Sa\/en

To feel emotions, pain, sensations as a result of the activities. I'm not saying that the robots don't feel, i'm saying that if they don't get stimulated, the actions are dead.

Sa\/en

Don’t you have to be conscious to want to preserve the self? In the example I gave with the cells that sacrifice themselves to promote the survival of other cells in the fruiting body, doesn’t the cell have to have a self for the act to be out of self-preservation? From what I understand, a cell is just an unconscious entity (like a computer, just acting because it’s programmed to behave in a certain manner.) Like when something is programmed to kill itself (PC), you can’t really argue that the PC did the act because it wanted to preserve the self (the driving force behind the action was not a need to preserve the self)

The action was not done out of a need or want to preserve the self, the action was done because it was programmed to do so. Now, what is the fundamental difference between a something that is programmed to behave in a pre-determined way and a cell that does the actions to preserve itself? Doesn’t the cell develop an ability an as a result it is beneficial and survives, and we incorrectly interpret that as the cell doing the action to preserve the self? The cell did not choose to have the ability, it merely emerged, it survived, and we incorrectly label that action a “want” to preserve the self. The action is not done to preserve the self. I want to bring the discussion back to the example of the computer



A computer does not do its actions out of freewill, we have programmed it to behave in a certain manner.

Therefore…

If cells are indeed unconscious, they don’t differ from a computer. The cell and the computer behave in a similar manner. Their actions are deterministic (we can program it) The self does not exist, therefore when this cell acts; the action is not out of self-preservation because the self does not exist. The actions are deterministic. This leads us to conclude that when this computer “evolves” say it develops an ability that allows it to live longer, the computer or cell does not choose the ability, it was random mutation. So there is a machine that develops an ability, it survives, then we incorrectly label the action as the computer or cell being “self-interested” But we have already concluded that the “self” does not exist. The computer is simply following code (being deterministic). It does not care if it dies or not. If it develops an ability where it shuts down, it dies. If it develops an ability that gives it higher CPU power, it will live. We must realize that these actions are not done out of a “want” or a “need’ to survive. The computer is following simple or complex code (if that code keeps it going, it will go). We can look at evolution in this light. In my opinion, there is no such thing as self-preservation or altruism. If these were to exist, it would assume that there is a “self” or a “soul” that governs our decision making. Isn’t this a fundamental flaw in our current reasoning?

If you do argue that cells are indeed conscious, then in actual fact this cell that feels is not different from the cell that doesn’t possess a self. To assume that the self decides our actions is illogical. That would require the affects of the chemical reactions in your mind to make your decisions. Rather, the codes in your body are completely deterministic, the feelings or sensations have nothing to do with the physical actions (except being a result of those actions) Even if there are two machines, the one conscious and the other not, they would both behave in a deterministic manner. The conscious aspect does not influence the decisions it makes, as the experiential aspect is as a result of physical activity. The physical activity governs all that is going on. The physical activity does not “care” or have a “self”.

I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m attacking someone.

Og

What is it about the construction of the human body and brain that make us conscious and able to have "life" while the behavior of robots or computers makes them unconscious and "dead"?

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Og

For me, saying that you are a "self" or that I am a "Self" is like saying that there's a person in a portrait. It's not really a person, but it describes complex behavior of molecules in a pattern. A person in a portrait, a spell checker in a word processor program on a computer. All of these are objects that exist only in my mind and don't have ultimate distinctions in the real world.

That's what self is to me. It's describing an extraordinarily complex system.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Sa\/en

Interesting...I think my brain needs to rest for a moment

lauraclay

I define the "self" as whatever makes you different from anyone else. What makes me different from Jane Doe? I am Me. What is Me? Me is whatever I choose to make it. I believe that any being that can conciously change the way it acts, the way it thinks, the way it functions, has a 'self'. Do animals have a self? Certainly, although perhaps not as advanced as humans. Do plants have a self? Possibly. I suppose you could argue it either way. Do inanimate objects have a self? Probably not, although it's nice to pretend. Would you define computers as animate objects? Or cars? Or are they inanimate as well? Notice how whenever we set up a scenario dealing with non-human objects and the conciousness or self, we always use something man-made and mechanical: cars, computers. Things we interact with. Why don't we use the stapler on our desk?

__________________

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish,
and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.

The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits.
When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.

The purpose of words is to convey ideas.
When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?
He is the one I would like to talk to.

jaej

What makes you different than anyone else is nothing more than circumstance. You certainly don't believe in a soul? Some sort of supernatural existance that has the ability to influence the world around it (ie make conscious decisions, choices, etc.).

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

lauraclay

I think it's more than circumstance that differentiates us. Otherwise every person would act the same in every situation.

__________________

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish,
and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.

The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits.
When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.

The purpose of words is to convey ideas.
When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?
He is the one I would like to talk to.

jaej

Nope. The circumstances in infancy and childhood determine the patterns in which an individual acts. Every person doesn't experience exactly the same events during their youth. Only then would people be exactly the same.

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

The An-Jel

You know I been kind of resisting for a few months at answering Og's self-denial, robot thing for awhile now but I think I am ready I think... I think. While I understand that we are beginning to be able to manipulate the mind like a toy, Og has expanded on this on more than one occasion. The statements he makes are fantastically dismal for that of Free Will as they should be. But just because we can r soon can manipulate the human mind doesn't necessarily mean we should do it.

What IF... What if... the way we are naturally born is the closest we come to free will. Now we can manipulate the body because it is a tool. We can manipulate the brain in ways that are not drastic to the basic will of the possessor. IF the way the mind flows like a computer on it's own accord, annhilating a consciousness well it becomes a lack of freedom we had before. Maybe the mind was never meant to be manipulated but ran like it was originally designed. That is the spiritual will remained intact. If we destroy it by manipulating the matter flow... Free Will is lost or our semblance as best created is lost. For me the argument of Free Will is still up for grabs. Did this make any sense? It refutes Og's blanket statements but really the intention simply is to find the actual Truth!

__________________
"And let there be Light!" said the Blind man.

Life is simple, people make it complicated - Basilisk

Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - Royal Gibraltar Regiment