Open thread for 20.15: Russell Glasser & Don Baker


Don talks about how religions get the wrong answer on the topic of reproduction.

Comments

  1. Jason Waskiewicz says

    I don’t have an intelligent comment about this video…at least not one that goes beyond the content of this video, though I did appreciate the comments about the alien contact experiences.

    But, I did want to say that the professionalism of your videos is improving. I’ll miss the old theme song, but this new one is certainly growing on me. Please keep doing what you’re doing.

    I think the biggest thing about your show is that you actually listen to the callers. It’s easy to ridicule the religious. I know that because I used to be in that group. It’s a lot harder to actually engage the religious and speak with them. You do that, and I discovered your show at an important time in my life. You didn’t change my views because I’d done that already. But you did help me a lot with “why”.

  2. Robert Porritt says

    Think you could do a little video editing? Content doesn’t start until 13:50 aside from a weird technical problem at the beginning.

  3. superatheist says

    Every person is an experiment into seeing what consciousness a particular structure and functioning of matter will produce over time. Duplicating this experiment closely enough should produce the same consciousness. Scientists have learned that experiments are carried out with different matter in different places and times with closely identical results. Duplicating the same consciousness does not have to be in the same place in space, in the same time period or made of identical matter. What scientists know about the production of consciousness is that the brain through its complex structure and functioning creates consciousness. To other conscious beings you are a body because they can not see the consciousness that your body is producing. But to yourself, if you are not conscious you do not exist. When you die your brain no longer functions in the correct way to produce a consciousness that you experience. The atheist often expresses the belief that death is a permanent ending aspect of life and as atheists we need to face this fact even though they often express the sentiment that being alive or conscious again would be very desirable. Fear of death is often the reason stated for why people become or stay religious even though religions are irrational and anti-scientific. If science can offer a better theory of conscious life after death than religions then it should be a positive thing for science and rationality which atheism is supposed to be working toward.
    Restoration of structure and functioning is one way of looking at recreating a consciousness that has existed in the past. The concept of the restoration of structure and functioning does not require the same body to restore the same consciousness. To understand consciousness and life after death we need a new concept. This concept is called “ixperiencitness” pronounced “I experience it ness”. If any physical body produces a consciousness that you do not experience it is not you. But any physical body that produces a consciousness that you do experience is a conscious version of you. By definition, any body that produces a consciousness that you experience, that body produces your ixperiencitness. Most people believe that most of the consciousness that their body has produced in the past and will produce into the future they have experienced in the past and will experience in the future. More later—

  4. says

    I’m glad Russel pointed out that memes aren’t just image with captions. It’s a pet peeve of mine.

    it’s to the point where there’s “meme generators”, which have achieved a state where it’s 100% conceptually divorced from the original concept…. like having a “viral video generator” that produces videos that nobody watches.

  5. Athywren - not the moon you're looking for says

    @Charles (caller 2(?))
    Preach!!
    *long-distance fist bump offer*
    I get the feeling that was one of the first times he got to truly vent to someone.

  6. Russell Glasser says

    I really enjoyed that Catholic call a lot. I’m not saying I think he’ll become an atheist, but it is so much fun to help nurture that little seed of doubt every once in a while.

  7. Wayway2tall says

    Russell, Don,

    This is in response to the caller looking for something to say to his dying father.

    I gave a Secular eulogy at my Grandfather’s very Lutheran funeral recently. I think that as atheists we actually have huge tools available to us to help write some very comforting final words.

    My advice to anyone searching for the right words is to remember that someone’s death is probably the most personal experience that person will remember in their life (second only to birth which isn’t remembered). Accordingly, death is not the right time “to think about this in context.” This is not the time to invoke stardust, changing forms of energy, or the circle of life. This point in time has to be uniquely the deceased’s. Let them be the most important thing in the universe in their final moments.

    Also, remember that death is best interpreted by the reasons for which we lived. Validate the deceased’s experience and recognize why it was a life worth living.

    And finally, (Russell touched on this point, but I believe it needs elaboration) don’t forget to talk about memes. I think the greatest comfort one can have is to realize that their impact on the world will be a lasting one and one that they see as positive. Remind this person of the parts of yourself which you have learned from them and tell them how thankful you are to have those parts. I closed my eulogy thusly: “Paul was a great man, not because of the toys he possessed but because of the character we possess because of him. I could not be more proud of the parts of him which are now a part of me. I cherish them, I cherish both he and my grandfather–and when I think about that, it becomes just a little bit easier to cherish myself too.”

    I hope some of these thoughts make someone’s death more liveable.

  8. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist #5:

    Restoration of structure and functioning is one way of looking at recreating a consciousness that has existed in the past.

    Video: CGPGrey – The Trouble with Transporters (5:43)
     
     

    Fear of death is often the reason stated for why people become or stay religious even though religions are irrational and anti-scientific.
     
    If science can offer a better theory of conscious life after death than religions then it should be a positive thing for science and rationality which atheism is supposed to be working toward.

    You said “scientists” an awful lot.
    Do YOU want more people to be rational?
    Why do you want that?
     
    And would you deny this restoration technology to theists, until they deconvert? Lifespans have already been extended by medicine, prevention, and public health reforms. Any norm will be taken for granted, and the religions will continue to promise a better life than the one they have.

  9. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    * Not an awful lot actually (scientist, science, scientific, the atheist). Human agents in your comment were sparse.

  10. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist #5:

    To understand consciousness and life after death we need a new concept. This concept is called “ixperiencitness” pronounced “I experience it ness”.

    Sounds like you got that word from here?
     
    Article: Aware Theory Wiki – Ixperiencitness
     
    It’s the source of essentially ALL of google’s results.

  11. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Ahh, Mark, the caller, you’re Mark the wiki author?
     
    Article: Aware Theory – Mark

    ‘Mark’ the creator of many of these (so far very incomplete) ideas about the web site awaretheory.com
    […]
    Awaretheory is just the beginning outline, in a website format, for a number of new sciences about knowledge and consciousness.

     
    That author has been… prolific.
    Article: Awarespace

  12. KM says

    Is anyone else really tired of Don Baker?

    This is coming from an atheist who loves this show and almost all of the hosts on it, but time and again when I see these segments from Don they just really irritate me. Don, it really seems like you go out of your way to misunderstand the beliefs of religious people. This segment is not the most egregious by any means but it encouraged me to speak out.

    Your assertion that that religion promotes child rearing for a profit is absurd. I have some sympathy for the idea that they encourage child rearing to increase the numbers in their flocks, this is almost plainly obvious. But for most religious sects, this is because they genuinely believe they have the one correct view of the universe, and thus want to increase their following to spread the word and gain influence. Profit of course, as Russell said is an outcome of this. But to try and pretend that the profit is the main motivation here is just soooooo wrong headed.

    Don, your segments on the show always seem to promote fallacious arguments like these. Your Hell segment on Episode 941 is a great example (where Matt thankfully called you out). You seem to never do research into anything you talk about, and provide the most limited and narrow minded view of religious doctrine. Your arguments lack any of the critical thinking and nuance I’ve come to expect from the hosts of this show.

    If we’re going to complain when theists promote strawmans of atheists, then we need to make extra sure that we never make the same errors. Having a host on this show who promotes these horrible arguments weakens our message, and just gives believers more reason to think that we are close minded and don’t understand their religion.

    Please Don, do some research and get some better arguments. You’re embarrassing all of us.

  13. superatheist says

    Thank you “CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain” for responding to my incomplete but nonetheless longish blog!

    Religions give hope to people by offering them fantasies about heaven (or a better life after death) and being with loved ones again after their death. Superimmortality can do this without any supernatural concepts like souls, gods, spirits, a spiritual after death world or supernatural processes like resurrection or reincarnation. Superimmortality is a complicated theory that can not be explained in a few sentences, paragraphs, pages, or even books. It is a theory that seems way to good to be true and as a skeptical scientist I have spent most of may time trying to understand these ideas and disprove them. The more I try to disprove them the more arguments become apparent that support superimmortality. Superimmortality does not guarantee that a person will experience being conscious again after death, so as most atheists believe we should make the most out of this life. If however, you were to consciously exist again after your bodies death, it will not be in a spiritual world like many religions propose but likely in this physical world. So it is to our advantage to take good care of this world so that it can continue to produce conscious beings way into the future. Since it is a random natural process if a physapath will come into existence that will produce an awarepath that you experience, one might say the more people that exist at a time the better. But the more people that exist over time may improve the chance that one of them will produce a consciousness that you experience, it may not improve the quality of life of this version of you. So it is important to improve the quality of life on earth so if somebody was to produce a consciousness that you experience it will be as good as we can make it at that time. Superimmortality has many other advantages over religious forms of immortality besides likely being true. If the more (in number) conscious being exist the more likely a structure and functioning of matter will produce a consciousness that you will experience then you and all the rest of us (we) have reasons to spread through the universe a multitude of conscious beings experiencing good positive lives.

  14. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist #15:

    If […] you were to consciously exist again after your bodies death…

    This seems to be the entirety of your theory, generously padded with boilerplate stubs for invented words and decorative images, as an exercise in producing wikis.
     
    This one, for instance…
    Article: AwareTheory Wiki – Itofazexperiments and Awaretheory

  15. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist:
     
    Article: AwareTheory Wiki – If nature produced a consciousness that you experience one extended period of time, why can’t it produce more than one at the same time?
     

    If you took the same matter that president Lincoln was made of and arranged it in the same pattern that it was before he was shot […] He would act and look like Lincoln so it would be him for outside observers. But […] does this new Lincoln have the same ixperiencitness as the original Lincoln that died in 1865? The problem on the surface seems impossible to solve. How can we know and then compare the ixperiencitness of a person that has died to one that is alive?
     
    The answer is by producing a coherent scientific theory that is supported by experimentation more than any other theory. A very simple hypothesis is that the same structure and functioning over time in a human will produce the same consciousness over that period of time. A second simple hypothesis is that the same consciousness over time has the same ixperiencitness over time.

    Two assertions do not consitiute a theory.
    Calling what-if scenarios evidence or thought experiments does not support a theory.
    Stubs on a wiki for evidence do not prove a theory.
     
     

    A major argument against another person having the same ixperiencitness as another at the same time is the ideas that I am not experiencing what this other person is so consequently this other person is not me consequently he does not have my ixperiencitness. Not having the same consciousness at the same time does not means that two or more different people can’t have the same ixperiencitness at the same time. For example, if you traveled into the past and saw yourself yesterday this would be you yesterday with your ixperiencitness but you were experiencing different things yesterday than you are now. If you proceeded to travel into the future with your previous self you both could observe your future self that has the same ixperiencitness but again a different consciousness.

    You removed continuity, similarity, and subjective experience from “ixperiencitness”.
     
    Comic: SMBC – Dying
     
     
    Article: AwareTheory Wiki – How the subjective view of self interferes with the objective view of what we are?
     

    Awaretheory proposes that there are a very large number of ways that matter can be structured and then function that will produce a consciousness that you experience even when they are produced at the same time. This implies that you are much more than a singular body and a singular line of consciousness produced by that body.
     
    Imagine seeing yourself as several bodies at once, where you sense everything they do and control their actions just like you do normally with one body. It is hard enough to control one body but if your consciousness was at a higher level where most of the decision making and processing of sensual information was at an unconscious level it would then be a conceivable consciousness. So is an enhancement of your consciousness where you actually experience each body like you do your own singular body and then there is a consciousness that you experience that ties together the different body experiences into a whole consciousness.

    Riiiight.

  16. Chikoppi says

    Given that “consciousness” is an emegent trait of a brain, I don’t think “de-localized” consciousness is a thing. Space and time matter. My brain today is physically different than my brain yesterday. Therefore my consciousness today is a different consciousness than yesterday.

    Of course, I’m not really sure what is being proposed, or if any of it amounts to a distinction with a difference.

  17. superatheist says

    Thank you Chikoppi and Sky Captain for your replies!

    I do not mind negative feedback. It, for a scientific theory, is nearly always better than positive feedback because it gives us new insights into the ideas we are dealing with. I will admit that the awaretheory wiki web site is greatly flawed and very incomplete. But it does contain many apparently novel concepts that could be wrong (or right) to various degrees. The reason I have come out in a more public fashion with these ideas here is that the one thing I disagree with the atheist perspective is the belief that the death of the body is the permanent end of conscious existence for any particular ixperiencitness grouping of consciousnesses. This belief, I believe, causes unnecessary suffering for people that want to rid themselves of oppressive dogmatic supernatural none sense. Superimmortality allows one to say to a child that has lost a parent, friend, or relative that they may experience being with these loved one again in the future without lying or the need for any supernatural concepts like gods, souls, or heavens. Superimmortality does not limit the consciousnesses that can exist, it shows how to scientifically improve them. For example, people have suffered and died after short lives in very unpleasant ways in the past. The holocaust victims are an example. If we consider one holocaust victim lets say a young child, if he had not been killed by the Nazis’s his body would have continued to produce a functioning that was based on the changing structure of his body and the environment that he went through in his life to this point. There are an enumerable amount of different environmental conditions that potentially could have effected his body’s functioning. Many of them would have produced difference sequences of consciousness that he would have experienced if he had not died. The ixperiencit theory of consciousness predicts that any of those sequences of varying structures and functionings of matter produced in a body that would have produced a consciousness that he would have experienced, if he had not prematurely been killed, would, if created at any where and time in the universe with any matter organized in the right way will produce the same consciousness and ixperiencitness that could have other wise been produced. This theory does not need continuousness or continuity of either consciousness, ixperiencitness, the body, or the structure and functioning of the body to produce identical consciousness and ixperiencitness at a later time and at a different place.

  18. Monocle Smile says

    @superatheist
    Sounds like a bit of “monkeys banging on a keyboard = Shakespeare” obscured with a shit ton of word salad.
    This is boring and pointless, IMO.

  19. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist #19:

    if he had not prematurely been killed, would, if created at any where and time in the universe with any matter organized in the right way will produce the same consciousness and ixperiencitness that could have other wise been produced.

    All you’re doing is hypothetically writing “ixperiencitness” on post-it notes, sticking those notes on a corpse and some later person, then declaring them both to be the “same” person. (where “same” has been rendered meaningless)
     
    You’re acting as though having a label is enough to say there is something for the label to represent. Much like filling a wiki with invented words superficially gives the appearance of content.
     
     
    That “all versions of you are all unconsciously being controlled by a central higher consciousness unconnected to your bodies”… That is creating an unfalsifiable theory, not even wrong.
     
     
    Article: RationalWiki – Pseudoscience

    The easiest way to distinguish the pseudoscientific method from the scientific method is to look whether there are testable predictions, and see whether the experiments set out to test the theory or simply to confirm it.
    […]
    The most general sense is when an idea is proposed that is “not even wrong”, meaning that it can never be tested or can never be formulated in such a way as to make empirical predictions.
    […]
    Pseudoscience is embraced by its proponents with almost religious fervor. Since the idea can never be wrong, there is very little that needs to be changed or should be changed.

  20. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist:
     
    Article: AwareTheory Wiki – Multiplicity of conscious existence

    If it is a requirement that you have to experience [bodies] for them to be you […] Then the only real you is this very moment and all other conscious moments of your life belong to many others that are not you. It maybe that people only exist only for a moment before they are gone for ever But we do not want to believe this
    […]
    Luckily the ixperiencitness concept makes understanding the conscious existence over time. If any body has your ixperiencitness then they are a case of conscious survival or life after death for you.

     
    Main Page:

    If the theory of conscious multiplicity, or parts of it are true, then it will be the first logical, coherent, scientific theory of life after death and immortality. Because of this possibility the sciences that deal with these topics should be considered seriously.

    Wishful thinking is not grounds to take a proposal seriously.

  21. superatheist says

    Thank you Sky Captain for your critical remarks! I really do appreciate them! So far, I can give sound rational explanations for all of the problems that you have raised with awaretheory. But before I continue, why is there the term CompulsoryAcount7746 in front of Sky Captian? Also are you a pro -science atheist, a religious person or do you describe yourself in a different way? Having been a teacher of mathematics and science it is very helpful to know what the person that you are learning from knows. I like to think that I learn from everyone that I interact with.

  22. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist “The reason I have come out in a more public fashion with these ideas here is that the one thing I disagree with the atheist perspective is the belief that the death of the body is the permanent end of conscious existence for any particular ixperiencitness grouping of consciousnesses.”

    Sorry, but this is naive conjecture based on wishful thinking. You would first need objective evidence of a mind existing separate from a brain, which doesn’t exist.

    It’s not a theory, it’s fictional treatise. But, it might make for a fun fantasy novel.

  23. superatheist says

    Monocle Smile 20
    I know how you feel, when I tried to read the philosopher Hegal’s metaphysics and his proof of the existence of god I thought what kind of incomprehensibility is this?

  24. Wayway2tall says

    @superatheist

    Please state a falsifiable fact about super-immortality. You have 3 sentences.

  25. superatheist says

    Sky Captain, I am glad that you caught the concept of multiplicity of consciousnesses (having the same ixperiencitness). This is, or might be the most controversial and hardest idea to accept in awaretheory or the science of superimmortality. But it comes directly out of the physical nature of consciousness. Do you understand the concept of identical structure and functioning of a body or brain to that of another body or brain over a period of time? Do you believe that identical structure and functioning of a brain or body will produce identical consciousnesses? Do you believe that this is an experiment that can be carried out? Do you believe that there could be convincing reasons to believe this without creating the experiment? I admit that many of the experiments that awaretheory proposes can not be carried out at this time. But that is not the same as saying there is no knowable result for the experiments that awaretheory proposes.

    Consciousness since it concerns everything creates the most complex science of all when studying itself.

  26. superatheist says

    Thank you for your question Wayway2tall (27)!

    Here are ten predictions that awaretheory makes that can be verified or falsified through experimentation:

    1. The functioning of the brain produces consciousness.
    2. Duplicating the same structure and functioning in the same brain produces the same consciousness.
    3. Duplicating the same structure and functioning in another brain produces the same consciousness.
    4. The consciousness that the brain produces is not identical to the brain but mappable to the structure and functioning of the brain.
    5. Close enough approximate structure and functioning of the brain will produce the same consciousness.
    6. If the structure and functioning of the brain diverges enough from how it would have functioned then the consciousness produced by the brain will diverge as well.
    7. If the structure and functioning of your brain duplicates that of a previous period in your life, the consciousness that was produced at that previous period in you life would be duplicated as well.
    8. If the structure and functioning of your brain now duplicates the structure and functioning of a future period in your life it will produce the consciousness that that future period in your life produced now.
    9. The brain can be structured in an enumerable amount of different ways.
    10. The brain can function in an even larger amount of different ways.

  27. Monocle Smile says

    @superatheist
    If you thought that, then you were correct, because Hegel was full of shit.
    Here’s my assessment:
    1) Trivial and unrelated to awaretheory
    2) Law of identity. Trivial and unrelated to awaretheory
    3) Incorrect. This would create a “clone” of the first consciousness, although the brain doesn’t live in a vacuum, so probably not.
    4) Sure, this just means the brain is a network of essentially Turing machines.
    5) Incorrect and rather laughable.
    6) Tautology. Trivial and unrelated to awaretheory
    7) Maybe, but given that brains change daily on a physical level…
    8) Maybe, but given that brains change daily on a physical level…
    9) sure
    10) Not sure what you’re trying to say.
    I see nothing that has anything to do with the nonsense you babbled about earlier. Again, I think I’m right that this is an applied form of the monkeys and Shakespeare parable.

  28. Chikoppi says

    I don’t think consciousness is something “produced” by a brain. Rather, it describes a state of brain function wherein particular regions are active and functioning more or less normally.

    Memory, cognitive function, perception; all these are things that can be altered or destroyed by disturbing the physical composition of a brain. They do not persist separate from it.

    It seems you are trying to attribute the state of “consciousness” with some sort of imaginary metaphysical quality that has never been observed or demonstrated. There is no such thing as “a consciousness.” There is only “a brain that is in a current state of consciousness.”

    A brain is a unique physical object. No matter how similar two brains might be they are not “the same thing.” They remain two separate things. This distinction also applies to one brain at two separate points in time.

  29. ironchops says

    1. Don mentioned “global warming is a population thing” (paraphrased) and I do not necessarily agree. The environment is changing and I do believe that we (humans) do have an adverse impact on it however, the climate has always been changing. According the scientists most, or at least some, of the oxygen we breathe came from microorganisms. The Permian extinction was attributed to a massive release of methane gas due to volcanism around Siberia. It is interesting to note that the scientist suggest that massive amounts of methane are being released now due to polar ice is melting, which it has been doing for the past 13,000 years.
    2. It seems odd to try to believe that there is consciousness outside of the brain or separate from the brain when there seems to be no evidence for it. It cannot be tested any more than god concept. No one, as far as I know, has actually come back from the dead to tell us anything about god, afterlife or any sort of existence beyond our own life. If religious beliefs are true regarding any sort of afterlife then it has been deliberately kept from us to know this for some reason or another that only a/the god character knows.
    3. It has become nearly as comforting for me to accept dying as an atheist as it has been as a Christian. There is no more pain and suffering from that point on, a better place if you will, since there is no consciousness or brain to perceive it. I am only scared of the pain I may have to feel just prior to dying. Other than that dying is easy. So easy that all does it. I just try not to dwell on it. I think it sucks but oh well, what can I do about it.
    4. On the topic of bathrooms and LGBT issues. I am not homosexual at all. It seems wrong to me. The thought of it repulses me. I cannot at all understand what it is like to be LGBT at all. I can’t distinguish how much of that opinion is me and how much is indoctrination. With that said all I can do is try to be tolerant, understanding, accepting and open minded enough to realize that everyone is not like me, but that we are all good people, well….mostly, and not to judge it/them. That, at this point, is the best I can muster on this subject at this point. I do have family and friends that are LGBT and I love them and I think that is what matters. I disagree with NC’s new bathroom law and think it is stone aged thinking.

  30. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    Sigh, Danny’s thing gets addressed pretty much every year. It’s not curious at all and feeling like something is out there is not reason to believe that something is out there. The amount of believers is not a reason to consider anything but that a lot of people believe in a deity/ies.

    Jim’s call was just okay in terms of content.

    Mark’s call was whatever to me. So I skipped through that mess.

    Charles’ call was bittersweet to hear, all too common for atheists the world over. I’m glad that my family didn’t threat me like something to be avoided when I first revealed that I was one & we engaged in discussions about religion that didn’t result in me being ostracized, hated or anything to that effect.

    John’s call was dreary, basically, “I wanna be free sexually thus I disagree with the church(also my wife.)” Ultimately sex has nothing to do with the veracity of the truth claim/s of the catholic church & its followers so I’m cold on that.

    Al has to realize that it’s a money maker. Gays, guns, abortion etc are hot ticket money makers. I liked that cootie stage remark, as it is very juvenile of those that partake.

    Trevor’s predicament isn’t unusual, fear of death can be debilitating and atheists aren’t exempt. The only thing I can throw out there is that hopefully he led a fulfilling life, made bonds that meant something and that he’s aware that he’s valued by his family. Death is just the other phase succeeding life. I wish them well!

    The dropped call is obviously a sign from the one true Celestial Teapot. The court’s decision to rule against the FSM religion was preordained via prophetic revelation by the CT, all false gods shall fall before his fine china. I hope that Russell gets a revelation from the master pot itself, he’s a lost lamb, may it guide him to a condensed and strong brew of enlightenment.

    Ralph’s thing is wrong in part, kids are set to listen to their elders, yes but that doesn’t connect to them being programmed to listen to a higher power(as in god.) We are susceptible to listening to those above us(whether in age, power whatever) it’s an evolutionary trait we have as Don pointed out we’re sponges at that age range.

    Jerry’s call was amusing, schools are just another frontier for religion. The consequences of taking them on is something that you should weigh carefully, he could also appeal for other religions to get their prays/meditation in also as if they are catering to that it should be for all religions present there no matter how small.

    I’d have to agree with Monocle on that, I don’t get why this is worth anything to you, superatheist.

  31. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    “4. On the topic of bathrooms and LGBT issues. I am not homosexual at all. It seems wrong to me. The thought of it repulses me. I cannot at all understand what it is like to be LGBT at all. I can’t distinguish how much of that opinion is me and how much is indoctrination.”

    Were you being facetious? With the “I have LGBT friends & family who I love” and all this seems like a parody.

  32. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (30) Great reply thank you!
    You may not be conscious, But I think that I am. I could be wrong, maybe it just seems like I am conscious and am (consciously) deluding myself. If the brain does not produce consciousness are you saying that the brain is consciousness? Because you say the brain can exist when it is not “producing” consciousness, how would you state this relationship without using the term producing? Are you saying that consciousness does not exist? I can imagine not being conscious and to me that means for me “I” do not exist. To other conscious beings I am an animated human body. So I could exist for others when I am not existing for myself. I think that the word producing is a good word to use because the relationship of the brain to consciousness is like the relationship of a factory to the product it produces like a car factory to a car. As you make changes to the car factory you make changes to the car that it makes. This seem to be the analogous relationship as the brain is to consciousness— as you make changes to the structure and functioning of the brain you make changes to the consciousness that it produces.
    There is no “state” of consciousness because you need the functioning of the brain to create it and the term state does not seem to refer to functioning but to a non changing concept. We can drop the term producing as in the brain “produces” consciousness. The question becomes will a particular structure and functioning of a brain over time, correspond, map, whatever word you want to call it, to a particular consciousness or not? If the same structure and functioning of the brain over a period a period of time always maps to the same consciousness (for example what you have been calling your experiences for the last few minutes) then science has a very important predictive, explanatory, useful, and simplifying conceptual tool. Other wise if there is no relationship between the structure and functioning of the brain and any particular consciousness, then it appears that there can not be a science dealing with consciousness.

  33. ironchops says

    @33 – Hi Chancellor
    “It seems wrong to me.” Please allow me to clear this up: it should read “wrong for me”. I do not think it is morally wrong.

    Were you being facetious? No….is there a better way to say that my sister is gay and I have several friends that openly identify as being gay (both male and female) and that I love them just the same regardless of their sexual orientation?
    If you would have asked me these kinds of questions 30 years ago the answers would have much nastier and bigoted. I will blame that on my religious upbringing. Aside form religion I can see no reason to say that being homosexual is morally wrong.

    I am also working on my sexist thoughts and racists thoughts…..and I do find it to be work. Question: how much racism, sexism and homophobia is religious indoctrination and how much is just me? Is there a distinction between the two?

  34. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    Hi ironchops! =)

    Okay, thank you for clearing your thoughts up as I was wearing the “???” meme face when I read that. You aren’t born with the thoughts that homosexuality is wrong or that racism & sexism is okay, those come from society, so you were socialized into that. I’m in the same boat as well as far as working through all the -ism & -phobic thought patterns that arise in my brain.

    As for the question, that’s hard to tell as quantifying ideas & beliefs that are embedded into us isn’t something I know how to do.

  35. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist “There is no “state” of consciousness because you need the functioning of the brain to create it and the term state does not seem to refer to functioning but to a non changing concept. We can drop the term producing as in the brain “produces” consciousness. The question becomes will a particular structure and functioning of a brain over time, correspond, map, whatever word you want to call it, to a particular consciousness or not?”

    You are confusing “consciousness” with “identity.”

    “Consciousness” is what happens when a brain exercises particular functions. It is a functioning state a brain may be in at a particular time. It is certainly possible for a brain to exist and function with some capacity in a non-conscious state. It is also possible to alter or suspend consciousness by physically manipulating the brain.

    “Identity” has to do with persistence over time. My brain is an object that will maintain physical and functional integrity for some period of years.

    Personality, memory, character; these are all traits we ascribe to individual identity. These are also traits that can be permanently altered when the brain is subjected to physical damage. They are not some metaphysical expression of self, they are properties of a particular, physical brain. “Identity” therefore persists only to the extent the physical and functional integrity of that brain persists.

    So your question lacks internal consistency. Do two physically identical brains separated by time and/or space share the same identity? No. No matter how similar they are separate and distinct entities.

  36. Vivec says

    I like how if you read the comments for the last like four threads from oldest from newest, we go from “Bog standard Jehova’s Witness rambling” to “Muslim dude making an argumentum ad Insane Clown Posse” to whatever the fuck awaretheory is.

  37. Devocate says

    @31:

    I do believe that we (humans) do have an adverse impact on it however, the climate has always been changing.

    That’s like saying that cars are always moving, so I shouldn’t be blamed for driving this one off a cliff.

  38. John Phillips, FCD says

    @Superatheist, to me, all it seems you are trying to do is to invent an atheist equivalent of a ‘soul’. Come back when you have some evidence for any kind of soul, atheist, xian, Muslim whatever. Otherwise it is the kind of metaphysical masturbation my friends and I used to get up to when stoned because such ‘what ifs’ where fun when stoned but dismissed with a laugh when straight again, assuming one hadn’t been too stoned to remember.

  39. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (37)
    I agree we do not experience consciousness we experience the functioning of a brain. As the structure and functioning of a brain changes so does what we experience. It sound like you want to eliminate the concept of consciousness from the discussion completely. I think this is a big mistake because how do we distinguish a brain that is conscious from a brain that is not conscious if we can not use the concept of consciousness to distinguish them. The term alive brain versus dead does not work because a live brain can be either conscious or unconscious.
    Experiments that we can perform can deal with the structure and functioning of the brain and body and its behavior over time without mentioning consciousness at all. Awaretheory does not require the use of the concept of consciousness at all, it however makes the predictions about what you can experience through out space and time much easier to understand subjectively. I can give strong evidence for my conclusions by creating a number of rational experiments. In the first experiment we create two identically structured and functioning bodies. This means that every part of the body including every atom will have the same structure and be functioning identically. Their brains will be functioning identically. Because every part of their bodies are functioning identically their behaviors will be identical, so what ever they say about themselves will be identical. They will call themselves the same name. They will say that they have the same sensations, feelings, and emotions at the same time. They will remember the exact same memories in the exact same ways. They will say they love and hate the same people, food, life styles, animals, environments, etc., in exactly the same way. For any one that knows them they can replace each other without any one knowing the difference including themselves.

    In a second type of experiment we take the same body and change the structure and functioning of this body to be identical to someone else’s, with this other person having a notable different personality and self identity. He now will behave exactly like this other person. He will not produce behavior that identifies himself with the original person but only with the person that has the same structure and functioning. All of the original person’s personality traits memories etc., are gone. It is still the same matter that makes up the original and a continuous linear bodily connection to the original. But if asked this modified original will not believe that he is the original if the person that he has the same structure and functioning does not.

    There are a third set of experiments that show just how flimsy the body criterion is compared to the structure and functioning criterion. What actually makes the same body over time? The body is constantly changing over time in placement in space and time, with the matter that it is made of and its structure and functioning. How fast can matter be exchanged with matter outside of the body and still be the same body? How fast can the structure of the body change and still be the same body? How much matter can be exchanged with matter from outside of the body and still be the same body? Imagine the experiment where we have two identically structured and functioning bodies and lets say one is your body. To begin with there are clearly two distinct different material bodies. Now we start exchanging identical body parts. It can be any type of exchange from atoms to molecules to cells to bones to organs arms legs and brain parts to whole brains. What happens to the concept of body identity? When is your body no longer your body? The body naturally looses cells, atoms, and molecules naturally all of the time. One might propose that when fifty percentage the matter has been switched you are some how now in the other body. This seems bizarre. One atom before you are one body and one atom switch later you are in the other body or as you seem to be saying you are the other body. Knowing what I have shown experimentally, If you had to choose between your body with some different person’s body structure and functioning or someone else’s body with your current body’s structure and functioning which would you choose and why?

  40. Chikoppi says

    “In the first experiment we create two identically structured and functioning bodies. This means that every part of the body including every atom will have the same structure and be functioning identically. … For any one that knows them they can replace each other without any one knowing the difference including themselves.”

    No. Both individuals will know they are not “the other.” They are distinct entities, no matter how similar.

    “In a second type of experiment we take the same body and change the structure and functioning of this body to be identical to someone else’s, with this other person having a notable different personality and self identity.”

    You aren’t “changing” the original, you are destroying it. The magical clone that results from the rearranged energy is still a separate entity from the thing it is a clone of.

    “There are a third set of experiments … The body is constantly changing over time in placement in space and time, with the matter that it is made of and its structure and functioning.”

    And? Let’s assume that not a single atom remains in me from the body I was born with. What makes my identity “me” is the persistence over time of the form and function of the unique self-organizing collection of matter that is my body. And yet, the present “me” is separate and distinct from the newborn that was me.

    By the way, this is a very old philosophical question; how many pieces of a chair can be replaced before it Is no longer the same chair. The answer isn’t in the chair, it’s in the concept of “same.” The question is meant to illuminate the limitations of mental constructs.

    …” If you had to choose between your body with some different person’s body structure and functioning or someone else’s body with your current body’s structure and functioning which would you choose and why?”

    Neither would be “me.” If you arbitrarily scrambled my atomic structure, saving nothing of my past form, I would be gone. If you rearranged some other lump of matter to perfectly replicate my current atomic energy state it wouldn’t be “me,” it would be an “other” that was uncannily similar to me in appearance and behavior.

    I don’t understand the point of this conjecture. It seems as though you are trying to decouple identity from physicality, but we ARE physical and we exist in space and time. Those elements are necessary foundations for the premise of identity.

    You are trying to torture the concept of identity into meaning something it does not in order to wish some kind of metaphysical essence into reality.

  41. Simon Hosking says

    superatheist – your thought experiments remind me of some of the dilemmas of teleport as described by Star Trek.

    Great stuff – but firmly in the realm of science fiction.

    You haven’t actually do any ‘real’ experiments have you?

  42. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Simon Hosking #43:
    I mentioned this in #11, but it’s worth repeating.
     
    Video: CGPGrey – The Trouble with Transporters (5:43)

  43. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist #41:

    how do we distinguish a brain that is conscious from a brain that is not conscious

     
    Article: Massachusetts General Hospital – EEG patterns indicate when patients lose, regain consciousness under propofol anesthesia

    We have discovered highly structured EEG patterns that indicate when people are sedated during administration of propofol, when they are unconscious and when they are able to regain consciousness […] These findings provide precise, neurophysiologically principled markers that can be used to monitor the state of a patient’s unconsciousness
    […]
    One particular pattern, which the researchers call “trough-max,” occurred during transitions in consciousness, particularly right before consciousness returned. Another pattern called “peak-max” was observed at the highest propofol dosage and signified the deepest levels of unconsciousness. Purdon and his colleagues believe that the peak-max signal pattern corresponds with the brain state […] which represented a disruption in communication between different parts of the brain.

     
     
    Perhaps superatheist is thinking of ego?
     
    Article: ScienceDaily – How LSD can make us lose our sense of self

    When people take the psychedelic drug LSD, they sometimes feel as though the boundary that separates them from the rest of the world has dissolved. Now, the first functional magnetic resonance images of people’s brains while on LSD help to explain this phenomenon known as ‘ego dissolution.’
    […]
    “We know that the brain fills in visual information when suddenly missing, that veins in front of the retina are filtered out and not perceived, and that the brain stabilizes our visual perception in spite of constant eye movements. So when we take psychedelics we are, it could be said, replacing one illusion by another illusion. This might be difficult to grasp, but our study shows that the sense of self or ‘ego’ could also be part of this illusion.”
    […]
    LSD also increased brain connectivity by inflating the level of communication between normally distinct brain networks, they report. In addition, the increase in global connectivity observed in each individual’s brain under LSD correlated with the degree to which the person in question reported a sense of ego dissolution.
    […]
    “This could mean that LSD results in a stronger sharing of information between regions, enforcing a stronger link between our sense of self and the sense of the environment and potentially diluting the boundaries of our individuality,”
    […]
    They also observed changes in the functioning of a part of the brain earlier linked to “out-of-body” experiences, in which people feel as though they’ve left their bodies.

  44. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (42) If I forget to say it later I appreciate your and anyone else’s time and effort in considering these ideas.

    I define “me” as any body that produces a consciousness that I experience like I am experiencing this current consciousness. You write: “What makes my identity “me” is the persistence over time of the form and function of the unique self-organizing collection of matter that is my body.” How is a self organizing collection of matter unique? Matter is not unique (at least not in its structure, functioning, and it ability to produce consciousness and ixperiencitness). Biological self organizing systems are not unique either so what is this “unique thing”, and how does it persist through time and continue to be unique? Is it supernatural? Can it be observed. Is this type of uniqueness hiding like god does? How can we scientifically study this “unique thing” or unique whatever it is? Can we see it disappear when we die, or transform into another unique thing like you say happens within the experiments that I proposed. Can it stay around when a person is frozen after death? How long does it stay around after a person dies? If the body is restored to life is this “uniqueness of matter” restored or does another “uniqueness of matter” (a different me) replace it? If another “uniqueness of matter” replaces it how does this process occur? How long does it take the body to produce this uniqueness? Does this uniqueness start in the first fertilized egg, or does it show up latter? I am not trying to be funny because you have a made a very well stated hypothesis of what many people believe. If you make your hypothesis into this statement “What makes my identity “me” is the persistence over time of the form and function of a self-organizing collection of matter that is my body.” This is basically what I am saying with a few addendums. All that I have taken out of your hypothesis is the term unique. The belief in the concept of the “uniqueness of self” is a concept that is kind of like the belief in god which has been brain washed into us, through out life, from all sorts of different sources, but without proof. However, We as human bodies are in a way, unique in the sense of our overwhelming complexity of chemical structure and functioning. Isn’t it better scientifically, to say we are extremely complex organisms than saying we are unique organisms? Experiments give us information because of their ability to be duplicated. The uniqueness that you add to your hypothesis about conscious beings, if true, greatly limits our ability to understand them.

    In your discussion you used the term magical clone, there is nothing magical in the concept of identical structure and functioning of two or more bodies. A clone, I believe, refers to two different bodies having the same DNA in their cells, not identical structure and functioning. I can imagine an enumerable amount of identical clones that have different structures and functioning of their bodies.

    You say concerning the second experiment that “You aren’t “changing” the original, you are destroying it”. Does the resulting body now have a different “unique” thing or does it no longer have a “unique” thing? If there is no longer a “unique thing” in the modified person then replicating identical structure and functioning from this new original should then produce identical consciousness like awaretheory predicts because there is then no “uniqueness” to have to duplicate. If another unique thing is produced in the experiment #2 process what can we learn about how “unique” things originate, are destroyed, modified, what properties they have, how to change them without destroying them etc. In experiment #2 at what point does the “unique thing” of the original change into the new different “unique thing” of of the new body? Why at that point and no other. If these things can not be answered with scientific proof then it seems like this “unique” thing is really just a supernatural invention.

  45. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (42)

    You wrote: What makes my identity “me” is the persistence over time of the form and function of the unique self-organizing collection of matter that is my body. Then in response to experiment #2 @ superatheist (41) you wrote: “You aren’t “changing” the original, you are destroying it.” What you appear to be expressing here is that by modifying the structure and functioning of a body you can change the “me” that a body produces into another “me”. This is exactly what awaretheory predicts. Let me ask you to consider several other rational experiments. Lets imagine changing the structure and functioning of a person’s body to the way it was a few minutes ago. Will this destroy the “me” or will it modify it to have the consciousness that the body had a few minutes ago? Now lets say that things are slightly different now than they were are few minutes ago for this individual so their brain is not functioning as it did the first time. Will it still be producing the original “me” or will it destroy the original “me”? like you said would occur in experiment#2 @ superatheist (41)? We can modify this experiment in many different ways. For instance, the body of the original at every period of time in its life will have produced a specific different sequence of structure and functioning. So we can imagine changing the structure and functioning to any previous period of time. Is there a time where these modifications to the structure and functioning of the original’s body will not produce the “me” that the original now has? If not, if the original with this new structure and functioning modifications is allowed to experience a different life. Will this body still produce the original “me” or will this original “me” be destroyed, changed, or totally different?
    There is a continuation to the experiment#2 @ superatheist (41) I would like you to consider. You said that when the originals structure and functioning was changed to be like a completely different person the original’s “me” was destroyed. What happens now if we change this new modified original body back to the structure and functioning it had before it was modified in the first place? Is the original “me” that was destroyed restored? Is there are new different “me” but nonetheless with all of the memories, feeling, emotions, loves, hates, abilities etc., that the pre-modified original had?

  46. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist (#46)

    “I define “me” as any body that produces a consciousness that I experience like I am experiencing this current consciousness.”

    I don’t accept that definition.

    Let’s take personhood out of the equation. I have a box that contains only one proton and nothing else. This proton is at coordinates x1y1.

    Within the box I then create a proton at coordinates x1y2. This is a quantum-perfect replicant of the proton at x1y1.

    How many protons are in the box?

    You want to say there is one proton in two different positions, but that isn’t true. There are two distinct and separate protons.

    Back to personhood; “me” defines a specific object, not a class of objects. “Me” is exclusionary in that all other objects, no matter how similar, are “not me.”

    “Me” persists so long as the continuity in spacetime of the object necessary to confer the traits of personhood persists. If you violate that continuity by violently restructuring the object then it ceases to be “me.” Even if you restore that object to its original state at a later time it is still “not me,” because “me” depends on continuity through spacetime. Once that continuity is violated “me” ceases to exist and all that remains are objects that are “not me.”

  47. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist (#46)

    “I define “me” as any body that produces a consciousness that I experience like I am experiencing this current consciousness.”

    Also, this would require that “consciousness” be a non-local phenomenon; that one “consciousness” could exist at two different points in spacetime simultaneously.

    You are trying to define this thing you call “consciousness” as some sort of metaphysical object. It isn’t. Consciousness is a descriptive label that applies to how a particular brain functions at a particular place and time. Perhaps it would be helpful if you sought out new nomenclature.

  48. ironchops says

    @36- Hi Chancellor
    Thanks for your responses. It is nice to know that I am not the only one that struggles.
    @39- Hi Devocate
    Not exactly. It’s more like saying that cars are always moving, but I’m stuck in the backseat of one that is being driven off the cliff and I can’t make the driver stop. I do realize that we (people) add to the effects of climate change and that it is better to minimize the impact we do make. I do make a conscience effort to recycle and I try to the environment in mind as I go through my day-to-day activities.

  49. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (48) (49)

    I agree with you that there is uniqueness in place, time, and matter. But when it comes to results of many experiments the phenomena produced is not dependent on these three factors. For example, when you mix vinegar with baking soda you have the result of bubbling because of the chemical reactions that are going on. This reaction is not limited to the uniqueness of the place, time, or matter. Consciousness is a similar consequence of specific types of structure and functionings of matter that a body creates, not the specific matter, place, or time that it is connected to.

    What I call the “TV analogy” might make what I am saying more understandable. We can say that through the functioning of the TV, a TV show is produced. A TV show is a linear changing thing like consciousness. The TV itself is like a body. If you look inside the TV you do not see the TV show that is being produced, you see electronic components. When you look into the skull you do not see the consciousness that it is being produced only the brain. You can not tell if the TV is on or off by looking at the electronics alone except by maybe by the heat it is producing. The brain is the same way. A dead brain, to begin with, looks like a live brain. An unconscious brain looks like a conscious brain. However, with greater scrutiny and scientific tools, one can measure electrical activity in both. Each TV is uniquely different because they are made of different matter in a different place and, or time. One can imagine saving the matter in one TV and latter creating another TV in a different time and place (recycling). Same goes for a human body the matter used to produced one person can be used again later to produce another person. The human body and the TV are both physical systems. However, we understand the way the TV produces a TV show much better than we understand how the human body or more specifically the brain produces consciousness. If a TV functions closely enough like another TV it will produce the same TV show. Awaretheory predicts that another body, if it is structured and then functions closely enough to that of another human body will produce (create) the same consciousness. TVs have relatively simple structures, unlike human brains that are much more complex, but they are both functioning physical objects creating a physical phenomena that is not the same as the original object that creates it. What is the proof that consciousness’s relationship to the brain is not is not the same basic kind of relationship as a TV show is to a TV? If this is the kind of relationship that exist between the brain and consciousness then most of the predictions that the science of superimmortality proposes are likely true. You write that I am trying to make consciousness a metaphysical object. Is a specific TV show a metaphysical object because it can exist at many different places and times simultaneously created by many different groupings of matter (TV sets)? Is the result of mixing baking soda and vinegar a metaphysical event because it can occur at many different places and times with different matter?

  50. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist #51:

    We can say that through the functioning of the TV, a TV show is produced. […] Is a specific TV show a metaphysical object because it can exist at many different places and times simultaneously created by many different groupings of matter (TV sets)?

    The story of Moby Dick exists embedded in the physical media of many many many paper books.
     
    Are you talking about the story, independent of the paper ‘producing’ it?
     
    Or are you omitting a broadcast station in your analogy, one which we are silently expected to accept.
     
    The latter sounds very much like the “antenna for a soul” analogy.

  51. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist #51:
    Also…
     

    A dead brain, to begin with, looks like a live brain.

    This is false.
     

    An unconscious brain looks like a conscious brain.

    This is false.
     

    However, with greater scrutiny and scientific tools, one can measure electrical activity in both.

    That IS looking.

  52. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    One can imagine saving the matter in one TV and latter creating another TV in a different time and place (recycling). […] If a TV functions closely enough like another TV it will produce the same TV show.

    And this, as stated, is false.

  53. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist (#51)

    This [chemical] reaction is not limited to the uniqueness of the place, time, or matter. Consciousness is a similar consequence of specific types of structure and functionings of matter that a body creates, not the specific matter, place, or time that it is connected to.

    No. You are mixing word usage.

    A “particular instance” of a chemical reaction exists in only one place and time. It is unique. Many different examples of that type of chemical reaction may happen elsewhere and at other times.

    There is “consciousness” as a phenomena. There is not “a consciousness” that exists separate from the specific brain that facilitates it at a specific place and time.

    Awaretheory predicts that another body, if it is structured and then functions closely enough to that of another human body will produce (create) the same consciousness. TVs have relatively simple structures, unlike human brains that are much more complex, but they are both functioning physical objects creating a physical phenomena that is not the same as the original object that creates it. What is the proof that consciousness’s relationship to the brain is not is not the same basic kind of relationship as a TV show is to a TV?

    …aaaand I’m out!

    I suggest you pack this away and spend some time learning about neuroscience, epistemology, and linguistics (Steven Pinker has some good books).

  54. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    By Moby Dick, I meant similar books generally come from publishers/authors copying structure and creating books (and derivative books) which ‘produce’ the “same” story. The books are not under a unifying shared influence at any moment. That’d get you to derivatives like children and memories, and identical duplicates as walking memorials. One could say that book is Moby Dick out of convenience, but it isn’t.
     
    Alternatively, is your analogy trying to say all completely independently-created wheels would share a “wheel-ness” by simply happening to function similarly? That “the wheel” itself will persist because someone in the future may roll round things? That’d get you to platonism, where ideas intangibly exist, like the concept of “square”, even if there were no square-shaped matter. With that, “you” would merely be another concept, like “pointy”.

  55. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist #51:
    To reiterate what Chikoppi said…
     

    For example, when you mix vinegar with baking soda you have the result of bubbling because of the chemical reactions that are going on. This reaction is not limited to the uniqueness of the place, time, or matter.

    I can set my trash on fire, and I can set some tinder on fire elsewhere. Combustion is occurring at both places, but they are not both a single non-local fire.
     
    One can talk about common aspects of combustion instances in a general way.
     
    A platonist might dream up an ideal “fire” – asserting it exists in an abstract realm – and say the trash and wood are each unconnected real instances of things with “fire” characteristics. A platonist’s ideal fire will not keep you warm, however.
     
    One can talk about common aspects of everyones’ consciousness instances, in a general way. You can even talk about your own consciousness instances at various moments in time, in a general way. That you can talk about yourself in a general way does not enable you to preserve your self when your brain dies, however.

  56. Chikoppi says

    @Sky Captain

    That’d get you to platonism, where ideas intangibly exist, like the concept of “square”, even if there were no square-shaped matter.

    Yeah, that’s a good catch. This re-definition of “consciousness” does smack of an appeal to something like a Platonic Ideal, wherein each “soul” is a universal entity.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism

    “Some contemporary linguistic philosophers construe “Platonism” to mean the proposition that universals exist independently of particulars (a universal is anything that can be predicated of a particular).”

  57. superatheist says

    Thank you Chikoppi and Sky Captain, for so many good responses, however, I have had little time so far today to respond.

    In response to you statement:
    “I suggest you pack this away and spend some time learning about neuroscience, epistemology, and linguistics (Steven Pinker has some good books).”
    I am a mathematical epistemologist. I have been once since college. I loved going to the university and taking classes. I was lucky to be able to go there for many years and take numerous classes. I took upper level and graduate classes in philosophy of mind, epistemology, philosophy of science, mathematical logic, philosophy of language, mathematical linguistics model logic, physics, quantum mechanics, biochemistry, organic chemistry, advanced calculus, complex analysis, differential equations, partial differential equations, combinatorical analysis, numerical analysis, probability, statistics, topology, abstract algebra a number of different computer science classes a number of biological science classes, astronomy, geology, ecology, psychology, educational psychology, empiricism, Kant, history of philosophy, philosophy of religion and a whole bunch of other classes. I also have several thousand books on science, mathematics, and philosophy. I have at least ten books on neuroscience which I have spent hours studying. The only thing this information shows is that I have a very big curiosity and love to learn about new ideas. It does not in any way prove awaretheory nor that I know any more than you do about these topics. The more I learn the more I realize how little I know. Because I am a scientist that specializes in the mathematical study of scientific theories it puts me at a clear disadvantage in these discussions.

  58. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist

    Your content thus far has been rife with fallacies and you seem to not understand how an experimental process is structured or what a scientific theory is.

    Unless you have some evidence to present I’m not interested in entertaining this further.

  59. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (60)
    You do realize that the theory that you are proposing is scientifically incoherent, that is why scientists and philosophers are continuously struggling to understand the concept of being the same person over time (personal identity). Some say it is the body, others say it is the personality or consciousness that determines the self. Your hypothesis is that it is some combination of the two concepts. But when it is more fully examined it falls apart as a scientifically coherent theory. These same arguments existed with the ancient greeks and have been argued ever since then with many thinkers giving up the battle thinking there is no solution. I am coming from the same place that you are now. It has taken me years to begin to understand the problem, and even longer to understand the solutions the problem(s). One reason it has taken so long is because the solutions are so radically different that expected. Awaretheory may not be totally correct, and it is imcomplete but it is so much better than any other theory about consciousness, what makes you, and continues to make you, you over all of the changes that can occur to you over time. You apparently can not see it yet, but, awaretheory is the first actual coherent scientific theory about consciousness and ixperiencitness that exists. When I try to show you the supporting evidence for awaretheory or the problems with your theory you seem to ignore them. Your big point now seems to be that an experiment is a unique thing because its existence is unique in space and time, and with the matter and energy that it uses. I do not disagree with this at all. There are other unique aspects of an experiment as well, like who created the experiment, if it was the first experiment of its kind, what are or were the external events occurring in the environment locally or universally when it occurred. Or even the thoughts of the experimenters when they carried out the experiment, make it unique. The point of an experiment is seeing how the change in one or more variables changes one or more other variables. They are called as you know the independent and dependent variables. The independent variable that is very useful in awaretheory is the the concept of the structure and functioning of matter over time, the dependent variables that are most interesting to know about for awaretheory are consciousness and ixperiencitness. The ixperiencitness concept being like the me or self concept. It is a concept that ties together what you are through space and time. I think you have been saying that the me, self, or ixperiencitness exists during the life time of a person then is permanently destroyed at death. Am I wrong?

    You seem to be saying that the uniqueness, you keep talking about, that exists for a person is derived from the uniqueness of the experiment that the person is. I am saying the important aspects of a person is their consciousness and ixperiencitness which is the consequence of the experiment not identical to the experiment itself. I have shown you in a few examples that uniqueness of a human experiment is not uniqueness of behavior and consciousness. This means that other bodies can produce the same behavior and consciousness, however, you still maintain that this is not enough, you still believe that the uniqueness of the “me” is not tied to the behavior, consciousness, feelings, emotions, self identity, skills, desires, etc., but to the placement in space, time, and use of specific matter. And when pressured on what physical factors changes the “me” you really do not know the boundary conditions for the specific “me” or for any other “me”. I think that you can see that if the predictions that awaretheory (the science of superimmortality) makes are true they produce one of the most important scientific theories ever created with very far reaching consequences for society, morals, and the future of conscious beings. And you can be part of that by simply discussing these ideas. You have already been helpful. Thank you!

    If the predictions of superimmortality are true, it means that you can exist any number of different times again after death, (or of course not at all), by natural processes or by deliberate actions of other conscious beings without ever knowing about your current life, would this thought scare or bother you? To me it is in a way scary, but also a great adventure.

  60. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist

    You do realize that the theory that you are proposing is scientifically incoherent,”

    I am not proposing a theory. I have stated what is observable.

    I await your evidence of a soul, consciousness, spirit, whatever, that exists independent of physical process and unbound by spacetime. Not some baseless conjecture, not a “what if” scenario, but actual evidence. Until you provide that you entire diatribe amounts to “I don’t understand what consciousness is or how it works, but I made up a cool story about it.”

    It is (yet again!) the argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy. If you have the educational background you claim to have you should know better.

  61. KsDevil says

    It is only a mind experiment when considering replicating a brain in a state that was before death.
    That is, if such a technology could be realized and human psychology remains the same, then you should expect that technology to be used to develop enhancements on the recreated brain, and it is likely the consciousness resulting from that would be, at best, a superior facsimile of the person it was modeled after.
    We humans can’t just copy something and leave it at that. We have a compulsion to fiddle around with things and cater to our egos in the effort.
    And then comes the question of sourcing the body. You just know that people will want a superior body to place their newly manufactured brains. A new brain in that same old body would not be quite as popular.
    The for all we know, next thing would be medical science manufacturing designer humans and fooling ourselves into believing we will be reborn into grace.

  62. John Phillips, FCD says

    @chikoppi, lol, I’ll take your word for it as I have better things to do with my time, e.g. watching paint dry.

  63. superatheist says

    John Phillips, FCD(65), Chikoppi(64)

    What I know about science is that it is all about proposing theories based on how different people see reality and how nature functions. Nearly all proposed theories are wrong, few are scientific, but every once in a while a bad theory or idea sticks, like a piece of dog poop to the bottom of your shoe where it is worthless, annoying and stinks to high heaven. This is what I call ideas like superstitions, supernatural beliefs, new age woo woo, creationism, religions dogmas etc. But there is another set of more rational and scientifically coherent ideas that are proposed by scientists and other thinkers most of them are wrong also (like phlogiston). They have to withstand the scrutiny of all criticisms no matter how irrational these criticisms might be. It took thousand of years for the atomic theory to be accepted. Evolution is science but it is still not accepted as true by many and is attached mercilessly by the ignorant. By being as critical as you can be about awaretheory you are doing the right thing. Science and society needs people that are willing and brave enough to propose very divergent ideas other wise science becomes stagnant and goes nowhere. Frequently, wrong ideas stimulate people to think outside of the box, so to speak, and come up with better ideas producing paradigm shifts in our understanding. I completely understand your desire to attack personal aspects about me. If you did not I would think that the ideas I was proposing were pretty wimpy. I may well be a person with every bad aspect that you can call me like ignorant, deluded, self important, baby eater, dog beater, plastic burner etc., But I think the scientific process of proposing theories and seeing what stands up to rational discourse is worth the verbal abuse. I am not sure If I am up for the physical abuse that people with different and divergent ideas have had to endure in the past or are enduring presently (like atheists in muslim countries). Please, if you can, limit your abuse to verbal. Thank you!

    It is fair to question my use of drugs. I have never been drunk, stoned, high, speed up or slowed down by drugs or used any illegal drugs at all. Not because I think they are bad, wrong to use, or illegal but because alcohol tastes like rotten fruit or grain to me, and drugs seem to take the spark of motivation and, or curiosity out of many people, in my opinion.

    Concerning the amount of words or terms that awaretheory has created, (which is give or take 40,000 so far) it is just a small speck of the total amount of words that science, mathematics, and technology needs to understand and keep our world progressing. It would be much easier to use these words and equations in the proofs and arguments than having to explain every single aspect of ever single idea and term over and over again. Imagine chemistry without chemical terms. No names for the elements. No names for the molecules. No names for the grouping of elements and molecules. No names or terms for the various types of chemical reactions and properties. Try defining carbon without any scientific terms. Maybe not every word in awaretheory has a well defined meaning at this point in time, but to understand consciousness fully it is going to take many more words than I can even imagine, and I can imagine millions that are not in the awaretheory web site that have unique useful scientific meanings.

    Given a chance I can prove the important ideas that are in awaretheory others are still pretty speculative For instance, like information about nrgidentireplicas. I truly understand the difficulty of learning about new ideas when the brain is not fashioned in the right way to understand them. There are all sorts of ideas that I have beaten my head into the wall (figuratively) trying to understand and still don’t.

  64. Monocle Smile says

    @superatheist
    Dude, you don’t have anything. You have done zero experiments. All you’ve done is gone Clockwork Orange and called it “science.”

  65. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist “But I think the scientific process of proposing theories and seeing what stands up to rational discourse is worth the verbal abuse.”

    That is not “the scientific process.” This is why your claims are dismissed without further consideration. Not because of any personal animus, but because you haven’t brought ANY objective evidence to the table, nor have you followed scientific methodology in developing a hypothesis. You are not “doing science,” you are writing fiction.

  66. John Phillips, FCD says

    @superatheist, I am not abusing you, simply stating what I see. I have had many such conversations when stoned or tripping and they made a lot of sense at the time, at least until we came down, hence my half joking aside to put down the bong. What you are doing, as Chikoppi posts, would be better termed speculative fiction until you can show even the merest trace of evidence for this atheist ‘soul’, or whatever you want to call it, of yours. Until then you have nothing but a lot of words and you really don’t understand the scientific process for all your so called reading and education. The scientific method is not about wildly speculating about something and saying it is a valid hypothesis because you say so. In some ways you come across much like the theists we sometimes see on the show who wants something to be true because it either makes them feel good or because it would be neat if true or it ‘must’ be true, all without any evidence. Like the theist, you still need more than just speculation to proceed.

  67. superatheist says

    Fair Witness (67) In my opinion L. Ron Hubbard was a con man or was playing a joke on gullible people. People that know me do not think I am a con man, have mental problems, or playing a joke on other people with awaretheory, but people do often have problems understanding it because it is so complicated and is such a major paradigm shift in the understanding of consciousness and the self.

    Monocle Smile (68) Theoretical scientists propose theories and frequently only suggest experiments. Philosophers are even lazier in this sense; they just talk about other people ideas and their inconsistencies and don’t usually propose any experiments to back up their views. Einstein did not do any experiments to support relativity he used the current experimental knowledge at hand and developed a theory that is still being experimentally confirmed today. I have not finished my response to your Monocle Smile (29) post yet. I hope you will respond to it at that time.

    Chikoppi (69) I am observing that you are making some assertions and not backing them up with evidence. If you would supply supporting evidence for these claims I would greatly appreciate it! I think that you are doing what you claim I am doing; making claims without proof. Here are a few of your assertions that I see no supporting evidence of:

    (69) That is not “the scientific process.”
    … you haven’t … brought ANY objective evidence to the table nor have you followed scientific methodology in developing a hypothesis.
    (62) It is (yet again!) the argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy.
    (60) Your content thus far has been rife with fallacies and you seem to not understand how an experimental process is structured or what a scientific theory is.

    What is objective evidence in mathematics? The mathematician Cantor showed that there are an infinite amount of infinities each infinitely larger than the previous cardinal one. Most mathematicians accept this today, but in Cantor’s time the criticism toward him was withering to the point he went crazy. There is no experimental evidence for his conjecture. At the time some mathematicians did not believe that any “infinity” concept should be allowed in mathematics because it is an imaginary concept that does not exist in our finite world. Darwin was afraid to publish his ideas because he knew that they were full of holes that he, with his current knowledge, could not explain away. But over the past 150 years, one after another of these supposed holes have being plugged up with better and better scientific arguments, evidence, and experimental results. Even though I have been trying to disprove these ideas for may years, awaretheory is still in its “fetal” stages of development. However, awaretheory potential value is so over whelming it deserves careful consideration (in, as you imply, my deluded opinion, and who knows you might be right). Imagine what Darwin would have faced if he would have tried to explained his ideas in a few pages of writing on a blog site in his era of greater scientific ignorance and religious dogma. Basically, you have not even begun to hear the supporting evidence for awaretheory.

    Keep in mind that if awaretheory is true then you are superimmortal which is a very big win for you personally. If you are right in our discussions then you win the discussion but unfortunately this means you are likely mortal with a relatively few years yet to live. Hopefully, you (plural) will continue to live (and be pleasantly conscious) for many decades to come.
    Sometimes its to a person advantage to proceed with a win-win situation; where you can’t loose! I am a scientist I know that I can be wrong! Are you however, like many religious people, so certain in their god and other supernatural beliefs, that they know that they can’t possibly be wrong?

    I do not think that you should put “Science Fiction Writing” down to the level of awaretheory. Some science fiction stories and books are just amazing in how they can stimulate young people’s minds into fields of endeavors that greatly improve the quality of everyones lives. Science fiction stories are said, by many, to have outlined and inspired future areas of scientific and technological research and development! I have often though that science fiction stories about awaretheory might be one of the best ways of presenting these novel and hard to accept ideas like superimmortality. Maybe, it is worth the effort to understand superimmortality so you can write science fiction novels about it. You do not have to believe what you understand, and you could make extra money at the same time. Novel, well written science fiction stories can make a lot of money especially when they are made into movies, as you already know.

  68. superatheist says

    John Phillips(70)
    Thank you for your kind remarks. If you study the history of science you realize there are basically two kinds of scientific development. The slow meticulous science of experimentation, analysis, reanalysis, repeating experiments, developing coherent interpretations of the results, reporting results, carefully defining words, terms, symbols, quantities and getting people to accept a universal meaning of the words …, and developing mathematical equations for generalizing this information. This is what most scientists do. This scientific process is very important There would be no science without the hard work of these scientists. But every once in a while science runs into road blocks and progress in a field of study stagnates. More and more anomalies (like entanglement) develop that the current scientific theories can not explain. This is often where the second kind of scientific development occurs. At this point scientist starts developing radical new theories like various string theories and multiverse theories, for example. I am doing this second kind of scientific research with the theory of personal identity. Awaretheory produces this radical shift in thinking about consciousness. However, what comes with scientific paradigms shifts is extreme resistance to these changes from the scientists that have spent so much of their lives working with and developing these old ideas. Often scientific disagreements can become quite heated where personal attacks become the norm, especially when money and reputations are at stake. I know that we are having friendly discussions but I also know that it can become nasty fast when people feel that they are loosing. What I do have going for me in discussions about awaretheory is these ideas have so much to offer people that it is not like I am taking away anything from them when I am suppling supporting evidence for these ideas.

  69. Chikoppi says

    @superathiest “Here are a few of your assertions that I see no supporting evidence of:”

    (69) That is not “the scientific process.”… you haven’t … brought ANY objective evidence to the table nor have you followed scientific methodology in developing a hypothesis.

    Both statements are true. The scientific method is not a debate, it is an iterative process of observation and experimentation. Each assumption must be tested before proceeding to a dependent assumption. You cannot advance from an initial premise to a secondary premise without first establishing observational evidence.

    Your premise: “…predicts that another body, if it is structured and then functions closely enough to that of another human body will produce (create) the same consciousness.”

    Until observational evidence of the above is established everything else you assert is worthless. You have written 40,000 words of thin air.

    (62) It is (yet again!) the argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy.

    Yep. You are positing that something that cannot be observed must exist because you otherwise don’t have an explanation for what HAS actually been observed with respect to the phenomena of consciousness. That’s a textbook example of the fallacy.

    (60) Your content thus far has been rife with fallacies and you seem to not understand how an experimental process is structured or what a scientific theory is.

    “Keep in mind that if awaretheory is true then you are superimmortal which is a very big win for you personally.” — Argument from consequence. Another fallacy.

    I’ll make you a deal. If you can explain in detail how how a hypothesis is properly derived using the scientific method, WITHOUT invoking a single mention of your theory, I’ll continue this discussion. (Or, if you successfully submit your “research” for publication in PLOS ONE or PNAS.) I’ve explained at great length why I find your assertions without merit. I won’t waste further time at this point until you have defended your methodology.

  70. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (73)

    Can we use these definitions or do we go by your definition — do you want to modify them before we go forward?
    By the way what is your educational back ground?

    My computer’s dictionary definition of hypothesis is: “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Philosophy: a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.” (In this sense, it seems to me like a mathematical axiom)

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

    The hypothesis is part of the scientific method it is not derived from it. Usually the hypothesis comes before the experiment other wise you do not know what you are looking for in the experiments.

    wiki info—“The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”

    wiki info—“Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order.”

    wiki info— “Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested”.

    wiki info—The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    You write “If you can explain in detail how how a hypothesis is properly derived using the scientific method….” using the above definitions of scientific method and hypothesis you clearly do not know what you are talking about. A hypothesis is not derived from the scientific method it is part of the scientific method. Maybe this is why you do not understand what i am saying about supporting evidence for awaretheory and the supporting evidence i have already provided.—- no disrespect intended! I hope that you are not like religious people that even if god told them that evolution was true they would deny it with the excuse that it wasn’t god but the devil.

  71. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (73)
    I forgot to say thanks for the PLOS ONE or PNAS sites info. I did not know about them. I will look into them further. It might just be a good place to publish parts of awaretheory.

    I am sorry you are getting so annoyed. I do not want to upset you. We do not need to carry on this discussion If you so desire. I hope you do not mind, in the case that we no longer respond back and forth, if I actually respond to the statements you have made that I have not gotten around to yet.
    For instance, you wrote about may partial sentiment @superatheist (71) “Keep in mind that if awaretheory is true then you are superimmortal which is a very big win for you personally.” — Argument from consequence. Another fallacy.

    This is not a fallacy when you include the next sentence I wrote. This gives me reason to believe that you either are not reading what I am writing or you clearly are not understanding what I mean. The two statements together are true. Either awaretheory is true and you have won something or awaretheory is false and you have won something else. This is not an argument for the truth or falsity of awaretheory.

  72. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (73)

    You quoted me:
    Your premise: “…predicts that another body, if it is structured and then functions closely enough to that of another human body will produce (create) the same consciousness.”

    and then said:
    “Until observational evidence of the above is established everything else you assert is worthless. You have written 40,000 words of thin air.”
    We can turn may statement around and state it in a inverse or reverse meaning “Another body no matter how closely its structure and functioning is to another body the consciousness they produce (or have, since you do not like the word produce) will not be the same.” Since this is what you seem to be proposing and you have no observational evidence of that statement either, I can say right back at you “Until observational evidence of the above is established everything else you assert is worthless.”. You really can’t be meaning these ideas are worthless just because the evidence is not clear at this point in time. If you really believe this then you must have thought the proposal of the Higgs boson was worthless because there was no experimental evidence of its existence for many years after its proposal, like wise with black holes, exoplanets, viruses, atoms, multiverses etc., etc. Maybe you think that scientists should not be allowed to propose hypothesis until they have proof for them. The scientific method usually proceeds this way: you observe something, you make a hypothesis that makes predictions that you can test, then you compare the result you get from your experiments to see if the hypothesis is accurate in its predictions. If not you can develop another hypothesis and again test it to see if the predictions are correct. All along the process you are using rational and logical thinking and trying to make the hypothesis not contradict other well established scientific concepts.

  73. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    wiki info— “Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested”.

    There’s what I’m looking for.

    You write “If you can explain in detail how how a hypothesis is properly derived using the scientific method….” using the above definitions of scientific method and hypothesis you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

    Oh no…you actually summed it up nicely. The point being that a hypothesis is not mearly a conjecture or a guess, but must be derived using (i.e., properly structured in accordance with) the principles of the scientific method; falsifiable by observable, measurable, repeatable experimentation.

    You were good enough to find the citations I asked for, so I’ll provide the next. Via Wikipedia…

    The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.

    So, a THEORY is based on confirmed data derived from repeated and systemic experimental exploration of falsifiable HYPOTHESIS that is observable and measurable.

    What you have done is to propose an untestable premise, made assumptions about what might be true of a heretofore non-observed entity as a result of a fictional experiment, and then constructed an elaborate explanatory framework to support your narrative. Hence, not a theory. Not a hypothethsis. Not science.

    I suggest you read some of the research papers on PLOS ONE and PNAS. They are good examples of experimental methodology applied to hypothesis.

    P.S. I’m not annoyed. I just want you to understand that what matters is the methodology. Terms like hypothesis and theory have specific significance that requires a methodological threshold you have not met.

    Re (76): No; burden of proof applies. You are the one making the positive claim. I don’t need to provide evidence of the contrary to reject your claim made without evidence.

  74. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (77)

    You are changing the goal posts. You start with the concepts of scientific method and hypothesis and then redefine the concept of “theory” to mean only part of what the term is used for in conversations.

    You wrote:
    “So, a THEORY is based on confirmed data derived from repeated and systemic experimental exploration of falsifiable HYPOTHESIS that is observable and measurable.”

    My computer dictionary defines THEORY as: “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained” This is what awaretheory is “a system of ideas intended to explain something” A theory can be true or false. A theory can be proposed before it is verified. Theories can be indirectly verified without direct experimental evidence. The Higgs boson is an example. What I understand is that it has still never been seen. What has been “seen” is what physics predicts will be what occurs after it breaks up. This is indirect experimental evidence. The FACT that two identically structured and functioning conscious beings (humans) will have identical behaviors, and all that this implies about their consciousnesses, is indirect experimental evidence for them having identical consciousnesses. The FACT that there are changes that can be made to the structure and functioning of a body that are so small that there is no change in the behavior that they produce, is indirect experimental evidence that two different conscious beings with slightly different structure and functioning of their bodies can have identical consciousnesses also. These statements are true independent of the experiments being done about them. The problem with carrying out the experiment is that it gives us information only about the singular experiment. Logical induction is needed to jump from the specific case to the the general case.

    I know that there is a big fight between theists and atheists over the statement that the “Theory” of Evolution is just a theory. Atheists and other that know about science should stop calling it a theory and call it what it is the Science of Evolution!

    This is the a more correct statement:
    “So, a SCIENCE is based on confirmed data derived from repeated and systemic experimental exploration of falsifiable HYPOTHESIS that is observable and measurable.”
    This is why “creation” science is not a science. And you can very justifiable say that “superimmortality” has not reached the status of a science. But clearly, it is based on a theory that makes predictions that are either true of false. Just because the experiments that you demand be carried, have not yet been carried out does not mean they will not be at some time in the future. I have given examples of indirect evidence that you have ignored. I have shown real problems with alternative theories that you seem to support. If current theories about consciousness are wrong and awaretheory is wrong then we need to propose even better hypothesis, that can be tested and confirmed or rejected until we find what is true, because I care what is true. I Am willing to spend the rest of my like developing ideas and hypothesis that have the potential to be true, knowing all the time that they might not be true. The ideas I create just might inspire others to think up and develop new theories and hopefully they will be true or be a continuing inspiration to others to keep trying.

    Don’t be a theory tyrant! Allow a theory to exist until its own internal and external incoherence kills it. Because we never know when a theory will be true, we need to continue to propose, test, and accept or reject them like we do when we test drugs for a disease.

  75. Chikoppi says

    OK. I’ve really got nothing more add. I don’t accept any of your assertions without evidence. Maybe you’ll prove me wrong and get published in a peer-review journal. If you do, let us know and I’ll be more than happy to eat crow (and I’ll sincerely congratulate you as I do). If, on the other hand, you continue to find it difficult to persuade anyone to take you seriously, maybe consider a more restrained and methodological process limited by observable evidence.

  76. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (79)
    Thank you for you discussions about some of the ideas in awaretheory. I really do appreciate your time and efforts. You asking me to write one scientific paper proving awaretheory is like me asking you to write one scientific paper proving evolution, chemistry or physics. Darwin and Newton needed books to just begin their theories and they look nothing like peer reviewed journal articles of today. I know because I have copies of their books and I get scientific journals. I predict that it will take a very large amount of scientific papers just to begin to deal with what I am proposing in awaretheory. Some of these articles will appear to prove awaretheory predictions and other will appear to disprove them. If mankind survives into the future in an advanced enough scientifically developed state these experiments will be carried out. The potential consequences of the results are to important to ignore!

  77. superatheist says

    Sky Captain (57)
    Thank you for your remarks! I am sorry that I have not gotten back to you sooner.

    You wrote:
    “One can talk about common aspects of everyones’ consciousness instances, in a general way. You can even talk about your own consciousness instances at various moments in time, in a general way. That you can talk about yourself in a general way does not enable you to preserve your self when your brain dies, however.”

    I am talking about specific structures and functioning of the body, specifically the brain, over distinct periods of a person life time. This is extremely exacting changing physical thing not a platonic theory of ideas —- abstractions divorced from the so-called external world. We can exactingly talk about the way your specific brain was structured and then functioned between two specific points in your life. We can see what behavior was produced between those points in you life. We can try to understand what consciousness was produced between those points in your life. And then we can wonder what specific behavior and consciousness will be produced when we repeat that specific structure and functioning of your body or brain during that period of your life time. Because it is a logical necessity that another body that produces the same structure and functioning will also produce the same behavior, it is a reasonable question to ask: will it also produce the same consciousness? The terms “self” and “same person over time” are singularly biased terms. What I mean is that there is only one “self” by definition. And the “same person over time” is again by definition one person. So by definition when the “self” dies that is by definition the end of the self and when a person dies that is by definition the end of that person. But it is only true by definition, not true by natural necessity. What you were in the past, what you are presently, and what you will be in the future can be exactly defined by the variations in the structure and functioning of matter. This is what you are. The structure and functioning of matter can be duplicated any number of different times so there can be any number of different bodies existing at one time or at any other time that is you. Body continuousness or continuity is not necessary. This is nothing but a materialistic theory no need for souls or any other supernatural things or concept. We do not even need to refer to consciousness at all to define the multiple aspects of a person.

  78. Monocle Smile says

    @superatheist
    You are boring and pretentious. Stop grandstanding and do something worth a shit. I won’t hold my breath.

  79. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist “You asking me to write one scientific paper proving awaretheory is like me asking you to write one scientific paper proving evolution, chemistry or physics.”

    I didn’t. That’s not what a research paper is. As I explained at great length, you don’t have a theory, you have a rediculous collection of fiction which you have deluded yourself into believing is relevant anywhere but in you own imagination. No one else believes your nonsense because we, like most sane adults, are capable of separating fact from childish fantasies.

    How about this then? Get one single paper published proving JUST ONE SINGLE FACT YOU CLAIM is true. Just one. For someone who has discovered “an entire new branch of science” that should be a simple endeavor. Hell, undergrads get papers published all the time.

    But you even won’t try, will you? Because once you have failed time after time again it would mean confronting facts in the real world. Right at this moment you’re trying to think of an excuse, some lame dodge about how peer-review applies to all of science except in your special case. There is no exception. Put up or shut up.

    I tried to drop this conversation gracefully, but MS (#82) is right. Let us know when you actually accomplish something, until then take your tiresome rant and made-up words elsewhere.

  80. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist #81:

    What you were in the past, what you are presently, and what you will be in the future can be exactly defined by the variations in the structure and functioning of matter. This is what you are.

     

    there is only one “self” by definition. […] So by definition when the “self” dies that is by definition the end of the self

     
    You have defined “self” as an abstraction, divorced from the “so-called external world”. Any particular matter, which matches its criteria could be said to be temporarily a member of its category.
     
    Are you going to channel Berkeley and make yourself artificially stupid with idealism now, saying we can’t identify any particular object by comparing sense impressions from moment to moment with the assumption that there was continuity, of any sort, between those moments – necessary to bundle those impressions together as the “same” object?

  81. StonedRanger says

    An interesting thread. Awaretheory is of course, nonsense, and SuperAtheist argues for it like a theist. Has no real evidence to show that any of what he said is true, but that apparently is due to a failure on our part to recognize his ‘paradigms’ or something. Oh yeah, and science is all wrong cause his theories are better than sciences theories. Amazing.

  82. StonedRanger says

    Addendum to #85

    The regular posters here have patience that is way beyond mine. I take my hat off to those who really try to make sense of things that others post here, and to offer time and again well thought out responses that almost always get responded to with more nonsense. I also have to hand it to those who post the stuff I consider nonsense. To stand fast in the face of so much evidence to the contrary of the things you propose takes guts. It doesn’t make you right or correct, but it does take guts.

  83. superatheist says

    Sky Captain (84)
    How matter is structured and then functions is not an abstraction any move that a bird traveling across the sky or an orange being eaten is an abstraction. I believe that a structure and functioning of matter can be mapped to consciousness. I believe that the concepts of “me” or “person” are biased toward making one believe that we as conscious beings (humans) are singular in nature, which is a valid belief considering our conscious perspective is in the moment and not reflecting the idea that we will consciously exist into the future and have consciously existed in the past where the consciousness that existed at these times were and will be different. It is a hard idea to accept that we are more than what we are at this moment in time. Because of the singular bias of the terms in use, I have had to create a word without this bias. I have mentioned it before I call it “ixperiencitness” pronounced “I experience it ness”. Where two people by definition are not the same person, two different people can have without a logical or definitional contradiction the same ixperiencitness. It is not a bizarre idea to ask the question about any structure and functioning of matter: “Do I experience the consciousness that is produced by that particular structure and functioning of matter?” If I do then it has may ixperiencitness, If I do not, then if does not have may ixperiencitness. Very simple. If I imagine going back in time, lets say a year, and see myself, I can say that particular structure and functioning of matter was producing a consciousness that I did experience. In other words it had may ixperiencitness that I have now. But it was producing a consciousness different from the one I am experiencing now. At his point in the theory it is totally materialistic. I do not consider myself an idealist, but I don’t consider myself necessarily limited to a singular body. But I do believe I am limited to the structure’s and functioning’s of matter that will produce a consciousness that I will experience. Thanks for your reply!

  84. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @superatheist 87:

    It is not a bizarre idea to ask the question about any structure and functioning of matter: “Do I experience the consciousness that is produced by that particular structure and functioning of matter?”

    Do I have the same hair as that other person with the same hairstyle?
    Great, now I don’t have to worry about going bald!
    We share an IShagItNess.
     
    Sorry, I can’t make you interesting anymore with creative interpretations.
    I’m done, and no one else cares about your rambling.
     
    Continued copying here does not make your ‘theory’ more survivable.
    Your tired repetition only vandalizes this blog.
    Please desist.

  85. superatheist says

    Monocle Smile (82)
    You said:
    “You are boring and pretentious. Stop grandstanding and do something worth a shit. I won’t hold my breath.”

    I have five children they are engineers, scientists, and city managers. I have six grandchildren, that I frequently babysit. I have an orchard with 300 kinds of apples trees and 50 kinds of pears trees. I take care of it by myself. I do not want notoriety for myself at all I think fame is not a life enhancer but a life destroyer. I believe that these ideas will enhance people lives in numerous different ways. I am a secular humanist and believe that one should make the most out of this life and when ever possible help others make the most of their lives. But I disagree with atheists in insisting there is no life after death. Superimmortality does not guarantee that any particular person will ever consciously exist again. But it shows scientifically how it is possible to consciously exist again scientifically and how to increase that possibility, without any supernatural woo woo like souls or gods. If superimmortality is true in its basic assumptions, I believe that it gives atheists a big advantage over theists. It is true that I am trying to bring attention to these ideas but more importantly knowing that atheists are intelligent skeptics I am hoping that you guys will come up criticisms that I have not though of. I have also been for part of my life a teacher. A major question that I am dealing with is how does one convey ideas that are radically different than what people believe. This is exactly the problem atheists face when they deal with theists. Atheists have so many great supporting ideas but they just bounce right off theists like falling leaves. I think that part of this is the fear of death. Superimmortality gives atheists an answer to this. But the question is not if people are smart enough to understand superimmortality it is, do they want to?

    I am sorry that I am boring to you, I do not want to grandstand and bring any attention to myself, and I suppose I am being presumptuous in many ways. But let me refer to your statement you made at Monocle Smile (29) referring to what I wrote at Superatheist(28):

    I wrote:
    “Here are ten predictions that awaretheory makes that can be verified or falsified through experimentation:

    “1. The functioning of the brain produces consciousness.”
    “2. Duplicating the same structure and functioning in the same brain produces the same consciousness.”

    You wrote:
    1) Trivial and unrelated to awaretheory
    2) Law of identity. Trivial and unrelated to awaretheory

    Is it not the definition of presumption when you are telling me what my theory says when you know so little about it?
    #1 This statement Is not trivial at all. Many people still do not agree with this statement (But I am glad you do!) It is a founding principle of awaretheory.
    #2 This statement Is not trivial at all either. A latter or earlier version of your body is not identical because they are in different times, places, and made of different matter than the present state of your body. Thus there is no guarantee that they will produce the same consciousness, thus no law of identity here. This principle, if true, in a way is showing that it is not the specific matter that caries the self through time but the structure and functioning of matter that does. I am again glad that you think it is true! Because it is one less thing I need to supply evidence for, at least for you.

    I am sorry this all sounds like googlely guck to you, but I am trying to make it understandable and you are helping with your comments. Thanks!

  86. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist

    Where two people by definition are not the same person, two different people can have without a logical or definitional contradiction the same ixperiencitness.

    Horsepucky. Rubbish. Pure delusion.
    You are attempting to justify the statement: if “my consciousness” existed simultaneously at multiple points in spacetime then my death at any single point in spacetime wouldn’t end my consciousness.
    But “your consciousness” doesn’t exist at multiple points in space time. Full stop.
    For a thing “to exist” it must exist right now.
    “Your consciousness” is the consciousness that you experience right now, it exists.
    “A consciousness” experienced at any point in spacetime by anyone other than “you right now” is not “your consciousness.”
    “Your consciousness” at past or future points in spacetime are non-existent things because they do not exist right now.
    “You” at any arbitrary point in spacetime, cannot experience something that does not exist.
    Therefore “you” cannot ever experience a past or future consciousness, because right now those things do not exist.
    Is there a consciousness somewhere else in spacetime? Sure. Do you actively experience it right now? No. It is therefore not your consciousness.

  87. briantjohnson83 says

    This comment is for episode 20.16 with Matt flying solo…there’s a high probability that last caller is Mark from Austin I believe…last I remember he was calling in pretending to be callers from Europe…just fyi lol

  88. Chikoppi says

    I might have found a way to describe the category error.

    “That brain is conscious” is analogous to “that star is hot.”

    You wouldn’t claim that in an infinite universe the “same hot” would occur elsewhere in spacetime. There might exist an exactly identical star that is exactly as hot for exactly the same reasons, but it isn’t the “same” star and it certainly isn’t the “same hot.”

    Or, in the parlance du jour, there might be two objects with exactly identical “structure and functioning” to create equivalent heat profiles…but it would be ridiculous to say that they share the “same hot.”

    Likewise, there might theoretically be two brains with exactly identical cognitive function (and I don’t buy that this is actually possible), but they do not share the “same consciousness.”

    Props to Matt as well for his reference to the Ship of Theseus (episode 20.16) and observation that identity is a conceptual label that is malleable over time.

  89. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (94)

    When learning about calculus one of the first thing you learn about is concept of limits.

    When this concept is applied to the structure and functioning of an object like a computer we can say as the structure and functioning of two computers becomes more identical what it produces becomes more identical as in a game or any other output of a computer program like the motion of a robot. The movement of the robot is not identical to the structure and functioning of the computer.

    Another exampleIs: as the structure and functioning of two cars becomes more identical their top speed that they can obtain becomes more identical. This is not saying the same thing as the top speed is identical to the structure and functioning of the car.

    What I am saying in relationship to humans is that as two different people’s structure and functioning becomes more alike their behavior becomes more alike. This can be tested. It also seems reasonable to predict that as the structure and functioning of two people become more alike their consciousness becomes more alike also. This is not saying that the structure and functioning of the body is consciousness.

    Science is based on this concept. Another example: as the structure and functioning of two different resistors becomes more identical then their resistance to the flow of electricity becomes more identical.

  90. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist

    When this concept is applied to the structure and functioning of an object like a computer we can say as the structure and functioning of two computers becomes more identical what it produces becomes more identical as in a game or any other output of a computer program like the motion of a robot. The movement of the robot is not identical to the structure and functioning of the computer.

    You’re missing the point. “The motion of the robot” is a concept, not an object. When two robots are said to have “the same motion” we are referring to how the two distinct objects that are the robots are similar. “The motion” isn’t some thing that actually exists. Only the robots exist.

    It also seems reasonable to predict that as the structure and functioning of two people become more alike their consciousness becomes more alike also.

    There’s your error. It isn’t the “the consciousness,” “the motion, ” or “the hot” that is becoming more alike, but the objects to which these concepts are attributed, “the persons,” “the robots,” “the stars.”

    Can two stars “be hot” in the same way? Yes, but no matter how similar they are not “the same star.” They do not share a single “hotness.”

    Can two persons “be conscious” in the same way? Yes, but no matter how similar they are not “the same person.” They do not share a single “consciousness.”

  91. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Chikoppi:
    He’s just gonna keep spewing “Similar things are similar. It’s SCIENCE!” and “I made up a label just in case I ever experience another body. Or in case I meet a past self whose body I don’t experience… but *I* totally did in the past so it counts!.” He will neither explain (super)immortality any less superficially, nor drop it.
     
    Sometime before 2002, he decided he liked the idea of going to sleep and waking up trillions of years later in a different body – but souls and reincarnation were off the table. Instead of making the concept coherent, he’s settled for generating noise to look busy.
     
    Content pages: 57,694
    Edits: 90,789
    Average edits per page: 1.34
     
    Index: AwareTheory Wiki – Short Pages
     
    Sorted by bytes, the first 32,500 articles are blank, template spam, a couple links, or a brief sentence (with some words linked of course). As the thousands go by, there get to be a couple sentences, if any, padded with copy/paste sentence-links and/or template spam. Then a couple short paragraphs, similarly padded. Many pages in that range are entirely padding, as usual. From around 48,000 it’s just walls of link spam.
     
    Some is speculative fiction.
     
    Article: List of Stories

  92. Chikoppi says

    @SC (#97)

    I know I should let it lie, I know, I know…and yes, this is an example of “Someone is Wrong On the Internet!” syndrome. But there’s something about the pointless magnitude of it all that makes it obscene and fascinating.

    May you experience Operating Thetan levels by attaining a consciousness free of Engrams.

  93. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (96)

    You wrote:
    “Can two persons “be conscious” in the same way? Yes, but no matter how similar they are not “the same person.” They do not share a single “consciousness.”

    I do not think that I said “share a consciousness” in this discussion. This seems to be your interpretation of what I am saying. I will repeat what I am saying again: two different people can theoretically have the same structure and functioning of their bodies, same behavior, and same consciousness. They do not share a consciousness because their structure and functioning is independent of each other and thus can diverge from the way the other person’s body is structured and then functions as this difference increasing occurs the behavior will diverge as will the consciousness. But just like mathematical functions can diverge they can also converge again and become more alike at different points. So the behavior and consciousness of two different persons can become over and over again more and less alike.

    Two different persons, by the definition of “person”, are never the same person. The only way to change this is to change the definition of person. I am not doing that. Sometimes science needs to create new terms to describe concepts that the language has no words for like blackhole, quark, gluon, spacetime, or DNA. The term person is biased toward a certain way of thinking i.e., which is that two different persons can not have the same consciousness. This comes from the definition of person not from experimentation.

  94. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist (#99)

    I will repeat what I am saying again: two different people can theoretically have the same structure and functioning of their bodies, same behavior, and same consciousness. They do not share a consciousness because their structure and functioning is independent of each other and thus can diverge from the way the other person’s body is structured and then functions as this difference increasing occurs the behavior will diverge as will the consciousness.

    This is what you said in (#6)

    If science can offer a better theory of conscious life after death than religions then it should be a positive thing for science and rationality which atheism is supposed to be working toward. Restoration of structure and functioning is one way of looking at recreating a consciousness that has existed in the past. The concept of the restoration of structure and functioning does not require the same body to restore the same consciousness.

    So which is it? Do two separate people have merely have similarities of consciousness experience or are you stating that if some future person experiences consciousness similarly enough to the way you once experienced consciousness that you are somehow resurrected?

    Also, I object to your use of the word “same,” as it implies unison vs. similarity. It is confusing when you say “two people have the same consciousness” if you instead mean “two people experience consciousness in a very similar way.”

    Lastly, consciousness is not static. It is different from one moment to the next and wholly dependent on cognitive function and environmental factors. Everything that is subjectively YOU can be irrevocably altered with chemicals or traumatic brain injury. It is misleading to say you “possess a consciousness” rather than “you experience consciousness.” It is not an object and YOU are not it. YOU are the object that is your body, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.

  95. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (100)

    This is a nice succinct statement! You wrote:
    YOU are the object that is your body, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.

    You did not say:
    YOU are “only” the object that is your body, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.

    Another version of this statement:
    YOU are the object that are your bodies, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.

    I am saying in a very simplified version:
    YOU are the objects that are your bodies, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.

    All four statements form four different hypothesis. The first one can be interpreted as “you” plural meaning a body can have or produce more than one consciousness. The second statement uses, the singular” you” I think that what you mean in the first statement. The third statement is what I think you sometimes think I am saying; There is a singular “you” that is some how connected to more than one body. In statement four I am using “you” in the plural sense. “YOU” are the objects that are your bodies that produce consciousnesses that you did, are, or will experience.

  96. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist

    YOU are the objects that are your bodies, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.

    Violation of identity. Violation of physics.

    Two identical objects ARE NOT THE SAME OBJECT. They are two distinct objects with two distinct identities. If capable of consciousness, they will have independent and subjective experiences of consciousness by virtue of being physically distinct and independent objects.

    No one is buying this desperate and transparent attempt to torture the definition of words into yielding an immortal consciousness. It’s insipid and childish. Worse than theists. Worse than Deepak Chopra.

  97. superatheist says

    John Phillips (102)

    If I had a bong and were using it, I really doubt that I would care about this discussion! Maybe, it is unfortunate, for you, that I do not get high because I have way more arguments for my positions than you guys have for yours. I used to think like you, but I kept asking questions about the inconsistencies I saw in the current theories of consciousness. I respond to your blog posts out of respect for you guys!

  98. superatheist says

    I do not understand why this statement is a violation of identity or a violation of physics.
    “YOU are the objects that are your bodies, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.”

    I can add numerous single words to this sentence and it makes perfect sense.

    For example:
    YOU “girls” are the objects that are your bodies, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.

    Or add two words and you get:
    YOU “ghosts” are “not” the objects that are your bodies, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.

  99. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist

    “YOU are the objects that are your bodies, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.”
    I can add numerous single words to this sentence and it makes perfect sense.
    For example:
    YOU “girls” are the objects that are your bodies, which experiences consciousness differently at different points in time.

    Because “you” (in the context of the argument you have presented) refers to a singular identity and “girls” refers to multiple identities.

    Either you’re being intentionally obtuse or you have a legitimate difficulty navigating language. Either way, your premise remains invalid.

  100. John Phillips, FCD says

    You’re not even wrong. Arguments mean nothing without evidence. As I’ve said before, come back when you have even the merest hint of evidence. Until then, you would likely make more sense if you were smoking a bong. By the way, you might be surprised how much someone can really really care for a position/argument/whatever when really stoned. But at least they come down eventually, usually anyway.

  101. superatheist says

    Chikoppi(103)(106)

    You seem to be pushing the “event argument”. Two different people, even though their bodies are producing the same consciousness, are different events thus they still are not identical in producing the “me”.

    This is one way it has been stated: If I toss a coin a number of times and get two heads even though they are identical heads they some how are not identical because each toss of the coin is a unique event.

    The argument now comes down to how you define an event. In the case of the coin toss the event can be defined as one toss, ten tosses or any other number of tosses. Each of these events can be identical or not in the number and sequence of heads and tails that occur.

    A person over his life time can be considered one event, two events; the first half and the second half of his life, or three separate events; the first, second, and third, third of his life. This process can be broken down into as many parts as you wish none of the parts are identical because they are separate events. Each of these event exist in a different place and time, made of different matter, with different environmental conditions, the body structure has changed as well as the functioning of the body, the behavior is different, as is the consciousness being produced. A persons life time is made up of many separate non identical events, using your argument one of these events may produce “me” but since the rest are not identical events the rest can not produce “me”. But, but, but, you say, there is continuity of body over time that ties the “me” together. But as you keep saying there is not identity of events. So no identity of “me“ in the same body over time.

  102. Monocle Smile says

    @superatheist
    If you’re really arguing that flipping a coin twice and getting heads both times makes them the same coin flip, then you need to seek professional help for your horrifically malformed cognitive faculties and comprehension abilities.

  103. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Monocle Smile #109:

    If you’re really arguing that flipping a coin twice and getting heads both times makes them the same coin flip

    Worse, he’s saying mint a second metal disk, and the heads coin flip will exist in two places.
     
    ALL similar-structured/functioning objects are a collective entity – albeit in language only as a group noun, since he refused to mean he’s even symbolically persisting the abstract similarity criteria, and since the objects are allowed to be utterly discontinuous.
     
    Worse still, for the similarity criteria to count past/present/future matter/patterns/consciousnesses, it can’t be a direct comparison of attributes (except in a special case of identical duplicates). So the similarity criteria is anything similar to a potential duplicate at any point in a hypothetical lifetime of body continuity. The future of that hypothetical lifetime wouldn’t be predictable, of course. Any organ repair technology discovered could extend the max age of the hypothetical body criteria, so even if your current body dies tomorrow. A doppelganger in the future could resemble the you that might have been, if you had lived to 183 after having your lungs completely regenerated… and gills grafted on. You and that doppelganger get to be called y’all. So very reassuring, isnt it?

  104. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist

    You seem to think the problem is that we don’t understand what you are asserting or your reasons for doing so. We do. It is because we understand your position that we reject it as unsupported and profoundly irrational.

    There is no further volume of words, nor angle of argument, nor tangle of syntax that is going change the quality of your ideas. We. Reject. Your. Ideas.

    At the link below can be found a list of scientific journals. By all means, submit. After you have been universally rejected by every discipline of thinking professionals across the globe maybe it will dawn on you that you are simply wrong.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals

  105. superatheist says

    Chikoppi(111)

    I do not remember which famous scientist said this but paraphrasing: “”He said about some other scientists ideas”: “They are crazy and bizarre but I am not sure they are crazy and bizarre enough to be true!””

    The journal issue goes both ways. I have been trying to find journal articles that disprove what I am proposing for as long as I have been thinking about these ideas. I have so far found none! What I have found is a very large volume of articles that support what I have been saying. If you can show me one article, or any number of articles that disprove what I am proposing, I will very happily give up these ideas and admit that I am wrong, crazy, deluded, or any other set of words you want to call me! There are thousands of scientific articles that are being produced every year that give supporting evidence for the ideas that I am proposing. There are numerous philosophical articles and books that have been published that discuss these very ideas.

    If you understood what I was saying you would not keep changing the subject, you would give me the reasons why my arguments do not work. When someone rejects another person’s ideas this does not mean that these ideas are wrong, it just means that persons does not like them. These ideas can be wrong, they are not irrational, they just seem irrational to you. They are the consequence of what we have learned about the brain in the past 150 years. Consciousness is produced by the functioning the brain. As the functioning of the brain diverges the consciousness produced by the brain diverges. Show me scientific articles that disprove this! Show me one scientific article showing that identical structure and functioning of a conscious body does not produce identical behavior. Show me one scientific article showing that identical behavior produced by two different bodies is not supporting evidence that they are not producing the same consciousness. Show me one scientific article where there is any supporting evidence that if two different bodies produce the same consciousness they do not produce the same ixperiencitness. I could have put the word “Me” in place of ixperiencitness, but “Me” is a singular term by definition as you stated before. Two different people can’t be me. Two different people can’t be the same person by the definition of the word person. This is not a scientific argument. I am not arguing that to different persons are the same person or that two different persons are “me”. Because this is arguing against definitions not reality.

  106. Chikoppi says

    @superatheist

    It’s not my job to correct your thinking. You made an argument and it was rejected. I and others have explained exhaustively in the comments above why you are wrong. You’ll get no further traction here.

  107. superatheist says

    Chikoppi (113)

    These two statements:
    “You seem to think the problem is that we don’t understand what you are asserting or your reasons for doing so.”
    And “It’s not my job to correct your thinking.” makes me believe that you have an agenda beyond the discussion of ideas.

    I thus think you guys are just religious trolls handing around an atheist blog. You are trying to spy on what atheists are saying and then use it against them. You realize that if even part of superimmortality is true it delivers a big blow to religions and gives atheists big advantage that they can use any time religious people say “but I will never see my loved one again!” Prove to me that I am wrong by writing it out for every one to see that you are an atheist — that you do not believe in a god that is going to punish you for saying that you are an atheist. And don’t cross your fingers when you do it.

    It not you job to “correct my thinking” it your job to discourage anyone for even considering these ideas because they would be so devastating for religions. My reasons for discussing these ideas are for the purpose of learning something. One way I learn is through discussions with other people.

    “The word “you” is used in a plural contest. Look in your dictionary mine says: “pronoun, second person singular or plural, used to refer to the person or “people” that the speaker is addressing”.

    In reference to the tossing of coins each toss of a coin is called an event. The toss of two coins is two events with different coins. Tossing one coin twice is two events and tossing two coins once is two events. They are not identical events. But In the first case you can have two heads and in the second case you can have heads.
    Refer to Matt’s comments at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEIZaR6Rc2M

  108. Chikoppi says

    I haven’t discouraged anyone from doing anything. I find your ideas flawed. I have said so and I have stated the reasons why. Others are free to come to their own conclusions.

    Good luck.

  109. John Phillips, FCD says

    @Superatheist. The also laughed at Coco the clown, to forestall your next line of defence. But if anyone is coming across as a religious type troll, it is yourself with your insistence that you are right and in our hearts we know you are if we only understood. As Chikoppi said a few posts back, the reason we reject your unevidenced assertions is because we do understand what you are saying. You really really want there to be an atheist type ‘soul’ and wouldn’t it be cool, but wanting is not enough. This site likes people being nice or after your latest tripe I would tell you in good old Anglo-Saxon what you could do with yourself and your stupid ides.

  110. says

    @114

    I thus think you guys are just religious trolls handing around an atheist blog

    If they’re making good points, it’s not relevant if they’re trolls. As a longtime commenter here, I find your position to be nonsense, and I’ve been head-desking watching the others try to explain rudimentary concepts to you, that go in one ear and out the other.

  111. superatheist says

    You guys are great! Sorry I have not responded! I am taking care of a very sick dog that its owners could not take care of. Had a party for a friend etc., etc. I was very excited about the crackpot theory site I though I might have the highest score ever! 50,000 new terms at awaretheory at 10 points a word that 1/2 million points right there wow! But then it said for not well defined terms. If the definitions are not complete they are not well defined, But the others are actually well defined mathematically and scientifically. I still get a lot of points for sentences that are not finished so it is not all sad. If all of awaretheory is wrong at least it has given me the highest score that any one has ever gotten for this test! A remarkable feat! I will not be making any more posting here I have gone over to 20.16. There Matt had a discussion with Bard. He seems to have come to the same beginning conclusions that I have. Its amazing someone is actually beginning to understand what I am saying, and he apparently thought it up by himself on the other side of the earth. Maybe I am not crazy.

  112. says

    @superatheist

    “The journal issue goes both ways. I have been trying to find journal articles that disprove what I am proposing for as long as I have been thinking about these ideas. I have so far found none!”

    That’s not how science works. You have a hypothesis, so it’s on you to prove it.

    That said, I really like your hypothesis. It makes for an interesting philosophical discussion similar to the continuity of consciousness question around teleportation. It’s just not – yet – any kind of science.

    I have a question, though (that I would have asked from the wiki if I could have found an email or response form) :

    Are you proposing that an arrangement of matter could come into being, without intentional manipulation, such that it could experience continuity of consciousness and identity with a discrete, identical arrangement of matter elsewhere in space and/or time? Or solely by deliberate replication?

    I ask, because I understand that your position is that we’re all immortal (or superimmortal, if you prefer) by virtue of the probability approaching unity that either (or possibly both) of these is true, and I see practical problems with both of these proposals.

  113. superatheist says

    Greg Knight(121) Thank you for taking an interest in these ideas and for your question!

    What I mean by every conscious being (humans) are superimmortal is that the principles of superimmortality apply to each human not that any person will necessarily experience conscious existence after death. To use the term “ixperiencitness” to explain what I mean, some potential ixperiencitness my never be produced some may experience conscious existence only one and others may experience conscious existence any amount of different times it depends on if any number of the the structures and functions of matter that produce a particular ixperiencitness has or will ever be produced.

    To specifically answer your question:

    “Are you proposing that an arrangement of matter could come into being, without intentional manipulation, such that it could experience continuity of consciousness and identity with a discrete, identical arrangement of matter elsewhere in space and/or time? Or solely by deliberate replication?”

    Yes! I can imagine many different ways that nature can do this alone without deliberate replication. The probability seems to become greater the more we know about the size and complexity of the universe.

    One of the predictions of superimmortality is the concept that parts of different physapaths can come together to form
    continuous subjectively seeming awarepaths. This is possible because of the concepts of extension, convergence and divergence of different physipaths. Lets say you die tomorrow (hopefully not) and at a different time and place, made of different matter, and structurally and functionally different than your current physapath another physapath, naturally made, converges to be closely identical structurally and functionally to your current physapath but does not die at that point, it will produce one possible continuation of your current self (that you will experience) from that point on until that body’s death. Unless the structure and functioning of the body produces an awareness of a discontinuity in a consciousness no matter how discontinuous the physapaths are that produce the awarepaths, the awarepaths produced will not sense these discontinuities.

    I am sorry if this has caused more confusion!
    The physapath is the term for the structure and functioning of a body over its life time. The awarepath is the term for the consciousness produced by a physapath.