Brok's Paradox

[kellychaos]

This leads me to "Broks's paradox": we are inclined to believe in mind-body dualism even though we understand it to be wrong. Neuroscientists are not exempt. Consider the following thought experiment, devised by the philosopher Derek Parfit. Some years hence you find yourself taking business trips to Mars. Teleportation is the usual mode of transport. It works like this. A scanner records the states of your body in atomic detail and digitally encodes the information for radio transmission. Your body is destroyed in the process but reconstructed on Mars using locally available materials as soon as the radio signals are decoded. The replication is perfect: identical body and brain, identical memory stores and patterns of mental activity. It is "you." You are in no doubt. Most neuroscientists say they would readily submit to this process. Why should they worry about destruction and reconstruction of the body? As good materialists, they know that "the self" (secular cousin to the soul) is no more than a pattern of experiences and dispositions bundled together by the operations of the central nervous system. Now imagine this. There is a teleporter malfunction. You have been scanned and the information transmitted, but this time your body was not vaporised in the usual way. Your replica was automatically constructed and is going about its business. Worse still, the faulty scanner has left you with a fatal heart condition. You will be dead within days. Which would you rather be, the Martian replica or the moribund earthbound version? It should make no difference to a true materialist. In scenario two, the vaporisation process has been delayed, that is all. The personal trajectory of the individual arriving on Mars is the same for both scenarios. Psychological continuity has been maintained, as it is via the oblivion of sleep from one ordinary day to the next. But very few rest easy with scenario two. It shatters one's complacency about unproblematic teleportation (and therefore materialism): "If the replica's not me now…"


One might dismiss all this as "angels on a pinhead" stuff. But Ian McEwan" makes a telling point. "What I believe but cannot prove," he says, "is that no part of my consciousness will survive my death." His enlightened fellow Edge contributors will take this as a given, but they may not appreciate its significance, which is that belief in an afterlife "divides the world crucially, and much damage has been done to thought as well as to persons by those who are certain that there is a life, a better, more important life, elsewhere." The natural gift of consciousness should be treasured all the more for its transience.

This tripped my memory to remember that every cell in our body with the exception of the nervous system and another major organ (I believe the liver) is totally replaced approximately every 7 years or so. Why is that? That; however, doesn't necessarily lead me to side with the after-lifers. I just found it interesting with respect to this article. Discuss please.

COMPLETE ARTICLE LINK

[ziggytrix]

His enlightened fellow Edge contributors will take this as a given

This is atheistic faggotry of the highest order.

It is angels on a pinhead debate, cuz no one asserts that a soul is made of atoms. If life is merely the animation of crude matter by a fluke of electricty, and there is no such thing as spirit, then so be it. But microscopic organisms existed before the invention of the miscroscope, so might extradimensional self exist, even without the existence of extradimensional goggles.

Then there are those "enlightened" beings who say they KNOW one way or the other, but I think as much damage is done by those who insist there is no afterlife, as is done by those who insist there is.

I choose to believe in spirit. I do not know that my sense of self will be maintained after death, but I do believe my spirit will. And I have heavy psychoactive drug use to thank for the beliefs.

[kellychaos]

So the corporeal self might persist in another dimension?

[ziggytrix]

No, I'm saying that incorporeal "stuff" may interact with the corporeal self in a manner consistant with such beliefs as the soul, bhraman, dao, or whatever the fuck you think it should be called. And that the known physical dimensions may not be the entirety of reality.

I don't however, profess to hold such a belief myself, because I didn't take THAT much acid.

[executioneer]

i like how this is based on an episode of star trek

[kahljorn]

"It is angels on a pinhead debate, cuz no one asserts that a soul is made of atoms. If life is merely the animation of crude matter by a fluke of electricty, and there is no such thing as spirit, then so be it."

The rosicrucians call it the "Spirit spark atom".

Congratulations little boy, you found the marble in the oatmeal, you get a drink from the firehose.

[ziggytrix]

I meant no one in the scientific community. I don't especially care what rosicrucians have named their imaginary soul particles, as they have never been detected in any measureable way.

[Helm]

plus the rosa crux can suck my fleshy totem pole

[kahljorn]

"I meant no one in the scientific community. I don't especially care what rosicrucians have named their imaginary soul particles, as they have never been detected in any measureable way."

I don't know, there's been alot of experiments that have detected "Something". And besides, alot of stuff science talks about can't be "Measured".. except by measuring it's effects. See, that's why they teach algebra in school, so you can get 'X' with 'Y' and 'Z'. You don't necessarily need to be able to "measure" something to know there's "Something" creating an "Effect".

[kellychaos]

So no soul would be attached to the replica? No Frankensteinian bolts of lightening. Shelley will not approve of this!

[pjalne]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"I meant no one in the scientific community. I don't especially care what rosicrucians have named their imaginary soul particles, as they have never been detected in any measureable way."

I don't know, there's been alot of experiments that have detected "Something". And besides, alot of stuff science talks about can't be "Measured".. except by measuring it's effects. See, that's why they teach algebra in school, so you can get 'X' with 'Y' and 'Z'. You don't necessarily need to be able to "measure" something to know there's "Something" creating an "Effect".

X IS that 'something'. Algebra is about finding the source of an effect, and more importantly, to measure it.

[kellychaos]

Wouldn't that "x" have to be a defined something that is known to exist and something to which you can apply a unit of measure?

[kahljorn]

To all your questions: no.

[kellychaos]

What meaning would the value of "x" have once you solved your equation?

[kahljorn]

"Algebra is about finding the source of an effect, and more importantly, to measure it."

No, algebra is about measuring unknown things by the measurements of some relative known factor. You could technically measure the size of a peanut to the size of a building and get an answer to the nature of the soul with the right steps in between.

Basically it's about measuring the "Effects" of an "Unknown thing" to "Understand the nature of the unknown thing".

Just because we know gravity and 'dark matter' exist and have their measurements doesn't mean we understand how, or why it works, or even why it's there(MASS ATTRACTS SMALLER MASS THATS IT).
When was the last time you measured a person and instantly understood everything they had done with their life? If you believe you can do that crap, well, congratulations; you've just bought into palm reading.

[ziggytrix]

I stand by my initial claim. The "paradox" is nonsense because the "you" that comes out of the machine is NOT the "you" that went into the transmitter no matter how much it thinks it is. It may be an exact atomic copy, but it is not the same creature that mommy squeezed out, invisible soul or not. I'd like to hear from these neuroscientists who would readily submit themselves to this procedure, because I think they're full of shit.

[kahljorn]

Inches aren't even actually inches. There's no such thing as inches except in our mind. No feet, no meters, no kilometers, no yards, no fences, no kiloliters. There's no such thing as a "Unit of measurement". It's all a lie.
The idea of measurement is just relativism, chopped down and rebuilt into an even bigger state of relevatism in which we place in a "Middle man" to add to a global perception. Inches are a perception, not an empirical fact. We buy and sell into languages.

The stream of consciousness that says "I" is still there. that stream of consciousness doesn't disappear, and when it does you get cases of terri schiavo. Nobody ever said that the soul doesn't function off of the natural worlds laws, anyhow. I don't know where the idea came from-- that it's something that transcends all laws.

[kellychaos]

Hell, the whole number system is an arbitrary system based on the number of fingers we have but, I digress. Please continue. :goad

[ziggytrix]

I'm not saying it transcends natural law. I'm saying our understanding of the natural law governing it (assuming it even exists), is even weaker than our understanding of gravity before Newton's time.

Inches exist. I use them every day.

[kahljorn]

The same could be said for a soul, or your consciousness. You're *using* it, aren't you? Huh? HUH!Q?!??

The fact that we don't have the abilities to measure something is not a reason to occlude something. That's called ignorance, and basing presumptions on ignorace. that's not what "Science" is "supposed" to be about. So much dogma to it...
But anyway, all I'm trying to say is language is just as much math as anything else. When you read religious texts, or spiritual texts and keep that in mind it might make more sense and give you something to investigate upon to see it's other effects.
Did you know alot of the hindu scripts/chants/poetry are actually mathematics? They have one chant that wittles down to pi at like the 23rd number when translated into numerical form. COINCIDENCE?

Also, besides that, judging by your theory everytime we get a papercut we would become different people. Which, i guess judging by how i handle situations in life could be considered true! But maybe you need to do math on it. You're you +this, or you're you +that. Right now you're you + a body(at x age) / situations in life.guiding you towards vectors and more vectors. If you get a papercut you're you - a few cells. Simple math!
Also, not all ideas of the "Soul" are the same. I think the basic ideas are, but with rosicrucians or buddhists or gnosticism or various other things that believe things are eternal but not, the only eternal thing about it is it's selfless-but-attaching nature. The actual human being is just pieces gathered throughout it's travel of eternity... the "Lipika" as some call it. Some people think the soul never changes, and i think it's because they are talking about the basic thing, the eternal nondestructive nature of things. I mean, technically, the universe can never absolutely cease to exist, just like it can never technically entirely exist. So that is the "Soul". Everything else is ideas based upon that, built upon it(An eternity of flux and change will do that for ya); most of it's dealing with energies, radiations, and gravity.

[ziggytrix]

maybe, maybe not. when i got out the ruler and measured a print earlier today, there was no vagueness in the existence of the inch. when i woke up today and decided to hit the snooze button it might have been my soul, it might have been my brain. i dunno, cuz i don't have a soul ruler.

which all amounts to what i said earlier - we don't know SHIT about the soul, one way or the other. all we have is a bunch of mystical mumbojumbos that don't agree with each other and a bunch of atheists who swear there is no such thing.

angels and pinheads.

[kellychaos]

RELATED THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

#23. Another thought experiment: Let's take the brain, both halves, B' & B" from body B, and destroy it. Now take one hemisphere, say A", and put it into body B (and leave hemisphere A' in body A). Now we've clearly thrown away one soul, that from the brain of body B. From animal experiment s it has been shown that each body, each with just one hemisphere, will be able to thrive and think and learn and carry on most functions. Our thought experiment, then, seems to indicate we've created (given birth to?) another being. If both bodies are able to carry on, each going its own way, thinking its own things, does this prove we've managed to create another soul? At least it would prove the soul resides in both hemispheres. The fact that both new souls may be somewhat disadvantaged I don't think concerns us, except possibly to indicate that souls may be divisible resulting into 2 "half souls", at least temporarily. If the two half brains can eventually function as full brains and full souls, then we've truly created a new soul.

Accept the premise, you nit-pickers. This is philosophy, not science. Sooo, what do you think?

OTHER THOUGHT EXPERIMENT LINKS

[ziggytrix]

philosophy still has to stand up to the conventions of logic.

this example assumes that the soul resides in the BRAIN, and that we are talking about the Christian concept of the soul. someone who doesn't beleive in the soul a a discrete unit, such as a scientologist, would just say, "yeah, half B's souls are in body A and half are in body B, bummer for B." but for someone who believes in the standard Christian version of the soul I guess this'd present a poser.

[kahljorn]

Alot of people/religions think the 'soul' actually resides in or along the nervous system. Kundalini, timothy leary. All the mythology around the "Spine". Isn't that the one thing that doesn't "Change"? That's such a long and complicated issue, though...

[ziggytrix]

nah, some cultures say eyes, some say heart, some say it floats around the body as an aura. we're pretty inconsistent about it on the whole.