and consciousness that has meaning?
Arguments for the soul's existence...
- Thread starter one_raven
- Start date
and consciousness that has meaning?
build and AI with consciousness, and self awareness using a program and machinery....
Try telling that to a machine :rollseyes:
Seriously, lixluke, your arguement is drifting down the stream. How do you pretend to make such claims? If you ask me, the soul exists, because he said how it exists, several posts back, and you are comming up with insane and rediculious arguements such as:
Come now, how do you expect to understand his arguements if you are going to refute them? This is refutation. Refute the arguement, and believe that it is true what you are saying, when it is actually totally rediculious.
the dilemma is this:
how do you make a lump of steel love a flower in a garden?
How do you make a lump of steel feel like it's a lump of steel?
How do make a lump of steel know of it's mortality?
Can't be done with out some sort of organic interface or living entity to do it with ~soulTo feel suffering is what the soul does in all it's various forms. How do you make a computer know what suffering is or pleasure for that matter?What is self awareness afer all but the awarenes of all these things? Especiallly the suffering bit.
how do you make a lump of steel love a flower in a garden?
How do you make a lump of steel feel like it's a lump of steel?
How do make a lump of steel know of it's mortality?
Can't be done with out some sort of organic interface or living entity to do it with ~soulTo feel suffering is what the soul does in all it's various forms. How do you make a computer know what suffering is or pleasure for that matter?What is self awareness afer all but the awarenes of all these things? Especiallly the suffering bit.
here is an article explaining how the brain works similar to a computer: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061005222628.htm
define consciousness for me and tell me why it is impossible for computers to have it
although i'll assume it has something with it not being "alive" so it can't have a soul. if so, define "life" for me, and tell me where the cutoff point is between life and non-life. is an ape alive? is a dog alive? is a fish alive? is a sponge alive? is a cell alive? is a mitochondria alive?
i know how much you love lixluke, but i'm not him
tell me how my points are "rediculious"
defining life in absolute terms is not that easy however in the context of this thread I would stat by saying that it is anything that has self awareness and as far as I am aware all living things be it a single cell has self awareness.
However it is not possible to test a single cell for this...etc etc
what is self awareness and how is it acheived?
the million dollar question however the word soul says it pretty much all I reckon.
However it is not possible to test a single cell for this...etc etc
what is self awareness and how is it acheived?
the million dollar question however the word soul says it pretty much all I reckon.
a computer is not just "a lump of steel." that's equivalent to saying people are just a lump of atoms. and we are, but we are also organized very specifically. just as that organization gives us emotion, it can give computers it too.
I am not going to say what i know to be true just to fulfill a fishing expedition.
Consciousness and self awareness harken back to the very fundamentals of how this universe is built....
So you would not understand what I would answer to it any way...
so I shall pass it back and ask how any anything can have self awareness with out soul?
Consciousness and self awareness harken back to the very fundamentals of how this universe is built....
So you would not understand what I would answer to it any way...
so I shall pass it back and ask how any anything can have self awareness with out soul?
you do understand the definition that is officially recognized by biologists is arbitrary, right? they understand that there is actually no real difference between "alive" and "not alive," but they continue to use these words because of practical reasons.
my problem with how you approach this is that you claim we have emotion, but then you claim that the only possible reason for this is because we have a soul. and computers cannot have a soul because they're not alive. but then you cannot even give me a rigorous, non-arbitrary definition of life. you even admit that it is impossible to test for the existence of souls in things you label as alive, but you continue to believe it has a soul anyways, but then what's the difference between claiming a cell has a soul and a computer has a soul? see, it's confusingly circular.
how is this?
having a complex enough control center? you say "something cannot be self-aware without a soul." i simply disagree. i don't know how to adequately answer your question.
did you read that link i sent you? the more we find through science, the less "supernatural" there seems to be.
no I didn't claim as you say.
I suggested that the soul may allow us to find meaning to our emotions I didn't say that the soul grants us our emotions...the endocrine system can provide emotion but it takes the soul to find meaning in them.
So when you are grieving you know that you are and not just standing there crying your eyes out wondering about nothing....
actually I make no claim but merely make suggestions about what "could" be considered as valid.
The problem is we are talking from very differnet perspectives.
You assume that each human being body is somehow in isolation from another human being, That they stand alone and that their brain computes their existence.
This is fundamentally an incorrect position IMO.
So we are at odds to begin with.
The soul IMO not only grants meaning but empathy as well. It allows us to share an relatively objective reality that would other wise have to be computed individually on a massive scale by every thinking being and yet arrive at almost exactly the same results. This is theoretically impossible to achieve given the huge diversity of humans and other animals alone....
Imagine 8 billion brains all arriving at the same "objective' reality, you couldn't even build 8 billion robots to do that. The margin for error would rule it out.
So IMO the soul provides the interconnection between all living things thus the ability to arrive at meaning that is shareable [and in human case comprehendable] by all living things.
So yes we are at odds simply because the current scientific view is exclusionary and not inclusionary.
I was actually going to show a "model" in diagram form about how you could actually build a robotic analogy of universal consciousness but this would never be life persee...it would still be a simulcrum or simulation of living and not the real deal.
So I have taken this issue quite seriously in the past and looked at some really tough and "out there" concepts to arrive where I have.
The first thing to realise is that the brain and it's sensory system does not work in the way that we tend to think it does according to conventional thinking...and whilst the brain does form some computational work it is more a reflector of reality and not a computation of reality.
Straight away we have significant conflict with existing thought.
So I wont go down there any further and if I get the time I will set up the universal consciousness thread with the diagrams as suggested.
You assume that each human being body is somehow in isolation from another human being, That they stand alone and that their brain computes their existence.
This is fundamentally an incorrect position IMO.
So we are at odds to begin with.
The soul IMO not only grants meaning but empathy as well. It allows us to share an relatively objective reality that would other wise have to be computed individually on a massive scale by every thinking being and yet arrive at almost exactly the same results. This is theoretically impossible to achieve given the huge diversity of humans and other animals alone....
Imagine 8 billion brains all arriving at the same "objective' reality, you couldn't even build 8 billion robots to do that. The margin for error would rule it out.
So IMO the soul provides the interconnection between all living things thus the ability to arrive at meaning that is shareable [and in human case comprehendable] by all living things.
So yes we are at odds simply because the current scientific view is exclusionary and not inclusionary.
I was actually going to show a "model" in diagram form about how you could actually build a robotic analogy of universal consciousness but this would never be life persee...it would still be a simulcrum or simulation of living and not the real deal.
So I have taken this issue quite seriously in the past and looked at some really tough and "out there" concepts to arrive where I have.
The first thing to realise is that the brain and it's sensory system does not work in the way that we tend to think it does according to conventional thinking...and whilst the brain does form some computational work it is more a reflector of reality and not a computation of reality.
Straight away we have significant conflict with existing thought.
So I wont go down there any further and if I get the time I will set up the universal consciousness thread with the diagrams as suggested.
He is very deep in the beginnings of epistemology,
(Beginning as in novice):
And, it is simple to compute the simple reqs of there being a soul. Discussion of the very thing which allows us to die, there is no alternative when someone faces an authority that they were speaking wrongly from to begin with, plus he hardley ever considers anything you are saying QQ so, he can't very well begin to discuss it.
(Beginning as in novice):
And, it is simple to compute the simple reqs of there being a soul. Discussion of the very thing which allows us to die, there is no alternative when someone faces an authority that they were speaking wrongly from to begin with, plus he hardley ever considers anything you are saying QQ so, he can't very well begin to discuss it.
two things:
1] I have a great respect fro our scientists eve though I believe they are greatly mistaken.
2] I don't believe in the supernatural as for me it is all natural and physical. There is no no-material or paranormal or supernatural eixstence. it is all material and all physical.
It is interesteing that they have foudn evidence of binary functions in the frontal lobe however I guess this would not be surprising as binary systems certainly have their uses however from what I understand most systems are infinitely variable which means essentially trinary and not binary which I might add will be the future of computers if and when we go down that path.
trinary systems will actually bring the computer closer to being a super intelligent and "thinking" entity rather than just a programmed reactor of data.
Anothrer thread perhaps?
actually Sisyphus I haven't really articulated myself all that well either. My excuse was that I was sitting in a coffee shop trying to have conversations with both my lap top and others simultaneously....ha
a bit of a war going on you know....
well of course you know why you're crying. the endocrine system is not going to induce crying unless there was something to make it do that. people don't normally cry out of random
reality is not computed by conscious beings. reality is not dependent on anything. it's what actually exists. what we observe is dependent on reality.
i've asked this before, but you haven't given me an answer. where is the cutoff between "alive" and "not alive"?
yes, a robot world that can imitate human action can exist. they would be able to act out what we do so there is no observable difference between them and us if we only observe with sight and sound. but a robot world that is composed of robots with emotion and "meaning" can also exist.
how do we think the brain works according to "conventional thinking"? why do you say that the brain creates the reality? do you know that if you take that assumption, then any discussion about anything is meaningless?