It isn't a red herring because 1) It's as possible, if not way more, than the existence of an afterlife 2) It is partly a metaphor for my assertion that the brain is only a very complex mechanical system that produces consciousness
― Evan, Thursday, 27 September 2012 23:31 (eleven years ago) link
isn't there a more fundamental question to answer what constitutes conscious qualia for living people? i feel like even a not-so-supercomputer could get a lot of traction by pointing out people zoning out all the time doesn't present for a good case that they're conscious either.
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 27 September 2012 23:34 (eleven years ago) link
the supercomputer is a distraction, sure if the brain is a complex mechanical system that "produces" consciousness, that system breaking down doesn't remove the consciousness, necessarily, nor is there much reason depending on your semantics to consider it continued
― the late great, Thursday, 27 September 2012 23:40 (eleven years ago) link
you never proved the consciousness was there in the machine in the first place?
from this TRS-80 or Tandy or whatever robot that's on trial's perspective, it's humans who haven't yet proved they are conscious.
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 27 September 2012 23:43 (eleven years ago) link
Yeah I wasn't trying to prove it had consciousness to you but that at what point would in it's complex human simulation would you think it has a consciousness of its own?
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 00:38 (eleven years ago) link
I love Ryan's recent posts here!
Let's say this super computer has found more and more efficient ways of calculating/existing. The Kurzweilian theories point to quantum computing being a real possibility for breaking some technical barriers such as the speed of light. I don't think it's absurd to think that a believably conscious computer would have to be somewhat self-built. For instance i don't really think it's possible to build a computer brain, but conceivably one could build the systems that would self-grow a brain, in ways that really wouldn't be feasible to build from the ground-up. Such a system would likely use DNA or quantum computing; more abstract systems that have fewer limits, are more efficient, but the workings of which are probably going to not be fully comprehensible to us. This highly advanced computer consciousness would be a collection of self-aware energy patterns. Maybe then a form of consciousness would grow from within the matter.
This is all obviously conjecture BS but it seems to make sense.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 28 September 2012 01:10 (eleven years ago) link
And what happens, in your opinion, when you shut such a computer off?
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 01:12 (eleven years ago) link
what happens when people go to sleep? non-REM i mean.
― Philip Nunez, Friday, 28 September 2012 01:15 (eleven years ago) link
to sleep perchance to dream
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 01:17 (eleven years ago) link
And if the computer is destroyed?
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 01:17 (eleven years ago) link
then we're back to the human question
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 01:18 (eleven years ago) link
In what sense
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 01:19 (eleven years ago) link
what happens to human consciousness when the brain computer stops working
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 01:41 (eleven years ago) link
That post-electronic computer consciousness i described pretty much won't be able to be shut off. It'll have evolved to grow itself, possibly computing through energy patterns far above what runs our modern computers, and using more abstract and decentralized processes. Especially if the computer wants to be more and more efficient.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 28 September 2012 01:58 (eleven years ago) link
But if you destroy the computer at that point, does it have an afterlife?
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 02:11 (eleven years ago) link
it might and it might not, just like a human might or might not
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 02:24 (eleven years ago) link
Fair enough. See I presented it to see if you would still equate the possibility of the afterlife with an absolute end. My theory is that these two possibilities are equated because the afterlife is attractive, imaginable, and personal, ignoring the much lower probability of it being likely.
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 02:58 (eleven years ago) link
^^^, always
― let's get the banned back together (schlump), Friday, 28 September 2012 03:18 (eleven years ago) link
my names is barthes and I don't fear and fear death
― barthes simpson, Friday, 28 September 2012 03:20 (eleven years ago) link
odi et amo
― Aimless, Friday, 28 September 2012 03:56 (eleven years ago) link
I hope I didn't burn anyone out on this topic.
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 04:13 (eleven years ago) link
you're clinging to the "we can never know for sure" line of argument, which obv cannot be refuted. But what is likely vs what is what we'd like to believe. there's no reason to think consciousness exists after death other than a) you never know! and b) wouldn't it be sweet if it did?, neither of which are very compelling scientifically
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 04:26 (eleven years ago) link
thank you I felt alone on that point, at least during this round
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 04:56 (eleven years ago) link
My "fair enough" was me giving up.
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 04:58 (eleven years ago) link
in no way can we imagine not existing since existence and our personal perspectives are one in the same
This is what convinced me of life after death as a kid- just the fact that I couldn't imagine what it would be like to not exist. Of course now I'm older and I realize there are lots of times when there's nothing that it's like to be me - ie., when I'm unconscious. Still there's something weird to think about not existing ever again.
― o. nate, Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:42 PM (Yesterday)
Sorry I bypassed this earlier, nate. Your logic as a kid is what I'm saying is the reason people, at the core of the issue, hold on to a belief of an afterlife. More specific reasons branch off from that sub-conscious basis of perspective.
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 05:08 (eleven years ago) link
that's argument against motive though
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 05:20 (eleven years ago) link
What do you mean?
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 05:24 (eleven years ago) link
I'm saying it's why non-existence after death is denied, I think, at the core of it. The motivation comes as justifications to believe in an afterlife from there.
― Evan, Friday, 28 September 2012 05:34 (eleven years ago) link
If you're responding to my comment to nate
which is a logical thing to turn to when the counter argument has no concrete support for it but is very appealing to the emotions
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 05:51 (eleven years ago) link
There isn't just one conception of the afterlife, though. Or existence, for that matter. Yes there is a simplistic and pandering version of the afterlife which many believe in. But a discussion on fear of death should not simply focus on this one aspect. A holistic and more fluid way of looking at the cycle of life and death -- as a complete process informed by a personal philosophy on life as well as death -- is less cut and dry.
And one could argue the psychological reasons behind wanting to say there is no afterlife and that anything beyond our consciousness is meaningless. That these motivations are not brought up indicate just as unshakable a belief in one's philosophy. That you are special and your life is one of a kind and unconnected to anything past your experience can be a very self-gratifying way of looking at your place in the grander scheme.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 28 September 2012 06:12 (eleven years ago) link
I don't think Evan or I are "wanting" to say there is no afterlife (nor are we even saying that). Merely that there is no evidence for it and it just doesn't jibe with all that we have learned about the world (yes, there's a lot we don't know, but that fact on its own is not reason to support something. only a reason not to dismiss it). And so for a logical person to lean towards there being one makes one think there must be some emotional factors at play.
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 06:24 (eleven years ago) link
it just doesn't jibe with all that we have learned about the world
this part i think i disagree with
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 06:50 (eleven years ago) link
Consciousness can be completely altered by subtle changes in chemistry and/or electricity, no? Isn't that evidence that it is an electrochemical process, and once those electrochemical reactions cease, consciousness does as well?
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 06:58 (eleven years ago) link
nah
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 07:16 (eleven years ago) link
that's like saying cutting out the eyes proves the visual processing happens in the eyes
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 07:17 (eleven years ago) link
it says eyes are needed for sight. just like a functioning brain is needed for consciousness.
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 07:18 (eleven years ago) link
is a plant's ability to photosynthesize get retained after death? If not, why?
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 07:19 (eleven years ago) link
-get
i don't see what photosynthesis has to do with consciousness
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 07:20 (eleven years ago) link
and i don't see what it doesn't have to do with it! there's no reason to suspect that they both aren't anything other than processes that require a functioning organism in order to occur. why is one "magical" and the other not?
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 07:24 (eleven years ago) link
does a body demonstrate any aspect of consciousness when you remove its brain? what about when you remove an arm? or a kidney?
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 07:28 (eleven years ago) link
well, you'd say the body does not
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 07:31 (eleven years ago) link
obviously a continuing consciousness could not reside in the body, as that rots
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 07:32 (eleven years ago) link
why? does that mean consciousness resides in the brain?xp
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 07:34 (eleven years ago) link
does visual processing continue? does circadian rhythm? or is it just consciousness that is able to persist? why?
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 September 2012 07:36 (eleven years ago) link
i'm just answering your questions man, you said it was because the body doesn't do anything w.o the brain
no it doesn't mean it resides in the brain either, you can turn off parts of the brain and keep experiencing consciousness even as you show increasingly little proof of consciousness to the world
― the late great, Friday, 28 September 2012 07:37 (eleven years ago) link
because consciousness is *special* duh