Hania Rani - Hello


Hania Rani - 'F Major'

Probably my favorite version of the song.

Slightly Stoopid - Legalize It (feat. Ali Campbell)

Thinking upon it further i came up with this possible solution, reproduced from my notes:

A Potential Solution to the Teleportation Paradox

The classic teleportation paradox asks: If a machine perfectly replicates you particle-by-particle in a new location while destroying the original, is the person who arrives really you? Or has the original been murdered, and a new, identical copy created?

The State of Entangled Consciousness

The experiment begins with a crucial assumption: that it's possible to create a second, perfectly identical body in a new location. But this isn't a normal copy. For an instant, every single quantum particle in the original body is quantumly entangled with its corresponding particle in the new target body.

According to this hypothesis, this perfect entanglement creates a single, unified quantum state. Instead of two separate individuals, there is a moment where a single consciousness exists as a unified quantum state, shared between the two bodies. It is not located in one body or the other, but is a single, coherent entity.

The Problem of Decoherence

This state of perfect quantum harmony is fleeting. The universe is a noisy place, filled with countless interactions, stray photons, gravitational fluctuations, and so on. This environmental interaction causes what is called decoherence. For a complex, macroscopic system like a human body, decoherence would happen almost instantly, likely in less than a femtosecond.

The critical challenge is that there are two ways this decoherence can occur. The first is an uncontrolled decoherence, which happens naturally if the process is not managed. If the quantum state is allowed to decohere on its own, the single consciousness will split. The two bodies would each become a separate, distinct individual, leading to a duplication of consciousness. This is why the decoherence must be controlled in such a way that only the target body has the chance for the next moment of experience. For this to happen, the original body must be destroyed before either body has a chance to have its next moment of independent experience.

This distinction is crucial, as the moral and legal implications of destroying the original body depend entirely on the timing.

• If the original body is destroyed before the entangled state is created, it is simply murder.
• If the original body is destroyed after uncontrolled decoherence has occurred, it is also a form of murder, as it results in the death of one of two separate individuals.
• However, if the original body is destroyed during the moment of quantum coherence, when both bodies are part of a single, unified quantum state, the act of destruction may not be considered murder. In this scenario, the destruction is not the end of a separate life, but the final step in a transfer of a single consciousness from one state to another.

The Femtosecond Solution

To prevent this catastrophic split, the solution proposes a radical act: the immediate and complete destruction of the original body. This destruction must happen with extreme precision and speed, within the fleeting window of a femtosecond, before the next moment of conscious experience can occur and cause decoherence.

The act of destroying the original body is the act of decoherence. In the framework of quantum mechanics, this action serves as a final observation or measurement. This measurement forces the unified quantum state to collapse, but since the original body is destroyed, it only has one state left to collapse to: the target body. Because the original body is destroyed, the single shared consciousness is left with only one viable option: to continue its existence in the new, intact target body. From the perspective of the quantum system, the next moment of experience is only possible in the target body, ensuring that the consciousness was transferred, and not duplicated.

By controlling the collapse of the wave function with this precise and destructive act, the personal identity is not lost but is seamlessly transferred, ensuring the continuity of the single individual without bifurcation or multiplication.

No, and no.

In my opinion, a spot-on description. Thank you — Pieter R van Wyk

That is an excellent opinion. Thank you.
:smile: :up:

In its most general sense, a system can be understood as an organized interconnected set of at least two or more components that collectively constitute a unified whole. The behavior of the whole is conditioned by the interactions of its parts, while the parts, in turn, derive their functions and significance from their relation to the whole. In this respect, a system is indivisible, as the whole cannot exist independently of its parts, nor can the parts operate meaningfully apart from the whole. A genuine system necessarily gives rise to emergent properties, thereby becoming more than merely the sum of its parts.

Seems appropriate for a music thread in a philosophy forum.

The Madman - Nietzsche

Lesley Duncan - Love Song

Thee Sacred Souls - It's Our Love


The Altons - When You Go (That's When You'll Know)

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Because there is. — MrLiminal

And what is the nature of this "Because there is"?

"because" = 'by reason of'
"there" = 'at that place'
"is" = 'to be'

"Because there is" = to be at that place by reason of... what?

It is not an answer but another question.

If you dont see eye to eye then that means you have an argument, if you dont want to share it thats fine, but its weird seeing all these weird responces I got on this forum. — Illuminati

I do have an argument, but I'll just observe for now. And yes, it is a little weird, but also interesting.

Personally, I can't recommend it, as one who has also followed this line of thought. It's enlightening but alienating. — MrLiminal

I think i know what you mean, but i don't mind the trouble.

Well, we don't see eye to eye on the whole zero and chaos thing, but that's okay. I don't want to either encourage or discourage you.

From my understanding, everything you quoted and said in your last reply to me is absolutely correct. I have a more engineering and technical oriented way of describing it, but it is essentially the same.

The only point on which i might differ is this:

The “normal” state is non-existence, referred to as Chaos or Zero, which is not an absolute absence but an undifferentiated, formless, and unrestricted unity – a state of absolute potential. — Illuminati

I do not consider "Zero" and "Chaos" to be the exact same thing. I think of Chaos as a kind of higher-order Zero. The difference is that Zero is the static undifferentiated balanced state, while Chaos is the state of dynamic balanced differentiation. Both sum to zero, but one is literally a singular zero, and the other is a multitude that adds up to zero. In my view, Chaos emerges from Zero, and from Chaos emerges order (ordo ab chao). Multiple parts or "pieces" are required to create emergent forms of increasing complexity.

By chaos, i essentially mean what you described in the following quote:

This initial tension and balance between opposites (e.g., positive/negative energy, matter/antimatter) is the driving force of change and evolution, leading to dynamic equilibrium rather than static opposition. — Illuminati

I do think the ancient and traditional way of describing what we are referring to in this discussion is somewhat incomplete, and it is not readily comprehensible to most people, particularly modern minds. Part of my project is to reinterpret what the ancients said in a more modern, updated form, while also filling in some of the gaps they left in their descriptions. It is quite possible in my opinion that these gaps were left intentionally, or it may be that they lacked the requisite concepts to viably formulate certain descriptions of the Monad and its subsequent processes.

Thats exactly it. — Illuminati

Yes, but how do you suppose the determinate and finite aspects of the universe come from or emanate from this Indeterminate One Infinite Zero? How and why?

Where does 2, 3, 4, 5... come from?

Havent found what exactly? — Illuminati

The thing of all things that is not a thing.
The sound of the silent word.
The nature of origin, and the point of reason.
The deep darkness from which the light of sight shines forth.
You want to step into the space between the spaces.

Any and all of these, and none.

I think you’re looking in the right place, but you haven’t quite found it yet, in my humble opinion, of course.

If it was literally #D printed top teh atomic level there is no human touch, so it woudl not be Art. — I like sushi

So, you think that an atomically precise replica of a genuine work of art is not art? For you, the art lies in the physical artifact itself rather than in the concept behind it? But earlier, you suggested that there should be no difference between the two, as i quoted below.

And if so what is there to say against them both being Original if they are indistinguishable by every other trait other than their existing history (which is unobservable physically)? — I like sushi

If i created a work of art, such as a painting, and then gave you an atomically precise printed copy of it, would you consider it art or not? Or, if i wrote a book and gave you an atomically precise copy of it, would you regard that copy as a work of literature?

We find difficulties in these areas and this interests me a lot as it is here that logic fails to demarcate what somethign si or is not due to the subjectivity of experience. — I like sushi

Can you clarify what you mean by “demarcating what something is or is not due to the subjectivity of experience”?

Agreed, to a point. I think I would say 'practical' with a bit more force. If the physicality of a painting is primarily what matters (and I would argue that it is), then both would be indistinguishable. The history of the painting is much harder to construe as 'physical' as a painting -- in terms of aesthetic quality -- is not determined by its historical journey. — I like sushi

Some art is valuable not only because of its aesthetic appeal but also because of its historical significance. An old painting, such as one created by a famous deceased artist, holds greater value due to its history. This is why a replica of the Mona Lisa costs significantly less than the original. The value lies not in the physical painting itself, but in what one thinks and believes about the painting. It’s a subjective distinction, meaning that one could be deceived into thinking the copy is the original and still experience the same feelings as if it were, in fact, the original. Also, one can be convinced that the original is a fake and lose a large portion of its subjective value.

I am sure everyone has heard of the analogy taken at the atom level too where a painting is replicated down to the atomic level? If we then accidently mix them up do they both become the original to us? — I like sushi

Well if i knew which one was the original before they got mixed up then i would know that one of them is the original. I will have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong and i would know that fact. With no way of knowing choosing one over the other would simply be a belief and not knowledge. Objectively the original is still there but hidden away from our ability to know.

It would not be reasonable in my estimation to state that both are the original, because even if structurally identical they have two different paths within spacetime. Although for practical purposes in most cases i suppose it shouldn't be a problem.

A fake painting is still a painting. A fake, fake painting is still a painting. The ony matter than seems unclear is whether or nto it is fake. — I like sushi

"fake" = -1 [False]
"painting" = 1 [True]

fake painting => fake(painting) = a fake painting

• "fake" is referring to the "painting"
• [-1 * 1 = -1] = False

fake fake painting => fake(fake(painting)) = a genuine painting

• the first "fake" is referring to the "fake painting"
• [-1 * (-1 * 1) = 1] = True

fake fake fake painting => fake(fake(fake(painting))) = a fake painting

• the first "fake" refers to the second "fake" which is referring to the "fake painting"
• [-1 * (-1 * (-1 * 1)) = -1] = False

Keep on adding more "fake" and it will alternate between "fake painting" and "genuine painting" forever.

A "fake fake painting" if you will can also be thought of as a "copy of a copy of the original". The more "fake" you add the further removed from the original the "fake painting" will be. The difference in this way of thinking about it is that once fake always fake with no periodic alterations between fake and genuine.

For example, when we build a car, we put the parts together in a way that the whole, car, has specific function. If you put the part the other way, the whole loses its function. The same applies to a meaningful sentence. When we build a meaningful sentence, we arrange the parts such that the sentence has a meaning. A meaningful sentence refers to an idea, though. The conscious mind creates the idea once the last word in the sentence is read. Although you can break a sentence into its parts, you cannot break an idea since it does not have any parts. — MoK

You’re right that when we hear a meaningful sentence, an idea is “created”. For most of us, ideas feel complete and indivisible. Continuing with the same example, if i say “a car”, the idea that forms in your mind is a single, unified concept. You don’t consciously think about the engine, wheels, or chassis as separate components. The mind creates a cohesive, emergent form from the assembled sentence. However, the apparent unity of an idea doesn’t mean it lacks parts. The complexity and quality of an idea is directly proportional to the number of parts and their relationships to each other that an individual recognizes.

An idea may appear indivisible to your conscious mind, yet its underlying parts typically reside beneath the surface in the subconscious. These hidden components, however, can rise into conscious awareness when examined or reflected upon.

Consider the difference between a car mechanic and someone who simply drives a car. An average driver’s idea of a car is a unified whole, composed of only a few high-level parts: the steering wheel, the pedals, and the body. A mechanic’s idea of a car, however, is far more detailed and complex. Their knowledge and experience allow them to break down the “unified idea” into a multitude of additional components and their relationships to each other: the fuel injection system, the differential, the transmission, the sensors, and the control units. The mechanic’s mind has taken the same unified concept and, through a process of deconstruction, revealed its hidden assembly. Because of this his or her idea of a car is imbued with different affordances than the average person's idea of a car, and thus can do more with it than the average person can. This is where the value of an idea comes from. The more parts of an idea one is aware of, the more capacity for creativity one is afforded with that idea.

Questions:
What do you think is responsible for the differences between different ideas? Why isn't every idea the same idea? Do you think an idea can exist on its own without some form of physical representation or scaffolding that holds it together?

The missing parts are the conscious and subconscious minds. — MoK

More questions:
Okay, but are the conscious and subconscious minds separate from the brain, coming from outside the brain to interact with it, or do you think they are generated by the activity of a living brain? Also, what do you think accounts for the difference between the conscious and subconscious minds?

I have to say that thinking is a process in which we work with old ideas and create new ones. Ideas are mental events that are experienced and created by the mind. Ideas are not reducible to something else. — MoK

Right, i agree that thinking is a process. If the process stops, thinking stops; if the process starts, thinking starts. Excellent.

Now, would you agree with this line of reasoning? If something can be created, then that same thing can be broken down into the parts that were used to create it, although the thing itself ceases to exist once it has been reduced or decomposed. Furthermore, if you take those same parts and reconstruct the original arrangement and relationships would that not result in the original irreducible thing once again?

To put it another way a car stops being a car when reduced to its parts, and becomes a car again when the parts are put together again. Would you agree?

both the conscious and subconscious mind are involved when it comes to writing about complex ideas that are normally long. — MoK

So, are you saying that the missing requirements for thinking, apart from the brain, are consciousness and subconsciousness?

What I am saying is that thinking cannot be done solely by the brain. — MoK

That's interesting, but can you tell me specifically what else is needed apart from the brain in order to think or have thoughts?

Pixel Grip - Last Laugh

Pixel Grip - Reason To Stay


Pixel Grip - STAMINA

Fair enough. I deep subject I agree. — Wayfarer

It most certainly is. :smile:

My remark was directed at the paragraph about the Robocop analogy, where it seemed to be suggesting that the brain usurps the role of an actual agent. — Wayfarer

Well, what i intended to express there was that the deeper the exogenous stimulation of the brain is, the more integrated and unified the effect felt by the subject. Between the sensory (input) and motor (output) regions lie the neural structures responsible for decision-making, where sensory-motor coordination occurs. This central region of the brain's input/process/output system is where stimulation and manipulation become indistinguishable from self-generated decisions.

“…the mind seems to act independently of the brain in the same sense that a programmer acts independently of his computer, however much he may depend upon the action of that computer for certain purposes.”

The extended mind theory proposes a different way of defining the "whole". It argues that the cognitive system is not limited to the brain or even to the body, but is a coupled system that includes the brain, the body, and various external tools and resources. In this view, a person's mind is not just their brain; rather, it is the entire functional system involved in performing a cognitive task.

I largely subscribe to this perspective. For instance, in the context of programming, the relevant cognitive system includes the programmer, the computer, and the software being developed. Within this framework, the programmer and the computer are not entirely separate; their cognitive processes emerge from the integration and interaction of both components. The mind, considered as a coupled system, cannot function independently of its essential parts. If the computer is removed, the cognitive system and its capabilities are fundamentally altered. The mind is therefore not separate from the brain; it is a larger system, with the brain serving as a central component.

Additionally, extended mind theory is not generally considered to commit the mereological fallacy as far as i can tell. On the contrary, it can be seen as a sophisticated response to the very issue that the mereological fallacy highlights, since it addresses the relationship between parts and wholes in cognitive systems by emphasizing integration rather than separation.

However one crucial point that Penfield noted was that the subject could always distinguish a movement or a memory that was elicited by the surgeon from something the subject themselves did. They would say 'you did that'. — Wayfarer

My explanation for this relates to how the situation is set up. The patient is aware of what is happening and knows that the surgeon will be performing exogenous stimulations of his brain. The patient is perceiving the environment and the situation, processing that information in the very brain that is being stimulated. The brain recognizes that it did not generate this movement on its own because it notices there was no conscious reason for it. In the context of the situation, the brain can easily deduce what happened.

A similar phenomenon occurs with "alien hand syndrome", where a patient who has had the hemispheres of their brain disconnected loses volitional control over one hand, much like in the video example. This happens because there are effectively two separate perspectives living in the same brain due to the disconnection. If the two hemispheres were internally connected and integrated, the movement would feel completely volitional. The sense of free will arises from this internal integration of the entire nervous system and brain. Once that integration is disrupted, actions begin to feel out of the individual's control; particularly if the stimulation occurs in shallower regions like motor centers. The surgeon stimulating the brain externally mimics this type of disintegration.

If the surgeon simply stimulates a motor region to move the hand, the brain recognizes that it did not perform the necessary processing to initiate the movement. However, if the surgeon were to stimulate a deeper, more upstream structure, one that precedes motor regions, it could then trigger the initial unconscious pattern of a specific decision, such as moving the hand, which would then feel volitional. It should also be noted that our conscious decisions are processed subconsciously before we become aware of them.

This scene from Robocop illustrates how the right stimulation of deeper brain regions responsible for decision-making can be hijacked, making the person believe they are making their own decisions while actually being controlled externally:

Another crucial point is that neuroscience has not been able to identify the area of the brain that is responsible for the conscious unity of experience. 'enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjective experience'. And yet this sense of subjective unity is the fulcrum around which all our inner life turns. — Wayfarer

I do not believe there is a single, literal region of the brain responsible for the conscious unity of experience because it is the unified integration of the entire brain and nervous system that gives rise to this unity. It is all the parts working together harmoniously. Disruption to the integrity and unity of the brain would disrupt the unity and integrity of conscious experience. The visual center of the brain is only one part of the whole brain and does not process sound, smell, or any of the other senses. All the sensory centers must work together in the right way for conscious unity to emerge.

The point is that ideas are not causally efficacious within materialism since an idea is a mental event only. We know that ideas are the key elements in thoughts. So, materialism fails to explain how we could have thoughts. — MoK

Yes, but my point is that an idea or a thought cannot exist without a material substrate to support and contain it, such as the brain. When you have an idea or a thought, what is actually happening is that a neural structure or pattern in your brain is being activated or excited. This activation is perceived by other parts of your brain, and the network of interconnected "neural self-perceptions" between these different parts and regions of the brain causes the conscious awareness of your thoughts and ideas. As soon as that neural pattern is disrupted or stops, all thoughts and ideas would equally be disrupted or cease. It is evidently clear that the material substrate for thoughts and ideas is not only the neurons in your brain but also the relative networked connections between them. The structured organization of your material brain is the very thing that allows you to have even the simplest thought possible.

It appears that you have taken idealism and materialism to be two completely different and incompatible perspectives, when in fact they are two sides of the same coin. To use the computer analogy i suggested earlier, a computer's hardware represents its materialistic aspect, and the software represents its idealistic aspect. They go together like time and space and cannot really do anything without each other. Software cannot exist without hardware, and hardware cannot do anything without software.

If you were to allow a brain surgeon to open your brain and begin poking at different areas while you were still awake and aware, you would notice that when the surgeon stimulates a specific spot in the brain, you would experience a specific memory, thought, or emotion associated with that area. This demonstrates that the material and the ideal are causally and efficaciously connected.

Look here:

How does the mind create thoughts? — MoK

What is the duty of the brain when it comes to thoughts, if the mind is the thinking thing? — MoK

The mind does not create thoughts; it is the brain that generates them. The mind simply emerges from the operations of the brain. It represents the aspect of the brain that is more than the sum of its parts (the parts being the neurons). One way to distinguish between the brain and the mind is to use an analogy: the brain is like hardware, while the mind is like software.

The structure and architecture of the brain establishes a latent space in which the abstract objects we call memories are stored and associated. When you have an experience, the brain disassembles the raw data of that experience into its fundamental components or features and stores these parts in a kind of hierarchy within its neural patterns. When we think, the brain retrieves these associated components and reassembles them in what some people refer to as the "global workspace". This process is called remembering because we are taking the parts, or "members", of a stored experience and putting them back together. All of this happens constantly, whether you are aware of it or not, even while you sleep, which is why you dream. The term "mind", at least how i use it, refers to the overall abstract aspect of the brain's activity. It is a phenomenon similar in my view to life itself, but at a higher level of abstraction.

A mind is actually an emergent abstract space. In the same way you can have a "thing" in the world, in physical space, you can also have a "think" in the abstract space that is the mind. In fact any space is in fact a mind of some kind. Molecular space, biological space, culture space, and particularly cyberspace which is the latest spacial emergence on this planet.

In my practice I revere the presence and wisdom in the plants and animals around me. — Punshhh

:smile:

Animals and plants are pretty much identical to humans when it comes to the cellular structure. So how come their soul is markedly different to that of humans? — Punshhh

At the individual cell level, they are largely the same, although some differences exist due to genetic expression. Each animal has an evolutionary heritage that shapes the morphology of its body and its brain or nervous system. These differences in morphology account for variations in neural architecture and, consequently, the kind of "soul" an animal possesses. The "soul" serves as the template for the expression of consciousness and determines the specific type of consciousness that a particular animal exhibits. This is why, for example, the consciousness of a fish is different from that of a bird or a dog, and so on.

If one examines different artificial neural network architectures and considers how the same input information produces different outputs when applied to each architecture, it becomes clear that differences in neural architecture fundamentally affect how information is processed within that architecture.

This image shows a sample of various neural network architectures:


This image shows a sample of various brain morphologies:

But consider again Aristotle's view of 'psuche' (psyche). There was the vegetative, animal, and rational soul, each with different levels of capability, and each possessing the powers of the lesser kind, plus additional powers - in humans, the capacity for rational thought and speech (hence humans, the 'rational animal'.) — Wayfarer

Good answer. This is mostly how i see it, much like Aristotle. However, regarding the mirror test with animals, i’ve noticed that passing it does not necessarily depend on the organism’s level of complexity. It appears to involve a specific structure in the brain or nervous system, which need not be as complex as one might assume at first in order to provide self-awareness. It is certainly interesting.

Yes, i've heard of that experiment, but the version i know involved basketball players mentally rehearsing their moves, as opposed to physically practicing on the court.

Well, my main point is that the soul - not that you have to believe in such a word! - is not something you have, like an appendix or a limb, but what you are. It's a question of identity. — Wayfarer

That is absolutely correct. You, i, and the Buddhists are in perfect accord on this point. You are not who you are without your soul.

However, i think all souls are aware, but not all souls are self-aware. What are your thoughts on this specific point? Do you think an entity can "have" or be an identity (a soul) without directly realizing it is an identity? Consider animals that do not recognize themselves in a mirror.

I thought your depiction had merit. — Wayfarer

:up:

I'll also add that it is now thought that neurons are actually generated in specific regions of the adult brain throughout life, and also that new neural connections and pathways are being created and destroyed regularly through the process of neuroplasticity. — Wayfarer

That is quite true as well. For me, it is precisely these neural connections that constitute a soul. A unique human soul emerges from the distinct pattern of connectivity formed within the specific constraints of the human neural architecture. A different animal would develop a different kind of soul, and there are all kinds of souls. A soul is able to change and evolve thanks to the neuroplasticity of the brain.

This is not an accurate description in the case of neurons, many of which persist from birth — wonderer1

This is precisely why i stated it as:

Over a period of seven to eight years, almost all the cells in your body have been replaced, — punos

Soom T - Path of the Wanderer (ft. Tom Fire)


Stick Figure - World on Fire Remix (DUBBED By Moon Phaser)