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.
Most likely one of mine droogie. Science is not going to say you're a biobot while it's unable to do the complex calculations on your trillions of trillions of bits so that it can predict your next move. You therefore get an effective theory of free will, but not as a fundamental feature, more of an admission of the inability to do the maths.
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.
It really doesn't show that consciousness disappears though. If you look at the EEG tests of patients under anesthesia, they show the same signs of response to speech. The difference is they cannot decode the speech.
This is similar to what happened to Taylor during her left brain stroke. She could hear speech but not decode it. Her right brain was fully conscious though.
We can see that consciousness did not disappear, as you say.
Again you generalize about what scientists think. They think different things, including belief in dual brain concept.
it is true that the brain is very complicated and there is still a lot about it that scientists don't knowp. 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!
If you insist on comparing consciousness to a Boeing, it is more apt to compare it to the energy that operates the plane. When the physical plane is gone, the energy exists. Possibly not in the form of a human who flies about. But most likely (to me and probably Buddhists ) the energy continues in some form.
Most likely one of mine droogie. Science is not going to say you're a biobot while it's unable to do the complex calculations on your trillions of trillions of bits so that it can predict your next move. You therefore get an effective theory of free will, but not as a fundamental feature, more of an admission of the inability to do the maths.
That underestimates the problem as the interaction of droogies trillions of bits with all the bits in the environment have to be taken into account as well. There is of course a compact device that can already do this. It is called the Universe.
If you insist on comparing consciousness to a Boeing, it is more apt to compare it to the energy that operates the plane. When the physical plane is gone, the energy exists. Possibly not in the form of a human who flies about. But most likely (to me and probably Buddhists ) the energy continues in some form.
I'd say it's more apt to compare consciousness to the software which controls the plane, which would cease to exist along with the hardware it's running on.
Also, if you insist on the "energy" analogy, the energy is derived from the fuel, which is also an understood concept, and would also, I assume, vanish along with the plane or, at the very least, would be rendered inert when the jet engines that are used to burn it and turn it into forward motion vanish.
If you insist on comparing consciousness to a Boeing, it is more apt to compare it to the energy that operates the plane. When the physical plane is gone, the energy exists. Possibly not in the form of a human who flies about. But most likely (to me and probably Buddhists ) the energy continues in some form.
You just don't get analogies at all do you? You actually have an interesting literal mindset for someone who asks us to recognise so many insubstantial phenomena.
That underestimates the problem as the interaction of droogies trillions of bits with all the bits in the environment have to be taken into account as well. There is of course a compact device that can already do this. It is called the Universe.
Any Iain M Banks fans out there? There's always the possibility we have an ubersmart culture spaceship hiding behind the moon, beaming mind-states off-planet as and when death occurs. (I really do have my fingers crossed on that one).
Opinion is divided in the Culture. How do you feel about sublimation?
The mind states are backups and duplication into a nice new manufactured body. Get resuscitated or turn up out of the blue and there's two different, divergent tehmazzylands. :cool:
I'd say it's more apt to compare consciousness to the software which controls the plane, which would cease to exist along with the hardware it's running on.
Also, if you insist on the "energy" analogy, the energy is derived from the fuel, which is also an understood concept, and would also, I assume, vanish along with the plane or, at the very least, would be rendered inert when the jet engines that are used to burn it and turn it into forward motion vanish.
You could recall that energy is not destroyed. It just exists in a different form. There is nothing that says consciousness has to be in forward motion.
You just don't get analogies at all do you? You actually have an interesting literal mindset for someone who asks us to recognise so many insubstantial phenomena.
I didn't choose the analogy of a Boeing so don't blame me. It's a lame analogy. A Boeing does not have self awareness.
TBH, I sometim es think that people who have "faith" in something, rather than relying on scientific understanding (and I'm not just talking about religion here), get a bit upset at the way science seems to have the ability to switch allegiences at the drop of a hat (or the finding of evidence).
It's kinda like people who have "faith" in something are picking their horse before the race starts whereas science can wait until the race starts and then bet on whichever horse goes into the lead and then decide to pick a different horse again whenever a new leader emerges.
I guess some people might see that as a rather timid, safe way to proceed but that's just what science does.
It looks at the available evidence, forms an opinion, continues to look at available evidence and reserves the right to change it's opinion if any new evidence warrants it.
That would be the ideal scientist but not always a realistic view of them. Many actively work to keep out subjects that threaten their world view, are biased in what gets chosen for study and rewards on punishes people in academia.
That would be the ideal scientist but not always a realistic view of them. Many actively work to keep out subjects that threaten their world view, are biased in what gets chosen for study and rewards on punishes people in academia.
What do you mean by "keep out subjects"? Are you suggesting some sort of groundbreaking work(s) of research are routinely repressed, or are you suggesting that scientists ought to be studying things that aren't covered by the scope of science (like the notion that some undefined aspect of your consciousness by some undefined mechanism persists in some undefined form in some undefined part of reality after you die)?
What do you mean by "keep out subjects"? Are you suggesting some sort of groundbreaking work(s) of research are routinely repressed, or are you suggesting that scientists ought to be studying things that aren't covered by the scope of science (like the notion that some undefined aspect of your consciousness by some undefined mechanism persists in some undefined form in some undefined part of reality after yoou die)?
Nah, I would never suggest that scientists refuse to admit certain areas of study into their protected domain or make the prejudice against certain subjects so strong that the funding for studying them is less than women spend annually on acrylic fingernails.
Opinion is divided in the Culture. How do you feel about sublimation?
The mind states are backups and duplication into a nice new manufactured body. Get resuscitated or turn up out of the blue and there's two different, divergent tehmazzylands. :cool:
Sublimation too meta - I'd rather stick it out in the messy part of the galaxy. I do occasionally cross my fingers and hope this is all a Grey Area simulated reality.
It'd be funny.
(And I'm always surprised, to go totally off topic, that modern ph/tablets aren't compared to culture's handhelds - Banks nailed it better than Asimov nailed the internet with his Multivac series).
You just don't get analogies at all do you? You actually have an interesting literal mindset for someone who asks us to recognise so many insubstantial phenomena.
I don't proselytize for you to recognize phenomena.
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.
We can of course emit smells although not voluntarily (with perhaps one exception) so it is not for us a suitable medium for a nuanced language.
However if we could produce a range of differentiated smells as we can with sound it would be quite possible to base a symbolic form of communication on it. Indeed we would then think in smells.
Sublimation too meta - I'd rather stick it out in the messy part of the galaxy. I do occasionally cross my fingers and hope this is all a Grey Area simulated reality.
It'd be funny.
(And I'm always surprised, to go totally off topic, that modern ph/tablets aren't compared to culture's handhelds - Banks nailed it better than Asimov nailed the internet with his Multivac series).
I'd rather the Culture just picked us up, wised us up, fixed us up and we could start partying.
I remember coming across the idea years ago when looking for info about people born with no brains. Not no brains but just a thin layer inside the skull with rest being cerebal fluid. It's not an idea I've given any thought to. You might recall I downgraded the brain as conceptual in nature.
Comments
Most likely one of mine droogie. Science is not going to say you're a biobot while it's unable to do the complex calculations on your trillions of trillions of bits so that it can predict your next move. You therefore get an effective theory of free will, but not as a fundamental feature, more of an admission of the inability to do the maths.
It really doesn't show that consciousness disappears though. If you look at the EEG tests of patients under anesthesia, they show the same signs of response to speech. The difference is they cannot decode the speech.
This is similar to what happened to Taylor during her left brain stroke. She could hear speech but not decode it. Her right brain was fully conscious though.
We can see that consciousness did not disappear, as you say.
Again you generalize about what scientists think. They think different things, including belief in dual brain concept.
So far we have not explained consciousness.
If you insist on comparing consciousness to a Boeing, it is more apt to compare it to the energy that operates the plane. When the physical plane is gone, the energy exists. Possibly not in the form of a human who flies about. But most likely (to me and probably Buddhists ) the energy continues in some form.
That underestimates the problem as the interaction of droogies trillions of bits with all the bits in the environment have to be taken into account as well. There is of course a compact device that can already do this. It is called the Universe.
I'd say it's more apt to compare consciousness to the software which controls the plane, which would cease to exist along with the hardware it's running on.
Also, if you insist on the "energy" analogy, the energy is derived from the fuel, which is also an understood concept, and would also, I assume, vanish along with the plane or, at the very least, would be rendered inert when the jet engines that are used to burn it and turn it into forward motion vanish.
You just don't get analogies at all do you? You actually have an interesting literal mindset for someone who asks us to recognise so many insubstantial phenomena.
I agree. A unibot then!
Opinion is divided in the Culture. How do you feel about sublimation?
The mind states are backups and duplication into a nice new manufactured body. Get resuscitated or turn up out of the blue and there's two different, divergent tehmazzylands. :cool:
You could recall that energy is not destroyed. It just exists in a different form. There is nothing that says consciousness has to be in forward motion.
I didn't choose the analogy of a Boeing so don't blame me. It's a lame analogy. A Boeing does not have self awareness.
That would be the ideal scientist but not always a realistic view of them. Many actively work to keep out subjects that threaten their world view, are biased in what gets chosen for study and rewards on punishes people in academia.
What do you mean by "keep out subjects"? Are you suggesting some sort of groundbreaking work(s) of research are routinely repressed, or are you suggesting that scientists ought to be studying things that aren't covered by the scope of science (like the notion that some undefined aspect of your consciousness by some undefined mechanism persists in some undefined form in some undefined part of reality after you die)?
Nah, I would never suggest that scientists refuse to admit certain areas of study into their protected domain or make the prejudice against certain subjects so strong that the funding for studying them is less than women spend annually on acrylic fingernails.
Sublimation too meta - I'd rather stick it out in the messy part of the galaxy. I do occasionally cross my fingers and hope this is all a Grey Area simulated reality.
It'd be funny.
(And I'm always surprised, to go totally off topic, that modern ph/tablets aren't compared to culture's handhelds - Banks nailed it better than Asimov nailed the internet with his Multivac series).
I don't proselytize for you to recognize phenomena.
I am merely a defender of the faith(s).
Yes, the people that are dead.
We can of course emit smells although not voluntarily (with perhaps one exception) so it is not for us a suitable medium for a nuanced language.
However if we could produce a range of differentiated smells as we can with sound it would be quite possible to base a symbolic form of communication on it. Indeed we would then think in smells.
I'd rather the Culture just picked us up, wised us up, fixed us up and we could start partying.
This is what I tend to believe and just as there are no arguments to prove for that belief, there are no arguments that can prove against it.
Agreed - a Boeing is an inanimate object without human intervention.
A better analogy would be: do radio waves cease to exist because the radio no longer works?
What is that an analogy of?
One or two certainly that are still alive as well
OK and,,,,?
Why ask me?
I'm in the dock accused of excessive googling..:D
I remember coming across the idea years ago when looking for info about people born with no brains. Not no brains but just a thin layer inside the skull with rest being cerebal fluid. It's not an idea I've given any thought to. You might recall I downgraded the brain as conceptual in nature.
oh please! oh please!