[split] PORN

[Purple Rabbit]

No one said it ORIGINATES in the brain. You poke yourself in the finder with a sharp object or hang upsidedown and the sensors that sense this and tell your brain "you've been poked" or "hey! You're upsidedown!" This information transfer from one place to the next is just that. A transfer of information.

What you do about it is decided where?

Your nervous system is the carrier of information, it is a bundle of wires. It does not 'compute'. The links you provided do not suggest otherwise. If anyone can provide some scientific peer reviewed stuff that shows otherwise I'd be happy to see it.

Until then my contention is you are the one with the extra-ordinary claim. That nerves somehow calculate and compute and can make decisions. So it is you who is burdened to prove.

This is basic stuff. The brain is part of the nervous system. Basically it consists of a "bundle of wires", the same stuff that the rest of the nervous system is made of, neurons. Still the nervous system is capable of producing self awareness. Transformation of electric pulses (i.e. computation) begins much further down the nervous system than in the brain. And even the process of decision-making is not limited to the brain as the peer reviewed article shows. Your reaction shows that you haven't given it any serious attention. Why should I believe that you're happy to see evidence if you simply deny the evidence that is presented to you?

You also stubbornly fail to give any evidence for your claim that the self is restricted to the brain. So on face value there really is no basis for further dialogue here. But OK, I'll throw in a completely other approach to it since it seems you're struggling with the concept of a nervous system made up of neurons.

One post back you argued that the somatic markers just represent feedback and that it simply can be replaced by an artificial emulation of the somatic markers. Your argument seems to be that if a part of the nervous system can be emulated than that part cannot be the residence of the self. Well I argue that in essence you can replace any part of the nervous system in that way given enough time to reproduce every connection in the brain with an artificial one. So doing this would eradicate the self from the brain totally if we follow your reasoning. That you might emulate the somatic markers I don't dispute. That it helps your argument in anyway I do dispute.

Since you seem to acknowledge that decision-making is typically a trait that defines the self, the argument now is where does this decision making occur.

My evidence of such? The link you provided. It stated 'damage this part of the brain, affects decision making abilities'. There ya go.

If you cut yer head off you still retain the ability to make decisions. Not very long shure 'nuff, but you can make decisions.

I'd bet folks like Stephen Hawkins would agree. His physical body is a wreck. It's all fuked up and I would maintain for all its sensors they ain't workin' right. Seems to make decisions pretty well though.
Many folks with illnesses that rack the body but not the brain maintain quality decision making abilities. Those with ones that rack the brain but not the body (such as alheimers) seem to be the ones with a poorer decision making ability.

Please reread because you're missing the point that information gathering is part of decision making.

[Violet]

My brain is just another part of my body. Without by brain I'd still be something it's just that I'd be a corpse.

IF my brain could be detached.... so far that has never been shown to be possible. And if it was, my brain is still physical just like all my other body parts (as far as I know, I know of no evidence to the contrary).

If you say without my brain I am nothing, the same applies to without my heart - in both cases I'd be dead. That's as close as you can get to "nothing".

My brain isn't me it's just another part of me. I can't have consciousness without it but it's possible - just not for humans it seems - to live without a brain... single celled animals like bacteria for instance. Or - viruses. They're alive but they have no brain.

EvF

I've been "out of the loop" for a few days, sorry :S I'll try to get back to you all. I think this should be split from the [split] PORN thread myself.

Anyway: Synthetic replacements will eventually be possible for every part of your body... cyborgia could even one day replace "you" with a synthetic intelligence that is a copy of who you are (would essentially be you).

My body is simply an organic version of all of this... as I am only an organic version of the synthetic intelligence. Organics, synthetics, mixes of both, whatever: It doesn't change "who" you are. 'You' are simply the experiences of your life (many of which would come from what body you have, i never disagreed with you all as to that, although you would not be a different person if you were translocated from your body or your body changed), a point that can perceive, and a basic bios and operating system that modifies itself because of an intellectual capacity (wether the lot of this be synthetic or organic changes nothing).

iow: my body is a tool, no matter what it is made out of. If I don't have tools for sight, I don't see. This does not suggest that my inability to see is a part of who I am past my lack of experience with seeing, or my lost capacity to see. I can be given a tool for sight after previously lacking any, and 'I' would be unchanged... I have simply gained another tool by which to gauge observable existence.

As for wether I would personally become completely a cyborg, Dotard: I would, but I would retain a human appearance/form, and although I would celebrate never having to eat, sleep, excrete, or drink again: I would mourn the loss of sex too much to completely change that (although considering it is mainly a psychological attraction for me at the moment, I would prefer to keep my nervous system mostly intact).

So I would never go for the whole "psychotic robo-commander" look That one's sensory modules carry them information is not to suggest that they are their senses. Tongue in cheek: I am sight, I see you all

Note at Evie's last sentence: "Living" does not a consciousness make. There is no 'they' in regards to bacteria, unless 'they' have a perception of themselves that I do not know about. 'They' are very simple organic 'machines'... unless 'they' really do have a brain or some other capacity to perceive themselves in there somewhere. Without a (perhaps somewhat advanced? I would need to have more data) brain, there is no person... and personality is not a trait that can only be applied to humans, organic or otherwise. Simply: you don't exist without a brain. A synthetic intelligence can handle continuously changing it's capacities... and an organic intelligence is no different.

[Purple Rabbit]

The self is a process on the infrastructure of the nervous system, not a thing in the brain.

"If it is true that the self is not a thing but a process, as I've described it, than it is also true that the tragedy of the ego dissolves. Because strictly speaking nobody is ever born and nobody ever dies."

Thomas Metzinger, Director of the Philosophy Group at the Department of Philosophy at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz

[Violet]

True somewhat, but considering that the brain is the center of the nervous system, and the part of the system that reacts to transmitted stimuli: you would cease to exist without a brain (or similar device).

Although I would contest the 'nobody is ever born and nobody ever dies' statement, strictly or not. Or was he referencing that the status of essence does not die simply because there is no existence to back it up, only no existence to materialize it?

Also, a process is a thing in and of itself... so i would contest a number of things in the quote. That a thing is not necessarily 'in' something else does not degrade its status as a thing.

[Purple Rabbit]

True somewhat, but considering that the brain is the center of the nervous system, and the part of the system that reacts to transmitted stimuli: you would cease to exist without a brain (or similar device).

Of course, but which part of your body looses the self, the brain or the part from the spinal chord down?

Although I would contest the 'nobody is ever born and nobody ever dies' statement, strictly or not. Or was he referencing that the status of essence does not die simply because there is no existence to back it up, only no existence to materialize it?

Yes, it's a rather enigmatic assertion. What he means is that the self is a model that the brain makes. He calls it the self-model. IOW the self is a representation without the object that is represented. Since there is no objective self nobody ever gets born and nobody ever dies.

If you're interested and can handle some technical language, check out this vid (your patience will be rewarded):

[youtube]mthDxnFXs9k[/youtube]

Also, a process is a thing in and of itself... so i would contest a number of things in the quote. That a thing is not necessarily 'in' something else does not degrade its status as a thing.

True, it is not an attempt to degrade merely a fascinating observation of how nature constitutes awareness.

[Violet]

I'll have to watch it when i have the time, but I've no disagreements with the rest

v Edit: and at the video below I'll try to watch when im at college later. My internet is extremely slow atm, and the college internet will kick it's left ankles.

[Purple Rabbit]

Here you can hear the argument from Antonia Damasio himself in less than 4 minutes:

[youtube]1wup_K2WN0I[/youtube]

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Sae,

My point is that the brain is another part of the body just as the heart is... I don't see how it is not the body.

If you are to have a synthetic body and a synthetic brain then your synthetic brain is still just another part of your synthetic body. Or if you have a mix of synthetic and organic I still don't see how this makes your brain 'not a part of your body'. I don't see how your brain can exist without it being part of your body.

Yes viruses have no 'they' in the sense that there is no "they" as in - they're not conscious. But they are still alive in the sense they are an organism. If you define living as conscious then, fine - but that still won't derail the fact that as far as I know a brain requires the rest of the body - whether organic or synthetic. I don't see how you can claim the brain is not a part of the body. The mind, maybe - but then you'd be a dualist and 'mind' is different to simply 'brain' as in the physical mind in your head.

@fr0d0 I think Child of Our Time is brilliant.

EvF

[TruthWorthy]

How are the mind and body connected?
Take, for instance, psychosomatic disorders - psycho from psyche' (the mind), and soma (of the body). What you suggest is that mind and body are entirely inseparable. While it is true that that the body supports brain function, it is incorrect to suppose that the two are not mutually exclusive. As posted previously by another AF member, there are means of keeping a body alive that is without brain function; and I have refrained from mentioning that successful operations have been carried out where a brain has been successfully removed from the human cranium, for a short length of time, and reinserted/reconnected only to function in apparent normalcy once again.
The reason this is not such a miraculous marvel to be in circulation within the general population/media is because only the same brain has been reinserted into the same body as it left. Why? Because keeping a brain conserved and keeping a brain alive (outside the body) are two different matters and the ethical limitations wouldn't permit a functioning human (or two) to have a brain transplant.
So while the limits of the profession restrict a brain and body being divided/selected to live/die another field opens on the what if . . .
Given an opportunity, science will quickly spread into this area so it is only enivitable to occur and perhaps, outside our time, make news headlines of one person reemerging to find themselves in another human body.

[Violet]

@ Sae,

My point is that the brain is another part of the body just as the heart is... I don't see how it is not the body.

Did I say it wasn't? However, you (being your consciousness) is a thing entirely contained within the brain. Hence, when I am speaking to you, I'm not speaking to your left ankle, earlobes, or other left ankle in any capacity at all. I am speaking specifically to the entity within the 'platform' that contains it.

If you are to have a synthetic body and a synthetic brain then your synthetic brain is still just another part of your synthetic body. Or if you have a mix of synthetic and organic I still don't see how this makes your brain 'not a part of your body'. I don't see how your brain can exist without it being part of your body.

The point is that you are separate from your platform (this includes your brain... note the 'your' right there?) in the sense that you would be remaining intact if you were to move into a different platform. Your brain is a part of your body, but your brain is where your consciousness is "housed". As of current, we are not capable of moving you to a different platform (copying your persona would accomplish a similar task, although it would not be you (as your location and time probably differ from that of the copied persona). I don't see where I suggested your brain was separate from the rest of your body... do i suggest that the brain houses you, and that you are ultimately a separate consideration from your body ? Yes.

Yes viruses have no 'they' in the sense that there is no "they" as in - they're not conscious. But they are still alive in the sense they are an organism. If you define living as conscious then, fine - but that still won't derail the fact that as far as I know a brain requires the rest of the body - whether organic or synthetic. I don't see how you can claim the brain is not a part of the body. The mind, maybe - but then you'd be a dualist and 'mind' is different to simply 'brain' as in the physical mind in your head.

@fr0d0 I think Child of Our Time is brilliant.

EvF

Let's see if i can put this in simple terms... a computer requires energy and the engineering to apply that energy to function. Without that energy (in this case electricity) and the engineering (wires and the like) required to carry that energy, process, and transform the energy on the computer into a form that we can use): The computer may as well be a rock for all it does.

When the computer "dies" (no longer has energy, or is no longer able to apply that energy due to any number of reasons)... it will not "start again" until its energy source has been restored, and it can use it once again. If it is restored to function, then it will begin working again as well as it did in the past.

Our bodies are not so different. We as much as our computers require energy and 'engineering' to apply it to function. Without that energy (In this case nutrients, water, and the like) and the 'engineering' (Heart, brain, lungs, bones, muscle, and the like) required to carry that energy, process, and transform the energy in our body into a form that we can use): we may as well be a corpse for all we do (and indeed are corpses in this case ).

When we "die" (no longer have energy, or are no longer able to apply that energy due to any number of reasons)... we will not "start again" until our energy source has been restored, and it can once again be used. If we are restored to function (a far more complex and difficult task than fixing a broken computer... imagine restoring a rotting brain 0.o)... then we will begin working again as well as we did in the past.


As it turns out, i do define living as consciousness... unless you begin to equate the status of living to rocks and computers. Other than the materials used in their composition... computers, bacteria, and rocks have a remarkably similar perception of their existence.

And as it also turns out, i am not a dualist: I only recognize that if your persona was transported and interpreted into a digital framework: you would adapt to the new model of your existence in the same way a person with a broken leg might adapt to not trying to run on it. A person is a concept... I disagree that a person can be considered as their body in the same capacity I disagree that mathematics are anything more than a concept.

I don't see where you felt the need to state the obvious (that the brain is a part of the body)... I would have thought my stance would be because of what i've stated above... I might have said something wrong previously (that I'm not believing) that had you make your point that the brain is a part of the body... but in case you aren't clear on this: I agree with you that the brain is a part of the body.