I Am Soul

And just to speculate a bit: Can we eventually create intelligence that will surpass our own, and will such creation be self-aware in approximately the same way we are? Well, time will tell.

When you say we, to remain true to your beliefs, you are referring to a collection of brains individually contained within heads on bodies.
You are not referring to the whole human race, but a part of it, which might one day eventually create intelligence that will surpass the collective intelligence of its creators.

The brain is a very complex thing.

Why would the brain or a collection of brains want to create something more intelligent than themselves?

Do you think it is a product of intelligence to be self aware?

The question is:

Because we agree?
 
Like I wouldn't see this.

Paul

:) :) :)

And/or not be able to make it seen.
”(\” ^..^
Okay brain who was named by another you were supposed to see that. You couldn’t help but see that, as it was obviously there for you to see then to go looking,and choose. You are blowing me away with your incredibly superior intellections
~There is now evidence to support the fact that there are signs of intelligent life on Planet Mars
 

Consciousness is Nothing but a Word,
And the word was spoken and the word was with God.
And the spirit was given from God.

The interesting part about Helen Keller,
She did not recognize one mental state from another because she had no thoughts?

But obviously she did how could you not?

She must have recognized the difference, from the sleep state to the wake state and all of what she felt, the right and wrong of her actions, what worked for her.

How she associated, reward for food and bodily functions had to be a mental state sleep and waking.
Just because she didn’t put it in words doesn’t seem plausible, to have “no thought”.

To have no reality in a visual world would be like being put into total darkness with no view of where you were and if alone in that darkness what could you perceive especially if you couldn’t hear also?
If everything is linked through life why not minds.
To say you lose all senses, when dead, isn’t plausible.
Senses are everything she was brought one step closer from feel, into consciousness and the light.
This was done by some one, with compassion for that person, by interactions through here and their senses, the ones that they could work with.
Information is every thing, the word the actions.

You have us believe we are plunged into the darkness when in reality you are brought forth from the darkness for Helen only a certain degree, which shows coming out of darkness.
So you have a problem when the flesh drops off and then we are brought into the light even further, and our senses are enhanced?
But you have no doubt that when it ends it ends, back to darkness?
Do I read right?
Is there a case study with some one that has no senses?
No feel or touch, blind, deaf, smell, taste?
Why should a mind need these to be a mind?
So to experience the universe you need these senses. The link between minds seems to be here why not to a higher mind
Higher consciousness?
 
Navigator said:
Why would the brain or a collection of brains want to create something more intelligent than themselves?

Why do we create better computers and machines all the time - it's usefull as well as thrilling! :D

In terms of raw computational power (like calculation speed and error avoidance) computers already outperform us. I don’t see any philosophical problems with augmenting overall knowledge production through systems that in some areas outperform human intelligence. As I said, time will tell.

Navigator said:
Do you think it is a product of intelligence to be self aware?

Self-referential capabilities seem to be one aspect or how we define intelligence, a tool for better adaptability in new circumstances. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that self-awareness has been of evolutionary advantage for our species survival, closely linked with sociability. I don’t know if it’s so much about being a product of intelligence as it is one variable leading to higher overall intelligence.
 
Self-referential capabilities seem to be one aspect or how we define intelligence, a tool for better adaptability in new circumstances. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that self-awareness has been of evolutionary advantage for our species survival, closely linked with sociability. I don’t know if it’s so much about being a product of intelligence as it is one variable leading to higher overall intelligence.

Well, yeah, as a species we've whipped every other species' ass good!

If we don't find another planet to similarly screw up soon. we'll even succeed in whooping our very own asses, royally.

Carry on :D


M.
 
Well, yeah, as a species we've whipped every other species' ass good!

If we don't find another planet to similarly screw up soon. we'll even succeed in whooping our very own asses, royally.

Carry on :D


M.

No no no… We should live in space and only visit planets for recreation. :jaw-dropp
 
Why do we create better computers and machines all the time - it's usefull as well as thrilling!

A certain collection of brains creates more powerful ways to do what they are unable to do.
What are these brains looking for precisely that it requires something that is faster at doing things?
Not just thrills!
Is it possible that a collection of brains has created a system in which to measure what they decide is intelligence?
Do you think it is intelligent to waste time trying to educate the less intelligent or is it a necessary thing because the number of individual brains working together on whatever it is that they have agreed upon collectively as being important has a need for more brains?
If it is all about intelligence, do you think the brains collectively wanting to create something vastly more intelligent than themselves so that their creation can tell them what to do?
Or that intelligence is so important that it needs to be preserved and built upon and that the best way to accomplish this might be to create machines, and if the machines decided that brains with bodies are not a good thing overall for intelligence, then the brains with bodies will accept this and if the machines said so, they would graciously give up their illusion of existence for the greater cause of intelligence?
Getting back to that other thing – the one where you convinced me that things can and do exist without that which is able to acknowledge existence ever observing those things:
Do you think it is intelligent to acknowledge that things can exist without a whole planet of brains having to see it for themselves?
 
Navigator said:
A certain collection of brains creates more powerful ways to do what they are unable to do.
What are these brains looking for precisely that it requires something that is faster at doing things?
Not just thrills!

It’s a simple observation about socio-technological progress. For instance, computational power appears to grow at an ever increasing rate (fact). Better computers and technical apparatus can help in many different fields – the human genome project was one such example. In short: It’s part of human progress (observation). We can look at patterns and we can even speculate about what they might mean, but that doesn’t mean there’s some grand plan in place.

Is it possible that a collection of brains has created a system in which to measure what they decide is intelligence?
Do you think it is intelligent to waste time trying to educate the less intelligent or is it a necessary thing because the number of individual brains working together on whatever it is that they have agreed upon collectively as being important has a need for more brains?
If it is all about intelligence, do you think the brains collectively wanting to create something vastly more intelligent than themselves so that their creation can tell them what to do?
I don’t know what you’re asking here, perhaps you could clarify. But, yes, I think education is important (who doesn’t?).

Or that intelligence is so important that it needs to be preserved and built upon and that the best way to accomplish this might be to create machines, and if the machines decided that brains with bodies are not a good thing overall for intelligence, then the brains with bodies will accept this and if the machines said so, they would graciously give up their illusion of existence for the greater cause of intelligence?
Again, you need to clarify what you mean. Although I don’t think there’s any general plan involved here. Moreover, I think it’s possible that the distinction between “machine” and “human” might become blurred with time (we already seem to be more like machines than what many find comfortable to admit).

Getting back to that other thing – the one where you convinced me that things can and do exist without that which is able to acknowledge existence ever observing those things:
Do you think it is intelligent to acknowledge that things can exist without a whole planet of brains having to see it for themselves?
Depends on what things you refer to? Do you have an example? And more importantly: What kind of evidence might that be based upon?
 
If there would be another universe, would that universe combined with this universe – regardless of us being able to acknowledge it – still be one and the same universe? If by universe we mean everything.

And if by everything we mean also that which is not directly observed or acknowledged by us.

Just because we recognize a phenomenon now, doesn’t mean it must always have existed.

This in reference to the universe?

Or sentience, consciousness, or acknowledging…

And if by everything we mean also that which is not directly observed or acknowledged by us.

The question is: if we cannot know anything about it (it being by definition, unknowable), then I see little point in speculating about it. Why not deal with things that are knowable, there’s plenty of that. There are things we cannot directly observe but can infer, thus perhaps later, when new ways of observing comes about, we’re able to observe and confirm them.


Okay.
Let me see. I made the assertion that without something which can acknowledge itself and everything else, then the universe cannot exist.
You asserted that even if there were no thing existing that could verify the universe existed, this did not signify that the universe wouldn’t exist.
In other words, the universe can exists independent of anything which is able to verify its existence.
Are we on the same page here, or have I misunderstood you?
My question below has to do with your assertion that the universe can exist independent of anything which is able to verify its existence.

Do you think it is intelligent to acknowledge that things can exist without a whole planet of brains having to see it for themselves?

Your answer suggests the track might have changed…?

Depends on what things you refer to? Do you have an example? And more importantly: What kind of evidence might that be based upon?
 
1...The mind cannot be separated from the brain,...
2...without the brain there is no mind at all,...
3...change the brain, like with a stroke, and the mind is changed...
4...Damage the brain and the mind is changed and depending on the location of the damage what this change will be, this has been show time and time again...

1...This is but an unproven opinion of reductionist scientism.
2...There is likewise no evidence that the mind is brain.
3...The brain is changed as an instrument or vehicle of mind which is itself not shown to have been changed.
4...The brain damage will determine the change in the capacity of the brain to function as an instrument of material consciousness without any evidence mind as such is affected.
 
Navigator said:
In other words, the universe can exists independent of anything which is able to verify its existence.

Yes. Although it would of course be slightly different.

Your answer suggests the track might have changed…?

Nope, haven’t changed my mind in that regard. Now, did you have some examples to put forward; something now existing without anyone acknowledging it?
 
Paulhoff said:
The mind cannot be separated from the brain, without the brain there is no mind at all, change the brain, like with a stroke, and the mind is changed. Damage the brain and the mind is changed and depending on the location of the damage what this change will be, this has been show time and time again. There is no soul and there has been no need to use this magical idea after the brain has been shown to be us.

maatorc said:
1...This is but an unproven opinion of reductionist scientism.

Perhaps not completely proven, but evidence certainly seems to suggest that.

maatorc said:
2...There is likewise no evidence that the mind is brain.

Do you have any evidence that would suggest a separation (dualism), any at all?

maatorc said:
3...The brain is changed as an instrument or vehicle of mind which is itself not shown to have been changed.

There’s plenty of evidence that identification and self-awareness has changed (even disappeared) through changes in the brain.

maatorc said:
4...The brain damage will determine the change in the capacity of the brain to function as an instrument of material consciousness without any evidence mind as such is affected.

Is there any reason to even think there’s a real separation between mind and brain in the first place?
 
In other words, the universe can exists independent of anything which is able to verify its existence.

Yes. Although it would of course be slightly different.

It wouldn't have anything in it which could varify it as existing.


Your answer suggests the track might have changed…?

Nope, haven’t changed my mind in that regard. Now, did you have some examples to put forward; something now existing without anyone acknowledging it?

Nope.
Just wanted to make sure we brains are on the same runway.
You say that the universe (everything/anything) would exist regardless of there existing anything that can verify it.
Which contradicts me saying that the universe (everything/anything) cannot exist without there being something which can varify that it does.
 
Originally Posted by maatorc
This is but an unproven opinion of reductionist scientism.
1...Perhaps not completely proven, but evidence certainly seems to suggest that.
Originally Posted by maatorc
There is likewise no evidence that the mind is brain.
2...Do you have any evidence that would suggest a separation (dualism), any at all?
Originally Posted by maatorc
The brain is changed as an instrument or vehicle of mind which is itself not shown to have been changed.
3...There’s plenty of evidence that identification and self-awareness has changed (even disappeared) through changes in the brain.
Originally Posted by maatorc
The brain damage will determine the change in the capacity of the brain to function as an instrument of material consciousness without any evidence mind as such is affected.
4...Is there any reason to even think there’s a real separation between mind and brain in the first place?

1...It may suggest it but it does not demonstrate it.
2...Evidence here is a two-way street: There is none for 'mind is brain'?
3...True, but it does not begin to demonstrate mind is brain.
4...Principally that mind is a natural universal energy, not just a material function of brain.
 

Back
Top Bottom