Faith in permanent death

[atanu]

----- Consciousness is very much a part of the stream of memory--the comparison of past experiences with present and expected future experiences.

Pardon me for intruding again.

The consciousness as part of stream of memory that you are talking about is the manifest consciousness -- manifest in the way contrasts make an object visible. But the stream of memory owe its existence to consciousness, which is the very nature of Self/Existence/Reality.

 

[PolyHedral]

Pardon me for intruding again.

The consciousness as part of stream of memory that you are talking about is the manifest consciousness -- manifest in the way contrasts make an object visible. But the stream of memory owe its existence to consciousness, which is the very nature of Self/Existence/Reality.

But my computer programs can maintain a stream of memory easily. That's actually exactly the language used: files, and file-like objects, are usually called "streams" of data.

 

[atanu]

But my computer programs can maintain a stream of memory easily. That's actually exactly the language used: files, and file-like objects, are usually called "streams" of data.

But could a computer derive any meaning out of those 0-s and 1-s? Again you are talking only of emergent consciousness and not the consciousness that enables the emergence.
------------------------

Even for such mechanisms that maintain stream of memory in terms of 'deltas' (only the differences) a base state is maintained else, a state cannot be restored. But that is only a minor point.

Was it in this thread that you agreed that a program (or any physical symbol system) does not "understand" the symbols that it uses (Chinese Room)? A programmed mimicry of Chinese is not equal to understanding Chinese.

We also agreed earlier that comparison of a computational machine with mind, based on the assumption that 'the mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules' is erroneous. Mind works with subconscious information. unconscious skills cannot be captured in programs. AI is good enough for industrial use, no doubt, but not for explaining the hard problem of understanding a subjective form of conscious experience that cannot be simply defined as conscious access. Conscious symbol manipulation is only a small part of our intelligence.

I think you repeatedly go back on what we agree and come back with same examples. It is not fair.

But all of the above refutations are superficial and unnecessary. The fact is that every computer system has the given intelligence of programmer/designer inbuilt into it. The given intelligence of the men involved can never be separated out. So, citing computer computation we cannot negate consciousness, which we used to build the programs and also to cite the examples in the first place.

 

[otokage007]

But could a computer derive any meaning out of those 0-s and 1-s? Again you are talking only of emergent consciousness and not the consciousness that enables the emergence.
------------------------

Even for such mechanisms that maintain stream of memory in terms of 'deltas' (only the differences) a base state is maintained else, a state cannot be restored. But that is only a minor point.

Was it in this thread that you agreed that a program (or any physical symbol system) does not "understand" the symbols that it uses (Chinese Room)? A programmed mimicry of Chinese is not equal to understanding Chinese.

We also agreed earlier that comparison of a computational machine with mind, based on the assumption that 'the mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules' is erroneous. Mind works with subconscious information. unconscious skills cannot be captured in programs. AI is good enough for industrial use, no doubt, but not for explaining the hard problem of understanding a subjective form of conscious experience that cannot be simply defined as conscious access. Conscious symbol manipulation is only a small part of our intelligence.

I think you repeatedly go back on what we agree and come back with same examples. It is not fair.

But all of the above refutations are superficial and unnecessary. The fact is that every computer system has the given intelligence of programmer/designer inbuilt into it. The given intelligence of the men involved can never be separated out. So, citing computer computation we cannot negate consciousness, which we used to build the programs and also to cite the examples in the first place.

Once biology comes to understand the human brain, it will be possible to engineering to create an artificial brain. And you will cry when you see it has consciousness. :yes:

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I my view life as an emergent property of that way 92 natural element interact as soon as they were established in a critical phase of the universe's stellar evolution. In particular 33 of them which are necessary for the evolution of life we know of. When one dies the reactivity of the potential reactivity of those 33 elements still remain. The reactivity which resulted in you to be born in the first place in specific spacio-temporal localities in the universe 13.7 billion years after the Big Bang. The self is an emergent property of those 33 elements reacting in some perculiar way the generate yourself into existence. When you die you will forget that you were born in the first place which will once again leave the way open in that specific 13.7 billion year window of oportunity for the genernation of your sense of self and consciousness. That is my theory and is what sits best with me.

 

[atanu]

Once biology comes to understand the human brain, it will be possible to engineering to create an artificial brain. And you will cry when you see it has consciousness. :yes:

Think before you write. What does "Once biology comes to understand the human brain ---" mean at all? " Biology comes to understand" ?

 

[otokage007]

Think before you write. What does "Once biology comes to understand the human brain ---" mean at all? " Biology comes to understand" ?

For the wise to understand, few words are needed.

 

[PolyHedral]

But could a computer derive any meaning out of those 0-s and 1-s?

Describe, rigorously, "understanding." I can't tell you whether a computer understands anything without knowing exactly what you mean by understanding.

Again you are talking only of emergent consciousness and not the consciousness that enables the emergence.

Can you show that this exists? My understanding works perfectly well without it, so it seems unnecessary.

Even for such mechanisms that maintain stream of memory in terms of 'deltas' (only the differences) a base state is maintained else, a state cannot be restored. But that is only a minor point.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. A base state, along with a group of deltas, can be restored if the deltas are reversible.

Was it in this thread that you agreed that a program (or any physical symbol system) does not "understand" the symbols that it uses (Chinese Room)? A programmed mimicry of Chinese is not equal to understanding Chinese.

A lookup table does not understand. A symbol processor does not understand Chinese. But I would argue that any system capable of actually communicating in Chinese does understand it, on the logic that if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck. How else would you determine if the machine understands Chinese?

(However, Copernicus is right: a Chinese Room setup is strictly not strong enough to actually speak Chinese. A more powerful, state-ful, system would be needed.)

We also agreed earlier that comparison of a computational machine with mind, based on the assumption that 'the mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules' is erroneous. Mind works with subconscious information. unconscious skills cannot be captured in programs. AI is good enough for industrial use, no doubt, but not for explaining the hard problem of understanding a subjective form of conscious experience that cannot be simply defined as conscious access. Conscious symbol manipulation is only a small part of our intelligence.

This discrepancy is quite easy to remove: discard the idea that consciousness has access to all the mind's processes. Mind works with subconscious information, but that's not functionally different than a computer that works with information without being conscious at all; they're both unthinking.

But all of the above refutations are superficial and unnecessary. The fact is that every computer system has the given intelligence of programmer/designer inbuilt into it. The given intelligence of the men involved can never be separated out. So, citing computer computation we cannot negate consciousness, which we used to build the programs and also to cite the examples in the first place.

Oh, but not all computers have to be designed, and not all those which are designed are designed by humans. Where does the intelligence come from then?

 

[atanu]

Describe, rigorously, "understanding." I can't tell you whether a computer understands anything without knowing exactly what you mean by understanding.

I think that will be futile, since you are just firing of electrons. As there is no innate understanding, you will not understand the understanding also.

Can you show that this exists? My understanding works perfectly well without it, so it seems unnecessary.

You need to show it. You claim it for computers.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. A base state, along with a group of deltas, can be restored if the deltas are reversible.

Yes. The base state must be known for that.

A lookup table does not understand. A symbol processor does not understand Chinese. But I would argue that any system capable of actually communicating in Chinese does understand it, on the logic that if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck. How else would you determine if the machine understands Chinese?

We earlier agreed that the computers can mimic the computational part of living systems. That too is not possible without an existing intelligent creator.

(However, Copernicus is right: a Chinese Room setup is strictly not strong enough to actually speak Chinese. A more powerful, state-ful, system would be needed.)

interv
There will never be such a system. So, the Chinese room argument stands.

This discrepancy is quite easy to remove: discard the idea that consciousness has access to all the mind's processes. Mind works with subconscious information, but that's not functionally different than a computer that works with information without being conscious at all; they're both unthinking.

But humans can control their sub-conscious. Evidences were provided earlier.

Oh, but not all computers have to be designed, and not all those which are designed are designed by humans. Where does the intelligence come from then?

I do not know any computer that has life and that has come up on its own. If you think you are such a one then surely you are controlled and you have a creator, just as our computers have.

 

[839311]

First off I'd like to note that I don't think that the idea of "some degree of stress" related to a finite life is exclusive to those who don't believe in an afterlife. I think that this concept can and does haunt those that believe just as much as the "non-believers". The reasoning is that we simply don't know.

Thats a fair point. I do think your right, and to some degree it applies to me too.

Even though some people claim to be as sure in their faith as they are, they have their doubts as well. Sigh. Thinking about faith makes me pity some of the people that have it. Not all people of faith, but many have the kind of faith that I suspect causes them a great deal of stress. The kind of faith that is riddled with doubt but reinforced with sheer determination.

If we all accepted that this is all we get and didn't bother hypothesizing about alternate scenarios (not that I'm condoning this, just positing a theory) we would be much more comfortable with the idea overall.

Hmm... I doubt it. That wouldn`t leave any room for hope at all.

Now I don't think that this attitude means that someone with a view of no afterlife somehow stresses over this concept more than someone who believes in an afterlife simply because the thoughts are floating around. I feel just as one accepts that when they die there's more, we believe when we die there is no more.

Does this have to cause suffering? Do you think most vegetarians have stress over the idea of never having meat again? The one's I have met don't, and I'd suggest that the ones who do probably are influenced heavily over the culture and acceptance of eating meat. So I think there's sort of a need for acceptance on both sides. If you believe in an afterlife then you have to accept that for the idea of "noafterlife" to not cause you stress, and I feel the same rings true for the opposite.

Well, I disagree. I do think that this idea causes stress at one point or another, and probably becomes a lot more real closer to death. Granted, this would probably happen to me as well if I knew I was going to die in a week. But its a matter of degree. I think its likely that there is more after this life, so I have a good deal of hope. I wish I knew that there is an afterlife, because then I would have no use for hope. Thats all I have, unfortunately. But its still a lot better than having no hope at all, having instead a belief that the last breath I take will be the permanent end of me.

From personal experience, I can tell you that when I was a hard atheist the belief in permanent death did cause me stress. So, Im not only going on speculation here, I believed it myself.

I am one who was raised in a Christian family and thus was taught very young that if I was a good little boy I'd get into heaven and otherwise...I'd go to H-E-Double Hockey Sticks (we were so afraid of this place we weren't allowed to even say the word "Hell"). Now looking back on my "previous life," I see that not only did the view of an afterlife (at least through these terms) cause me a great deal of stress, but my difficulty with the comprehension of this view and the conflicting thought that, "There may be NO HEAVEN AT ALL!" always popping up in my head, caused a great deal more stress in my life than after I accepted that "This is all we get, so enjoy it."

Likewise, I was unfortunate enough to fall prey to the concept of hell as well. I find Christianity repulsive.

As for the absence of hope, I must ask, "Why do we need hope in an afterlife?" I'm content with the thought that this is all I have. Is it bad for some stuff to be hopeless? I don't hope that there are unicorns out there...do you pity me for that (extreme example I know, but bare with me)? I think we choose where we want to place our hope. I hope that I can make the world, however minutely, a better place than it would be had I not been born. I hope that some day I will experience the joy of being a father. However, I don't hope that there's an afterlife, but if there is, I'll do my best to enjoy that, in whatever form it is.

We don't need hope in an afterlife. But I do think its better to have hope. Personally, I like life. Overall its good. It would be nice to live again in an afterlife of one kind or another, apart from any really terrible afterlife. It gives a person a more positive outlook.

You have hope in wanting to make this world a better place and having children, so clearly these things are positives for you and make life better. But, you think we will only enjoy them once. Whereas I think its likely that there is more life coming up that we will get to enjoy, probably for the rest of eternity. I would like to ask you, 'why have you abandoned hope in another life that could offer you these things?'. But, I won't, because I suspect you've reached your belief for reasons Im already familiar with. But I will ask you to reexamine your reasons, because personally I think they offer as much foundation for that belief as sand offers a foundation for a house.

You talked about "the weight of impending and permanent doom can and does cause some degree of stress." While I'll agree that it has caused stress in my life, it has caused EXPONENTIALLY less stress since I've come to accept that there is no afterlife. It allowed me to stop focusing on what's next and enjoy now. And yes when these thoughts arise, my viewpoint I discussed earlier comforts me.

I think you were focusing too much on it before. I mean, I don`t see how having some hope in an afterlife would be worse than not having any hope at all. Whether we have hope or not, that doesn`t mean we have to think about it. I don`t really think about it much myself. I don`t see how I would be better off without any hope at all as you say you are.

Honestly, I don't see the point in constantly thinking about whether there is an afterlife or not.

Thats good. Likewise, I would be worried for someone who constantly thought about it lol.

and at the end of the day, if my time is here, I'll either enjoy the next life, or I won't

It sounds like your leaving room for the possibility here lol

 

[PolyHedral]

I think that will be futile, since you are just firing of electrons. As there is no innate understanding, you will not understand the understanding also.

But if we accept axiomatically that I am just firing of electrons, incapable of understanding, then you are also a firing of electrons, and so your original statement is nonsensical.

The fault in that logic seems to be that the firing of electrons are incapable of understanding. So, how is "understanding" defined?

You need to show it. You claim it for computers.

No, I claim it simply doesn't exist, in computers or humans. Consciousness is entirely an emergent property of certain computational processes. Evidence must be shown if it's asserted that there's more entities involved. IMO, it doesn't take any evidence to say that the brain is different from cells and computers in only degree, when there are no similarly simple competing theories.

Yes. The base state must be known for that.

Of course. Nevermind, I've lost track of where I was going with this.

We earlier agreed that the compters can mimic the comutational part of living systems.

Then you must show that the brain is not purely a living system, otherwise a computer could mimic it.

There will never be such a system. So, the Chinese room argument stands.

Your computer is such a system; it has just not been told to run a simulation of Chinese. The only extra thing that the Chinese Room must include to work, in principle, is a means of keeping track of state.

But humans can control their sub-conscious. Evidences were provided earlier.

But not consciously, surely? The conscious mind has access to a lot of the processing done in the brain, just not all of it, and so that's why introspection fails.

I do not know any computer that has life and that has come up on its own. If you think you are such a one then surely you are controlled and you have a creator, just as our computers have.

Nanopond: A Very Tiny Artificial Life VM
Those machines have no intelligence designing them.

 

[atanu]

But if we accept axiomatically that I am just firing of electrons, incapable of understanding, then you are also a firing of electrons, and so your original statement is nonsensical.

Where did i say that intelligence is emergent? I believe that intelligence is innate, on which the life system exists and evolves. Whereas, as per your belief you are a mere product of electrons firing. And inexplicably, a product that is a representational view is now theorising that the representational view is the intelligence.

I cannot even request you to honestly judge as to what is non-sensical.

No, I claim it simply doesn't exist, in computers or humans. Consciousness is entirely an emergent property of certain computational processes.

Fired electrons claiming. Useless.

Of course. Nevermind, I've lost track of where I was going with this.

Actually this is happening to most of your posts. I have snipped away the rest, since this alone was under discussion -- stream of memory.

To keep track of continous changes, knowledge of a base state and the knowledge of differential changes is required. In computers all these symbols become meaningful to human intelligence only and not otherwise.

 

[atanu]

No, I claim it simply doesn't exist, in computers or humans. Consciousness is entirely an emergent property of certain computational processes.

Then what instigates a computational process in humans?

 

[idav]

Then what instigates a computational process in humans?

Conception/Birth.

 

[Copernicus]

Conception/Birth.

I think that you'd have to answer that the development of a brain in a fetus must come first. The "computational process" in humans minimally requires a functioning brain, and it doesn't really develop enough to begin to "compute" much of anything--e.g. "experience pain"--until at least the third trimester of a pregnancy, when the necessary components of the brain actually develop.

 

[atanu]

Conception/Birth.

Why should that be any instigation to compute? There is no consciousness. So what instigates what and with what motivation?

 

[idav]

I think that you'd have to answer that the development of a brain in a fetus must come first. The "computational process" in humans minimally requires a functioning brain, and it doesn't really develop enough to begin to "compute" much of anything--e.g. "experience pain"--until at least the third trimester of a pregnancy, when the necessary components of the brain actually develop.

I was using a little freedom in the term instigate. The process starts somewhere.

Still I would think computations are already occuring by the time the heart is set to beat three weeks after conception. Not sure if that means it computes but it's close.

 

[idav]

Why should that be any instigation to compute? There is no consciousness. So what instigates what and with what motivation?

There is the fact that instantly the cells are recieving instructions from dna to do certain functions and thus the process begins and the emergence of simple awareness is around the corner.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think that you'd have to answer that the development of a brain in a fetus must come first. The "computational process" in humans minimally requires a functioning brain, and it doesn't really develop enough to begin to "compute" much of anything--e.g. "experience pain"--until at least the third trimester of a pregnancy, when the necessary components of the brain actually develop.

You could make the argument that a single cell is a "computer;" it reads instructions and executes them. It is a Von Neumann machine, after all.

Why should that be any instigation to compute? There is no consciousness. So what instigates what and with what motivation?

Chemistry instigates computation, and motivation is not applicable, because chemistry is not anthropomorphic.

 

[atanu]

There is the fact that instantly the cells are recieving instructions from dna to do certain functions and thus the process begins and the emergence of simple awareness is around the corner.

Chemistry instigates computation, and motivation is not applicable, because chemistry is not anthropomorphic.

As per the proposition: Consciousness of "I" does not exist but develops post computation. A thing which does not exist cannot do anything, including computation and its initiation.