we find it almost unnaturally easy to think of consciousness as something distinct from body, — Manuel

What do you mean by "unnaturally easy"? Is it so evident?
Almost all scientists, as well as most philosophers and people in this forum, believe that consciousness is created by and located in the brain. Even if that has never been proved or established! (For me, it doesn't even make sense.) So, I guess that for most people it is rather "unnaturally difficult" to think that! :smile:

It would be great though if it were indeed "unnaturally easy" ... It would save us a lot of futile discussions! :smile:

Well, it seems it was a bad day for me. My two messages had a bad reception! I will try again some other day! :smile:

... Whatever. It seems useless to continue this exchange ...

The depression in the cushion is being caused by the ball on the cushion even if both call and cushion have been in that arrangement for eternity. — Bartricks

1) This is an arbitrary assumption or, at best, a hypothesis, and as such, it doesn't prove anything.
2) In the same way that "the depression in the cushion is being caused by the ball", "the cushion envelops, enwraps the ball" as well.

So, this is not a valid example. Do you have another one, where the effect precedes the cause or there's a simultaneous cause and effect?

(BTW, you are talking about the "causality principle", the reversibility of which has is still to be proved ...)

Why is there anything if the first existent could not be? — val p miranda

What does this mean? (Hint: The word "existent" is an adjective, not a noun, as used here.)

either nothing exists or something exists. — val p miranda

The expression "nothing exists" has no meaning, by definition: "Nothing" means "not anything; no single thing.". So nothing cannot exist, and thus there's no choice (to be made) here, as this statement implies.

As a result, the whole construct of this thesis falls apart. Sorry! :sad:

:up:

I'm particularly interested in miracles as evidence. — Agent Smith

They have indeed a very strong appeal to everyone of us. And there's a reason for that: one of the things that attracts most the interest of a human being is mystery. Mysteries are a sort of magnetic material that is attracted by our mind acting as a magnet. In a more "crude" form, you can see that even in babies, how their attention is totally absorbed, with their face showing a big wonder, by certain things that have a special appeal to them. To a certain extent, you can see that even in animals. Mystery is a universal attractor in all kinds of life!

Your point of view and your descriptions are very interesting and I really respect them.

To put this question in the "right perspective", here's the punch line : Physicist Leon Lederman labeled his book on the Higgs Boson... — Gnomon

No, no. This is not the right perspective. @Agent Smith was not referring to Higgs boson ("God particle"). It was just a question I asked ... In fact, a wrong one!
This subject should be closed. It is irrelevant with this topic. (How can one I put a full stop on it?)

Why it's called the God particle? Because it's supposed to give mass (which can be explained in a more natural way)? — Haglund

It beats me! :smile: I'm not good or knowledgeable in physics.
(I asked that only to put @Agent Smith's point in the right perspective.)

My point is that God's a hypothesis, scientifically speaking. In that sense then it can never be proven true although it can be considered provisionally true via experimental evidence. — Agent Smith

"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it." (Wikipedia)
So,
1) Can the God hypothesis be tested? If so how?
2) A scientific hypothesis does not imply that "it can never be proven true". But if indeed it couldn't, then what would be its use?
3) An yes, a hypothesis can be considered provisionally true via experimental evidence. But what kind of "experimental evidence" can one expect to be provided about God?

Indeed, a hypothesis is like an IF-THEN condition. As such, it can be indeed "considered provisionally true", as you say, until if a satisfactory evidence is provided, i.e. the "IF condition" is satisfied.

In our case, such an evidence could only be provided a posteriori: The existence of God could be deducted from observations or experiences that cannot be otherwise explained. E.g. a "miracle", which defies scientific or logical explanation. Indeed, I think this is the case for a lot of people who started to believe in God. Such an event-phenomenon would also satisfy the IF-THEN condition of the hypothesis. Yet, for me, it would just be an "unexplained" phenomenon, waiting for a scientific explanation or proof in the future.

:pray: for your kind words. And I am :smile: to see people realizing these things ... There are not many, unfortunately ...

I think we should show Daemon some gratitude — Haglund

I would, if he weren't blame others for his ignorance, as I said.
See, there are different ways to make a point, which are totally acceptable. Like yours, for instance.

Computers function differently from the brain. — Haglund

Well, I already said that I know computers well. I actually work with computers. And of course I know that the brain works digfferently, although I don't have the same experience and knowledge about it; not even close.

And I never said that the brain works on a 0/1 basis like a computer's hardware. But I know that the brain works on an automatic stimulus-response mechanism, which is much more complicated that a 0/1 mechanism. And that it can be programmed to function automatically without thinking. Example when we wash our teeth, we are walking, etc, we don't think how to do that. Because the brain does not think. We --and esp. the mind-- think. This is the difference between brain and mind. They are two different and separate things.
Of course, you seem to know more details about how the brain works, but this doesn't change the situation.

So, to come back to the subject ot the topic and to conclude:
It is ridiculous to think that our minds can be uploaded to computers, since they cannot even be "uploaded" to our brains, which are much more sophisticated systems than computers.

The reduction to 0/1 states occurs in our minds, and not in the physics of the machine. — Daemon

Do you mean that when we switch a light on/off and its result, when we turn a device on/off and its result, etc. occur in our minds only?

You can see and try to understand these words — Daemon

I do undestand them. Do you?

your mind is in the physics (biochemistry) of the brain. — Daemon

Well, show me where imagination, logical thinking, crativity, etc, take place in the brain ...

Anybody who thinks you could load a mind into a digital computer in the way you suggest doesn't understand how either brains or computers work. — Daemon

You missed in that, too. I am a professional programmer and work with computers since 1982!

@Daemon, I can see that you have no idea what either the brain or the mind are. And most probably, you don't know either how a computer --which is the subject in question here-- works.
So, try not to pass your ignorance and delusions onto others. You just make your case worse.

no one yet knows fully how the human brain works, including you. — universeness

I didn't say "fully" --that would be foolish-- I said "well". Huge difference. Try to duplicate what people are writing. It helps using TPF Quote feature to quote exactly the other person's words.

Why do you limit your thinking to downloading a single human consciousness onto what is currently identified/labeled 'a computer chip? — universeness

I don't. This was just an example.

Do you really think that we never will again? — universeness

I don't. And it's irrelevant to my point.

Do you think human scientific endeavor will simply not achieve a full understanding of how the human brain works and be able to 'replicate it?' — universeness

It has already a very good undestanding of the brain. Very little though about the mind.

What do you think you know about human consciousness that proves that downloading an individual human consciousness and storing it outside the vessel of the traditional physical human body with triune brain, is impossible? — universeness

I know enough to exclude such a possibility. You also know that, only you don't allow yourself discover it because you are based on false assumptions. E.g. that consciousness is of a material nature.

How often has sci-fi become sci-fact? I think often enough is the answer. — universeness

Often. But this is is also irrelevant to my point.

No, I wouldn't as I am not you and don't think like you. — universeness

Certainly not., since you don't have "the same knowledge in both fields as I do".
But again, you missed my point. It was a way of saying, not to be taken literally.

I think I have answered all the questions of your "questionnaire". That was quite long. So, please don't ask me more questions! :smile:

There have been attempts, successful/not, you be the judge, to prove the existence of God à la how experimental physicists did for the itsy-bitsy electron. — Agent Smith

You are not referring to Higgs boson, which took the nickname "God particle", are you?

God is as much a concept as an electron is in my humble opinion. — Agent Smith

From some aspect, you might be right. Although I have a difficulty imagining God being examined under a microscope or measuring its electic field as it is done with electrons ...

But many individuals in the world of Artificial Intelligence, genetic engineering, cybernetics, electronic/quantum/biological computing, physics/chemistry/biology do think that transplanting the human brain into an alternate container to continue an individual consciousness IS plausible. — universeness

I don't know what kind of individuals are you referring to. Anyway, as I already said, if someone knows well what computers amdna mind are and how they work, cannot even think about such a thing. I have already explained the reason why in detail with facts. (At least, the computer part, which is much easier. I leave it to your reasoning and imagination trying to fit the human mind --with all its complexities, features and abilities-- into a computer chip! :smile:)

On the other hand, one could say that "Nothing is impossible" or "Everything is possible", which are also empty statements and prove nothing. That's why sci-fi exists: to satisfy such imaginative persons! :smile:

(If you had the same knowledge in both fields as I do, you would most probably say the same things.)

You think it's possible to program a mind in a robot body? — Haglund

I don't know what does "mind" mean to you, but the functioning of robots, like computers, is based on electronic circuits. And these circuits work on the basis of rudimentary and logic (AND, OR, XOR, etc.), which are reduced into 0/1 states. This occurs at a "low level". At a higher level, human beings use programming, which can involve quite sophisticated and intelligent algorithms, and this programming --software-- is then "translated" into low level commands for the computer/robot firmware and hardware.

The argument gains strength under Idealism im which god is the all-seeing eye and things are the way they are for a very simple reason - God thinks them! — Agent Smith

Well, I definitely support instead rational thinking and argumentation, as imperfect and versatile as these can be among human beings ...
(BTW, don't forget that God is a concept created by human beings, anyway.)

Good that you don't believe it!
As for Wiki, although I generally trust it for a lot of things, I have found a lot of insufficient, inaccurate and false data, based mainly on ignorance. Note that it, besides proved data, it also contains opinions. So, I couldn't abide to a motto such as "If it is written in Wikipedia, it means it is true".

I like the way you took it, because indeed it was a little offensive, although I was not addressing to you, personally and my remark was not a criticism but it came from a real surprise. I see questions like these very often in Quora but this is not a philosophical forum/community: All kinds of people participate in it. That's why I specified "in here". Anyway, I'm sorry if I have offended you.

I will also explain my surprise:
1) People in general try to assign to Artificial Intelligence (including robots), computers, etc. all kinds of qualities, features and abilities of the human mind, including thinking, rationalization, imagination, feeling and emotions, morality and so on. This huge mistake comes from misunderstanding or not really knowing what both the mind and computer are and do.
2) I have I heard about "uploading" the brain or the mind to a computer hundreds of times. It sounds totally ridiculous for someone knows what a mind and a computer are and how they work. So, I believe that if someone originates a discussion regarding this subject, he should know well these things. I mean, esp. in here. Because, outside "in the world", one can hear a lot of nonsense.

It happens that I am an IT person and I also know a lot about the mind and how it works. So, most probably, because of this and also the huge amount of nonsense I have heard on the subject, I use to overreact to considerations, propositions and sometimes allegations, such as the one of this topic ...

:up: Very interesting topic!

A Wittgensteinian answer to this question ... — Wayfarer

Confusing "out of this world" and "empty", as often is the case. I really wonder what people see in this highly depressive guy ...

Hume recognized that there are two categories of knowledge: empirical and mathematical/logical — Wayfarer

Here's my guy! As I often say myself, "My reality is mainly based on experience and logic."
I have thanked you in the past for various things. Thanks once more for bringing this up! :smile:
I will get a closer look to this ref.

I have a deep confusion about why philosophy sees this disconnection between logical necessity and physical causation. — Wayfarer

Here, I would like to clear out something: By "physical causation", I assume you mean cause and effect in the physical universe, i.e. on a material basis. However, the subject of "cause and effect" is much wider than that: it includes non-physical things as well. And since these two "worlds" are different, we can't speak for both of them as one thing. Both "logical necessity" and causality are much more specific and obvious in the physical world than in the non-physical one.

It seems to me computer science relies on the connection between the two - microprocessors basically comprise chains of logic gates to effect physical outputs. — Wayfarer

Not clear to me, although I am an IT person. Among other things, what are these "two - microprocessors" and what do microprocessors have to do in this discussion? Most probably you refer to electric circuits and more specifically to "logical circuits" ... If this is the case, we have here only rudimental logical principles, quite restricted in scope. So, I wouldn't involve machine logic in the current subject, even if it produced by human thinking.

And more broadly, the link between logical necessity and physical causation seems fundamental to science generally, and even to navigating everyday life. — Wayfarer

True. But does this resolve the problem of "logical necessity" in general?

What does "Deus Novacula Occami" mean @Agent? Couldn't find it anywhere ...

Anyway, I can't see your point ... That "God" is the best (shortest, simplest) answer to "Why does ice float on water?"
That is, trading off a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon with a non-scientific and unprovable one?

The Occam's razor principle suggests preferring the simpler explanation among existing ones, e.g. one with fewer parameters or assumptions. It does not suggest offering a magic word, a master key that opens all doors or anything that is unprovable or escapes all questions.

Can minds be uploaded in computers? — Haglund

I can't believe that someone in here could ask such a question! :gasp:

My perspective is that both points of view are asinine, as neither can be proved. — Elric

What are the two points of view? I only see one here ...

someone else FEELS that it does not. — Elric

You cannot feel something that does not exist neither you can feel that something does not exist. For example, you cannot feel a wind that isn't blowing.

As for poofs, you are right, you cannot prove either that God exists or that God doesn't exist, esp. the second. How can I prove that God does not exist if it does not exist (for me)? That would be totally absurd.

You can only experience God, but this is personal. Even if there are millions of people with such an experience, that could be called a common experience, but it would be different for each person, i.e. personal.

nowledge is one's intellect on subject matters understood in a practical sense — Varde

Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education.
Intellect has to do with reasoning and understanding, i.e. nothing to do with knowledge.

You are welcome!

:up: Excellent presentation!
(Well, except maybe its length! :smile:)

It serves as an example of how someone should introduce a topic, esp. the definitions of terms you are giving, which, independenly of whether the reader agrees with or not, they make clear what you mean by them and how you apply them to your description.

Once more, the absurdity of existence ... I thought we had all agreed on that ... :smirk:

The topic is about the survival of already existing people, not about producing new people. — baker

Of course. But you have talked about overpopulation, which is what I understood from "The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives" ... Doesn't procreation increase the number of those who survive? Anyway, let's close this subject, if you agree.

Psychology, the science of the mind and behavior, supposedly evolved from Philosophy. — HardWorker

I have also taken two courses in Psychology in college, but, more importantly, I have read a lot of books in this field, including of course its big "stars" This is because I was always interested in the subject of mind. However, at that time, I was very little involved in philosophy and in general personal "critical" or "philosophical" thinking. So I "bought" Psychology's foundation that everything happens in the brain. (At least at that time, about 50 years ago. I have stopped reading psychology books since a long time ago so I’m not updated on the subject.) At that time, I didn't even cared about the big irony that its name --as well as its friend, Psychiatry-- expresses: The word "psychology" comes from Greek psyche (= soul) and the ending -logy, coming also from Greek "logos" (= speech), and denoting a subject of study or interest. Yet, Psychology has nothing to do with "psyche", which mainly refers to the soul, mind or spirit. And "mind" here is not a physical thing that exists in the brain.

Wikipedia says that "The ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, China, India, and Persia all engaged in the philosophical study of psychology." Yet, in modern times, although Psychology has a few things in common with Philosophy, its foundations, procedures/methods, way of thinking, views of life, the human being and existence in general, are totally different.

I, personally, have left Psychology far behind me ...

Please explain the difference. — Average

I already did. I shouldn't. A bad habit of mine. My effort is often ignored and, more importantly, I encourage people avoiding looking up words to see for themselves. (In this case, "lie" and "sophistry".)

I am not sure if you have read the original paper by Taurek, — Camille

No, I haven't. But see, I would have then to read a whole bunch of literature to find out what it is all about. This would not be me. (But who cares?)

BTW, when myself I present a thesis or subject, I try to offer arguments and/or explanations and/or examples as soon as possible. If you let your readers waiting for that for too long, not only you may lose them, but you also disappoint them, and quite justifiably so.

Additionally, I believe a lot regarding the different theories and their beliefs on maximization are rather common knowledge, and not needed in further detail the beginning of the paper. — Camille

OK.
However, at this point I think I lost the ball ... I don't remember anymore who's against and who's in favor of "number counts" and what are we trying to prove here! :grin:

Nonetheless, I see your frustration. — Camille

Thanks! :smile:

The concept of zombies concisely illustrates the futility of living merely for the sake of living. — baker

I see, OK.

The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources. — baker

This can be true in certain cases. Making a lot of children can and does sometimes produce financial problems for the family. But the purpose of, the intention behind making a lot of children, is not for "major good" for more persons. It can be for more happiness for the parents, indifference (not considering the problems such "overproduction"), no contraceptive measures (for various reasons), religion ("Be fruitful and multiply"). etc. There's a irony here, that can be evidenced by seeing poor families --even whole poor areas-- making more children than rich ones. In that case, I would consider such a behaviour even "immoral" or lack or morality at best. I have not made children, for various reasons. One of them was that I could not stand bringing a new life that could be unhappy or suffer from physical problems (abnormalities) or indulged in street drugs (so frequent a phenomenon today), etc. Of course, and fortunately so, relatively few think that way. Otherwise, our race would be extinct! :smile:

with such ethical principles as you state above, how do we avoid the scenario in which a great number of people do survive for some duration of time, but they live lives of poor quality? — baker

The principle based on "greatest number" does not automatically mean produce as many lives as possible, as I explained above. That's why I think that overpopulation (that we are witnessing in a lot of areas of the world today) is actually a product of lack of morality, even maybe immorality. See, "greatest number" and "major good" work together, as I have already mentioned earlier in this thread. I will also add here that the intention of making good or avoiding harm is what counts. Not by accident or in any other way. The poor-multi-child-family example I gave above shows that. The Bible says "Be fruitful and multiply". It doesn't "back it up" with well-being. It doesn't take into consideration "lives of poor quality" that you mentioned. That's why, for me that command-like statement lacks morality. (But of course, it's not the fault or a weakness of the Christian God. He did not write the Bible.)

Purpose is missing from the package of life. Life comes with a command: "Live!". It is to us to make a good use of it. For our benefit.
— Alkis Piskas
How is it for our benefit? — baker

Because we'll be healthier and happier! :smile:

I find the linked paper by Tom Dougherty to be a rather persuasive paper on why the numbers should count. — Camille

I started reading the article that you brought up. I left it quite frustrated. And because I don't like to speak in generalities ans withoug "why"s, here is why:

The articly is summarized at start as follows:
"First, you are morally required to want the survival of each stranger for its own sake. Secondly, you are rationally required to achieve as many of these ends as possible, if you have these ends."

1) What does "morally required" mean? Why is it reauired? It's just an arbitrary statement, lacking any explanation or arguments.
2) What "ends" does the author refer to do? There are no "ends" formulated.

Then, the authof continues with a moral example-problem:
"You have 100ml of a drug that you own. Two strangers, Anna and Bert, each need 50ml to live. A third stranger, Clare, needs all 100ml to live. The strangers are in all relevant respects alike. You do not stand in any special relationship to these strangers. All else is equal."

Well, there's no problem formulated here. But let's see how this evolves ...

He says: "Most of us think that you ought to save Anna and Bert. John Taurek famously denies this. This is because he rejects the consequentialist rationale that the ‘numbers should count’ because you ought to produce the most good."
Again, I can't see even a single "Why". Why what most of us think is wrong? Then Taurek denies this because because he rejects the consequentialist rationale ... Is that a real why? What is the reason he rejects that?

Then he continues:
"Some non-consequentialists also reject this rationale."
Again, rejection after rejection, without a single why.

"Some non-consequentialists do let goodness-maximising play some role in their theories; they simply limit what this role is. Maybe they say that promoting the good is limited by deontological constraints ... Maybe they say that you have options to behave partially instead of producing the most good ..."

"Some say ...", "Maybe they say..." Really, what does all that offer? Why should any of that be of any importance of interest?

You owe me 5 minutes of lost time! :smile:

If the goal in both cases is deception then I don't really see the difference. — Average

Didn't you ask me how do I defined sophistry? Well, this is what I did.
If the end result of both a "lie" and a "sophistry" is deception, this does not mean that there's no difference between them! (In fact, a big one.)

But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)
— Alkis Piskas
By all means, do tell. — baker

OK, more about "survival" ...

When I say "survival", I don't mean survive just as a body, i.e. "stay alive" or escape danger or death. Although in cases of sickness, threat, war, etc. it might mean just that, as a priority. There is another kind or level of survival beyond that, once that has been secured: "well-being". Happiness and pleasure are also two essential elements in human life. (In animal life too, if you just replace "happiness" with "satisfaction". Also ) But these are still very basic and common to everyone. Their opposite, "misery" and "pain", are leading towards death. There's a whole scale of survival here at work.

Yet, "survival" has a much broader meaning. It pertains to our financial situation, our relation with another person of the opposite sex --including sex itself-- our existence as fathers, employees, members of a group, citizens and human being in general. We need to survive from all these aspects too. Failure to do so, might not mean death, but it could mean poverty, separation or divorce, being dismissed from our job or group, and so on, as parallel and opposite situations of the above.

In short, we are surviving on a scale in various aspects of our life.

How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose? — baker

I am not sure what do you mean with "zombie scenario", why do you keep talking about zombies and what does this have to do with anything here ...
Living low quality lives exists everywhere in this planet. I big part of the population on Earth unfortunately try only to continue to breathe and escape death from sickness and hunger. But these are not the only ones who have "no greater purpose". I believe that most people on Earth don't. It's not totally their fault. Purpose is missing from the package of life. Life comes with a command: "Live!". It is to us to make a good use of it. For our benefit.

How would you define sophistry? — Average

Use of clever but false arguments --apparently plausible reasoning--, especially with the intention of deceiving.
The term "sophistry" is a modern version of what in Greek antiquity was called "sophism", an activity or movement that was disapproved by many.

The ending -stry has been inherited from the French "erie", which is mainly used for professional and commercial activities. Indeed, sophists in antiquity were paid for teaching, among other things, rhetoric, another activity involving the deceiving of people, which has survived well until our days and is used mainly by lawyers and polititians.

Although this topic is on subject that most of us know what it is all about and there's no much more to talk about --it's an almost "dead" subject-- I wanted to see if there's something new that maybe could revive it!
Well, you brought up something that triggered my interest: that "sophistry is a big problem in the modern world". Unfortunately though I got somehow frustrated because I didn't even see where is the problem. Not a single example ...

Well, since I'm here ...

Some might say that hitler was especially skilled when it came to sophistry. — Average

I don't know if Hitler indulged in sophistry. This little matters. But one of the things he said was "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed". It sounds like a confession, most probably not indented. But this is what he did and this is what a lot of politicians were always and still are doing, esp. when people have lost their hopes for a better tomorrow. You lay a hand to someone who is getting drawn in the water, he grasps it, because he would grasp whatever hand is extended to rescue him, and then you drawn him yourself by pushing him deeper into the water. And this is most probably what Hitler did, but most probably not on purpose. He was just insane. Anyway, False promises and lies do not consist "sophistry".

I want to be skilled in the art sophistical refutation. — Average

If you can be more specific, and esp. give me a couple of examples, I could maybe help you! :smile:

if a great number of people survive, it seems inevitable that they will lead low-quality lives. — baker

A great number of people do survive. There may be an overpopulation in some places on the planet as well as limited resources. But ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival. Because simply this what life wants: to keep on as long as it can and in as much a better condition as it can.

But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)