See here.

Are you saying that what we may label as our soul is really only the expression of completely organic, biological occurances (qualia)?
You could be right. I think studies in consciousness are leading in that direction.

Justine,

I go a bit further than that. If the brain were simulated on a computer then that computer would have the same soul. Just think what would happen to you if you replaced your nerve cells by artificial ones such that brain function is not affected at all.

I see the soul as a computer program. It now runs on a brain. If you simulate that brain using a computer, then that computer will run the same program.

The point I was making in that blog posting is that the qualia, i.e. the things we experience, are in a certain sense fundamental things, even though they can be defined in terms of brain processes.

Suppose you run a program that simulates the solar system. Then you can think of the planets being at certain positions relative to each other as fundamental things on the level of the algorithm that is running. The algorithm is implemented by the hardware and ultimately everything can be reduced to the state of transistors.

If we compare the brain to the computer simulating the solar system, then I would say that the neurological processes have to be compared to the processes at the level of the transistors in the computer. The qualia are abstract objects that exist in the virtual world that the computer is calculating, in this case the solar system.

Similating the brain to copy the soul on a computer is similar to running the solar system program on another program, not by compiling the same software on the other machine, but by simulating on the other computer how first works, down to level of the transistors, when it is running the program. That would, in principle, work but it is just a cumbersome way to implement the same program.

Do you mean awareness or consciousness is like one program run on millions of different computers (brains)

It's one consciousness run on all the different people and animals or solar systems.

One program. One awareness that experiences the qualia.

Is that what you're saying?

Basically yes, but you only need one computer or brain to run the program. And you could even speculate that what we call physical existence is just mathematical existence. What I mean is that there exists a mathematical description of our universe. This description implicitely also contains a description of you. Perhaps that is all that really exists of you and the universe.

I may be missing what it is that you are trying to convey, but mathematics is actually there to explain or model a thing (you and the universe, in this case), so maths in itself can't be all that exists.

I'm not sure I totally agree with this either: "Argument: If the brain were simulated on some computer, it would have the same consciousness"

The only way that a computer could 'simulate' the brain is if it developed in the same way as a human brain, which would have to include all sense data from a point of origin analogous to birth or earlier. I agree that the brain is a model-making machine, yes, but where do these models come from and what are they modelling if it is not our physical experiences throughout life. A brain without sense data fed into it via an autonomous physical presence over time is not going to have a sense of self or consciousness and would therefore neither experience pain, anger or fear. In other words, I don't think that programming a computer to merely behave like a brain will produce qualia similar to that experienced by humans.

I agree with Rusty here in the impossibility of identically replicating an adult human brain.
My sense of self is tied to my moment to moment experience of organic doses of personal body chemistry, tossed with memory and the result of my personal influence on the interpretation of my environment that has effected the network of synapses and has created roadways for my personal thought processes ever since my birth. I think it's just too juicy and random for a computer replication.
But, suppose...
God willing, if there were some way to make an exact replica of myself... Imagine a replicator, I step in..two of me step out... At that moment I think we would have the same mental experience of qualia as you describe, Count Ib. There's a cartoon strip of Calvin and Hobbs portraying this situation

You could skip the history of development and just take as input the way the neurons are connected to each other at some time in a real person. Let's say for argument's sake that you just simulate a few persons, their entire bodies down to the level of cells, living in a prison (the prisoner can only be in a limited place so that's easier to simulate). Then, I don't see why these virtual persons won't experience real qualia.

Using virtual reality you could visit the prisoners. And you could let a prisoner visit our world by letting him control a robot.

Why not? it could be that the ''real thing'' we are modeling is precisely that mathematical model itself. This has been postulated by Tegmark.

The reason I like this idea is because if there is more to the physical world than just mathematics, then you can't ever have a complete description of the physical world. If, say, superstring theory is correct, then you will have strings that are the fundamental objects. But you can never ask what the strings really are. They just exist.

Also, our universe exists physically, but most other possible universe don't. You can never know what blows life into our universe.

If we just forget about the idea that there is such a thing as physical existence apart from mathematical existence (or alternatively, postulate that physical existence = mathematical existence), then these problems go away.

I'll try to find that cartoon

Hi Count i have always been impressed by your knowledge, especially in physics, where I am weak.

I went to your link and all the comment. I guess i am not up to the task, I am a universe unto me?
As a spiritual thing that is acceptable, only as.
If you think this is a breakthrough I will make a point of getting your point.
jjw

Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
"What I mean is that there exists a mathematical description of our universe."

This is patently impossible. - On what would you
record or compute it containing, as it must, more
characters in any notation you care to choose than
there are particles in the universe it describes.

Pragmatist
"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary, and those who don't."

You don't need to record or compute anything. The description of the universe exists in a mathematical sense, just like a description of the number pi exists. It could be that the description of the universe is all that really exists of the universe.

I've stayed out of here for awhile but Pragmatist is correct Count ... your propoal is patently impossible.

There is no mathematical description of our universe and if there is one is most certainly won't be discovered during your lifetime.

I didn't make a proposal at all! There either exists a complete mathematical description of the universe or there doesn't exist one. Most physicists believe that such a description does exists, some believe we have already found it: superstring theory.

Now, whether or not we will ever find the correct description of the universe is a totally different question.

Count,
Your error is in that while superstring theory may describe the laws that govern the behavior of any given particle in the universe, it does not describe the universe itself.
It is elementary information theory that to completely describe a system, you need a bigger system, ergo to completely describe the universe,
you would need a bigger universe.
(And yes, I have heard of the multiple-universe
concept, but hold it unproven, and even if it were, the possibility of accessing one would require that your 'description` be expanded to include it.)
Pragmatist
"Things should be made as simple as possible,
but no simpler". - A. E.

First of all, even if the description would be so large that you could not write it down in the universe, the description still exists in a mathematical sense. Similarly, pi exists, but you can't write down all its digits because there are an infinite number of them.

Second of all, the description could be very short. This is explained by Tegmark here.

As you see from the article, including the parallel universes arising from the quantum superpositions reduces the information content. This is a generic effect. The larger the set of elements you want to describe, the shorter the description becomes.

Count Ibliss wrote:
"Second of all, the description could be very short. This is explained by Tegmark here."

Could be ... please read your own sentence.

You are introducing into the discussion things that are purely speculative such as parallel universes. Tegmark is at the outer fringe of physics. Nothing in this discussion can be tied back to experimental results.

Tegmark is not at all at the ''outer fringe of physics''. His main research topic is the early universe. And his speculative articles on the multiverse etc. are a bit controversial, but certainly not what you could call ''fringe''.

The idea of some sort of multiverse is well accepted within physics. Some time ago when the so-called ''string landscape'' was discovered (the fact that in string theory you have about 10^(500) different vacua, each representing a different universe), has made the idea of a multiverse much more acceptable.

Count Iblis wrote:
"Tegmark is not at all at the ''outer fringe of physics''."

Of course not Count. And which of Tegmark's statements correspond with the results of any actual lab experiment?

We find planets and count them.
We don't find parallel universes: None are known.

To say the "some sort of multiverse" is well accepted within physics is utter nonsense. Physics doesn't accept things for which there is zero experimental evidence. There isn't even general acceptance of dimensions beyond the known four.

I meant to say that the idea of a multiverse is acceptable to most physicists, not that they accept that a multiverse indeed exists.

From your comments in this and other threads, I can conclude that you clearly don't have much knowledge about physics. In physics you can't always get the ''direct lab evidence'' you ideally want. There is no direct evidence for many different things that are nonetheless well established.

Quantum mechanics is a good example. The rules of quantum mechanics only allow you to observe certain consequences of the theory. All the predictions have been verified, but there are things you can't observe in principle (e.g. you can't see an electron going to two slits simultaneously).

A multiverse theory would be similar to quantum mechanics. It makes predictions (e.g. for neutrino masses) that can be tested. But you can't see a parallel universe, just like you can't see an electron going to two slits simultaneously.

Everything short of believing in invisible purple rhinos is acceptable as a discussion point.

Tegmark is on the fringe and were it not for his association with Hawking might well be unknown.

Conclude what you will. My degrees are not predicated on your belief system.

This doesn\'t look like finge to me


The idea of the multiverse is gaining in popularity among the big names in theoretical physics and astrophysics. People like Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Susskind and many more are proponents of this idea. That doesn't prove that the idea is correct, but it makes it no longer a ''fringe'' subject. There are also many people who don't like it. And there are many who are neutral.

So, the multiverse idea is just a controversial topic, like so many other topics in physics (e.g. the mechanism responsible for high temperature superconductivity, there are many proposed theroies and a lot of discussions but no proof of which one is correct).

I would define a ''fringe'' theory to be something that cannot be ruled out yet, but which has a small number of followers. I.e. if you ask 100 of the leading physicists in that area if they think the theory is correct, they would almost all answer ''no''.

This is e.g. the case for astrophysical models which assume that dark matter doesn't exist and that instead general relativity has to be modified. Such theories can in principle be correct. We can't rule it out yet. However, there are only a handful of people who push for this idea. You do have an increasing number of people working on this now, but most of them are trying to constrain these type of models.

Count Iblis wrote:
"The idea of the multiverse is gaining in popularity among the big names in theoretical physics and astrophysics."

Perhaps you have not noticed but science is not authoritarian. We don't worship the guy with the best public relations. We don't kow tow to the guy who's book make the NY Times Best Seller list. And we don't have priestesses and imams.

Perhaps you are confusing science with scientology or some other religion.

Not me but you are making this error. You started to label Tegmark as a fringe scientists. So, you are the one who ''attacked'' Tegmark on the basis of the popularity of his ideas amongst the people working in the field. I then pointed out that in that respect you are wrong, because first of all Tegmark has done a lot of work on ''ordinary'' astrophysics and second, his multiverse ideas may be controversial but not fringe, because that idea has a lot of support.


Science is indeed not authoritarian. That means that a theory that is not fringe has, by definition, the support of a lot of independent scientist who support it on the basis of its merits, not its popularity. That doesn't prove that it is correct, but it does mean that the theory cannot be criticised by questioning the intellect of the scientists who support it.

I didn't attack Tegmark. I stated that his proposal was on the fringe: It is.

Things don't move away from the fringe until there is some confirmation based on the results from experimentation. Until there is confirmation ... there is just speculation.

And please don't try to change the subject. I was responding to the following statement you wrote:
"gaining in popularity among the big names."

Science does not run on popularity. Get over it.

No it is not. It is a popular idea and popular ideas are, by definition, not fringe.

Wrong again. There is no experimental confirmation whatsoever for superstring theory. This theory is indeed speculative but it isn't fringe at all. Fringe has to do with the popularity of the idea (which is a non scientific concept anyway). Speculative theories can be non-fringe and even be part of a mainstream scientific paradigm.

Another example is supersymmetry. You'll find it hard to find a job in theoretical high energy physics if you don't know much about supersymmetry. Is there experimental evidence for supersymmetry? None whatsoever!

I wrote that in response to your ill informed statement about Tegmark being a fringe scientist. I agree that science largely does not run on popularity, but you did change the subject and alledged that Tegmark's ideas were fringe, which they are not.

Count Iblis wrote:
"no it is not. It is a popular idea and popular ideas are, by definition, not fringe."

Astrology is popular.
Life after death is popular.
Paris Hilton is popular.

I'll grant some license as this is the Origins forum but in the realm of science, versus Discovery Channel or whatever magazines you read, popular does not equate to science. And popular does not make something fringe.

Count Iblis wrote:
"There is no experimental confirmation whatsoever for superstring theory."

Actually there is. The mathematics of string theory can be used to describe reality. There is nothing in the ideas of multiverses that describes objective reality.

Too bad you can't see the difference.

If the function of the body, mind and posited soul are merely the functions of organic chemistry and reaction, why can't we create life?

No need for a complete human being, or even a reptile; how about an amoeba? We know the chemical composition of an amoeba. We can see how they are constructed. So put one together and have it take off. If you do that, and it doesn't take off, we must assume you left something out. Except we know what goes in, don't we?

I don't think that you'll be able to find many astrophysicists who believe in astrology.


I never said it did. But if an idea is popular amongst scientists then that implies that it is not fringe. Astrology is not popular amongst scientists, but superstring theory is. Do you get it now?

There is no direct evidence that superstring theory has any relevance to physics. The same is true for multiverse theories. Both theories are in principle predictive. E.g. Multiverse theories can be used to predict constrain neutrino masses.


There is no difference. B.t.w. superstring theory predicts an ensemble of 10^(few hundred) different universes, the so-called string landscape. This has been invoked to explain the small value of the cosmological constant in much the same way as Tegmark explained the value of the neutrino masses.

I think we have done this successfully with some virusses. Amoeba are extremely complex organisms. We don't know the exact chemical composition of amoeba at all. There are many many different molecules inside an amoeba that have various functions.

If you compare an amoeba to a factory, then the chemicals are the machines, tools, etc. inside that factory. This factory is able to copy itself. This means that the factory produces it's own tools and machines and the machines that do that are also produced within that factory itself.
We can't even make a self-replicating factory on the macroscopic scale, let alone a molecular factory.

Suppose you could make a small self replicating solar cell factory. Let's say that one factory produces one solar cell that generates 1 Watt in sunlight every day and that the factory is copied every month. Then after 2? years you would have one billion factories, so your output would be 1 billion solar cells per day! If the factories don't stop replicating then after a few years the entire earth will be consumed by these factories and transformed to solar cells.


This self replicating solar cell factory sounds like science fiction, but it would be much easier to assemble than an amoeba!

Well, Count; do you assert this as a positive achievement? Have viruses been 'created' from chemicals; or just altered from the original state? For that matter, are viruses a form of 'life' or a form of organic 'rust'.

Rust consumes certain things, leaves behind a by-product and so on. Do you think rust is a form of life?

Back to your assertion that life is a complicated chemical reaction; demonstrate your assertion with something more than "?everybody knows?" An amoeba, complicated as it may be, is a rather simple form of life. Go ahead and make one that lives. Or will you continue to duck the issue?

Archie,

You seem to wrongly assume that amoebae are very simple systems, so you could easily assemble them. But because we haven't heard of any scientist having assembled it there must be some problem with that idea, hence the idea that it is ''just a machine'' must be wrong.

You are completely wrong.

An amoeba is a simpler form of life than a human being, but not that much. Most of the complexity of living organisms is inside the cells. That's the place where the most important processes happen.

We know that living organisms are just molecular machines, even though we don't understand how it works. The reason why we don't know how an amoeba wrks is because it's system of enormous complexity.

Archie, why not just accept that science and not religion applies to the universe? If there were any truth in the religious world view, then how come I can't read anything non trivial about the physical world in the Bible?