Just an Evo robot

You're really not getting this are you?We've already discounted dualism - it's incompatible with evolution. Get it? That's where the argument started. If you want to argue that go back and do so.Otherwise we're left with monism - monism states the brain is the source of consciousness.

I'm getting it completely. I'm dealing with a fundamentalist materialist.No, we have NOT established that dualism is incompatible with evolution. That's an unsupported assertion you've made.It requires metaphysical assumptions which are outside the scope of evolution. If you want to make the case for them, do so. If you don't, fine, but I will not accept them on your authority. You must convince me.If you're not enjoying the discussion anymore, fine as well. Just don't respond to this post. We'll move on and leave it unresolved.

Why necessarily recreating? Another possibility is that the non-material exists independently and only the link to the physical is broken at death. I don’t agree, but it’s already been addressed by Paisano. Again, you have assumed that there is a single possibility — that any ‘life after death’ would be a rebuild of the physical body/brain/consciousness — without evidence, let alone proof that this is the only possibility. This is also based in the premise that the substance and awareness of whatever has the ‘afterlife’ is based entirely on the physical body and mind. There is also the possibility that the non-physical aspect is not affected by physical degeneration of the body and brain — but its ability to communicate through them is.As Paisano requested — could you please substantiate your assumptions? I would be really interested in any proof you may have.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been on holiday.The thing is, Paisano, that you're not answering any of my arguments. Way back where this started I explained why evolution is incompatible with dualism. You haven't even attempted to answer my points. Instead you've got on about things I haven't said.I've made two arguments:1. Evolution is incompatible with Dualism.
2. Monism is incompatible with the afterlife.I haven't claimed any special knowledge about how the brain produces consciousness, and I'm not going to. Answer them, and we can have a debate but refuse to do so and we've got nothing to talk about.

Because the question at hand is 'is monism compatible with the afterlife?', saying 'it could be dualist' is not an answer. What is your alternative monistic breakdown?

quote:

---

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 pair of tyou may have agreed that, but I don't. I see no fundamnetal properties of the brain that cannot be duplicated by computers. Yes, they have come about by very diffreent evolutionary processes, if you will, and this exhibit different specifics, but the brain doesn't do anything a computer could not do in principle.Now, you say its "trivially" obvious that the two are distinct, could you outline what it is that you see as distinct?Firebird wrote:

quote:

---

This is also based in the premise that the substance and awareness of whatever has the ‘afterlife’ is based entirely on the physical body and mind.

---

That is the necessary implication if you abandon dualism. You are thereby saying: "There is no inherent, substantive distinction between mind and body"... If you wanted to consider some sort of incoporeal, non-physical entity that causes or creates consciuosness, you would be advancing a dualist argument.In the ABSENCE of a dualist argument, you are defaulting to a form of materialism - consciousness must be a manifestation of the body. Hence you have to address mental degeneration...This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-28-2004 06:34 AM

Can be reproduced by and works like are fundementally different concepts. Particularly in the context of Paisano's point.

quote:

---

Can be reproduced by and works like are fundementally different concepts.

---

Why? On what basis?If this is just a semantic point, I will assert that in my opinion, the brain and computers work on exactly the same principles. A brain IS a computer in every meaningful sense.Slightly more broadly, in this very field your statement above is dubious; in the realm of fuzzy logic and neural nets, we seldom bother to ask "how" the ouitput was producedl; we leave that to the neural net to figurebout, all we care about are results. And in that context, "can be reproduced" is in fact equivalent to "works like".

Well then, you're just plain wrong unless your using your terminology differently. The brain is not a computer. Computers operate in a well understood way, the brain although less well understood, does not work in that way. Computers are carefully constructed so that they seperate hardware and software, the OS goes even further to maintain this distinction. The brain shows no sign, what-so-ever, of having any hardware/software divide. Computers follow neat sets of instructions that can make them into a vast array of different things; brains do not.I do not believe that it would be, even in principle, possible to persuade the brain to run a word-processor or Quake or any other such thing. That is a meanigful sense in which the brain is not a computer.While the computational model of the brain is both very succesful and, likely, reflects a central truth about it's operation it is a very different thing from the claim that the brain is a computer. What you do, or don't ask, is irrelevant to what is. What is true is that the brain shows no sign of having any hardware/software divide like computers do. Which is the point Paisano raised.

Judging from the reading of posts it is unlikely that who ever knows "Jack" & me do not agree on most of the things as they appear but I do not THINK like contra cycle even about the cyclical relation of spontaneous and nonspontaneous process. As to the "fact", I have made a judgement on this trip, which is likely still invisible to most of 'us' as I am only in NJ as of now that any pathological effect is simply a resolution of the following statement AND faliure to adujudicate it devolves for Kant's things in themselves x often as Contrcycle circulated for dissemination namely for myself with freedom that, "Semantic Information cross(es) generations biologically IN THE SpacE between nodes POSTIVE and NEGATIVE regions (determined in graph theory with projective geometry corrections for topographic variability)of Vertex Nodal Analysis (Henderson? in NZJofZoology??) via the secondary structure of RNA obeying Gladyshev's LAW disciplined by the descriptive writing of macrokinetic and panbiogeographic descriptions as one. I have never found a creationist reason to disthink this though I can imagine some Ross type creationist to disabuse the practical reason involved. It may even be possible to ground Phillp Johnson's "conversion" this way. There are implications if this is true but that the brain is not a computer would be clear for if true computers would only be makable INSIDE the minimal spanning trees geometry physically and we clearly have some that do not fit tihs allowance while there is also seems to be litter tolerance of the this JUDGEMENT as it is possible that Mayr's notion of "teleomatic" systems biologically does not apply to any kind of "program" the sematic information transfer might pass neophenogenically(1990) to say nothing of phenogenotypes(2003) unless the whole of the above. Best Brad. & Mr. Jack, Thanks for cleaning the cat litter box in the past.

quote:

---

Well then, you're just plain wrong unless your using your terminology differently. The brain is not a computer.

---

Why not? What differences do you discern?

quote:

---

The brain is not a computer. Computers operate in a well understood way, the brain although less well understood, does not work in that way.

---

I disagree; they are procedurally very similar IMO. Again, what differences do you see? Its not enough to merely assert this is true.

quote:

---

Computers are carefully constructed so that they seperate hardware and software, the OS goes even further to maintain this distinction.

---

That is in fact not the case at all; in computing it can be quite hard to distinguish between hardware and software. Surely, a cisruit design is 'software', oin that it is all process, but if you cut silicon to make this circuitm now its hardware.Theres an old conundrum in early computing: how do you start a computer? You can't interact with the hardware until you have established the rules for doing so, but you can't establish the rules until the hardware is working and providing a venue for that establishment? Thats why computers are said to "boot"; they "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps", having to do both simultaneously. The hard distinction between hardware and software is an illusion we resort to for convenience; they are not real categories, just metaphores.

quote:

---

The brain shows no sign, what-so-ever, of having any hardware/software divide.

---

Of course it does: brain is not mind. I could have two externally indisintguishable brains, exhibiting two distinct personalities. Equally, I could have two computers running different programmes or OS's. In both cases, the platform is distinct from the use to which the platform is put, from the code executing on/in that platform. Also, damage to the platform often inhibits execution of the code in both cases.

quote:

---

I do not believe that it would be, even in principle, possible to persuade the brain to run a word-processor or Quake or any other such thing. That is a meanigful sense in which the brain is not a computer.

---

But the irony is, both of those programmes are external manifestations of a programme we execute in our heads already. Obviously we could not port MS Word to the brain directly... but I reckon we could if we understand the brains protocols appropriately. And that someday we will do something very like that. I have sometimes referred to consciousness as the BOS - Brain Operating System. I have yet to encounter any property of the brain for which there is reason to think it could not be duplicated by a computer.But I have to say, I can't even see, any more, why people think there is a difference at all. Both of these devices have the primary purpose of shuffling information about; in terms of their interactions with the physical universe, they are very similar. I'm at tye point that I think the differences between them is the stonrg claim i need of strong proof. I don't see anyone suggesting that a mechanical leg or arm is totally different to a robotic leg or arm, and I think the same should be applied to the brain.This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-28-2004 09:59 AM

I leave you torquing on this then Nobel Laurete JMLEHN in perspective on conjectures of hardware and software IN ANY SOMA, "MOLECULAR PROGRAMMING involves the incorporation into molecular components of sutiable instructions for the generation by self-assembly of a well-defined supramolecular entity. Depending on the design of the interaction patterns between the components, nore or less strict programming of the output species will be achieved. The programme is, molecular, the information being contained in the covalent structural framework; its operation theough non-covalent recognition algorthims is supramolecular. The processing of molecular information via molecular recognition events imples the passage from the molecular to the supramolecular level."Read the deep but weep not! Bye--

Computers work on a synchronous clock running a single command at a time (generally, parallel computers are a bit different obviously). They have seperate and discernable memories. They are carefully constructed to seperate hardware and software.Brains operate by the complex interactions of seperate entities each affecting it's neighbours in an asynchronous manner, and sometimes involving broadcast signalling. Brains have no clear seperation of memory and processor. I think if you wish to claim computers and brains work the same you are the one making the strong claim that needs support. And, as above. I disagree. The difference between hardware and software is not as clear cut as one might think, and certainly embedded systems push the limits however in standard PC the distinction is clear, and the categories meaningful. I disagree. Evidence please? And define 'externally indistinguishable' please. I'm not denying that there are strong parallels between brains and computers, or that some areas of computational theory are relevant. I'm denying that the brain is a computer. Even our most advanced computers' apparent operation is wildly differently from brains - they fail to solve problems that seem trivial to the brain (e.g. image recognition, language recognition) while absolutely creaming the best human competitors in other areas (arithmetic, for example). Where is the computer that can love, or appreciate music?Hmm... I think this has wondered a long way off topic. Perhaps you would liek to create a new thread to discuss this further.

(Mr Jack, post 19) (Mr Jack, post 23) (Mr Jack, post 25) (Mr Jack, post 61) Mr Jack, where have you established your "question at hand" that you state as "is monism compatible with the afterlife?" (let alone defined 'the afterlife')All the above are increasingly strong assertions that physical evolution "debunks" or is "incompatible with" dualism. But Paisano has already pointed out that these are still only assertions and do not make any case against dualism or any other possibility.Thank you, though, for introducing me to the term dualism. I think this and several other philosophies are very well described hereIn the meantime I'd still be very interested if you could demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution disproves anything pertaining to an afterlife, dualistic or otherwise.

quote:

---

Computers work on a synchronous clock running a single command at a time (generally, parallel computers are a bit different obviously). They have seperate and discernable memories. They are carefully constructed to seperate hardware and software.

---

They are not CONSTRUCTED to separate hardware from software, and the distinction is artificial, as I have already pointed out. We also have an internal clock, of necessity, and I see every reason to think it performs an analogous scheduling fucntion. As you acknowledge, parllele computers are "a bit different", and computers are not the singular, monolithic archetype you imply.

quote:

---

Brains operate by the complex interactions of seperate entities each affecting it's neighbours in an asynchronous manner,

---

Right; thats why computers have an Interrupt system to allow sub-systems to intervene in the core processor or the behaviour of other subsystesm; another parallel.

quote:

---

and sometimes involving broadcast signalling.

---

AKA 'polling'

quote:

---

Brains have no clear seperation of memory and processor.

---

Not a clear one, no, but that does not imply there is not a distinction. There are however indications that the actiove locus in the brain can be migrated to respond to physical traume. However, a computer can also use the disk as virtual memory, succesafully blurring the distinction between primary and secondary storage in media; the old RAM-drives carried out the same blurring the other way.

quote:

---

I think if you wish to claim computers and brains work the same you are the one making the strong claim that needs support. And, as above.

---

Well, am I writing an academic article? I think you'll find the answer is "no". This is is a discussion board, containing a thread calle "just an evo robot", and I am contributing my opinion to that thread. You're entitled to express your opinion as disagreement; you are not entitled to arrogantly dismiss my position as completely unfounded unless you have some serious indication that my thoughts are so flawed as to not even be worthy of discussion on such a thread. In short, Chill.

quote:

---

I disagree. The difference between hardware and software is not as clear cut as one might think, and certainly embedded systems push the limits however in standard PC the distinction is clear, and the categories meaningful.

---

Is that intended to disagree with me? I was arguing indeed that the categories are not clear cut. I predict they will steadily blur.

quote:

---

I disagree. Evidence please? And define 'externally indistinguishable' please.

---

BOGGLE. A photo of your brain and a photo of mine would be pretty much indistinguishable, and yet clearly exhibit different personalities.

quote:

---

I'm not denying that there are strong parallels between brains and computers, or that some areas of computational theory are relevant. I'm denying that the brain is a computer.

---

Well, 'computer' used to be a term for people who performed calculations, like navigational plotting for example. So if you agree that there are strong parallels, and that computational theory is relevant, what is the dinstinction you see between computers and brains? They are both information systems; both perform the functions for their hosts that information systems perform consistently and exist to do. They are in essence the same device expressed with different underlying technology.

quote:

---

n our most advanced computers' apparent operation is wildly differently from brains - they fail to solve problems that seem trivial to the brain (e.g. image recognition, language recognition) while absolutely creaming the best human competitors in other areas (arithmetic, for example). Where is the computer that can love, or appreciate music?

---

It hink thats asking too much; jelly-based computers have millions of years of evolution behind them, our silicon-based computers have less than a hundred! I mean, apples and oranges!I am not arguing that presently existing computers are indistinguishable from the organic brain; only that in the broad, they are the same klind of device performing the same kind of functions; for the purposes of the threads question about Evo robots, that it seems to me is a sufficient response.I don;t have too much more to sa on the point, but if you feel it would be worth a thread, I'd be more than happy to contribute.