Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[MrRubix]

I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

Again, I don't know a whole lot about it.

[Reach]

There have also been a few experiments done (I admit I know little about them) that have shown how various amino acids can form naturally (given the conditions of early Earth are replicated in terms of what interacts with the relevant chemicals) -- and all without the need of a creator.

All of them can form naturally. Many primitive structures like ribosomes can self-assemble as well (actually, this was proven quite recently).

This seems intuitively impossible to many people, but there are many good, easy to understand examples of self assembly due to very simple physics and chemistry in nature.

For example, lipid bi-layers, which make up cellular membranes, self assemble and can do so spontaneously. They do this because it is thermodynamically favorable to do so, i.e. it maximizes the entropy of the system. This is counterintuitive, because an assembled membrane would appear less chaotic than a disassembled one, but this is not so. Water molecules aggregate around individual lipid molecules to form a low entropy system. The mathematical solution, as it turns out, to minimize the number of aggregated water molecules is for the lipids to create a membrane with the hydrophobic ends on the inside.

Viola, the optimal solution in the construction of a membrane happens naturally and spontaneously.

The exact same thing happens with many of these amino acids and primitive structures. They are optimal physical solutions to thermodynamic problems that would have arose in the presence of more dynamic systems arising on earth (volcanic activity, lightning, asteroid impacts, radiation etc).

Now then, that doesn't necessarily imply the absence of a 'divine force', but it means it isn't necessary.

[MrRubix]

Great post, Reach -- good example.

Again, we don't say these structures happen as a result of chance. The laws of our universe and the properties of matter interact in such a way to result in equilibria/optimal solutions which eventually lead to more "complex" structures compared to a simpler "less functional" array of simplicity.

A very simple example may be a snowflake or crystal lattice. There are all sorts of interesting structures/mathematical properties we can derive, and yet we understand how these things form naturally. It just so happens that one such naturally-occurring item can be a structure that gives way to sentient life.

Again, echoing Reach's last sentence and reiterating a past point I made, I personally stick to Occam's Razor when it comes to explaining things. If there's no need for a creator, I won't assume there is one unless evidence shows otherwise. In absence of such evidence, any postulation to the unknown is merely a "maybe" and could be anything. We have a process for determining whether or not these "maybes" are true or not true, but some questions cannot be answered satisfactorily depending on their nature.

For instance, we can never properly test a hypothesis such as immortality or eternal aging -- because it cannot be demonstratively falsified (at what point do we claim someone is immortal if it's possible they could still die tomorrow?).

Likewise, we can never disprove a God because, to many, God tends to be defined as something outside of our realm of understanding. No matter what proof is amassed, "God" is always outside of it. Again, we can't disprove such a thing, so science is a bit helpless when it comes to "disproving" a God.

In the end, it comes down to what we personally wish to believe. I personally believe in what I can observe, test, and analyze evidence for. In the face of the unknown, all I can do is seek out answers -- but otherwise I have to simply say "I don't know yet, but I'd love to find out." Others are fine with assuming a "maybe" as true in absence of evidence -- as faith.

The main problem, in my eyes, is that all the arguments against creationism/God/etc tend to call for a fairly firm understanding of math, physics, biology, chemistry, physiology, and statistics/probability. It can get pretty complicated for many people to wrap their heads around, because the whole thing is a hugely loaded problem in terms of dissection. Whenever I try to debate this stuff with my mother, she refuses to listen because she doesn't want to hear about molecules and physics and statistics. It's "easier" to believe in a "soul" and that a "God" created everything. It seems only natural that when comparing an easy, unfalsifiable concept against a huge cluster**** of complex subjects, people will take the path of least resistance, especially when that path is also psychologically appealing. Fuse that into a social system where it's considered taboo to really even question religion, and you've got a firm stranglehold.

I've always found it truly amazing how things like Christianity/creationism/etc have been perpetuated for so long. Personally, I feel pretty isolated as an atheist. Most people I encounter are religious or believers in God for one reason or another -- I've rarely come across people in real life like Reach who shares many of the similar viewpoints that I do. But I do think that atheism will continue to grow as we learn more about our universe, since I suspect that it will evermore continue to show that God is not needed to explain anything.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

NTM, they do not need to coexist. Like Reach said, abiogenesis is just one of many theories. Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis -- it requires life.

Ah, I see. Abiogenesis must be more specific than I thought. I'd presume that it's also somewhat subjective, which is why I thought it was necessary. Whatever then. Lets not argue over semantics.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Anyways, ad hominem is when you try to discredit someone's argument with something logically disconnected from the topic. "Why should we believe his opinion -- he's a troll, so we shouldn't listen to what he says" would be one such approach because it doesn't directly refute the argument and instead provides some other explanation. In this case, I still refuted your points and just flamed you in the process -- this isn't an ad hominem attack. You are simply incorrect to begin with.

Nope. I'm well aware of what an ad hominem is. I was referring to the instances of gratuitous criticism involved while evaded questions. So it would, in those instances, be correct.

Not trying to reignite anything. Just clarifying.

Originally Posted by Reach

Assumptions:

1. Life is necessary for evolution to occur.
2. Abiogenesis is a theory of how life began.
3. Therefore...abiogenesis is necessary for evolution to occur.

Clearly 3 is a contradiction. LIFE is necessary for evolution to occur, but not abiogenesis given that is just a model of how life began.

Yes yes, I see. Like I was saying, abiogenesis is somewhat subjective as far as its definition. I've seen it defined numerous times as simply life arising from non-living matter. In that case any life following the big bang must constitute abiogenesis because its definition is so vague (but if that's not the case....).

Again, we're talking about semantics here. I see the logic.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

There have also been a few experiments done (I admit I know little about them) that have shown how various amino acids can form naturally (given the conditions of early Earth are replicated in terms of what interacts with the relevant chemicals) -- and all without the need of a creator.

Again you're comparing amino acids to a prokaryotic cell.

That's equivalent to comparing a toothpick to an airliner. Completely objectively you must at least realize that that's laughable.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

At any rate, we have a firm understanding of forces and interactions to the extent that it's foolish to say "it's so improbable for these types of structures to arise" -- an argument you posted earlier in this thread. It's akin to the fallacious "Tornado in a junkyard" argument -- it totally misses the point. We have forces that are VERY much deterministic. These forces, when present in a given environment containing materials and conditions NECESSARY FOR LIFE (imagine that?), can allow for self-replicating structures to occur. Slowly, these structures change and we eventually start to see the emergence of more complex forms, giving way to what we know as evolution. If you read that abiogenesis site Reach linked to, it gives a fairly good explanation for how all of this is possible.

I think it's odd how out of all I've read that the most compelling aspects were conveniently omitted.

Anyway, again, I'll read those links. Been busy lately. =/

Originally Posted by MrRubix

It can get pretty complicated for many people to wrap their heads around, because the whole thing is a hugely loaded problem in terms of dissection.

lol That post just screams conceit.

[MrRubix]

You are retarded.

[Reach]

How is he comparing amino acids to prokaryotic cells? I know I missed out on some of this discussion, but,

Amino acids would have necessarily been the first coherent structures to arise because they're the building blocks of life. From there prokaryotic cells could have formed in numerous ways and I already detailed one aspect of that development, e.g. the cell wall. Ribosomes and basic functional organelles can also form spontaneously once you have amino acids. Everything else builds itself from amino acids.

Also, yeah, the tornado in a junkyard argument is a very bad argument. Physical atomic interactions are not even close to equivalent to the behavior of...disassembled metals. In the former you're going to get all kinds of physical effects (sterics, reactivity, electron exchange) that make that a completely void analogy.

[MrRubix]

I figure that I may as well respond to at least describe why you are retarded -- learn from it and try not to be retarded in the future:

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

Ah, I see. Abiogenesis must be more specific than I thought. I'd presume that it's also somewhat subjective, which is why I thought it was necessary. Whatever then. Lets not argue over semantics.

Semantics tend to be important. Don't bash evolution because you don't believe in abiogenesis. To do so is retarded. And crap like this:

"Apparently the most compelling evidence for evolution aside from the process-of-elimination aspect deemed indelible by evolutionists like yourself, are the genetic and fossil similarities. Though this is intended to refute creationism the irony is that they're mutually inclusive aspects. So the argument is inherently flawed."

Would indicate your retardation. Or, at the very least, ignorance and misunderstanding. Evolution is used as an anticreation argument to the extent that many creationists will say "SNAP dawg, humans and ****, damn, they be real complex -- musta been created!" while evolution solves the problems of complexity without the need for a creator to give existence to complex forms.

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

Nope. I'm well aware of what an ad hominem is. I was referring to the instances of gratuitous criticism involved while evaded questions. So it would, in those instances, be correct.

Not trying to reignite anything. Just clarifying.

Well, I'll be the first to light the fires, then. There is no single post in this thread where I addressed your specific points with a logically fallacious statement in the form of an discrediting claim or insult. Just because I flamed you doesn't mean it was ad hominem. Regarding your points, I still answered directly. Go, please, and find me a specific example in a past post where I used ad hominem, if you disagree. I guarantee you'll either come back empty-handed or you'll come back with something you've incorrectly categorized as ad hominem. Why? Because you're retarded. You are clearly not "well aware" of what ad hominem is, or you wouldn't have brought it up.

It really bothers me when people misuse the phrase because it happens so damn often. Retarded.

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

Yes yes, I see. Like I was saying, abiogenesis is somewhat subjective as far as its definition. I've seen it defined numerous times as simply life arising from non-living matter. In that case any life following the big bang must constitute abiogenesis because its definition is so vague (but if that's not the case....).

Again, we're talking about semantics here. I see the logic.

Have a cookie. Again, you can believe in evolution and still not believe in abiogenesis. To be very, very specific: Evolution doesn't care about HOW life got there -- just that it is there. You can technically still believe that life was "created" by a designer and accept that whatever that "life" was has evolved. It's possible to simply say "I don't know" regarding the origin of life and not believe in either creationism or abiogenesis or biogenesis (wrt origin), but have a firm acceptance of evolution. The problem is that so many creationists argue on faulty grounds and tend to approach the issues armed with inaccuracies and misunderstandings of things we DO know a lot about. To be clear (as semantics matter): A creator may be possible! It very well may be possible. However, the question is whether or not you're a man of science or faith and how you incorporate logic. Occam's Razor is a concept that basically says the simplest explanation is logically best. If I can explain something fully (of what we have observed/known thus far) with 2 claims, and someone else explains that same phenomenon with 3 claims, I win because that other person is throwing in a claim that sheds no new light. If I think 1 "needless" claim is sufficient, why not add 2? 3? 4? The logically better approach is to simply stick with what is necessary to fully explain what we know and nothing more. Is it possible that the extra claim is true? Sure -- but until we find a reason to do so, why needlessly complicate an issue and add layers of emptiness?

The reason why many would favor abiogenesis over something like creationism is that it is consistent with the notion that we have no direct evidence of a creator. We better understand how the laws of our universe operate and how the properties of matter function, and we can also explain (and demonstratively show) how amino acids can form naturally without the need of a creator. Again, this is all because we have no evidence or necessity TO incorporate a creator into the argument. When in doubt, try to explain things with what you know. If you want to venture out and find a better explanation because you are not satisfied with what you know, we've got a process for that.

Since you seem to better see the logic here, I won't call you retarded on this specific point.

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

Again you're comparing amino acids to a prokaryotic cell.

That's equivalent to comparing a toothpick to an airliner. Completely objectively you must at least realize that that's laughable.

I take it back. You're retarded. Comparing amino acids to a prokaryotic cell? Amino acids are the fundamental building blocks of life. It is hardly like "comparing a toothpick to an airliner" -- this is eerily reminiscent of that damn junkyard argument (that says complex structures basically spring forth in one massive step). Again, you seem to misunderstand how abiogenesis and evolution would work together. You work from a chemical level to give way to a structural foundation, where these structures (through matter interactions and forces) give way to more complex structures that eventually yield what we know as life forms once additional functionalities/attributes have been formed. The line between evolution and abiogenesis becomes a bit blurred in this sense to the extent that you're needing to define at what point you have "life" in order to claim that you are now discussing evolutionary processes and biogenesis and no longer abiogenesis.

To make things very clear for you... you are retarded.

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

I think it's odd how out of all I've read that the most compelling aspects were conveniently omitted.

Anyway, again, I'll read those links. Been busy lately. =/

Well, when you cite things like trueorigin as an example of your reading material, I can't say I'm not surprised. Compelling arguments are all over the place -- you just need to ensure you're actually getting the big picture and the accurate explanations. There are lots of retarded people out there aaahhhhem.

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

lol That post just screams conceit.

Not at all. However, your quote here does scream "I'm retarded and can't understand your point, apparently!"
What I said is absolutely true... it's much harder to have a firm grasp of various fields of science and mathematics than it is to simply say "God created this." Quite literally, that one sentence is what so many are armed with against the massive layers of explanation that the other fields of study can provide. Many Creationists, for instance, misuse statistic-arguments all the time -- and this is usually due to a misunderstanding of physics/chemistry in the first place. Not to mention that, quite often, people get their math wrong. You, as denoted in the above quote, for example, misunderstood biology and apparently don't understand the difference between a building block and a structure and how building blocks help FORM such structures. Many don't understand the scientific process and underlying logic.

Like I said, there's a lot to take in if your goal is to discover truth. Science affects us all -- not just the atheists -- and it is irresponsible for theists to ignore it, much like it's scientifically irresponsible for atheists to deny a creator with 100% certainty when the evidence simply doesn't exist yet. Either way, as I said, there's a lot to chew on. It's MUCH easier for some people to just assume a God did everything. It's psychologically satisfying for some people to pray to a God for strength. Religion can act as a moderating influence and give people a sense of moral direction and purpose. However, it doesn't make it true.

Touching on that point a bit, I've found more happiness and appreciation for life as an atheist than I ever did as a theist. I more intimately understand that my time here is likely limited to one life only, and so I find immense joy in relatively simple things that I never really looked at the same way before. I'm so thankful to be alive in this day and age as a being that can interpret emotion and utility, and I am so happy for being blessed with a strong mind that is able to more fully comprehend the nature of my existence, in addition to enabling me to make better decisions that, in turn, improve my quality of life in various ways. It gives me great joy to appreciate the beauty of nature, the wonderful emotions and complexities of love, and the interesting facets of my peers, friends, and family... and I, of course, love food, sex, challenge, accomplishment, humor, time, and entertainment, amongst other things. It may sound silly to most people, but I place a greater utility weight on all these things because I don't know when I'm going to die. My father's death really cemented this for me. We could be gone much sooner than expected. I absolutely cannot take my life for granted, for when I die, I will no longer be able to enjoy or interpret these simple pleasures that make life worth living. It is to this extent that I fear death. It's illogical, since I won't care when I'm gone, but I love life too much to let it go.

Anyways, that was perhaps a bit too long/serious, especially at the end, so I'll get back on track. You're retarded.

I genuinely hope this post is useful to you, though -- and to anyone else who happens to read this.

[mhss1992]

Okay, I know I was supposed not to post again, since I said I don't want to discuss... But my conviction is just forcing me, sorry. Especially because the discussion has been reduced to very simplistic and inconclusive arguments.

N.T.M.: It has been said before, but evolution does not imply in the inexistence of a greater intelligence or similar things.

MrRubix: in that post, when I said "There's also that older thought experiment about slowly changing a person's brain into another: it just doesn't feel like the answer is that easy.". I just recommend you to think about it a bit more. Please, don't jump to conclusions, don't convince yourself that things are solved so easily. Sometimes, an apparently "obvious" answer is just wrong or incomplete.

Think about it, that's all I ask. Now, I forbid myself to post again... Unless something really bothers me.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Okay, I know I was supposed not to post again, since I said I don't want to discuss... But my conviction is just forcing me, sorry. Especially because the discussion has been reduced to very simplistic and inconclusive arguments.

N.T.M.: It has been said before, but evolution does not imply in the inexistence of a greater intelligence or similar things.

MrRubix: in that post, when I said "There's also that older thought experiment about slowly changing a person's brain into another: it just doesn't feel like the answer is that easy.". I just recommend you to think about it a bit more. Please, don't jump to conclusions, don't convince yourself that things are solved so easily. Sometimes, an apparently "obvious" answer is just wrong or incomplete.

Think about it, that's all I ask. Now, I forbid myself to post again... Unless something really bothers me.

I'll just try to clarify my general standpoint then: Much like abiogenesis, these "brain questions" are not something we have insane amounts of direct proof for. We can only really postulate with one argument or the other. However, also much like abiogenesis, I will side with it because we know more about the physical realm because, simply, it's what we know. We don't have evidence of 'external entities of existence' or that sentience is more than the sum of its parts. So I will err on the side of the physical argument because it is more consistent with everything that we know, and I can explain everything involved without the need for a soul. If I encounter a problem that demands the need for a soul, then I'd reconsider. Just because something's "hard to believe" that something "can't be that simple" is missing the point, I think -- truth doesn't care whether or not it's simple or complex, it just is what it is. What is a soul? Why don't we remember anything pre-life? Are we sentient in soul form? How exactly does a soul/mind concept work? Why do humans have souls but not other structures?

A lot of the brain questions we've discussed in this thread are of course theoretical, because we're not able to do such things with our technology. I am simply trying to answer your questions given what we know about science today and from brain experiments/operations that I am aware of.

And so if you are changing a brain, you are merely changing its form. All the functions are still working, but they're simply working in a different way now. It'll still be a live brain, but it won't be the same person. It'll still have self-identity -- just not the SAME self-identity.

We are both technically "jumping to conclusions" because we're suggesting how something may work. The solution may indeed not be obvious -- but we have no reason to believe otherwise, yet. It's perfectly fine to believe in a soul if you want, and it's perfectly fine to believe the contrary, too.

For any given answer to a brain question, anyone could say "Well, how are you so sure? The soul argument would be able to answer it in this way," and that may very well be a valid answer. The difference, here, is that it's not something we have evidence for or can test. If a soul is outside of the physical realm, how are we going to test it? It's simply a "what if" at this point, and when it comes to things we don't know, I choose to try to explain things given what we already know. There's no thought experiment you've brought up so far that *absolutely demands* a soul or external entity, and that is where I am coming from.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Just because something's "hard to believe" that something "can't be that simple" is missing the point, I think -- truth doesn't care whether or not it's simple or complex, it just is what it is. What is a soul? Why don't we remember anything pre-life? Are we sentient in soul form? How exactly does a soul/mind concept work? Why do humans have souls but not other structures?

I just said "think about it". There's nothing wrong with thinking about it, is it?
Your answer to that question was almost a guess. To me, that answer didn't make much sense, because they are two different perspectives converging into one. What bothers me is the fact that one of the perspectives was summoned from the void and started feeling things again with the perspective that was already alive. Just imagine this. No, this is not simple. It's not just "hard to believe". You shouldn't accept first impressions that easily.

You don't need to agree with me now, but I don't think there's any good reason "not" to think about it.

[MrRubix]

Yes, mhss, it's interesting to think about, but so are many other things. In the end, my view makes the most sense to me given what I know about physics/matter/anatomy/blahblahblah.

How was my answer to the question a guess? There was no guesswork there. If you're changing a mind into another one, you're changing a mind into another one.

At any rate it seems like your main difficulty is understanding what it's like to "generate" a perspective. It seems like, despite all the physical evidence, you're focusing a lot on "I just can't imagine how I would be able to experience/not experience this, therefore I can't believe it," when really, I don't think it's that hard to imagine.

You already know what "nothingness" "feels" like -- it was basically what you've been doing for the past 13.7 odd billion years. Literally. However, we all sure as hell didn't seem to mind because we weren't able to experience that kind of wait. To us, time began the moment we were born.

The closest thing I can think of is to refer to those times when you fall asleep without realizing it and wake up hours later, having not experienced any dreaming. If asked what you experienced while you asleep, you'd probably have a hard time. Your sense of self, identity, space, and time are wiped away, seemingly. When you fall asleep, do you experience a very hard, definite "I am now asleep" border? Most likely not -- you drift into it. Being born is likely quite similar, only in reverse. It really isn't that hard to imagine.

Believe me, I've already given it a lot of thought over the years (as to whether or not we have souls). As I learn more and more about the universe and how things work, I tend to stray away from arbitrary notions and focus more on what we can test, observe, and support. There are a billion different "cool approaches" I could "think about" regarding our existence, but that's all they are -- I wouldn't base my entire belief system on such an arbitrary thing when there's evidence to suggest what the true explanation really is.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

How was my answer to the question a guess? There was no guesswork there. If you're changing a mind into another one, you're changing a mind into another one.

At any rate it seems like your main difficulty is understanding what it's like to "generate" a perspective. It seems like, despite all the physical evidence, you're focusing a lot on "I just can't imagine how I would be able to experience/not experience this, therefore I can't believe it," when really, I don't think it's that hard to imagine.

...

I'll just post anyway. I'll probably repeat a few things, because I don't think they got proper attention.

No, seriously. We aren't generating a new perspective, we are reviving an older one. Two different perspectives: one feels nothing while the other is feeling things normally in a body. Then suddenly (How can it *not* be sudden? can the perspective that felt nothing be "gradually" revived?), the one that feels nothing revives and the one who also felt things stays in the same brain.

Let's talk about the "suddenly/gradually" part.



Gradually: The perspective "slowly" comes back before the brain is fully transformed. BS. There's no "gradual" perspective, either you FEEL things or you DON'T feel things. There's no half existence, half feeling. The perspective needs to come back in a specific moment. If you know what an observer is, the gradual answer can't possibly be true. If it's the other perspective, from the brain that was alive being transformed, then it is the OTHER perspective, and it will STILL be the other perspective after the transformation. It will not just inexist after a change, that goes against what happens in our own brains. I can transform the thoughts and the matter of the original brain, but it will still have the original observer. We know that. It's either only the original OR the original and the dead one, but not just the dead one.



Suddenly: if the perspective comes back in the moment that the brain becomes the dead person's brain, with the same atoms and stuff, we have that annoying magical recording problem again. Matter is just matter, atoms don't remember what the perspective was. I can transform a brain into any state of any brain in existence, but the specific perspective will only reappear if I pick exactly the state before the death, even though that perspective was connected to inumerous other states?





I know why you think the answer is obvious. You are insisting on looking at the brain as an external object. That's why you don't see any conflict. "It's just one object being transformed into another, so one perspective just becomes the other". But it solves absolutely nothing. That's why you don't understand me. You have to put yourself in the place of these observers to understand, imagine how it feels, otherwise, this will always be just a waste of time. Stop treating observers like rocks. It's first person perspective, not third person perspective.

[Mollocephalus]

why are you assuming a conscience would "resume" if the brain that make it possible gets reconstructed?

breaking the continuity of perception means that perception is gone forever. the new perspective would just be a duplicate that contains the same data. you're trying too hard to fit in something that is external to the body, but rubix already said that. i don't think it's okay to believe in something that has no stable ground to begin with (faith by definition means no evidence whatsover!), while postulation over confirmated phisical facts comes from arguments that are proven and can always be verified.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

why are you assuming a conscience would "resume" if the brain that make it possible gets reconstructed?

Because that's what MrRubix said.

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

breaking the continuity of perception means that perception is gone forever.

So, that means that the perspective is not the brain itself. What is it, then?

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

the new perspective would just be a duplicate that contains the same data.

Consider that the brain was reconstructed with exactly the same atoms that composed the original brain in the moment of the death.

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

you're trying too hard to fit in something that is external to the body, but rubix already said that. i don't think it's okay to believe in something that has no stable ground to begin with (faith by definition means no evidence whatsover!), while postulation over confirmated phisical facts comes from arguments that are proven and can always be verified.

Meh. Well, I guess the other answers showed my point. I *am* trying to show a stable ground.

[Mollocephalus]

I don't think, in fact, that the perspective is the sum of a number of atoms. What matters is the collective structure of said atoms (unless there is proven to be a significant difference between atoms of the same kind, which would just trash my argument immediately).

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

I don't think, in fact, that the perspective is the sum of a number of atoms. What matters is the collective structure of said atoms (unless there is proven to be a significant difference between atoms of the same kind, which would just trash my argument immediately).

Our atoms are changing constantly. So, yes, if the observer is physical, it depends on the structure and not on the individual atoms. But this generates conflicts. At least, that's what I see. And that's what I'm arguing with MrRubix.

[N.T.M.]

lol did somebody delete my post? I remember I highlighted stuff in red.

[MrRubix]

mhs1992, you're confusing my argument about discrete vs. continuous. We don't know for sure if a perspective would be "regenerated" within the same brain (although we took that approach for the sake of giving your argument strength to see if the physical argument could STILL battle against it, which it does).

Like I've said and what Necros has said, the mind is the result of the collective STRUCTURES and not the specific atoms. The atoms make up the structures, and the atoms themselves can swap out, but this doesn't mean the structures are different. If structures A, B, and C together make Perspective X, then it is reasonable to assume that if A, B, and C are taken apart, killing X, and then reconfigured, we get X again. It's reasonable because, much like a computer or any other machine, we can get things running the way they were with the same parts. We don't know, though, if recombining A, B, and C may actually generate a different but identical Y, but for the sake of making your own argument stronger we will assume that it regenerates X.

Otherwise I could just argue that ANY atom swap at ALL kills us and thus we're constantly generating new perspectives with the same structure as the previous, and we'd be done with the argument right there.

So, I think we can assume atoms don't matter with respect to a specific pre-established structure/function working. However, as we both agree, the mind is the brain at work. If we kill the brain and rejump it, will we "come back"? We don't know. But we can "assume" yes based on the A+B+C->X idea and see where this takes us. We know death occurs because the structures are simply not capable of sustaining any more activity. But if it were possible to kill someone and get those functions up and running again, it seems reasonable to assume that the same perspective is kicked back into motion.

Regarding your earlier post, if we're changing one brain to another, why is it so hard for you to believe that this also means you're changing the perspective? You ARE changing the perspective. The active mind, of course, still experiences sentience, but we're changing one perspective into something completely different. The body is still alive, as is the mind, but we're simply changing it. That's all there is to it.

[Mollocephalus]

the perspective always changes. to say that one's perspective is identifiable and fixed is an abstraction, because in every moment there will be internal/external stimuli that will change one's experience and therefore the perspective. even in the thought experiment we're in, the solution of continuity marks the end of a perspective. that's why i said a mind cannot be restored or resumed, but only replicated. we're using the same blocks and creating something absolutely identical to the previous, but the previous is gone for good. the sole fact that you know there IS a previous mind make it a new perspective.

if we duplicate a definite mental structure x times, what happens in the soul system? are we creating new souls? are we dividing a soul between different bodies? and what happens when these bodies start to experience different things? Not only the soul argument is very fishy, but it's not verifiable. we can hypotetize forever about it without reaching any answer. It all comes down to postulation over postulation, given that the initial assyom is "god exists, but you cannot prove it". No one in their right mind would keep using this as an argument.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

the perspective always changes. to say that one's perspective is identifiable and fixed is an abstraction, because in every moment there will be internal/external stimuli that will change one's experience and therefore the perspective. even in the thought experiment we're in, the solution of continuity marks the end of a perspective. that's why i said a mind cannot be restored or resumed, but only replicated. we're using the same blocks and creating something absolutely identical to the previous, but the previous is gone for good. the sole fact that you know there IS a previous mind make it a new perspective.

if we duplicate a definite mental structure x times, what happens in the soul system? are we creating new souls? are we dividing a soul between different bodies? and what happens when these bodies start to experience different things? Not only the soul argument is very fishy, but it's not verifiable. we can hypotetize forever about it without reaching any answer. It all comes down to postulation over postulation, given that the initial assyom is "god exists, but you cannot prove it". No one in their right mind would do that.

I agree with you wholeheartedly -- the question mhss is trying to raise is bringing back "that same continuous experience," but the point that I believe you and I are trying to raise is that the perspective IS resultant of the physical components.