A soul -- or something else -- or nothing at all?

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 55
#31
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
That is a neat little word salad wrapped up in semantics - of course - anything of excessive intake is not harmless - we could agree that generally a speck of sand is harmless, but enough of it is harmful. Sodium and Chlorine are intrinsically harmful as particles - of course Sodium much less than Chlorine, but to site the fact that "enough excessive salt is harmful" is very bad evidence to me being "scientifically illiterate."

Also...  you haven't mentioned anything in regards to the actual science of how salt is formed, nor the properties which are newly formed because of it - you are simply seeking to make arguments based on rhetoric, when, in total, you have no actual arguments, just... a half-willed semantic blabbering about how salt has other properties, yes, yes it does - not the point - the point here is that chemical reactions can induce changes in regents or new properties.

That is basic chemistry

#32
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is a neat little word salad wrapped up in semantics
A semantic you started, and now cannot accept that it was brought up to demonstrate your disdain of Benjamin's intelligence, when you, demonstrate the same ignorance with regard to the value of salt and its historic use; again, a subject you added, and does not belong in this string. So, you double-down on it wondering why I don't say anymore than I did on a non-relevant subject?

Come on. That's beneath you. Let the chemistry go.
#33
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
No - the chemistry is the entire point of all of this - you fundamentally are misinterpreting the point of the conversation - semantics only matter in court and in beuarcracy, if we have the ability to tell the intention behind words, they are not needed - and I have made my intention clear - this is a red herring in regards to the conversation at hand - I find your insistence on the importance on-brand with your rhetoric, but I find it beneath someone who has clear brilliance in the regard of rhetoric to simply use semantics instead of that rhetoric you've built for years. 
Topic's author
#34
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 86
Posts: 811
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
the chemistry is the entire point of all of this
Chemistry can in no way create a mind. All of the molecules in the brain that you claim to create "I" exist in cells. If your argument is that chemistry creates "I", then any cell also exhibits the "I"-ness. Your argument regarding chemistry creating new properties we already agreed on. As far as I remember, we just agreed that structure, not new underlying properties, is the cause of new behaviours we merely CALL properties. To be honest, your argument CAN'T be that chemistry creates "I". You mean that the structure of neurons create a system capable of intelligence and storing knowledge about itself. In other words, your point is that "I" is nothing but a specific structure of molecules.


So no, chemistry is not the point of this discussion. The point is whether or not "I" is merely a structure.

#35
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
So you have continuously asserted, explain why exactly neurons can't create consciousness? Atoms are what create complex living organisms, DNA fuels instinct, and evolutionary norms, we know the basic neural network of humans are responsible for memory, we know that the pattern and cortexes of the brain create creative thought, and we know the same is true regarding logical deduction, we know that human experiences such as love and happiness are totally explained by chemical reactions, therefore it is more than possible that the brain is an emergent property of chemistry - and no - you agreed that that harmlessness is a new property by result of the change in structure, anatomically and atomically, structure is what determines the function of a particle or cell or organ system - so something having a new structure is the exact proof that new things can come from combinations of things. 
#36
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,078
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
First of all thanks for the unblock. Then, see Do Insects Have Consciousness? A new theory has scientists buzzing by Abigail Tucker.
It states, "While the human midbrain and the insect brain may even be evolutionarily related, an insect’s inner life is obviously more basic than our own. Accordingly, bugs feel something like hunger and pain, and “perhaps very simple analogs of anger,” but no grief or jealousy. “They plan, but don’t imagine,” Klein says. Even so, insects’ highly distilled sense of self is a potential gift to the far-out study of consciousness. Probing the insect brain could help quantify questions of what it means to think that vexed the likes of Aristotle and Descartes, and could even aid the development of sentient robots."
#37
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 561
Posts: 19,888
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@FLRW
A very simplistic robot is equivalent to a standard insect, I'd concede that.

I'd completely oopose either being self-aware.

I realise now that you're using the term to mean conscious, not aware of one's own existence as a concept.

Spiders are actually slightly capable of self awareness, even more so than most reptiles are. The way a spider of high complexity relative to spiders traps, lures and predicts insects involce the spider realising it can be seen by them and outting in a huge amount of effort to both conceal itself and its web. Pet spiders are known to readily interact in eager near-playful ways with owners despite also lacking emotions similar to insects. It isn't love they experience but a sense of companionship.

Spiders are actually extroverted by nature, they become introverted because they believe it's best by instinct as their ethos revolves around stealth and simplicity. The reasonany female spiders eat or at least attack the male after sex is because they think that the male spider actually wants to be devoured similar to how he's letting them devour the sperm. The female does not realise she is hurting him against his will. Spiders have extremely low EQ but they do show signs of extroversion, especially in settings like tanks where they can be made to interact closer to one another than is typical.

Unfortunately, big spiders will eat small spiders of otber species because they assume it's simply an exotic insect of some kind. Spiders are jot a species with many breeds, they're a branch within arachnid that has many species. However within them sometimes they have clumps tbat theoretically could reproduce with one another due to being close enough in DNA but that don't due to some inbuilt lack of attraction to that similar spider species/breee.


#38
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - the chemistry is the entire point of all of this 
Actually, no. Benjamin set this topic in philosophy, not science, and specifically not in chemistry. As I said, YOU put it in chemistry, ergo, science. Is philosophy science? Or is it art? Or neither? The discussion rages, but the general attitude seems that philosophy resides in its own realm, even though it discusses both subjects. The point is, Benjamin did not. His questions are not answered by empiric evidence, nor by aesthetics.


#39
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes - you do realize that philosophy is the questioning of things? As in, in general, philosophy is the foundation of every applicable and studied subject in the course of human history, also, the answer to a philosophic question happens to be chemistry - not that hard to parse I don't think. To nitpick the detail of thing (incorrectly might I add) actually has nothing to do with philosophy, because that isn't answering a question, asking a new question, or discussing a viewpoint - that's like one of the only things that doesn't fall under philosophy, ironically enough.

8 days later

#40
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,203
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
@Benjamin
@Theweakeredge.


Philosophy is science is chemistry is an omelette..

Acquire, store, manipulate data, output and evolve.

Season well.

And a soul might be something or nothing at all.

Human essence, perhaps.
#41
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
@Theweakeredge
Philosophy is science is chemistry is an omelette..
Well, since philosophy questions everything, and Tommy Jefferson said, the other day, that we should question everything with boldness, I suppose philosophy ought to always be referenced as PHILOSOPHY?

does that help?
#42
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
What is "I"? What experiences reality?
An individual referring to themselves. An individual experiences reality.
I'm not educated enough to state out neurology.

What is "I"? What experiences reality?
An advanced collection/collective of material parts.

The supernatural "I"
Does this thing "soul" exist? Which mechanics drive it and how would it be detectable?
I don't believe the soul exists. Though I use the word often enough to evoke the 'essence of a human. Though that's vaguely put by me. I suppose by soul I mean the emotions, fighting spirit, sense and specifics of an individual or group.
When I says soul, I'm not referring to a humans leg, but their inner workings, psychology, emotions, values.
The brain and body drive the 'soul that 'I speak of.
Though if I speak of the 'American soul, or the 'soul of a slave, bit different. But again, is evoking the essence of a subject as we identify it.

How does this "I" function, how does it connect to a brain as opposed to a rock?
Rock isn't advanced enough. A computer isn't advanced enough. Animals like Dolphins, Chimps, Elephants, maybe close enough.

If this thing has structure, how is it any different from a physical "I"?
It isn't in my eyes. But we value some 'materials more than other materials, we value some 'concepts more than other concepts.
So there 'is some difference, but I'd have to think a while longer to explain it.

The physical "I"
Is this "I" merely a product of atoms moving around?
Yes, though it's more complicated than that.

Do all atoms moving around create some form of "I", or does this only occur in our brains?
Not all atoms moving around create ice, requires specific movements. I feel doubt that 'any atoms moving around create consciousness.

How does this happen? New physical dimensions, quantum mechanics, maybe something else?
I'm not educated enough to explain this.

The nonexistent "I"
If "I" doesn't exist, then why do I experience this thought process?
Question for someone other than me.

If "I" doesn't exist, then a human is no better than a rock. How can one still support morality?
No, definitely not a 'rock, rock is better used than a human for pounding in tent stakes into the ground.
So I'm missing 'where a human is no better or worse than a rock?
Support morality because that's the function of human maybe?

What substitutes "I" in terms of function?
Even if a rock could be identified amongst other rocks, that a 'human might individually identify it, rock still can't think. Can't refer to itself as I, verbally 'or in thought.

#43
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,203
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Perfectly done.
Topic's author
#44
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 86
Posts: 811
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Lemming
@Sum1hugme
Not all atoms moving around create ice, requires specific movements. I feel doubt that 'any atoms moving around create consciousness.
I am not saying that all atoms moving around would create a brain.

I am saying that since all atoms moving around create SOMETHING, the brain is in no way special.

The question isn't why there is a brain that thinks (that's obvious). The question is why this thinking is EXPERIENCED as opposed to just happening.



Is any chemical reaction experienced by itself, or is there some super-specific rule that states that only a brain can experience being itself.
If thinking is experienced by the brain, then is "crystalising" experienced by ice? That would be the only logical conclusion if experience arises from physical structures. 

#45
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,078
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Benjamin
The question is why this thinking is EXPERIENCED as opposed to just happening.
Because of memory.  we know even pets have memory because they remember you. Cognition refers to thinking and memory processes, and cognitive development refers to long-term changes in these processes. One of the most widely known perspectives about cognitive development is the cognitive stage theory of a Swiss psychologist named Jean Piaget. Piaget created and studied an account of how children and youth gradually become able to think logically and scientifically. 
Piaget was a psychological constructivist: in his view, learning proceeded by the interplay of assimilation (adjusting new experiences to fit prior concepts) and accommodation (adjusting concepts to fit new experiences). The to-and-fro of these two processes leads not only to short-term learning, but also to long-term developmental change. The long-term developments are really the main focus of Piaget’s cognitive theory.
#46
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
Ice doesn't have a sense of smell, why should it have a sense of self?
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
These questions sure are thought-provoking. If anyone has an opinion, please explain to me what "I" is and how you answer these questions regarding its nature.
The Classical Problem of Identity.

#48
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,239
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Benjamin
What is "I"?
I = ego ergo Metaphyscal-1,{ spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concept.

>>>>>>> Past >>>>>>>>>>> Arrow-of-Time >>>>>>> Future >>>>>>>>>

...Metaphysical-2..........Space( * ) i  ( * )Space....... Metaphysical-2.......

<<<< past <<<<< Out <<<<< flow-of-time  <<< In <<<<  Future <<<<<<


(  ) =  Metaphysical-3 { spirit-3 } Gravity { contractive/converrgent } ---ultra-micro, ultra-thin and ultra-high tension----,

)( = Metaphysical-4 { spirit-4 } Dark Energy { expansive/divergent  ---ultra-micro, ultra-thin and ultra-high tension---.


/\/\/ = sine-wave associated physical reality aka observed time{ quantised and quantified } i.e. fermions, bosons ---a third  hybrid set---   and any collection thereof ex atoms, molecules, planets, galaxies etc.


soul = biologic i.e they are synonyms.  This is the rational, logical common sense conclusion based on scientific evidence.









#49
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
No - because you see there are these things called emergent properties - mathematics are an emergent system from the information interpreted as numbers via the universe - chemistry is inherently under the subcategory of philosophy - and the original POINT of the thread is discussing the mind and how it does or doesn't relate to the brain - so yes- chemistry was also an important part here - regardless of any other semantics.
#50
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
emergent properties
Yes, but since it was zed's suggestion that prompted my reply, and I find 

Philosophy is science is chemistry is an omelette..
to be a bit cumbersome when I speak to philosophy, specifically, which has an entity that is a sub-class to 

emergent properties

I prefer the specific reference, allowing for the possibility of the discussion to wander...
#51
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Specific? I've said nothing more than chemistry until philosophy was brought up - I've BEEN being specific
#52
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I've said nothing more than chemistry until philosophy was brought up 
This has been my point all along. YOU brought chemistry, but AFTER this entire string was begun by Benjamin, who put the matter in the Philosophy category. So, you've been in that category all along, but introduced chemistry. Specifically chemical, when the string is philosophical. Yes, as zed said, and I agreed, that philosophy is one of those topics that touches everything, even omelettes, so, we can continue to banter that everything touches philosophy, and be overly generic, or we can dismiss a generic discussion and be specific, meaning we don't need to touch everything just because we can.

14 days later

#53
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,239
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
And a soul might be something or nothing at all.
Soul = biologic life { RNA and DNA ]

Virus is not a soul as it has only RNA or DNA, never both.

Somethingness is the finite, eternally existent occupied space Universe and as such, to say something comes from truly nothing. would be in violation of what humans believe to be an inviolate cosmic prinicle/physical law,, that, naught is created, eternally.

Only the irrational and illogical espouse this lack of common sense.


#54
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,203
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Belief is thought, and common sense might suggest that not everything is known, just because humans think.


#55
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,239
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief is thought, and common sense might suggest that not everything is known, just because humans think
1]" Belief"  { Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts } can be based on various factors from various information { Metaphysical-1, and physical  } input.

2} "Common sense", when based on various inputs, can lead to beliefs, that, can be false  or true, with the latter being correct more often ,when aided by rational, logical pathways of thought, that, stem from observed information or factual information attained from others.

3} Zed, no one I know, has ever stated or suggested, that, "everything" is known or that everything is known }because humans think",   is  your  personal,  false bias.

4} Naught is created nor destroyed with  our eteranally existent and finite, occupied space Universe, and no one has any shred of evidence, that. would lead anyone of rational, logical common sense state of mind,  to think other wise. 

5} Something from truly nothing is likened to is a  false narrative based on ego to discover a pot of gold God, beyond{ Meta } outside of our finite Universe, that, with a wave-of-a-finger, can violate cosmic principles and physical laws.

6} Cosmic principles = wholistically systemic and structural integrity, ergo, finite structures and finite systemic processes.

7} Uni = one, not muli, or muliple, or many etc.  Verse  { spatially finite yet eternally existent } = narrative, as experience and passed on by humans via their access to Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

8} ' i ' ego is the Metaphysical-1 identity, we use to create and pass o the narrative, that, can be truthfully expressed ergo moral integraly, or falsely expressed ergo lacking moral integrity.