Print

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

[Neruz]

Well it depends if your soul is what defines your personnality. Perhaps it's something that is necessary for thinking, but the body is necessary as well.

In which case we end up with the copy thing again; if the physical body is in any way relevant to the consciousness, then what ends up in 'heaven' is a copy of you, not you.

Going back to God, if you start thinking that the universe, in which space and time exist, is not infinite, then perhaps there is something behind the boudary. It's quite hard to imagine something without space or time.

It's quite hard to imagine 1000 blades of grass.

[Ampersand]

I've been dead for billions upon billions of years, and I have not suffered the slightest inconvenience for it.

[Vester]

This thread is getting very Vonnegut.

I'm just going to sit back and watch the exchange of ideas, because Kurt Vonnegut is excellent.

[Neruz]

Vester is lurking!

!vote Vester

[dragnar]

This theory has actually been postulated in a slightly different form already. The logic behind it goes like this:
1. assume that it is possible to simulate a universe using resources available in the universe.
2. These simulated universes could then simulate universes.
3. With an infinite chain of simulated universes, the chances of us being the one and only original is infinitely unlikely.

[Neruz]

This theory has actually been postulated in a slightly different form already. The logic behind it goes like this:
1. assume that it is possible to simulate a universe using resources available in the universe.
2. These simulated universes could then simulate universes.
3. With an infinite chain of simulated universes, the chances of us being the one and only original is infinitely unlikely.

Correct, furthermore due to the nature of chance, the chance of us being in a deviant universe is infinitely unlikely; the most likely scenario is that we would be one of an infinitely long chain of normalised universes, thus altering the copy would in fact alter our universe, as the same action would be repeated in the universe simulating our universe. It's a short sci-fi story in fact.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the current discussion however.

[Firnagzen]

The ovbious question is of course "If the 'soul' (as good a term as any) is seperate from the mind, why does damaging the mind impair cognitive processes?"

Sorry Neruz, I'm on your side, but this is just too easy pickings: Perhaps the brain is an interface between  your body and the soul, so damaging it impairs cognitive processes.

Really? I would have thought it would merely damage the transmission of the information, rather than the processes themselves. The fact that it is possible to damage and destroy emotions, and that emotions can be enhanced, altered, created or suppressed with various chemicals and drugs (many of which the body uses all on it's little lonesome) suggests that the brain must be more than merely an interface.

For example: When i am drunk, i start thinking that bad ideas are really good ideas (amongst other things), if my brain were merely an interface for my real consciousness, that was seperate from my brain, why would putting alcohol in my blood impair my thinking? I can understand it imparing my senses, but my actual thoughts?

*shrug* The brain is a forward processor/buffer/display system, then. I can put a bullet through my computer monitor and it might still display stuff. Just rather wonky. (For example, in the case of a plasma screen, and if the bullet somehow only penetrated the plasma sheathe thingy. Forgot it's name.)

Anyway. General opinion: Does it really matter? I mean, can we really prove it either way? I doubt so.

[Neruz]

The ovbious question is of course "If the 'soul' (as good a term as any) is seperate from the mind, why does damaging the mind impair cognitive processes?"

Sorry Neruz, I'm on your side, but this is just too easy pickings: Perhaps the brain is an interface between  your body and the soul, so damaging it impairs cognitive processes.

Really? I would have thought it would merely damage the transmission of the information, rather than the processes themselves. The fact that it is possible to damage and destroy emotions, and that emotions can be enhanced, altered, created or suppressed with various chemicals and drugs (many of which the body uses all on it's little lonesome) suggests that the brain must be more than merely an interface.

For example: When i am drunk, i start thinking that bad ideas are really good ideas (amongst other things), if my brain were merely an interface for my real consciousness, that was seperate from my brain, why would putting alcohol in my blood impair my thinking? I can understand it imparing my senses, but my actual thoughts?

*shrug* The brain is a forward processor/buffer/display system, then. I can put a bullet through my computer monitor and it might still display stuff. Just rather wonky. (For example, in the case of a plasma screen, and if the bullet somehow only penetrated the plasma sheathe thingy. Forgot it's name.)

Anyway. General opinion: Does it really matter? I mean, can we really prove it either way? I doubt so.

However, the computer itself remains unharmed, if i tell the computer to calculate 2 + 2, and then damage the monitor, it might not display 4, but it will have worked out 4.

Under the influence of alcohol, it is entirely possible that i will not work out 4, i will work out fish.



Additionally of course; if i give the computer a new monitor, it'll be just fine. Even if i give it a different monitor.

This would not be the case if i gave myself a new brain; different neurones and different connections.

[bjlong]

Part 1:

The idea of souls needing a brain to interface is a fairly solid one, if you assume that the soul doesn't change energies, but observes quantum events... ok, that tack should be dropped immediately.

Let's imagine two "people." The first one has a soul which contains his creative consciousness, which must have a specialized set of neurons for each process the soul wishes to use. For moral dilemmas, the soul uses the brain to resolve the issues. The second one has everything locked inside his brain.

If the brain is damaged, what would both act like? Would there be an observable difference?

I argue no. The first and the second one would both have their mental processes disrupted, the first for lack of an interface, and the second for lack of the action generating neurons.

You might argue the soul should send some kind of signals like "This is a broken brain! I want to do different things!" Well, quite a lot of mentally ill/damaged people express that sentiment. You might also note personality changes from railroad spikes etc., but the brain is so damaged by that, is it any wonder that the soul cannot function with the brain?

As for what winds up in heaven, I'd argue that the soul above could be like a fingerprint of you. Then your soul can be put into a tabula rasa sort of body, and viola. There you are.

Another way to think of the soul is a man behind a huge wall of switches. He runs around and switches them on and off, and another man on the opposite side of the wall interprets various things from the switches. If some switches are broken, then the communication that was encapsulated by the switches is lost.

Anyway, I tend to think that there is a soul, since it's hard to explain where creative geniuses come from otherwise.

Part 2:

Simulations must be simplified models of the original to fit inside our universe. The reason is simple: The smallest possible configuration of completely simulating a blade of grass is to go outside and pick a blade of grass.

[Neruz]

There would be no observable difference from an outside observer; the man himself however, would see a difference. In the first case, he would have an ability that he would be merely unable to use, in the second case, he no longer possesses that ability; it is gone.

Additionally; this reiterates my point. The entity known as 'you' in this case would be a composite of the soul and the body, if you swap the soul to another, potentially identical body, it's not you any more. It's a copy of you.

Anyway, I tend to think that there is a soul, since it's hard to explain where creative geniuses come from otherwise.

Same place everything else comes from; the nervous system. We're not entirely sure how yet of course.

But saying that it all comes from a soul doesn't actually answer the question; because you still don't know how.

[Naero]

The topic creator's argument held water with me until it hit point 5. 'World hierarchy' is an abstract human concept that doesn't really mean anything.

Humans are made of atoms, which are organised into molecules, which are organised into cells, which are organised into humans. In your example of a simulated computer world, that simulated human would be made of atoms, which would be organised into molucules, which would be organised into transistors, which would be organised into cells, which would be organised into humans. At the end of the day, we're both just patterns made out of atoms. There is no different 'hierarchy'.

If our simulated human looked down far enough, he'd still find that he was made out of atoms, the same as us. He would also theoretically be capable of creating devices that could allow him to see beyond the contraints of his computer at the 'real' world (a webcam springs to mind...). He exists just as fully in the 'real' world as we do, not on another plane of reality.

There also appears to be the assumption that if we are in a virtual reality that god created, and we are a pattern that could theoretically be copied to a 'higher hierarchy' of existance, that this god would do so.

Our virtual man is a pattern. This pattern could be copied to our 'real' world upon death, theoretically. That doesn't mean we have to do so, or would! When he dies the memory allocated to him might just be wiped, and his pattern is lost.

The idea of reality being a big game of dwarf fortress isn't exactly comforting to me. For a start, I know when my dwarves die they aren't resurrected in this world. There's no afterlife for those virtual men (...dwarves), even if it is theoretically possible (we COULD build robots that contain our dwarve's personalities when they die ingame... but we don't).

Also, I just watched my dwarves burn in magma because I was bored and thought it'd be funny. I imagine most of us do that from time to time. If there's a god, so does he apparently.

[Neruz]

All of which still fails to address the point that a copy of you is not you.

Seriously, why do people have so much trouble with this concept?

[Naero]

Sorry! That wasn't in response to you, just the original post. Apologies if I just disturbed another conversation!

Mmm, copies though... yeah, it's a good point. Personally, life to me is a just a self-replicating pattern. A pattern which creates patterns that create patterns. Life is just the name we give to individual patterns. When that pattern stops working, we say that life has ended.

The pattern is important, not the individual components that make up that pattern. If you recreate the pattern exactly, but use different components, well... this is just going to be an argument on semantics, and what defines an individual life. And an agreement on whether souls exist or not would be necessary.

[bjlong]

The copy question you bring up is the same as the paradox of the Ship of Theseus, which is a paradox I find utterly silly and arbitrary. For a take on why, look under "other examples" and get the human body example. If you agree that you're in the same body from one instant to the next, for all intents and purposes, then I think the paradox should not make sense to you, either.

Yes, my view of the soul does require a body--I'm old fashioned like that.

While I'd love to suggest possible "soul mechanics" versus neurology, I doubt I'll ever be able to make such a claim. My skepticism towards neurology being the only answer stems from the idea that we are able to create art that resonates with many people, that means something. If it's just neurons firing, I find that a difficult position to justify.

[Starver]

And its true, the mere fact that our universe can be perfectly simulated on a computer, with phisics, beings that make decisions for themselves, atoms, etc, opens up the possibility in which our world may be just a very complex program running on a very powerful computer.

Or a (relatively) simple one running on a computer in a far more complex universe.

(c.f. Conway's Game Of Life Universe running on computers in our non-gridded*, non-'ticking'*, non-Euclidean*, non-binary* universe.)

((* - As Far As We Know...  Would could easily be in a gridded, ticking, Euclidean and binary universe at source, but for various reasons (up to and including deliberate emulation of a more complex domain) it looks like it isn't to the 'us' that we are. )


[Haven't read the rest of the thread yet.  Probably repeating someone else's comments.]