the slow death of religion

[Cris]

Mshark,

One thing I don't understand about this plan: Do you think that the biological brain has free will? If so do you think that the computer brain will gain free will when it gains a significant complexity. Or perhaps within the software of the biological the key to free will wil be found?

I take free will to mean the ability to make voluntary choices that are not determined by external forces.

The first issue, and this applies equally to biological as well as non-biological entities, is the issue of determinism. This says that if every effect has a cause then any choice you appear to make will have been determined by the long chain of cause and effects that preceded the perceived decision. In which case can free will exist under any circumstances?

So with the understanding that free will is perhaps impossible anyway could we define a view of free will that fits how we perceive free will?

Consider a chess-playing machine. It has a strict set of rules on how to choose a move given a precise set of conditions. However, there could be conditions where multiple move choices are available and where the rules do not favor any one choice more than another. How does the software decide what to do? In this scenario I'd invoke a random number generator routine and make the choice randomly. In this scenario we could rightly claim that the machine has exercised its free will since the choice was not determined by external forces or by mechanistic rules. The only doubt here would be how the random number generator generated its random choice and that is a whole different discussion for the computer science forum.

In the human scenario how do humans make choices? For a vast majority of decisions the choices are obvious, e.g. there is a car coming so I should move out of the way, or I'm hungry so I should eat. But humans also have the freedom to choose to be hit and killed by the car or to starve to death. This freedom to choose is how I would characterize free will. But why would a human choose to die instead of live, or why choose a perceived obvious good choice over a bad choice?

The choices we make seem to be a matter of emotional desire. Even choices that are apparently determined by careful reason and logic still satisfy the emotion of "satisfaction" of having made a choice by that mechanism. But when a choice is not clear, like the chess playing scenario, how do we decide? When all things are equal we too simply choose randomly.

So I would maintain that if the neural networks of a biological brain are accurately transferred to an electronic medium then the same identical processes of emotional desires and randomness would remain intact. Whatever we mean by free will in a biological form should be exactly the same as a non-biological form.

Does that answer your question?

 

[sycoindian]

Cris,

Interesting topic.. It does sound fascinating and quite scary at the same time... to be able to upload your brain into a machine and live forever in a non biological construct has its pros and cons... would you want to live in a machine without any sensory perceptions? besides the fact that you could witness the end of time livin in a computer, would it be worth it? also would such a system have the capability of learning new information?

what you are proposing involves a few assumptions of course as you pointed out.. considering the complexity of the brain, is it possible to map out the activity of neurons? that seems like quite a daunting task.. the technological capabilities will exist in some time...

well... i'll be looking fwd to the outcome of this research...

 

[Cris]

sycoindian,

would you want to live in a machine without any sensory perceptions?

Why do you assume no sensory perceptions? There is much current research on visual and audio recognition systems. And sensors of all kinds. Smell and taste are perhaps less well developed, but then if we don't need to eat then perhaps they are of less interest anyway. But what about extending our visual range into the infra-red and ultra-violet and beyond into the extra low and extra high frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.

I would see that having a machine like interface opens up some incredible possibilities.

besides the fact that you could witness the end of time livin in a computer, would it be worth it?

Having a limitless lifespan is something that most people have not quite considered properly despite so many being religious which specifically offers eternal life. I think your statement represents the usual accepted conditioning that humans only live a short time. Ask yourself the alternative, why would you want to die? After death you have no options.

also would such a system have the capability of learning new information?

I'd say this is probably one of the most important advantages. The human brain is currently limited by the size and shape of the skull. In a computer based medium there would be no upper limits to either memory or processing power. The term that is usually used is super-intelligence.

is it possible to map out the activity of neurons? that seems like quite a daunting task.. the technological capabilities will exist in some time...

The current approach by MURG (Mind Uploading Research Group) is to start with the nematode. These are very common worms that have just a few neurons but have surprising similarities to humans. If we can map the brain of a worm and create a computer-based version then progress can only be upwards.

Yup it is going to take a while.

 

[man_of_jade]

sorry to interrupt this debate, but I do have to point out that nobody responded to my post on the first page... has nobody been able to debate that? Come on, perhaps Cris can formulate an argument?

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by Cris
After death you have no options.

oy vey!
prove that i wont have any options.


3.4 Some objections

A computational basis for cognition can be challenged in two ways. The first sort of challenge argues that computation cannot do what cognition does: that a computational simulation might not even reproduce human behavioral capacities, for instance, perhaps because the causal structure in human cognition goes beyond what a computational description can provide. The second concedes that computation might capture the capacities, but argues that more is required for true mentality. I will consider four objections of the second variety, and then three of the first. Answers to most of these objections fall directly out of the framework developed above.

A Computational Foundation for the Study of Cognition

 

[Jaxom]

Originally posted by man_of_jade
Religons (at least the one i follow) does not depend on the fear of death. Why should i be afraid? Religon wont die out if we get to live hundreds of years, instead it will be strengthened. Theres more to religon to just an afterlife, you have to understand, its about what you do to better the lives of the people around you. So what if we dont reach heaven or whatever sooner than later? I want to enjoy my life on earth as much as i can while im here, live every moment to its fullest :m:

I think I agree with you that it isn't the fear of death that helps religion...it's more the idea there's a second chance, or that this life isn't all you get. Not all people treat it this way, but some do...religion with afterlife gives a false promise of something better if you can just live well in this lifetime.

It's not fear, it's the afterlife reward I think that holds religion together. If you had no promise of reward, how many theists would change the way they live? Or another way to phrase it, how many theists do good only for that purpose, and not for the underlying reason to get a good afterlife? I'm sure there'll be a lot of of course I do, but be honest with yourself.

I as an athiest can say I do good solely because I feel it's the right thing to do...I don't expect any reward or karma increase later.

 

[Cris]

spookz,

Originally posted by Cris
After death you have no options.

oy vey!
prove that i wont have any options.

You are joking, right? I've seen and touched dead people. They don't move, speak, or seem to listen, and we find they need to be buried, burnt, or frozen, otherwise they tend to rot and smell somewhat.

If you can show that dead people have some choice in the matter then I'd love to hear about it.

 

[spookz]

i am talking about the same thing that you plan on transferring to a computer
existing after death in some sort of non material container like.... dare i say it.... a spirit?

so if you assert that the spirit is not an option for continued existence after physical death, i would like to hear your reasons

 

[Cris]

Spookz,

Nice article, but did you read the whole article? Certainly there were objections, but the objections were also countered. Here are a couple of extracts that support the proposition that cognition can be implemented by computation.

This is to some extent an empirical issue, but the relevant evidence is solidly on the side of computability. We have every reason to believe that the low-level laws of physics are computable. If so, then low-level neurophysiological processes can be computationally simulated; it follows that the function of the whole brain is computable too, as the brain consists in a network of neurophysiological parts. Some have disputed the premise: for example, Penrose (1989) has speculated that the effects of quantum gravity are noncomputable, and that these effects may play a role in cognitive functioning. He offers no arguments to back up this speculation, however, and there is no evidence of such noncomputability in current physical theory (see Pour-El and Richards (1989) for a discussion). Failing such a radical development as the discovery that the fundamental laws of nature are uncomputable, we have every reason to believe that human cognition can be computationally modeled.

In this light, we see that artificial intelligence and computational cognitive science do not rest on shaky empirical hypotheses. Instead, they are consequences of some very plausible principles about the causal basis of cognition, and they are compatible with an extremely wide range of empirical discoveries about the functioning of the mind. It is precisely because of this flexibility that computation serves as a foundation for the fields in question, by providing a common framework within which many different theories can be expressed, and by providing a tool with which the theories' causal mechanisms can be instantiated. No matter how cognitive science progresses in the coming years, there is good reason to believe that computation will be at center stage.

 

[man_of_jade]

I think I agree with you that it isn't the fear of death that helps religion...it's more the idea there's a second chance, or that this life isn't all you get. Not all people treat it this way, but some do...religion with afterlife gives a false promise of something better if you can just live well in this lifetime.

It's not fear, it's the afterlife reward I think that holds religion together. If you had no promise of reward, how many theists would change the way they live? Or another way to phrase it, how many theists do good only for that purpose, and not for the underlying reason to get a good afterlife? I'm sure there'll be a lot of of course I do, but be honest with yourself.

I as an athiest can say I do good solely because I feel it's the right thing to do...I don't expect any reward or karma increase later.

To be honest, the people who i think take the Heaven/Hell thing too seriously are the fundamentalists who blow themselves up to get there fast. To be honest, i think most people think more about helping people NOT to get to heaven in the afterlife... (While the idea may be present, im sure its not the driving force...) But many help people because its the right thing to do, because it feels good to help people out. Personnally, my view on the afterlife, ive had a little proof of it, after a somewhat life changing experience... however, that is a personal issue and im not going there, nothing personal or anything. Afterlife? my view isnt really the conventional Christian view, but i still believe there is a "Heaven" and a "Hell", but its a bit more complex than that. How many Thiests believe do good only for the purpose? Well, I'm one of 'em

 

[Cris]

sppokz,

i am talking about the same thing that you plan on transferring to a computer
existing after death in some sort of non material container like.... dare i say it.... a spirit?

But the brain is entirely material. Neural networks are entirely material. Neural connections are entirely material. It is the functional equivalent of these structures that we plan to transfer to a non-biological substrate. I have no idea what you mean by spirit.

so if you assert that the spirit is not an option for continued existence after physical death, i would like to hear your reasons.

"Spirit" is only a fantasy concept. There is no empirical evidence for its support, in which case there is no reason to consider it.

 

[spookz]

proof of "something non-material"



A number of secondary correlations reveal structural features within these human/machine databases. In many instances, the effects appear to be operator-specific in their details and the results of given operators on widely different machines frequently tend to be similar in character and scale. Pairs of operators with shared intentions are found to induce further anomalies in the experimental outputs, especially when the two individuals share an emotional bond. The data also display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent series position effects are observed in individual and collective results. These anomalies can be demonstrated with the operators located up to thousands of miles from the laboratory, exerting their efforts hours before or after the actual operation of the devices.

Human/Machine Anomalies
Remote Perception
Implications and Applications]

comment please? straightforward cases of tekinesis and telepathy?

 

[spookz]

Two decades of intense experimentation and complementary theoretical modeling leave little doubt that the anomalous physical phenomena appearing in these PEAR studies are significantly correlated with subjective human processes, akin to such ineffable experiences as joy, wonder, creativity, and love. Yet, contemporary scientific rigor leaves little room for subjective correlates in its mechanistic representation of reality.
___It follows, therefore, that science as we know it either must exclude itself from study of such phenomena, even when they precipitate objectively observable physical effects, or broaden its methodology and conceptual vocabulary to embrace subjective experience in some systematic way. It is to the proposition, development, and utilization of such a "Science of the Subjective" that much of the future empirical and analytical efforts of the PEAR laboratory will be dedicated.

ps: even the churchlands seem to have backed off their rigidly eliminativist position

 

[youngbiologist]

the studies

are bad. If they cited published papers then I'd reconsider them. Also look whos the members of pear, aerospace and other professors. Listen, if I had a Doctorate in molecular genetics, if I were to start work on socioeconomics, I'd be talking out of my ass. Doctorates are usually highly concentrated blocks of knowledge, and while some skills can be used in different areas its not a good idea. I.E. website not credible, even though its on princton. Even universities have their crazy people.




Anyway I too do not believe in a soul. I'm just saying you yourself, your memories, etc don't necessarily HAVE to be run on your brain. The brain is constantly changing its connections and neurons are dying off and regenerating, but your not dying off or regenerating per se. If your careful, you could transfer the conscience to a different thinking platform. There is no magical soul, simply cause there does not need to be one. Check a mechanical clock, and find the parts that do nothing. There are none, as such why should there be a special part, the soul, in our brains if the brain does not need a soul. We have about 10 trillion connections in our brain, thats more then enough to explain the human conscience, ingenuity, etc.

 

[spookz]

why would pear be funded if they were engaged in bogus research? would princeton want to be associated with them? i agree the staff seemed a bit half assed but........!

you do not believe? do you think you will be able to transfer your "beliefs" to a machine?

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by Cris
Spookz,
Nice article, but did you read the whole article? Certainly there were objections, but the objections were also countered. Here are a couple of extracts that support the proposition that cognition can be implemented by computation.

fine!



i still maintain you will get a zombie computer incapable of qualitative experiences, free will, and other qualia like stuff. i shall return after consultations with the google god!

 

[spookz]

Re: the studies

Originally posted by youngbiologist
Anyway I too do not believe in a soul. I'm just saying you yourself, your memories, etc don't necessarily HAVE to be run on your brain. The brain is constantly changing its connections and neurons are dying off and regenerating, but your not dying off or regenerating per se. If your careful, you could transfer the conscience to a different thinking platform. There is no magical soul, simply cause there does not need to be one. Check a mechanical clock, and find the parts that do nothing. There are none, as such why should there be a special part, the soul, in our brains if the brain does not need a soul. We have about 10 trillion connections in our brain, thats more then enough to explain the human conscience, ingenuity, etc.

here is how chalmers put it....(the phenomenon being consciousness)

deny the phenomenon

The second choice is to take a harder line and deny the phenomenon. (Variations on this approach are taken by Allport 1988, Dennett 1991, and Wilkes 1988.) According to this line, once we have explained the functions such as accessibility, reportability, and the like, there is no further phenomenon called "experience" to explain. Some explicitly deny the phenomenon, holding for example that what is not externally verifiable cannot be real. Others achieve the same effect by allowing that experience exists, but only if we equate "experience" with something like the capacity to discriminate and report. These approaches lead to a simpler theory, but are ultimately unsatisfactory. Experience is the most central and manifest aspect of our mental lives, and indeed is perhaps the key explanandum in the science of the mind. Because of this status as an explanandum, experience cannot be discarded like the vital spirit when a new theory comes along. Rather, it is the central fact that any theory of consciousness must explain. A theory that denies the phenomenon "solves" the problem by ducking the question.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16351

 

[Jaxom]

I probably missed something in this subject, being as heavy as it is, but so far it seems the argument is consciousness, black or white. Is it not true/possible that there are degrees of awareness, and what we as humans observe is the high point thus far? The self awareness a rat or fish observes is simpler than humans, but that doesn't mean they aren't aware. So do they as well have this duality, or spirit? Or is it just because we are at the top that we see self awareness as something that has to be more than neurons and connections?

 

[Cris]

spookz,

Pretty much every organ in the human body has a function. For most of human history this information and the details were unknown. But we have made significant progress in recent centuries, especially this past century.

There are still many details that elude us. One of these critical frontiers is the human brain. We know a great deal but there is more that we don't know.

I would suggest that your hypothesis about a soul is extremely premature. When we fully understand the physiology of the brain we can then consider any remaining unexplained issues. At that time a hypotheses concerning souls might be appropriate. Until then your position and eagerness is little different to primitive people who assign anything unknown to an alleged supernatural cause.

Let's exhaust the natural and spend effort on things that are within human comprehension before we jump to superstitions.

 

[MShark]

Cris:

What I think I understand that you said about free will is that it is an illusion caused by some sort of random number generator. I have often thought that athieism must be based upon this concept. Do you know if determinisim is a widely held position of athiests?

For me the belief that I have free will is the foundation that I built my life on. Without belief in free will I don't understand how right and wrong could have meaning or even life itself.

It certainly would be pointless to argue about weather or not free will does exist.

Does your belief imply that we have no responsibility for our actions or is there somthing else?