Seriously the ship would be built in space. It would use argon rather than xenon as propellent. It would lack a warp (they are still working on that aspect) but could reach the moon in three days and Mars in three months. NASA is working on a Q thruster that resembles the impulse engines on the Enterprise. Fusion engines are within a generation or two of being realized.
No warp engines? Your kidding me?
You will be telling me next it does not have a matter transporter.
[Susan Blackmore] would know that anesthesia proves nothing about consciousness being located in the brain.
It shows that consciousness depends on brain processes. Interfere with the processes and consciousness disappears.
Yes, you can always come up with more complex and convoluted hypotheses to preserve dualism but then you're adding extra assumptions that are not actually required (think of Occam's razor).
The job of a hypothesis is to explain the phenomenon - not to preserve a belief system.
I thought that several times now I pointed out that scientists' belief that they can find a location in the brain that is the same as what the person is experiencing, is not true.
It's not what scientists believe so yet again, an argument is being made against a position that's not held. The search for a neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) yielded negative results. This was what led on to consciousness being thought of as an emergent property.
! Well this has all the making of a religious thread.
Lot who are incapable of facing reality using words like; I think, I believe, I hope... IE randomness with no substance and that they never back up with anything.
My goodness me, now you are asking. I only came across Hofstadter today but I'm certainly going to read up some more on his thinking. It does seem to be based on science though, in particular tangled hierarchy consciousness otherwise known as Strange Loops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop#Strange_loops_in_cognitive_science
How he gets there I don't yet fully understand but his conclusion seems to be that our individual consciousness is not exclusive to us, and that bits of our consciousness also reside in the brains of others whom we know. Conversely, bits of their consciousness reside in our own brain, perhaps as influences* on our thinking (*my interpretation). If we extend this concept to the current thread, I suppose you could argue that we live on through the minds of others whom we know.
Distributed consciousness as he calls it is a bit of a mind twister I know, my brain hurts already, but I am interested enough to want to know more. I may have more to say about it later, when I've read up some more on his ideas.
Thanks for that.
Have to admit this strange loops idea sounds to me like little more than a recasting of the old idea that our identities are created by our experiences and our mutual interactions with others; feedback about our behaviour etc. i.e. nurture over nature. If you discover he is saying any more than that would be interested to hear what it is.
Sure I am a bit of a sceptic but my antenna sense old ideas being given new clothes.
No I don't recall knowing any PBUs. For a moment there I thought you were channeling Susan Blackmore, but then I remembered she is retired. Even she would know that anesthesia proves nothing about consciousness being located in the brain.
I thought that several times now I pointed out that scientists' belief that they can find a location in the brain that is the same as what the person is experiencing, is not true. A scientist for example could stimulate a part of my brain that makes me *feel* like I am a bat, but it does not give me actual *bat consciousness*.
From this we can conclude that we do not know that much about consciousness after all.
What we know about the brain is very limited. In many cases we cannot cure depression and throw drugs at the brain. We can simulate violence but we cannot predict who will be violent. We cannot correct the neural pathways that do not function in schizophrenia. In essence we remain fairly ignorant of the brain.
it is true that the brain is very complicated and there is still a lot about it that scientists don't know. But that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to suggest that consciousness can exist without it!
A Boeing 747 is a complicated machine. I'm not an aeronautical engineer and don't understand fully how it works. I don't know what all those buttons, levers and flashing lights in the cockpit do and I don't fully understand how a jet engine works.
But what I do know is that if I was flying in a Boeing 747 at 30,000 feet and that aeroplane would suddenly completely break down or even cease to exist, then I would start falling towards the ground very quickly.
The fact that I don't fully understand it doesn't mean that it would be reasonable for me to suggest that I might continue to fly through the air without it!
Why can't you believe such people can be mistaken?
A lot of people believe in such things and may well believe them sincerely, but as the evidence to support such ideas is poor (to say the least) then the obvious conclusion is that they are mistaken.
Subjective experiences, etc., are not a good guide to reality.
Partly because I don't feel the need to adopt a definite position. I'm quite happy to entertain the notion that such phenomena could be genuine and that science has more to learn, albeit that I can't for the life of me yet see how to fit it in.
As regards subjective experience - the point I am making is that science cannot define it. It cannot define my experience of 'red' for instance. This is a standard issue - nothing new about it.
But to discuss this I think we'd need to establish first whether you would agree that subjective experience is real. You could argue, for instance, that there is no objective self and that therefore subjective experience does not actually exist at all. I know you hold the view that we are basically biological robots - so that might possibly be your position.
Partly because I don't feel the need to adopt a definite position. I'm quite happy to entertain the notion that such phenomena could be genuine and that science has more to learn, albeit that I can't for the life of me yet see how to fit it in.
As regards subjective experience - the point I am making is that science cannot define it. It cannot define my experience of 'red' for instance. This is a standard issue - nothing new about it.
But to discuss this I think we'd need to establish first whether you would agree that subjective experience is real. You could argue, for instance, that there is no objective self and that therefore subjective experience does not actually exist at all. I know you hold the view that we are basically biological robots - so that might possibly be your position.
Red is what your socialisation and inculcation of language has taught you to call a particular physical stimulus. There is no problem. As for science not being able to describe red neither can you or I except of course by saying it is red. Science can explain which parts of your eye and your neural system respond to the wavelength of red what more could there be?
Describe red is an imaginary philosophical problem on a par with how do you dance a chocolate gateau.
it is true that the brain is very complicated and there is still a lot about it that scientists don't know. But that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to suggest that consciousness can exist without it!
A Boeing 747 is a complicated machine. I'm not an aeronautical engineer and don't understand fully how it works. I don't know what all those buttons, levers and flashing lights in the cockpit do and I don't fully understand how a jet engine works.
But what I do know is that if I was flying in a Boeing 747 at 30,000 feet and that aeroplane would suddenly completely break down or even cease to exist, then I would start falling towards the ground very quickly.
The fact that I don't fully understand it doesn't mean that it would be reasonable for me to suggest that I might continue to fly through the air without it!
Cracking post, not heard that analogy is it original?
Red is what your socialisation and inculcation of language has taught you to call a particular physical stimulus. There is no problem. As for science not being able to describe red neither can you or I except of course by saying it is red. Science can explain which parts of your eye and your neural system respond to the wavelength of red what more could there be?
Describe red is an imaginary philosophical problem on a par with how do you dance a chocolate gateau.
That fact that I can't explain to you what my experience of red is doesn't mean I don't have the experience of red.
If I could explain it to you in words it would probably put it in the domain of science anyway, whereas my contention is that it's not in that domain.
So I still think it's a fair question. My experience of red is real to me and is something that can't be investigated scientifically. So, if I want to investigate that experience, only I can do it.
Red is what your socialisation and inculcation of language has taught you to call a particular physical stimulus. There is no problem. As for science not being able to describe red neither can you or I except of course by saying it is red. Science can explain which parts of your eye and your neural system respond to the wavelength of red what more could there be?
Describe red is an imaginary philosophical problem on a par with how do you dance a chocolate gateau.
Oppositionals - red is not any of the other colours. I realise that is probably the least helpful post I ever made.
Partly because I don't feel the need to adopt a definite position. I'm quite happy to entertain the notion that such phenomena could be genuine and that science has more to learn, albeit that I can't for the life of me yet see how to fit it in.
Why not adopt a provisional position? Science doesn't accept the claims of things such as remote viewing because in order for it to be real, it would operate outside the known laws of physics and there's no good evidence to support it.
It's highly unlikely that science will discover something in the future that will make remote viewing (etc.) suddenly become real when they weren't in the past.
Or is your fence-sitting more a case of wanting to believe?
As regards subjective experience - the point I am making is that science cannot define it. It cannot define my experience of 'red' for instance. This is a standard issue - nothing new about it.
You're talking about 'qualia'. That's not the same thing as an ability to remote view - something that, if real, would be capable of producing tangible results.
But to discuss this I think we'd need to establish first whether you would agree that subjective experience is real.
Subjective experience is real. It's just that things like intuition, personal experience, perception, etc., are not a very good basis from which to understand complex issues.
That fact that I can't explain to you what my experience of red is doesn't mean I don't have the experience of red.
If I could explain it to you in words it would probably put it in the domain of science anyway, whereas my contention is that it's not in that domain.
So I still think it's a fair question. My experience of red is real to me and is something that can't be investigated scientifically. So, if I want to investigate that experience, only I can do it.
Of course it real to you. Science can explain why you experience the visual wavelengths known as red as I briefly explained. The cones in your visual organ detect them and in turn excite particular parts of your brain. You then experience what you have been taught to call red.
Not sure what you mean by the 'domain of science'.
Or is your fence-sitting more a case of wanting to believe?
You're talking about 'qualia'. That's not the same thing as an ability to remote view - something that, if real, would be capable of producing tangible results.
Subjective experience is real. It's just that things like intuition, personal experience, perception, etc., are not a very good basis from which to understand complex issues.
/snip/
You don't know that at all. I know that because it's not a view I hold.
I am adopting a provisional position - I don't see it as fence sitting. I don't think there's any particular wanting involved other than to understand.
I guess it depends what complex issues concern us. I'm interested in understanding consciousness, awareness, and the feeling of self --- so my subjective experiences of these things seem pretty valid to me.
I was sure I read a post of yours when you said we were all biological robots - maybe it was a joke or maybe I was mistaken. At any rate I can't find that post now. Thanks for the clarification.
Of course it real to you. Science can explain why you experience the visual wavelengths known as red as I briefly explained. The cones in your visual organ detect them and in turn excite particular parts of your brain. You then experience what you have been taught to call red.
Not sure what you mean by the 'domain of science'.
It relates back to a post I made earlier about philosophy (in this instance 'ghost in the machine') being useful to give perspective. So I wouldn't conclude that there actually is a ghost in the machine - but thinking about that example makes me realise that if I want to investigate the subjective experience of, say, freewill - the only tool I have is my own mind.
Just to add red cannot be described (apart from ascribing a symbol to to it i.e. the word red) because language is an audio and symbolic medium and red is a visual experience.
If we had a visual language we would similarly not be able to illustrate sounds. We can illustrate sounds by attempting to reproduce them The only reason we have a problem describing colours and not sounds is because we can both receive and emit sounds but we cannot emit colours. If we could we would no doubt have a visual language and this 'problem' of describing red would not exist.
Just to add red cannot be described (apart from ascribing a symbol to to it i.e. the word red) because language is an audio and symbolic medium and red is a visual experience.
If we had a visual language we would similarly not be able to illustrate sounds. We can illustrate sounds by attempting to reproduce them The only reason we have a problem describing colours and not sounds is because we can both receive and emit sounds but we cannot emit colours. If we could we would no doubt have a visual language and this 'problem' of describing red would not exist.
I'd never thought of that before. I don't know if it solves the problem entirely .... It feels as if it would work even better for touch ... smell not so much.
Just to add red cannot be described (apart from ascribing a symbol to to it i.e. the word red) because language is an audio and symbolic medium and red is a visual experience.
If we had a visual language we would similarly not be able to illustrate sounds. We can illustrate sounds by attempting to reproduce them The only reason we have a problem describing colours and not sounds is because we can both receive and emit sounds but we cannot emit colours. If we could we would no doubt have a visual language and this 'problem' of describing red would not exist.
If think if you sneaked up behind me and hit me on the head with a hammer I could manage to emit some red.
Is there a chance that Scientists in way into future can invent something that tells them where people go when they die?
or is that too impossible?
Its not a bad question, its just Technology is not limited, and they can find a way around it,
This can sort out this 50/50 Chance of Heaven and Hell stuff.
You actually do not know if Heaven an Hell exist, or reincarnation, Is there life after death?
I do not want to live believing in religion when we dont know for sure where were going!
Rubbish! I have been reliably informed on another thread that if I am a believer I will reach the highest level of heaven and be able to spend eternity throwing wet sponges at non believers.
Comments
No warp engines? Your kidding me?
You will be telling me next it does not have a matter transporter.
It shows that consciousness depends on brain processes. Interfere with the processes and consciousness disappears.
Yes, you can always come up with more complex and convoluted hypotheses to preserve dualism but then you're adding extra assumptions that are not actually required (think of Occam's razor).
The job of a hypothesis is to explain the phenomenon - not to preserve a belief system.
It's not what scientists believe so yet again, an argument is being made against a position that's not held. The search for a neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) yielded negative results. This was what led on to consciousness being thought of as an emergent property.
And ignorance (not knowing) is not the basis for forming hypotheses nor in supporting them.
Open your eyes!
Is it really just religious people who do this?
www.buildtheenterprise.org/
Thanks for that.
Have to admit this strange loops idea sounds to me like little more than a recasting of the old idea that our identities are created by our experiences and our mutual interactions with others; feedback about our behaviour etc. i.e. nurture over nature. If you discover he is saying any more than that would be interested to hear what it is.
Sure I am a bit of a sceptic but my antenna sense old ideas being given new clothes.
Yep NCC-1701 it ain't.
Hope I live to see even that though it is a giant step beyond the one sitting on my desk.
Dear me Maxwell - I genuinely thought neither of us was taking that exchange seriously. Clearly my mistake.
it is true that the brain is very complicated and there is still a lot about it that scientists don't know. But that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to suggest that consciousness can exist without it!
A Boeing 747 is a complicated machine. I'm not an aeronautical engineer and don't understand fully how it works. I don't know what all those buttons, levers and flashing lights in the cockpit do and I don't fully understand how a jet engine works.
But what I do know is that if I was flying in a Boeing 747 at 30,000 feet and that aeroplane would suddenly completely break down or even cease to exist, then I would start falling towards the ground very quickly.
The fact that I don't fully understand it doesn't mean that it would be reasonable for me to suggest that I might continue to fly through the air without it!
Partly because I don't feel the need to adopt a definite position. I'm quite happy to entertain the notion that such phenomena could be genuine and that science has more to learn, albeit that I can't for the life of me yet see how to fit it in.
As regards subjective experience - the point I am making is that science cannot define it. It cannot define my experience of 'red' for instance. This is a standard issue - nothing new about it.
But to discuss this I think we'd need to establish first whether you would agree that subjective experience is real. You could argue, for instance, that there is no objective self and that therefore subjective experience does not actually exist at all. I know you hold the view that we are basically biological robots - so that might possibly be your position.
Red is what your socialisation and inculcation of language has taught you to call a particular physical stimulus. There is no problem. As for science not being able to describe red neither can you or I except of course by saying it is red. Science can explain which parts of your eye and your neural system respond to the wavelength of red what more could there be?
Describe red is an imaginary philosophical problem on a par with how do you dance a chocolate gateau.
Cracking post, not heard that analogy is it original?
That fact that I can't explain to you what my experience of red is doesn't mean I don't have the experience of red.
If I could explain it to you in words it would probably put it in the domain of science anyway, whereas my contention is that it's not in that domain.
So I still think it's a fair question. My experience of red is real to me and is something that can't be investigated scientifically. So, if I want to investigate that experience, only I can do it.
Oppositionals - red is not any of the other colours. I realise that is probably the least helpful post I ever made.
Why not adopt a provisional position? Science doesn't accept the claims of things such as remote viewing because in order for it to be real, it would operate outside the known laws of physics and there's no good evidence to support it.
It's highly unlikely that science will discover something in the future that will make remote viewing (etc.) suddenly become real when they weren't in the past.
Or is your fence-sitting more a case of wanting to believe?
You're talking about 'qualia'. That's not the same thing as an ability to remote view - something that, if real, would be capable of producing tangible results.
Subjective experience is real. It's just that things like intuition, personal experience, perception, etc., are not a very good basis from which to understand complex issues.
Or that consciousness is an illusion just like a Japanese fence lizard in a pool of yoghurt being reflected in a mirror...
No, I'll leave that sort of clap-trap to the amateur philosophers!
You don't know that at all. I know that because it's not a view I hold.
You are correct on both counts.
Of course it real to you. Science can explain why you experience the visual wavelengths known as red as I briefly explained. The cones in your visual organ detect them and in turn excite particular parts of your brain. You then experience what you have been taught to call red.
Not sure what you mean by the 'domain of science'.
I am adopting a provisional position - I don't see it as fence sitting. I don't think there's any particular wanting involved other than to understand.
I guess it depends what complex issues concern us. I'm interested in understanding consciousness, awareness, and the feeling of self --- so my subjective experiences of these things seem pretty valid to me.
I was sure I read a post of yours when you said we were all biological robots - maybe it was a joke or maybe I was mistaken. At any rate I can't find that post now. Thanks for the clarification.
It relates back to a post I made earlier about philosophy (in this instance 'ghost in the machine') being useful to give perspective. So I wouldn't conclude that there actually is a ghost in the machine - but thinking about that example makes me realise that if I want to investigate the subjective experience of, say, freewill - the only tool I have is my own mind.
If we had a visual language we would similarly not be able to illustrate sounds. We can illustrate sounds by attempting to reproduce them The only reason we have a problem describing colours and not sounds is because we can both receive and emit sounds but we cannot emit colours. If we could we would no doubt have a visual language and this 'problem' of describing red would not exist.
I'd never thought of that before. I don't know if it solves the problem entirely .... It feels as if it would work even better for touch ... smell not so much.
If think if you sneaked up behind me and hit me on the head with a hammer I could manage to emit some red.
They already know. We go nowehere.
Rubbish! I have been reliably informed on another thread that if I am a believer I will reach the highest level of heaven and be able to spend eternity throwing wet sponges at non believers.