Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 97

Thread: San Junipero

  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Is it really worth worrying about the soul at this point? Something we have no evidence of?
    I saw it as a solution to the problem. I don't see any reason why a soul couldn't be transferred to a computer, because you would be moving the causal agent of the mind.
    but whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Perhaps. We can see and understand the processes of an experience happening in the brain. Those experiments are replicable leading to an understanding of how the brain functions (and malfunctions) and would, in this debate, lead to a replication of the hardware which could support the mind.
    Dude.... DUUUDe..
    look. I have no problem with replication. We can assume the out right creation from nothing of A consciousness within computers. I am really, really, really not objecting to the existence of consciousness in a computer here.

    The problem is that being LIKE a consciousness, is not equivalent to being the SAME consciousness.

    As was pointed out by others. consciousness is something YOUR BRAIN experiences. So, you can't put the brain in a computer program. you can replicate it, you can simulated, but you can not, in any way, shape or form put your brain into a computer program. As the brain is the CAUSE one EXPERIENCING the consciousness (here assumed by me for sake of argument), then that is the ultimate cause that must be MOVED.

    I am not grasping the disconnect here for this point. Forget a computer program problem for a moment.
    Suppose I copied your brain. Now there are two brains exactly the same. Is it the SAME consciousness?
    No, each has it's own unique consciousness. that is why we see other people as distinct consciousnesses. So the same would apply to any computer version. It can be conscious all we want, it just doesn't make it the SAME consciousness.

    So, as long as you argue for a "copying" concept.. it will not work. It can not work, it is logically impossible and incoherent.
    if you want to talk "Moving" then you have got something.

    My best try here..
    1) If a consciousness isn't aware of something, then it is not part of its conscious experience.
    2) If a consciousness is aware of something, then it is part of its conscious experience.
    3) If you are not "conscious" of something, then it can't be part of your conscious experience.
    4) If one consciousness is aware of an event, and another consciousness is not aware of the same event, then they are not the SAME consciousness.
    5) Copies of a consciousness do not share consciousnesses of events.
    6) Conclusion- therefore they are not the same consciousnesses.
    To serve man.

  2. Thanks Belthazor thanked for this post
  3. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I saw it as a solution to the problem. I don't see any reason why a soul couldn't be transferred to a computer, because you would be moving the causal agent of the mind.
    but whatever.
    I don't either. I just don't want to get bogged down in a debate that is going on in so many other threads.

    ---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    4) If one consciousness is aware of an event, and another consciousness is not aware of the same event, then they are not the SAME consciousness.
    5) Copies of a consciousness do not share consciousnesses of events.
    6) Conclusion- therefore they are not the same consciousnesses.
    I agree with the leading premises. These last ones not so much.

    At the time of copying, however, they would be the same, no? Let's say they are copied and put on pause...held in stasis.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I agree with the leading premises. These last ones not so much.

    At the time of copying, however, they would be the same, no? Let's say they are copied and put on pause...held in stasis.
    Then they would be the same in that they are both unconscious. They would not be the same consciousness.
    The only way they would be the same consciousness, is if there was only 1 consciousness and the experiences were shared. .. and then.. even then maybe not.
    It may be that we just lose the ability to distinguish the two.
    To serve man.

  5. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then they would be the same in that they are both unconscious. They would not be the same consciousness.
    The only way they would be the same consciousness, is if there was only 1 consciousness and the experiences were shared. .. and then.. even then maybe not.
    It may be that we just lose the ability to distinguish the two.
    Ok, yes, they're not a shared consciousness.

    Now the original dies and the copy is allowed to awake. Other than the lack of a flesh body, what is different?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Ok, yes, they're not a shared consciousness.

    Now the original dies and the copy is allowed to awake. Other than the lack of a flesh body, what is different?
    The only relevant difference, is that it isn't a continuation of the original consciousness.
    The original consciousness, is no longer persisting.
    That means, if you are the original consciousness.. then you died.
    Which defeats the whole purpose of trying to imagine a scenario where YOU keep living.


    This fact MAY BE indistinguishable and unknowable by the copy (as we saw with Riker example).
    To serve man.

  7. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    This fact MAY BE indistinguishable and unknowable by the copy (as we saw with Riker example).
    But you do keep living (minus the flesh body) in this example. In the Ryker example what if the Ryker in the first containment beam hadn't made it back to the ship? Then the Ryker that materialized on the planet was the original - Jeordi said so - they were both the real Ryker.

    Is it that the mind came about through the natural processes of the brain and the copy didn't?
    Would the knowledge that it was a copy affect the copy?
    Would it even know? Or care?

    You sound like you might be making an argument similar to those I remember shortly after the first artificial insemination ("test-tube babies) was successful. Not quite as excessive as arguments about the procedure being against God's domain of creating life but that there might be something "different" about babies created in that way. Time has shown that to not be true (that I'm aware of).
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    But you do keep living (minus the flesh body) in this example.
    No, a COPY of you keeps living.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    In the Ryker example what if the Ryker in the first containment beam hadn't made it back to the ship? Then the Ryker that materialized on the planet was the original - Jeordi said so - they were both the real Ryker.
    Jordi was actually incorrect. Riker was "copied", that is why there were two.
    See my consciousness argument.
    They just couldn't tell which was the original.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_(Star_Trek)
    The telleporter is basically a MOVING device. It moves consciousness, once it turns into a copy machine the problem I pointed out applies.
    to me the telleporter is just creating copies to begin with.
    the "conversion" process, is nothing but a destruction of the original, and converting it to simply a "pattern". Which just means the order of which it was put together.
    I think in real life had such a thing been created, people would always be "lifeless" when it is reconstituted. .... but that is just me.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Is it that the mind came about through the natural processes of the brain and the copy didn't?
    Would the knowledge that it was a copy affect the copy?
    Would it even know? Or care?
    The last two questions are not relevant to my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    You sound like you might be making an argument similar to those I remember shortly after the first artificial insemination ("test-tube babies) was successful. Not quite as excessive as arguments about the procedure being against God's domain of creating life but that there might be something "different" about babies created in that way. Time has shown that to not be true (that I'm aware of).
    I am not familiar with the argument, or how it is relevant here.

    I am conceding that there is life, and that the copy would be alive and conscious. it's like you are cloning yourself, and I'm agreeing that the clone is a person and is alive and is concussion in every way a person can be. I am just pointing out a fairly obvious point I think,that the clone is not YOU.. it is a copy of you.
    To serve man.

  9. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    I am not familiar with the argument, or how it is relevant here.

    I am conceding that there is life, and that the copy would be alive and conscious. it's like you are cloning yourself, and I'm agreeing that the clone is a person and is alive and is concussion in every way a person can be. I am just pointing out a fairly obvious point I think,that the clone is not YOU.. it is a copy of you.
    I was trying to go back to where you were talking about the copy being flawed in some way. Like I mentioned earlier, I am not the same me I was 20 years ago. Physically, in that every cell in my body has been replaced multiple times and psychologically, in that I'm not the same person. Yet I do have memories of 20 years ago but all of that would be available to the copy.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I was trying to go back to where you were talking about the copy being flawed in some way. Like I mentioned earlier, I am not the same me I was 20 years ago. Physically, in that every cell in my body has been replaced multiple times and psychologically, in that I'm not the same person. Yet I do have memories of 20 years ago but all of that would be available to the copy.
    I would say that you are the same you, otherwise you couldn't say it was YOUR past.
    What makes you, you is not what happened to you. The way things happen to you "change" you, is not so that it makes you not you anymore.
    changing your mind, doesn't change "You".

    Because here "you" is defined as the consciousness that has the experience.

    ---
    Have you seen that movie with the brain scanners that record experiences, and then other people can wear them and experience the event as that person...... drawing a blank.. Ummm...

    anyway, the point is that even if you have the complete memory of another person... that doesn't make you that other consciousness.
    To serve man.

  11. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Have you seen that movie with the brain scanners that record experiences, and then other people can wear them and experience the event as that person...... drawing a blank.. Ummm...
    "Brainstorm". It was awesome. Christopher Walken and Natalie Wood in her last role.

    ---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    anyway, the point is that even if you have the complete memory of another person... that doesn't make you that other consciousness.
    No, you'd be you plus the other person. Like when he's experiencing playing the piano by using what his wife recorded. He's experiencing her playing the piano.

    However, what if we erased him and implanted her. Is it her or him?

    ---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The way things happen to you "change" you, is not so that it makes you not you anymore.
    changing your mind, doesn't change "You".
    Don't people claim to be? Like through spiritual means like being born again? Some people even take new names, right?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    No you would be you with false memories. You wouldn't be the other person in any way.

    If you delete him.. then he is dead. If you implant memories then you would have a dead brain with more memories at death.

    - claims to new creation-
    Not in the same sense or meaning that we are talking about here.
    To serve man.

  13. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    - claims to new creation-
    Not in the same sense or meaning that we are talking about here.
    Are you sure? Some people speak of rebirth, consciousness raising, or becoming more aware, or awakened. How do we know they haven't been changed or aren't different in someway from what they were?

    If I look at a lit light bulb - the old kind filament type - it's certainly not the same electricity flowing through and causing the light that ran through that bulb just moments ago or years ago. The bulb itself is not the same either as the filament ages, becomes more brittle , and eventually breaks.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Being different or even changed in that sense does not equate to being a different conciousness. It is the nature of all experiences to change people in that same sense.

    I mean none of this falsified any of the numbered points.
    To serve man.

  15. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Being different or even changed in that sense does not equate to being a different conciousness. It is the nature of all experiences to change people in that same sense.
    They why would you be different inside of a computer? Is it just that it appears non-natural? That's where I was going with the original complaints against test-tube babies. It didn't seem "natural" to people so they feared it (maybe with cause) but it turned out to be unfounded. That's a completely accepted procedure now, right?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    I refer you to the numbered argument. It doesn't contain any referance to natural.
    To serve man.

  17. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I refer you to the numbered argument. It doesn't contain any referance to natural.
    I think the problem is #5 "5) Copies of a consciousness do not share consciousnesses of events."

    Both Rykers knew how to play the trombone - they both shared the events of learning it. If I and my copy both remember our 10th birthday party don't we shared conscientiousness of that event?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I think the problem is #5 "5) Copies of a consciousness do not share consciousnesses of events."

    Both Rykers knew how to play the trombone - they both shared the events of learning it. If I and my copy both remember our 10th birthday party don't we shared conscientiousness of that event?
    See #4 for clarification, It is a reference to AFTER they are copied.
    The fact that they don't share consciousness of current events between the two, is evidence that they are separate and different consciousness.
    Which means that they were ALWAYS different consciousnesses, it was just indistinguishable at the moment of copying.

    1) If a consciousness isn't aware of something, then it is not part of its conscious experience.
    2) If a consciousness is aware of something, then it is part of its conscious experience.
    3) If you are not "conscious" of something, then it can't be part of your conscious experience.
    4) If one consciousness is aware of an event, and another consciousness is not aware of the same event, then they are not the SAME consciousness.
    5) Copies of a consciousness do not share consciousnesses of events.
    6) Conclusion- therefore they are not the same consciousnesses.
    To serve man.

  19. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    See #4 for clarification, It is a reference to AFTER they are copied.
    The fact that they don't share consciousness of current events between the two, is evidence that they are separate and different consciousness.
    Which means that they were ALWAYS different consciousnesses, it was just indistinguishable at the moment of copying.

    1) If a consciousness isn't aware of something, then it is not part of its conscious experience.
    2) If a consciousness is aware of something, then it is part of its conscious experience.
    3) If you are not "conscious" of something, then it can't be part of your conscious experience.
    4) If one consciousness is aware of an event, and another consciousness is not aware of the same event, then they are not the SAME consciousness.
    5) Copies of a consciousness do not share consciousnesses of events.
    6) Conclusion- therefore they are not the same consciousnesses.
    But they are both aware of the same event.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Think "current" or "occuring" event. Sharing a memory is one thing, but not what those points are intended to convey.
    To serve man.

  21. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: San Junipero

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Think "current" or "occuring" event. Sharing a memory is one thing, but not what those points are intended to convey.
    OK, so you're saying they have to both be present during the event? But in the Ryker example they were.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •