|
On July 10 2013 08:38 tokinho 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 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.
Technically,
Science doesn't care if things were eternal or if things were jump started
Science is about consistency. If I see A, then it is A if I see B, then it is B, if B affects A producing effect C, then B => A => C etc...
It doesn't care if A and B has always existed nor does it care if God created A and B. If it's not observable then science doesn't care.
|
I tend to think there is more to it than that. I do consider myself to be scientific and believe that many things in life can be explained on a more concrete level. But I think that a person's feelings (their emotions) and the essence of who they are goes much deeper than biology. Of course, I could be wrong and there might not be anything I can come up with to really prove my point. I believe though that there is much more to the brain and how it works than just some scientific processes or equations.
|
On July 10 2013 08:38 tokinho wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
He already said it was a joke.
On July 10 2013 08:43 kmpisces wrote:
I tend to think there is more to it than that. I do consider myself to be scientific and believe that many things in life can be explained on a more concrete level. But I think that a person's feelings (their emotions) and the essence of who they are goes much deeper than biology. Of course, I could be wrong and there might not be anything I can come up with to really prove my point. I believe though that there is much more to the brain and how it works than just some scientific processes or equations.
Why do you believe this?
On July 10 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 08:06 Reason wrote: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:
[quote]
I think the OP made it pretty clear what the question was...
[quote]
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
Thanks for always replying but I honestly have no idea why you've linked me this or what it has to do with my last reply to you. There's a pattern developing here where I try to answer your post directly and then your response just completely bewilders me. Sorry.
|
blegh, nvm.
I dont think i worded my point correctly, and i am not in the mood to find a correct way, sorry.
|
To answer the original question "Sure, why not?"
The mind is a gestalt, something that's greater than the sum of its parts. I think this concept is called emergence(?), and I'm sure it happens in other places in nature.
|
On July 10 2013 08:43 kmpisces wrote:
I tend to think there is more to it than that. I do consider myself to be scientific and believe that many things in life can be explained on a more concrete level. But I think that a person's feelings (their emotions) and the essence of who they are goes much deeper than biology. Of course, I could be wrong and there might not be anything I can come up with to really prove my point. I believe though that there is much more to the brain and how it works than just some scientific processes or equations.
The question is really simple; is a whole equal to its parts?
Science believes in conservation of energy: but reality shows that all transference of energy is always at a loss. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, something is always missing in the end product.
This means that when A => B by the nature of energy loss, A becomes less than B. If we were to demarcate this energy loss with E it would look like this.
A - E => B
If B is worth more than E, then the cost was worth it.
If E is worth more than B, then the cost is not worth it.
The qualitative value of B and E is arbitrary; but since it is arbitrary, we gain the ability to place greater value on B than on E
Thus it's possible that A+E < B if we place high value on B
|
I always find it funny that people suggest a "higher power" is necessary for the existence of life/the universe because of how complex life is. By extension this same logic can be applied to the creator. If the argument against this is that you have to draw the line somewhere (at 1 creator) then the logical counter argument is that if you say the creator "just exists" you can say the same about the universe.
Another thing to think about is that this creator who supposedly individually created everything is not really as smart as proponents of creationism put (it?) out to be. Even the dumbest of engineers would not suggest putting the equivalent of the human appendix into a system they designed, for example, and that only touches on the complete lack of foresight or intelligence displayed in the "design" of living organisms.
On July 10 2013 08:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 08:43 kmpisces wrote:
I tend to think there is more to it than that. I do consider myself to be scientific and believe that many things in life can be explained on a more concrete level. But I think that a person's feelings (their emotions) and the essence of who they are goes much deeper than biology. Of course, I could be wrong and there might not be anything I can come up with to really prove my point. I believe though that there is much more to the brain and how it works than just some scientific processes or equations. The question is really simple; is a whole equal to its parts? Science believes in conservation of energy: but reality shows that all transference of energy is always at a loss. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, something is always missing in the end product. This means that when A => B by the nature of energy loss, A becomes less than B. If we were to demarcate this energy loss with E it would look like this. A - E => B If B is worth more than E, then the cost was worth it. If E is worth more than B, then the cost is not worth it. The qualitative value of B and E is arbitrary; but since it is arbitrary, we gain the ability to place greater value on B than on E Thus it's possible that A+E < B if we place high value on B
Energy isn't "lost" though. It doesn't just disappear. When you talk about the energy efficiency of a mechanism you're talking about what percentage of the energy dissipates in the form of heat or sound or whatever that is not work (in terms of what the mechanism is trying to do)
Whatever energy is "lost" still exists, it just contributes to entropy.
|
On July 10 2013 08:53 wherebugsgo wrote:I always find it funny that people suggest a "higher power" is necessary for the existence of life/the universe because of how complex life is. By extension this same logic can be applied to the creator. If the argument against this is that you have to draw the line somewhere (at 1 creator) then the logical counter argument is that if you say the creator "just exists" you can say the same about the universe. Another thing to think about is that this creator who supposedly individually created everything is not really as smart as proponents of creationism put (it?) out to be. Even the dumbest of engineers would not suggest putting the equivalent of the human appendix into a system they designed, for example, and that only touches on the complete lack of foresight or intelligence displayed in the "design" of living organisms. Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 08:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 08:43 kmpisces wrote:
I tend to think there is more to it than that. I do consider myself to be scientific and believe that many things in life can be explained on a more concrete level. But I think that a person's feelings (their emotions) and the essence of who they are goes much deeper than biology. Of course, I could be wrong and there might not be anything I can come up with to really prove my point. I believe though that there is much more to the brain and how it works than just some scientific processes or equations. The question is really simple; is a whole equal to its parts? Science believes in conservation of energy: but reality shows that all transference of energy is always at a loss. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, something is always missing in the end product. This means that when A => B by the nature of energy loss, A becomes less than B. If we were to demarcate this energy loss with E it would look like this. A - E => B If B is worth more than E, then the cost was worth it. If E is worth more than B, then the cost is not worth it. The qualitative value of B and E is arbitrary; but since it is arbitrary, we gain the ability to place greater value on B than on E Thus it's possible that A+E < B if we place high value on B Energy isn't "lost" though. It doesn't just disappear. When you talk about the energy efficiency of a mechanism you're talking about what percentage of the energy dissipates in the form of heat or sound or whatever that is not work (in terms of what the mechanism is trying to do) Whatever energy is "lost" still exists, it just contributes to entropy.
I thought I had pointed that out by showing that it was a separate object that could be added back in when I said A+E < B if you value B over E
But upon second reading you're right; sorry for my lack of clarity.
|
On July 10 2013 08:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 08:43 kmpisces wrote:
I tend to think there is more to it than that. I do consider myself to be scientific and believe that many things in life can be explained on a more concrete level. But I think that a person's feelings (their emotions) and the essence of who they are goes much deeper than biology. Of course, I could be wrong and there might not be anything I can come up with to really prove my point. I believe though that there is much more to the brain and how it works than just some scientific processes or equations. The question is really simple; is a whole equal to its parts? Science believes in conservation of energy: but reality shows that all transference of energy is always at a loss. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, something is always missing in the end product. This means that when A => B by the nature of energy loss, A becomes less than B. If we were to demarcate this energy loss with E it would look like this. A - E => B If B is worth more than E, then the cost was worth it. If E is worth more than B, then the cost is not worth it. The qualitative value of B and E is arbitrary; but since it is arbitrary, we gain the ability to place greater value on B than on E Thus it's possible that A+E < B if we place high value on B
I have no idea what this means. Reality does not violate the law of conservation of energy, because the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. When transference of energy occurs in real life, the systems are never completely isolated. The only system we can really say is almost certainly isolated is the entire universe. It just so happens that, in most cases, the law of conservation of energy is approximately accurate even in real-world situations where systems are not totally isolated. Think of it like Newtonian mechanics being good enough for pretty much all day-to-day interactions.
|
On July 10 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 08:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 08:43 kmpisces wrote:
I tend to think there is more to it than that. I do consider myself to be scientific and believe that many things in life can be explained on a more concrete level. But I think that a person's feelings (their emotions) and the essence of who they are goes much deeper than biology. Of course, I could be wrong and there might not be anything I can come up with to really prove my point. I believe though that there is much more to the brain and how it works than just some scientific processes or equations. The question is really simple; is a whole equal to its parts? Science believes in conservation of energy: but reality shows that all transference of energy is always at a loss. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, something is always missing in the end product. This means that when A => B by the nature of energy loss, A becomes less than B. If we were to demarcate this energy loss with E it would look like this. A - E => B If B is worth more than E, then the cost was worth it. If E is worth more than B, then the cost is not worth it. The qualitative value of B and E is arbitrary; but since it is arbitrary, we gain the ability to place greater value on B than on E Thus it's possible that A+E < B if we place high value on B I have no idea what this means. Reality does not violate the law of conservation of energy, because the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. When transference of energy occurs in real life, the systems are never completely isolated. The only system we can really say is almost certainly isolated is the entire universe. It just so happens that, in most cases, the law of conservation of energy is approximately accurate even in real-world situations where systems are not totally isolated. Think of it like Newtonian mechanics being good enough for pretty much all day-to-day interactions.
I did not say it violated the law, I said you should think of it as three objects.
A being something
E being lost energy
B being A after said loss of energy
The question being that can something be worth more than the sum of its parts. All things follow the same structure.
The initial object
A
Going through a process
A-E
Resulting in a final outcome
B
The worth of A is stagnant--the cost of turning it from A to B is Energy. If the energy spent to create B is worth less to you than the value of having B then the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts.
Brain - Energy (chemical processes+electricity) => Thoughts
|
On July 10 2013 02:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:On July 09 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 09 2013 15:52 wherebugsgo wrote:
To say you have no control, none whatsoever, over your decision making process (because of no-will) is to state that you accept an idea that is incompatible with reality as we know it. Why do you say that? I'd say its completely compatible with reality as we know it, since everything we know has a cause, it makes sense decisions will too. I mean... have you ever made a decision without any form of cause or reasoning? 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. Are you telling me that every decission you make you make after reasoning? "since everything we know has a cause" No, there are quiet a few events in physics wich have no known cause at all, and most people agree that this is not simply because we dont know the cause, but because there is no cause. Eh...it's not really accurate to say there are "uncaused" things in physics. There are always criteria/restrictions which limit the situation substantially. For example, different elementary particles have different mean lifetimes, which implies that, for some reason, one elementary particle tends to decay more rapidly than another. If causality was violated in one instance, it would necessarily be violated in all instances, because it would be rational and expected that any and all things can happen spontaneously. It doesn't really make sense to say that certain things can be uncaused in distinctly different ways, IMO, because that suggests that some innate difference in those things affects the uncaused event.
If uncaused events cannot exist, can you explain what causes the radioactive decay of particles?
How about quantum fluctuations?
The beginning of the universe?
We can't say for sure that nothing can be uncaused. (If the beginning of the universe was caused by something...what caused that? You have the problem of an infinite chain here)
|
Not sure I understand your last equation there...
Take the brain. Subtract out the energy. This leaves us with thoughts?
|
On July 10 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 08:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 10 2013 08:43 kmpisces wrote:
I tend to think there is more to it than that. I do consider myself to be scientific and believe that many things in life can be explained on a more concrete level. But I think that a person's feelings (their emotions) and the essence of who they are goes much deeper than biology. Of course, I could be wrong and there might not be anything I can come up with to really prove my point. I believe though that there is much more to the brain and how it works than just some scientific processes or equations. The question is really simple; is a whole equal to its parts? Science believes in conservation of energy: but reality shows that all transference of energy is always at a loss. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, something is always missing in the end product. This means that when A => B by the nature of energy loss, A becomes less than B. If we were to demarcate this energy loss with E it would look like this. A - E => B If B is worth more than E, then the cost was worth it. If E is worth more than B, then the cost is not worth it. The qualitative value of B and E is arbitrary; but since it is arbitrary, we gain the ability to place greater value on B than on E Thus it's possible that A+E < B if we place high value on B I have no idea what this means. Reality does not violate the law of conservation of energy, because the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. When transference of energy occurs in real life, the systems are never completely isolated. The only system we can really say is almost certainly isolated is the entire universe. It just so happens that, in most cases, the law of conservation of energy is approximately accurate even in real-world situations where systems are not totally isolated. Think of it like Newtonian mechanics being good enough for pretty much all day-to-day interactions. I did not say it violated the law, I said you should think of it as three objects. A being something E being lost energy B being A after said loss of energy The question being that can something be worth more than the sum of its parts. All things follow the same structure. The initial object A Going through a process A-E Resulting in a final outcome B The worth of A is stagnant--the cost of turning it from A to B is Energy. If the energy spent to create B is worth less to you than the value of having B then the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts. Brain - Energy (chemical processes+electricity) => Thoughts
This math doesn't really make any sense, though. First off, what is "lost energy"? Second, you don't subtract (chemical processes + electricity) from the brain because a living brain literally is a combination of chemical processes and electricity. Finally, if A and E are the components of B, then being "more" than the sum of its parts would mean, assuming one actually quantifies "more" as some particular quality/quantity (you apparent picked "worth," but I'm not sure how brains or energy are "worth" anything; further, this judgment of worth would be entirely subjective since it's an arbitrary value judgment) that |B| > |A| + |E|, which is not the same as the energy spent being less than B.
If uncaused events cannot exist, can you explain what causes the radioactive decay of particles?
I don't pretend to be able to explain it. But there is clearly some sort of logical constraint on it. For instance, why are the probabilities of two different particles decaying different based on the particles in question? Doesn't that appear to imply that something about the particle itself is involved in the decaying of that particle, at least in some probabilistic sense?
How about quantum fluctuations?
Based on my reading about them I'm just going to say I'm undecided because I think we need more research to discover more precisely wtf is going on with them. It's possible that they are uncaused, based on the data, but I'm not sure they're well understood enough to make any really strong principles from them.
The beginning of the universe?
I think the universe probably did have a cause, based on its relationship with time, but I have no idea what it is.
We can't say for sure that nothing can be uncaused. (If the beginning of the universe was caused by something...what caused that? You have the problem of an infinite chain here)
You're correct. I'm reluctant to ascribe an "uncaused" property to anything I don't have to, but it is technically possible that at least one object is uncaused.
|
On July 10 2013 08:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 08:43 kmpisces wrote:
I tend to think there is more to it than that. I do consider myself to be scientific and believe that many things in life can be explained on a more concrete level. But I think that a person's feelings (their emotions) and the essence of who they are goes much deeper than biology. Of course, I could be wrong and there might not be anything I can come up with to really prove my point. I believe though that there is much more to the brain and how it works than just some scientific processes or equations. The question is really simple; is a whole equal to its parts? Science believes in conservation of energy: but reality shows that all transference of energy is always at a loss. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, something is always missing in the end product. This means that when A => B by the nature of energy loss, A becomes less than B. If we were to demarcate this energy loss with E it would look like this. A - E => B If B is worth more than E, then the cost was worth it. If E is worth more than B, then the cost is not worth it. The qualitative value of B and E is arbitrary; but since it is arbitrary, we gain the ability to place greater value on B than on E Thus it's possible that A+E < B if we place high value on B
I just talked about this on the other page. None of science has wholes only being the sum of their parts, because the arrangement of the parts is absurdly important to the properties of the whole. It's the difference between day and night, life and death, and I'm not talking metaphorically.
Where all that energy is located, how it forms different structures, etc. etc. is part of the equation.
|
On July 10 2013 09:24 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 02:09 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:On July 09 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 09 2013 15:52 wherebugsgo wrote:
To say you have no control, none whatsoever, over your decision making process (because of no-will) is to state that you accept an idea that is incompatible with reality as we know it. Why do you say that? I'd say its completely compatible with reality as we know it, since everything we know has a cause, it makes sense decisions will too. I mean... have you ever made a decision without any form of cause or reasoning? 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. Are you telling me that every decission you make you make after reasoning? "since everything we know has a cause" No, there are quiet a few events in physics wich have no known cause at all, and most people agree that this is not simply because we dont know the cause, but because there is no cause. Eh...it's not really accurate to say there are "uncaused" things in physics. There are always criteria/restrictions which limit the situation substantially. For example, different elementary particles have different mean lifetimes, which implies that, for some reason, one elementary particle tends to decay more rapidly than another. If causality was violated in one instance, it would necessarily be violated in all instances, because it would be rational and expected that any and all things can happen spontaneously. It doesn't really make sense to say that certain things can be uncaused in distinctly different ways, IMO, because that suggests that some innate difference in those things affects the uncaused event. If uncaused events cannot exist, can you explain what causes the radioactive decay of particles? How about quantum fluctuations? The beginning of the universe? We can't say for sure that nothing can be uncaused. (If the beginning of the universe was caused by something...what caused that? You have the problem of an infinite chain here)
Isn't an uncaused event more problematic than an infinite chain of events?
How do you measure which is "more problematic"?
Given the scope of existence and what we know (and/or think we know) about the universe, isn't infinity more plausible than an uncaused event?
|
On July 10 2013 09:28 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 09:24 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:09 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:On July 09 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 09 2013 15:52 wherebugsgo wrote:
To say you have no control, none whatsoever, over your decision making process (because of no-will) is to state that you accept an idea that is incompatible with reality as we know it. Why do you say that? I'd say its completely compatible with reality as we know it, since everything we know has a cause, it makes sense decisions will too. I mean... have you ever made a decision without any form of cause or reasoning? 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. Are you telling me that every decission you make you make after reasoning? "since everything we know has a cause" No, there are quiet a few events in physics wich have no known cause at all, and most people agree that this is not simply because we dont know the cause, but because there is no cause. Eh...it's not really accurate to say there are "uncaused" things in physics. There are always criteria/restrictions which limit the situation substantially. For example, different elementary particles have different mean lifetimes, which implies that, for some reason, one elementary particle tends to decay more rapidly than another. If causality was violated in one instance, it would necessarily be violated in all instances, because it would be rational and expected that any and all things can happen spontaneously. It doesn't really make sense to say that certain things can be uncaused in distinctly different ways, IMO, because that suggests that some innate difference in those things affects the uncaused event. If uncaused events cannot exist, can you explain what causes the radioactive decay of particles? How about quantum fluctuations? The beginning of the universe? We can't say for sure that nothing can be uncaused. (If the beginning of the universe was caused by something...what caused that? You have the problem of an infinite chain here) Isn't an uncaused event more problematic than an infinite chain of events? How do you measure which is "more problematic"? Given the scope of existence and what we know (and/or think we know) about the universe, isn't infinity more plausible than an uncaused event?
There's nothing that necessarily implies that an "infinite chain of events" (whatever that means) is "less" or "more" problematic than a single uncaused event. You can't even equate the two, really, and honestly what you're asking doesn't make much sense.
It's much more plausible for there to be uncaused events. We know now that particles can spontaneously be generated and annihilated, and that it happens all the time-we know that radioactivity occurs, but we don't know why-same with quantum fluctuations.
Now of course it may very well be that these events have causes, but we can't say for sure that they do. A lot of these phenomena cannot be explained intuitively, so it's better not to trap yourself with absolute statements like "everything has a cause" when you are basing it on an intuition you have developed by observing the world at a vastly different scale than the one you are trying to explain.
|
On July 10 2013 09:40 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 09:28 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 09:24 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:09 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:On July 09 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 09 2013 15:52 wherebugsgo wrote:
To say you have no control, none whatsoever, over your decision making process (because of no-will) is to state that you accept an idea that is incompatible with reality as we know it. Why do you say that? I'd say its completely compatible with reality as we know it, since everything we know has a cause, it makes sense decisions will too. I mean... have you ever made a decision without any form of cause or reasoning? 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. Are you telling me that every decission you make you make after reasoning? "since everything we know has a cause" No, there are quiet a few events in physics wich have no known cause at all, and most people agree that this is not simply because we dont know the cause, but because there is no cause. Eh...it's not really accurate to say there are "uncaused" things in physics. There are always criteria/restrictions which limit the situation substantially. For example, different elementary particles have different mean lifetimes, which implies that, for some reason, one elementary particle tends to decay more rapidly than another. If causality was violated in one instance, it would necessarily be violated in all instances, because it would be rational and expected that any and all things can happen spontaneously. It doesn't really make sense to say that certain things can be uncaused in distinctly different ways, IMO, because that suggests that some innate difference in those things affects the uncaused event. If uncaused events cannot exist, can you explain what causes the radioactive decay of particles? How about quantum fluctuations? The beginning of the universe? We can't say for sure that nothing can be uncaused. (If the beginning of the universe was caused by something...what caused that? You have the problem of an infinite chain here) Isn't an uncaused event more problematic than an infinite chain of events? How do you measure which is "more problematic"? Given the scope of existence and what we know (and/or think we know) about the universe, isn't infinity more plausible than an uncaused event? There's nothing that necessarily implies that an "infinite chain of events" (whatever that means) is "less" or "more" problematic than a single uncaused event. You can't even equate the two, really, and honestly what you're asking doesn't make much sense. It's much more plausible for there to be uncaused events. We know now that particles can spontaneously be generated and annihilated, and that it happens all the time-we know that radioactivity occurs, but we don't know why-same with quantum fluctuations. Now of course it may very well be that these events have causes, but we can't say for sure that they do. A lot of these phenomena cannot be explained intuitively, so it's better not to trap yourself with absolute statements like "everything has a cause" when you are basing it on an intuition you have developed by observing the world at a vastly different scale than the one you are trying to explain.
Except the context of the discussion was about making decisions, which, given the scale of the brain, probably don't enter the territory of quantum fluctuations.
(Frankly, on the subject of infinite regress vs uncaused things, both of them are problematic because of the way they're framed. In the first case, you want to have no uncaused things but you also want to have causality make sense, which leads to a contradiction because any event would have an infinite series of conditionals to be satisfied, which is impossible since infinity can't be physically realized by successive addition. In the second case, you want to have uncaused things, but you also want to have causality "mostly work" for almost everything. Well, if causality doesn't apply sometimes, why does it apply to everything else? Why do the things that are uncaused seem to be uncaused in very particular and probabilistic (rather than truly random) ways? )
|
On July 10 2013 09:45 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 09:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 10 2013 09:28 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 09:24 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:09 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:On July 09 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 09 2013 15:52 wherebugsgo wrote:
To say you have no control, none whatsoever, over your decision making process (because of no-will) is to state that you accept an idea that is incompatible with reality as we know it. Why do you say that? I'd say its completely compatible with reality as we know it, since everything we know has a cause, it makes sense decisions will too. I mean... have you ever made a decision without any form of cause or reasoning? 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. Are you telling me that every decission you make you make after reasoning? "since everything we know has a cause" No, there are quiet a few events in physics wich have no known cause at all, and most people agree that this is not simply because we dont know the cause, but because there is no cause. Eh...it's not really accurate to say there are "uncaused" things in physics. There are always criteria/restrictions which limit the situation substantially. For example, different elementary particles have different mean lifetimes, which implies that, for some reason, one elementary particle tends to decay more rapidly than another. If causality was violated in one instance, it would necessarily be violated in all instances, because it would be rational and expected that any and all things can happen spontaneously. It doesn't really make sense to say that certain things can be uncaused in distinctly different ways, IMO, because that suggests that some innate difference in those things affects the uncaused event. If uncaused events cannot exist, can you explain what causes the radioactive decay of particles? How about quantum fluctuations? The beginning of the universe? We can't say for sure that nothing can be uncaused. (If the beginning of the universe was caused by something...what caused that? You have the problem of an infinite chain here) Isn't an uncaused event more problematic than an infinite chain of events? How do you measure which is "more problematic"? Given the scope of existence and what we know (and/or think we know) about the universe, isn't infinity more plausible than an uncaused event? There's nothing that necessarily implies that an "infinite chain of events" (whatever that means) is "less" or "more" problematic than a single uncaused event. You can't even equate the two, really, and honestly what you're asking doesn't make much sense. It's much more plausible for there to be uncaused events. We know now that particles can spontaneously be generated and annihilated, and that it happens all the time-we know that radioactivity occurs, but we don't know why-same with quantum fluctuations. Now of course it may very well be that these events have causes, but we can't say for sure that they do. A lot of these phenomena cannot be explained intuitively, so it's better not to trap yourself with absolute statements like "everything has a cause" when you are basing it on an intuition you have developed by observing the world at a vastly different scale than the one you are trying to explain. Except the context of the discussion was about making decisions, which, given the scale of the brain, probably don't enter the territory of quantum fluctuations.
You might be right in that on the scale of the brain you can treat it deterministically. I do agree that for almost everything, you can rely on cause-effect relationships. As I said earlier in the thread, once something has happened you can trace its causes back. (Well, almost anything, if we want to be pedantic)
The problem is that saying that the brain is "roughly" deterministic does not mean it is completely so. In fact, a lot of the earlier discussion revolved around the scale of neurons and even smaller, due to the stochastic nature of the processes that govern the brain. Just like you can observe the effects of quantum mechanics or special relativity in everyday situations (if you know what you're looking for) you can't dismiss the fundamental effects of unpredictable processes on the brain system as a whole.
E: you can have causation without determinism. Look up indeterminism on Wikipedia (not the philosophy article). Basically everything you asked in your edit is addressed by that article (though what you said toward the end doesn't really make much sense)
|
On July 10 2013 09:40 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 09:28 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 09:24 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 10 2013 02:09 Shiori wrote:On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:On July 09 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 09 2013 15:52 wherebugsgo wrote:
To say you have no control, none whatsoever, over your decision making process (because of no-will) is to state that you accept an idea that is incompatible with reality as we know it. Why do you say that? I'd say its completely compatible with reality as we know it, since everything we know has a cause, it makes sense decisions will too. I mean... have you ever made a decision without any form of cause or reasoning? 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. Are you telling me that every decission you make you make after reasoning? "since everything we know has a cause" No, there are quiet a few events in physics wich have no known cause at all, and most people agree that this is not simply because we dont know the cause, but because there is no cause. Eh...it's not really accurate to say there are "uncaused" things in physics. There are always criteria/restrictions which limit the situation substantially. For example, different elementary particles have different mean lifetimes, which implies that, for some reason, one elementary particle tends to decay more rapidly than another. If causality was violated in one instance, it would necessarily be violated in all instances, because it would be rational and expected that any and all things can happen spontaneously. It doesn't really make sense to say that certain things can be uncaused in distinctly different ways, IMO, because that suggests that some innate difference in those things affects the uncaused event. If uncaused events cannot exist, can you explain what causes the radioactive decay of particles? How about quantum fluctuations? The beginning of the universe? We can't say for sure that nothing can be uncaused. (If the beginning of the universe was caused by something...what caused that? You have the problem of an infinite chain here) Isn't an uncaused event more problematic than an infinite chain of events? How do you measure which is "more problematic"? Given the scope of existence and what we know (and/or think we know) about the universe, isn't infinity more plausible than an uncaused event? There's nothing that necessarily implies that an "infinite chain of events" (whatever that means) is "less" or "more" problematic than a single uncaused event. You can't even equate the two, really, and honestly what you're asking doesn't make much sense. It's much more plausible for there to be uncaused events. We know now that particles can spontaneously be generated and annihilated, and that it happens all the time-we know that radioactivity occurs, but we don't know why-same with quantum fluctuations. Now of course it may very well be that these events have causes, but we can't say for sure that they do. A lot of these phenomena cannot be explained intuitively, so it's better not to trap yourself with absolute statements like "everything has a cause" when you are basing it on an intuition you have developed by observing the world at a vastly different scale than the one you are trying to explain.
You just said
"We can't say for sure that nothing can be uncaused. (If the beginning of the universe was caused by something...what caused that? You have the problem of an infinite chain here)"
as if the infinite chain is so problematic that therefore uncaused events must be the solution. I'm suggesting they're equally problematic. What I'm asking makes total sense and you actually gave me an answer by saying "It's much more plausible for there to be uncaused events."
Disappointed by your self contradiction tbh. Goodnight ;;
|
Uncaused events are not problematic-you need to define what you mean by that. Like I said, look up indeterminism on Wikipedia.
Specifically, look at the necessary but insufficient and probabilistic causation entries.
e: to be even more clear:
when you say "everything must have a cause" you are making an assertion that requires evidence. It is not sufficient to say that just because the things you have observed all have causes. I don't make the assertion that every event must have a cause-thus, there is no problem with the existence of uncaused events. It's only problematic if it's true that everything requires a cause, and there's no evidence that suggests that has to be true.
In addition, think about what it means for there to be an event and for it to have caused something. For something to have caused the big bang would mean that this cause would have to exist outside of the universe (just think in terms of space-time, a cause has to precede its effect as observed by all inertial observers). This is hugely problematic, because now we need to define what it means for an event to have happened outside of the observable universe. Add to that that there must now be a chain of an infinite number of said events each influencing the next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
