Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Centroles wrote:

joe, i'm still waiting for you to refute a single one of the arguements presented in my previous post.

Your patience is admirable. But I'm sure you can sympathize with me as I, too, have patiently awaited your response to my repeated attempts to get you to answer this simple query: are thoughts caused by material processes?

Centroles wrote:

if you can't offer up any evidence that challenges either of my contentions in the previous post, and if you can't find any evidence that thoughts indeed stem from some unknown, unidentified, unmeasurable source such as a soul, then you are essentially conceding.

Your optimism is refreshing, but largely unwarranted.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, it isn't. Since Centroles conceded that "thought" exists (albeit as some sort of manifestation of a biochemical process), there is no need for me to establish its identity.

I already understand what you said why you didn't find it necesary to explain what thought is, since it was a rebuttal to something what Centroles said. I'm just saying that in order to establish the existence of free will, one must first understand what thought is.

Quote:

Really? Then deduce it.

I already did. You are just not reading correctly.

Quote:

Are you honestly suggesting that "thought" is composed of either matter or energy? No wonder I couldn't understand your point.

This sentence gives indeed a clue as to why you cannot understand. I am indeed saying that. You are saying thought is something different? Explain.

Quote:

No need to apologize. I fully understand now why your argument is utterly incomprehensible.

Well, gee. Thanks.

Quote:

It's your argument, jonat: it's up to you to find the support, not me.

Your right, it is indeed up to me. It's just that you ignore my points and simply do not understand them. I'm just not smart enough to make someone like you understand.

Quote:

You ask me? You disagree with Centroles too. Perhaps you should explain why you think it's flawed.

True, i think Centroles doesn't acount for randomness in physical laws and that's why he may be wrong. Or actually he doesn't believe it exists. I can't stop him from thinking that.

Quote:

Your insistence on the "randomness of physical laws" is either irrelevant or just so much surplusage. Let me offer a thought experiment to demonstrate why:

Assuming, for the moment, that neurological processes cause thoughts (a fundamental attribute of both your and Centroles's arguments). Let us further suppose that a certain "thought" consists of a neurological sequence ABC, such that, by replicating the sequence, we can replicate the thought. Now let us suppose that the "randomness of physical laws," which presumably operates on a physical system such as a neurological system, randomly adds another element to the sequence -- let's call it X -- such that the sequence ABCX would not replicate the same thought that is produced by the simple sequence ABC, but rather a different thought (one that, presumably, could be replicated by the same sequence ABCX).

Because X, in the sequence, is a function of random laws, we cannot expect that X will always appear in the sequence ABC (otherwise it wouldn't be random). Moreover, we cannot expect that any random element (such as Y or Z) would be appended to the sequence, because if there is always a random element attached to the sequence we would be unable to identify the thought that is produced by the sequence ABC (in effect, we could not say that there was any such thing as the thought ABC).

Under your reasoning, jonat, the thought produced by the sequence ABC is determined, in that it is invariably produced by that sequence. As such, no one can say that the person who "thinks" that thought did so by his or her own free will. On the other hand, according to you, the thought produced by the sequence ABCX is, in some kind of fashion, the product of free will.

Yet that leads to a series of paradoxes. If it's true that the thought ABC is not a product of free will, whereas the thought ABCX is, then we live in a world where there is some free will. But that's logically troublesome: for if we can will some things but not others, how are we to know which is which? And if we can exercise free will, even in a constrained or limited fashion, why can't we choose to extend our free will over those things that are, at least superficially, not subject to our free will?

Furthermore, if ABC is determined, why does the inclusion of X in the sequence make it any less determined? Certainly, if X is a function of physical laws, then it is no more under the control of the person than are A, B or C. Indeed, if A, B and C are random too, then the inclusion of X does nothing to alter the fundamental character of the sequence.

So what are we left with? Either all thoughts are determined, in which case your "randomness of physical laws" is mere surplusage, or else all thoughts are "undetermined," in which case your reliance on randomness is irrelevant. In either case, your position does not differ, in any significant way, from that of Centroles.

I must give you credit here. It seems you at least got a gist of what i was saying. There is only one flaw within this reasoning. If randomness exists, it will always have an influence. So the X will always be in the equation. However X itself is random. For example let's say that A=1, B=2 and C=3.
X has the possibilty of beig either 1, 2, 3 or any number possible. That is the meaning of true randomness. So the equation ABCX will never have the same result.

Quote:

Please tell us, Dr. Science.

No, you tell ME. Since you used it, i wanna know what you meant.

Quote:

There is nothing besides material processes? So "thoughts" are material processes? And I suppose love, honor, justice, pride, and stupidity are all material processes too?

That is correct. Remember, things like emotion are hormonebased. Wether part of the DNA strand is activated to produce the hormone depends mostly on outside influence.
Unless you believe in something like a "soul" it is indeed a material process.

Quote:

Fine. Make it a chemico-bio-physico-nuclear-astronomical process for all I care. It still doesn't make your argument any more comprehensible.

Bio chemical processes imply processes that has to do with life. Im talking about processes which affects all things in the universe, animate and inanimate objects.

Quote:

Then where does the process begin? If there is indeed a genealogy of causes, what is the first cause?

If you read all my replies in this thread, you would understand that the universe is full of endless reactions, which have no beginning or end. However, a beginning CAN be pointed at. That beginning is not THE beginning, but it is A beginning. And i'm saying that beginning is a combination of genes and outside influence.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

are thoughts caused by material processes?

i am not sure what exactly you mean by material processes but if you are referring to neurochemical reactions, i have already answered this many times. yes, the scientific method points to that as the most likley explanation for thoughts and all other emotions/feelings including love etc. besides there is no other explanation that accounts for how they come into being.

0 Replies

jonat3 wrote:

Quote:
Are you honestly suggesting that "thought" is composed of either matter or energy? No wonder I couldn't understand your point.

This sentence gives indeed a clue as to why you cannot understand. I am indeed saying that. You are saying thought is something different? Explain.

Indeed. "Thought" is neither matter nor energy.

jonat3 wrote:

Quote:
It's your argument, jonat: it's up to you to find the support, not me.

Your right, it is indeed up to me. It's just that you ignore my points and simply do not understand them. I'm just not smart enough to make someone like you understand.

Don't be so modest. I'm inclined to believe that you're not smart enough to make anyone understand what you're trying to say.

jonat3 wrote:

True, i think Centroles doesn't acount for randomness in physical laws and that's why he may be wrong. Or actually he doesn't believe it exists. I can't stop him from thinking that.

In point of fact your purported disagreement with Centroles is an insignificant quibble, a dispute over a mere trifle. You diverge only on the importance of "randomness of physical laws," and since such randomness is irrelevant to your position, it is a quarrel over nothing.

jonat3 wrote:

I must give you credit here. It seems you at least got a gist of what i was saying. There is only one flaw within this reasoning. If randomness exists, it will always have an influence. So the X will always be in the equation. However X itself is random. For example let's say that A=1, B=2 and C=3.
X has the possibilty of beig either 1, 2, 3 or any number possible. That is the meaning of true randomness. So the equation ABCX will never have the same result.

Then you agree that "randomness" is irrelevant to the issue of free will?

jonat3 wrote:

Quote:
There is nothing besides material processes? So "thoughts" are material processes? And I suppose love, honor, justice, pride, and stupidity are all material processes too?

That is correct. Remember, things like emotion are hormonebased. Wether part of the DNA strand is activated to produce the hormone depends mostly on outside influence.
Unless you believe in something like a "soul" it is indeed a material process.

A material process must be measurable, since it is material. So what measures thought? What measures love?

jonat3 wrote:

If you read all my replies in this thread, you would understand that the universe is full of endless reactions, which have no beginning or end. However, a beginning CAN be pointed at. That beginning is not THE beginning, but it is A beginning. And i'm saying that beginning is a combination of genes and outside influence.

How can there be A beginning if there is no THE beginning?

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
are thoughts caused by material processes?

i am not sure what exactly you mean by material processes but if you are referring to neurochemical reactions, i have already answered this many times. yes, the scientific method points to that as the most likley explanation for thoughts and all other emotions/feelings including love etc. besides there is no other explanation that accounts for how they come into being.

are you seriously suggesting that they arise spontanously out of nothing, defying fundamental laws of thermodynamics? are you suggesting that they have no basis in reality since you seem inclined to believe that they are related to neither matter nor energy?

0 Replies

This thread is becoming more and more humorous. You guys are talking about one of the longest running metaphysical debates in history and you have two sides debating totally different issues. Jonat3 and Centroles you are only looking at this from a scientific veiwpoint and the science involved is all subject to much debate. Joe you are looking at this from a more logic/semantics veiwpoint, which is to say, you're not really debating the issue at all, you're just attacking the words that Jonat3 and Centroles use. Humerous, yes. Productive, not really.

As for what I think....um....I'll need to think a bit on how to word it but basically, as with any good metaphysical argument, I think it's a moot point.

0 Replies

Quote:

Indeed. "Thought" is neither matter nor energy.

I also asked what it is then. Because, besides matter and energy, there isn't anything else in the universe. The only thing then would be "soul".

Quote:

Don't be so modest. I'm inclined to believe that you're not smart enough to make anyone understand what you're trying to say.

Ok, the insults are getting rather boring. I'll also stop and let's just keep at the argument at hand. Agreed?

Quote:

In point of fact your purported disagreement with Centroles is an insignificant quibble, a dispute over a mere trifle. You diverge only on the importance of "randomness of physical laws," and since such randomness is irrelevant to your position, it is a quarrel over nothing.

You haven't clearly demonstarted why it is irrelevant. Please do so again, since i'm not certain how you refuted this point.

Quote:

Then you agree that "randomness" is irrelevant to the issue of free will?

No, no, you were doing fine just then. You already explained that if it was ABC everything would be predetermined. That is correct.
With the inclusion of randomness it would be ABCX. I already explained that the result of ABCX would never be the same, since X is genuinely random. So in fact X is really important for free will. For ABC is predetermined, but ABCX is not.

Quote:

A material process must be measurable, since it is material. So what measures thought? What measures love?

Love is a control emotion to ensure that man reproduces himself. Emotions can be considered the control programs of the human mind. They insure our continuous survival. Thought and Love are not spiritual things here. This statement of yours seemed a tad religious, but im dealing with these things on strictly scientific basis.

Quote:

How can there be A beginning if there is no THE beginning

Good point. Theoritcally The beginning should be the Big Bang, but that is just a theory. Impossible to prove btw. The universe may have just existed forever. Or might not. Who knows.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
are thoughts caused by material processes?

i am not sure what exactly you mean by material processes but if you are referring to neurochemical reactions, i have already answered this many times. yes, the scientific method points to that as the most likley explanation for thoughts and all other emotions/feelings including love etc. besides there is no other explanation that accounts for how they come into being.

If you have provided this answer to others, I apologize for making you repeat yourself. I have not followed this thread very closely, so it is possible that you've already stated this position. You have not, however, stated it unequivocally in response to my queries, which is why I pressed you on this issue. And yes, I would include "neurochemical reactions" as a set of "material processes," so you've answered the question to my satisfaction. Now we can proceed.

If we understand "cause and effect" in the normal sense of the phrase, we understand it to mean that "cause" always preceeds "effect." In other words, we can never have an effect chronologically preceed its cause. As such, we should expect that a thought, if it is caused by some sort of neurochemical process, will be preceeded by that process. Thus, according to your position, Centroles, the neurochemical process must preceed the thought that is caused thereby. If I think of raising my arm, then, it is because that thought was preceeded by some kind of neurochemical process that caused me to have the thought of raising my arm.

But what caused that neurochemical process?

It could not have been caused by some act of volition on my part, since such acts are inconceivable in your deterministic universe, Centroles. It's possible, I suppose, that the neurochemical process could have been caused by some other neurochemical process, but then what caused that to occur?

It certainly can't be caused by genetic inheritance, since identical twins would then act in the same fashion under the same circumstances, which we know isn't the case. Perhaps it is the mysterious "external inputs" that are acting upon the neurochemical processes, which in turn cause thoughts to occur. But then we should expect that, deprived of any external inputs, a person would have no thoughts at all. So that a person, deprived of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, would literally be "thoughtless." Yet we can be reasonably certain that that is not the case either. Indeed, persons placed in "sensory deprivation" tanks often describe quite vivid thoughts.

Perhaps the neurochemical processes cause themselves, in some sort of autonomic fashion. But if that were the case, we are then left to wonder why thoughts progress in an orderly manner, rather than going off in random, incomprehensible directions. If, in other words, I think about raising my arm so as to grab a cheese burrito while reaching for a napkin with my other hand, how can we ascribe this complicated-yet-orderly series of thoughts to autonomous neurochemical processes? Are we to believe that these processes have a kind of intentionality?

So we are left with a neurochemical process that is inexplicable: it causes thoughts, but it's own cause is a mystery. It is, in other words, a cause that has no cause. And if it is an uncaused cause, it is not determined. And if it is not determined, then there is no reason to say that actions are determined.

0 Replies

I think there is some misunderstanding here. It is the belief by scientists and biologist that thoughts ARE the material process. They do not cause it, nor the other way around, since they are the same.

0 Replies

you make a good point joe. the problem is, you're treating thoughts as something independent of neurological reactions. there is no evidence of anything measurable "matter or energy" that would account for thoughts themselves. thus it is widely believed that thoughts are the neurological reactions themselves.

while the effects are not noticable temporarily, there is evidence that animals (rats in the experiment) deprived of all external stimuli suffer neurological degeneration over time even when provided with nutrients.

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Joe you are looking at this from a more logic/semantics veiwpoint, which is to say, you're not really debating the issue at all, you're just attacking the words that Jonat3 and Centroles use. Humerous, yes. Productive, not really.

I'd love to debate this issue with you, Adrian, but I don't think the forum could long endure the sustained irony. In fact, I have very little interest in the whole topic of free will. I take a more pragmatic approach to the issue: regardless of whether free will exists or not, our lives would be little changed. We live as if there were free will, and that's what matters most.

But then, it's like they say: "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Centroles wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
are thoughts caused by material processes?

i am not sure what exactly you mean by material processes but if you are referring to neurochemical reactions, i have already answered this many times. yes, the scientific method points to that as the most likley explanation for thoughts and all other emotions/feelings including love etc. besides there is no other explanation that accounts for how they come into being.

are you seriously suggesting that they arise spontanously out of nothing, defying fundamental laws of thermodynamics? are you suggesting that they have no basis in reality since you seem inclined to believe that they are related to neither matter nor energy?

Are you arguing with yourself, Centroles? I think maybe you quoted the wrong passage.

But, to answer the question you wanted to ask: yes, I am certainly saying that "thoughts" defy the laws of thermodynamics. I would add that thoughts also defy the laws of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, Coulomb's law, the Coriolis effect, the laws of conservation, Joule's laws, and Bernoulli's principle. Indeed, thoughts are not subject to any physical laws.

I would strongly dispute, however, the contention that thoughts have no basis in reality. Rather, I would ask you, Centroles, to provide the basis for your contention that everything that is "real" is either matter or energy.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'd love to debate this issue with you, Adrian, but I don't think the forum could long endure the sustained irony. In fact, I have very little interest in the whole topic of free will. I take a more pragmatic approach to the issue: regardless of whether free will exists or not, our lives would be little changed. We live as if there were free will, and that's what matters most.

This is a stance i can understand. I mentioned earlier that i rather take the illusion than the knowledge of the future myself.

Quote:

But then, it's like they say: "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."

Quite true. But heck, one of the main reasons we come here is to argue. We all are a bunch of idiots. Smile

Quote:

But, to answer the question you wanted to ask: yes, I am certainly saying that "thoughts" defy the laws of thermodynamics. I would add that thoughts also defy the laws of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, Coulomb's law, the Coriolis effect, the laws of conservation, Joule's laws, and Bernoulli's principle. Indeed, thoughts are not subject to any physical laws.

Hmm, then i guess this argument has stumbled on a dead end. What scientists believe is also part of a belief system. It's just that they think that what they believe is the more likely case and that they have more knowledge at their disposal to back it up. On most things they are right too. There are a few exceptions here and there, though.

0 Replies

jonat3 wrote:

Quote:
Indeed. "Thought" is neither matter nor energy.

I also asked what it is then. Because, besides matter and energy, there isn't anything else in the universe. The only thing then would be "soul".

When asked to define "thought" I am tempted to respond in the same fashion as did Louis Armstrong when he was asked to define "jazz": "Man, if you gotta' ask, you'll never know." Honestly, jonat, if you're able to think about posing the question, you must have at least some familiarity with the phenomenon. But, as a faute de mieux, I'll offer this definition of thought: "An intentional mental phenomenon which has contents about things in the world."

jonat3 wrote:

Ok, the insults are getting rather boring. I'll also stop and let's just keep at the argument at hand. Agreed?

Hmmmmm . . . I'll think about it.

jonat3 wrote:

You haven't clearly demonstarted why it is irrelevant. Please do so again, since i'm not certain how you refuted this point.

No problem: "...if ABC is determined, why does the inclusion of X in the sequence make it any less determined? Certainly, if X is a function of physical laws, then it is no more under the control of the person than are A, B or C. Indeed, if A, B and C are random too, then the inclusion of X does nothing to alter the fundamental character of the sequence."

In other words, if the inclusion of a random factor (here denoted as X), does nothing to alter the inherent deterministic character of the original sequence, then its inclusion is irrelevant to the issue of determinism.

jonat3 wrote:

No, no, you were doing fine just then. You already explained that if it was ABC everything would be predetermined. That is correct.
With the inclusion of randomness it would be ABCX. I already explained that the result of ABCX would never be the same, since X is genuinely random. So in fact X is really important for free will. For ABC is predetermined, but ABCX is not.

The thought ABC is predetermined, but the material process ABC is, as far as we know, not predetermined (that's a puzzle that Centroles is still working on). If the process ABC is random, however, then the process ABCX is equally random, and thus is likewise not predetermined. Consequently, the inclusion of X in the sequence does nothing to add an element of "free will" to the equation.

jonat3 wrote:

Quote:
A material process must be measurable, since it is material. So what measures thought? What measures love?

Love is a control emotion to ensure that man reproduces himself. Emotions can be considered the control programs of the human mind. They insure our continuous survival. Thought and Love are not spiritual things here. This statement of yours seemed a tad religious, but im dealing with these things on strictly scientific basis.

OK, I'm going to repeat my question in the hopes that you'll actually answer it this time: "A material process must be measurable, since it is material. So what measures thought? What measures love?

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

you make a good point joe. the problem is, you're treating thoughts as something independent of neurological reactions.

Indeed I am. Let me offer a thought experiment to demonstrate why I believe there is a difference between the "act of thinking" and the neurological or biochemical reactions that support or coincide with such an act.

We are, I think, familiar with the common experiment whereby an electrical current is run through a severed frog's leg, and the leg twitches and moves in response (an experiment first performed by Luigi Galvani more than two hundred years ago). Presumably, then, we could map out the neurological sequence of a thought -- as per my earlier example, let's call it ABC. Furthermore, let us suppose that the neurological sequence ABC invariably produces the thought ABC, such that every time the neurons spark in the sequence A, B, C, we can expect the thought ABC to occur.

Now, let us suppose that we obtain a human cadaver. We hook it up to an electrical device that stimulates neurons, in much the same fashion that we hook up a severed frog's leg to an electrical current. We switch on the device, and it produces in the cadaver the neurological sequence ABC. The question, then: "is the cadaver thinking?"

Centroles wrote:

there is no evidence of anything measurable "matter or energy" that would account for thoughts themselves.

If they are not measurable, how can they be either matter or energy?

Centroles wrote:

thus it is widely believed that thoughts are the neurological reactions themselves.

Widely believed? Name three scientists who hold this view.

0 Replies

Quote:

When asked to define "thought" I am tempted to respond in the same fashion as did Louis Armstrong when he was asked to define "jazz": "Man, if you gotta' ask, you'll never know." Honestly, jonat, if you're able to think about posing the question, you must have at least some familiarity with the phenomenon. But, as a faute de mieux, I'll offer this definition of thought: "An intentional mental phenomenon which has contents about things in the world."

If you do not believe that the universe consist of either matter or energy, it would be quite useless to argue with you. You may even be right, that there may be a 3rd mysterious force out there, but nothing points to that....yet.

Quote:

Hmmmmm . . . I'll think about it.

Ok, that was all i was asking. Having a brawl over the internet is fun once in awhile, but i don't have the energy to keep it up.

Quote:

No problem: "...if ABC is determined, why does the inclusion of X in the sequence make it any less determined? Certainly, if X is a function of physical laws, then it is no more under the control of the person than are A, B or C. Indeed, if A, B and C are random too, then the inclusion of X does nothing to alter the fundamental character of the sequence."

In other words, if the inclusion of a random factor (here denoted as X), does nothing to alter the inherent deterministic character of the original sequence, then its inclusion is irrelevant to the issue of determinism.

I already posted my thoughts on why this reasoning isn't entirely correct.

Quote:

The thought ABC is predetermined, but the material process ABC is, as far as we know, not predetermined (that's a puzzle that Centroles is still working on). If the process ABC is random, however, then the process ABCX is equally random, and thus is likewise not predetermined. Consequently, the inclusion of X in the sequence does nothing to add an element of "free will" to the equation.

One characteristic of a reaction is that it's predetermined. One reaction produces always one result under precisely the same conditions. With some experience in chemistry this would become readily apparent. The X i was referrring too is required, since it is the ONLY genuine random element that may upset this rule. What i'm saying is that SOME reactions ARE predetrmined, but it is still questionable if there exists an elemnt able to upset this in the first place. When i was talking about ABC i was also referring to the material process.

Quote:

OK, I'm going to repeat my question in the hopes that you'll actually answer it this time: "A material process must be measurable, since it is material. So what measures thought? What measures love?

I base the answer on my belief that the universe consist of matter and energy alone. You disagree on this point, so you'll diagree on my answer anyway.
But for what it's worth i'll answer. Love is an emotion. Emotion is hormonebased. Hormones affect thoughts, which in turn conceive emotions. Thoughts IMO are a material reaction. And this is where you disagree, since you are of the opinion that toughts are neither energy or matter.
It is quite useless to argue a thing like belief.

0 Replies

this is the issue joe. most scientists do believe that there is nothing in this universe that isn't composed of matter and/or energy.

the basis for this is simple, there is no evidence that points to anything besides these two. you would probably that thoughts themelves, life itself is composed of something other than these two, a soul perhaps.

i am interested to know where you believe this cutoff for a soul exists. you believe a person has a soul. does a rat have a soul too, just a smaller one? does an insect? does a plant? does a multicellular bacteria? does a single cell? does a cell just have a small part of the soul found in the entire person? does a protein? does dna? do the nueotides that make up dna? do the individual molecules, atoms, protons, electons? if so does all matter have a soul? all matter after all can be broken down into identical protons and electrons? where does this soul lie. does it revolve around protons? does it direct the movement of electrons?

where exactly do you believe this cut off exists? does it occur at one level but simply disappear at a slightly lower one?

i would argue that even if some thing else exists other than matter or energy it can't just spontanously appear when a person is conceived and disappear when they die. and i would also argue that every single molecule must have a piece of it. but i don't think you will ever accept this contention so i won't bother trying to convince you otherwise.

you stated just now that the soul itself is based in reality.

for something to be based in reality. it has to be able to interact with either matter or energy. and if such an interaction is possible, such an interaction would be observable in a controlled environment, no. so an experiment where all other variables are held constant should be able to prove the existence of a soul right? if when all other variables are constant, two identical particles with identical velocities do different things, then there must be a third variable beyond matter and energy that must be influencing this action right?

this is the basis of the whole randomness must exist for a soul to exist arguement stems from. but even if randomness does exist it doesnt' neccesarily confirm the existence of a soul, just accounts for it's possibility.

i would argue that there is no evidence that points to this. there is no evidence that points to a third variable that influences either matter or energy. i don't doubt that some of you try to disagree with me by bringing in the uncertainity principle even though all that the principle proves is that an objects exact velocity and positon can't be determined at the same time which ties right back into the experiment i talked about.

anyways, i don't think we'll ever reach a consensus on this.

i go by the notion that in absence of any evidence that points to or even suggests the notion of a soul, the most likely explanation is that no such soul exists. after all, it wouldn't make sense if we could just suggest the existence of anything we want to back up whatever we believe even without any evidence that points to such an existence. science would unravel if people could just make up whatever explanation they want for something without having to back it up with evidence.

like i said, we're not going to settle the issue. i'm going by the scientific method, you're going by your gut instinct. but i admit that there's any evidence to disprove either of us. i'm just accepting the theory that's the simplest as the most likely one.

but i am curious though, do you think a person could be brought back from the dead?

i believe so. once medicine has advanced somemore and we are able to reconnect the nutrient delivery systems and reverse any degeneration of the issues that has occured, we could bring someone back from the dead.

this belief is why so many people are willing to fork over millions of dollars to have themselves cryogenically frozen.

in a similar fashion, i beleve that we can theoretically create a "living" organism for inanimate matter. once science advances a great deal, i believe we may one day we able to re organise protons and electrons from something "inanimate" like sand that you don't believe has a soul into new complex shapes forming proteins, memberanes, sugars, and essentially all the components that make up a person. and that person will be very much "alive" provided they are supplied with nutrients. and i believe this because i am convinced that there is no such thing as a soul and even if there was (ie. there is randomness to the universe), all matter must possess it to some degree including nonliving matter like sand.

i believe this is the next logical step after cloning living organisms. do you believe this is possible as well?

i am also curious to know when you think this soul spontanously disappears. when does a person die? when there heart stops, because we have managed to revive people after this point simply by fixing their nutrient delievery system (circulation). when people suffer brain death? because we have also managed to revive people after their brain stopped producing neurochemical reactions simply by reattaching the blood supply and priming the brain with external electrical impulses. so when does a person die. if people have souls and that's what lets them live, when do they disappear again?

0 Replies

do you believe that people die and once they do, they forever lose their ability to think/feel etc?

please respond to this question.

also when do you think this happens. would you say that this happens, that a living organism forever loses it's ability to think within an year or so after it stops breathing?

please respond to this question as well.

0 Replies

jonat3 wrote:

If you do not believe that the universe consist of either matter or energy, it would be quite useless to argue with you. You may even be right, that there may be a 3rd mysterious force out there, but nothing points to that....yet.

Well, let's be quite clear here: I am willing to concede that the physical universe is composed solely of matter and energy. There are, however, more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your science, jonat.

jonat3 wrote:

One characteristic of a reaction is that it's predetermined. One reaction produces always one result under precisely the same conditions. With some experience in chemistry this would become readily apparent. The X i was referrring too is required, since it is the ONLY genuine random element that may upset this rule. What i'm saying is that SOME reactions ARE predetrmined, but it is still questionable if there exists an elemnt able to upset this in the first place. When i was talking about ABC i was also referring to the material process.

Perhaps the problem here is a lack of common understanding concerning the notion of "free will." Typically, "free will" is understood as meaning the presence of some sort of volitional choice. Thus, for instance, if I am able either to lift my arm or not lift my arm, and I can choose to lift my arm, then it can be said that I have free will. In contrast, if I have no choice whether or not to raise my arm, then I do not have free will.

Now, the addition of a "random element" in any kind of predetermined material sequence (we'll stick with ABC) does nothing to obviate its character as a predetermined sequence. In other words, if ABC is not within a person's ability to choose, the addition of a similarly un-chooseable element, such as X, does nothing to make the sequence ABCX un-determined. After all, if I can't choose ABC because it's predetermined, and I can't choose ABCX because it's predetermined and random, then I am equally unable to choose either one. Randomness, then, does not alter the fundamental nature of the sequence as being determined; it just makes it determined and random.

jonat3 wrote:

But for what it's worth i'll answer. Love is an emotion. Emotion is hormonebased. Hormones affect thoughts, which in turn conceive emotions. Thoughts IMO are a material reaction. And this is where you disagree, since you are of the opinion that toughts are neither energy or matter.

Well, let's assume that you're right. If "love" is either matter or energy, then it can be measured. So what measure is appropriate for assessing and quantifying "love"?

jonat3 wrote:

It is quite useless to argue a thing like belief.

Nonsense. Beliefs are profitably argued all the time.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

i am interested to know where you believe this cutoff for a soul exists.

I can easily dispense with about 75% of your lengthy post with this reply: I never said anything about the existence of a "soul." Your attempt to force me to clarify my position on the "soul," then, is just so much wasted effort. You are arguing with a straw man, not with me.

Centroles wrote:

like i said, we're not going to settle the issue. i'm going by the scientific method, you're going by your gut instinct.

No, I'm using logic. I have no clue what you're relying upon.

Centroles wrote:

but i am curious though, do you think a person could be brought back from the dead?

No. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.

Centroles wrote:

i believe this is the next logical step after cloning living organisms. do you believe this is possible as well?

Sure. On the unicellular level, cloning occurs all the time.

Centroles wrote:

do you believe that people die and once they do, they forever lose their ability to think/feel etc?

please respond to this question.

also when do you think this happens. would you say that this happens, that a living organism forever loses it's ability to think within an year or so after it stops breathing?

please respond to this question as well.

Nope, sorry. I won't respond to any more of your questions if you do not extend to me the same courtesy -- and I still have an unanswered question on the table. For your convenience I'll repeat it: Now, let us suppose that we obtain a human cadaver. We hook it up to an electrical device that stimulates neurons, in much the same fashion that we hook up a severed frog's leg to an electrical current. We switch on the device, and it produces in the cadaver the neurological sequence ABC. The question, then: "is the cadaver thinking?"

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know