|
On July 10 2013 04:04 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:00 DoubleReed wrote:It means it's a collection of atoms arranged in a way that is useful, specifically for writing and poking people in the eye. The "claim" that it's only atoms isn't a claim, it's a fact I consider this a direct contradiction, because "arrangement" is incredibly important. Rearranging atoms leads to completely different molecules, for instance. Rearranging organs is the difference between life and death, which we presumably care about. I would say that a pencil is certainly not just atoms, because arrangement is far from trivial. Yes the arrangement is important but that doesn't change the fact that the pencil is comprised of atoms and nothing else, and once arranged there is nothing more than "just" or "only" a collection of usefully arranged atoms. I made that clear. There is no contradiction in what I said, direct or otherwise.
Well it matters because the underlying argument is that the pencil is just the sum of its parts. Thats what's he's trying to get at.
But physicalism does not say that things are merely the sum of its parts. That is not a consequence of physicalism because arrangement of things is highly important. It's not something you can gloss over.
|
On July 10 2013 04:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:04 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 04:00 DoubleReed wrote:It means it's a collection of atoms arranged in a way that is useful, specifically for writing and poking people in the eye. The "claim" that it's only atoms isn't a claim, it's a fact I consider this a direct contradiction, because "arrangement" is incredibly important. Rearranging atoms leads to completely different molecules, for instance. Rearranging organs is the difference between life and death, which we presumably care about. I would say that a pencil is certainly not just atoms, because arrangement is far from trivial. Yes the arrangement is important but that doesn't change the fact that the pencil is comprised of atoms and nothing else, and once arranged there is nothing more than "just" or "only" a collection of usefully arranged atoms. I made that clear. There is no contradiction in what I said, direct or otherwise. Well it matters because the underlying argument is that the pencil is just the sum of its parts. Thats what's he's trying to get at. But physicalism does not say that things are merely the sum of its parts. That is not a consequence of physicalism because arrangement of things is highly important. It's not something you can gloss over.
That's not what he's trying to get at at all.
By saying something is just atoms carefully arranged, I've already qualified it as being more than just the sum of its parts. He did the same in the opening paragraph of his post, and from what you've said all three of us clearly agree on this.
The point is it means nothing in the context of this thread and he clearly thought otherwise. There is a small chance I possibly did not communicate this very well.
edit: To put this clearly, I do not believe the human brain is more the sum of its parts than a pencil is more than the sum of its parts. I think they are equally more than the sum of their parts. In the context of this thread, and from his post, I felt he was saying otherwise, and I disagree.
+ Show Spoiler +Especially from stuff like this...
"The assumption that, given comprehensive data and processing power, a person could be modeled and explained purely in terms of physics is a powerful one in modern science, but it is only an assumption. For the time being, nobody is anywhere near being able to prove it."
|
On July 10 2013 04:31 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:11 DoubleReed wrote:On July 10 2013 04:04 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 04:00 DoubleReed wrote:It means it's a collection of atoms arranged in a way that is useful, specifically for writing and poking people in the eye. The "claim" that it's only atoms isn't a claim, it's a fact I consider this a direct contradiction, because "arrangement" is incredibly important. Rearranging atoms leads to completely different molecules, for instance. Rearranging organs is the difference between life and death, which we presumably care about. I would say that a pencil is certainly not just atoms, because arrangement is far from trivial. Yes the arrangement is important but that doesn't change the fact that the pencil is comprised of atoms and nothing else, and once arranged there is nothing more than "just" or "only" a collection of usefully arranged atoms. I made that clear. There is no contradiction in what I said, direct or otherwise. Well it matters because the underlying argument is that the pencil is just the sum of its parts. Thats what's he's trying to get at. But physicalism does not say that things are merely the sum of its parts. That is not a consequence of physicalism because arrangement of things is highly important. It's not something you can gloss over. That's not what he's trying to get at at all. By saying something is just atoms carefully arranged, I've already qualified it as being more than just the sum of its parts. He did the same in the opening paragraph of his post, and from what you've said all three of us clearly agree on this. The point is it means nothing in the context of this thread and he clearly thought otherwise. There is a small chance I possibly did not communicate this very well. edit: To put this clearly, I do not believe the human brain is more the sum of its parts than a pencil is more than the sum of its parts. I think they are equally more than the sum of their parts. In the context of this thread, and from his post, I felt he was saying otherwise, and I disagree. + Show Spoiler +Especially from stuff like this...
"The assumption that, given comprehensive data and processing power, a person could be modeled and explained purely in terms of physics is a powerful one in modern science, but it is only an assumption. For the time being, nobody is anywhere near being able to prove it."
I'm not really sure how to even compare whether something is "more than the sum of its parts" in a larger way than something else, because it's very much a subjective, qualitative judgment rather than something that can be quantified. Obviously, a brain is much more complicated in terms of information/entropy than a pencil, but that just means it has greater complexity (which makes sense considering a brain is comprised of more matter + energy + more difficult, precise arrangement) than a pencil.
Like suppose there are two hypothetical objects, each "more than the sum of its parts." What does that even mean and how would one compare the magnitudes of this "moreness"?
|
I think he just meant that the principle is the same in both cases.
|
On July 10 2013 05:01 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:31 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 04:11 DoubleReed wrote:On July 10 2013 04:04 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 04:00 DoubleReed wrote:It means it's a collection of atoms arranged in a way that is useful, specifically for writing and poking people in the eye. The "claim" that it's only atoms isn't a claim, it's a fact I consider this a direct contradiction, because "arrangement" is incredibly important. Rearranging atoms leads to completely different molecules, for instance. Rearranging organs is the difference between life and death, which we presumably care about. I would say that a pencil is certainly not just atoms, because arrangement is far from trivial. Yes the arrangement is important but that doesn't change the fact that the pencil is comprised of atoms and nothing else, and once arranged there is nothing more than "just" or "only" a collection of usefully arranged atoms. I made that clear. There is no contradiction in what I said, direct or otherwise. Well it matters because the underlying argument is that the pencil is just the sum of its parts. Thats what's he's trying to get at. But physicalism does not say that things are merely the sum of its parts. That is not a consequence of physicalism because arrangement of things is highly important. It's not something you can gloss over. That's not what he's trying to get at at all. By saying something is just atoms carefully arranged, I've already qualified it as being more than just the sum of its parts. He did the same in the opening paragraph of his post, and from what you've said all three of us clearly agree on this. The point is it means nothing in the context of this thread and he clearly thought otherwise. There is a small chance I possibly did not communicate this very well. edit: To put this clearly, I do not believe the human brain is more the sum of its parts than a pencil is more than the sum of its parts. I think they are equally more than the sum of their parts. In the context of this thread, and from his post, I felt he was saying otherwise, and I disagree. + Show Spoiler +Especially from stuff like this...
"The assumption that, given comprehensive data and processing power, a person could be modeled and explained purely in terms of physics is a powerful one in modern science, but it is only an assumption. For the time being, nobody is anywhere near being able to prove it." Obviously, a brain is much more complicated in terms of information/entropy than a pencil, but that just means it has greater complexity (which makes sense considering a brain is comprised of more matter + energy + more difficult, precise arrangement) than a pencil.
Exactly.
On July 10 2013 05:01 Shiori wrote:
Like suppose there are two hypothetical objects, each "more than the sum of its parts." What does that even mean and how would one compare the magnitudes of this "moreness"?
I think you know what "more than the sum of its parts" means, so I'll only answer your second question 
I have no idea how one would compare the magnitudes of this "moreness" in the way that you're describing other than to say one is perhaps more complex or pronounced than the other. As DoubleReed said, the principle is the same.
So although this "moreness" may be more complex, pronounced or both than a pencil, I still don't think that means the answer to "Is the mind all chemical and electricity?" is no.
|
On July 10 2013 03:16 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:
Yes. People do this all the time lol.
Like for example when hanging up a poster of adorable kittens on a wall.
Studys have shown that the reasoning for an action is often made after the action, more as a tool to justify the action in hindsight, then as the original impulse for the action. Ah, but that doesn't prove anything about free will. Yes, rationalisation is performed after a choice is made, but that could simply be the oone 'level' of your brain doing its best to understand and incorporate input from its own inner workings. EG: recoiling at the sight of a large spider - the wiring that triggers that response is not 'known' to the conscious part of the brain. If you never see a spider in your life your conscious mind will never know that bit of your brain is even there, right? After the reaction occurs your conscious mind will try to come up with an explanation which may well not include the existence of an instinctive core to the brain. Similarly, can you imagine anyone ever going out to buy a poster of kittens having never seen a kitten before? You might go and look at a poster of kittens if someone told you there were such things, but the impulse to buy and hang up the poster is contingent upon your reaction to the sight.
Can you imagine buying a poster of kittens having never seen a kitten before?
Yes definatly, though you will off course see the kittens when buying the poster
Like buying a specific painting from a painter while having never seen work of that painter before, he buys it just because he "likes" it.
Isnt it similar to how some scientific discoverys are made, like einsteins vission of the universe as curved time/space.
People can think of ideas and explanations wich they have never seen or heard of before.
@ below, hmm i see what you and he mean now, and i do agree that it does not say annything about free will.
|
On July 10 2013 05:18 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:16 Umpteen wrote:On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:
Yes. People do this all the time lol.
Like for example when hanging up a poster of adorable kittens on a wall.
Studys have shown that the reasoning for an action is often made after the action, more as a tool to justify the action in hindsight, then as the original impulse for the action. Ah, but that doesn't prove anything about free will. Yes, rationalisation is performed after a choice is made, but that could simply be the oone 'level' of your brain doing its best to understand and incorporate input from its own inner workings. EG: recoiling at the sight of a large spider - the wiring that triggers that response is not 'known' to the conscious part of the brain. If you never see a spider in your life your conscious mind will never know that bit of your brain is even there, right? After the reaction occurs your conscious mind will try to come up with an explanation which may well not include the existence of an instinctive core to the brain. Similarly, can you imagine anyone ever going out to buy a poster of kittens having never seen a kitten before? You might go and look at a poster of kittens if someone told you there were such things, but the impulse to buy and hang up the poster is contingent upon your reaction to the sight. Can you imagine buying a poster of kittens having never seen a kitten before? Yes definatly, it is similar to how some scientific discoverys are made. People can think of ideas and explanations wich they have never seen or heard of before.
You both agree.
|
So, have all the disagreements been settled? I think that wraps up the thread nicely. Good job everyone.
|
On July 10 2013 05:24 DoubleReed wrote:
So, have all the disagreements been settled? I think that wraps up the thread nicely. Good job everyone.
That sounds as likely as someone inventing perpetual motion 
|
Well the thread was kinda pointless from the outset because it's basically a category error to ask if the mind "is all" chemicals and electricity. It sort of depends on what you take the question to mean.
|
On July 10 2013 05:26 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 05:24 DoubleReed wrote:
So, have all the disagreements been settled? I think that wraps up the thread nicely. Good job everyone. That sounds as likely as someone inventing perpetual motion
Unless this thread never ends, making it a perpetual motion machine.
Whoa. Did I just BLOW YOUR MIND??!!
|
On July 10 2013 05:26 Shiori wrote:
Well the thread was kinda pointless from the outset because it's basically a category error to ask if the mind "is all" chemicals and electricity. It sort of depends on what you take the question to mean.
I think the OP made it pretty clear what the question was...
On July 01 2013 10:11 electronic voyeur wrote:
This begs the question, and even impoverishes imagination if you really think hard about it, are all these things, art, architecture, the internet, religion, sociological theory, space rocket, Einstein's thought experiments, emotions, dance, self-reflection merely products of chemical and electrical impulses in the human brain?
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?
What are your thoughts? Is the mind all physical?
Merely perhaps isn't the best word to use repeatedly, as was pointed out repeatedly on the first few pages the mind is pretty damn awesome, even if it is just a bunch of chemicals and electricity.
|
On July 10 2013 05:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 05:26 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 10 2013 05:24 DoubleReed wrote:
So, have all the disagreements been settled? I think that wraps up the thread nicely. Good job everyone. That sounds as likely as someone inventing perpetual motion Unless this thread never ends, making it a perpetual motion machine. Whoa. Did I just BLOW YOUR MIND??!!
Almost 
The thread will die, but tought and unthought counter-arguments, misunderstandings, whispered insults not quite formulated. It will remain full of ghosts forever.
|
Question for science peple...
My main issue with ppl saying the mind is just chemicals and electricity happening in complex ways inside the brain is that theirs no way it could happen without a higher being in charge of it all. Yes, maybe their is evolution, but really, who could possibly believe that it could just *happen* out of thin air without anything guiding it? Its impossible
|
On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 05:26 Shiori wrote:
Well the thread was kinda pointless from the outset because it's basically a category error to ask if the mind "is all" chemicals and electricity. It sort of depends on what you take the question to mean. I think the OP made it pretty clear what the question was... Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 10:11 electronic voyeur wrote:
This begs the question, and even impoverishes imagination if you really think hard about it, are all these things, art, architecture, the internet, religion, sociological theory, space rocket, Einstein's thought experiments, emotions, dance, self-reflection merely products of chemical and electrical impulses in the human brain?
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?
What are your thoughts? Is the mind all physical? Merely perhaps isn't the best word to use repeatedly, as was pointed out repeatedly on the first few pages the mind is pretty damn awesome, even if it is just a bunch of chemicals and electricity.
Well, he's scientifically wrong then.
All the brain is made up of is positive, negative, and neutrally charged particles that accidentally become atoms.
These particles may or may not exist at any given time or at any given place, but somehow are present enough to take up mass.
The problem with deconstructing an object by way of separating it from things we "think" or "feel" are disconnected from the object is that all objects when deconstructed enough ceases to exist.
"merely chemicals" is no different from "merely atoms" or "merely charged/uncharged particles"
|
On July 10 2013 05:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Question for science peple...
My main issue with ppl saying the mind is just chemicals and electricity happening in complex ways inside the brain is that theirs no way it could happen without a higher being in charge of it all. Yes, maybe their is evolution, but really, who could possibly believe that it could just *happen* out of thin air without anything guiding it? Its impossible
Oh boy.
|
On July 10 2013 05:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Question for science peple...
My main issue with ppl saying the mind is just chemicals and electricity happening in complex ways inside the brain is that theirs no way it could happen without a higher being in charge of it all. Yes, maybe their is evolution, but really, who could possibly believe that it could just *happen* out of thin air without anything guiding it? Its impossible
It took 2 billion years for life (on earth) to get to this point. If it had happened in 10 minutes then I would agree that God must of been in charge.
Life did not have to get itself right on the first attempt. There have been countless attempts, mostly guided by evolution. I would not only say it is possible, I would say that it was inevitable.
To put it another way: If I could play in a billion GSL tournaments then I guarantee that I would win at least one of them, and I would not need God to help me.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 10 2013 05:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Question for science peple...
My main issue with ppl saying the mind is just chemicals and electricity happening in complex ways inside the brain is that theirs no way it could happen without a higher being in charge of it all. Yes, maybe their is evolution, but really, who could possibly believe that it could just *happen* out of thin air without anything guiding it? Its impossible
Natural selection guides it.
|
On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 05:26 Shiori wrote:
Well the thread was kinda pointless from the outset because it's basically a category error to ask if the mind "is all" chemicals and electricity. It sort of depends on what you take the question to mean. I think the OP made it pretty clear what the question was... Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 10:11 electronic voyeur wrote:
This begs the question, and even impoverishes imagination if you really think hard about it, are all these things, art, architecture, the internet, religion, sociological theory, space rocket, Einstein's thought experiments, emotions, dance, self-reflection merely products of chemical and electrical impulses in the human brain?
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?
What are your thoughts? Is the mind all physical? Merely perhaps isn't the best word to use repeatedly, as was pointed out repeatedly on the first few pages the mind is pretty damn awesome, even if it is just a bunch of chemicals and electricity.
Yes, but it's kinda like asking "is the Mona Lisa really just different pigments bound by oil on a plant"?
I mean, yes, in one sense, it is, but in another sense it really isn't at all. I mean in some sense it's obviously false that all of the things listed above are "merely" products of chemicals and electrical impulses, because they're very clearly so much more in so many different ways i.e. there are important things about these things that aren't captured in saying "it's a product of chemical/electricity."
I'm not even sure if the mind is a proper, continuous object, so I'm not sure if the question "is the mind all physical?" makes any real sense at all because I'm not convinced that the term "mind" is particularly sensible. Is consciousness a phenomenon of the physical brain? Yes.
It's mixing categories, which is why the question doesn't make any sense. Asking about whether artistic creativity is "merely" atoms misses the point in the same way that calling Buckingham Palace "a collection of rooms" is missing the point.
|
On July 10 2013 05:48 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 05:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Question for science peple...
My main issue with ppl saying the mind is just chemicals and electricity happening in complex ways inside the brain is that theirs no way it could happen without a higher being in charge of it all. Yes, maybe their is evolution, but really, who could possibly believe that it could just *happen* out of thin air without anything guiding it? Its impossible It took 2 billion years for life (on earth) to get to this point. If it had happened in 10 minutes then I would agree that God must of been in charge. Life did not have to get itself right on the first attempt. There have been countless attempts, mostly guided by evolution. I would not only say it is possible, I would say that it was inevitable.
Theoretically God "could" have waited 2billion years to get his act together; omnipotent beings don't really have timelines after all...
But none of these things "happen" when looked at in the atomic scale. Positive charged particles attach with negative charge particles and sometimes clump with neutral particles. That's it, that's all that is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
