Energy cannot be destroyed.....

[Dr B]

Ever heard this one in a woo-woo context? :cheesy:

Basically - it's a common piece of nonsense from the pseudoscientist. In its basic form they claim (for example) that as energy (what ever that means) cannot be destroyed, then the mind must live on after brain death. So here mind is taken as equivalent to energy.

I have not heard many physicists tackle this (probably because its soooo mind-numbingly obvious) - but for me its nonsense partly because energy can be transformed.

Dead brains will always biodegrade. This process is energy. So the energy has been transformed with no need to claim that mind has survived. Seems simple enough to me. :angel:

Are there other physical aspects to consider here?

Maybe we need an accessible discussion here of some basic physical ideas, theories, laws, to place this claim in its proper context and show why it does not work.

[Araneus]

It's just a standard fallacy of equivocation: the statement that "energy cannot be destroyed" only applies to the physical definition of "energy", not the colloquial use that refers to a person's enthusiasm or motivation.

[vbloke]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that the "energy" in the brain was mostly electro-chemical in nature, hence it would simply break down into simpler chemical constituents and be consumed by bacteria upon death?

[Dr B]

Vbloke

Quite right - but a biodegrading brain is something woo's have never thought off in relation to their strange view of 'energy'. O0

[Dr B]

It's just a standard fallacy of equivocation: the statement that "energy cannot be destroyed" only applies to the physical definition of "energy", not the colloquial use that refers to a person's enthusiasm or motivation.

Good point - but its more than that at the same time. The point is, even if you allow them to use a nebulous notion of energy - it still falls down for other reasons as well as those you mention.

So it's a flawed argument on numerous levels - but it is a common fallacy and i think it is helpful (educational) here for us to discuss the many problems.

[vbloke]

I guess the concept of entropy is also foreign to them as well then - if your mind survives as energy after death, it must surely disperse over time.

[Dr B]

Someone (I cant remember who) made an argument that the mind does survive brain death but only briefly.....:cheesy:

There was no evidence of course. It's an argument that never really got adopted.....with good reason me thinks......

[Araneus]

Good point - but its more than that at the same time. The point is, even if you allow them to use a nebulous notion of energy - it still falls down for other reasons as well as those you mention.

I'm not sure there is any more to it than that, though. The fact of the matter is that they are attempting to apply a physical property of "energy" to something else, which is NOT in fact energy but just referred to using the same word, in order to pretend that their beliefs have some physical foundation.

One could similarly declare that bicycles are a form of energy (they move, after all), and from this deduce that bicycles are indestructable because "energy cannot be destroyed". This is of course nonsense, because bicycles are not a form of energy, and the physical comparison does not apply. I'm sure there are other reasons why bicycles could still be destroyed even if they were considered a form of energy, but with a fundamental semantic error so grievous I am not convinced of the benefit in examining them.

[Dr B]

I'm not sure there is any more to it than that, though.

No - I think there is. Biodegrading matter involves processes - though not in the manner implied by the woo woo.

I am saying that even if you concede the nebulous concepts of 'energy' - it still does not stand up.

I think both points work on different levels - but i disagree that equivocation explains it all.

[bobdezon]

It is my understanding of the matter, that this brain "energy" simply becomes another form of energy during the death process. If the energy is electircal in nature while the person is alive it will be transferred to kintetic (as the person falls over and dies) and thermal as the body cools.

I dislike the way the practitioners of woo use this seemingly immutable law of physics to bolster their own claim to survival after death, and then totally disregard most other forms of physics when they conflict with their views. Talk about cherry picking data. :-\

[Dr B]

Hiya Bob

It is my understanding of the matter, that this brain "energy" simply becomes another form of energy during the death process.

Exactly my point - the 'energy' is transformed, even if we overlook the fallacies of equivocation.


I dislike the way the practitioners of woo use this seemingly immutable law of physics to bolster their own claim to survival after death, and then totally disregard most other forms of physics when they conflict with their views. Talk about cherry picking data. :-\

I totally agree with you on that one O0

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Ever heard this one in a woo-woo context? :cheesy:

Basically - it's a common piece of nonsense from the pseudoscientist. In its basic form they claim (for example) that as energy (what ever that means) cannot be destroyed, then the mind must live on after brain death. So here mind is taken as equivalent to energy.

I have not heard many physicists tackle this (probably because its soooo mind-numbingly obvious) - but for me its nonsense partly because energy can be transformed.

Dead brains will always biodegrade. This process is energy. So the energy has been transformed with no need to claim that mind has survived. Seems simple enough to me. :angel:

Are there other physical aspects to consider here?

Maybe we need an accessible discussion here of some basic physical ideas, theories, laws, to place this claim in its proper context and show why it does not work.


Spookily enough, this just popped up at JREF:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87952

Mind you, this chap doesn't content himself with the " energy can't be destroyed" patter. He's going for the full set!

[Julia]

Oooh, synchronicity! ;)

(spooky music plays in background)

[Dr B]

We were first!!!!! ;D;D:cheesy:

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Oooh, synchronicity! ;)

(spooky music plays in background)

Considering what's happening to the chap now, I think the theme from Jaws might be more apt. :-)

[mahakala]

Ever heard this one in a woo-woo context? :cheesy:

Basically - it's a common piece of nonsense from the pseudoscientist. In its basic form they claim (for example) that as energy (what ever that means) cannot be destroyed, then the mind must live on after brain death. So here mind is taken as equivalent to energy.

I have not heard many physicists tackle this (probably because its soooo mind-numbingly obvious) - but for me its nonsense partly because energy can be transformed.

Dead brains will always biodegrade. This process is energy. So the energy has been transformed with no need to claim that mind has survived. Seems simple enough to me. :angel:

Are there other physical aspects to consider here?

Maybe we need an accessible discussion here of some basic physical ideas, theories, laws, to place this claim in its proper context and show why it does not work.

Well here's the thing. In one line you say you don't know what is meant by energy and then in another line quote a property of energy.

Besides, the question of what is mind is a good one. What is thought, and who or what is a thinker. At least the woo-woos are taking a stab at the question whereas you, as usual, are just arguing with yourself, proving that a person can have two or more minds, but they don't necessarily need anything but themselves with which to pose, and disagree.

[bobdezon]

<------------the boat is that way, hurry youll miss it O0

Seriously is it troll season? ::)

[median]

Besides, the question of what is mind is a good one

I always took 'mind' to be an emergent process. A function of neuronal activity?

[vbloke]

Well here's the thing. In one line you say you don't know what is meant by energy and then in another line quote a property of energy.

Besides, the question of what is mind is a good one. What is thought, and who or what is a thinker. At least the woo-woos are taking a stab at the question whereas you, as usual, are just arguing with yourself, proving that a person can have two or more minds, but they don't necessarily need anything but themselves with which to pose, and disagree.If "woos" (I hate that term, btw) are so keen on quoting one of the laws of thermodynamics, why don't they quote the other ones?

1: energy cannot be created or destroyed.
So, according to "woos", the "mind" is energy, so it must survive bodily death in some form.

2: entropy always increases in a system.
But, however, over time, energy becomes more and more chaotic, so during your eternal afterlife, you would literally "lose your mind".

3: as temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant
where does your "mind" go? It's cold out in space - very cold. Essentially, your "mind" would freeze and no further thinking or experience would be possible.

[John Jackson]

At least the woo-woos are taking a stab at the question whereas you, as usual, are just arguing with yourself

May I make a small point here?

Dr B is a neuroscientist (a brain scientist).

Just thought I'd let you know. :cheesy:

I know, as it's obvious from your recent posts, that you're simply attempting to disrupt the forum with stupidity but this 'attack' of yours made me laugh. ;D

[drj]

An interesting thread. It begins with derogatory remarks about individuals who for whatever reason are deemed undesirable by neo-skepticism:


Ever heard this one in a woo-woo context?

Basically - it's a common piece of nonsense from the pseudoscientist. In its basic form they claim (for example) that as energy (what ever that means) cannot be destroyed, then the mind must live on after brain death. So here mind is taken as equivalent to energy.

I have not heard many physicists tackle this (probably because its soooo mind-numbingly obvious) - but for me its nonsense partly because energy can be transformed.

Dead brains will always biodegrade. This process is energy. So the energy has been transformed with no need to claim that mind has survived. Seems simple enough to me.

Are there other physical aspects to consider here?

Maybe we need an accessible discussion here of some basic physical ideas, theories, laws, to place this claim in its proper context and show why it does not work.

I agree that there is a need for a discussion that specifically limits itself to the scientific investigation, an investigation that seriously studies the fallacies behind “the mind lives on after brain death”.

More disparaging comments and unsubstantiated opinions color the thread:

It is my understanding of the matter, that this brain "energy" simply becomes another form of energy during the death process. If the energy is electircal in nature while the person is alive it will be transferred to kintetic (as the person falls over and dies) and thermal as the body cools.

I dislike the way the practitioners of woo use this seemingly immutable law of physics to bolster their own claim to survival after death, and then totally disregard most other forms of physics when they conflict with their views. Talk about cherry picking data.

Before forming conclusions about laws of physics, there is a mandatory requirement to first clarify what is implied by the term “electrical”. It is an absurdity to claim a conclusion based upon an unknown thing. It is also unreasonable to expect anyone to take a person’s opinions seriously if the opinions’ words are carelessly misspelled.

As is found in many other threads, Median’s input usefully followed the line of opening a discussion:

I always took 'mind' to be an emergent process. A function of neuronal activity?

Median’s comment opened the topic to one of its more common areas to investigate. Unfortunately, the discussion dies with the argument for authority fallacy:

May I make a small point here?

Dr B is a neuroscientist (a brain scientist).

An alleged education or occupation of an individual is immaterial, and further, an expertise in the topic must first be ascertained before any novel opinion by the individual might be held with sufficient respect to be considered for further investigation. Until such evidence is presented, any and all references to Dr B’s alleged credentials are immaterial and only serve to lessen the quality of the discussion.

Dr B posed the idea to discuss the topic of mind after brain death, a discussion I would enjoy observing.

Is such a discussion possible? And if so, is it possible for the discussion to use the scientific method and not be reduced to the childish noo-noo versus woo-woo?

[John Jackson]

Is such a discussion possible? And if so, is it possible for the discussion to use the scientific method and not be reduced to the childish noo-noo versus woo-woo?

Well why don't you start us off again then?

Try to do so without your condescending attitude though, yes?

None of your 'Argument to Authority' attitude (Note: it's not Argument for Authority as you so wrongly stated ;)) either, eh? It has not been ascertained that you are an authority on anything as of yet (except to yourself perhaps).

So forget your self-appointed authority role and let's see if you can post something of substance for a change. O0

[bobdezon]

Before forming conclusions about laws of physics, there is a mandatory requirement to first clarify what is implied by the term “electrical”. It is an absurdity to claim a conclusion based upon an unknown thing. It is also unreasonable to expect anyone to take a person’s opinions seriously if the opinions’ words are carelessly misspelled.

I said it is my understanding of the belief, as far as I know the brain uses electrical impulses to transfer signals to stimulate certain areas of the brain for certain responses and actions. I was not aware this concept was unknown to science. Your point about nobody taking me seriously because of a spelling error quite frankly makes you look like a pedantic ass. I have severe arthritis which makes typing extremely difficult as my fingers look like birds feet. I would hope people are grateful they recognise anything I type at all. It is very difficult for me to remain 100% typical.

[mahakala]

If "woos" (I hate that term, btw) are so keen on quoting one of the laws of thermodynamics, why don't they quote the other ones?

1: energy cannot be created or destroyed.
So, according to "woos", the "mind" is energy, so it must survive bodily death in some form.

2: entropy always increases in a system.
But, however, over time, energy becomes more and more chaotic, so during your eternal afterlife, you would literally "lose your mind".

3: as temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant
where does your "mind" go? It's cold out in space - very cold. Essentially, your "mind" would freeze and no further thinking or experience would be possible.

Perhaps the mistake they are making is not making a distinction between "mind" and "consciousness" which may be two different things altogether.

[ZERO]

Energy can't be destroyed. It gets converted to other energy and eventully thermal energy. Heat.
Just heat. No information is stored in heat. No consciousness.
Heat. End of the line.
Sorry, you have to except the awfull fact that when you die, that is it.

[MRT]

Actually, you can store information in heat - there's temperature and heat flow, for instance! Every physical entity contains some information from its very existence. You can also imply things about its history from its current state and rate of change. Isn't science wonderful! :smiley:

[vbloke]

Perhaps the mistake they are making is not making a distinction between "mind" and "consciousness" which may be two different things altogether.They may be, but even so, if either are made of free-floating "energy", then they're subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

[brianp]

Sorry, you have to except the awfull fact that when you die, that is it.
I certainly hope so. The alternative, eternal life, is just too horrible to contemplate. They say the first billion billion years are the worst, but I'm not convinced.

[vbloke]

I certainly hope so. The alternative, eternal life, is just too horrible to contemplate. They say the first billion billion years are the worst, but I'm not convinced.http://cectic.com/056.html

[Tuition]

Energy can't be destroyed. It gets converted to other energy and eventully thermal energy. Heat.
Just heat. No information is stored in heat. No consciousness.
Heat. End of the line.
Sorry, you have to except the awfull fact that when you die, that is it.

If consciousness is nothing more than neural networks, and that pattern of networks defines 'self,' then I have to agree ... but is it. This as yet is not fact (but am inclined to believe so) Im a bit off a wall sitter for a sceptic, but science would never progress without a philosophical outlook.

The age old 'Energy can not be destroyed only converted', I dont like the argument that consciousness == energy, since everything == energy, and energy > consciousness in which Energy is in a constant steady state equilibrium with everything.

If we say, consciousness is a type of energy, say alpha. Then alpha is quite possibly destroyed after death and converted to beta (which may include that messy gas after decomposition, mostly CO2 and H2O)

[tolman]

I don't see how one could call consciousness a form of energy any more meaningfully than calling literature a form of energy.

Consciousness in any useful definition of the word would seem to be an emergent property of a brain operating in certain modes.

I can lose consciousness and regain it as activity levels of various parts of my brain alter, but it doesn't go anywhere and then return, or get converted into anything else and then converted back, it just fluctuates like harmonies between shifting notes.
Consciousness is something that only really seems meaningful at quite high levels of abstraction compared to the level of physics and chemistry of the operation of brain tissue (where 'energy' might be a useful concept).

Q. Where does the 'processing' go when I turn off my computer?
A. Well, it doesn't go anywhere, it just stops happening.

[Julia]

I certainly hope so. The alternative, eternal life, is just too horrible to contemplate. They say the first billion billion years are the worst, but I'm not convinced.

Well said, Brian! The prospect of eternal life is truly dreadful - it's the comparitive brevity of life that makes it so important not to waste it on irrational nonsense. ;)

[bindeweede]

Well said, Brian! The prospect of eternal life is truly dreadful - it's the comparitive brevity of life that makes it so important not to waste it on irrational nonsense. ;)

OOOh, I'm still on!. I've have thought - what happens if you are bored stiff with eternal life? How do you commit suicide in the after-life? And if you manage it, where do you go? It is all such tish-tosh-tush.

Julia, as you say - make the best of life. Surely, everyone knows it makes sense.

[ZERO]

Bah! You're all a bunch of quitters.:cheesy:
I want to live/exist/be conscious forever.
Damn reality.

[bindeweede]

Bah! You're all a bunch of quitters.:cheesy:
I want to live/exist/be conscious forever.
Damn reality.

All I want is to be conscious tomorrow, duckie. What more could anyone want?

[John Jackson]

How do you commit suicide in the after-life? And if you manage it, where do you go?

You probably come back here!! ;D

There's no escape! ???

We're all doomed!!!!!

Life or afterlife whether you want it or not.

Which raises an interesting question!

If you want to die (i.e. enter total oblivion) do you have the choice? ???

Unless eternal paradise exists, I'll take oblivion every time. O0

[Lord Muck oGentry]

You probably come back here!! ;D

There's no escape! ???

We're all doomed!!!!!

Life or afterlife whether you want it or not.




CURSE YOU, DR B!

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=14024&highlight=weekly+reincarnation#post14024

[median]

You probably come back here!!

There's no escape!

We're all doomed!!!!!

Life or afterlife whether you want it or not.


I'm waiting for the inevitable Argumentum Ad Immortalium

;D

[MRT]

I don't see how one could call consciousness a form of energy any more meaningfully than calling literature a form of energy.

This is a very good point! Consciousness is a function of the brain! It is not energy, it is not even information. It is simply one of the things the brain does, when it is working. You need to power a brain with chemicals to make it conscious. You can say the same about thinking and other functions of the brain. Take away the power input and they simply cease.

[Cuddles]

All I want is to be conscious tomorrow, duckie. What more could anyone want?

Jam tomorrow.

Bah! You're all a bunch of quitters.:cheesy:
I want to live/exist/be conscious forever.
Damn reality.

Live forever or die trying!

[Zaira]

drj,

"Is such a discussion possible? And if so, is it possible for the discussion to use the scientific method and not be reduced to the childish noo-noo versus woo-woo?"

Wow! Well said. I have become quite frustrated with the tone of things lately. I could be wrong but it seems no one is getting a fair hearing.

I too was looking forward to observing this discussion but it kinda died in the middle.

[Zaira]

ZERO

"Sorry, you have to except the awfull fact that when you die, that is it."

I accept that the body dies. But....... Is there more? Is the body, as some believe, merely a vessel?

[Zaira]

tolman,

"Q. Where does the 'processing' go when I turn off my computer?
A. Well, it doesn't go anywhere, it just stops happening."

But in a way we are a part of the computer, we make the computer work. It wouldn't do very much if we were not there to click buttons. So we turn off the computer and we walk away..........!!

[Zaira]

Sorry for all the posts but you lot have gone off for lunch and left me talking to myself. :-*

[tolman]

I accept that the body dies. But....... Is there more? Is the body, as some believe, merely a vessel?
Some people want to believe the body is more than a vessel, but they don't seem to have provided anything by way of evidence for those beliefs. The beliefs carry on regardless, in one form or another depending on local culture, but all seem equally unsupported.

If they wish to be taken seriously, people who believe in a 'soul' in which resides some significant fraction of a person's personality or memories would seem to be under an obligation to explain how that idea can be squared with the evident temporary or permanent loss of brain function (including personality and memory) due to physical brain injury and disease.

If Granny really doesn't remember anything more recent than 1950 any more, how does that square with some extracorporeal repository of information? Does a soul have to use slightly different brain circuitry to communicate memories from different times?

[tolman]

tolman,

"Q. Where does the 'processing' go when I turn off my computer?
A. Well, it doesn't go anywhere, it just stops happening."

But in a way we are a part of the computer, we make the computer work. It wouldn't do very much if we were not there to click buttons. So we turn off the computer and we walk away..........!!
You're missing the point.
Even without a person there, the machine would carry on running even if it wasn't doing much more than housekeeping tasks. It would still be processing.
Looking at what processing is, it's the process of changing of machine states over time. When the machine is off, it doesn't have any changing states, so there isn't any processing.

In the same way, when a brain is off (ie when the owner of the brain is properly dead) there aren't any meaningful states, so there can't be any meaningful changing of states (ie thinking or consciousness).

If you described dance as the change of state of a body in motion, it wouldn't make sense to ask where the dance had gone when someone stopped moving. It didn't go anywhere. It didn't get converted into anything else. It just stopped happening.

[John Jackson]

drj,

"Is such a discussion possible? And if so, is it possible for the discussion to use the scientific method and not be reduced to the childish noo-noo versus woo-woo?"

Wow! Well said. I have become quite frustrated with the tone of things lately. I could be wrong but it seems no one is getting a fair hearing.

What are you talking about Zaira?

You do realise that DrJ has done nothing but act condescendingly and has attempted to ridicule other posters since he got here don't you?

Of course you do, but it suits you to make it look otherwise, eh? ;)

DrJ is welcome to start a thread on whatever it is his belief is and if he does so politely, he will be treated politely. It's down to him.

[median]

MRT wrote: Consciousness is a function of the brain!

As, heat is a function of light
So it follows that, for example, change /damage to brain (or specific higher cortical areas) equals change/damage to consciousness. I have no problem with that however, heat is also a function of friction so whilst consciousness may be a function of brain activity does it automatically follow that it is exclusively such a property? (Some interesting debates in the field of A.I. touch on this I think)

That aside, I think that what needs to be clear is what actually constitutes a test for the question of whether consciousness can exist independently (i.e. outside the body)

It is not energy,
it is not even information.

That is debatable if you classify it in the terms of information as a pattern, which some do.
However, clarification of terms such as information and consciousness has always been difficult and I suspect part of the reason of such sustained speculation and controversy.

Regards

Median

[Legaleagle]

I accept that the body dies. But....... Is there more? Is the body, as some believe, merely a vessel?

Well, if the body displayed in your avatar photo is a vessel... I fancy a drink:shocked:

[tolman]

MRT wrote:
As, heat is a function of light
So it follows that, for example, change /damage to brain (or specific higher cortical areas) equals change/damage to consciousness. I have no problem with that however, heat is also a function of friction so whilst consciousness may be a function of brain activity does it automatically follow that it is exclusively such a property? (Some interesting debates in the field of A.I. touch on this I think)
Well, *human* consciousness is a result of human neural processing.
If machine consciousness is possible, that would rather undermine the position of people arguing for the possibility of consciousness being eternal, since in a machine it would rather more obviously be something that really would halt when the machine was halted or turned off.

That is debatable if you classify it in the terms of information as a pattern, which some do.
However, clarification of terms such as information and consciousness has always been difficult and I suspect part of the reason of such sustained speculation and controversy.
Consciousness has to be more than a static pattern or a collection of information, since change seems a necessary component of consciousness.

[Zaira]

Legaleagle,

Help yourself. Drink of my vessel, good sir. Enjoy! >:D

[Zaira]

John,

I agreed with what someone posted and said so. What's wrong with that?
I don't hold someone's history against them, I allow them to move on.

[Zaira]

tolman,

"Even without a person there, the machine would carry on running even if it wasn't doing much more than housekeeping tasks. It would still be processing."

But you set it up to do housekeeping etc. Yes?

[median]

Tolman

I agree with your view of consciousness as a process. However, there is a possibility that can be suspended to a greater or lesser degree, in certain cases, (by coma or anaesthetic, for example)

If machine consciousness is possible, that would rather undermine the position of people arguing for the possibility of consciousness being eternal, since in a machine it would rather more obviously be something that really would halt when the machine was halted or turned off.

Isn’t it the case though that turning off a machine would be akin to death in a biological entity? In this case, the above argument would not strengthen the idea of continued consciousness but merely reinforce it?

Acknowledging the pitfalls of the computer analogy, couldn’t a counter argument be that it more likely for eternal existence of a machine consciousness, assuming of course an ease of transfer from one machine organism to another?

Median

[Zaira]

tolman,

"If they wish to be taken seriously, people who believe in a 'soul' in which resides some significant fraction of a person's personality or memories would seem to be under an obligation to explain how that idea can be squared with the evident temporary or permanent loss of brain function (including personality and memory) due to physical brain injury and disease."

What needs to be clear is what actually constitutes an after-life. I'm reading and, if I'm reading correctly, you are discussing what actually moves on to the after-life, if anything does. I don't believe in an after-life, as in we go somewhere and meet up with long lost family members. The body dies and that is it. I do however believe that something (that which pressed the buttons and set up the housekeeping process on the computer/body) does. It goes on to incarnate in a new body and continue it's journey. This something is known by many names; soul, spirit, entity, essence and many more depending on culture and beliefs. It may remember the past life it experienced but the new body knows nothing of this 'past life'.

Getting back to this computer. When the computer is turned off, if your smart you will have taken a back up of your files. That in part is the essence of the machine... It is what the machine was built for. You don't just work on your computer and then turn it off without saving something!

[Zaira]

median,

"Acknowledging the pitfalls of the computer analogy, couldn’t a counter argument be that it more likely for eternal existence of a machine consciousness, assuming of course an ease of transfer from one machine organism to another?"

Exactly! Or something along those lines.

[tolman]

I agree with your view of consciousness as a process. However, there is a possibility that can be suspended to a greater or lesser degree, in certain cases, (by coma or anaesthetic, for example)
And?
Viewing consciousness as a property of a fully-functioning brain doesn't require that it's a continuous property.

Isn’t it the case though that turning off a machine would be akin to death in a biological entity?
Not if it could be turned on again.
Smashing up or wiping the machine such that it couldn't work again would be the equivalent of death.

Acknowledging the pitfalls of the computer analogy, couldn’t a counter argument be that it more likely for eternal existence of a machine consciousness, assuming of course an ease of transfer from one machine organism to another?
Not at all.
A machine version might allow for cloning of consciousnesses, or the perpetuation of an individual one given long-lived hardware but would also allow for the permanent ceasing of a consciousness. Without some actual hardware running the consciousness it wouldn't happen.
The possibility for the long-term continuation of consciousness in a life-extended human doesn't have any bearing on mind existing naturally *after* death, and neither does the (unlikely) possibility of being able to largely copy a human mind in some hyperadvanced technology.

The people pushing the 'mind=energy' idea are doing so precisely because they don't see ant other practical way of being able to believe what they want to believe, or they are covering multiple bases.
If they believed in aliens who could copy their mind and let it carry on or a god who could make everything magically OK, they wouldn't need to grasp at the 'energy' straw.

[Legaleagle]

Help yourself. Drink of my vessel, good sir. Enjoy >:D


{Undoes top button} phew, getting a bit warm in here!




Getting back to this computer. When the computer is turned off, if your smart you will have taken a back up of your files. That in part is the essence of the machine... It is what the machine was built for. You don't just work on your computer and then turn it off without saving something!

Well, yes, but where is the evidence of this information transfer taking place in the way you suggest? There are plenty of ways that humans "back up" and transfer information, but not in the way you are suggesting. We can pass on knowledge through physical communication with others and, I guess, we transfer data direct to our offspring when we breed. But I just don't see any evidence of the other "paranormal" process that you have proposed.

[Zaira]

tolman,

"Not if it could be turned on again.
Smashing up or wiping the machine such that it couldn't work again would be the equivalent of death."

Not really. You would still have your backed up files and those can be fed into a new computer.

[Zaira]

Legaleagle,

I'm just typing out loud. I guess I'm still looking for it. If you find it let me know. ;)

[John Jackson]

I agreed with what someone posted and said so. What's wrong with that?

Funny how you always seem to sympathise with those who disrupt or criticise this forum and its posters though isn't it?

I scrutinised your postings and behaviour when your psychic friends joined us a few weeks ago and I saw through your act. You're as false as a bag full of arseholes. ;)

[tolman]

tolman,

"Not if it could be turned on again.
Smashing up or wiping the machine such that it couldn't work again would be the equivalent of death."

Not really. You would still have your backed up files and those can be fed into a new computer.
Only if you had backed up the files, which would be an operation logically equivalent to 'attempted consciousness cloning', and which therefore is something with no known practical equivalent in human cognition.

[MRT]

MRT wrote:

As, heat is a function of light

Eh? How is heat a function of light???? Can you please explain - I'm utterly baffled?

So it follows that, for example, change /damage to brain (or specific higher cortical areas) equals change/damage to consciousness.

Consciousness is ONE function of the brain. There are lots of other unconscious functions. It depends what you damage in the brain as to which bits are affected. Also, the brain can, to some extent, recover function by using different areas after damage. It is brain damage that, until MRI, was the main scientific method of studying brain function.

I have no problem with that however, heat is also a function of friction so whilst consciousness may be a function of brain activity does it automatically follow that it is exclusively such a property? (Some interesting debates in the field of A.I. touch on this I think)

Heat is not a function of friction. Functions are performed by machines (in the broadest sense). A machine is something whose purpose is to change states. So a waterfall changes the state of water by reducing its gravitational potential. Friction, on the other hand, is not a machine - it has no purpose. Heat is a side effect of friction, not a function.

A wheel is clearly a machine for transforming motion between axes. At the axis there will be friction and, as a result, excess heat. That heat is an unwanted by-product of using the wheel, it is not its purpose.

Taking the computer analogy that everyone seems happy with, 'consciousness' is the function going on in the central processors. It is not a physical thing, it is the mathematics going on in the processor. It is an abstraction. If you damage the processor, consciousness will continue but may produce unexpected results. Turn off the processor and, though it retains the potential to process, it cannot because it has no energy.

As to whether consciousness is exclusive to brains - who knows!

That aside, I think that what needs to be clear is what actually constitutes a test for the question of whether consciousness can exist independently (i.e. outside the body)


Well, the test of consciousness for computers used to be the Turing test, though I believe that's a bit old hat these days. Perhaps, if you could have a conversation with a disembodied consciousness without being aware that it wasn't human, that would be a start.

[Zaira]

Ah! John. Always the word-smith. ;)

[median]

Heat is not a function of friction. Functions are performed by machines (in the broadest sense). A machine is something whose purpose is to change states. So a waterfall changes the state of water by reducing its gravitational potential. Friction, on the other hand, is not a machine - it has no purpose. Heat is a side effect of friction, not a function.

A wheel is clearly a machine for transforming motion between axes. At the axis there will be friction and, as a result, excess heat. That heat is an unwanted by-product of using the wheel, it is not its purpose

I was using the term 'function' in the sense of a dependent variable.

Eh? How is heat a function of light? Can you please explain - I'm utterly baffled?





Actually, so am I.;D
I meant light is a function of heat (under certain conditions and further qualifications).
Bugger, that'll teach me not to proof read my own posts.:cheesy:

Consciousness is ONE function of the brain. There are lots of other unconscious functions. It depends what you damage in the brain as to which bits are affected. Also, the brain can, to some extent, recover function by using different areas after damage. It is brain damage that, until MRI, was the main scientific method of studying brain function


Agreed. Although I thought I mentioned that with the term 'specific higher cortical areas' O0

[mahakala]

They may be, but even so, if either are made of free-floating "energy", then they're subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm not sure they are both energy. Consciousness may be something else altogether. The one realisation that the act of observation changes the properties of that which is oberserved muddies much of the process. It may also be that the laws of thermodynamics are only the beginning and only applicable to one level of understanding. There is no absolute understanding of reality and any scientist who says there is is not a scientist.

[Julia]

You're as false as a bag full of arseholes. ;)

I've never come across this saying before, but I shall endeavour to use it at the earliest opportunity! ;D

[bindeweede]

He does have a certain way with words, does he not? I'd never heard of that one either, but you do come here to learn things, after all.:smiley:

[vbloke]

I'm not sure they are both energy. Consciousness may be something else altogether. The one realisation that the act of observation changes the properties of that which is oberserved muddies much of the process. It may also be that the laws of thermodynamics are only the beginning and only applicable to one level of understanding. There is no absolute understanding of reality and any scientist who says there is is not a scientist.Then what are they?

Also, you should be aware that the Copenhagen Interpretation (which you seem to be invoking) has been largely discredited now.

[tolman]

Great.
So now we have quantum vagueness mixed in with conservation-of-energy pontifications on an issue where neither seem remotely applicable?

[median]

I'm not sure they are both energy. Consciousness may be something else altogether

But you must start with a definition, surely to begin to explore the concept fully. How else can you decide whether something is or is not 'energy'?

[mahakala]

Then what are they?

Also, you should be aware that the Copenhagen Interpretation (which you seem to be invoking) has been largely discredited now.

I think that perhaps consciousness is a unified field underpinning all of reality and our brain is a mechanism by which we create awareness of that field and learn to utilize it for various ends. Evolution is towards that and away from the opposite.

[tolman]

I think that perhaps consciousness is a unified field underpinning all of reality and our brain is a mechanism by which we create awareness of that field and learn to utilize it for various ends. Evolution is towards that and away from the opposite.
What?
My consciousness has all the characteristics of a personalised, local process running on the hardware that is my brain.
My brain only seems to manage my own consciousness, and not interact with anyone else's apart from by the obvious methods of interpersonal communication.

What you say seems to make as much sense as saying there's a field of lard underpinning all reality, and fat people have a mechanism in their skin that's more aware of that field than the mechanism in thin people.

There's no apparent reason to believe the consciousness-field idea makes sense, except maybe to support some other preconcieved idea you've chosen to believe, and it doesn't seem to explain anything.
In fact, it seems merely to complicate things and put off explanations to some other level, as well as to introduce the complication of a brain being a device that can somehow communicate with this mysterious 'field' despite the field seeming being invisible to any physical machinery yet invented.

[bobdezon]

What you say seems to make as much sense as saying there's a field of lard underpinning all reality, and fat people have a mechanism in their skin that's more aware of that field than the mechanism in thin people

Please refrain from quoting Dr Gary Schwartz, I believe the fatty/skinny dichotomy is not ready for public scrutiny just yet. :-\

[mahakala]

What?
My consciousness has all the characteristics of a personalised, local process running on the hardware that is my brain.
My brain only seems to manage my own consciousness, and not interact with anyone else's apart from by the obvious methods of interpersonal communication.

What you say seems to make as much sense as saying there's a field of lard underpinning all reality, and fat people have a mechanism in their skin that's more aware of that field than the mechanism in thin people.

There's no apparent reason to believe the consciousness-field idea makes sense, except maybe to support some other preconcieved idea you've chosen to believe, and it doesn't seem to explain anything.
In fact, it seems merely to complicate things and put off explanations to some other level, as well as to introduce the complication of a brain being a device that can somehow communicate with this mysterious 'field' despite the field seeming being invisible to any physical machinery yet invented.

I see that is not comfortable, bit I also see that you are beginning to understand.

[MRT]

Can we clear up a couple of points in passing here:

'Free floating energy' - I can't think of an example of how this is possible. The nearest thing is an electromagnetic wave but that's zooming around at high speed and won't stick around. If anyone can think of an example of this, I'd love to hear it.

'Observing a quantum event' - this business of a quantum function being resolved by observation causes a lot of confusion. The 'observation' does not require any consciousness to be present. It would be better if it was put as 'interacting'. The process is better described as: 'the quantum function must interact physically with the universe in some way (eg one particle interacting with another) for its state to be resolved'. Indeed, this is obvious because if it did NOT interact, how would we know what its state was and whether it had changed. The take home point is, consciousness is not required to resolve quantum states.

[median]

'Observing a quantum event' - this business of a quantum function being resolved by observation causes a lot of confusion. The 'observation' does not require any consciousness to be present. It would be better if it was put as 'interacting'. The process is better described as: 'the quantum function must interact physically with the universe in some way (eg one particle interacting with another) for its state to be resolved'. Indeed, this is obvious because if it did NOT interact, how would we know what its state was and whether it had changed. The take home point is, consciousness is not required to resolve quantum states.


Schrodinger has a lot to answer for ;D

Is it the case then that objective collapse has more weight than the old views? I'm curious

[Zaira]

tolman the tolerant,

"Only if you had backed up the files, which would be an operation logically equivalent to 'attempted consciousness cloning', and which therefore is something with no known practical equivalent in human cognition."

Ah! But it's not the person who backs up the files, the person (me) only suspects that files are backed up - perhaps by the entity. The entity backs up it's own files and when the body dies the entity and it's files move on to a fine new body. But... Then again, it needs something to direct the entity to the new body... Is God back in the picture?

Don't worry, guys. You just keep bashing away at your free-floating consciousness ideas. It'll all come out in the wash. But, unfortunately not in our lifetime.

I guess I'll just hold onto my faith till then.

Have faith until you believe and believe until you know.

A is just playin wit ya all.

Happy Halloween!

Great discussion though. Thanks.

[Dr B]

Can someone please provide a link to the fallacies surrounding applications of the Heisenburg principle as applied to the macro level (i.e., - its bollocks) as I fear one person here thinks it's relevant....:cheesy:

[MRT]

Is it the case then that objective collapse has more weight than the old views? I'm curious

The state of a system (one that can be described by a single wave function) is unknown until it interacts physically with something else in the universe. It's as simple as that, really. Since it can have no effect on the universe without interacting with it, who really cares what state it might be in at that point? You can't predict what the exact state will be when it interacts with universe. The possible states are determined by probability, according to Schrodingers equation (tough Einstein - He really does play dice!:smiley:).

There is absolutely no consciousness involved here. The word 'obersever' is just a convention of science. Astronomers might say, for instance, what would an observer on the event horizon of a black hole see? In reality, he would see nothing because he'd be crushed to zilch but he's still there - just a theoretical observer!

All this stuff about 'backing up' consciousness make no sense to me. Continuing with the computer analogy, what you are actually 'backing up' is the memories of the brain, NOT consciousness. Consciousness is the function that processes those memories, together with contemporary sensory input, to build up the 'world in your head' that is consciousness.

You can, in theory, back up someone's memories (indeed it has been seriously proposed) but that is clearly not consciousness. It is also highly arguable about whether a bunch of memories constitutes a personality. Put those in a different human brain and who is that person then?

[tolman]

I see that is not comfortable, bit I also see that you are beginning to understand.
If you actually want to be patronising, you could at least make it clear what you're trying to be patronising about.
Otherwise, you run the risk of looking like someone trying to shirk a meaningful reply in favour of non-specific smugness.