Do you view your mind as a separate entity from your physical body?

Actually, I sometimes feel like I'm trapped inside something imperfect and not fully functional.

Been there done that. Felt like that for years. Turns out I just needed an eye exam and some glasses.

My employer required me to have my eyes checked exaclty a month ago. My sight is perfectly fine 2bh

It does. The physical component is the vessel for in which it does what it is intended to do such as hardware and emotions which would be the soul. It has a creator

I wasn't exactly implying something was wrong with your eyes. I was just saying that when your body is feeling like that, it's probably telling you there is something wrong with it. Perhaps try having a general medical examination, or somrthing

>t. someone who doesn't know shit about computers

The mind in general? No, it's affected by changes in the body all the time. Consciousness? Maybe.

>indistinguishable
>therefore the same thing

Read some Searle, pleb

As an introverted person, the center of my attention is always "inside" my head. It bothers me how much limited we are because of restrictions caused by our bodies.

Transhumanism when

Doesn't this really reduce to either theological or semantic (or often, both) arguments? After all, what we consider an "entity" we consider as such because it helps us distinguish its characteristics from those of the surrounding environment (i.e. not the "entity". When thought about in a non-theological way to consider "mind" or "consciousness" part or non-part of the "body" entity is just a different way of classifying what we call "mind" (and is still not well defined, is the mind the atoms that are arranged in a specific pattern or the pattern itself in a way that if replicated with different atoms would still be the mind?) in respect to "body"? You can describe the interactions of the mind with the body like you can describe the interactions of the kidney with the rest of the body or like X environmental factor with the body, but regardless of what you or I call "an entity" there's a relationship between the mind and the (rest of?) the body that defies just one classification or semantic perspective

I know exactly what you mean

I view experience as separate to actuality

Mind? No.

Soul/consciousness? Yes.

As in do I think that it's possible to take someone's brain, and plug it into a new body? Yeah, but it sounds rather sci-fi.

Without your mind, body, and soul in cohesion one of the three will be lacking and infinitly hungry.

If your mind is satisfied, but you are deprived of food and of god you are hungry in body and soul. Etc

If you are fed, you are full of learning, and filled with spirit then you are living very well.

For those that do not beleive in god simply think of feeding the soul to be confidence and esoteric wellbeing. As in you no longer have a want to question existence but are happy with ones place in the cosmos, either real or percieved

>These delicious (You)s

Firstly Educate me then. Why is a computer that can always pass the Turing test impossible?

And secondly What if we look at something like the Blue Brain project, where they are literally trying to simulate _exactly_ what goes on in a human brain, down to the structure of neurons. If they manage it, then... what? It's a digital human being. Its brain functions /precisely/ the same way anyone else's does. Is that still not "the same thing?" Did they just create a new "soul"? Obviously this is just conjecture because they haven't yet accomplished their goal, but still, there's no real limit on its success except hardware and man-hours; the brain is not infinitely complex, and thus it is possible to simulate.

Your body is a product of your mind my dude.

>[citation needed]

>he wants to be spoonfed
>on Veeky Forums

>He wants his statements to be accepted without any argument to back them up
>on Veeky Forums

burden of proof, etc, etc

Is software the same as hardware?
Depends on context.
The software is fully discribed by the current state of the hardware, but its easier to talk about it as a separate thing.

Are you the guy who wouldn't back up his arguments in the celt thread and got btfo?

Nope. There's also not an argument for me to back up so I'm not sure why you keep responding to me.

The claim about it being possible within the next century may be dubious, but the basic premise that computers may be incapable of tasks uniquely suited to the mind seems pretty conclusively countered by the emulation of rat cortical columns and Alphago. At best, you could say that materials science might never advance to the point where human-like AI is feasible.

Okay user said
>I see no reason why continued progress in artificial intelligence can't produce a computer indistinguishable from a human in intellect.

Or even the same as.

And you disagree. So what is this reason?

In a schizotypal way?
yes

In a philosophical way?
no

Gettin' your (You)s mixed up there, pal

>No, but then again, I'm not religious.
>Wait for the spiritual fags to flock to the thread for the interesting/hilarious answers
If you are your mind how do you observe,change and judge your thoughts?

In the same way that I view pieces of software as a separate entity from my computer.

No. I feel more and more like a physical entity, the more and more I break down.

I feel this way as well. After getting ready to move to a new house an entire day inside my hotter than hell garage really made me realize how easy it is for my body to become weak. I feel like I should take measures to improve its durability and I wonder if this is a survival instinct or just my personal desire to ensure I accomplish all I ambition to accomplish

Ignore the bait

Yes. I guess the common themes between the human minds is some kind of proof

Yes and no.

The mind is probably grounded in the body, but a pure materialistic approach doesn't end up giving us a good framework to explain EVERYTHING that a human does.

Ergo, there must be something more. Not some spiritual soul or something. I'm not sure how to explain it, I'm sure it was some type of dualism.

Shoot me.

More or less what said.

Is there life for my mind when my body dies? I don't fucking know, not sure I should care right now and if there is a way to find out.

I might be wrong but I don't think it is. Fuck, we can make games that react to your actions and that try to flank you but they still can't solve one fucking captcha.

No. Both are material and both are a part of the entity that is me, and there would not be "my mind" without "my body".
There's a lot of work ahead of us before we'll figure out how exactly our brain creates awareness, consciousness, our experience etc, but I still find it quite realistic that it actually is all by our cognitive capabilities, rather than something mysterious and separate.
For anyone interested I'd recommend Consciousness and the Social Brain by Michael S. A. Graziano: "What is consciousness and how can a brain, a mere collection of neurons, create it?"

I don't see my "mind" as an entity, either spiritual or physical. Whatever "it" is, it's nonexistant. It's a cohesion of factors that we refer to as being one thing. One could hypothetically simulate those factors in a separate machine, a machine that may not have what we refer to as being a "body", so one could say that it is a separate thing.

Does the brain control you or are you controlling the brain?

>If you are your mind how do you observe,change and judge your thoughts?
What kind of a question even is this? All of these things are done by neurons firing that form subconscious processes that form conscious processes.

> but a pure materialistic approach doesn't end up giving us a good framework to explain EVERYTHING that a human does.
I'd love to see you justify this.

>Does the brain control you or are you controlling the brain?
Considering what we call "you" is only a small fraction of the brain that is aware of only a small amount of the processes going on inside the brain, I'd say it's the former.

>neurons firing that form subconscious processes that form conscious processes
>implying the neurons firing is not just a physical representation of subconscious processes that form conscious processes

Yes.

Do you think qualia exists?

What did he mean by this?

Neuron activity actually processes information, there's nothing that needs "representing".

As in neuron activity could just be a material representation of your mind thinking/responding

You do understand that this sort of flipping of the script can be applied to literally anything, right?

The fact of the matter is that neuron activity explains all of it and is IN ITSELF a way to process information. There is no need for these backwards assumptions.

I am not flipping the script, only showing you a counter to the usage of neuron activities to somehow prove there is no mind. It is quite reductive to be honest

Things affecting the body are known to affect consciousness, so faggots here pretending that it's a completely ethereal aspect can go suck a big black duck

We are in the awkward situation that we cannot truly internalise the materialistic account of ourselves. This strikes me as a sort of categorical "problem" that has no solution.

The more we think of ourselves as physical, the more depressed we become. Because we want to believe that there are good reasons to do things. But it seems very plausible that we're just bumbling around and some of the more privileged ones occasionally form philosophical theories out of mental illness.

You're not showing anything. You're inventing a scenario that has no reason to be invented, other than dualistic woowoo.

And you are using measurements made from the material world to prove there is no mind and only matter. Whoopde fucking doo

He's right though, you can scan and crack open a brain and see what's going on, life is material and we are life.

It is extremely circular to simply rely on neurosciences to justify materialism.
>Materialism means only the material universe exist
>Material measurements can be extracted from the material universe
>These material measurements proves Materialism
The greentext might be wonky but I hope it get the message across

No, and I have never heard a satisfactory argument as to why it would be.

If the mind is immaterial, how does the brain interact with it? Magic?

I am not really here to argue for anything but arguing against using neurosciences(or any sciences for that matter) to prove or disprove materialism

Nobody can prove metaphysics, I'm not interested in this. I'm telling you that you're making unnecessary assumptions in an irrational way.

by causing it

And i am telling you not to be reductive in your assumptions

Please, do go into detail. See, we have an actual model of how the brain causes the mind, your side is only capable of producing word salad so far.

>reductive
Do you have literally any rational reason to say what you're saying, or do you wanna start fucking off anytime soon?

the irony is that your assumption that there could be existence beyond the material realm are completely the result of observations from the material realm.

Yes, i have already pointing out that circular reasoning of using only neurosciences to prove materialism. Don't get me wrong neurosciences does prove neuron activity, but it is entirely reductive to assume that this means that there is only neuron activity

>your assumption that there could be existence beyond the material realm
As I said i have no position to propose.

Then I will change it to:

the irony is that *the assumption that there could be existence beyond the material realm is completely the result of observations from the material realm

You misunderstand. I didn't come to this thread to tell people I am right. I came here to tell people that they are wrong

>Yes, i have already pointing out that circular reasoning of using only neurosciences to prove materialism
Again, I already said I'm not interested in "proving" any metaphysics. It's literally impossible and better left to humanity fags who have nothing better to do with their time than mental masturbation.

I'm asking you for a reason to assume the opposite.

And I will not give one to you, as stated in and . I am only here to bemoan materialists' usage of neurosciences as a be all and end all to prove materialism. As long as you accept that I got what I came for.

If I did want to give my own opinion, I would pretend to be someone else and make a reply to OP desu.

I only posted here to point out this:

Everything else is irrelevant to me, except politeness.

What do you consider as 'observations from the material realm'? Math? Music? Narrative? Writing? Dreams?

>prove materialism
Nobody's trying to do it, it's a fruitless effort. Materialism is perfectly self sufficient though, if you want to claim the opposite you're free to do it with an actual argument.

>y-y-you're being reductionist
Is a meaningless emotional statement that has no place in any debate.

>claims he isn't proving materialism
>taking its conclusion for granted

>repackaging circular logic as self sufficient

>other poster says he doesn't want to prove anything twice
>still wants him to prove something

>pointing out that using results from something devoted to measuring and understanding material process to claim there is only material is emotional

>taking its conclusion for granted
It's called a null-hypothesis. The material is what we experience, that's why it's what we start with. If you want to assert something more, give me something. Anything.

>other poster says he doesn't want to prove anything twice
Apparently, what the "other poster" wants is to stir shit without saying anything of substance.

Nope. Your mind = your brain. If your brain is damaged or altered in some way your mind changes with it.

Mind and body are one, if you simulate the neurons with all their connections - your own connectome on a computer - you will behave virtually as if you had a body.
It would take rewriting yourself - to make you pure consciousness that base all decisions and acts on rationality and unlimited willpower.

Consciousness in its purest form as you described has never been measured, or observed outside the effect of brain.

It is an unified phenomena but only within the biological configuration of the brain - outside of it, there simply is no consciousness.

consciousness isn't unified or inside the brain

We're all one, bros

Consciousness cannot be measured or observed, even within the brain. You are conscious of your brain's activity, not vice versa.

The brain's activity can be measured and observed. That activity does not, however, make you conscious, or explain how you manage to be conscious.

Consciousness is still as mystery to science, and it is vaguely defined. We simply do not know what consciousness is, from a scientific perspective. So saying "there simply is no consciousness outside the brain" is inherently ignorant.

nope

But it could be everywhere then...

lol posters like this

>using a statiscian's term that already assumes something to be true
>literally begging the question

>pointing something out means stirring shit
Looks like someone is getting emotional

Im not that guy but there are definitely things that cant be explained through a materialistic approach to viewing them. Primarily consciousness. People like to say that its just chemical reactions in the brain but we cant look at chemical reactions and see clearly that those chemical reactions actually are the consciousness. We can only see how they affect the consciousness.

Yeah, and?

Only insofar that the distinction can be made within its own context, but not in an absolute sense.

As far as I'm concerned nothing exists outside of perception. When you're in a dream is there a mind or a body? There is the appearance of having a 'body', and there is the appearance of having a mind but the only constant throughout that whole experience is your awareness of it. Your body might morph according to 'dream rules' and you 'mind' may be altered, but awareness always remains.

'Waking' reality is the same as far as I'm concerned. To me then the mind-body distinction is an arbitrary conceptualization -not that there is anything wrong with that.

Maybe I just drank the subjective idealism kool-aid too much.

So ... how do I make sense of that? I kinda can put myself into the perspective of another person, but not into the perspective of .... the air? a stone? ...

>begging the question
There's this term again. I've never seen anyone use this meaningfully.

Do you have anything to suggest your own preferred form of snowflake dualism or don't you?

>there are definitely things that cant be explained through a materialistic approach to viewing them
>can't be explained
Now we're getting somewhere. Please explain how materialism "can't explain" consciousness.

>we cant look at chemical reactions
We can't look at individual air molecules as they're moving in an environment, yet somehow we still have a very good description of fluid dynamics.

There could possibly be some kind of consciousness that permeates everything but takes on various forms of complexity where something like a rock is a crude form while plants are less so and humans even less so. It could also be something that exists on its own and our minds are receiving it like an antenna. Really I dont fucking know but I dont think its fair to rule it out.