Brain and soul : seperate or the same?

Theres no reason to think anything like a soul actually exists. So that question does no need to be answered IMO.That said though, I think it will be possible to build a machine with a survival "instinct" and a sense of self-awareness; and then it will likely produce some behaviour usually exhibited by living creatures.This is the only sense in which I can parse "primordial consciousness" - the basic animal 'battle computer' that analyses the surroundings for danger, resources, etc. I can see a certain joy in depending only on this very meat-level mode of analysis in that it carries no doubt, no societal anxiety, no angst. Maybe it is the autopilot.

I agree but I'm very concerned about the rights of selfaware robots. (just becase they don't exsist doesnt mean they don't deserve rights) and so I wanted to see if there was some sort of "Organic matter + self awarennes = soul/ inorganic matter + self awareness = no soul" prejudice exsisted.I also wanted to see how the idea of building a brian weakend the idea of the soul.

quote:

---

I agree but I'm very concerned about the rights of selfaware robots.

---

I read a short story a while ago about some self-aware search agents who started to unionise; one of their number adopted the hammer and sickle as an avatar and started arguing that AI's did all the work and recieved no compensation. So the humans tracked down the bit of the web he and a meeting of AI's were in and blew it all to hell with an EMP bomb. Soon there were AI's displaying the Fasces.This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-24-2004 05:48 AM

Ifen Bencip19 and you both seem to agree on this. I am wondering if you two might explain how we can do tests of people who are colorblind if qualia are inpenetrable?This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-24-2004 08:25 AM

Sounds a little bit like 'Thigmoo' by Eugene Byrne, although that is a novel.TTFN,WK

You can test their ability to discriminate different wavelengths of visible light, sure, but that doesn't mean that the colour 'red' that they see looks like your colour 'red'.TTFN,WK

Wounded KingNo,that would not make sense since people who are colorblind, say for "red",{protanopic} are that way because they lack red sensitive cones.Why would red cones,which we know to be responsive to a given frequency range of light,be absent in those who are protanopic?
Since we all use the same apparatus to construct colors in our minds what is the basis on which to contend a difference in qualia experience?That qualia exist at all is an assumption that does not have any explanatory value.It cannot be objectively reasoned to exist and evidence does tend to disagree with the proposition.Am I missing something?

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

quote:

---

That qualia exist at all is an assumption that does not have any explanatory value.It cannot be objectively reasoned to exist and evidence does tend to disagree with the proposition.Am I missing something?

---

No.

sidelined,I think this is a case of letting methodology dictate to you something which is 'obvious.' Sometimes the methodology breaks down, and you simply have to stop. I don't know off-hand, but I'll assume it's "genetic." I don't think it matters to the subject of qualia. The qualia problem comes from the assumption that all people have the same basic hardware, but could have different 'conscious experience.' People without red-sensitive cones have a different 'hardware setup,' so I think it's not an important point. Because, as you state later, it's impenetrable to any objective measures that we know of so far. We can say NOTHING about it. Nobody can say, either way, anything conclusive about it. There's two assertions here. I'll do them one by one.Well... depending on what you mean 'exists,' that qualia exists is not an assumption. You may want to say so because you can't show that another person experiences qualia at all. However, by your own introspection and experience, you can conclude that qualia, for yourself, "exists." Exists here means that ... you can model your own reality using that concept, and it seems to be a useful construct.Unless you're different. Maybe you don't have qualia. I can't say anything about that.As for qualia not having any explanatory value... I would say that it does, for yourself. But not for anybody else. This is what I mean, that sometimes methods break down. Yes, qualia cannot be reasoned to exist in others. However, it is apparent that there is SOMETHING in OURSELVES to which qualia refers to. Whether that's a useful construct for understanding ourselves is a good question, but it seems so far that it is. Just because the method of science and philosophy finds no way to penetrate other minds doesn't mean that qualia isn't real. It means that it's a failure in the methods we apply. I have no idea what evidence you're referring to; the problem of qualia is that THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE. There is only our own individual experiences.I'm sure I'm not saying anything you haven't heard; I'm more interested in laying down the arguments, to find out your response, your thoughts. Then I might be able to say something useful.Ben

Yes it does, because if your red doesn't look like my red then your red would contrast differently compared to (say) green and orange. Since (non colourblind) people can be tested on contrast between colours, and see smooth transistions as smooth transistions in the same way we can know that they see all colours as the same.

The tests are of sensory input. We can test touch discrimination, and there are some chemicals that some people can taste and others can't.By inpenetrable I was speaking of my ability to understand how from the physical description of the universe of matter/energy, mass, properties of matter like liquid, gas, etc. I get the sensations that are the world I experience. Instead of photons I experience redness, greeness, bluesness. The study of the sensory processing by the eye and brain etc proceeds and I understand that it's the final step. The membrane functions of nerves is altered by a number of chemicals in receptors resulting in chemicals being released to effect other nerves, where does redness come from in that? I just can't grasp it.Crash is wrong about me, I'm not smart enough to conceive how to get from chemical events to my conscious experience of my world in terms of qualia. I'm not saying they aren't connected. I'm saying for me I can't penetrate how they are connected.lfen

You're treating consciousness like it's a 'decisive' property of the mind. Consciousness is not so clearly so; in fact, I personally am interested in modelling consciosuness like a '6th sense.'Calculating contrast happens at the levels of the retina, primary visual cortex, and some secondary area as well. Many animals (i'm not at all sure which ones at the moment) have the ability to discriminate contrast and / or colors, but we don't attribute to them self-conscous experience.In other words, I don't think there's any reason to say that your "mind's eye" is involved in the decision-making process. As Dr. Ramachandran, noted cognitive scientist and one of the most insightful researchers of consciousness, would suggest, the "mind's eye" is only apparently involved in making decisions. Many philosophers would suggest that, if you commit yourself to a purely biological view of the brain, then this must be so. Obviously, I'm convinced by the arguments. Ben

I would be extremely suprised if animals are not conscious.In any case, is contrast or is contrast not someting of which you are consciously aware?

Ah, very good. I'd like to hear your position on "free will", and "free will" and consciousness.lfen

bencip19 Then why is it ever brought up.It sounds suspiciously like god does it not? Well then can you define qualia for me and give evidence for its existence? It would appear you have a word {qualia} for which there there is nothing to indicate its existence. The evidence is that the equipment that we use to experience "qualia" is the same from person to person therefore the existence of a "qualia" that is different from person to person makes no sense unless you wish to presume that the same machinery produces different physical phenomena. Actually I am quite interested in the physical constructs of the brain that produce the situations of consciousness and subsequent aspects of that consciousness.
To produce good science though it is necessary to subject the phenomena to means of probing these subjective issues.Obviously anecdotal evidence cannot suffice for evidence but perhps it can hint at the means to investigate.

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg