NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/origins/14562

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 5.4 KB | 113 lines

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!IASTATE.EDU!kv07
From: [e-mail] (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
References: <[e-mail]> <1o4HuB4w165w@kalki33>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:32:46 GMT
Lines: 100

In article <1o4HuB4w165w@kalki33>, kalki33![e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  But so why cannot "consciousness" exist for the life forms simulated by my
>>computer?  If consciousness is independant of matter than the fact that they
>>only exist in the computer should not be a barrier.  I would really like to
>>know: what _exactly_ is it that makes them consciousless?
>
>Because they are not life at all, but simulations. They are, depending
>on your level of description, photons in your optic nerve, or electrons
>in a circuit, or areas of magnetic alignment on a disk, or sequences of
>instructions in a computer, etc. If something is really alive, then it
>is conscious.

  So you are saying they aren't conscious because they aren't alive, and they
aren't alive because they aren't conscious?  Gee, and scientist aren't impressed
by this profoundly accurate statement?

>>>No, the exact duplicate of the human body would not be conscious. And
>>>this is a big "if" anyway, considering that scientists do not have any
>>>idea how to manufacture even a single cell. In fact, they have not even
>>>identified everything that is in a cell!
>>
>>  Why wouldn't it be conscious?  You said that a virus was conscious, it
>>wouldn't be too hard to manufacture a virus (I'm willing to bet it will be
>>technically achievable within the next ten years if it isn't already).
>
>If a virus body were manufactured by human beings, it would not be
>conscious either. Both a human body and a virus body without
>consciousness are just dead bodies. The soul, which is the source of
>consciousness, must be inserted into the body before it can be
>designated as living. This is not within the power of any human being.

  Again with teh circular definitions.  How in the world can you expect people
to base any kind of science on this if you can't even define it?  The virus made
by a human would be indestinguishable in all respects from the real thing.

  Specifically: What test can be performed to determine whether a virus I show
you was manufactured by a human or was a normal virus?

>>  Now, let us say I have made this manufactured virus.  It would not be, in a
>>way, distinguishable from the real thing (right down to the atomic structure)
>>What is it about the real virus that makes it conscious and the man made one
>>not?
>>
>>  If you cannot give a clear separation then you have your answer why science
>>doesn't address the concept of consciousness by your definition: it is not we
>>defined.

  Completely ignored this.  That's +2 points isn't it?

>>  Hold on.  My body is "produced by the action of" my "consciousness" as far
>>I can understand your definitions.  Does this mean that my consciousness
>>inhabits the alife programs I write?  Or does it mean that my consciousness i
>>not really associated with my body (which means that consciousness would not
>>associated with life, a contradiction with your previous statements).
>
>No. Your consciousness is affecting certain (but not all) of your own
>bodily characteristics, and certain of the characteristics of the things
>you build. But "you" in the proper sense, the soul that is personally
>you, cannot create another soul. Soul is a nonphysical entity which does
>not behave according to the causal structure of physical law.
>Consciousness, which is a nonphysical property of the nonphysical soul,
>cannot be studied by the reductionistic methods. But it can be studied
>scientifically, provided the scientific paradigm is expanded to include
>the acknowledgement that these nonphysical entities exist.

  1 soul per person, no sharing or doubling up?  Okay, but then answer this
question: if the soul is not subject to physical law, how can it be shown to
exist?  If you cannot answer this question you have demonstrated, once again,
that these points are not addressable by science and it is pointless to complain
about science ignoring them.

>>>Material analogies may help in understanding consciousness, but
>>>consciousness cannot be reduced to a material phenomenon.
>>
>>  I didn't ask if these were a consciousness, I asked if the _had_
>>consciousness.  If you misunderstood could you go back and check your answers
>
>Since only the soul "has" consciousness, no. No machine we build can
>ever be conscious or have consciousness. We cannot build nonphysical
>entities using physical instruments. Nor can nonphysical entities be
>expected to emerge as a function of any purely physical operation. They
>are an altogether different kind of phenomenon.

  Once again, you have adressed points outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Once again I propose moving this thread to talk.religion.misc where it obviously
belongs.

> Life comes from life!

  Among other places.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | [e-mail]
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____