The implausibility of brainless minds

[Me Myself]

The point is that I can methodically corroborate my beliefs about the material world.

without circular logic?

You definetely caught my attention, please do.

 

[atanu]

How are you defining the words illusion and real, in this question?
What, in your opinion, makes experiences or observations, real?

Who is asking these questions?

 

[atanu]

without circular logic?

You definetely caught my attention, please do.

Haha. There is no real intellect. It is the artifact of furiously reacting chemicals that will prove reality.

 

[Penumbra]

Where does the computation happen?

I don't have advanced knowledge of half life times of particles, or the precise mechanism behind their functioning.

No, I can. But I know that ou are stuck in illusion that the seen world is the reality as it is. And thus, if you think that a seen thing is the source of the Seer then so be it. Cannot help it. The brain does not tell you anything. It is you who deduce things.

Poor debate tact. Accuse debater of being stuck in an illusion as the reason for disagreeing with your points.

Making statements doesn't make those statements true. How can one deduce things without a brain? What would bring information to "you"? What would compose "you"? What would substitute it?

The only direct proof of consciousness at disposal of science is through verbal reports. I asked earlier (which you have surely not read) as to what kind of audible report can be expected from an unembodied consciousness? It is simply impossible. Only experience of oneself can indicate the truth.

if you are willing to agree that particular knowledge of waking state is a representation, you will realise that in dream state, consciousness itself undergoes division into subject and object. From first party perspective there is no matter from which ideas are given shape in dream consciousness.

I quote from an earlier discussion a few points which you did not answer earlier.

I've answered your points. If there are ones you believed I've missed, let me know. I've also read the thread, despite your saying I have "surely not".

As for this post; yes, science is limited in determining when and where consciousness is. There are verbal reports, physical clues (brain activity, eye movements, responses), and even they cannot falsify a claim that a being is a philosophical zombie and not truly conscious. Consciousness can only be 100% verified by the conscious being in question.

And yet, all known minds currently exist as brains. Brains produce the enormous amount of computation necessary to maintain it. Trillions of neurons and the network between them. Experience can be radically altered by physical and chemical changes. Memories can be erased by trauma. The ability to think can be reduced or eliminated by trauma. Chemicals can alter a person's mood and thoughts. Other chemicals can produce hallucinations, put a person to sleep, etc.

People claim to have experienced oneness, or a mind without a body, and yet people on certain drugs have said the same thing, reported the same experience.

What mechanism do you propose would transfer a subset of this information regarding consciousness into something other than a brain, something other than that which is physical? In what way could a meaningful awareness be maintained without a detailed system?

 

[Penumbra]

Who is asking these questions?

I am.

 

[Me Myself]

And yet, all known minds currently exist as brains.

You know this how?

 

[Penumbra]

You know this how?

I said all known minds.

Can you produce evidence of a mind that exists without a brain?

 

[Me Myself]

I said all known minds.

Can you produce evidence of a mind that exists without a brain?

Ah well, good point I misread.

In any case, the only truly known mind is yours (well, mine in my case ) and you haven´t experienced a non-concious existence. So yuo have no reason to believe that your mind will ever die, because it hasn´t. It has had psychological "shutdowns" like when yu are in deep sleep, but even psychology would tell you that yuor mind probably wasn´t 100% shutdown, even if you conciously think it was.

So really, there is no evidence that the only mind in existence will fade away.

 

[atanu]

I don't have advanced knowledge of half life times of particles, or the precise mechanism behind their functioning.

Computation can occur in cloud.:yes:

Poor debate tact. Accuse debater of being stuck in an illusion as the reason for disagreeing with your points.

That is not debate, however. That was a statement.

And yet, all known minds currently exist as brains.

See. My statement was not incorrect. You are absolutely unwilling to even consider that in dream and deep sleep states of consciousness there is no representation called brain.

You are stuck that only the waking state representation is really real.

People claim to have experienced oneness, or a mind without a body, and yet people on certain drugs have said the same thing, reported the same experience.

That i can, without drug, dissolve the subject-object difference (as in deep sleep but with awareness) indicates that i have volitional control. I can volitionally control my mental state.

 

[atanu]

I am.

What is "I"?

 

[atanu]

And yet, all known minds currently exist as brains.

I repeat. You know this how?

 

[Penumbra]

Ah well, good point I misread.

In any case, the only truly known mind is yours (well, mine in my case ) and you haven´t experienced a non-concious existence. So yuo have no reason to believe that your mind will ever die, because it hasn´t. It has had psychological "shutdowns" like when yu are in deep sleep, but even psychology would tell you that yuor mind probably wasn´t 100% shutdown, even if you conciously think it was.

So really, there is no evidence that the only mind in existence will fade away.

This argument seems to mix up evidence with impossibly irrefutable evidence.

We have evidence of other conscious minds; not absolute proof. If I experience consciousness, which I do, I can not be sure that all other beings are not actually simulations, or philosophical zombies. However, by observing that their brains are functionally similar to mine, that we were produced in basically the same way, that they also claim to be consciousness, the evidence is in favor of them being consciousness as well. It's a much safer assumption, supported by more evidence, than the proposition that I am unique among all similar creatures, or that from your perspective, you are unique among all similar creatures. There's more evidence that other people are conscious, than that rocks are conscious; there's evidence for the former but not the latter, even if one can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that other people truly are conscious.

And I haven't experienced having my body killed either. That's a completely extraordinary experience compared to anything that has happened so far in my life. But I've had my brain put asleep by chemicals, and have been knocked out, and I notice that when other people have their brain activity completely cease, they stop being alive in every observable way. No more interaction, no more communication, no more of them.

If they were magically transported to some other realm, what mechanism caused this to occur? Or if they're "all around" now, in what way is this supported, and in what way would that existence be meaningful?

 

[Penumbra]

Computation can occur in cloud.:yes:

So you are proposing that the computations necessary for consciousness occur in the universe itself?

If this is the case, why does a personality change if physical or chemical means alter the brain? Why is it that a drug can put someone to sleep, and eliminate their consciousness for the duration?

That is not debate, however. That was a statement.

See. My statement was not incorrect. You are absolutely unwilling to even consider that in dream and deep sleep states of consciousness there is no representation called brain.

The brain exists while a person sleeps. A person's brain activity can be measured while they sleep. The brain is quite active during such times.

You are stuck that only the waking state representation is really real.

I'd prefer to just debate your arguments rather than fall back on personal statements regarding what you're stuck on and why.

That i can, without drug, dissolve the subject-object difference (as in deep sleep but with awareness) indicates that i have volitional control. I can volitionally control my mental state.

The drugs that change people's behavior merely change chemicals that are already in the brain. So basically the "tools" for such an experience must already be there. I have no doubt that people experience a variety of things without external chemicals.

Can you prove that any of this occurs outside of the brain? Can you acquire knowledge about the environment that your body is currently not in a position to acquire?

What is "I"?

My qualia. The brain's ability to perceive a subset of its own actions.

You haven't answered my questions yet. I've been answering yours.

"How are you defining the words illusion and real, in this question?

What, in your opinion, makes experiences or observations, real?"

I repeat. You know this how?

Can you present a documented case of a mind existing without a brain? It not, that's how I know- there aren't documented experiences of it that are accessible.

There are reports of people claiming to experience oneness- but people on drugs have said that too. There are reports of people claiming to see their own self as they are asleep or on an operating table, but they exist as short-term, unproven speculations. I've heard of experiments of placing codes above operating room tables visible only from an aerial view, and they haven't been repeated back by patients yet.

Are there any publications in major journals regarding the existence of something that is believed to be conscious, without a corresponding brain?

 

[Me Myself]

If they were magically transported to some other realm, what mechanism caused this to occur? Or if they're "all around" now, in what way is this supported, and in what way would that existence be meaningful?

Let´s say you are in a room with many rays of light coming through windows. If you see one of the windows closed, thereis no more light going out of that window, would you say the source of that light is gone? Would you have any evidence to believe that the light is not being generated anymore? Would you claim to know it?

When I see a human body deceased, that is what I see, a closing window of something that always emitted light. Now, you have observed rooms gettin dark, but you have never observed outside of this room, so how can you say that that which generates the light is gone?

I agree with you, you described the way in which we suppose everyone around us is probably not a philosophical zombie, but as I described above, what we see happening to them is only what happens to that methaphorical room, so how could be know if there is no light beyond it? In this case counscience is naturaly, light.

If they were magically transported to some other realm, what mechanism caused this to occur?

THe closing of the window. The light was always in this other realm, but before this ralm was called "imagination", or even not realized at all because of it being subconcious.

The light final destination no longer is the inner walls of the room, so it´s view naturally changes.

Or if they're "all around" now, in what way is this supported, and in what way would that existence be meaningful?

I am not saying this view is supported, I am merely saying that the cease of existence of conciosnesss is not supported, as I said in my previos argument.

How would eternal consiousness be meaningfull? If it were, we´ll have eternity to ponder about that, and I am more of a procastinator

 

[Copernicus]

Is it plausible that maybe some components of our minds like memory could be transfered to another computational device that functions like a brain?

It is theoretically possible to duplicate your mind in another brain. Then there would be two of you.

 

[Copernicus]

without circular logic?

You definetely caught my attention, please do.

Yes, without circular logic. Multiple sources of information that corroborate a hypothesis make it more likely that the hypothesis is true. I'm not going for absolute proof, just evidential proof.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, without circular logic. Multiple sources of information that corroborate a hypothesis make it more likely that the hypothesis is true. I'm not going for absolute proof, just evidential proof.

Do so please.

I am waiting for you to prove me that the material world is real without an evidence that comes from the material world o.o.

 

[PolyHedral]

Do so please.

I am waiting for you to prove me that the material world is real without an evidence that comes from the material world o.o.

The material world is real by definition. Unless you have a more useful definition of what is "real?"

 

[Copernicus]

In any case, the only truly known mind is yours (well, mine in my case ) and you haven´t experienced a non-concious existence. So yuo have no reason to believe that your mind will ever die, because it hasn´t. It has had psychological "shutdowns" like when yu are in deep sleep, but even psychology would tell you that yuor mind probably wasn´t 100% shutdown, even if you conciously think it was.

I see a few problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, all of our beliefs are contingent on our experiences. While solipsism is a logical possibility, your experiences suggest that things do exist independently of your imagination. Secondly, when you say that "you have no reason to doubt that your mind will ever die", that suggests that your experience of reality has no bearing on your reasoning, although it clearly does. We all behave as if other people were real, because it can get very painful and uncomfortable if we don't. And we cannot alter reality merely by willing it to change. If we were somehow existing alone in our own little made-up universe, then we might expect to be able to make things happen merely by willing them to happen, as they sometimes do in our dreams.

So really, there is no evidence that the only mind in existence will fade away.

Wrong. There is credible evidence that you are not the only mind in existence and that your mind will lose consciousness--revert to the state of nonexistence that it had before birth--when your brain dies. I think what you mean is that there is a small possibility that the evidence that we have is misleading.

 

[doppelganger]

Most religions depend on the belief that mental activity can occur independently of brains.

So does the Republican Party.

Couldn't resist.