|
On July 01 2013 23:48 xM(Z wrote:
placebo effect is a proof of how mind can > matter. just give it some time to learn. knowledge is power.
If the mind is physical, then things like the placebo effect are easy to explain because your mind is material to begin with. Obviously it can affect your material body.
In fact this makes the whole dualistic idea highly suspect. Why hasn't science found this yet even though it has very real effects and properties?
|
On July 01 2013 23:05 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 22:31 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 21:08 Prog wrote:
Just a little input for the physicalist majority here. If you claim that consciousness is physical, then you have to explain what 'physical' means. Now you either define it by pointing to current physics, which is (as history showed) probably (partially) false or incomplete. Or you point to ideal physics, which we have no clue how it looks like. Either way, you have a problem. [Hempel's Dilemma]
The alternative is to define physical by paradigmatic objects, like 'everything that is needed to explain this toaster', but that is terribly vague too. As history shows physics have not been false for few hundred of years. It was just not accurate enough. All changes in physics in that time were discoveries that we are not correct in some special cases. So your point would be valid only in case that physics is inaccurate in the area that pertains to mental processes. That is most likely not the case as current physics is extremely accurate in that area, there is just no space for error significant enough in that area. Thus Hempel's dilemma is avoided as consciousness is not outside of current physics and that dilemma depends on that. All those objections remind me of this quote that perfectly shows relationship between science and philosophy(discipline, not subjective model of the world): Science meanwhile advances at its gradual pace, often slowing to a crawl, and for periods it even walks in place, but eventually it reaches the various ultimate trenches dug by philosophical thought, and, quite heedless of the fact that it is not supposed to be able to cross those final barriers to the intellect, goes right on. extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof. if you really believe that... hm... how would one call a science believer beyond logical reason like you? is there a name for this? imagine the perspective of an ant, how narrow it is. we as humans believe to have a so much broader and more objective perspective. but what if...... WHAT IF..... our perspective was as limited as an ant's? if we had so little grasp on "the whole", that we could never possibly understand it, just like an ant will never do rocket science. just saying...
Read my other post, where I clearly say we are very likely quite severely intellectually limited to see that your accusation is baseless. I am not "science believer beyond logical reason" as I multiple times said science is quite often wrong from the point of some "ideal knowledge". My point is that
a) science actually makes no pretense that it has final knowledge or even that it has truth in any way. Just that it generates more and more accurate models. We still use Newton's equations even though they are "wrong". That is because they are quite often good enough. Relativity did not invalidate Newton's theory it showed the limits of its use (and additionally gave us tools that work beyond those limits). The same is true for any mature science. It can be conceptually wrong, but its models have to work to significant extent as otherwise it would not be a mature science. And if they work, they do not stop working once we find out better ones, or once we find out some conceptual problems.
b) no other epistemological method has any objective validity
And what I was trying to say in the post you reacted to is that human brain functioning is well within the area where our current physics is extremely accurate.
|
On July 01 2013 23:11 Cynry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 23:05 beg wrote:On July 01 2013 22:31 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 21:08 Prog wrote:
Just a little input for the physicalist majority here. If you claim that consciousness is physical, then you have to explain what 'physical' means. Now you either define it by pointing to current physics, which is (as history showed) probably (partially) false or incomplete. Or you point to ideal physics, which we have no clue how it looks like. Either way, you have a problem. [Hempel's Dilemma]
The alternative is to define physical by paradigmatic objects, like 'everything that is needed to explain this toaster', but that is terribly vague too. As history shows physics have not been false for few hundred of years. It was just not accurate enough. All changes in physics in that time were discoveries that we are not correct in some special cases. So your point would be valid only in case that physics is inaccurate in the area that pertains to mental processes. That is most likely not the case as current physics is extremely accurate in that area, there is just no space for error significant enough in that area. Thus Hempel's dilemma is avoided as consciousness is not outside of current physics and that dilemma depends on that. All those objections remind me of this quote that perfectly shows relationship between science and philosophy(discipline, not subjective model of the world): Science meanwhile advances at its gradual pace, often slowing to a crawl, and for periods it even walks in place, but eventually it reaches the various ultimate trenches dug by philosophical thought, and, quite heedless of the fact that it is not supposed to be able to cross those final barriers to the intellect, goes right on. extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof. if you really believe that... hm... how would one call a science believer beyond logical reason like you? is there a name for this? imagine the perspective of an ant, how narrow it is. we as humans believe to have a so much broader and more objective perspective. but what if...... WHAT IF..... our perspective was as limited as an ant's? if we had so little grasp on "the whole", that we could never possibly understand it, just like an ant will never do rocket science. just saying... The ant doesn't have abstract thinking, we do. I am not saying for sure we can understand everything, but we have yet to reach our limits. And as far as beliefs go, I believe we can understand everything given enough time and data.
As a species or as individuals ? Because in case of individuals it is quite likely to be false.
|
On July 01 2013 23:42 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 23:04 Prog wrote:On July 01 2013 22:50 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 22:36 Prog wrote:On July 01 2013 22:31 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 21:08 Prog wrote:
Just a little input for the physicalist majority here. If you claim that consciousness is physical, then you have to explain what 'physical' means. Now you either define it by pointing to current physics, which is (as history showed) probably (partially) false or incomplete. Or you point to ideal physics, which we have no clue how it looks like. Either way, you have a problem. [Hempel's Dilemma]
The alternative is to define physical by paradigmatic objects, like 'everything that is needed to explain this toaster', but that is terribly vague too. As history shows physics have not been false for few hundred of years. It was just not accurate enough. All changes in physics in that time were discoveries that we are not correct in some special cases. So your point would be valid only in case that physics is inaccurate in the area that pertains to mental processes. That is most likely not the case as current physics is extremely accurate in that area, there is just no space for error significant enough in that area. Thus Hempel's dilemma is avoided as consciousness is not outside of current physics and that dilemma depends on that. All those objections remind me of this quote that perfectly shows relationship between science and philosophy(discipline, not subjective model of the world): Science meanwhile advances at its gradual pace, often slowing to a crawl, and for periods it even walks in place, but eventually it reaches the various ultimate trenches dug by philosophical thought, and, quite heedless of the fact that it is not supposed to be able to cross those final barriers to the intellect, goes right on. Phlogiston was just not accurate enough? Aether was just not accurate enough? I disagree. Those things just do not exist and physics claimed they did. There is nothing that ensures such mistakes not happening again. The concepts that physics uses are not of absolute importance, the models and predictions are. Predictions of models with aether were very accurate, no matter if aether does not exist. But I would also like to point out aether was not really part of physical models used for prediction, it was just concept used externally to the model itself. Phlogiston was before the period I meant. You put too much attention to the story and words around physical models and not enough attention to the core, which is models and their predictions. Notice I was talking about accuracy of predictions when I replied to you, I did not talk about "truth". That was intentional. How can you seperate models and concepts? A model without any concept is just empty and provides no knowledge whatsoever. Every model is created and interpreted based on concepts. That is pretty much the standard objection against structural realism. There are examples in physics that point to this inseperability. Stathis Psillos put it prominently forward by looking at Maxwell: http://users.uoa.gr/~psillos/PapersI/102-Dialectica-1995.pdf Easily, models can just predict output variables based on input variables using math. You need some input concepts and output concepts, but insides of the model can be purely math. Aether was purely internal concept. Model that provides accurate predictions provides knowledge (depends how you define it) no matter if there is any interpretation of it. It is better to have interpretation of that model, but it is not necessary and as modern physics shows the interpretations are becoming more and more suspect, most likely because we reached a point where we left areas of our mental ability to use concepts properly at all, so only math remains. Discovery that aether does not exist surprised physicists (some), but it had no effect on the model or equations. The only thing it showed was that interpretation and concepts behind the model were wrong. Model was still useful and accurate. The significance of the lack of aether was big for conceptual realm, not for the predictive realm. As for the rest of your argument, please formulate it yourself, I am not going to read 50+ pages of potential nonsense.
1. There is no prediction without concepts. Pure math gives you an empty number.
2. If you want to ignore counterevidence there is no sense in argueing with you. I claim that actual physics does not work with a strict distinction of model and concepts. You do not believe me. I give you evidence based on Maxwell's work on light. You do not want to read it because it might be potential nonsense (in a top-rated academic journal)...
|
Don't understand question.
What more could it be?
|
On July 01 2013 23:57 Prog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 23:42 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 23:04 Prog wrote:On July 01 2013 22:50 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 22:36 Prog wrote:On July 01 2013 22:31 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 21:08 Prog wrote:
Just a little input for the physicalist majority here. If you claim that consciousness is physical, then you have to explain what 'physical' means. Now you either define it by pointing to current physics, which is (as history showed) probably (partially) false or incomplete. Or you point to ideal physics, which we have no clue how it looks like. Either way, you have a problem. [Hempel's Dilemma]
The alternative is to define physical by paradigmatic objects, like 'everything that is needed to explain this toaster', but that is terribly vague too. As history shows physics have not been false for few hundred of years. It was just not accurate enough. All changes in physics in that time were discoveries that we are not correct in some special cases. So your point would be valid only in case that physics is inaccurate in the area that pertains to mental processes. That is most likely not the case as current physics is extremely accurate in that area, there is just no space for error significant enough in that area. Thus Hempel's dilemma is avoided as consciousness is not outside of current physics and that dilemma depends on that. All those objections remind me of this quote that perfectly shows relationship between science and philosophy(discipline, not subjective model of the world): Science meanwhile advances at its gradual pace, often slowing to a crawl, and for periods it even walks in place, but eventually it reaches the various ultimate trenches dug by philosophical thought, and, quite heedless of the fact that it is not supposed to be able to cross those final barriers to the intellect, goes right on. Phlogiston was just not accurate enough? Aether was just not accurate enough? I disagree. Those things just do not exist and physics claimed they did. There is nothing that ensures such mistakes not happening again. The concepts that physics uses are not of absolute importance, the models and predictions are. Predictions of models with aether were very accurate, no matter if aether does not exist. But I would also like to point out aether was not really part of physical models used for prediction, it was just concept used externally to the model itself. Phlogiston was before the period I meant. You put too much attention to the story and words around physical models and not enough attention to the core, which is models and their predictions. Notice I was talking about accuracy of predictions when I replied to you, I did not talk about "truth". That was intentional. How can you seperate models and concepts? A model without any concept is just empty and provides no knowledge whatsoever. Every model is created and interpreted based on concepts. That is pretty much the standard objection against structural realism. There are examples in physics that point to this inseperability. Stathis Psillos put it prominently forward by looking at Maxwell: http://users.uoa.gr/~psillos/PapersI/102-Dialectica-1995.pdf Easily, models can just predict output variables based on input variables using math. You need some input concepts and output concepts, but insides of the model can be purely math. Aether was purely internal concept. Model that provides accurate predictions provides knowledge (depends how you define it) no matter if there is any interpretation of it. It is better to have interpretation of that model, but it is not necessary and as modern physics shows the interpretations are becoming more and more suspect, most likely because we reached a point where we left areas of our mental ability to use concepts properly at all, so only math remains. Discovery that aether does not exist surprised physicists (some), but it had no effect on the model or equations. The only thing it showed was that interpretation and concepts behind the model were wrong. Model was still useful and accurate. The significance of the lack of aether was big for conceptual realm, not for the predictive realm. As for the rest of your argument, please formulate it yourself, I am not going to read 50+ pages of potential nonsense. 1. There is no prediction without concepts. Pure math gives you an empty number.
Why do I have a feeling that you just throw catchphrases around and not read the posts. I already in my post said that you need some input and output concepts. For example if you want to predict speed of something, you need that concept. But that those are very trivial concepts and that aether was no such concept. As evidence for that I pointed out that existence/not-existence of aether had basically no effect on predictive quality of the model. The model was as useful predictively as it was before we knew there is no aether. Of course the model had less value in general, as we value also the conceptual interpretation that was damaged, mostly as it is this interpretation that partially drives further research.
On July 01 2013 23:57 Prog wrote:
2. If you want to ignore counterevidence there is no sense in argueing with you. I claim that actual physics does not work with a strict distinction of model and concepts. You do not believe me. I give you evidence based on Maxwell's work on light. You do not want to read it because it might be potential nonsense (in a top-rated academic journal)...
Of course that physics uses also the concepts I never denied it. My point was that it is not essential to the validity of scientific process and I specifically said that you put too much emphasis on the concepts and too little on the predictive side, which is actually what distinguishes science from other enterprises, like philosophy.
As a note, you did not give me evidence, you gave me wall of text. And the text is not actually evidence of anything as it is philosophical argument. Arguments are not evidence. It is bad form in discussion to point people to arguments (unlike evidence) as arguments should come from the person in a discussion from his "own mouth".
Anyway back on topic, since we derailed it. My point was that current physics is accurate enough in the area that brain operates in that we can reasonably use it without worrying too much about what the future will bring.
|
On July 01 2013 23:39 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 23:10 Tobberoth wrote:On July 01 2013 23:07 DertoQq wrote:On July 01 2013 22:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 01 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:On July 01 2013 22:34 Tobberoth wrote:On July 01 2013 22:20 DoubleReed wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 Tobberoth wrote:On July 01 2013 22:07 DoubleReed wrote:On July 01 2013 21:59 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying you are wrong, but this sentence shows that your definition of "perspective" in this matter and mine are completely different. What I'm talking about is your individuality and your ability to experience things around you. While it evolves over time, you can definitely not have multiple of them. If your perspective is a changing, malleable thing then who's to say that the clones don't have the same perspective? It's the difference between shaping two identical pieces of clay into different shapes. Are they different pieces of clay before you shape? After you shape them? They don't have the same perspective because how would that ever work, suddenly you see the world from four eyes, at two different locations? It's impossible to compare to pieces of clay, since pieces of clay aren't councious, so they obviously lack the kind of perspective being talked about. Look, either perspectives can change or they can't. You can't have it both ways. If I clone a pen, and break the pen, then one pen is broken and one is not. Are they the same pen even though they're completely different? You clone a person but change his location. Sure, you've made change. But why does that count as a different perspective while the pen-cloning does not? Perspectives can change. Because the pen doesn't have a perspective. It's a dead item. The pen can't lose anything by being killed then recreated, because it's already dead. The pen can't wonder what makes it different from other pens, can't be nervous when walking into that teleporter. So? Eyes transmit pictures to the brain. Self-awareness and cognition are biochemical processes. It's not a "thing". It's a whole system of processes. The living or deadness of something depends on that. Yes. Which is why I said, it's all about being more than the sum of its parts. You have a bunch of electric chemical shit in your brain which does nothing on it's own. Put it together and you get something which can be considered alive. But not only that... you get something which understands what it is and can think about this very process... which is completely 100% unique to THIS very process and can't be recreated, no matter how well the parts are copied, because this concept, for some reason, seems to be locked to this individual process. There is nothing unique about this "process", and I don't see why you say it can't be recreated. The process of an animal surviving in the wild and us thinking about the meaning of life is basically the same. We have information, we analyse it, we do an action depending of the analyse. Nothing mystical about it. I think it is safe to say that one day, we will be able to write computer AI that imitate perfectly the though process of the brain. will those AI have a "soul" ? Maybe you didn't read my posts well enough. I already stated that even a synthetic being would have a soul by my definition of the concept. I don't know where to go on that... If you are claiming that a computer (build from scratch by humans using physical/materials stuff) can have immaterial things ("soul") depending on the software he is using (AI), then i'm really confused about the point you are trying to make.
The point I'm trying to make is that consciousness of a higher order (self-awareness etc), goes beyond the material shit that makes it up, which is why it's tragic when life is lost. A computer throws around electricity to function, but no one cares if I light an old useless computer on fire. If I kill a person, even if his brain still has the capacity to transfer electricity, something which can't be brought back is lost, which is far more than the sum of its parts. The computer I destroyed can be rebuilt, but the person who died can't be rebuilt. Even if a perfect copy was made, the original would be dead and wouldn't benefit from being copied. Of course, the computer wouldn't benefit from being copied either, which is where the important difference of self-awareness comes from: The computer isn't self-aware, so it's irrelevant.
This is just as applicable to a theoretical synthetic being... say, something like Data from Next Generation.
|
Nobody in here is bringing up dualistic arguments? Descartes would be sad 
|
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard?
|
On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard?
Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 02 2013 00:21 docvoc wrote:Nobody in here is bringing up dualistic arguments? Descartes would be sad
would hope not cause dualism is a classic case of silliness.
|
On July 02 2013 00:26 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard? Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun.
I might not care if I've been beaten unconscious but not dead. Living things are not always self-aware.
I fail to see how self-awareness is relevant, actually. Why couldn't self-awareness be material?
|
On July 02 2013 00:29 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 00:26 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard? Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun. I might not care if I've been beaten unconscious but not dead. Living things are not always self-awareness. I fail to see how self-awareness is relevant actually.
It's relevant because it can't be copied, like I wrote literally two posts ago. I'm self-aware. If I'm copied and die, I'm dead. The copy is identical to me in every way, but my individual perspective, my self-awareness is gone. Therefor, something is lost when I'm killed and copied, even though no one might ever notice or know. Something which isn't self-aware can never be compared because since no one else would notice and it can't notice or think about it itself, nothing is lost.
I can kill a tree and copy it. The tree doesn't care, no one else knows. It's alive, but not self-aware, so there's no issue.
|
On July 02 2013 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 00:29 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:26 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard? Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun. I might not care if I've been beaten unconscious but not dead. Living things are not always self-awareness. I fail to see how self-awareness is relevant actually. It's relevant because it can't be copied, like I wrote literally two posts ago. I'm self-aware. If I'm copied and die, I'm dead. The copy is identical to me in every way, but my individual perspective, my self-awareness is gone. Therefor, something is lost when I'm killed and copied, even though no one might ever notice or know. Something which isn't self-aware can never be compared because since no one else would notice and it can't notice or think about it itself, nothing is lost. I can kill a tree and copy it. The tree doesn't care, no one else knows. It's alive, but not self-aware, so there's no issue.
Why isn't the self-awareness copied as well? Because there's a disconnect? So?
You'd be here. Then you'd die and another you with your exact identity would be there. There might be disconnect, but people have disconnects all the time. Blinking? Sleeping? Dreaming?
It sounds like you're just asserting that there is something magical that cannot be copied, and I don't know why.
|
On July 02 2013 00:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:29 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:26 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard? Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun. I might not care if I've been beaten unconscious but not dead. Living things are not always self-awareness. I fail to see how self-awareness is relevant actually. It's relevant because it can't be copied, like I wrote literally two posts ago. I'm self-aware. If I'm copied and die, I'm dead. The copy is identical to me in every way, but my individual perspective, my self-awareness is gone. Therefor, something is lost when I'm killed and copied, even though no one might ever notice or know. Something which isn't self-aware can never be compared because since no one else would notice and it can't notice or think about it itself, nothing is lost. I can kill a tree and copy it. The tree doesn't care, no one else knows. It's alive, but not self-aware, so there's no issue. Why isn't the self-awareness copied as well? Because there's a disconnect? So? You'd be here. Then you'd die and another you with your exact identity would be there. There might be disconnect, but people have disconnects all the time. Blinking? It sounds like you're just asserting that there is something magical that cannot be copied, and I don't know why.
Exactly, because there's a very big difference between this disconnect and normal disconnects. When you blink, you're still you. When you sleep, you're still you. When you die and get copied, you're still you? Then what about if you get copied and AREN'T killed? There's obviously not a disconnect then you becoming two people at the same time, so there can't be a disconnect between the two forms at all. The self-awareness isn't copied, because the self-awareness is still with the original, whether you kill that original or not logically shouldn't have any impact.
I should say though, that I definitely think the copy would have a disconnect like the one you're talking about, because if it was copied perfectly, it obviously has the exact same memories etc as the original.. so the copy would never realize anything was lost, only the dead original.
|
On July 01 2013 23:55 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 23:11 Cynry wrote:On July 01 2013 23:05 beg wrote:On July 01 2013 22:31 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 21:08 Prog wrote:
Just a little input for the physicalist majority here. If you claim that consciousness is physical, then you have to explain what 'physical' means. Now you either define it by pointing to current physics, which is (as history showed) probably (partially) false or incomplete. Or you point to ideal physics, which we have no clue how it looks like. Either way, you have a problem. [Hempel's Dilemma]
The alternative is to define physical by paradigmatic objects, like 'everything that is needed to explain this toaster', but that is terribly vague too. As history shows physics have not been false for few hundred of years. It was just not accurate enough. All changes in physics in that time were discoveries that we are not correct in some special cases. So your point would be valid only in case that physics is inaccurate in the area that pertains to mental processes. That is most likely not the case as current physics is extremely accurate in that area, there is just no space for error significant enough in that area. Thus Hempel's dilemma is avoided as consciousness is not outside of current physics and that dilemma depends on that. All those objections remind me of this quote that perfectly shows relationship between science and philosophy(discipline, not subjective model of the world): Science meanwhile advances at its gradual pace, often slowing to a crawl, and for periods it even walks in place, but eventually it reaches the various ultimate trenches dug by philosophical thought, and, quite heedless of the fact that it is not supposed to be able to cross those final barriers to the intellect, goes right on. extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof. if you really believe that... hm... how would one call a science believer beyond logical reason like you? is there a name for this? imagine the perspective of an ant, how narrow it is. we as humans believe to have a so much broader and more objective perspective. but what if...... WHAT IF..... our perspective was as limited as an ant's? if we had so little grasp on "the whole", that we could never possibly understand it, just like an ant will never do rocket science. just saying... The ant doesn't have abstract thinking, we do. I am not saying for sure we can understand everything, but we have yet to reach our limits. And as far as beliefs go, I believe we can understand everything given enough time and data. As a species or as individuals ? Because in case of individuals it is quite likely to be false.
Quite likely indeed. I don't think one can learn every details about everything. Although, in a hypothetical and more advanced civilization, I think a broad understanding of how stuff works can be achieved as an individual. This would recquire that the whole civilization got it to begin with, and has found ways to teach it simply.
Right now this isn't possible because our knowledge is still too fractured, hence going into small details that might not be relevant if we ever get the big picture right.
Hope I make sense. This is all very hypothetical anyway. The point is that abstract thinking and thus the ability to imagine stuff that we cannot perceive is a very powerfull tool to understand...stuff that we cannot perceive.
And proving these theory would be something entirely different...
|
On July 02 2013 00:43 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 00:37 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:29 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:26 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard? Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun. I might not care if I've been beaten unconscious but not dead. Living things are not always self-awareness. I fail to see how self-awareness is relevant actually. It's relevant because it can't be copied, like I wrote literally two posts ago. I'm self-aware. If I'm copied and die, I'm dead. The copy is identical to me in every way, but my individual perspective, my self-awareness is gone. Therefor, something is lost when I'm killed and copied, even though no one might ever notice or know. Something which isn't self-aware can never be compared because since no one else would notice and it can't notice or think about it itself, nothing is lost. I can kill a tree and copy it. The tree doesn't care, no one else knows. It's alive, but not self-aware, so there's no issue. Why isn't the self-awareness copied as well? Because there's a disconnect? So? You'd be here. Then you'd die and another you with your exact identity would be there. There might be disconnect, but people have disconnects all the time. Blinking? It sounds like you're just asserting that there is something magical that cannot be copied, and I don't know why. Exactly, because there's a very big difference between this disconnect and normal disconnects. When you blink, you're still you. When you sleep, you're still you. When you die and get copied, you're still you? Then what about if you get copied and AREN'T killed? There's obviously not a disconnect then you becoming two people at the same time, so there can't be a disconnect between the two forms at all. The self-awareness isn't copied, because the self-awareness is still with the original, whether you kill that original or not logically shouldn't have any impact. I should say though, that I definitely think the copy would have a disconnect like the one you're talking about, because if it was copied perfectly, it obviously has the exact same memories etc as the original.. so the copy would never realize anything was lost, only the dead original.
So what's the problem? There's two people with the exact same identity now with two different perspectives diverging at the time of the split. There's nothing lost (other than location and context).
I don't see anything problematic from the materialist perspective.
|
On July 01 2013 11:34 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:27 kwizach wrote:
Thanks for the answer, SergioCQH, although I must say I'm not sure I understand how there can be different degrees in actual randomness (as in, not the kind of randomness that we refer to when we are incapable of having all of the information needed but would still be able to make a correct prediction if we did) - I'll read up on the matter.
With regards to those claiming that we are forgetting the difference between the brain and the mind, it seems that you are failing to grasp what we are saying. Our mind is merely the product of the reflexive capability of our brain: it is the brain reflecting on itself and on its environment. It's just as physical. Information is precisely the problem. With a lot of stochastic phenomena, the process of gathering information can actually change the outcome entirely. Basically, you can reduce the degree of randomness of a process by gathering information. So you can reduce a random process to a more deterministic one. Therefore, you're not even looking at the same process anymore. The Double-slit Experiment is a classic example of this. Scientists can never be omniscient gods. The only way we can study a phenomenon is through physical interaction with it. It is likely that if we were to gather enough information to predict the Brownian motion of yogurt particles in a petrie dish, we would have destroyed the phenomenon we were studying in the first place.
Yes, but here you are referring to the observer effect, which does not imply actual randomness but simply the impossibility for us to make predictions and possibly recognize deterministic phenomena for what they are, precisely because of the impossibility to gather information without affecting what we are studying. This is a matter of unpredictability and not necessarily of "actual" randomness.
What I'm asking is, imagine we are omniscient gods that know everything - are the stochastic processes you mentioned actually random, the way some quantum phenomena are purely random (and thus also unpredictable)?
|
On July 02 2013 00:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 00:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:37 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:29 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:26 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard? Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun. I might not care if I've been beaten unconscious but not dead. Living things are not always self-awareness. I fail to see how self-awareness is relevant actually. It's relevant because it can't be copied, like I wrote literally two posts ago. I'm self-aware. If I'm copied and die, I'm dead. The copy is identical to me in every way, but my individual perspective, my self-awareness is gone. Therefor, something is lost when I'm killed and copied, even though no one might ever notice or know. Something which isn't self-aware can never be compared because since no one else would notice and it can't notice or think about it itself, nothing is lost. I can kill a tree and copy it. The tree doesn't care, no one else knows. It's alive, but not self-aware, so there's no issue. Why isn't the self-awareness copied as well? Because there's a disconnect? So? You'd be here. Then you'd die and another you with your exact identity would be there. There might be disconnect, but people have disconnects all the time. Blinking? It sounds like you're just asserting that there is something magical that cannot be copied, and I don't know why. Exactly, because there's a very big difference between this disconnect and normal disconnects. When you blink, you're still you. When you sleep, you're still you. When you die and get copied, you're still you? Then what about if you get copied and AREN'T killed? There's obviously not a disconnect then you becoming two people at the same time, so there can't be a disconnect between the two forms at all. The self-awareness isn't copied, because the self-awareness is still with the original, whether you kill that original or not logically shouldn't have any impact. I should say though, that I definitely think the copy would have a disconnect like the one you're talking about, because if it was copied perfectly, it obviously has the exact same memories etc as the original.. so the copy would never realize anything was lost, only the dead original. So what's the problem? There's two people with the exact same identity now with two different perspectives diverging at the time of the split. There's nothing lost (other than location and context). I don't see anything problematic from the materialist perspective.
I agree, if you simply do the copy, nothing is lost since the original is alive and has his self-awareness, and the copy has his self-awareness. I understand why you don't see a problem, because there isn't one. The problem is that you kill an individual if you do a destructive teleport, which you already agreed with. I haven't said anything else.
I see where you're coming from. It's all physical, just like teleporting a pen is practically the same as teleporting a human, because even the stuff I'm talking about as immaterial is technically copied. However, what I'm putting emphasis on here is the self-awareness, and the meaning it has to the individual. This self-awareness isn't a part of a pen, so it's not possible to compare it. I find it to be philosophically incompatible so to speak.
I guess one could say that the self-awareness can be copied, but not transferred, and from my point of view, two different (but identical at the start) self-awarenesses aren't the same, by the very fact that they aren't the same. Two pens in different places can IMO be the same pen if they are identical, but two identical people with two non-connected (even though identical) self-awarenesses are not, because from the perspective of one of the copied persons, there is something intrinsically completely different about them: The fact that they are themselves and not the other person. Something which isn't capable of self-awareness can never have, or at least experience, that difference.
|
Given that cloning is possible and has been done, the answer is yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
