A critique of dualism and the notion of free will.

Quote:

I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand. We have done a ton of research into and have a very solid grasp of the neurochemical reactions underlying our thoughts and emotions.

Not quite. Neurology still has a lot of things to look at. Example: scientists still do not know why different SSRI's work better for different people, nor are they completely clear on why SSRI's work the way they do. They also have not found the interactions for consciousness.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Joe, your misunderstanding of Nietzsche baffles me.

Looking at my bookshelf, I see that I've read Beyond Good and Evil, (BGE), The Geneology of Morals, Thus Spake Zarathustra, The Untimely Meditations, and Ecce Homo. When you've gone beyond your temporary collegiate infatuation with Nietzsche-light and actually read as much of his work as I have, then you can start lecturing me on Nietzsche.

Centroles wrote:

Nietzsche argued that the very notion of the self doesn't exist. That the so called self is little more than competing drives. Nietzsche rejected the notion of the mind. How can you possibly claim that he believed in sentience. How can you have a sentient life form with a mind. How can you have sentience when there is no self. What exactly is this sentience then and where did it come from.

That's a good question. Nietzsche, no doubt, would have said that "sentience" is an effect or attribute of will. But, as Nietzsche asked at the beginning of BGE: "What then?" If we can't make a distinction between the will that thinks and the self that thinks, then what is the practical difference?

In any event, given your materialism, your embrace of Nietzsche is particularly mystifying. As Nietzsche pointed out in BGE 21:

One should not wrongly reify "cause" and "effect," as the natural scientists do ... according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication -- [i]not[/i] for explanation. In the "in-itself" [[i]an sich[/i]] there is nothing of "causal connections," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom;" there the effect does [i]not[/i] follow the cause, there is no rule of "law."Likewise, Nietzsche stated in BGE 12: "As for materialistic atomism, it is one of the best refuted theories there are." Your reification of cause and effect, therefore, is directly at odds with Nietzsche's view of cause and effect as "conventional fictions." In other words, your atomistic materialism cannot be reconciled with Nietzsche's idealist skepticism. Your Nietzschean rejection of the "self," therefore, is built on a materialistic base that Nietzsche himself would have rejected. How can you square this contradiction?

Centroles wrote:

The firing of our neurons is not a precondition. Firing of neurons is thought. Your leg and walking analogy doesn't fit. If you don't understand that our emotions and thoughts are inherently the neurochemical activities going on in our brains, you need to read up more on the subject. If not the activities in our brain, to what magical force do you attribute our thoughts and emotions to.

Thoughts are thoughts, emotions are emotions. Nothing magical about that.

Centroles wrote:

It sounds you like you misunderstand the link between the brain and our thoughts. The firing of our neurons are our thoughts.

Yes, you made that clear with your dissection of the Sentient Corpse. It is still unclear, however, just how far you're willing to take this notion of the equivalence between material processes and thoughts/emotions.

Centroles wrote:

The binding of dopamine to neurons is what we experience as happiness. There is no third variable. Once again, I suggest you read a good text on the subject, at the very least Fundamental Neuroscience by Haines. It's an easy read, you can get it from your library and read much of it in a day or so. If you really want to simplified explanation of our emotions, you can read http://hedweb.com/hedethic/hedon1.htm but I warn you that the site has more to do with how to modify our emotions than with emotional mechansims themselves. I suggest you read something more advance, even if it's longer and requires that you go to the library.

While you're at that, I suggest that you pick out something on advanced thermodynamics as well. You don't seem to realize the full ramifications of the theory.

Rather than a potentially futile trip to the library, perhaps it would be better if we get a sense of your own position first. Before posing some hypotheticals, however, I should point out that I have asked a lot of questions, only some of which you've answered. I will, therefore, keep the number of questions to a minimum, in the hopes that you will focus your efforts on answering the ones that I do ask.

HYPOTHETICAL NO. 1: A subject hears a sound, let's say it is the sound of a bell. The sound is translated into some sort of neurochemical reaction, such that the neurochemical reaction in the body (let's designate it as BELL[size=8]CHEM[/size]) occurs at the same time as the subject's perception of the sound (designated as BELL[size=8]PERC[/size]). Now, as I understand it, you would contend that BELL[size=8]CHEM[/size] and BELL[size=8]PERC[/size] are the same thing. Furthermore, you contend that both are, in effect, material processes, and further that all material processes are the effects of material causes, such that only materials (or, as you've put it, particles) can affect other materials. If that is the case, what material or "particle" causes BELL[size=8]CHEM[/size] and BELL[size=8]PERC[/size]?

HYPOTHETICAL NO. 2: Suppose we have a subject who suffers from a neurological disorder, such that the images received by the eyes are somehow prevented from registering in the brain. There is nothing wrong with the subject's eyes, and we can determine scientifically that the neurochemical reactions that would normally occur in a sighted individual occur in this subject. So, for example, when the subject looks at an object -- let's say a chair -- the neurochemical reactions that would normally accompany that event (call it CHAIR[size=8]CHEM[/size]) occur in this subject as well. But whereas in a normal individual CHAIR[size=8]CHEM[/size] would also be accompanied by a perception (call it CHAIR[size=8]PERC[/size]), such that the two would be equivalent, in this subject there is CHAIR[size=8]CHEM[/size] but no CHAIR[size=8]PERC[/size]. The question, then, is: what does this subject see?

Centroles wrote:

Joe, no where does determinism state that the future can be calculated by man, a computer, or any equation. All it states is that all events are the direct consequences of the interactions of preceding events and are thus predetermined. The possibility that the preceding events may be an infinite number in an infinately large universe, and thus that no equation could ever take them all into account, doesn't rule out determinism. Just because we may never be able to predict the future (because the number of variables involved are simply too large) doesn't mean that we don't live in a determined world. So it is you, that misunderstands determinism.

If by "determinism" you simply mean "cause and effect," then I certainly don't understand your usage. More importantly, I can't see your point. You seem to be attempting to say something about free will, yet you haven't made the connection between everything being caused and nothing being free.

Centroles wrote:

Free will requires an external mode of control outside of causality.

How do you know that?

Centroles wrote:

If every thought that pops in our head, every emotion we feel is a result of external stimuli and the inherent organization of our neurons, all our thoughts, feelings, and emotions are determined.

If.

Centroles wrote:

Joe, how many times do I have to point out chemical evolution.

I don't know. I have no idea why you pointed it out even once.

Centroles wrote:

"Living" things did and can arise from "nonliving" matter. Thus it can arise from "dead" matter. You're wrong on your adamant refusal of that point. No matter how many times you deny it, it doesn't make it not true.

You still haven't identified a single instance where I've stated my "adamant refusal" on this point. But don't bother, I've lost interest.

Centroles wrote:

This day at able2know was just a day of break from my studies. And it's nearing an end. So I will have to say good bye to you guys for now. Joe, that should give you plenty of time to do some reading on neurology and thermodynamics if you have the time. I hope that you do. I would love to debate with you on this issue once you're more familiar with the subject and we can move on to more of the practical implications of the these processes rather than just these abstract ones.

I hope, during your studies, you have the opportunity to read more of Nietzsche.

0 Replies

Determinism states that all things have a cause. Then may I ask that if there is a cause to every effect, what is the first causation? Would not, according to deterministic logic, that causation have a cause or does it cause itself to make an effect, if the latter is true, then determinism would be a paradox because the first causation would have needed to cause itself. Then again, there might not be a first causation but that provides a different problem.

0 Replies

Why is it neccesary to have a first cause? It's like asking, where did matter come from? Did it have to come from somewhere? Couldn't it have been around forever? And if it was, then so were causes and effects.

Regarding SSRIs. Yes, there are some chemicals that we don't know the precise mechanism behind. But there are others that we do. And we have linked them directly with certain emotions, thoughts and feelings. What more proof do you need that they are the essence of what we think, feel, and do?

Sorry, I can't respond to all the posts. I just logged on and the library is about to close soon. But I'll quickly address the hypotheticals...

Obviously I don't agree with everything Nietsche said. Nietsche rejected science, and at that time, he was mostly right to. Back then, science rarely followed the scientific process. Nietsche never explained logically why he doesn't believe in causation. There were a lot of things he said, about women and such, that he simply stated without providing any arguments. Such parts of Nietsche's works are best ignored. As they add little of value to anything.

Hence, it was no different than a religion. That's how we ended up with doctors back then bleeding people because they though it heals them. But that changed in the past 100 years. And the remarkable things science has achieved since then would I believe cause a modern Nietsche to embrace science and the materialism that underlies it. Science by following the scientifc process has now evolved into a great source of the will to power.

You ask what is the link because everything being caused by someother particle's motion, and having no free will. That made little sense to me. If everything is caused by the motion of particles, where does the "free" part of freedom come from. Free will implies that there is an entity, a self, and that it is free to do as it chooses, atleast some of the time, inspite of external influences. I reject the notion of such an entity, as did Nietsche. And I reject the notion of "free" because there is no entity that is free from the influences of the external environment.

"HYPOTHETICAL NO. 1: A subject hears a sound, let's say it is the sound of a bell. The sound is translated into some sort of neurochemical reaction, such that the neurochemical reaction in the body (let's designate it as BELLCHEM) occurs at the same time as the subject's perception of the sound (designated as BELLPERC). Now, as I understand it, you would contend that BELLCHEM and BELLPERC are the same thing. Furthermore, you contend that both are, in effect, material processes, and further that all material processes are the effects of material causes, such that only materials (or, as you've put it, particles) can affect other materials. If that is the case, what material or "particle" causes BELLCHEM and BELLPERC?"

I would contend that the notion of perception itself is an illusion. There is a section of you brain called the hippocampus, that's where neurons most readily change shape, form new connections, in effect, have lasting changes. Whatever electrical impulses go to the hippocampus can be considered "perception" because these are the impulse that cause changes and in effect recallable aka. memory.

If something is not percieved, it just didn't go through the hippocampus. There are several gates, think computer circuits through out our neurons that direct where things go based on how they are wired. The changes in the hippocampus effects these gates in effect controlling what gets directed there next.

As for what causes BELLCHEM. The bell's moved caused air to vibrate at a certain frequency. These vibration hit our ear drum, pass through three tiny bones attached to the ear drum into a chamber of fluid inside of which there are various cells which when moved by the movement of the fluid, open their ion gates due to the streach. The ions go in, in effect causing a nuerochemical chain that goes all the way through your brain.

HYPOTHETICAL NO. 2: Suppose we have a subject who suffers from a neurological disorder, such that the images received by the eyes are somehow prevented from registering in the brain. There is nothing wrong with the subject's eyes, and we can determine scientifically that the neurochemical reactions that would normally occur in a sighted individual occur in this subject. So, for example, when the subject looks at an object -- let's say a chair -- the neurochemical reactions that would normally accompany that event (call it CHAIRCHEM) occur in this subject as well. But whereas in a normal individual CHAIRCHEM would also be accompanied by a perception (call it CHAIRPERC), such that the two would be equivalent, in this subject there is CHAIRCHEM but no CHAIRPERC. The question, then, is: what does this subject see?

This hypothetical scenario is impossible. There is no case, no disorder recorded, atleast to my knowledge, where someone can have a visual defecit, without the pathway from the eye to the visual cortex and then to the hippocampus, isn't damaged in someway. If the neurochemical wave reaches the hippocampus, the person can't be blind. If a bundle of neurons in the path are cut somehow however, blindness occurs.

My question to you is, on what basis do you suggest that our neurochemical reactions are seperate from our thoughts and our emotions. It's like seperating our brain from our "mind". They're all the same thing. What we "percieve" are simply what ever neurons are activated in the hippocampus and it's various pathways at the time.

Well, it seems I have to go. I'll try to continue this conversation sometime. But I can't guarentee that I'll have the time to anytime soon.

Till then. I ask you, what is it that seperates these fluxes of ions through neurochemical pathways from our emotions? Why can't they be one and the same thing?

0 Replies

The lady is doing something else, so I have enough time for one final quick post.

Your rejection of the possiblity of someday being able to repair and revive vital functioning is adamant refusal.

I postulate, the notion of sentience is a farce, soul, life, thought, emotion, they are all just the flow of chemicals. I challenge any of you, to show me evidence of anything else underlying any of them. I challenge you to show me evidence of anything other than the mere movement of particles, underlying all aspects of life.

Frank, let's just agree to disagree okay.

I believe that if something has been studied a great deal and provides tons of evidence for one things and provides no evidence for the alternative as well as evidence contrary to the alternative, then the alternative can be rejected.

Maybe "doesn't exist." is too strong. You're right. Nothing can ever be concluded to a certainity, ever. But in terms of evidence this is as close as they come to be concluded.

I should have said, the theory of a soul, thought etc, can be rejected according to the sceintific process. And I postulate that they infact don't exist.

JLN, I wouldn't recommend using Mystics to back up your assertions. In my experience, they're phonies that are very good at manipulating people. And I believe most people would agree.

If you recall, there is still an unclaimed 1 million dollar award to anyone that can show that they have some (paranormal) ability that can't be explained by science. You would think that if these mystics had any real power, they would be interested in claiming the million rather than getting a few hundreds dollars off of people, one at a time.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Obviously I don't agree with everything Nietsche said. Nietsche rejected science, and at that time, he was mostly right to. Back then, science rarely followed the scientific process. Hence, it was no different than a religion. That's how we ended up with doctors back then bleeding people because they though it heals them. But that changed in the past 100 years. And the remarkable things science has achieved since then would I believe cause a modern Nietsche to embrace science and the materialism that underlies it. Science by following the scientifc processhas now evolved into a great source of the will to power.

Nietzsche didn't reject materialism because it was inductively weak but because it was deductively invalid. Progress in science would not, for Nietzsche, have altered materialism's logical deficiencies.

Centroles wrote:

I would contend that the notion of perception itself is an illusion.

I don't understand. Are you saying that perception is an illusion?

Centroles wrote:

This hypothetical scenario is impossible.

As I have mentioned before, this is an invalid objection to a hypothetical. One can say that a hypothetical is irrelevant, or that it asks the wrong question, or that it is uninteresting, but it is simply pointless to refuse to answer a hypothetical because it is "impossible." Hypotheticals, by their very nature, need only be theoretically possible; if we can imagine it, then that is the only possibility that we need. As such, my Hypothetical No. 2 still stands.

0 Replies

Responding to the edits in your post:

Centroles wrote:

You ask what is the link because everything being caused by someother particle's motion, and having no free will. That made little sense to me. If everything is caused by the motion of particles, where does the "free" part of freedom come from.

How do you know that everything is caused by the motion of particles?

Centroles wrote:

Free will implies that there is an entity, a self, and that it is free to do as it chooses, atleast some of the time, inspite of external influences.

I agree.

Centroles wrote:

I reject the notion of such an entity, as did Nietsche.

But not for the same reasons.

Centroles wrote:

And I reject the notion of "free" because there is no entity that is free from the influences of the external environment.

How do you know that?

Centroles wrote:

My question to you is, on what basis do you suggest that our neurochemical reactions are seperate from our thoughts and our emotions. It's like seperating our brain from our "mind". They're all the same thing. What we "percieve" are simply what ever neurons are activated in the hippocampus and it's various pathways at the time.

I'll respond to this question as soon as you clear up your statement about perceptions being "illusions."

Centroles wrote:

Till then. I ask you, what is it that seperates these fluxes of ions through neurochemical pathways from our emotions? Why can't they be one and the same thing?

See above.

0 Replies

How about this. If there was any scenario, in which hypothetical 2 occurs, then yes there is something more behind perception than the flow of chemicals. There however isn't and never will be I contend.

Yes. Yes. Yes. How many times and in how many ways do I have to say it. Perception, life, everything is an illusion. It is nothing more than the movement of particles.

I postitulated that all processes of life, all so called thoughts, emotions etc, are all just the movement of particles - chemicals, ions, neurotransmitters etc. And this movement is defined by and strictly follows the laws of physics. There is no evidence of there being anything more yet. And we have looked, looked hard.

Maybe someday, I'll be proven wrong. But maybe someday, we will find something, anything, that differentiates living things from nonliving things. Some evidence of a soul, or a spirit or something influencing these particles to behave in ways that particles in nonliving things don't. But I sincerely doubt it.

0 Replies

Joe, your reasoning in these last posts is sparkling.
I do feel that Centroles' (if it was him) understanding of the cosmic prime mover as a logical and necessary beginning of an infintely long chain of causes and effects reflects a misunderstanding of the nature and function of "causation." It is a way of asking questions about the meaning of phenomena, i.e., treat them as "effects" (consequences) and then look for necessary and/or efficient "causes". Causes and effects, I think you'll agree, are no more than analytical constructs which must not be reified into entities occupying "chains" all the way back to a prime cause.

0 Replies

Why must there be a prime cause?

Why are causal relatonships no more than anaylitical constructs?

Why is materialsim deductively invalid?

You guys can say these things as many times as you want. But until you provide some evidenc, some arguements, to back up these assertions, you have little more credibility in your statements than thiests have in there assertion that the universe was created by an omnipotent god.

There is a plethora of evidence describing the chemical mechanisms and movements and reactions underlying everything we used to attribute to a "mind" such as thought, emotion, perception etc.

There isn't so much as a sentence to back up any of your assertions.

0 Replies

Centroles, you wrote: "JLN, I wouldn't recommend using Mystics to back up your assertions. In my experience, they're phonies that are very good at manipulating people. And I believe most people would agree."

When you and I refer to "mystics" we are obviously denoting very different kinds of people. Gasp.

0 Replies

My mistake, it seems the library doesn't close until 2.

Well then clarify who you are referring to by Mystics then. What experiements did they do? What evidence do they have to back up any of their assertions or claims?

We've looked, searched with electron microscopes, studied particle accelerators, and so far, we haven't found evidence of anything other than particles, and their motions, and the energy associated with them.

We even went as far as directly correlating motions of neurotransmitters and ions with specific emotions, perception, specific memories, specific thoughts, and feelings.

There is a plethora of evidence describing the chemical mechanisms and movements and reactions underlying everything we used to attribute to a "mind" such as thought, emotion, perception etc.

So the burden of proof rests on you to show that there is something other than particles underlying emotion, the mind, sentience, soul, etc. Until you do, you don't have any evidence to back up any of these things.

You can say causaulity is logically deduced, or inductively based, or anaylitically derived, or whatever the heck you want.

That doesn't in any way suggest that it doesn't exist. On the contrary, experiment after experiment, observation after observation of the interaction of particles, shows that it does, very much so.

As for delving deeper and deeper into philosophy, as you guys seem to have. If that means that I will be inclined to simply ignore all the evidence, ignore all the observations, and just jump to conclusions (such as the nonexistance of causality) that there is no evidence to support, and that all the evidence seems to reject, then thanks. But no thanks. I would rather that my belief system remain based on actual testing and physical evidence thank you very much.

Maybe someday, we will find something, anything, that differentiates living things from nonliving things. Some evidence of a soul, or a spirit or something influencing these particles to behave in ways that particles in nonliving things don't. Some evidence, any evidence that there is something that differentiates life, from nonlife. And if such a day were to come, I would gladly embrace the notion of a soul, and sentience.

Similarly, I sincerly hope that we will someday find some evidence of a heaven, I would love to be able to embrace the idea of eternal happiness. But until there is evidence of such a thing, I would be a disservice to my self, to the scientific process itself, to embrace something merely for the sake of wishful thinking.

0 Replies

Well it's official, the library is closing. Bye guys. It's been fun. Hope you'll be around the next time I have free time to think about other things. Maybe in a week or so. Maybe sooner. I'm not sure when.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

How about this. If there was any scenario, in which hypothetical 2 occurs, then yes there is something more behind perception than the flow of chemicals. There however isn't and never will be I contend.

I am baffled by this response. In the case of the "Sentient Corpse," you held that, by replicating the neurochemical sequence of a thought in a cadaver, we could actually have the corpse "think." In the same manner, we have here a neurochemical sequence of a perception in a blind person, yet it seems that you would say that the blind person sees nothing. Really, I don't understand the distinction. If the corpse can think, why can't the blind person see?

Centroles wrote:

Yes. Yes. Yes. How many times and in how many ways do I have to say it. Perception, life, everything is an illusion. It is nothing more than the movement of particles.

Centroles, I do believe you are that rarest of creatures, a doctrinaire materialist who is skeptical of material -- a "materialist-immaterialist," if you will. You place utmost faith in induction, but, at the same time, you contend that the foundation for induction is illusory. You maintain that everything is particles, but you have no confidence in their existence.

It's not that you have backed yourself into an irresolvable contradiction (although you've certainly done that), it's that you've negated the entire basis for your claims of knowledge. If perception is an illusion, then your particles are just as illusory as the "self." If that's the case, then how can you draw any conclusions from perceptions? How can you insist on anything being true? And why should anyone repose any confidence in anything you say?

To revisit your previous questions:

Centroles wrote:

My question to you is, on what basis do you suggest that our neurochemical reactions are seperate from our thoughts and our emotions. It's like seperating our brain from our "mind". They're all the same thing. What we "percieve" are simply what ever neurons are activated in the hippocampus and it's various pathways at the time.

Till then. I ask you, what is it that seperates these fluxes of ions through neurochemical pathways from our emotions? Why can't they be one and the same thing?

A neurochemical reaction is not a "thought." If it were, then we would expect that, by replicating the neurochemical reaction associated with that thought, we could get a corpse to "think." Likewise, if perceptions were identical to neurochemical reactions, then a blind person in whose body those reactions take place but whose brain was unable to process those reactions would nevertheless "see." In other words, identifying thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. with their neurochemical counterparts leads us to absurd results such as the "Sentient Corpse." That, at the very least, should make us skeptical of equating material processes with thoughts, perceptions, emotions, and the like.

To put it another way, the act of seeing is not the same thing as the object seen. When I see an object and then close my eyes, for instance, I am confident that the object does not disappear from existence simply because it is no longer perceived. In a similar way, a neurochemical reaction is not "seeing," any more than seeing is the same thing as the object seen. As my hypothetical regarding the blind person (which you've accepted) shows, we can separate the neurochemical reaction from the perception. And if that is the case, then they are not the same thing.

0 Replies

First Causation is important because if there is such then there is the possibility of something which "causes itself". Cause and effect is a reality, yes, but there is a possibility that not all things go by the 'cause and effect' system. You see, it is a logical dillemma.

Quote:

Yes. Yes. Yes. How many times and in how many ways do I have to say it. Perception, life, everything is an illusion. It is nothing more than the movement of particles.

What??? Perception, life, everything, if it's the result of movement of particles can not be called an 'illusion' for they are the result of the movement. Thus, they are a 'thing' solid or not.

For all you know particles could be metaphysically what you would call an 'illusion' themselves since our perception needs things to appear solid.
An electron appears to be a point to physicists, yet we can't fathom what exactly it looks like, but we can assume or treat it as a point.

Free will, in my definition is not something void of influence but is a rational ability to analyze and choose between two things rationally.

When we look at cause and effect, we have to look at the whole system. Now, why do the law of physics work out to be such? Why do strings move the way they do and why don't they all move the same way? What causes them to be like that? The result of an eternal past that keeps going? Or something that we can not fully grasp yet?

0 Replies

Quick response. Then I have to go.

Joe, how some one who apparently read so much philosophy has this much trobule understanding such a simple concept baffles me.

Thought, emotion, feeling, these are all just the movement of chemicals in our brain.

I think you are misconstruing what the term illusion means. I am not saying that they don't appear to occur. What I am saying is that they are merely the motion of particles, there is nothing magical about them. The thoughts are no different than a pebble rolling down a hill.

Free will requires that there is something beyond this, beyond mere collison of particles. Free will requires that there is some thing, like a soul which can influence these particles to behave in ways that they wouldn't in nonliving organisms. Because otherwise, will wouldn't be FREE. You seem to assert that you don't need actual control over your thoughts to have free will. But that's just a cop out. And it implies that everything, not just us but rocks, water, everything has free will.

There is no evidence of any underlying mechanism that distinguishes "living" from "nonliving" things. And until there is, I will stand by the statement that the whole notion of "living" is flawed. We are just aggregations of chemicals, moving about and interacting according to physics, entropy. Yes we behave as an algorythm, by spreading and changing as needed to spread some more. But there is nothing living about an algorithm. Study a mathematical or computer algorythm. It is merely following the rules of mathematics. So are we.

Why do you have so much difficulty comprehending this. I don't care if you disagree with me. But you consistently misquote me, misquote what I say, that it's rather annoying. I said that there is no such thing as a blind man that has all the underlying neural pathways of a man with sight. Every blind man has damage in the neural pathway somewhere. Or their neural pathway never even developed in the first place. I'll give you a hundred dollars if you can find me an exception. And that's why a blind man can't see. Because he doesn't have the underlying neural pathway that a man with sight does.

That's why a dead dog can't think. It doesn't have the underlying neural pathway that is thought. It's neurons are damaged as soon as blood stopped flowing to it's brain. Similarly many of it's other organs were damaged when blood stopped flowing to them.

All I ever said was that if we can repair this blood supply, repair all the damage to everything, all the tissues, all the neurons, all the concentration gradients, then yes the dog would be alive again. You consistently insist that that's not possible. Why not? Of course, you don't need to give any evidence why not. You simply need to say that it's absurd, and that makes it so. Well I say to you sir, you're letting your dogmatic prejudices interfere with rational thought that bases it's beliefs on evidence rather than prejudice.

Show me one piece of evidence, one actual arguement as to why this can't be the case. Until you do, you have no basis to state that my scenario isn't possible.

Like I said, you don't have to believe me. I'm not saying that I'm right. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence that I am wrong.

But you don't care about that do you. You don't need any evidence that I am wrong in order to say that I am wrong. You are the all knowing. You don't need to explain why causlity requires a first cause. You don't need to explain why a thing can't be "living" if it has all the features of a living thing, the identical molecular make up of a living thing, operates and functions and behaves just as a living thing. You just need to say, no it can't be, and since you are obviously omnipotent, that makes it so.

You don't need to illustrate to me where I ever said or implied that particles are illusionary. But of course you don't need to. You're omnipotent, so you know what I think even if I never thought it or said it. I consistently stated that particles are the only things that are real. That the movement of particles accounts for everything that we associate with life, thought, whatever. Thus the notion that thinking is something different from say something like a pebble falling down a hill is wrong. The very notion of thought is wrong. Because it's no different from anything else in the universe. It doesn't need a different word. That's all I've ever postitulated.

But ofcourse, it doesn't matter what I actually said. You have no problem asserting that I think or said something that I didn't and then showing how this thing that I never said contradicts something else that I never said and thus I must be wrong.

And you have no problem using analogies that aren't just not relevent to anything I ever said, but also not relevent to what you claim that I said as well.

Your hypothetical doesn't show jack. For it to, it would have to be even concievable. It's not. In a world where perception is the neurochemical reactions themselves, it's not conceivable to have someone who has the underlying reactions but isn't perceivign things. It's a fallacy.

Now, if you could show me one bit of evidence that this isn't the case. Some evidence that there is something distinct, unique about processes such as thought etc that we associate with life, than processes such a rock rolling down a hill, then you may have an arguement. But of course you do not need to do that. You don't need to back up any of your assertions.

"Choose" ray, Choose is the key word in your definiton. If everything is simply the mere movement of particles, where does this choosing occur, when, how, by whom? It doesn't it can't. There can't be choice if there is no such thing as an independent entity. If everything is just particles whose motion are dependent on the motion of everything else.

I am stating that I don't believe that there is anything seperatign living things from nonliving things. There isn't evidence that there is. So the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to find some evidence, somewhere that there is something that distinguishes the chemical reactions that account for living processes, from those underlying dead processes.

But of course, you're not going to bother with that are you. You're going talk about some odd philosophy that has no evidence to back up any of it's assertions and claim that somehow counts as evidence.

And if you continue to do so, I'll be inclined to ignore your posts.

Come back when you have some evidence, any evidence.

I have to leave now. We'll see when I get the time to log on again. I hope it's soon.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Joe, how some one who apparently read so much philosophy has this much trobule understanding such a simple concept baffles me.

I too am baffled, but for entirely different reasons.

Centroles wrote:

Thought, emotion, feeling, these are all just the movement of chemicals in our brain.

How do you know that?

Centroles wrote:

I think you are misconstruing what the term illusion means. I am not saying that they don't appear to occur. What I am saying is that they are merely the motion of particles, there is nothing magical about them. The thoughts are no different than a pebble rolling down a hill.

There's no misconstruing here: I know what "illusion" means. On the other hand, I have no idea what you mean when you use the word "illusion." If something that is an "illusion" is actually the motion of particles, then there is nothing illusory about your "illusions."

Centroles wrote:

Free will requires that there is something beyond this, beyond mere collison of particles. Free will requires that there is some thing, like a soul which can influence these particles to behave in ways that they wouldn't in nonliving organisms. Because otherwise, will wouldn't be FREE.

I agree that free will requires something more than the mere collision of particles. As for the rest of your statement, I don't agree.

Centroles wrote:

You seem to assert that you don't need actual control over your thoughts to have free will.

What gave you that idea?

Centroles wrote:

But that's just a cop out. And it implies that everything, not just us but rocks, water, everything has free will.

Strawman.

Centroles wrote:

There is no evidence of any underlying mechanism that distinguishes "living" from "nonliving" things. And until there is, I will stand by the statement that the whole notion of "living" is flawed. We are just aggregations of chemicals, moving about and interacting according to physics, entropy. Yes we behave as an algorythm, by spreading and changing as needed to spread some more. But there is nothing living about an algorithm. Study a mathematical or computer algorythm. It is merely following the rules of mathematics. So are we.

If we are just aggregations of chemicals, moving about an interacting according to physics, then how do you explain purposive behavior? In other words, if we are merely acted upon, why aren't our actions totally random?

Centroles wrote:

Why do you have so much difficulty comprehending this.

Well, the fact that it's incomprehensible could be one possible explanation.

Centroles wrote:

I don't care if you disagree with me. But you consistently misquote me, misquote what I say, that it's rather annoying. I said that there is no such thing as a blind man that has all the underlying neural pathways of a man with sight. Every blind man has damage in the neural pathway somewhere. Or their neural pathway never even developed in the first place. I'll give you a hundred dollars if you can find me an exception. And that's why a blind man can't see. Because he doesn't have the underlying neural pathway that a man with sight does.

No doubt. But that doesn't address either my hypothetical or your theory. You've posited that a neurochemical process is the same thing as a thought or perception. On this theory, we should be able to say that anyone who has the process will, a fortiori, have the thought or perception. Thus if a person has the neurochemical process associated with seeing a chair (CHAIRCHEM) then he necessarily must have the perception of seeing a chair (CHAIRPERC). If we can find someone, however, who has CHAIRCHEM but who doesn't have CHAIRPERC, then we must conclude that, at least in some circumstances, neurochemical processes are not identical with thoughts or perceptions. Wouldn't you agree?

Centroles wrote:

That's why a dead dog can't think. It doesn't have the underlying neural pathway that is thought. It's neurons are damaged as soon as blood stopped flowing to it's brain. Similarly many of it's other organs were damaged when blood stopped flowing to them.

You're confusing the Lazarus Dog with the Sentient Corpse. And you most certainly said that the Sentient Corpse thinks.

Centroles wrote:

All I ever said was that if we can repair this blood supply, repair all the damage to everything, all the tissues, all the neurons, all the concentration gradients, then yes the dog would be alive again. You consistently insist that that's not possible. Why not?

Because that's not what I said. You claimed that there was a case where a dog had died and had been revivified, to which I insisted that you provide some facts to substantiate your claim. You never did. That was the sum total of our discussion regarding the Lazarus Dog.

Centroles wrote:

Of course, you don't need to give any evidence why not. You simply need to say that it's absurd, and that makes it so. Well I say to you sir, you're letting your dogmatic prejudices interfere with rational thought that bases it's beliefs on evidence rather than prejudice.

What?

Centroles wrote:

Show me one piece of evidence, one actual arguement as to why this can't be the case. Until you do, you have no basis to state that my scenario isn't possible.

I never said it wasn't possible. I said that it wasn't substantiated.

Centroles wrote:

Like I said, you don't have to believe me. I'm not saying that I'm right. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence that I am wrong.

But you don't care about that do you. You don't need any evidence that I am wrong in order to say that I am wrong. You are the all knowing. You don't need to explain why causlity requires a first cause.

I'm largely indifferent to the entire "first cause" issue, and it's certainly not something that I've made central to my argument.

Centroles wrote:

You don't need to explain why a thing can't be "living" if it has all the features of a living thing, the identical molecular make up of a living thing, operates and functions and behaves just as a living thing. You just need to say, no it can't be, and since you are obviously omnipotent, that makes it so.

Again, I've never said anything in this thread about the differences between dead things and living things. Frankly, I don't see the point in doing so.

Centroles wrote:

You don't need to illustrate to me where I ever said or implied that particles are illusionary.

You said "everything is an illusion." I assume that "particles" are included under the rubric of "everything." If I am mistaken in this assumption then I'm sure you'll point out where I erred.

Centroles wrote:

But of course you don't need to. You're omnipotent, so you know what I think even if I never thought it or said it. I consistently stated that particles are the only things that are real. That the movement of particles accounts for everything that we associate with life, thought, whatever. Thus the notion that thinking is something different from say something like a pebble falling down a hill is wrong. The very notion of thought is wrong. Because it's no different from anything else in the universe. It doesn't need a different word. That's all I've ever postitulated.

And there you're wrong. So say the Sentient Corpse and the Sighted Blind Man.

Centroles wrote:

But ofcourse, it doesn't matter what I actually said. You have no problem asserting that I think or said something that I didn't and then showing how this thing that I never said contradicts something else that I never said and thus I must be wrong.

Centroles, the confusion lies not in my purported misrepresentations but in your own scrambled logic.

Centroles wrote:

And you have no problem using analogies that aren't just not relevent to anything I ever said, but also not relevent to what you claim that I said as well.

Your hypothetical doesn't show jack. For it to, it would have to be even concievable. It's not. In a world where perception is the neurochemical reactions themselves, it's not conceivable to have someone who has the underlying reactions but isn't perceivign things. It's a fallacy.

Classic question-begging argument. You assume that perceptions are neurochemical reactions, then use this assumption to argue that it is inconceivable for someone to have the reactions but not the perceptions. The assumption, however, cannot provide evidence for anything as long as it remains an unproven assumption. And you've done a woefully inadequate job of proving that perceptions are identical to neurochemical processes.

Centroles wrote:

Now, if you could show me one bit of evidence that this isn't the case. Some evidence that there is something distinct, unique about processes such as thought etc that we associate with life, than processes such a rock rolling down a hill, then you may have an arguement. But of course you do not need to do that. You don't need to back up any of your assertions.

Actually, I've shown you quite a bit of evidence, much of which you've accepted. You've already conceded that the Sentient Corpse thinks but that the Sighted Blind Man cannot see. And if the Sighted Blind Man cannot see, then your theory is invalid. What more evidence do you want?

0 Replies

can`t see whats not available to you
your logic is like an anti-virus program. it only works for what info is stored in the program. your trying to discuss a topic that is beyond your ability. energy is neither created nor destroyed. the human body is just some low level electrical energy. the soul moves to another place, like another dimension after you die. it cannot be explained with science as it is beyond science or any knowledge the human mind has available.

0 Replies

Centroles

You say that thoughts are merely the motion of particles. But I ask you this: do particles think? Do they have a language?

If your answer is "no they haven't", then I will ask the next question: how can particles unable of thoughts be, by their motion, our thoughts?
Do chemicals think? If not, how can chemicals be thoughts just because of what you called "their movement"?
Does that mean that a particle is able to think when it colides with another particle? Or when it is in motion? Does that mean that thoughts are in the mobement? The movement thinks?

Next you say that "a dead dog does not think". OK. And a dead dog does not do many other things. Doesn't run, bark, eat. Why? You say, and I agree, because of lack of blood in the brain cells.
But when the dog was alive? When he wasn't running, but sitting in the sun? Why was he not running? The particles are in motion, he has legs, muscles, nervous system, "chemicals in movement". But he doesn't run. He sits in the sun. Why?

Last question (I had already make that question days ago): what are physical laws?

0 Replies

Re: can`t see whats not available to you

missinglink wrote:

the soul moves to another place, like another dimension after you die. it cannot be explained with science as it is beyond science or any knowledge the human mind has available.

How do you know that?

And, by the way, welcome to A2K, missinglink.

0 Replies

A critique of dualism and the notion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know