ninjasaid13 t1_iws4s5r wrote
Reply to comment by Kracus in When does an individual's death occur if the biological brain is gradually replaced by synthetic neurons? by NefariousNaz
>I believe it is possible to transfer consciousness in the way of replacing pieces of the brain which complicates the question of what is consciousness?
Consciousness can't be confused with brain itself. The brain has a bunch of things running that sum up to a consciousness kind of like Jenga, taking one brick away doesn't mean the whole tower collapses. In Jenga the tower is consciousness and the brain is all of the wood blocks that makes up the tower.
Consciousness is an emergency property of the brain, the tower is the emergent property of the wooden blocks. But obviously consciousness is alot more complicated than a tower.
beachmike t1_iwtge85 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 physical universe, emerges within consciousness. Consciousness itself doesn't "emerge." It's non-material, dimensionless, and eternal.
ninjasaid13 t1_iwtgyoh wrote
this seems like like saying "I'm the center of the universe" that absolutely no one will take seriously. The universe doesn't emerge with consciousness, it has existed before I was born and will exist when the all the atoms in my body decay into something else..
beachmike t1_iwtz94m wrote
You are so very wrong. Many people take the idealistic (non-materialistic view) very seriously. The father of quantum physics, Max Planck, certainly did. Erwin Schrödinger, another founding father of quantum physics, certainly did. They were geniuses. To quote 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.”
ninjasaid13 t1_iwz25z6 wrote
It's erroneous to take old scientists on their beliefs, this isn't how science works. Issac Newton is a theist but that doesn't mean that's the correct view that all scientists should follow.
beachmike t1_iwzaivx wrote
I'll study what very brilliant "old" scientists had to say, but won't clutter my thoughts with what you or other mediocre thinkers say.
ninjasaid13 t1_iwzvzy7 wrote
>I'll study what very brilliant "old" scientists had to say, but won't clutter my thoughts with what you or other mediocre thinkers say.
alright but you won't get anywhere with that, lots of scientists in that era spoke kookoo and was just speaking their own personal beliefs.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments