Your typings here seem to indicate a lack of conviction on your part. — universeness
Is your brain offering you illogical simulations then?
Shall we now drop the unhelpful use of the word simulation? and I can then ask:
Is your brain generating illogical thoughts/dreams when it comes to gods? — universeness
Not about logic. What you mean by a logical simulation? — Haglund
My brain offers me simulations about all there is in the world. That can be logic or gods, fantasies for you, with no counterpart in the world. — Haglund
I assume you consider your own thoughts to be based on logic. — universeness
You have labeled your brain a simulator. I take it that you consider its simulations logical — universeness
If you don't then you must be suggesting that the simulator function of your brain is only for your night or day dreaming and has nothing to do with the REAL physical world around you. It's commonly called your imagination. — universeness
I am sure you agree it's important to adequately distinguish between imagination/simulation and reality. If you are suggesting that YOUR brain simulations directly relate to YOUR conception of the real world then that is a whole different ball game — universeness
hink human imagination is a very powerful and useful force but I never consider its simulations as having much in common with reality. — universeness
My brain simulations directly relate to my conception of the real world indeed. What's a different ball game then? — Haglund
I agree. You gotta know what's real or not. I had a psychosis once. I wanted to drink water from exhaust pipes of cars... — Haglund
In my opinion, I am real, you are real, the Universe is real, we are capable of dream states, there are no gods and advanced transhumanism is and will continue to advance and 'downloading' a human consciousness in the very very distant future will be possible. Again, thanks for the exchange — universeness
I don't think a mind can be "uploaded" in a way that after a copy of your mind is "created" you would be experiencing things from a computer or whatever after the copy is made (unless there is some kind of link between the two).The idea runs around of loading minds up in computers. It's a recurring theme in SF culture and thought about the technological possibilities in the future. We can read on Wikipedia:
"Mind uploading, also known as whole brain emulation (WBE), is the theoretical futuristic process of scanning a physical structure of the brain accurately enough to create an emulation of the mental state (including long-term memory and "self") and transferring or copying it to a computer in a digital form."
I wonder if this can be done, even in principle. It presupposes that mind can be extracted, collected, and injected. I think mind is bounded to a living brain, and the living body and world the body walks around in.
Also, a simulation isn't the same as that what's simulated. Even if the causal structures of neurons are visible in the simulation, if you replace my brain by the computer on which its simulated, so my body behaves like me, there would be no mind left. It may seem so by the body's behavior but looks can deceive. In a dream you encounter people that behave as if they have minds but they don't. I can be conscious without showing but showing doesn't imply mind. The brain simulates. So a simulated brain would be a simulated simulation device. And what to think of the impossibility to create a neuron in a lab, let alone 80 billion connected living ones?
So what to think of the conjecture about mind uploading? — Haglund
I'm sure in the far future some scientist will work on that sort of things and start building machine that will be able to so something along those lines. BTW what kind of device do you really have in mind? — dclements
Yes, I am. First things first -- materialism holds water, a lot of water. Perception won't be complete without body and mind. But the causality that happens with body organs perceiving, say, a color, or hearing a loud bang, come to us in a completely stripped down data. It's the mind that interprets what we perceive. Earlier I said, roughness can only be experience using our organs for sensing textures. Though it reaches our mind, we can't extract "roughness" from our mind.That's another exchange! I don't hold with any posit that the human 'mind,' exists beyond the human brain. Are you a dualist? — universeness
What if the people don't want gene tinkering and transhuman construction, spacetravel, computers with a mind, and all other fantasies you like? — Haglund
Yes, I am. — L'éléphant
But the causality that happens with body organs perceiving, say, a color, or hearing a loud bang, come to us in a completely stripped down data. — L'éléphant
It's the mind that interprets what we perceive. Earlier I said, roughness can only be experience using our organs for sensing textures. Though it reaches our mind, we can't extract "roughness" from our mind. — L'éléphant
If those who vote against it are a majority then their representatives in authority must vote against also and then scientific endeavours in the direction of genetic engineering, transhumanism and artificial intelligence must stop until the majority can be convinced by further discussion from those who
support human progression. — universeness
Ok, surely the brain is the only body organ that 'perceives' a colour — universeness
That's a fair approach! I'm not convinced though that what you see as progression is actual progression — Haglund
You would prefer that we stay at the mercy of some or all of the 4 threats I mentioned? why? — universeness
I don't think it perceives. It rather constructs. Or resonates. The construction is a continuous process which isn't set in motion with an on and of switch. It's no programmed process. with "start" and "stop". Or "if", "if not", "iff", "and", "nand", "or", "nor", or "gondor". — Haglund
are you suggesting the brain does not/cannot perceive? — universeness
The way in which the human brain deals with propositional logic is not fully understood. — universeness
Even though I have clearly stated that my projections are based on my current readings on genetic engineering and technologies such as CRISPR, quantum computing and biological computing. Despite this, you insist on tubthumping about the current limitations of electronic computing. why? — universeness
So basically I try to demask people who believe in such future possibilities. — Haglund
It doesn't matter to me the number of others who hold similar view. I don't check statistics like that. But maybe it's fair to say that science or scientism has always been the anathema as to why dualism might be treated with a lot more skepticism. Extra-physical claims such as those having to do with the mind are almost to be avoided if we are to remain the technology that we are already, right?. I mean trillionaires building their own spacecraft to go to space. Body or head transplant that totally ignores the mind -- this is the ultra-physical. Like, who cares about the mystery of the mind if we could transport ourselves across the universe.This is just a small side question, for my own internal databases. Do you think dualism is on the rise, stagnant or on the wane or does the number of others who hold a similar viewpoint to you, not matter to you, when it comes to dualism? — universeness
If we really could extract textures from our mind, then couldn't we just pass on this trait to our offspring and let them experience roughness without setting foot outside? Why, until now, the children could not have all the sensations that the parents had experienced and stored in their brains? Why do babies need to be trained in all aspects of their existence in order to become a normal human being, let alone survive?Do we not 'extract' roughness from our mind by 'pattern matching,' it with smoothness.
I would describe roughness as bumpy bits and indented bits and smooth bits that you can feel when you touch the area with your skin organ. Would you describe 'roughness' (as applied to physical surfaces,) differently? — universeness
There is no location of the mind, there is, however, a location of the brain. Now, obviously we can't crack open every human's skull to see if the brain is there. But for the many autopsies and studies done on humans, we know that the experts had identified the brain as that mass inside the skull of humans.I always ask a dualist if they are willing to give me their personal view of a physical location(s) for where they think the part of their (or all of their) mind exists outside of their brain.
In the past, I have had answers such as, In the heart, in the body, in superpositions, in gods database, with god, in an omniconsiousness. Do you hold with any of these? — universeness
That's why it's always an error to compare thinking with computing. In computers, everything has a location. There is no "mind" in computers. Only humans, and some animals possess the mind. — L'éléphant
It doesn't matter to me the number of others who hold similar view. I don't check statistics like that. But maybe it's fair to say that science or scientism has always been the anathema as to why dualism might be treated with a lot more skepticism. — L'éléphant
If we really could extract textures from our mind, then couldn't we just pass on this trait to our offspring and let them experience roughness without setting foot outside? — L'éléphant
Why do babies need to be trained in all aspects of their existence in order to become a normal human being, let alone survive? — L'éléphant
Easy words to type but I think such concepts are much harder to convince other people of.There is no location of the mind — L'éléphant
Not yet!There is no "mind" in computers. — L'éléphant
There is no "mind" in computers.
— L'éléphant
Not yet! — universeness
There is no location of the mind
— L'éléphant
Easy words to type but I think such concepts are much harder to convince other people of. — universeness
Like theism, it's fine if such is just a harmless product of your own personal woo but I very much advocate that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. — universeness
Again, reference to a faraway future without any impact. I could argue just as well that gods show themselves in the future — Haglund
My projections of future transhumanism are based on current technological progress. — universeness
Your unconvincing claims that you are a genuine polytheist has been reduced to 'they dont exist in our Universe' and 'I only argue in support of them because you argue against them.' — universeness
Look who's tubthumbing now... — Haglund
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.