My view on souls

[ragarth]

I was going to answer the 'Souls - What, Where, & When?' thread but the mods moved it over here, and forum rules keep me from posting in it. :-(

I am an atheist, but this does not keep me from having a definition of what I think the term 'soul' means. That said, I saw a fair number of people posting the idea of an individual being composed of a 'soul' a 'spirit' and a 'body'. I'll try to expand my definition to include these.

The body is a corporeal form that provides interaction with the physical world.

The spirit has two different definitions that I see: It's the mediating force between body and soul, a non-real force that only exists to facilitate the communication between soul and body during the time of life. OR It's the soul after separating from the body, much like a meteoroid is an asteroid after it enters the earth's atmosphere.

The soul is the meat of human existence, except it has no meat. This is the seat of all those classically 'human' properties- Cognizance, Original Thought, Morality, A connection to god. It's capable of existing in some way separate from the body, but it's connection to the body is mediated through the spirit. We say 'he's full of spirit' and mean he has great energy, we say 'the eyes are windows to the soul' and mean that you can see the true self of someone through their eyes.


The crux of this seems to be the existence of a soul, and I feel the proof and likelihood fall very heavily on the side of a soul not existing- that is all the qualities assigned to the soul being ascribable to physical/biological processes and so making the existence of a soul superfluous and indeed making it's inclusion in the human composition an excessively complicated idea.

I personally believe that all those human traits are a result of the properties of the neurons, their synapses, and the interconnection of them within the brain. A single neuron is representative of an agent in intelligent agent theory, and due to the simple summar/complex connection structure of the brain these very simple agents are capable of assembly into highly complex structures capable of producing cognizance, memory, pattern recognition, original thought, and any other quality we humans (and indeed many animals) appear to posses. Therefore the actual human, the 'soul' as you might call it is in actuality the interplay of synaptic weights, neural interconnections, and neuronal structure.

Given this, I can hypothetically create a division between the 'consciousness' and the 'body' even though the consciousness is a resultant property of a particular organ within the body. One is a logical, a virtual construct while the other is the physical form, and this is critical to many of my transhumanist beliefs, namely the idea of uploading wherein a person 'uploads' his consciousness into another medium whether it be a computer or another body. This is accomplished by essentially copying the neural structure into the new media and facilitating the transition of that logical, virtual state between them through a gradual process that involves the systematic shutdown of the old media and the equivalent systematic startup of the new media so that the logical construct at certain points exists across both media.

Isn't that a soul? You might ask. No, it's got one critical difference, the consciousness is a property of the physical media, the 'body' and so it cannot exist without a body. Further, upon death the neurological structure of the brain begins to break down within minutes as neurons die from oxygen deprivation, so a preservation of this structure is impossible using every modern technique; even the idea of uploading is hypothetical and has a decent chance of not being possible- not to mention it would probably take more time to upload than the brain has once clinical death sets in. Attempting an upload once clinical death sets in would probably copy the consciousness rather than upload it, and in my opinion, a copy is a new individual no matter how closely it resembles the original.

 

[drich0150]

Impressive explanation, but when it's all said and done your explanation proves in actual truth, as much as we can prove to the contrary. So that said, your belief as our beliefs all boils down to a matter of faith. The same exact faith we use to believe, here is used to not believe...

So despite your explanation or "beliefs" and the reasoning behind it, everything that can be said on either side of the argument is a simple matter of faith in what you want to believe, and to who you want to live for. (yourself or God)

 

[ragarth]

Impressive explanation, but when it's all said and done your explanation proves in actual truth, as much as we can prove to the contrary. So that said, your belief as our beliefs all boils down to a matter of faith. The same exact faith we use to believe, here is used to not believe...

So despite your explanation or "beliefs" and the reasoning behind it, everything that can be said on either side of the argument is a simple matter of faith in what you want to believe, and to who you want to live for. (yourself or God)

First let's start with a definition: Faith to me is a belief in something beyond that which empirical or rational proof would otherwise provide. If the voracity of belief could be quantized, then my belief in something would be 3 if I had 3 points of proof for it (empirical or rational argumentation), if I had faith in it, I would have 5 points of belief though only 3 points of proof. I state this because there seems to be a lot of definitions of faith floating around these forums.

Given this definition of faith, then I do not have faith in my beliefs because I do not place excessive value to them, I am readily swayed by arguments for and against them. This does not mean that I don't hope uploading will be proven true, but I maintain a realistic view on it- there are a LOT of hurdles to overcome, and as of yet cognitive science is still in it's infancy. Just as it used to be standard to model a neuron as a simple summation device, and many people believed this, the proof is now to the contrary in many instances, some neurons are indeed complex calculators, and so my beliefs given this information have changed. If I had faith in my beliefs in uploading, I wouldn't have accepted the complex calculator model because it makes the science behind uploading many times more complex.

Now let's look at this: uploading vs the soul and afterlife. Uploading makes predictions about the nature of the brain, it provides methods of testing, it is testable, repeatable, predictable. It is scientifically validated or invalidated. The soul and the afterlife, however, do not. Once you die there is no communication from the magic fairyland of forever happyfuntime, there is no method of measuring the barometric pressure of heaven, or the weight, resistance, or energy of the soul. It is an argument entirely made from the premise that you can't disprove it. This means that uploading and transhumanism as a belief makes positive argumentation (we know- therefore) whereas religion, christianity, afterlife make negative argumentation (we don't know- therefore) guess which one is a logical fallacy?

 

[Chesterton]

Given this definition of faith, then I do not have faith in my beliefs because I do not place excessive value to them, I am readily swayed by arguments for and against them.

But that just says that you value your beliefs at an "appropriate" valuation level. I believe I do the same. That's doesn't mean you don't have faith.

Now let's look at this: uploading vs the soul and afterlife.

I'm unclear why those things are opposed to each other.

This means that uploading and transhumanism as a belief makes positive argumentation (we know- therefore)...

Positive argumentation for what?

...forever happyfuntime...

Ah, my favorite Japanese game show.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You do realize some of us believe soul and spirit are one and the same in humans? That we have a duality in our nature not a trinity?

 

[ragarth]

But that just says that you value your beliefs at an "appropriate" valuation level. I believe I do the same. That's doesn't mean you don't have faith.

Note the operative statement 'Given this definition' That sets the statement as being relative to my definition of faith, not your own. Perhaps if you clarified what the word faith means to you we can get somewhere with this? Mine is based on the dictionary.

I'm unclear why those things are opposed to each other.

In a general sense, they're not. In the sense of comparing positive vs negative argumentation, they are in opposition.

Positive argumentation for what?

Positive argumentation for the beliefs and their predictions. We know that technology advances, and we know that there has been an increase in the quality of health due to the advance of technology. We also know that technology is becoming increasingly invasive in our lives and our bodies (stints, pacemakers, artificial hearts, electrode implants, etc etc etc). At it's core transhumanism is the idea that this advance of technology improving the human condition will continue till it changes the state of the human condition. This makes logical sense- let's take neural enhancement, a major component of transhumanism. We know the brain responds to electrical stimuli in predictable ways, we know we can read data off the brain and process it to produce results, it's not much farther past that to see technology using this intercommunication to both receive and send data to the brain. If thought itself becomes a tool for use, or even an object of manipulation, isn't that technology changing the very nature of the human condition? Positive argumentation, not once did I prove my point by saying 'we don't know' or 'this theory is wrong on this point, therefore my hypothesis is right', rather I proved my point by saying 'we know, therefore'

 

[ragarth]

You do realize some of us believe soul and spirit are one and the same in humans? That we have a duality in our nature not a trinity?

Yes I do, the beliefs in regards to the nature of the soul are as numerous as the stars in the sky. If I were to frame my definition in terms that matched every religious individuals belief in what the soul is, then I would run into the buffer cap on this site.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Ok, but how does such a bio-electrical "soul" achieve self-awareness?

 

[drich0150]

First let's start with a definition: Faith to me is a belief in something beyond that which empirical or rational proof would otherwise provide.

Given this definition of faith, then I do not have faith in my beliefs because I do not place excessive value to them..

Even so, your work here is what you believe, why else did you need to go through this long explanation on "My view on souls" If in fact, this wasn't what you believed.
And, according to your definition of what faith is, added to your own admission to the lack of any scientific proof of your personal theories, All of this is can be considered a work of Faith... A work of faith has little to do with an excessive value placed on what you believe.. A work of faith can be identified by someone's unsolicited need to post what he or she believes in this forum.
Again by your dictionary based version of "faith" whether you can admit to it or not This is faith.. It is The same faith it takes us to believe what we believe.

Once you die there is no communication from the magic fairyland of forever happyfuntime, there is no method of measuring the barometric pressure of heaven, or the weight, resistance, or energy of the soul.

So before 1640 (before the barometer) barometric pressure did not exist? By your logic here if "we" have not figured out a way to measure something by now "we" as a people will never be able to do so? That's a little close minded don't you think?
To you, What make this time in all of the history of man the pinnacle of our existence? Is it because you live in this time period? Or perhaps because you happen to be at your pinnacle of achievement? Again, isn't that even by atheistic standards a bit narrow minded?

It is an argument entirely made from the premise that you can't disprove it.

All of scientific fact is based on this Idea.. That until you can disprove a theory in a controlled verifiable/reproducible manner.. all "theories" are deemed scientific fact.. How long was Pluto a planet? How much did this government spend in the seeding of clouds to produce rain in the 20th century? How many decades were we warned of the up coming "mini Ice age" and global cooling slated for the turn of the century? And now how much are we spending on going "Green?" because of global warning?? All of this is due to scientific theories represented as "Fact."

This means that uploading and transhumanism as a belief makes positive argumentation (we know- therefore)

Again this belief is just that another belief or "fact" waiting to either be proved or disproved..

whereas religion, christianity, afterlife make negative argumentation (we don't know- therefore) guess which one is a logical fallacy?

As I have mentioned before, This argument is also based on Idea of: "We" haven't figured out a way to study this realm then "we" never will be able to.. To which I say just because an idea doesn't fit the current scientific model, doesn't mean that a later, and dare I say a smarter generation will find a way to do so. Your statement here reminds me of what all the nay sayers said about going to the moon or powered flight.. Just because You or Your "hero's" haven't figured it out, doesn't mean there is nothing to be figured out...

 

[ragarth]

Ok, but how does such a bio-electrical "soul" achieve self-awareness?

First we need an objective measure of self-awareness. Scientists use the capacity to recognize one's reflection in a mirror as this measure, the idea being if you can recognize your own reflection, you are aware that this reflection is yourself and ergo you are self aware. It was generally assumed until recently that only animals possessing a neocortex were self-aware, studies have shown that this is the area of the brain which processes self-awareness. Now though, we've found that some birds possess the equivalent of a neocortex, magpies for instance. To prove this we put them through a series of tests, as described here:

neocortex | Science Buzz

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not so much asking how to prove we or something is self-aware, that is actually fairly easy. Asking logically how could a bio-based computer be self aware. How would that program work?

 

[ragarth]

Even so, your work here is what you believe, why else did you need to go through this long explanation on "My view on souls" If in fact, this wasn't what you believed.
And, according to your definition of what faith is, added to your own admission to the lack of any scientific proof of your personal theories, All of this is can be considered a work of Faith... A work of faith has little to do with an excessive value placed on what you believe.. A work of faith can be identified by someone's unsolicited need to post what he or she believes in this forum.
Again by your dictionary based version of "faith" whether you can admit to it or not This is faith.. It is The same faith it takes us to believe what we believe.

I believe that 2+2 = 4 in E^1 space, and am more than happy to post as such when I see a thread stating 'what's your belief on 2+2=4?' This is the same, I started this thread because I am not allowed to post in the thread that started this, it was moved from ethics and morality where I started reading it to here.

The fact is, belief is not synonymous with faith, and wanting to talk about something because it's interesting to you is not sign of faith. Your attempt to make these two statements is logically poor. "If I enjoy talking about shoes, Then I have faith in shoes"

Also notice I didn't stated 'scientists believe' I stated that I 'personally believe' Science does not make predictions of technology, moore's law is not scientific, it's predictive (and self-fulfilling at that. ). Science limits itself to empirical evidence, it follows very strict guidelines on what constitutes proof. For my belief structure I allow rationalism to build supporting proof in addition to empiricism.

"Again by your dictionary based version of "faith" whether you can admit to it or not This is faith.. It is The same faith it takes us to believe what we believe."

Prove it.

So before 1640 (before the barometer) barometric pressure did not exist? By your logic here if "we" have not figured out a way to measure something by now "we" as a people will never be able to do so? That's a little close minded don't you think?
To you, What make this time in all of the history of man the pinnacle of our existence? Is it because you live in this time period? Or perhaps because you happen to be at your pinnacle of achievement? Again, isn't that even by atheistic standards a bit narrow minded?

This statement really makes me want to show a bit of bias, one could make the claim that because religion places value on the idea that belief must be based on some ultimate, timeless truth, that religious people believe all beliefs must be ultimate and timeless. This is what your statement seems to lend credence too, but I give humanity more credit than that. Barometric pressure existed before it was discovered, but it was not used as a method of measurement before that. At the same time, before it was discovered, there was insufficient evidence of it's existence, and therefore one would have been silly to believe in it (unless there were a compelling rational basis for belief in it.)

Not once did I state we could 'never' prove something if the capacity to do so didn't exist now. the ideas of negative and positive argumentation make no claims about the future, you're saying that if I can only make negative argumentation about turnips, then I will always have to make negative argumentation about turnips. This is silly. I was making a claim about the proof we have right now, if you're basing your beliefs on the chance that we might be able to prove the validity of your religion in the future against any proof to the contrary, then you're gambling with your beliefs.

The rest of this statement is based on the misrepresentation of my words previously, and so is bunk.

All of scientific fact is based on this Idea.. That until you can disprove a theory in a controlled verifiable/reproducible manner.. all "theories" are deemed scientific fact.. How long was Pluto a planet? How much did this government spend in the seeding of clouds to produce rain in the 20th century? How many decades were we warned of the up coming "mini Ice age" and global cooling slated for the turn of the century? And now how much are we spending on going "Green?" because of global warning?? All of this is due to scientific theories represented as "Fact."

Clearly you don't understand science. We don't prove gravity by saying 'you can't disprove it' because this is against the idea of falsifiability. To be considered falsifiable, a hypothesis must make a prediction that is testable, ergo falsifiable. If it's prediction fails the test, then it is an untrue hypothesis and must be revised, if it passes the test, kudos!

Your statement: "until you can disprove a theory in a controlled verifiable/reproducible manner.. all "theories" are deemed scientific fact" is a load of manure. God is not scientific because omnipotent, omniscient entities cannot be disproven. If your statement weren't a lie, then god would be scientific. Also, you're conflating hypothesis and theory, a theory has a solid grounding in evidence, a hypothesis does not. I have not called any of my personal beliefs theories, only hypothesis'.

As I have mentioned before, This argument is also based on Idea of: "We" haven't figured out a way to study this realm then "we" never will be able to.. To which I say just because an idea doesn't fit the current scientific model, doesn't mean that a later, and dare I say a smarter generation will find a way to do so. Your statement here reminds me of what all the nay sayers said about going to the moon or powered flight.. Just because You or Your "hero's" haven't figured it out, doesn't mean there is nothing to be figured out...

Science doesn't gamble with knowledge, religion might, but science does not.

 

[ragarth]

Not so much asking how to prove we or something is self-aware, that is actually fairly easy. Asking logically how could a bio-based computer be self aware. How would that program work?

I don't have time to look up articles to base this on, so this is just my opinion.

We know that neural networks are really fracking good at pattern recognition, since our brains are complex neural networks we can then presume that we are really good at pattern recognition. Given this, one could find a pattern in either those portions of one's self they can see and their reflection, or in the mimicry of their own actions by the reflection. Once this recognition of similarity or mimicry is achieved through this pattern-finding quality, a relationship can build between what is similar to one's self and those aspects that are related but not known to be one's self. This relationship will extend this recognition to the whole body, and the neural network will then relate all aspects of the reflection to itself, ergo, it will have self-awareness.

 

[drich0150]

The fact is, belief is not synonymous with faith, and wanting to talk about something because it's interesting to you is not sign of faith. Your attempt to make these two statements is logically poor.

be⋅lief   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-leef] Show IPA
–noun 1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA –noun 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom 9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

To me it's strange to build your definition of "Faith" on the dictionary, and yet construct you own definition for belief, to simply win an argument.. If your goal was to obtain truth then why not start with foundational truths. Why represent yourself with the appearance of "truth" (Your post on building your definition of faith from the dictionary) and then change the game when the conversation stops going your way??? If you truly look at both definitions these two words, they are used to describe each other. So I say again if you have enough faith to start an unsolicited thread on your beliefs of what a soul is with out any evidence, then you are exercising the same faith that believers do. no matter how you dress it up to the contrary...

Barometric pressure existed before it was discovered, but it was not used as a method of measurement before that.

Then how foolish is a man before the time that barometer was first introduced to say that weather patterns are not predictable, nor will their ever be a way to predict them.. To you this is not like saying: The earth is flat, without having all of the info? Or is Peer approval so important in the atheistic community it has closed you mind? Why not simply say, with the current available data we have no way to prove the existence of God or a soul.. Why the need to speak in absolutes? Why the need to stomp on someone else who doesn't believe as you do?


In your work to discredit my understanding of "science" you have labeled me and stereotyped my efforts in a manner that probably fit your definition of who I'm supposed to represent. allowing you the opportunity to attack the messenger and a chance to avoid the message.

The rest of this statement is based on the misrepresentation of my words previously, and so is bunk.

I have based my statement on the fundamental principles of the scientific Method

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results

Which produces a working theory in most cases. To Which I stated that these theories are often absorbed as scientific fact, and I gave examples. then you quickly labeled them "bunk" and continue the conversation in a direction that you thought it should go in.. (Labeling my efforts in away that you could discredit and dismiss) over looking what was said so that you may continue in your own direction..

My efforts here isn't to start a debate over something I have a middle school understanding of (Science) It's to show you, or at least have you take another look at your efforts, and see them for what they are, an exercise in faith.. despite all of the credence you put in your tightly defined "beliefs." Bottom line is, Their isn't any proof either way, so no matter what the content of your belief, it is a matter of faith that you hold on to what you believe with out proof.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't know, I just keep thinking of an old story: Frankenstein - the attempt to manufacture a self-aware being; to create life. Sounds like the kind of bridge we don't need to cross until we get there. The idea is interesting, but very speculative; basically "if a is true, then b..." when we are very far from knowing if a can be true.

 

[ragarth]

blank.

 

[ragarth]

That was exciting. I'm sorry about the previous post, life likes to throw curve-balls sometimes.

To me it's strange to build your definition of "Faith" on the dictionary, and yet construct you own definition for belief, to simply win an argument.. If your goal was to obtain truth then why not start with foundational truths. Why represent yourself with the appearance of "truth" (Your post on building your definition of faith from the dictionary) and then change the game when the conversation stops going your way??? If you truly look at both definitions these two words, they are used to describe each other. So I say again if you have enough faith to start an unsolicited thread on your beliefs of what a soul is with out any evidence, then you are exercising the same faith that believers do. no matter how you dress it up to the contrary...

Good point, I had indeed mis-defined belief. I admit my mistake, instead let's call my statements my opinions. Some are informed opinions while others are not, in the future I will work to use the correct terminology.

Then how foolish is a man before the time that barometer was first introduced to say that weather patterns are not predictable, nor will their ever be a way to predict them.. To you this is not like saying: The earth is flat, without having all of the info? Or is Peer approval so important in the atheistic community it has closed you mind? Why not simply say, with the current available data we have no way to prove the existence of God or a soul.. Why the need to speak in absolutes? Why the need to stomp on someone else who doesn't believe as you do?

During the time before Chaos Theory or basic means of measuring critical values for weather, one would have no compelling reason to state that weather is not random. One would be informed to say that it is indeed random- clouds appear from nowhere, sometimes we can predict them such as hot days followed by cool nights, but without any means of measuring wind speed and direction at cloud level, people would have had no means by which to gauge cloud movement and so no predictions of even the most rudimentary form could be made. Ergo, the bulk of evidence at the time was indeed for weather having an inherent randomness. Today we know different, but we cannot look back on earlier folk and say "Weren't they silly!" because their opinions were built upon a different dataset than ours.

In the future I have no doubt that a significant number of my opinions will be looked at as being ill-informed and misdirected, that is the nature of the progress of knowledge. Does that mean I should live in a world of absolute relativism? No, it doesn't. I will state my opinions based upon my current knowledge, and if they are proven wrong then I will change them to suit new information.

The only absolute I stated is that god cannot be disproven because god is deemed an omnipotent, omniscient entity. I can state this because omnipotence and omniscience are absolute values of absolute power and knowledge- to possess them means one could perfectly thwart any attempt to prove or disprove your existence and so science cannot prove or disprove god. The only way god could be proven is if god comes down and says "Yo, I'm god, wazzup homies" otherwise any attempt at disproof runs into being thwarted by absolute power and knowledge. My statement about the sould was not an absolute, it was a statement as to why arguments for it's existence are based on negative argumentation, not statements of absolutism. I quote:

"Positive argumentation, not once did I prove my point by saying 'we don't know' or 'this theory is wrong on this point, therefore my hypothesis is right', rather I proved my point by saying 'we know, therefore'"

and:

"Not once did I state we could 'never' prove something if the capacity to do so didn't exist now. the ideas of negative and positive argumentation make no claims about the future, you're saying that if I can only make negative argumentation about turnips, then I will always have to make negative argumentation about turnips. This is silly. I was making a claim about the proof we have right now, if you're basing your beliefs on the chance that we might be able to prove the validity of your religion in the future against any proof to the contrary, then you're gambling with your beliefs."

In your work to discredit my understanding of "science" you have labeled me and stereotyped my efforts in a manner that probably fit your definition of who I'm supposed to represent. allowing you the opportunity to attack the messenger and a chance to avoid the message.



I have based my statement on the fundamental principles of the scientific Method

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results

Which produces a working theory in most cases. To Which I stated that these theories are often absorbed as scientific fact, and I gave examples. then you quickly labeled them "bunk" and continue the conversation in a direction that you thought it should go in.. (Labeling my efforts in away that you could discredit and dismiss) over looking what was said so that you may continue in your own direction..

I stated the rest of your argument was bunk because I feel that I proved that the basis of your argument was based on a mishcaracterization of my statement. If a house has no grounds to stand on, then one need to make statements showing it's foundation is not securely fastened.

This post was done for your benefit during a little time I have right now. Some major problems have suddenly arisen for me that I need to handle over the next several weeks, but I feel it would have been insulting to you to just drop the conversation and I had a little time to give you proper courtesy. You take the closing argument, and I'll read it, but I can't really find time for the next several days to construct arguments. I apologize.

 

[drich0150]

You take the closing argument, and I'll read it, but I can't really find time for the next several days to construct arguments. I apologize.

I don't think their is anything left to "argue" my efforts here were to simply show the different aspects of the same type of "faith." I wasn't trying to "convert" or change the way you think, just maybe enlighten alittle. I feel at this point even if you don't agree at least you have some Idea as to what and why I believe as I do. Again my efforts weren't to challenge your philosophy of positive argumentation, or to deem your beliefs right or wrong, but to simply shine a light on the "faith" it takes to except either side of the argument, without any solid proof.

I do appreciate the time you have spent in the construction and execution of your efforts, and the honesty you have shown in your opening statement of your last post. I hope this hasn't soured your experience here and I look forward to a possibility commenting on one of your future threads.

Thanks for your time, and no apology needed.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't have time to look up articles to base this on, so this is just my opinion.

We know that neural networks are really fracking good at pattern recognition, since our brains are complex neural networks we can then presume that we are really good at pattern recognition. Given this, one could find a pattern in either those portions of one's self they can see and their reflection, or in the mimicry of their own actions by the reflection. Once this recognition of similarity or mimicry is achieved through this pattern-finding quality, a relationship can build between what is similar to one's self and those aspects that are related but not known to be one's self. This relationship will extend this recognition to the whole body, and the neural network will then relate all aspects of the reflection to itself, ergo, it will have self-awareness.

How nice.
Those of us who done any programming at all will recognize a problem with this line of thinking.
A self-awareness sub-routine will need to loop, creating a series of "me" in non-continuous but sequential moments of time. And to approach the level of awareness we appear to have; that “the me” this second is the same me from several seconds ago, would require a very tight loop.

In a very practical sense however these are not the same "me"s but a just series of similar calculations. Does that appear to me to explain my perception of "me"? I find it is interesting but unsatisfactory.

Not to mention programming loops tend to do bad things to computers, especially tight loops.

No, while an interesting notion, I do not see how processing loops can explain our sense of self awareness. It goes beyond just a simple status query to the point that there is a very real perception that this “me”, while part of this body, is something more.

 

[ragarth]

I don't think their is anything left to "argue" my efforts here were to simply show the different aspects of the same type of "faith." I wasn't trying to "convert" or change the way you think, just maybe enlighten alittle. I feel at this point even if you don't agree at least you have some Idea as to what and why I believe as I do. Again my efforts weren't to challenge your philosophy of positive argumentation, or to deem your beliefs right or wrong, but to simply shine a light on the "faith" it takes to except either side of the argument, without any solid proof.

I do appreciate the time you have spent in the construction and execution of your efforts, and the honesty you have shown in your opening statement of your last post. I hope this hasn't soured your experience here and I look forward to a possibility commenting on one of your future threads.

Thanks for your time, and no apology needed.

Thanks, it's been a pleasure. I'm sorry it's been cut short, life just kinda hit yesterday like a wrecking ball. Finals come up next week (why I'm on this site right now, debate is a decent stress-sink for me, I enjoy it.), and two coworkers dropped out yesterday so my schedule next week just went crazy-er. My mom got rear ended by a tractor trailor, the damage was much less than I thought it was before I saw it, just a busted tail light and her trunk lid was shifted 3mm to the right, otherwise everyone is okay.

Good news however! One of my friends gave birth to a healthy baby boy.

So yeah, everything kinda hit at once and it overwhelmed me more than a little bit.