4 ms·

>A good example of this is transhumanism, specifically, the idea that you can upload your mind to a computer. It is all but given based on our current scientifi

>A good example of this is transhumanism, specifically, the idea that you can upload your mind to a computer. It is all but given based on our current scientific understanding that the mind is inseparable from the body, yet somehow particularly atheist people behave as if they are separate things. This is a dogmatic belief. It's unknown if such a technology will be possible one day, but I don't find transhumanism or that idea dogmatic. The human mind is of course part of the human body, but there's nothing that prescribes any particular mind must be part of a biological body. This is known as "substrate independence". If substrate independence is true, it would suggest creation of conscious machines and simulation of conscious beings is feasible. There are additional difficulties when it comes to the possibility of actually "uploading" one's mind, but it seems incorrect to say "atheists who trust science believe the mind and body are inseparable, yet here they act like they can be separated". The atheist/physicalist/scientific claim is that the mind emerges from the brain, and that the brain is made of ordinary matter - not that they're "inseparable" in the sense that there can't be such a thing as a mind without a fleshy body. It's orthogonal to "bodiness" or an idea of anything like a soul. If substrate independence is true, then a mind is a thing which must exist on some physical substrate composed of matter. It's fine if you believe substrate independence isn't true, but I don't see any dogma. Perhaps a dogma would be "substrate independence is true" without demonstrating any evidence of it, but I haven't seen that claim. This'll probably only ever be known for sure if some group actually manages to instantiate a seemingly-conscious mind on a non-biological substrate, and if it seems to pass every possible test for consciousness we can devise.

betwixthewires 5y ago
Belief that your mind can be moved is a dogmatic belief, if you hold it, seeing as our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it. That isn't to say a machine cannot be conscious, or that a different type of consciousness cannot exist.
- meowface 5y ago
  I'd say certainty in such a belief would be dogmatic. But I don't think it's at all dogmatic (or wrong) to say that in the distant future it could maybe become possible. If one merely says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine", I don't think that's dogma. Even if one says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine and retain continuous consciousness in the process" (as opposed to basically just creating a mental copy of oneself), I'd say that also isn't dogma, even if the odds are lower. I would actually say "our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it" is dogmatic. Unless you mean "we don't yet know how we could go about it given our current limited understanding", then sure; but asserting that something (especially something that doesn't violate any laws of physics) will never be possible is a positive, definitive statement, and one I also don't think is true. We just know it would be enormously difficult and complex and that it's extremely unlikely it would be possible within the next few centuries, and may never be possible. There's nothing we know about right now that would fundamentally make it impossible. It's all just matter and information. The definition of dogma, according to Google, is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". Claims of incontrovertible truth are dangerous, whichever direction they're in. If some transhumanist wholeheartedly expects they're going to be inside of a computer by the time they're 80, then that would be dogmatic, but I've personally not seen anyone with such an attitude.
- parineum 5y ago
  Current scientific understanding is inconclusive. You can't prove a negative so it definitely doesn't preclude it.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Why does current scientific knowledge preclude it? Is a simulation of the entire human body impossible in principle, or alternatively is it known that such a simulation won't be conscious?
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Because from our current understanding, the mind is an emergent property of the brain, not some ethereal thing contained by the brain. It might be possible to create artificial consciousness, to find consciousness that occurs in different ways, but to move a human mind out of a brain, as far as we can tell, is impossible.
    - meowface 5y ago
      I don't understand how these are mutually exclusive. Why should it being emergent mean it's absolutely impossible to move it out of the brain? Of course it could turn out to be impossible in practice for some reason or another, or it may not happen for thousands of years, but I don't see any theoretical reason that makes it impossible a priori.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      There's a lot of unresolved debate in the philosophy of mind about how the mind might come about from the brain. Not all hypotheses assert substrate-dependant epiphenomenalism, which is what you seem to be suggesting. So our current understanding is merely that we have little clue whether it's possible. I lean towards the idea that it's possible and view the burden of proof as being on your shoulders to show why wetware as a substrate is necessary.

betwixthewires 5y ago

Belief that your mind can be moved is a dogmatic belief, if you hold it, seeing as our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it. That isn't to say a machine cannot be conscious, or that a different type of consciousness cannot exist.

meowface 5y ago
I'd say certainty in such a belief would be dogmatic. But I don't think it's at all dogmatic (or wrong) to say that in the distant future it could maybe become possible. If one merely says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine", I don't think that's dogma. Even if one says "I believe there's a chance we may one day be able to upload our minds to a machine and retain continuous consciousness in the process" (as opposed to basically just creating a mental copy of oneself), I'd say that also isn't dogma, even if the odds are lower. I would actually say "our current scientific understanding of the brain precludes it" is dogmatic. Unless you mean "we don't yet know how we could go about it given our current limited understanding", then sure; but asserting that something (especially something that doesn't violate any laws of physics) will never be possible is a positive, definitive statement, and one I also don't think is true. We just know it would be enormously difficult and complex and that it's extremely unlikely it would be possible within the next few centuries, and may never be possible. There's nothing we know about right now that would fundamentally make it impossible. It's all just matter and information. The definition of dogma, according to Google, is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". Claims of incontrovertible truth are dangerous, whichever direction they're in. If some transhumanist wholeheartedly expects they're going to be inside of a computer by the time they're 80, then that would be dogmatic, but I've personally not seen anyone with such an attitude.
parineum 5y ago
Current scientific understanding is inconclusive. You can't prove a negative so it definitely doesn't preclude it.
fighterpilot 5y ago
Why does current scientific knowledge preclude it? Is a simulation of the entire human body impossible in principle, or alternatively is it known that such a simulation won't be conscious?
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Because from our current understanding, the mind is an emergent property of the brain, not some ethereal thing contained by the brain. It might be possible to create artificial consciousness, to find consciousness that occurs in different ways, but to move a human mind out of a brain, as far as we can tell, is impossible.
  - meowface 5y ago
    I don't understand how these are mutually exclusive. Why should it being emergent mean it's absolutely impossible to move it out of the brain? Of course it could turn out to be impossible in practice for some reason or another, or it may not happen for thousands of years, but I don't see any theoretical reason that makes it impossible a priori.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    There's a lot of unresolved debate in the philosophy of mind about how the mind might come about from the brain. Not all hypotheses assert substrate-dependant epiphenomenalism, which is what you seem to be suggesting. So our current understanding is merely that we have little clue whether it's possible. I lean towards the idea that it's possible and view the burden of proof as being on your shoulders to show why wetware as a substrate is necessary.