There is no soul and no afterlife.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael,

My feeling is that replacing the brain cells would eventually replace the personality itself, over the long run. Would there be a little “essence” of yourself left?
No. You are confusing physical structures with what they represent. It is not the cells that are important but the connections and patterns that they create.

For example I can form the letter “W” from matchsticks, ink, pencil, etc. The recording substrate is largely unimportant. Providing I can maintain the integrity of the neural networks then the memories they represent should also remain intact indefinitely.
 
The issue of "mind uploading" is also considered. Very interesting conclusions he came to. The bottom line, unfortunately, is that conciousness cannot be duplicated on a machine/computer.

Penrose's "proof" is not logically and mathematically correct. Its sophistics for most part.


I ardently reccomend for everyone interested in AI and creativity to read every single line on this site :

http://www.imagination-engines.com/papers/Atomasoft/interview.htm

(I posted this in AI forum , but sadly nobody caught up with discussion). I was like struck by lightning when I found it.


The beauty of the idea itself.... That explains everything - how we learn , how we create, our mental diseases, the generation of new ideas. Think about it - scientific discovery and invention is a process of training our neural nets with facts - we feed information ,examples ,theories in it . And after some critical analysis we make out some workable solutions. Information abiltiy to weight it are crucial stones of our creativity. By studying we create neccesary patterns and asssociations - more we know , more precise our conclusions are.And same with neural nets - training on data , variating it and critical analysis is the process of creativity as far as I understand it. And thats exactly what Thaler's nets do !

If we take a human and deprive him of necessary social/cultural information? -he will be an animal (proven scientific fact btw) ! Why? -that question puzzled me a lot - you know if we take out our knowledege and technolgy we will be bakc to stone age ,wihtout any hope to climb back anytime soon. Accumulated patterns ,asssociations facts to test our ideas against - are real treasure . Would ever Eienstein invent anything good if he didnt have already solid bagage of knowledge about universe accesible to humnaity in his time? -No. Each new discovery is a fruit of previous knowledge - by studying well known theories and facts we prepare base ("train" our own neural nets) for following creativity ,they build a base to test their ideas against.

New rational Ideas don't happen from nothing ( as opposed to divination) - they are direct consequences of training our internal nerual nets on lots of data and teaching em with lots of different patterns ,already validated as "true" . Then by our own internal "noise" we start variating "weights" - and sometimes come with completely new pattern, which when tested by our "internal critic net ( AkA concsiousness ) proves to be valid in light of previously accumulated data . Without solid training ( = human learning ) our "critical engine" is unable to make rational decisions about validity of new ideas , also its deprived of knowledge of many patterns to create with.

Akward E.g. : supose we have a problem of creating digital image format . Well if you do not have knowleddge what is "digital" and what is "image" -you can phantasize as much as you want , based on your generic knowledge ( every human has soem generic patterns built in - they are programmed in our DNA -mechanisms such as primal instincts ,relfexes ) .IF you trained your nets on "digital" -e.g. informatics , on some mathematics and some knowledge of image recongnition by humans ,then there is completely different thing: we aplly already known patterns (such as coding of colors for digital format , amount of colors recognized by humans) and start playing with data - where and how to put digits ( format ) .We constantly weight our ideas with our critical engine (which is trainable too) - on the aspects of data preserations ,validity , uniformity .

Remember when you started learning something once -e.g programming , -the way from knowing nothing about how computers work (and fantasizing complete BS like verbal commands to computers) ,to writing your first "hello world" .


And damn every word thalers said fills some missing puzzle pieces of my understanding of an AI concept.- The thing that our brain maps complex things to simple , the way we work out patterns for everything around us - even for cognition and language itself, the way we learn ,the way we express ideas ,the way we imagine and create .

His idea imho puts all puzzle tiles of creativity-intelligence-consciousnesse in place .Not only that - he claiming that he actually able to create working nets based on his theory. And his solid portfolio imho adds a good weight.


A few quotes :

Similarly, an ANN is a statistical modeling scheme, wherein the adjustable fitting coefficients take the form of variable connection strengths between neurons. Note however that there is a powerful difference in the functional form represented by the ANN: Rather than appear as a sum of terms, F(x) = c1F1(x) + c2F2(x) + ... + cNFN(x), the neural network takes a nested form, F(x) = FN(...F2(F1(x))...). Thus the ANN allows the modeling of causal chains through which something happens, FN, because something else happened, FN-1, stemming all the way back to some initial event, x. Within the brain, the very inspiration for the ANN, the absorption of such causal chains is both fundamental and crucial to survival of the host organism. In effect, the brain models and then anticipates opportunities and dangers, and all the causal or correlative chains leading to these life-determining scenarios.

3) (a new perspective) Practitioners of ANN technology have unconsciously expanded the definition of a neural network from a collection of “on-off” switches to that of an interconnected array of processing units that incorporate a broad range of functional relationships. For example, while still retaining the overall nested functional form, the individual functions Fi, may, for instance, be linear or Gaussian. Some neural networks may consist of a collection of neural network modules, rather than just simple computational units.

5) (new perspective) As neural networks train, the connection weights collectively take on the form of ‘logic’ circuits that effectively capture the implicit rules and heuristics concealed within the input-output pattern pairs presented to them. In effect, the network is being forced to correctly connect inputs and outputs, and in so doing, devises a ‘theory’ to account for the relationships involved. Of course such a theory, constructed from on-off switches, is unfathomable to humans.). …Allow me to note that this aspect of ANNs is the hardest for the typical outsider to accept. The notion that machines can now devise their own logic and theories, based only upon the presentation of raw data patterns from the environment, is usually the hardest to accept, but is key to the development of totally autonomous synthetic intelligence. Otherwise, hordes of computer programmers must be typing in myriad “if-then” rules in a process that can hardly be called autonomous!

(6) (new development) If, instead of using simple on-off switches as the individual processing units, we use neural network modules that incorporate various analogy bases, then the neural network devises something closer to what we would call a theory. During training, only the connections to the more important analogy networks strengthen in producing an accurate input-output mapping. Those irrelevant or inapplicable to the mapping erode away. In the end, the neural network transforms into what looks like a semantic network, connecting the most relevant analogies into a larger picture. (This is a major departure from the conventional definition of a neural network, and requires a few patented IEI technologies to build.)

(7) (new perspective) The similarity between the synthetic and biological neuron is two-fold: (1) the signals arriving at any given neuron are summed or ‘integrated’ within the neuron, and (2) if, the integrated input signal exceeds some threshold, the neuron switches from a silent to active state, outputting its own signal. My claim is that these two overlapping aspects of synthetic and biological neural networks are sufficient to create artificial cognition. After all, we have distilled the essence of flight from the biological bird, the Bernoulli effect, without having to attach feathers to aircraft or requiring them to drop messy payloads from the sky. Further, those who offer the criticism that synthetic neurons just aren’t complicated enough to capture human intelligence, I point out that intelligence is not stored in neurons. It is instead absorbed within connections between neurons!

(8) (new development) My most heretical redefinition of a neural network has to do with the radical departure from notion 1, the ANN viewed as an input-output device. The so-called Creativity Machine Paradigm, that I describe below, works without the presentation of inputs to an ANN. Instead, spontaneous and unintelligent fluctuations internal to such a network produce very intelligent outputs. In effect, there goes the old rule of garbage-in, garbage-out. Instead garbage now yields gold.


But note what the release of diffusing molecules such as adrenaline achieves. It serves as a source of signal noise within the synaptic clefts, transiently perturbing the neural networks of the brain. As they are so perturbed, they induce never before seen activation patterns that begin to deviate from the overall memory store. In effect, the brain is implementing Creativity Machine Paradigm to invent potentially new strategies that are especially convenient within adrenaline-releasing scenarios such as tigers jumping out of the jungle, or asteroids hurtling toward earth. In summary, emotion yields (or should I say, is associated with) creativity, one of the purported hallmarks of intelligence.
 
Michael,

just freezing the brain as done the last time I looked into it would be akin to taking a sledge hammer and pulverizing the tissue. Nothing’s left. I mean the N2 completely destroys the brain architecture (that was years ago - maybe something new has been discovered). So sometime in the near future we need to
1) Discover antifreeze chemicals that can modify the structure of water as it freezes so as not to adopt a conformation that shreds cells (water has 7(6?) freezing states).
So here is an update for you.

Vitrification is used now and not freezing.

See a description of the vitrification process now used for cryopreservation.

http://www.alcor.org/Procedures.htm

A relevant extract –

In the year 2001 Alcor began using a new mixture of cryoprotectants for perfusing the brain instead of glycerol. This proprietary mixture was adapted from research published in the medical literature concerning organ vitrification (ice-free cryopreservation). Alcor's solution is more concentrated than solutions used for vitrification of smaller systems, and is formulated using the latest ice blocker technology to vitrify even during slow cooling. Alcor believes that this new mixture results in little, if any, ice damage during cryopreservation. Instead of freezing, this new process of vitrification converts water inside cells into a glassy state that preserves the fine structure of the brain indefinitely.
 
Originally posted by Cris
You are confusing physical structures with what they represent. It is not the cells that are important but the connections and patterns that they create.

For example I can form the letter “W” from matchsticks, ink, pencil, etc. The recording substrate is largely unimportant. Providing I can maintain the integrity of the neural networks then the memories they represent should also remain intact indefinitely.
Yes I do see your point. However, neuro-networks are not static - they change. The brain is fluid. It may look static but it isn’t. The cell membranes are like sea’s of liquid lipid with proteins floating around in them. Likewise, our memories change as well. Which makes sense as our brain is fluid. Having the type of consciousness we have is intimately connected to this fluidity of memory.

Here’s an experiment:
Right now remember something from your past. Say High School graduation. Now think of something in particular that occurred during it. OK are you remembering? Well you’ve just changed that memory forever. You will never remember it that way again. It will never be the same as when you originally remembered. Go ahead, remember it again. Yeah, seems to be the same right. Wrong there have been subtle changes in that memory. The more you think about that memory the more it will change. Lets say I were to ask you to remember this same event - then I give you a chemical that blocks protein synthesis (or maybe a high voltage electric shock). Afterwards I ask you to remember it again. You probably will have little (more likely no) memory left. Because you accessed this memory it is completely removed from storage. Then I have interrupted your ability to place it back in storage. It’s now gone. Our brains don’t work like a PC. We don’t access a memory and it stays in the Hard drive while we fiddle with it in RAM (I hope I used those words correctly). In stead, we access a memory and it all comes out in the RAM. Keep in mind that your brain is constantly changing (fluid). You put it back in “storage” and it isn’t going to go back the same way it was originally. The more you access the memory – the more you change it. So with this in mind think about adding new neurons into your brain as you go along. Your consciousness is “special” because of your “long term memories”. They make up the “you”. But as these old neurons die off and new ones replace them – well those memories are going to wither away and sooner or later there will be no “old-you” left and instead be a totally “new you”. This new you will have none of the memories you have today and for all practical purposes could just as well have been your great great great granddaughter or son. Will there be some of your “essence” in there somewhere? Who knows? BUT I HOPE SO! :)

This isn’t particularly my field but as of a year or so ago that’s where memory research was at.

So in summary, In this sense we do not work like a story that has been written down. We work like some gossip that is passed from person to person. Always changing little by little. Cells are being added to brain as you age (neurostem cells). They are probably not “replacing” the neuron cells but more likely supplementing/superceding them. Our brains were made to function in an environment of “survival of the fittest” and having a perfectly static memory just wasn’t selected for. Instead we have fluid memories. They really weren’t made to last all that long.

Originally posted by Cris
In the year 2001 Alcor began using a new mixture of cryoprotectants for perfusing the brain instead of glycerol....
Yeah glycerol would absolutely suck. I have a keen interest in this area. I’ll probably give it a go :) there are a number of fish/insects/plants that produce their own anti-freeze proteins and there is a wide variety of them. It’s an interesting field and I think the work will yield good results for cryopreservation of tissues. I’m positive it isn’t perfect or even near perfect preservation. The machines required for perfect subatomic preservation can only preserve tissue 2-3 millimeters in thisckness and use a massive amount of pressure to coincide with N2 freezing. But maybe all that is needed is over all “decent” preservation? We’ll see . . . maybe :)

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
I think hundreds of years is an exaggeration. Simple quantum computers have already been designed, constructed, and tested. See this article for more details. I'll wager that in about 20 years, I'll be posting this on a quantum PC.
Yeah, he’s a PhD in quantum-information theory and actually talked about the factoring work. Even with that knowledge he said the hurdles (and they know exactly what they are) are going to take a long long long (he’s said 150 years) to over come unless there is some totally new way of solving the problem. I personally have no idea. Like yourself I feel like things will go much quicker – but I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen to soon.
 
mike, when i first accessed a computer, i saw it in relation to my mind- which i had already, before i knew how computers functioned.
spiritual vision and perception have no relevance to the dust of the 5 senses. but, in a way, they do, as these combined forces- of spirit and senses- gives us our animation.
jesus comes first.
 
we are living souls. so yes, i have a soul, and so do you. as for an afterlife, we can't really say one way or another definitively. one thing that i can say is that having experienced altered consciousness through meditation, it has shown me that this everyday reality we live in is not the only one. whether these states of being can only be experienced in this life, is the real question to be answered.
 
Invisibleone,

we are living souls.
What is your proof?

so yes, i have a soul, and so do you.
Then where are they and how do you detect a soul?

as for an afterlife, we can't really say one way or another definitively.
Of course we can. When people die they cease to exist and none have ever returned. There is zero evidence to suggest anything else or that anything else is even remotely possible.

one thing that i can say is that having experienced altered consciousness through meditation, it has shown me that this everyday reality we live in is not the only one.
Then you must have been dreaming. I have been meditating since 1977 and have been a TM-Sidhi since 1987, and there is nothing in those experiences that have led me to believe there are alternate realities.
 
Originally posted by Cris
Then you must have been dreaming. I have been meditating since 1977 and have been a TM-Sidhi since 1987, and there is nothing in those experiences that have led me to believe there are alternate realities.
Cris,
Those who attained sidhi are considered to be free soul from bondage and illusion. You have become a free soul then. otherwise you had attained a trade mark sidhi (that happens to be transcedental meditation).:D

I agree with the invisibleone's point - for a soul our reality is not the only one.
 
everyone in this thread should read the mindstar series by peter f. hamilton. it's a brilliant read. deals with all the technology you're talking about- it is really a VERY good read. couldn't recommend it more highly. GO READ IT NOW.:bugeye: :m:
 
A few months ago the Journal of Consciousness Studies published an issue on Machine Consciousness mostly suggesting it was just a matter of time before we created it. I disagreed so strongly I sent them a long refutation of the reasoning that had been used by the contributors. They didn't want to use it but it was editorially judged and thought to stand up to logical scrutiny.

It discusses the relationship between brain, mind, consciousness and experience, four issues that seem muddled on this thread (and generally elsewhere). It's too long to post here but if anyone wants to read it and comment they're welcome. I'll post it privately.
 
Originally posted by Canute
A few months ago the Journal of Consciousness Studies published an issue on Machine Consciousness mostly suggesting it was just a matter of time before we created it. I disagreed so strongly I sent them a long refutation of the reasoning that had been used by the contributors. They didn't want to use it but it was editorially judged and thought to stand up to logical scrutiny.

It discusses the relationship between brain, mind, consciousness and experience, four issues that seem muddled on this thread (and generally elsewhere). It's too long to post here but if anyone wants to read it and comment they're welcome. I'll post it privately.
I would like to see them posted here. If they are too long, exerpts or the edited version would be fine.
 
It would be a bit of a pain to edit it, and it's around 9000 words. I don't mind posting it but I don't want to piss anyone off by posting so much. I think it's better delivered direct to people who are specifically interested.

Btw how many words can one put in a single post?
 
Maybe I'm being too precious. Here's a bit of the intro. The context was a number of articles in JCS proposing that machine consciousness is a real possibility. There were 8 articles in the issue. Two were philosophical and very good, 6 were scientific and (imvho) very muddled and designed merely to keep the grants coming in.

After the intro. I work through extracts from the actual papers.

A Reply to Some of the Arguments for
the Possibility of Conscious Machines

As Found in Journal of Consciousness Studies,
Vol 10 No. 4-5 (2003) ‘Machine Consciousness’

Every contributor to the ‘Machine Consciousness’ issue of JCS from which I take extracts here acknowledges that we do not know in a third-person sense what consciousness is. Yet each of those contributors also states, implicitly if not explicitly, that we all agree about what it is sufficiently well for us all to be able to talk about it. This strange but common contradiction is puzzling. A reading of this particular issue of JCS suggests that its cause is a deliberate avoidance of biting the bullet.

It seems that although we can define consciousness well enough to talk to each other about it, and even have reputable journals devoted to the discussion of it, there is a problem with the easy and obvious ‘folk’ descriptions that allow us to do this. Without exception they suggest that consciousness is an entity or substance that lies beyond the realms of scientific enquiry.

We know that we have a number of simple and agreed descriptive terms that apply to consciousness, that always apply to consciousness, that must apply to consciousness, and that would not apply to anything that was not consciousness. These include the common ‘something that it is like’, or ‘experience’, or ‘attention’, or ‘Being’ and other variations on the theme. Yet nowhere is there any suggestion that any of these terms, or any combination of them, could be elevated to serve as an accurate definition of consciousness, for they are not scientific. They are treated as over-simplified descriptions of it, as if somehow a simple description must be a different thing to a proper definition.

There is certainly a problem with developing any ‘science of consciousness’ based on such singular but scientifically woolly definitions. These simple descriptions suggest that ultimately consciouness is a monist substance with no third-person observable aspects. Thus they are not simply inadequate as scientific definitions, they are actually antithetical to any such definition. For this reason they cannot be accepted. All sorts of questions would be raised if we were to agree that any of these everyday descriptions of consciousness should be the basis for our investigations of it. It would not be long before the question of how one can reasonably study an entity from a third-person perspective while simultaneously avowing that that entity has no measurable or observable effect on the physical world from which its existence might be inferred would be asked, and require an answer. It seems unanswerable. Scientifically speaking consciousness is a term without a referent.

Still, as long as consciousness remains undefined such embarrassments may be avoided. We can argue that that we must wait for a proper definition of it before such questions can be properly framed. For the moment we’ll make do with the definitions we all agree on and ignore the irony. In this way the mystery of consciousness is perpetuated, and the argument can be made for the research that will be required to demystify it.

While this strategy works well in a sense, in that for as long as consciousness remains undefined nobody can prove that it is not a scientific topic, it does not solve the problem of how to scientifically study consciousness, or in fact say anything scientific about it at all.

The popular strategy for overcoming this problem is to talk about something else entirely. This is allowable because, as we know, we cannot yet define consciousness, and because of this we cannot be quite sure what is relevant to it and what is not. Thus we talk about mind and brain instead, turning a blind eye to the millenia of extensive evidence, observed by introspective philosophers and logically deduced by the more outgoing kind, that mind and consciousness are not the same thing.

This allows us to talk about ‘machine consciousness’ at length as if we are talking about consciousness. The truth is that by any minimal and simple definition of consciousness, or any honestly hypothesised list of precisely what we know is minimally necessary or sufficient for something to be classed as consciousness, there is nothing to talk about. There is just the conjecture that if we make a machine sufficiently complex or intelligent it might suddenly come to know what it is like to exist.

etc
 
9000 words might probably occupy a full page or two. If possible you can attach the text file in your post as attachment.

Btw, everyone is pissing off every-other-person here.:D You may please post if Cris doesn't have any objection to a big post. i hope he too would like to read a good post.
 
The concepts of "soul", "afterlife", "rebirth", "re-incarnation" etc, etc, etc, are all different aspects of this elaborate denial. We are simply mammals, and like other mammals, we will die. There is nothing after death.

Any proof that there is nothing after death? Let me guess, your proof is that there is no proof. But there is proof. There is certainly more proof that there is something after death (reincarnation,afterlife). Death is simply when the mind leaves the physical body.
 
Originally posted by invisibleone
we are living souls. so yes, i have a soul, and so do you.
That depends on how you define soul. If you define soul as one's "immaterial essence", then yes, we all have souls. However, this immaterial essence is the product of our physical attributes, specifically, our central nervous system. Hence, the soul cannot exist without the brain. There is therefore no "immortal soul".

Originally posted by everneo
for a soul our reality is not the only one.
Do you have any evidence to justify this statement?

Originally posted by VitalOne
Any proof that there is nothing after death?
Yes. All the evidence we have indicates that the experience of consciousness is the result of a complex set of neural interactions in our brain. When we die, our brain disintegrates. Therefore, there is no consciousness after death.

There is certainly more proof that there is something after death (reincarnation,afterlife).
Let's have it then.

Death is simply when the mind leaves the physical body.
Where is your evidence that the mind "leaves" the physical body?
 
Originally posted by everneo
9000 words might probably occupy a full page or two. If possible you can attach the text file in your post as attachment.

Btw, everyone is pissing off every-other-person here.:D You may please post if Cris doesn't have any objection to a big post. i hope he too would like to read a good post.
I hadn't thought of that. Do I have to convert the file to anything in particular?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top