Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, of course I do not believe that. As you know, I do not believe that their is a distinct mind, or soul as you would have it, that is separate from the brain and physical body, so even should there be a way to upload information somehow gleaned from your brain into a computer, it wouldn't be you living for ever, just like a doppleganger, i.e. an exact replica of you, in another universe say, would not be you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostHow about if we could extend that idea and upload 1000 physical bodies, or a million, with the same neural patterns? They might think alike, but I wouldn't say they were the same person/mind.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYour speculations depend entirely on the unevidenced assumption that the ‘mind’ is a separate entity from the brain, i.e. you are begging the question.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAll sentient creatures have consciousness, perception, thinking, judgment, memory and communicate to a greater or lesser degree; these attributes are all qualities of the mind. We are just more intelligent examples of creatures with a mind.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAgain, you are begging the question. See above.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThis is merely a theological presupposition, not an argument.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhat it shows is that there is a “connection/relationship”, between the brain and the mind. It shows nothing more than that because there is no evidence that there IS any more than that.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIt’s not a different entity from the brain; it is what the brain does.
Ah yes, begging the question.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBut would it think it was you?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBut if a copy of a mind could run on a computer and think and be conscious, then that is proof that the mind is not just the brain operating. It is something more.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBut if a copy of a mind could run on a computer and think and be conscious, then that is proof that the mind is not just the brain operating.
Maybe you didn't mean to include the 'not' I have bolded?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI have not been begging the question in this discussion anymore than what you have done.
I'm not going to argue with you about this specific issue.
Again, if what I'm doing is begging the question then you've been doing the same thing since the start of our discussion.
No, it follows logically from what immaterial means. If something is detectable by the senses or through scientific equipment it's by definition not immaterial. And if there is no way to detect something using the aforementioned then the question of it's existence is not even in principle answerable by science.
But the fact that there is no more (scientific) evidence for the mind surviving the death of the brain doesn't really mean anything, for the reasons I've already stated.
There you go, doing that thing you're accusing me of, what did you call it again...?
Ah yes, begging the question.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNot so. I’m arguing from the demonstrable existence of a material brain, whereas you are arguing from the unevidenced premise of an immaterial mind and using that premise to support your conclusion. In short, you are ‘Begging the Question’.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWell you need to; you seem to be claiming that we Homo sapiens are unique, whereas there is no good reason to assume that the minds of other sentient creatures are different in kind from the minds of Homo sapiens.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNot at all, I’m arguing that the brain is material; this is not in doubt, whereas you are adding an unevidenced non-material component into the argument...namely an immaterial mind.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIf something is undetectable why claim it exists.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYes it does for the reasons I’ve already stated, i.e. the deleterious effects of brain damage on the mind are obvious and measurable.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNope!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThe "demonstrable existence of a material brain" doesn't lend any support for your claim that the mind doesn't survive the death of the brain.
No, I don't seem to be claiming that at all. I have expressly stated in as many ways as I can possibly think of that I'm not making any claim what so ever as to the uniqueness of the human mind and if you continue trying to go down this rabbit trail I'm just going to have to assume that you're trolling at this point.
You're also arguing that the mind doesn't survive the death of the brain, which is also unevidenced.
I said undetectable through the senses and scientific equipment. But the mind can obviously be detected by itself, or we wouldn't be here having a discussion/argument about it.
The deleterious effects of brain damage on the mind doesn't give us any indication what so ever as to what happens to the mind after death.
Yeah, you're claiming that the mind is "what the brain does" while not having provided a single shred of evidence for that claim. It's text-book begging the question.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostOh, I think qualia is absolutely essential to wider discussion of mind-body interactions, and they are why I am a dualist / idealist rather than a physicalist.
I don't know I agree though that qualia lead to the specific conclusions you argue for.
Well, assuming a mouse experiences qualia, that would be true. I don't know if it does. I can't even prove that you do. I can only experience my own qualia. Though I think assuming other humans also experience qualia is a reasonable assumption.
But when it comes to different kinds of animals, guessing at whether they have qualia and to what extent is pretty speculative and we currently have zero way of measuring that. Do they have 100% the level of qualia we do? Or a lower level? Do plants have qualia? Do rocks? Do worms? How would we know? My best guess would be that qualia have something to do with brain structure, so only animals with brains of at least a certain complexity are likely to have them I would guess, but I have no idea what the cut-off would be, what part of the brain is associated with them, or whether you can have a "lesser amount" of qualia. It's a bit like observing my laptop has a wifi link, and then seeing other computers and trying to guess whether they can connect to wifi or not simply because "well they are computers like my laptop is, so they must have wifi, right?" That's not a reliable indicator one way or the other of whether those other computers really do have wifi capabilities, and it doesn't tell me about whether there might be different speeds of wifi or types of wifi, because the only one I know about is the one my laptop has.
If the mouse does have qualia, and its qualia do have a profound effect on its behavior, and mathematical models of neurons omit qualia, then if we run the experiment of modelling the mouse's neurons in a computer and seeing what simulated behavior it performs we will see the computerized mice acting very differently to real mice. That would be very, very interesting. So what I see you saying is that your worldview would predict this particular empirically testable outcome to this theoretically-possible-in-future experiment! That's great. It means your worldview is (potentially) actually empirically testable, and in future we might be able to do an experiment which indicates whether your views are right or wrong. That's why I find this potential experiment so interesting because it would rule in or out certain worldviews.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, he would think he was himself. Again, like a doppleganger in another universe, he would not even know it's replica in this universe, i.e. he wouldn't know me, so the question "would he think he was me" doesn't make sense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou still don't get it. If a mind can be placed in a computer and still think it is himself (or you) then the mind is more than just the brain firing neurons.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAgain, "a mind" is not a thing in itself, so "a mind" is not something you can place in a computer. I don't believe you are thinking this through. Perhaps if you specify what you mean by a mind, you might be able to make your hypotheses more sensible, but I don't think so.
But I guess this is all my fault for trying to argue philosophy with someone as clueless as you are on the topic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThat makes no sense. Of course a mind is a thing. You are misusing yours right now in making idiotic posts about it.
But I guess this is all my fault for trying to argue philosophy with someone as clueless as you are on the topic.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
160 responses
508 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 07:28 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment