Do copies of you = you...from a physical determinism POV

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
Stimpson J. Cat
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:51 pm
Location: Eindhoven

Post by Stimpson J. Cat »

Ian
Utterly impossible. It is vacuous to state that something non-physical can be stored anywhere. It is not possible that there could be any such scientific evidence. There never could be any evidence in principle.
So now it's proof by assertion, is it? I don't suppose you have any justification for this assertion that memories are not physical, and cannot possibly be stored anywhere? Or that you have any justification for completely dismissing the scientific research of thousands of neuroscientists who are both much smarter than you are, and much better informed about the issue?

This is exactly what I was talking about before. You demand evidence for the claim that consciousness is physical, and then refuse to even so much as look at the evidence provided, instead dismissing it out of hand on the grounds that it is irrelevant, because such evidence is impossible in principle. You are simply incapable of entertaining the possibility that your intuitive preconceptions about consciousness might actually be wrong.
It is nonsense to talk about remembering when your brain is not active, unless you postulate some other agency, such as the self, also being capable of storing memories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The self doesn't store memories. Memories are an intrinsic aspect of the self. But certainly on remembering the brain would be active. Or are you saying the brain needs to be active at the time of the remembered event?? If so then how would you justify this thesis?
With the mounds of scientific evidence that not only show this to be the case, but also show how memories are stored. Again, scientific evidence that you admit to knowing nothing about, and yet feel qualified to dismiss as irrelevant.
But this would require some mechanism for this self to convey that information to the brain for processing,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memories are not information. Information is what the physical world is. Nor do I understand why there needs to be a mechanism. Why do non-physical existents require a mechanism??
Your position postulates the existence of some external "self" that physically interacts with the brain. This means that there must be a mechanism by which this interaction occurs. Not only is there absolutely no evidence that such interactions exist, but there is no known mechanism by which they even could exist. You like to pretend that your claims a purely metaphysical, and thus not subject to scientific criticism, but the moment you declare that a physical interaction is taking place, you are in the domain of science, whether you like it or not.
The bottom line is that your notion of the brain acting as some sort of "filter" between the self and the body, simply is not consistent with our scientific understanding of what the brain actually does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you give some specific examples of scientific understanding which is at tension with transmission theory??

If you're unable to, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to conclude that you're talking out of your arse.
You have been repeatedly given such examples. Things like the fact that it is known that the brain stores memories by adjusting synaptic strengths. Your entire view of what the brain does, flatly ignores an entire century of brain research. You don't have the slightest idea how the brain works, and yet feel yourself to be fully qualified to tell people that actually study the brain, what it can and can't do. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.
The brain does think. It does remember things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logically impossible I'm afraid. Say it as much as you like, it ain't gonna change cold facts.
Like I said, safely hidden behind an impenetrable wall of willful ignorance. You remind me of the priests who, when told by Galileo that they could see the evidence for themselves by looking through his microscope, responded with complete disinterest because they already knew that what he was saying was impossible. And to think, you have the nerve to call skeptics "close-minded". Your dogmatism would impress a scientologist.
OK, I'll leave it at that. I asked you what the scientific evidence is that we do not have any experiences under anaesthesia, and you have failed to respond.
No, I responded, and you dismissed my response by dogmatically declaring that any scientific evidence could not possibly be relevant.
Moreover, any such alleged "scientific evidence" must be flawed since people often have out of body experiences under anaesthesia.
Evidence please? Many people report having had such experiences, but there is no reliable evidence to indicate that they actually did. There is no evidence to indicate that their memories of those experiences were formed while their brains were inactive, and not either just before, or just after, as the scientific evidence strongly indicates.
How do you account for this?? Is there brain activity when one is under anaesthesia??
That depends on the anesthesia, and on how deeply they are under.
What about a coma and on the threshold of death?? Does the scientific evidence have it that there are no experiences on the threshold of death?? If so do you agree that such "evidence" is flawed since people have NDEs??
No, because there is brain activity on the "threshold of death". The controversy on NDE's is not whether people have experiences when near death, but whether they are really "out of body" experiences, and whether they have experiences when brain dead. There is no evidence of either of those things ever actually happening.


Dr. Stupid
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.
User avatar
MRC_Hans
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by MRC_Hans »

Not that I really, really want to get into a "discussion" with II, but:
Utterly impossible. It is vacuous to state that something non-physical can be stored anywhere. It is not possible that there could be any such scientific evidence. There never could be any evidence in principle.
Why do you say this? Information is non-physical, and that is what we store all the time. Even your computer is full of it.

Hans
[i]Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe...[/i]
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Stimpson J. Cat wrote:Ian
Utterly impossible. It is vacuous to state that something non-physical can be stored anywhere. It is not possible that there could be any such scientific evidence. There never could be any evidence in principle.
So now it's proof by assertion, is it? I don't suppose you have any justification for this assertion that memories are not physical, and cannot possibly be stored anywhere? Or that you have any justification for completely dismissing the scientific research of thousands of neuroscientists who are both much smarter than you are, and much better informed about the issue?
Don't be a fucking tithead. We've been through this ad nauseum. I don't give a flying fuck what you, what neuroscientists, or what anything else thinks. Unless anyone can give a satisfactory response to my argument that materialism is simply not intelligible then there is nothing further to be said.

Oh yes, and get a fucking clue as to what science is and the type of questions it is able to answer. Unless you have anything useful to contribute don't expect me to respond to you.


This is exactly what I was talking about before. You demand evidence for the claim that consciousness is physical, and then refuse to even so much as look at the evidence provided, instead dismissing it out of hand on the grounds that it is irrelevant, because such evidence is impossible in principle. You are simply incapable of entertaining the possibility that your intuitive preconceptions about consciousness might actually be wrong.
What the FUCK is wrong with you??? I keep asking for your evidence and you continually refuse to provide any.

Fuck off you complete and total tithead.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

MRC_Hans wrote:Not that I really, really want to get into a "discussion" with II, but:
Utterly impossible. It is vacuous to state that something non-physical can be stored anywhere. It is not possible that there could be any such scientific evidence. There never could be any evidence in principle.
Why do you say this? Information is non-physical, and that is what we store all the time. Even your computer is full of it.

Hans
Information is non-physical huh?? Glad to hear you reject materialism.
User avatar
Stimpson J. Cat
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:51 pm
Location: Eindhoven

Post by Stimpson J. Cat »

Ian,
Don't be a fucking tithead. We've been through this ad nauseum. I don't give a flying fuck what you, what neuroscientists, or what anything else thinks. Unless anyone can give a satisfactory response to my argument that materialism is simply not intelligible then there is nothing further to be said.


Well, you are right about one thing. There is nothing further to be said. There is no way that anybody could possibly give you a response to your "argument" that you will consider satisfactory, because are not willing give any consideration to any response that contradicts your own position. I am afraid that materialism will always be unintellible to you, because you are never going to make any effort to actually understand it.
What the FUCK is wrong with you??? I keep asking for your evidence and you continually refuse to provide any.

Fuck off you complete and total tithead.
Here's a novel idea. Why don't you fuck off? You are the one constantly whining about how stupid and dishonest skeptics are. And this is a skeptics forum (one which you declared you were not going to participate in, I might add). So why don't you just piss off? Why do you insist on inflicting your idiotic beliefs and obnoxious rants on us? Why do you even come here in the first place? Is it just because you enjoy annoying people you don't like?

Get a life, Ian. Or at the very least, get a hobby that does not involve irritating the Hell out of other people.


Dr. Stupid
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.
Darat
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:00 pm

Post by Darat »

Stimpson J. Cat wrote:...snip...

Get a life, Ian. Or at the very least, get a hobby that does not involve irritating the Hell out of other people.


Dr. Stupid
Have to say Ian's never managed to irritate me, made me laugh and chuckle and shake my head in pity, but not irritate me.

Sometimes it is hard to see the point of his post beyond a “materialism is wrong nah-nah” mantra since he will never ever put his beliefs up for discussion or debate. It would be novel if one day Ian stated what he does believe in and what his remarkably coherent philosophy actually is. But I won’t be holding my breath.

In the meantime just remember when you are chuckling at one his foul-mouthed diatribes that he is reminding us that blind faith can be wrapped up in many, many different ways.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

It is nonsense to talk about remembering when your brain is not active, unless you postulate some other agency, such as the self, also being capable of storing memories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The self doesn't store memories. Memories are an intrinsic aspect of the self. But certainly on remembering the brain would be active. Or are you saying the brain needs to be active at the time of the remembered event?? If so then how would you justify this thesis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tithead says
With the mounds of scientific evidence that not only show this to be the case, but also show how memories are stored. Again, scientific evidence that you admit to knowing nothing about, and yet feel qualified to dismiss as irrelevant.
OK then,show the mounds of evidence that, for example, the brain is active during NDE episodes.

But this would require some mechanism for this self to convey that information to the brain for processing,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memories are not information. Information is what the physical world is. Nor do I understand why there needs to be a mechanism. Why do non-physical existents require a mechanism??
Your position postulates the existence of some external "self" that physically interacts with the brain. This means that there must be a mechanism by which this interaction occurs.
Prove it. Prove there must be a mechanism. Bare assertions do not impress me :roll:



Not only is there absolutely no evidence that such interactions exist, but there is no known mechanism by which they even could exist. You like to pretend that your claims a purely metaphysical, and thus not subject to scientific criticism, but the moment you declare that a physical interaction is taking place, you are in the domain of science, whether you like it or not.
You misconstrue what science deals with. It deals with the patterns of our sensory experiences. It does not deal with experiencers. It deals with the objective world. The world which can be described from the 3rd person perspective.

But I'm sick of explaining the same things again and again and again. You're a fucking arsehole who is quite clearly incapable of understanding anything.
The bottom line is that your notion of the brain acting as some sort of "filter" between the self and the body, simply is not consistent with our scientific understanding of what the brain actually does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you give some specific examples of scientific understanding which is at tension with transmission theory??

If you're unable to, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to conclude that you're talking out of your arse.
You have been repeatedly given such examples. Things like the fact that it is known that the brain stores memories by adjusting synaptic strengths.
You complete and totally unbelievable fuck for brains. How can something non-physical have a location?? Or if you say memories are physical what the fuck does it it mean to say that my memory of the taste of Pepsi is physical?? This memory which is physical, does it taste like Pepsi?? What does it look like precisely?? Arsehole.


Your entire view of what the brain does, flatly ignores an entire century of brain research. You don't have the slightest idea how the brain works, and yet feel yourself to be fully qualified to tell people that actually study the brain, what it can and can't do. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.
I'm simply stating that the brain cannot do the logically impossible. I have provided arguments countless times to this effect. I couldn't give a flying fuck what neuroscience have discovered, what they will discover. Consciousness just doesn't lie within the province of science. Get it through your mental retarded dumbfuck of a head of yours.

For the final time I provide my argument refuting materialism. This time read it and understand it.

Let me address the reason why I think materialism is unintelligible. What we need to do is take a look at materialism to see if it is internally consistent. Now the particular question I would like to address is why should we suppose that other peoples’ bodies are "inhabited" by conscious minds (or why phenomenal consciousness is associated with brains). Your argument no doubt will be that materialism stipulates this to be so; it is an axiomatic premise of materialism. But this makes your definition of materialism an arbitrary one. A metaphysic which glosses over awkward facts. Allow me to explain.

It seems to me that materialism should stipulate that the physical exhausts reality. That once we have completely described the Universe in physical terms then we have said all that can be said about the Universe or reality.

But what is the physical? It seems to me that it should be everything, that, at least in principle, can be observed by anyone with appropriate faculties and suitable instruments. In other words all that is objective exists, or to put it another way, all that is discernable from the third person perspective exists. This will also include things which can only be indirectly seen (although strictly speaking I reject the direct/indirect dichotomy). This then includes such entities as electrons, because although they can only be "indirectly" seen they nevertheless play fruitful roles in our theories describing the world ie we need to hypothesise electrons in order to explain certain aspects of reality.

Now there is something peculiar about conscious experience which marks it off from all other existents. It is simply this. It cannot be observed or detected by anyone with appropriate faculties and/or suitable instruments! Thus according to my prior definition of the physical it is not a physical existent. Thus I may have toothache to take an arbitrary example. But you cannot observe that toothache, all you can observe is the effects of the toothache, the grimace of pain for example. Conscious experiences in other words are irreducibly private.

Now you will no doubt say that by observing the grimace, or at least by observing the neurons fire, then you are observing the toothache since materialism holds that the toothache and its neural correlates are one and the same thing, or at least aspects of the same thing. But an objective examination of this toothache will necessarily leave out the subjective irreducibly sensation of pain. The actually sensation of pain does not figure into the physical facts about the pain according to our prior definition of the physical. Nor can we infer the sensation of pain since, unlike an electron, the (phenomenological) pain does not play a part in any description of our behaviour. The pain per se cannot play a part because pain per se is not part of the objective publically accessible realm. Only the neural correlates of the pain can play any fruitful role in our theories.

In short then either a materialist has to concede his metaphysic is internally inconsistent, or he must arbitrarily include phenomenological consciousness within his world picture. But if he opts for the latter then the whole prima facie plausibility of his world view crumbles away. No longer can he say that for something to exist it must be in principle be directly observable or play a fruitful role in some theory about the world, because this then necessarily precludes phenomenological consciousness. He
has to expand the notion of the physical to even include things that cannot be directly or even indirectly detected, even in principle!

This is what materialism entails and is just one of many reasons why we should reject this metaphysic.
Moreover, any such alleged "scientific evidence" must be flawed since people often have out of body experiences under anaesthesia.
Evidence please? Many people report having had such experiences, but there is no reliable evidence to indicate that they actually did. There is no evidence to indicate that their memories of those experiences were formed while their brains were inactive, and not either just before, or just after, as the scientific evidence strongly indicates.
What scientific evidence???. As I said, any such scientific evidence is likely to be wrong because there are countless examples of people on the threshold of death having visions. Sometimes the people at their bedside can see these visions too. This suggests that OBE's in NDEs and under anaesthesia take place at the actually time remembered. So what of your arsehole scientific evidence now?? Not that you've provided any scientific evidence :roll:

And you've got a nerve. You claim that the fact that you cannot recollect any memories while you were under anaesthesia vindicates that brain creates consciousness. And yet when I provide examples of peoples memories you say they must be false memories! :shock: If anything the evidence suggests that you might well have had experiences, but simply forgot.
User avatar
MRC_Hans
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by MRC_Hans »

Interesting Ian wrote:
MRC_Hans wrote:Not that I really, really want to get into a "discussion" with II, but:
Utterly impossible. It is vacuous to state that something non-physical can be stored anywhere. It is not possible that there could be any such scientific evidence. There never could be any evidence in principle.
Why do you say this? Information is non-physical, and that is what we store all the time. Even your computer is full of it.

Hans
Information is non-physical huh?? Glad to hear you reject materialism.
Oh? Materialism claims information is physical? Interesting. 2+2=4 is physical? Mmm, them materialists must be strange people.

Hans
[i]Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe...[/i]
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Stimpson J. Cat wrote:Ian,



Here's a novel idea. Why don't you fuck off? You are the one constantly whining about how stupid and dishonest skeptics are. And this is a skeptics forum (one which you declared you were not going to participate in, I might add). So why don't you just piss off? Why do you insist on inflicting your idiotic beliefs and obnoxious rants on us? Why do you even come here in the first place? Is it just because you enjoy annoying people you don't like?

Get a life, Ian. Or at the very least, get a hobby that does not involve irritating the Hell out of other people.


Dr. Stupid
I come on these boards in the despairing hope that people will not be as colossally stupid as yourself. 2 years later I agree that I'm wasting my time. You and almost everyone on here is hopelessly "brainwashed" by the modern western zeitgeist.

Stimp, you're a complete dumbfuck who is truly incapable of understanding the most simple of things.

PS Actually, come to think of it, I came on the jref board because I found it perplexing that Skeptics believed what they did. The evidence against their position is absolutely overwhelming, so how could they justify their stance? That was my main motivation.

Well, I've got my answer now. They can't justify their stance. My opinion of human rationality and intellect has plummeted since coming into contact with you people.

Still, psychologically it's fascinating that people can simply believe things without any reason or justification whatsoever, and clamp their hands over their ears and shout and scream when you point out their errors.

Fascinating.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

MRC_Hans wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
MRC_Hans wrote:Not that I really, really want to get into a "discussion" with II, but:
Utterly impossible. It is vacuous to state that something non-physical can be stored anywhere. It is not possible that there could be any such scientific evidence. There never could be any evidence in principle.
Why do you say this? Information is non-physical, and that is what we store all the time. Even your computer is full of it.

Hans
Information is non-physical huh?? Glad to hear you reject materialism.
Oh? Materialism claims information is physical? Interesting. 2+2=4 is physical? Mmm, them materialists must be strange people.

Hans
That's not information.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Ian wrote:Prove it. Prove there must be a mechanism [for the self to interact with the brain]. Bare assertions do not impress me.
Can you explain, even vaguely, how the interaction occurs without some kind of process? I don't understand how something occurs without a means for it to occur.

~~ Paul
Darat
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:00 pm

Post by Darat »

Interesting Ian wrote:
...snip...

Still, psychologically it's fascinating that people can simply believe things without any reason or justification whatsoever, and clamp their hands over their ears and shout and scream when you point out their errors.

Fascinating.
Let me quote you some words I found from a poster on a forum similar to this talking about how they "knew" something was true:
"I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death. I'm also pretty convinced that reincarnation occurs. Yeah. Seems like I'm different from everyone else. Other believers always seem to claim they started to believe due to something or other. Not me. I've always known :)
As you say, psychologically it's fascinating that people can simply believe things without any reason or justification whatsoever, and clamp their hands over their ears and shout and scream when you point out their errors.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Ian wrote:This then includes such entities as electrons, because although they can only be "indirectly" seen they nevertheless play fruitful roles in our theories describing the world ie we need to hypothesise electrons in order to explain certain aspects of reality.

Now there is something peculiar about conscious experience which marks it off from all other existents. It is simply this. It cannot be observed or detected by anyone with appropriate faculties and/or suitable instruments!
You have chosen conscious experience as a special case because it is an experience you have. Why don't you choose the experience of being an electron as a special case, also? How do you know that there is not something it is like to be an electron?

Let's presume there is, since we don't know one way or the other. Still, the electron plays a fruitful role in our theories. So, too, does conscious experience.

I do not understand why you distinguish between conscious experience and electrons.

~~ Paul
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wrote:
Ian wrote:Prove it. Prove there must be a mechanism [for the self to interact with the brain]. Bare assertions do not impress me.
Can you explain, even vaguely, how the interaction occurs without some kind of process? I don't understand how something occurs without a means for it to occur.

~~ Paul
By intent.
User avatar
Andonyx
Posts: 660
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:47 pm

Post by Andonyx »

As an update, although this is a little more hard science than philosophy...

There's an article on new states of quantum entanglement. The article deals with the potential for quantum computing, but mentions the ability to cause particles to instantly change to the opposite of the SAME state as another entangled particle from a distance.

http://cfmx.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/10

I wonder if this is counter evidence to the theory Tez discussed?

In quantum teleportation, the sender, normally called Alice, instantaneously transfers information about the quantum state of a particle to a receiver called Bob. The uncertainty principle means that Alice cannot know the exact state of her particle. However, another feature of quantum mechanics called "entanglement" means that she can teleport the state to Bob.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Ian wrote:By intent.
Intention is a mechanism. How does it work?

~~ Paul
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wrote:
Ian wrote:By intent.
Intention is a mechanism. How does it work?

~~ Paul
No it isn't, it's teleological.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

All righty then, here is the definition of teleological:

exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature

and, just for good measure, teleology:

1 a : the study of evidences of design in nature b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
2 : the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
3 : the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena

So attributing a design or purpose to intention doesn't seem to get you out of the requirement to explain how it works. Or, if it does, then it should get just about everyone else out of any requirement for explanation, too.

~~ Paul
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

3rd person observation of 1st person experience is becoming technically possible, Ian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/471786.stm

[Edited to add: How the devil does one make proper links on this board?]
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

DanishDynamite wrote:3rd person observation of 1st person experience is becoming technically possible, Ian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/471786.stm

[Edited to add: How the devil does one make proper links on this board?]
I was just going to say your link doesn't work, and do you mean the cat has a tiny camcorder glued to the top of his/her head! :P

Not much different though ;)