Quote:
|
Originally Posted by iSm
Yes, I agree diseases, injuries, chemicals, energies all affect how we think and feel. But they do not affect ALL we think and feel. We have the ability to think and act independent of those inputs. Where is the science indicating we do not?
|
Seems to me the question would be "where is the science indicating that we think and act independently of our physical selves?"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by iSm
I'm not saying thought is not a physical reality. But I am saying it's a reality at least partially under control and guidance by a living entity.
|
Ok, so what IS a living entity? How does it control and guide? Living entities are physical beings, made of physical particles that run under laws. To say that the control and guidance is not physical in itself makes it sound like you're referring to something above "the whole of its parts". It's like saying that an assembled automobile is more than lubricating oil, gas being sparked into explosions, electrical signals, etc. A car is a car, functioning on the laws of physics, unless you believe a car has a metaphysical spirit of its own (and a lot of people do).
This isn't to say that we aren't "more" than the whole of our parts - the beauty of the top layer of our brains is well established. We've taken these rough bits of reality and made amazing things with it. The uncountable billions of neuron fires that go into painting and political theory and space travel should not go uncredited. Hell, I'll even say that cars DO have a personality of their own - and that it's a combination of their many parts. A 1988 Toyota Tercel with a high pitched whine, high gas mileage, springy seats and no a/c would feel totally different than a 1979 Cadillac with a lazy turn signal, low slung ride and well-worn leather...and we would interact with the cars in different ways. That doesn't mean that they are anything more than the sum of their physically limited parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
The entire point of the huge scientific splash the discovery made quite a few years back was that they are pure potentiality and that they behave as either particles OR waves, not both, and which behavior manifests is determined by the mere act of being observed.
|
Someone needs to correct me if I'm wrong but I've always thought that this was no big deal when I realized that in order to observe something you have to bounce something off of it - light, gamma rays, or what have you. Bouncing rays off of minute particles would obviously affect them. Maybe a Smell-O-Scope would be more useful.
If this is true (I'm too lazy to research it) then how does that affect causality and decision making theory? It doesn't matter to me what the nuts and bolts in my head actually are, what matters is that they are
things that act in a certain way. If the claim is that "we can therefore know nothing of the universe" then you may want to turn in your television, your polio vaccine, and everything else man ever created because of scientific inquiry. Obviously, there is plenty we can and do know. If the claim is that "we can never know how minute physics works because we can't view it", that doesn't mean we assume that it doesn't work by any rules. Everything we have ever discovered works on rules, and the burden of proof is on the other side of things.
If you haven't heard it already -
Here's a short-short version of Hofstadter's "Careenium" analogy, which I think goes a long way towards making firing neurons and bouncing electrons make more sense in terms of consciousness.