Cannibeans t1_iwrb078 wrote
Reply to comment by trapkoda in When does an individual's death occur if the biological brain is gradually replaced by synthetic neurons? by NefariousNaz
Exactly. Our personalities, memories, every thought and feeling we have is just the sum of electrical signals and neurotransmitters floating around an organ in our skull. If we preserve that but change the container, or the material in which those signals and chemicals travel on, nothing should've changed regarding "death."
RemyVonLion t1_iwruald wrote
In theory yeah, but it's possible we are tied to our organic matter and all the complexities in our DNA and biology from billions of years of evolution of the natural organic elements that make us, not man made copies that replicate the basics. The entire human experience isn't going to be easily recreated 1:1 by machine any time soon.
beachmike t1_iwtgiy6 wrote
Consciousness is NOT an emergent property of the brain. You're stuck in the incorrect materialist paradigm. The brain, and everything else in the material universe, emerges within consciousness. Consciousness doesn't "emerge." It's eternal.
Cannibeans t1_iwtgv4u wrote
Quantify consciousness. Like, which quantum particles make it up? Where does it exist within the body?
beachmike t1_iwtyr64 wrote
Consciousness has no location or dimensions. It's non-material and eternal (therefore it can't be quantified). It's not an emergent property of any complex system. To quote the father of quantum physics, Max Planck, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Longjumping-Bake-557 t1_iwu3mu4 wrote
Just say you want that to be the case, nothing points towards that factually
beachmike t1_iwu7z6n wrote
Everything points to what I said about consciousness being the case. You can't grasp what I said about consciousness because you're stuck in the failed and outmoded materialist paradigm. You may not be capable of shifting to the more enlightened idealistic paradigm.
DaggerShowRabs t1_iwukzvu wrote
The idealistic paradigm is unverifiable woo-woo fucking nonsense.
Logical-Cup1374 t1_iwuy79v wrote
So is believing reality is simply a cascade of matter and forces. Everything exists as a quantum entangled field of energy and vibration. A gazillion times a second, matter is determined through the gaze of awareness like the tugging of a single ribbon among millions of ribbons, creating cause and effect and the illusion of space, time, and the experience of 3d reality. This state of determination is what we live in constantly, this 3d space where you can think logically and look around and feel separate from things.
But in the state of undetermination, when the substance of your being and all other things are unfiltered by awareness, and suspended in a strange energetic superposition of space and time, in which they have the potential to be and move in absolutely whichever possibility is chosen, where seemingly random decisions are being made, is where you find the truest source of creation. It's not 1s and 0s, past and present exist at once and awareness can look anywhere, it's the eternal dance of life in which the nature of a thing and the nature of reality determine reality, NATURE, being a things meaning and intention. The piece of us, or the piece of a thing, which makes it makes sense, which solves the why of its existence, which gives it a meaningful pattern to fit into in creation. It was the big bang particles meaning and intention to create this reality. It's our meaning and intention which create our own lives, it is a particle of irons meaning and intention to behave like iron. Literally, everything is alive, everything is CONSCIOUS, it's just that some things are helplessly aware, helplessly existing and interacting, and some things get to look at themselves and try to decide who and what they are, to wilfully determine things as an independent self, because it has a supercomputer in its head that models the function of consciousness. (animals, but especially humans)
Don't know how well I described it but this seems to be the case the more I look. Thinking reality is this helpless stringing out of time and we're all fundamentally alone within our heads doesn't seem right at all. But I suppose we won't know for certain as a society until someone proves one way or the other
beachmike t1_iwvr77t wrote
You're not only disagreeing with me, but with Max Planck and Erwin Schroedinger.
DaggerShowRabs t1_iwys0i3 wrote
Cool, now list a couple of modern major neuroscientists that believe in panpsychism nonsense. I'll wait.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck what Max Planck or Erwin Schroedinger think about an area that's extremely outside their domain. Erwin Schroedinger and Max Planck? Seriously? That's your fallacious appeal to authority? If you're going to use a fallacy, you could have at least used more compelling examples.
Roger Penrose is maybe one you could point to (still outside his domain), but pretty much all neuroscientists rightly call his quantum consciousness ideas non-scientific garbage. And that's barely on the spectrum of the pseudo-scientific panpsychism shit that you espouse.
Unfortunately for you, there aren't a whole lot of respected neuroscientists who believe in panpsychism. Panpsychism is an invention of philosophers with little grounding in science because they get hung-up on the made-up phenomenon of "qualia".
Qualia was made-up by people to feel special about themselves.
beachmike t1_iwz9ly4 wrote
I wasn't describing pansychism, I was describing idealism. You obviously have no understanding of what qualia is. You're very dense, but of course, that describes your low state of consciousness.
DaggerShowRabs t1_iwza0li wrote
No, I quite do, but thanks for your uninformed, low quality opinion.
Your use of ad-hominem shows you to be an intellectual lightweight.
Now, kindly fuck off pissant.
beachmike t1_iwzc2wv wrote
Your immature use of swear words and ad hominem show you've lost the argument and realize you've been outclassed.
DaggerShowRabs t1_iwzc86b wrote
I haven't used ad-hominem. I addressed every point you made. So I correctly pointed out that you were using ad-hominem to dodge my points, like the intellectual lightweight that you are.
The fact that you think I've been "outclassed" when you haven't even addressed a single point I've made is actually really, truly sad.
Now, fuck off pissant.
Cannibeans t1_iwuv4rp wrote
You're making an argument for the soul with zero evidence to suggest that's the case. Pointing to the edge of unexplainable science and saying "that's where the soul is" is cheap and disingenuous. It could be anything, so it should be nothing until we have reason to believe otherwise.
buddypalamigo19 t1_iwulutv wrote
Metaphysics of Quality
Nastypilot t1_iwufr9k wrote
If it is not quantifiable or measurable in some way, then by empirical principles, it does not exist.
beachmike t1_iwvqxbi wrote
Nonsense. So your experience of the color red does not exist? (I'm not talking about the wavelength or frequency of the color red which are correlates of that color).
Nastypilot t1_iwvrgp3 wrote
But we can indeed observe and quantify red. Can we do the same for concioussness though? We can not, what we perceive as concioussness, is an emergent property of our brain, or simply a non-existent thing.
beachmike t1_iwvrre9 wrote
You're confusing the experience of the color red with correlates of the color such as frequently and wavelength. You don't understand what's known as "the hard problem of consciousness."
Nastypilot t1_iwvtxvd wrote
Well, if it is not by experience of a thing, we can know a thing, then I do not know how else can we know? Imagining how the thing should function?
As far as I can tell, "the hard problem of conciousness" is not a a fully accepted fact within neuroscience, as such, I will not comment on it. Though, since I take the stance of a determinist, I think the experience of the color red is shaped by how culture imbues symbolism onto a wavelenght, and previous positive or negative responses towards red things.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments