Fore Will (origin at its finest)

Originally posted by Jezus
You have been claiming to be biological robots

Yes.

without consciousness

No.

Try and at least comprehend my argument before you try to refute it.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Try and at least comprehend my argument before you try to refute it.

Your argument refutes itself.

A biological robot cannot have consciousness, this is logically incontrovertible.

Evidence? You need to use your own mind and brain to comprehend why…

reply to post by Jezus


Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind. It is more than the sum of its parts, but it is entirely physical in nature. For example, when you combine hydrogen and oxygen together you get water, which has entirely different properties from the elements that it is made of. The same goes for consciousness. When you break the brain into different parts it simply seems like a computer, but when it is all brought together it creates new properties, such as consciousness. It is completely different than the parts that go into making it, but in the end it is still composed of physical parts.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


The message is “composed” of the physical parts, but consciousness is what feels this message.

You keep making this claim, yet there is no proof. All the evidence we have indicates a completely physical existence, with consciousness as an emergent property of our brain. The only convincing evidence I have seen for dualism comes from the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
consciousness as an emergent property of our brain.

The idea the moving pieces can move in the right way to create consciousness is unsubstantiated.

Feeling is fundamentally different from the physical message we observe.

Correlation is not causation.

reply to post by Jezus


An extradimensional mind is even more unsubstantiated than the theory that the mind is a physical product of the brain. We have proof that by changing the structure and chemistry of the brain that we can produce altered states of consciousness. We have seen examples of emergentism elsewhere in when chemistry is involved, so we know that it's possible. Yet, we have no proof for a mind outside the body. We only have claims that it is the most logical answer, yet many times when we do the science the answer we thought was most logical usually isn't the right one. Just look at quantum mechanics, nothing about it is logical, yet it accounts for many problems in classical physics.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
We have proof that by changing the structure and chemistry of the brain that we can produce altered states of consciousness.

Our mind is constantly responding to the message the brain creates from the information it synthesizes from the body.

Of course if we change this message we are going to change the response.

reply to post by Jezus


If the mind is required for the brain to respond, then if one were to create a model of the brain then according to your theory it would not be able to respond. Yet, in Texas a model of a cerebellum was created that responds exactly the same way one would expect a human to respond. So, how can it respond properly without a mind?

Two things involved...

a. The Experience. Universe

b. That which Experiences. ???

reply to post by Xcalibur254


The model is imitation, it is not feeling.

reply to post by Jezus


However, you said the brain carries the message, but the mind is what responds to it. If we present the same stimulus to a person and the model and they both respond in the same way, wouldn't that mean that either the model has a mind or the human's response is based on a physical level and not caused by a metaphysical mind?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Jezus

 

However, you said the brain carries the message, but the mind is what responds to it. If we present the same stimulus to a person and the model and they both respond in the same way, wouldn't that mean that either the model has a mind or the human's response is based on a physical level and not caused by a metaphysical mind?

The response IS based on the physical information it perceives.

The model has been created to imitate the physical level. The programming has simply replicated what we usually observe as a response from a human mind.

The mind may have no inherent characteristics; maybe we all have an identical mind.

But, the model is simply imitation.

reply to post by Jezus


Then what point is the mind? You keep talking about that it allows us to feel. By feel do are you referring to emotion or something else completely? Also, from some of the stuff you've referenced I recommend you read Phantoms in the Brain by V.S. Ramachandran. He presents a lot of interesting neurological disorders and what we can learn from them. I also feel like he is not entirely decided on which side of the mind/body problem he's on.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


you wrote Quote;

Then what point is the mind?

The Mind is exploring itself and learning by that experience on a very large scale..
This involves the partitions of the Mind.

This is an age old argument...

But the human species is of the opposites...

a. those that know LIFE (Mind)

b. those that can't know the Mind or LIFE...


Can't change this fact...

LIFE can NOT convince the Dead of LIFE as the DEAD are NOT alive...

Just because the species is seen as mobile does NOT mean all the Species has the Gift of LIFE...

Only the Living can Know LIFE....

[edit on 6-3-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Jezus

 

We have proof that by changing the structure and chemistry of the brain that we can produce altered states of consciousness. We have seen examples of emergentism elsewhere in when chemistry is involved, so we know that it's possible.

you can change the position of a variable condenser on a receiver and get different broadcasts and knowledge.

but you have not effected the source of those broadcasts one iota.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus
You have been claiming to be biological robots

Yes.

without consciousness

No. Try and at least comprehend my argument before you try to refute it.

Precisely.

I can't remember the number of times on this thread I've clearly stated that I accept the existence of consciousness. The question is not whether consciousness exists--that is a given, despite the difficulty of proving it--but whether or not it exists independent of the physical architecture of the brain.

You know, I think Jezus may be failing the Turing test here.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus
You have been claiming to be biological robots

Yes.

without consciousness

No. Try and at least comprehend my argument before you try to refute it.

Precisely.

I can't remember the number of times on this thread I've clearly stated that I accept the existence of consciousness. The question is not whether consciousness exists--that is a given, despite the difficulty of proving it--but whether or not it exists independent of the physical architecture of the brain.

You know, I think Jezus may be failing the Turing test here.

A biological robot by definition does not include consciousness.

To suggest that there are ONLY physical pieces is to suggest that consciousness does not exist.

reply to post by Jezus

Still repeating yourself?

Here's a new ATS thread on the same subject, with a diagram an' all. Maybe this will jerk you out of the negative-feedback loop you've trapped yourself in.

Lord, wake up and smell the coffee.

Originally posted by Jezus
A biological robot by definition does not include consciousness.

To suggest that there are ONLY physical pieces is to suggest that consciousness does not exist.

This is incorrect, and until you realize why there is no point in continuing this conversation.