-4

Many people theorize that in principle, the brain could be uploaded to a computer which would then contain the person's consciousness. Would a successful demonstration of this be compatible with Judaism? (Don't worry for now how something like that could actually be shown. Say an advanced MRI-like machine would predict everyone's [who steps in it] actions with 100% accuracy, or something similar.)

Being as the answers to this: Is the brain the seat of the soul? seem to say that such a thing is incompatible with Judaism, that should mean that seeing that such a thing can exist, would be powerful evidence against free will, and therefore Judaism.

Community
  • 1
ike
  • 431
  • 2
  • 14
  • 1
    If I contradict Judaism, would that be evidence against it? This is silly question. – Double AA May 12 '14 at 17:25
  • 2
    @DoubleAA I understood the question to mean "Would this contradict..." – Yoni May 12 '14 at 17:34
  • @Yoni That certainly isn't how you answered the question, if that's how you understood it. The questions states "Assume a contradiction; is that a contradiction?" You answered the question "Can this contradiction happen?". – Double AA May 12 '14 at 17:36
  • The question "Would whole brain emulation falsify Judaism" makes no sense...there is no falsification maybe a contradiction according to the OP. I answered in the spirit of "At Psach Lo" as in the way the question, I believe, should be asked and was the OP's intent. – Yoni May 12 '14 at 17:42
  • 1
    @Yoni I don't know why it doesn't make sense. If I assert -(p&q) then asserting q implies -p (the falsification of p). – Double AA May 12 '14 at 17:50
  • @DoubleAA There is no falsification as stated in question. It's pointless to ask question whose answer is already assumed (unless you have an axe to grind)...You're the first person in quite a while who does not concede a point until it's completely justified (quite refreshing!) – Yoni May 12 '14 at 17:54
  • @Yoni I've noticed that about Double AA. He's earned himself several upvotes from me for that, both on answers and comments. – Scimonster May 12 '14 at 19:14
  • 1
    My question is "Assume X, does that contradict Judaism?", not, "Assume a contradiction". I'm not assuming that the idea contradicts Judaism, I'm asking whether the idea in principle is compatible. Are you saying that the answer is obviously no (not compatible) based on the answers I linked to? – ike May 12 '14 at 19:21
  • How could I change the question to make it better? – ike May 12 '14 at 19:22
  • This question is similar to a 1900s scientist saying, "If I split an atom, doesn't that disprove science?" Judaism isn't nearly as fixed as this question makes it sound. It might disprove the answers to the question you pointed to, however. I'm not sure how – Charles Koppelman May 12 '14 at 19:27
  • You shouldn't be able to say that something can "definitely" not happen and, at the same time, that it "may" be compatible even if it does. The science example is flawed, I believe. I assume that when scientists did, in fact, succeed in splitting the atom, it disproved many scientific theories about atoms and matter. – ike May 12 '14 at 19:35
  • @ike Exactly! It disproved some theories, not science. Likewise, Jewish theories may be disproven, but not Judaism. See, e.g., the ways different traditions have dealt with ideas about 8-month fetuses or differing opinions on the nature of smoking. – Charles Koppelman May 12 '14 at 20:04
  • beam me up scotty. we can see from all over Star Trek that it is indeed possible. – ray May 13 '14 at 07:37
  • Why is this not a duplicate? In other words, what differentiates this question from the other? – MTL May 14 '14 at 03:48
  • @Shokhet The fact that ray gave a no on both questions suggests that it's not a duplicate. – ike May 15 '14 at 11:03
  • @CharlesKoppelman I'll try to explain how, in theory, "science" could be disproven. Science is the art of predicting the future, based on the past. It works, or is true, because the past is a good predictor for the future. This is because, in general, induction works. Induction works, in general, because of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor works, in general, because we live happen to live in a low-entropy universe. (In English, that means that our world is simple, and therefore simple rules describe it). (Continued) – ike Aug 18 '14 at 02:43
  • If we lived in a high-entropy universe, where complex rules were more likely then science would in fact, be disproven. You wouldn't be able to make any predictions about the world. One day the sun would b appear to be 93 million miles away, and the next it would be a random number of miles away, with no correlation to the previous day. If something like that happened across enough domains, science would be disproven. The idea of "science" is not a priori truth. Can you now give an (counterfactual) example whereby Judaism would be falsified? (I can elaborate on any of those ideas if you want). – ike Aug 18 '14 at 02:44
  • @ike I disagree with your definition of science and your presumption of the limited capacity of human thought. If you'd like to discuss this in [chat], let me know and I'll be there, but it's pretty off-topic for a comment thread. – Charles Koppelman Aug 18 '14 at 14:31
  • @CharlesKoppelman I've created a room for us. – ike Aug 21 '14 at 03:42

2 Answers2

2

According to Quantum Physics' Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, often simplified as "To observe is to disturb," no such machine is even theoretically possible. Observing the behavior of any system affects the system being observed. Thus, the real brain and the "virtual" brain can't be identical.

Furthermore, even if the brain were to be emulated, since the rest of the body is connected to the original real brain the two brains would not be subject to identical stimuli. Also, in a human brain there are electro-chemical, hormonal and environmental factors that are external to the virtual brain system and can not be emulated by the virtual system.

Nevertheless, the virtual brain will likely be able to predict what the human would choose in many cases. This is not a violation of free will. Rav E.E. Dessler wrote decades ago (Michtaz m'Eliyahu 1, Kuntus Habechira) that much (or even most) of what a person decides are things he already decided and is just continuing with previous momentum and is not actually affected by free will. Only decisions that are in formation (or are being revisited) are at the "nekudas habechira", the freedom point (or Freedom Horizon) and are subject to free will.

Audio shiurim on choice based on Rav Dessler (37-40)

Yoni
  • 7,530
  • 18
  • 38
  • Why couldn't it emulate electro-chemical, hormonal and environmental factors? – Double AA May 12 '14 at 17:26
  • 1
    This answer is basically an oversimplification of quantum physics, free will, and Jewish thought. Granted the question didn't deserve anything better, but doesn't make it all that impressive. – Double AA May 12 '14 at 17:27
  • @DoubleAA becuase the virtual "brain" would not be walking down the street and smelling the nonkosher hot dog with a nisayon to eat it -- only the real human is. If the OP wants to create a complete human copy of the original and not only the brain, the copy can't be at the same place at the same time as the original either. – Yoni May 12 '14 at 17:29
  • No reason you couldn't stimulate it equivalently for however complex a situation you want in order for the experiment to be conclusive. – Double AA May 12 '14 at 17:32
  • @DoubleAA I'm not writing a mussar vaad, pilpul shiur or PhD thesis here! Just helping someone else and answering their question... – Yoni May 12 '14 at 17:32
  • You're barely doing that either. That's my point. – Double AA May 12 '14 at 17:34
  • "Nevertheless, the virtual brain will likely be able to predict what the human would choose in many cases. " In the question I specifically stipulated 100% accuracy, not accuracy in "many cases". – ike May 12 '14 at 19:08
  • So if a machine could predict in more than "most cases" (including "decisions in formation"), that would violate free will? – ike May 12 '14 at 19:09
  • The machine doesn't need to create an identical copy, just close enough to generate the same decisions. I'm not asking whether such a mechanism is feasible, but whether it is definitively ruled out by Judaism. – ike May 12 '14 at 19:17
  • The analogy to quantum mechanics here is not valid. one could say that about any observable system, it doesn't invalidate the measurement. measurements are always made in quantum mechanics. an inputed massive superposition of trillions of wave functions describing the 'expectation of brain activity' could still hold. but infinitely difficult to compute (!). currently we can only really predict energy levels of the hydrogen atom (a single proton and electron), let alone billions upon billions of large particles interacting together. – bondonk May 12 '14 at 21:40
  • @bondonk So, you believe that is is theoretically possible to build such a machine that, down to the electron spins of each atom in the system the virtual brain and human brain are identical? It may be practical to build a machine that in 99% of the times it will accurately predict a person's actions, but not 100%. – Yoni May 13 '14 at 00:55
  • @Yoni no i don't think it is possible due to the inherent improbabilities within such a complex system, on a quantum scale. This is why i think that quantum mechanics shouldn't feature in the answer to this question. – bondonk May 13 '14 at 04:05
  • @bondonk Just complex system w/o quantum mechanics? I'm not sure why you think QM is not relevant...Please feel free to edit and improve the answer.Thanks! – Yoni May 13 '14 at 04:19
  • @ike there is significant literature whether knowledge of the future is necessarily a contradiction to free will. See Rambam hilchos teshuva 5 and commentaries. Also there are Talmudic sources that at the end of days there will no longer be free will. But as i wrote in my answer such a machine will always remain in the realm of science of science fiction. – Yoni May 15 '14 at 05:14
-1

Deuteronomy 13

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them, you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul."

Likewise, the Torah tells us regarding listening to the sanhedrin in Devarim (17:11)

"According to the Torah which I will teach you and the laws which they will tell you, don't turn from that which they say right or left" [Rashi: that this requirement to obey them is, Even if they tell you that "right" is "left" and "left" is "right" and surely if they tell you that "right" is "right" and "left" is "left".]

so you see, it's already built in to the system that we must stubbornly adhere to the torah regardless of what our senses tell us.

(some personal advice: focus on whether or not the torah is of divine origin. then you don't need to reconcile everything)

ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • First of all, there's a difference between a prophet and what I'm describing. This machine would be replicable, and in theory, anyone could build it using off-the-(future)-shelf components. Do you know if the "signs or wonders" referred to can include free-will violating feats? Secondly, does this mean that Judaism is not falsifiable? – ike May 13 '14 at 14:21
  • Thirdly, if you would be able to reconcile the existence of such a device with Judaism, how can you justify saying that Judaism rules it out (in your answer to the linked question)? In fact, if anything we see can be reconciled with Judaism based on these verses, then how can it make any predictions? – ike May 13 '14 at 14:23
  • @ike see my update. regarding your 2nd comment it's not gonna happen. but even if it did, then we don't care. must be a trick or a test – ray May 13 '14 at 17:41
  • I don't think it's valid to both say that something is "impossible", yet claim that if it were to happen, it wouldn't change your opinion about anything. If such a "trick" is possible given your view of the world, you should acknowledge the possibility now, and if it isn't, seeing it must change your view of the world. And can you answer yes or no on the question of falsifiability? – ike May 13 '14 at 19:22
  • @ike what i mean is it's not going to happen unless it is either a false trick/scam or a special test from upstairs. 2. no. I think everything is falsifiable. meaning, it is either true or false. if you can prove to me without a doubt that Judaism is false, I would go with that. but i am so convinced in the divine origin of the torah that i would most likely assume it's a test from upstairs as the torah says to assume. – ray May 13 '14 at 21:07