Actually, it would indicate a certain level of humility and openess to new dicovery, rather than some zealot-level blind faith that he must be correct.
Again, he seems to be suggesting that he acknowledges the works of thousands of scientists throughout history, all working with one base theorum, and not even one of them to this date has been able to punch a hole in the theory. Therefore the theory must be pretty sound. Perhaps you would call that "faith" in human intelligence, and hard work, and that at least some people will question authority enough to test things in a demonstrable, factual way that can be repeated on demand (i.e. "proof")
Better than throwing one's arms in the air. Surrendering one's free will and free thought. and saying..." I don't know. Must be a magical mystical man in the sky."
"An eternal, magical, mystical man in the sky used his intelligence and power to create life and material creatures..."
or
"13.7 billion years ago, there was this inanimate matter floating in the cosmos, and for some unknown reason, this matter "came to life" and began eating, talking, thinking, and having sex.
I will take my chances on the first one. Unbelievers always say this "magical man" or "sky daddy" stuff as if their explanation is so much more rational to believe in, which I think the exact opposite is true.
I think it is more rational to believe that intelligence came from intelligence, and life came from life...than to believe that intelligence and life came from a blind and mindless process...a process that didn't know what it was doing, yet it created intelligence...that couldn't see, yet it created...vision. Laughable.
Uh......when exactly does a human fetus and/or baby gain conciousness/free will?
Do you remember making your first decisive decision? Do you remember the first time that you existed? Had you been born yet?
Do you? I believe that consciousness is only possible through a Supernatural Creator. The only other alternative is to believe that a mindless and blind process being the culprit of consciousness and free will...things that this process itself did not have, I might add.
That should serve as proof positive, that conciousness/free thought develops (even in modern humans) only after they come into existence/birth.
Your'e welcome.
The difference between my belief and your belief is fundamental: You believe that all of this occurred naturally. If it all occurred naturally, it is subject to natural law. If it is subject to natural law, it is subjected to the scientific method. If it is subjected to the scientific method, then it is something that can be experimented on and observed.
But it can't be experiemented on and observed...so therefore to call it science and make it seem as if it is part of science is begging the question.
I believe, given your prior statements and demands, you are now required to provide quoted references proving your "reasons to believe that it ISN'T true".
I did, on another thread. This conversation originally started on another thread, but after the OP and others started crying about how off topic it was, we've come here.
Innaccurate. An engine is what turns a bad lawn ornament into a functional and useful machine. Mind you, the engine has to be gassed up, tuned, and appropriately hooked up to the chassis/body. Similar to the way a functional brain turns a corpse into a human.
You really shouldn't pretend you know it all, what he means to ask how does the brain give rise to intentionality. As in meaning.
Please don't give your tired repeated answers about the brain cracking the answers.
Qualia and Intentionality are the two biggest unknowns in neuroscience. They belong to the Hard Problem of Consciousness, a problem noone knows the answer to. To say 'duhh brain' makes you sound as arrogant as ignorant creationists and shows how little you grasp with regards to these two philosophical dilemmas.
I respond to the literal statement so spare me your lecture. Thoughts come from brains, it doesn't get any more simpler than that. Did he say qualia, no that would be totally different. They are intimately linked no doubt but worlds apart. No brains no thoughts, that isn't hard to grasp. I know the hard problem which is quite frankly an illusion because self awareness is an illusion, the "I" is an illusion. Thats probably exacly why people just want to say it's magic.
OK it's magic, no natural explanation, there you go hope your happy.
All you can prove is thoughts correlate with brains, and somehow you think that just because they correlate, that mean that one is the by-product of the other, and that is faulty reasoning.
I know the hard problem which is quite frankly an illusion because self awareness is an illusion, the "I" is an illusion. Thats probably exacly why people just want to say it's magic.
How is it an illusion if we know where it came from? If it came from the brain, as you claim, then that would take all of the "sting" out of an illusion, now wouldn't it.
No, no, no, I am not naive enough to think correlations are enough. The problem is there are more than just a few correlations and they just keep stacking up. See my argument for people with synethstheisa (damn spellcheck broke on that one). I have even seen correlations where certain numbers appear as certain colors even across different humans which is more than remarkable, its proof of similar wiring.
What is hard to grasp as to how the very first brain could have been the origin of the very first thought.
I will grant you that. It's hard for me to grasp how cause and effect becomes intent. The issue can be unraveled by seeing how evolution creates the brain to begin with. I posted an article elsewhere even showing that a plant has long term memory simply by chemicals, not even a need for neurons. Non-lilfe to life is quite the mystery but one I feel science is trying very hard to solve and succeeding.
The shell of your car cannot be used to explain the origin of all of the cool and complex stuff within the car.
Whatever, this doesn't matter to me. Intelligence beget intelligence is essentially what your saying. That doesn't make any sense since you have to have an original "intelligence" to begin with to explain intelligence to end with. It simply obfuscates the issue and provides no real answers. We know how machines work. Brains are just that, a highly sophisticated machine, just like any biological organism that does similar things in parts.
How is it an illusion if we know where it came from?
It's a mirror loop trick. Self awareness is the big thing there, we are aware that we are aware which is rather redundant and that is why its an illusion. If you were not aware that you are aware you would be an autonomous robot probably like most organisms which aren't aware of themselves. Other species have demonstrated, like apes, elephants and dolphins that they are aware of themselves.
If it came from the brain, as you claim, then that would take all of the "sting" out of an illusion, now wouldn't it.
You conveniently IGNORED the part where he says that consciousness is ontologically distinct and then pull something else out. I never said anything about OBE's, I was talking about the nature of consciousness.
I'm so tired of talking to a wall, there is no proof that the mind comes from the brain. There are simply correlations. If you have proofs submit them, otherwise admit that the nature of consciousness itself is a mystery.
The brain does not create red out of nothing. That is impossible.
I often think that the "p-word" should be banned from this forum. We really should try to avoid using that word at all costs, and even try to avoid thinking in that term.
Those correlations that you causally dismiss as not being "proof" are in fact evidence that the mind is the mind is a product of the brain. Not "proof", but evidence.
I often think that the "p-word" should be banned from this forum. We really should try to avoid using that word at all costs, and even try to avoid thinking in that term.
...
All you can prove is thoughts correlate with brains, and somehow you think that just because they correlate, that mean that one is the by-product of the other, and that is faulty reasoning.
So after I read it, and I draw the conclusion that based on what I've read, these sources did not adequately answer my question (as I knew it wouldn't prior to reading it), then what? I've wasted my time, right?
If you've learned something, even if you disagree with what you learned, then you haven't wasted your time.
Frankly, I don't even believe in time-wasting. All activities can be put to use with proper application. Even if your question isn't answered directly, you might learn enough of what the scientific consensus is that you can at least understand it better.
I am asking for the ABSOLUTE origin of consciousness and how it first originated. What does that mean? That mean I'd like to know the very first instance at which matter began to think.
Honestly, I think you're asking for far more than just the ability to think, based on all the retorts to the computer example. You've asked for emotions, competitive behavior, communication of ideas, etc.
Therefore, I think what you're asking for isn't just the ability to think, but many other brain processes that make up consciousness as we experience it.
In another thread, you said that you preferred simplicity. Well, sorry to say but this is not a simple topic at all, which people have been struggling to define for thousands of years. Even now there isn't really a clearly defined consensus as to how human consciousness can accurately be measured for accurate study.
Despite that, we can deduce the process based on all other things developed in natural selection. You're asking for a single event when something that once lacked any sort of consciousness suddenly had it. That's not terribly unlike the crocoduck argument, though, in that it fundamentally misunderstands how natural selection works.
It wasn't a single event. It's not the case of two unconscious parents giving birth to a baby that would grow to be conscious. The reason for this is because of something scientists and philosophers generally can agree on: consciousness is made up of many different components that are capable of existing independently, and simply removing one or two of these components would not remove consciousness altogether, though it is likely to be reduced.
Like virtually all things, it's not a binary problem(i.e., black-and-white); it's a gray scale. Elements of consciousness developed slowly over time, as the brain itself developed, but if you want a clear line between "not-consciousness" and "consciousness", that line doesn't exist. Rather, you have "not-consciousness", "near-non-consciousness", "further-from-non-consciouness", "approaching-semi-consciousness", "semi-consciousness", ... so on and so on, until we get to "full consciousness", which is something that not even all humans have(because of my condition, even I probably don't have "full-consciousness").
The brain itself is a "central processing unit", that works directly with sensory inputs. Take, for example, your black cat example. In order for a brain to recall the image of a black cat, it would require a way to detect, and distinguish between, two things: color, and brightness. Color would give us the blackness, while the brightness would give us varying levels of light necessary for fine detail. Naturally, some kind of sensor is required to detect these two aspects of light: eyes. Human eyes absorb these aspects of light(rejecting other aspects), sending them to a part of the brain which "interprets them" into a recognizable image. That image is then "stored" in memory, which itself contains many other components that I don't have the knowledge to detail now, and can be recalled based on stimuli, either external (such as another black cat or something associated with black cats), or internal("remembering" something associated with black cats). Each of these components (i.e., "traits") I listed developed across many, many generations of natural selection, directly from genetic mutations. ()
Heck, our ability for complex speech is largely because we possess a gene that no other animal has.
So, you want the very first instance of consciousness, before which there was no consciousness. Well, because of the nature of natural selection, such an instance most likely doesn't exist.
Well, we don't know that. Christian theists believe that God is a mind and he is very conscious, without a physical brain. That is the point, if we can conceptualize it, it must be at least possible for it to be true, which means that you making statements like "without a brain, mind/consicousness doesn't mean anything either"...that statement is not NECESSARILY true.
And my whole point is I cannot imagine the absolute origin of conscious to come from the brain itself. If you can, then enlighten me. I am staring at a printer right now..and inside the printer there is all kinds of complex stuff going on inside it. There is toner inside of it...and my question is how can the shell of the printer be the absolute origins of the toner, which is inside the shell? Makes no sense.
The brain and conscioussness is more complex than the printer...see where I'm going?
Yup, I refer you to that same response that you claim is "question begging" without an explanation as to how, exactly, it begs any question, or exactly what question is being begged for.
Mann, as a kid, those books were awesome. When I was growing up, the "popping" books at the time were Animorphs and Goosebumps. I remember being in the 6th grade and in class there was an hour set aside for "reading" time. The class would be in complete silence, reading whatever book they wanted. And practically every student read one of those books during that time.
The books would start off like "My name is Jake. I can't tell you my last name. None of us can. It would be too risky.".....adding to the thrill.
Ahhh, the good old days....*snaps back to reality*
Where was I? Oh...but you admit that a copy of the animal didn't mean that the the human would take the identity of the animal, right?
Good times... :yes: One day, a friend of mine who was absolutely obsessed with the series decided that he wanted to believe it was all real. ^_^
No, but he took the identity of an animal, and is no longer human.
But you can't remember something that never happened to you. Jake would be able to say "this body was hit by a car", but not "I got hit by a car". Experience is more than just a memory. It is an intrinsic truth.
If he became one with the dog(as opposed to a copy), he would absolutely remember it happening to him. Human memories and dog memories would merge. This is because memories are stored in the brain.
The full answer is probably worth a different thread for itself, but the short answer is: because of what humans have always been, even before we attained Full Behavioral Modernity: creative, abstract-thinking tool-users.
We're still just that.
But in my scenario, the computers are using a formalized language, English, to be exact...and therefore I am inclined to believe that they are thinking.
"Liking" something is when we respond to stimuli with a positive sensation. (Which can be different from approving of something; it's entirely possible to "like" something that we strongly disapprove of.)
And psychopaths get happy, sad, amused, upset, and angry just like everyone else, right?
I often think that the "p-word" should be banned from this forum. We really should try to avoid using that word at all costs, and even try to avoid thinking in that term.
Those correlations that you causally dismiss as not being "proof" are in fact evidence that the mind is the mind is a product of the brain. Not "proof", but evidence.
I think you vastly overestimate the power of science and neuroscience.
When people say that 'dopamine' is responsible for pleasure that is a lie. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter which activates different neural networks. In the substantia nigra dopaminergic neurons are involved in movement. In the mesolimbic/mesocortical region too much dopamine can cause schizophrenia. And in several regions of the brain which don't have a lot of dopamine, you have depression. Does that mean dopamine causes those things? No.
What it means is that dopamine, a molecule, works on post synaptic receptors and modulates electrical impulses which give rise to thoughts, actions and feelings. Each neurotransmitter has it's own eletrical outcomes on the post synaptic receptors. Now how those electrical impulses give rise to meaning and perception, no body has a clue. It is why neuroscientists acknowledge the hard problem. It's why they call it the 'Neural correlates of consciousness' and not the 'Neural causations of consciousness'. For you to claim that it's 'evidence that the brain is responsible for those things' is ignorant.
Now that doesn't mean the brain isn't intimately involved in the formation of perceptions. But it definitely does mean that another property is at play here and that consciousness might be intrinsic to all systems no matter their size. You can hee and haw in your atheistic ways about how ludicrous this sounds but IIT by Koch and Tononi supports this. Ramachandran a world renowned neuroscientist acknowledges that consciousness is ontologically distinct and has even created his own laws for Qualia. And these are big dudes in the neuroscience world.
So the next time you want to say 'brain creates mind' in that smug tone, remember that it is only partially true. But a better way to think about it is 'brain modulates mind' since mind itself is non physical. You cannot quantify feelings, or meaning, or color. You can only find correlates.
I think you vastly overestimate the power of science and neuroscience.
When people say that 'dopamine' is responsible for pleasure that is a lie. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter which activates different neural networks. In the substantia nigra dopaminergic neurons are involved in movement. In the mesolimbic/mesocortical region too much dopamine can cause schizophrenia. And in several regions of the brain which don't have a lot of dopamine, you have depression. Does that mean dopamine causes those things? No.
What it means is that dopamine, a particle, works on post synaptic receptors and modulates electrical impulses which give rise to thoughts, actions and feelings. Each neurotransmitter has it's own eletrical outcomes on the post synaptic receptors. Now how those electrical impulses give rise to meaning and perception, no body has a clue. It is why neuroscientists acknowledge the hard problem. It's why they call it the 'Neural correlates of consciousness' and not the 'Neural causations of consciousness'. For you to claim that it's 'evidence' is ignorant.
Now that doesn't mean the brain isn't intimately involved in the formation of perceptions. But it definitely does mean that another property is at play here and that consciousness might be intrinsic to all systems no matter their size. You can hee and haw in your atheistic ways about how ludicrous this sounds but IIT by Koch and Tononi supports this. Ramachandran a world renowned neuroscientist acknowledges that consciousness is ontologically distinct. And these are big dudes in the neuroscience world.
So the next time you want to say 'brain creates mind' it is partially true. But a better way to think about it is 'brain modulates mind' since mind itself is non physical.
Shaz frubals. I still agree with fantome that it is eveidence. His distinction is it isnt proof. No p word please. However your point on dopamine is significant. What I find hard to believe is how dopamine can create all these various feelings. The brain is so complex. However we have more evidence. A dangerous drug like ecstacy can enhance all of our senses which involves those feel good chemicals at the expense of over clocking literally frying the brain.
Shaz frubals. I still agree with fantome that it is eveidence. His distinction is it isnt proof. No p word please. However your point on dopamine is significant. What I find hard to believe is how dopamine can create all these various feelings. The brain is so complex. However we have more evidence. A dangerous drug like ecstacy can enhance all of our senses which involves those feel good chemicals at the expense of over clocking literally frying the brain.
The neural networks are intimately tied to the conscious experience. But how they give rise to the conscious experiences is what the whole argument is here. There will never be a conceivable way that physical systems can give rise to the subjective. There will always be a gap. And that is why dualism will always be a valid position and probably why religions will always exist. Even when we have robots and cyborgs and warp drive.
Based on what? You can't scientifically prove that the mind is solely dependent upon the brain, can you? No, so you are playing the faith game just like the rest of us folks.
So what was the first brain doing before it began to "think"...waiting for "thoughts"? As I said, chicken & egg problem
If the brain came before the thoughts, then how would thoughts suddenly manifest itself inside of the brain? If the mind came before the brain, then obviously the mind is not dependent upon the brain.
So which is it? The only way this would work is if the mind/brain both originated simulatenously. Anything besides that, you've got problems.
Frankly, I don't even believe in time-wasting. All activities can be put to use with proper application. Even if your question isn't answered directly, you might learn enough of what the scientific consensus is that you can at least understand it better.
Honestly, I think you're asking for far more than just the ability to think, based on all the retorts to the computer example. You've asked for emotions, competitive behavior, communication of ideas, etc.
The computer example was something YOU brought up. I asked about the brain and consciousness....the question was simple; how can the ability to think and reason come from a process that doesn't have the ability to think and reason? How can that naturally explained? Plus, give me a scenario at which a scientist that has just finished creating a human brain can start plugging thoughts into the brain.
Any example or scenario you give me besides what I am asking for doesn't do you nor your position any justice.
Therefore, I think what you're asking for isn't just the ability to think, but many other brain processes that make up consciousness as we experience it.
When I gave the "scientist" scenario, that had nothing to do with feelings and emotions...I simply asked you to give me a scenario at which the brain will begin thinking specifically about other things. That is what we started with...the ability to think.
In another thread, you said that you preferred simplicity. Well, sorry to say but this is not a simple topic at all, which people have been struggling to define for thousands of years. Even now there isn't really a clearly defined consensus as to how human consciousness can accurately be measured for accurate study.
Despite that, we can deduce the process based on all other things developed in natural selection. You're asking for a single event when something that once lacked any sort of consciousness suddenly had it. That's not terribly unlike the crocoduck argument, though, in that it fundamentally misunderstands how natural selection works.
I fail to see what does natural selection has to do with explaining the origin of consciousness. Second, if you are using that as a way to explain it, then you should be able to describe the process, shouldn't you? But you can't, so how can you use it to explain it? Makes no sense.
Right, it is the case of inanimate matter suddenly "coming to life" for whatever reason...and the brain mysteriously forming itself from tissue, and thoughts mysteriously occupying the brain.
As absurd as the two unconscious parents giving birth to a conscious baby, as absurd as that is...it isn't as absurd as life coming from non-life and consciousness coming from a state of unconsciousness.
The reason for this is because of something scientists and philosophers generally can agree on: consciousness is made up of many different components that are capable of existing independently, and simply removing one or two of these components would not remove consciousness altogether, though it is likely to be reduced.
Different components like what? The components has to lie within the brain...nothing outside the brain can be used to explain it because on your view, that is where consciousness originated.
Like virtually all things, it's not a binary problem(i.e., black-and-white); it's a gray scale. Elements of consciousness developed slowly over time, as the brain itself developed
Prove it. Statements like this should be able to be scientifically proven. That is your theory, which is no better than mines...Goddidit. I expect all statements that are related to the realm of science to be scientifically proven, which is apparently asking for to much nowadays.
"Elements of consciousness developed slowly over time"...how do you know? Have you observed it? Have you tested it? Experimented? None of the above...yet you are passing it off as if it is an absolute fact...when I, among others, have argued that not only is not NOT a fact..but it isn't even plausible.
, but if you want a clear line between "not-consciousness" and "consciousness", that line doesn't exist. Rather, you have "not-consciousness", "near-non-consciousness", "further-from-non-consciouness", "approaching-semi-consciousness", "semi-consciousness", ... so on and so on, until we get to "full consciousness", which is something that not even all humans have(because of my condition, even I probably don't have "full-consciousness").
The brain itself is a "central processing unit", that works directly with sensory inputs. Take, for example, your black cat example. In order for a brain to recall the image of a black cat, it would require a way to detect, and distinguish between, two things: color, and brightness. ()
So take everything you just said, and explain to me how a scientist can get the thought of the black cat in the brain that he just created in the lab.
Heck, our ability for complex speech is largely because we possess a gene that no other animal has.
So, you want the very first instance of consciousness, before which there was no consciousness. Well, because of the nature of natural selection, such an instance most likely doesn't exist.
Yup, I refer you to that same response that you claim is "question begging" without an explanation as to how, exactly, it begs any question, or exactly what question is being begged for.
If he became one with the dog(as opposed to a copy), he would absolutely remember it happening to him. Human memories and dog memories would merge. This is because memories are stored in the brain.
That is why it isn't possible for it to happen in the way that you describe. He wasn't there, and being one with the dog doesn't suddenly make him "there" when he wasn't there in the first place, and by "there" I mean the car incident.
If my dog was hit by a car last year, my dog was hit by a car, I wasn't. If I magically become one with my dog and I occupy his brain, "I" still wasn't hit by a car last year. You can't change the past..the past is set in stone, and if my dog was hit last year, an experience that was completely independent of myself, then I don't gain that experience in the sense that "I was hit by a car", even if I were to become one with the dog.
"Liking" something is when we respond to stimuli with a positive sensation. (Which can be different from approving of something; it's entirely possible to "like" something that we strongly disapprove of.)
So what can you do to get the computer to "like" animorphs as oppose to disliking it. If you program it to like it, what does that mean? How do you get that positive sensation in there?
So a psycopath that gets an adrenaline rush out of dismembering his victims...are you saying he doesn't really feel the joy, he is just emulating the joy?
Understanding can't come from a question if the answer isn't actively sought, and if the answers provided are stubbornly resisted without checking their existent fact-hood.
The computer example was something YOU brought up. I asked about the brain and consciousness....the question was simple; how can the ability to think and reason come from a process that doesn't have the ability to think and reason? How can that naturally explained? Plus, give me a scenario at which a scientist that has just finished creating a human brain can start plugging thoughts into the brain.
Any example or scenario you give me besides what I am asking for doesn't do you nor your position any justice.
But in the time it took for me to make that post, and me now making this post, it turns out that techniques for studying and measuring consciousness are rapidly evolving, to the point where clear scientific consensus will likely be reached within the next few decades.
I fail to see what does natural selection has to do with explaining the origin of consciousness. Second, if you are using that as a way to explain it, then you should be able to describe the process, shouldn't you? But you can't, so how can you use it to explain it? Makes no sense.
Deducing that natural selection is involved doesn't have to mean that we know the nitty-gritty details. There's still a lot of gaps in humanity's collective knowledge. But everything else clearly comes from natural selection, and there's nothing that indicates this is any different.
Right, it is the case of inanimate matter suddenly "coming to life" for whatever reason...and the brain mysteriously forming itself from tissue, and thoughts mysteriously occupying the brain.
As absurd as the two unconscious parents giving birth to a conscious baby, as absurd as that is...it isn't as absurd as life coming from non-life and consciousness coming from a state of unconsciousness.
Slowly, nothing sudden. The brain isn't formed of just tissue, but special electro-chemically reactive cells called neurons. Even animals that lack brains, such as jellyfish, have these cells.
Different components like what? The components has to lie within the brain...nothing outside the brain can be used to explain it because on your view, that is where consciousness originated.
Not my view, the scientific consensus. Remember that.
Long-term memory, short-term memory, subconscious memory, emotional reaction, physical sensation, information processing, mental problem-solving.... all of these are just a few of the components.
The components don't "lie within the brain", but are the result of brain activity.
It's not absolute fact; it's what all the indications point to. You've not demonstrated how it's not plausible, as all your arguments to that end haven't involved any real-world examples, but rather fantastic and/or irrelevant hypotheticals.
Natural selection is involved with all other things. It therefore stands to reason that, unless a scientifically plausible alternative can be demonstrated, natural selection was involved here, too.
So take everything you just said, and explain to me how a scientist can get the thought of the black cat in the brain that he just created in the lab.
"Eyes" would have to be linked to the brain, allowing the ability to "see" a black cat that's brought into the lab. The brain would have to be active, somehow, which requires oxygen, provided by blood. Therefore, the brain can't be just sitting on a table; it would have to be in some kind of casing that emulates a body. That oxygen would have to be fed to it, somehow, and somehow placed in the blood; we'd need lungs.
The black cat would have to be "seen" by the "eyes", and then that "image" stored within the brain's memory. If the scientists also place "ears" to pick up sound and store that in memory as well, then the black cat can be shown at the same time as someone says "black cat", creating an association. This process is repeated for a while, until both are firmly within the brain's long-term memory. Now, the black cat can be removed from the lab, and anytime someone says "black cat", the image of the animal will be recalled by the brain.
After all, that's how we learn what a black cat is.
No, what you're asking for didn't happen. There are no hard categorical lines in nature; even the exact difference between species isn't as hard a line as we like to think.
He is no longer manifested in the body of the human.
And as a result, no longer human. "Human" is a common term for a type of animal (the genus homo, and specifically the species sapiens).
That is why it isn't possible for it to happen in the way that you describe. He wasn't there, and being one with the dog doesn't suddenly make him "there" when he wasn't there in the first place, and by "there" I mean the car incident.
If my dog was hit by a car last year, my dog was hit by a car, I wasn't. If I magically become one with my dog and I occupy his brain, "I" still wasn't hit by a car last year. You can't change the past..the past is set in stone, and if my dog was hit last year, an experience that was completely independent of myself, then I don't gain that experience in the sense that "I was hit by a car", even if I were to become one with the dog.
You become one with the dog, and so your identity and the dog's are now a single identity.
Therefore, you did, indeed, get hit by the car, because you're now the dog. The body that you used to inhabit didn't get hit, but that body is no longer relevant to your current identity.
But does the computer know that it is outputting language?
Ok, so can the computer decide not to think about the series? Or can the computer think, "You know what, this is a really cool series".
So what can you do to get the computer to "like" animorphs as oppose to disliking it. If you program it to like it, what does that mean? How do you get that positive sensation in there?
It would require special hardware that simulates the good feelings we get when we like things, and the bad feelings when we don't. Given the presence of such hardware, yes I could, though that would require giving up my current calling and spend years in research and practice.
So a psycopath that gets an adrenaline rush out of dismembering his victims...are you saying he doesn't really feel the joy, he is just emulating the joy?
The sensation produced by adrenaline isn't an emotion, and it certainly isn't joy. Pleasure is a sensation, not an emotion. Killers who get joy out of that activity aren't psychopaths; they're something else.
Now, a bit of quick internet-checking up on psychopathy indicates that it is entirely possible that I'm misusing the term, and that what I'm thinking of is a different disorder (I'm not a psychologist). But it's what I understand based on what I've seen whenever psychopathy gets brought up from a psychological perspective. If a psychologist is reading this, and I'm getting it wrong, please correct me.
You can't prove that, and every time you make claims of knowledge like that without proof, I will call you out on it. You CANNOT scientifically prove the claim, so merely asserting it without proof is question begging.
So what is the origins of ANY type of processing information?? If you start off with the big bang at which all matter and energy filled the cosmos...when does this matter get so complex that it begins thinking? That is the ultimate question....can you scientifically explain this, please?
First off, it doesn't matter whether it was sudden or gradual, it still wouldn't happen. Second, you are telling me the theory, but what I want is evidence of the theory.
Understanding can't come from a question if the answer isn't actively sought, and if the answers provided are stubbornly resisted without checking their existent fact-hood.
The scenario would be irrelevant if it didn't reflect reality...but it DOES reflect reality. If the existence of God is negated, then that would mean that a mindless and blind process (nature) gave rise to things like consciousness, life, species, etc. I am asking you to give me a naturalistic scenario at which this could have happened, which IS what naturalists believed happened anyway. So it isn't as if I am asking some off the wall question...naturalists claim it happened, so I am asking for a scenario at which it could have happened. Plain and simple.
So how is it irrelevant? No, you call it irrelevant because you are unable to provide a natural explanation to how consciousness could have originated.
No it can't. If I have a picture of a black cat on my hard drive and I saved it to my desktop background, and I also have a picture of a waterfall and I save it to my background, the computer does not know the difference between the cat and the waterfall...so when the cat is in the background, the computer is not thinking "this is a picture of a black cat"...or "this is a picture of a black cat, and that is a picture of a waterfall".
Or, if the picture of the waterfall is the background, just because it is displayed in the background does not mean the computer is "thinking" about the waterfall.
Second, I find it amazing that you are arguing in favor of computers thinking, but when asked to provide a naturalistic scenario of consciousness being plugged into the brain if the brain was created from "scratch", you say "natural selection did it", as if that is supposed to be this knock-down explanation that explains it all
But in the time it took for me to make that post, and me now making this post, it turns out that techniques for studying and measuring consciousness are rapidly evolving, to the point where clear scientific consensus will likely be reached within the next few decades.
Deducing that natural selection is involved doesn't have to mean that we know the nitty-gritty details. There's still a lot of gaps in humanity's collective knowledge. But everything else clearly comes from natural selection, and there's nothing that indicates this is any different.
Slowly, nothing sudden. The brain isn't formed of just tissue, but special electro-chemically reactive cells called neurons. Even animals that lack brains, such as jellyfish, have these cells.
Yeah, the only problem is the electro-chemicals and neurons aren't themselves THOUGHTS. Plus, we are talking about the origins of all those things, not how they work once they got here. I understand you people like to conveniently fast-foward to the easy stuff and just bypass the hard stuff. But no, sometimes life gets more complicated than that.
Long-term memory, short-term memory, subconscious memory, emotional reaction, physical sensation, information processing, mental problem-solving.... all of these are just a few of the components.
It's not absolute fact; it's what all the indications point to. You've not demonstrated how it's not plausible, as all your arguments to that end haven't involved any real-world examples, but rather fantastic and/or irrelevant hypotheticals.
Actually, I did demonstrate why it isn't plausible. The law of identity did just that...neurons are not happy or sad, neurons aren't humorous. The brain isn't happy or sad...and the brain isn't humorous..but "I" can be happy or sad, or humorous...so there is something true about "me" that isn't true about the brain...that alone is enough to demonstrate it...not to mention the fact that as of yet, I didn't see you offer one shred of empirical thought that would allow a scientists that just created a brain to begin to plug thoughts into it. Explain how this could be done by scientific means. Can you? If you can't, then you are admitting that intelligent human beings are being outsmarted by a process that couldn't think. SMH.
Natural selection is involved with all other things. It therefore stands to reason that, unless a scientifically plausible alternative can be demonstrated, natural selection was involved here, too.
"Eyes" would have to be linked to the brain, allowing the ability to "see" a black cat that's brought into the lab. The brain would have to be active, somehow, which requires oxygen, provided by blood. Therefore, the brain can't be just sitting on a table; it would have to be in some kind of casing that emulates a body. That oxygen would have to be fed to it, somehow, and somehow placed in the blood; we'd need lungs.
Exactly, so which came first, the body, or the brain that the body needs to be in to function?? Hmmmm...another chicken & egg problem here, it seems. So when the very first brain began to "think", the brain was already occupied in a human skull, right? Or did the skull come first? And then the eyes?
The black cat would have to be "seen" by the "eyes", and then that "image" stored within the brain's memory. If the scientists also place "ears" to pick up sound and store that in memory as well, then the black cat can be shown at the same time as someone says "black cat", creating an association. This process is repeated for a while, until both are firmly within the brain's long-term memory. Now, the black cat can be removed from the lab, and anytime someone says "black cat", the image of the animal will be recalled by the brain.
See, you are explaining what HAD to happen, but you are not explaining HOW it happened. That is evident by the fact that you said the cat would have to be "seen" by the eyes...but wait a minute, where did these eyes come from? A thought of a black cat cannot be "thought of" until an image of the black cat is seen and then the brain processes this image...but how can you get to the point of "seeing" anything without eyes? So now, you have to explain where did eyes come from...and the eyes couldn't have originated without there first being a central processing center that would take in the image...but that is the brain!!! Eyes, ears, brains...all of these things, by themselves, are complex as it is..you have to come up with a viable theory as to how all these things naturally originated, and joined forces to make up our senses. More problems than you can handle, good sir.
Therefore, you did, indeed, get hit by the car, because you're now the dog. The body that you used to inhabit didn't get hit, but that body is no longer relevant to your current identity.
But that can't be true. When the dog was hit, i was not there. So if I become the dog, suddenly, "I was there"? But I wasn't there. There still seems to be two distinct "persons" here. I don't think it is possible for me to "be" the dog...but it is possible for me to be in the body of the dog...those are two separate distinctions.
Think about it; If I did become "one" with the dog, retaining all the dogs experiences, thoughts, etc..then what is the change? No change was made whatsoever. So technically speaking, I don't even exist as the dog. There is nothing about "me" that is manifested in the dog, so therefore "I" don't exist...so "I" am not even the dog, on your view.
But if I was manifested in the dogs body, and I retained all of my human thoughts, memories, etc...THEN "I" would exist within the dog, because there is something about "me" that is manifested within the dogs body.
Because we can think about ourselves outputting language. We are aware. We can think about our thoughts. Computers can't do this...if there is a single picture of two cats on the picture, with one cat bigger than the other...the computer does not know that "these are two cats, and one is bigger than the other". But we know it, right?
It would require special hardware that simulates the good feelings we get when we like things, and the bad feelings when we don't. Given the presence of such hardware, yes I could, though that would require giving up my current calling and spend years in research and practice.
Ok so what would it require for us to build an entire human robot that will act just like a human being...thinking...talking...driving...walking...laughing...playing...dancing....see, you are making it seem as if computers from doing these things...so what separates the computer from humans, from strictly a consciousness perspective???
The sensation produced by adrenaline isn't an emotion, and it certainly isn't joy. Pleasure is a sensation, not an emotion. Killers who get joy out of that activity aren't psychopaths; they're something else.
Now, a bit of quick internet-checking up on psychopathy indicates that it is entirely possible that I'm misusing the term, and that what I'm thinking of is a different disorder (I'm not a psychologist). But it's what I understand based on what I've seen whenever psychopathy gets brought up from a psychological perspective. If a psychologist is reading this, and I'm getting it wrong, please correct me.
Science can and has demonstrated that our consciousness, our mind is a product of the brain.
You keep saying that it has not oroven this, but that is nit how science works. Proof is for math and brewing, science deals with falsifyabke explanations of the available data.
In this case the evidence demonstrates consciousness to be a product of the brain. This is supoorted by the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
You keep saying that it has not oroven this, but that is nit how science works. Proof is for math and brewing, science deals with falsifyabke explanations of the available data.
In this case the evidence demonstrates consciousness to be a product of the brain. This is supoorted by the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
In this case the evidence demonstrates consciousness to be a product of the brain. This is supoorted by the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
I really dont dont how people can't see this when the evidence has been provided. Especially, as you said, that no evidence exists to the contrary or even evidence for any sort of alternative.
Of course there is, and it is an incredibly easy demonstration with a perfect 100% consistent result. 100% of the time if you destroy the brain, the personality is gone. That is as solid and reliabke a scientific demonstration as is possible.
I repeat; There is no test which shows consciousness arising from the brain. Until that happens, you can assume all you want.
Of course there is, and it is an incredibly easy demonstration with a perfect 100% consistent result. 100% of the time if you destroy the brain, the personality is gone. That is as solid and reliabke a scientific demonstration as is possible.
Bunyip, what are you talking about? You cannot demonstrate anything contrary to an afterlife, nor can you empirically demonstrate that consciousness is a by-product of the brain. You just can't do it...and if you believe that God didnt do it, then you have to be able to scientifically prove/or demonstrate something that you CLAIMED occurred naturally.
That don't befront me.
