Where is consciousness located?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bedlam

"Personal identity" is not religious.

A soul by any other name would have the same philosophical stench.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I passed the test. It says that I prefer "Psychological continuity".
But I find some errors with the "Test". It was stated that I should take the best possible choice for Survival. I did. But instead it says that "I took unnecessary choice" of boarding the Ship.

Anyways, it was just a test. Fiction. But I got to your point. Might as well be that "Consciousness" is about playing tricks with our mind.

a reply to: boozo

At least you get the point.

The movie "Chappie" might prove the point further.

Very good movie actually.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

Very good movie actually.

The protagonist demonstrates emergent behavior of neural nets. Glad to see you agree with me that there are no souls.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yeah, I never seen that movie. I love it when I saw the trailer. But never seen it. Might as well do it now.

originally posted by: boozo
It was stated that I should take the best possible choice for Survival. I did. But instead it says that "I took unnecessary choice" of boarding the Ship.

I suspect the 'philosopher' writing the website is about 19 years old.

eta: He's a British economist PhD, no more training in philosophy than I have, and he writes pop philosophy books.

a reply to: Bedlam

The point of the movie is to demonstrate that you cannot duplicate your "soul". And that is the point of the test too.

Are you telling me that there nobody's home in your head? Just a robot?

a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, Fan fiction.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bedlam

The point of the movie is to demonstrate that you cannot duplicate your "soul". And that is the point of the test too.

Are you telling me that there nobody's home in your head? Just a robot?

How would your economist know if you can or cannot duplicate your 'soul'? Or the writer of Chappie? You're attributing expertise to people who lack it.

a reply to: boozo

It's strange really.

Some people get it.
Some don't.

It has nothing to do with religion.

originally posted by: boozo
a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, Fan fiction.

Pretty much. If it was Bertrand Russell's reincarnation, I'd give it a bit more credence.

a reply to: Bedlam

Why are you talking about their skills in making that movie?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

Are you telling me that there nobody's home in your head? Just a robot?

At our current understanding, "I" am an emergent behavior of my neural wiring, my biochemistry, and the sum of my experiences. There's no point in positing a 'soul' even if you call it something else.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bedlam

Why are you talking about their skills in making that movie?

Why are you according them an understanding they have no more than you or I?

eta:
Neill Blomkamp is a film major. Jeremy Stangroom is an economist. Neither has any more formal training in philosophy than I do. In addition, they have no special knowledge that grants them the ability to say a 'soul' or as you call it 'personal identity' is more correct than any other speculation on the nature of consciousness, and I'd say a great deal less than other people who have long since addressed Cartesian duality over and over and over through the ages.

a reply to: Bedlam

If you can't understand the test and what I am talking about then there's nothing to discuss.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bedlam

If you can't understand the test and what I am talking about then there's nothing to discuss.

Your test is a blunt instrument written by an amateur. Why arrogate some sort of magic ability to it? It's because it reinforces your personal belief. Nothing more.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: boozo

It's strange really.

Some people get it.
Some don't.

Phineas Gage. Some people get it. Some don't.

If frontal lobe damage can alter behavior, and it does, where does that leave 'soul'?

Phineas Gage, one of the first well documented cases of brain injury altering personality:

In 1848, Gage, 25, was the foreman of a crew cutting a railroad bed in Cavendish, Vermont. On September 13, as he was using a tamping iron to pack explosive powder into a hole, the powder detonated. The tamping iron—43 inches long, 1.25 inches in diameter and weighing 13.25 pounds—shot skyward, penetrated Gage’s left cheek, ripped into his brain and exited through his skull, landing several dozen feet away. Though blinded in his left eye, he might not even have lost consciousness, and he remained savvy enough to tell a doctor that day, “Here is business enough for you.”

Gage’s initial survival would have ensured him a measure of celebrity, but his name was etched into history by observations made by John Martyn Harlow, the doctor who treated him for a few months afterward. Gage’s friends found him“no longer Gage,” Harlow wrote. The balance between his “intellectual faculties and animal propensities” seemed gone. He could not stick to plans, uttered “the grossest profanity” and showed “little deference for his fellows.” The railroad-construction company that employed him, which had thought him a model foreman, refused to take him back.

to wit:

a reply to: namelesss

And everything you perceive is just in your mind like an illusion made by you, right?

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: namelesss

And everything you perceive is just in your mind like an illusion made by you, right?

Personally, I think the mind can affect perception, but there was an actual stimulus or data that your mind took in that it uses to create that perception of reality.

So, no -- everything I perceive is NOT just in my mind, but HOW I perceive everything is a product of my mind/brain.