h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If you could download your consciousness into a computer or some sort of neural construct, then OK, but if it can be copied/edited then surely you only become a shadow of yourself- my underlying point is that you wouldn't be you. For want of better words, you'd only be an echo of what you were, and if it is stored on a "hard drive" then it wouldn't be you anyway, you'd just be "memory."

And, I'm sorry if you disagree with me people, but the human being is a helluva lot more than memory, or indeed, memories...

It infuriates me no end to have to say this, as I have always considered myself a strict sceptic and scientist, but.. I think you are right
In spite of my aspiritual aspirations, I have to acknowledge that we have a spiritual side, which I do not understand and probably never will. I'm not religious, but I certainly wouldn't much like the idea of my brain being downloaded into a computer, and then me dying - after all, I'd still die, wouldn't I?

As far as "spiritual side" goes, I've never seen any evidence for such a thing. At the same time, I too have a sense of something more. I only wish someone would come up with some evidence for this, since it would cure a rather dreadful thought that's been running through my mind: as products of evolution, and the unfolding of the universe, there can be no such thing as randomness or free will. This is quite disturbing, since it means what I am typing at this moment is simply dictated by the state of the universe before I started typing. What's worse, perhaps, is that our minds may simply be incapable of understanding or deveoping theories of free will, since these systems(whatever they may be) are HOW we think, and it might not be possible to include them in WHAT we think. An unthinkable thought, yet the only answer to a cause-effect universe.

I hope there's someone out there much smarter than I am, who will solve this dilemma once and for all.

Hello? Anyone? Please?

The basic problem is that we think that we think, ie the believe in independent thought is based on a circular arguement, you are right in that we cannot prove free will exists since we cannot demonstate it absolutly the only way to demonstate free will would be to do something which it was known was not supposed to occur, but since the future hasn't happened yet and our 'real' future is believed to be one of a vast number in which every option for every choice has been made it is not possible to act against any of them, it's not that your choice is predtermined but that every option for every choice is always taken.

I think the main problem with whole TrasHumanism and PostHumanism thing (hype?) is the fact, that actually very few poeple on this world really know who/what a human being is. Does zen-budhist/theolog/dalailama know who a human being/spirit is? Does scientist like psycologist/philospher understand the whole picture of what human is? Scientist needs proves to accept facts and create a theory. Spiritual person / follower of some religion / is llimited by dogma of his conviction. Even those who can be acknowledged as people of true wisdom about humans will probably say they don't know anything ) And by the way, Eistein wasn't normal scientist.

just some thoughts from Ludvig

Free will is only a perception which man has attained through the realisation that he can effect cause and effect. Acting under this realisation it becomes irrelevant as to whether we *actually* have free will or not, because we can only act at all under the assumption of having free will.

The case in which we would truly have free will is if man didn't do something *because* of anything. We can eat whatever we want, but we eat because we hungry, which is a drive imposed on us irrespective of our will. So if we chose not to eat even though we were hungry this would be as close to an act of free will as you'd get because we were doing so against physical influence.
But denying the physical aspect of yourself just to win a cheap point, this doesn't sound like freedom to me!

The future, like the past, is set and unchangeable [at least without a time machine, which probably needs to be powered by a black hole(not included) or something]. It is only the perception that things could be different if I did this or that, that makes the future seem unstable. However we will do what we're going to do. This shouldn't be an unsettling thought, rather, like nowing exactly what you did last week, it should be comforting. (although after the X-mas office party, knowing what you did isn't that much fun when it's reconstructed the next day in slurring detail by your not-amused boss)

It doesn't matter that our actions are pre-determined in view of time, just as long as in the present they are determined by us. And though we, as entities, are defined by the universe this doesn't diminish our responsibility of action, but instead is the sole reason for us being capable of making a decision to take action at all.

... or that's what God told me to say anyway.

***jones

It's not hype, it's founded on two very solid fields of physics: thermodynamics and information theory. You want to argue them? Fine, but you'd better have empirical evidence supporting your argument, and I really don't see that happening.

Information is information, whether it's encoded as ordered electrical signals or intercellular connections in a slab of gray meat. The former is simply a better option.