind of actions.
How was the "language" with its lexical tables for brain information operation conceived ? Who decided what chemical symbolism stands for, say, READ ? Who decided what chemical symbolism triggers a ERASE operation or a DO WHILE operation ?
How were the symantics arrived at for this language ?
If some "word" triggers the physical brain to COPY information from one location to another or to encode it from somewhere, how was it determined that that "word" must set off that operation ?
I believe that the mind could potentially be copied out of the brain but there is no reason to think that does actually happen currently, and I believe such a concept leads to identity questions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the mind IS the information.
And potentially multiple copies of you could be duplicated ?
If from one source multiple copies of your mind could be produced to make, ie. 100 twhiteheads would they all act exactly the same? And if not, why not ?
If 100 copies of twhitehead are reproduced would twhitehead # 34 be held responsible for the behavior of twhitehead # 72 ? If not why not ?
I believe that how the brain works at the basic molecular level is fairly well known. There are projects underway to understand it at a higher level. ( https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/ ) . The main reason we have not yet been able to create a concious brain is that we do not yet have parallel computers at that scale (or single threaded computers fast enough to simulate one).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you still have to sequentially look through some tables even in a parallel process ? I am not sure total parallel processing negates all need for sequential operations of some kind in very fast parallel processors.
There is nothing in our current scientific understanding of the brain to indicate it will not be possible in the future. It is not 'scientism' to think that it will be possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll hold decision on that until I see how you address the above questions.
That memories are stored in the brain is demonstrable scientific fact backed up by numerous experiments and observations. That thinking can be identified and even decoded is demonstrable scientific fact.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But my soul has things that I am not thinking about. It has beliefs. And I am at many times not thinking about my beliefs.
Do you propose one day locating the beliefs of people stored in the brain and go in and munipulate "bits" to change their beliefs ?
Do you envisioning a world where with electrodes we could turn Atheists into Theists ?
You just said that you doubted that anyone else is READING the thread.
No, I did not. I said I doubted that anyone reading this thread holds the views you were arguing against.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me then for a misunderstanding.
me: Let me then suggest a problem with what you have written above. Why should we trust the mind as being rational and true, especially in its more theoretical activities?
I don't think we should be too trusting.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is why should we trust such a mind / brain at all ?
I told you that I expected you to distance the word random from the process of Evolution. And you have done just that below and added that I misrepresent Evolution.
Suspense. Your process is not random variation, unguided ? Somehow "selection" is made with some kind of prime directive to produce something that insures survivability.
I don't think it is possible to think of your process as being completely unintelligent orchestrated. You have to come up with some non-intelligent intelligence for it to make sense.
I am well aware of common errors people make and that some of them are practically unavoidable. That is why we have processes such as science which help to weed out errors by getting other people to replicate or double check things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A computer randomly programmed could not be trusted to yield good output. The minds you trust in yield good output. So you have to jettison the concept of randomness in the creation of the human mind.
If the brain and mind tumbled out of the mixing of billions of years of random happenings, it is not that you are cautious to trust it. There is no reason it should be trusted at all. That is unless something guiding and not random is purposely directing your process.
me: Since you said "Evolution did it" concerning the emergence of the mind I don't think I misjudge you to be a believer in that process in its grandest conceptualization - responsible for life and consciousness in man.
tw: Not 'believer'. Merely 'understander'.
------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the emergence of mind from matter:
You believe that "Evolution did it."
And your understanding is that "Evolution did it."
And though you do not understand how mind emerged from matter you do know intuitively that it could not have been a completely random affair.
Above you asserted that you did not come to believe in mathematics by observation. I would venture to say you did observe that mathematical operations performed correctly yielded true statements.
me:
You would not trust the printout of a computer if you knew that it was programmed by random forces or by nonrational laws without a mind behind it.
tw: I trust computers based on the known reliability of their outputs, not based on who programmed them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would happen to such "reliability" if the programmer didn't understand how to write the code to give you the output ?
As a programmer myself I am very skeptical of most printouts because I know well that we often get things wrong in our programs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of a random garbage "instructions" you would not get anything worth relying on. Garbage in Garbage out , Right ?
me: Why then do you trust your mental processes in sensing truth about the world?
tw: As I say above, it is irrelevant to me who made the brain as to whether it is trustworthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then you are ignoring something that is important to many of us under the excuse of pragmatism. You have that right to just be "practical" about out brains. But some of us don't ignore the larger issue of its origin.
We can also be pragmatic and include that questions as well.
What is important is whether or not the results prove to be reliable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To some of us "WHY?" is important as well.
My own mental processes are far from perfect but I hope that I can distinguish the more reliable results from the less reliable ones. I also hope that others will point out any flaws in my thinking just as I point out flaws in yours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I have just pointed out is not so much a flaw. It is a deliberate decision to not think about an important human question.
Why do we have minds and why are they reliable to many things, if not...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I think "Evolution did it" ... somehow, relieves you from thinking about a Supreme Intelligence which for some reason raises negative flashing caution lights in your soul.
I also think you may wish to reduce human life to number crunching. What does a computer do except manipulate numbers? That is numbers which can be cross referenced to stand for many things that we define them to mean.
I think you want to reduce human life to just a number crunching machine. Then what makes a man any better than a cockroach ?
14 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipEvolution.
If there is a chemical representation of information in the brain like the binary representation of numbers, WHAT determined the system by which a chemical arrangement or whatever represents which number ?
And it is probably different in some groups of animals from others. Eg the Octopus may have significantly different brain chemistry from us. (I don't know).
Is there some tables defining what number/s mean what of an infinity of possible things to be represented ?
No, it doesn't quite work that way.
You can learn more about it on the internet.
You could start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_distributed_memory
and here:
Without intelligent design how was a number system devised and/or translated to and from various chemical arrangements to be meaningful symbols of things?
As I say, it isn't quite a number system and it didn't require intelligent design. However I am not an expert and cannot give a full explanation here. I can say that artificial intelligence systems have been designed and the representations arise naturally in them, they are not programmed in.
Computer languages consists of lexical tables defining verbs such as READ, WRITE, COPY, START, END, DO WHILE, DO UNTIL, etc.
I have to point out here that computers do not actually run on computer languages. The languages are compiled into machine code before they actually run. However, as I said before, the brain is a highly parallel computer very unlike the design of our currently computers. It does not work the same way, so you can't really make an exact analogy to computer languages or even machine code.
So the mind IS the information.[b]
Essentially, yes.
[b]And potentially multiple copies of you could be duplicated ?
Yes.
If from one source multiple copies of your mind could be produced to make, ie. 100 twhiteheads would they all act exactly the same? And if not, why not ?
They would act very similarly. There is a significant amount of randomness that goes into the brains functioning, so they wouldn't behave identically.
If 100 copies of twhitehead are reproduced would twhitehead # 34 be held responsible for the behavior of twhitehead # 72 ? If not why not ?
Responsibility is a societal thing. I think you need to study theories of justice before you will understand the answer to that question. But essentially the answer is no, and the reason is that holding # 34 responsible serves no useful purpose.
Don't you still have to sequentially look through some tables even in a parallel process ? I am not sure total parallel processing negates all need for sequential operations of some kind in very fast parallel processors.
I really don't know what you are getting at here. There brain consists of a massively parallel computer. Yes, some tasks it carries out are sequential in nature. It is however still very different from a typical man made computer in the way it functions.
I'll hold decision on that until I see how you address the above questions.
You are simply not qualified to make the decision. You know next to nothing of the science involved and very little about the science I know about. I am trying to give an idea of what I do know and don't know and what I know I don't know etc, but it is difficult to put it all in words especially given that I am talking to someone who knows next to nothing on the topic. I am being honest when I say I personally find the evidence compelling that certain eventualities in scientific achievement are likely. You either have to accept that that I am not guilty of scientism on this count, or you have to declare me a liar.
But my soul has things that I am not thinking about. It has beliefs. And I am at many times not thinking about my beliefs.
And those too are demonstrably stored in the brain. It is an undeniable medical fact that brain damage alters beliefs and damage to specific areas are more likely to alter beliefs than damage to other areas.
Do you propose one day locating the beliefs of people stored in the brain and go in and munipulate "bits" to change their beliefs ?
I do not propose doing so. I do claim that it is possible. Must also point out that we already change peoples beliefs via chemical methods rather than bit changing methods. I know someone who is schizophrenic and it is my understanding that proper treatment will change his beliefs quite dramatically.
Do you envisioning a world where with electrodes we could turn Atheists into Theists ?
I believe it is theoretically possible but quite possibly not practical. I do not think it would be morally acceptable. As I say above however we already do something very similar with those we consider clinically insane.
The question is why should we trust such a mind / brain at all ?
Because it clearly works. Or at least mine does. Yours is clearly not as rational as mine. Nevertheless I think we can both trust our brains to some extent.
I told you that I expected you to distance the word random from the process of Evolution.
Of course. And validly so. The real question is why, given that you already know it, did you try to associate them?
Your process is not random variation, unguided ?
It is more than that. Randomness is involved. Randomness does not define it. There is a difference. Random collisions of neutrons in Uranium can cause a nuclear bomb. Calling the detonation of a nuclear bomb 'random' would be wrong and demonstrate a misunderstanding of the process.
Similarly trying to equate evolution with pure randomness is either a misunderstanding of the process or just plain dishonest.
Somehow "selection" is made with some kind of prime directive to produce something that insures survivability.
Incorrect. I suggest you start a thread on evolution and we can give you a quick education. There are a lot of posters here more than willing to teach you. Suffice it to say that that sentence shows that you don't have a clue as to how it works and should never make any statement about evolution before educating yourself further.
A computer randomly programmed could not be trusted to yield good output.
Agreed.
The minds you trust in yield good output. So you have to jettison the concept of randomness in the creation of the human mind.
False dichotomy. The creation of the human mind may have included some randomness without it being analogous to a computer randomly programmed. In fact randomness is often used in computer programming and serves many useful functions.
That is unless something guiding and not random is purposely directing your process.
Again, false dichotomy. A non-random process is not necessarily purposeful. Stars form under the influence of gravity and nuclear physics. There is a lot of randomness involved too. But one cannot claim that star formation is purely random, nor can one claim that it is therefore necessarily purposeful.
Concerning the emergence of mind from matter:
1 You believe that "Evolution did it."
2 And your understanding is that "Evolution did it."
Yes. 1. doesn't make me a 'believer' in evolution any more than believing that 1 + 1 = 2 makes me a believer in addition. I understand evolution and I understand basic relativity. I am not a believer in either. I just think they are good theories based on my understanding of them and the evidence for them.
And though you do not understand how mind emerged from matter you do know intuitively that it could not have been a completely random affair.
Yes.
Above you asserted that you did not come to believe in mathematics by observation. I would venture to say you did observe that mathematical operations performed correctly yielded true statements.
Correct.
What would happen to such "reliability" if the programmer didn't understand how to write the code to give you the output ?
I don't understand the question. Please expand on it.
In the case of a random garbage "instructions" you would not get anything worth relying on. Garbage in Garbage out , Right ?
Yes.
Well then you are ignoring something that is important to many of us under the excuse of pragmatism. You have that right to just be "practical" about out brains. But some of us don't ignore the larger issue of its origin.
You are missing the point. It is your claim that the reliability of a computer depends on how it was made. That is simply not true. Whether you are interested in its maker or not is irrelevant.
To some of us "WHY?" is important as well.
All well and good. It remains the case that you rely on your computer not because of the WHY, but because of the results. I am willing to bet that you do not know WHY your computer was programmed the way it is, or even WHO programmed it. Yet you will still hit the 'post' button fully expecting me to see your post. Your expectation is not based on the WHY or the WHO but on your past experience with hitting 'post'.
What I have just pointed out is not so much a flaw. It is a deliberate decision to not think about an important human question.
Why do we have minds and why are they reliable to many things, if not...
You are incorrect about any such deliberate decision to not think about it. I have probably thought about it far more than you have which is why I clearly know a lot more than you do about the actual answers.
I didn't make the mistake of starting with the conclusion and including the conclusion in the questions and arriving at the conclusion without any actual deliberation, evidence or study. Between the two of us I think the one who has decided not to think about it is most definitely you.
14 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipYou think wrong. I think evolution did it because that is what the evidence points to. I am not aware of any 'negative caution lights'.
I think "Evolution did it" ... somehow, relieves you from thinking about a Supreme Intelligence which for some reason raises negative flashing caution lights in your soul.
I also think you may wish to reduce human life to number crunching.
Incorrect.
I do wish to understand the human brain as I find it fascinating.
Nevertheless I feel love, responsibility, joy etc, recognize beauty etc just like you do and have no wish to 'reduce my life to number crunching'.
What does a computer do except manipulate numbers?
Let me post on RHP for a start. But it can also play a mean game of chess. Oh, and my career is entirely dependent on computers.
They have also revolutionized education, so I strongly suggest you check out edX and get yourself one.
I think you want to reduce human life to just a number crunching machine. Then what makes a man any better than a cockroach ?
Bigger brain, faster computer. Simple.
I think it is you that is reducing computers to meaningless number crunchers when the reality is that they are clearly so much more.
You are confusing the parts with 'the sum of its parts'. You did the same earlier in this thread when you demanded that any property of the brain be equally found in some fundamental particle a CERN. You do not seem to realize that a river is far more than just water molecules. I think it is you and not me that wishes to do the reducing.
Do you not like sunsets since you learned about how light works in school?
14 Aug 15
Originally posted by AgergBhaktivedanta VedaBase: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 2.17
What is a soul made of?
how big is a soul?
in which part of the body does this soul reside?
Are souls flammable? (how do they burn in hell!?)
Why do the hell-bound souls have teeth? (wailing and gnashing of teeth and all ...)
avināśi tu tad viddhi
yena sarvam idaḿ tatam
vināśam avyayasyāsya
na kaścit kartum arhati
SYNONYMS
avināśi — imperishable; tu — but; tat — that; viddhi — know it; yena — by whom; sarvam — all of the body; idam — this; tatam — pervaded; vināśam — destruction; avyayasya — of the imperishable; asya — of it; na kaścit — no one; kartum — to do; arhati — is able.
TRANSLATION
That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.
PURPORT
This verse more clearly explains the real nature of the soul, which is spread all over the body. Anyone can understand what is spread all over the body: it is consciousness. Everyone is conscious of the pains and pleasures of the body in part or as a whole. This spreading of consciousness is limited within one's own body. The pains and pleasures of one body are unknown to another. Therefore, each and every body is the embodiment of an individual soul, and the symptom of the soul's presence is perceived as individual consciousness. This soul is described as one ten-thousandth part of the upper portion of the hair point in size. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.9) confirms this:
bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ
sa cānantyāya kalpate
"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul." Similarly the same version is stated:
keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatāḿśaḥ sādṛśātmakaḥ
jīvaḥ sūkṣma-svarūpo 'yaḿ
sańkhyātīto hi cit-kaṇaḥ
[Cc. Madya 19.140]
"There are innumerable particles of spiritual atoms, which are measured as one ten-thousandth of the upper portion of the hair."
Therefore, the individual particle of spirit soul is a spiritual atom smaller than the material atoms, and such atoms are innumerable. This very small spiritual spark is the basic principle of the material body, and the influence of such a spiritual spark is spread all over the body as the influence of the active principle of some medicine spreads throughout the body. This current of the spirit soul is felt all over the body as consciousness, and that is the proof of the presence of the soul. Any layman can understand that the material body minus consciousness is a dead body, and this consciousness cannot be revived in the body by any means of material administration. Therefore, consciousness is not due to any amount of material combination, but to the spirit soul. In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.9) the measurement of the atomic spirit soul is further explained:
eṣo 'ṇur ātmā cetasā veditavyo
yasmin prāṇaḥ pañcadhā saḿviveśa
prāṇaiś cittaḿ sarvam otaḿ prajānāḿ
yasmin viśuddhe vibhavaty eṣa ātmā
"The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect intelligence. This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, samāna and udāna), is situated within the heart, and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities. When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited."
The haṭha-yoga system is meant for controlling the five kinds of air encircling the pure soul by different kinds of sitting postures — not for any material profit, but for liberation of the minute soul from the entanglement of the material atmosphere.
So the constitution of the atomic soul is admitted in all Vedic literatures, and it is also actually felt in the practical experience of any sane man. Only the insane man can think of this atomic soul as all-pervading viṣṇu-tattva.
The influence of the atomic soul can be spread all over a particular body. According to the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, this atomic soul is situated in the heart of every living entity, and because the measurement of the atomic soul is beyond the power of appreciation of the material scientists, some of them assert foolishly that there is no soul. The individual atomic soul is definitely there in the heart along with the Supersoul, and thus all the energies of bodily movement are emanating from this part of the body. The corpuscles which carry the oxygen from the lungs gather energy from the soul. When the soul passes away from this position, the activity of the blood, generating fusion, ceases. Medical science accepts the importance of the red corpuscles, but it cannot ascertain that the source of the energy is the soul. Medical science, however, does admit that the heart is the seat of all energies of the body.
Such atomic particles of the spirit whole are compared to the sunshine molecules. In the sunshine there are innumerable radiant molecules. Similarly, the fragmental parts of the Supreme Lord are atomic sparks of the rays of the Supreme Lord, called by the name prabhā, or superior energy. So whether one follows Vedic knowledge or modern science, one cannot deny the existence of the spirit soul in the body, and the science of the soul is explicitly described in the Bhagavad-gītā by the Personality of Godhead Himself.
You have just read 1 verse from the Vedas...............(there are thousands)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadme: Is there some tables defining what number/s mean what of an infinity of possible things to be represented ?
Evolution.
And it is probably different in some groups of animals from others. Eg the Octopus may have significantly different brain chemistry from us. (I don't know).
[b]Is there some tables defining what number/s mean what of an infinity of possible things to be represented ?
No, it doesn't quite work that way.
You can learn more about it on t ...[text shortened]... ween the two of us I think the one who has decided not to think about it is most definitely you.[/b]
tw: No, it doesn't quite work that way.
You can learn more about it on the internet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I have a degree in Computer Science from Boston University, 84.
And I did look at a couple Internet sites.
My first computer related job was with CDC (Control Data Corporation) where Seymour Crey developed super fast computers.
I was a librarian but got to learn much.
You could start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_distributed_memory
and here:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you can completely eliminate some sequential processing in the firmware or somewhere in even a fast parallel processing machine. But it is not that major of a point.
me:
Without intelligent design how was a number system devised and/or translated to and from various chemical arrangements to be meaningful symbols of things?
tw: As I say, it isn't quite a number system and it didn't require intelligent design.
However I am not an expert and cannot give a full explanation here. I can say that artificial intelligence systems have been designed and the representations arise naturally in them, they are not programmed in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the US the main programming language to do AI was LISP. Though PROLOG was a second choice. Now I have been out of the programming arena for a long time.
List processing done by the language LISP is very sequential like, going through lists and pointers to other lists. I would have to review why such a language lends itself well to AI like problem solving.
me:
Computer languages consists of lexical tables defining verbs such as READ, WRITE, COPY, START, END, DO WHILE, DO UNTIL, etc.
tw: I have to point out here that computers do not actually run on computer languages. The languages are compiled into machine code before they actually run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote a compiler for the Motorola 28000 for my Compiler Design course. I wrote it is PL/1. Though I never did get the thing to compile 100% rightly by the end of the course.
I wrote in BAL (IBM's Basic Assembly Language). I guess this little chat now is to let you know that I know something about computers.
By the way, there was some experimentation in high level language computer architecture years ago. I don't know where it went. That was machines designed to run on high level language.
So this little "shop talk" I'll end here to look at your issues below.
15 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipI have not suggested otherwise. There most definitely is sequential processing. My point is that the brain remains highly parallel and works quite differently from what you would have learned about it your studies. Also data is stored rather differently than you would have learned about.
I don't think you can completely eliminate some sequential processing in the firmware or somewhere in even a fast parallel processing machine.
Watch the YouTube video I referenced to get a taste of how it works.
List processing done by the language LISP is very sequential like, going through lists and pointers to other lists. I would have to review why such a language lends itself well to AI like problem solving.
AI is not equivalent to the brain. There are different ways to go about doing AI. AI that is implemented in a similar way to the way the brain works would use a computer language to simulate the brain and the sparse data storage structures but the meaning of the data is not programmed in.
For example Google built an AI and allowed it to watch YouTube. The AI learned about cats without ever being told how to store 'cat' in binary or any other digital representation. It learned the concept the same way we learn concepts - through experience.
http://www.wired.com/2012/06/google-x-neural-network/
I wrote in BAL (IBM's Basic Assembly Language). I guess this little chat now is to let you know that I know something about computers.
Good to know. Then you would know that BAL actually runs in the computer in the form of binary numbers and not the English letter representations we use when coding it. So although there is a 'jump' instruction, it will be something like 01001 as far as the computer is concerned. Nevertheless, that is not how the brain works. Again, watch the YouTube I referenced to learn more.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadSkipping down to a point:
me: I think you want to reduce human life to just a number crunching machine. Then what makes a man any better than a cockroach ?
tw: Bigger brain, faster computer. Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is simply dehumanizing.
I don't think that a faster moire efficient brain is the only thing which distinguishes us from a roach. Actually, I don't know that human brain is faster than a roaches for one.
Recently in my country an antisocial psychopath like young man recently went into a church Bible study, sat there for an hour, and murdered the participants in cold blood because of the dark color of their skin.
No doubt you may immediately refer to the Spanish Inquisition or some historical act of religious violence. Ether way, to think that only a faster and more efficient brain would have prevented these abominable acts is unlikely. Your "simple" answer as to why humans are on a higher order (so to speak) than cock roaches just because we can think faster denies critical aspects of human moral and spiritual character.
So you think "We can processes FASTER! " is the only thing that distinguishes a man from a roach ?
Cute, and totally unrealistic.
You are confusing the parts with 'the sum of its parts'. You did the same earlier in this thread when you demanded that any property of the brain be equally found in some fundamental particle a CERN. You do not seem to realize that a river is far more than just water molecules. I think it is you and not me that wishes to do the reducing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have no problem seeing a river is more than the water molecules. At the same time a river is made up of many water molecules.
How they behaves related to flow and gravity is an important factor too.
Do you not like sunsets since you learned about how light works in school?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This seems not too relevant.
It sounds like a Zen koan question.
Anyway, we all appreciate that computers can do things fast and repetively without being bored. Computers have a place in doing jobs for man. Those jobs are ones that humans could always do with enough skill, time and enthusiasm.
Jumping from that to a self aware and conscious ego introspective hunk of machinery is superstitious leap of "faith". I liked the HAL 9000 in "2001 A Space Odyssey". But it is now 2015 A D and we're not close to "someONE" like that complete with circuitry and memory storage.
You can get a dog to walk on its hind legs like a man.
And you can get a monkey to put on cloths and act something like a man. But it is really a poor imitation.
You dream of a machine with self aware first person introspection - a conscious creation of mankind. Is it really going to be conscious or just imitate humans like recorded voice on an auto call ?
Would you like your great grand children to marry a machine ?
"I now pronounce you man and AI machine. You may kiss the bride."
Aren't you headed down such a road? You imagine man recreating a conscious self aware machine capable of doing all the super fast parallel processing needed for emotions of love, mutual respect, devotion, etc.
In the realm of thinking aren't you exalting speed and efficiency as the only important "simple" factor defining a human being ?