EPTOn July 02 2013 02:39 DoubleReed wrote:
No Djzapz!! Don't take the bait! You've doomed us all!!!
No Djzapz!! Don't take the bait! You've doomed us all!!!
Indeed. Thread shut-down imminent.
Is the mind all chemical and electricity? - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
Indeed. Thread shut-down imminent. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
No way, fresh page  | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
Please show me how definition of determinism precludes autonomy. It is not by definition. Just because my inner workings are deterministic, does not mean I do not have "self-governance". Everything I do is determined by my inner state, thus my external actions are coming from myself, perfectly in line with definition of autonomy. On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. You can interpret it like that, but what I was trying to say can be seen with the next sentence that you did not include. Common concept of free will is nonsensical. The only one that is worth anything is the "legal" one meaning lack of outside coercion. On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. It is as meaningful as it gets, the hope you refer to is just an illusion and I do not care for those. On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. How is it biologically untenable, explain it without vague proclamations. How does it contradict anything biological. I am not deluding myself and I am happy for reasons completely unrelated to my position. My position has absolutely no bearing on my happiness, so what are you talking about. Maybe you create your world view to make you happy and are projecting, but sorry, not everyone has that need. | ||
|
karimbo
Germany2 Posts
Lets start with an block of iron. It's matter, it has no mind nor meaning. Now we forge that block ito a sword. It's still iron, no mind but it gained in meaning. Is it therefore more than a block of iron? No, in a scientific way its just a weirdly shaped block of iron. Now we take your brain. It's matter, it's the source of your mind and has meaning. But if we analyse and probe it we'll only find matter. The reason for that is cause its only matter. Sorry. Now, don't understand this the wrong way this is not a bad thing. This doesn't cut into your value as an conscious entity. It just means that the whole exceeds the sum of it's parts. And here comes the science. Even if we understand how the little parts of your brain works we will never be able to understand it as an entity. Math and therefor physics only work in very close barriers. For example we can't even perfectly solve the 'Three-body problem' (big masses/slow) which in itself is a simplification since it neglects 3 of the 4 forces. It's even worse for fundamental particles (small masses/fast). We can give you a propabillity what they might/should do but science will never be able to describe how exactly a particle will behave. Therefor if that high-energy-particle (randomly generated by some random star far away) hadn't randomly collided with your DNS during Mitosis you could have a longer penis now. Sorry. So even though we can describe and understand all tiny bits of your brain we will never be able to describe or recreate it as a whole. So you are after all a unique, misteriously wonderfull beeing with a small dick. Peace. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 02 2013 02:50 mcc wrote: Please show me how definition of determinism precludes autonomy. It is not by definition. Just because my inner workings are deterministic, does not mean I do not have "self-governance". Everything I do is determined by my inner state, thus my external actions are coming from myself, perfectly in line with definition of autonomy. I suppose it depends on how we're defining "autonomy". If you are defining it as free of coercion from the government... than I guess you could make that argument. If you are defining it as free from coercion period... than you can't. Your actions and self are under the complete control of outside forces (coerced by biology). If you are truly using the first than the statement is irrelevant and quite silly. You have free-will because the government doesn't put a gun to your head? On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. You can interpret it like that, but what I was trying to say can be seen with the next sentence that you did not include. Common concept of free will is nonsensical. The only one that is worth anything is the "legal" one meaning lack of outside coercion.[/quote] Are you going to establish that the common concept of free-will is nonsensical or is that just another statement of fact? On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. It is as meaningful as it gets, the hope you refer to is just an illusion and I do not care for those.[/quote] So your hope is just an instinctual action to run away from a wildfire that is clearly moving to fast to be avoided? That's a pretty bleak definition of "hope". On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. How is it biologically untenable, explain it without vague proclamations. How does it contradict anything biological. I am not deluding myself and I am happy for reasons completely unrelated to my position. My position has absolutely no bearing on my happiness, so what are you talking about. Maybe you create your world view to make you happy and are projecting, but sorry, not everyone has that need.[/QUOTE] If intelligent creatures did not strive to better themselves and come up with (according to materialism) nonsensical moralities, they would be less effective at surviving than those creatures that did engage in more social behaviors like building moralities and striving for the betterment of themselves and others. The delusion is not intentional, but still exists. Do you actually see your love for others as just an occurrence, with no inner meaning beyond the fact that it makes you feel "good" at this particular moment in time? Or do you "pretend" that it's more, that love is meaningful and actually has value beyond self-pleasure? Obviously, according to the position of materialism, love is as "valuable" as hate, which is as valuable as anything else. Or even more basically, do you constantly refer to yourself as "me" or do you say "brain"? As for creating world views that make us happy... well yeah. Who wouldn't, and why wouldn't they? | ||
|
Prog
United Kingdom1470 Posts
On July 02 2013 00:15 mcc wrote: Why do I have a feeling that you just throw catchphrases around and not read the posts. I already in my post said that you need some input and output concepts. For example if you want to predict speed of something, you need that concept. But that those are very trivial concepts and that aether was no such concept. As evidence for that I pointed out that existence/not-existence of aether had basically no effect on predictive quality of the model. The model was as useful predictively as it was before we knew there is no aether. Of course the model had less value in general, as we value also the conceptual interpretation that was damaged, mostly as it is this interpretation that partially drives further research. Of course that physics uses also the concepts I never denied it. My point was that it is not essential to the validity of scientific process and I specifically said that you put too much emphasis on the concepts and too little on the predictive side, which is actually what distinguishes science from other enterprises, like philosophy. As a note, you did not give me evidence, you gave me wall of text. And the text is not actually evidence of anything as it is philosophical argument. Arguments are not evidence. It is bad form in discussion to point people to arguments (unlike evidence) as arguments should come from the person in a discussion from his "own mouth". Anyway back on topic, since we derailed it. My point was that current physics is accurate enough in the area that brain operates in that we can reasonably use it without worrying too much about what the future will bring. This is so naive. Astronomy before relativity probably thought exactly the same. Even geocentrists would have done the very same claim on their subject matter. Also you do not understand the term 'evidence'. Any text is at least testimonial evidence. You may think it is bad evidence and does not justify (i would disagree), but it is certainly evidence. And it is a very good form of a discourse to point to work already been done, instead of doing the same job again (maybe in a worse way). We are standing on the shoulders of giants, no need to ignore them. There is a good reason why citation is used and noone limits himself to his "own mouth". | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 02 2013 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: I suppose it depends on how we're defining "autonomy". If you are defining it as free of coercion from the government... than I guess you could make that argument. If you are defining it as free from coercion period... than you can't. Your actions and self are under the complete control of outside forces (coerced by biology). If you are truly using the first than the statement is irrelevant and quite silly. You have free-will because the government doesn't put a gun to your head? Of course I do no mean government. Autonomy as in acting independently/having control over self. Just the definition. Determination by biology is not coercion. I think you are mistaking coercion for determination. Coercion is external to the system in question. My biological determinism is not external to me. I am determined by my own internal biological structure, that is by definition not coercion. Biology is not an actor itself, thus it cannot coerce. When we say that biology determines my behaviour, what is meant is that my own biological nature is deterministic, but it is not outside of me, it is part of me. You could maybe call it meta-coercion, but that is completely different beast. Coercion is not perfectly clear term of course as teaching is outside influence and thus can be considered coercion, ... . But hopefully we can avoid delving too deep into semantics and stay with common sense of the word. On July 02 2013 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: Are you going to establish that the common concept of free-will is nonsensical or is that just another statement of fact? Define common concept of free will. The reason why I say it is nonsensical is that a) there is no good definition, people have vague feeling of what it means, but can never actually tell what it is supposed to be b) if they formulate the definition, either it makes no sense in itself or is inconsistent with scientific knowledge c) well there is no c So after you define it I will argue about it. If you feel it is one of those concepts that kind of defy definition, tell me I will try to work with that anyway. On July 02 2013 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: So your hope is just an instinctual action to run away from a wildfire that is clearly moving to fast to be avoided? That's a pretty bleak definition of "hope". As all this part of our discussion, "bleak", "meaningful", "hopeless" are subjective emotional terms, your mileage may vary. I do not feel anything bleak about it at all. As for me it is just as it is and I am rather not concerned at all, the nice things in life lie elsewhere for me. On July 02 2013 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: If intelligent creatures did not strive to better themselves and come up with (according to materialism) nonsensical moralities, they would be less effective at surviving than those creatures that did engage in more social behaviors like building moralities and striving for the betterment of themselves and others. The delusion is not intentional, but still exists. Do you actually see your love for others as just an occurrence, with no inner meaning beyond the fact that it makes you feel "good" at this particular moment in time? Or do you "pretend" that it's more, that love is meaningful and actually has value beyond self-pleasure? Obviously, according to the position of materialism, love is as "valuable" as hate, which is as valuable as anything else. Or even more basically, do you constantly refer to yourself as "me" or do you say "brain"? As for creating world views that make us happy... well yeah. Who wouldn't, and why wouldn't they? I do not think you understand evolution if you think that argument actually is valid. Creatures do not "strive" for anything other than propagation of genes. In some special cases (of social animals) evolution of morality is better for survival. But that is no volitional act of the creatures, but attribute of the evolution as a system. If individual has (by random mutation) genotype that increases cohesive social behaviours there is probability that if it spreads this group will have higher chance of survival than rival groups. But that is it. That is why we humans have morality. And it is no way in some conflict with my view, on the contrary. Also materialism does not say morality is nonsensical. I am actually basically proponent of absolute morality (not completely, but close enough) and there is absolutely no contradiction with my materialism. Materialism just says morality is as all things based on material processes in the brain. As for love, by inner meaning do you mean inner as in inner to love itself, some metaphysical meaning or do you mean inner as in internally mine. The former of course not. I see love as emotion that I have. Rationally if examining it I see that it is chemical process with multiple functions that evolution used. Emotionally I just love. There is absolutely no contradiction and no pretending. People see it there because they deceive themselves that their love has some metaphysical meaning and if someone says it does not, they think it cannot be love. Same goes for choice of person loved. The only thing materialist lacks in this is self-deception. The emotion in actuality is the same, just without some pretend cosmical meaning. And since most people have empathy (another emotion) of course it goes beyond self-pleasure. Unless you want to go with the argument that everything is selfish. Hate is of course no as valuable as love, again based on my feelings and empathy. And of course I refer to me as me and not brain, especially because I am not my brain, but my brain and the rest of my body. So to ask you, do you like to pretend that your love has some cosmical meaning ? Do you refer to yourself as eunuch soul ? Just so you know I saw some interesting points in your questions so I answered them even though my only answer should have been those two questions above as your whole paragraph was one thinly veiled insult. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 01 2013 16:24 mcc wrote: There are no thories of quantum mechanics involved in brain operations that have any popularity in biology. There are some shots in the dark, but that is it. But consensus is rather that there is no such involvement. There are multiple reasons to think that. 1) Lack of evidence. 2) Starting already at subcelullar level it seems everything evolved to filter out anything remotely quantum related. (Not to say that there are no quantum mechanisms in all of life processes, that would be impossible). 3) There is no phenomenenon right now that would seem to require any such involvement to explain. 4) How qould wuantum mechanics in any way help to keep you from being "deterministic" machine. Instead of being basically deterministic machine, you would be deterministic machine with random component. Still no "free will", does not explain conscioussness any better than without the random component. What is the quantum component of our minds even supposed to bring to the table that was already not there. It would seem the internet proponents of quantum component in the mind do not really know much about quantum mechanics, it is just a buzzword. I completely agree with you and others that everything we are referring to here is physical (that we are capable of abstractions does not mean these abstractions are not rooted in the physical world like everything else), but I'm very curious with regards to the existence of randomness within our brains. Do you have any articles I could read concerning the absence of phenomena related to quantum mechanics within our brains? I found wikipedia pages on the quantum mind hypothesis and the quantum brain dynamics hypothesis, but I'm unsure of the credo that is given to them in the scientific community. I don't know if you read my exchange with SergioCQH, but with regards to randomness I am also curious to know if the stochastic processes that can be found in the brain are actually random (the way some phenomena pertaining to quantum mechanics are purely random) or only considered to be random because it is impossible for us to predict/analyze them in their detail. | ||
|
Seiniyta
Belgium1815 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 02 2013 03:21 Prog wrote: This is so naive. Astronomy before relativity probably thought exactly the same. Even geocentrists would have done the very same claim on their subject matter. Also you do not understand the term 'evidence'. Any text is at least testimonial evidence. You may think it is bad evidence and does not justify (i would disagree), but it is certainly evidence. And it is a very good form of a discourse to point to work already been done, instead of doing the same job again (maybe in a worse way). We are standing on the shoulders of giants, no need to ignore them. There is a good reason why citation is used and noone limits himself to his "own mouth". Geocentrists are before physics was mature science. Why do you think I discarded phlogiston and would be ok with time even before that ? Astronomy before relativity had big problems with its subject matter, they had problems with predictions and their models were mispredicting. On the other hand we currently have absolutely no problems in physics regarding the area that our brains operate in. The same way before relativity we had no problems calculating movements of light slow objects. Biology, possibly even chemistry are different matter, there is much to be done there regarding brains, but physics has no reason to suspect anything is not as it should be. And unless you want to claim that biology is not reducible to physics (in principle at least) I think what I wrote is perfectly ok. To sum it up you are basically saying : If we do not know everything we do not know nothing as everything can happen ? I hope you see uselessness of that position. I understand the term evidence. That text was not testimonial evidence, it was philosophical argument that might have had in itself hidden testimonial evidence. In such cases you should point to the page where the evidence starts. If you are going to present the argument badly it means you do not understand it and have no business arguing in the first place. The requirement I pointed out is in place in discussion like these exactly so people can avoid discussing with people who just post completely unrelated walls of text without actually understanding anything and when the other person refuses to argue with a whole book, they declare victory. Citations are used in different setting, we are not writing an article here, or are we ? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 02 2013 04:01 kwizach wrote: I completely agree with you and others that everything we are referring to here is physical (that we are capable of abstractions does not mean these abstractions are not rooted in the physical world like everything else), but I'm very curious with regards to the existence of randomness within our brains. Do you have any articles I could read concerning the absence of phenomena related to quantum mechanics within our brains? I found wikipedia pages on the quantum mind hypothesis and the quantum brain dynamics hypothesis, but I'm unsure of the credo that is given to them in the scientific community. I don't know if you read my exchange with SergioCQH, but with regards to randomness I am also curious to know if the stochastic processes that can be found in the brain are actually random (the way some phenomena pertaining to quantum mechanics are purely random) or only considered to be random because it is impossible for us to predict/analyze them in their detail. I am not neuroscientist (unfortunately), I just to try to keep up with the area out of interest from time to time. So I do not have any good articles/books on my hands. I would have to do similar search as you would be doing for things I read in the past. First notice that those things are mostly proposed by physicist not biologists. As far as I know they have basically no standing in biology. Not necessarily because biologists think they are wrong, but because they seem to be not too well supported, not easily tested and most important not really required as of now. Quantum brain dynamics is interesting idea, and would be awesomely beautiful if true, but again does not seem to be the necessary and is more of a theoretical construct now. But even if it was true it might not even lift the determinism, and if so then just as a way of introducing random chance, which is not much better in terms of the whole "common free will concept". But it might allow for some other interesting possibilities. | ||
|
grassHAT
United States40 Posts
The mind being purely physical/electrical is a proposition usually held by atheists and any naturalist worldview. This worldview also undermines science because science is based on the rationality of the human mind and our capacity to objectively understand and rationalize reality. If anyone would like more help with philosophy or theology I can help. Thanks. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 02 2013 04:49 grassHAT wrote: If the mind is purely chemical/electrical, then our thoughts and emotions would be the product of random atom motion in our brains. This would undermine our own ideas, because our ideas would be subject to non-rational behavior (random atom motion). It would even undermine the idea that the mind is purely physical, because the idea of the mind being purely physical would only be a product of a physical mind. The mind being purely physical/electrical is a proposition usually held by atheists and any naturalist worldview. This worldview also undermines science because science is based on the rationality of the human mind and our capacity to objectively understand and rationalize reality. If anyone would like more help with philosophy or theology I can help. Thanks. That's not really true. Even though the mind is purely chemical/electrical, it's not a product of random atom motion, it's a product of stimuli. We see something, which sends electrical impulses to certain parts of the brain, which in turn active certain areas, form new neuron connections, accesses memories etc. There honestly doesn't have to be a single random component. It's actually quite similar to how a CPU works, only far more complex. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On July 02 2013 04:49 grassHAT wrote: If the mind is purely chemical/electrical, then our thoughts and emotions would be the product of random atom motion in our brains. This would undermine our own ideas, because our ideas would be subject to non-rational behavior (random atom motion). It would even undermine the idea that the mind is purely physical, because the idea of the mind being purely physical would only be a product of a physical mind. The mind being purely physical/electrical is a proposition usually held by atheists and any naturalist worldview. This worldview also undermines science because science is based on the rationality of the human mind and our capacity to objectively understand and rationalize reality. If anyone would like more help with philosophy or theology I can help. Thanks. Your premise about atoms and randomness does not support your conclusions about ideas and rational behavior at all just to let you know The brain is a vastly complex heap of about 100 billion neurons and trillions of connections. Understanding the brain fully begins with complete understanding of the "connectome", or neuronal network structure all throughout the brain, in addition to the patterns of activity, neural plasticity, and diffuse signaling that are ongoing at the brain. We are very far away from these goals. Here's a fantastic read for people genuinely interested in understanding brain function http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v10/n6/full/nmeth.2480.html | ||
|
Cynry
810 Posts
On July 02 2013 04:49 grassHAT wrote: If the mind is purely chemical/electrical, then our thoughts and emotions would be the product of random atom motion in our brains. This would undermine our own ideas, because our ideas would be subject to non-rational behavior (random atom motion). It would even undermine the idea that the mind is purely physical, because the idea of the mind being purely physical would only be a product of a physical mind. The mind being purely physical/electrical is a proposition usually held by atheists and any naturalist worldview. This worldview also undermines science because science is based on the rationality of the human mind and our capacity to objectively understand and rationalize reality. If anyone would like more help with philosophy or theology I can help. Thanks. Random motions ? What ? How do you come to that conclusion based only on the brain being electrical/chemical ? Edit : lol, 3 similar answers at the same time. Wonder why... | ||
|
Voyage
Germany71 Posts
Since the OP asked is the mind all...? the answer is: We do not even know for certain what the mind is. If he however asked: Is the brain ...? For most people the structural correlate of our mind is (in) the brain: It is a simple answer: Yup just physical world stuff I guess. There is absolutely no need in contemporary scientific models of mind/brain/consciousness to presume supernatural forces to postulate their theories, which are admittedly not in the nature of: "Love is these neurons firing and hate is these neurons inhibiting these over here you can see clearly" Look up "Popper's three worlds" : Karl R, Popper explains his sight on physical/mental/objectifiable mental elements of reality. It is pretty interesting IMHO. It is not just about free will, you can even question consciousness if you are really sceptical: B. F. Skinner said something like the following: What we perceive as self-consciousness is just a highly complex nervous system observing and evaluating sensoric input. Perception of yourself as freely "thinking" individual is similar to watching a movie first person where you are an actor yourself. What you perceive as choice is the nervous system establishing coherence of your actions. BTW I am not stoned right now. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Which doesn't mean that studying the question is a waste of time, because it can help to understand counsciousness better, just that well, hopes of a definitive answer to the question seem misplaced. So interesting article farva, and nice signature  | ||
|
grassHAT
United States40 Posts
On July 02 2013 04:52 Tobberoth wrote: That's not really true. Even though the mind is purely chemical/electrical, it's not a product of random atom motion, it's a product of stimuli. We see something, which sends electrical impulses to certain parts of the brain, which in turn active certain areas, form new neuron connections, accesses memories etc. There honestly doesn't have to be a single random component. It's actually quite similar to how a CPU works, only far more complex. If you are receiving stimuli that in turn is used to create an idea or concept does that stimuli justify your proposed idea? You are arguing a moot point. Either proposition still lends to the same ending - rationality cannot be justified from a purely chemical/electrical mind. | ||
|
tokinho
United States785 Posts
On July 02 2013 05:03 Voyage wrote: I feel like too many people take the modesty of modern neurosciences (compared to phrenology for example) for an excuse to suppose things as free will or structural correlates of metaphysical concepts. Since the OP asked is the mind all...? the answer is: We do not even know for certain what the mind is. If he however asked: Is the brain ...? For most people the structural correlate of our mind is (in) the brain: It is a simple answer: Yup just physical world stuff I guess. There is absolutely no need in contemporary scientific models of mind/brain/consciousness to presume supernatural forces to postulate their theories, which are admittedly not in the nature of: "Love is these neurons firing and hate is these neurons inhibiting these over here you can see clearly" Look up "Popper's three worlds" : Karl R, Popper explains his sight on physical/mental/objectifiable mental elements of reality. It is pretty interesting IMHO. It is not just about free will, you can even question consciousness if you are really sceptical: B. F. Skinner said something like the following: What we perceive as self-consciousness is just a highly complex nervous system observing and evaluating sensoric input. Perception of yourself as freely "thinking" individual is similar to watching a movie first person where you are an actor yourself. What you perceive as choice is the nervous system establishing coherence of your actions. BTW I am not stoned right now. We do know what the mind is tho.. ?? the process of objectification is related to calcium dynamics. reality neuroscience and behavioral science are similar, just neuroscience describes the mechanisms for behavior. +1 for science. LTP, LTD (process of habits), hormones (fear, anxiety, etc) No point in arguing that reality is the process of processing senses. +1 emotionals. Certain behaviors as a culture reduce stresses, and increase happiness. +1 religions. Whether you choose call it godliness, right wrong, free will, etc. I don't care. I don't like these sorts of threads and there are a lot of them. Basically with an assumed statement- Go fight logic, emotionals, and religion. Usually there is a concensus, just using different terms. I wish that people would stop just trying to get attention by starting these threads. | ||
|
red_hq
Canada450 Posts
What you experience as consciousness is actually just continual a stream of reverse justifications and rationalizations for the sole purpose of increased performance in the future (learning). This learning is solely for the increased likely hood of your own survival and ultimately your genetic reproduction. The sentience that has risen in humans is just the latest most powerful evolutionary survival tool because it allows us to think and learn the right answers faster and with fewer trials. | ||
| ||
Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad.
