Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:

bahman wrote:

attofishpi wrote: You have already been shown two ways we can and do create 'something which has mind.

I don't recall that. Could you please direct me to the thread that I made such a claim?

What claim? Please re-read.

I see. In which thread I have been shown that there two ways to create something which has mind?

bahman wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

bahman wrote:
I don't recall that. Could you please direct me to the thread that I made such a claim?

What claim? Please re-read.

I see. In which thread I have been shown that there two ways to create something which has mind?

This one bro - IVF and SEX.

attofishpi wrote:

bahman wrote:

attofishpi wrote: What claim? Please re-read.

I see. In which thread I have been shown that there two ways to create something which has mind?

This one bro - IVF and SEX.

Yes, that I got but that is sort of cheating. The idea that I am trying to persuade is that whether we can possibly understand what mind is. I am simply arguing that we cannot understand what mind is using our intellects since intellect is faculty of mind. I even have doubt that we can ever understand what intellect is. It is sort of ironic: Intellect allows knowing intellect.

bahman wrote:The problem is that you need to find an error in my reasoning

Okay, to start, you say, "Mind is essence . . . "

There are no real essences. "Essences" are simply the necessary properties of an individual's conception of something.

For example, A necessary property in Joe's concept of "dog" is that dogs have three legs (which I know is unusual--the point of that is to stress that concepts are individual/subjective things). So to Joe, part of the essence of a dog is that it has three legs. Something that doesn't have three legs Joe won't consider a dog. That's all that essences are.

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: The problem is that you need to find an error in my reasoning

Okay, to start, you say, "Mind is essence . . . "

There are no real essences. "Essences" are simply the necessary properties of an individual's conception of something.

For example, A necessary property in Joe's concept of "dog" is that dogs have three legs (which I know is unusual--the point of that is to stress that concepts are individual/subjective things). So to Joe, part of the essence of a dog is that it has three legs. Something that doesn't have three legs Joe won't consider a dog. That's all that essences are.

By essence I meant: the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something.

attofishpi wrote:Do you believe if we had a machine that could arrange the molecules required to replicate a human to the atomic level, we would in fact have a human - sensing, breathing and eventually farting?

Do I think we're in an Ancestor Sim? Depends where you stand with Bostrom's argument so maybe but if we are not but are running on some other Planck bit 3D cellular automata I still don't think it thinks, I think it'd be more like Conway's Game of Life and more than likely not even running for our purpose. So no, not 'God' and I still think your 'God' and 'Sage' just an instantiated subconscious.

bahman wrote:By essence I meant: the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something.

Right, and I mean that there are no such things (unless you simply consider every single property anything has at any given time part of its essence).

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Do you believe if we had a machine that could arrange the molecules required to replicate a human to the atomic level, we would in fact have a human - sensing, breathing and eventually farting?

Do I think we're in an Ancestor Sim? Depends where you stand with Bostrom's argument..

You may need to re-read. I am not talking about a simulation, rather some advanced 3D 'printer' that could build a human - lets say replicating yourself atom by atom...all the molecules are rebuilt precisely as the original you. Do you believe this 'human' would be conscious, would we have a working mind?

Arising_uk wrote: so maybe but if we are not but are running on some other Planck bit 3D cellular automata I still don't think it thinks, I think it'd be more like Conway's Game of Life and more than likely not even running for our purpose. So no, not 'God'

What brought God into this!

Arising_uk wrote:...and I still think your 'God' and 'Sage' just an instantiated subconscious.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. Its was just indicated to me that you have more doubt in your atheism since our years of correspondence, keep up the quest_ioning, I hope you find the truth.

.................................too much cozy chat!!

attofishpi wrote:You may need to re-read. I am not talking about a simulation, rather some advanced 3D 'printer' that could build a human - lets say replicating yourself atom by atom...all the molecules are rebuilt precisely as the original you. Do you believe this 'human' would be conscious, would we have a working mind?

Well regardless of the technology would you say that this is what's done through reproduction? If so then yes it would be human and would be conscious.

What brought God into this!

My apologies, I thought this machine you were postulating was the 'God' machine of some transhumanists and the one that you posit will come into existence in some future.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. ...

Well I won't keep telling myself that, just when I'm chatting to you about your 'sage' and 'god'.

Its was just indicated to me that you have more doubt in your atheism since our years of correspondence, ...

Was it? How did you get that from a knee-tap? That is, what question did you ask first?

keep up the quest_ioning, I hope you find the truth.

You make a mistake about my atheism, there is nothing to doubt as it is doubt but this does not mean I'm not open to some 'God' making an appearance just that the 'God' or 'God's' I've heard about so far appear unconvincing and offer no extra explanation of things to me that don;t also come with even more complications.

Bahman, who believes in God, creates a thread to help bolster his faith with what he hopes is logic. IMO that's a mistake. Faith does not need justification, which seems to be the point. If you could justify faith, then it wouldn't be faith. I won't directly address your syllogism because I do not consider them helpful.

The overall premise doesn't acknowledge the well-established idea of emergence. Dawkins noted that the changes in biology over millions of years seem counter-intuitive to us; all we ever observe in our lives are the kinds of changes that occur over decades, not over eons. Over millions of years the seemingly impossible can, and does, happen.

Also, human style consciousness is almost certainly not a destination but a byway towards something far more potent than our apelike minds can imagine. A billion years ago automatic reflexes were probably the highest form of "consciousness" in the Earth's biology. Now those reflexes work as "the bits of consciousness", small, modular yes/no units.

There will most likely come a time when each intelligent, conscious entity will form just one bit of immensely larger and more sophisticated "meta-minds". We don't have the words to describe dynamics that encompass our own consciousness so completely because we are "inside" and most of what's going on isn't available to us. Just as the most enlightened microbe can never achieve human-style consciousness, the most enlightened humans can never understand that which operates beyond their perceptual limitations.

Sounds like you're saying a 'God' is being created?

I think it dubious to think there is a 'path' or direction to evolution especially where consciousness is concerned. It could be just as likely that it'll vanish from existence.

Greta wrote:Also, human style consciousness is almost certainly not a destination but a byway towards something far more potent than our apelike minds can imagine. A billion years ago automatic reflexes were probably the highest form of "consciousness" in the Earth's biology. Now those reflexes work as "the bits of consciousness", small, modular yes/no units.

There will most likely come a time when each intelligent, conscious entity will form just one bit of immensely larger and more sophisticated "meta-minds". We don't have the words to describe dynamics that encompass our own consciousness so completely because we are "inside" and most of what's going on isn't available to us. Just as the most enlightened microbe can never achieve human-style consciousness, the most enlightened humans can never understand that which operates beyond their perceptual limitations.

You describe this so well, Greta. I really love the way you help give me a sensible visual for that which feels true to me. I tend to think of vast and infinite potential in terms of "unseen" energy and vibrations and frequencies... which doesn't really have a whole lot of visuals to get excited about! Then you come along and describe a potential organic process of evolution that truly continually builds and expands on "itself", on a somewhat unfathomable scale (well beyond the human being), and in a way that most people don't talk about or consider, and it actually makes me feel ecstatic! It's just so freakin' beautiful and natural and sensible!

Arising_uk to Greta? wrote:Sounds like you're saying a 'God' is being created?

I don't think there can be a god without there being "others". Yes?

Arising_uk wrote:I think it dubious to think there is a 'path' or direction to evolution especially where consciousness is concerned. It could be just as likely that it'll vanish from existence.

That's probably true... anything could possibly get "shorted out" and blow itself up. And then the process might start over again... with a new set of "paths".

Lacewing wrote:I don't think there can be a god without there being "others". Yes?

With others I think there no need for a 'God'. No?

That's probably true... anything could possibly get "shorted out" and blow itself up. And then the process might start over again... with a new set of "paths".

One that could involve no consciousnesses at all.