|
So we are trying to figure out this machine... What machine are we using to figure it out? The same machine we are trying to figure out?
How is that not a philosophical problem?
How can one not see the problems arising from this?
Our brain limits the ideas we can grasp, it forms how we see reality and thus is responsible for how we see our brain.
Terms like "mind", "consciousness" or "cognition" are highly philosophical. You can't make a "theory of mind" without having an idea of what a "mind" should be. You don't simply crack a skull (yeah, yeah modern neuroimaging procedures) and say "well, there has got to be a mind in here somewhere!" You start with an idea what you expect to find. Get your philosophy of science together please 
Measuring things and finding correlations is nice, but the hard part is interpreting your findings.
|
On July 01 2013 10:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +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!"
On July 01 2013 11:06 travis wrote:
Well there is no point in pursuing this further because some things should be self-evident. It's one thing to think that your experiences result from material, it's another entirely to think that they are material when they very clearly are not.
Well if you say so
|
It comes down to this, either we have a "soul" and free will exists.
Or we don't have "soul" and there is no such thing as free will. If this is the case, then it can be argued that every single one of our actions can be predicted before it happens if we were somehow able to take every physiological process taking place at the time as well as every outside factor influencing that process. If it were possible to take all of these factors into account, then theoretically we could predict what someone is going to do next, if we are nothing but machines.
However, I remember reading (or seeing) somewhere that science has recently discovered something occurring on the quantum level in our brains. Something relating to our consciousness, our "self." At what point do our neurons stop being independent and start becoming a collective consciousness, to the point of creating us, a self aware higher organism? Well these recent findings seem to point to the possibility of some quantum process that is occurring in our brains that may explain how our collective mind is able to take shape. If you think about it, it really is the only possible way, in order for us to have the ability to make free will decisions and not just simply consequences of causality, we must have some component that operates outside of the traditional laws of physics. It's possible that quantum physics is what allows us this, there are phenomena that we don't completely understand yet such as quantum entanglement, or the fact that some subatomic particles tend to just disappear and then reappear somewhere else or that you can't ever truly predict the position of an electron, only guess at it, etc.
It's important to note that when i said "soul" i didn't mean some spirit that lives inside of us. I just used the term to define the possibility that some part of us might be able to exist on a quantum level.
|
On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion? I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative. The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing. If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected. Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion. Dude... you have got to stop mixing philosophy with science. Or at least be honest and say that you're discussing the philosophy of science. Philosophy can be useful in some areas. I only reject philosophical discussion of certain topics like free will. Philosophers are indispensable when it comes to logic or ethics.
But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly.
|
'k, let's clarify the question.
Mental functions happen, so they are real. Therefore, they are subject to The Laws of Reality, whatever those are. Maybe there's some kind of mass-less immortal soul that's inextricably part of your mind, that lives on after the death of the body. If so, the way those souls work is part of The Laws of Reality, also known as 'The Laws of Physics.'
This occasionally produces confusion, because many people interpret 'Laws of Physics' to mean our current understanding of the way the universe operates. Crucial difference there.
So, the question "are mental functions part of the universe and thus governed by the laws of the universe?" is easily answered; of course they are. The question, "can our current understanding of the laws of physics explain human mental functions?" is more difficult, and is not as yet resolved... although it seems unlikely that the fuzzy areas of our current understanding of physics are relevant at that level.
On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion?
What does it mean to manifest without interacting with what is physical?
|
Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit,
That, from her working, all his visage wann'd;
Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect,
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? And all for nothing!
-Hamlet, ii, 2
|
On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion? I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative. The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing. If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected. Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion. Dude... you have got to stop mixing philosophy with science. Or at least be honest and say that you're discussing the philosophy of science. Philosophy can be useful in some areas. I only reject philosophical discussion of certain topics like free will. Philosophers are indispensable when it comes to logic or ethics. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly.
But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension.
|
On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion? I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative. The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing. If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected. Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion. Dude... you have got to stop mixing philosophy with science. Or at least be honest and say that you're discussing the philosophy of science. Philosophy can be useful in some areas. I only reject philosophical discussion of certain topics like free will. Philosophers are indispensable when it comes to logic or ethics. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes, but only tangentially in discussion of how the problem can be approached. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension.
|
Thanks for the answer, SergioCQH, although I must say I'm not sure I understand how there can be different degrees in actual randomness (as in, not the kind of randomness that we refer to when we are incapable of having all of the information needed but would still be able to make a correct prediction if we did) - I'll read up on the matter.
With regards to those claiming that we are forgetting the difference between the brain and the mind, it seems that you are failing to grasp what we are saying. What you're referring to with "mind" is merely the product of the reflexive capability of our brain: it is the brain reflecting on itself and on its environment. It's just as physical.
|
On July 01 2013 11:10 casuistry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:08 rei wrote:
all cells in human gets replace by new cells except for the neurons in the cerbral cortex, after birth no neurons are added to our cerbral cortex, if we some how lose some neurons no more will be regrow. So no, the mind's not all chemicals and electricity. Your reasoning just killed a few of my limited brain cells.
LOL. You a funny .
You people can write philosophical replies all you want. The fact of the matter is that everything we sense around us seems to exist as some form of matter or energy, including the brain. We haven't found anything yet that breaks the laws of physics, or operates above and beyond those laws. And these findings are overwhelmingly supported by scientific experiments, the most reliable form of evidence we have.
Whether there are some elements of randomness involved or not, this means the universe is at least largely deterministic or at most completely deterministic.
No philosophical argument can help you escape from reality. Of course its possible all of this is an illusion, and everything we experience is an illusion. But for our purposes, as a practical people who choose the simplest explanation over more complex ones, the world is probably external to us as some form of material reality.
As for explaining what love is. Just think of it as, we are analyzing every piece of how a complex machine works. And in every instance that we have analyzed so far, that machine works on well established physical laws, with few exceptions. There are a few special parts in the center of the machine we haven't gotten to. What is your expectation? I think any reasonable person would say, it probably works like the other 99% of the machine works, because everywhere we look, under every crevice, from the bottom of the sea to space, there is nothing besides physical law. Hence we expect love is just an electrochemical reaction like any other, and we expect that consciousness is something similar.
Of course its not completely certain. And I personally hope and wish there is something more, because pure determinism is a fairly depressing conclusion, even if we can still live amazing lives as some of us do everyday (and hopefully a greater proportion of us in the future!)
|
There's no evidence that it's anything more. I'd argue that it's dumber to assume there's something despite the complete lack of evidence, but to outright deny the possibility is not that useful either.
Neuroscience still has ways to go, and we know that the brain is very complex, so I don't know why we would just assume that it's insufficient to produce special feelings.
|
On July 01 2013 11:30 radscorpion9 wrote:
Whether there are some elements of randomness involved or not, this means the universe is at least largely deterministic or at most completely deterministic.
No no no. You can't be largely deterministic just like you can't be mostly a virgin. Either the universe has an inevitable outcome that cannot be changed or it does not.
EDIT: I'm putting this clumsily, but I think it was implied to treat the entire universe as a single set. A set cannot be sort of deterministic with an element of randomness.
|
|
|
On July 01 2013 11:27 kwizach wrote:
Thanks for the answer, SergioCQH, although I must say I'm not sure I understand how there can be different degrees in actual randomness (as in, not the kind of randomness that we refer to when we are incapable of having all of the information needed but would still be able to make a correct prediction if we did) - I'll read up on the matter.
With regards to those claiming that we are forgetting the difference between the brain and the mind, it seems that you are failing to grasp what we are saying. Our mind is merely the product of the reflexive capability of our brain: it is the brain reflecting on itself and on its environment. It's just as physical.
Information is precisely the problem. With a lot of stochastic phenomena, the process of gathering information can actually change the outcome entirely. Basically, you can reduce the degree of randomness of a process by gathering information. So you can reduce a random process to a more deterministic one. Therefore, you're not even looking at the same process anymore. The Double-slit Experiment is a classic example of this.
Scientists can never be omniscient gods. The only way we can study a phenomenon is through physical interaction with it. It is likely that if we were to gather enough information to predict the Brownian motion of yogurt particles in a petrie dish, we would have destroyed the phenomenon we were studying in the first place.
|
Might as well ask,
What causes the first neuron to fire?
You could say its due to neurotransmitters...action potential.. blah blah blah. I'm aiming more toward what chooses a particular neuron in the brain to fire first, which starts the chain reaction. If an external stimulus was present, one could argue the neuron firing off is due to a reaction from a sensory input. But what about thoughts such as commands to move your limbs? We know neurons fire when we think about moving, but what causes them to fire?
This is a question that puzzles people. As we know, there is no central neuron in the brain that begins a thought. It seems to be random. Although we have notice activity in certain parts of the brain are associated with certain actions. These are questions we have and it leaves open the possibly that there is more than to it than chemicals and electrical impulses.
fun question: Is it possible to think without ever sensing an external stimulus in your life?
|
On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion? I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative. The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing. If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected. Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion. Dude... you have got to stop mixing philosophy with science. Or at least be honest and say that you're discussing the philosophy of science. Philosophy can be useful in some areas. I only reject philosophical discussion of certain topics like free will. Philosophers are indispensable when it comes to logic or ethics. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension.
You said:
"If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist."
That is a philosophical statement. (I already pointed this out, maybe you didn't see it.)
|
On July 01 2013 11:34 Chezinu wrote:
Might as well ask,
What causes the first neuron to fire?
You could say its due to neurotransmitters...action potential.. blah blah blah. I'm aiming more toward what chooses a particular neuron in the brain to fire first, which starts the chain reaction. If an external stimulus was present, one could argue the neuron firing off is due to a reaction from a sensory input. But what about thoughts such as commands to move your limbs? We know neurons fire when we think about moving, but what causes them to fire?
This is a question that puzzles people. As we know, there is no central neuron in the brain that begins a thought. It seems to be random. Although we have notice activity in certain parts of the brain are associated with certain actions. These are questions we have and it leaves open the possibly that there is more than to it than chemicals and electrical impulses.
fun question: Is it possible to think without ever sensing an external stimulus in your life?
Does our lack of understanding imply that there's a third party though? I think that'd be a cop out and a cheap argument.
I'm not a neuroscience expert though so maybe they have answers to your question, I don't know.
|
On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion? I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative. The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing. If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected. Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion.
The question is not if it exist but may it exist. There are many many things that exist but haven't been detected. Many fundamental particles that we don't have the technology to detect but will eventually be unearthed. This discussion isn't scientific, the answer as far as we can say with science is that no the mind is physical. The discussion is philosophical because we are discussing the possibility of something separate from the physical existing.
I don't think there is much point to the argument though since it is mostly just wordplay.
Severedevil:
hat does it mean to manifest without interacting with what is physical?
Interactions with things that are also not physical.
|
Quite a funny thread the more I think about it. Humans are emotional beings, and emotion is often powerful enough in the mind to overcome logic. So we emotional beings take our powerful emotions and then say those emotions are too powerful to be part of science or logic. Sort of circular reasoning when you get right down to it. It couldn't be any other way... people are expected to reject the expected.
|
On July 01 2013 11:38 casuistry wrote:
Quite a funny thread the more I think about it. Humans are emotional beings, and emotion is often powerful enough in the mind to overcome logic. So we emotional beings take our powerful emotions and then say those emotions are too powerful to be part of science or logic. Sort of circular reasoning when you get right down to it. It couldn't be any other way... people are expected to reject the expected.
I'll put this more cleanly for you. People use logic to support their emotional beliefs, not refute them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
