Markup /zellig/20599

Comment
>>20592
I do believe it to be apparently true, obvious even. But something being obvious has never deterred people from rejecting it, indulging in delusions or coping as >>20593 said.
Of course, by the nature of the question at hand it cannot be debated, it's abstract and untouchable (as something immaterial would be). You can posit that the human consciousness is just an algorithm but I don't think you can convince yourself of that. One thing that I pondered heavily is artificial intelligence. Materialists believe we will one day be able to construct a mind, a conscious mind, out of material parts. It makes sense to them, brains are just machines after all. But I see this as the height of absurdity. I remember seeing a video of a person that made a simple binary calculator using gravity. That is to say, he made logic gates out of falling spheres and obstacles. This really made it clear just what computers are, calculators. Everything a computer does is a calculation in binary. It's memory is just a long array of these bits, it's processor just calculates, the graphics card just calculates, it's all merely calculations. These calculations are done with electronic components, but that doesn't make it special. In the past they were done with vacuum tubes and as I said earlier, it could technically be done even with falling balls. Now Here's the question I posit, how many balls need to be falling at the same time to construct consciousness? We all understand the difference between a ball or a rock or a tincan hitting a hard surface, and us having a thought. A physical collision isn't conscious (I suppose there is no proof for this notion but I believe it is self evident, this isn't a debate) but a human mind is. However, if a human mind is just a collection of calculations, similar to a computer, then enough collisions would make a mind. If you were to theoretically create a giant vacuum tube computer, or a giant gravity powered physical collision computer, you would get a consciousness. I find this notion absurd, it is to me after this thought experiment beyond obvious that consciousness cannot be something material. The high complexity and unfamiliar nature of computers only serves to obfuscate (through ignorance) the actual issue of constructing a consciousness. No material interaction seems capable of generating a beholder. I believe that anyone who ponders consciousness itself will arrive at the conclusion that it cannot be material.