Silly TV Show Thought Experiment

Author: Paul

Posts

Total: 55
#31
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
Its difficult to debate American atheists on this topic because they assume I'm trying to argue for a god and immediately start rolling out their rote "God does not exist" argument.

And that gets in the way of a purely science discussion of the topic.

I am not willing to ascribe some kind of magical unseen force to it just yet. 
Lol.  I guess, to this atheist, pure science is a magical unseen force.

Paul, would you happen to be an American atheist?

Topic's author
#32
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
You said, “personhood may not be only in the physical structure ofthe brain.”

So I’m wonderingwhere you believe it resides and what it is?

#33
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
Sorry, since you keep ignoring my questions, I'm going to assume you do not want a discussion, but an interrogation.

I am totally uninterested in being interrogated. When you want a discussion, I will be approachable. Have a nice day!
Topic's author
#34
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
The answer to your question is, I don’t know. I haven’t read enough about it to give you a detailed, well informed answer.

#35
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
Paul, would you happen to be an American atheist?

Topic's author
#36
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I suppose so, but I really don’t know if there is a god or not.

Why does that matter?
Topic's author
#37
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Earlier you were talking about people with a lobotomy maintaining there personhood, but people who have had a lobotomy still have a brain. A lobotomy is a surgical procedure where nerve pathways in a lobe or lobes of the brain are cut, they don’t remove any of the brain.

If you completely removed someones brain they would have no personhood.

#38
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
If a person contends that personhood is due to physical brain structure, then a change in brain structure should at least change personhood.

If you completely removed someones brain they would have no personhood.
Let me ask you a question. If I installed the windows 10 operating system on my computer and then removed the computer's processor, would the computer cease to have the Windows 10 program?

The processor is what enables communication between me and the computer. The program is not the processor, though without the processor, the program is undetectable to me.

So my computer without a processor would be "dead", but could not be said to be without a program. Without the processor, I am unable to interact with the program (And vice versa), but the program would still be right there.

Topic's author
#39
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
People with lobotomies aren't the same person they were before, they are only a shadow of their former selves. A lobotomy has a negative effect on a persons personality, initiative, inhibitions, empathy and ability to function on their own. They become complete basket cases, that's why no lobotomies have been performed in the US since 1967.

A program or software has a physical reality as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates. It's not non detectable it has a definite existence, even the program when it's running has a definite existence that can be observed, measured and manipulated. If you just remove the processor Windows 10 is still going to be on the drive and you don't need to remove the processor anyway, just unplugging it does the same thing.

#40
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
A lobotomy has a negative effect on a persons personality, initiative, inhibitions, empathy and ability to function on their own.
Not necessarily true. But the point is that changes in ability to function are not the same as change of personhood. Personhood is not a persons tastes or abilities, it is the person themselves, the thing that makes them different from another person with the same abilities or memories.

Some people with lobotomies have remained recognizable after the operation.

...that's why no lobotomies have been performed in the US since 1967.
Untrue. That is not why. Medical science simply found better ways to deal with the problems lobotomies were supposed to address. Lobotomies are not illegal.

A program or software has a physical reality as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates.
So until a physical reality as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates exist, there is no program?

DVD or magnetized spots on a disk are used to transfer programs, they aren't the program. When I started learning computer programming, we programmed computers bit by bit directly into the computer. There were no DVDs. Programs exist before they are put onto magnetic medium.

If you just remove the processor Windows 10 is still going to be on the drive...
Thank you. My analogy says if you just remove a persons brain, the "person" is still going to be there.

..you don't need to remove the processor anyway, just unplugging it does the same thing.
Then you agree that "death" does not necessarily destroy personhood. Death stops our ability to "run" the program and interact with it, but the program still exists.
#41
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Paul
Person-hood = access to ego * i *  ergo metahysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts via physical nervous system.

12 - 24 cranial nerves
...24 radii and 24 chords of cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron.....

31 > 62 bilateral spinal nerves.
....see 31 left and right-skew primary great circle planes of the 5-fold icosa{20}hedron.....

Whales have more glia than humans.

Humans have more  neurons than whales.

..." The brain is made up of more than just nerve cells (neurons). Although there are about 86-100 billion neurons in the brain, there are about the same number of glial cells in the brain. But do you hear much about glia? NO! Because neurons get all the attention, you don't hear too much about glia. Although glia cells DO NOT carry nerve impulses (action potentials) they do have many important functions. In fact, without glia, the neurons would not work properly!"....




Topic's author
#42
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
If you can cite lobotomies performed after 1967 in the US I'd be interested in seeing that.

A lobotomy is a terrible thing to do to a person and a terrible solution. “As early as the 1950s, some nations, including Germany and Japan, had outlawed lobotomies. The Soviet Union prohibited the procedure in 1950, stating that it was contrary to the principles of humanity.” The fact that new treatments arrived was simply fortunate.

When you type the program in it goes into memory and is held there by electrically charged gates. If you turn off the power the program goes away, if you turn the power back on you have to type it in again.

#43
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
If you can cite lobotomies performed after 1967 in the US I'd be interested in seeing that.
Why would I cite lobotomies? I did not claim they are being performed. You claimed they were stopped because... Your reason given for why there have been no lobotomies since 1967 is untrue.

A lobotomy is a terrible thing to do to a person and a terrible solution.
Irrelevant here.

The fact that new treatments arrived was simply fortunate.
And the true reason why none have been performed since 1967

When you type the program in it goes into memory and is held there by electrically charged gates.
Where is it before you type it in?

If you turn off the power the program goes away, if you turn the power back on you have to type it in again.
Untrue. A hard drive retains programs stored on it even without power. But this doesn't matter to my point that personhood is not a function of physical brain structure.
Topic's author
#44
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Where is it before you type it in?
In the physical structure of your brain.

Your brain is different from a computer, it doesn't store software the same way a computer does. The operating system and software in the brain is all hard-wired. We could make computers with the operating system and software hard-wired in, but it would be very expensive to do that. Every mistake in the software would require a new die be fabricated to correct it. Your brain being hard-wired is also difficult to change for the same reason, that's why it's so hard to change someones mind.

#45
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
A program or software has a physical reality as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates. 
So until a physical reality such as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates exist, there is no program?

When you type the program in it goes into memory and is held there by electrically charged gates.
Where is it before you type it in?

In the physical structure of your brain.
Where was it before it was in your brain?

If you turn off the power the program goes away, if you turn the power back on you have to type it in again.
Untrue. A hard drive retains programs stored on it even without power. But this doesn't matter to my point that personhood is not a function of physical brain structure.

Your brain is different from a computer, it doesn't store software the same way a computer does.
I know. I said that the brain is more like a chip, a processor, than a computer.

The operating system and software in the brain is all hard-wired. 
By whom? You certainly cannot be saying that "nothing" programmed software complex enough for sentience, or the equally absurd, that the brain programmed itself. Have I misunderstood you?
Topic's author
#46
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
So until a physical reality such as a bunch of divots on a DVD or magnetized spots on a disk or the charged state of a bunch of gates exist, there is no program?
The program is in your head then you type it in to the computer. You first have to learn what to do and that is stored in your brain in the neurons, dendrites and synapses.

Where was it before it was in your brain?
In your teacher's brain then you downloaded it into your brain.

Untrue. A hard drive retains programs stored on it even without power.
Yes you are right,but it is possible to type a string of code directly into memory and run it without saving it to storage. That is what I thought you meant the first time, but this is not important to our discussion.

But this doesn't matter to my point that personhood is not a function of physical brain structure.
Show me a person without a brain who does not act like a dead body and I'll think about changing my mind.

By whom? You certainly cannot be saying that "nothing" programmed software complex enough for sentience, or the equally absurd, that the brain programmed itself. Have I misunderstood you?
The brain cannot program itself, you have to program it by going to coding class.

personhood is not a function of physical brain structure.
What is it a function of?
#47
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
The operating system and software in the brain is all hard-wired. 
By whom?

The brain cannot program itself, you have to program it by going to coding class.
You certainly cannot be saying that "nothing" programmed software complex enough for sentience, or the equally absurd, that the brain programmed itself. 

Its OK to say you don't know when you don't know.

Show me a person without a brain who does not act like a dead body and I'll think about changing my mind.
Like a dead computer you're sure doesn't have a program? Lol. Its OK. Not everyone can understand everything.

personhood is not a function of physical brain structure.

What is it a function of?
Something else no one has yet figured out. That's why people like you who say personhood is a function of physical brain structure cannot answer so many questions about brain function.
#48
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
@Paul
...' personhood is not a function of physical brain structure '.....

Personhood is a resultant of brain structure, not the other way around.  Physical ability --a nervous system--- precedes the thought process.  For the simple minded, no brain equals no thoughts.

Genetics are the malleable hard-wiring  ---some shrooms induced new partial wiring---.

Environment is the incoming info.  There is no central processing{ CPU } unit.


..." Sensory information (except the sense of smell) relay through the thalamus, but it's not clear that the thalamus adds or modifies any information; this is in contrast to a CPU in a computer, which performs calculations on incoming information.  I think you are correct to look for a distributed processing system, because processing happens in multiple areas of the brain and we are still looking for what combines that processing to make a whole consciousness or sensory experience (which may not be in one lone place). "...

.."  Yeah Renzo, my understanding is that the thalamus is a linking area with the ability to block the links. As someone with a computer background, this does not sound at all like a CPU. It sounds more like a BUS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Person-hood = access to ego * i *  ergo metahysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts via physical nervous system.

12 - 24 cranial nerves
...24 radii and 24 chords of cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron.....

31 > 62 bilateral spinal nerves.
....see 31 left and right-skew primary great circle planes of the 5-fold icosa{20}hedron.....

Whales have more glial than humans.

Humans have more  neurons than whales.

..." The brain is made up of more than just nerve cells (neurons). Although there are about 86-100 billion neurons in the brain, there are about the same number of glial cells in the brain. But do you hear much about glia? NO! Because neurons get all the attention, you don't hear too much about glia. Although glia cells DO NOT carry nerve impulses (action potentials) they do have many important functions. In fact, without glia, the neurons would not work properly!"....


#49
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
People have hard time having the minds changed for two reasons;

1} all of the preconditioned learning experiences say this that occurs this way or that way and because this or that,

2} our identity or integrity of self { person-hood } is the ego { metaphysical-1 } and any concept that threatens our self identity{ integrity } person-hood{ ego } is going find much resistance.

Ego is the greatest concern for humanties future. All that humanity has a created is directly related to ego and the ego is a double-edge sword ergo it it also can serve to be the greatest advantage.

Currently the detrimental ego is winning out over the advantageous ego. Go figure and get back to me. :--)


Topic's author
#50
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
You are just repeating yourself so I see no point in continuing.

Nobody really understands everything about the brain and consciousness so I don't disagree that we don't know how everything works, we may never know.

The problem I have with what you are saying is that I've never seen or read about people being people without a brain. If it were possible to be a person without a brain I think all of us would know about it. You just keep stating that people can be people without a brain, but you aren't providing any explanations, demonstrations or argument you just keep saying it over and over again. If it's possible to be a person without a brain then please tell us how.

#51
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
The problem I have with what you are saying is that I've never seen or read about people being people without a brain.
You're having a problem with that because no one has said it. Look up the definition of "personhood" in philosophy.

If it were possible to be a person without a brain I think all of us would know about it.
How would we all "know" about it?

I did not say we are persons without brains, I said brains are the necessary interface needed for communication between persons.

You just keep stating that people can be people without a brain, but you aren't providing any explanations, 
That's because of two mistakes you 're making. First, "person" is not the same as "personhood", and second, I've never said that people can be people without a brain.

...but you aren't providing any explanations, demonstrations or argument 
That is what my computer processor analogy is about Paul. I've had to repeat myself because you keep failing to get it. But I see you aren't able to grasp it, at least not now.

It's no biggie. Thanks.
#52
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Paul
Currently the detrimental ego is winning out over the advantageous ego. Go figure and get back to me. :--)
To clarify, when I say .." advantageous ego ".... I mean advantage in the most comprehensively wholistic way i.e. includes all humans and the ecological systems that sustain them.

Just more stuff and higher standards of living without consideration of the ecological environment that supports them is the detrimental ego.


1} Matter i.e.  fermions ergo fermionic  matter

2} energy i.e.  bosons ergo bosonic forces, ex electro-magenetic radiation

3} information { as metaphysical-1 bits }

4} information { as the minmal occupied space nodal-events aka V i.e. a 2D set of node and two vectors{?} that correspond to 3D vertexial ..Y... events i.e. one vertex and three vectors{?}.

How can 3D be equivalent to the minimal 2D? See Bekenstiens Bound where whats inside a black holes 3D volume is expressed on its 2D surface aka holographic principle.

Recently Ive been considering that with the above mention 3D vertex and three vectors{?} ...Y... we actually have three 2D sets of a nodal-event, as seemingly one vertex and two vectors{?} + one additional vector{?}.

And also in similar vein the 3D ....Y... has its opposite closed expression as a 2D triangle /\    however, here we have three distinct 2D nodal-events sharing three vectors{?}.

NOTE: I label the ..Y... as 3D because it is the minimal set that accompanies three other ...Y... to define the minimal 3D volume of Universe, the tetra{4}hedron ...\Y/......

So what do we that can have 3D be equivalent to 2D?  The closed triangle .../\... in so far as, as a 2D area is apparrently equal to the ...Y... insofar as,  it has;

3 angles,

3 vectors{?},

3, 2D nodal-events sharing a common vertexial event.

If we want to see the resultant future { cause and effect }  or resultant past { cause and effect ] we need only have the begin with the 3D tetrahedron in its flatten 2D state/phase ....\Y/.....

and have the central vertex move outside of the 2D triangular plane. In one direction INward to greater whole set { ex black hole } we can see the past, move the central to the vertex the other side of triangle plane { ex OUTside of black hole } and we can look around and see the future.

In both of these cases the 2D triangle is to be seen as the one bit of surface area of the any 3D volume or the greatest wholistic 3D set ex Universe.

Since one triangle only represents one mininmal set of area, to have a more comprehensive view of past or future, the more area we can move INside or OUTside of to look around, the more better we can assess what were seeing.






Topic's author
#53
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Philosophy? Okay, lets talk about the philosophy of personhood. Who do you find agreeable, Plato, Descartes, John Locke, Eric Olson, Paul Snowdon?

51 days later

#54
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Paul
If we did, wouldn't we be talking about philosophers, and not the philosophy of personhood?

Do you have any thoughts of your own on philosophy, or can you only regurgitate what great philosophers have said?

How is which man I find "agreeable" relevant to our discussion?

And in terms of stature, Eric Olson doesn't belong in that group.


#55
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Paul
We don't need to talk about plausibility, it's just completely ridiculous in every conceivable way, but one thing I thought when I saw this show turned out to be worth contemplation.

This scenario just popped into my head the other day (yes I know I think of weird shit).

Subject A and subject B both have a computerized implant plugged into their brains. When activated the implants wirelessly connect to eachother and all incoming brain signals (the five senses) for subject A are intercepted by their implant (such that these signals are never processed by subject A's brain) and wirelessly sent to the implant in subject B to be fed into and processed by subject B's brain. Incoming brain signals from B's senses to their brain are similarly intercepted and sent to be processed in the brain of subject A. Outgoing brain signals (such as commands to, for example, move an arm) are similarly reversed.

The resulting effect has the appearance of causing the two subjects to "switch bodies" without running into the problem in the OP due to the fact that subject A's brain and all associated dendrite connections are still the processing point for all actions taken by subject A within subject B's body even though from A's perspective they are effectively in control of subject B's body.

I think I explained the concept clearly enough. I am less sure that my explanation for how this relates to the OP is clear but you should be able to figure it out. If I have not been clear please ask any questions you might have.