The Nature of Purpose

[Quiddity]

Anyway, I think purpose in nature or the universe is a construct of the human brain. There is no purpose to nature or the universe, we merely imagine it. Which is why questions about the purpose of nature or the universe are often cognitively meaningless.

Which is why I made my sarcastic statement above.

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

Horse manure to the fifth power. Tell it to the courts and see if they buy it.

Feel free to support your assertion. I've offered a great deal of support for mine. Do you have any actual evidence that there's a non-determanistic element?


BTW. What does determanism vs non-determanism have to do with the legal system? I would no sooner ignore a crime than ignore an oil leak.

 

[Quiddity]

Feel free to support your assertion. I've offered a great deal of support for mine. Do you have any actual evidence that there's a non-determanistic element?[/color]


BTW. What does determanism vs non-determanism have to do with the legal system? I would no sooner ignore a crime than ignore an oil leak.

I could have sworn we were talking about free will and not determinism. Perhaps we should continue this in: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23415&page=2&pp=10

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

OK, responded to on other thread.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

That's an odd definition. What is "reduceable"?

Something is reducible if it can be understood by understanding its structure or constuient parts. Modern science has been dominated by reductionism. The classical example is that biology depends on chemistry and chemistry depends on physics.

I don't agree that will is free. I'm not sure how you mean "creative" here.

Are you arguing people do not feel like they have freewill, or are you arguing that there is evidence that we do not have freewill?

As far as the word "creative", I mean something that comes into being (like an idea) from something that is not-reducible. Because it is not reducible, then the causal relationship cannot be understood by formal logic or mathematics.

Your assertion: Your consiousness is not phyical.
My point of fact: Your consiousness can be altered physically by drugs, a stroke, a lobotomy, etc.
My conclusion: Your consiousness is indeed physical as it is physically alterable.

All that demonstrates is that there is an interface between the physical and the consciousness. That is like saying that I must be in your computer because I can interact with you through it.

I should point out what I mean by "physical". If something is physical, then I believe its consituent attributes can be quantified, or measured. I do not believe our consciousness can be quantified or measured. This is the big problem with the idea that our awareness arises out of structure and order.

 

[JerryL]

Something is reducible if it can be understood by understanding its structure or constuient parts. Modern science has been dominated by reductionism. The classical example is that biology depends on chemistry and chemistry depends on physics.

So then you assert that God cannot be understood by understanding his attributes (good, perfect, all-knowing, etc)?

Are you arguing people do not feel like they have freewill, or are you arguing that there is evidence that we do not have freewill?

I see no support that there's actually "freewill" (depending on your definition of the word). To be specific, we seem to be completely determanistic.

As far as the word "creative", I mean something that comes into being (like an idea) from something that is not-reducible. Because it is not reducible, then the causal relationship cannot be understood by formal logic or mathematics.

Nothing, in my experience, "comes into being"; unless you are discussing reorders as "things".

All that demonstrates is that there is an interface between the physical and the consciousness. That is like saying that I must be in your computer because I can interact with you through it.

Occam's razor does the rest. You need some support for your claim that there is more. You have none.

I should point out what I mean by "physical". If something is physical, then I believe its consituent attributes can be quantified, or measured. I do not believe our consciousness can be quantified or measured. This is the big problem with the idea that our awareness arises out of structure and order.

That appears to be merely a problem of capacity not ability... much like Newton's lack of capacty to count atoms.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

So then you assert that God cannot be understood by understanding his attributes (good, perfect, all-knowing, etc)?

God's attributes describe him, but they are not sub-components or building blocks, so it really does not have anything to do with reducibility in the scientific sense.

It is also important to note that the attributes you have mentioned (good, perfect, all-knowing) are qualitative and not quantitative in nature (they are infinite and therefore immeasurable).

I see no support that there's actually "freewill" (depending on your definition of the word). To be specific, we seem to be completely determanistic.

No support? Of course there is! People sense that they have freewill. It seems if you are to claim that this perception is an illusion, you ought to be the one coming up with evidence for that.

If I see an apple sitting on a plate, I am going to assume the apple is real unless you provide me evidence otherwise.

Nothing, in my experience, "comes into being"; unless you are discussing reorders as "things".

Ok. Are you saying:

1) You know how everything is caused and based on that you know that nothing "comes into being"

- or -

2) For the set of all things that we know the causes for it is true that they happen to be things that we can know the cause for

If it is (2) then it seems meaningless to me.

> All that demonstrates is that there is an interface between the physical and the consciousness. That is like saying that I must be in your computer because I can interact with you through it.

Occam's razor does the rest. You need some support for your claim that there is more. You have none.

My support is argued in the paragraph below, so we can argue that. And you may have to be more specific as to why you think Occam's Razor is relevant. If something is epistimically pleasing to you that does not necessarily mean it is the simpliest option that fits all of the givens.

That appears to be merely a problem of capacity not ability... much like Newton's lack of capacty to count atoms.

So using the tools of logic and mathematics, is it in principle possible to completely capture all that is real about the pain associated with having a tooth pulled out? For example, if we had sufficient technology, could we create these sensations of pain within a computer, and if so, how could we validate that the computer is actually feeling the pain?

 

[JerryL]

God's attributes describe him, but they are not sub-components or building blocks, so it really does not have anything to do with reducibility in the scientific sense.

So then "logic" didn't need to exist for a logical God? Why do you hold reality to a different standard and assert that logic "exists"?

No support? Of course there is! People sense that they have freewill. It seems if you are to claim that this perception is an illusion, you ought to be the one coming up with evidence for that.

I have free will because I think I do? That's not very good support.

If I see an apple sitting on a plate, I am going to assume the apple is real unless you provide me evidence otherwise.

So you've seen free will? What color is it?

Ok. Are you saying:

I'm saying, reordering of existing things not withstanding, I'm not aware that anything ever came into being.

So using the tools of logic and mathematics, is it in principle possible to completely capture all that is real about the pain associated with having a tooth pulled out? For example, if we had sufficient technology, could we create these sensations of pain within a computer, and if so, how could we validate that the computer is actually feeling the pain?

Not only could we create them within a computer, we could fake them within a person.

I can beat "pain" and get on something far more "spiritual" (and similar to "feeling freewill"). I present to you, the God helmet:

http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm

 

[Nick Soapdish]

So then "logic" didn't need to exist for a logical God? Why do you hold reality to a different standard and assert that logic "exists"?

So what kind of logic are you asking about? Formal? Modal? Predicate? Symbolic? Quantum? Mathematic? Fuzzy? To me, it is like asking if "English" needed to exist in order for God to exist.

I think I now see where you are coming from and I believe you have a foundational assumption that is wrong. Logic is not something that is uncovered, but rather it is something that we invent. It is a tool we use to help us understand the world around us, but there is no universal logic.

It's no wonder you believe that things like God and consciousness must be able to be reduced completely into statements of logic--you believe logic is fundamental. Admittedly, this is desirable from an epistemic perspective because it suggests there is nothing in existence that we cannot grasp and/or encode into formulas. If I shared that assumption, I too would not believe in God.

However, we have very good reasons to believe that this is not the case. In the world of formal logic, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems show us that it is not possible for there to exist a formal system which is able to prove all mathematical truths but no falsehoods. Furthermore, Wittgenstein's philosophy illustrates the necessary gap between syntax and semantics.

In my experience, when the universal logic assumption is dropped, things suddenly make a lot more sense, from quantum physics to morality. Our language, mathematics and logic become realized for just what they are: abstractions.

I have free will because I think I do? That's not very good support.

To conclude otherwise is to be skeptical for the sake of being skeptical. Your faith must be strong in your worldview to doubt personal experience and intuition in the absence of any evidence to do so.

Not only could we create them within a computer

Really? Could we then encode all of the logical operations and memory stores from the computer simulation into a giant book and pronounce the book as being conscious?

we could fake them within a person.

I can beat "pain" and get on something far more "spiritual" (and similar to "feeling freewill"). I present to you, the God helmet:

http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm

This still proves nothing to me. It just shows more evidence that the brain is connected to the soul, just as my hand is connected to my brain.

If you think I am not understanding your challenge in the "God Helmet", please point out what you would like me to address. I'm not even sure I have experienced the sensation of spirituality they are talking about. My affiliation with Christianity is based on faith, not some mystical experience.

 

[JerryL]

So what kind of logic are you asking about? Formal? Modal? Predicate? Symbolic? Quantum? Mathematic? Fuzzy? To me, it is like asking if "English" needed to exist in order for God to exist.

Any that apply to god.

I'm aware of only one logic, mathmatical logic.

I think I now see where you are coming from and I believe you have a foundational assumption that is wrong. Logic is not something that is uncovered, but rather it is something that we invent. It is a tool we use to help us understand the world around us, but there is no universal logic.

That an apple is an apple (relexive logic) is not true because of an invention of ours. It's true because it's true (also reflexive logic). This was not invented, and it is not a "thing".

It's no wonder you believe that things like God and consciousness must be able to be reduced completely into statements of logic--you believe logic is fundamental. Admittedly, this is desirable from an epistemic perspective because it suggests there is nothing in existence that we cannot grasp and/or encode into formulas. If I shared that assumption, I too would not believe in God.

If logic is a human invention, then God was not logical before people invented it?

However, we have very good reasons to believe that this is not the case. In the world of formal logic, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems show us that it is not possible for there to exist a formal system which is able to prove all mathematical truths but no falsehoods. Furthermore, Wittgenstein's philosophy illustrates the necessary gap between syntax and semantics.

In my experience, when the universal logic assumption is dropped, things suddenly make a lot more sense, from quantum physics to morality. Our language, mathematics and logic become realized for just what they are: abstractions.

No clue what you are referring to.

To conclude otherwise is to be skeptical for the sake of being skeptical. Your faith must be strong in your worldview to doubt personal experience and intuition in the absence of any evidence to do so.

So anything anyone "feels" is neccessairily true? That doesn't seem a useful standard.

I feel like matter is solid, but it turns out it's made of little parts.
I intuit that time is immaliable, but it turns out you can move through it at different speeds.

I long ago gave up on "it feels right" as a way to ovveride what the data and logic tells me. Logic tells me that freewill is an impossible concept. Free from what?

This still proves nothing to me. It just shows more evidence that the brain is connected to the soul, just as my hand is connected to my brain.

It should prove to you the unreliability of "sense". The "sense" of free will gets the same credulity as the "sense" of God's presence. Turns out the second has actually been pinned down.

If you think I am not understanding your challenge in the "God Helmet", please point out what you would like me to address. I'm not even sure I have experienced the sensation of spirituality they are talking about. My affiliation with Christianity is based on faith, not some mystical experience.

You argued that pain was metaphysical. I showed that "feeling the presence of God" is physical. Do you really not believe that pain is also physical? Shall we discuss the pleasure and pain centers in your brain?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I'm aware of only one logic, mathmatical logic.

That's odd, you seem to be competent with informal logic.

That an apple is an apple (relexive logic) is not true because of an invention of ours. It's true because it's true (also reflexive logic). This was not invented, and it is not a "thing".

Yes, the reality exists independently of us (including mathematic reality!), but our logic is an abstraction of it. Logic and language may reveal reality, but they are not equivalent to the reality.

I should point out that I think we can know truths in a very real way (I am a platonist in this sense), but we should recognize these truths cannot be completely reduced to statements of logic. If there were a way we could encode truths completely, we would never have to worry about miscommunication again!

If logic is a human invention, then God was not logical before people invented it?

Well, God was real before people invented logic. Logic helps us understand the truth about God.

No clue what you are referring to.

It is pivotal to the discussion. Kurt Godel is generally regarded as the most philosophically significant logician in the 20th century. I encourage you to read about his Incompleteness Theorems and their implications--particularly since you seem to regard mathematical logic as foundational. Here they are:

1. For any consistent formal theory including basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true but not included in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete.

2. For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.

Here is a time article that has a simplfied description of his theorems: http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/godel.html

It basically means any attempt we have at formalizing mathematics is doomed to fail. The truths are out there, but our language and logic is not rich enough to grasp them completely.

Also, I found this paper that applies his incompleteness to science: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002116/

So anything anyone "feels" is neccessairily true? That doesn't seem a useful standard.

I feel like matter is solid, but it turns out it's made of little parts.
I intuit that time is immaliable, but it turns out you can move through it at different speeds.

If I sense something to be true, it is a good assumption to believe it is unless confronted with evidence that suggests otherwise. Wouldn't you agree?

I long ago gave up on "it feels right" as a way to ovveride what the data and logic tells me. Logic tells me that freewill is an impossible concept. Free from what?

Freewill means self-determined, and not determined from something external. As I said before, I believe your "logic" is based on a poor assumption.

It should prove to you the unreliability of "sense". The "sense" of free will gets the same credulity as the "sense" of God's presence. Turns out the second has actually been pinned down.

I still don't get the "sense" of God's presence as described in that link. Also, I am confused by what you say because our "sense" of freewill is not a temporary experience like this supposed "God experience".

You argued that pain was metaphysical. I showed that "feeling the presence of God" is physical. Do you really not believe that pain is also physical? Shall we discuss the pleasure and pain centers in your brain?

I argued that the conscious experience of pain was metaphysical. The communication of pain through the nervous system certainly is physical. There is no relevant difference between triggering that pain by zapping my arm and by stimulating some part of my brain. They are both part of my nervous system and have the same end result.

I noticed you didn't answer my question before. Can a book ever be conscious? Why or why not?

 

[Ex Machina]

Atofel, I agree that logic (though representitive of underlying truths) is a human method, and that the minds ultimately exists ina metaphysical reality.

However, I must dissagree with your reasoning in the issue of God and free will.

"If I sense something to be true, it is a good assumption to believe it is unless confronted with evidence that suggests otherwise. Wouldn't you agree?"

This propesition I agree with, in accordance with Occam's nifty shaving tool, however you havn't defined exactly what it is that you are sensing. If you sense that you have free will in the sense that:

a) You are able to make desicions.

b) You can act on those desicions at will if you are able to.

Then I cannot dissagree with you as I do too, and until I come up aginst any evidence against that I too will follow this conclusion. In that definition of free will, we are truely free.


However, that is not what I believe we are actually discussing when we say we "sense we have free will".

Do you sense that the underlying mechanics by which you make decisions occur independenly of the physical universe, purely within the inditerministic bounds of your mind/soul as opposed to being caused by any fundemental physcal reality?

That is somethign I certainly do not 'sense' in the slightest, though I assume this is what you are actually discussing. Our ability to 'chose', is completely irrelivent to the mechanics that underly that ability, we will still 'feel free' regardless of the methods that ultimately cause out choices.

Considering this, the prospect that one can 'feel free' and be determined by the physical universe are by no means mutualy exclusive, and considering this, the burdon of evidence strictly speaking is on the view that there is a seperate mental existance that can cause physical events. I do believe that a seperate mental existance does exist (the mind/soul), however I see no reason to believe that this existance can effect the physical, I hence only believe that the physical causes mental events, and this will remain my belief until any solid reasoning against it is produced in my witness.

On the matter of feelings being replicated by non neural structures, I do believe that this is possible, but only through a dynamic existance of that structure, so while the computer is a possible ethical dillema a book is at this point out of the question.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Do you sense that the underlying mechanics by which you make decisions occur independently of the physical universe, purely within the inditerministic bounds of your mind/soul as opposed to being caused by any fundemental physcal reality?

I think the main point is that I do not sense "mechanics" at all. Things which make decisions in a mechanical way have no reason to be conscious or aware. They just operate as is. It is because I am aware that I feel it is *me* making the decision that discredits the idea there are any mechanics at all.

For instance, there are many parts of my physical body that have very complex functions. But none of them are conscious nor free, because they are operating under the mechanical rules of nature. Our consciousness is different.

The consciousness is the instrument of freewill. When the consciousness is impaired, so is the freewill. When a person is unconscious, there is no freewill.

Our ability to 'chose', is completely irrelivent to the mechanics that underly that ability, we will still 'feel free' regardless of the methods that ultimately cause out choices.

Suppose you are correct.. that our will is determined by the underlying particles in our head, operating under the normal laws of physics. So what is it that binds my consciousness to *me*? Every particle in the Universe interacts with every other particle in the Universe at each moment. For every neuron firing in my brain, there is a cascade of causality that penetrates the whole Universe. How is it that each of us has our own consciousness, and each consciousness is completely independent? After all, physics tells us the material Universe is a holistic entity.

I do believe that this is possible, but only through a dynamic existance of that structure, so while the computer is a possible ethical dillema a book is at this point out of the question.

What do you mean by "dynamic"? Certainly, you must know a computer program is deterministic. Given the same initial conditions, it will run the same over and over again. What prevents us from capturing this pattern on to another format, such as a book?

An important consideration is that a computer simulation does not run in real-time, but rather virtual-time. A program is discrete in nature and is based on clock-cycles. The program can be paused, slowed down, sped up, whatever. The pain simulation could be run in 0.001 seconds or ten hours, depending on the clock speed.

Also, the electrons zipping through the processor are almost never the same electrons. They get shot out from the power supply like a fire hose. So what is this consciousness binding to exactly? If it is just the pattern of information, then the pattern can exist in a book too, instead of electron to electron, it would be page to page.

 

[Ex Machina]

I think the main point is that I do not sense "mechanics" at all. Things which make decisions in a mechanical way have no reason to be conscious or aware. They just operate as is. It is because I am aware that I feel it is *me* making the decision that discredits the idea there are any mechanics at all.

For instance, there are many parts of my physical body that have very complex functions. But none of them are conscious nor free, because they are operating under the mechanical rules of nature. Our consciousness is different.

I don't "sense mechanics" either, but the point is that whether or not the cause of our consciousness is physical, we aren't going to be able to sense what that cause is either way as there is no reason why it would somehow "feel different". Prehaps 'mechanics' was a bad choice of wording on my part, 'method' is more or less what I am getting at, though I'll explain my reasoning shortly. In any case, the mecanics of the rest of our body are purely functions, they are not there to allow us to understand things or to process information as the brain does, hence they do not support conitive function.

The consciousness is the instrument of freewill. When the consciousness is impaired, so is the freewill. When a person is unconscious, there is no freewill.

But who is to say what is the instrument of the other? Is it not quite as evident that the sun travels round the Earth as much as it is that consiousness is such a method?

Suppose you are correct.. that our will is determined by the underlying particles in our head, operating under the normal laws of physics. So what is it that binds my consciousness to *me*? Every particle in the Universe interacts with every other particle in the Universe at each moment. For every neuron firing in my brain, there is a cascade of causality that penetrates the whole Universe. How is it that each of us has our own consciousness, and each consciousness is completely independent? After all, physics tells us the material Universe is a holistic entity.

I don't believe that there is anything that binds 'your' consiousness to 'you' at all, or even that there is a 'you' so to speak. Say that your viable brain was removed from your head and effectively, quantum waveform for waveform, cloned. Say then each brain was cut in half in exactly the same way and then recombined with the opposing half of the other brain (so now you will have two rains, each consisting of one half of the original brain and one half of the cloned brain), then reinserted respectively into (literally brainless) clones of your original body. If you had an individual soul then what would happen to it?

Because of such principal events, I do not believe that we are strictly individuals, we are within ourselves seperately conscious because our brains are unable to communicate with each other directly. Since our brains are 'programmed' to believe that we are individuals, we do so, even though it is technicaly possible for all our brains to be hooked up into a collective mind. Mental intependence arises from physical independence.

What do you mean by "dynamic"? Certainly, you must know a computer program is deterministic. Given the same initial conditions, it will run the same over and over again. What prevents us from capturing this pattern on to another format, such as a book?

An important consideration is that a computer simulation does not run in real-time, but rather virtual-time. A program is discrete in nature and is based on clock-cycles. The program can be paused, slowed down, sped up, whatever. The pain simulation could be run in 0.001 seconds or ten hours, depending on the clock speed.

Also, the electrons zipping through the processor are almost never the same electrons. They get shot out from the power supply like a fire hose. So what is this consciousness binding to exactly? If it is just the pattern of information, then the pattern can exist in a book too, instead of electron to electron, it would be page to page.

Given the same initial conditions and no input, yes, of course it will run the same every time given nothing is faulty with the system itself. But I never argued against that in the first place, as sensory input of some form is necissary for a conscious program to exist (and necissary for a given program to actually be useful anyway).

By dynamic I mean a system that operates over time and is capable of receving input (and naturally of output assuming it is going to have any purpose). There has never been an instance in the natural world as far as I reason that has occured in exactly the same way, ever, and there is certainly no way that any human could replicate any instance manually, hence why determinism is untestable. This also means that the argument of initial conditions is compatable with my propesitions, as there is no way any two lifeforms could ever be exactly the same given the non-discrete nature of the universe.

The point here is that even though a computer system is in theory discrete, it exists in a non discret universe, meaning that even if we assume the system itself is unflawed, the input is recieves will still be non discrete, meaning no condition will be replicable.

On the point of the computer running in 'virtual-time', our brains do so also, speed up the neural process and we will preceive time at a slower relative rate, there is no such thing as 'real time' in this sense, all time is percieved at individual rates, hence a computer's speed is no different in that respect.

Now to make my point clear, a book has no speed, it is not dynamic, it does not recieve input other then what is initially printed on it and no actual processes occur within it. Hence it is static and cannot develop cognitively.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To the theist, the brain is not all there is to the mind. The human mind has a likeness of God, and that likeness is the portion of it that belongs outside of the physical Universe. Like the Matrix, we are "plugged-in" to the physical world to be active participants in inventing it through the actions of our will. But God is the foundational mind, the One that created the Universe's structure and order from the beginning.

The problem I have with this view is that it is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. No matter what observations are made, it would be impossible to falsify the claim that this existence is some kind of Matrix into which our noble "minds" (which, unlike our brains, did not evolve over hundreds of thousands of years) are plugged in. So I don't see any evidence for this idea.

It is certainly an attractive idea, that we humans are somehow inseperably different from all other life. There's no question that we're unique, but the fact that we evolved from more primitive hominids who evolved from ancient primates seems to indicate that there is no magical barrier. Creativity, intelligence, self-awareness; these are traits that lie on a continuum, not on one side of an impenetrable, magical barrier. This is somewhat humbling.

 

[Ex Machina]

Ex Machina, I am barely capable of responding to your logic. It took me 3 readings to figure our what you were saying, as I am not a highly educated smurf. (College dropout) That being said, I smell a wee flaw in the artistry of your argument.

The flaw lies in the assertion that it IS POSSIBLE to split a brain, clone it, split that, and then wrap it in a neat little bow and see what happens. You then smugly ask....
My friend, it is a flawed hypothesis, therefore the answer is not relevant. The last time I checked modern science was still a long way from pulling off such a stunt. Therefore the point is moot.

I'm sorry, I would have made myself clearer on what I was putting forward, but I was strapped for tiem at that point, I wasn't happy with it myself after re-reading it. But in any case to adress your conjecture, whether or not something is viable at this moment in time is irrelivent to the argument, the point that I was making is that it is possible in princible to alter the brain so that it could not possibly house the original 'soul' of that person intact presuming that the soul must be indivisable. There is no reason at all why such a procedure would be impossible, though we have no practical means of pulling it off at this current moment in time. A good philisophical argument need not rely on practical ability.

A more interesting attack might be launched by "the believers" to have science explain "creativity". I feel that our ability to create something from our little brains and in turn figure out how to actualize it in three dimensions is a pretty amazing feat. Bit of an amazing feat for a residual bodily function wouldnt you say?

Amazing, this is most certainly so. I am personaly thankful and awestruck by our own abilities as conscious beings to understand our own nature and that of the natural world in the way we do, equaly as much as I am dissapointed by our arrogence regarding our abuse of that environment.

Science cannot explain creativity here and now, but nor would I expect it to. Ultimately science is a method, a method by which we make discoveries about the natural world. But by studying the human mind we run into a paradox, in order to understand the workings of our own mind, we would need a mind vastly more complex to fully understand the patterns in our own mind which allow us to understand things.

Scientific modeling will only take us as far as to understand how somthing works mathematicly, it is not designed as a method to discern by what nature understanding arises, only to give us enough information to find the functions and purposes of things ourselves, if that is humanly possible.

However, in the end your opinion that the physical processes of the brain could not give rise to creativity is something that you cannot show in princible to be so.

On the other side of the equation in regards to our minds. If our minds are merely the electromagnetic/chemical reactions to bodily conditons I would have expected science to have duplicated consciousness in the laboratory by now.

Computers corrently lack the data to model brain functions in the lab, technology to scan the actual neral conditions of the brain structure as a whole is still being developed, and untill such technology becomes a reality, there is no way scientists are going to actualy understand how consciousness arises out of brain functions (if it does so at all). As I have said above, science simply does not allow us to understand exactly how consciousness occurs.

In any case, even if our mind is an act of God, it still doesn't explain why consciousness itself exists. For if God in his infinite understanding truely is so purposful, then he would naturally be of a conscious much greater then our. If that is so, then that still doesn't explain how consciousness (and hence purpose) is able to exist at all in the first place.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

In any case, the mecanics of the rest of our body are purely functions, they are not there to allow us to understand things or to process information as the brain does, hence they do not support conitive function.

There are many parts of the brain that process information and "understand things" but are not conscious.

I don't believe that there is anything that binds 'your' consiousness to 'you' at all, or even that there is a 'you' so to speak.

The problem is my consciousness is distinctly mine and not yours. Our consciousnesses are completely independent. Yet this physical Universe is one big pattern of activity, with no boundaries or lines to draw to specify where a consciousness starts and ends. Based on the popular "butterfly affect" in chaos theory, my neuron firings are changing the brain activity of people in Thailand and adjusting the rotation of the moon Titan around Saturn.

Say that your viable brain was removed from your head and effectively, quantum waveform for waveform, cloned. Say then each brain was cut in half in exactly the same way and then recombined with the opposing half of the other brain (so now you will have two rains, each consisting of one half of the original brain and one half of the cloned brain), then reinserted respectively into (literally brainless) clones of your original body. If you had an individual soul then what would happen to it?

Ymir is correct that this is a flawed argument, because you are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of reality. The first thing that sticks out is the ability to clone something "quantum waveform for waveform". Quantum physics seems to indicate this is not possible since we cannot know a particle's position and momentum at the same time, which would make it difficult to clone it.

Until you actually perform this experiment successfully, we will never know if it can be done without ending up with two dead brains (or two freaky zombies).

By dynamic I mean a system that operates over time

By simulating a real event on a computer, it treats time as being tenseless. This basically means the cause-effect relationship is simply a mathematic correlation. This correlation can be captured fully in a static record like a book.

The point here is that even though a computer system is in theory discrete, it exists in a non discret universe, meaning that even if we assume the system itself is unflawed, the input is recieves will still be non discrete, meaning no condition will be replicable.

But the inputs must be digitized in order for the computer to process them. If you recorded the inputs for the pain simulator, you could run it over and over again and have the same pain experience over and over again. It would basically be a closed system. Therefore, all of the inputs to the pain simulation could be captured in the book as well.

On the point of the computer running in 'virtual-time', our brains do so also, speed up the neural process and we will preceive time at a slower relative rate, there is no such thing as 'real time' in this sense, all time is percieved at individual rates, hence a computer's speed is no different in that respect.

What is your basis for claiming:

1) Our brains run in virtual time (where is the clock-cycle?)
2) Neural processes can be "sped up"

Lets look at a space shuttle launch simulator. The simulation takes place in virtual-space and virtual-time. We would not think the space occupied by the computer has anything to do with the space in the simulation. The same goes with the time.

But it makes no sense to say the real space shuttle launch takes place in virtual-space or virtual-time.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The problem I have with this view is that it is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. No matter what observations are made, it would be impossible to falsify the claim that this existence is some kind of Matrix into which our noble "minds" (which, unlike our brains, did not evolve over hundreds of thousands of years) are plugged in. So I don't see any evidence for this idea.

I agree that it is not scientific and that it is not falsifiable.

Observation leads to measurement, which in turn leads to formula. But I do not believe mathematic truths can exist on their own (I talk about this in another thread: Is Science Incomplete). Based on this, we have reason to believe there exists truths which are invisible to physical observation.

So the pointed question I have is, why is the skeptic adverse to adopting truths that cannot be falsified? Is it out of a fear of being wrong? It's like he doesn't want to go fishing in fear that he doesn't catch any fish.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So the pointed question I have is, why is the skeptic adverse to adopting truths that cannot be falsified? Is it out of a fear of being wrong? It's like he doesn't want to go fishing in fear that he doesn't catch any fish.

Oh, he wants to go fishing alright; he just has more confidence in a fishing rod than in groping about in the water with your eyes closed.

 

[JerryL]

Yes, the reality exists independently of us (including mathematic reality!), but our logic is an abstraction of it. Logic and language may reveal reality, but they are not equivalent to the reality.

Logic is a description of the function of reality.

Webster's definition of "law": 6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

I bring it up because I think it's appropriate. Math and logic are, in essence, groups of laws. A=A is certainly a law... a description.

I should point out that I think we can know truths in a very real way (I am a platonist in this sense), but we should recognize these truths cannot be completely reduced to statements of logic. If there were a way we could encode truths completely, we would never have to worry about miscommunication again!

I think math is (generally speaking) an incredibly clear language. I think the issues in quesiton are ones of communication, not of reality. I think, to steal from Mark Twain "a person that started in to carry a cat home by the tail was gitting knowledge that was always going to be useful to him, and warn't ever going to grow dim or doubtful"

a person that started in to carry a cat home by the tail was gitting knowledge that was always going to be useful to him, and warn't ever going to grow dim or doubtful

So then you agree that what logic describes is a description? This would establish my point.

It basically means any attempt we have at formalizing mathematics is doomed to fail. The truths are out there, but our language and logic is not rich enough to grasp them completely.

It seems, from what you've psoted, to say that no single law will be comprehensive. I don't see the relevence of this.

If I sense something to be true, it is a good assumption to believe it is unless confronted with evidence that suggests otherwise. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't. Though perhaps I'm omving the bar... the fact that unsubstantiated feelings about the metaphysical have so often been shown false is, itself, evidence against any feeling of the metaphysical.

When I feel like I'm forgetting something, I ask myself why and run through my options (note, I don't assume that I am forgetting something). In this case, my brain has sufficient knowledge for this to be potentially valid; though it's also commonly a result of simple anxiety).

While I certainly put a "sounds right" and "sounds wrong" initial judgement on things I'm not evaluating in depth; I essentially never make a leap in terms of belief based on it.

To use a metaphore: The complete lack of substantiateable telepaths is, itself, evidence that you are not telepathic.

Freewill means self-determined, and not determined from something external. As I said before, I believe your "logic" is based on a poor assumption.

What's "external". Does a computer have free-will because it's decisions are base don electronics and programming internal to itself?

I still don't get the "sense" of God's presence as described in that link. Also, I am confused by what you say because our "sense" of freewill is not a temporary experience like this supposed "God experience".

So now you offer the sustainablity of a perception as proof it's valid in its conclusion? I'd like to see your support for that.

I argued that the conscious experience of pain was metaphysical. The communication of pain through the nervous system certainly is physical. There is no relevant difference between triggering that pain by zapping my arm and by stimulating some part of my brain. They are both part of my nervous system and have the same end result.

But you can't support it.

I noticed you didn't answer my question before. Can a book ever be conscious? Why or why not?

No, a book cannot be conscious. It cannot because it lacks any method of percieving, and method of relaying that perception to processing, any method of processing, any thought, control, or ability to observe.

The real question is "can a computer ever be?". I suspect the answer is "yes".