Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[Sparko]

No need to get angry and start with the name calling, Sparko. Just explain what exactly it is that you mean by a mind and how you would place it into a computer.

Your mind is you. A person's self-aware consciousness.

If you could record a mind and upload it to a computer and run it as a program, it would think and be self-aware and believe itself to be the same person it was uploaded from. How? They are still trying to work it out but many scientists believe it can be done eventually.

So if a mind could exist without a brain, then the brain is not the mind. Even if the brain generates the mind, the mind is more than just the substrate it exists upon. Like the lightbulb example.

I am not even talking spiritual here, JimL, merely that the mental construct we call a person's mind is more than just random firing of neurons. It is a self-aware thing in itself and can even control the firing of the neurons to move the body, recall memories, change what it wants to think about, etc.

[JimL]

Your mind is you. A person's self-aware consciousness.

If you could record a mind and upload it to a computer and run it as a program, it would think and be self-aware and believe itself to be the same person it was uploaded from. How? They are still trying to work it out but many scientists believe it can be done eventually.

So if a mind could exist without a brain, then the brain is not the mind. Even if the brain generates the mind, the mind is more than just the substrate it exists upon. Like the lightbulb example.

I am not even talking spiritual here, JimL, merely that the mental construct we call a person's mind is more than just random firing of neurons. It is a self-aware thing in itself and can even control the firing of the neurons to move the body, recall memories, change what it wants to think about, etc.

But you are still not explaining what exactly it is that you mean by a mind and how it would be placed in a computer. Defining it as "you" or as a "self aware, conscious, you" doesn't explain what you mean or how you would place it in a computer.

[Sparko]

But you are still not explaining what exactly it is that you mean by a mind and how it would be placed in a computer. Defining it as "you" or as a "self aware, conscious, you" doesn't explain what you mean or how you would place it in a computer.

Your mind is the self-aware conscious 'software' of the brain. You copy the program to a computer and simulate it there.

[seer]

Your mind is the self-aware conscious 'software' of the brain. You copy the program to a computer and simulate it there.

Sparko aren't you tired of doing this:

[Sparko]

Sparko aren't you tired of doing this:

yep. I was just thinking about that. I am wasting my time. JimL doesn't have the capacity to understand such matters.

[JonathanL]

There is no good reason to suppose your hypothetical immaterial brain would survive the death of the material brain.

And there is no good reason to suppose that it won't survive the death of the brain either, so either you presuppose that one or the other is the truth, or you stay agnostic about it. But don't pretend like you have any more support for your belief than I have for mine, because you most certainly do not.

I’m waiting for you to acknowledge that Homo sapiens are not unique among sentient creatures. Your reluctance to address this indicates that you do believe we are unique in this regard. I further surmise that you believe this for reasons of religious revelation. Do you deny this?

No, my reluctance to address this ridiculous red herring of yours indicates no such thing. I simply don't know how our minds differ qualitatively from other sentient creatures. It's as simple as that. Maybe other sentient creatures have immaterial minds that survive the death of their brains, maybe they don't. It doesn't matter one way or the other.

So for the last time, before I start ignoring this particular pet peeve of yours. I neither affirm, nor deny, that homo sapiens are unique among sentient creatures.

What I’m arguing is that the brain and mind is just a material entity. One doesn’t need a leap of faith to assume that such an entity will not survive death.

Your claim that the mind is just a material entity is begging the question.

This is a purely subjective claim; it doesn’t establish the objective reality of an immaterial mind.

This doesn't even make the slightest sense. In what way is the statement that the mind is aware of itself a subjective claim?

Yes it does. The deleterious effect of brain damage on the mind gives every indication that the mind as just a functional aspect of the material brain.

Only to someone who already believes that the mind is just "a functional aspect of the material brain", e.g. someone who is begging the question.

There is no evidence that the mind is more than what the brain does; any claims that the mind is more than this is an unsupported assumption. To draw conclusions from an assumed assumption such as this is text-book 'begging the question'.

All this tells me is that I'm right in believing that your claims are completely bereft of evidence and that your whole case is built upon the begged question that materialism is true. Which comes as no surprise to literally anyone who are aware of your debating tactics.

[Sparko]

So show me a picture of this material mind.

[JimL]

So show me a picture of this material mind.

Show us a picture of the immaterial mind that you are going to place into a computer. Explain what you are talking about so that even seer can understand. You may be sick of doing this, but it's because you are not making sense.

[JimL]

Sparko aren't you tired of doing this:

Perhaps you'd like to give it a go seer, explain exactly what you mean by "a mind" aka as defined by Sparko as software, and how this "mind" can be placed in a computer?

[seer]

Perhaps you'd like to give it a go seer, explain exactly what you mean by "a mind" aka as defined by Sparko as software, and how this "mind" can be placed in a computer?

I have no idea if the mind can be down loaded into a computer, but I do know that it is self-evident that the mind and the brain are not the same thing, even if there is interdependence.

[JimL]

I have no idea if the mind can be down loaded into a computer, but I do know that it is self-evident that the mind and the brain are not the same thing, even if there is interdependence.

Okay, well according to you guys the mind is the ghost in the machine, the spirit, or what have you, and according to Sparko's hypotheses the ghost/or what he herein now calls the mind, is a conscious thing in itself that can possibly be put into a computer and continue its conscious existence. You made like you understood him, that his idea made sense to you, asking him, "don't you get tired of trying to explain this to him". Now we see, you also have no clue what you are talking about when you speak of souls, spirits, minds, or ghosts in the machine. You shouldn't argue about stuff when you have no idea what you are arguing about. Neither one of you can actually explain exactly what it is that you mean by a mind or how it could possibly be transfered to a computer.

[seer]

Okay, well according to you guys the mind is the ghost in the machine, the spirit, or what have you, and according to Sparko's hypotheses the ghost/or what he herein now calls the mind, is a conscious thing in itself that can possibly be put into a computer and continue its conscious existence. You made like you understood him, that his idea made sense to you, asking him, "don't you get tired of trying to explain this to him". Now we see, you also have no clue what you are talking about when you speak of souls, spirits, minds, or ghosts in the machine. You shouldn't argue about stuff when you have no idea what you are arguing about. Neither one of you can actually explain exactly what it is that you mean by a mind or how it could possibly be transfered to a computer.

No Jim, I'm saying only that the mind is clearly immaterial and can not be reduced to being the physical brain alone. I don't care about the down loading thing. And my point is self-evident. I said this awhile back and you did not respond:

Jim here is your evidence. Picture your dear mother in your mind. Now if I open your brain can I see the picture you see? I can even map your brain and know what part of your brain you are using to picture your mom. But I could never see what you see, that is because it is not material, it is not subject to materialistic inquiry. Neither are first person subjective experiences. Do you experience the color read like I do? Sadness? Theses things can not be known precisely because they are not material - yet they are real.

[Tassman]

That makes no sense. Of course a mind is a thing. You are misusing yours right now in making idiotic posts about it.

The mind is just the activity of the brain. If it were transferred to a computer, the computer would have to replicate the activity of the brain from which the mind arose. Theoretically it can be done.

[Sparko]

Show us a picture of the immaterial mind that you are going to place into a computer. Explain what you are talking about so that even seer can understand. You may be sick of doing this, but it's because you are not making sense.

I am not making sense? How can you show a picture of something immaterial?

Yet you should be able to easily show a picture of something that is material. So you and Tassy get to it.

[Sparko]

The mind is just the activity of the brain. If it were transferred to a computer, the computer would have to replicate the activity of the brain from which the mind arose. Theoretically it can be done.

You and JimL need to huddle up and get your story straight.