Proof of The Soul (Pandora's Contraption - Part 2)

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

OK. And....?

This appears to be an argument from personal incredulity - you cannot imagine how your sense of 'I' can be generated by a physical brain that might (in principle anyway) be duplicated, so it can't be.

No. Its pure logic.
identical uniqueness is a logical contradiction.

Not really. Your sense of 'you' disappears when you sleep and and then (apparently) returns when you wake. But what would be different if the old 'you' had died and a new one came into existence in the morning - with the same memories, experiences, preferences and so on? It has a direct bearing on teleportation in your thought experiment...

It would only be a matter of the nature of how the soul operates,
and not a matter of whether your soul actually exists.

My only point is the existence of the soul; the nature of how it might
manifest, travel between lives and bodies - and days - really is another question
that is only meaningful after we lay the foundation of the soul existing as independent of non-unique matter.

 

[ratiocinator]

identical uniqueness is a logical contradiction

You haven't shown that a sense of 'I' is necessarily and in principle, unique. Obviously in practice it is but you've introduced the fantastical device, so you need to argue the principle and, no, "it feels unique to me" doesn't constitute a logical argument.

 

[ratiocinator]

It would only be a matter of the nature of how the soul operates

You need to demonstrate that there is such a thing first.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

You haven't shown that a sense of 'I' is necessarily and in principle, unique. Obviously in practice it is but you've introduced the fantastical device, so you need to argue the principle and, no, "it feels unique to me" doesn't constitute a logical argument.

Its not a feeling, its a universal observation.
Are you honestly claiming that you do not observe your own identity as being unique?

 

[ratiocinator]

Its not a feeling, its a universal observation.
Are you honestly claiming that you do not observe your own identity as being unique?

What would you expect to observe differently if you were not, in principle, unique?

How could can you tell that your sense of 'I' cannot possibly be duplicated?

 

[Fire_Monkey]

You have opted for option E.
That is to be expected.

But my atoms are not unique,
my consciousness is unique.

Perhaps you disagree because you do not have unique consciousness?
Do you?
hmmm?

My consciousness, that is, me sentience, is unique only in the way that it is my own. That nobody else's is comprised of exactly the same thoughts and memories, perceptions, and biases.
However, many many animals have consciousness. Homo sapiens are but one species. Too, this fact does not oppose my OP claim that all aspects of consciousness can be explained in a materialistic and neurological way. To wit...no God is needed. No divine forces are posited. Much less required.

 

[Milton Platt]

Atoms have to be intrinsically unique in order to be part of something ... that is intrinsically unique.
The only way that unique consciousness could be a result of non-unique matter would be
if we had to postulate that inside of every unique person is actually a unique atom that if replicated
would create a non-unique person.

I can find definitions of intrinsic and unique, but no definition of "intrinsically unique". Please provide one for clarity as I am unclear on what you are trying to say.

In this way you could actually be conscious of being two bodies aware of one another at the same time.
(Option C)
But then the problem would be, where does this consciousness reside?
It cannot be in either of those atoms (brains) because the consciousness is individually unique,
so it must exist beyond the atoms.

 

[psychoslice]

So energy has consciousness?
hmm
If so then how do you cater for unique individual consciousness?

Individual conditioning and programming, simple.

 

[Polymath257]

Each duplicate would have a separate concept of 'I' with common memories from before the teleportation. The duplicates will be psychologically identical at first, but start to differ because of different experiences. The concept of 'I' is in each, individual brain. Both would have a feeling of continuity to the individual before the teleportation.

Am I the 'same person' as I was a year ago? Not really. I have many common memories, but I have changed since then. I fail to see the problem.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

What would you expect to observe differently if you were not, in principle, unique?

How could can you tell that your sense of 'I' cannot possibly be duplicated?

If you were one of an identical twin, would you struggle to tell which one was you?
Surely you must see that you are not the other one because you have your perspective.
Your perspective would not jump from one to the other; it is local to its position.
Any attempt to argue otherwise suggests that you do not actually have a unique perspective.
Perhaps you have not quite realized what I mean by 'unique perspective'.
Its not the details of the information that you see, but simply your own sense of 'I'.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Perhaps its because you have opted for option E.

Think in words perhaps:
Atoms are not unique.
Your consciousness is unique.
Therefore your atoms are not conscious.

No, the atoms themselves are not consciousness... but the functions the atom perform within the structure of a brain do serve to create consciousness.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

My consciousness, that is, me sentience, is unique only in the way that it is my own. That nobody else's is comprised of exactly the same thoughts and memories, perceptions, and biases.
However, many many animals have consciousness. Homo sapiens are but one species. Too, this fact does not oppose my OP claim that all aspects of consciousness can be explained in a materialistic and neurological way. To wit...no God is needed. No divine forces are posited. Much less required.

This part is valid

My consciousness, that is, me sentience, is unique only in the way that it is my own.

but it is entirely contradictory to this part

all aspects of consciousness can be explained in a materialistic and neurological way

simply because 'your own' is a unique ontological fact, whereas all materials are never 'your own'.

It is that very 'your own'-ness that cannot be replicated, because even if we did try to replicate your brain,
then :

either 'your own'-ness is present in both brains - and thus independent of them
- or -
your duplicate will have (mysteriously) its very own, 'own-ness', and thus it will not actually be 'your own',
- or -
it will be an inanimate corpse - which I believe will be what happens.

There are logically only really 3 possibilities - none of which can actually replicate your 'own-ness'
and also keep the idea of
your unique self being a subset of a non-unique arrangement of atoms.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This thought-experiment proves that the mind simply cannot be completely a product of the brain.

Proof of the Soul - Pandora's Contraption - Part 2

(A St Patrick's day blessing)

Can you provide an example of there ever having been a mind that existed without the benefit of a brain? If the mind is NOT the product of a brain then I would think we'd have numerous examples of minds existing without brains.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Individual conditioning and programming, simple.

But we all (hopefully) have a unique sense of self.
At which point do we become separate from the 'all-energy'?
Our memories are also focused on 'I'.
After we die, do these memories join with the all-energy?
If so, then that 'I' still exists in order for those memories to be what they are.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This part is valid


but it is entirely contradictory to this part


simply because 'your own' is a unique ontological fact, whereas all materials are never 'your own'.

It is that very 'your own'-ness that cannot be replicated, because even if we did try to replicate your brain,
then :

either 'your own'-ness is present in both brains - and thus independent of them
- or -
your duplicate will have (mysteriously) its very own, 'own-ness', and thus it will not actually be 'your own',
- or -
it will be an inanimate corpse - which I believe will be what happens.

There are logically only really 3 possibilities - none of which can actually replicate your 'own-ness'
and also keep the idea of
your unique self being a subset of a non-unique arrangement of atoms.

"your duplicate will have (mysteriously) its very own, 'own-ness', and thus it will not actually be 'your own',"

The instant a single individual is duplicated they start existing at two separate individuals, each with their 'own' own-ness.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No, the atoms themselves are not consciousness... but the functions the atom perform within the structure of a brain do serve to create consciousness.

You missed the point.

the functions that atoms perform within the structure of a brain
- are not unique -
your consciousness is unique
- therefore -
your consciousness is not entirely a subset of :
the functions that atoms perform within the structure of a brain
because
those functions are
not unique
but
YOU
are unique

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Can you provide an example of there ever having been a mind that existed without the benefit of a brain? If the mind is NOT the product of a brain then I would think we'd have numerous examples of minds existing without brains.

The argument of the thread is a logical argument.
So asking for empirical examples is another issue entirely.
It would only make sense to pursue the empirical beyond the logical,
if one already accepts that the logic has given grounds for such a pursuit.

So if you want me to go beyond the logical, into the empirical,
I'd be willing to give it a try, in another thread.
But first you have to accept that the logic is correct.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

"your duplicate will have (mysteriously) its very own, 'own-ness', and thus it will not actually be 'your own',"

The instant a single individual is duplicated they start existing at two separate individuals, each with their 'own' own-ness.

How can you be so sure?
My argument does not presume to make claims directly about what 'will' occur.
Thus I provide all the logical possibilities.

If your clone does (mysteriously) have its own own-ness, then it is still not YOU.

It could be that a soul incarnates into it, or God creates a new soul for it, or whatever.
It could even 'emerge' out of nothing if those mysterious words suit your historical narrative.
It matters not HOW this occurs, for the sake of this argument.

Either way, it will not be you.

Thus it can only be that the exact replica of your brain will not contain your consciousness.
Thus YOU are not a product of the arrangement of material of your brain. (Nor the material itself)

Thus
the soul
is not
the brain.

ps
Mr Randi, (of JREF forum fame)
if you are reading this,
that is now at least $2million dollars that you owe me.

But thats ok, I know you are likely not good to your word.
The goons running JREF are testament to that.

I'll pick up the $ in the afterlife,
that way God or Jesus can compound the interest.
And besides,
the longer you wait to pay me
the more million$ you owe me.

I'll own your soul for dozens of lifetimes at this rate.
Lord knows if you pay me
I'll probably give up philosophy and
get the urge to procreate instead.

So keep upping the ante.
I'm just getting warmed up.

;-j

 

[psychoslice]

But we all (hopefully) have a unique sense of self.
At which point do we become separate from the 'all-energy'?
Our memories are also focused on 'I'.
After we die, do these memories join with the all-energy?
If so, then that 'I' still exists in order for those memories to be what they are.

Yes we all have a unique sense of self, and that is because we all have a unique conditioning and programming plus whatever gen we inherited, this is the self. But we are more than the mere self, we are all One in Consciousness, or Source, or even God if you like that label which I personally don't. We can never be separate from the Source, there is only One, so if we are all One, then who or what can continue on ?.

The conditioning and programming isn't who we are, even though most believe it to be who they are, try to imagine yourself continuing on without your conditioning, and tell me who or what continues on ?.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Yes we all have a unique sense of self, and that is because we all have a unique conditioning and programming plus whatever gen we inherited, this is the self. But we are more than the mere self, we are all One in Consciousness, or Source, or even God if you like that label which I personally don't. We can never be separate from the Source, there is only One, so if we are all One, then who or what can continue on ?.

The conditioning and programming isn't who we are, even though most believe it to be who they are, try to imagine yourself continuing on without your conditioning, and tell me who or what continues on ?.

If all is purely and precisely ONE,
then there would be no need or cause for separation.

What continues on is your uniqueness.
Whereas the conditioning, the brain, and that which can be copied does not continue on.

I could go beyond that, but this thread is just to prove that a unique 'I' is different from the brain,
for the simple reason that the unique 'I' is, well unique, but the brain is simply not.
I call this unique 'I', the soul. Yes its just a label.

In order to go beyond this point, the foundation that the soul exists, must be agreed on.
The logic is immaculate.

The details as to how, why, when. Yes. Those have not been touched.
We are only scratching the surface.
Some are just polishing the surface.