<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 5:12 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">> > Is this not simply itself a "religion" but one that is revealed over time<br>
> > through science and rational thought?<br>
><br>
> Well, if you want to lump together philosophy informed and inspired by science,<br>
> I'd call it my philosophy of life.<br>
> <br>
> I think that is a good phrase, but note that many people would define their<br>
> own religion in a similar way. For example, consider sense 6 of the word<br>
> 'religion': "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or<br>
> matter of ethics or conscience:" is essentially what you mean by your<br>
> "philosophy of life." Note, I am by no means suggesting you should refer to<br>
> your own personal ideas in one way or another, I only mean to point out that<br>
> words have many connotations, and mean different things to different people.<br>
<br>
Agreed! Personally I'd probably tweak believes and devotedly and add a bit of<br>
changing ones mind in light of evidence etc. But I think we already covered<br>
that. In principle, yes of course. Different things to different people, I<br>
agree.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Or the philosophy of existence, or another<br>
> one I quite like is Jaspers Existenzphilosophie to not confuse it with<br>
> existentialism, although he is lumped in together with the existentialists.<br>
><br>
> Based on my use and understanding of the word, I would not call it religion.<br>
> <br>
> No objection there.<br>
> <br>
> > I agree there are many practices which may be beneficial, we should evaluate<br>
> > them scientifically/rationally.<br>
><br>
> Agreed! Are there any others you've thought about or explored, besides the ones<br>
> above?<br>
> <br>
> Fasting is an example of something that I believe can have great health<br>
> benefits, and it appears in various religious traditions.<br>
<br>
That's a good one, although difficult for me to follow. When I'm on vacation<br>
and during weekens, I do a kind of 15:9 naturally thought. ;)<br>
<br>
When it comes to the health benefits, I'm not sure, but I am fairly sure that it<br>
probably at least does no harm.<br>
<br>
> > 1. (Brahman/Tao/The Father) The infinite, incomprehensible, eternal,<br>
> > indestructible, uncreated and self-existent truth. This truth, being the<br>
> > reason and cause behind all material things can be seen as the source, or the<br>
> > ground of being, supporting the existence of both ourselves and the whole of<br>
> > material reality.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2. (Atman/World Soul/Holy Spirit) The one self of universalism, the possessor<br>
> > of all conscious experience. It is you, you are it, and it is everyone.<br>
> > Moreover, this conception of personal identity leads directly to an ethical<br>
> > framework reminiscent of the golden rule, which is found in nearly every<br>
> > religion.<br>
> ><br>
> > 3. (Vishnu/Personal Gods) The superintelligences born into universes that<br>
> > allow them to spawn off, and sometimes continue to control, other material<br>
> > universes. For example, AIs or civilizations that arise in universes<br>
> > permitting infinite computations to be performed. Such gods have their own<br>
> > minds and wills.<br>
><br>
> Well, I think that this runs into the problems we discussed in the other thread,<br>
> so I don't quite agree, _except_, if you make it into a definition game, and<br>
> given the definition, should I choose to accept it, then, yes from that<br>
> definition it would follow. My favourite example is a powerful AI. Based on my<br>
> understanding of Tao, Atman and Gods, there has been no evidence of such things,<br>
> and in fact, there can be no evidence.<br>
> <br>
> I don't see why you think there can be no evidence. We're on the precipice of<br>
> the technological singularity, and could, in principle, bear witness to the<br>
> rise of such a super intelligence.<br>
<br>
Well, as I said... this is a "definition game". If we agree to define god as<br>
super intelligence as expressed in this physical world by a very powerful AI, <br>
I have no quarrel with saying that gods may walk among us after a possible<br>
singularity.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Okay. 👍</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
If you change the definition to something else like 1, 2 and 3 above, I would<br>
probably disagree and say that those are "beyond" our physical world, so I<br>
refrain from having an opinion and consider them null and void.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Makes sense.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> If you mean there can be no evidence of Tao, (which is merely defined as the<br>
> source of all things), I don't see how anyone (especially one who believes in<br>
> reality) could deny the existence of there being a source of reality.<br>
<br>
Sorry... I think my definition of Tao got the better of me as in "the name that<br>
can be named is not the eternal name" which is my "go to" definition.<br>
<br>
If we define Tao as the source of all things, or as the big bang, then I have<br>
much less quarrel with it. Generally, if you define god as a physical phenomenon<br>
that could exist in our physical reality, and then ask me if I believe we could<br>
ever know, I am much likelier to agree, than if you define it as a similar thing<br>
existing in a separate universe, in which case I'll ask for proof, and absent<br>
that, disregard it. But for me personally, the big bang is the theory of big bang, <br>
and no need for any rewrites or re-definitions.<br>
<br>
> If you mean there is no evidence of Atman, let us pursue that other thread<br>
> related to open individualism.<br>
<br>
Agreed!<br>
<br>
> > Science (or rather, philosophy) also provides much evidence for something like<br>
> > a "soul," when one considers that according to functionalism:<br>
><br>
> I'm afraid I have to disgaree based on the common definition of "soul". I have<br>
> not seen any such evidence.<br>
> <br>
> Given that you think robots could be conscious based on behavioral capacity,<br>
> this suggests to me that you are operating from some kind of belief (sorry to<br>
> use that word) in functionalism.<br>
<br>
;)<br>
<br>
I'm not quite sure to be honest. I'd immediately say that I'm some kind of<br>
mix of behaviourist or verificationist. I don't think I have read enough about<br>
functionalism in order to say that that is what I think.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Functionalism you can think of behaviorism applied to the brain itself (asking not just what externally visible behaviors appear, but considering what kind of internal metal activity is going on).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I am not sure what verificationist could mean in the context of philosophy of mind.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> All the things I mention below follow logically, and constructively, out of<br>
> functionalism. If you have any doubt or question about any particular<br>
> statement I have made, and how it follows directly from functionalism, then<br>
> please ask and I will explain further. <br>
><br>
> > 1. Consciousness is an immaterial pattern, not a particular physical thing.<br>
<br>
I disagree. It is a process of moving physical things as much as electrons are<br>
physical entities in the physical world.</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As a process, it is better thought of as a pattern than any particular material thing. Think of it like the Amazon river. That river is not a particular collection of water molecules, it refers to a continuous process of water flowing across South American. Similarly, a conscious mind is a particular pattern of activity, rather than any particular set of matter.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Consciousness arose from our material<br>
world and exists in the material world. We have no evidence for that it is not a<br>
physical thing or an immaterial pattern, in fact, we have no empirical evidence<br>
for any immaterial pattern, since that is not verifiable by empiric means.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Note: this is not to say that minds don't require some kind of physical/material instantiation. Only that it is a mistake to confuse the two.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For similar examples, consider that Microsoft Word, Beethoven's fifth symphony, and Moby Dick all refer to immaterial patterns, which can have material instantiations on hard drives, records, and pages of paper, but one should not confuse the drives, records, or pages with the program, the symphony or the story.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is what I mean when I say consciousness is an immaterial pattern (it's like a story, or a program). It can supervene on particular material configurations (like brains, or computers), but it is not tied to nor defined by a particular material configuration. Moby Dick is not the particular book it is printed on.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> > 2. After death or destruction of the body, consciousness can be restored, i.e. returned to life, or resurrected by<br>
> remaking the same<br>
> > body and brain (e.g. by mind uploading, restoring from a backup)<br>
<br>
Disagree due to point 1.</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Would you reconsider this in light of my explanation of what I mean by immaterial pattern?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Also, we have no evidence of consciousness ever having<br>
been restored after the destruction of the body. </blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This follows from the basic materialist/physicalist assumption. That same physical causes have the same physical effects. And will behave physically indistinguishably.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Unless you are positing the involvement of something like a magical dualistic soul, creating an atom-for-atom replica of a person's body and brain will produce a living and conscious brain.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'll stop here, since<br>
everything flows from nr 1.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I hope you will continue your evaluation in light of my added context.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> > 3. A mind pattern may even be restored, or reincarnated, to a different body, made of different materials, so long as<br>
> the same<br>
> > mind-pattern is maintained.<br>
> > 4. The pattern not only can be made of different materials and atoms, it need not be made of atoms from this universe<br>
> at all, so long<br>
> > as a computer can be built in some other universe, using whatever materials are available there, it is possible to<br>
> reproduce a mind<br>
> > pattern and its consciousness in that universe, thus a mind can transcend this physical universe and transmigrate to<br>
> any other (where<br>
> > a computer can be built).<br>
> > 5. As an immaterial pattern, only instantiations of a mind can be destroyed, the pattern itself, being abstract (like<br>
> the number "3"<br>
> > or "Beethoven's 5th symphony") is indestructible.<br>
> > 6. Since the evolution of mind states is non-linear, their future evolution cannot be predicted, it must be simulated,<br>
> and according<br>
> > to functionalism this act of simulating the mind to a sufficient degree of accuracy will necessarily instantiate that<br>
> mind's<br>
> > consciousness, hence there is free will -- only the mind in question can decide what it chooses to do, and it is<br>
> necessarily<br>
> > conscious in so doing (assuming the mind is conscious).<br>
> ><br>
> > So today's leading theory of consciousness, "functionalism", tells us that consciousness is:<br>
> > immaterial, indestructible, can reincarnate, resurrect, transcend the physical universe, transmigrate to other planes<br>
> of existence,<br>
> > and has free will.<br>
><br>
> Theory and no proof I'm afraid.<br>
> <br>
> I didn't say it is proof, I said all this follows from the theory of<br>
> functionalism, which is the dominant theory of consciousness by philosophers<br>
<br>
This is the truth. I do not agree with point 1, so although it might follow from<br>
the theory, I do not subscribe to the theory.</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">By everything else you've said, you do. I think you just got caught up in an alternate interpretation of immaterial. Note I do not mean anything supernatural, just the distinction between a story and a book, between a program and a CD-ROM.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> But note that it also could be<br>
that I do not understand it, but point 1 does make me think that I won't<br>
subscribe to that theory.<br>
<br>
> and cognitive scientists. You can retreat to agnosticism if you want to deny<br>
> this theory and its implication, but given you think robots are conscious (you<br>
<br>
It is a theory and not a fact, so there is nothing to deny here.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">True, but it is a well-established and leading theory.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> don't think minds need to be made out of squishy neurons) that is a tacit<br>
> acceptance of functionalism. <br>
<br>
I disagree. I believe minds are "material" in nature.</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I am not saying that minds don't need material instantiations, I am saying they don't need to be made of particular materials.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You still need a computer to run software, but it makes no difference if that computer uses relays, vacuum tubes, transistors, integrated circuits, ping pong balls, or hydraulic pipes and valves.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That is what functionalism says about the mind, you need something to instantiate the particular patterns, but what you use to do so, is of no consequence, so long as the same patterns and relations are preserved.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> As for consciousness I<br>
make no claims about it. I made the claim that if someone acts _as if_ they have<br>
consciousness, I'll treat them as if they have consciousness. That's all I said<br>
(I think).<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think previously you said if they act like they are conscious, you would consider them to be conscious. If this is what you meant, then that is basically functionalism. If you mean you will only pragmatically treat them as conscious, while doubting their consciousness, that is consistent with agnosticism.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> I refrain from assigning truth values and remain<br>
> agnostic. When it comes to human beings and their minds in this world, when they<br>
> die they die and that's (sadly) it. If something else is proven, I'm all ears.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Now you are simultaneously claiming to remain agnostic, while reaching a conclusion on the issue.<br>
<br>
No, remember my agnosticism is about things beyond the physical world. I am not<br>
an agnostic about things which exist in the world and can be empirically<br>
verified. As for my statement, this is backed by experience. To my knowledge, no<br>
one has died and come back to life. That is why I claim certainty on this point.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As Sagan would say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And again, this is just assuming the laws of physics apply to human bodies and brains. If you believe this, then restoring the atoms in a dead brain will restore it to life. You have to be assuming something non physical is going on in the brain to deny this.</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
However!<br>
<br>
Should someone die and come back to life, then we of course have to revise our<br>
idea of death.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There are many examples in history of people who have freezen to death, had their hearts stop for 45+ minutes while remaining under water, and are later have brought back to life.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Scientists have also completely frozen mice to death, and brought them back to life by thawing them with a microwave (this is actually how the microwave oven was invented).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is thought that this could work for larger mammals if only we could thaw their whole body equally and at once. Mice are just small enough where this thawing can be accomplished with microwaves.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Then there are examples of uploaded worm brains springing to life when uploaded into robot bodies. They would immediately begin to act like worms, without any human programming or training. If the original worm was conscious to any degree, I would maintain that the uploaded worm mind is as well.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> > Is this not a scientific recapitulation of all those ancient ideas about "the soul"?<br>
><br>
> No, I don't think so.<br>
> <br>
> Do you see a flaw in my reasoning, or do you have an argument of your own?<br>
<br>
Not in the reasoning, only in the definitions, as per our previous discussions.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So how is my definition of a soul (that emerges out of functionalism) not like the ancient ideas I reference?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> > These have been my results of applying science to religion, and picking the<br>
> > cherries, will leaving the rest.<br>
> ><br>
> > "Just as the honeybee takes nectar from all flowers, big and small, an intelligent human being should take the essence<br>
> from all<br>
> > religious scriptures."<br>
> > -- The Bhagavata Purana 11.8.10 (c. 800 A.D.)<br>
><br>
> Very beautiful. This is one text I actually haven't read. I have to remember to<br>
> read it some time if! Thank you for reminding me! =)<br>
> <br>
> Thank you, I agree. Note that it is not the Bhagavad Gita, which is a much<br>
> older and better known text. But when I read your sentiment, I immediately<br>
> thought of this passage, as it fairly exactly captures your suggestion: to<br>
> pick out only the best from all the different texts (the cherries, or the<br>
> nectar) while leaving the rest.<br>
<br>
Yes, exactly! I first thought it said Bhagavad Gita, when reading quickly, but<br>
then I saw that it in fact was not. Thank you very much for this recommendation!<br>
=)<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You're welcome!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>