On July 01 2013 10:26 casuistry wrote: Yes, it's all electrical and chemical events. Accept it.
What's really funny is that half of the people saying yes in this thread still believe in free will. We can "control" the laws of physics! With our brain made of elements ruled by physics! What a miracle!
Mmm, free will is a separate issue from whether brain activity is solely produced by chemical and electrical activity.
It's not a separate issue. If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist. But brain activity is not absolutely deterministic. It's stochastic.
Could you explain why it's stochastic? So far the only factor making it non-deterministic that I've encountered is quantum mechanics.
Brownian motion, the mechanism through which neurotransmitters diffuse through the synaptic cleft is a stochastic process. Since neurotransmitter binding controls the ratio of excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic potentials, whether or not EPSPs and IPSPs sum up to generate action potentials, and the timing and frequency of action potentials all depend on stochastic processes.
The difference between pulling the trigger or putting down the gun can be the difference between whether one neuron's neurotransmitters got there first or not.
Realize how important this lack of surety is, it lies at the base of the reason why interpretation of diagnostics of any kind are fundamentally limited.
Surety? No scientist uses terms of certainty when discussing random processes. That would be stupid. That doesn't mean that the processes that science describe are not correct.
I'm not indicting the description of scientific processes, I am questioning the extrapolation that follows when one wants to relate an observation with a phenomena and meaning.
On July 01 2013 10:26 casuistry wrote: Yes, it's all electrical and chemical events. Accept it.
What's really funny is that half of the people saying yes in this thread still believe in free will. We can "control" the laws of physics! With our brain made of elements ruled by physics! What a miracle!
Mmm, free will is a separate issue from whether brain activity is solely produced by chemical and electrical activity.
It's not a separate issue. If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist. But brain activity is not absolutely deterministic. It's stochastic.
Could you explain why it's stochastic? So far the only factor making it non-deterministic that I've encountered is quantum mechanics.
Brownian motion, the mechanism through which neurotransmitters diffuse through the synaptic cleft is a stochastic process. Since neurotransmitter binding controls the ratio of excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic potentials, whether or not EPSPs and IPSPs sum up to generate action potentials, and the timing and frequency of action potentials all depend on stochastic processes.
The difference between pulling the trigger or putting down the gun can be the difference between whether one neuron's neurotransmitters got there first or not.
Aren't those processes however considered stochastic because we do not possess (and possibly will never possess) the means to accurately and with certainty represent them? Is there actual randomness involved (the kind we find in quantum mechanics, if I'm not mistaken) or is it only considered to be non-deterministic because we cannot accurately identify the causality mechanisms in their detail?
Thanks for the answer, by the way - I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject even though I completely agree that this is all completely physical.
On July 01 2013 10:26 casuistry wrote: Yes, it's all electrical and chemical events. Accept it.
What's really funny is that half of the people saying yes in this thread still believe in free will. We can "control" the laws of physics! With our brain made of elements ruled by physics! What a miracle!
Mmm, free will is a separate issue from whether brain activity is solely produced by chemical and electrical activity.
That would only be true if behavior or thought were independent from brain activity, which they are not. So it is not a separate issue, people simply compartmentalize free will in their brains from logic to prevent reaching inevitable if uncomfortable conclusions.
You are aware that we know laughably little about how the brain works and how it influences thought and behavior, yes? It is incredibly pretentious and arrogant to reach such a far-reaching conclusion from so little evidence.
We don't need to know completely how the brain works. We simply need to know that nowhere in human history have we ever encountered a system which was independent from the laws of physics.
On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote: If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line.
yes case closed thats a good way of thinking
"i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!"
What's there to examine? This is a definition. If it exists, it is physical. If it's metaphysical, then it doesn't exist. You're free to reject the definition, but that doesn't invalidate it.
On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote: If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line.
yes case closed thats a good way of thinking
"i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!"
What's there to examine? This is a definition. If it exists, it is physical. If it's metaphysical, then it doesn't exist. You're free to reject the definition, but that doesn't invalidate it.
To be more exact - is the mind, in all its complexity, physical, the is, the chemical and electric networks in the brain? What about morality, love, ideas, empathy, compassion, imagination? Are these mere byproducts of physiological processes that are in a way similar to the chemical and electrical impulses experienced by other animals?
I'd like to bring up the language involved here. "Mere byproducts"?
Think about this for a moment: If chemistry and biology is capable of such amazing things like love and imagination, then don't you think it's a bit insulting to chemistry and biology to say "mere byproducts"? If this is what physical things can do, then that's pretty goddamn friggin' impressive. It shouldn't lower your opinion of love and imagination. It should heighten your opinion of the physical.
Secondly, if something is physical, then it is as real as real can be. If you ever had a friend that doesn't know if he's in love (I just don't know if I love her!), wouldn't it be better, and more wondrous to actually be able to tell your friend "Look at that. Yes, you are in love. Stop bothering me!"?
The idea that we might be able to understand something like love is far more interesting than the idea that it's just something mysterious and unexplainable.
Everything real is physical. However, we cannot comprehend reality at full precision (quantum wave functions or whatever), so we use approximations. Those approximations, like Newtonian physics, are not absolute truth, but they work so long as you don't need greater precision.
If you describe two people as 'friends', that is a description of physical reality. It is useful information and (if I didn't already know it) should change my predictions for how interactions between them will play out. Likewise, if two people are 'enemies', I can reasonably predict bad consequences to including both of them in the same social situations.
These are very high level approximations -- you can't point to a social dynamic like you could a table, so we tend to call a table 'physical', yet not call a social dynamic physical. They're both useful approximations of reality.
On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote: If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line.
yes case closed thats a good way of thinking
"i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!"
What's there to examine? This is a definition. If it exists, it is physical. If it's metaphysical, then it doesn't exist. You're free to reject the definition, but that doesn't invalidate it.
It's not an accepted definition...
I could just as easily say: "The soul is defined as a thing that exists, therefore, by definition, it exists."
On July 01 2013 10:26 casuistry wrote: Yes, it's all electrical and chemical events. Accept it.
What's really funny is that half of the people saying yes in this thread still believe in free will. We can "control" the laws of physics! With our brain made of elements ruled by physics! What a miracle!
Mmm, free will is a separate issue from whether brain activity is solely produced by chemical and electrical activity.
That would only be true if behavior or thought were independent from brain activity, which they are not. So it is not a separate issue, people simply compartmentalize free will in their brains from logic to prevent reaching inevitable if uncomfortable conclusions.
You are aware that we know laughably little about how the brain works and how it influences thought and behavior, yes? It is incredibly pretentious and arrogant to reach such a far-reaching conclusion from so little evidence.
We don't need to know completely how the brain works. We simply need to know that nowhere in human history have we ever encountered a system which was independent from the laws of physics.
Except for art, music, stories, etc. Figments of the human imagination...
Look, if there is anything "more" to the mind than chemicals, electrical charge, and random motion, it's something science hasn't detected yet.
So if you believe in something more, than you are approaching the question from a religious perspective. And it's impossible for someone taking the scientific approach to discuss the topic with someone taking a religious approach.
On July 01 2013 11:00 SergioCQH wrote: Look, if there is anything "more" to the mind than chemicals, electrical charge, and random motion, it's something science hasn't detected yet.
So if you believe in something more, than you are approaching the question from a religious perspective. And it's impossible for someone taking the scientific approach to discuss the topic with someone taking a religious approach.
The issue is that you even think that science can detect whatever it is you're sure it will eventually find.
On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote: If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line.
yes case closed thats a good way of thinking
"i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!"
What's there to examine? This is a definition. If it exists, it is physical. If it's metaphysical, then it doesn't exist. You're free to reject the definition, but that doesn't invalidate it.
so our experiences don't exist? because mine definitely do.
On July 01 2013 10:26 casuistry wrote: Yes, it's all electrical and chemical events. Accept it.
What's really funny is that half of the people saying yes in this thread still believe in free will. We can "control" the laws of physics! With our brain made of elements ruled by physics! What a miracle!
Mmm, free will is a separate issue from whether brain activity is solely produced by chemical and electrical activity.
That would only be true if behavior or thought were independent from brain activity, which they are not. So it is not a separate issue, people simply compartmentalize free will in their brains from logic to prevent reaching inevitable if uncomfortable conclusions.
You are aware that we know laughably little about how the brain works and how it influences thought and behavior, yes? It is incredibly pretentious and arrogant to reach such a far-reaching conclusion from so little evidence.
We don't need to know completely how the brain works. We simply need to know that nowhere in human history have we ever encountered a system which was independent from the laws of physics.
Except for art, music, stories, etc. Figments of the human imagination...
How are those items independent of the laws of physics?
What else could it be? To the best of our knowledge the universe is composed entirely of the physical, everything that we have discovered that has suggested otherwise is defunct, why would the mind be exceptional?
On July 01 2013 10:26 casuistry wrote: Yes, it's all electrical and chemical events. Accept it.
What's really funny is that half of the people saying yes in this thread still believe in free will. We can "control" the laws of physics! With our brain made of elements ruled by physics! What a miracle!
Mmm, free will is a separate issue from whether brain activity is solely produced by chemical and electrical activity.
That would only be true if behavior or thought were independent from brain activity, which they are not. So it is not a separate issue, people simply compartmentalize free will in their brains from logic to prevent reaching inevitable if uncomfortable conclusions.
You are aware that we know laughably little about how the brain works and how it influences thought and behavior, yes? It is incredibly pretentious and arrogant to reach such a far-reaching conclusion from so little evidence.
We don't need to know completely how the brain works. We simply need to know that nowhere in human history have we ever encountered a system which was independent from the laws of physics.
Except for art, music, stories, etc. Figments of the human imagination...
none of that is independent of the laws of physics
On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote: If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line.
yes case closed thats a good way of thinking
"i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!"
What's there to examine? This is a definition. If it exists, it is physical. If it's metaphysical, then it doesn't exist. You're free to reject the definition, but that doesn't invalidate it.
so our experiences don't exist? because mine definitely do.
Your experiences are not metaphysical. They are physical processes.
On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote: If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line.
yes case closed thats a good way of thinking
"i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!"
What's there to examine? This is a definition. If it exists, it is physical. If it's metaphysical, then it doesn't exist. You're free to reject the definition, but that doesn't invalidate it.
so our experiences don't exist? because mine definitely do.
If your experiences exist, they are physical phenomena. If they are not physical phenomena, they do not exist.
EPT
