Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

mhs1992, you're confusing my argument about discrete vs. continuous. We don't know for sure if a perspective would be "regenerated" within the same brain (although we took that approach for the sake of giving your argument strength to see if the physical argument could STILL battle against it, which it does).

So, even though you said that bringing the exact same brain will bring the same perspective, you don't believe it? You are just changing your answer, like that?

Like I've said and what Necros has said, the mind is the result of the collective STRUCTURES and not the specific atoms. The atoms make up the structures, and the atoms themselves can swap out, but this doesn't mean the structures are different. If structures A, B, and C together make Perspective X, then it is reasonable to assume that if A, B, and C are taken apart, killing X, and then reconfigured, we get X again. It's reasonable because, much like a computer or any other machine, we can get things running the way they were with the same parts. We don't know, though, if recombining A, B, and C may actually generate a different but identical Y, but for the sake of making your own argument stronger we will assume that it regenerates X.

But my argument didn't really depend on that.

The point of my argument was that our atoms and structure are changing all the time, but that perspective that I called observer still carries on with the changes. This is a fact, because of the definition of observer and what we feel all the time. Then, I used the physical argument to create conflicts, and it did.

It's very easy for you to say that there is a continuous swap that doesn't change the observer, and then say that the same observer will only come back with the same atoms and structure, and THEN say that you didn't necessarily believe in what you said. Seriously, it almost feels like cheating to me.

But that's not a problem, now. So, you're now saying that, if I bring the same brain, it will not necessarily bring the same perspective? That's your position, now?

Otherwise I could just argue that ANY atom swap at ALL kills us and thus we're constantly generating new perspectives with the same structure as the previous, and we'd be done with the argument right there..

But, by definition, and by what we observe, this is clearly not true. You can't argue that because that's not a fact. If it were true, you would suddenly just black out and your mind would be taken by another "observer" all the time, which is absurd.

So, I think we can assume atoms don't matter with respect to a specific pre-established structure/function working. However, as we both agree, the mind is the brain at work. If we kill the brain and rejump it, will we "come back"? We don't know. But we can "assume" yes based on the A+B+C->X idea and see where this takes us. We know death occurs because the structures are simply not capable of sustaining any more activity. But if it were possible to kill someone and get those functions up and running again, it seems reasonable to assume that the same perspective is kicked back into motion.

If it seems reasonable, read the other reply again.

If this is not true (which doesn't really affect my argument), then what is the perspective? We bring the same structure with the same atoms but the same person doesn't come back?

Everything with regards to matter was brought back exactly the way it was. If the observer doesn't come back, then how can it possibly be material?

Regarding your earlier post, if we're changing one brain to another, why is it so hard for you to believe that this also means you're changing the perspective? You ARE changing the perspective. The active mind, of course, still experiences sentience, but we're changing one perspective into something completely different. The body is still alive, as is the mind, but we're simply changing it. That's all there is to it.

"That's all there is to it."

Read that last paragraph again.
The POINT of the argument is that it feels absurd, is that it can't be imagined if you put yourself in the place of the two observers in question. And don't say that it isn't important, because it is. You can't see observers. You can't just say things about observers without imagining how it feels, and that's what you always do. That's why you never see any problem. You must always imagine how it feels to be the observer in question.

What do you choose, on that one? "Suddenly" or "Gradually"?

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

mhs:

No, I said it is likely that the same functions generate the same perspective. I'm not "changing my answer." I just said that it's a concept we "don't know for sure" because we've never experienced such a thing, but the answer can be likely postulated from the physical approach.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

The POINT of the argument is that it feels absurd, is that it can't be imagined if you put yourself in the place of the two observers in question. And don't say that it isn't important, because it is. You can't see observers. You can't just say things about observers without imagining how it feels, and that's what you always do. That's why you never see any problem. You must always imagine how it feels to be the observer in question.

What do you choose, on that one? "Suddenly" or "Gradually"?

Obviously, it would be gradually if the change is gradual, suddenly if the change is sudden.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

So, your position now is "I don't know for sure". Fine, then.
But what do you say about "If this is not true (which doesn't really affect my argument), then what is the perspective? We bring the same structure with the same atoms but the same person doesn't come back?

Everything with regards to matter was brought back exactly the way it was. If the observer doesn't come back, then how can it possibly be material?"

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

What the heck? No dude, you're misinterpreting what I meant by that.

For precisely the reason that the perspective is derived from material do I say the perspective is active as long as the functions are. I'm just saying that we don't know this empirically because it hasn't been done (bringing a body back from nonfunctional death).

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

the perspective always changes. to say that one's perspective is identifiable and fixed is an abstraction, because in every moment there will be internal/external stimuli that will change one's experience and therefore the perspective. even in the thought experiment we're in, the solution of continuity marks the end of a perspective. that's why i said a mind cannot be restored or resumed, but only replicated. we're using the same blocks and creating something absolutely identical to the previous, but the previous is gone for good. the sole fact that you know there IS a previous mind make it a new perspective.

No, we are not talking about the same kind of perspective. I'm talking about the only part of your mind that you know for sure that exists, since everything else is it's perception. Even though the experience changes, the "place" doesn't change, that's what I'm talking about.

if we duplicate a definite mental structure x times, what happens in the soul system? are we creating new souls? are we dividing a soul between different bodies? and what happens when these bodies start to experience different things? Not only the soul argument is very fishy, but it's not verifiable. we can hypotetize forever about it without reaching any answer.

I obviously won't try to answer the soul questions, since I'm not sure.

It all comes down to postulation over postulation, given that the initial assyom is "god exists, but you cannot prove it". No one in their right mind would keep using this as an argument.

Who said that this is the initial axiom? My initial axiom was "there are things which cannot be explained satisfactorily only by the physical argument". I know you disagree, but that's what I'm trying to show.

Stop putting everyone who believes in God in the same cathegory, this is just too forced.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

What the heck? No dude, you're misinterpreting what I meant by that.

For precisely the reason that the perspective is derived from material do I say the perspective is active as long as the functions are. I'm just saying that we don't know this empirically because it hasn't been done.

Did I do anything wrong?

Since you said we can't be sure, I just considered the other possibility and asked a question about it. Didn't you say "we can't be sure"?

And even if we did bring a body back from death, we wouldn't be able to tell, empirically, if the same perspective came back.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Let me make a point that may clear it up.

We, as humans in this reality, go through two types of experiences. Nonexistence (prebirth and postdeath), and existence (life). Life is a condition in which our mental faculties are active. We don't ever "experience" what it is like changing our brain into something else because it hasn't been done. But what it WOULD feel like is precisely what is being described: You're changing one perspective into another. You are technically "ending" one perspective and changing it to a "new one." In this case "death" is not the only thing that could mark the "end" of a "perspective."

An example that may make it "easier" to understand: Let us assume there is a soul and let's assume some form of reincarnation. It would be like if you had a past life. You used to have a separate continuous experience. You used to have a different set of memories, skills, tendencies, opinions, thought processes, feelings, emotions, etc -- but you obviously know nothing of it in any way. You've just "hopped" from one "body of existence" to another. Your past perspective has ended and your new one has begun.

If we are to assume no soul, and if we could somehow change one brain into another, we would basically be feeling a change from one perspective to the next such that what we "feel" is the result of whatever state the brain is in mid-change. Again, since we're merely changing the entire structure, that structure is still intact. It's still an active body and mind -- you're just changing the hardware configuration drastically.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

In this case, it's a matter of definition. The perspective I was talking about was the observer. If there is reincarnation, the observer is still the same. It's just the place where sensations occur, independent from thoughts.

We know this exists. It doesn't need to be immaterial or material, but it is certainly real.

The problem is that Izzy, you and Mollocephalus can't discuss this simple concept because you all think I'm inventing something magical, when I'm not. And the only way to discuss the nature of the observer is placing yourself in the other observer, because that's all the observer is: first person perspective.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

1. Of course our status as an observer is real. We aren't disagreeing on this and nobody else would either.
2. This is the problem, though. The mere fact that you're placing your observer in the position of another observer grinds against what IS an observer, hence why we're running in circles.

It's akin to the logic of trying to "make sense of" what "nothing" "feels like." We can't feel nothing, so the question is already loaded if anyone is trying to "imagine what it would be like." Much like the logic of trying to place one observer into another in some way -- it's already a loaded concept that destroys the initial definition and state of existence to begin with.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

I am curious what your take is on my split brain example I posted earlier.

We have people on this planet who have had half their brains removed who still maintain their perspective, conscious mind, and sentience. Of course, they lose the functions inherent in the half of the brain they've lost, but they're still normal, happy human beings. This is true for people who use only their left OR right halves, so clearly both halves of the brain are capable of maintaining our continuous perspective as an observer.

I think we can also agree that our bodies are merely physical vessels that our mind operates.

Given this, let us say there are two bodies that are brainless. I come into a lab, and have my brain split in two. Each half is placed in one of the bodies. So when all's said and done, we have two live bodies, each with half a brain -- each person having been derived from an initially shared experience.

What would your soul argument have to say about this?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

I understand this. However, the things you affirmed about a perspective, on the other post, cannot be affirmed so easily about an observer.

Even though we can't imagine inexistence, there are other things we can try to imagine. In that other situation, even though we don't know exactly how it feels for both observers, we can try to imagine what would feel if we were one of them.

There's absolutely nothing else we can do about this if we don't try to imagine.

Saying "one perspective is being changed into another" makes no sense if we are talking about observers. An observer is a fixed first person perspective, it doesn't "change", regardless of thoughts.

And, still on that situation, if we assume that the dead observer will come back, then it will be like this: the dead observer will just suddenly teleport to somewhere in the future, and the other observer will feel a continuous experience, even though they have the same thoughts. Forget about the "thoughts" and think about the observers only. The problem is that one is nonexistent while the other is feeling things.


Well, you know the rest. This is so tiring. I still see a problem, and you still think it's obvious. I always see a problem.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Given this, let us say there are two bodies that are brainless. I come into a lab, and have my brain split in two. Each half is placed in one of the bodies. So when all's said and done, we have two live bodies, each with half a brain -- each person having been derived from an initially shared experience.

What would your soul argument have to say about this?

I've thought about this before.

1. There are materialists who say that the "center" of the mind, the observer, is somewhere on the left half, but I don't remember where.

2. The fact that both are alive doesn't mean that both have observers. Your original observer is probably on one of them, while the other one is a "zombie" (like a robot, a being that reacts normally to the environment but doesn't "feel" anything).

3. If the soul argument is correct, I guess it's entirely possible that the other half without the original observer gained a new soul, somehow. Or it can still be a zombie.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Yes, you can "try to imagine," but the problem is that you can't, much like how you can't really "imagine" nonexistence.

Saying "one perspective is being changed into another" makes perfect sense regarding observers because the observer is a function of the mind. Therefore when you change the mind, you're changing the observer's composition.

I don't know what you're talking about with the "dead person coming back" example.

Do you have any response to the split brain scenario?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Saying "one perspective is being changed into another" makes perfect sense regarding observers because the observer is a function of the mind. Therefore when you change the mind, you're changing the observer's composition.

But it's a void affirmation. You're basing your answer entirely on the theory, without considering it's implications (how absurd it feels when you place yourself on this situation).

If you think that imagination can never be conclusive, there's nothing we can say about it, at all. I say we can try to imagine it, it's not the same as trying to imagine nonexistence.

And even when we try to imagine nonexistence, there can be conclusions. There's still that question: "how can a space be created"?