NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

OK so let's look at those:

I never made that claim. My claim is that real world properties like magnetism cannot be downloaded into a simulation and that similarly, if consciousness ( or mind as the video states ) is also a fundamental property, then it cannot be downloaded either. I'll add here that even if a working simulation of a brain produces something that seems conscious, at best it would still only be scanned copy and would not be the original. Neither of these points are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the claim in the video that scanning a brain onto a computer will automatically result in a computer with a mind.

I never had any argument with that. Simulations of magnets and many other things exist.

It's not irrelevant to the point I was making, but it might be irrelevant to yours, whatever that is. I'm not sure. Maybe I'm missing something. What is your point again ... LOL ?

Perhaps a little more context there would help. The same point is made by Chalmers, ( the philosopher known for his extensive contemplation on this issue ) who also uses magnetism as an example of a fundamental property that consciousness may be like in the sense that it is something fundamental. I'm not claiming they are identical. But it seems they may be related somehow because EM does affect the mind. The video is posted several times in the forum but I can scratch it up for you again if you haven't seen it.

The info I based my statement on comes from the same community, in fact from the scientific data itself where you'll notice that there are margins of error for false readings, and that combined with no other signals, and the comment that the blurp goes down in history along with other famous audio signals certainly alludes to WOW signal type blurps, not to mention that authority and credentials do not trump pure logic unless you're a politician or bureaucrat.

Now stop messin' with me ... LOL

<blockquote data-quote="Randall" data-source="post: 240801" data-attributes="member: 2682">OK so let&#039;s look at those:I never made that claim. My claim is that real world properties like magnetism cannot be downloaded into a simulation and that similarly, if consciousness ( or mind as the video states ) is also a fundamental property, then it cannot be downloaded either. I&#039;ll add here that even if a working simulation of a brain produces something that seems conscious, at best it would still only be&nbsp; scanned copy and would not be the original. Neither of these points are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the claim in the video that scanning a brain onto a computer will automatically result in a computer with a mind.I never had any argument with that. Simulations of magnets and many other things exist.It&#039;s not irrelevant to the point I was making, but it might be irrelevant to yours, whatever that is. I&#039;m not sure. Maybe I&#039;m missing something. What is your point again ... LOL ?Perhaps a little more context there would help. The same point is made by Chalmers, ( the philosopher known for his extensive contemplation on this issue ) who also uses magnetism as an example of a fundamental property that consciousness may be like in the sense that it is something fundamental. I&#039;m not claiming they are identical. But it seems they may be related somehow because EM does affect the mind. The video is posted several times in the forum but I can scratch it up for you again if you haven&#039;t seen it.The info I based my statement on comes from the same community, in fact from the scientific data itself where you&#039;ll notice that there are margins of error for false readings, and that combined with no other signals, and the comment that the blurp goes down in history along with other famous audio signals certainly alludes to WOW signal type blurps, not to mention that authority and credentials do not trump pure logic unless you&#039;re a politician or bureaucrat.Now stop messin&#039; with me ... LOL</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Randall, post: 240801, member: 2682"] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]OK so let's look at those:[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]I never made that claim. My claim is that real world properties like magnetism cannot be downloaded into a simulation and that similarly, if consciousness ( or mind as the video states ) is also a fundamental property, then it cannot be downloaded either. I'll add here that even if a working simulation of a brain produces something that seems conscious, at best it would still only be scanned copy and would not be the original. Neither of these points are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the claim in the video that scanning a brain onto a computer will automatically result in a computer with a mind.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]I never had any argument with that. Simulations of magnets and many other things exist.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]It's not irrelevant to the point I was making, but it might be irrelevant to yours, whatever that is. I'm not sure. Maybe I'm missing something. What is your point again ... LOL ?[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]Perhaps a little more context there would help. The same point is made by Chalmers, ( the philosopher known for his extensive contemplation on this issue ) who also uses magnetism as an example of a fundamental property that consciousness may be like in the sense that it is something fundamental. I'm not claiming they are identical. But it seems they may be related somehow because EM does affect the mind. The video is posted several times in the forum but I can scratch it up for you again if you haven't seen it.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]The info I based my statement on comes from the same community, in fact from the scientific data itself where you'll notice that there are margins of error for false readings, and that combined with no other signals, and the comment that the blurp goes down in history along with other famous audio signals certainly alludes to WOW signal type blurps, not to mention that authority and credentials do not trump pure logic unless you're a politician or bureaucrat.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]Now stop messin' with me ... LOL[/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification