Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrWiggles]

Re: souls. This is what trips me up most of all. What is consciousness? Why do I "see" and "feel"? Is it a soul, or does everything of sufficient sophistication "see" and "feel"? If the latter, what's the turning point? Could a computer? Could a complex system like an ecosystem or economy?

Does it matter? There no separation between the physical brain and the conscience. There are direct correction between brain activity and our conscience. So even if their is a soul, its not a separate entity of us, but probably a descriptor of the process of a conscience.

And if it a purely physical, then other physical objects could have them as well.

The physical brain is the physical manifestation of our thoughts and "soul". The analogy that the mind is to the brain as the software is to the hardware is quite apt.

Without the hardware, the software cannot exist. The hardware can exist without the software but not do much. Together they make a whole.

The software hardware analogy is quite poor. Software works indifferent to the hardware used. If I install it on plethora of not identical computers, the software will work the same.

However, changes to the brain affect our conscience. For this analogy. If I installed MS Office Suit on my computer, then changed the motherboard, MS Office Suit, wouldn't then be MS Office Suit, but say, Quiken.

Comma patience have woken up with entirely different personalities. Sexual preference, likes dislikes, affinity for skills, all change.

[kaijyuu]

You can can create an infinite number of scenarios, but that not exactly product. Empiricism does make some vast assumptions, but thats not a reason to simple disengage from it. Its productive and useful. Its assumption also seem to be holding true. There no reason to interject multitude of unlikely explanation when you derive to an explanation thats conforms to a useful model.

No reason except idle curiosity and desire to ask questions. That's good enough for most things, no?

I know what you're arguing. When a question's answer doesn't result in any change, there's no real point in asking it. "May as well not be true" is functionally the same as "is not true" (and vice versa). But they're still not equivalent. And anyway, it's good mental exercise.


And who knows? If the universe is a simulation, maybe we'll find the debug menu. Then this philosophizing about the unknowable won't be so "pointless."

Software works indifferent to the hardware used.

Incorrect. It only seems that way since we came up with a standardization. Software is represented in binary, and on the assembly level, different processors interpret that data in different ways. If you make a program for one processor it won't work on a different type.

If you throw a program assembled for processor A on processor B, it'll go wacky and crazy and probably not work at all. Brains are much more dynamic than that, but it's still very reasonable that they interpret data in different ways based on how they're assembled.

[Reudh]

Software cannot exist without a computer or other electronic device to run on or storage; therefore it is an apt statement.

[MaximumZero]

The real problem with the computer analogy is that the software and hardware of the human brain is the same thing. It's more like an embedded system than anything else.

[MrWiggles]

Software works indifferent to the hardware used.

Incorrect. It only seems that way since we came up with a standardization. Software is represented in binary, and on the assembly level, different processors interpret that data in different ways. If you make a program for one processor it won't work on a different type.

If you throw a program assembled for processor A on processor B, it'll go wacky and crazy and probably not work at all. Brains are much more dynamic than that, but it's still very reasonable that they interpret data in different ways based on how they're assembled.

You're muddying the analogy.

The software in this case is the soul and trying to show that it separate from the machine, but interconnected/intereliant. Going into further detail of computer programming or the history of programming isn't useful for this analogy.

If you're going to go that far into detail, then the analogy is wrong, as brains are biological and computers aren't.

[Reudh]

Oh, very well.

We use this one until a better analogy can be found, then how's that?

[Bauglir]

The real problem with the computer analogy is that the software and hardware of the human brain is the same thing. It's more like an embedded system than anything else.

Well, to be fair, the same applies to a computer. It's a bunch of transistors, and the program only exists insofar as the interactions between those bits carry on.

EDIT: I don't mean bit in the technical sense.

[MaximumZero]

The real problem with the computer analogy is that the software and hardware of the human brain is the same thing. It's more like an embedded system than anything else.

Well, to be fair, the same applies to a computer. It's a bunch of transistors, and the program only exists insofar as the interactions between those bits carry on.

EDIT: I don't mean bit in the technical sense.

Well, why not? Our brains run on electrical pulses...what if they speak something like binary?

[Reudh]

The real problem with the computer analogy is that the software and hardware of the human brain is the same thing. It's more like an embedded system than anything else.

Well, to be fair, the same applies to a computer. It's a bunch of transistors, and the program only exists insofar as the interactions between those bits carry on.

EDIT: I don't mean bit in the technical sense.

Well, why not? Our brains run on electrical pulses...what if they speak something like binary?

Makes sense. Our neurons fire by communicating an electrical signal; on or off; binary. But it's more complicated than that.

[kaijyuu]

Isn't the brain considered a computer by most biologists, anyway? It's just got billions of processors instead of our measly 2-16.

The point of contention is whether the brain is a "conduit" or self contained, and for that I'll pull the "it doesn't matter either way" card. Damage causing different behavior can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, all logically consistent with both theories.

Memory loss is probably the biggest point against it being a conduit. Why would your soul forget things? Though then again most theologies I know of promise perfect memory after death, so maybe it's stored in some extradimensional thingy.

[MaximumZero]

The real problem with the computer analogy is that the software and hardware of the human brain is the same thing. It's more like an embedded system than anything else.

Well, to be fair, the same applies to a computer. It's a bunch of transistors, and the program only exists insofar as the interactions between those bits carry on.

EDIT: I don't mean bit in the technical sense.

Well, why not? Our brains run on electrical pulses...what if they speak something like binary?

Makes sense. Our neurons fire by communicating an electrical signal; on or off; binary. But it's more complicated than that.

It's really not too much more complex than that, if what I've read (and understood) is correct. Really, the only addition you can make to that statement is that the chemistry in the part of the brain receiving a signal changes how that signal is perceived (which is why hallucinogens work.)

Isn't the brain considered a computer by most biologists, anyway? It's just got billions of processors instead of our measly 2-16.

Sort of but not really. Each part of our brain works as processor, HDD and RAM all at once.

[Hiiri]

I feel like you guys are taking this analogy way too far and will probably work against original intention (clarification).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz021e8UMZc

[MaximumZero]

Okay, so here's a different thought.

Does anyone look up at the night sky, realizing that each of those little specks of life is a place, probably thousands of places within that one little speck, and get emotional? I mean, really seeing the universe for as vast as it is, and realizing that you get to be part of that...does that resonate with all you guys as much as it does with me?

What if there are others out there, looking up at our little speck, and wondering if there's anyone out there, the same way we do?

[Reudh]

Me personally: I look up at the sky and try and comprehend the massive expanse that is the universe and then my brain hurts and I look away.

[MaximumZero]

That, at some level, makes me really sad. The universe is so beautiful...