Atheism

Originally posted by inimalist
the process would only work if areas of the brain were slowly replaced by computer parts designed to behave generally identically to your organic brain, in many stages. From a plasticity standpoint, it is arguable that such a process would be impossible, but you can't rule out where technology will bring us.

This is the only way I would upload, unless I were dying or something. Reductionism aside, a sudden upload still feels too much like death to me and if I were left intact it would just be creepy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is the only way I would upload, unless I were dying or something. Reductionism aside, a sudden upload still feels too much like death to me and if I were left intact it would just be creepy.

well, there is a problem with the term "upload". Because there is no way to suck "you" out of your brain, ie, you are not separable from the physical processes of the brain. You couldn't "upload" your stream of experience from one body to the next.

I could have probably described it better, but I didn't expect it to cause a real discussion. I was more saying that there are types of immortality(-esque) that I might desire, though an afterlife is not necessarily one of those.

Originally posted by inimalist
I could have probably described it better, but I didn't expect it to cause a real discussion.

In January of 2008, on the 1st of Muharram 1429 AH — the start of the new year according to the Islâmic calendar — I announced online mine apostasy from Islâm. I went onto my favourite muslim forum (mainly due to some of the posters there), Ummah.com, and announced I had turned murtad (apostate, literally, ‘one who turns away’).

I simply don’t believe. Not only in Islam as a divinely–sanctioned religion, but in divinity altogether. I have read too much, seen too much the manmade origins of each religion I studied (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and of course Islâm), inconsistencies and errors in Islâm, ridiculous notions that could only come from a desert people in the 7th century and not an almighty omnipotent deity. I have felt no divine presence throughout my life. I have seen the way nature doesn’t need a conscious guiding hand… I have seen and felt all this too much to give any credence to commonly–held notions of Divinity and Theism.

Some of the members there expressed sadness and shock, others incandescent rage and sneering hostility — and most of the latter came when I pointed out that the founder of Islâm, Muhammad, sanctioned the death of apostates from Islâm. At that point people acted as though I’d ‘done a Rushdie’ and one of the moderators closed my thread quicksmart. It interests me that the ultimate act of betrayal and evil (I had announced I do not believe in allah) met with some shocked reactions, but only when I mentioned Muhammad did the moderator close my thread. Odd, that, don’t you think?

I don’t regret leaving Islâm. It has, however, left me with some flaws and old habits, though I consciously try to change them. Accepting this, though, feels a lot like… maturity. Putting away the childish thoughts of god making everything ok, and instead stepping up to take responsibility for mine own actions. Scary, but necessary for true growth.
__________________

Originally posted by Mindship
Well because it's an interesting question, and I understand the assumption of its do-able-ness in light of our current paradigm. Human personality may well be replicable into other substrates, or it may be a resonant fiction, much like our current "understanding" of time travel (ie, one time stream, go back, make a change, and the future changes). Both seem quite "sensible." But until we actually (if ever) do time travel, or until (as I suggested earlier) do the first brain transplant, we won't know what actually will happen. And as often the case with scientific exploration and discovery, our efforts tend to raise more surprises and questions than deliver answers.

yes, but this isn't as theoretically poorly understood as "time"

what aspect of your personality do you think it is that wouldn't survive a brain transplant?

there would certainly be issues with motor and sensory integration between the host body and brain, and while these do affect mood to a non-trivial degree, to the extent that a person can be said to have a persistant personality, there is no reason to believe a transplant would affect those systems, unless as a result of physical damage due to the transplant.

All of these things that people call "personality" can be shown to reside in the brain, through lesion/injury/tumor studies and abnormal psych best of all. True, "we wont know", but this isn't a really contensious theoretical matter.

Originally posted by Rascaduanok
Some of the members there expressed sadness and shock, others incandescent rage and sneering hostility — and most of the latter came when I pointed out that the founder of Islâm, Muhammad, sanctioned the death of apostates from Islâm.

Also, kudos to you.

Originally posted by Rascaduanok
In January of 2008, on the 1st of Muharram 1429 AH — the start of the new year according to the Islâmic calendar — I announced online mine apostasy from Islâm. I went onto my favourite muslim forum (mainly due to some of the posters there), Ummah.com, and announced I had turned murtad (apostate, literally, ‘one who turns away’).

I simply don’t believe. Not only in Islam as a divinely–sanctioned religion, but in divinity altogether. I have read too much, seen too much the manmade origins of each religion I studied (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and of course Islâm), inconsistencies and errors in Islâm, ridiculous notions that could only come from a desert people in the 7th century and not an almighty omnipotent deity. I have felt no divine presence throughout my life. I have seen the way nature doesn’t need a conscious guiding hand… I have seen and felt all this too much to give any credence to commonly–held notions of Divinity and Theism.

Some of the members there expressed sadness and shock, others incandescent rage and sneering hostility — and most of the latter came when I pointed out that the founder of Islâm, Muhammad, sanctioned the death of apostates from Islâm. At that point people acted as though I’d ‘done a Rushdie’ and one of the moderators closed my thread quicksmart. It interests me that the ultimate act of betrayal and evil (I had announced I do not believe in allah) met with some shocked reactions, but only when I mentioned Muhammad did the moderator close my thread. Odd, that, don’t you think?

I don’t regret leaving Islâm. It has, however, left me with some flaws and old habits, though I consciously try to change them. Accepting this, though, feels a lot like… maturity. Putting away the childish thoughts of god making everything ok, and instead stepping up to take responsibility for mine own actions. Scary, but necessary for true growth.
__________________

Great story. You should think about sending this to Ali Sina.

For me, it isn't about believing in Allah. There aren't any problems with Allah, per se. The huge chunk of bizarre and absurd things in Islam are connected to Muhammed and his conduct as well as his ideas.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but this isn't as theoretically poorly understood as "time"

what aspect of your personality do you think it is that wouldn't survive a brain transplant?

there would certainly be issues with motor and sensory integration between the host body and brain, and while these do affect mood to a non-trivial degree, to the extent that a person can be said to have a persistant personality, there is no reason to believe a transplant would affect those systems, unless as a result of physical damage due to the transplant.

All of these things that people call "personality" can be shown to reside in the brain, through lesion/injury/tumor studies and abnormal psych best of all. True, "we wont know", but this isn't a really contensious theoretical matter.

How do you people, as you know ... knowledgeable scientists, explain this phenomenon we generally call the "self"?

Originally posted by Rascaduanok
In January of 2008, on the 1st of Muharram 1429 AH — the start of the new year according to the Islâmic calendar — I announced online mine apostasy from Islâm. I went onto my favourite muslim forum (mainly due to some of the posters there), Ummah.com, and announced I had turned murtad (apostate, literally, ‘one who turns away’).

I simply don’t believe. Not only in Islam as a divinely–sanctioned religion, but in divinity altogether. I have read too much, seen too much the manmade origins of each religion I studied (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and of course Islâm), inconsistencies and errors in Islâm, ridiculous notions that could only come from a desert people in the 7th century and not an almighty omnipotent deity. I have felt no divine presence throughout my life. I have seen the way nature doesn’t need a conscious guiding hand… I have seen and felt all this too much to give any credence to commonly–held notions of Divinity and Theism.

Some of the members there expressed sadness and shock, others incandescent rage and sneering hostility — and most of the latter came when I pointed out that the founder of Islâm, Muhammad, sanctioned the death of apostates from Islâm. At that point people acted as though I’d ‘done a Rushdie’ and one of the moderators closed my thread quicksmart. It interests me that the ultimate act of betrayal and evil (I had announced I do not believe in allah) met with some shocked reactions, but only when I mentioned Muhammad did the moderator close my thread. Odd, that, don’t you think?

I don’t regret leaving Islâm. It has, however, left me with some flaws and old habits, though I consciously try to change them. Accepting this, though, feels a lot like… maturity. Putting away the childish thoughts of god making everything ok, and instead stepping up to take responsibility for mine own actions. Scary, but necessary for true growth.
__________________

Where are you from?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you people, as you know ... knowledgeable scientists, explain this phenomenon we generally call the "self"?

it might be better termed as "explaining away" the self

Basically, there is a system, likely located in the left frontal part of your brain that provides a linguistic narrative for your present state based on a summation of information from many separate parts of what the "self" is normally described as.

Now, the reason this location isn't the self, is because it simply provides narrative. So, if you trigger someones emotional system without that information be available to this narrative creator, the "self" still undergoes this emotional experience and alteration in mood, however the narrative people have for this is widely different from what occured in the experiment.

It is not only the emotional/mood things, but even the sensation that you are located in your head, behind your eyes, your posture in space, all of these things. What we have are dozens of systems that are working in tandem, providing information to eachother to orchestrate the sense you feel at any given moment. The reason it all works is because it is, essentially, integrated into the environment through plasticity so that the exterior "reality" and brain become a recriprical system. These systems can be messed up through simple manipulations, and very strange experiences of "self" can be induced. For instance, out of body experiences can be induced through the use of VR goggles and a camera set up behind the subject.

Originally posted by inimalist
it might be better termed as "explaining away" the self

Basically, there is a system, likely located in the left frontal part of your brain that provides a linguistic narrative for your present state based on a summation of information from many separate parts of what the "self" is normally described as.

Now, the reason this location isn't the self, is because it simply provides narrative. So, if you trigger someones emotional system without that information be available to this narrative creator, the "self" still undergoes this emotional experience and alteration in mood, however the narrative people have for this is widely different from what occured in the experiment.

It is not only the emotional/mood things, but even the sensation that you are located in your head, behind your eyes, your posture in space, all of these things. What we have are dozens of systems that are working in tandem, providing information to eachother to orchestrate the sense you feel at any given moment. The reason it all works is because it is, essentially, integrated into the environment through plasticity so that the exterior "reality" and brain become a recriprical system. These systems can be messed up through simple manipulations, and very strange experiences of "self" can be induced. For instance, out of body experiences can be induced through the use of VR goggles and a camera set up behind the subject.

Hm, that's interesting. But this narrative, would it need to continue after or even during an upload for you to be yourself rather than a separate thing or a copy...?

Originally posted by inimalist
it might be better termed as "explaining away" the self

Basically, there is a system, likely located in the left frontal part of your brain that provides a linguistic narrative for your present state based on a summation of information from many separate parts of what the "self" is normally described as.

Now, the reason this location isn't the self, is because it simply provides narrative. So, if you trigger someones emotional system without that information be available to this narrative creator, the "self" still undergoes this emotional experience and alteration in mood, however the narrative people have for this is widely different from what occured in the experiment.

It is not only the emotional/mood things, but even the sensation that you are located in your head, behind your eyes, your posture in space, all of these things. What we have are dozens of systems that are working in tandem, providing information to eachother to orchestrate the sense you feel at any given moment. The reason it all works is because it is, essentially, integrated into the environment through plasticity so that the exterior "reality" and brain become a recriprical system. These systems can be messed up through simple manipulations, and very strange experiences of "self" can be induced. For instance, out of body experiences can be induced through the use of VR goggles and a camera set up behind the subject.

So then the Buddhists are right; there is no "self"?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then the Buddhists are right; there is no "self"?

That's not really what I got from that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not really what I got from that.

Because that wasn't his point.

I was taking what he said, and tried to see if he agreed with the Buddhist standpoint on what the "self" really is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hm, that's interesting. But this narrative, would it need to continue after or even during an upload for you to be yourself rather than a separate thing or a copy...?

well, the problem is more with the idea of an upload. Anything that is not your physical brain, even if you copied the narrator perfectly, would just be a copy. The experience you have as being youself is intrinsic to the activity in your physical brain.

This is why it would have to be a step by step process of system by system. And then, it wouldn't just be "as soon as the narrator is changed" your "self" becomes a computer. The narrator only provides the explanation, not the experience of self. Let me give you a couple of examples.

In some types of visual agnosia, people lose the ability to attach emotional experiences to the visual representation of people. Because of this, when they talk with their mother, even though they realize she is physically identical to their mother, they don't have the same emotional recognition, so the narrator determines that the person in an imposter or robot or something. Thus, the experience of seeing a loved one and the memories attached to it aren't part of the narration, but instead inform what the narrator will determine is going on.

The other example comes from people who have had thir corpus callosieum cut, in order to treat epilepsy. The corpus callosieum is how information gets from the right side of the brain to the left. When it is cut, they basically can't communicate any more. In normal situations this doesn't provide too much difficulty, because the same information is coming into both sides. But, you can trick people in labs. So, if you show someone porn in their left visual field, this will go to the right side of their brain. This will make them a little aroused, but because the information is stuck on the right side of the brain, it can't get to the narrator and they are completely incapable of identifying why they get all flushed and giggle, comming up with stories like "well, these experiments are new..." and so on.

... I might have misread that, I'll leave that up there because it is still relevant, but as far as needing a specific narrative to keep going, not really. Any time you are unconscious you aren't producing a narrative of what is going on.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, there is a problem with the term "upload". Because there is no way to suck "you" out of your brain, ie, you are not separable from the physical processes of the brain. You couldn't "upload" your stream of experience from one body to the next.

I could have probably described it better, but I didn't expect it to cause a real discussion. I was more saying that there are types of immortality(-esque) that I might desire, though an afterlife is not necessarily one of those.

Agreed, given this opportunity I'd take it, and definitely over an afterlife that I would have no way of knowing what it's like.

A while back I became enamored with Transhumanism, and even made a thread I think. In any case, this is right up that alley.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then the Buddhists are right; there is no "self"?

I'd hesitate to make that jump. Technically, it's a coin flip. Either there is or there isn't, so one of the world's philosophies has to be right about the self. In any such binary system, one of two sides will stumble upon the right answer, if only by accident or for the wrong reasons. I'd see any connection between Buddhism and neuroscience as coincidental, not a confirmation of the former.

But anyway, yeah, they're maybe right. There's certainly research to support the hypothesis.

Originally posted by Digi

In any such binary system, one of two sides will stumble upon the right answer, if only by accident or for the wrong reasons. I'd see any connection between Buddhism and neuroscience as coincidental, not a confirmation of the former.

So, if Buddhists are right and there is no self; you don't wanna even consider the possibility that they obtained the answer in the right manner?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then the Buddhists are right; there is no "self"?

I'm not really sure what the Buddhist stance on the self is.

I'd be very surprised if it held up to modern neuroscience in anything more than the sort of connection you are making.

I've certainly said that I don't believe consciousness, as in the Western philosophical idea, and so, in that sense I would say neuroscience has deconstructed what the "self" might be, so that maybe in the Cartesian sense, the self doesn't exist, but it is still a thing, just radically different from any philosophical ideas of the self I am aware of.

Buddhism is weird in these ways though, a lot of its doctrinal stuff, in some sects, are really loose, and the Dali Lama himself has said science trumps doctrine. I know Sam Harris, someone who I am a huge fan of, talks a lot about the way Buddhist introspection and mental task can affect the structure of the brain, and as Liberal scientists, a lot of researchers are "into" Buddhist ideas, so you might be able to find people making the links you are talking about, but I'd be hesitant. Explain to me how Buddhists understand the experience of the "self" then, if they think it isn't there?

EDIT: From what I understand, don't buddhists put the illusion outside of the mind? as in, material reality itself is the illusion, not that the illusion is a byproduct of the same systems that are themselves the mind? the whole idea of piercing the veil to see reality as it truly is? That would be entirely incongruent with the neuroscientific idea of the self

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed, given this opportunity I'd take it, and definitely over an afterlife that I would have no way of knowing what it's like.

A while back I became enamored with Transhumanism, and even made a thread I think. In any case, this is right up that alley.

Ya, I remember that, I might have had a thing or two to say, but its probably right in line with my cynicism

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but this isn't as theoretically poorly understood as "time"

Originally posted by inimalist
what aspect of your personality do you think it is that wouldn't survive a brain transplant?

All of these things that people call "personality" can be shown to reside in the brain, through lesion/injury/tumor studies and abnormal psych best of all. True, "we wont know", but this isn't a really contensious theoretical matter.

The bottom line is, I really don't know, but given the "intimacy" of such a venture (who we are, nature of consciousness, etc), and the surprises usually accompanying progress, I feel compelled to voice a "But what if...?"

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then the Buddhists are right; there is no "self"?