 Functionalism Refuted |
  |
| Trip like I do |
 Dec 29, 2004, 10:18 AM
Post
#61
|
||
 Supreme God  Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202  |
aND TURns! |
||
   |
 
|
||
| Trip like I do |
Dec 29, 2004, 10:22 AM
Post
#62
|
||||
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202 |
The paradox of quantum mechanics is that somehow the hardware and software levels of description have become inextricably entangled. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Trip like I do |
Dec 29, 2004, 10:31 AM
Post
#63
|
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202 |
We accept that the output of a computer is rigidly determined entirely by the laws of electric circuitry, plus whatever input is used.
How does the program manage to make all those little circuits fire in the right sequence? We give an equivalent description in software language, using concepts like input, output, calculation, data, answer, etc. The quantum wave (wave-particle duality) is really a description of our knowledge of the system (i.e. a software concept), whereas a particle is a piece of hardware. |
|
|
|
| Hey Hey |
Dec 29, 2004, 11:07 AM
Post
#64
|
 Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 7763 Joined: Dec 31, 2003 Member No.: 845 |
"You know, it might just be possible that the 'particle' is a piece of (the) software." he said, floating over the 'floor' due to opposite charge repulsion.
Is there ANY hardware? Could everything be software? Is God hardware or software? |
|
|
|
| Rajesh |
Dec 30, 2004, 06:27 AM
Post
#65
|
||
|
Awakening Group: Basic Member Posts: 146 Joined: Mar 22, 2004 Member No.: 1690 |
Everything can be software. But software cannot exist on its own. It requires at least one media to exist. Any software is NON-EXISTent without a media. With this definition, the media obviously cannot be software. But I am not sure whether it can be called hardware either. It must be the softest thing that can exist. It is as soft as the software, but EXISTS. This media is the God. And the software, which is held by this media, is the universe. I see everything as EXISTENTIAL SOFTWARE, where EXISTENCE is the God and SOFTWARE is the Universe. There is no hardware, unless you would like to call EXISTENCE as hardware. I am wondering, will it be ever possible to prove/disprove this model. |
||
|
|
|
||
| Hey Hey |
Dec 30, 2004, 12:13 PM
Post
#66
|
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 7763 Joined: Dec 31, 2003 Member No.: 845 |
If energy was software, would there be any need to have hardware? OK, you might want to consider that the universe was hardware containing(?) the software. But what is the universe in that context? Could God be a box?
|
|
|
|
| Trip like I do |
Dec 31, 2004, 09:40 AM
Post
#67
|
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202 |
An infinitely extended three-dimensional (or is it an infinitely extended 11-dimensional) box where one senses the creative point of the universe. So in this thery of yours HeyHey, would one's senses be considered software or hardware?
|
|
|
|
| Trip like I do |
Dec 31, 2004, 09:43 AM
Post
#68
|
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202 |
And does this mean that you believe in a mechanistic universe?
|
|
|
|
| Trip like I do |
Dec 31, 2004, 09:45 AM
Post
#69
|
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202 |
Is the brain an extremely advance silicon chip that operates the body's hardware units? The eyes, the ears, the mouth, the fingers, the hands, etc.?
|
|
|
|
| Enki |
Dec 31, 2004, 11:07 PM
Post
#70
|
||
 Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 2794 Joined: Sep 10, 2004 From: Eridug Member No.: 3458 |
No! |
||
|
|
|
||
| Rajesh |
Jan 04, 2005, 07:53 AM
Post
#71
|
||
|
Awakening Group: Basic Member Posts: 146 Joined: Mar 22, 2004 Member No.: 1690 |
I would prefer Bubble gum than a Box to describe God. Bubble gum is the hardware (God). All its attributes are software (universe). It can be blown, it can be crunched, ... |
||
|
|
|
||
| Rick |
Jan 04, 2005, 12:52 PM
Post
#72
|
||
 Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5916 Joined: Jul 23, 2004 From: Sunny Southern California Member No.: 3068 |
I don't think that your conclusion follows from the premise. If concern for others is warranted before one's own self-termination, then that concern should also hold after one's self-termination. Of course, one would not then exist such that he could actually have concern after self-termination, but such concern would still be warranted, could it exist. If it were not so, then suicide might justify all sorts of wrongs. One might imagine that this exact false ethics is applied in the case of Jihadist suicide bombers, however much they might purport to be "religious." |
||
|
|
|
||
| Rick |
Jan 04, 2005, 01:00 PM
Post
#73
|
||
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5916 Joined: Jul 23, 2004 From: Sunny Southern California Member No.: 3068 |
Pushing the "ghost" down to the atomic (or smaller) level seems to get around dualism. Consciousness then becomes merely one of many other properties of matter. What still needs explaining is how consciousness emerges in the brain. The "consciousness" of a stone due to the aggregation of the little ghosts in the atoms of the stone is meaningless and inaccessible to us. Therefore, the atomic ghost theory adds no explanatory power, and hence, is useless. |
||
|
|
|
||
| Unknown |
Jan 04, 2005, 01:33 PM
Post
#74
|
||||
|
Unregistered |
what is a single atom? Nothing exists in isolation. Everything is interconnected. There is no such thing as a single atom without it being understood within its wider context and interconnections. Much less is consciousness confined to a single atom. It is a distributed property arising from coordinated interactions and interconnections, and it is clear that our human consciousness involves interactions among many atoms and, at a higher level, neurons. Face it: Reductionism has its limits. This is no great revelation to most scientists and great thinkers, which the common folk often misassume to be pure reductionists. It may be a revelation to beginners in the sciences because oftentimes science is introduced and taught to them within the context of reductionism and with the fictitious claim that reductionist science is the only real science around. Not true. This claim is a simplification, and any real scientist making said claim either knows it's a simplication or is not a real scientist. |
||||
|
|
|||||
| Unknown |
Jan 04, 2005, 01:56 PM
Post
#75
|
||
|
Unregistered |
You don't know this for certain Rick. Just because computers don't exhibit external behaviors similar to humans does not mean they do not have any sort of consciousness. For example, an alert quadriplegic (sp?) who also lost facial muscular control would not necessarily exhibit any outward behavioral signs of consciousness, but we know they are because they are alert humans like us, and since we are conscious, we extrapolate from our experience and infer that they are conscious as well but are not able to exhibit outward behavioral manisfestations of said consciousness like unimpaired humans can. But this does not deny their consciousness. In a similar way, computers may very well possess some sort of consciousness but we could never know about it unless we somehow experience "what it's like to be a computer" and are, furthermore, able to retain memory of said experience. However, there seems to be a contradiction there; because if we retain memory of "what it's like to be a computer" and recall (i.e., relive) said experience in our human state of mind, then we can no longer remain in our human state of mind to remember said experience of "what it's like to be a computer". The implication is that, even if we could experience "what it's like to be a computer", we would never be able to fully integrate into our human consciousness, and thus our memory of said experience would be imperfect and questionable at best. If computers have consciousness, then it must be a very boring type of existence. Of course, they do not know it's boring because all they do is compute binary and are not sufficiently advanced to be aware of how boring their experience would seem to us. But who knows, maybe computer consciousness is really exciting after all! Maybe we should be envious of our little computers and their rich conscious life! |
||
|
|
|||
| Unknown |
Jan 04, 2005, 02:21 PM
Post
#76
|
|
Unregistered |
My computer is conscious and female!
I know this for a fact because:- sometimes it daydreams - I can't get it to respond to any of my requests. it forgets things like my chosen browser home page. it makes mistakes as it tries to carry out its tasks and it knows this because it complains of errors. it remembers that its my birthday and sends me a little message. it checks that the things it has remembered are intact and have not been altered. it sometimes connects to the web without me even asking it to connect. i've never seen it drinking or eating but I caught it smoking once. |
|
|
|
| Trip like I do |
Jan 05, 2005, 10:44 AM
Post
#77
|
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5143 Joined: Aug 11, 2004 From: Earth^2 Member No.: 3202 |
Human bodies are in space and are subject to mechanical laws which govern all other bodies in space. But minds are not in space, nor are their operations subject to mechanical laws.
The dogma of the ghost in the machine. |
|
|
|
| Unknown |
Jan 05, 2005, 10:57 AM
Post
#78
|
||
|
Unregistered |
there is nothing in space because space is a construct of mind requisite for the perception of objects. |
||
|
|
|||
| rhymer |
Jan 05, 2005, 11:53 AM
Post
#79
|
 Supreme God Group: Global Mod Posts: 2059 Joined: Feb 27, 2003 From: Wigan, UK Member No.: 385 |
Human minds are in human bodies.
Human bodies are in space, therefore human minds are in space. Space exists other than as a human concept. It exists wherever no objects are found. |
|
|
|
| Unknown |
Jan 05, 2005, 12:08 PM
Post
#80
|
||
|
Unregistered |
your beliefs may qualify as common-sense but truth has never been a popularity contest, nor does it need to adhere to our intuitions, desires, preconceived notions, or any other personal biases. Your interpretation of space is but one of many. Thus, dogmatic claims are unwarranted and all you can really say is that you believe your mind is in your body (whatever that means!). |
||
|
|
|||
| Rick |
Jan 05, 2005, 12:49 PM
Post
#81
|
||
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5916 Joined: Jul 23, 2004 From: Sunny Southern California Member No.: 3068 |
It would seem that "unknown" is a sexist. |
||
|
|
|
||
| rhymer |
Jan 05, 2005, 12:51 PM
Post
#82
|
|
Supreme God Group: Global Mod Posts: 2059 Joined: Feb 27, 2003 From: Wigan, UK Member No.: 385 |
You are quite right unknown!
I believe my mind is in my body. I believe that if my body does not exist, my mind does not exist. (this is easily proved, but I leave it for you to ponder on - if you wish). |
|
|
|
| Unknown |
Jan 05, 2005, 12:56 PM
Post
#83
|
||
|
Unregistered |
what makes it 'your' mind? What is 'your' body? So many preconceptions! |
||
|
|
|||
| Rick |
Jan 05, 2005, 12:59 PM
Post
#84
|
||
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5916 Joined: Jul 23, 2004 From: Sunny Southern California Member No.: 3068 |
Fortunately for human understanding, common sense is often truth. The fact that consciousness is so easily diminished or erased by the administration of anaesthetics (such as dimethyl ether or alcohol) demonstrates the tight connection between brain and mind. |
||
|
|
|
||
| Unknown |
Jan 05, 2005, 01:06 PM
Post
#85
|
||||
|
Unregistered |
for centuries it was common sense that the brain was a cooling system for the body and that the heart produced mind. For centuries it was common sense that the earth was the center of the universe. For millenia it was common sense that the bible was the word of God. For millenia it was common sense that diverse species could not share a common ancestor. So much for common sense! |
||||
|
|
|||||
| Unknown |
Jan 05, 2005, 01:09 PM
Post
#86
|
||||||
|
Unregistered |
do you really think that your common sense will appear any less ridiculous to people centuries in the future than the common sense of people centuries ago appears to you today? It would be naive to think so. How much of your common sense today will appear ridiculous to people a few centuries in the future? What do you figure, 10%, 20%, 50%, 90%? Maybe even 100%. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
| Rick |
Jan 05, 2005, 01:10 PM
Post
#87
|
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5916 Joined: Jul 23, 2004 From: Sunny Southern California Member No.: 3068 |
I did not say that common sense is never wrong. If that were not the case, there would be no need for science and philosophy. That common sense is right so often is a boon to man. What science discovers today becomes the common sense of tomorrow.
It was common sense to the ancients that "if you go to war today a great nation may fall." It's still true. (edited to invert the meaning of the first sentence) This post has been edited by Rick: Jan 05, 2005, 01:15 PM |
|
|
|
| rhymer |
Jan 05, 2005, 01:10 PM
Post
#88
|
||||
|
Supreme God Group: Global Mod Posts: 2059 Joined: Feb 27, 2003 From: Wigan, UK Member No.: 385 |
Hi Rick, No, I'm not really sexist, just courting criticism, and feeling in a humorous mood at the time. No offence meant to anyone! I respect males and females and all those anywhere inbetween. And, my computer remembers more than I do.... [I forgot to log-on yet again]. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Unknown |
Jan 05, 2005, 01:11 PM
Post
#89
|
|
Unregistered |
common sense is a personal bias and has no necessary relation to truth.
|
|
|
|
| Rick |
Jan 05, 2005, 01:16 PM
Post
#90
|
||
|
Supreme God Group: Basic Member Posts: 5916 Joined: Jul 23, 2004 From: Sunny Southern California Member No.: 3068 |
"No necessary relation to truth" is correct. Employing common sense in the general case saves lots of computation and is a great survival (Darwinistic) adaptation. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 09:47 AM |
Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am