Why are you you and me me? - Page 3

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-15-08, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

no hes suggesting that the sense of experience cannot be explained completely from all these fields. I believe its something that emerges, but we'll never be able to breakdown into a synthesis of purely physical and biological concepts (as defined by us humans).

I agree, there is something intangible there isnt there?

Anjire · 07-15-08, 09:43 AM

If you are familiar with Frank Herbert's Dune series, he has another less aggrandized series starting with "The Jesus Incident."

In this novel, he explores the concept of Consciousness. I'd go into more detail but it was about 20 years ago when I read it.

I need to pick it up again - In my opinion, it was better then any of the Dune novels.

nkgupta80 · 07-15-08, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

I agree, there is something intangible there isnt there?

yes, I'd describe it as more of a limit to our own abilities to understand the world, or more specifically, understand the way we perceive the world.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-15-08, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

yes, I'd describe it as more of a limit to our own abilities to understand the world, or more specifically, understand the way we perceive the world.

I agree, though I think there is a way to change that perception of the world, but that is not the focus of the thread.

We are indeed able to understand imo. But its a long path up that mountain.

nkgupta80 · 07-15-08, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

I agree, though I think there is a way to change that perception of the world, but that is not the focus of the thread.

We are indeed able to understand imo. But its a long path up that mountain.

well changing perception could kinda work like this. Imagine in the future when one could augment human brains with advanced circuitry. Imagine if I gave someone the ability to sense ultraviolet light or something. Imagine if that sensation was distinctly different from that of sensing normal light or sound or whatever. In that sense our perception of the world is changed. We can postulate that the new circuitry gave rise to this ability, but we cannot necessarily postulate why the sensation works that way. Maybe a lot of these trials would allow us to create a categorical system of possible perceptions and experiences that can arise from different configurations in our brain. But we wouldn't be able to explain tangibly why it is that way.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-15-08, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

well changing perception could kinda work like this. Imagine in the future when one could augment human brains with advanced circuitry. Imagine if I gave someone the ability to sense ultraviolet light or something. Imagine if that sensation was distinctly different from that of sensing normal light or sound or whatever. In that sense our perception of the world is changed. We can postulate that the new circuitry gave rise to this ability, but we cannot necessarily postulate why the sensation works that way. Maybe a lot of these trials would allow us to create a categorical system of possible perceptions and experiences that can arise from different configurations in our brain. But we wouldn't be able to explain tangibly why it is that way.

Right. This all goes to the experience part of the discussion. However the I is I and you is you self awarness in at least common thought proccesses is unexplainable by current science.

nkgupta80 · 07-15-08, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Right. This all goes to the experience part of the discussion. However the I is I and you is you self awarness in at least common thought proccesses is unexplainable by current science.

Well the I is I is a conceptual way of differentiating between my body and sensory experience, and your body and sensory experience. One could see it more as a synthesis of base sensations to create this idea, that we then encode in language.

independent_thinker2002 · 07-15-08, 10:36 AM

Two points cannot occupy the same space. That is what seperates you from me.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-15-08, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

Well the I is I is a conceptual way of differentiating between my body and sensory experience, and your body and sensory experience. One could see it more as a synthesis of base sensations to create this idea, that we then encode in language.

Are you suggesting by "idea" that our conciousness is more akin to an illusion?

A_Wise_Fool · 07-15-08, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

interesting, but one question, are you suggesting you could program a robot hypothetically to have your conciousness or its own?

Hypothetically it could be either. Like if you could scan every cell in your own brain and instantly make a simulated replica.

But it would just be a copy of my consciousness, not "my" consciousness.

Now here is an interesting question: would that simulation have... rights....?

I think despite it being exactly like me it would be a (newly found term I just discovered) Philosophical zombie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. And this comes from my belief that it wouldn't possess a soul.