Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

Sorry but I find that notion ridiculous. The fact that you say "they may not both have observers" is a prime example of our fundamental disagreement. You're assuming, again, that the observer is something external. The observer is a function OF THE MIND. Therefore BOTH halves are observing because BOTH halves possess functions that are capable of consciousness, observation, sentience, perspective, etc.

To say that someone is a "zombie that reacts without feeling" is just empirically wrong, because such people in real life act like any other normal human being and still feel emotion/process thoughts and ideas/make decisions/etc just like any other human. They just lack specific functionalities and possess impairments depending on which side is gone.

3. Gain a new soul? Are souls infinite in number? What determines which half the soul goes to? How does a "soulless mind" acquire a soul? As you can see, this entire notion is just one massive "what if/maybe."

The physical argument here would say that the experience becomes split. Whoever wakes up with the left brain is the left-brained perspective because he is the one with the left brain and likewise for the right. To each, BOTH feel as if they continued their experience from the same originator.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

Just because it may "feel absurd" doesn't mean it isn't true or possible. It may also "feel absurd," as it did to you earlier, to imagine what it would be like to transition from nonexistence to existence as a generated observer structure, but that doesn't mean it's false.

It's like if I ask what you "feel" as you fall asleep. There's no clear "shutoff to sleep" point we really recognize in realtime. We "drift" into it, and yet it's a concept we may have trouble making sense of even though it does happen. What about dreamless nights? They sure feel quite quick even if we wake up and find we've been asleep for 18 hours. How do we imagine the "absurdity" of this? We can knock out portions of the brain temporarily and redefine an experience for someone. Like Reach said too, people who are paranoid schizophrenics actually hear things because of issues with the Broca region. Time and time again we can show how our status as an observer is entirely dependent on the presence of various functions in the brain at work.

The answer to your question is just as simple. When we experience nothing, we experience nothing. If you're morphing a brain to resemble another entirely, the status as an observer changes with the brain. Whether or not we can imagine it is irrelevant.

Can you "imagine" what you're experiencing in a coma? I've actually spoken to coma patients before and have experienced a similar "condition" under anesthesia for surgery -- you go to sleep one moment, and the next you're awake with no sense of how much time passed. What were you experiencing that entire time you were asleep? You can try to "imagine" it, but whether you can or not is not relevant.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Sorry but I find that notion ridiculous. The fact that you say "they may not both have observers" is a prime example of our fundamental disagreement. You're assuming, again, that the observer is something external. The observer is a function OF THE MIND. Therefore BOTH halves are observing because BOTH halves possess functions that are capable of consciousness, observation, sentience, perspective, etc.

No, I am just considering the possibility. You are the one making assumptions.

If you say for sure that the observer is a function of the brain, then the question is already answered, and it's pointless to ask my opinion.

To say that someone is a "zombie that reacts without feeling" is just empirically wrong, because such people in real life act like any other normal human being and still feel emotion/process thoughts and ideas/make decisions/etc just like any other human. They just lack specific functionalities and possess impairments depending on which side is gone.

How do you know for sure that they have emotions? How do you know for sure that I have emotions? If a robot disguised as a kid started crying, would you assume that it actually feels sadness?

I don't want to go back to this part of the discussion, but, as far as I can see, there's no proof that zombies don't exist. It's another "maybe". But, again, if you can't take maybes, why do you ask my opinion? My opinion is that we can't say for sure, so I just consider the possibility of zombies.

And I mentioned the opinion of other materialists, as well. The right half can be perfectly a zombie, according to them (MATERIALISTS).

3. Gain a new soul? Are souls infinite in number? What determines which half the soul goes to? How does a "soulless mind" acquire a soul? As you can see, this entire notion is just one massive "what if/maybe."

Obviously. That's why I said "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."

I sincerely don't know why you asked me that question if you want me to answer exactly what you believe.

The physical argument here would say that the experience becomes split. Whoever wakes up with the left brain is the left-brained perspective because he is the one with the left brain and likewise for the right. To each, BOTH feel as if they continued their experience from the same originator.

YOUR physical argument. Like I said, there are materialists who believe in that center of the mind thing.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

The answer to your question is just as simple. When we experience nothing, we experience nothing. If you're morphing a brain to resemble another entirely, the status as an observer changes with the brain. Whether or not we can imagine it is irrelevant.

If you think that imagination is irrelevant, our discussion about the observer ends here.

I'm sorry, but my mind needs to imagine things. The observer is the kind if thing that can only be treated with imagination. I sincerely don't think it's irrelevant. That's the whole point of thought experiments. If you always base your answers entirely on the theory, you will never allow any space for questioning. You will never try to think "outside" your belief system.

You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system itself.

"Nothing feels like nothing" and "the perspective is becoming the other" are absolutely void answers.

That question is more complex than that. It's not just about not being able to imagine. "Feeling absurd" is not irrelevant, at all. And you still didn't answer the question "how can a space be created?"

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

We're both making assumptions here, but the difference is that my explanation has a lot of evidence to back up the claims, whereas your soul argument has zero evidence whatsoever and is *purely* speculative.

The zombie argument makes no sense because you're saying "They react to stimulus just the same as anyone else, and can process thought, but how do we know anyone's actually in there?" The fact that they can do these things IS PROOF OF their status as a sentient observer. How can you say someone "is not really there" if they are capable of conscious internal thoughts, processing of external stimulus, etc? Those functions are what compose us in the first place!

I am honestly getting really pissed off right now. I've said this time and time again -- if you're going to try to see this from a physical argument, you need to take it from the physical argument. You keep trying to overlay this "separate entity of observation" to everything and that is precisely why you're not understanding the arguments I am presenting to you. The only way someone would be a "zombie" is if they had no sort of internal consciousness, but rather a series of functions that purely reacted to the environment's stimuli.

Much like, DUN DUN DUN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

But if someone has the ability to react to physical stimulus and still possesses consciousness and active thought processing, then they are sentient observers with a perspective!

Left-brained: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/st...1951748&page=1
Right-brained: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12...ain/index.html

Explain to me, then, how these people might be "zombies" if they are fully functional, responsive human beings only limited by the nonexistence of highly developed functions in the missing halves?

Re: the soul questions, I am asking those things to illustrate a point: It's all a bunch of guesswork when it comes to souls. There's no evidence to support any of it and is entirely unknown.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

If you think that imagination is irrelevant, our discussion about the observer ends here.

I'm sorry, but my mind needs to imagine things. The observer is the kind if thing that can only be treated with imagination. I sincerely don't think it's irrelevant. That's the whole point of thought experiments. If you always base your answers entirely on the theory, you will never allow any space for questioning. You will never try to think "outside" your belief system.

You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system itself.

"Nothing feels like nothing" and "the perspective is becoming the other" are absolutely void answers.

That question is more complex than that. It's not just about not being able to imagine. "Feeling absurd" is not irrelevant, at all. And you still didn't answer the question "how can a space be created?"

If you "need to imagine things" then you are going to severely impact your ability to be objective. We are able to process things in the brain that it can experience. We can imagine walking through a park because we know what three dimensional space is like and we know what color is and we know how the grass and air feel and smell. We can't imagine something that the brain, by definition, cannot imagine. If the brain is nonexistent, then how can the brain feel that if the ability to feel isn't even there?

Consider those who go their whole life without eyes. They don't dream anything remotely "visual-spatial" or in color, but rather experience dreams composed of what stimuli they DO know: Sound, touch, etc. They dream within the same framework in which they experience their world. Can you imagine what it would be like to possess the sonar ability of a bat? Can you imagine what a bee sees (it can see UV light)? We can "try" to imagine, but the fact is that our experience is purely defined by what we can interpret and process.

A "space can be created" by the merit that it is created. Again, we have so much evidence to make it abundantly clear that our ability to perceive or imagine something is not relevant to whether or not something happens. A space is created by being created. An observer is formed when the necessary parts for observing are present. When our brains are not existent, we experience nothing -- since the brain is what is doing the experiencing, it makes no sense to assume it can experience when it doesn't exist! These are simple, intuitive truths that are backed up by evidence.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

The zombie argument makes no sense because you're saying "They react to stimulus just the same as anyone else, and can process thought, but how do we know anyone's actually in there?" The fact that they can do these things IS PROOF OF their status as a sentient observer. How can you say someone "is not really there" if they are capable of conscious internal thoughts, processing of external stimulus, etc? Those functions are what compose us in the first place!

Just to make it clear, I don't believe in zombies.

I didn't create this concept, either. And, like I said, there are materialists who believe that the center where perception goes to is on the left half.

The fact that they can do these things prove that they can do these things, just like a robot can. And we know that a robot doesn't have an observer. Any being can perfectly react to stimuli without qualia that represent them.
By definition, an observer is not necessary for a brain to be functional. This is very easy to imagine.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Just to make it clear, I don't believe in zombies.

I didn't create this concept, either. And, like I said, there are materialists who believe that the center where perception goes to is on the left half.

The fact that they can do these things prove that they can do these things, just like a robot can. And we know that a robot doesn't have an observer. Any being can perfectly react to stimuli without qualia that represent them.
By definition, an observer is not necessary for a brain to be functional. This is very easy to imagine.

We know a robot is not the same as a human because it doesn't have the higher level processing that we do in the neocortex.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

If you "need to imagine things" then you are going to severely impact your ability to be objective. We are able to process things in the brain that it can experience. We can imagine walking through a park because we know what three dimensional space is like and we know what color is and we know how the grass and air feel and smell. We can't imagine something that the brain, by definition, cannot imagine. If the brain is nonexistent, then how can the brain feel that if the ability to feel isn't even there?

I just said that imagination is important, not that we can conclude everything based entirely on imagination.

We can't also conclude everything based entirely on theories. Maybe the theories don't really cover everything, and that's what I'm trying to say. Like I said, you cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system itself. Don't you agree?

A "space can be created" by the merit that it is created. Again, we have so much evidence to make it abundantly clear that our ability to perceive or imagine something is not relevant to whether or not something happens. A space is created by being created. An observer is formed when the necessary parts for observing are present. When our brains are not existent, we experience nothing -- since the brain is what is doing the experiencing, it makes no sense to assume it can experience when it doesn't exist! These are simple, intuitive truths that are backed up by evidence.

"A space is created by being created". Sorry, but it feels like you will be stagnated for a very long time with thoughts like this. You are ignoring one of the bases of phylosophy itself. You don't really need to imagine "nothing" to conclude that it doesn't make sense. In the process of imagination you will have several other thoughts, you can notice new things. It's just thinking for yourself, regardless of previous assumptions.

If you want to proceed treating imagination as if it were irrelevant, go ahead.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

We know a robot is not the same as a human because it doesn't have the higher level processing that we do in the neocortex.

But something like an observer isn't perfectly explained just by "higher level processing". Humanity will never be able to tell when the robots will start having observers, if they do. The point, like I said, is that qualia are not necessary for a brain to be perfectly functional. The brain can process information without someone "experiencing" the whole thing. I don't have any trouble imagining that, at all. For example: a brain can detect a certain frequency and identify it as "blue", but not necessarily with the blue feeling associated to it.

To avoid further annoyance, for both of us, I won't post again today.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

"A space is created by being created". Sorry, but it feels like you will be stagnated for a very long time with thoughts like this. You are ignoring one of the bases of phylosophy itself. You don't really need to imagine "nothing" to conclude that it doesn't make sense. In the process of imagination you will have several other thoughts, you can notice new things. It's just thinking for yourself, regardless of previous assumptions.

If you want to proceed treating imagination as if it were irrelevant, go ahead.

If this is your argument, then we should stop debating.

I am not "stagnated" with such a thought because such a thought is substantiated with evidence. Saying "you don't need to imagine nothing to conclude it doesn't make sense" is nonsense. By your logic, you could say "you don't need to imagine a coma to conclude it doesn't make sense" even though, for many, including myself, such a duration is devoid of any experience or observation. And yet, it still happens in reality.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

But something like an observer isn't perfectly explained just by "higher level processing". Humanity will never be able to tell when the robots will start having observers, if they do. The point, like I said, is that qualia are not necessary for a brain to be perfectly functional. The brain can process information without someone "experiencing" the whole thing. I don't have any trouble imagining that, at all. For example: a brain can detect a certain frequency and identify it as "blue", but not necessarily with the blue feeling associated to it.

To avoid further annoyance, for both of us, I won't post again today.

If we could create artificial intelligence that interacted with stimuli (e.g. making a sentient android), we'd still say it's an observer because it's able to observe and process just like a human could. It may experience "reality" in a different way than a "human" would but only to the extent that the biological hardware on our end and the mechanical hardware on their end differ.

The fact that the brain IS processing thought and able to interpret input from sensory areas is what makes that brain a sentient observer with a perspective. This IS the physical argument, and this is what we have proof for. If you're going to conjecture anything else, it's purely invoking magical thinking.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

The only way someone would be a "zombie" is if they had no sort of internal consciousness, but rather a series of functions that purely reacted to the environment's stimuli.

Much like, DUN DUN DUN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

But if someone has the ability to react to physical stimulus and still possesses consciousness and active thought processing, then they are sentient observers with a perspective!

Left-brained: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/st...1951748&page=1
Right-brained: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12...ain/index.html

Explain to me, then, how these people might be "zombies" if they are fully functional, responsive human beings only limited by the nonexistence of highly developed functions in the missing halves?

By the way, please address this part if you'd be so kind. In all of these instances we can describe their status as an observer with real-life evidence. Again, why postulate a soul argument to it all? What about the anencephalactic baby? Would you say it has a soul? If not, then you assume the neocortex is the "soul"? If so, why call it a soul at all? If you think such a baby does have a soul, then would you say a robot has a soul? What about a rock?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Fine, tomorrow.

Not in the mood.

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Humanity will never be able to tell when the robots will start having observers, if they do.

You sound like you're implying, again, that the observer is an entity that exist externally to the body. It doesn't "appear" or "materialize" or "flock to" when the brain is created, but is by definition the brain itself. No mental process structure = no observer at all! The concept of observer translated to artificial intelligence is the ability to acquire, process and react to external stimuli. There you have an observer.

Some of the modern technology in robot industry already shows how rudimental non-human observers are in the process of being made. We still lack on the "elaborate data in correlation to the information you already have". If thjis is accomplished, there you have an observer comparable to the human one.