|
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
"Just happen"? The timescale that we're talking is friggin ridiculous and beyond human comprehension. Impossible? No. Unimaginable? Perhaps, but that it is only because of the limits of your imagination.
|
On July 10 2013 05:49 LegalLord 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 Natural selection guides it.
I hate when natural selection is described as this process with an end goal.
Natural selection doesn't guide, natural selection simply happens. There isn't some kind of evolutionary nirvana to be reached. Sometimes evolution produces bad designs. We think they die off but not always. Good designs also die off.
Natural selection is merely the biproduct of fucking practices.
Natural selection did not make the mountains, the ocean, the movement of the stars, it doesn't guide anything but fucking--98% of the processes of the world is not guided by natural selection.
Cell fission, cultural adaptations, scientific progress, etc...
Sorry if I sound bothered, but this constant Evolution vs Religion thing is ridiculous when neither disproves the other. Its like hearing two children argue about which is more green; blue or yellow.
|
On July 10 2013 05:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 05:49 LegalLord wrote: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. I hate when natural selection is described as this process with an end goal. Natural selection doesn't guide, natural selection simply happens. There isn't some kind of evolutionary nirvana to be reached. Sometimes evolution produces bad designs. We think they die off but not always. Good designs also die off. Natural selection is merely the biproduct of fucking practices. Natural selection did not make the mountains, the ocean, the movement of the stars, it doesn't guide anything but fucking--98% of the processes of the world is not guided by natural selection. Cell fission, cultural adaptations, scientific progress, etc... Sorry if I sound bothered, but this constant Evolution vs Religion thing is ridiculous when neither disproves the other. Its like hearing two children argue about which is more green; blue or yellow.
Well if we're going to get into the game of semantics, I'd like to point out that you seem to be hating on asexual reproduction for some reason.
|
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's definitely not impossible. It didn't happen out of thin air; it happened slowly over billions of years. The claim that there must be a higher being is possible, but it's not the only possibility. Curing disease seemed impossible and most people were convinced that diseases were curses from demons and gods. Then we discovered microbial life, and it all made sense.
|
On July 10 2013 06:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 05:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 05:49 LegalLord wrote: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. I hate when natural selection is described as this process with an end goal. Natural selection doesn't guide, natural selection simply happens. There isn't some kind of evolutionary nirvana to be reached. Sometimes evolution produces bad designs. We think they die off but not always. Good designs also die off. Natural selection is merely the biproduct of fucking practices. Natural selection did not make the mountains, the ocean, the movement of the stars, it doesn't guide anything but fucking--98% of the processes of the world is not guided by natural selection. Cell fission, cultural adaptations, scientific progress, etc... Sorry if I sound bothered, but this constant Evolution vs Religion thing is ridiculous when neither disproves the other. Its like hearing two children argue about which is more green; blue or yellow. Well if we're going to get into the game of semantics, I'd like to point out that you seem to be hating on asexual reproduction for some reason.
My bad, I didn't realize I was so vague in my pointing out that natural selection only guides breeding, not progress.
Religions nutbags wants to disprove science to show their ideas are more legitimate. Non-religious nutbags do the same to religion.
They're not related. Natural selection didn't guide Einstein to his theories, nor did natural selection guide Frida to her murals. Natural selection is reproduction, that's it.
What Marigold is trolling about is the concept of things become greater than the sum of their parts. That a pile of chemicals can create thoughts, that a pile of paint can create art. He's asking if its possible to become greater than the sum of your parts in a scientific sense; is it actually possible to get 1+1=3
|
jk! It's just that doublereed was saying the thread was over so I had to rekindle it just because
|
On July 10 2013 05:48 hzflank wrote:
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.
I don't believe it. And if you do, I think you should join Fnatic.
|
On July 10 2013 05:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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"
Who is scientifically wrong?
On July 10 2013 06:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:
jk! It's just that doublereed was saying the thread was over so I had to rekindle it just because
NOT FUNNY
+ Show Spoiler +some people actually believe what you wrote there
On July 10 2013 05:50 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote: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. 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.
Okay maybe that's a better way of saying it and that's what I think the OP is obviously asking, wouldn't you agree?
What about the subconscious  Is "mind" really that bad?
|
On July 10 2013 06:35 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 05:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote: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. 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" Who is scientifically wrong?
because just like the brain is "merely a bunch of chemicals" chemicals are merely a bunch of particles with various charges. If he wanted to simplify it, he should have gone all the way.
|
On July 08 2013 03:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 03:22 MoltkeWarding wrote:Authority and Hearsay are pretty friggin' different. I wouldn't characterize them as the same at all.
Either way, the whole point of science is to reduce the problem of Argument by Authority. This is why you have to make sure your tests are Repeatable, so that anyone with the proper tools can do them. The whole point of Empiricism and science is that we don't have to rely on just "hearsay" or "personal experience." We can collectively do multiple separate fields of research and have them all culminate in scientific theories and bodies of research. The kind of scientific culture dominant today is not really empirical, but neo-Platonic, it subordinates observations to idealised structures and models. A cardinally empirical science would produce a composition of reality closer to Impressionism than Realism. It would not require "scientific theories." Poetic forms of thought are closer to pure empiricism than the symbolisation of reality via mathematical models. Direct empiricism reduces argument by authority, but what are you arguing for is not for more empiricism, but indirect empiricism, that is, accepting the conclusions of other empiricists, which again, is reliance on authority. Therefore I yet await to see the essential difference between your belief in anything, and my belief in fairies. I am also astonished by your assertion that we can reduce argument by authority by appealing to experimental repetition. I look forward to watching you prove by such a means what you saw at noon yesterday. Wow, that's fancy-schmancy words you got there. Is this really a serious post? It is obvious that you are spewing bullshit wrapped in big words to obfuscate the fact that you're bullshitting. That first half is blatant nonsense. Yes, I understand that it's reliance on authority. I didn't say it wasn't. I said that the purpose of repeatability reduces that reliance on authority. Which it does. I don't have to do things myself, I can just read and learn about the repeatable experiments that others have done. Or I learn third-hand from there. Again, this is a pragmatic answer so that humans go all do different fields of research and culminate in big theories and such. Your belief in fairies is adorable, silly, and hopeless. We actually do have evidence against fairies. It's called the Theory of Evolution. Fairies would not be able to be evolved from evolution. That's the thing about Scientific Theories: they're falsifiable. They only explain a finite number of things. They cannot explain everything. Evolution does not predict fairies. If you find a fairy, I highly recommend showing it to some scientists, because you would win a nobel prize for debunking the most important discovery of biology. Gaining information should limit the possibilities of the universe. If you can explain anything, then you have zero information. I don't know what you mean by "prove what I saw at noon yesterday." You can't prove things with absolute certainty. As I said, it's Bayesian. Belief is a measure of certainty. And the repeatability thing obviously is talking about Science, which uses repeatable experiments. I don't know what you're trying to get from me. Show nested quote +But we already know the mind is unreliable. I don't even understand this argument. People think things that are not true all the time. We've thought false things since the beginning of time. You would have to think that thinking something makes it more likely to be true, which is absurd to the point of making me cross-eyed. Exactly. You've graduated to premise B. Now all you have to do to approach the logical (or, rather, counter-logical conclusion issued therefrom.) I disagree with premise A. Show nested quote +What? No you aren't. I have no idea what you're talking about. Saying that there is an objective reality does not mean that there aren't different perspectives on the same thing. Hell, how would I explain different camera angles???? You're being silly. "Illusion" and "interpretation" imply different sorts of relationships between mental images and their external correlates. The one implies a subordinate relationship, the other implies either a superordinate or a co-ordinate relationship. For physicalism to be both true and meaningful, the subordinate relationship must be established. No. Illusion and interpretation have completely different connotations. I'm not interested in word games. Illusion refers to something which is not there at all, like seeing a mouse where there is a sock. Or seeing a fairy. Having a color camera and having a b/w camera generate different interpretations of the same landscape. It's not like the landscape changes, or that the b/w camera is generating an illusion. It's just that one has the capacity for color and the other doesn't.
again this falsifying bullshit... please stop with this nonsense. Nobody is using the method of falsicifation to justify scientific observation and theories anymore. It cannot do what it is supposed to do.
|
On July 10 2013 06:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 06:35 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 05:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote: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. 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" Who is scientifically wrong? because just like the brain is "merely a bunch of chemicals" chemicals are merely a bunch of particles with various charges. If he wanted to simplify it, he should have gone all the way.
Sorry for being obtuse.
Shiori said thread was pointless because dumb title. I said yeah dumb title but OP made question clear.... You said OP is scientifically wrong?
I just don't understand what you're getting at here. I agree with what you're saying, I guess, but I don't understand why you're saying it.
I can't believe this thread is only 10 days old 
|
On July 10 2013 06:48 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 03:44 DoubleReed wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 MoltkeWarding wrote:Authority and Hearsay are pretty friggin' different. I wouldn't characterize them as the same at all.
Either way, the whole point of science is to reduce the problem of Argument by Authority. This is why you have to make sure your tests are Repeatable, so that anyone with the proper tools can do them. The whole point of Empiricism and science is that we don't have to rely on just "hearsay" or "personal experience." We can collectively do multiple separate fields of research and have them all culminate in scientific theories and bodies of research. The kind of scientific culture dominant today is not really empirical, but neo-Platonic, it subordinates observations to idealised structures and models. A cardinally empirical science would produce a composition of reality closer to Impressionism than Realism. It would not require "scientific theories." Poetic forms of thought are closer to pure empiricism than the symbolisation of reality via mathematical models. Direct empiricism reduces argument by authority, but what are you arguing for is not for more empiricism, but indirect empiricism, that is, accepting the conclusions of other empiricists, which again, is reliance on authority. Therefore I yet await to see the essential difference between your belief in anything, and my belief in fairies. I am also astonished by your assertion that we can reduce argument by authority by appealing to experimental repetition. I look forward to watching you prove by such a means what you saw at noon yesterday. Wow, that's fancy-schmancy words you got there. Is this really a serious post? It is obvious that you are spewing bullshit wrapped in big words to obfuscate the fact that you're bullshitting. That first half is blatant nonsense. Yes, I understand that it's reliance on authority. I didn't say it wasn't. I said that the purpose of repeatability reduces that reliance on authority. Which it does. I don't have to do things myself, I can just read and learn about the repeatable experiments that others have done. Or I learn third-hand from there. Again, this is a pragmatic answer so that humans go all do different fields of research and culminate in big theories and such. Your belief in fairies is adorable, silly, and hopeless. We actually do have evidence against fairies. It's called the Theory of Evolution. Fairies would not be able to be evolved from evolution. That's the thing about Scientific Theories: they're falsifiable. They only explain a finite number of things. They cannot explain everything. Evolution does not predict fairies. If you find a fairy, I highly recommend showing it to some scientists, because you would win a nobel prize for debunking the most important discovery of biology. Gaining information should limit the possibilities of the universe. If you can explain anything, then you have zero information. I don't know what you mean by "prove what I saw at noon yesterday." You can't prove things with absolute certainty. As I said, it's Bayesian. Belief is a measure of certainty. And the repeatability thing obviously is talking about Science, which uses repeatable experiments. I don't know what you're trying to get from me. But we already know the mind is unreliable. I don't even understand this argument. People think things that are not true all the time. We've thought false things since the beginning of time. You would have to think that thinking something makes it more likely to be true, which is absurd to the point of making me cross-eyed. Exactly. You've graduated to premise B. Now all you have to do to approach the logical (or, rather, counter-logical conclusion issued therefrom.) I disagree with premise A. What? No you aren't. I have no idea what you're talking about. Saying that there is an objective reality does not mean that there aren't different perspectives on the same thing. Hell, how would I explain different camera angles???? You're being silly. "Illusion" and "interpretation" imply different sorts of relationships between mental images and their external correlates. The one implies a subordinate relationship, the other implies either a superordinate or a co-ordinate relationship. For physicalism to be both true and meaningful, the subordinate relationship must be established. No. Illusion and interpretation have completely different connotations. I'm not interested in word games. Illusion refers to something which is not there at all, like seeing a mouse where there is a sock. Or seeing a fairy. Having a color camera and having a b/w camera generate different interpretations of the same landscape. It's not like the landscape changes, or that the b/w camera is generating an illusion. It's just that one has the capacity for color and the other doesn't. again this falsifying bullshit... please stop with this nonsense. Nobody is using the method of falsicifation to justify scientific observation and theories anymore. It cannot do what it is supposed to do.
??? Evolution does not predict fairies. Show fairy -> disprove evolution.
It's not about using falsification to justify scientific observation, it's about making falsifiable predictions. And most scientific theories make predictions that are incredibly easy to falsify (like "find a fairy"). It's just that the theories are true, so good luck with that.
|
On July 10 2013 06:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:
jk! It's just that doublereed was saying the thread was over so I had to rekindle it just because
We know, but this is TL. We have to reply to such posts as though they were serious (or not reply at all), or we risk mod action 
|
On July 10 2013 06:52 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 06:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:35 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 05:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote: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. 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" Who is scientifically wrong? because just like the brain is "merely a bunch of chemicals" chemicals are merely a bunch of particles with various charges. If he wanted to simplify it, he should have gone all the way. Sorry for being obtuse. Shiori said thread was pointless because dumb title. I said yeah dumb title but OP made question clear.... You said OP is scientifically wrong? I just don't understand what you're getting at here. I agree with what you're saying, I guess, but I don't understand why you're saying it. I can't believe this thread is only 10 days old
The OP is being dishonest in his presentation of the question. He posits a purer form of looking at the brain and looking "abstracts" as these things the brain creates. It's dishonest because the idea of chemicals forming a brain is itself impure because it can still be broken down to its "truer" parts.
Scientifically speaking, everything is just charged or uncharged particles. Matter is no more present than the energy they create just by existing.
Maybe a clearer statement would be that the OP is stupid because it is philosophically dishonest.
|
On July 10 2013 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 06:52 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 06:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:35 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 05:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote: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. 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" Who is scientifically wrong? because just like the brain is "merely a bunch of chemicals" chemicals are merely a bunch of particles with various charges. If he wanted to simplify it, he should have gone all the way. Sorry for being obtuse. Shiori said thread was pointless because dumb title. I said yeah dumb title but OP made question clear.... You said OP is scientifically wrong? I just don't understand what you're getting at here. I agree with what you're saying, I guess, but I don't understand why you're saying it. I can't believe this thread is only 10 days old The OP is being dishonest in his presentation of the question. He posits a purer form of looking at the brain and looking "abstracts" as these things the brain creates. It's dishonest because the idea of chemicals forming a brain is itself impure because it can still be broken down to its "truer" parts. Scientifically speaking, everything is just charged or uncharged particles. Matter is no more present than the energy they create just by existing. Maybe a clearer statement would be that the OP is stupid because it is philosophically dishonest.
He wasn't being dishonest if that's what he actually believes...
|
On July 10 2013 07:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:52 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 06:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:35 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 05:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote: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. 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" Who is scientifically wrong? because just like the brain is "merely a bunch of chemicals" chemicals are merely a bunch of particles with various charges. If he wanted to simplify it, he should have gone all the way. Sorry for being obtuse. Shiori said thread was pointless because dumb title. I said yeah dumb title but OP made question clear.... You said OP is scientifically wrong? I just don't understand what you're getting at here. I agree with what you're saying, I guess, but I don't understand why you're saying it. I can't believe this thread is only 10 days old The OP is being dishonest in his presentation of the question. He posits a purer form of looking at the brain and looking "abstracts" as these things the brain creates. It's dishonest because the idea of chemicals forming a brain is itself impure because it can still be broken down to its "truer" parts. Scientifically speaking, everything is just charged or uncharged particles. Matter is no more present than the energy they create just by existing. Maybe a clearer statement would be that the OP is stupid because it is philosophically dishonest. He wasn't being dishonest if that's what he actually believes...
But it's an arbitrary demarcation. Why stop at that point when there are many other points to go through. "The brain is just strands of proteins that link together then break apart" etc...
The reason is because he's not actually talking about chemicals and electricity, he's talking about conceived ideas being separate from the tool used to create them. Which has nothing at all to do with whether the brain is made of chemicals or not.
|
On July 10 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 07:51 DoubleReed wrote:On July 10 2013 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:52 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 06:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:35 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 05:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote: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. 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" Who is scientifically wrong? because just like the brain is "merely a bunch of chemicals" chemicals are merely a bunch of particles with various charges. If he wanted to simplify it, he should have gone all the way. Sorry for being obtuse. Shiori said thread was pointless because dumb title. I said yeah dumb title but OP made question clear.... You said OP is scientifically wrong? I just don't understand what you're getting at here. I agree with what you're saying, I guess, but I don't understand why you're saying it. I can't believe this thread is only 10 days old The OP is being dishonest in his presentation of the question. He posits a purer form of looking at the brain and looking "abstracts" as these things the brain creates. It's dishonest because the idea of chemicals forming a brain is itself impure because it can still be broken down to its "truer" parts. Scientifically speaking, everything is just charged or uncharged particles. Matter is no more present than the energy they create just by existing. Maybe a clearer statement would be that the OP is stupid because it is philosophically dishonest. He wasn't being dishonest if that's what he actually believes... But it's an arbitrary demarcation. Why stop at that point when there are many other points to go through. "The brain is just strands of proteins that link together then break apart" etc... The reason is because he's not actually talking about chemicals and electricity, he's talking about conceived ideas being separate from the tool used to create them. Which has nothing at all to do with whether the brain is made of chemicals or not.
Perhaps because the question he posed was more important to him than the actual words used?
I don't think he was trying to make any scientific commentary about the workings of the brain, he was just asking, as Shiori paraphrased, "is consciousness a phenomenon of the physical brain?"
That's how I interpreted it anyway...
edit: Would you prefer if he asked if consciousness could arise solely from inanimate particles? That seems a weird way to ask the question...no?
|
On July 10 2013 08:06 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 07:51 DoubleReed wrote:On July 10 2013 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:52 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 06:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:35 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 05:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote: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. 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" Who is scientifically wrong? because just like the brain is "merely a bunch of chemicals" chemicals are merely a bunch of particles with various charges. If he wanted to simplify it, he should have gone all the way. Sorry for being obtuse. Shiori said thread was pointless because dumb title. I said yeah dumb title but OP made question clear.... You said OP is scientifically wrong? I just don't understand what you're getting at here. I agree with what you're saying, I guess, but I don't understand why you're saying it. I can't believe this thread is only 10 days old The OP is being dishonest in his presentation of the question. He posits a purer form of looking at the brain and looking "abstracts" as these things the brain creates. It's dishonest because the idea of chemicals forming a brain is itself impure because it can still be broken down to its "truer" parts. Scientifically speaking, everything is just charged or uncharged particles. Matter is no more present than the energy they create just by existing. Maybe a clearer statement would be that the OP is stupid because it is philosophically dishonest. He wasn't being dishonest if that's what he actually believes... But it's an arbitrary demarcation. Why stop at that point when there are many other points to go through. "The brain is just strands of proteins that link together then break apart" etc... The reason is because he's not actually talking about chemicals and electricity, he's talking about conceived ideas being separate from the tool used to create them. Which has nothing at all to do with whether the brain is made of chemicals or not. Perhaps because the question he posed was more important to him than the actual words used? I don't think he was trying to make any scientific commentary about the workings of the brain, he was just asking, as Shiori paraphrased, "is consciousness a phenomenon of the physical brain?" That's how I interpreted it anyway... edit: Would you prefer if he asked if consciousness could arise solely from inanimate particles? That seems a weird way to ask the question...no?
To be fair, I don't think there's a non-weird way to talk about consciousness.
|
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
Not sure whether the aim of this was to make a statement just to argue. You state that "it could just happen out of thin air". I agree that coming from nothing would point to a creation aspect. A start point if you will. The cause which is beyond our comprehension.
That assumption is not one of science. Happening out of thin air is not what science states. Conservation laws are what is important in science. Scientists believe that things have always existed and have always existed in this pattern of motion since the big bang, and that anything that happened before then or will happen at the end of time all our known physical laws break down and we have no way to predict them, how long did things exist before the big bang for example. Did they exist before the big bang. If you choose to view that as a diety, cool. If you don't, cool. I know that people like to assign meaning, but how did you decide that the type of deity you believe in is the proper explanation?
The mind is a collection of electrochemical gradients, the assembly of which results in complex networks. The networks are changed over time. There are signals and patterns which result in this plasticity. These are referred to in behavioral terms as habits. Our bodies progress through feedback. Given the stimulus it responds a certain way. The best way to adapt a mind is to choose how you want it to be and repeat that process. If you are a sad person, you have to repeatedly force yourself to be happy. Single traumatic events results in rapid successive firings which allows for faster adaptation. This results is rapid change in character, and often the person relives these events such as in the case of PTSD. The majority of cases of depression are a mixture of a lack of endorphins, and positive reinforcement in neural stimuli. You can treat these conditions differentially via the cause, whether its exercise, drug treaments, of finding a place or lifestyle where you can take time to find happiness. The mind conditions neural activity to recognize complex patterns of sets of neurons firing at a time. This gives rise to higher thoughts beyond single chemical interactions such as emotions.
In the end I think it is important to consider things. If you start and argument with there's no way it could happen, but thousands of people have spent years figuring out not only how and why things happen, but how to change and alter things, you are indirectly insulting people's work. Hodgkin-huxley figured out how to work with single neuron models, many scientists analyze ion channels with patch clamps such as hERG or other voltage gated channels, There are entire databases of ion channels(IUPHAR) and simulation environments like neuron and jsim. There are scientists who do functional mapping of brain regions(connectome) or even model the entire brain. (markov brain networks) Some are more pharmacological that work on neuronal plasticity and treatments such as with xylosine for war vets. Most drugs alter states and are dangerous because prolonged usage results in long term pattern such as axiety of smokers without a cigarette, or the false feeling of accomplishment given by marijuana.
Despite all of these things, to discredit everyone's work with a single statement that scientists take something from nothing and turn a question of how complexity of mind results from simple patterns, to a question of creationism I wish was not your true aim. If a diety did or didn't create things, it doesn't change how higher thinking is special to specific brain types and that as a people we are very happy to exist, and be part of this world. I do hope that your statement is one of greatfulness to the complexity of the mind and our existence.
|
On July 10 2013 08:06 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 07:51 DoubleReed wrote:On July 10 2013 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:52 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 06:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 06:35 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 05:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 05:37 Reason wrote: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. 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" Who is scientifically wrong? because just like the brain is "merely a bunch of chemicals" chemicals are merely a bunch of particles with various charges. If he wanted to simplify it, he should have gone all the way. Sorry for being obtuse. Shiori said thread was pointless because dumb title. I said yeah dumb title but OP made question clear.... You said OP is scientifically wrong? I just don't understand what you're getting at here. I agree with what you're saying, I guess, but I don't understand why you're saying it. I can't believe this thread is only 10 days old The OP is being dishonest in his presentation of the question. He posits a purer form of looking at the brain and looking "abstracts" as these things the brain creates. It's dishonest because the idea of chemicals forming a brain is itself impure because it can still be broken down to its "truer" parts. Scientifically speaking, everything is just charged or uncharged particles. Matter is no more present than the energy they create just by existing. Maybe a clearer statement would be that the OP is stupid because it is philosophically dishonest. He wasn't being dishonest if that's what he actually believes... But it's an arbitrary demarcation. Why stop at that point when there are many other points to go through. "The brain is just strands of proteins that link together then break apart" etc... The reason is because he's not actually talking about chemicals and electricity, he's talking about conceived ideas being separate from the tool used to create them. Which has nothing at all to do with whether the brain is made of chemicals or not. Perhaps because the question he posed was more important to him than the actual words used? I don't think he was trying to make any scientific commentary about the workings of the brain, he was just asking, as Shiori paraphrased, "is consciousness a phenomenon of the physical brain?" That's how I interpreted it anyway... edit: Would you prefer if he asked if consciousness could arise solely from inanimate particles? That seems a weird way to ask the question...no?
I think its most similar to the chinese room dilemma + Show Spoiler +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
