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

[C4Cat]

Love, is just a chemical to get us to bone more and have offspring.

You're confusing love with lust.

Taking the time to visit your 92 year old grandmother who is frail and senile and probably doesn't recognise you, yet bringing her favourite flowers and spending time with her, has nothing to do with boning more and having offspring. This is an act of love.

 

[C4Cat]

Where did I say anything of the sort? It's sort of lovely that you're having a debate with a mental projection of a copy of myself in your own head. Just adds to the existential nature of the real conversation.

I have no firm opinions on the nature of consciousness. I'm just trying to establish why you feel that consciousness should have attributes. So far your only reasoning seems to be what makes sense to your own self.



That's sweet, but not very satisfying to my own intellect. This conversation is going nowhere. Feel free to pursue it with the Nick333 in your own head, although I take no ownership or responsibility for any of the views he may or may not hold.

You said - No the brain and the rest of your body does all that - with reference to awareness, feeling and consciousness.

Your brain and body are made up of the same physical matter as the sun, and every other physical thing in the world.

So either you believe that physical matter is capable of awareness, feeling and consciousness or you believe there is more to the brain and body than just physical matter. I assumed you believe the former because you dismiss the latter.

 

[Bryn]

You saying physical matter is able to experience and has awareness. Awesome. So is all physical matter able to experience and has awareness? Or only some of it? What's the difference between the chemicals and molecules that make up my physical manifestation and the chemicals and molecules that make up the sun? Or do you think the sun has awareness too?

Of course you can't experience fear if the body is unable to manifest fear. You can't experience sight if you have no physical eyes.
As I already pointed out with regard to emotions - emotions are physical things, but 'feeling' emotions is spiritual.
Damage the body or brain so it cannot manifest fear, sight or hearing and you will no longer 'feel' fear or 'experience' sight. Obviously.
Love, however, is not an emotion. Love transcends the physical completely and is purely spiritual in nature.

No one has claimed that all matter is self aware. The brain is a highly complex arrangement of molecules, and very different to the arrangement of a star. You need some compelling evidence to claim that feeling emotion is a spiritual process.

Love is very much an emotion. In fact it is officially listed as an emotion. Love is nothing more than a blanket term for some combination of strong attachment, caring, nurturing, affection and/or attraction. There is no difference in the love humans can feel towards someone dear to them, and the love that a dog can feel towards its puppies, owners or close dog friends. There is absolutely no need for anything spiritual, and understanding what love is does not diminish the intensity of the emotion.

 

[koeksGHT]

You're confusing love with lust.

Taking the time to visit your 92 year old grandmother who is frail and senile and probably doesn't recognise you, yet bringing her favourite flowers and spending time with her, has nothing to do with boning more and having offspring. This is an act of love.

Stop trying to bone your grandmom :twisted:

 

[saor]

So either you believe that physical matter is capable of awareness, feeling and consciousness or you believe there is more to the brain and body than just physical matter. I assumed you believe the former because you dismiss the latter.

Or he believes that certain configurations of matter give rise to vastly different phenomena (like consciousness, photosynthesis and nuclear fusion).

 

[Bryn]

You're confusing love with lust.

Taking the time to visit your 92 year old grandmother who is frail and senile and probably doesn't recognise you, yet bringing her favourite flowers and spending time with her, has nothing to do with boning more and having offspring. This is an act of love.

He was probably joking, but not far from the truth. Love is an evolutionary advantage, as it encourages mating, the rearing of offspring, defensive behaviour towards creatures that are cared for and social organisation.

 

[C4Cat]

No one has claimed that all matter is self aware. The brain is a highly complex arrangement of molecules, and very different to the arrangement of a star. You need some compelling evidence to claim that feeling emotion is a spiritual process.

You think awareness and self-awareness somehow mysteriously emerge out of a specific complex arrangement of molecules, molecules which are themselves not aware in any way?

 

[saor]

You think awareness and self-awareness somehow mysteriously emerge out of a specific complex arrangement of molecules, molecules which are themselves not aware in any way?

You mean how that kind of phenomena emerges in bees and ants?

 

[C4Cat]

Or he believes that certain configurations of matter give rise to vastly different phenomena (like consciousness, photosynthesis and nuclear fusion).

Does he have any evidence that consciousness (which has no physical properties) is a result of certain configurations?

Consciousness is not the same as photosynthesis and nuclear fusion - photosynthesis and nuclear fission are purely chemical reactions which can be studied and predicted. Consciousness has no physical attributes - it has no smell, no taste. It can't be seen or heard or touched.
No evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.

 

[Bryn]

You think awareness and self-awareness somehow mysteriously emerge out of a specific complex arrangement of molecules, molecules which are themselves not aware in any way?

That's what me and every rational person on Earth thinks. Our brain gives us self-awareness. There are an unlimited number of examples of brains that are less developed than ours. 99.99% of species that have existed on Earth are extinct, and our species controls the planet. That's because we developed self-awareness, sight, social organisation etc.

You have veered off track though, as we are not discussing abiogenesis. That is one of the newest and most incomplete fields of study, and I'm happy to leave it to people who are qualified to continue its research. The prevailing state of "we don't know" doesn't lend credibility to anyone's point of view anyway. As I've mentioned, any claim made without evidence is going to be discarded without evidence.

 

[Bryn]

No evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.

You need to stop saying this. Scientists have been testing and classifying consciousness (self awareness, specifically) for decades already. Evidence doesn't have to be tangible to be valid.


[video=youtube;qHXKr3q0fdY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHXKr3q0fdY[/video]

 

[C4Cat]

That's what me and every rational person on Earth thinks. Our brain gives us self-awareness. There are an unlimited number of examples of brains that are less developed than ours. 99.99% of species that have existed on Earth are extinct, and our species controls the planet. That's because we developed self-awareness, sight, social organisation etc.

You have veered off track though, as we are not discussing abiogenesis. That is one of the newest and most incomplete fields of study, and I'm happy to leave it to people who are qualified to continue its research. The prevailing state of "we don't know" doesn't lend credibility to anyone's point of view anyway. As I've mentioned, any claim made without evidence is going to be discarded without evidence.

I'm glad you said that because I'd like you to provide evidence that awareness and self-awareness somehow mysteriously emerge out of a specific complex arrangement of molecules, molecules which are themselves not aware in any way. By your own admission, this viewpoint must be discarded since there is no actual evidence to support it. It's just 'what makes most sense' given our current materialist worldview.

 

[C4Cat]

You need to stop saying this. Scientists have been testing and classifying consciousness (self awareness, specifically) for decades already. Evidence doesn't have to be tangible to be valid.


[video=youtube;qHXKr3q0fdY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHXKr3q0fdY[/video]

I can't watch video's right now so I'll have to watch it later.

But tell me, can you use these tests to see if plants have consciousness or self-awareness?
How about bugs and bees and ants? Do these tests determine if they have self awareness?

 

[Bryn]

I'm glad you said that because I'd like you to provide evidence that awareness and self-awareness somehow mysteriously emerge out of a specific complex arrangement of molecules, molecules which are themselves not aware in any way. By your own admission, this viewpoint must be discarded since there is no actual evidence to support it. It's just 'what makes most sense' given our current materialist worldview.

You're asking me to answer the question behind abiogenesis, which no one has been able to yet. Again, I don't know why you're diverting the discussion to an entirely different field of science. There is no evidence for any particular view, and no single viewpoint has been awarded a default status.

What we know is that molecules are not living things, and that we are living things comprised of molecules. Would you prefer that science stop trying to understand things that we don't yet understand, and rather just say 'a god must have done it' every time?

 

[AstroTurf]

yet

 

[Bryn]

I can't watch video's right now so I'll have to watch it later.

But tell me, can you use these tests to see if plants have consciousness or self-awareness?
How about bugs and bees and ants? Do these tests determine if they have self awareness?

Testing all creatures for self-awareness is impossible, as they are so numerous and so different. We do what we can though, and focus on creatures more likely to be self-aware. The mirror test is the favoured means at the moment, but it's obviously not suitable for all creatures. I read not long ago that fruit flies showed self-awareness when presented with a virtual reality video game controlled by their actions.

I'm getting a vibe from you that you attribute anything that science does not have a definitive answer for as the work of a divine being. You need to realise that the more we understand, the more we realise we do not understand. Answers lead us to countless new questions, and that is a beautiful thing. Striving to understand the universe is better than sitting on a pew and feeding the delusions we inherited from our ignorant ancestors.

 

[Nick333]

You said - No the brain and the rest of your body does all that - with reference to awareness, feeling and consciousness.

Your brain and body are made up of the same physical matter as the sun, and every other physical thing in the world.

So either you believe that physical matter is capable of awareness, feeling and consciousness or you believe there is more to the brain and body than just physical matter. I assumed you believe the former because you dismiss the latter.

Fair enough, I didn't qualify that statement, but given the context of everything else I've said in this thread and even what I went on to say re: the soul in the exact same post you'd be hard pressed to claim that I am taking a definitive stance about consciousness. And, even if I take full responsibility for your misunderstanding it still doesn't explain your characterisation of the materialist stance, because, even if consciousness were purely material, how on Earth do you extrapolate that to meaning that all things must then have consciousness? Surely the materialist argument would be that you would need a brain and all that comes with it to be conscious?



I'm now guessing that you are some sort of mainstream theist, most likely Christian, specifically one of the with a tentative awareness of an idea known as pantheism which you kind of sort of think that I'm alluding to.

I do sort of toy with the idea of consciousness being an inherent property of the Universe much like gravity. And that the Universe is able to experience itself through life forms with the necessary apparatus to process stimuli and even think about itself through life forms with sufficiently evolved intellects. I like to think that the illusion of an identity separate from the whole that is the Universe that we labour under is the result of being separated from other entities in space and time. I'm not sure if that is just a mystification of materialism but, I do think that mainstream science is comfortable enough with the possibility of other dimensions and parallel universes that it could admit there being more to reality than meets the proverbial eye.

What I don't believe for lack of evidence is that these entities that we identify with have any existence outside the body. I don't believe in individual consciousness. I believe our likes and dislikes, wants and aspirations are all the result of random arrangements of DNA inherited from the bodies of our ancestors and the influence of our environment on our physical development. When our component parts cease to function as what we call a body everything that we think of as a person ceases to exist as a function of said body. There is no experience to be had from that arrangement of atoms and molecules and it's resultant intellectual activity and no memory of said activity from the perspective of that arrangement of atoms.

Perhaps what we think of as spiritual love ( and probably confuse with the evolved instinct to feel comfortable with and want to be around our own kind) is just a recognition that separate identity is just a necessary illusion and we are all the Universe.

Maybe if we can feel that instead of all this over-attachment to our "self" we could overcome our fear of death and stop making up silly stories about the "self" being something so precious that it will exist forever in some sort of cosmic Disneyland (if we're good little collections of self-replicating molecules).

 

[C4Cat]

Fair enough, I didn't qualify that statement, but given the context of everything else I've said in this thread and even what I went on to say re: the soul in the exact same post you'd be hard pressed to claim that I am taking a definitive stance about consciousness. And, even if I take full responsibility for your misunderstanding it still doesn't explain your characterisation of the materialist stance, because, even if consciousness were purely material, how on Earth do you extrapolate that to meaning that all things must then have consciousness? Surely the materialist argument would be that you would need a brain and all that comes with it to be conscious?



I'm now guessing that you are some sort of mainstream theist, most likely Christian, specifically one of the with a tentative awareness of an idea known as pantheism which you kind of sort of think that I'm alluding to.

I do sort of toy with the idea of consciousness being an inherent property of the Universe much like gravity. And that the Universe is able to experience itself through life forms with the necessary apparatus to process stimuli and even think about itself through life forms with sufficiently evolved intellects. I like to think that the illusion of an identity separate from the whole that is the Universe that we labour under is the result of being separated from other entities in space and time. I'm not sure if that is just a mystification of materialism but, I do think that mainstream science is comfortable enough with the possibility of other dimensions and parallel universes that it could admit there being more to reality than meets the proverbial eye.

What I don't believe for lack of evidence is that these entities that we identify with have any existence outside the body. I don't believe in individual consciousness. I believe our likes and dislikes, wants and aspirations are all the result of random arrangements of DNA inherited from the bodies of our ancestors and the influence of our environment on our physical development. When our component parts cease to function as what we call a body everything that we think of as a person ceases to exist as a function of said body. There is no experience to be had from that arrangement of atoms and molecules and it's resultant intellectual activity and no memory of said activity from the perspective of that arrangement of atoms.

Perhaps what we think of as spiritual love ( and probably confuse with the evolved instinct to feel comfortable with and want to be around our own kind) is just a recognition that separate identity is just a necessary illusion and we are all the Universe.

Maybe if we can feel that instead of all this over-attachment to our "self" we could overcome our fear of death and stop making up silly stories about the "self" being something so precious that it will exist forever in some sort of cosmic Disneyland (if we're good little collections of self-replicating molecules).

I enjoyed this post very much, you're obviously not as dogmatic as Bryn. I'm not a Christian, by the way, I'm not sure what I am but my spiritual awakening is based on A Course In Miracles (http://courseinmiracles.com/) though I know I'll receive a lot of flak here for saying that.

 

[C4Cat]

Testing all creatures for self-awareness is impossible, as they are so numerous and so different. We do what we can though, and focus on creatures more likely to be self-aware. The mirror test is the favoured means at the moment, but it's obviously not suitable for all creatures. I read not long ago that fruit flies showed self-awareness when presented with a virtual reality video game controlled by their actions.

I'm getting a vibe from you that you attribute anything that science does not have a definitive answer for as the work of a divine being. You need to realise that the more we understand, the more we realise we do not understand. Answers lead us to countless new questions, and that is a beautiful thing. Striving to understand the universe is better than sitting on a pew and feeding the delusions we inherited from our ignorant ancestors.

No, your vibe is wrong. I don't attribute anything that science does not have a definitive answer for as the work of a divine being. I'm just talking about consciousness and self-awareness. I know there are a lot of mysteries of the universe which we have yet to uncover and that science will continue to shed light on many of them.

 

[saor]

No, your vibe is wrong. I don't attribute anything that science does not have a definitive answer for as the work of a divine being. I'm just talking about consciousness and self-awareness. I know there are a lot of mysteries of the universe which we have yet to uncover and that science will continue to shed light on many of them.

In light of how much we don't know - why do you so confidently attribute certain aspects of being to a soul? The notion of a soul is entirely thumbsucked, or rather - I think you need to be more nuanced in your approach rather than resort to phrases like 'soul'. You might mean the soul in the same way nick333 referred to some underlying field/force that interacts with self-organizing systems to allow for consciousness to emerge. Is that the case?

Words like 'soul' just become placeholders for 'we don't know', and both parties bring nothing to the table other than claims to ignorance & abstractions of claims to ignorance.