Captain Metaphysics and the Metaphysicaters

[Percivale]

I never once said anything close to this. Straw men suck.

It is indeed difficult to communicate perfectly on these forums

But we're talking about consciousness apart from brains. If you're going towards solipsism it will suck too lol.For many years tomatoes were thought to be poisonous. Do you accept their testimony ? How would you test their testimony ?

I'm pretty anti-solipsist too. Whether tomatoes are poisonous is one of the easiest things in the world to test. Simply remember if you've ever seen someone eat one and if they're still ok. Whether consciousness exists apart from brains is one of the hardest things to test, since if non-brained conscious beings exist, they have evidently chosen not to show themselves to the general public, or perhaps are not able to.

Similarly, how would you test to see if consciousness exists apart from brains ? How would you provide evidence ? Again, wouldn't you need to show that a brain isn't involved to show that consciousness exists apart from it ? I still don't think you're getting my point.

My point has been throughout that if those in near death experiences really have met conscious beings who are either long-dead humans or other non-brained beings, then consciousness does exist apart from brains. And if NDEers report verifyable things they could not have known if they were limited to their own brains and senses, that would be a reason to believe their testimony in general. Is that reasoning not clear?

So are you concerned with the content, or whether or not they are evidence for consciousness having unique properties ? Will you discount some "evidence" due to content even if they point to similar things ?

For example ... do you accept Muhammad's account of his visit to heaven ?

Both content and implications for consciousness are interesting. Let's clear up definitions. At first I thought an OOBE is an experience of feeling detached from your body, seeing the room from above, etc, and NDEs are visits to places like heaven or hell. I suppose that is the wrong definition, rather, the content of the experience may be the same in either, the difference is whether the person's heart stops or something like that. So either may be valid testimony, if one can verify that they are not just hallucinating or making it up (which they might do more in the case of OOBEs, but not a big difference). So, Muhammad may have visited heaven, but we have no way of verifying that, nor of telling how much he may have adjusted his report of it to fit his worldview and desires, if he did actually have the experience. So his testimony is not worth that much.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm pretty anti-solipsist too. Whether tomatoes are poisonous is one of the easiest things in the world to test. Simply remember if you've ever seen someone eat one and if they're still ok.

This would not determine definitively if tomatoes are poisonous or not. Some things which are poisonous to us are slow acting, or may not be noticeable in small quantities, etc.

Whether consciousness exists apart from brains is one of the hardest things to test, since if non-brained conscious beings exist, they have evidently chosen not to show themselves to the general public, or perhaps are not able to.

I may argue against this as well, actually. If you believe there is a being who exhibits what you would consider consciousness, and is able to communicate as such ... and there is no discernable form (and thus no brain) associated with this being in their communication HOWEVER they are able to manifest their presence in some way apart from you, and it is verified in some fashion, that could be an example of the potential that consciousness exists apart from brains.

One of my points was that in each example you referenced, a human being with a functioning brained was involved. It would be difficult to show that the phenomena which occurred took place without the need for their brain.

My point has been throughout that if those in near death experiences really have met conscious beings who are either long-dead humans or other non-brained beings, then consciousness does exist apart from brains.

I don't recall you making this point specifically, however in addressing it, such a person would also need to show that such beings existed apart from their own imagination. IOW ... whether in NDE or otherwise, if someone claimed, "I met Paul the Apostle, this means there is consciousness apart from brains," you would need to show evidence that Paul existed apart from that person's brain who was doing the claiming. Otherwise it would potentially be indistinguishable from "existing in one's own mind".

And if NDEers report verifyable things they could not have known if they were limited to their own brains and senses, that would be a reason to believe their testimony in general. Is that reasoning not clear?

I understand the reasoning you are using, but you're missing the part about the consciousness still being linked to the brain. Even if the "consciousness" travels off and goes somewhere and gives all kinds of info that can be verified, to say it EXISTS apart from it's brain would be difficult to prove. You are talking about the effect verses the mechanism of how it is accomplished. You would need to show how the principle that enables that information to be known to the person, doesn't involve their brain. Do you see how the verification of their testimony and the idea that consciousness exists apart from the brain are potentially two separate issues ? It's not about believing their testimony, it's about explaining the mechanism to the degree that you could conclusively state that consciousness exists apart from brains. Their testimony deals with the subject matter of what they are testifying about: what they saw, what they experienced. It doesn't necessarily answer the question about consciousness and brains. It raises questions, but doesn't directly answer them. IMO, I understand why someone would ask, "Wow, does that mean consciousness exists apart from the brain ?" but a quick 2 seconds of thought shows the obvious, imo, and thus more evidence is needed.

Both content and implications for consciousness are interesting.

Yes this is why people have been debating what it is, what it implies, and how it works for centuries

Let's clear up definitions. At first I thought an OOBE is an experience of feeling detached from your body, seeing the room from above, etc, and NDEs are visits to places like heaven or hell. I suppose that is the wrong definition, rather, the content of the experience may be the same in either, the difference is whether the person's heart stops or something like that.

Okay let me cut you off ... in casual conversation, people are loose and fast with definitions. There is "every day vernacular" and usage. But when talking about evidence, claims, and what is TRUE ... actually true, in it's fine components, etc ... it's helpful to pay attention to words and their meaning. It's so we can be clear on what we are describing, and what we are discovering and understanding and discrediting, etc.

NDE's don't always involve visits to places. Also, if you have a serious interest in this subject, you should probably familiar yourself with the different ways a person is determined to be dead from a medical perspective. A heart stopping doesn't mean a person has "died", it depends on the nature in which the heart stops, for how long, etc. Aspects of heart electrophysiology can actually be induced where certain parts of the electrical pathways can be blocked chemically which is almost the equivalent to cardioversion electrically. It is technically stopping part of the heart. The person experiences an odd response, but doesn't die. So not all "death" is equal. I've seen my fair share of people resuscitated.

So either may be valid testimony, if one can verify that they are not just hallucinating or making it up (which they might do more in the case of OOBEs, but not a big difference). So, Muhammad may have visited heaven, but we have no way of verifying that, nor of telling how much he may have adjusted his report of it to fit his worldview and desires, if he did actually have the experience. So his testimony is not worth that much.

To me your statements are showing bias. It sounds like you are discrediting the testimony of those who don't fit your perception of what they should see, how they should see it, etc. Do you agree ?

 

[Percivale]

I don't recall you making this point specifically, however in addressing it, such a person would also need to show that such beings existed apart from their own imagination. IOW ... whether in NDE or otherwise, if someone claimed, "I met Paul the Apostle, this means there is consciousness apart from brains," you would need to show evidence that Paul existed apart from that person's brain who was doing the claiming. Otherwise it would potentially be indistinguishable from "existing in one's own mind". I understand the reasoning you are using, but you're missing the part about the consciousness still being linked to the brain. Even if the "consciousness" travels off and goes somewhere and gives all kinds of info that can be verified, to say it EXISTS apart from it's brain would be difficult to prove. You are talking about the effect verses the mechanism of how it is accomplished. You would need to show how the principle that enables that information to be known to the person, doesn't involve their brain. Do you see how the verification of their testimony and the idea that consciousness exists apart from the brain are potentially two separate issues ? IMO, I understand why someone would ask, "Wow, does that mean consciousness exists apart from the brain ?" but a quick 2 seconds of thought shows the obvious, imo, and thus more evidence is needed.

If someone says they met the Apostle Paul, there would not be a way of verifying it, but if someone says they met their older brother, and that brother had died in birth and the parents never told the person, then one can verify that the person did meet that brother, or someone who knew about him. I've read two accounts of that happening.

Okay let me cut you off ... in casual conversation, people are loose and fast with definitions. There is "every day vernacular" and usage. But when talking about evidence, claims, and what is TRUE ... actually true, in it's fine components, etc ... it's helpful to pay attention to words and their meaning. It's so we can be clear on what we are describing, and what we are discovering and understanding and discrediting, etc.

NDE's don't always involve visits to places. Also, if you have a serious interest in this subject, you should probably familiar yourself with the different ways a person is determined to be dead from a medical perspective. A heart stopping doesn't mean a person has "died", it depends on the nature in which the heart stops, for how long, etc. Aspects of heart electrophysiology can actually be induced where certain parts of the electrical pathways can be blocked chemically which is almost the equivalent to cardioversion electrically. It is technically stopping part of the heart. The person experiences an odd response, but doesn't die. So not all "death" is equal. I've seen my fair share of people resuscitated.

Ok I'm sorry about not researching my definitions better. I was lazy and figured you'd understand what I was going for anyway.

To me your statements are showing bias. It sounds like you are discrediting the testimony of those who don't fit your perception of what they should see, how they should see it, etc. Do you agree?

I've noticed you probing for bias in previous posts. We all have some things we hope are true and some we hope are not, but I don't think I'm being biased in not believing the testimony of those whose claims are unverifiable and believing those who can verify their claims. I think it's obvious that some NDEers are frauds and others are honest.
I do try to account for my biases. Heaven is for Real is an NDE account I would want to be true, and was verified several ways, but it possible those involved conspired together, so I can't be sure it's true. I am more biased against reincarnation, but a number of NDEs support a form of it, so I have to be open to that possibility. I'm not just cherry-picking the accounts I like.

 

[TillICollapse]

If someone says they met the Apostle Paul, there would not be a way of verifying it, but if someone says they met their older brother, and that brother had died in birth and the parents never told the person, then one can verify that the person did meet that brother, or someone who knew about him. I've read two accounts of that happening.

I have no idea why you think it would be easier to verify someone claiming to meet someone who never lived, verses someone claiming to meet someone who actually did live. It's easier to verify something that never happened verses something that did ? If you can, please explain your logic here.

Ok I'm sorry about not researching my definitions better. I was lazy and figured you'd understand what I was going for anyway.

It's fine, I understood some of the gist of what you were saying, but I'm actually interested in areas such as these and understanding the mechanics involved so I am likely to pick things apart more to see what they are made of, and that involves dealing with more concrete definitions of terms, etc.

I've noticed you probing for bias in previous posts.

In all honesty I almost never point out where I think I see a bias or not. For one, if I'm right ... how often will someone admit to it ? I'll be left there thinking I'm right, and they will think I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong ... almost the same effect is accomplished lol. So pointing it out or asking about it rarely has a point for me. But lately I've tried to poke in that area a bit to see what comes out, so to speak.

We all have some things we hope are true and some we hope are not, but I don't think I'm being biased in not believing the testimony of those whose claims are unverifiable and believing those who can verify their claims. I think it's obvious that some NDEers are frauds and others are honest.

I think you may need to define (yes define) what you personally mean by "verify claims". Because I'm thinking we are not meaning the same thing by such a phrase.

I would say I think it's obvious that some NDE'ers, at the very least, are genuine in that they believe what they experienced really happened to them ... and some are aware they are frauds, etc.

I do try to account for my biases. Heaven is for Real is an NDE account I would want to be true, and was verified several ways, but it possible those involved conspired together, so I can't be sure it's true.

How was Heaven is for Real verified ? What are the ways you are referencing ?

I am more biased against reincarnation, but a number of NDEs support a form of it, so I have to be open to that possibility. I'm not just cherry-picking the accounts I like.

I'll try and drop the "are you bias angle" ? I poked and tried lol

 

[dms1972]

It being interesting is a good enough reason itself. It's being interested in the truth. Useful scientific discoveries can come from studying things that seem pointless.

Being interesting in the truth is good

There is a difference though when people examine something scientifically they reduce it, if you examine something holistically you don't. Therefore some things are meant to be studied scientifically others things (whether we examine them in others or ourselves are not for that sort of reduction).

I just think its one of those things that will remain a mystery.

Jeffrey Satinover writes:

"But the mysteriousness of consciousness, it seems to me, is self-evidently of a different order from other puzzles."

and that from a materialist hypothesis

"the only consistent statement should be 'beats me...and so far as I can see, it bids fair to keep on beating me.'" (The Quantum Brain)

I do recommend and have read, Death of the Soul by William Barrett and he shows how scientism has resulted not in a better grasp but in a diminishing understanding of the human mind.

I am sorry if any of my own comments made things less clear for you, but you maybe don't pay a blind bit of attention to my comments anyway :-D

I don't agree with Leibniz on everything or on every subsequential extrapolation of his thought - for instance I like my insides and outsides. Try having a cup of tea without them? :-D~~

 

[Percivale]

I have no idea why you think it would be easier to verify someone claiming to meet someone who never lived, verses someone claiming to meet someone who actually did live. It's easier to verify something that never happened verses something that did ? If you can, please explain your logic here.


It's fine, I understood some of the gist of what you were saying, but I'm actually interested in areas such as these and understanding the mechanics involved so I am likely to pick things apart more to see what they are made of, and that involves dealing with more concrete definitions of terms, etc.

In all honesty I almost never point out where I think I see a bias or not. For one, if I'm right ... how often will someone admit to it ? I'll be left there thinking I'm right, and they will think I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong ... almost the same effect is accomplished lol. So pointing it out or asking about it rarely has a point for me. But lately I've tried to poke in that area a bit to see what comes out, so to speak.

I think you may need to define (yes define) what you personally mean by "verify claims". Because I'm thinking we are not meaning the same thing by such a phrase.

I would say I think it's obvious that some NDE'ers, at the very least, are genuine in that they believe what they experienced really happened to them ... and some are aware they are frauds, etc.

How was Heaven is for Real verified ? What are the ways you are referencing ?
I'll try and drop the "are you bias angle" ? I poked and tried lol

Thanks for giving me a passing grade on the bias test

I wonder why I'm not getting across what I mean about meeting a sibling one didn't know existed, and what I mean by verify. Maybe that'll be clearer if I work through the verified details of heaven is for real. First, if the parents are dishonest all these details may be made up, but for sake of argument assume they are honest, and put yourself in their shoes. During the operation in which the boy died (temporarily), the father went into a private room and prayed. After the boy woke up, he told the father he'd seen him praying in that room. That's what I call the experience being verified for the father. If the boy's brain had just come up with that story on its own and he had not really been out of the body, he would have had no way of knowing what the father was doing at that time, therefore the boy was most probably really out of his body. Another verifying detail was, (if I remember correctly) that the mother had had a miscarriage (and of course did not tell her son), and after waking up the boy mentioned having met that sibling. If his brain had come up with those experiences on its own, he would not have any way of knowing he had that sibling, but if souls really live on when their bodies die, that miscarried child still existed without a body, and could meet the boy in his NDE. So, a verifiable detail is one that the NDEer could not have come up with accurately in his own brain, only if he was really out of the body, but that other people know to be true independently. I assume that the brain is not capable of traveling or gathering information independently of the body and senses, so if the person is shown to do so, the soul must be able to leave the brain.
That's as clear as I can make it.

 

[TillICollapse]

Thanks for giving me a passing grade on the bias test

I didn't say I gave you a passing grade, only that I was basically going to drop that angle lol. Two different things And no I'm not criticizing, we are discussing.

So onto this:

I wonder why I'm not getting across what I mean about meeting a sibling one didn't know existed, and what I mean by verify. Maybe that'll be clearer if I work through the verified details of heaven is for real.

Okay let's work through them.

First, if the parents are dishonest all these details may be made up, but for sake of argument assume they are honest, and put yourself in their shoes. During the operation in which the boy died (temporarily), the father went into a private room and prayed.

All stop.

I have already easily Googled whether or not the boy died, and very quickly a couple of sites popped up which say he never died. His heart didn't stop, nor did his brain cease to function. From psychology sites to entertainment sites, it says he didn't "die". Apparently this is even dealt with in the book, because the father attempts to explain how his child was taken into heaven without dying (he compares it to Elijah, for example). So right there, no death. No heart stopping, no brain death.

Sorry dude lol. If you want to know the truth, facts matter.

After the boy woke up, he told the father he'd seen him praying in that room. That's what I call the experience being verified for the father. If the boy's brain had just come up with that story on its own and he had not really been out of the body, he would have had no way of knowing what the father was doing at that time, therefore the boy was most probably really out of his body. Another verifying detail was, (if I remember correctly) that the mother had had a miscarriage (and of course did not tell her son), and after waking up the boy mentioned having met that sibling. If his brain had come up with those experiences on its own, he would not have any way of knowing he had that sibling, but if souls really live on when their bodies die, that miscarried child still existed without a body, and could meet the boy in his NDE. So, a verifiable detail is one that the NDEer could not have come up with accurately in his own brain, only if he was really out of the body, but that other people know to be true independently. I assume that the brain is not capable of traveling or gathering information independently of the body and senses, so if the person is shown to do so, the soul must be able to leave the brain.
That's as clear as I can make it.

Again ... assuming that all of that actually took place and is legit for the sake of this conversation, it doesn't show that consciousness exists apart from the brain. How could you prove he left his body ? Have you considered that even if all of that was real, all that information ... it was "put there by God" into the kids mind ? I mean, why isn't that a possibility that the information was REVEALED to him instead of him actually traveling there and leaving his body ? This is assuming that everything concerning his account is true, for the sake of this conversation. For all you know, once his brain was destroyed, there would be no more traveling, no more communicating, etc. I'm confused as to how you don't see these are separate issues. If you are locked on that this story is true ... that's one thing. If you actually want to know the MECHANICS of it, that is another, even if the story is true. This is looking past the Occam's Razor answer that it was all in his imagination, his parents fed him leading questions or made parts of it up, etc.

I'm not trying to come off like a jerk, but it seems you are so locked onto the story being true to you, that you're starting from that premise and then trying to explain it. Which I'm not criticizing, but like I said, if you actually want to understand "how it works" ... even spiritually speaking so to speak ... I still don't see how this would be a good case for "consciousness exists apart from the brain". I mean the kid didn't even have a NDE apparently. If you are going with the "He left his body" route at all, he actually had what is closer to an OOBE. The very thing you had more issues with initially lol.

 

[Percivale]

I didn't say I gave you a passing grade, only that I was basically going to drop that angle lol. Two different things And no I'm not criticizing, we are discussing.

So onto this:

Okay let's work through them.

All stop.

I have already easily Googled whether or not the boy died, and very quickly a couple of sites popped up which say he never died. His heart didn't stop, nor did his brain cease to function. From psychology sites to entertainment sites, it says he didn't "die". Apparently this is even dealt with in the book, because the father attempts to explain how his child was taken into heaven without dying (he compares it to Elijah, for example). So right there, no death. No heart stopping, no brain death.

Sorry dude lol. If you want to know the truth, facts matter.

Again ... assuming that all of that actually took place and is legit for the sake of this conversation, it doesn't show that consciousness exists apart from the brain. How could you prove he left his body ? Have you considered that even if all of that was real, all that information ... it was "put there by God" into the kids mind ? I mean, why isn't that a possibility that the information was REVEALED to him instead of him actually traveling there and leaving his body ? This is assuming that everything concerning his account is true, for the sake of this conversation. For all you know, once his brain was destroyed, there would be no more traveling, no more communicating, etc. I'm confused as to how you don't see these are separate issues. If you are locked on that this story is true ... that's one thing. If you actually want to know the MECHANICS of it, that is another, even if the story is true. This is looking past the Occam's Razor answer that it was all in his imagination, his parents fed him leading questions or made parts of it up, etc.

I'm not trying to come off like a jerk, but it seems you are so locked onto the story being true to you, that you're starting from that premise and then trying to explain it. Which I'm not criticizing, but like I said, if you actually want to understand "how it works" ... even spiritually speaking so to speak ... I still don't see how this would be a good case for "consciousness exists apart from the brain". I mean the kid didn't even have a NDE apparently. If you are going with the "He left his body" route at all, he actually had what is closer to an OOBE. The very thing you had more issues with initially lol.

I am grateful to have someone who is focused and clear thinking to discuss this with. I really hadn't thought of the possibility that it all was revealed to him; I had this false dichotomy of either he left his body or his brain came up with it on its own. Still, I'd think leaving the body the more parsimonious explanation, given the number of OOBEs reported and what they describe. I don't actually have more problems with OOBEs, I misunderstood the term at first. Except that if a person wanted to make one up he could, whereas no one would injure themselves in order to make up an NDE, but that's a minor difference.

If you want to keep discussing consciousness apart from brains, lets try another angle. Do you think consciousness could be maintained in a supercomputer, once we figure out the brain and computers, would it be possible to transfer all the information that is in a person's personality into a computer that is programmed to process it the way a brain does? That seems quite possible to me in theory, since I see personality or soul to be made up mainly of information.

 

[TillICollapse]

I am grateful to have someone who is focused and clear thinking to discuss this with.

Two heads are better than one, so they say

I really hadn't thought of the possibility that it all was revealed to him; I had this false dichotomy of either he left his body or his brain came up with it on its own.

I know lol.

Still, I'd think leaving the body the more parsimonious explanation, given the number of OOBEs reported and what they describe. I don't actually have more problems with OOBEs, I misunderstood the term at first. Except that if a person wanted to make one up he could, whereas no one would injure themselves in order to make up an NDE, but that's a minor difference.

I'll skip this for now and move on, since you're bringing up a new topic:

If you want to keep discussing consciousness apart from brains, lets try another angle. Do you think consciousness could be maintained in a supercomputer, once we figure out the brain and computers, would it be possible to transfer all the information that is in a person's personality into a computer that is programmed to process it the way a brain does? That seems quite possible to me in theory, since I see personality or soul to be made up mainly of information.

Forgetting "soul" for a moment, and focusing on personality and consciousness:

Whether or not consciousness could be maintained in a machine ... I would probably argue this is touching upon Turing Test territory. The problem I see with that, is at this current point in time ... I don't see where you could verify that a machine was conscious, or had consciousness. If you concluded that it did, how could you be certain that you weren't simply being fooled ? That the machine was running the program so efficiently, that it was only indistinguishable from "consciousness" ... yet it could still just be a facsimile. It wasn't "actual" consciousness. So until we know the mechanism of "consciousness" and how to produce the phenomena in exactly the same manner as living organisms experience it, if it exists in a non-organic machine I'm not sure that we could conclusively say such a machine had consciousness.

Now transferring all the information that is in a person's personality to a machine ... I don't think this would be possible. At least not in the classical arena. Consider two simple machines. Two toasters. They are the same model, produced at the same plant, etc. Are they EXACTLY alike ? No. Minor and minute differences. They are separate things, even though they are copies of each other off the assembly line. They are still unique. There are too many factors involved effecting them individually. Even if you could reproduce a single instance of a person's complete personality in a machine, it would only be an exact copy in that instance. Once the instance passes, they are no longer the "same", they begin to diverge due to various factors effecting them. At some point they will appear to be different personalities all-together. That point begins the instant after the initial copy-instance, and becomes more apparent as time passes.

Concerning whether or not we will be able to create a machine that processes things the exact same way a brain does ... it certainly seems we are headed in those directions. However I'm not familiar enough with the obstacles or challenges involved to speak intelligently about it beyond a sci-fi analogy level lol.

 

[dms1972]

"However I'm not familiar enough with the obstacles or challenges involved to speak intelligently about it beyond a sci-fi analogy level lol."

This is how I look at it:

Basically machines become more like humans - why? Because humans make them. The brain is no more like a machine, nor man a machine.

But read perhaps Hubert Dreyfus - What Computers Can't Do

Before Descarte there isn't this mind-body problem - therefore its a problem of his making not a general problem in philosophy that was previously being addressed.

What you all overlook is the differences between, mechanistic machine, electrical instrument, organism, and soul.

Scientific study is one thing.

Empathy is something completely different.

If starting from a materialist hypothesis one has to concede only that why we are conscious beings "beats me", must remain a mystery - not that consciousness doesn't exist.

I am an individual consciousness, with a conscience, in other words a soul - bound up with my body and senses mysteriously. Together soul and body constitute not the Image of God, but a creature made in the Image of God. That is what I am basically - a creature positionally inbetween Animal and Angel in the order of creation.

This is my understanding at this moment. The notion of the body as a machine procedes from Descarte, not from earlier philosophy.

The body isn't a machine. Its an electro-organic composite.

Everything about the brain is less like a machine - thinking of the mechanical kind of thing - parts external to each other, and more like an organism - neurotransmitters, electric impulses, pathways, matter, oxygen, water, blood-flow... - not cogs and wheels.

Machines fascinate me because they are so different from people.

 

[keith99]

....
I'm pretty anti-solipsist too. Whether tomatoes are poisonous is one of the easiest things in the world to test. Simply remember if you've ever seen someone eat one and if they're still ok. ....

Uh, the leaves are poisonous.

The Elderberry is poisonous unless cooked. But the poison is actually the precursor to what is deadly. You could watch someone eat them and be quite happy, until a day or 2 later and perhaps be fine overall if they did not eat a lot.

Jsut saying one needs to be careful on thinking deciding something safe.

 

[Percivale]

Two heads are better than one, so they say I know lol. I'll skip this for now and move on, since you're bringing up a new topic:

Forgetting "soul" for a moment, and focusing on personality and consciousness:

Whether or not consciousness could be maintained in a machine ... I would probably argue this is touching upon Turing Test territory. The problem I see with that, is at this current point in time ... I don't see where you could verify that a machine was conscious, or had consciousness. If you concluded that it did, how could you be certain that you weren't simply being fooled ? That the machine was running the program so efficiently, that it was only indistinguishable from "consciousness" ... yet it could still just be a facsimile. It wasn't "actual" consciousness. So until we know the mechanism of "consciousness" and how to produce the phenomena in exactly the same manner as living organisms experience it, if it exists in a non-organic machine I'm not sure that we could conclusively say such a machine had consciousness.

Now transferring all the information that is in a person's personality to a machine ... I don't think this would be possible. At least not in the classical arena. Consider two simple machines. Two toasters. They are the same model, produced at the same plant, etc. Are they EXACTLY alike ? No. Minor and minute differences. They are separate things, even though they are copies of each other off the assembly line. They are still unique. There are too many factors involved effecting them individually. Even if you could reproduce a single instance of a person's complete personality in a machine, it would only be an exact copy in that instance. Once the instance passes, they are no longer the "same", they begin to diverge due to various factors effecting them. At some point they will appear to be different personalities all-together. That point begins the instant after the initial copy-instance, and becomes more apparent as time passes.

Concerning whether or not we will be able to create a machine that processes things the exact same way a brain does ... it certainly seems we are headed in those directions. However I'm not familiar enough with the obstacles or challenges involved to speak intelligently about it beyond a sci-fi analogy level lol.

I guess there isn't a lot we can know about how it would work. We can theorize about whether it would, in a tentative way, based on our analysis of what personality and conscious (which is all I mean by 'soul') is. Would you define a soul, or personality, or identity, or whatever word you use to describe who we are, as basically a set of information and a way of processing it? If so, artificial consciousness should be theoretically possible, and if that is the case, consciousness can exist apart from brains, although it may not at present.

I think a saved PC game (I like rts games) is a pretty good analogy for a 'soul'. One can download the saved game onto multiple flash drives, and it's the same game. If different people then continue playing the game in different ways, it become several different games that share their early history. That would mean a soul or identity can be duplicated and remain the same identity for a moment, but would branch into multiple identities immediately afterwards.

 

[dms1972]

I'm pretty anti-solipsist too

Philosophical solipsism is a position people tend to be pushed towards, sometimes by eristic debates. That is something i would hope to avoid.

It occured to me to cite this quote from Francis Schaeffer:


It is obvious that often when a man claims to have had a experience, whether under drugs or not, something has certainly happened to him. When he experiences, for example the "redness" of a red rose, he has really touched something. But what?

Schaeffer says it is explained sometimes as "nothing" (in an existential experience), or as "the reality of God" (in an eastern religious experience)

Schaeffer explains there is a third live option / explanation possible:

"God has created a real, external world. It is not an extension of his essence. That real, external world exists. God has created man as a real, personal being, and he possesses a "mannishness" from which he can never escape. On the basis of their own worldview often these experience seekers are neither sure the external world is there, nor that man as man is there. But I have come to the conclusion that despite their intellectual doubts, many of them have had a true experience of the reality of the external world that exists, and / or the "mannishness" that exists. They can do this precisely because this is how God has made man, in his own image, able to experience the real world and man's "mannishness." Thus they have hit upon something which exists, and it is neither nothing, nor is it God. We might sum up this third alternative by saying that when they experience the "redness" of the rose, they are having the experience of the external world, as is the farmer who plows his field. They are both touching the world that is."

 

[TillICollapse]

I guess there isn't a lot we can know about how it would work. We can theorize about whether it would, in a tentative way, based on our analysis of what personality and conscious (which is all I mean by 'soul') is.

Kind of like I said ... if consciousness is essentially an emergent phenomena of the nervous system, and not it's own "stuff", then once we figure out the recipe in producing that phenomena in arguably both an organism AND a non-organic machine, then perhaps we could say, "We know what consciousness is." Otherwise, if it's it's own "thing", then we would basically always be inferring it's existence until we could identify what it's composed of.

I would probably argue that this also applies to the "spiritual". If spiritual is it's own substance, then providing evidence that something spiritual is at work could be identified, once you identify what that substance is obviously. Otherwise you're looking at footprints without the "feet". You will be inferring something spiritual is going on, based on attempts to identify it indirectly. And ouila, you have thousands of denominations and religions and paths all trying to do that, identify what's going on, relate to it, etc. Everyone thinks they know what is "spiritual". But unless it's really incredible, it's often times indistinguishable from "normal everyday life". Thus you can have a person standing there saying, "Spiritual stuff is happening right now !" and others look around, don't see anything, don't experience anything, and conclude it's all imagination. And of course it may be. So I would think attempting to identify "spirit" directly instead of indirectly would be of paramount importance to those interested in the paranormal, "supernatural", etc. Otherwise you have inference, faith, belief, etc.

Would you define a soul, or personality, or identity, or whatever word you use to describe who we are, as basically a set of information and a way of processing it? If so, artificial consciousness should be theoretically possible, and if that is the case, consciousness can exist apart from brains, although it may not at present.

I would more closely define a set of information and a way of processing it, as a computer. At least in the way you are using it. And you don't have to think in terms of complex machines, go basic and simple. Non electronic calculators, for example. I would have said a "machine" but a machine is much more basic than that, and doesn't have to process any information to be a machine.

Identity can apply to non-living things, and can be recognized by organisms that are arguably not self-aware.

Personality is probably unique to living things, and when it's applied to non living things I may argue it's from projection, anthropomorphizing, etc.

Soul ... hmm ...

One thing I think you left out was "heart".

I think a saved PC game (I like rts games) is a pretty good analogy for a 'soul'. One can download the saved game onto multiple flash drives, and it's the same game. If different people then continue playing the game in different ways, it become several different games that share their early history. That would mean a soul or identity can be duplicated and remain the same identity for a moment, but would branch into multiple identities immediately afterwards.

I would not use the term "identity" in the same way you are. To me, an identity is more associated with taxonomy, so to speak. It can apply based on a person's affiliations if they so desire (Democrat, sports team fan, etc) or other unique identifying features based on birth, language, ethnicity, etc (Ethiopian, Asian, etc). These deal with "identity". Some of them change throughout a person's life, others do not.

If a person is trying to find their "identity" by comparing themselves to other things, groups, etc ... like "I'm a nurse through and through," or "I'm a die hard ___________," etc, I may argue this is a form of imprinting in some instances.

 

[Percivale]

We can't know at present whether soul is a stuff of its own or a production of the right sort of machine, with brains being the only machine available at present. If it is a different stuff, I would wonder if it would then be a sort of matter, something that, if we found a way to get under a microscope, we could examine and quantify. That line of reasoning leads me to prefer seeing soul or mind as a property rather than a substance. That will only be proved if we can make a sentient robot, though, one which has desires, aesthetic experiences, creativity, etc. Meanwhile, the question has little implications for things like religion, because the supernatural could be physical in its own way--there's no necessary difference between angels and aliens, there could be a transdimensional supercomputer producing life after death, etc.

Identity has multiple meanings, perhaps a better word would be individuality. I suppose if anything is duplicated, whether matter or information, it has the same identity but different individuality: both are identical but each is an individual.

 

[dms1972]

Why do you say the brain is a machine, or like a machine?

 

[Percivale]

Why do you say the brain is a machine, or like a machine?

for lack of a better term. It produces or processes consciousness, and bodily functions.

 

[Received]

I'm going to agree. As much as philosophers have jumped in and muddied the waters with their typical endless speculation on the topic, this is actually a question for biology, neuroscience and the like.

Scientists only answer questions insofar as they don't look at the presuppositions that philosophers do and assume it's materialism all the way down. Philosophers don't muddy the waters; the waters are already incredibly muddied simply by being metaphysics. Distilling your own fraction of dirty water and assuming this means the whole pond is clean is only denying reality, and such is why Einstein said that the man of science is a poor philosopher.