Philosophy / Science / Religion

[innerSpaceman]

I am flabbergasted that anyone truly believes chemicals can think, or that the influence of chemicals or any other natural substance can determine precisely what thoughts a living being can think or what actions a live creature may take. Poppycock on its face.

In a way, a conversation about this seems as useless to me as would a conversation with Sarah Palin about compassion. There is no common frame of reference on which to base a discussion.

So if you think "you" had no hand in deciding what socks you put on today, there's no frame of reference I can imagine to refute that - it is simply completely off base to my entire framework of knowledge and experience.

It's one thing to assert we don't consciously assist our heart in beating, but quite another to allege I had no option but to type the word "zebra" just now.

I typed and erased four other words before settling on "zebra." Was that a chemical process entirely physical in nature? Of course, we can never know. But why anyone would have such a notion is beyond me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I am flabbergasted that anyone truly believes chemicals can think, or that the influence of chemicals or any other natural substance can determine precisely what thoughts a living being can think or what actions a live creature may take. Poppycock on its face.

A chemical can't think. A highly complex collection of chemicals that interact with each other in highly complex ways result in a pattern that we describe as "thinking".

Electrons can't compute. A highly complex collection of electrons (and protons and neutrons) that interact with each other in highly complex ways result in a pattern that we describe as "computing".

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I typed and erased four other words before settling on "zebra." Was that a chemical process entirely physical in nature? Of course, we can never know. But why anyone would have such a notion is beyond me.

Well, it isn't exactly a new notion, Democritus described a form of determinism 2,500 years ago.

But yes, if you generally accept the notion of supernatural phenomena then it would make no sense to accept a view based on hard determinism.

But let me ask you a question that I'm sure will seem like nonsense: If you can will yourself to have typed zebra instead of some other word, independent of any external input, why can't a rock will itself to roll uphill?

I, however, don't see determinism as dehumanizing, any more than learning that the origin of thunder and lightning is a purely physical process (as opposed to supernatural) makes them less impressive. Frankly, if anything, I find it more amazing that whatever we perceive as consciousness is an emergent process than if we just waived our hands in the air and proclaim it "magic."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I am flabbergasted that anyone truly believes chemicals can think, or that the influence of chemicals or any other natural substance can determine precisely what thoughts a living being can think or what actions a live creature may take.

This from someone with a lifetime's worth of experience with just how drastically even a small change in the chemical balance of the body can have drastic effects on thought.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

What's unprovable is that there is anything OTHER than the physical realities of the universe that could possibly be at work.

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. If we create or activate different chemicals to, say, choose bacon over asparagus - then perhaps it's just a matter of chicken and egg. And while thoughts can be (and certainly are) influenced by electricity or chemical additives, that's not the same as saying that ALL thoughts are so influenced.

Originally Posted by Alex

But let me ask you a question that I'm sure will seem like nonsense: If you can will yourself to have typed zebra instead of some other word, independent of any external input, why can't a rock will itself to roll uphill?

I would reply that a rock is not alive.

Is fire alive? Does it will itself to burn things? Dunno. That's the gray area to me. Not rocks.


I'm also not claiming consciousness is non-emergent, or that it's evidence of a soul or spirit. My position is that once-emerged, whether through biology or spirituality, it can and often does direct thought and action independent of biology.

Originally Posted by Alex

Frankly, if anything, I find it more amazing that whatever we perceive as consciousness is an emergent process than if we just waived our hands in the air and proclaim it "magic."

I find it amazing that we perceive light waves as color. A century ago, I suppose that would have been unthinkable. As far as I'm concerned, the science is still out on whether consciousness is merely mechanical.

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

There are hundreds of named diseases and injuries that affect how we think and feel.

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?

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I'm curious - if you believe that our "point of view", "sense of self", "decision-making", etc are all rooted in a Spirit or Soul, then what of people who are autistic?

I do not necessarily believe our sense of self, etc., is rooted in spirits or souls. But even if that were the case, I don't see anything inconsistent with souls trying to experience ALL things, including states of being that do not recognize the self. I'm not sure that trees recognize their selves, but they are alive nonetheless - and if WE have souls (which I'm not saying we do) - so do trees.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

This from someone with a lifetime's worth of experience with just how drastically even a small change in the chemical balance of the body can have drastic effects on thought.

I've addressed this above, but nice point!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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. If we create or activate different chemicals to, say, choose bacon over asparagus - then perhaps it's just a matter of chicken and egg. And while thoughts can be (and certainly are) influenced by electricity or chemical additives, that's not the same as saying that ALL thoughts are so influenced.

A feedback loop does not imply something outside physical reality. Yes, a "thought" generated by the current state of the physical universe affects all future thoughts. But that thought was affected by all previous thoughts. And all of those previous thoughts were affected by all thoughts previous to them, etc. etc. etc. It's still the end result of an unfathomably complex succession of events that have taken place since the beginning of our universe. "The current state and current actions can affect future states and future actions" is not equivalent to "The current state is not the direct result of all previous states and actions." It's the corollary thereof.