4 ms·
Your opinions here are very arrogant. You are presuming that lack of evidence is proof of a negative. Pretty sure that so far outside of the scientific method t
by LocalH 7y ago
Your opinions here are very arrogant. You are presuming that lack of evidence is proof of a negative. Pretty sure that so far outside of the scientific method that it's as much quackery as homeopathic "medicine"
You are presuming that the physical is all there is to existence. You fail to consider the possibility that there are portions of reality that we don't have the physical capability to perceive or the mental capability to truly understand.
There's a difference between saying "there is no evidence of X" versus "there is no evidence of X, so X is impossible"
- thrwwya3947 7y agowhat do you put the chances at that there's a soul organ in the brain that acts like a radio into a soul dimension, where consciousness occurs? (rather than as an emergent property of the matter, with the brain being no different than any other matter in our Universe.) I estimate 0.00000000%. What's your estimate?
- LocalH 7y agoI estimate that there is a non-zero chance that consciousness itself is something we will never truly understand. Would you ever expect a piece of software to be able to truly understand the things that drive its actual consciousness, should we ever figure out how to create truly sentient AI? I don't honestly think one could, without speaking directly to their creator. And since the existence of a creator of human consciousness is purely a thing of speculation, I don't see us ever being able to do such a thing (should they exist) until we pass through what we know as death. At that point, I feel that there's a non-zero chance that our consciousness does indeed continue on in some form of existence. What that form is, where it resides, or if it even has physical properties, I don't know, and I don't think we'll ever know, until we cross the threshold of death as individuals. I feel that consciousness itself is something non-physical. Whether it be a specific cocktail of neurotransmitters working in concert to give us the characteristics that we attribute to sentience, or a "core" form of existence that exists outside of our physical existence, I don't know, and I don't presume to know. I also don't presume I should be going around and acting like I can say with complete authority and accuracy "X doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form, because there is no evidence". I mean, what of the many other "scientific facts" humans have revised and subsequently rejected over a few millennia?
- thrwwya3947 7y agoI don't object to what you've just written. I expect even if we had conscious robots that we programed with AI software and which are connected to sensors and aware of themselves (similar to boston dynamics humanoid and dog-like robots, if we also add in a large neural software brain), having them be conscious by obvious virtue of running software we developed/coded/used genetic algorithms on, wouldn't mean we understand that consciousness.
- LocalH 7y agoI'd say we would have the chance to have a much better understanding of that type of consciousness than we would our own, unless such an AI were to come about spontaneously from a long string of machine learning such that we don't have any clue about the inner machinations.