![]() |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
Quote:
The point of my argument was that our atoms and structure are changing all the time, but that perspective that I called observer still carries on with the changes. This is a fact, because of the definition of observer and what we feel all the time. Then, I used the physical argument to create conflicts, and it did. It's very easy for you to say that there is a continuous swap that doesn't change the observer, and then say that the same observer will only come back with the same atoms and structure, and THEN say that you didn't necessarily believe in what you said. Seriously, it almost feels like cheating to me. But that's not a problem, now. So, you're now saying that, if I bring the same brain, it will not necessarily bring the same perspective? That's your position, now? Quote:
Quote:
If this is not true (which doesn't really affect my argument), then what is the perspective? We bring the same structure with the same atoms but the same person doesn't come back? Everything with regards to matter was brought back exactly the way it was. If the observer doesn't come back, then how can it possibly be material? Quote:
Read that last paragraph again. The POINT of the argument is that it feels absurd, is that it can't be imagined if you put yourself in the place of the two observers in question. And don't say that it isn't important, because it is. You can't see observers. You can't just say things about observers without imagining how it feels, and that's what you always do. That's why you never see any problem. You must always imagine how it feels to be the observer in question. What do you choose, on that one? "Suddenly" or "Gradually"? |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
mhs:
No, I said it is likely that the same functions generate the same perspective. I'm not "changing my answer." I just said that it's a concept we "don't know for sure" because we've never experienced such a thing, but the answer can be likely postulated from the physical approach. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
|
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
So, your position now is "I don't know for sure". Fine, then.
But what do you say about "If this is not true (which doesn't really affect my argument), then what is the perspective? We bring the same structure with the same atoms but the same person doesn't come back? Everything with regards to matter was brought back exactly the way it was. If the observer doesn't come back, then how can it possibly be material?" |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
What the heck? No dude, you're misinterpreting what I meant by that.
For precisely the reason that the perspective is derived from material do I say the perspective is active as long as the functions are. I'm just saying that we don't know this empirically because it hasn't been done (bringing a body back from nonfunctional death). |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Stop putting everyone who believes in God in the same cathegory, this is just too forced. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
Since you said we can't be sure, I just considered the other possibility and asked a question about it. Didn't you say "we can't be sure"? And even if we did bring a body back from death, we wouldn't be able to tell, empirically, if the same perspective came back. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Let me make a point that may clear it up.
We, as humans in this reality, go through two types of experiences. Nonexistence (prebirth and postdeath), and existence (life). Life is a condition in which our mental faculties are active. We don't ever "experience" what it is like changing our brain into something else because it hasn't been done. But what it WOULD feel like is precisely what is being described: You're changing one perspective into another. You are technically "ending" one perspective and changing it to a "new one." In this case "death" is not the only thing that could mark the "end" of a "perspective." An example that may make it "easier" to understand: Let us assume there is a soul and let's assume some form of reincarnation. It would be like if you had a past life. You used to have a separate continuous experience. You used to have a different set of memories, skills, tendencies, opinions, thought processes, feelings, emotions, etc -- but you obviously know nothing of it in any way. You've just "hopped" from one "body of existence" to another. Your past perspective has ended and your new one has begun. If we are to assume no soul, and if we could somehow change one brain into another, we would basically be feeling a change from one perspective to the next such that what we "feel" is the result of whatever state the brain is in mid-change. Again, since we're merely changing the entire structure, that structure is still intact. It's still an active body and mind -- you're just changing the hardware configuration drastically. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
In this case, it's a matter of definition. The perspective I was talking about was the observer. If there is reincarnation, the observer is still the same. It's just the place where sensations occur, independent from thoughts.
We know this exists. It doesn't need to be immaterial or material, but it is certainly real. The problem is that Izzy, you and Mollocephalus can't discuss this simple concept because you all think I'm inventing something magical, when I'm not. And the only way to discuss the nature of the observer is placing yourself in the other observer, because that's all the observer is: first person perspective. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
1. Of course our status as an observer is real. We aren't disagreeing on this and nobody else would either.
2. This is the problem, though. The mere fact that you're placing your observer in the position of another observer grinds against what IS an observer, hence why we're running in circles. It's akin to the logic of trying to "make sense of" what "nothing" "feels like." We can't feel nothing, so the question is already loaded if anyone is trying to "imagine what it would be like." Much like the logic of trying to place one observer into another in some way -- it's already a loaded concept that destroys the initial definition and state of existence to begin with. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
I am curious what your take is on my split brain example I posted earlier.
We have people on this planet who have had half their brains removed who still maintain their perspective, conscious mind, and sentience. Of course, they lose the functions inherent in the half of the brain they've lost, but they're still normal, happy human beings. This is true for people who use only their left OR right halves, so clearly both halves of the brain are capable of maintaining our continuous perspective as an observer. I think we can also agree that our bodies are merely physical vessels that our mind operates. Given this, let us say there are two bodies that are brainless. I come into a lab, and have my brain split in two. Each half is placed in one of the bodies. So when all's said and done, we have two live bodies, each with half a brain -- each person having been derived from an initially shared experience. What would your soul argument have to say about this? |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
I understand this. However, the things you affirmed about a perspective, on the other post, cannot be affirmed so easily about an observer.
Even though we can't imagine inexistence, there are other things we can try to imagine. In that other situation, even though we don't know exactly how it feels for both observers, we can try to imagine what would feel if we were one of them. There's absolutely nothing else we can do about this if we don't try to imagine. Saying "one perspective is being changed into another" makes no sense if we are talking about observers. An observer is a fixed first person perspective, it doesn't "change", regardless of thoughts. And, still on that situation, if we assume that the dead observer will come back, then it will be like this: the dead observer will just suddenly teleport to somewhere in the future, and the other observer will feel a continuous experience, even though they have the same thoughts. Forget about the "thoughts" and think about the observers only. The problem is that one is nonexistent while the other is feeling things. Well, you know the rest. This is so tiring. I still see a problem, and you still think it's obvious. I always see a problem. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
1. There are materialists who say that the "center" of the mind, the observer, is somewhere on the left half, but I don't remember where. 2. The fact that both are alive doesn't mean that both have observers. Your original observer is probably on one of them, while the other one is a "zombie" (like a robot, a being that reacts normally to the environment but doesn't "feel" anything). 3. If the soul argument is correct, I guess it's entirely possible that the other half without the original observer gained a new soul, somehow. Or it can still be a zombie. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Yes, you can "try to imagine," but the problem is that you can't, much like how you can't really "imagine" nonexistence.
Saying "one perspective is being changed into another" makes perfect sense regarding observers because the observer is a function of the mind. Therefore when you change the mind, you're changing the observer's composition. I don't know what you're talking about with the "dead person coming back" example. Do you have any response to the split brain scenario? |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
If you think that imagination can never be conclusive, there's nothing we can say about it, at all. I say we can try to imagine it, it's not the same as trying to imagine nonexistence. And even when we try to imagine nonexistence, there can be conclusions. There's still that question: "how can a space be created"? |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
To say that someone is a "zombie that reacts without feeling" is just empirically wrong, because such people in real life act like any other normal human being and still feel emotion/process thoughts and ideas/make decisions/etc just like any other human. They just lack specific functionalities and possess impairments depending on which side is gone. 3. Gain a new soul? Are souls infinite in number? What determines which half the soul goes to? How does a "soulless mind" acquire a soul? As you can see, this entire notion is just one massive "what if/maybe." The physical argument here would say that the experience becomes split. Whoever wakes up with the left brain is the left-brained perspective because he is the one with the left brain and likewise for the right. To each, BOTH feel as if they continued their experience from the same originator. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
It's like if I ask what you "feel" as you fall asleep. There's no clear "shutoff to sleep" point we really recognize in realtime. We "drift" into it, and yet it's a concept we may have trouble making sense of even though it does happen. What about dreamless nights? They sure feel quite quick even if we wake up and find we've been asleep for 18 hours. How do we imagine the "absurdity" of this? We can knock out portions of the brain temporarily and redefine an experience for someone. Like Reach said too, people who are paranoid schizophrenics actually hear things because of issues with the Broca region. Time and time again we can show how our status as an observer is entirely dependent on the presence of various functions in the brain at work. The answer to your question is just as simple. When we experience nothing, we experience nothing. If you're morphing a brain to resemble another entirely, the status as an observer changes with the brain. Whether or not we can imagine it is irrelevant. Can you "imagine" what you're experiencing in a coma? I've actually spoken to coma patients before and have experienced a similar "condition" under anesthesia for surgery -- you go to sleep one moment, and the next you're awake with no sense of how much time passed. What were you experiencing that entire time you were asleep? You can try to "imagine" it, but whether you can or not is not relevant. |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
If you say for sure that the observer is a function of the brain, then the question is already answered, and it's pointless to ask my opinion. Quote:
I don't want to go back to this part of the discussion, but, as far as I can see, there's no proof that zombies don't exist. It's another "maybe". But, again, if you can't take maybes, why do you ask my opinion? My opinion is that we can't say for sure, so I just consider the possibility of zombies. And I mentioned the opinion of other materialists, as well. The right half can be perfectly a zombie, according to them (MATERIALISTS). Quote:
I sincerely don't know why you asked me that question if you want me to answer exactly what you believe. Quote:
|
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
Quote:
I'm sorry, but my mind needs to imagine things. The observer is the kind if thing that can only be treated with imagination. I sincerely don't think it's irrelevant. That's the whole point of thought experiments. If you always base your answers entirely on the theory, you will never allow any space for questioning. You will never try to think "outside" your belief system. You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system itself. "Nothing feels like nothing" and "the perspective is becoming the other" are absolutely void answers. That question is more complex than that. It's not just about not being able to imagine. "Feeling absurd" is not irrelevant, at all. And you still didn't answer the question "how can a space be created?" |
Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
We're both making assumptions here, but the difference is that my explanation has a lot of evidence to back up the claims, whereas your soul argument has zero evidence whatsoever and is *purely* speculative.
The zombie argument makes no sense because you're saying "They react to stimulus just the same as anyone else, and can process thought, but how do we know anyone's actually in there?" The fact that they can do these things IS PROOF OF their status as a sentient observer. How can you say someone "is not really there" if they are capable of conscious internal thoughts, processing of external stimulus, etc? Those functions are what compose us in the first place! I am honestly getting really pissed off right now. I've said this time and time again -- if you're going to try to see this from a physical argument, you need to take it from the physical argument. You keep trying to overlay this "separate entity of observation" to everything and that is precisely why you're not understanding the arguments I am presenting to you. The only way someone would be a "zombie" is if they had no sort of internal consciousness, but rather a series of functions that purely reacted to the environment's stimuli. Much like, DUN DUN DUN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly But if someone has the ability to react to physical stimulus and still possesses consciousness and active thought processing, then they are sentient observers with a perspective! Left-brained: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/st...1951748&page=1 Right-brained: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12...ain/index.html Explain to me, then, how these people might be "zombies" if they are fully functional, responsive human beings only limited by the nonexistence of highly developed functions in the missing halves? Re: the soul questions, I am asking those things to illustrate a point: It's all a bunch of guesswork when it comes to souls. There's no evidence to support any of it and is entirely unknown. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution