This has been bugging me., Leave religion at the door. Options

[Call911Quick]

Okay, so, we all know how our bodies work right? We're made up of tons of cells, etc.

The cells operate passively. That is, something happens which triggers a reaction. Blood passes through lungs, oxygen passively diffuses into the blood and into the cell. When you have molecules such as glucose which need to be broken down, they literally float around until they bump into amylase or something like that, which would cause a reaction.

So every cell in our bodies passively do things.

Now, my problem is:

If this holds true for our brains (neurons) as well, then that would mean every emotion, memory, action, and thought would be a result of a series of chemical reactions. That is grasp-able, but what's really weird is... if it's PASSIVE, are we really in control of what we THINK? For example, if I'm thinking of penguins right now, is it because my neurons CHOSE to do that, or because a protein happened to be in a certain place at a certain time which caused me to think of penguins.

Psychologists study thoughts, and basically, they can tell which part of the brain is active when we think about certain things. So... thinking is just our neurons sending each other electrical signals really really fast and in a complex manner. Now, in order to send these signals, it's caused by diffusing Potassium and some other stuff, I don't really recall. At any rate, it's all passive. So if everything is passive, and something has to happen by chance to trigger a reaction...

Are we really in control of what we think and do?

Humans can be though of complex machines that are able to power themselves. If we stopped eating, we would die. If we built a robot with AI, that robot would sustain itself by getting energy from other sources, such as re-fueling or re-charging itself. How are we any different? We are just robots. What makes us "organic" is that we are comprised mainly of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen.

Thus, if you think of life as a mere series of chemical reactions, there's nothing "morally wrong" with killing someone, because you are merely stopping certain reactions from happening. No big deal. Maybe this is why certain scientists can be thought of as "without a conscience", because they view life that way, and don't have a problem with experimenting on people, etc.




-----Kind of related question




Okay, let's say I have a twin (I don't). Our brains as babies when we exit the uterus would be EXACTLY the same. Perhaps they grow differently as we are affected by our surroundings, but fresh outta our mom, we would be EXACTLY the same. If we're EXACTLY the same, how come we don't think EXACTLY the same thoughts? What is it that makes me cry but my twin brother not? Why do I want the red toy, while he wants the blue one? How come when I choose to suck on my left toe as a baby, my brother doesn't? Theoretically, since our physical buildup is exactly the SAME... we should be doing exactly the SAME things also. Right?

[Call911Quick]

Two people offered their opinions.

You explained memory.

NoSex fortified my thought that humans are senseless will-less machines comprised of "organic" molecules.

It's just hard to grasp the concept that everything I think and do, and me typing right now, isn't under my control. It's something just happening to happen at a certain time at my brain.

[ersatz]

Two people offered their opinions.

You explained memory.

NoSex fortified my thought that humans are senseless will-less machines comprised of "organic" molecules.

It's just hard to grasp the concept that everything I think and do, and me typing right now, isn't under my control. It's something just happening to happen at a certain time at my brain.

No...that's not it either. It's responses to your initiation of thoughts. You don't yourself think about something; it's just different. You tell your brain to conjure up images. You do have some control; you're not just a lump of reacting cells.

[NoSex]

No...that's not it either. It's responses to your initiation of thoughts. You don't yourself think about something; it's just different. You tell your brain to conjure up images. You do have some control; you're not just a lump of reacting cells.

What? Who is you? And how exactly does it tell your brain anything? You're pretty much talking homunculus at this point. I argue that all aspects of the human experience, despite having the illusion of free will, are completely controlled by the laws of causation and biology. The only way to reconcile this reality is to propose a mechanism which is a sort of prime mover within the human form which escapes the casual chains of external and internal stimulus.

[ersatz]

What? Who is you? And how exactly does it tell your brain anything? You're pretty much talking homunculus at this point. I argue that all aspects of the human experience, despite having the illusion of free will, are completely controlled by the laws of causation and biology. The only way to reconcile this reality is to propose a mechanism which is a sort of prime mover within the human form which escapes the casual chains of external and internal stimulus.

Thinking of something isn't entirely random. Something has to push the body to perform a certain function, like recollecting an idea. It needs a push. I'm not just biologically responding to your post by typing right now; I'm thinking of these words. I don't know the exact mechanisms of thought (yet, and neither do you), but it's not like my brain is making me say these words without any direction whatsoever. Some things could be explained by simple response to stimuli, but not all.

[NoSex]

Thinking of something isn't entirely random.

Whoever said it was? What I'm arguing is ordered thought patterns which are determined by a complex play of associated memory, internal biology, and external stimuli. What you seem to be arguing is a sort of "random" uncaused mover inside the head which presses buttons and pulls levers at our whim.

Something has to push the body to perform a certain function, like recollecting an idea. It needs a push. I'm not just biologically responding to your post by typing right now; I'm thinking of these words. I don't know the exact mechanisms of thought (yet, and neither do you), but it's not like my brain is making me say these words without any direction whatsoever. Some things could be explained by simple response to stimuli, but not all.

Your brain is making you say those words, what else is there to make you do anything? Your brain is the seat of all your cognitive functions, this includes things as mundane and understood as motor function and things as spectacular and esoteric as imagination. If you believe at all in identity and causation, the conclusion of hard determinism is nearly inescapable - at least in any sort of naturalistic way. You are you, and you will perform in accordance to your identity (whatever that may be) in all given situations - is there any more than just one response that reflects with your identity, or is their a possibility that a system, simple or complex, might deny its own nature? All material objects act, insofar as we know, in accordance to their identity and not against it. Secondly, these objects are at the influence of external forces which move by the laws of causation. These external forces drive change and summon reactive qualities in objects based on their own identities (properties, etc. etc.) relative to the identities of whatever object happens to be in question.

What makes the human form so special that it is immune to these realities? How can the human body circumvent the forces of causality and identity? You said that some things could be "explained by simple responses to stimuli, bot not all." I would agree, and posit that the human experience is not a simple response to stimulus, but rather a very complex and intricate cascade of responses to increasingly building, forever changing, and forceful stimuli. Though we can not easily make sense of all the mechanisms and of all the relationships, all evidence seems to suggest the slavery of the body to the brain and the will-less human shell. Cellular biology is entirely reactive (despite its complexities): how do you propose to suggest that, although at magnified inspection each cell in our body is devoid of choice and merely computes stimulus and anti-stimulus, somehow our entire form, made up of these cells, somehow, in some strange organic combination, denies causation and, from some strange spark of uncaused conscious directive, commands itself freely from within itself?