Faith in permanent death

[Penumbra]

Consciousness has nothing to do with computation, its an emergent property.

The way computers work and the way the brain works, are two completely different things. The Turing Problem ensures that computers will never reach consciousness. They can only do what they are programmed to do. They are required to break down information and either re-complile or parse it into something useful. Your brain doesn't do that.

As much as I would love to see genuine AI, it isn't going to happen.

Sounds like a faith-based position.

 

[PolyHedral]

Consciousness has nothing to do with computation, its an emergent property.

The way computers work and the way the brain works, are two completely different things. The Turing Problem ensures that computers will never reach consciousness. They can only do what they are programmed to do. They are required to break down information and either re-complile or parse it into something useful. Your brain doesn't do that.

As much as I would love to see genuine AI, it isn't going to happen.

What is the Turing problem? I have heard of the Turing test and the Halting Problem, but nothing by that name.

 

[Otherright]

Doesnt mean that something is there.

It depends on where you are looking. If you are looking to Gods and myths, then yeah, its wishful thinking. If you are looking at quantum biology, then there may be.

 

[outhouse]

That doesn't mean those possibilities aren't true. All it means is that we can't tell. It may happen that in the future, through technology, consciousness may be proven to exist beyond death.

To put your faith in permanent death, I think, is not reason. Simply faith. And it is faith that is put into one of the most hopeless ideas out there.

No faith is something ancient men drempt up that flys in the face of logic IS not reason.

by your standard pink unicorns with purple wings may be possible because we havnt found one yet

 

[outhouse]

I view it as irrational to assume that death is permanent.

and such a view is faith based from spirituality, created in a time when myth reigned supreme

 

[Otherright]

What is the Turing problem? I have heard of the Turing test and the Halting Problem, but nothing by that name.

Its the philosophical problems that are presented in the Test.

But since you are boned up on it, show me how consciousness can exist in computers.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I disagree. I think rationalism requires very little (if any) emotional fortitude. It takes all kinds of emotional fortitude for adhering to other belief systems.

Good point. I suppose all the moral conundrums and logical inconsistencies one is faced with in many belief systems could be very emotionally taxing.

Anyways, as far as the OP. First of all, I agree. Afterlife actually can be grounded in science. No matter how you look at it, no matter how many chromosomes and neurotransmitters you break the brain into, science really doesn't know what consciousness is. You can use physics and chemistry to describe everything else in the universe, but not our consciousness. Because no matter what science you apply, you still have to use your consciousness to get there...

I'm sure this means something in your head, but not to the rest of us. Do you mind restructuring this into a logical, coherent argument or idea?

 

[PolyHedral]

Its the philosophical problems that are presented in the Test.

But since you are boned up on it, show me how consciousness can exist in computers.

The universe is a computer/simulation. Consciousness exists within the universe, ergo consciousness is computable.

 

[Otherright]

Sounds like a faith-based position.

What? How is that faith-based? That's neuroscience. I'm sorry that you really want genuine AI in computers, I do too, but it isn't going to happen. Your brain and that computer process information completely different.

You think I'm wrong, prove me wrong then.

 

[Koldo]

Consciousness has nothing to do with computation, its an emergent property.

The way computers work and the way the brain works, are two completely different things. The Turing Problem ensures that computers will never reach consciousness. They can only do what they are programmed to do. They are required to break down information and either re-complile or parse it into something useful. Your brain doesn't do that.

As much as I would love to see genuine AI, it isn't going to happen.

The fact is that we don't know what humans will be able to do in the future with technology. Perhaps we will be able to simulate an human consciousness.

Imagine people from 1000 years ago being told they would be able to communicate with another person in the other side of the globe nearly instantly with a device that fits in your hand. Most would say that is impossible. And here we are.

Also, do you mean the turing test?
The turing test does not ensure that computers will never reach consciousness.

 

[PolyHedral]

Your brain and that computer process information completely different.

Yes, but the former is a subset of the latter.

 

[science_is_my_god]

Good point. I suppose all the moral conundrums and logical inconsistencies one is faced with in many belief systems could be very emotionally taxing.

That is exactly what I am saying.

I'm sure this means something in your head, but not to the rest of us. Do you mind restructuring this into a logical, coherent argument or idea?

You are missing my point. What is logic? What is a coherent argument? What is an idea? They are all observations, in relation to the world around us, or products of our psyche. However, they all require a true understanding of consciousness to be always and constantly infallible, because they are all products of that consciousness.

What if we discover something more logical than logic itself? Well, we can't discover it, if we always except logical thought as the only way to logically think.

 

[PolyHedral]

What is logic?

Logic is not an observation; it has no direct connection to reality.

 

[Penumbra]

What? How is that faith-based? That's neuroscience. I'm sorry that you really want genuine AI in computers, I do too, but it isn't going to happen.

Actually, I'd kind of prefer it not to happen. Seems to me like the potential for abuse could be too high. If anything, it could be said I'm close to neutral on the idea, but cautious towards it.

This seems to have been an assumption on your part to assume that I really want genuine AI in computers for some reason.

Your brain and that computer process information completely different.

Different doesn't mean impossible.

You think I'm wrong, prove me wrong then.

Doesn't work like that. You made the claim.

 

[Otherright]

The universe is a computer/simulation. Consciousness exists within the universe, ergo consciousness is computable.

That is a fallacy, nonsensical, and philosophical.

Please share with me how this works. How consciousness is computational.

Second, show me how the human brain and a computer's processor are identical in how they process information.

 

[839311]

It's irrational to assume it isn't. It's irrational to assume anything - even if it makes you feel warm and cozy.

I think its highly probable that death is not permanent, but is instead eternal. The difference here is that I assume a probability due to insufficient evidence. Considering our less than complete understanding of consciousness, it is irrational to assume that we forever cease to exist upon our physical death.

 

[Otherright]

Actually, I'd kind of prefer it not to happen. Seems to me like the potential for abuse could be too high. If anything, it could be said I'm close to neutral on the idea, but cautious towards it.

This seems to have been an assumption on your part to assume that I really want genuine AI in computers for some reason.

Different doesn't mean impossible.

Doesn't work like that. You made the claim.

No, you said my saying they are different is faith based. They are different whether you like it or not. They are different enough for it to be impossible. The way the two process information is completely opposite from one another.

 

[Otherright]

Yes, but the former is a subset of the latter.

No it isn't. The computer has to break down that information into meaningless segments and recombine it through a compiler or parser. Your brain doesn't do that.

 

[science_is_my_god]

Logic is not an observation; it has no direct connection to reality.

Nope, but logic is still a product of inductive and deductive reasoning. And reasoning IS based on observations.

 

[Penumbra]

No, you said my saying they are different is faith based.

Please show me where I said that. This looks like it may be another assumption.

I responded to your whole post, saying that it appears to be a faith-based position. Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I thought it was, that I was referring primarily to your last line: "As much as I would love to see genuine AI, it isn't going to happen.".

They are different whether you like it or not.

I never said they were not different.

They are different enough for it to be impossible. The way the two process information is completely opposite from one another.

Again, different doesn't mean impossible. It's an assumption.