Slimebeast said:
ultima said:
Slimebeast said:
ultima said:
It's fine that you don't want to sit around for evidence that may not appear in you lifetime, but why neglect evidence that is present? There is a proof of randomness, and you claim it to be false in favor of, IMHO, a completely ridiculous theory (that has no evidence for it).
And a computer is very different from a human brain. I don't think it's fair to compare them this way. A CPU has an ALU that makes it lightning fast with mathematical and logical calculations. We don't have that. What makes you think that our brain doesn't have a certain component that's responsible for consciousness, that isn't present in CPUs (which would explain why computer don't have feelings)?
|
See my post above, about neglecting the evidence. In short I am saying that since I dont believe in the concept of randomness, I obviously assume there's other explanations or hidden factors when the tests from the quantum level appears to show evidence of randomness.
I dont mean current CPUs. I mean the theory that the brain is just a network of neurons with electric activity, in essence just like a computer, and it could all be simulated in a (future) computer (which mimics neuronal networks instead of linear threads that current CPUs process)- assuming that computer had access to input of stimuli of course (senses of smelling, hearing, seeing etc).
|
There aren't just tests with experimental errors that show evidence of randomness, there's a mathematical equation, theoretical, without error. It's called Bell's Theorem, which basically says that unless information can travel faster than speed of light (contradicts general relativity), no hidden variable is responsible for the randomness in quantum mechanics.
As for CPUs, of course you're talking about current CPUs! You yourself said that you observed and compared a computer to a human brain, and deducted that since the computer can't have feelings, our soul is independant from our physical self. Unless you had access to a CPU from future, my point stands.
|
There are alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, new variants of Bohm's interpretation. If everyone was to accept the standard interpretation like you advocate, science and the search for truth would not go forward.
About comps, are you putting words in my mouth? That's just silly. Why would I restrict myself to talking about current primitive CPUs when no one even has claimed that current computers have consiousness?
|
But the only local way around randomness in quantum mechanics based on Bell's theorem is that information can travel faster than speed of light. This contradicts Einstein's relativity.
Using your method (not accepting principles, searching for alternatives), I could easily claim that speed of light isn't the limit. After all, it has never been proven (to my knowledge). Wouldn't this render relativity useless? Why don't we go back to Newtonian view of gravity? Science isn't exactly flawless (like pure math is) so there will always be ground to question a theory, no matter how advanced a theory is. By this method, search for truth might go forward, but it would be following a circular path.
And I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said you came to conclusion that computers can't get a human mind, therefore there must be something that is independant from the brain that is responsible for consciousness. "Come to conclusion" implies that you observed, and you can't observe something from future. Therefore, I concluded that you were talking about current CPUs. This is the post I'm referring to:
| If I come to the conclusion that a comp can't get a human mind, I deduct from that conclusion that the human mind must have something that is independent from the electrical activity in the neural network. |
