Consciousness...

kelly1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The Turing test is quite task-specific though, so I'm not sure it's a great test. And if some day a machine appears to have comparable consciousness to ours by all means that we can test human consciousness, then are we able to make the claim that they do not possess consciousness? If no meaningful difference is measurable, what then?

I don't see that that proves very much.

How could we tell if a machine of even another person is actually conscious or giving the appearance of consciousness? I know I'm conscious and so I assume that other people are. But I can only really speak for my own experience.

On a general note, if everyone here assumes that science will one day find a natural explanation for consciousness, reason, will etc then there's not really much more to discuss.

I was kinda hoping that someone would find the notion that matter can produce the aforementioned faculties a bit too far fetched. Once again I've been beaten!

kelly1

stevencarrwork wrote: »

I see. Why is your spirit not able to control the muscles directly, but can control a brain directly?

I don't know. I suppose without a brain to act as a hub, there could be no co-ordination of thoughts and actions. But I'm out of my depth on this point.

Dave!

Ah right, you're confidently able to say that the brain is the point of interaction between the nervous system and the "spirit".... But the actual nature of the spirit, that's out of your depth!

This is beyond embarrassing at this point. It's f*cking moronic.

pH

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't know. I suppose without a brain to act as a hub, there could be no co-ordination of thoughts and actions. But I'm out of my depth on this point.

The ways drugs affect our thought processes and the way brain damage and degenerative diseases also affect them makes this extremely unlikely.

But this is where science comes in, create an experiment that falsifies the premise that consciousness is a property of the brain, perform the tests, publish and become famous.

Surely you can think of an experiment that can distinguish between a brain that merely co-ordinates thoughts coming from elsewhere, and one that actually contains and produces those thoughts.

kelly1

Dave! wrote: »

Ah right, you're confidently able to say that the brain is the point of interaction between the nervous system and the "spirit".... But the actual nature of the spirit, that's out of your depth!

This is beyond embarrassing at this point. It's f*cking moronic.

Next time, you change your avatar thingy, why not make it a big turd? It would be appropriate for your personality. Better still, place said turd on top of a picture of your head.

Dades

Play nice, Dave & Noel.

We were doing all right up till this page.

Dave!

Sorry noel, ill count to 10 in future

kelly1

Dave! wrote: »

Sorry noel, ill count to 10 in future

Apology accepted and please accept mine.

ChocolateSauce

So we're all one big boardsie family? Maybe I'll spend Christmas day here instead of with my real family...I'll bet the conversation is more interesting, even if (or perhaps because) I'm alone.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I think the activity that we see in the brain is the result of instructions given by the spirit. So I don't believe the brain is the ultimate source of the higher faculties.

Well, if there's a disembodied "spirit" out there which is controlling how one feels and what one does, then how come one's feelings and one's actions can be influenced so much by something like alcohol, prozac, LSD or whatever other mood-altering drug?

For this to work in your model, the drug must be able to control the spirit, and I can't imagine that this is something that you would find credible.

Not so?

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't know. I suppose without a brain to act as a hub, there could be no co-ordination of thoughts and actions. But I'm out of my depth on this point.

So...what changes to make you admit you're out of your depth? It's not like you were relying on facts or rationality up to that point...why not just keep making things up?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Well, if there's a disembodied "spirit" out there which is controlling how one feels and what one does, then how come one's feelings and one's actions can be influenced so much by something like alcohol, prozac, LSD or whatever other mood-altering drug?

For this to work in your model, the drug must be able to control the spirit, and I can't imagine that this is something that you would find credible.

Not so?

I suppose introducing a drug is like putting a virus on a computer. A virus will cause a computer (brain) to mis-behave despite the best efforts of the programmer (spirit). I don't think the brain has any influence over the spirit, but the brain can fail to respond to the spirit if intoxicated. Just guessing (again).

Zillah wrote: »

So...what changes to make you admit you're out of your depth? It's not like you were relying on facts or rationality up to that point...why not just keep making things up?

Am I not allowed speculate? It should be clear this is not a scientific discussion. I asked for your views and I got them, thanks.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I suppose introducing a drug is like putting a virus on a computer. A virus will cause a computer (brain) to mis-behave despite the best efforts of the programmer (spirit). I don't think the brain has any influence over the spirit, but the brain can fail to respond to the spirit if intoxicated. Just guessing (again).

There is a lot of goal post moving going on here. :rolleyes:
A brain virus would be more like a convincing/harmful idea, viruses (unless I misunderstand them also not analogous to a biological virus) don't actually augment the computer hardware in any way. Taking a drug would be like getting a hairdryer and blowing it over your cpu and watching the performance of you machine gettttt verrrryyy slowww. So that kinda walks all over your spirit = higher function theory.

kelly1 wrote: »

Am I not allowed speculate? It should be clear this is not a scientific discussion. I asked for your views and I got them, thanks.

So what is the point of the discussion if all your going to get is scientific answers (the only answers that matter to people in here).

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

It should be clear this is not a scientific discussion. I asked for your views and I got them, thanks.

Well, what else is there except a scientific discussion. If you're looking for metaphysical speculation, then there's a Philosophy forum where you will get non-religious but adequately vaque and supernatural answers.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I suppose introducing a drug is like putting a virus on a computer. A virus will cause a computer (brain) to mis-behave despite the best efforts of the programmer (spirit). I don't think the brain has any influence over the spirit, but the brain can fail to respond to the spirit if intoxicated. Just guessing (again).

This is reasonable if you're talking about being unable to walk when you're drunk or something like that -- alcohol disrupting motor control or whatever.

However, it doesn't explain why one would feel, say chatty or obnoxious or amorous when drunk. If the spirit is the thing which controls the emotions and other "high" level consciousness stuff, then it shouldn't be affected by what happens on the brain end. But clearly, these chemicals do influence the kind of things that, in your model, are controlled by the high level "spirit".

So, if we assume that the spirit controls the emotions, then we have to conclude that either the spirit is controlled at least to some extent by chemicals, or else, that our assumption that a spirit exists in the first place is wrong and that the feeling of consciousness is something that arises from the physical brain alone.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I think the activity that we see in the brain is the result of instructions given by the spirit. So I don't believe the brain is the ultimate source of the higher faculties.

Why?

What are you actually basing that on? You say it is speculation, but speculation based on what exactly? Passages from the Bible, something you read, something you hope is true, what?

Genuine question, I'm really not following where all this is supposed to be coming from.

kelly1 wrote: »

On a general note, if everyone here assumes that science will one day find a natural explanation for consciousness, reason, will etc then there's not really much more to discuss.

You say that as if there is an alternative?

We will either find a scientific explanation for consciousness or we won't find one at all. Everything else, as you appear to realize, is just guessing and speculation, which is not an explanation. It doesn't explain anything.

OK-Cancel-Apply

If the spirit is what controls the brain, why do so many people (with perfectly functioning brains) deny that the spirit exists?

dioltas

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

If the spirit is what controls the brain, why do so many people (with perfectly functioning brains) deny that the spirit exists?

Who says that the spirit controls the brain? What is a spirit?

sink

dioltas wrote: »

Who says that the spirit controls the brain?

kelly1

dioltas wrote: »

What is a spirit?

Who knows? Like most things supernatural it's whatever you want it to be.

Zombrex

sink wrote: »

Like most things supernatural it's whatever you want it to be.

QFT (quoted for truth)

pclancy

Anytime i've taken LSD I've been sure without any possible doubt that I am in complete control of my brain and that its a tool to use and be creative with that has absolutly no outside control whatsoever. Drugs and alcohol are stimulants or suppresants for the chemicals and pathways in your brain that alter your perception and reality, are you seriously saying that you think they somehow wrestle control from the spirit at the joystick and cause you to crash?

Maybe more religous people should take LSD to find their spirit and claim it back from their god?

aidan24326

kelly1 wrote: »

What gave you the idea that I don't accept evolution? I certainly don't reject it, I believe man could have evolved from apes but I'm not totally convinced

Not evolved from, we are apes, along with gorillas, chimps and orangutans. And the truth of why that is and how it came to be is actually vastly more spectacular and fascinating than any explanation* offered up by religion.

*invariably 'god did it'.

You have a lot of faith in science!

People in here have alot of faith in science because it works. Nobody has ever claimed that science can answer absolutely everything, but it has been hugely successful so far in allowing us to understand the world we live in. To say that religion has not would be an understatement.

robindch

Researchers recreate out-of-body experience:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/03/phantom-limb-pain-brain-science

.

CerebralCortex

aidan24326 wrote: »

Not evolved from, we are apes, along with gorillas, chimps and orangutans. And the truth of why that is and how it came to be is actually vastly more spectacular and fascinating than any explanation* offered up by religion.

*invariably 'god did it'.





People in here have alot of faith in science because it works. Nobody has ever claimed that science can answer absolutely everything, but it has been hugely successful so far in allowing us to understand the world we live in. To say that religion has not would be an understatement.

QFT!!!!

kelly1

aidan24326 wrote: »

Not evolved from, we are apes

Speak for yourself, not me!

aidan24326 wrote: »

People in here have alot of faith in science because it works. Nobody has ever claimed that science can answer absolutely everything, but it has been hugely successful so far in allowing us to understand the world we live in. To say that religion has not would be an understatement.

The problem with having too much faith in science is that science has no ability to deal with the transcendent. Restricting oneself to empirical discovery creates an artifical ceiling.

Science and God don't mix because science doesn't have the tools to define or describe God. He's beyone human understanding because the human mind can't understand infinity.

So the idea of rejecting something which you would have no ability to understand anyway, is absurd to say the least. Compared with God, we're less than bacteria.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

Speak for yourself, not me!

You did and the Pope said so!

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

The problem with having too much faith in science is that science has no ability to deal with the transcendent.

Science has a perfectly ability to deal with the transcendent - there is zero evidence to support the theory, therefore it cannot be proven to exist.

That's it dealt with, unquestionably.

So the idea of rejecting something which you would have no ability to understand anyway, is absurd to say the least.

The idea of accepting something which you have no evidence to support, is absurd to say the least.

I could say that I know that when I die, I will turn into a beetle-eating monster that nobody can see. Would you accept that I am right and you are ridiculous for rejecting the notion, or would you call me insane?

Doctor DooM

kelly1 wrote: »

Speak for yourself, not me!

Just because you don't like the idea does not mean it isn't true.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Science and God don't mix because science doesn't have the tools to define or describe God. He's beyone human understanding because the human mind can't understand infinity...

:rolleyes: Don't you think that has any implications for religion?

pH

kelly1 wrote: »

Science and God don't mix because science doesn't have the tools to define or describe God. He's beyone human understanding because the human mind can't understand infinity.

That would be fine if you left it there, but 2 minutes later you and other theists will be telling us *exactly* what God wants and needs us to do. Many claim to understand God perfectly and know exactly what pleases and displeases him.