That makes no sense, yet is hard to reject for someone who thinks they are at the center of existence.. Our spirit or soul can only be found in our DNA I say
I am using it because neither one is likely to happen 
Damn, I was just about to post a suggestion 
But that isn’t faith, because we have evidence science gives results.
Not what I’m doing.
No. That isn’t what the Incompleteness Theorems state.
This is literally meaningless.
And, as a matter of fact, we don’t.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t make sense. I know many Christians who believe their very consciousness is, or proof thereof, a spirit/soul. And from there, it makes sense for them to believe in God or an afterlife.
In fact, what confuses me is the idea of a spirit/soul somehow residing in our DNA.
It makes no sense because it isn’t true. Just because many people believe for something to be true, doesn’t make it true. It’s an illusion even though you may find it an attractive or obvious one.
I am very happy with this idea 
Uh huh. Yet it’s what many with faith believe their consciousness to be: their spirit. Whether that’s indeed true or not is totally beside the point.
So you 1) believe you do have a soul/spirit (that is, your consciousness is an entity that will live on after you die). And 2) it resides in every twisted piece of DNA in our cells?
I mean how does consciousness proofs in any way that there is a spirit or a soul?
As discussed before consciousness seems to be the effect caused by language.
There is nothing eternal about language, on the contrary.
Uhm, I never said I believed in point 1. Maybe it is true but there is no proof for it nor is it a likely thing to be. It’s a nice idea to read about though when we need a little ego boost.
Tell that to believers.
Okay. Just trying to understand your statements. I’m guessing English isn’t your first language?
No, that and I was on drugs the other day 
Thread well on the road to IMHO I suspect.
This is very well worn road, and if anyone really cares, there are lots of interesting things to read. All philosophical, no answers I’m afraid. This starts to come back to the nature of revealed truth.
One thing I will add. Many years ago I had the pleasure of attending a series of lectures given by Roger Penrose. Something that became clear listening to him, and discussing things with some professional physicists afterwards, is that Penrose is (or was) a hidden variable believer. He was attempting to place an un-calculatable but deterministic underpinning reality underneath quantum events. He sheeted this home to a way of linking deep processes into consciousness, via structures in the brain that could reflect quantum processes into the brain’s operation. This was clearly a way of injecting a ghost into the machine that was not subject to mechanical logic. It was clear that as a matter of a-priori faith, he could not imagine how a deterministic device could give rise to consciousness.
Soon after he toured a large fraction of the planet lecturing in support of The Emperor’s New Mind. When he visited my university there were some interesting discussions and disagreements. As a good physicist he isn’t a very good philosopher, and an even worse computer scientist. In the end the local AI experts found him frustrating, in that he simply had no idea how AI systems work, and his book made claims about the operation of AI that simply made no sense. Which was all bit worrying. The professor of philosophy was a professional physicist in his previous life, and found much to criticize. It was all rather entertaining.
You can spend a lifetime thinking about these issues, and many very smart people have. There is little point getting into any sort of argument, as history has shown that we are a long way short of having any useful understanding beyond mapping out the nature of the arguments.
D’alrighty then! You weren’t kiddin’ about the 'shrooms.
I am curious, what AI systems do we have in operation that present a comparative model for autonomous self-awareness? From what you know, would self-aware AI be feasible using traditional CPU-based serial-instruction multi-threaded processing? I mean, comparing our consciousness/soul to a computer is, AFAIK, not presently meaningful because we do not have anything sufficiently close, and as complex and elaborate as our designs seem to be, so far they are just number crunchers.
What evidence? Evidence as you probably mean it, is only meaningful inside a scientific (or at least rational) construct. You are using the definition to prove the term. Not very convincing. If you were to say that science is useful because predictions made using this method are more accurate than predictions made with other system, then you would be on stronger ground. This does not, however, take anything away from the fact that ultimately you believe that science is stronger.
I’m assuming that you mean that it is not necessary. Are you going to basically make a test that only science can fit, then claim victory when only science fits? It’s a terrible old circle, but I again appeal to the “usefulness” test above, which makes clear that however useful something was in the past, only faith allows us to believe it will continue to be useful in the future. And I repeat: I have this faith, but I also recognize that at some level, I merely accept, without proof, that science is going to be more useful to me.
Well actually, yes, that is what they state. However, in the interest of brevity, I was incomplete. In layman’s terms, his theorems show that for any interesting formal system, you cannot prove all true statements in the system with the system itself (Completeness). If you ever were able to do so, then you would have proven that all statements in that system could be simultaneously proven true and false. All formal systems that are complicated enough to be interesting will suffer this problem. And to top it off, any attempt to fill the holes by adding new axioms to cover the unprovable truths, will simply lead to new unprovable (but true) statements in the system.
I assumed that you would not want to believe in the inconsistency of mathematics, which means that we have to believe it is incomplete.
If you’re after a more formal definition, you could start here: Kurt Gödel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
A ton of references and some interesting quotes by van Neumann. I particularly like: “Thus, I think that your result has solved negatively the foundational question: there is no rigorous justification for classical mathematics.” I think it’s spectacular that mathematics may not actually formally work out, even though every fiber of my body says that math must work.
I was taking a bit of poetic license to try to spruce up a somewhat dry topic. But how about:
Einstein: “The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks.”
Richard Feynman: “Nobody understands quantum theory.”
Niels Bohr: “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.”
Isaac Asimov:“How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics!”
We don’t what? I assume you are refering to the last sentence. I suppose I could appeal to every day events, like turning on your computer with the expectation that the start-up routine will finish. I could appeal to entire industries that exist because the people investing millions or billions of dollars believe that it is possible. Every developer that does not want to lose his job will at some level, believe he has written a program that finishes. All this faith in something that has been proven not to be possible in the general case. It’s almost irrational.
No, of course not. But Penrose basically took it as a matter of faith that no AI system could ever become conscious, and then took the further leap of faith that the SciFi guys that wrote of conscious AIs were representing the thinking of mainstream AI, and thence decided that, although he didn’t know what mainstream AI was, that the guys working the area needed lecturing about what it was they did, and why it was wrong. Maintsream AI could have been as strong an allay as he might have wished, but instead he decided from the outset that they were the enemy, and annoyed a lot of them with condescending and inaccurate summaries of what they did. It was about as accurate as getting a computer geek to tell an expert in relativity why Einstein was wrong.
Wow! I am jealous. Was he an interesting speaker?
I’m not sure that “hidden variable” is right here. I like “hidden concept” better, because his whole point is that it’s not merely a new theory that we need, but a whole new concept that expands or replaces logic as we know it.
The AI guys are probably not in a very good position to criticize anyone. My experience with AI has lead me to believe that even the AI guys don’t really know what they’re doing. We’re more or less in the same position in AI (at least in the original goals of AI) as we were 60 years ago. The main ideas that arose out of trying to have AI arise out of a Turing Machine have not panned out (I suppose I should say “yet” to be fair). The only bit that seems to be very useful is the branch of expert systems; and they are not at all what the AI guys wanted to achieve.
I wonder if this is maybe the strongest evidence that Penrose is on to something. If a Turing Machine cannot give rise to Consciousness, and our brains do give rise to Consciousness, then something is missing from our understanding. I think QM is a reasonable place to look first for alternatives.
Agreed (although even the mapping of the arguments is fraught with conflict potential!).
Rigorous science that manages to be backed by evidence, is fruitful, cogent and progresses the Human endeavor on any level isn’t infallible, yet at some level, you have to either accept the reality that the unrelenting scientific method is adequately revealing concerning the nature of nature, or reject it based on some more eccentric and less rigorous.
As humans, it’s the best we have beyond philosophy (and, so far, it’s pretty damn good)—and especially beyond superior to anything religion has to offer. To put this sort of acceptance of the scientific method in the same category as religious faith goes beyond hyperbole.
Well, I’ll certainly be curious what sort of novel processing might present themselves once quantum computing reaches the point of being able to work with them practically.
Bits that can hold a fuzzy state of being both a 1 and 0 at the same time might indeed be one of the keys missing in giving birth to true AI.
I’m no neuroscientist or computer scientist, but I don’t know of any true binary equivalent of information that plays out in the workings of the brain/mind like a computer manipulates information. Perhaps something like quantum computing will illuminate a new set of computer science in artificial intelligence.
I have to believe that consciousness is more than an enormously organized, complex system of on/off switches.