|
 OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,389
Loc: Luxor
|
 Transporter hypothetical
#9784604 - 02/12/09 11:03 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Let's say the year is 2323 and finally a tranporter is perfected. The machine is only designed to transmit known matter. The transported person looks and acts the same as before transportation.
Assuming this is all true, this would prove:
A. There is no soul.
B. The soul cannot be tricked and automatically knows where its assigned body will end up and flies there faster than the speed of light.
C. The soul IS the pattern.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (02/12/09 02:27 PM)
|
 flangenips
Batshitinsanse
Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa 
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
|
What do you mean by the soul is the pattern?
--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce
|
Cameron
Too Many Words
Registered: 10/31/07
Posts: 4,437
Loc: Canada
|
 Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: flangenips]
#9785024 - 02/12/09 12:37 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think he's talking monism. Mind-is-body-is-mind type thing.
Either way, I think a 'soul' is unnecessary and a distraction from issues of real importance.
|
Silversoul
Holon
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless
|
|
I would go with C. It corresponds with Alfred North Whitehead's conception of the soul as the center of experience.
--------------------
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 7,376
Last seen: 30 minutes, 22 seconds
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Silversoul]
#9785083 - 02/12/09 12:51 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's a shame no such transporter has been invented, rendering speculation about its metaphysical implications moot.
--------------------
|
flangenips
Batshitinsanse
Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lion]
#9785248 - 02/12/09 01:38 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A.N.Whitehead does my head in when ever i read his stuff. I feel a lot of what he says is crazy-man proverbs, I hate him, but i can't be certain he's wrong.
The mentality of mankind and the language of mankind created each other. If we like to assume the rise of language as a given fact, then it is not going too far to say that the souls of men are the gift from language to mankind. The account of the sixth day should be written: He gave them speech, and they became souls
arrghhhh
I wonder what Kant would say about this transporter example.
He denies that we can understand the entry of the soul into body at conception or its relation to the body throughout life, or its exit and separate existence after death. Because all our experience is experience of ourselves as living beings - when soul and body are bound together - we cannot know what a separated soul would experience. Leibniz compared existence after death to a deep sleep or a swoon, but to investigate these matters is, Kant says, like standing before a mirror with your eyes closed to see what you look like when you are asleep
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-leibniz/#7
If we cannot know the seperate existence, only the bound-existence. then what do we have to compare to to deduce A. B. or C. So in that case i agree with what OC is saying. I feel that this hypothesis merely illustrates that it shows one of those premises might be true, however investigation into it would yield little evidence for or against the existence of the soul.
However i want to disagree with B. solely because it looks like its taking the piss. :P
Although going on what Kant was saying before that, about localized/non-localized souls. If they weren't localized then B and C could be inaccurate because it wouldn't need to travel to get to to transported body or need to transport with the body, instead its where it is (maybe another dimension) it is quantumnly entangled and its experience is immediate to the body/brain's experience. And this still keeps open the other premise of that we cannot know what a separated soul would experience.
So now i'm inclined to believe OC's "Transporter hypothetical" is incomplete and could maybe do with a D and maybe even an E option. But its pretty good, well done.
--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Let's say the year is 2323 and finally a tranporter is perfected. The machine os only designed to transmit known matter. The transported person looks and acts the same as before transportation.
Assuming this is all true, this would prove:
A. There is no soul.
B. The soul cannot be tricked and automatically knows where its assigned body will end up and flies there faster then the speed of light.
C. The soul IS the pattern.
Well, as Leibniz pointed out, a soul requires God. This is because a soul is an incorporeal property on a corporeal object, and those don't exist - unless you accept God is real. Therefore, if souls are real then it's just as likely that God is able to maintain the link between our soul and our body even when we're teleported around the universe. He's God, he can do whatever.
Occam's razor, however, will tell us that the correct answer is A.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,619
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9785484 - 02/12/09 02:26 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You are wise and wonderful.
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
flangenips
Batshitinsanse
Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9785625 - 02/12/09 02:52 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Well, as Leibniz pointed out, a soul requires God. This is because a soul is an incorporeal property on a corporeal object, and those don't exist - unless you accept God is real. Therefore, if souls are real then it's just as likely that God is able to maintain the link between our soul and our body even when we're teleported around the universe. He's God, he can do whatever.
I don't see why this would have to be the case for a non-localised soul, unless the souls are god, and thus we are all god in soul, but i doubt that can be shown by reason alone. This is the problem i have with alot of theocratic philosophy, it seems to make standalone positive claims about god with little reason and consideration for other possibilities. I've yet to be convinced that a god is necessary for all metaphysically controlled change of the physical world.
--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9785912 - 02/12/09 03:36 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Occam's razor, however, will tell us that the correct answer is A.
What is the difference between a soul and a consciousness?
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,389
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9786001 - 02/12/09 03:47 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There is no-el in consciousness.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
jivJaN
yes
Registered: 08/09/08
Posts: 4,054
Last seen: 2 hours, 20 minutes
|
|
What a nice way to great a new member. 
To answer your question.. the soul is the seat of consciousness. They are basically the same , being that you are a consciousness that exists within and without a physical body.
The state you inhabit right now is a complex of the mind , body and spirit. Only its not a complex yet. There is a veiling between the mind and body and subconscious and conscious mind. Everything is conscious to a certain degree. Not everything is spirit though. Does that make sense ?
To answer the original question... And i dont mean to sound arrogant , but your hypothetical transporter IMO already exists .. and the answer is B.
--------------------
---------------------
All my posts in this forum are strictly fictional.
They are derived from an acute mental illness , from which i am forced to lie compulsively.
I have never induced any kind of mind altering substance in my life and i have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything illegal.
If I have ever suggested such a thing it would have most likely been , due to my personality disorder and i probably do not remember it at all..
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,389
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: jivJaN]
#9787175 - 02/12/09 07:05 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Does that make sense ?
No. There is no evidence for a consciousness without a body.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
|
Option d.
Transporter emits souless zombie clones.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,389
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Indigenous]
#9787987 - 02/12/09 09:18 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It turns them into politicians?
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area 
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Does that make sense ?
No. There is no evidence for a consciousness without a body.
There's no scientific explanation of the mechanism which allows felines to purr, but they purr anyways.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan   fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: flangenips]
#9788594 - 02/12/09 11:28 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
flangenips said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Well, as Leibniz pointed out, a soul requires God. This is because a soul is an incorporeal property on a corporeal object, and those don't exist - unless you accept God is real. Therefore, if souls are real then it's just as likely that God is able to maintain the link between our soul and our body even when we're teleported around the universe. He's God, he can do whatever.
I don't see why this would have to be the case for a non-localised soul, unless the souls are god, and thus we are all god in soul, but i doubt that can be shown by reason alone. This is the problem i have with alot of theocratic philosophy, it seems to make standalone positive claims about god with little reason and consideration for other possibilities. I've yet to be convinced that a god is necessary for all metaphysically controlled change of the physical world.
It's not that a god would be required, just that a belief in god is. Sorry, I didn't make that clear. Consider: if you don't believe in god, why on earth would you believe that we have some representation of our personality that persists after death? The link between personality (mind) and the brain (body) is irrefutable. It is obvious, then, that when we die, our mind and personality dies too. The only way it could survive would be if there was a metaphysical force.
Similarly, God is a metaphysical entity that can (supposedly) interact with the physical world. God is then similar to souls in that they share a metaphysical link with the real world. So a belief in a soul is a belief in at least the possibility of God's existence.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9788597 - 02/12/09 11:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Does that make sense ?
No. There is no evidence for a consciousness without a body.
There's no scientific explanation of the mechanism which allows felines to purr, but they purr anyways.
What does that have to do with anything?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9788678 - 02/12/09 11:51 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Going straight from the OP, we could conclude that:
the is no 'soul' whereby 'soul' donates a collection of factors that are not influenced by physical forces.
that is what soul means to most people, of course.
now if we just take 'soul' to refer to an inner aspect of a person's mind, then we could no really conclude anything other than the notion of materialism in the first place
--------------------
 
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9788703 - 02/13/09 12:01 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
What does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
No. There is no evidence for a consciousness without a body.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9788707 - 02/13/09 12:03 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Going straight from the OP, we could conclude that:
the is no 'soul' whereby 'soul' donates a collection of factors that are not influenced by physical forces.
that is what soul means to most people, of course.
now if we just take 'soul' to refer to an inner aspect of a person's mind, then we could no really conclude anything other than the notion of materialism in the first place
Most people define soul as being the phenomenon that animates a creature's body.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9788782 - 02/13/09 12:40 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I know what post you were referring to, I just can't see why you're conflating 'evidence' with 'explanation'.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9788796 - 02/13/09 12:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The words "evidence" and "explanation" are essentially synonymous:
ev⋅i⋅dence
/ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ev-i-duhns]
noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
ex⋅pla⋅na⋅tion
/ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ek-spluh-ney-shuhn]
–noun
1. the act or process of explaining.
2. something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition: an explanation of a poem.
3. a meaning or interpretation: to find an explanation for a mystery.
4. a mutual declaration of the meaning of words spoken, actions, motives, etc., with a view to adjusting a misunderstanding or reconciling differences: After a long and emotional explanation they were friends again.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
No. There is no evidence for a consciousness without a body.
Maybe the field of consciousness, which emerges from the combined activity of all the neurons in my head, disintegrates when my physical body dies.
But it is also possible that this field of consciousness can maintain its existence without a physical body, or perhaps it merges with a larger field, after the death of the physical body.
I think that people maintain some consciousness while they are sleeping at night, and I think it is fully possible that we synchronize our brain waves with a larger field of consciousness, while we are sleeping at night.
Edited by Zanthius (02/13/09 12:58 AM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9788814 - 02/13/09 12:58 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
con⋅scious⋅ness
/ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-shuhs-nis]
–noun
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.
6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.
7. Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.
Most of these definitions of the word "consciousness" include the word "awareness". So if consciousness is awareness itself, after a creature dies, then doesn't its self-awareness die, too? How can a creature's consciousness (i.e. - awareness) possibly persist after death? If it somehow does, then where does it go?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9788824 - 02/13/09 01:05 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Most of these definitions of the word "consciousness" include the word "awareness". So if consciousness is awareness itself, after a creature dies, then doesn't its self-awareness die, too? If it does, then how can consciousness (i.e. - awareness) possibly persist?
I don't think this awareness/consciousness is organic in its nature. I think it is a field that emerges from all the neural activity in your brain, and that your neural activity manipulates and leaves traces in this "field" while you are conscious. Fields are better described in physics than in biology.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9788835 - 02/13/09 01:14 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But a creature is self aware, therefore, its awareness (i.e. - consciousness) is limited to the biological organism that it is, and its immediate surroundings.
...so after the biological organism experiences its inevitable entropy, where is its awareness focused upon (i.e. - where does it go?)?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9788919 - 02/13/09 01:30 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
But a creature is self aware, therefore, its awareness (i.e. - consciousness) is limited to the biological organism that it is, and its immediate surroundings.
...so after the biological organism experiences its inevitable entropy, where is its awareness focused upon (i.e. - where does it go?)?
I think we must learn more about exactly what field constitutes consciousness, in order to answer that.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9788934 - 02/13/09 01:33 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
The words "evidence" and "explanation" are essentially synonymous:
ev⋅i⋅dence
/ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ev-i-duhns]
noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
ex⋅pla⋅na⋅tion
/ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ek-spluh-ney-shuhn]
–noun
1. the act or process of explaining.
2. something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition: an explanation of a poem.
3. a meaning or interpretation: to find an explanation for a mystery.
4. a mutual declaration of the meaning of words spoken, actions, motives, etc., with a view to adjusting a misunderstanding or reconciling differences: After a long and emotional explanation they were friends again.
I'm sorry, but that's not a very good argument - using the second usage of two dictionary definitions and claiming the words are synonymous?
We already have evidence of feline purring, even if we don't have an explanation for how they do it. Evidence and explanation are separate things.
We don't have evidence that souls exist.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9788984 - 02/13/09 01:41 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't claim the two are synonymous, I claimed that they are essentially synonymous.
We don't have evidence that souls exist because science lacks a clear definition of what a soul is. We do, however, have evidence that the living bodies of biological organisms are animated, which is analogous to the evidence we have of a feline's purr.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9788991 - 02/13/09 01:45 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Poid said:
But a creature is self aware, therefore, its awareness (i.e. - consciousness) is limited to the biological organism that it is, and its immediate surroundings.
...so after the biological organism experiences its inevitable entropy, where is its awareness focused upon (i.e. - where does it go?)?
I think we must learn more about exactly what field constitutes consciousness, in order to answer that.
But consciousness is awareness, and awareness is subjective. In order for subjectivity to be experienced, there needs to be a subject experiencing it, therefore, the field that constitutes consciousness (i.e. - subjective awareness) is the subject.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9788998 - 02/13/09 01:47 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, I can agree with that.
What if we assign specific definition, though? A lot of people think that their soul is what ascends to heaven when they die; it's an integral part of the afterlife ideology. I say, this requires your memories to come with you (or else you won't be 'you'). But your memories are locked up in your body.
So then, we can define the soul as some non-physical material which is capable of storing memories.
But the problem is there's no evidence for an afterlife and no evidence of a non-physical material capable of storing memories. There's an overwhelming probability that souls do no exist.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9789008 - 02/13/09 01:59 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"What if we assign specific definition, though? A lot of people think that their soul is what ascends to heaven when they die; it's an integral part of the afterlife ideology. I say, this requires your memories to come with you (or else you won't be 'you'). But your memories are locked up in your body.
So then, we can define the soul as some non-physical material which is capable of storing memories."
That is mainly an belief associated with modern Abrahamic religions, even though the Holy Bible, as it is called, doesn't necessarily assert that this is the soul's only function.
"But the problem is there's no evidence for an afterlife and no evidence of a non-physical material capable of storing memories. There's an overwhelming probability that souls do no exist."
Agreed. There's not much scientific data that suggests that there is an afterlife, nor is there much evidence that supports the idea of immaterial souls.
But even if immaterial souls were real, they couldn't really be considered immaterial because they are essentially phenomenon composed of energy. That being said, if you consider that souls are real, and are composed of energy, than it would be easier to consider some of the other things that are said about souls because they would then fall into the realm of physics, which is a science.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/13/09 02:08 AM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9789029 - 02/13/09 02:19 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
But consciousness is awareness, and awareness is subjective. In order for subjectivity to be experienced, there needs to be a subject experiencing it, therefore, the field that constitutes consciousness (i.e. - subjective awareness) is the subject.
Yes, and if you are your consciousness, then maybe not all consciousnesses are the same.
Maybe my consciousness will survive the death of my organic body and/or merge with a larger field of consciousness, while the field of another person will disintegrate when his/her organic body dies.
Edited by Zanthius (02/13/09 02:30 AM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9789044 - 02/13/09 02:28 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So you're suggesting that there is some sort of great self-aware phenomenon?
If so, then why would the consciousness of one biological organism survive death and be merged with this greater phenomenon, while the consciousness of another disintegrates after death?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9789100 - 02/13/09 03:12 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
If so, then why would the consciousness of one biological organism survive death and be merged with this greater phenomenon, while the consciousness of another disintegrates after death?
Yes, that seems likely. I don't believe that all individuals/organisms are equally conscious, and I think there is a higher integrity and a greater field strength in the field of a very conscious person, than in the field of a less conscious person.
The field of a less conscious person probably disintegrates more easily than the field of a more conscious person.
|
psyka
Praetorian
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Let's say the year is 2323 and finally a tranporter is perfected. The machine is only designed to transmit known matter. The transported person looks and acts the same as before transportation.
Assuming this is all true, this would prove:
A. There is no soul.
B. The soul cannot be tricked and automatically knows where its assigned body will end up and flies there faster than the speed of light.
C. The soul IS the pattern.
You have really given this scenario a lot of thought, hehehe. And I do admit its a really good one to think about. But comeon... 2323?! A little pessimistic in your predictions I would think. 
--------------------
As the life of a candle,
my wick will burn out.
But, the fire of my mind
shall beam into infinite.
 
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9789169 - 02/13/09 04:14 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Yes, that seems likely."
What seems likely? I was asking you a question....
"I don't believe that all individuals/organisms are equally conscious, and I think there is a higher integrity and a greater field strength in the field of a very conscious person, than in the field of a less conscious person."
Equally conscious of what? Themselves? Reality?
I see what you're saying here, and I tend to agree, but you're not being very specific.
"The field of a less conscious person probably disintegrates more easily than the field of a more conscious person."
But we were talking about disintegration of consciousness after death vs. integration of consciousness with a greater conscious phenomenon after death, not just about disintegration in general.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9789194 - 02/13/09 04:30 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Equally conscious of what? Themselves? Reality?
Both.
Quote:
But we were talking about disintegration of consciousness after death vs. integration of consciousness with a greater conscious phenomenon after death, not just about disintegration in general.
Well, this is just a proposition, not necessarily what I believe myself.
Maybe the weakest fields of consciousness just disintegrate after death, while the fields that are little more integrated and have a little more field strength, fall to the center of the earth, and merge with Gaia (the field of the earth).
Then you have those fields that are even more integrated, and have an even greater field strength. Maybe these fields fall all the way to the center of the sun, and merge with the field of our sun and the entire solar system.
Last you have those fields that are highly integrated, and have the greatest field strength. Maybe these fields fall all the way to the black hole in the center of our galaxy, and merge with the field of our galaxy.
Edited by Zanthius (02/13/09 04:46 AM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9789203 - 02/13/09 04:39 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Equally conscious of what? Themselves? Reality?
Both.
Quote:
But we were talking about disintegration of consciousness after death vs. integration of consciousness with a greater conscious phenomenon after death, not just about disintegration in general.
Well, this is just a proposition, not necessarily what I believe myself.
Maybe the weakest fields of consciousness just disintegrates after death, while the fields that are little more integrated and have a little more field strength, falls to the center of the earth, and merges with Gaia (the field of the earth).
Then you have those fields that are even more integrated, and have an even greater field strength. Maybe these fields falls all the way to the center of the sun, and merges with the field of our sun and the entire solar system.
Last you have those fields that are highly integrated, and have the greatest field strength. Maybe these fields falls all the way to the black hole in the center of our galaxy, and merges with the field of our galaxy.
Just kidding! 
Those are some interesting concepts, though. From where did you learn the term "Gaia"? I ask because it's alien to me....
Are you suggesting that the Earth, sun, and the Milky Way are conscious phenomenon?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9789218 - 02/13/09 04:51 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Those are some interesting concepts, though. From where did you learn the term "Gaia"? I ask because it's alien to me....
Gaia is the goddess of the earth according to Greek mythology.
Quote:
Poid said: Are you suggesting that the Earth, sun, and the Milky Way are conscious phenomenon?
Yes, and I am suggesting that you can get in touch with these phenomena by the use of psychedelics.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9789223 - 02/13/09 04:55 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What about meditation, fasting, yoga, etc.?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9789234 - 02/13/09 04:58 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:What about meditation, fasting, yoga, etc.?
Can also work if you are doing it the right way.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9789259 - 02/13/09 05:20 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Forgive me if I'm pressing you too much, but what is the right way, what is the wrong way, and which method (including psychedelic use) would you say is the most effective?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9789267 - 02/13/09 05:27 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Forgive me if I'm pressing you too much, but what is the right way, what is the wrong way, and which method (including psychedelic use) would you say is the most effective?
I am sure that mediation is going to work fine, if you sit every day 1 hour in front of a candle light, and focus upon the fire while trying to think about nothing except the fire.
It is not going to happen immediately though. Meditation is just like exercising. It takes time to build attention, just like it takes time to build muscles.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9789271 - 02/13/09 05:31 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Would you say that is a more effective method than using high doses of LSD and/or psilocybin mushrooms?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9789291 - 02/13/09 05:44 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:Would you say that is a more effective method than using high doses of LSD and/or psilocybin mushrooms?
Meditation takes time, but it is a safe and reliable method if you really have the endurance to go through with it.
Magic mushrooms can give you a taste of what lies beyond, but you won't reach the same level of awareness as a Buddhist monk that has been meditating his entire life, just because you have tasted magic mushrooms a few times.
If you have used magic mushrooms frequently for many many years, then maybe you can be compared to a Buddhist monk that has been meditating his entire life, in some ways.
Nothing comes easy. Everything that is real, takes work.
Edited by Zanthius (02/13/09 05:50 AM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9789305 - 02/13/09 05:52 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It seems like you're talking to me as if I am not experienced (with either meditation or psychedelics); I asked you those questions in order to get your point of view....
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9789550 - 02/13/09 07:33 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Sure, I can agree with that.
What if we assign specific definition, though? A lot of people think that their soul is what ascends to heaven when they die; it's an integral part of the afterlife ideology. I say, this requires your memories to come with you (or else you won't be 'you'). But your memories are locked up in your body.
So then, we can define the soul as some non-physical material which is capable of storing memories.
But the problem is there's no evidence for an afterlife and no evidence of a non-physical material capable of storing memories. There's an overwhelming probability that souls do no exist.
well, that solved it
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Let's say the year is 2323 and finally a tranporter is perfected. The machine is only designed to transmit known matter. The transported person looks and acts the same as before transportation.
Assuming this is all true, this would prove:
A. There is no soul.
B. The soul cannot be tricked and automatically knows where its assigned body will end up and flies there faster than the speed of light.
C. The soul IS the pattern.
That alone wouldn't prove anything. However, it would provide some interesting hypotheses to work on.
--------------------
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9790742 - 02/13/09 01:11 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Going straight from the OP, we could conclude that:
the is no 'soul' whereby 'soul' donates a collection of factors that are not influenced by physical forces.
that is what soul means to most people, of course.
now if we just take 'soul' to refer to an inner aspect of a person's mind, then we could no really conclude anything other than the notion of materialism in the first place
Most people define soul as being the phenomenon that animates a creature's body.
yes
a non physical phenomenon
(although obviously partly physical for it to interact with the physical world)
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Mr. Worry Free
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 6,777
Loc: Sugar Town
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Let's say the year is 2323 and finally a tranporter is perfected. The machine is only designed to transmit known matter. The transported person looks and acts the same as before transportation.
Assuming this is all true, this would prove:
A. There is no soul.
B. The soul cannot be tricked and automatically knows where its assigned body will end up and flies there faster than the speed of light.
C. The soul IS the pattern.
D. The world truly does end in 2012.
--------------------
Don't worry be happy.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9792131 - 02/13/09 06:12 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Sure, I can agree with that.
What if we assign specific definition, though? A lot of people think that their soul is what ascends to heaven when they die; it's an integral part of the afterlife ideology. I say, this requires your memories to come with you (or else you won't be 'you'). But your memories are locked up in your body.
So then, we can define the soul as some non-physical material which is capable of storing memories.
But the problem is there's no evidence for an afterlife and no evidence of a non-physical material capable of storing memories. There's an overwhelming probability that souls do no exist.
well, that solved it
No it didn't:
Quote:
Poid said:
"What if we assign specific definition, though? A lot of people think that their soul is what ascends to heaven when they die; it's an integral part of the afterlife ideology. I say, this requires your memories to come with you (or else you won't be 'you'). But your memories are locked up in your body.
So then, we can define the soul as some non-physical material which is capable of storing memories."
That is mainly an belief associated with modern Abrahamic religions, even though the Holy Bible, as it is called, doesn't necessarily assert that this is the soul's only function.
"But the problem is there's no evidence for an afterlife and no evidence of a non-physical material capable of storing memories. There's an overwhelming probability that souls do no exist."
Agreed. There's not much scientific data that suggests that there is an afterlife, nor is there much evidence that supports the idea of immaterial souls.
But even if immaterial souls were real, they couldn't really be considered immaterial because they are essentially phenomenon composed of energy. That being said, if you consider that souls are real, and are composed of energy, than it would be easier to consider some of the other things that are said about souls because they would then fall into the realm of physics, which is a science.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9792209 - 02/13/09 06:22 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't know anyone really thinks souls are composed of energy. They're a religious/spiritual thing, not an actual object.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9792337 - 02/13/09 06:46 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But most people would say that a soul is the force that animates a creature's body; "force" is a concept related to physics, and it is an energy .
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9792524 - 02/13/09 07:25 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Those people would be foolish to say that, as it's clearly wrong. We know what animates a creature's body: chemical energy derived from food. Not souls.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9792930 - 02/13/09 09:12 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Those people would be foolish to say that, as it's clearly wrong. We know what animates a creature's body: chemical energy derived from food. Not souls.
But what directs this chemical energy?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9793026 - 02/13/09 09:32 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
How do you mean? On a cellular level, or are you talking about conscious thought? In either case, it is biochemical reactions that drive us.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9793092 - 02/13/09 09:47 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm asking:
What is it that directs the energy created by biochemical reactions towards making a biological organism act; is it merely conscious thought?
If so, then what directs conscious thought?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
teeter
Mindfucked
Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 1,081
Loc: Philadelphia PA
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9793104 - 02/13/09 09:50 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
all i know is i would never get in a fucking transporter...even if you don't believe in the soul, just think about that; all your atoms get pull apart shot at the speed of light and smashed back together
im fairly sure the amount of chemical processes required to do this is impossible and that any attempt would kill u (even if u did come out in one piece...putting the heart back together doesnt restart it) but if it hypothetically was possible...no way in hell im risking that, 1 wrong atom in one cell and you got cancer or worse
refering to the OP tho...personally i think our soul/consciousness/spirit resides in our right brain and the ego/mind resides in the left brain...this is after reading the book "My Stroke of Insight" (u dont have to read the book...she has a 15 minute web presentation...i recommend watching it) and using psycedelics...i happen to believe psycedelics work as her stroke did (block off the left brain, less logical, survival based thoughts...more insight, true feelings) check it out for urself, its interesting stuff...but anway because of this i would say that there is a possibility of separation, but i find it doubtful...its not like our soul isnt inside of us, most likely it would stay with us during the journey
however since our soul is most likely energy...i think a transporter could possibly have trouble bringing pure energy over, the concept of streaming the atoms is child's play compared to streaming all the pure energy firing in our synapses, powering our body and in our soul...we'd probably arrive as a souless corpse even if they arranged us perfectly
so after all that rambling (lol sorry) i would basically conclude...i believe our soul is inside us and would not stay behind, however it this transporter would probably fuck it up big time...along with all of our forms of pure energy (muscles are made to contract with electrical energy signals...the heart is a muscle...if the teleporter messes up energy then our heart/brain stop functioning)
basically i wouldnt go near that thing unless my life depended on it
--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake
"Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overly was very profound." - Ram Das
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9793108 - 02/13/09 09:51 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
More biochemical reactions, this time in the brain (or nerve centres). Conscious thought is just a series of nerve transmissions, and nerves use biochemical energy.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
teeter
Mindfucked
Registered: 02/06/09
Posts: 1,081
Loc: Philadelphia PA
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9793166 - 02/13/09 10:08 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
More biochemical reactions, this time in the brain (or nerve centres). Conscious thought is just a series of nerve transmissions, and nerves use biochemical energy.
right...i completely agree with you, i was saying these nerve impluses as well as the millions of others going on in everyones body right now would clearly be disrupted by a transporter
however...if u look at the web video i talked about, u may see i have a point about the whole right brain thing...the woman basically described an ego death when her left brain shut off
if u dont believe in the soul...i respect that...im not gona change ur athiestic point of view and your not going to change my spiritual point of view...however, we can agree that these nerve impluses would stop if we were broken down to atoms and we would cease to live whether we had a soul or not
--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake
"Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overly was very profound." - Ram Das
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: teeter]
#9793252 - 02/13/09 10:33 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"however since our soul is most likely energy...i think a transporter could possibly have trouble bringing pure energy over, the concept of streaming the atoms is child's play compared to streaming all the pure energy firing in our synapses, powering our body and in our soul...we'd probably arrive as a souless corpse even if they arranged us perfectly"
Aren't atoms essentially composed of pure energy? If so, then why would it be any more troublesome for a "transporter" to transport a human soul than it is to transport a human body?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9793256 - 02/13/09 10:35 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
More biochemical reactions, this time in the brain (or nerve centres). Conscious thought is just a series of nerve transmissions, and nerves use biochemical energy.
So you're saying that biochemical energy directs conscious thought?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9793364 - 02/13/09 11:05 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well, I wouldn't use the word 'directs' - but it powers our thoughts, and most of our conscious thoughts are related to continuing the chemical reactions that power us.
It's quite amazing, really, to think about how the vast majority of our body is devoted to the collection and utilisation of biochemical energy just to keep us alive. We're either trying to get food and water, or trying to survive so we can use more food and water in future. We're quite fortunate, then, that we're allowed the privilege of thinking about things other than food or survival. Most other animals aren't so lucky.
Consider that the majority of human activity, for the majority of our history, has been about eating, producing food, or working in order to buy food. Same with water, shelter, and other necessities. It's only with the gradual advance of civilisation that we were able to engage some of our time pursuing things like art, and science.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9793385 - 02/13/09 11:12 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Well, I wouldn't use the word 'directs' - but it powers our thoughts, and most of our conscious thoughts are related to continuing the chemical reactions that power us."
Well, I am using the word "directs" because that's the question I'm asking you; What directs the phenomenon that powers our thoughts?
"We're quite fortunate, then, that we're allowed the privilege of thinking about things other than food or survival. Most other animals aren't so lucky."
How do you know this?
"It's only with the gradual advance of civilisation that we were able to engage some of our time pursuing things like art, and science."
Art has been around since before civilization, as well as throughout.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/13/09 11:19 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9793409 - 02/13/09 11:18 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
True, art has been around for a long time.
My comment about other animals is based on the fact that animals spend virtually all of their time eating, foraging, sleeping or socialising (mating/fighting). We just spend most of our time doing that.
>Well, I am using the word "directs" because that's the question I'm asking you. What directs the phenomenon that powers our thoughts?
Well, that depends. If you're thinking about food, it might be because you're hungry. Your body (biochemistry) is directing your thoughts, in that case.
If you're reading a book, however, it's the author that is directing your thoughts.
So it all depends. But, once again, there's absolutely no need for a soul.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9793444 - 02/13/09 11:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"My comment about other animals is based on the fact that animals spend virtually all of their time eating, foraging, sleeping or socialising (mating/fighting). We just spend most of our time doing that."
A lion hardly does any of those things; it spends most of its time lying down, presumably thinking about things.
"Well, that depends. If you're thinking about food, it might be because you're hungry. Your body (biochemistry) is directing your thoughts, in that case.
If you're reading a book, however, it's the author that is directing your thoughts.
So it all depends. But, once again, there's absolutely no need for a soul."
You're going in circles; I'm asking you what you would suppose the phenomenon that directs the energy created by our body's natural biochemical processes is, and you keep going back to saying that these biochemical processes direct our thoughts/actions.
If you're reading a book, then, to use your example, what is it that directs you to read and decipher the letters and words?
What do you mean no need? We're not discussing the "need for a soul" here, we're discussing the existence of a soul.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9793755 - 02/14/09 01:16 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Sure, I can agree with that.
What if we assign specific definition, though? A lot of people think that their soul is what ascends to heaven when they die; it's an integral part of the afterlife ideology. I say, this requires your memories to come with you (or else you won't be 'you'). But your memories are locked up in your body.
So then, we can define the soul as some non-physical material which is capable of storing memories.
But the problem is there's no evidence for an afterlife and no evidence of a non-physical material capable of storing memories. There's an overwhelming probability that souls do no exist.
well, that solved it
No it didn't:
it's called irony
there was a thread on it recently
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9793771 - 02/14/09 01:23 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
It's quite amazing, really, to think about how the vast majority of our body is devoted to the collection and utilisation of biochemical energy just to keep us alive. We're either trying to get food and water, or trying to survive so we can use more food and water in future. We're quite fortunate, then, that we're allowed the privilege of thinking about things other than food or survival. Most other animals aren't so lucky.
teetering on vanity
Quote:
zouden said:
Consider that the majority of human activity, for the majority of our history, has been about eating, producing food, or working in order to buy food. Same with water, shelter, and other necessities. It's only with the gradual advance of civilisation that we were able to engage some of our time pursuing things like art, and science.
actually most of human history that we know about was spent in leisure (dancing/singing, visiting relatives, sports, probably staring/meditating like hunter gathers now do). we (imperial subjects and agrarian people) are the workaholics. "It's only with the gradual advance of civilisation that we were able to engage" in engage in genocide, 40-100+ hour work weeks, destruction of hundreds of ecosystems, etc. many things were made possible with agriculture. art's been around longer.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9793795 - 02/14/09 01:34 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Sure, I can agree with that.
What if we assign specific definition, though? A lot of people think that their soul is what ascends to heaven when they die; it's an integral part of the afterlife ideology. I say, this requires your memories to come with you (or else you won't be 'you'). But your memories are locked up in your body.
So then, we can define the soul as some non-physical material which is capable of storing memories.
But the problem is there's no evidence for an afterlife and no evidence of a non-physical material capable of storing memories. There's an overwhelming probability that souls do no exist.
well, that solved it
No it didn't:
it's called irony
there was a thread on it recently
Oh, my mistake! 
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9793800 - 02/14/09 01:35 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9793801 - 02/14/09 01:36 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Consider that the majority of human activity, for the majority of our history, has been about eating, producing food, or working in order to buy food. Same with water, shelter, and other necessities. It's only with the gradual advance of civilisation that we were able to engage some of our time pursuing things like art, and science.
actually most of human history that we know about was spent in leisure (dancing/singing, visiting relatives, sports, probably staring/meditating like hunter gathers now do). we (imperial subjects and agrarian people) are the workaholics. "It's only with the gradual advance of civilisation that we were able to engage" in engage in genocide, 40-100+ hour work weeks, destruction of hundreds of ecosystems, etc. many things were made possible with agriculture. art's been around longer.
Fuck modern societies.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9793805 - 02/14/09 01:36 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9793813 - 02/14/09 01:39 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
More biochemical reactions, this time in the brain (or nerve centres). Conscious thought is just a series of nerve transmissions, and nerves use biochemical energy.
If this was true, then a computer program playing chess would also be thinking consciously.
You are completely right that "thoughts" are a series of nerve transmissions, powered by biochemical energy, but this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with consciousness. Unless of course you think that a computer algorithm powered by electricity also is thinking consciously.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9793827 - 02/14/09 01:43 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I tend to think that, if anything, thoughts result in a series of nerve transmissions (which are powered by biochemical energy), rather than the other way around. 
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9793840 - 02/14/09 01:48 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
I tend to think that, if anything, thoughts result in a series of nerve transmissions (which are powered by biochemical energy), rather than the other way around.
Well, that just isn't entirely true. We are "thinking" that we want sex, because of hormones. We are "thinking" that we want food because of hormones". Etc.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9793878 - 02/14/09 02:17 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That's my point, though. I don't really believe in all that jibber-jabber. 
I'm not saying that there isn't sufficient scientific evidence to support the existence of hormones, though, don't get me wrong.
I think that "physical" phenomenon pertaining to the human organism is just an excuse for "spiritual" (for lack of a better term) realities. Limiting the explanation of consciousness to mere biochemicals is, frankly, ridiculously blasphemous to me. 
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9793925 - 02/14/09 02:34 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
actually most of human history that we know about was spent in leisure (dancing/singing, visiting relatives, sports, probably staring/meditating like hunter gathers now do). we (imperial subjects and agrarian people) are the workaholics. "It's only with the gradual advance of civilisation that we were able to engage" in engage in genocide, 40-100+ hour work weeks, destruction of hundreds of ecosystems, etc. many things were made possible with agriculture. art's been around longer.
Well, I only work 37.5 hours, and I love my job. I can come home and spend hours reading the shroomery or watching Dexter with my girlfriend. I doubt I'd have that level of luxury if I was born a thousand years earlier.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9793944 - 02/14/09 02:37 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
That's my point, though. I don't really believe in all that jibber-jabber.
I'm not saying that there isn't sufficient scientific evidence to support the existence of hormones, though, don't get me wrong.
I think that "physical" phenomenon pertaining to the human organism is just an excuse for "spiritual" (for lack of a better term) realities. Limiting the explanation of consciousness to mere biochemicals is, frankly, ridiculously blasphemous to me.
I don't feel the need to invent supernatural explanations for why I want a glass of milk. Biochemically-powered nerve transmission is a perfectly satisfying explanation for me.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9794004 - 02/14/09 02:55 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I don't feel the need to invent supernatural explanations for why I want a glass of milk. Biochemically-powered nerve transmission is a perfectly satisfying explanation for me.
Do you believe that a computer algorithm playing chess is conscious?
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9794042 - 02/14/09 03:12 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
actually most of human history that we know about was spent in leisure (dancing/singing, visiting relatives, sports, probably staring/meditating like hunter gathers now do). we (imperial subjects and agrarian people) are the workaholics. "It's only with the gradual advance of civilisation that we were able to engage" in engage in genocide, 40-100+ hour work weeks, destruction of hundreds of ecosystems, etc. many things were made possible with agriculture. art's been around longer.
Well, I only work 37.5 hours, and I love my job. I can come home and spend hours reading the shroomery or watching Dexter with my girlfriend. I doubt I'd have that level of luxury if I was born a thousand years earlier.
That wouldn't have even been considered a luxury a thousand years ago.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9794047 - 02/14/09 03:14 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Poid said:
That's my point, though. I don't really believe in all that jibber-jabber.
I'm not saying that there isn't sufficient scientific evidence to support the existence of hormones, though, don't get me wrong.
I think that "physical" phenomenon pertaining to the human organism is just an excuse for "spiritual" (for lack of a better term) realities. Limiting the explanation of consciousness to mere biochemicals is, frankly, ridiculously blasphemous to me.
I don't feel the need to invent supernatural explanations for why I want a glass of milk. Biochemically-powered nerve transmission is a perfectly satisfying explanation for me.
So you'd rather have other people invent explanations for you instead?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9794210 - 02/14/09 05:02 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What are you getting at?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9794403 - 02/14/09 06:48 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
More biochemical reactions, this time in the brain (or nerve centres). Conscious thought is just a series of nerve transmissions, and nerves use biochemical energy.
Philosophically flawed unless you retreat into idealism or solipsism. The fact that a universal cannot be contained in matter leads us inexorably to the conclusion that all thought is immaterial, e.g. a particular. A universal is never contained in matter but particulars are. We can see a particular, even think about it, but we cannot think of a universal because it is an immaterial concept. Concepts, as entities in the mind, are immaterial. We understand particulars by means of universals. We can see a particular by using the eyes/mind/brain. We have never seen, nor will see, a concept. Love is also a concept. It cannot be reduced to electrochemical impulses or synapses firing in the brain.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,389
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9795041 - 02/14/09 09:58 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't feel the need to invent supernatural explanations for why I want a glass of milk.
A chocolate chip cookie is a sufficient explanation.
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
> We have never seen, nor will see, a concept. Love is also a concept. It cannot be reduced to electrochemical impulses or synapses firing in the brain.
Agreed. They are fundamentally different objects. The closest we can get is watching the synapses firing when someone is in love. We could track brain signalling when a concept moves through someone's mind, but of course that doesn't mean we're actually watching the concept itself. Just the biological implementation of it.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9797186 - 02/14/09 05:28 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
What are you getting at?
The fact that all that scientific evidence is substantiated via the implementation of the scientific method, so therefore, science is composed of theories, not facts. I started a thread on this a few days ago, you might want to at least skim through it:
Science and religion - their differences and their similarities
Since science is merely composed of theories, why would the theories of others be necessarily invalid?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9797199 - 02/14/09 05:31 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
We could track brain signalling when a concept moves through someone's mind, but of course that doesn't mean we're actually watching the concept itself. Just the biological implementation of it.
Or rather, the biological explanation of it.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9797290 - 02/14/09 05:53 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Close enough. I haven't heard any better theories for how the brain works, have you?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9797399 - 02/14/09 06:11 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Better" is subjective; I've read many different theories on the brain, but I wouldn't really say that any of them are better than the rest.
To me, the best theory would be the correct one. 
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9797412 - 02/14/09 06:13 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Which theories have you read? And why weren't any better than the rest?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9797452 - 02/14/09 06:20 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I've read many "spiritually-based" theories, and neither of them are better than the rest because I don't yet know, without a shadow of a doubt, which one is correct.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9797681 - 02/14/09 06:58 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
> We have never seen, nor will see, a concept. Love is also a concept. It cannot be reduced to electrochemical impulses or synapses firing in the brain.
Agreed. They are fundamentally different objects. The closest we can get is watching the synapses firing when someone is in love. We could track brain signalling when a concept moves through someone's mind, but of course that doesn't mean we're actually watching the concept itself. Just the biological implementation of it.
Right, which at the base of it means the mind and the brain are two different things. One is matter and the other isn't. I consider my argument to be the closest evidence, admittedly philosophical, for the existence of the immaterial. It is also the reason why I think science will never be able to solve the problem of mind. It is philosophically unable to do so.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
|
Well, I don't think they are two different things in the actual implementation. Only in the sense of our concept of them. I think the mind is a conceptual device, nothing else. We talk about the mind as being separate from the brain only because it is convenient to do so.
Edit: but, yes, in the sense that the mind is a concept, it's somewhat out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy (perhaps psychologists would disagree though).
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
Edited by zouden (02/14/09 07:40 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9798222 - 02/14/09 08:33 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The mind is, in the most fundamental sense, a phenomenon; whether or not it belongs to the realm of physics (which is a science) is up to science to decide because its purpose is to discover and consequently explain phenomenons.
The mind is separate from the brain because they are two different distinct phenomenon; if this weren't true, then the word "mind" would be synonymous with the word "brain
I think the mind could be correctly explained via science, psychology, and philosophy; each of those disciplines would have different, but complementary viewpoints.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
LunarEclipse
Mr. Worry Free
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 6,777
Loc: Sugar Town
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9798322 - 02/14/09 08:53 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
The mind is, in the most fundamental sense, a phenomenon; whether or not it belongs to the realm of physics (which is a science) is up to science to decide because its purpose is to discover and consequently explain phenomenons.
The mind is separate from the brain because they are two different distinct phenomenon; if this weren't true, then the word "mind" would be synonymous with the word "brain
The Mind what a terrible thing to waste.
--------------------
Don't worry be happy.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: LunarEclipse]
#9798492 - 02/14/09 09:18 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9798613 - 02/14/09 09:37 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
I think the mind could be correctly explained via science, psychology, and philosophy; each of those disciplines would have different, but complementary viewpoints.
I agree
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
|
nor do i believe science will solve the problem of mind because
there is no problem
BTW, i can say it's a shame that the thread is far OT.
nothing in the thought experiment's premises/actuality
would be more devastating to belief in
a soul than any evidence provided in the world's
current technology. people can't distance themselves from
a belief in a soul now, why would they be able to if
there were transporters?
also, i got soul  , beam me up
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: LunarEclipse]
#9798667 - 02/14/09 09:44 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LunarEclipse said:
The mind is separate from the brain because they are two different distinct phenomenon; if this weren't true, then the word "mind" would be synonymous with the word "brain
The Mind what a terrible thing to waste.
old philosophical example:
"morning star" and "evening star" aren't synonymous,
but they're the same thing
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9798783 - 02/14/09 10:05 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"nothing in the thought experiment's premises/actuality
would be more devastating to belief in
a soul than any evidence provided in the world's
current technology."
Can you reword this? I think I see what you're saying here, but I'm not 100% sure...
Are you saying that the world's current technology provides evidence that debunks the soul theory?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9798790 - 02/14/09 10:07 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
LunarEclipse said:
The mind is separate from the brain because they are two different distinct phenomenon; if this weren't true, then the word "mind" would be synonymous with the word "brain
The Mind what a terrible thing to waste.
old philosophical example:
"morning star" and "evening star" aren't synonymous,
but they're the same thing
But they're the same star.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9798806 - 02/14/09 10:09 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
but mind and brain are the same organ
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9798820 - 02/14/09 10:12 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Is the mind an organ?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9798831 - 02/14/09 10:15 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"nothing in the thought experiment's premises/actuality
would be more devastating to belief in
a soul than any evidence provided in the world's
current technology."
Can you reword this? I think I see what you're saying here, but I'm not 100% sure...
Are you saying that the world's current technology provides evidence that debunks the soul theory?
we have all the arguments and reasons to understand non-physical reality is a fairy tale, yet people believe in it anyhow.
everything people need to wake up is here right now.
new types of technology that for certain minds increase the likelihood that there is no soul, say nothing to those who believe in a soul.
you have to get to kids when they're young, don't tell them all the fairy tales, don't reenact them,
then the atheists will be satisfied
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9798838 - 02/14/09 10:16 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Is the mind an organ?
is the morning star i write poems about the same as the evening star that made my horse run off with my mother-in-law?
Edited by Lakefingers (02/14/09 10:36 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9799295 - 02/14/09 10:26 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Is it a different ball of light-emitting nuclear powered hydrogen gas?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9799320 - 02/14/09 10:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said:
"nothing in the thought experiment's premises/actuality
would be more devastating to belief in
a soul than any evidence provided in the world's
current technology."
Can you reword this? I think I see what you're saying here, but I'm not 100% sure...
Are you saying that the world's current technology provides evidence that debunks the soul theory?
we have all the arguments and reasons to understand non-physical reality is a fairy tale, yet people believe in it anyhow.
everything people need to wake up is here right now.
new types of technology that for certain minds increase the likelihood that there is no soul, say nothing to those who believe in a soul.
you have to get to kids when they're young, don't tell them all the fairy tales, don't reenact them,
then the atheists will be satisfied
First of all, who said that the soul was a non-physical entity? Second of all, how does our current technology debunk the soul theory?
The soul theory isn't merely a fairy tale, though it is often explained through the use of parables, which are sort of like fairy tales.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9799337 - 02/14/09 10:30 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Is it a different ball of light-emitting nuclear powered hydrogen gas?
yes, if you want to see the world mystically
same goes with mind
fantasy takes precedence over factuality
Edited by Lakefingers (02/14/09 10:35 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9799603 - 02/14/09 10:33 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Wait, to which post are you responding here?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 5,660
Loc: mumuland
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9799686 - 02/14/09 10:34 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
First of all, who said that the soul was a non-physical entity? Second of all, how does our current technology debunk the soul theory?
The soul theory isn't merely a fairy tale, though it is often explained through the use of parables, which are sort of like fairy tales.
all i'm going to say is don't get caught up in the arguments and particulars
take a step back,
several if necessary
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9799809 - 02/14/09 10:36 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I prefer to have it all solved. Taking steps back is hardly my style of doing things, and is usually a last resort.
Wait, what exactly are you saying here?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/14/09 10:37 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9800037 - 02/14/09 10:39 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Is it a different ball of light-emitting nuclear powered hydrogen gas?
yes, if you want to see the world mystically
same goes with mind
fantasy takes precedence over factuality
Why shouldn't mysticism and physics be complementary entities?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9800173 - 02/14/09 10:49 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Mind and brain can be the same thing but different things.
Eg when an athlete runs, the running that he is doing IS him. he IS running. But he himself does not constitute a 'run'.
Similarly, there is something going on that we associate with the body of the brain. We can isolate this 'mind' thing in the brain, even though the two concepts themselves are distinctly different.
Eg the athlete, and the way that the athlete is changing with respect to the universe (whilst still remaining the same athlete) are two seperate concepts, but they are both defined in practice by the body of the athlete.
As for a 'directive force', Poid, you seem to be digging further into physics than your intuition serves well. dont take this the wrong way, but when you start asking about 'directive forces', you forget that every single force implicitly has a direction. There is usually not a 'directive force' except in large scale situations of inertia whereby a specific directive force must be applied to a body in order for it to eventually move in the direction of that force.
but force itself is not directed by special 'directive forces'. force IS a direction as well as a magnitude.
when the chemical energy turns into electrical potential and charges, it does so through a millions of years-old system that ensures that a certain amount of energy manifests as a specific direction of force.
for another way of looking at it:
When a river moves down the mountain, where is the 'directive force' that makes it follow a certain path?
The water itself is being primarily pulled toward the earth by gravity. This is the gross force that is occuring in the river.
however, the way that this force ends up being expressed by changes in the universe is that the water moves along a particular windy path. This is because of the structure of the riverbed, and subsequently where the energy can flow. It is the structure of the system that defines the 'direction' of the flow of energy.
similarly, in the brain, there is the actual gross energy, the bio-chemical potentials, electrical signals, etc. What is the 'directive force'? Well its not really a force so much as a structure. the (incredibly intricate) structure of the human body channels its internal gross energies into elabourate cycles and closed circuit systems (like consciousness might be described).
That is, the structure of the brain channels the electrical and chemical potentials within it into a very orderly system.
There is not just mass and energy in this universe - more importantly there is the displacement and alignment of these things, and it is in these structures that the amazing phenomenon of life and consciousness arise.
self-sustaining STRUCTURE of mass and energy, which themselves replace their constituent parts (mass and energy) constantly, but retain their relative structure. This is what life is. this i what we are. We are not the atoms that make us up, but the tendency for atoms to be arranged into our form every moment that we exist.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9800692 - 02/15/09 12:02 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Eg when an athlete runs, the running that he is doing IS him. he IS running. But he himself does not constitute a 'run'."
This is because the athlete is running (which is an adverb), not "run" (which is a verb). The word running only describes what he is doing, not what he is; what s/he is, though, is a running athlete.
A noun indicates a person place or thing, whereas an adverb describes an action. The word "athlete" (which is a type of person) is not an adverb, it is a noun. Again, s/he is not "the running", but rather a running athlete.
"Similarly, there is something going on that we associate with the body of the brain. We can isolate this 'mind' thing in the brain, even though the two concepts themselves are distinctly different."
Correct, they in fact are two distinct, separate phenomena.
"Eg the athlete, and the way that the athlete is changing with respect to the universe (whilst still remaining the same athlete) are two seperate concepts, but they are both defined in practice by the body of the athlete."
Is it possible that they defined by the phenomenon that animates the athlete's body?
"As for a 'directive force', Poid, you seem to be digging further into physics than your intuition serves well."
I didn't say "directive force", I said "phenomenon that directs the force which animates a biological organism's body."
"dont take this the wrong way, but when you start asking about 'directive forces', you forget that every single force implicitly has a direction. There is usually not a 'directive force' except in large scale situations of inertia whereby a specific directive force must be applied to a body in order for it to eventually move in the direction of that force."
Since every single force implicitly has a direction, how are you saying this fact relates to a "directive force"?
Are you saying that the bodies of biological organisms aren't inert? If the body of a biological organism is dead (or even sleeping), it is inert; in order for it to not be inert, it needs a "directive force".
"but force itself is not directed by special 'directive forces'. force IS a direction as well as a magnitude."
Source(s)?
Force doesn't come upon (or move through/with) a physical body spontaneously and without reason or an explanation, therefore, in order for a physical body to be moving with a certain magnitude of force, it needs to have been initially inert.
"when the chemical energy turns into electrical potential and charges, it does so through a millions of years-old system that ensures that a certain amount of energy manifests as a specific direction of force."
What millions of years old system are you speaking of?
"for another way of looking at it:
When a river moves down the mountain, where is the 'directive force' that makes it follow a certain path?"
"Where" is not the right question to ask.
"The water itself is being primarily pulled toward the earth by gravity. This is the gross force that is occuring in the river."
Rivers are not sentient biological organisms, therefore, this analogy is inherently invalid because it does not satisfactorily suit the discussion at hand.
"however, the way that this force ends up being expressed by changes in the universe is that the water moves along a particular windy path. This is because of the structure of the riverbed, and subsequently where the energy can flow. It is the structure of the system that defines the 'direction' of the flow of energy."
It's not only the structure of the riverbed, but the force that moves each particular H20 molecule in whatever direction that influences the path of the river; also, take into consideration that water is a powerfully erosive substance, and can therefore easily change the composition of the riverbed.
All this being said, there is no necessary structure because there is no necessary system; the system and the structure can be explained in terms of force.
"similarly, in the brain, there is the actual gross energy, the bio-chemical potentials, electrical signals, etc. What is the 'directive force'? Well its not really a force so much as a structure. the (incredibly intricate) structure of the human body channels its internal gross energies into elabourate cycles and closed circuit systems (like consciousness might be described)."
The brain is its own thing, and consciousness is another. The question, "What is the directive force?" is one that I am now begging everyone to answer.
Of course the brain and the human body is a structure; both of these structures are able to produce force.
How can consciousness be described as a structure that channels its internal gross energies into elaborate cycles and closed circuit systems?
"That is, the structure of the brain channels the electrical and chemical potentials within it into a very orderly system."
By "a very orderly system", what specifically are you referring to?
"There is not just mass and energy in this universe - more importantly there is the displacement and alignment of these things, and it is in these structures that the amazing phenomenon of life and consciousness arise."
Correct, the universe isn't merely mass and energy, but that is what it is fundamentally composed of.
Give me a specific example of a structure that life and consciousness arise from.
"self-sustaining STRUCTURE of mass and energy, which themselves replace their constituent parts (mass and energy) constantly, but retain their relative structure. This is what life is. this i what we are. We are not the atoms that make us up, but the tendency for atoms to be arranged into our form every moment that we exist."
The universe itself can be thought of as the grandest structure of all, so what are you saying the constituents of the structures therein replace themselves with?
I would go as far as to say that we are not even this "tendency for atoms to be arranged into our form every moment that we exist".
Atoms are (as physicists today understand them, anyways) basically infinitesimally small swirling masses of energy, tendency is potential energy, and things are arranged via the use of force (which is a form of energy). That being said, we are, in a most fundamental sense, energy.
So my question now is, "What directs energy?".
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9801026 - 02/15/09 02:26 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
I think the mind could be correctly explained via science, psychology, and philosophy; each of those disciplines would have different, but complementary viewpoints.
Well, not with the scientific understanding we have today. Maybe sometime in the future the mind can understood completely, but not now.
Even if you learn everything theres is to learn about science, psychology and philosophy, I don't think you will be able to understand the mind completely.
Especially problematic is the question about of feelings are generated. Only when we are able to create a machine that is able to feel emotions, will we truly be able to understand how feelings are generated.
Edited by Zanthius (02/15/09 02:37 AM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801093 - 02/15/09 02:56 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Well, not with the scientific understanding we have today. Maybe sometime in the future the mind can understood completely, but not now."
Hopefully sometime in the near future....
"Even if you learn everything theres is to learn about science, psychology and philosophy, I don't think you will be able to understand the mind completely."
If everything to learn about philosophy, psychology (which is a science), and science in general has been learned, then that would necessarily mean that everything to be learned about the mind would be known, too.
"Especially problematics is the question about of feelings are generated. Only when we are able to create a machine that is able to feel emotions, will be able to understand how feelings truly are generated."
Why would a machine that is capable of experiencing and expressing emotions be necessary in order to be able to truly understand emotions?
Today, we have animatronic robots that can mimic the physical movements of humans; are you saying that the only way to truly understand the physical movements of humans is to study the physical movements of animatronic robots?
Don't you think that the only way to even be able to create a machine capable of experiencing and expressing emotions is to truly understand emotions first?
I don't think philosophy, psychology, or science in general are too far from truly understanding emotions, and, for that matter, neither am I.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9801167 - 02/15/09 04:05 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Why would a machine that is capable of experiencing and expressing emotions be necessary in order to be able to truly understand emotions?
Because if you can understand completely how something works, then you should be able to replicate it.
Quote:
Poid said:
Don't you think that the only way to even be able to create a machine capable of experiencing and expressing emotions is to truly understand emotions first?
What is the difference? At the moment you are able to understand how something really works, then you should also be able to replicate it. I know how to replicate a lot of things, but I have no idea about how to create a machine that experiences emotions.
Quote:
Poid said:I don't think philosophy, psychology, or science in general are too far from truly understanding emotions, and, for that matter, neither am I.
Nobody has ANY idea about how to create a machine that experiences emotions. The ONLY thing neuroscience knows about emotions, is that certain hormones and neurotransmitters are related to certain emotions. Neurosceience doens't know a shit about how the receptors for these hormones and neurotransmitters actually are able to generate these feelings. When we are able to understand how these receptors are able to generate emotions, then we will be able to create a machine that experiences emotions.
Edited by Zanthius (02/15/09 04:39 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801202 - 02/15/09 04:41 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But what if the neurotransmitters and hormones are the emotions? If, for example, oxytocin is the chemical which gives us the feeling of 'love' (and there is ample evidence that it is) - then no more causality is required. We fall in love, which releases oxytocin and gives us that feeling that we are in love - doesn't this mean that oxytocin is the physical implementation of that emotion? That oxytocin doesn't generate an emotion, it is the emotion?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9801211 - 02/15/09 04:56 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
But what if the neurotransmitters and hormones are the emotions? If, for example, oxytocin is the chemical which gives us the feeling of 'love' (and there is ample evidence that it is) - then no more causality is required. We fall in love, which releases oxytocin and gives us that feeling that we are in love - doesn't this mean that oxytocin is the physical implementation of that emotion? That oxytocin doesn't generate an emotion, it is the emotion?
I thought it was the receptor cells that generated the emotions, not the hormones and neutrotransmitters. It would be interesting to study the cascade effects inside of the cells that have receptors for oxytocin, when they receive oxytocin.
But anyhow, if oxytocin IS the emotion, then you still need to explain why the molecular structure of oxytocin has a specific emotion.
Edited by Zanthius (02/15/09 05:07 AM)
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9801223 - 02/15/09 05:06 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Well, I don't think they are two different things in the actual implementation. Only in the sense of our concept of them. I think the mind is a conceptual device, nothing else. We talk about the mind as being separate from the brain only because it is convenient to do so.
Edit: but, yes, in the sense that the mind is a concept, it's somewhat out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy (perhaps psychologists would disagree though).
Actually, if you read my argument carefully you'll see the materialistic view completely dismantled. If the mind is the same thing as the physical constituents, i.e. the brain, we would be unable to think because universals cannot be contained in matter. It's an ironclad, incontrovertible argument with no escape clause. It can, however, be disproven philosophically by science. If you watch the video it is explained near the end. Until that day arrives, and the more materialists attempt it and fail, the more unlikely it becomes.
I love science as much as the next scientist, but I absolutely love it with philosophy trumps science. It is, after all, the supreme discipline. Without philosophy there would be no "science." 
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801231 - 02/15/09 05:12 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
>But anyhow, if oxytocin IS the emotion, then you still need to explain why the molecular structure of oxytocin has a specific emotion.
That's relatively easy. If you "feel" that you are in love with someone when you look at them, and those feelings can be described specifically (for example, 'feeling warm and fuzzy') then we can check to see if oxytocin activates nerves that make you feel warm and fuzzy, among other things.
To put it crudely, if there were 5 feelings you get that you might ascribe to love, such as 'warm and fuzzy', 'generous and caring', 'empathic' etc, and we found that oxytocin (and only oxytocin) is sufficient to cause all of those feelings, then we could well say that oxytocin is the love chemical. Without it, you can't get those feelings, and if you artificially supply it, you do get those feelings. I've experienced that enough myself to be convinced.
This is not to demean love (of course!) but I like learning these things as a humbling reminder of our biochemical heritage.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9801236 - 02/15/09 05:16 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
That's relatively easy. If you "feel" that you are in love with someone when you look at them, and those feelings can be described specifically (for example, 'feeling warm and fuzzy') then we can check to see if oxytocin activates nerves that make you feel warm and fuzzy, among other things.
Yes, you can do that, but it would be even more interesting if you are able to find out what cascade effects happens inside of the cells that have receptors for oxytocin, that are responsible for making me feel "warm and fuzzy".
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9801238 - 02/15/09 05:19 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
But what if the neurotransmitters and hormones are the emotions? If, for example, oxytocin is the chemical which gives us the feeling of 'love' (and there is ample evidence that it is) - then no more causality is required. We fall in love, which releases oxytocin and gives us that feeling that we are in love - doesn't this mean that oxytocin is the physical implementation of that emotion? That oxytocin doesn't generate an emotion, it is the emotion?
I think it is entirely likely that the emotions, like the brain/body, are material entities. True, the constituent parts and inner workings are far from being understood, however, as far as we know, they are based within the hormones and other constituent parts. That being the case it would be possible, even likely, to create a machine that feels. That is completely different from creating a machine that conceptualizes. Love isn't only a feel though it may have some feelings associated with it. Love is also a concept and can be evidenced in actions required by conceptualizations making it a part of the mind. Since that is the case, that part of love, love in action if you will, based upon conceptualization, can never be replicated by a machine.
Remember, it isn't our emotions that separates us from animals. Even a shrew can feel fear. Only humans have the ability to conceptualize.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Remember, it isn't our emotions that separates us from animals. Even a shrew can feel fear. Only humans have the ability to conceptualize.
Well, it is our emotions that separates us from the machines. A computer algorithm can easily beat you in chess, but it cannot feel anything. And just what is to conceptualize anyhow? Isn't a computer program conceptualizing according to its database, just like I am conceptualizing according to my knowledge.
Edited by Zanthius (02/15/09 05:33 AM)
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801245 - 02/15/09 05:27 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Not yet. 
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801263 - 02/15/09 05:50 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Yes, you can do that, but it would be even more interesting if you are able to find out what cascade effects happens inside of the cells that have receptors for oxytocin, that are responsible for making me feel "warm and fuzzy".
Really? I think the initial part, the oxytocin, is more interesting as it's the unifying factor between those feelings.
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
That being the case it would be possible, even likely, to create a machine that feels. That is completely different from creating a machine that conceptualizes. Love isn't only a feel though it may have some feelings associated with it. Love is also a concept and can be evidenced in actions required by conceptualizations making it a part of the mind.
I totally agree
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9801270 - 02/15/09 05:54 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I totally agree
Where's the fun in that? I know, I suppose it gives you a good feeling.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9801276 - 02/15/09 05:57 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Really? I think the initial part, the oxytocin, is more interesting as it's the unifying factor between those feelings.
Well, I don't believe that there is anything specific about the structure of oxytocin that makes us feel good. I think it is the cascade effects inside of the receptor cells for oxytocin that makes us feel good.
If the oxytocin receptors were constructed in another way, so that another molecular structure triggered the cascade effects in the cells, then oxytocin wouldn't be the "love hormone".
I believe that the only reason why oxytocin is the 'love hormone' is because our 'love receptors' have been constructed specifically to be triggered by oxytocin.
Edited by Zanthius (02/15/09 06:03 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801309 - 02/15/09 06:16 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ah, but what I'm saying is that there is no single response to oxytocin. It's a whole range of responses that we collectively call the feeling of 'love'. It acts on many different parts of the brain and body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin#Actions_of_oxytocin_within_the_brain
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9801318 - 02/15/09 06:22 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Ah, but what I'm saying is that there is no single response to oxytocin. It's a whole range of responses that we collectively call the feeling of 'love'. It acts on many different parts of the brain and body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin#Actions_of_oxytocin_within_the_brain
Okay, that would make it a little more difficult to understand the mechanism behind oxytocin. Perhaps it would be more easy to understand pain. Are there many different cellular responses to substance P as well?
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801339 - 02/15/09 06:33 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't know much about substance P (I work with noradrenaline mostly) but there's a wide range of specificities for hormones & neurotransmitters. There are chemicals with a very specific role, like insulin, and ones with a huge range of effects, like adrenaline and noradrenaline.
Pain is probably easier to understand, you're right. But is pain an emotion?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9801360 - 02/15/09 06:45 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:Pain is probably easier to understand, you're right. But is pain an emotion?
Well, I don't know how to create a machine that feels pain, nor do I know how to create a machine that feels love.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801374 - 02/15/09 06:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Because if you can understand completely how something works, then you should be able to replicate it."
How is a machine that is able to experience and express emotions in any way a replica of a human being that can do the same?
"What is the difference? At the moment you are able to understand how something really works, then you should also be able to replicate it. I know how to replicate a lot of things, but I have no idea about how to create a machine that experiences emotions."
What's the difference of what? Again, machines and biological organisms will never be the same thing because by definition, they are not the same thing; the words "machine" and "animal" are not synonyms.
Artists seem to be highly skilled at understanding emotions; a professional comedian is able to effortlessly make people laugh, and actors, musicians, poets, novelists, etc. can cause people to experience several different emotions via the implementation of this skill of understanding, manipulating, and creating (i.e. - replicating) emotions towards their respective crafts.
"Nobody has ANY idea about how to create a machine that experiences emotions."
Nor does anybody see any real purpose to create such a machine, or how such a machine could provide any kind of practical benefit to anything.
"The ONLY thing neuroscience knows about emotions, is that certain hormones and neurotransmitters are related to certain emotions. Neurosceience doens't know a shit about how the receptors for these hormones and neurotransmitters actually are able to generate these feelings. When we are able to understand how these receptors are able to generate emotions, then we will be able to create a machine that experiences emotions."
You have to take into consideration that neuroscience (and by extension, all of its theories) (are) is based on a scientific investigation conducted on a dead frog; how science made a direct connection between a dead frog and a living human being is indefatigably questionable.
Emotions are necessarily accompanied by a corporeal indicative facial expression, therefore, there could never be a machine that could experience emotions because machines are not made out of flesh.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9801408 - 02/15/09 06:58 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I thought it was the receptor cells that generated the emotions, not the hormones and neutrotransmitters.
Quote:
zouden said:
We fall in love, which releases oxytocin...
Quote:
zouden said:
oxytocin is the chemical which gives us the feeling of 'love'
You couldn't have said it more explicitly; it is the chemical which accompanies the emotion, not the other way around; the emotion is the initial phenomenon, and the chemical is merely a catalyst.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801432 - 02/15/09 07:06 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Remember, it isn't our emotions that separates us from animals. Even a shrew can feel fear. Only humans have the ability to conceptualize.
Well, it is our emotions that separates us from the machines. A computer algorithm can easily beat you in chess, but it cannot feel anything. And just what is to conceptualize anyhow? Isn't a computer program conceptualizing according to its database, just like I am conceptualizing according to my knowledge.
A computer cannot think, that's why it's called a computer; what separates us from animals is our ability to thing abstractly (i.e.- conceptualize).
Thinking is a fruit of consciousness, and consciousness is, as far as the human race is concerned (at this point in time, anyways), limited to biological organisms.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9801470 - 02/15/09 07:20 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Remember, it isn't our emotions that separates us from animals. Even a shrew can feel fear. Only humans have the ability to conceptualize.
Well, it is our emotions that separates us from the machines. A computer algorithm can easily beat you in chess, but it cannot feel anything. And just what is to conceptualize anyhow? Isn't a computer program conceptualizing according to its database, just like I am conceptualizing according to my knowledge.
A computer cannot think, that's why it's called a computer; what separates us from animals is our ability to thing abstractly (i.e.- conceptualize).
Thinking is a fruit of consciousness, and consciousness is, as far as the human race is concerned (at this point in time, anyways), limited to biological organisms.
Some of the questions can be answered by clarifying definitions. If, for example, we define mathematical computation as a part of thinking, we can say a simple calculator thinks. Moreover, there are two types of abstract thought, perceptual abstraction, which can be highly refined, e.g. Koko the ape and her "monkey shines," and conceptual abstraction, a type of cognition only available to humans. Neither beasts nor machines are capable of conceptual abstraction, nor will they ever be if my hypothesis is correct.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9801607 - 02/15/09 08:10 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
A computer cannot think, that's why it's called a computer; what separates us from animals is our ability to thing abstractly (i.e.- conceptualize).
I don't necessarily think it is theoretically impossible for a computer program to think as abstractly as most humans do. Actually, I think most humans are extremely limited in their ability to think abstractly, and that computer algorithms can exceed human thinking in many ways already.
It might be difficult for a human to perceive its own mechanicalness, but I see a lot of mechanicalness in humans. Many people say that a computer program cannot think outside of its algorithm, but most humans are also extremely limited in their ability to think outside of the culture and ideology that was imprinted into their brains while they were children.
Quote:
Poid said:
Thinking is a fruit of consciousness, and consciousness is, as far as the human race is concerned (at this point in time, anyways), limited to biological organisms.
I don't necessarily think so. Mechanical thinking is just to process an algorithm, and you don't need any consciousness in order to do that. Abstract thinking might be related to consciousness, but it could also be related to a higher complexity of mechanical thinking.
If a computer algorithm is programmed to increase its own size, it would be just like a human learning new things.
Edited by Zanthius (02/15/09 08:19 AM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
"Some of the questions can be answered by clarifying definitions. If, for example, we define mathematical computation as a part of thinking, we can say a simple calculator thinks."
I defined "thinking" as being "a fruit of consciousness".
"Moreover, there are two types of abstract thought, perceptual abstraction, which can be highly refined, e.g. Koko the ape and her "monkey shines," and conceptual abstraction, a type of cognition only available to humans."
Yes, the conceptual type abstraction is what I meant by "think abstractly", I should have clarified.
Neither beasts nor machines are capable of conceptual abstraction, nor will they ever be if my hypothesis is correct.
I'm not so sure about beasts, since they are conscious biological organisms, but machines cannot possess consciousness because that is (so far as the human race is concerned, at this point in time, anyways) a phenomenon unique to living biological organisms.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801640 - 02/15/09 08:23 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"I don't necessarily think it is theoretically impossible for a computer program to think as abstractly as most humans do. Actually, I think most humans are extremely limited in their ability to think abstractly, and that computer algorithms can exceed human thinking in many ways already."
If something is not alive, it cannot possess consciousness (i.e.- self-awareness). Even some of the oldest calculators can compute extremely complex mathematical algorithms faster than the average human can, but this fact doesn't mean that it is alive, and furthermore, it necessarily needs to be operated by an external force, whereas humans (presumably) operate themselves by themselves.
"I don't necessarily think so. Mechanical thinking is just to process an algorithm, and you don't need any consciousness in order to do that. Abstract thinking might be related to consciousness, but it could also be related to a higher complexity of mechanical thinking."
Define "mechanical thinking", and then tell me how it relates the consciousness of sentient biological organisms.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9801668 - 02/15/09 08:35 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
If something is not alive, it cannot possess consciousness (i.e.- self-awareness). Even some of the oldest calculators can compute extremely complex mathematical algorithms faster than the average human can, but this fact doesn't mean that it is alive, and furthermore, it necessarily needs to be operated by an external force, whereas humans (presumably) operate themselves by themselves.
Operated by an external force? Of course, if you are talking about a simple calculator, then it needs to be operated by an external force, but there are a lot of computer programs today that operates mostly by themselves. Even a program playing chess operates according to its own algorithm, just like you are operating according to your concept of reality.
Of course an algorithm that is limited to playing chess, will never learn anything outside of the game, but it isn't necessarily impossible to create an algorithm that is programmed to learn randomly on the internet.
Quote:
Poid said:Define "mechanical thinking", and then tell me how it relates the consciousness of sentient biological organisms.
Mechanical thinking is just to process an algorithm. This is what a computer program is doing when it is playing chess, and it might also be what humans are doing. The only difference being that humans are processing much larger algorithms.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9801697 - 02/15/09 08:48 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"...there are a lot of computer programs today that operates mostly by themselves."
What created these programs?
"Even a program playing chess operates according to its own algorithm, just like you are operating according to your concept of reality."
What created the chess playing program?
Concept of reality??
"The only difference being that humans are processing much larger algorithms."
So it's a matter of quantity, as opposed to quality, that separates man from machines???
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9801711 - 02/15/09 08:56 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:What created these programs?
Don't forget that you wouldn't have much of an ideology yourself, unless your parents and your country had imprinted their culture into your head, when you were a child.
If you let a human baby grow up isolated from other people, it will also be very limited in its ability to conceptualize reality. If you are thinking with words, how well would you be able to think, if you hadn't learned any language?
Quote:
Poid said:So it's a matter of quantity, as opposed to quality, that separates man from machines???
There are fundamental differences in the way a neural net and a normal computer is processing information, but there are artificial neural nets.
Artificial Neural Network
Edited by Zanthius (02/15/09 09:05 AM)
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Lakefingers]
#9805291 - 02/15/09 09:43 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
poid, you have a very active and open mind in terms of applying yourself to these ideas instead of closing off to them. I have a lot of things I could say to make my point clearer to you and everyone else here but you are definately clinging on to definitions and some sort of quasi-dogmatic viewpoint.
Eg things like the notion that a computer can never be a person because a computer is not an animal...
thats not how shit goes down bro.
a person is not just an animal.. because there are plenty of animals that do not have the qualities of a person.
Thus we do not consider the defining factor of a person to be that it is an animal. Rather, we define it by some sort of awareness and capability, or responsibility.
Thus even though all of the places where we observe 'personhood' are animals, this does not mean our brain or philosophy defines personhood by animalhood.
But the fact that all persons are animals IS significant. It is significant because we cannot match the complexity of animals, and thus it is unlikely that we will be able to match the complexity of something that is only ever seen in animals. Logically speaking, we cannot disprove the concept of a conscious computer, but we can think it rather unlikely.
throw away the dictionary, if you want to search for new information. if you want to stay planted in 20th century limitation on the other hand, then live by the book.
eg :
"This is because the athlete is running (which is an adverb), not "run" (which is a verb). The word running only describes what he is doing, not what he is; what s/he is, though, is a running athlete.
"A noun indicates a person place or thing, whereas an adverb describes an action. The word "athlete" (which is a type of person) is not an adverb, it is a noun. Again, s/he is not "the running", but rather a running athlete."
we all went to school. (almost all of us). I, for one, know what a verb and a noun are. However since leaving school, one might also discover that the universe does not actually function in the clear cut way that school does.
Most things are not understood. So why hold on to traditional paradigms?
You have the athlete. This is the multifaceted, changing body of the athlete. This is the border by which we use to identify the athlete, in practice. you also have the movement of the athlete, that is, the way this border/domain is changing with respect to the rest of the universe. This includes every single quality and verb you could describe.
How can you say that the verb describes only what the athlete is doing and not what it is? The athlete IS the collection of things we identify as the athlete, and this collection of things IS changing with respect to the universe and time. These changes are part of what it is. When the athlete runs, we said that the 'athlete is running'. Running is a quality. a 'run' is 'an act of running'. 'an instance of the quality of running'.
but we cant use this sort of language when communicating, thus we use communication tools, eg the strict notions of noun and verb and how they can be used in conversation. But the world we are describing doesnt give a shit. Loosen your grip on tradition so that you can surpass it.
You see - Although the 'run' and the 'athlete' are different things, they are actually the one thing, a running athlete. Without the athlete, the 'run' is just an abstract notion. Similarly, the mind and the brain are different notions but the mind IS the brain.
Just like the 'run' IS the athlete running, but it is not just the athlete, nor is 'the athlete' sufficient in identifying the run. ONLY a 'running athlete' (or any other party that is running) can be used to identify and define a 'run'. There is only ever a 'run' when there is a 'runner'.
This does not mean the mind is a VERB. a VERB is a specific unit of language. 'He Runs' includes a noun and a verb. However the scenario merely has qualities, and those are that there is a running man. The true constituents of the described situation are a 'noun' (man) and a 'participle' (running). A participle is the noun/adjective/objectifiable form of a verb. 'The mind' is the participle form of a whole bunch of 'verbs' that we do not have appropriate words for, namely, the functions of the brain.
ps. an adverb is a word that describes a verb and no adverbs have been discussed in this topic.
If you get anything out of this, I would at least like to clarify the river analogy. You discount the river analogy because the river is declared an inanimate collection of things, whereas the mind/brain/whtvr is an animate, conscious entity. Once again, you are appealing to the rigid word-orientated discrimination instead of concept-orientated discrimination.
In an analogy, the point is to find analogous features. no analogy involves two identical things because then it would not be an analogy, it would be two cases of the one thing. In order to use analogy to illuminate consciousness, one would have to draw an analogy to something that we DO have an grasp of, that is, non-conscious phenomenon.
The river on the whole is a large body of water. The water itself is never the same.. and the river is not defined by the molecules of water but by the tendency for the riverbed to be full of moving water molecules. The riverbed both channels the net flow of gross potentials (all of the forces acting on individual water molecules). The riverbed is not a force though, it is a structure, a resistance to force. By resisting the force of water pushing into the riverbed, the riverbed results in a net force down the river (gravity resists the force of water pushing out of the river).
Depending on the actual flow of water, too, the riverbed may slowly change shape and result in a new flow of water.
Similarly, the brain channels its internal gross forces into a net force that is identified by evidence of a mind. The actual thoughts-that-you-think WILL alter the structure of the brain, but the brain will always be the primary channeling factor. A net phenomenon - ie a mind, or person, is the product of both gross forces, and the structure of the universe.
The river is the product of gross forces, and the structure of the universe.
They are analogous because the gross forces in both situations are insufficient by themselves in explaining the overall phenomenon which persists over time. However, the structure of the universe in both cases leads to a phenomenon with many qualities above and beyond the constituent parts.
If you are going to have the courtesy of replying, please do so properly and construct a reply, instead of quoting things sentence by sentence.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9805351 - 02/15/09 09:53 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9805450 - 02/15/09 10:11 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Are you serious?
I essentially despise all cultures, for many reasons; my ideas are my own interpretations of what I'm exposed to.
are YOU serious? how do you think you came to be able to identify cultures as cultures at all?
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9805565 - 02/15/09 10:33 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"I have a lot of things I could say to make my point clearer to you and everyone else here..."
Your point could not have been presented more explicitly, I just disagree with it.
"...but you are definately clinging on to definitions and some sort of quasi-dogmatic viewpoint."
So because I am disagreeing with you, that means I am clinging to some sort of "quasi-dogmatic viewpoint? Couldn't I not say the same of you?
"things like the notion that a computer can never be a person because a computer is not an animal..."
Can you quote me instead of putting words in my mouth? I assure you that I never typed any words in that precise procession.
"thats not how shit goes down bro."
"a person is not just an animal.. because there are plenty of animals that do not have the qualities of a person."
I never said a person is merely an animal, but in any case, it is a fact that people are animals; no two species of are exactly alike.
"Thus we do not consider the defining factor of a person to be that it is an animal. Rather, we define it by some sort of awareness and capability, or responsibility.
Thus even though all of the places where we observe 'personhood' are animals, this does not mean our brain or philosophy defines personhood by animalhood."
Who's "we"? And when did I ever say that the defining factor of human beings is that they are animals? Stop putting words in my mouth.
"But the fact that all persons are animals IS significant. It is significant because we cannot match the complexity of animals, and thus it is unlikely that we will be able to match the complexity of something that is only ever seen in animals."
Agreed, to some extent.
"Logically speaking, we cannot disprove the concept of a conscious computer, but we can think it rather unlikely."
How is it logically impossible to disprove the concept of a conscious computer; I don't see the logic behind such a statement.
"Most things are not understood. So why hold on to traditional paradigms?"
I find it utterly offensive that you're telling me this. 
"How can you say that the verb describes only what the athlete is doing and not what it is?"
Because the definition of the word "verb" describes an action; if you wanted to describe a person, place, or thing, then choose a word that fits the definition of said person place or thing.
You can't just make up definitions for words; a word's definition serves the purpose of ensuring easy discussions between people.
"he athlete IS the collection of things we identify as the athlete, and this collection of things IS changing with respect to the universe and time."
Is that all that an athlete is?
"Running is a quality. a 'run' is 'an act of running'. 'an instance of the quality of running'."
Alright, I'll bear with you on this one.
"Loosen your grip on tradition so that you can surpass it."
, my grip on tradition couldn't be much looser, I just want to make sure that you make what you say clear to everyone.
"You see - Although the 'run' and the 'athlete' are different things, they are actually the one thing, a running athlete. Without the athlete, the 'run' is just an abstract notion. Similarly, the mind and the brain are different notions but the mind IS the brain."
The Ancient Egyptians didn't seem to think so; they supposedly saw the brain as a useless organ, and thus stuck hooks into the noses of people who were to be mummified in order to extract the brain matter.
Let's say that I hold this position, too, that the brain is a useless organ; what, then, would you say to convince me that the mind is the brain?
"ps. an adverb is a word that describes a verb and no adverbs have been discussed in this topic."
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Eg when an athlete runs, the running that he is doing IS him. he IS running. But he himself does not constitute a 'run'.
"In an analogy, the point is to find analogous features."
I know what an analogy is, and your river analogy, for lack of a better term, sucked.
"If you are going to have the courtesy of replying, please do so properly and construct a reply, instead of quoting things sentence by sentence."
There is no better way to go about engaging oneself in a logical debate/discussion than to pick apart everything said therein.
Also, don't tell me what to do.
Altogether, you seem to think that I don't understand, or even comprehend what you're telling me, but the truth is, I do, but some of it goes against what I know to be true.
In any case, you didn't even address my question, "What directs energy?", so why should I even pay any heed to you? I do, but why should I?
- Poid
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9805780 - 02/15/09 11:14 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
>There is no better way to go about engaging oneself in a logical debate/discussion than to pick apart everything said therein.
I disagree. Not every sentence needs to be picked apart. I think it's better to reply to the spirit of the post, rather than the wording of it.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9805816 - 02/15/09 11:28 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well as much as you say you comprehend it, your replies constantly involve you asking for clarification, without many hints that you are 'getting it'.
eg "How is it logically impossible to disprove the concept of a conscious computer; I don't see the logic behind such a statement."
perhaps you will learn more about logic over the next few years. But the logic I was using was very clear, imo. Since we cannot find any logical contradiction in the notion 'conscious computer', we cannot disprove the notion. However, it is highly unlikely that the two concepts, as we know them, could actually be united.
Picking apart does not mean taking each sentence as seperate and replying to it as if it is an individual point. When people write with language, they construct their message in a context.
As for quoting you, I dont think I need to. Unless I wrongly quote you, then I am not putting words in your mouth. If you think I am misinterpreting something you say, then you can point this out.
you said if something is not alive, then it cannot be conscious. I did substitute alive for animal. However, I avoided dealing with the notion of whether plants/bacteria are conscious or not.
My objection to dogmatism is of the same flavour as my disagreement with you on usage of words. Although maintaining specific definitions of words can make 'discussion easy'... it does not help when you are trying to learn new things or understand what was previously not understood (which is what I try to do.. though I cant speak for anyone else on this board). A word must always mean something. But it does not always mean the same thing. Words are often contextually relative, in usage.
Previously, I thought you had just made a mistake in saying 'adverb'. But by the way you quoted me, I am thinking that perhaps you are not presently aware of what an adverb is.
There were no adverbs in the quote that you took.
'The athlete runs fast' however, does contain an adverb and Im sure you can pick it.
AS for your ancient Egyptian example.. Im not sure what the point is. Egyptians thought the brain was useless, and they pulled it out when someone was dead. I doubt they pulled it out of a live human (unless the intent was to kill) because then they would see that destroying the brain severely alters behaviour. (or expires it).
in order to convince you that the brain is not a useless organ, I would direct you to the fact that damage to the brain reduces the capacity of the mind, whereas damage to any other part of the body does not reduce the capacity of the mind. (unless it subsequently causes damage to the brain, eg heart failure). Note that nerves may, in this case, count as part of the 'brain'.
AS for your question 'what directs energy'.. you claim to understand what I am saying.. but there IS NO energy without a direction (even though we can quantify it without a direction). I said it many times, but a gross energy (which involves many different directions of force) is 'directed' by the structure of the universe through which the energy is flowing through. that is to say, changing the structure of the universe would change the direction of the flow of energy.
The river analogy is actually very apt, and Im unsure why you dislike it so much. the riverbed 'directs' the river.. but the riverbed is not actually 'doing' anything or 'adding' anything. IT is merely that direction of the riverbed is the most significant factor in associating the direction of the force within the river (the transfer of energy).
the word 'directs' implies that something is actively directing something else. Energy, however, has direction, and this is the result of the precise energy transformation that occured prior to measurement/observation. There is no energy, without direction. The question of 'what directs x' is only substantial if we have reason to think that x could have no direction, and thus there is a factor influencing x to be directed. However, energy inherently has direction. So perhaps the question is merely 'where does energy come from?'
IF that is the question you now wish to ask, then so be it. Unless you want to deny that energy must have a direction.
ps. im not sure about the language you use, but usually, 'please' is a word that turns a command into a request.
Dont be fooled - just because picking apart a post (literally, into seperate sentances) allows you to make your point less ambiguous, it is NOT the ideal way to discuss important topics.
check out the academic papers and articles that entail the progression of western society since the 1800's and you will see that the most respected and effective 'responses' have their own clear structure that stands alone. As well as this, they quote sections of text (as opposed to single phrases) in order to maintain a semblence of context.
im not claiming that my style is the right one, but I am claiming that yours is far from how you appraise it.
--------------------
|
purple_mule
Dr. Pedro
Registered: 05/14/08
Posts: 751
Loc: nowhere
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Let's say the year is 2323 and finally a tranporter is perfected. The machine is only designed to transmit known matter. The transported person looks and acts the same as before transportation.
Assuming this is all true, this would prove:
A. There is no soul.
B. The soul cannot be tricked and automatically knows where its assigned body will end up and flies there faster than the speed of light.
C. The soul IS the pattern.
D. The soul is timeless, and without the need for the spatial dimensions?
--------------------
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: purple_mule]
#9805896 - 02/15/09 11:51 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
although that is another option, i dont think it follows from the premises
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9805941 - 02/16/09 12:04 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
>There is no better way to go about engaging oneself in a logical debate/discussion than to pick apart everything said therein.
I disagree. Not every sentence needs to be picked apart. I think it's better to reply to the spirit of the post, rather than the wording of it.
Well, sometimes the spirit needs to make itself indefatigably clear.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9806002 - 02/16/09 12:38 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"perhaps you will learn more about logic over the next few years. But the logic I was using was very clear, imo. Since we cannot find any logical contradiction in the notion 'conscious computer', we cannot disprove the notion. However, it is highly unlikely that the two concepts, as we know them, could actually be united."
Who said that we cannot find any logical contradiction in the notion of a "conscious computer"?
A computer is a machine built by conscious biological organisms, and a machine is not a biological organism. Consciousness is defined as "self-awareness", and in order for something to be self aware, it needs to be sentient; machines are neither sentient or self aware.
"Picking apart does not mean taking each sentence as seperate and replying to it as if it is an individual point. When people write with language, they construct their message in a context."
You are under the false impression that, as I'm picking apart posts, I am avoiding or otherwise failing to understand the context behind them.
"As for quoting you, I dont think I need to. Unless I wrongly quote you, then I am not putting words in your mouth. If you think I am misinterpreting something you say, then you can point this out.
you said if something is not alive, then it cannot be conscious. I did substitute alive for animal. However, I avoided dealing with the notion of whether plants/bacteria are conscious or not."
It would better serve the discussion if you did, though. I choose my words wisely, and if you don't quote them, you may miss or otherwise fail to understand the context behind them.
Why did you avoid dealing with that notion? In any case, I didn't say that being alive was the only requirement for something to be conscious, I said it had to be sentient.
"My objection to dogmatism is of the same flavour as my disagreement with you on usage of words. Although maintaining specific definitions of words can make 'discussion easy'... it does not help when you are trying to learn new things or understand what was previously not understood (which is what I try to do.. though I cant speak for anyone else on this board). A word must always mean something. But it does not always mean the same thing. Words are often contextually relative, in usage."
Agreed, but in order to be clear, you must explain the context of your posts so that everyone may understand.
"Previously, I thought you had just made a mistake in saying 'adverb'. But by the way you quoted me, I am thinking that perhaps you are not presently aware of what an adverb is.
There were no adverbs in the quote that you took.
'The athlete runs fast' however, does contain an adverb and Im sure you can pick it."
That was an honest mistake, I don't know where my head was....
"AS for your ancient Egyptian example.. Im not sure what the point is. Egyptians thought the brain was useless, and they pulled it out when someone was dead. I doubt they pulled it out of a live human (unless the intent was to kill) because then they would see that destroying the brain severely alters behaviour. (or expires it).
in order to convince you that the brain is not a useless organ, I would direct you to the fact that damage to the brain reduces the capacity of the mind, whereas damage to any other part of the body does not reduce the capacity of the mind. (unless it subsequently causes damage to the brain, eg heart failure). Note that nerves may, in this case, count as part of the 'brain'."
I learned that the Ancient Egyptians believed that the center of consciousness was the heart, not the brain.
"AS for your question 'what directs energy'.. you claim to understand what I am saying.. but there IS NO energy without a direction (even though we can quantify it without a direction). I said it many times, but a gross energy (which involves many different directions of force) is 'directed' by the structure of the universe through which the energy is flowing through. that is to say, changing the structure of the universe would change the direction of the flow of energy."
We already went over this, and you said there is no force without a direction; potential energy doesn't have a direction, so your statement, "...but there IS NO energy without a direction (even though we can quantify it without a direction)." is false.
What directs the universe? What directs direction?
"The river analogy is actually very apt, and Im unsure why you dislike it so much. the riverbed 'directs' the river.. but the riverbed is not actually 'doing' anything or 'adding' anything. IT is merely that direction of the riverbed is the most significant factor in associating the direction of the force within the river (the transfer of energy)."
About the riverbed, I mentioned that water is a powerfully erosive substance and consequently constantly changes the composition of riverbeds. This (and many of the other things that I mentioned about your analogy) is part of the reason I don't think it is very apt.
" the word 'directs' implies that something is actively directing something else. Energy, however, has direction, and this is the result of the precise energy transformation that occured prior to measurement/observation. There is no energy, without direction. The question of 'what directs x' is only substantial if we have reason to think that x could have no direction, and thus there is a factor influencing x to be directed. However, energy inherently has direction. So perhaps the question is merely 'where does energy come from?'"
That is what I'm implying!
"ps. im not sure about the language you use, but usually, 'please' is a word that turns a command into a request."
I am bilingual, but I was born and raised in the Silicon Valley of California, USA, so English is my first language.
"Dont be fooled - just because picking apart a post (literally, into seperate sentances) allows you to make your point less ambiguous, it is NOT the ideal way to discuss important topics."
This is a philosophically-oriented debate forum, and for the purposes of debate, it is the ideal way to go about debating, for the aforementioned reasons. 
"check out the academic papers and articles that entail the progression of western society since the 1800's and you will see that the most respected and effective 'responses' have their own clear structure that stands alone. As well as this, they quote sections of text (as opposed to single phrases) in order to maintain a semblence of context."
I couldn't care less about how people debated things centuries ago. Weren't you the one who told me to forget about the 20th century and move on?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9806135 - 02/16/09 01:29 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"A computer is a machine built by conscious biological organisms, and a machine is not a biological organism. Consciousness is defined as "self-awareness", and in order for something to be self aware, it needs to be sentient; machines are neither sentient or self aware."
A computer is a machine built by conscious biological organisms.
A machine is not a biological organism.
In order for something to be self-aware, it must be sentient.
Machines cannot be sentient.
Therefor A computer cannot be self-aware.
This is a valid argument. However, it is unsound. You have used 'machines cannot be sentient' as a premise for your argument. If you meant 'machines are not sentient' then all you have concluded is that computers ARE not conscious, which we generally all agree on.
You cannot use the premise 'machines cannot be sentient' because that is sort of the very thing you are trying to prove.
Unless you are suggesting another premise: 'only biological organisms can be sentient'
about the egyptians - people used to think the earth was flat, until they tested it. Similarly, people may have thought the brain was useless, until they tested it, after which they found out that it was not.
about the riverbed - once again, although the water erodes the bottom of the river, this only adds to the analogy because the thoughts that you think alter your brain structure when you think them.
about things occuring 200 years ago - I say loosen your grip on paradigms, assumptions of thought. this has to do with the content of writing. Aesthetic and functional layout of words on a page is not the same thing, and has to do with the way that humans parse text and scan a page for information, and also how they group together concepts in their head as they read.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9806172 - 02/16/09 01:41 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, my premise is that it is not possible for a machine to possess consciousness, and my argument proved this premise to be true.
"about the egyptians - people used to think the earth was flat, until they tested it. Similarly, people may have thought the brain was useless, until they tested it, after which they found out that it was not."
...and in the future, some of today's credible ideas will have long been disproved.
"about the riverbed - once again, although the water erodes the bottom of the river, this only adds to the analogy because the thoughts that you think alter your brain structure when you think them"
But that whole analogy only works if you accept that the brain is the center of consciousness.
"about things occuring 200 years ago - I say loosen your grip on paradigms, assumptions of thought. this has to do with the content of writing. Aesthetic and functional layout of words on a page is not the same thing, and has to do with the way that humans parse text and scan a page for information, and also how they group together concepts in their head as they read."
I understand all this, but you have failed to mention how it relates to me or my posts.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9806198 - 02/16/09 01:56 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
when did you make an argument that proves machines cannot be conscious? and once you did this, what argument is it a premise for?
ps. stop calling fails. youre failing at it.
eg: didnt mention how it relates to you? of course I did. Your opinion is that your style of response is the ideal form. This immediately relates to both you AND your post. I mentioned across a couple of posts that I disagree with this opinion, and thus related the things that I said, to both you and your post.
--------------------
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9806244 - 02/16/09 02:33 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
This was my premise:
Quote:
It is not possible for a machine to possess consciousness
This was my argument:
Quote:
A computer is a machine built by conscious biological organisms, and a machine is not a biological organism. Consciousness is defined as "self-awareness", and in order for something to be self aware, it needs to be sentient; machines are neither sentient or self aware.
And this is my conclusion:
Quote:
In order for something to possess consciousness, it needs to be sentient; machines, by definition, are not sentient, it is not possible for machines to possess consciousness.
"eg: didnt mention how it relates to you? of course I did. Your opinion is that your style of response is the ideal form. This immediately relates to both you AND your post. I mentioned across a couple of posts that I disagree with this opinion, and thus related the things that I said, to both you and your post."
You did earlier, but not in the post that I replied to asking you to tell me how it relates to me.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9806293 - 02/16/09 03:09 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Your logic is faulty:
>machines, by definition, are not sentient
Your conclusion requires something to back up this statement. Without that, I'd say it's entirely possible for machines to one day be conscious.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9806310 - 02/16/09 03:22 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Machines, by definition, are not sentient.", isn't merely my argument; it is a fact that is part of my argument.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9806322 - 02/16/09 03:30 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, it's not part of your argument. It's a premise that you are arguing from, and as such you should be able to back it up. What definition says that machines can't be sentient?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9806350 - 02/16/09 03:46 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you saying now that machines by definition cannot be sentient?
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9806794 - 02/16/09 07:40 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
No, it's not part of your argument. It's a premise that you are arguing from, and as such you should be able to back it up. What definition says that machines can't be sentient?
I am not sure if normal computers ever can become sentient, due to the fundamental difference between symbol manipulation and neural nets.
But I do think it should be possible for artificial neural nets to become sentient.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9806978 - 02/16/09 08:35 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i agree that contemporary computers are insufficient
But symbol manipulation is essentially any simulated manipulation, if you code the symbols effectively.
--------------------
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9807838 - 02/16/09 11:40 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Hehe yes u can not use an unsupported premise which directly stands in support with your conclusion, I think...
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
|
D] By creating a new body, there is a new housing created for another soul, which will 'slip' into the 'new' body. By destroying ones old body, one sets one's original soul free, which can not slip into the new body, because it will be occupied already 
ps: startrek will be proven wrong
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9808118 - 02/16/09 12:40 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
i agree that contemporary computers are insufficient
But symbol manipulation is essentially any simulated manipulation, if you code the symbols effectively.
Well, an algorithm might need to be processing through a neural net, in order to become aware of itself. I don't know if an algorithm that is processing through a normal computer processor can become aware of itself, no matter how fast the processor is.
Edited by Zanthius (02/16/09 12:56 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9808401 - 02/16/09 01:22 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A neural net is an algorithm. It's usually implemented in hardware but you can write a software one too, if you like. A neural network of sufficient complexity (way beyond what we can make now) should, in theory, be sentient.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9808730 - 02/16/09 02:10 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
A neural net is an algorithm. It's usually implemented in hardware but you can write a software one too, if you like. A neural network of sufficient complexity (way beyond what we can make now) should, in theory, be sentient.
I agree that a neural net of sufficient complexity should be sentient, but I don't believe that the consciousness is the neural net. Rather, I believe that a neural net of sufficient complexity generates a field of consciousness, much like an electromagnet generates a magnetic field.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9808754 - 02/16/09 02:14 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But a neural net is just a computer. How can it generate a field of consciousness? What is a field of consciousness?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9808856 - 02/16/09 02:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
But a neural net is just a computer. How can it generate a field of consciousness? What is a field of consciousness?
Well, let us say that there is some quantum field distributed over the entire universe. When neurons are interacting with each other, they leave traces in this field. In the area of your brain, this field becomes so polarized because of all the complex patterns left in this field from your neural activity, that it actually becomes self-aware.
Edited by Zanthius (02/16/09 02:34 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9808900 - 02/16/09 02:35 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That seems like an unnecessarily complex hypothesis. Surely the interactions of the neurons themselves is sufficient? We have billions of neurons, and they all interact in a multitude of ways. I'd say there's easily enough combinatorial range there to encompass higher thought and self-awareness. That makes more sense than a quantum field, don't you agree?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9808943 - 02/16/09 02:41 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
That seems like an unnecessarily complex hypothesis. Surely the interactions of the neurons themselves is sufficient? We have billions of neurons, and they all interact in a multitude of ways. I'd say there's easily enough combinatorial range there to encompass higher thought and self-awareness. That makes more sense than a quantum field, don't you agree?
Nope, because it wouldn't give you any unity. If there is just billions of neurons interacting in your head, that would make your head into an ant colony, and each neuron into an ant. You wouldn't feel any unity, you wouldn't feel like being one person, and you wouldn't be conscious. Just like an ant colony isn't conscious.
Edited by Zanthius (02/16/09 02:50 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9809002 - 02/16/09 02:49 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If ants could communicate with each other as fast as neurons can, then the colony might have some rudimentary consciousness. Though we can only speculate
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9809037 - 02/16/09 02:54 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
If ants could communicate with each other as fast as neurons can, then the colony might have some rudimentary consciousness. Though we can only speculate
If so, then it would probably also be because they interacted with some background field. Communication in itself doesn't create unity, except for in the medium where all the communication is happening. I am the medium where all the communication between all the different neurons in my head is happening.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9809056 - 02/16/09 02:56 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think I'll invoke Occam's Razor and stick with the idea that it's the neural network that sustains consciousness. That theory doesn't require the existence of a quantum field. It's much simpler.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am
Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9809066 - 02/16/09 02:57 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What is a quantum field?
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9809081 - 02/16/09 03:00 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I think I'll invoke Occam's Razor and stick with the idea that it's the neural network that sustains consciousness. That theory doesn't require the existence of a quantum field. It's much simpler.
Well, your theory doesn't explain unity and consciousness. You simply "look the other way", and refuse to look into the problem of unity, as if unity doesn't exist. Well, if unity doesn't exist, then consciousness doesn't exist.
In this case, your Occam's Razor is only good for ignoring the fact that there is unity and consciousness.
I am not a billion neurons. I am ONE person. I am a field.
Edited by Zanthius (02/16/09 03:08 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9810651 - 02/16/09 08:09 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Are you serious?
I essentially despise all cultures, for many reasons; my ideas are my own interpretations of what I'm exposed to.
are YOU serious? how do you think you came to be able to identify cultures as cultures at all?
By being exposed to them.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9810681 - 02/16/09 08:16 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
No, it's not part of your argument. It's a premise that you are arguing from, and as such you should be able to back it up. What definition says that machines can't be sentient?
That's not my premise, this is:
Quote:
It is not possible for a machine to possess consciousness
Quote:
ma⋅chine
1. a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; mechanism.
Quote:
me⋅chan⋅i⋅cal
1. having to do with machinery: a mechanical failure.
2. being a machine; operated by machinery: a mechanical toy.
3. caused by or derived from machinery: mechanical propulsion.
4. using machine parts only.
Quote:
sen⋅tient
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic. the conscious mind.
The words "machine" and "sentient" are in no way synonymous, therefore, by definition, machines are not sentient, and sentient beings cannot be machines.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am
Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9810760 - 02/16/09 08:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The word lifting and the word man aren't synonymous, but a man can be lifting things. The defintion machines is different than the definition for sentience, but I don't see how that can serve as proof that a machine could not be made to be sentient. If it did happen, would the machine cease to be a machine? Or can it simply not be done?
I don't see how your argument is all that convincing. Maybe I'm missing something.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Sventington]
#9810819 - 02/16/09 08:39 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
All known sentient beings are composed of some kind of flesh, and all known "power machines" are composed of some kind of metal; a machine could not operate with parts made of flesh (for the flesh would expire), and a sentient being could not live if many of its parts were made of metal.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9812037 - 02/16/09 11:57 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you kidding? I'm sorry, but these arguments are terrible. Please, try and use logic that isn't based in dictionary definitions. It makes you sound like a Scientologist.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
TameMe
Stranger
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,521
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9812103 - 02/17/09 12:17 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
All known sentient beings are composed of some kind of flesh, and all known "power machines" are composed of some kind of metal; a machine could not operate with parts made of flesh (for the flesh would expire), and a sentient being could not live if many of its parts were made of metal.
so you're saying because something is not possible now, it can never be possible?
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9812420 - 02/17/09 01:58 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Are you kidding? I'm sorry, but these arguments are terrible. Please, try and use logic that isn't based in dictionary definitions. It makes you sound like a Scientologist.
If my argument is so terrible, then why don't you pick it apart instead of just insulting it?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: TameMe]
#9812424 - 02/17/09 01:59 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TameMe said:
Quote:
Poid said:
All known sentient beings are composed of some kind of flesh, and all known "power machines" are composed of some kind of metal; a machine could not operate with parts made of flesh (for the flesh would expire), and a sentient being could not live if many of its parts were made of metal.
so you're saying because something is not possible now, it can never be possible?
What I'm saying is that if something possesses consciousness, then it is not a machine.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9812431 - 02/17/09 02:01 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
All known sentient beings are composed of some kind of flesh, and all known "power machines" are composed of some kind of metal; a machine could not operate with parts made of flesh (for the flesh would expire), and a sentient being could not live if many of its parts were made of metal.
Sounds like when they invented organic chemistry. Then they thought that all living things had their own chemistry that was different from the chemistry of non-living things, so they called it "organic chemistry".
After a while, it was discovered that many organic molecules could be made artificially, and "organic chemistry" now means all chemistry involving carbon.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9812467 - 02/17/09 02:15 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So what's your point?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9812490 - 02/17/09 02:32 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
So what's your point?
Well, if you mean that at the moment we make a sentient machine, it will no longer be a machine, then I more or less agree with you.
Although in some aspects I do consider human beings to be biochemical machines.
There is a lot of mechanicalness in human beings.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9812509 - 02/17/09 02:42 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Well, if you mean that at the moment we make a sentient machine, it will no longer be a machine, then I more or less agree with you."
That would be called cloning.
"Although in some aspects I do consider human beings to be biochemical machines.
There is a lot of mechanicalness in human beings."
Sure, but there is no sentient liveliness in machines.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9812518 - 02/17/09 02:49 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
That would be called cloning.
It should also be possible for consciousness to emerge from an artificial neural net, with neurons made of metal. Consciousness emerges from the interactions between the neurons. It isn't necessarily of any relevance what material the neurons are made of.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9812528 - 02/17/09 02:54 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"It isn't necessarily of any relevance what material the neurons are made of."
Yes it is. And even if, hypothetically, you could create a "brain machine", it would not be of any use because it would not be able to manipulate any sort of body; again, consciousness is limited to physical bodies composed of flesh.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9812533 - 02/17/09 02:58 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Yes it is. And even if, hypothetically, you could create a "brain machine", it would not be of any use because it would not be able to manipulate any sort of body; again, consciousness is limited to physical bodies composed of flesh.
How do you know that? Seems like an irrational belief imprinted into your brain, without any rational foundation.
If you are honest with yourself, you should admit to yourself that you don't know anything about if consciousness is limited to flesh or not.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9812558 - 02/17/09 03:22 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I already made a logical argument, why don't you rebut it?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9812629 - 02/17/09 04:12 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'll rebut it. Your argument is essentially that:
1. Sentient things are made of flesh
2. Machines can't be made out of flesh
3. Therefore, machines can't be sentient.
The problem is that premise 1 is faulty as it relies on statement 3 being true (circular reasoning), and premise 2 is completely false.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9813280 - 02/17/09 08:37 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The third statement is the conclusion, and the conclusion of a logical argument necessarily includes the premise.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9813453 - 02/17/09 09:30 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
The third statement is the conclusion, and the conclusion of a logical argument necessarily includes the premise.
There is a HUGE difference between the statement "the sentient things we know of are made of flesh", and the statement "all sentient things MUST be made of flesh".
Your weak inductive reasoning is not a proof of anything.
Edited by Zanthius (02/17/09 09:36 AM)
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9813457 - 02/17/09 09:30 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
your premise is just speculation. U can not use it as an argument for any valid conclusion.
Even if it would be a theory, what's with insentient beings 'made' out of flesh ? U assume that everything made out of flesh is sentient ? What about plants, or insects ? Or my single body parts ? They're all sentinent for them selves if I would cut of my arm, f.e. ?
Ur premise is just wrong, not even a theory, not even a hypothesis. Sorry.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9813562 - 02/17/09 09:54 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Poid said:
The third statement is the conclusion, and the conclusion of a logical argument necessarily includes the premise.
There is a HUGE difference between the statement "the sentient things we know of are made of flesh", and the statement "all sentient things MUST be made of flesh".
Your weak inductive reasoning is not a proof of anything.
That's not inductive reasoning, that's me stating what is true by definition.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9813570 - 02/17/09 09:56 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
That's not inductive reasoning, that's me stating what is true by definition.
Go and look up the definition of sentient. Does it say "made of flesh" anywhere?
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: BlueCoyote]
#9813614 - 02/17/09 10:04 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"your premise is just speculation."
Yes, and my argument turned this speculation into a logical conclusion.
"Even if it would be a theory, what's with insentient beings 'made' out of flesh ? U assume that everything made out of flesh is sentient ?"
No, that is weak inductive reasoning.
"What about plants, or insects ? Or my single body parts ? They're all sentinent for them selves if I would cut of my arm, f.e. ?"
Insects are made out of flesh, and they are sentient beings. Plants are not made out of flesh, and they are not sentient. Neither would a decapitated arm be sentient because it does not possess consciousness. Do you what the word "sentient" means?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9813948 - 02/17/09 11:13 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
a conclusion based on false premises may be logical, but that doesn't make it (the conclusion nor the premis) true anyhow.
Then define 'flesh'. some say fish is not flesh hehe and even if insects have proteins, I don't know if they have the 'same' flesh like...let's say mammals (which also have a little different 'flesh' eachother themselves). Do insects have 'muscles' like us ? a fast search didn't reveal anything to me.
Or what about jellyfishes ? Is this flesh ? are they conscious and/(n)or sentient ?
you said:
"sen⋅tient
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic. the conscious mind."
Why should plants not be sentient ? Do you know if they are conscious ?
So you say, everything that what is sentient is made out of flesh, but not everything what's made out of flesh is sentient ?
Ps:and what has this to do with a 'soul' (or the original question) anyways... ?
Edited by BlueCoyote (02/17/09 11:40 AM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: BlueCoyote]
#9814037 - 02/17/09 11:33 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Ps:and what has this to do with a 'soul' (or the original question) anyways... ?"
You don't know what sentience has to do with the soul theory?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814049 - 02/17/09 11:35 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
and if, what would it prove or disprove in the original (transporter) question ?
a soul isn't made out of flesh...
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: BlueCoyote]
#9814099 - 02/17/09 11:47 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Did you read the whole thread up to this point? A lot of important things were discussed earlier...
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814165 - 02/17/09 12:05 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I just wanted to sum up. So why not just answer my questions ? That might help to sum up.
I think you derailed the thread into nonsense, which helps nothing to solve the original question. That's why.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: BlueCoyote]
#9814197 - 02/17/09 12:11 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Trust me, I'm not the one who derailed this thread.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814224 - 02/17/09 12:16 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"Ps:and what has this to do with a 'soul' (or the original question) anyways... ?"
You don't know what sentience has to do with the soul theory?
Whether or not a thing is sentient is a completely different question than whether or not a thing has a soul.
And as for the original question:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
C. The soul IS the pattern.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
  
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9814243 - 02/17/09 12:19 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You're back! 
"Whether or not a thing is sentient is a completely different question than whether or not a thing has a soul."
I posit that the "soul" is consciousness, and therefore, every sentient being has a soul.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814272 - 02/17/09 12:23 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, you can define it that way, but as it stands 'soul' has far too much metaphysical baggage that comes with it (such as going on after death, being associated with religious views, etcetera) that I don't feel particularly comfortable using it. Why not just call it consciousness?
And what prevents a sophisticated-enough AI from being conscious?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9814316 - 02/17/09 12:30 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Sure, you can define it that way, but as it stands 'soul' has far too much metaphysical baggage that comes with it (such as going on after death, being associated with religious views, etcetera) that I don't feel particularly comfortable using it. Why not just call it consciousness?"
That just goes back to cultural relativism; the Holy Bible does not explain the soul's function as being merely a metaphysical phenomenon which persists after death into an afterlife.
"And what prevents a sophisticated-enough AI from being conscious?"
Because machines, by definition, cannot possess consciousness:
Quote:
Poid said:
This was my premise:
Quote:
It is not possible for a machine to possess consciousness
This was my argument:
Quote:
A computer is a machine built by conscious biological organisms, and a machine is not a biological organism. Consciousness is defined as "self-awareness", and in order for something to be self aware, it needs to be sentient; machines are neither sentient or self aware.
And this is my conclusion:
Quote:
In order for something to possess consciousness, it needs to be sentient; machines, by definition, are not sentient, therefore, it is not possible for machines to possess consciousness.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am
Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814354 - 02/17/09 12:36 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Aren't consciousness, sentience and self awareness all the same thing?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814359 - 02/17/09 12:37 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
This was my premise: It is not possible for a machine to possess consciousness
This was my argument: A computer is a machine built by conscious biological organisms, and a machine is not a biological organism. Consciousness is defined as "self-awareness", and in order for something to be self aware, it needs to be sentient; machines are neither sentient or self aware.
And this is my conclusion: In order for something to possess consciousness, it needs to be sentient; machines, by definition, are not sentient, it is not possible for machines to possess consciousness.
Your argument begs the question. There is no "by definition" that allows you to say that machines are not sentient.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9814379 - 02/17/09 12:40 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
It is not possible for a machine to possess consciousness
Quote:
ma⋅chine
1. a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; mechanism.
Quote:
me⋅chan⋅i⋅cal
1. having to do with machinery: a mechanical failure.
2. being a machine; operated by machinery: a mechanical toy.
3. caused by or derived from machinery: mechanical propulsion.
4. using machine parts only.
Quote:
sen⋅tient
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic. the conscious mind.
The words "machine" and "sentient" are in no way synonymous, therefore, by definition, machines are not sentient, and sentient beings cannot be machines.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Sventington]
#9814381 - 02/17/09 12:40 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sventington said:
Aren't consciousness, sentience and self awareness all the same thing?
Essentially, yes.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814392 - 02/17/09 12:42 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sen⋅tient
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic. the conscious mind.
Note the bolded part.
Quote:
The words "machine" and "sentient" are in no way synonymous, therefore, by definition, machines are not sentient, and sentient beings cannot be machines.
Invalid reasoning. By your logic, I could claim that since 'dog' and 'mammal' are not synonymous, then by definition dogs are not mammals, which is clearly fallacious.
Nothing in the definition of a machine prevents it from possessing sentience.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9814459 - 02/17/09 12:53 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Invalid reasoning. By your logic, I could claim that since 'dog' and 'mammal' are not synonymous, then by definition dogs are not mammals, which is clearly fallacious."
Not true; since a part of the definition of the word "dog" contains the word "mammal", then their definitions are to some extent synonymous.
"Nothing in the definition of a machine prevents it from possessing sentience."
A machine is a thing that is mechanical and made out of machine parts, and "power machine" parts are made out of metal (or some other non-organic substance). In order for something to be sentient, it needs to possess life, and one requirement for something to be alive is (or so I learned in my high school biology class) it's ability to grow as a result of digestion of sustenance; a machine cannot physically "grow".
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814602 - 02/17/09 01:23 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm losing patience with these arguments, Poid.
Firstly, please stop using 'definitions'. They are not acceptable. The only time I've ever known someone to cling to the dictionary so much was a scientologist I knew in high school. It's part of their doctrine. If you want to be taken seriously, please come up with something better than 'definitions'.
Secondly, your entire argument is moot as we can make computers out of flesh.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814728 - 02/17/09 01:39 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
circular reasoning for its best...
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9814744 - 02/17/09 01:42 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I'm losing patience with these arguments, Poid.
Firstly, please stop using 'definitions'. They are not acceptable. The only time I've ever known someone to cling to the dictionary so much was a scientologist I knew in high school. It's part of their doctrine. If you want to be taken seriously, please come up with something better than 'definitions'.
Secondly, your entire argument is moot as we can make computers out of flesh.
Fuck Scientologists, my argument isn't moot! 
Quote:
A cultured neuronal network is a cell culture of neurons that is used as a model to study the central nervous system, especially the brain.
Quote:
Disadvantages
Cultured neuronal networks are by definition disembodied cultures of neurons. Thus by being outside their natural environment, the neurons are influenced in ways that are not biologically normal. Foremost among these abnormalities is the fact that the neurons are usually harvested as neural stem cells from an embryo and are therefore disrupted at a critical stage in network development[6]. When the neurons are suspended in solution and subsequently dispensed, the connections previously made are destroyed and new ones formed. Ultimately, the connectivity (and consequently the functionality) of the tissue is changed from what the original template suggested.
Another disadvantage lies in the fact that the cultured neurons lack a body and are thus severed from sensory input as well as the ability to express behavior – a crucial characteristic in learning and memory experiments. It is believed that such sensory deprivation has adverse effects on the development of these cultures and may result in abnormal patterns of behavior throughout the network[6].
Cultured networks on traditional MEAs are flat, single-layer sheets of cells with connectivity only two dimensions. Most in vivo neuronal systems, to the contrary, are large three-dimensional structures with much greater interconnectivity. This remains one of the most striking differences between the model and the reality, and this fact probably plays a large role in skewing some of the conclusions derived from experiments based on this model.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814749 - 02/17/09 01:43 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
A machine is a thing that is mechanical and made out of machine parts, and "power machine" parts are made out of metal (or some other non-organic substance). In order for something to be sentient, it needs to possess life, and one requirement for something to be alive is (or so I learned in my high school biology class) it's ability to grow as a result of digestion of sustenance; a machine cannot physically "grow".
So, you are going to educate me and zouden with what you learned in your high school biology class, when I am studying biotechnology and zouden is a neuroscientist?
We probably both know more than your high school teacher about biology, and who is to say that nanites cannot grow?
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9814762 - 02/17/09 01:47 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"So, you are going to educate me and zouden with what you learned in your high school biology class, when I am studying biotechnology and zouden is a neuroscientist?"
What matters is whether or not I am wrong, not where I learned what I am speaking to everyone.
"We probably both know more than your high school teacher about biology, and who is to say that nanites cannot grow?"
If you know so much about nanorobotics, then you, maybe?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9814946 - 02/17/09 02:25 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Let me pick this apart:
Quote:
Poid said:
All known sentient beings are composed of some kind of flesh, and all known "power machines" are composed of some kind of metal; a machine could not operate with parts made of flesh (for the flesh would expire), and a sentient being could not live if many of its parts were made of metal.
>All known sentient beings are composed of some kind of flesh
True, but this might not be true in the future.
>and all known "power machines" are composed of some kind of metal
Also true, but again, it might not be true in the future.
>a machine could not operate with parts made of flesh (for the flesh would expire)
False. See the cultured neuronal networks I described earlier.
>and a sentient being could not live if many of its parts were made of metal.
False. Who's to say we can't make metal kidneys, metal livers, metal hearts? There's no strict rule on the 'metal content' of a sentient being; we're only limited by our technology, and again, this will probably change in the future.
In summary: no machines are sentient, but it's entirely possible that they will be sentient in the future.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9814979 - 02/17/09 02:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You didn't address some of the faults of the cultured neuronal networks that I quoted straight from Wikipedia.
I still maintain that something that is sentient, by definition, cannot be a machine, and vice-versa.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815008 - 02/17/09 02:34 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't need to address those faults; I didn't say that they're sentient, or that they don't have faults. Just that they are clearly computers (because they perform computations, including driving about a room in a wheeled robot) and they are clearly biological.
>I still maintain that something that is sentient, by definition, cannot be a machine, and vice-versa.
But your only argument for that is based on current technology, without taking into account future developments.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815055 - 02/17/09 02:42 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"Nothing in the definition of a machine prevents it from possessing sentience."
A machine is a thing that is mechanical and made out of machine parts, and "power machine" parts are made out of metal (or some other non-organic substance). In order for something to be sentient, it needs to possess life, and one requirement for something to be alive is (or so I learned in my high school biology class) it's ability to grow as a result of digestion of sustenance; a machine cannot physically "grow".
We can feasibly construct nanotechnology replicators that build new copies of themselves; this can certainly count as growth.
Or what if we construct a simulated neural network of someone's brain--functionally equivalent in every way except that its medium is silicon rather than biological: a sentient computer program. After all, aren't we nothing but sentient machines made out of flesh?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9815090 - 02/17/09 02:48 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I don't need to address those faults; I didn't say that they're sentient, or that they don't have faults. Just that they are clearly computers (because they perform computations, including driving about a room in a wheeled robot) and they are clearly biological.
>I still maintain that something that is sentient, by definition, cannot be a machine, and vice-versa.
But your only argument for that is based on current technology, without taking into account future developments.
From what I understand, the wheeled robot is being powered by the energy produced by the cultured neuronal networks; "bio-energy" is nothing new, nor profound.
My argument is largely based on definitions.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815120 - 02/17/09 02:52 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Poid said:
"Nothing in the definition of a machine prevents it from possessing sentience."
A machine is a thing that is mechanical and made out of machine parts, and "power machine" parts are made out of metal (or some other non-organic substance). In order for something to be sentient, it needs to possess life, and one requirement for something to be alive is (or so I learned in my high school biology class) it's ability to grow as a result of digestion of sustenance; a machine cannot physically "grow".
We can feasibly construct nanotechnology replicators that build new copies of themselves; this can certainly count as growth.
Or what if we construct a simulated neural network of someone's brain--functionally equivalent in every way except that its medium is silicon rather than biological: a sentient computer program. After all, aren't we nothing but sentient machines made out of flesh?
I posit that sentience requires a functioning biological body to be conscious of that will face inevitable entropy; growth and mitosis are not the same thing.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815126 - 02/17/09 02:53 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, it's illogical to argue by definition that way.
And how else does biological growth occur if not through mitosis?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815153 - 02/17/09 02:59 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
How so?
Yes, at a cellular level, of course there's mitosis involved, but when we grow, we don't literally make copies of our whole selves, as hypothetical nanotechnology replicators might.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815157 - 02/17/09 02:59 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Imagine the nanoreplicator as an analogy to a cell, not as an analogy to the whole organism.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815169 - 02/17/09 03:01 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If we constructed a biological organism via nanotechnological means, then how could it be considered a machine?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815175 - 02/17/09 03:03 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
How would the resulting thing comprised of nanoreplicators be considered biological? 
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815196 - 02/17/09 03:06 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Isn't nanotechnology a biologically based technology?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815202 - 02/17/09 03:07 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815241 - 02/17/09 03:14 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
More specifically, nanorobotics refers to the still largely hypothetical nanotechnology engineering discipline of designing and building nanorobots.
Could you explain, then, if it isn't biologically based, what a nanoreplicator is composed of and how it manages to replicate itself?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815268 - 02/17/09 03:19 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not entirely sure what it's composed of; I would imagine various artificially-made interacting structures at the nanoscale.
As for how it replicates... imagine a stock of atoms as a resource. The robot could use atoms from the stock to construct an exact copy of itself. DNA would be a good model to use when designing it.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815288 - 02/17/09 03:22 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So how do cultured neuronal networks relate to nanotechnology?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815300 - 02/17/09 03:23 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
They don't, as far as I'm aware.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815315 - 02/17/09 03:26 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I'm losing patience with these arguments, Poid.
Firstly, please stop using 'definitions'. They are not acceptable. The only time I've ever known someone to cling to the dictionary so much was a scientologist I knew in high school. It's part of their doctrine. If you want to be taken seriously, please come up with something better than 'definitions'.
Secondly, your entire argument is moot as we can make computers out of flesh.
Then what was this post all about, and how did the issue of nanotechnology even arise? Wasn't it brought up in relation to this post?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815329 - 02/17/09 03:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That was Zouden's argument and not mine, so I won't address it. My point about nanotechnology still stands even if it wasn't relevant to cultured neuronal networks.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815438 - 02/17/09 03:47 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The fact still remains that nanorobotics is a largely hypothetical phenomenon in its own right, and that being said, I have yet to hear any logical argument that asserts that it is even feasibly possible to construct a consciousness-possessing machine via such means, or any other means for that matter.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815446 - 02/17/09 03:48 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Or what if we construct a simulated neural network of someone's brain--functionally equivalent in every way except that its medium is silicon rather than biological: a sentient computer program. After all, aren't we nothing but sentient machines made out of flesh?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815505 - 02/17/09 03:57 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Key words, "...what if...".
That's a big 'what if'. In any case, what if I believe, like the Ancient Egyptians did, that the center of consciousness is the heart as opposed to the brain? That 'what if' is significantly smaller. 
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815514 - 02/17/09 03:58 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: In any case, what if I believe, like the Ancient Egyptians did, that the center of consciousness is the heart as opposed to the brain?
Then you would be incorrect.
At any rate, my hypothetical is certainly possible, and as such, you would be forced to conclude that a program can possess sentience since it is functionally identical to the human brain.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815539 - 02/17/09 04:02 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
The fact still remains that nanorobotics is a largely hypothetical phenomenon in its own right, and that being said, I have yet to hear any logical argument that asserts that it is even feasibly possible to construct a consciousness-possessing machine via such means, or any other means for that matter.
Well, I don't see ANY REASON AT ALL, why a sentient being must have the ability to grow/replicate. Our sentience is due to our neural network, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with our cells ability to replicate. In fact, very few neurons replicate at all.
And even if we cannot currently build self-replicating nanites, there is absolutely no reason to believe that we shouldn't be able to in the future.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815597 - 02/17/09 04:11 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"...you would be forced to conclude that a program can possess sentience...
Not necessarily:
Would you say that consciousness is a function of the brain, or that the brain is a function of consciousness? My point is that even if a simulated neural network of a person's brain is functionally identical to said person's brain, that doesn't necessarily mean that it possesses consciousness, only that it is able to mimic the same functions of the brain.
In any case, I see nothing in this article that indicates that the brain is the center of consciousness: Wikipedia - Human Brain
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815604 - 02/17/09 04:13 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
How do you know whether another person possesses consciousness? Through his or her behavior.
The same goes for a computer program. Refer to the Turing test.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815633 - 02/17/09 04:19 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"How do you know whether another person possesses consciousness?"
I can tell one is conscious by the mere fact that s/he is a sentient biological organism (as opposed to an insentient biological organism).
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/17/09 04:21 PM)
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815640 - 02/17/09 04:20 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
"How do you know whether another person possesses consciousness?"
I can tell they are conscious by the mere fact that s/he's a sentient biological organism (as opposed to an insentient biological organism).
How do you know another person is sentient?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815651 - 02/17/09 04:22 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I know this because I know that I am sentient.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815656 - 02/17/09 04:23 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:In any case, I see nothing in this article that indicates that the brain is the center of consciousness: Wikipedia - Human Brain
Drugs, such as magic mushrooms and marijuana, have a consciousness-changing effect. Psilocybin and tetrahydrocannabinol interacts with serotonin and cannabinoid receptors in your nervous system, and that is how they are able to alter your consciousness.
So, what part of your body do you think is related to your consciousness, if not the brain and nervous system?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815660 - 02/17/09 04:23 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
I know this because I know that I am sentient.
So? You could be the only sentient person in a world populated by unconscious, flesh-wearing robots.
My point is that any basis that you use to judge whether or not another thing is conscious ultimately has to rely upon their behavior, and in that case if a computer program can functionally replicate a human's behavior, we must accord it some level of sentience.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9815680 - 02/17/09 04:28 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Poid said:In any case, I see nothing in this article that indicates that the brain is the center of consciousness: Wikipedia - Human Brain
Drugs, such as magic mushrooms and marijuana, have a consciousness-changing effect. Psilocybin and tetrahydrocannabinol interacts with serotonin and cannabinoid receptors in your nervous system, and that is how they are able to alter your consciousness.
So, what part of your body do you think is related to your consciousness, if not the brain and nervous system?
I feel that those drugs alter my physiological self-awareness, and as a result of this shift in self-awareness, it allows my mind to be "different" (for lack of a better term), if only for a few hours.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815681 - 02/17/09 04:28 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
My point is that any basis that you use to judge whether or not another thing is conscious ultimately has to rely upon their behavior, and in that case if a computer program can functionally replicate a human's behavior, we must accord it some level of sentience.
Is doesn't necessarily need to rely upon behavior. I can also assume that other beings are conscious, just because their internal organization is similar to my own.
I can assume that if consciousness emerges from the interactions within my body, then consciousness should also emerge from the interactions inside of a body that is similar to my own.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9815688 - 02/17/09 04:30 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Internal interactions still qualifies as behavior, though.
But for that matter, I still don't see why it's necessary to duplicate our internal organization. If we have an alien before us who is able to speak and hear us, and can converse to the point where we're capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with it, surely we must ascribe some level of sentience to the alien no matter what neural structure it has.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815711 - 02/17/09 04:35 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"My point is that any basis that you use to judge whether or not another thing is conscious ultimately has to rely upon their behavior..."
Or lack thereof...
"...and in that case if a computer program can functionally replicate a human's behavior, we must accord it some level of sentience."
Don't you think that appearing to be conscious, and actually being conscious, can be two different things? I am not denying that it may possible in the future to create machines that can mimic acts of conscious beings...
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815715 - 02/17/09 04:36 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Internal interactions still qualifies as behavior, though.
Conscious behavior, though?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815718 - 02/17/09 04:37 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Don't you think that appearing to be conscious, and actually being conscious, can be two different things? I am not denying that it may possible in the future to create machines that can mimic acts of conscious beings...
Frankly, no. Mimicking every aspect of consciousness is an incredibly complicated task; by the time we've created machines capable of doing this, we'll have created conscious machines IMO. What more would we need to add to the machine to make it conscious?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815726 - 02/17/09 04:38 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"that can mimic acts of conscious beings..."
I didn't say every act.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815739 - 02/17/09 04:41 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you saying there are certain acts that a machine can't mimic?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815746 - 02/17/09 04:42 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm saying that it's impossible for a machine to mimic every aspect of consciousness.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815747 - 02/17/09 04:43 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So which acts, specifically, can a machine not potentially mimic?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815752 - 02/17/09 04:44 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Internal interactions still qualifies as behavior, though.
But for that matter, I still don't see why it's necessary to duplicate our internal organization. If we have an alien before us who is able to speak and hear us, and can converse to the point where we're capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with it, surely we must ascribe some level of sentience to the alien no matter what neural structure it has.
I agree to some degree. I think that any being that has a neural network that is functioning in a way similar to our neural networks, should have the potential of gaining sentience. So, artificial neural networks should be able to gain sentience if they are sufficiently complex.
I am not certain if normal computers ever will gain sentience no matter how fast they are able to process, due to the fundamental difference between how a neural network is processing, and how a normal computer processor is processing.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815759 - 02/17/09 04:45 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
So which acts, specifically, can a machine not potentially mimic?
I'm saying that there cannot possibly be one machine that is able to mimic all aspects of consciousness.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9815764 - 02/17/09 04:45 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I am not certain if normal computers ever will gain sentience no matter how fast they are able to process, due to the fundamental difference between how a neural network is processing, and how a normal computer processor is processing.
A normal computer can certainly run a simulation of a neural network... it would be awfully slow though and not ideal for purposes of actual construction.
Parallel processing and distributed computing is certainly making this scenario loom closer and closer in the future, though.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815767 - 02/17/09 04:46 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
So which acts, specifically, can a machine not potentially mimic?
I'm saying that there cannot possibly be one machine that is able to mimic all aspects of consciousness.
Again, if you think so, please state which aspects of consciousness that a single machine would be unable to mimic.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815770 - 02/17/09 04:47 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
So which acts, specifically, can a machine not potentially mimic?
I'm saying that there cannot possibly be one machine that is able to mimic all aspects of consciousness.
Again, if you think so, please state which aspects of consciousness that a single machine would be unable to mimic.
The aspect of literally being conscious.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815781 - 02/17/09 04:49 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
A normal computer can certainly run a simulation of a neural network... it would be awfully slow though and not ideal for purposes of actual construction.
Yes, but it doesn't necessarily imply that consciousness will emerge from the simulation. It might be able to simulate our behavior, without any consciousness emerging from the simulation.
Computer programs can simulate a lot of our behaviors already, but there is no reason to believe that they have any consciousness.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815782 - 02/17/09 04:49 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I am not certain if normal computers ever will gain sentience no matter how fast they are able to process, due to the fundamental difference between how a neural network is processing, and how a normal computer processor is processing.
A normal computer can certainly run a simulation of a neural network... it would be awfully slow though and not ideal for purposes of actual construction.
Parallel processing and distributed computing is certainly making this scenario loom closer and closer in the future, though.
What is parallel processing and distributed computing and how do they make the above scenario loom closer and closer to the future? Or is this question too off-topic?
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/17/09 04:52 PM)
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815784 - 02/17/09 04:49 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9815788 - 02/17/09 04:50 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
A normal computer can certainly run a simulation of a neural network... it would be awfully slow though and not ideal for purposes of actual construction.
Yes, but it doesn't necessarily imply that consciousness will emerge from the simulation. It might be able to simulate our behavior, without any consciousness emerging from the simulation.
That's my point; there's a fine line between simulation and the actual thing.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815791 - 02/17/09 04:51 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I'm here to learn.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9815793 - 02/17/09 04:51 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Computer programs can simulate a lot of our behaviors already, but there is no reason to believe that they have any consciousness.
Right. I'd only argue that a computer program is conscious when it can pass the Turing test.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815801 - 02/17/09 04:53 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
I'm here to learn.
My facepalm was in reference to your post about the aspect of being conscious.
Let me pose this question: You're talking to someone through IM. You receive perfectly intelligent replies, witty conversation, and probing questions. Would you or would you not say that the person at the other end is conscious?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815804 - 02/17/09 04:53 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Human intelligence vs intelligence in general
The Turing Test is explicitly anthropomorphic, testing only whether or not the computer resembles a human being, not if it is generally "intelligent" or "sentient". It fails to test for general intelligence in two ways:
* Some human behaviour is unintelligent, but the Turing test requires that the machine be able to execute all human behaviours, regardless of whether or not they are intelligent. It even tests for behaviours that we may not consider intelligent at all, such as the susceptibility to insults, the temptation to lie or, simply, a high frequency of typing mistakes. If a machine cannot imitate human behaviour in detail, bad typing and all, it fails the test, regardless of how intelligent it may be.
* Some intelligent behaviour is inhuman. The Turing test does not test for highly intelligent behaviours, such as the ability to solve difficult problems or come up with original insights. In fact, it practically requires deception on the part of the machine: if it quickly solves a computational problem that is impossible for a human to solve, it by definition fails the test.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815808 - 02/17/09 04:54 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What does this copy-paste from Wiki have to do with anything?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815820 - 02/17/09 04:56 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
I'm here to learn.
My facepalm was in reference to your post about the aspect of being conscious.
Let me pose this question: You're talking to someone through IM. You receive perfectly intelligent replies, witty conversation, and probing questions. Would you or would you not say that the person at the other end is conscious?
I'm pretty sure I'd be able to tell, because if it was a machine, I wouldn't sense the "human vibes" emanating from it:
Philosophy & Spirituality - On Vibes (a journal entry)
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815825 - 02/17/09 04:58 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
What does this copy-paste from Wiki have to do with anything?
Quote:
deCypher said:
I'd only argue that a computer program is conscious when it can pass the Turing test.
The Turing test is not wholly infallible.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815827 - 02/17/09 04:58 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Right. I'd only argue that a computer program is conscious when it can pass the Turing test.
I think it is completely possible that a computer program will pass the turing test without being conscious. In fact, I think it is quite likely.
A lot of our sexual behavior wouldn't be much complicated for a computer program to mimic. Mimicking a guy or a girl that only thinks about sex, would actually be quite easy to mimic for a computer program. Abstract discussions, like this one, would be a lot more difficult for a computer program to mimic.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9815832 - 02/17/09 05:00 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I wholeheartedly agree.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9815838 - 02/17/09 05:01 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
IMO, consciousness is necessarily emergent from sufficiently complicated behavior. If we replicate this behavior, such as with a sufficiently complex neural network, consciousness would de facto enter the picture.
Otherwise it seems that one has to postulate the existence of a soul or other metaphysical qualities to explain the difference between a clump of atoms over here (a human being) and a clump of atoms over here (a machine) that both exhibit the same behavior.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815849 - 02/17/09 05:05 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The soul theory was discussed in this thread in a somewhat in-depth manner while you were gone.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815853 - 02/17/09 05:05 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Do you have any objections to my argument as it stands?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815856 - 02/17/09 05:06 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
IMO, consciousness is necessarily emergent from sufficiently complicated behavior. If we replicate this behavior, such as with a sufficiently complex neural network, consciousness would de facto enter the picture.
I believe that a guy or a girl that only thinks about sex is conscious, but I also think it is fully possible for a non-conscious computer program to mimic his/her behavior.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9815861 - 02/17/09 05:07 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
I believe that a guy or a girl that only thinks about sex, is conscious, but I also think it is fully possible for a non-conscious computer program to mimic their sexual behavior.
Sure, I'm not disputing this. All I'm saying is that if a computer program completely mimics a human's behavior, we must ascribe consciousness to it.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815873 - 02/17/09 05:10 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
deCypher said:
IMO, consciousness is necessarily emergent from sufficiently complicated behavior. If we replicate this behavior, such as with a sufficiently complex neural network, consciousness would de facto enter the picture.
Otherwise it seems that one has to postulate the existence of a soul or other metaphysical qualities to explain the difference between a clump of atoms over here (a human being) and a clump of atoms over here (a machine) that both exhibit the same behavior.
Quote:
deCypher said:
Do you have any objections to my argument as it stands?
Define "sufficiently complicated behavior".
Who said that the soul is a metaphysical phenomenon? I certainly don't maintain such a position.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (02/17/09 05:13 PM)
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815874 - 02/17/09 05:11 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Sure, I'm not disputing this. All I'm saying is that if a computer program completely mimics a human's behavior, we must ascribe
consciousness to it.
You shouldn't. Just because a computer program is able to mimic our behavior, it doesn't mean that it is conscious, because it is functioning in a completely different way.
If I wrote a computer program that was able to completely mimic the behavior of a person that only thinks about sex, I certainly wouldn't believe my own program to be conscious.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9815902 - 02/17/09 05:16 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
By sufficiently complicated behavior I mean behavior similar to neural firings in the brain.
I suppose it comes down to whether you judge a thing to be conscious based on its behavior, or based on its structure. If the former, then the Turing Test applies. If the latter, then a simulated brain or artificial neural network works.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815912 - 02/17/09 05:18 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Who said that the soul is a metaphysical phenomenon? I certainly don't maintain such a position.
Quote:
Main Entry:
1soul Listen to the pronunciation of 1soul
Pronunciation:
\ˈsōl\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English soule, from Old English sāwol; akin to Old High German sēula soul
Date:
before 12th century
1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2 a: the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe bcapitalized Christian Science : god 1b
3: a person's total self
4 a: an active or essential part b: a moving spirit : leader
5 a: the moral and emotional nature of human beings b: the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c: spiritual or moral force : fervor
6: person <not a soul in sight>
7: personification <she is the soul of integrity>
8 a: a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers
Looks pretty metaphysical to me.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815930 - 02/17/09 05:22 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
#3 doesn't, and in any case, to base your understanding of what the soul is on a dictionary definition would be unwise; try Wikipedia instead.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815932 - 02/17/09 05:23 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Somehow I trust an established dictionary over something that can be edited by anyone.
Besides which, the first line of the Wiki article clearly states that the soul is metaphysical:
Quote:
In many religions and parts of philosophy, the soul is the immaterial part of a person.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815937 - 02/17/09 05:24 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Somehow I trust an established dictionary over something that can be edited by anyone.
Have you tried to vandalize a Wikipedia article? They'll ban your IP address if you do it enough times, and they have plenty of moderators to watch out for this sort of thing.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815942 - 02/17/09 05:26 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815944 - 02/17/09 05:27 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
By sufficiently complicated behavior I mean behavior similar to neural firings in the brain.
I suppose it comes down to whether you judge a thing to be conscious based on its behavior, or based on its structure. If the former, then the Turing Test applies. If the latter, then a simulated brain or artificial neural network works.
The former is not wholly infallible, and the latter is a largely hypothetical. In any case, I wouldn't judge something to be conscious by merely either one of those properties.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815951 - 02/17/09 05:28 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/9679955
I've had a totally different experience with Wikipedia, and have met others online who have had similar experiences to mine.
In any case, I'll admit that even in my experience, I've found certain articles easier to vandalize than others, but I am pretty sure that the "Soul" article has a lot of moderators keeping a close watch on it at any given time.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815957 - 02/17/09 05:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: In any case, I wouldn't judge something to be conscious by merely either one of those properties.
What then, by vibes?
And that anecdote alone serves to discredit Wikipedia. It's useful if you know enough about the material beforehand to separate fact from fiction, but it does not serve as a reliable substantiation to any argument.
I myself have even edited articles that weren't changed for months at a time.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815964 - 02/17/09 05:31 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Poid said: In any case, I wouldn't judge something to be conscious by merely either one of those properties.
What then, by vibes?
And that anecdote alone serves to discredit Wikipedia. It's useful if you know enough about the material beforehand to separate fact from fiction, but it does not serve as a reliable substantiation to any argument.
I myself have even edited articles that weren't changed for months at a time.
The concept of vibes is very complex, and I don't know if you want to get too deep into it at this juncture or not.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9815979 - 02/17/09 05:33 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You're avoiding the question. Are you saying that vibes are how you propose to judge whether or not a thing is conscious?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9815995 - 02/17/09 05:36 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not avoiding the question, I told you vibes are a very complex phenomenon, but if I were to give a short answer to your question, it might be, "Not exactly.", which doesn't help much in terms of where this discussion is headed towards.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9816005 - 02/17/09 05:38 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, that really doesn't help your argument.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9816025 - 02/17/09 05:42 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I haven't made an argument yet. I'm stopping at, "In any case, I wouldn't judge something to be conscious by merely either one of those properties.", because if we were to get into discussing vibes in depth, this thread would go way off-topic.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9816035 - 02/17/09 05:43 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Right, but to substantiate that claim you'd need to list which properties you would judge something to be conscious by. If it isn't exactly vibes, then what is it?
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9816117 - 02/17/09 05:58 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
And to substantiate that claim, we would probably have to completely derail this thread.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9816172 - 02/17/09 06:06 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
How is substantiating a statement that is relevant to the discussion at hand considered 'derailing' the thread?
(particularly when we aren't even talking about the OP anymore)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9816181 - 02/17/09 06:07 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Because a lot of the information involved in order to substantiate my substantiation would derail the thread; like I said, it is a complex issue.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9816188 - 02/17/09 06:09 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, instead it sounds like you're avoiding answering the question.
Oh well. Anyways, I'm out.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: deCypher]
#9816246 - 02/17/09 06:18 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
To each his own.
Maybe when I am well rested, I'll be able to continue on with ths discussion, and hopefully you'll join me.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9817968 - 02/17/09 11:31 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Man, I just got home from work and I've got 4 pages to read  . Did I miss anything?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9817993 - 02/17/09 11:45 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
zouden said:
I don't need to address those faults; I didn't say that they're sentient, or that they don't have faults. Just that they are clearly computers (because they perform computations, including driving about a room in a wheeled robot) and they are clearly biological.
>I still maintain that something that is sentient, by definition, cannot be a machine, and vice-versa.
But your only argument for that is based on current technology, without taking into account future developments.
From what I understand, the wheeled robot is being powered by the energy produced by the cultured neuronal networks; "bio-energy" is nothing new, nor profound.
My argument is largely based on definitions.
Actually, the wheeled robot is powered by batteries. In fact, the neuronal network is not inside the robot; it's kept in a cell-culture incubator and the signals are transmitted wirelessly to the robot.
A few years ago they (same group I think) built a network out of rat neurons and hooked it up to a flight simulator. They managed to train it to fly the plane around. Though I don't know if it could land
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.htm
An excerpt:
Quote:
"It's essentially a dish with 60 electrodes arranged in a grid at the bottom," DeMarse said. "Over that we put the living cortical neurons from rats, which rapidly begin to reconnect themselves, forming a living neural network – a brain."
The brain and the simulator establish a two-way connection, similar to how neurons receive and interpret signals from each other to control our bodies. By observing how the nerve cells interact with the simulator, scientists can decode how a neural network establishes connections and begins to compute, DeMarse said.
When DeMarse first puts the neurons in the dish, they look like little more than grains of sand sprinkled in water. However, individual neurons soon begin to extend microscopic lines toward each other, making connections that represent neural processes. "You see one extend a process, pull it back, extend it out – and it may do that a couple of times, just sampling who's next to it, until over time the connectivity starts to establish itself," he said. "(The brain is) getting its network to the point where it's a live computation device."
To control the simulated aircraft, the neurons first receive information from the computer about flight conditions: whether the plane is flying straight and level or is tilted to the left or to the right. The neurons then analyze the data and respond by sending signals to the plane's controls. Those signals alter the flight path and new information is sent to the neurons, creating a feedback system.
"Initially when we hook up this brain to a flight simulator, it doesn't know how to control the aircraft," DeMarse said. "So you hook it up and the aircraft simply drifts randomly. And as the data comes in, it slowly modifies the (neural) network so over time, the network gradually learns to fly the aircraft."
Although the brain currently is able to control the pitch and roll of the simulated aircraft in weather conditions ranging from blue skies to stormy, hurricane-force winds, the underlying goal is a more fundamental understanding of how neurons interact as a network, DeMarse said.
"There's a lot of data out there that will tell you that the computation that's going on here isn't based on just one neuron. The computational property is actually an emergent property of hundreds or thousands of neurons cooperating to produce the amazing processing power of the brain."
I think this clearly demonstrates that a computer based on living cells is possible. And the last paragraph is particularly relevant to Zanthius's stance that consciousness requires more than just a bunch of neurons. I maintain that 'a bunch of neurons' provides such an enormous level of complexity that conscious unity is certainly possible. Of course, the rat neurons here didn't form consciousness, but they were only a tiny fraction of the number in an animal's brain.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9818282 - 02/18/09 01:23 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I think this clearly demonstrates that a computer based on living cells is possible. And the last paragraph is particularly relevant to Zanthius's stance that consciousness requires more than just a bunch of neurons. I maintain that 'a bunch of neurons' provides such an enormous level of complexity that conscious unity is certainly possible. Of course, the rat neurons here didn't form consciousness, but they were only a tiny fraction of the number in an animal's brain.
Well, I still think that conscious unity must contain data of all the neural interactions, and the only thing that contains data of of all the neural interactions, is the medium/field where they are interacting.
When you see the brain, you see many different neurons, but when you see this medium/field, you see a paper that contains footprints from all the neural interactions. In this 3-dimensional paper there is conscious unity, not in the separate neurons.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9818308 - 02/18/09 01:32 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But thousands of separate neurons can work together to fly a plane. Surely, then, billions of neurons could work together to provide consciousness?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9818318 - 02/18/09 01:37 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
But thousands of separate neurons can work together to fly a plane. Surely, then, billions of neurons could work together to provide consciousness?
These neurons working together to fly a plane, are also leaving footprints in this 3-dimensional paper containing the neurons, and if billions of neurons work together, then this 3-dimensional paper will be so polarized from all the complex neural interactions, that conscious unity will emerge in the 3-dimensional paper containing all these neurons.
The important thing to remember about conscious unity, is that conscious unity must contain data of all the neural interactions happening simultaneously. You see, you hear, you smell, you feel, and you think simultaneously.
Edited by Zanthius (02/18/09 01:44 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9818330 - 02/18/09 01:44 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So what you're saying is that, if there is no field (paper) to begin with, then if you have enough neurons communicating with each other with enough complexity then consciousness will form in the field?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9818339 - 02/18/09 01:51 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
So what you're saying is that, if there is no field (paper) to begin with, then if you have enough neurons communicating with each other with enough complexity then consciousness will form in the field?
Who is to say there is no field (paper) to begin with? The entire universe might be considered a field. Neurons are interacting within the universe, so they are interacting within a field.
The holomovement field
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9818343 - 02/18/09 01:56 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting, I'll have to read into this
Though I can't imagine that the field is necessary. It reminds me of the luminiferous aether. But I'll read up on it and form a proper opinion.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9818356 - 02/18/09 02:04 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Interesting, I'll have to read into this
Though I can't imagine that the field is necessary. It reminds me of the luminiferous aether. But I'll read up on it and form a proper opinion.
If light had been sound waves, then a medium would have been necessary in order to carry the waves.
Anyhow. Light is strange. It can be at different places simultaneously.
Bell test experiments
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9819965 - 02/18/09 12:12 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Anyhow. Light is strange. It can be at different places simultaneously."
Indeed, and every where it has the same speed, independently how fast one moves or the lighsource moves. I think this still leads to terrible illogic stuff, like if one thinks about a light source on a train. Now play with the viewpoints and the distance the time will have traveled in a fix amount of time, regarding the different viewpoints and the constant speed of light from every viewpoint.
I really can not get how this should work in reality
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: BlueCoyote]
#9820318 - 02/18/09 01:32 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It works perfectly well if time slows down when you move faster
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9820345 - 02/18/09 01:37 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
It works perfectly well if time slows down when you move faster
Yeah, but imagine the time dilation at light speed, or beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Then time should have stopped completely.
The universe must look like a probability distribution of all possible configurations from the perspective of a black hole, because all external time is happening at the same moment inside of the black hole.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9820418 - 02/18/09 01:54 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well, time should only completely stop if you go at the speed of light (which is impossible) or if you're in the singularity of a black hole (which is also impossible). The event horizon just defines the area that light cannot escape from; it doesn't mean that there is infinite gravity inside it. But yes, as you approach lightspeed or cross an event horizon, time would almost stop completely
Now we're really off topic
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9820439 - 02/18/09 01:58 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
event horizon
That was a great movie.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Indigenous]
#9820459 - 02/18/09 02:00 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9820539 - 02/18/09 02:09 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Well, time should only completely stop if you go at the speed of light (which is impossible) or if you're in the singularity of a black hole (which is also impossible). The event horizon just defines the area that light cannot escape from; it doesn't mean that there is infinite gravity inside it. But yes, as you approach lightspeed or cross an event horizon, time would almost stop completely
Now we're really off topic
Even if it is impossible to reach light speed, I can still visualize what the universe must look like from light speed, and therein lies the secret of why light is behaving so strangely.
You can just as well say that the big bang happened 1 second ago, as saying that it happened 13.7 billion years ago, because time is relative to the observer.
Edited by Zanthius (02/18/09 02:20 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9820644 - 02/18/09 02:20 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Huh? Light behaves strangely because you can imagine it behaving strangely?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9820696 - 02/18/09 02:28 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Huh? Light behaves strangely because you can imagine it behaving strangely?
No. Because of bell test experiments, which disproves local realism.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9820718 - 02/18/09 02:31 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, right. But that's quantum physics, not relativity. The Bell test has nothing to do with lightspeed or time dilation. It's much more confusing
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9820795 - 02/18/09 02:43 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Oh, right. But that's quantum physics, not relativity. The Bell test has nothing to do with lightspeed or time dilation. It's much more confusing
If you say so, but is there local realism at light speed, when time has stopped completely?
I don't think so, because all the time from the big bang until now, corresponds to the same planck unit of time at light speed.
Which means that the light hasn't really finished the big bang yet, and is located at any external time simultaneously.
It is simultaneously at the big bang, here, and infinitely far into the future.
Edited by Zanthius (02/18/09 02:57 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9824180 - 02/19/09 12:19 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9826856 - 02/19/09 01:32 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I just can't understand if your on a train with a lightsource, with its light traveling a constant speed with you on the train, then the light would arrive at the same point if observed with this constant same speed watched from besides the train, This doesn't compute in reality.
and to say the time on the train runs slower than outside is just Einsteins trick to keep the speed of light a constant as speed is defined by way/time.
I think, all this is a 'methodological' physical trap beholding us from discovering truth... time is a constant, and the moment is everywhere at the same time In fact I think this is what holds the universe together.
Edited by BlueCoyote (02/19/09 01:44 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: BlueCoyote]
#9826911 - 02/19/09 01:42 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's not just 'Einstein's trick', it's the universes trick, because it actually happens. Time dilation is a measurable effect, and Einstein has been proved correct countless times.
Yes it'll do your head in, at first, but then once you grasp it it all becomes clear 
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9826979 - 02/19/09 01:55 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Hehe, maybe it's just human methodological foolishness to fail to see it clear... It's still illogical, as it's only relative to humans standpoint of view to self-fulfill its abstruse methodology. Not in reality. as if one would go faster/slower than the surrounding time, one would loose all physical connections to one's surroundings immediately. We go constantly at a high speed around our sun, does this mean our time goes slower than the rest of the universe ? How fast does the milky way move ? Compared to what ? The center of the universe ? I think that are just huge false theories
sorry if this doesn't help the thread
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: BlueCoyote]
#9827119 - 02/19/09 02:17 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
>We go constantly at a high speed around our sun, does this mean our time goes slower than the rest of the universe?
It certainly does!
>How fast does the milky way move ? Compared to what ? The center of the universe ?
Wow, this article is better than I thought:
Quote:
In the general sense, the absolute velocity of any object through space is not a meaningful question according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, which declares that there is no "preferred" inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare the Galaxy's motion. (Motion must always be specified with respect to another object.)
Astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630 km per second relative to the local co-moving frame of reference that moves with the Hubble flow.[44] If the Galaxy is moving at 600 km/s, Earth travels 51.84 million km per day, or more than 18.9 billion km per year, about 4.5 times its closest distance from Pluto. The Milky Way is thought to be moving in the direction of the Great Attractor. The Local Group (a cluster of gravitationally bound galaxies containing, among others, the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy) is part of a supercluster called the Local Supercluster, centered near the Virgo Cluster: although they are moving away from each other at 967 km/s as part of the Hubble flow, the velocity is less than would be expected given the 16.8 million pc distance due to the gravitational attraction between the Local Group and the Virgo Cluster.[45]
Another reference frame is provided by the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s[3] with respect to the photons of the CMB, toward 10.5 right ascension, -24° declination (J2000 epoch, near the center of Hydra). This motion is observed by satellites such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) as a dipole contribution to the CMB, as photons in equilibrium in the CMB frame get blue-shifted in the direction of the motion and red-shifted in the opposite direction.
Turns out we know a lot more about our galaxy's movement than I thought
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9827391 - 02/19/09 03:08 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
hehe and after bending time, Einstein also bended space, just to make his damned SOL a constant. For me, that stinks big enough
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: BlueCoyote]
#9827586 - 02/19/09 03:36 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BlueCoyote said:
hehe and after bending time, Einstein also bended space, just to make his damned SOL a constant. For me, that stinks big enough
The GPS system seems to be working quite well, and it wouldn't be working so well, unless it had been adjusted to Einstein's theory of relativity.
Edited by Zanthius (02/19/09 04:31 PM)
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9834261 - 02/20/09 02:33 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The train experiment is just illogical and will not work. I assume that's why Einstein's inconsistent and incoherent relativity theory only works near the speed of light (again, relative to what ?).
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: BlueCoyote]
#9834800 - 02/20/09 04:28 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The train experiment works just fine. In fact, if you follow it all the way through, you come to the formula E=mc2.
Special relativity really is a brilliant piece of science, and it's not that hard to understand (not compared to General Relativity at least!)
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
