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?

[*yrrnotelekktric*]

^those are very philosophical questions.

for the twin example, you wouldnt necessarily be thinking the same thing, because you are two different beings, two different entities, with your very own brain. if you shared a brain, you`d probably share the same thoughts.


i think answers to these questions will be very very different between people.

but kudos for typing that all out.

[ersatz]

Your brains are not exactly the same. You do have experiences in the womb and your brains are shaped by those experiences. Being a twin does not mean that the two of you have the exact same DNA. You're not the same person. As soon as your brain develops, you start having experiences, and every single moment affects your brain in a certain way.

When you think of a penguin, you are not necessarily thinking of a penguin. The action that your brain does is recreate the physical makeup of a penguin. The word "penguin" makes your brain recreate a round body, a beak, a white stomach, black feathers -- all of that. Your frontal cortex is not the only part of your brain active when you think of a physical entity. Your motor functions are at work too, making a 3D image of a penguin in your mind. The actual thought of a penguin is not a chemical reaction, but messages sent over millions of neurons. The image of a penguin is made from memories of other images of penguin.

[NoSex]

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

No.

there's nothing "morally wrong"

Correct. But, that's sort of irrelevant to the issue of determinism. Determinism has "ethical" implications but it doesn't, in of itself, deny morality as an objective system (though I would myself). All determinism ensures is that, even if there is a morally wrong or right choice, since we can not freely choose anything no one can be held responsible for his or her actions. Thus no one being can be said to be a moral being or be punished for his transgressions or rewarded for his victories.

If we're EXACTLY the same, how come we don't think EXACTLY the same thoughts?

Your environments are not identical and, unless you shared a shell, could not be. Thus, you wouldn't expect that a = b. However, if you were exactly the same, sure, it seems as if you would have to have "identical" thoughts (especially if we're "leaving religion at the door.").

There is no room for free will in the realms of science. If you believe in causation, you have to face the fact that the homunculus doesn't exist. We are caused systems ourselves, bound and tethered to this earth. We have no will and no spiritual identity.

[Call911Quick]

I've been thinking about this for a while. It all came from me thinking about thinking, and how it worked. It's so confusing. O.O

Any psychologists on this forum?

[ersatz]

It shouldn't be; two people just explained it to you.

[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.

[*Steven*]

You know all of this is God's will, right? Every single last bit.

[monster]

We die, and our souls go places.

[*Steven*]

Heaven or hell, if you will. Sometimes the river styx.

[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.

[Simba]

Depends on who or what exactly you think you are. Are you the body, the brain, the mind, the soul? Or maybe you don't even exist at all.

It might be relevant to your curiosity to look up some info on how the body is renewed every 5-10 years (depending on where you look).

[Melissa]

Actually, identical twins DO have the exact same DNA, but you have to remember, once you're out of the womb, the two of you will have your individual experiences which affects your thought process and the way you think.

We actually went over this in my required Frontiers of Science class last semester when we were going into "Brain & Behavior."

For one thing, we are not "will-less." Yes, our free will and our "self" IS a result of "a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" (The Astonishing Hypothesis, F. Crick), but in that regard, our free will, mental ideas, and self are all coming from experience and socialization.

I never really thought about this much, and now I wish I paid more attention in class. Dammit, I'm two seconds away from digging out my lecture notes and seeing if I could find answers.

[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.

[Tung]

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?AR...mp;IBLOCK_ID=35

[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?

[Call911Quick]

When I say "my book", it means the book belongs to ME. But it's not PART of me. So would "my arm" only be a possession of mine, but not ME? Would "my brain" be my possession, not ME?

Hence, I think ersatz is talking about ME controlling the brain, which in turn controls the body.

On the other hand, there are what, 7 ways to determine if something is living?

-Carries out metabolism
-Organized
-Reproduction
-Responds to stimuli
-*can't remember the other ones*

Thus, perhaps our thoughts aren't completely random, they're just responses to stimuli, such as what we're seeing, hearing, etc.?

How much do we (people) know about the brain and how it works anyway? Maybe we have a soul-like structure that people don't know about because it's so subtle, and only humans developed it through evolution >.>. When our life is threatened (stimuli), the obvious reaction would be to try to survive. But we can choose to sacrifice ourselves to save others. I suppose animals can do that too... so we're overriding our survival instinct? How do we do that?

[ersatz]

Wordswordswords

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing against it.

Using this guy's example of thinking of a penguin: What I'm saying is, I don't think that my brain just starts thinking of a penguin. There is no external stimuli that would push me to think of a penguin. I just think, "Hey, penguins are cute," and my brain recreates the image of a cute penguin. If I'm reading what you're saying right, you are saying that the brain just did that, conjured up an image of a penguin, without "me" telling it to, as if I had absolutely no control whatsoever over that thought of a penguin. Am I right?

[NoSex]

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing against it.

You're actually quite confusing me now. So, are you arguing for determinism or against it? Are you seeing we have some control or no control or what? I'm arguing for hard determinism, I'm saying we have no control whatsoever in any matter of human experience/behavior.

[ersatz]

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.

That's what I'm arguing against.

I don't think we have no control. I'm waiting for your response to the above example so I can see what you're talking about, and so you can explain what happens in your point of view in that situation.

[Joss-eh-lime]

when you randomly think of something, you are just pulling it out of your brain like a stored memory or function.

you access it whenever you want.

[NoSex]

I don't think we have no control. I'm waiting for your response to the above example so I can see what you're talking about, and so you can explain what happens in your point of view in that situation.

A complex string of cause and effect - it has nothing to do with free will. Just because the specific situation given doesn't appear driven or pragmatic doesn't mean that it is in fact a unique willed event. Given the complexity of the human form and its external universe it is only inevitable, especially given the exponential accumulation of memory, that behavior will seem more and more detached from the external experience and less and less caused. However, your example adds nothing at all to the discussion, for you still have to reconcile the fundamental issues brought forth by causation and the axiom of identity. You have to find the mover and, unless you're positing a soul or a homunculus of sorts, you're philosophically stuck with hard determinism - and, even then, you still are at odds with science.

[Call911Quick]

Have you guys seen the Matrix trilogy? There's this guy who wrote a crap load about it, and a whole section is about choice and everything. It's pretty deep. But it doesn't pertain exactly to the issue at hand.