Your typings here seem to indicate a lack of conviction on your part. — universeness

Well, you said I talk about a logical simulation. But the simulation is about the world. Not about logic. What you mean by a logical simulation?

Is your brain offering you illogical simulations then?
Shall we now drop the unhelpful use of the word simulation? and I can then ask:
Is your brain generating illogical thoughts/dreams when it comes to gods? — universeness

My brain offers me simulations about all there is in the world. That can be logic or gods, fantasies for you, with no counterpart in the world.

Not about logic. What you mean by a logical simulation? — Haglund

My brain offers me simulations about all there is in the world. That can be logic or gods, fantasies for you, with no counterpart in the world. — Haglund

I assume you consider your own thoughts to be based on logic. Your brain generates those thoughts. You have labeled your brain a simulator. I take it that you consider its simulations logical. If you don't then you must be suggesting that the simulator function of your brain is only for your night or day dreaming and has nothing to do with the REAL physical world around you. It's commonly called your imagination. I am sure you agree it's important to adequately distinguish between imagination/simulation and reality. If you are suggesting that YOUR brain simulations directly relate to YOUR conception of the real world then that is a whole different ball game.
I think human imagination is a very powerful and useful force but I never consider its simulations as having much in common with reality.

I assume you consider your own thoughts to be based on logic. — universeness

That's the wrong assumption. Why should it be based on logic? Why should it be based on logic in a world that's not logic, except in isolated pockets?

You have labeled your brain a simulator. I take it that you consider its simulations logical — universeness

Again, wrong take.

If you don't then you must be suggesting that the simulator function of your brain is only for your night or day dreaming and has nothing to do with the REAL physical world around you. It's commonly called your imagination. — universeness

Again, wrong conclusion. I don't suggest that at all and might even consider my dreams as the most logical simulation. If I dream about gods it can be a logical dream, a logical means. Imagination is, well, imagination.

I am sure you agree it's important to adequately distinguish between imagination/simulation and reality. If you are suggesting that YOUR brain simulations directly relate to YOUR conception of the real world then that is a whole different ball game — universeness

I agree. You gotta know what's real or not. I had a psychosis once. I wanted to drink water from exhaust pipes of cars...

My brain simulations directly relate to my conception of the real world indeed. What's a different ball game then?

hink human imagination is a very powerful and useful force but I never consider its simulations as having much in common with reality. — universeness

How can that be the case. The simulations in a sense create the world. Not it's material, but our perception.

My brain simulations directly relate to my conception of the real world indeed. What's a different ball game then? — Haglund

I agree. You gotta know what's real or not. I had a psychosis once. I wanted to drink water from exhaust pipes of cars... — Haglund

I think you have just given a very honest and frank example of a 'different ball game.'
A person has their own pathway through life and their own experiences that have contributed to their own personal viewpoints. Schisms of any kind can affect individuals in a myriad of ways.
I am NOT suggesting IN ANY WAY that a particular way of thinking is the only way to travel.
I am just suggesting that extremity of experience can result in thought conflicts that I have never personally experienced. I don't label my brain a simulator and think that it is a very inaccurate label to use in the context you have used it.
In my opinion, I am real, you are real, the Universe is real, we are capable of dream states, there are no gods and advanced transhumanism is and will continue to advance and 'downloading' a human consciousness in the very very distant future will be possible. Again, thanks for the exchange.

In my opinion, I am real, you are real, the Universe is real, we are capable of dream states, there are no gods and advanced transhumanism is and will continue to advance and 'downloading' a human consciousness in the very very distant future will be possible. Again, thanks for the exchange — universeness

A valuable opinion! An admirable goal. Let's see what happens. Fact is that you and I are real and live in two different but not mutually exclusive realities. Maybe one day the transhumans shake hands with gods, lemme tellya! :cheer: :starstruck: :pray:

The idea runs around of loading minds up in computers. It's a recurring theme in SF culture and thought about the technological possibilities in the future. We can read on Wikipedia:

"Mind uploading, also known as whole brain emulation (WBE), is the theoretical futuristic process of scanning a physical structure of the brain accurately enough to create an emulation of the mental state (including long-term memory and "self") and transferring or copying it to a computer in a digital form."

I wonder if this can be done, even in principle. It presupposes that mind can be extracted, collected, and injected. I think mind is bounded to a living brain, and the living body and world the body walks around in.

Also, a simulation isn't the same as that what's simulated. Even if the causal structures of neurons are visible in the simulation, if you replace my brain by the computer on which its simulated, so my body behaves like me, there would be no mind left. It may seem so by the body's behavior but looks can deceive. In a dream you encounter people that behave as if they have minds but they don't. I can be conscious without showing but showing doesn't imply mind. The brain simulates. So a simulated brain would be a simulated simulation device. And what to think of the impossibility to create a neuron in a lab, let alone 80 billion connected living ones?

So what to think of the conjecture about mind uploading? — Haglund

I don't think a mind can be "uploaded" in a way that after a copy of your mind is "created" you would be experiencing things from a computer or whatever after the copy is made (unless there is some kind of link between the two).

However if your only looking for a backup or copy of who you are to be around after you die than it is plausible that some kind of combination of advance MRI technology combined with 3D printers or other similar technology could do create a machine or something that could emulate the same thoughts/feelings/etc. that would be similar to as if you were still around.

I'm sure in the far future some scientist will work on that sort of things and start building machine that will be able to so something along those lines. BTW what kind of device do you really have in mind?

I'm sure in the far future some scientist will work on that sort of things and start building machine that will be able to so something along those lines. BTW what kind of device do you really have in mind? — dclements

Let's take a look at the definition"

"Mind uploading, also known as whole brain emulation (WBE), is the theoretical futuristic process of scanning a physical structure of the brain accurately enough to create an emulation of the mental state (including long-term memory and "self") and transferring or copying it to a computer in a digital form."


So, a physical structure of the brain is scanned accurately. Whatever "a" physical structure means. This is used to create an emulation of the mental state, including long-term memory and self. Whatever is meant by that. This emulation is transferred or copied to a computer. Whatever meant by that.

I can't grasp this description. Its an incoherent, confused, definition, throwing around arbitrary concepts to give the impression the mind is litterally extracted (scanned), put in a bottle (emulated), and injected (transferred or copied). I'm baffled.

That's another exchange! I don't hold with any posit that the human 'mind,' exists beyond the human brain. Are you a dualist? — universeness

Yes, I am. First things first -- materialism holds water, a lot of water. Perception won't be complete without body and mind. But the causality that happens with body organs perceiving, say, a color, or hearing a loud bang, come to us in a completely stripped down data. It's the mind that interprets what we perceive. Earlier I said, roughness can only be experience using our organs for sensing textures. Though it reaches our mind, we can't extract "roughness" from our mind.

... brain transplant ... — 180 Proof

Correction: brain transfer ...

What if the people don't want gene tinkering and transhuman construction, spacetravel, computers with a mind, and all other fantasies you like? — Haglund

If those who vote against it are a majority then their representatives in authority must vote against also and then scientific endeavours in the direction of genetic engineering, transhumanism and artificial intelligence must stop until the majority can be convinced by further discussion from those who
support human progression.

Yes, I am. — L'éléphant

This is just a small side question, for my own internal databases. Do you think dualism is on the rise, stagnant or on the wane or does the number of others who hold a similar viewpoint to you, not matter to you, when it comes to dualism?

But the causality that happens with body organs perceiving, say, a color, or hearing a loud bang, come to us in a completely stripped down data. — L'éléphant

Ok, surely the brain is the only body organ that 'perceives' a colour. The eyes being the input devices for colour and not responsible for interpreting colour. There is a good discussion at:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/making-sense-of-how-the-blind-see-color/?msclkid=5291660ac47711eca0bf8eba392bd778
On how colour or a rainbow might be described to or perceived by a person who has been totally blind from birth. They compare it with how a fully sighted person might perceive a quark when they first encounter such words. It seems to me that if the mind or any aspect of its functionality, exists externally to the brain then this external aspect seems incapable to effectively give colour perception to the blind. Sound perception seems to be more possible for the profoundly deaf through distinguishing between vibrations via touch but all interpretation here isstill within the brain alone.

It's the mind that interprets what we perceive. Earlier I said, roughness can only be experience using our organs for sensing textures. Though it reaches our mind, we can't extract "roughness" from our mind. — L'éléphant

Do you think 'roughness,' could be distinguished by a cybernetic hand, now, or in the future?
Do we not 'extract' roughness from our mind by 'pattern matching,' it with smoothness.
I would describe roughness as bumpy bits and indented bits and smooth bits that you can feel when you touch the area with your skin organ. Would you describe 'roughness' (as applied to physical surfaces,) differently?

I always ask a dualist if they are willing to give me their personal view of a physical location(s) for where they think the part of their (or all of their) mind exists outside of their brain.
In the past, I have had answers such as, In the heart, in the body, in superpositions, in gods database, with god, in an omniconsiousness. Do you hold with any of these?

If those who vote against it are a majority then their representatives in authority must vote against also and then scientific endeavours in the direction of genetic engineering, transhumanism and artificial intelligence must stop until the majority can be convinced by further discussion from those who
support human progression. — universeness

That's a fair approach! I'm not convinced though that what you see as progression is actual progression.

Ok, surely the brain is the only body organ that 'perceives' a colour — universeness

I don't think it perceives. It rather constructs. Or resonates. The construction is a continuous process which isn't set in motion with an on and of switch. It's no programmed process. with "start" and "stop". Or "if", "if not", "iff", "and", "nand", "or", "nor", or "gondor".

That's a fair approach! I'm not convinced though that what you see as progression is actual progression — Haglund

I know you are not convinced that transhumanism is a progression and I don't agree with you or understand your logic or your viewpoint. If science and authority do not have the mandate of those they represent then they cannot be allowed to try to progress towards increased transhumanism But anyone voting against would have to argue against giving human beings more choice over their own termination. Our individual survival is currently at the mercy of illness, accident, attack and old age. I would welcome increased protection against all of these. Transhumanism could achieve such further protection and is in my opinion one of the best possibilities we have. You would prefer that we stay at the mercy of some or all of the 4 threats I mentioned? why?

You would prefer that we stay at the mercy of some or all of the 4 threats I mentioned? why? — universeness

Because I don't see it as a threat. Of course it's not nice to get sick and time will show itself in the body and brain. I think this aging can be fought against from within. If you change your telomeres it will do. If telomeres stay the same length you wont age. Telomeres stay the same in cancer cells, which don't age. But try to replace your genes with new from outside... No way. Only from the inside. And besides, life starts again after dead, in a new universe!

I don't think it perceives. It rather constructs. Or resonates. The construction is a continuous process which isn't set in motion with an on and of switch. It's no programmed process. with "start" and "stop". Or "if", "if not", "iff", "and", "nand", "or", "nor", or "gondor". — Haglund

are you suggesting the brain does not/cannot perceive?
Perceive seems a perfectly good label to me and seems like a sufficient umbrella term under which words like 'constructs,' 'resonates,' etc could happily shelter.
Current electronic logic gates are no more than a method of representing conditional outcomes.
The way in which the human brain deals with propositional logic is not fully understood.
As I have already stated, your comparison is a conflated one that has little relevance to my future projections of transhumanism.
I have stated this to you many times yet you still insist on comparing the workings of electronic computing systems with my distant future predictions of transhumanism. Even though I have clearly stated that my projections are based on my current readings on genetic engineering and technologies such as CRISPR, quantum computing and biological computing. Despite this, you insist on tubthumping about the current limitations of electronic computing. why?

are you suggesting the brain does not/cannot perceive? — universeness

I think a perception is a construction.

The way in which the human brain deals with propositional logic is not fully understood. — universeness

That's because the brain doesn't deal with it. Only thoughts

Even though I have clearly stated that my projections are based on my current readings on genetic engineering and technologies such as CRISPR, quantum computing and biological computing. Despite this, you insist on tubthumping about the current limitations of electronic computing. why? — universeness

I don't mind if you belief in some far away future fantasy. But you can't prove them right. There is no evidence apart from a device with a human mask answering preprogrammed questions fooling us as if there is actually someone behind the face. So basically I try to demask people who believe in such future possibilities.

So basically I try to demask people who believe in such future possibilities. — Haglund

Good luck searching for that nonexistent mask. Keep feeling for it! At the end of all your efforts, you will be left with hands covered in face skin particulates from those 'who believe in such future possibilities.'

This is just a small side question, for my own internal databases. Do you think dualism is on the rise, stagnant or on the wane or does the number of others who hold a similar viewpoint to you, not matter to you, when it comes to dualism? — universeness

It doesn't matter to me the number of others who hold similar view. I don't check statistics like that. But maybe it's fair to say that science or scientism has always been the anathema as to why dualism might be treated with a lot more skepticism. Extra-physical claims such as those having to do with the mind are almost to be avoided if we are to remain the technology that we are already, right?. I mean trillionaires building their own spacecraft to go to space. Body or head transplant that totally ignores the mind -- this is the ultra-physical. Like, who cares about the mystery of the mind if we could transport ourselves across the universe.

Do we not 'extract' roughness from our mind by 'pattern matching,' it with smoothness.
I would describe roughness as bumpy bits and indented bits and smooth bits that you can feel when you touch the area with your skin organ. Would you describe 'roughness' (as applied to physical surfaces,) differently? — universeness

If we really could extract textures from our mind, then couldn't we just pass on this trait to our offspring and let them experience roughness without setting foot outside? Why, until now, the children could not have all the sensations that the parents had experienced and stored in their brains? Why do babies need to be trained in all aspects of their existence in order to become a normal human being, let alone survive?

I always ask a dualist if they are willing to give me their personal view of a physical location(s) for where they think the part of their (or all of their) mind exists outside of their brain.
In the past, I have had answers such as, In the heart, in the body, in superpositions, in gods database, with god, in an omniconsiousness. Do you hold with any of these? — universeness

There is no location of the mind, there is, however, a location of the brain. Now, obviously we can't crack open every human's skull to see if the brain is there. But for the many autopsies and studies done on humans, we know that the experts had identified the brain as that mass inside the skull of humans.

That's why it's always an error to compare thinking with computing. In computers, everything has a location. There is no "mind" in computers. Only humans, and some animals possess the mind.

That's why it's always an error to compare thinking with computing. In computers, everything has a location. There is no "mind" in computers. Only humans, and some animals possess the mind. — L'éléphant

Astute observation! There is no program to be found in the brain. Neither in nature.

It doesn't matter to me the number of others who hold similar view. I don't check statistics like that. But maybe it's fair to say that science or scientism has always been the anathema as to why dualism might be treated with a lot more skepticism. — L'éléphant

Fair enough.

If we really could extract textures from our mind, then couldn't we just pass on this trait to our offspring and let them experience roughness without setting foot outside? — L'éléphant

Ok I see what you mean by 'extract textures from our minds.' You mean to extract the actual experience and pass it to someone else. But I don't see how this marries with the duelist viewpoint.
Surely abilities such as telepathy would have to be convincingly demonstrated to provide evidence that brain thoughts could be externally manifested due to the duelist reality of the human 'mind.'

Why do babies need to be trained in all aspects of their existence in order to become a normal human being, let alone survive? — L'éléphant

Is this not evidence against any claim that the mind can exist/manifest outside of the brain?
We can only teach our children by word of mouth or physical demonstration or by the written word or visual aids etc. If the mind exists outwith the brain then where is the empirical evidence?
Is dualism then merely faith-based?

There is no location of the mind — L'éléphant

Easy words to type but I think such concepts are much harder to convince other people of.
Like theism, it's fine if such is just a harmless product of your own personal woo but I very much advocate that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I hope my comparison of dualism with woo does not offend. I can only offer my honest opinion or else I am being fake.

There is no "mind" in computers. — L'éléphant

Not yet!

There is no "mind" in computers.
— L'éléphant
Not yet! — universeness

Again, reference to a faraway future without any impact. I could argue just as well that gods show themselves in the future.

There is no location of the mind
— L'éléphant
Easy words to type but I think such concepts are much harder to convince other people of. — universeness

There are locations of the mind. Not stationary ones though. It depends on the experience. And mostly, you have to include both body and physical world. The brain is a means to resonate with the world. It constantly simulates it, while you walk through and look around, listen, and feel the breeze and hot sand, looking for female beauty on the beach.

Like theism, it's fine if such is just a harmless product of your own personal woo but I very much advocate that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. — universeness

Like the woo woof of a faraway future in which minds can be uploaded. Let alone a human mind, as it's tied to brains, no matter what the dogma tells you.

:starstruck:

As long as people can't create rainwurms in a lab, forget mind upload! :cool:

Again, reference to a faraway future without any impact. I could argue just as well that gods show themselves in the future — Haglund

My projections of future transhumanism are based on current technological progress. Your unconvincing claims that you are a genuine polytheist has been reduced to 'they dont exist in our Universe' and 'I only argue in support of them because you argue against them.' You also try to randomly throw in the word dogma as an attempt to hold up a 'shiny,' to distract.
You simply enjoy playing devils advocate. It's a position I am very familiar with. I have witnessed many other people engage in such roleplay in the past.
As I have stated to you before, I think you are just 'pissed' at the science community for your own reasons but I also accept that you are free to feel how you feel and 'dis' them all you want, even to the extent of playing the role of a polythesist.
I know you will say I am totally wrong but I think I am spot on.

My projections of future transhumanism are based on current technological progress. — universeness

Based on that I can only say that transhumans will be a regression from humanity. Not even a fruitfly can be created, not even a single cell! Not hard to guess then it's a dead end, however far away in the future you project your fairy tales.

Your unconvincing claims that you are a genuine polytheist has been reduced to 'they dont exist in our Universe' and 'I only argue in support of them because you argue against them.' — universeness

Like I said, my claims are not to convince. I leave that to Jehova witnesses and the priests and missionaries. Of course I argue in favor. The proof I can't give, apart from us and the universe being there. Science can't explain it. I have a theory describing the universe from an infinite past to future, so... Oh yes, the gods will probably show themselves in the future!

:rofl: :down: :down: :down: :down:

Look who's tubthumbing now...

Look who's tubthumbing now... — Haglund

I don't mind that you get up again. YOU have to live in the skin YOU are in.

Yes, that's true. We all have to I guess. I'm happy with the body and skin that I am. What more can we say?

:up: