Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[keithprosser3]

I think that is why teleporting can be a fruitful way to debate such issues. The question of what happens if the original is not destroyed is an interesting one. I would consider that scenario in this way. My consciousness (or ego, personality - i must find a term I can stick with) is not (in my view) anything mystical, no more than the electricity produced by a dynamo is mystical. Consciousness is undoubtedly a more complex thing than electicity, but in that the principle is that they are both dynamically produced abstraction rather than being an actual 'thing' they are similar.
Therefore if I am teleported and the original is retained nothing very weird has happened. Imagine its not me but a simple dynamo that was duplicated. They would both just boringly produce electricity.... no laws of physics would be bent or broken.

So there is nothing woo-woo about there being me and a copy of me at the same time. It might cause practical and legal problems, but it would not cause problems for physics or causality.

[keithprosser3]

..

[keithprosser3]

From which I infer you do not consider teleporting an acceptable means of transport? As I posted before I am surprised at how many people wouldn't use one, despite the clear evidence from Hollywood that teleporting is nearly entirely safe - as long as there are no flies anywhere about of course.

[keithprosser3]

Yet, when a brain gets damaged, consciousness gets damaged. When it gets targeted with drugs that changes what neurons are firing, it changes too. It's not a blind guess... it is a conclusion based on observation.

You only need to drink a couple of stiff whiskys to observe that! Consciousness clearly does require the brain, at least as a substrate. We can definitely say a brain neccessary for consciousness (at least in humans) but we can't say the brain is sufficient for consciousness. Consciousness may not be able to emerge from the brain unless there is something else present.

The effect of drugs and damage on the brain strongly suggests physicalism, but it doesn't quite prove it. I ewosh it did, because I'd love a purely physicalist, mechanistic model of consciousness - I'd get right down to programming my computer to be conscious!

[Divine Insight]

I think that is why teleporting can be a fruitful way to debate such issues. The question of what happens if the original is not destroyed is an interesting one. I would consider that scenario in this way. My consciousness (or ego, personality - i must find a term I can stick with) is not (in my view) anything mystical, no more than the electricity produced by a dynamo is mystical. Consciousness is undoubtedly a more complex thing than electicity, but in that the principle is that they are both dynamically produced abstraction rather than being an actual 'thing' they are similar.
Therefore if I am teleported and the original is retained nothing very weird has happened. Imagine its not me but a simple dynamo that was duplicated. They would both just boringly produce electricity.... no laws of physics would be bent or broken.

So there is nothing woo-woo about there being me and a copy of me at the same time. It might cause practical and legal problems, but it would not cause problems for physics or causality.

I completely disagree with your conclusions here. If teleportation were possible and the original could be retained, that would indeed totally destroy your simple secular picture. On the contrary it would PROVE that the mystics are right.

Here's the two scenarios:

First Scenario: The original is destroyed during teleportation

You are having an experience of being who you believe you are (i.e. nothing other than the physical brain which you believe you are)

When you are transported your original brain is destroyed (the very thing that you claim is YOU). And new brain is constructed to match the configuration of the original brain PERFECTLY. And thus you claim that YOU have been "transported". But would that really be true?

Well, if you believe that you are your brain, then you haven't been "transported" at all. But instead you have basically been killed and a brand new brain has been constructed to experience your old and previous memories.

You die, and a new "being" is created. And YOU have not been transported at all.

Second Scenario: The original is NOT destroyed during teleportation

YOU are the original. You enter into a RED teleportation machine and we make a copy of you that appears in another machine across the room that is BLUE.

Now you come out of the RED teleportation machine and see an exact duplicate of yourself stepping out of the BLUE teleportation machine across the room.

Now we have two YOUs! But YOU (the original you) cannot experience what the second you is thinking, perceiving or experiencing.

So now the teleportation operator says, "Ok, let's now kill the original since we have already transported the original YOU over to the BLUE machine. Would that be ok by YOU?

Of course not. You would be screaming, "NO! I'm still alive! The copy is the fake!"

~~~~~~~~

Can you begin to see the extreme problems with this? This brings into question whether teleportation could ever transport the actual thing that is having an experience.

Since the Second Scenario above would clearly have the original begging to have his life spared, then clearly he must have literally been KILLED in the First Scenario and teleportation of the actual entity that is having an experience was never possible to begin with.

~~~~~~~~

Moreover, we don't even need teleportation machines for this to happen.

Imaging just simply going unconscious for a while. Maybe even just go to sleep where you have no awareness for a while. Then you wake up and become aware again.

What happened? Who is it that is aware? The same entity that was aware before he went to sleep (like we assumed in the First Teleportation Scenario). Or does that original always die out and a brand new awareness emerges each time the brain becomes re-aware of experiences again?

Now you might think at first glance that this is a relativity easy problem. But it's not. It has extreme implications.

If you accept that every time you go unconscious a 'brand new' awareness re-emerges to have the new experiences, and the ONLY THING that makes this awareness think that it's the same awareness it's always been, then you are basically demanding that you are nothing but your memories.

This means that if you are struck with extreme amnesia you have basically died, and a brand new entity has been reborn. Because according to this view memory is EVERYTHING. Memory defines you (even to the point of defining that you are an entity that is having an experience)

I might add that this doesn't address the question of what it is that is actually experiencing these memories.

~~~~~

Moreover, if you accept that a brand new awareness emerges every time you pass out, go unconscious, or contract amnesia, then wouldn't this also need to apply to even an old person dying and a new baby being born?

In other words, if you are a mature adult person and you are laying next to a woman who is about to give birth. And you die (you go permanently unconscious) And this new baby is born (and begins to have a conscious experience). How is this any different from teleportation?

Sure. The new baby has different memories (if any at all) but how is this any different from being struck by amnesia?

A conscious experience ceased to exist, and a new arose. What is it now that is having an experience? Certainly not a particular configuration of memory. A newly born baby has no memories that amount to anything.

So what sense does it even make to define the baby's conscious experience as being nothing more than the configuration of its memory?

That makes no sense at all.

So ironically what you are suggesting is actually in line with the Mystical view. There is no SELF that needs to be transported. All experience is experience, and it's not dependent on memory or brain configuration.

All you've done is define the "self" as the sum total of memory. But the Mystics say no, that is the wrong idea.

And the second transporter scenario above proves that it's the wrong idea.

There is something far more profound about having an experience than just the sum total of what is actually being experienced.

~~~~~~

Here's the Bottom Line

The mystic would tell you to take a very long and hard look at the Second Transporter Scenario described above. And realize the following:

That person you see emerging from the BLUE teleportation machine is indeed YOU. But at the very same instant you are standing there in front of the RED teleportation machine screaming, "No! That's not me! I'm over here!" (but keep in mind that in the First Transporter Scenario you were quite happy to have been transported over to the BLUE transporter without screaming about having been killed in the process)

We take that ONE STEP further.

Now imagine you are in the hallway of a building waiting for an elevator door to open. When the door opens a complete stranger emerges and says "Hello".

What you need to realize is that this apparent complete stranger is just as much YOU as the copy of you that had emerged from the BLUE teleportation booth.

You might say, "But no, they have totally different experiences and memories, etc. They aren't anything at all like me".

But that's baloney. Because YOU are not the sum total of your memories. YOU are the entity that is having an experience. And so are they!

You are no different from them at all. And they are no different from you. Other than the trivial fact that they have had different experiences and thus they have created different memories.

But we are not our memories.

We are the entities that experience memories.

And so when asking about teleportation you need to ask, "Can you really transport the entity that is having the experience?" Or are you just transporting their memories?

If you claim that we are nothing but the sum total of our memories, then you still have not explained what it is that is experiencing these memories. And you have and extreme problem when you then make a copy of yourself and want to claim that the original would be "killed" if they hadn't been retained.

So you don't have an answer. What you have are just MORE PROBLEMS.

Unless you accept the mystic's views. Then you have the SOLUTION.

[JohnA]

I think that is why teleporting can be a fruitful way to debate such issues. The question of what happens if the original is not destroyed is an interesting one. I would consider that scenario in this way. My consciousness (or ego, personality - i must find a term I can stick with) is not (in my view) anything mystical, no more than the electricity produced by a dynamo is mystical. Consciousness is undoubtedly a more complex thing than electicity, but in that the principle is that they are both dynamically produced abstraction rather than being an actual 'thing' they are similar.
Therefore if I am teleported and the original is retained nothing very weird has happened. Imagine its not me but a simple dynamo that was duplicated. They would both just boringly produce electricity.... no laws of physics would be bent or broken.

So there is nothing woo-woo about there being me and a copy of me at the same time. It might cause practical and legal problems, but it would not cause problems for physics or causality.

I completely disagree with your conclusions here. If teleportation were possible and the original could be retained, that would indeed totally destroy your simple secular picture. On the contrary it would PROVE that the mystics are right.

Here's the two scenarios:

First Scenario: The original is destroyed during teleportation

You are having an experience of being who you believe you are (i.e. nothing other than the physical brain which you believe you are)

When you are transported your original brain is destroyed (the very thing that you claim is YOU). And new brain is constructed to match the configuration of the original brain PERFECTLY. And thus you claim that YOU have been "transported". But would that really be true?

Well, if you believe that you are your brain, then you haven't been "transported" at all. But instead you have basically been killed and a brand new brain has been constructed to experience your old and previous memories.

You die, and a new "being" is created. And YOU have not been transported at all.

Second Scenario: The original is NOT destroyed during teleportation

YOU are the original. You enter into a RED teleportation machine and we make a copy of you that appears in another machine across the room that is BLUE.

Now you come out of the RED teleportation machine and see an exact duplicate of yourself stepping out of the BLUE teleportation machine across the room.

Now we have two YOUs! But YOU (the original you) cannot experience what the second you is thinking, perceiving or experiencing.

So now the teleportation operator says, "Ok, let's now kill the original since we have already transported the original YOU over to the BLUE machine. Would that be ok by YOU?

Of course not. You would be screaming, "NO! I'm still alive! The copy is the fake!"

~~~~~~~~

Can you begin to see the extreme problems with this? This brings into question whether teleportation could ever transport the actual thing that is having an experience.

Since the Second Scenario above would clearly have the original begging to have his life spared, then clearly he must have literally been KILLED in the First Scenario and teleportation of the actual entity that is having an experience was never possible to begin with.

~~~~~~~~

Moreover, we don't even need teleportation machines for this to happen.

Imaging just simply going unconscious for a while. Maybe even just go to sleep where you have no awareness for a while. Then you wake up and become aware again.

What happened? Who is it that is aware? The same entity that was aware before he went to sleep (like we assumed in the First Teleportation Scenario). Or does that original always die out and a brand new awareness emerges each time the brain becomes re-aware of experiences again?

Now you might think at first glance that this is a relativity easy problem. But it's not. It has extreme implications.

If you accept that every time you go unconscious a 'brand new' awareness re-emerges to have the new experiences, and the ONLY THING that makes this awareness think that it's the same awareness it's always been, then you are basically demanding that you are nothing but your memories.

This means that if you are struck with extreme amnesia you have basically died, and a brand new entity has been reborn. Because according to this view memory is EVERYTHING. Memory defines you (even to the point of defining that you are an entity that is having an experience)

I might add that this doesn't address the question of what it is that is actually experiencing these memories.

~~~~~

Moreover, if you accept that a brand new awareness emerges every time you pass out, go unconscious, or contract amnesia, then wouldn't this also need to apply to even an old person dying and a new baby being born?

In other words, if you are a mature adult person and you are laying next to a woman who is about to give birth. And you die (you go permanently unconscious) And this new baby is born (and begins to have a conscious experience). How is this any different from teleportation?

Sure. The new baby has different memories (if any at all) but how is this any different from being struck by amnesia?

A conscious experience ceased to exist, and a new arose. What is it now that is having an experience? Certainly not a particular configuration of memory. A newly born baby has no memories that amount to anything.

So what sense does it even make to define the baby's conscious experience as being nothing more than the configuration of its memory?

That makes no sense at all.

So ironically what you are suggesting is actually in line with the Mystical view. There is no SELF that needs to be transported. All experience is experience, and it's not dependent on memory or brain configuration.

All you've done is define the "self" as the sum total of memory. But the Mystics say no, that is the wrong idea.

And the second transporter scenario above proves that it's the wrong idea.

There is something far more profound about having an experience than just the sum total of what is actually being experienced.

~~~~~~

Here's the Bottom Line

The mystic would tell you to take a very long and hard look at the Second Transporter Scenario described above. And realize the following:

That person you see emerging from the BLUE teleportation machine is indeed YOU. But at the very same instant you are standing there in front of the RED teleportation machine screaming, "No! That's not me! I'm over here!" (but keep in mind that in the First Transporter Scenario you were quite happy to have been transported over to the BLUE transporter without screaming about having been killed in the process)

We take that ONE STEP further.

Now imagine you are in the hallway of a building waiting for an elevator door to open. When the door opens a complete stranger emerges and says "Hello".

What you need to realize is that this apparent complete stranger is just as much YOU as the copy of you that had emerged from the BLUE teleportation booth.

You might say, "But no, they have totally different experiences and memories, etc. They aren't anything at all like me".

But that's baloney. Because YOU are not the sum total of your memories. YOU are the entity that is having an experience. And so are they!

You are no different from them at all. And they are no different from you. Other than the trivial fact that they have had different experiences and thus they have created different memories.

But we are not our memories.

We are the entities that experience memories.

And so when asking about teleportation you need to ask, "Can you really transport the entity that is having the experience?" Or are you just transporting their memories?

If you claim that we are nothing but the sum total of our memories, then you still have not explained what it is that is experiencing these memories. And you have and extreme problem when you then make a copy of yourself and want to claim that the original would be "killed" if they hadn't been retained.

So you don't have an answer. What you have are just MORE PROBLEMS.

Unless you accept the mystic's views. Then you have the SOLUTION.

What if a fly that was already copied before in scenario 2, watches this transportation of the 1st scenario and joins in?
Also, what about all of the other organisms that make you up (bacteria), do they get a say?

Am convinced a great Hollywood movie can be made from this. We at least already know that it works and are safe, given the evidence from Hollywood.

What bothers me is that I really do not understand how you can take 2 mystical 'things' and use the second the explain the the first. Using teleportation to explain consciousness. Not only that, but using thought experiments for evidence.

This is not only faulty reasoning, it is wishful thinking.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 38 by keithprosser3]

As a side note, the common representation of teleporter technology (in hollywood) has seriously crazy ramifications and usage possibilities that are rarely touched upon (such as cloning and possible immortality)

But would it really be immortality?

Think about it.

Let say teleportation works. You can beam yourself from point A to point B. And you reappear precisely as before. However, is that really YOU?

What if the original copy isn't destroyed? Then a new YOU is created, but the original YOU feels like nothing ever happened. The original YOU just looks over at the newly created copy and yells, "That's not ME!" It's just a copy!

Now, let's imagine a similar situation where the idea is to create immortality. Instead of beaming you from our old body into an identical body, this time we are just going to beam your brain into a new younger body. Maybe even a newly born baby body.

What happens? Well, let's assume the original form isn't destroyed in the process. What then? YOU step into the machine, nothing seems to happen and you step back out with your original body. But from the previously empty machine next to out steps a baby. You say, "But that's not me! I'm still here it didn't work!"

And the Baby says, "It worked just fine. I have all your memories and education, etc. So I have been immortalized. At least for another human lifespan.

Did we extend someone's life? Or did we just create a brand new baby that has FALSE memories of events that it never truly experience itself?

~~~~

In fact, look at what we are talking about. We are talking about entities being created from scratch with brains that already have false memories (at least false in the sense that this new person never truly experienced these things first-hand)

Now we can ask, "Is this the truth of our own reality?"

We might have just been created a few moments ago ourselves from pure scratch complete with a bunch of false memories, and we wouldn't even know it. We'd think we had actually lived the life of our memories.

This whole idea of teleportation opens up huge doors to all sorts of possible realities.

Reality may be stranger than we can even imagine.

[Divine Insight]

What bothers me is that I really do not understand how you can take 2 mystical 'things' and use the second the explain the the first. Using teleportation to explain consciousness. Not only that, but using thought experiments for evidence.

This is not only faulty reasoning, it is wishful thinking.

Albert Einstein make great contributions to science using thought experiments. In fact, he was so confident in his theories before they had been experimentally proven that he said, "If God did not create the universe in this way then God is an idiot". That's how much FAITH he had in his thought experiments. And I shouldn't need to point out that they did indeed turn out to be CORRECT.

So call it faulty reasoning to your heart's content, it still constitutes valid reasoning.

Moreover, as I had stated in my post, we don't even need the concept of sci-fi teleportation systems. All we need to do is black out, or go unconscious and return to consciousness again, and we've done the same thing. We can then ask whether it's the same YOU?

If it is, then what if you have amnesia? Are you still the same YOU having this new experience? If yes, why? If no, why not?

The teleportation thought experiment actually shows us something profound. Whether the experiment can actually be done in principle is irrelevant.

If you can be copied identical and that copy would still be you. Then there would now exist TWO you's that are having totally separate experiences.

But how is that any different from the fact that complete strangers have totally separate experiences from YOU?

The mystics have the ANSWER to this riddle.

You just don't understand their answer. Because if you did you would see why they are right.

[keithprosser3]

When you are transported your original brain is destroyed (the very thing that you claim is YOU). And new brain is constructed to match the configuration of the original brain PERFECTLY. And thus you claim that YOU have been "transported". But would that really be true?

There is a critical misunderstanding in there which I bolded. What I said was "I believe that my consciousness (or personality whatever you want to call it doesn't really matter) is the product of the action of my brain." Note I did not say "I am my brain" which would be dead wrong. I said "I am the product of the action of my brain". The difference is that to recreate 'I' the teleporter does not have to reproduce my brain per se; the teleporter has to produce something that has the same action as my original brain. As a physicalist, I believe a new brain with the same structure and configuration as the old one would have the same action and therefore of necessity produce kp3 exactly as the old one did.

Returning to the dynamo analogy, I am not the dynamo, I am the electricity produced by the dynamo. I doubt that will convince you, but I hope I cleared up the first bump on the road.

[keithprosser3]

When you are transported your original brain is destroyed (the very thing that you claim is YOU). And new brain is constructed to match the configuration of the original brain PERFECTLY. And thus you claim that YOU have been "transported". But would that really be true?

There is a critical misunderstanding in there which I bolded. What I said was "I believe that my consciousness (or personality whatever you want to call it doesn't really matter) is the product of the action of my brain." Note I did not say "I am my brain" which would be dead wrong. I said "I am the product of the action of my brain". The difference is that to recreate 'I' the teleporter does not have to reproduce my brain per se; the teleporter has to produce something that has the same action as my original brain. As a physicalist, I believe a new brain with the same structure and configuration as the old one would have the same action and therefore of necessity produce kp3 exactly as the old one did.

Returning to the dynamo analogy, I am not the dynamo, I am the electricity produced by the dynamo. I doubt that will convince you, but I hope I cleared up the first bump on the road.