Decoherence Is Enough In Quantum Theory After All. Consciousness UnEncountered.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

As long as we agree that lack of answers to certain questions does not automatically eliminate the metaphysic, I'm good.

If no answers are conceivable, such as in reductive materialism, then it eliminates the metaphysic.

Although I think this one is a toughie for you: Which particular piece of the brain can I remove to disconnect the self?

But it's not a "toughie" in principle.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

David and Dyson, here is some sage advise from a wise man, you're notions aren't even testable and he ends by suggesting that "you just let go." I say that there are no good reasons to credit your hunches about mind and consciousness so "get over it and move on."

-----------

First, I don't recognise your quote attributed to me!

Second, clearly we are all talking about the cutting edge of science - none of us - materialists or others - can test their theories satisfactorily, or we would not be having this discussion!

David

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Materialists have double standards I think. They dismiss dualism on the grounds there can be no external interaction with the physical world due to the law of conservation of energy within a closed system.

However *if* every time a universe splits, matter doubles and energy doubles that would be violation of the conservation of energy. But they will argue 'no', it is a closed system. But it is gets even more hypocritical argument because David Deutsch claims 'But on microscopic scales, quantum mechanics becomes dominant and the universes are far from independent. Universes that are very alike are close together in the multiverse and affect each other strongly, though only in subtle, indirect ways — a phenomenon known as quantum interference.

So we do see there can indeed be interactions between different worlds, therefore a dualism can indeed exist and evolve.

'Everything in our universe — including you and me, every atom and every galaxy — has counterparts in these other universes. Some counterparts are in the same places as they are in our universe, while others are in different places. Some have different shapes, or are arranged in different ways; some are so different that they are not worth calling counterparts. There are even universes in which a given object in our universe has no counterpart — including universes in which I was never born and you wrote this article instead.

Hey that sounds like Santa Claus really exists in one of those too.

Mszlazak, if you really believe the Many Worlds Interpretation, I ask you the question, if you die in this universe, do your counterparts die in all the other universes simultaneously?

Man are you kidding? I hope your next post doesn't have as many strawman arguments and false analogies.

-------------

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Man are you kidding? I hope your next post doesn't have as many strawman arguments and false analogies.

Not any more analogies and strawman arguments than ....this fairy tale...

A Clever Robot
By Daniel Dennett

Suppose Steve Pinker contracts a terrible progressive brain disease that destroys his nervous system from the outside in--he starts going numb and then deaf and blind and unable to control his muscles. But then neuroscience comes to the rescue, replacing each portion of his nervous system as it disintegrates with a suitably interfaced prosthesis made of silicon and wire. ....

.....Thanks to their success on the Easy Problems of consciousness, the scientists meticulously provide artificial substitutes for all Steve's brain processes, so to all outward appearances he is saved from terrible oblivion and death.

More likely the man dies, and they have invented a new method of murder

Moreover, he expresses his satisfaction with his restored feeling and sight and continues speaking and writing with humor and eloquence, delighting his friends and frustrating his critics.

There is no evidence that will occur. One could argue it is more likely the friends would see a zombie with no consciousness in a coma like state It might all go well enough until they start replacing brain links to the memory, then this bionic zombie loses past tacit memory, long term memory and consciousness is gone when the brain was replaced with 'silicon and wire'.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

If no answers are conceivable, such as in reductive materialism, then it eliminates the metaphysic.

Conceivability is in the eye of the beholder. I can conceive that consciousness is a function of the brain at least as easily as I can conceive that consciousness just is.

But it's not a "toughie" in principle.

If there is a piece of the brain that I can remove to disconnect the self, then I may not be able to replace the entire brain with a computer. If there is no piece of the brain that I can remove to disconnect the self, then the brain is not the filter for the self.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

There is no evidence that will occur. One could argue it is more likely the friends would see a zombie with no consciousness in a coma like state It might all go well enough until they start replacing brain links to the memory, then this bionic zombie loses past tacit memory, long term memory and consciousness is gone when the brain was replaced with 'silicon and wire'.

And so, as usual with philosophy of mind, we have to wait and see.

There is no patience in metaphysics.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Conceivability is in the eye of the beholder.

Dear me!

And no doubt there are no objective ethical values either. No objective truths. All is relative.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

And no doubt there are no objective ethical values either. No objective truths. All is relative.

What has conceivability got to do with truth?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What has conceivability got to do with truth?

~~ Paul

Something is either true or not true. Something is either conceivable or not conceivable.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

Something is either true or not true. Something is either conceivable or not conceivable.

As I said, I think conceivability is in the eye of the beholder. You could argue that something is conceivable iff it is logically possible, but then you have to argue about what is logically possible.

~~ Paul