Just an Evo robot

Your as-yet unsubstantiated assertions. You claim to have cosiderable detail about the physics of consciousness, to the point of making some rather definitive conclusions about other matters. Let's see your cards.

Which claims, specifically, do you want a reference for?That the brain doesn't work like a computer? Read any decent text on brain biology. I have made no such claim.

That the brain doesn't work like a computer is correct, trivially obvious, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.You've made some rather sweeping metaphysical statements based on your assertion of a knowledge of the physics of human consciousness that you seem unwilling or unable to substantiate with evidence.If it's all just conjecture (as was , admitted then and now, my contribution to the discussion), admit it and we'll move on.But don't expect to make bold assertions and have them go unchallenged. That's no better than the YECs.

I'm unclear what you think is a bold assertion.I've said:If the world is monistic, an afterlife doesn't make sense - to which your answer was an bad analogy.If we evolved then a dualistic conception doesn't make sense.I haven't claimed any special knowledge of how consciousness works. Then why did you bring a computer based analogy into it?And, please, use the little red 'reply' button under the post you are replying to rather than the general 'reply' button at the bottom.

Your assertions are far from trivially obvious. If we evolved, as we undoubtedly did, I simply do not see either why dualism is ruled out, or why monism implies an afterlife is incoherent. You need to expand on your reasoning that leads you to these conclusions.IMO, one can only draw such conclusions if one has characterized the physical mechanisms behind human consciousness to a degree of detail that clearly falsifies both dualism, and a monism appealing to features of the physical universe or universes that are not presently observable. This is why I insist that if your expertise is in cognitive science, you provide references.Otherwise it's better to say we just don't know.

Are you not reading the thread? I've already explained them. It's now in your court to answer the points I've made if you wish to do so.

But if the brain does work like a computer, then it can in theory be applied that the brain could merely be a physical entity with no dualism applied. Hence making it relevent, and as if by magic....Nature - Not FoundMy goodness, scientists deciding that in some situations the brain behaves exactly like a machine...Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

Behaving like a purely physical entity and behaving like a computer are two very different things, Unseul.

Im assuming your getting at electricity etc not being physical?Ok i accept this, but it is still just made up of phyiscal components, this components use electricity (and if you go back along the cables enough, cause electricity).But rereading what you've written i feel your getting at something else? I didnt actually say how a phyisical entity behaves, merely that the brain could be just a phyiscal entity, and has many similarities to the way computers behave (learn).Nope still not sure i've answered your post sufficiently, could you make things a little clearer for me. Cheers.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

No, not at all. Actually, I'd say that's a just plain weird idea.No, I'm talking about the way in which computers function and process information - how they're organised, how they seperate hardware and software and so on. As opposed to how the brain works.Are you familiar with neural networks and how they work?

Probably not in as much detail as yourself im guessing. But i do have an idea. And that is that as signals are passed through the neural networks, the path between the cells is the important part for memory, a different path for a different result as such. The more a path is used the more enforced it becomes. Hence a learnt action becomes easier and easier with practice.In a computer the hardware (well the memory) is the hardrive, this stores info by changing its phyiscal components (magnetically i believe) to store info (software) Now its not exactly the same and i agree with this, but now we start using an AI program, and i suspect that this would mean that each time an action occured a change would occur to a part of the magnetic code, to cause further enforcement.I'm no expert in either field, but have a reasonable knowledge of the bio side of things (at least i believe i do). I'm mainly just putting forward the article, which states that AI robots may well learn in a very similar way in which we do (the review is quite good, i havent read the whole article yet).Thinking about it im not so sure if the hardware software divide is quite as bad as it could be. The hardrive functions as a memory with physical adaptations to store info, then the other components such as cpu and graphics are more like the processing areas of the brain (i realise its not this simple, but i feel the analogy is close).Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

In the brain processing and memory storage are inextricably linked; or that's what is suggested by magnetic images of the brain in action and by models of neural networks.Of course, the brain isn't exactly a neural network - there's a whole load of 'broadcast' style chemical signalling and a bunch of other stuff that appears to do something but we're not quite sure what. The brain's neural nets are also less pure than our models of them with complications involving signalling times, etc. But most modern 'AI' robots are designed to model the working of the brain, so while this does imply that our models ain't too bad it doesn't imply the brain works like a computer. (Although incidently it can be proved that anything that can be done by a neural net can be done by a standard binary computer).

I assure you I am reading the thread, and I've only detected unassertion of a rather strict physicalist monism. If you don't want to bother defending this, or explaining your reasoning, fine. Don't act as though its the trivially obvious default position. Again, this is no better than fundamentalist YECs.You completely missed the point of the computer analogy. It wasn't to assert that the brain works like a computer. You and I both know it does not.The assertion is that it is at least in principle possible to have many hardware realizations of human level sentience beside the known human brain. Unless and until you can falsify this assertion, your assertions remain open questions, as does mine. Neither of us has proven their case.If I get you to admit it's an open question, I've achieved my objective. If you consider it a closed question, and you won't tell me why, we have reached an impasse and should discontinue the discussion.

What is a 'human level sentience'? And what does it have to do with the question at hand? We're talking about taking the functioning brain of individual human moments before death and recreating their consciousness for an afterlife in a manner consistent with it being a continuation of that individual.We've already accepted that consciousness is produced by the brain, so that's not the issue.I'll leave aside questions of what happens to individuals who've suffered brain degeneration, or when exactly 'death' happens (especially relevant as the brain, and therfore mind, deteriorate rapidly before the point at which people can no longer be resusitated) for now; although you have yet to address these points.The brain is a physical organ, it's low level functionings are becoming reasonable well understood these days and there's nothing mystical about them - they're just chemical reactions and ion channel electrical signals. Since the brain is the source of consciousness any other representation must model the action of this brain or it won't create the same consciousness. If your model doesn't behave as the brain with its same failings, limitations and flaws then it won't produce the same consciousness.And worse, if you're modelling the brain then you need to model the body too - because they is no seperating line between the two. The brain is influenced by chemicals produced throughout the body, and it's inputs and outputs are distributed by nerve cells spanning it (in fact, it's probably most accurate to say that nerves are part of the brain).And now you're stuck, because the two are so inextricably linked all you've done is pull one physical reality into another - but the body you've taken is broken, and dying. Not much of an 'afterlife', is it?Even if you allow the seperation of the brain model from the body, the brain itself doesn't last forever, its cells die as part of their usual operation - do you really contend there is an afterlife where you slowly degenerate?

You say , "...Since the brain is the source of consciousness..."That's exactly the point of disagreement. I think it's a substrate on which consciousness is realized, but not the source.As you might have gathered, I'm not a materialist. But even if I were, again, I'd need references to be convinced our understanding of how consciousness is physically realized, is as complete as you imply.Oh, and good, technical references, by the way. Materials intended for the popular reader won't do.That it is bound to physiological processes of the brain while we are alive, I cannot and do not dispute.That it is sourced from these processes and only these processes, I do dispute. Admittedly, not on scientific grounds.But although I am a scientist, I do not subscribe to scientism.