Why you will never be able to load your brain into a computer

Some people believe in souls and some believe in consciousness. There is the same evidence for both (none)
 
Nick333 said:
Let me save you some hassle here: jingaling believes in souls and is implying that our emotions stem from our souls.
Click to expand...

I believe the same as jingaling. What do you believe?
 
Nick333 said:
That emotions are evolved reactions to external stimulation and physical instinct.
Click to expand...

but then why do we 'feel' emotions?
I could program my computer to react to external stimulation and physical instinct (if I could program lol) but you wouldn't say my computer was feeling emotional or had emotions. Or would you?
 
C4Cat said:
but then why do we 'feel' emotions?
I could program my computer to react to external stimulation and physical instinct (if I could program lol) but you wouldn't say my computer was feeling emotional or had emotions. Or would you?
Click to expand...

That would be a question of consciousness which is a separate issue to "emotions are external to the body" as jings asserted. There's just no reason to believe that emotions are external. All our emotions have the basis in survival instincts. There may or may not be a need for an external component to experience feelings, but all the equipment for creating feelings are present in our bodies. You and jings want to externalise known physical processes so you can believe in a YOU that isn't reliant on your physical body. See? That's your evolved response to your survival instinct.
 
Garson007 said:
Are you thinking the same thoughts today you thought yesterday? No. Then so.
Click to expand...
Aren't we defined more by continuity than by content? If I chop wood today and swim tomorrow, the continuity of my body is what defines my body; the things it does are flags posted in the ground of being. I get what you're saying about having a consciousness that changes, evolves & has a different outlook from one day to the next - but again, we don't distinguish between a tree from one season to the next - we consider the tree a single & continuous entity regardless of the changes. I have underlying principles that govern my actions - they don't change from day to day in the way that my thoughts about books and movies might change from day to day.

You're looking at a particular expression of consciousness (the kinds of thoughts that fill our head from day to day) and making a statement like:
Garson007 said:
The you of yesterday is also dead, while you are in your current body. This is no different. The present is the only thing that matters.
Click to expand...
I agree the present is the only thing that matters, but again - there is continuity regardless of the daily change in content.
 
C4Cat said:
Some people believe in souls and some believe in consciousness. There is the same evidence for both (none)
Click to expand...

Consciousness is just self awareness and awareness of your environment. There is strong evidence of consciousness, as we can observe humans and animals (and observe introspectively) and use tests like the mirror test, verbal reporting, brain scans etc.

Dolphins, apes, killer whales, pigeons, magpies and elephants (and humans of course) have all passed the mirror test, which is possibly our best tool of determining whether a creature is aware of themself and their circumstances.

C4Cat said:
but then why do we 'feel' emotions?
I could program my computer to react to external stimulation and physical instinct (if I could program lol) but you wouldn't say my computer was feeling emotional or had emotions. Or would you?
Click to expand...

Programming a machine to imitate emotion has nothing to do with programming a machine to be capable of feeling emotion.

As to why we feel emotions, it seems intuitive to me that humans developed emotions as a means of facilitating complex social interactions. An individual human is pretty much useless in the animal kingdom. There are many other creatures that would make short work of us. But humans in large numbers are unstoppable. Without complex social interaction we would long since be extinct. And if you can't feel emotion you can't have such interactions. For example, love (a collective term for some combination of strong attachment, caring, positivity, attraction etc.) encourages social bonding and nurturing, as well as mating.
 
saor said:
Aren't we defined more by continuity than by content? If I chop wood today and swim tomorrow, the continuity of my body is what defines my body; the things it does are flags posted in the ground of being. I get what you're saying about having a consciousness that changes, evolves & has a different outlook from one day to the next - but again, we don't distinguish between a tree from one season to the next - we consider the tree a single & continuous entity regardless of the changes. I have underlying principles that govern my actions - they don't change from day to day in the way that my thoughts about books and movies might change from day to day.

You're looking at a particular expression of consciousness (the kinds of thoughts that fill our head from day to day) and making a statement like:
I agree the present is the only thing that matters, but again - there is continuity regardless of the daily change in content.
Click to expand...

So you go under anesthesia for a surgery. Can the very low level brain activity occurring be said to be "continuity"?
 
Bryn said:
Consciousness is just self awareness and awareness of your environment. There is strong evidence of consciousness, as we can observe humans and animals (and observe introspectively) and use tests like the mirror test, verbal reporting, brain scans etc.

Dolphins, apes, killer whales, pigeons, magpies and elephants (and humans of course) have all passed the mirror test, which is possibly our best tool of determining whether a creature is aware of themself and their circumstances.
Click to expand...
No, there is actually no physical evidence for consciousness.
The mirror test, verbal reporting, brain scans etc would all give the same results if we were just complex machines who responded and had no consciousness at all. How would you tell the difference between a machine feeling emotion and a machine imitating emotion?

Bryn said:
Programming a machine to imitate emotion has nothing to do with programming a machine to be capable of feeling emotion.

As to why we feel emotions, it seems intuitive to me that humans developed emotions as a means of facilitating complex social interactions. An individual human is pretty much useless in the animal kingdom. There are many other creatures that would make short work of us. But humans in large numbers are unstoppable. Without complex social interaction we would long since be extinct. And if you can't feel emotion you can't have such interactions. For example, love (a collective term for some combination of strong attachment, caring, positivity, attraction etc.) encourages social bonding and nurturing, as well as mating.
Click to expand...
If you can feel emotion you have a soul. Otherwise you're just a machine programmed to imitate emotion
 
C4Cat said:
but then why do we 'feel' emotions?
Click to expand...
Would you ask the same question about pain...why do we 'feel' pain?

Dogs 'feel' pain in the sense that it seems like they have a very similar experience to it as us: They intentionally avoid & sulk from it in a way that is more involved than mere Pavlovian conditioning. Why then can't we imagine emotions as being a similar thing to pain but with more subtleties; as a response not to nerve impulses but as a response to social and mental cues. If there's nothing special about pain, I see no reason to think there's anything special about emotions...at least not to the extent that we need to attribute their occurrence to some mystical thing.
 
Nick333 said:
That would be a question of consciousness which is a separate issue to "emotions are external to the body" as jings asserted. There's just no reason to believe that emotions are external. All our emotions have the basis in survival instincts. There may or may not be a need for an external component to experience feelings, but all the equipment for creating feelings are present in our bodies. You and jings want to externalise known physical processes so you can believe in a YOU that isn't reliant on your physical body. See? That's your evolved response to your survival instinct.
Click to expand...

did jings assert that "emotions are external to the body"? I didn't see that and don't agree with that statement. Whenever I feel emotion I feel it physically but the awareness of the emotion, the 'feeling' part is my soul.
lol that you believe in 'consciousness'
 
Nick333 said:
So you go under anesthesia for a surgery. Can the very low level brain activity occurring be said to be "continuity"?
Click to expand...
Sure - there's a literal break in continuity. But if when I awaken I have the perception of having the same sorts of principles and ideas as before I went into surgery - to me the continuity isn't in question. Maybe I should rather define it as continuity of content, rather than the literal existence of consciousness itself - because I'm obviously aware that by taking drugs, going to sleep, surgery etc. we do experience intermissions & drastic temporary alterations.
 
C4Cat said:
If you can feel emotion you have a soul. Otherwise you're just a machine programmed to imitate emotion
Click to expand...

Feeling in the emotional sense is just a type of experience. Assuming the necessity of an external component to the human creature to experience or be conscious of anything, why this fixation on emotions. Emotions are no more evidence of a soul than sight or hearing. Can you admit your fixation on emotions is because you associate your emotions with your sense of self?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X