Your conscious experiences are merely judgements made by your nervous system

White Wee Wee

nyarlothothep

It does raise an interesting question. I don't think we're automatons as this would necessitate a purely algorithmic interpretation of human consciousness and I believe this is impossible given the presence of insight and imagination. In fact the Godel proposition is a proof demonstrating the inherent flaws in pure mathematical formalism and one which demonstrably shows how humans aren't mechanoids.

I think what this picture shows is an evolutionary function for imitation but it doesn't really prove that human sentience is invalid.

White Wee Wee

I don't think Gödel's theorem applies to something as messy as the brain.

nyarlothothep

I believe it does as the proof was arrived at through insight which is a non algorithmic property. Many of the most powerful mathematical theorems are arrived at in this way. If we were purely algorithmic automatons then how would we be able to develop such theories?

You could say that the mind is an illusion but on the other hand are windows xp or yellow illusions? The are made up of tangible components but the experience of them is intangible or possibly platonic. Therefore while the mind might be made up of physical components the experience of it is greater than the sum of its parts. But I think the problem arises when one tries to evaluate these things by different criteria.

White Wee Wee

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I believe it does as the proof was arrived at through insight which is a non algorithmic property. Many of the most powerful mathematical theorems are arrived at in this way. If we were purely algorithmic automatons then how would we be able to develop such theories?

Lrn2Darwinisim, fuсktard. The whole process of evolution is algorithmic (wiggle it, test it, wiggle it, test it...) but just look at how creative it has been.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

You could say that the mind is an illusion but on the other hand are windows xp or yellow illusions? The are made up of tangible components but the experience of them is intangible or possibly platonic. Therefore while the mind might be made up of physical components the experience of it is greater than the sum of its parts. But I think the problem arises when one tries to evaluate these things by different criteria.

Look, the mind is not somehow intangible or transcendental, it's a part of physical reality just as much as atoms. Philosophers used to worry that reality is just a illusion or a figment of the mind. Nowdays people are coming to understand it's actually the other way round -the mind is a figment of reality.

Imagine the whole of physical reality past, present and future as a single block of "stuff". Within this block are parts of it under the delusion they are somehow separate from it, that they have experiences that are purely private and subjective when they are really just as objective and physical as every other part of the universe.

Reality is not a figment of the mind, the mind is a figment of reality.

Offalycool

The mind is a part of the world, no doubt. However relativism is only a construct of the mind, and is a product of logical deduction. Thankfully we are not restricted to comprehending the world in a purely logical fashion, we are not computers. The truth is transcendental, Our comprehension of the truth may always be flawed but it is the truth we recognise after all, regardless of opinion. We recognise the truth, as an uneducated pupil of Plato understood geometry, because after all it is true.

conchubhar1

we are all one being witnessing ourself subjectively ?