Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Souls are not taboo. We know how ubiquitous they are in human thought. So is the idea of a Place of retribution after death. so is the idea that our Fate is written in the stars.
We have no good reason to think that any of these things are true. That doesn't mean they are taboo - far from the suggestion that we ban them from discussion because we know deep down inside that they are true and we just want to keep in denial.
That is crap. And we are watching all the current chat about consciousness, NDE's souls, afterlife and the rest with considerable interest. It is in the hands of science, for all that the Faithful are trying to make a case right now based of 'you can't explain it any other way'.
Mystic had a really cool explanation for why prayer -effects seem to be related to dickering with the brain. They are like the innards of a radio and twiddling the knobs can tune into the soul and presumably can get a poor signal at times. But the other explanation is that it is the twiddling with the knobs produces the contact and of course then the radio analogy only goes so far, because it depends on a broadcaster out there. And there doesn't need to be one except for the argument that it feels so amazing it must be God.
Well, perhaps and perhaps not. That is why the subject is not taboo but being watched keenly. In fact the taboo is rather on the believer side who seem to be agitated that we are not simply accepting the 'soul' explanation and look for all the world as though they would like a taboo on any explanation other than that one.
So I find myself wondering - what is the harm in looking at other explanations? Why is it so all -fired important that we drop any other ideas and accept the Soul - afterlife explanation at face value?
You should try thinking about WHAT leaves the body when someone who has an intact body and functional organs just dies inexplicably. Why would these perfectly okay physical components cease to function??? Just a thought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
What leaves a computer when it crashes? Apart from the operator to get a drink and some anger management.
I actually enjoyed some of the answers to this semi-serious query. This one is particularly silly, Arq, because while the computer mimics human thought, it requires human consciousness to create its ability to do so and to interpret it as doing so. It is not itself actually conscious.
I actually enjoyed some of the answers to this semi-serious query. This one is particularly silly, Arq, because while the computer mimics human thought, it requires human consciousness to create its ability to do so and to interpret it as doing so. It is not itself actually conscious.
Actually it is a reasonable point. First off you have no way of determining if a computer is conscious or not, unless you can define it in an objective way, but then you run into the Hard Problem. So in reality any imputation of consciousness in any other entity is just projection. I am making an assumption that you are conscious, it isn't something I can know...
But secondly, if a consciousness must exist independantly of any other to exist, then either your definition of God as the source of everything, specifically consciousness, is wrong or human beings are not "really" conscious. If we change a few words...
Quote:
This one is particularly silly, Arq, because while a human mimics divine thought, it requires divine consciousness to create its ability to do so and to interpret it as doing so. It is not itself actually conscious.
So if human consciousness could exist as an extension or product of the divine consciousness, so too could machine consciousness... In fact, if human consciousness is a manifestation of the divine mind, then machine consciousness would be as well, simply once removed.
So if human consciousness could exist as an extension or product of the divine consciousness, so too could machine consciousness... In fact, if human consciousness is a manifestation of the divine mind, then machine consciousness would be as well, simply once removed.
Conscious entities are aware (conscious) of things and are self-aware (conscious that they are conscious).
Whether you're talking human or computer, if it acts self aware and responds in a self aware fashion then it is a conscious entity for practical intents and purposes.
I am not, by the way, aware of any evidence of any sort of consciousness or awareness exhibited by any deity. Not even enough to substantiate its own existence. So to me it is silly to try to tie human or any other consciousness to that.
Conscious entities are aware (conscious) of things and are self-aware (conscious that they are conscious).
Whether you're talking human or computer, if it acts self aware and responds in a self aware fashion then it is a conscious entity for practical intents and purposes.
I am not, by the way, aware of any evidence of any sort of consciousness or awareness exhibited by any deity. Not even enough to substantiate its own existence. So to me it is silly to try to tie human or any other consciousness to that.
I agree with you, but Mystics claim is that even if a computer that acted in a self aware manner could be created, it wouldn't be conscious because humans made it. My point was that by that standard and assuming his version of God, we are not conscious either. You can't have it both ways...
I tend to think that consciousness is essentially a sufficiently complex recursive algorithmic process, in which case it is possible not only that animals other than humans may possess it, but that machines may one day also achieve it, although assuming it resembles ours in any real way might be a bit of hubris.
I actually enjoyed some of the answers to this semi-serious query. This one is particularly silly, Arq, because while the computer mimics human thought, it requires human consciousness to create its ability to do so and to interpret it as doing so. It is not itself actually conscious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Actually it is a reasonable point. First off you have no way of determining if a computer is conscious or not, unless you can define it in an objective way, but then you run into the Hard Problem. So in reality any imputation of consciousness in any other entity is just projection. I am making an assumption that you are conscious, it isn't something I can know...
But secondly, if a consciousness must exist independantly of any other to exist, then either your definition of God as the source of everything, specifically consciousness, is wrong or human beings are not "really" conscious. If we change a few words...
So if human consciousness could exist as an extension or product of the divine consciousness, so too could machine consciousness... In fact, if human consciousness is a manifestation of the divine mind, then machine consciousness would be as well, simply once removed.
-NoCapo
I appreciate that you actually engage the issues seriously, especially acknowledging the Hard Problem. It will always be true that our lack of knowledge can NOT be used as evidence of anything. In fact, my personal experiences did significant damage to my confidence about the differences between the organic and inorganic. As a result, your argument has a certain resonance it would not have had in my youth. Nevertheless, the only evidence of consciousness we currently have is in organic life. The AI enthusiasts (and harbingers of doom) deliberately confuse the concept of consciousness to make inorganic consciousness a possibility. It would actually not be counter to my view that everything exists within God's consciousness (unified field), so I am reluctant to argue too strongly against it. I remain skeptical, though.
First thing I gotta say is I am an an Agnostic. Well, on a good day. Sometimes I can be a pretty strident Atheist. Make Richard Dawkins look like Joel Osteen. LOL. I am a recovering Catholic as well.
The idea of a Soul has always intrigued me. For most of my life I believed in it. Mostly in the Biblical, God sense. Like the type Jesus spoke of. Then as I got older, grew-up, escaped the RCC, and learned a lot more about science and Psychology and the medical field, I began to wonder if there really was a need for that elusive entity we refer to as the "soul."
Many (most?) neurologists and Psychiatrists are materialists. that is, they feel that who we are, our personality, our desires and wants and our self-awareness--all of that--is simply explained by the various interactions and mechanics of chemicals in our brain. Neurotransmitters firing back and forth. A giant computer in our heads. The brain is the hardware and our mind--by using those chemicals which make-up our emotions--in the software.
And that again, much like a computer, our mind works in "feedback loops." that is, it gets used to acting in a certain way--an output--due to a certain type of input. We have feelings and react to things based upon experience. Like a computer performs operations in accordance with its software code.
This explains a lot. Mentally ill folks, crazies, psychopaths: they all have a head-full of bad wiring. Chemical imbalances. After all, since medications work, and they are chemicals, does this not prove that the brain is dependent upon them? And we have seen people change after TBI's. Brain injuries. their entire personalities. We all remember Phineas Gage from Psych 101.
If there was a true Soul--would it not be above all this. Impervious to it? Would it not be able to transcend it? One would think so.
And the elephant in the room is: there is not one shred of evidence that alludes to the existence of a soul. Indeed, everything can be explained by the Materialist view. This is an unsettling notion for many people. It reduces us to being little more than a collection of chemicals in our heads.
But I had an experience once that made me sometimes doubt this Materialist view. I was in the viewing room observing a brain autopsy back in a grad Psych class. I recall the female MD who was performing the procedure, a Neurosurgeon. She was sort of dictating her steps and procedures to the class, as there were some medical students there. As she pulled the entire brain out of the top of the skull, she said something like, "And so here we have what was the entirety of Sylvia. Her personality; who she was. Everything that made her "her" and the person that other's knew and recognized."
I remember looking at that 3 lb. blob of jelly, about eight feet in front of me, and it just hit me as wrong. I just couldn't really get my mind around the fact that that is really all that there is of us. I wondered about that thing we call our "Life Spark." Somehow that brain I was looking at, even when it had all those electro-chemicals coursing through iot did not seem adequate enough to be responsible for providing this.
So I guess I;m conflicted about the whole idea of the Soul. I definitely do not buy into the old Religious or Christian view any longer. No heaven. No Hell. Any sort of afterlife would be on a scientific basis, like perhaps our Soul is some sort of Energy Field that can ascend and meld into a greater Universal One. Perhaps on a quantum mechanical level. The physicist guys would file this under "field theory" I believe. I sort of like this idea, but it's about as far as I can go regarding any sort of Soul or Afterlife. And any sort of God would, I think, not be a Theist one, a personal, Biblical type but rather of the Deist variety. An impersonal intelligence Force--the Field Theory again, and in no way shape of form a Yahweh type.
I agree with you, but Mystics claim is that even if a computer that acted in a self aware manner could be created, it wouldn't be conscious because humans made it. My point was that by that standard and assuming his version of God, we are not conscious either. You can't have it both ways...
I tend to think that consciousness is essentially a sufficiently complex recursive algorithmic process, in which case it is possible not only that animals other than humans may possess it, but that machines may one day also achieve it, although assuming it resembles ours in any real way might be a bit of hubris.
I completely agree.
Orcas, dolphins, and other animals have pretty sophisticated consciousness, evidence self awareness, have complex social structures, mourn their dead, try to help their injured, care about their extended family and a bunch of other things that we humans often overlook or discount in order to flatter ourselves.
The nature and quality of our consciousness is influenced a great deal by our biology and environment, so yes, computer sentience will be of a different quality than human sentience, almost surely.
I actually enjoyed some of the answers to this semi-serious query. This one is particularly silly, Arq, because while the computer mimics human thought, it requires human consciousness to create its ability to do so and to interpret it as doing so. It is not itself actually conscious.
It's just an analogy of the scientific facts, Mystic. In a way the first point is rather like the creationist 'Even if you have created life, it took intelligence to do it'. That is really irrelevant to the analogy of the processes that we would regard as a problem -solving electronic entity. If in one case the computer dies and the potentiality to access e -mails, store information and remove a task bar without permission hasn't gone anywhere but is still there should we be able to revive its connections, there is no logical need to say that the human mentality is any different.
Any argument that the difference is that humans have a soul and computers don't is circular and applies to animals as well, and they are alive. But you are generally cagey about whether they have souls or not.
The argument that we need to operate a computer doesn't seem relevant to the analogy either. In terms of the analogy, one could say that environment works on us pressing our buttons and getting responses as we press the computer buttons and get responses.
Just that the computer generally seems more perverse and awkward than humans are. At least, mine is.
I appreciate that you actually engage the issues seriously, especially acknowledging the Hard Problem. It will always be true that our lack of knowledge can NOT be used as evidence of anything. In fact, my personal experiences did significant damage to my confidence about the differences between the organic and inorganic. As a result, your argument has a certain resonance it would not have had in my youth. Nevertheless, the only evidence of consciousness we currently have is in organic life. The AI enthusiasts (and harbingers of doom) deliberately confuse the concept of consciousness to make inorganic consciousness a possibility. It would actually not be counter to my view that everything exists within God's consciousness (unified field), so I am reluctant to argue too strongly against it. I remain skeptical, though.
Good post. Though in fact, I see no reason to distinguish between AI and natural except that one is inorganic and the other isn't. I rather see aircraft and birds the same way. It would surely be absurd to say that one is flying because it is alive and the other isn't flying because it isn't. Even if you calledone flapping and the other powered gliding, the way they are travelling through the air and staying up uses the same principles and methods.
I see no reason to think that human, animals and computer (such as it is) consciousness are different in their essential mechanism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a way the first point is rather like the creationist 'Even if you have created life, it took intelligence to do it'. That is really irrelevant to the analogy of the processes that we would regard as a problem -solving electronic entity. If in one case the computer dies and the potentiality to access e -mails, store information and remove a task bar without permission hasn't gone anywhere but is still there should we be able to revive its connections, there is no logical need to say that the human mentality is any different. 
