Quote:

Original post by Sneftel Quote: Original post by aphydx right. i meant a complete representation And there's the mistake: assuming that comprehension requires representation. Consider: I comprehend my car's internal combustion engine, despite the fact that I do not know the exact configurations of the atoms which comprise it, or even how many atoms there are in it.

I must say that was a very attractive phrasing. *applause*

Quote:

Original post by neonic I don't know. This whole thing is very confusing and I agree with the authors prognosis that 'something weird' is definately going on around here :). Just throwing this on the table, because I have been thinking this topic over for a number of years also. I was reading in a Popular science magazine talking about teleportation..........

Yup. I have not read that article, but I am familiar with the concept. It is in all a very interesting topic. If you're recreated to 100% accuracy with other atoms - would that be 'you'?

Interesting as it may be, it is a derivative of this whole 'ghost' thing. Going onwards and trying to make something out of teleportation, without having first settled what a 'ghost' really is, is interesting but not relevant.

Quote:

So several things to say here going along with the author... if nr 1 is true and we were created by a higher being... then I don't even know what would happen when they recreated you. You would probably just be the equivilant of dead. If nr 2 was true, then your body would create a ghost itself, since the brain is able to hold a ghost. Now think about this: would that new "ghost" be "you" or would you still be destroyed and some other ghost is running around with your body. Now if nr 3 was true I would imagine the same thing such as nr 2 would happen, but for a different reason. I guess this just brings a new element to the table, when taken into a scenario like this, not only the question "what is life", but the question "what is death"

You summarize the topic correctly. I also did mention the 'if this is so, then what is death?' question in my text, but only as a side comment to number 2 and 3.

Quote:

Original post by Horatius83 When my car is not functioning correctly I may say that it is "being stubborn" and perhaps a few other things that I won't repeat. This anthropomorphism is a way for me to cope with the fact that the machine is very complicated and I don't understand it. Perhaps this is all personality, and by extension, "ghost" is, we take what we know of our own emotions, and actions in certain situations, and then project it onto other people or things, then we check their actions against this model and determine how closely it fits.

Sorry, but I must cincerely object. This style of thinking is not evident in all humans, and certainly not within myself! I do never match peoples actions to my own way of thinking, and I also never call my car 'stubborn'. This is because I understand the workings of the car. People who do not understand it, thus superimposes their own view of things upon the car. But this is only true for the people who do not understand.

Your're trying to disprove something with an invalid argument. That way of thinking is not present in all human beings.

Quote:

As for life, this is a tricky question, traditionally the battle lines have been drawn around the subject of whether or not a virus is alive since it depends on a host to reproduce. The problem I see is that if you say viruses aren't truly alive then you can say that all men are dead since they depend on women to reproduce. (I know you're all programmers but trust me, I read it in a book so it must be true) So my guess would be any thing capable of creating a copy of itself (by any means) would be a good candidate for being alive. This seems to preclude sterile animals from being alive, but consider the fact that at the cellular level they're reproducing like crazy, skin cells, bacteria in the intestines, muscles, the whole deal.

Yeah, that section is most correct. I hope you don't thinking you're arguing against me there, coz that would mean I'm a sloppy writer. This section might as well have been written by me.
edit: Oh, except the guess that anything capable of reproducing means it is 'alive'. I do not assume that. In fact, I want to stay wayyyyyyy clear of the term 'alive', coz that is not really part of what I'm trying to say.

Quote:

Original post by HemoGloben Ok, focus on the france thing. It acts like a living entity because it's run by living entities. Doesn't that make more sense than trying to pretend that france itself is a living entity? Your entire thought experiment attempts to grapple the idea of seperating acts like an entity and is an entity, but somehow manages to miss acts like entity because it's run by entity.

Very good, HemoGloben! I was wondering when somebody was going to pick this one up.

It is certainly a possibility. In fact, this is the main reason why I couldn't say that EVEN if the premises for Nr. 2 is correct, even then I couldn't say that ghosts would certainly appear within systems.

I didn't really feel that that side-notion was necessary to put in the text, since hardly anybody would think about it.
But yes it's a point, however I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm having trouble giving examples of complex systems - like France - which are not run by living beings, so I cannot counter the argument. Therefore I simply state that it's a possibility that such systems could have ghosts.

Quote:

Original post by Sneftel Quote: Original post by HemoGloben Uhh...Isn't a more likely option to the whole internet seemingly alive, france being alive thing the fact that both happen to be in large part run by humans that are alive? I mean, ...meh. Seems a little weak. Are you saying that things cannot be alive unless they are comprised of parts which are alive? That seems to break down. Carbon and hydrogen atoms can't really be said to be alive. Concurrently, humans display much more capability for adaptation and intelligence than the cells of which they are composed. They can, by some measure of "alive", be said to be MORE alive than those cells: they display traits above those which the cells themselves can "run". Also, who's this Meh person?

Sorry, but I think you misunderstood his point abit. He merely said it didn't necessarily have to have a ghost to behave like that. I agree. His point does not in any way counter your argument.

edit: LOL! I've gotten rated down because of this thread!! And I didn't even represent a side!! Absolutely hilarious! =D

Quote:

Original post by NQ Sorry, but I think you misunderstood his point abit. He merely said it didn't necessarily have to have a ghost to behave like that. I agree. His point does not in any way counter your argument.

I know... I was going on his tangent. His implication, though, seems to be that if it doesn't have its own big ghost, it has to have a bunch of smaller ghosts puppeting it. And I don't see any reason to believe that's true.

EDIT: BTW, let's use standard terminology and just call the "ghost theory" dualism.

When you know your self and understand, then you can develop such AI. Otherwise it just fruitless, it may emulate but never be it no matter how automated it is.

So you first you must understand yourself, your inner working, and your "I am" identity then you can talk about this. Other wise like someone here said this "REDUNDANT"!

Quote:

Original post by busyme When you know your self and understand, then you can develop such AI. Otherwise it just fruitless, it may emulate but never be it no matter how automated it is. So you first you must understand yourself, your inner working, and your "I am" identity then you can talk about this. Other wise like someone here said this "REDUNDANT"!

:) Nobody's trying to create it. This is meant as a treat for people who find it fun and interesting to think about these things. If you do not find it fun and/or interesting then you are free to not participate.

Quote:

Original post by busyme When you know your self and understand, then you can develop such AI. Otherwise it just fruitless, it may emulate but never be it no matter how automated it is.

Despite our lack of knowledge regarding how humans navigate through mazes, we nonetheless have developed algorithms to allow computers to navigate through mazes. Understanding the inner workings of a process is a requirement for simulating it, not for emulating it.

Quote:

So you first you must understand yourself, your inner working, and your "I am" identity then you can talk about this. Other wise like someone here said this "REDUNDANT"!

I think you guys need to look up 'redundant' in a dictionary.

Well said, Sneftel.
As a comment, I chose to not refer to highly technical terms such as 'dualism' since I thought that would make people feel negatively about the text. Refering to fun things like movies and completely new terms instead, i hoped, would decrease the negative-and-boring factor.
Was this silly of me?