06 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess Express"If this were so, the scientists would be able to produce consciousness in the laboratory. "
[b]You can influence emotions with chemicals. Just shoot a subject up with adrenaline or dopamine and you'll see.
Yes, but this means nothing. Our consciousness is housed in our bodies, so what affects our bodies affects consciousness. This doesn’t explain where consciousness comes form.
Example: A car runs on gasoline right? If ...[text shortened]... tions or consciousness? What's the topic?[/b]
Good question. They’re pretty interconnected.[/b]
Conciousness is a horrendiously complex thing in it's own right. I could do quite alot to educate you about the action potentials of nerve cells, and the rather simpler logic of computers (which works in a similar method), which is getting more and more complex. They're synonymous systems.
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseMy point is exactly that. In this debate there can be no truths. No side can disprove the other. So long as you are willing to remain insistant that there is some divine soul, I will continue to exist that it's all simply chemistry. My side will, undoubtably, solve its shortcomings before yours does.
[b]Provided that you can definitively prove otherwise.
You're not going to shift the burden of proof that easily. You made the universal claim that we are definititely only chemicals; you need to prove your claim - nothing simpler.[/b]
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzConciousness is a horrendiously complex thing in it's own right.
"If this were so, the scientists would be able to produce consciousness in the laboratory. "
Conciousness is a horrendiously complex thing in it's own right. I could do quite alot to educate you about the action potentials of nerve cells, and the rather simpler logic of computers (which works in a similar method), which is getting more and more complex. They're synonymous systems.[/b]
If you believe this, then why pretend that you or any scientist knows all there is to know about it?
I could do quite alot to educate you about the action potentials of nerve cells, and the rather simpler logic of computers (which works in a similar method), which is getting more and more complex.
I know something about the action potentials of nerve cells. They don’t explain consciousness. They are simply the mechanisms of the body. The body houses consciousness, it doesn’t produce it.
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by Halitose"So do you define moral decision-making on purely biochemistry? So murder (or any other immoral action to the best of your definition) can be perfectly justifiable. The murderer had too many Twinkies or caffeine or too much exposure to the sun? Fascinating. I'm sure there are many lawyers who would love to hear about this - erm...No1"
[b]Many biochemical pathways are already known.
So today, many = all. By knowing many biochemical pathways, this conclusively proves that that is all there is to man?
All biochem follows rules.
Yes. I have a rudimentary knowledge of biochemistry.
So do you define moral decision-making on purely biochemistry? So murder ( ...[text shortened]... un? Fascinating. I'm sure there are many lawyers who would love to hear about this - erm...No1?[/b]
Yup, exactly. Nuerons fired which caused others to fire, simulating still further parts of the brain which led to a response. Not all responses are concious though. Perhaps the murdered had too many twinkies, perhaps you believe that chemicals are things you get in tubs, but don;t exist in the real world. The rules of science basically state that if something has no measurable mass or energy it doesn't exist. Please, tell me how to measure the soul and I'll give it a bloody good go. Otherwise the more parsimonious argument is that emotions and conciousness are electrical and chemical impluses in the brain (which are proven)
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess Express"If you believe this, then why pretend that you or any scientist knows all there is to know about it?"
[b]Conciousness is a horrendiously complex thing in it's own right.
If you believe this, then why pretend that you or any scientist knows all there is to know about it?
I could do quite alot to educate you about the action potentials of nerve cells, and the rather simpler logic of computers (which works in a similar method), which i ...[text shortened]... hey are simply the mechanisms of the body. The body houses consciousness, it doesn’t produce it.
I didn't. I said we understand some though.
"I know something about the action potentials of nerve cells. They don’t explain consciousness. They are simply the mechanisms of the body. The body houses consciousness, it doesn’t produce it"
True, and a single transistor, or even a hundred, doesn;t make a computer.
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI'm not sure this is correct.
The body houses consciousness, it doesn’t produce it.
If a specific part of your brain is damaged/removed, you will lose
consciousness. Every other aspect of your body will continue to
function (although many of them are predicated on consciousness,
such as sight).
This strongly suggests that consciousness is an essental of the body,
not something outside of it.
Nemesio
06 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioIf a specific part of your brain is damaged/removed, you will lose
I'm not sure this is correct.
If a specific part of your brain is damaged/removed, you will lose
consciousness. Every other aspect of your body will continue to
function (although many of them are predicated on consciousness,
such as sight).
This strongly suggests that consciousness is an essental of the body,
not something outside of it.
Nemesio[/b]
consciousness. Every other aspect of your body will continue to
function (although many of them are predicated on consciousness,
such as sight).
If a car gets a flat it doesn’t run as well. If the engine throws a rod it shuts down. This doesn’t mean that the gasoline is the car.
EditThe body is much more efficient than an automobile. There are people alive today who were born with only half a brain, and yet they appear normal.
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioSure, maybe that's were the soul is housed....
I'm not sure this is correct.
If a specific part of your brain is damaged/removed, you will lose
consciousness. Every other aspect of your body will continue to
function (although many of them are predicated on consciousness,
such as sight).
This strongly suggests that consciousness is an essental of the body,
not something outside of it.
Nemesio
As I said before, All power Nemesio!!!
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI'm just not sure I see your point. A human (or any organism) is a hugely complex machine, not a car. You should be happy that we realise this - it's the entire basis of modern medicine.
[b]If a specific part of your brain is damaged/removed, you will lose
consciousness. Every other aspect of your body will continue to
function (although many of them are predicated on consciousness,
such as sight).
If a car gets a flat it doesn’t run as well. If the engine throws a rod it shuts down. This doesn’t mean that the gasoline is the car.[/b]
The gasoline is truely not the car. Neither is the food you eat you.
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by Halitose
By knowing [b]many biochemical pathways, this conclusively proves that that is all there is to man? [/b]
I don't know that it proves it. It is just strong evidence. Every now and then,
a scientist discovers a new neurotransmitter, or enzyme, or site on the brain or nerve
which is sensitive to a chemical. And they test it to see if too much or too little of
the chemical or site stimulation incurrs an emotional change -- anger, happiness,
contentedness, &c.
Because of the vast number of chemicals in the body and sites reacting to them,
it would be impossible to predict the behavior of a person simply by monitoring
his/her chemicals. But that is a product of the instruments' being insufficient for the
task. The more precise the instruments, the better we can predict what a person might
do, or, more easily, a group of people will do.
Consequently, I see no reason not to suspect that, with greater biochemical knowledge
and more accurate and complex measuring systems, that we will be able to narrow
down emotional state to chemical ratios. Will there be a finite degree to which we
can do this, a sort of Heisenberg point? I don't know, but it is clear we haven't reached
that.
So do you define moral decision-making on purely biochemistry? So murder (or any other immoral action to the best of your definition) can be perfectly justifiable. The murderer had too many Twinkies or caffeine or too much exposure to the sun? Fascinating. I'm sure there are many lawyers who would love to hear about this - erm...No1?
I think it's pretty clear that chemistry plays a strong role in affecting behavioral choices,
but so too does upbringing. We know, for example, that a person can have an 'alcoholic
gene.' But we also know that a person raised by alcoholics is more likely to become one
than a person raised by sober people.
Chemistry (nature) and upbringing (nurture) may explain (even to a large degree) the
actions of an individual, but that does not indicate that a person is still not accountable
for his/her actions.
Nemesio
06 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe point is that just because that which affects the body also affects the consciousness, does not mean that the body is the consciousness.
I'm just not sure I see your point. A human (or any organism) is a hugely complex machine, not a car. You should be happy that we realise this - it's the entire basis of modern medicine.
The gasoline is truely not the car. Neither is the food you eat you.
If I put on a stinky shirt then I smell bad. This doesn’t mean that I am the shirt. 😀
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzDon't misunderstand me either, Scottishshinzz. I do believe in the concept
Sure, maybe that's were the soul is housed....
As I said before, All power Nemesio!!!
of a soul. I just think it has nothing to do with the body. I think any
pseudo-scientific attempt to prove that the soul exists is a waste of time
(and misses the point of a soul).
I'm not saying it's a rational belief, either. But I do believe in a Supreme
Being and I believe that we have a likeness to that Being by means of our
soul.
Nemesio
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe car analogy is deeply flawed. A person is no less a person if
If a car gets a flat it doesn’t run as well. If the engine throws a rod it shuts down. This doesn’t mean that the gasoline is the car.
[b]EditThe body is much more efficient than an automobile. There are people alive today who were born with only half a brain, and yet they appear normal.[/b]
they lose and arm or leg, or both, or if their heart doesn't work, or
if they are paralyzed from the neck down.
Consciousness is the person. There is no essential aspect of
a car that, without it, it ceases to be a car. If you have a body which
functions but the consciousness part of the brain is dead, that person
is no longer extant. Similarly, a person who can only blink his/her
eyes to communicate, but has consciousness is still an entire person.
I don't know about this 'half-a-brain' person (I could name a few posters
on this site.........), but I'm not sure it is relevant.
Do you see my point above: consciousness is the essentiallity of a person.
Without the capacity to be conscious, the person no longer exists.
Do I believe that consciousness and spirituality are closely related? Yes, I
do. But consciousness is a physical dimension. I do not believe that the
soul will suffer when I lose that capacity.
I guess I think of consciousness as a window. It is through consciousness
that the spiritual can be expressed. But, in this world, it can only be expressed
in a physical way, through actions, thoughts, and emotions.
Nemesio
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressIt seems alot of this comes back to the definition of the conciousness. My definition is that conciousness represents the brain evolving to such an extent that it has the ability to construct a model of the world including itself.
The point is that just because that which affects the body also affects the consciousness, does not mean that the body is the consciousness.
If I put on a stinky shirt then I smell bad. This doesn’t mean that I am the shirt. 😀
And yours?
06 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioSure, sure. Not meaning to twist anything you say or to use you as my spokesman....
Don't misunderstand me either, Scottishshinzz. I do believe in the concept
of a soul. I just think it has nothing to do with the body. I think any
pseudo-scientific attempt to prove that the soul exists is a waste of time
(and misses the point of a soul).
I'm not saying it's a rational belief, either. But I do believe in a Supreme
Being and I believe that we have a likeness to that Being by means of our
soul.
Nemesio
Everyone own individuals belief are their own concern. This is a forumwhere we can discuss them in a jovial manner.
You believe the soul exists but is independant of the body. I believe conciousness exists, but represents a hugely complex series of interations within the brain that have evolved over millions of years.
You believe in a Supreme Being. I don't. ce la ve