I would ... according to 180 Proof.

:up:

Again, on target OP! You've done your homework and it shows. Transactions, that's all there was/is/will be to life. How disheartening it is, oui mon ami? Any light at the end of this tunnel mate?

What would I do if I were God?

@180 Proof's answer is the best!

Your theory doesn't require minds then - information is self-sufficient and yet ...



Did you read Gnomon's latest post (right above yours)?

I sympathize with your view. In the simplest sense, brains are specific combinations of matter.

Interesting argument.

:rofl:

Something like that, si!

Will is then linked to choice and as you say, we can drive a wedge between the two. What does the world look like now?

Is birthday one of them? — javi2541997

Weirdly, yeah! I had something else in mind but I seem to have forgotten what it was.

:up:

Science! Yep, that's how it works, but no scientific hypothesis is true is it? Does that mean anything? What they are is not false until, of course, proven to be so.

The MWI is unfalsifiable, I know that's true for reasons laid down for lay audiences like myself.

That an observer allegedly causes the collapse of a wave function is too unfalsifiable? Seems like it, it is.

These are all (known) knowns of course and I'm grateful to you for joggin' my memory.

We're at this stage in a tight spot, scientifically speaking, oui monsieur?

What do you make of the QM claim that consciousness is vital to physical processes e.g. in the double slit experiment?

The Fibonacci sequence
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, ...

The Negative Fibonacci sequence
4, 6, 7, 9 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, ...

Could we use this to generate a (true) random number?

Modus ponense (IF x THEN y/x//y) [is always valid].

:grin:

Something like that. :up:

As a specific case of sorrow and as a general case of agony.

I like where you're going with this. May be we could turn it into a game if sorts.

Will is associated with choice is what I meant.

Why else talk about it? If the topic is not germane to situations where the desire to make a difference between possibilities is what is being discussed, what is being discussed? — Paine

True, true!

Well, the concept of consciousness as primarily intentional is often a starting point in phenomenology (i.e Brentano). From consciousness being directed in the sense of intentionality it seems a short step to being directed in the sense of conation. It seems an essential feature to me. — Pantagruel

I agree.

Desire is just an inclination toward an object or goal. Will is what acts on the desire. That we do not necessarily act on our desires indicates that will is not a kind of desire. — Metaphysician Undercover

In there's a puzzle I haven't been able to solve. Perhaps it's a pseudoproblem like many of my problems are.

---

To both of the above posters.

It seems that some other posters are of the view that will is tied/linked to choice.

arelationship between will and consciousness? Ok, but what kinda relationship is it?

Will, to me, is simply a kind of desire.

Saint Nicholas = Santa Claus. He's no more yes, but Saint Nicholas = Santa Claus.

I'm relyin' on me intuition mate - it doesn't mean anything.

Talking out of me bung hole? :chin:

Good strategy.

compulsion is the absence of will.
— Agent Smith

True enough. And compulsion also abrogates responsibility. The question is, can we ever really be compelled, or do we allow ourselves to be compelled?

I think that the real opposition is internal, and the force that counters will in us might best be understood as...temptation. — Pantagruel

The will seems related to the idea of self, to the idea of independence, to the idea of responsbility (you mentioned that) but then that amounts to overlooking an obvious truth about what will is; either that or we're unsure of what will is.

That's one, but here's the thing Saint Nicholas was a real person. :chin: I don't know how to deal with that (historical) fact and how it relates to Santa Claus.

The education system is not an issue then - if it has been, as you say, reworked. I'm not complaining, being myself a beneficiary of the US education system in both direct and indirect ways. I don't think I would be where I am (not exactly a happy place and yet better in many ways).

Will is, in a sense, nature; nature is in a sense habit; habit is in a sense a compulsion; compulsion is the absence of will. :grin:

Good question OP.

That's one way to look at it. What follows if I may ask?

Gracias. Too dense, don't have the time. tl;dr moment.

Read what I wrote, Smith. Slowly. Carefuully. And the other links in that post too. Consider the contexts of those thread discussions. I'll answer any questions of my positions which are clearly informed by what I've actually written. Just do me that courtesy, amigo. — 180 Proof

Please don't think I didn't read your post carefully. Sometimes, it seems, someone with not so a high IQ like myself can come off as rude & arrogant.

The way I see it, you're sympathetic to a staged surgical procedure, step 1 being removing one hemisphere, step 2 being installing a synthetic brain, step 3 being letting the two (one original hemisphere & the new synthetic hemisphere) talk to each other as part of the integration process, step 4 repeat the same thing with the other original hemispher. At the end of the procedure, we have a synthetic brain.

LO = Left original hemisphere
RO= Right original hemisphere

LS = Left synthetic hemisphere
RS = Right synthetic hemisphere

LO-RO $\to$ LS-RO $\to$ LS-RS

Wtf are you talking about? — 180 Proof

:grin: I don't know. As I said I'm not sure I understand duality. Can ya help? What's duality?

That kind of poor reasoning is known as "sympathetic magic" thinking, Smith. G's "BothAnd" has nothing to do with yin-yang (or wave-particle) complementarity as far as I can tell – it's its own occult thing. Anyway, until G addresses my questions, I can't claim I know for sure what he's glossolaling about. — 180 Proof

Well, if photons and matter waves, surely there's a duality that isn't complementary, rather they're annihilatory (MAD) and although Gnomon's BothAnd is more of the former, it easily accommodates the latter.

Just to be clear, for the record, I never really grasped duality (looks like deep down I'm an advaita)

I hear ya, but it makes sense in my universe.

xAy: x is aware of y

SKYNET (s) is self-aware: sAs

sAs since 2:14 AM Eastern Time, August 29^th, 1997

:cool:

An afterlife makes sense only in Buddhism (reincarnation, determined by karma).

According to Yuval Noah Harari, our brains have actually decreased in size; as per evolutionary medicine, we have a short gestation period of approx. 9 months so that our relatively large heads can fit through women's small birth canal.

You are stating language to necessarily be a more advanced form of consciousness and therefore a successor only? — TiredThinker

That follows. One well-versed in linguistics (especially the history of its evolution) should be able to shed some light on the matter. Where's a linguist when we need one?

The counterweight to NDE is all of the times people have lost consciousness, had convulsions, were in critical conditionc(MI/CVA), etc. and didn't have an NDE.

:grin: In the neurosurgical procedure you described, what exactly is your self that's being transferred from organic substrate (brain) to inorganic subatrate?

You're right of course - education would need to be overhauled in order to meet the challenges & capitalize on the opportunities of emerging realities, among which is (some say) rapid technological advancement. How do you suppose we should do this?

The procedure you describe (brain surgery) sounds like a primitive way to download the mind. Why not get right to the point - its the software (apps + files), not the hardware we're interested in.