EPTIs the mind all chemical and electricity? - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
| ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:07 DertoQq wrote: If the teleporter = copy yourself then kill yourself, then yes, like I said, you would be dead =) But you don't need to have "soul" or immaterial stuff to explain that. It is very logical. The very fact that you wouldn't go through with it, even though "nothing" is lost, shows me that the immaterial part is of a big importance. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote: I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one  Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad.Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:07 DoubleReed wrote: If your perspective is a changing, malleable thing then who's to say that the clones don't have the same perspective? It's the difference between shaping two identical pieces of clay into different shapes. Are they different pieces of clay before you shape? After you shape them? They don't have the same perspective because how would that ever work, suddenly you see the world from four eyes, at two different locations? It's impossible to compare to pieces of clay, since pieces of clay aren't councious, so they obviously lack the kind of perspective being talked about. | ||
|
Nisyax
Netherlands756 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Yay, CIV5 quotes | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:16 Tobberoth wrote: They don't have the same perspective because how would that ever work, suddenly you see the world from four eyes, at two different locations? It's impossible to compare to pieces of clay, since pieces of clay aren't councious, so they obviously lack the kind of perspective being talked about. Look, either perspectives can change or they can't. You can't have it both ways. If I clone a pen, and break the pen, then one pen is broken and one is not. Are they the same pen even though they're completely different? You clone a person but change his location. Sure, you've made change. But why does that count as a different perspective while the pen-cloning does not? Perspectives can change. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:12 cLAN.Anax wrote: I fervently wish I could prove it wasn't just all chemical reactions and electricity, but I admit I've no evidence for it, that there's more to us than simple flesh and blood. However, my belief that it's not is probably the sole thing keeping me from being a materialistic atheist, lol. How about the evidence that when the brain is damaged so is your mind? Or when we effect the chemicals in our brain (drugs) it changes our mind? And so on. I think there's plenty of evidence, if not conclusive, to suggest that we are the physical things we are. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
So it might be more then chemical and electrical impulses. | ||
|
Cynry
810 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:12 cLAN.Anax wrote: I fervently wish I could prove it wasn't just all chemical reactions and electricity, but I admit I've no evidence for it, that there's more to us than simple flesh and blood. However, my belief that it's not is probably the sole thing keeping me from being a materialistic atheist, lol. Or maybe you don't realize the power of electricity and chemistry. There is no need for something "magical" to make spirituality a guenuine experience. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:12 Tobberoth wrote: The very fact that you wouldn't go through with it, even though "nothing" is lost, shows me that the immaterial part is of a big importance. It just show what people THINK is of importance. It has no relevance to the actual one. | ||
|
MaGariShun
Austria305 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:12 Tobberoth wrote: The very fact that you wouldn't go through with it, even though "nothing" is lost, shows me that the immaterial part is of a big importance. Yeah because when people don't want to participate in satanic rituals that obviously means that Satan exists and the rituals work | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:21 nihlon wrote: How about the evidence that when the brain is damaged so is your mind? Or when we effect the chemicals in our brain (drugs) it changes our mind? And so on. I think there's plenty of evidence, if not conclusive, to suggest that we are the physical things we are. I meant no evidence that there's a soul or anything more than our physical selves. I have no proof to support that. On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote: Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. If I sincerely believed this to be the case, I would quickly relegate myself to the position of a materialistic atheist, as I would not find purpose because I would not be able to create purpose independent of my bodily functions and responses. Life would be relegated to a mere chemical/biological process instead of the amazing thing we see it as today. On July 01 2013 22:22 Cynry wrote: Or maybe you don't realize the power of electricity and chemistry. There is no need for something "magical" to make spirituality a guenuine experience. To put it bluntly, I believe there is a need for that, something that pulls me beyond this world. 'Cause if this is all we've got, I'm not satisfied, lol. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 01 2013 21:08 Prog wrote: Just a little input for the physicalist majority here. If you claim that consciousness is physical, then you have to explain what 'physical' means. Now you either define it by pointing to current physics, which is (as history showed) probably (partially) false or incomplete. Or you point to ideal physics, which we have no clue how it looks like. Either way, you have a problem. [Hempel's Dilemma] The alternative is to define physical by paradigmatic objects, like 'everything that is needed to explain this toaster', but that is terribly vague too. As history shows physics have not been false for few hundred of years. It was just not accurate enough. All changes in physics in that time were discoveries that we are not correct in some special cases. So your point would be valid only in case that physics is inaccurate in the area that pertains to mental processes. That is most likely not the case as current physics is extremely accurate in that area, there is just no space for error significant enough in that area. Thus Hempel's dilemma is avoided as consciousness is not outside of current physics and that dilemma depends on that. All those objections remind me of this quote that perfectly shows relationship between science and philosophy(discipline, not subjective model of the world): Science meanwhile advances at its gradual pace, often slowing to a crawl, and for periods it even walks in place, but eventually it reaches the various ultimate trenches dug by philosophical thought, and, quite heedless of the fact that it is not supposed to be able to cross those final barriers to the intellect, goes right on. | ||
|
DertoQq
France906 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:12 Tobberoth wrote: The very fact that you wouldn't go through with it, even though "nothing" is lost, shows me that the immaterial part is of a big importance. Let's say you believe that there is nothing immaterial about the brain. I make a copy of yourself. I show you this copy and tell you "look, this is an identical version of you". I then give you a gun and ask you to shoot yourself in the head, because "it's fine, this guy is identical to you, nothing will be lost !". It has nothing to do with material or immaterial stuff. Once you made a copy of someone, you created 2 entirely different person (different based on the events that occurred right after, the situation, the space and so on..) and they both want to live. | ||
|
Cynry
810 Posts
I am a materialistic (not in the capitalist sense) atheist, I have my own form of spirituality according to that, and I give my life a purpose just fine. Just because you need religion not to be depressed doesn't mean that religion is the only way, and that the lack of it means we are mindless robots. Just read your edit. Well if your realize that's just a matter of what you believe, I guess that's fine. That's your perspective ^^ | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:20 DoubleReed wrote: Look, either perspectives can change or they can't. You can't have it both ways. If I clone a pen, and break the pen, then one pen is broken and one is not. Are they the same pen even though they're completely different? You clone a person but change his location. Sure, you've made change. But why does that count as a different perspective while the pen-cloning does not? Perspectives can change. Because the pen doesn't have a perspective. It's a dead item. The pen can't lose anything by being killed then recreated, because it's already dead. The pen can't wonder what makes it different from other pens, can't be nervous when walking into that teleporter. | ||
|
Prog
United Kingdom1470 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:31 mcc wrote: As history shows physics have not been false for few hundred of years. It was just not accurate enough. All changes in physics in that time were discoveries that we are not correct in some special cases. So your point would be valid only in case that physics is inaccurate in the area that pertains to mental processes. That is most likely not the case as current physics is extremely accurate in that area, there is just no space for error significant enough in that area. Thus Hempel's dilemma is avoided as consciousness is not outside of current physics and that dilemma depends on that. All those objections remind me of this quote that perfectly shows relationship between science and philosophy(discipline, not subjective model of the world): Science meanwhile advances at its gradual pace, often slowing to a crawl, and for periods it even walks in place, but eventually it reaches the various ultimate trenches dug by philosophical thought, and, quite heedless of the fact that it is not supposed to be able to cross those final barriers to the intellect, goes right on. Phlogiston was just not accurate enough? Aether was just not accurate enough? I disagree. Those things just do not exist and physics claimed they did. There is nothing that ensures such mistakes not happening again. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:09 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: I don't get the hoopla regarding this topic -- maybe someone cares to explain. I don't mind the idea that chemical/electricity reactions/impulses are what make my brain work and are the cause of my feelings/thoughts. I don't get why that would/should bother people. I don't get why it should make me feel that my feelings are any less genuine. I don't get why I suddenly don't have free will because we have some understanding of how the human brain works. I don't get why this knowledge should affect beliefs regarding religion and/or someone's views on matters like having a soul. It shouldn't really, but the way the OP phrased it shows the danger of using science to trivialize human behavior and emotions. As some posters have mentioned, if we could understand the chemical and physical properties of brain activity, then that would essentially invalidate the concept of free will. To a certain extent, it has attracted people who hasten to conclude there is no free will, no soul, and no god, which isn't directly relevant but maybe implicit. Personally, I think it is incredibly arrogant and laughable to say we understand the brain or are even close to an understanding. The US didn't just drop $10 billion to map out the brain because we've already mastered it. But some people live the maxim that the scientific establishment isn't interested in the pursuit of truth because they think they're already in possession of it. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:34 Tobberoth wrote: Because the pen doesn't have a perspective. It's a dead item. The pen can't lose anything by being killed then recreated, because it's already dead. The pen can't wonder what makes it different from other pens, can't be nervous when walking into that teleporter. So? Eyes transmit pictures to the brain. Self-awareness and cognition are biochemical processes. It's not a "thing". It's a whole system of processes. The living or deadness of something depends on that. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 01 2013 22:27 cLAN.Anax wrote: If I sincerely believed this to be the case, I would quickly relegate myself to the position of a materialistic atheist, as I would not find purpose because I would not be able to create purpose independent of my bodily functions and responses. Life would be relegated to a mere chemical/biological process instead of the amazing thing we see it as today. I think you are just self-deceiving yourself. I am materialist, atheist, determinist(as far as mind goes) and yet I see life and universe as potentially (it can also be terrible and cold) amazing. The whole awe and purpose are biologically encoded in us, no rational thought can expel them from you so it does not really matter what you believe about universe and life, it won't really change those attributes as they are emotional. | ||
| ||
