Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[Izzy]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Everyone is ignoring me. =(

But yea, the brain is the observer. I guess I didn't even take into account that someone would think otherwise.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

I'm not ignoring you really, Izzy, mainly because I agree with you here. We seem to share the same view on the matters. Mhs and I, however, disagree.

It all comes down to this, Mhs: Everything is physical in nature. To postulate anything else is to be making a guess in absence of evidence. That's it. If you wish to believe "maybes" based on faith, that's completely up to you.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

It doesn't seem like that difficult of a question and you seem to be ignoring me.

If you removed the brain of someone and replaced it with a brain of the exact same composition with memories and all then it is still the same perspective as before.

Well, if you consider the perspective I'm talking about, that basically means you believe that you are reviving someone who was killed. Wouldn't the dead person still be dead?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Mhs, since when are you assuming the current situation isn't explainable with the current postulation? I've explained every phenomena you've brought up so far with current postulations ALSO substantiated by evidence. If you're saying you don't need "evidence" to come to an explanation, then we may as well end the debate here. I think that we need evidence to make a claim about something -- otherwise, again, we could assume ANYTHING about the unknown. Do you understand what I mean by this? I honestly feel like I am repeating myself.

Well, I've said several times that this is not what I'm doing. Look at that post, again, I said I'm looking for situations that cannot be explained by some of the current postulations. There's no need to argue about this anymore, seriously, let's just proceed with the thought experiments. It's not over yet.

Yes, I understand what you mean about "the place where qualia occurs." You say it's not material (which is technically false, hence a major issue with your experiment already), but we'll roll with it.

Actually, I said "I'm not saying it's not material".

If it's the same brain, yes -- it would be like a brain transplant, if such a thing were possible. It's like taking the guts out of a computer and putting it in another case. I'd still maintain my perception.
…
Yes, if someone melted my brain, I would be forever gone as my own observer. My "I" would be nothingness forever.

If you inserted another identical brain into my empty skull with all the same memories and functionalities, then THAT new brain would be a new observer with a new "I." But "I," the melted brain, would still be gone for good.

Well, there’s a problem here. On the other post, you agreed with me that the atoms are changing all the time. It’s not what defines the observer.
You’re saying that if I create an identical brain, with the same atoms, you will live again and it will be really you. If I create an identical brain, but with different atoms, you will still be dead.
That’s the same as saying that the observer is in the atoms.
Don’t you think this is contradictory?

It's no different from if I removed my Intel i7 chip from my computer and replaced it with an identical processor. It'll have the same functionalities as before, even if it isn't the same processor. We're disagreeing on the concept of what makes a perception. You assume a perception is still something external when a perception is PURELY a function of the physical components at hand. It doesn't matter if they have the same memories, personality -- whatever. A new item is a new item. A perspective is causally linked to this physical item. Therefore, a new brain = new perspective, even if everything else is identical. This is PURELY based on physical evidence and is what we know given the nature of matter and how the human mind operates. To invoke anything else is to assume arbitrary thoughts without evidence.

Well, again, the matter of our brains is changing all the time.
If I slowly swapped the atoms of your brain, one by one, in the end, it would still be the same observer in the brain. The observer wouldn’t be gone with the atoms, because I’m just doing the same thing that happens with you every three years or so, and your observer is still the same. It never left your body with the atoms.
If I picked the atoms that formed your brain before, which were exchanged, I could form a new, identical MrRubix brain and I assure you it would not be you.

First answer is totally bogus BS. There's no reason to believe that my destroyed brain will come back as the second brain. It's a totally different brain.

Well, yes.

Second answer is correct. It indeed has anothe observer who isn't the original MrRubix. It will indeed live for the remainder of my life, and the original is God. Observers do exist when people die. No one will notice the difference. I'm with you until... "This just proves the observer and the brain are independent things" -- WHAT? That is the exact OPPOSITE of what that experiment implies. It means a specific observer is tied to a specific brain because the brain IS the observer.

Hahaha…
There’s a huge confusion going on, here.
Like I said, the brain is identical. It just has different matter. I was just relating it to the conclusions we had about the other post.

You think that you will be “nothing” for all eternity, unless I create a brain with the same atoms of your melted brain.

If I pick up the same atoms and make a different brain, with different configuration, you will still be gone for eternity.
If I pick up different atoms and make the same brain, with the same configuration, you will still be gone for eternity.
But if I pick up the same atoms and make the same brain, you will be revived. I mean, that’s what you said.

Well, so, the observer depends on both the matter and the configuration, according to this.
But both matter and configuration ARE CHANGING constantly, and your observer is still the same.

Well, this IS absurd.

I’ll post the other thought experiment after college.

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

rubix is right.

recreating one's body and mind does not mean resuming the perception. it means creating a new one and fill it with the data from the no longer alive person.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

rubix is right.

recreating one's body and mind does not mean resuming the perception. it means creating a new one and fill it with the data from the no longer alive person.

I never said the contrary.

[Izzy]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Well, if you consider the perspective I'm talking about, that basically means you believe that you are reviving someone who was killed. Wouldn't the dead person still be dead?

What perspective are you talking about. I would only consider it a location.

You would revive the same person and it would still be the same observer with the same perspective. The only time the perspective is going to change is if you start making clones.

From what I understand it would be possible to have multiple of the same person and observer if you took a snapshot out of the timeframe. at one instant that you create all those clones they would all be the same observer until time resumes and matter is allowed to change again. Then because they cannot all be in the same location/perspective at the same time they will all receive different memories and slowly become more and more of different observers/brains.

Well, there’s a problem here. On the other post, you agreed with me that the atoms are changing all the time. It’s not what defines the observer.
You’re saying that if I create an identical brain, with the same atoms, you will live again and it will be really you. If I create an identical brain, but with different atoms, you will still be dead.
That’s the same as saying that the observer is in the atoms.
Don’t you think this is contradictory?

The observer is the exact composition of that brain with all those memories. If you create an identical brain with different atoms you will come back to life and your observer would return as well as kill an identical observer which is the old identical brain.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

The observer is the exact composition of that brain with all those memories. If you create an identical brain with different atoms you will come back to life and your observer would return as well as kill an identical observer which is the old identical brain.

But the observer is not the brain itself. The observer is a part of the brain (or something independent). It's the definition: space where qualia, the sensations themselves, happen.
It doesn't depend on other thoughts. The observer you had as a kid is the same observer you will have as an old man, even if you lose your memories.

[Izzy]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

The observer you had as a kid is the same observer you will have as an old man, even if you lose your memories.

Yea, because you have been gathering memories with that brain your whole life. Even when you are old you don't really ever lose all of your memories. Maybe if you had a complete mental wipe and then I'd probably consider you being a new observer/clean slate or clean reformatting of a computer. Would have to be a full formatting though because a quick format doesn't actually wipe the drive. It just nulls all the references to material.

[devonin]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Losing your memories from old age is a function of connections in the physical brain breaking down and no longer functioning. You dont' lose your memories, you lose the ability to recall them easily or properly. Not at all the same thing.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Yea, because you have been gathering memories with that brain your whole life. Even when you are old you don't really ever lose all of your memories. Maybe if you had a complete mental wipe and then I'd probably consider you being a new observer/clean slate or clean reformatting of a computer. Would have to be a full formatting though because a quick format doesn't actually wipe the drive. It just nulls all the references to material.

No, seriously, memories don't change the observer, at all. The observer is just a fixed perspective, it's part of the definition of observer. Even if I destroy your sensory functions and memories, you will still "be" in that brain. You will still have the perspective from that body, even if you don't recognize it.
That's what this observer is about. Even if it's just a material thing, it's the definition.

But it's not just about location. Well, try reading the rest of the thread if you want to know what I mean.

[Izzy]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

I just don't believe that is true. You are talking about something like a soul, which I don't agree with. Everything in your body is physical in nature so a soul doesn't make sense.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Rubix:

There's a problem with my computer. It freezes often, because the HD is damaged. I want to continue, but I probably won't be posting much for a while, I need to fix this. And I'm kinda tired of watching people gang up on me, so I also want to rest for a while.

Also, there's another reply to you before this.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

I just don't believe that is true. You are talking about something like a soul, which I don't agree with. Everything in your body is physical in nature so a soul doesn't make sense.

No matter how many times I say "even if it's physical", or "regardless of it being material or not", everyone always assumes that I'm talking about something necessarily immaterial. Seriously, this is annoying. Pay attention to what I wrote there.

[Izzy]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Because you aren't understanding the fallacy in your theory with it not being immaterial.

If it was physical then your idea of a soul doesn't make sense. How would it just jump around anywhere in the universe at the speed of light?

The observer is the brain that has specific memories. New memories is a different observer in the same perspective. New brain with the same memories is the same observer in the same perspective.

New brain with the same memories in a different body is the same observer in a different perspective. New brain with a new body is a different observer in a different perspective which is a completely different person.