After life?

**Clyde** · 04-16-2002

"Nope there you are just plain wrong. This is where the pc analogy really stengthens its self. Modern processors have both an onboard memory buffer and can easily be divided into numerous sections of what does what. Eg, there is one section called the ALU (arithmetic logic unit, I bet you can guess what that bit does). And there's another that decodes instructions as they are recalled from memory. "

But there is no "processor" in the brain, the brain is the processor and the memory, all rolled into one. You can have PC proccessors with on-board memory, but they are still split into distinct units, a CPU part and a memory part, the brain doesn't work like that.

"Now lets have a look at how decisions are made.
The human brain is a learning machine. "

Ok.

"That means that based on previous inputs, it will make the best possible decision in any circumstances. "

Best?

"Now if someones personality (keeping in mind that a large part of someones personality is the way they react in situations) is based on the way thier neurons are connected, they wouldn't really learn all that fast now would they?"

People's personalities don't generally change very fast, what's your point? Beside's what makes you think that the formation of connections between neurones is a slow process? Our memories manage to grab new info. pretty fast.

"just like my processor with the defective decoder will behave strangly, the way a persons' brain is wired does play a part in thier personality, but it is by no measure the difinitive factor."

Your personality is determined by the connection's between neurones in the cerebral cortex. If you don't want to take my word for it, find a neurology proffessor and ask him, or find a neurology text book, they will both tell you exactly the same thing.

You just choose not to believe them, because you don't want to, you don't like what i'm saying, thing is not liking something doesn't make it any less true.

none · 04-16-2002

>The "program" is the information hard-encoded into the brain via the arrangement of neurones.<

So we're born with knowledge then? Hmmm, interesting.

**Clyde** · 04-16-2002

"So we're born with knowledge then? Hmmm, interesting"

We are born with vast amounts of knowledge, how to breathe, sleep, eat, move, how to learn even.

**Series X4 1.0** · 04-16-2002

That's true, but emotions are not beliefs, they are emotions.

Emotions are based and invoked according to the beliefs of the individual. With beliefs I mean the neuron layout inside the brain, the memory. There is a reason why you're applying the concept of math at the real world, and there is a reason why (the neuron layout, the memory) you believe in emotions.

Emotions, just as religons, are obvious lies. Fact: There is no "connection" between two individuals that could cause a feeling of love, if both of them understood their internal workings.

Your brain believe that religon is a lie because of your brain's memory layout.
Your brain don't believe that love is a lie because of your brain's memory layout.

It's clear that you're just choosing a comfortable place to draw the line, because you're an emotion-controlled life-form.

Concepts such as yours cannot be applied without judging the world in a false way.

Which means, again, that you're just drawing a line somewhere because you're "programmed" to preserve your beliefs. Otherwise you'd just get "empty". Your emotions are your limitation.

All opinions and beliefs are lies, or no opinions and beliefs are lies, because they are all lacking information about something, and can therefore never be entirely correct.

Uh, no it's not, change's in society are due to increased technology, and increases in knowledge, human nature remains exactly the same, people have all the instincts, all the feelings, all the drives, that they did 10,000 years ago.

People have changed completely, the standard moral of today is completely different than for just 100 years ago. Most humans stick to the "old ways" due to their emotional limitations.

Wrong, it is only intelligent to avoid dangerous things if you FEAR death, if you do not FEAR death, then you do not care whether you die or not. Intellect is powerless without a direction.

There is no reason why not dying would be intelligent, as the want to live is just a simple unintelligent drive.

Instead of living to satisfy simple emotions, one could change the goal to live to explore the world instead - as Einstein did more than the average person. It's possible to be controlled by reasoning and calculations instead of by emotions.

Emotions are hardwired into the brain (we KNOW some of the mechanisms they are based on, we can see the region of the brain that controls them,) in the same way that breathing is hardwired into the brain. The ONLY way these could be removed is though either genetic modification or physically chopping that part of the brain out

Nonsense. You could hold a gun to my head, and I would not react irrational, I would not feel anything at all. You could try to cheer me up in whatever way you could imagine and I would not be affected, etc.. Emotions can easily be removed if replaced with another drive.

Emotions are not hard-coded, they're part of your neuron-layout and can be removed in a few years as your brain gets a different neuron layout.

Intelligence has nothing to do with emotion, nothing AT ALL to do with emotion,

Intelligence can observe emotions, understand them, and finally remove them.

People are of course capable of ignoring their emotions, that however is something quite different.

Why? If humans would ignore their emotions, they're no longer emotion-based.

..... really? Find me an animal that doesn't have emotions then........ oh wait there are none. Emotions are merely drives, without them we would not REPRODUCE, we would not care if we died, even if we did reproduce (which we wouldn't) we would not look after our offspring so they would die.

This does not prevent an intelligent non-emotion based life to exist. It would just need some other drive than to satisfy emotions to reproduce. Like the exploration of something. There are already examples of artificial neural nets doing just this - and they don't have emotions.

Emotions are A: Nessesary for complex life B: An integral part of the brain that cannot simply be removed by social engeneering.

Why? I could find it useful with an elaboration of especially A.

A lie, has to be a desciption of the universe that is false, for example, if I said the world was flat, that would be a lie, if i said Australia is located two miles east of Berlin that would also be a lie.

Emotions do NOT in any way describe the universe therefore they are not lies. They are a RESPONCE, I am feeling happy, does not in any way describe the universe.

Emotions describes you - which is a part of the world as well, this description is wrong. The superficial layer of emotions in an human is a lie. You wrongly judge yourself, an object in the world, by having emotions.

I love person X, does NOT describe person X, it descibes my RESPONCE to them.

It describes you. An emotion is a belief of a condition that you are in.

You can't intelligence cannot evaluate anything

Intelligence (or something non-emotional) can evaluate things. Your heart is beating without an emotion controlling the process. Non-emotion laws could control other things as well, and thus create intelligent life.

**shtarker** · 04-16-2002

>>But there is no "processor" in the brain, the brain is the processor and the memory, all rolled into one. You can have PC proccessors with on-board memory, but they are still split into distinct units, a CPU part and a memory part, the brain doesn't work like that.

Yes the brain is a lot more advanced. However memory is the ability to store a state of information. Any cpu needs that to an extent so it doesn't forget what its doing mid instruction. Its dependance on an external memory is the equivlant of us needing to write things down, eg cooking recipies.

>>"That means that based on previous inputs, it will make the best possible decision in any circumstances. "

>>Best?

Well the best it can, we're not perfect.

The rest of your argument is purely irrelvant. (Nice arguing style, you almost had me side tracked there)
It is how a computer works.
It redirects the way electrons flow to perform operations.
The brain being much more advances takes this concept a lot further to actually rewiring the whole thing, however each module still does its job. The cerebral cortex still makes its own decisions and that funny thing at the back whose name I will think of later still takes imput from the spinal cord [edit]cerebellum, thats it[/edit].
The only way for a modular system to work is for each module to how the information is coming in and how to change to transmit new information when its done. Another fundamental feature of a modular system is abstraction. Each module must know what information it is reciving and how it is being represented. To this extent another purely abstract protocol is created to control the system. In a pc this is the program, in the brain this is where we come in. We are the program (wow I've really streached this analogy a long way) that our brains invented to control its self. It is hard to seperate the two, but the distinction exists.

**shtarker** · 04-16-2002

Uh, no it's not, change's in society are due to increased technology, and increases in knowledge, human nature remains exactly the same, people have all the instincts, all the feelings, all the drives, that they did 10,000 years ago.

vs

People have changed completely, the standard moral of today is completely different than for just 100 years ago. Most humans stick to the "old ways" due to their emotional limitations.

Thankyou.
This illustrates my point exactly.
The actual brain hasn't changed at all for hundreds of thousands of years, however humans have become smarter (in an acedemic way).
While the brain its self and the way it works remains completly un changed, us, the abstract entity created by the brain has moved a long way in terms of our understanding of things.

Back to my original point, this shows there is something more to humans than just thier brains. This invalidates the logic you have been using to disprove an afterlife as there is a seperation between the actual workings of the brain and how the brain controls its self to perform functions. The entire field of psychology is built up around this.

**Betazep** · 04-16-2002

Well I think we have enough text to write a book on the subject. Damn.... you guys type a lot.

**Clyde** · 04-16-2002

"Yes the brain is a lot more advanced. However memory is the ability to store a state of information."

Yes but in a PC the CPU and memory are seperate entities, in teh brain there is no separation.

"The rest of your argument is purely irrelvant. (Nice arguing style, you almost had me side tracked there) "

I merely addressed the points you made.

"The only way for a modular system to work is for each module to how the information is coming in and how to change to transmit new information when its done"

Well then I guess the brain doesn't work like a modular system then. Because when part of the brain is damaged, the rest continues to function.

"The actual brain hasn't changed at all for hundreds of thousands of years, however humans have become smarter (in an acedemic way). "

Yup, and your point is? Ah wait here is is:

"Back to my original point, this shows there is something more to humans than just thier brains"

......i've already showed you that the brain can remain exactly the same structurally but hold different information.

You only have one point and it's invalid.

You think that because the structure of the brain has not changed and yet the function of the brain has that there therefore must be some additional factor effecting the function of the brain........ but that assumes that the function of the brain is entirely dependant on its structure and not the micro-arrangement within the structure.

Two brains both made of neurones both with the same localised regions, can contain different information in exactly the same way two hard-drives can contain different information. Because the brains are "wired up" differently: the connections between the neurones are different.

The brain has not changed over the last 10,000 years structurally. But our knowledge has increased. Man 1, learns stuff about the world, writes what he deems important down, Man 2 reads what Man 1 wrote, and learns some extra stuff which he writes down, Man 3 reads what Man 2 wrote.............

Since I have disproved your one point are you now willing to accept that actually all those neurology proffesors aren't really wrong, or will you blindly ignore the rational and believe in what you want to because it sounds "nicer"? Thought so.

**shtarker** · 04-16-2002

>>Well then I guess the brain doesn't work like a modular system then. Because when part of the brain is damaged, the rest continues to function.

Ok I have no idea where you are coming from there. A modular system doesn't normally consider the effects of a module being removed or destroyed. That creates an error, they are either fatal or can be ignored to some extent.

>>......i've already showed you that the brain can remain exactly the same structurally but hold different information.

Yes we finally start getting to the bottom of this.
There is a seperation between brain and mind.
The mind is dependent on the brain however brain != mind.
Hence the flaw in your logic.
And as your entire philosophy is based on logic, a flaw doesn't really help your case.

**Series X4 1.0** · 04-16-2002

shtarker, people like you should have bullet in their error-prone brain. I hope you'll be quiet now. People like you are just scared.

**Clyde** · 04-16-2002

"Emotions are based and invoked according to the beliefs of the individual. With beliefs I mean the neuron layout inside the brain, the memory"

Emotions are a RESPONCE to input, they are not beliefs.

"you believe in emotions"

I believe people experience emotions, yes..... and?

"Emotions, just as religons, are obvious lies."

Emotions do not attempt to describe the universe therefore they cannot be lies.

"Fact: There is no "connection" between two individuals that could cause a feeling of love, if both of them understood their internal workings"

So? Who claims there is? Claiming that love works via a magical "connection" is a lie, but love as an emotion does not describe in any way how it works mechanistically. Hence is not a lie.

"Your brain believe that religon is a lie because of your brain's memory layout"

What?

"Your brain don't believe that love is a lie because of your brain's memory layout"

My brain doesn't believe that love is a lie, because saying love "is a lie" is a meaningless statement since something can only be a "lie" if it is a description of the universe, emotions do not describe the universe, they are merely drives.

"It's clear that you're just choosing a comfortable place to draw the line, because you're an emotion-controlled life-form."

Right, I draw a line because they are completely different, unrelated topics. Since emotion does not describe the world it cannot be a lie.

"Concepts such as yours cannot be applied without judging the world in a false way."

Pardon me? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what i see, that is false. Do i think love is caused by a magic "connection"? No. Do i still "feel" love? Yes. Does it "lie" to me? No. Because it doesn't describe the world therefore it cannot lie.

"Which means, again, that you're just drawing a line somewhere because you're "programmed" to preserve your beliefs"

I change my beliefs the second that a more rational belief comes along. The idea that emotions are lies however, is nonsense, since emotions do not describe the universe.

"All opinions and beliefs are lies, or no opinions and beliefs are lies"

Woot another obscenely stupid statement, so, since I believe the world in round, and i know thats true, therefore the beliefs og anyone who believes anything must also be true!! YEA! Or...... not.

"People have changed completely, the standard moral of today is completely different than for just 100 years ago. Most humans stick to the "old ways" due to their emotional limitations."

Morality has changed because social environment has changed. Old ways? Emotional limitaitons? Are you just making this stuff up off the top of your head?

"There is no reason why not dying would be intelligent, as the want to live is just a simple unintelligent drive"

Riight, so without emotion, we would all not care if we died, hence we would all die because we would do all manner of rediculously dangerous stuff, hence humanity would cease to exist, ergo emotion = good.

"Instead of living to satisfy simple emotions, one could change the goal to live to explore the world instead - as Einstein did more than the average person"

Einstein had as strong emotions as any other person, he had several passionate affairs; his love letters have been publishish.

People do not "live" to satisfy simple emotions, they "live" to reproduce. The rest is just a means to an end.

"Nonsense. You could hold a gun to my head, and I would not react irrational, I would not feel anything at all"

You might well not react irrationally, but you're heart would start pounding andrenalin would surge through your veins your muscles would contract, you would sweat more... you would immediately start searching for a way out of the situation....... fear, your responce can be controlled but you still feel fear, even hardened soldiers who've been in battle dozen's of times feel fear. Anyway i recall a post by you a couple of days ago where you said you felt reasonably happy, i hate to tell you but happyness is an emotion.

"Emotions are not hard-coded, they're part of your neuron-layout and can be removed in a few years as your brain gets a different neuron layout"

Your tempature regulation and heart regulation is also part of your "neuron-layout" i suppose they can be removed two right?? HAH Psychologists and neurologists have other ideas.

"Intelligence can observe emotions, understand them, and finally remove them"

Phsychologists and neurologists don't seem to think so, but what the hell do they know right?

"Why? If humans would ignore their emotions, they're no longer emotion-based"

And then humanity would die out, because people wouldn't care if they died, they wouldn't have any kids, even if they did they would leave them to die.

"This does not prevent an intelligent non-emotion based life to exist. It would just need some other drive than to satisfy emotions to reproduce."

LOL, right another drive........ which would be....... an emotion.

"Why? I could find it useful with an elaboration of especially A."

Because without drives complex life will end up dying because it doesn't care if it dies or not, and it will leave it's kids to die.

"Emotions describes you - which is a part of the world as well, this description is wrong"

...... The WORDS "I feel afraid", is a description of me, and if i was afraid it would be a truthfull one. The actual FEELING of fear is not a description it is merely a drive.

"It describes you. An emotion is a belief of a condition that you are in"

No it does not describe me, a description of me would be: I have brown shoes, or i have 5 fingers. The feeling of fear does not describe anything , it is merely a drive.

"Intelligence (or something non-emotional) can evaluate things. Your heart is beating without an emotion controlling the process. Non-emotion laws could control other things as well, and thus create intelligent life."

Your intelligence is not making your heart beat either, your sino-atrial node is. We have drives, we need them to survive we experience them as emotions. They are not lies they do not describe anything, they are just drives. The only alternative to emotions, is not actually an alternative at all it's what you are suggesting: Having emotions but not being aware of them = not being aware. But being aware has advantages that's why we are aware. Plus who the hell really wants to become un-aware!?

**Clyde** · 04-16-2002

"Ok I have no idea where you are coming from there. A modular system doesn't normally consider the effects of a module being removed or destroyed. That creates an error, they are either fatal or can be ignored to some extent. "

Well, in the brain they are almost entirely ignored.

"There is a seperation between brain and mind.
The mind is dependent on the brain however brain != mind. "

You have provided no basis for that statement. For it to be true, all neurology and physics have to be wrong.

So its you with no reasoning nor evidence to back your claim vs. all of neurology and physics, with huge amounts of evidence and explanations to back up theirs hmm.......

You have provided no flaw in my reasoning because you cannot substantiate your claim.

**Brian** · 04-16-2002

I believe when you die, eventually you will be concious as another being. It may take countless years, but as long as the universe exists, there is a chance of you existing again, maybe as a microbe, maybe a fish, i don't know...

...it's very weird, being alive...soo hard to explain...

you wont have any memory or experience or anything you learned in your past life, since that was all stored in your brain which is now wormfood.

**Series X4 1.0** · 04-16-2002

My brain doesn't believe that love is a lie, because saying love "is a lie" is a meaningless statement since something can only be a "lie" if it is a description of the universe, emotions do not describe the universe, they are merely drives.

A feeling of love is when two humans believe in each others lies. Take one more step backwards, and look from the perspective of the universe, then love is a lie that exists among mankind.

Of course, this is when defining the universe as the abolute truth, and when separating beliefs from the universe to get something to compare with. Otherwise: Beliefs are not lies, nor truths, as they all exist in a logical universe. And there is always a reason behind each belief and emotion. It depends on from where you're getting your "truth".

Everything is relative. And you , like "everyone" else, seem to share your opinions relative to the standard moral of mankind. While I'm closer "following the truth of the universe".

Are you just making this stuff up off the top of your head?

Yes, I'm trying to be as dynamic as possible. To just use other people's beliefs and quotes without thinking them out by myself just causes irrational beliefs such as religons with time. I seriously don't believe in anything, and that includes myself.

**Clyde** · 04-16-2002

"A feeling of love is when two humans believe in each others lies."

What lies?

"Take one more step backwards, and look from the perspective of the universe, then love is a lie that exists among mankind."

The perspective of the universe? What the hell does that mean, the universe is not alive, that's like saying "look from the perspective of a chair".

"Of course, this is when defining the universe as the abolute truth, and when separating beliefs from the universe to get something to compare with"

What?

"Everything is relative. And you , like "everyone" else, seem to share your opinions relative to the standard moral of mankind. While I'm closer "following the truth of the universe"."

Share my opinions relative to the standard moral of mankind? What does that mean?

Following the truth of the universe....... what the hell does that mean too? Having emotions does not mean you can't find out about the universe, the leading scientists from the past 4000 years prove that much.

"Yes, I'm trying to be as dynamic as possible"

You mean your just typing in the first thing that comes into your head.......... which is to be fair......BS.

"To just use other people's beliefs and quotes without thinking them out by myself just causes irrational beliefs such as religons with time"

Well done, your first good point, it's shame it doesnt support any of your conclusions.

Bottom line is your conclusions are irrational, since they have no basis, you dislike emotion, because...... well damned if I know, atleast it seems to have gotten through that emotions aren't lies they're drives I figured if i said it about 1000 times it might sink in.

" I seriously don't believe in anything, and that includes myself"

You don't believe in yourself.......... now it's possible that when you say that, you mean something intelligent, but chances are you mean you don't think anything exists, in which case you are a fool, because there is only ONE thing we can ever be 100% certain of: ever heard of "cogito ergo sum"?