Life only physical/chemical reaction?

[beta3]

Hi

A few days ago a interesting thought stroke me during my chemistry lesson.

I don't know how I started thinking about it, but i just thought that prokaryotes may not really be living organisms, but rather just a system of elements and molecules and a many many chemical/physical reactions. One can't really say prokaryotes are intelligent and they are the simplest cells known. Maybe all their actions are just triggered by the quest for the lowest energy level (what initiates all reactions, i.e. molecular boundings, quantum jumps of orbiting electrons to a lower energy level if one is free, etc). (Although they are still extremely complicated when described completely on a molecular or atomic level)
As I thought further and furhter, I know can't see any differences between an organic and living organism and a large quantity of chemical/physical reactions (neglecting complexity now, no doubt that organisms are by far more complicated)

What do you think about it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I personally think you are right. Every time the scientists have a breakthrough in understanding living things, it supports the thesis that they are causal mechanisms. Nothing that has ever been discovered contradicts that view.

Of course many people on this forum have a different view of things.

 

[sameandnot]

not being able to distinguish a real difference is a invaluable.
i think you might want to think about "intelligence". intelligence, for humans, is complex. is there something more simple that translates to simpler organisms and entities? perhaps awareness?

awareness does seem to be the foundation of our complex intelligence. is it possible that the most simple forms are, in reality, acting and reacting on the basis of the most simple kind of "intelligence", namely, "awareness" or "consciousness"?

could any thing do anything with another thing (like react with or repel from or attract to) if it was not, in some sense, aware of there being a compatible, or attractive or aversive entity for interaction. granted, this is not "thought". there is no chemical saying to itself, "this chemical over here looks good", but does this mean that there is not awareness, or does it mean that we have a misconception of the nature, meaning, reality of "awareness"?

 

[3mpathy]

this is very similar to how i first joined this forum a year ago, if you want to you can dig through the old threads and see what was written, i remeber honestRoseWater answered a question of mine very nicely, her responce might help u. (sry i can't remember the name)

 

[Dawguard]

This might be true, but consider the logical conslusions if it is. We, humans, are nothing more then matter in motion like a rock in space. Alright, we're a comlpicated rock that somehow managed to delude itself into believing it is better then the rest of the universe around it. Well, if this is true then it destroyers any type of philosophy we have, especially morals. Think about it, I can do whatever I want because you are nothing more then a hunk of organic matterial. I can kill you, torture you, steal from you and not worry about it in the slightest. This destroys the idea that humans are equal, that humans have rights; and this is the tenent all our laws are based on. Destroy it and we are left with no foundation for society. Do anyone of us actually want this?
Its really simple: you can believe that there is more to humans then matter and motion, or you can believe that there isn't. It's really a conundrum similar to whether god exists. You can't prove it one way or another, and so the only position is an agnostic. Same with this problem, and I for one choose to believe that I'm better then the flies I swat everyday.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This might be true, but consider the logical conslusions if it is. We, humans, are nothing more then matter in motion like a rock in space. Alright, we're a comlpicated rock that somehow managed to delude itself into believing it is better then the rest of the universe around it. Well, if this is true then it destroyers any type of philosophy we have, especially morals. Think about it, I can do whatever I want because you are nothing more then a hunk of organic matterial. I can kill you, torture you, steal from you and not worry about it in the slightest. This destroys the idea that humans are equal, that humans have rights; and this is the tenent all our laws are based on. Destroy it and we are left with no foundation for society. Do anyone of us actually want this?
Its really simple: you can believe that there is more to humans then matter and motion, or you can believe that there isn't. It's really a conundrum similar to whether god exists. You can't prove it one way or another, and so the only position is an agnostic. Same with this problem, and I for one choose to believe that I'm better then the flies I swat everyday.

I think you're conflating two different ideas here: concept that we live in a radically godless world, and the idea that we are mechanism. As many many threads on these Philosophy boards go to show, these ideas are not necessarily linked. We could imagine a god who created us as mechanisms, and the mystically inclined will assert that their claim we are more than mechanism in no way implies theism.

And from either side, the moral position is not so bad as you state.

Philosophers after Nietsche and Sartre have erected god-free schemes of morality, or ethics: Rawls comes to mind. Sartre himself asserted that we cannot understand our own freedom except in a context of general freedom, so that acknowledging ourselves to be free, as his existentialism requires us to do, necessitates acknowledging the freedom of others.

As to the mechanism side of the issue, Dennett wrote a book called Freedom Evolves which states a sort of "evolutionized" version of compatibilism. This position is that though in the last analysis we may be deterministic machines, yet at the conscious level, in every HUMAN sense of the word, we find ourselves to be free.

 

[kcballer21]

I think you're conflating two different ideas here: concept that we live in a radically godless world, and the idea that we are mechanism. As many many threads on these Philosophy boards go to show, these ideas are not necessarily linked. We could imagine a god who created us as mechanisms, and the mystically inclined will assert that their claim we are more than mechanism in no way implies theism.

And from either side, the moral position is not so bad as you state.

Philosophers after Nietsche and Sartre have erected god-free schemes of morality, or ethics: Rawls comes to mind. Sartre himself asserted that we cannot understand our own freedom except in a context of general freedom, so that acknowledging ourselves to be free, as his existentialism requires us to do, necessitates acknowledging the freedom of others.

As to the mechanism side of the issue, Dennett wrote a book called Freedom Evolves which states a sort of "evolutionized" version of compatibilism. This position is that though in the last analysis we may be deterministic machines, yet at the conscious level, in every HUMAN sense of the word, we find ourselves to be free.

And for those that need so badly to be distinct from other living organisms, the only thing that is needed is to recognize this higher level of consciousness, and roll around in it a little. It truly is a much more profound idea than that of humans being created by 'intelligent design'.

 

[Dawguard]

And from either side, the moral position is not so bad as you state.

Philosophers after Nietsche and Sartre have erected god-free schemes of morality, or ethics: Rawls comes to mind. Sartre himself asserted that we cannot understand our own freedom except in a context of general freedom, so that acknowledging ourselves to be free, as his existentialism requires us to do, necessitates acknowledging the freedom of others.

Sure, this works theoreticly, but then again so does communism. We all know how that turned out. To truly be effective, philosophy must be placed in a practical light, otherwise its worthless in real-life. Using Sartre's claim that existentialism requires us to acknowledge other people's freedom before ours, I ask why? Why can't I be free to do what I want, even if it violates your "rights". What makes us equal if we're nothing more then smart animals? We treat animals in ways we never would do so to humans, so if you're an animal I can kill you as easily as swating a mosquito. This is of course unthinkable, and thus is discarded by any rational person.
However, claiming that humans have rights leave only two choices. One, all animals have human rights. Under this moral code you couldn't swat a mosquito biting you: it is obviously impractical. Second choice: we are more then animals and so have rights they don't. This is the only practical choice of the two, and its always been the one adopted.
The question then becomes why are we better then animals? Is it because we're smarter? If this is the case, then our complicated brain is the only improvment and we are nothing more then organic machines. This makes us equal to animals, so it can't be the case. We must then inherently possesses something animals never can, something that is beyond the mere process of chemical reactions. This is the idea that we have a soul. Whether or not there is a god involved is irrelevent, as is the nature of the soul. What matters is that a soul is something above and beyond mere chemical reactions, and it differs us from animals. Once again, proof of this is as of yet impossible, and I see not way to ever prove it, but it is the only approach that can be applied to life.

I only used the analogy of whether god exists as an example of another unprovable problem of philosophy. I'm sorry for any confusion this might have caused. You're right of course, a god could have made us as mechanisms, and I never intended to use theism as proof of my arguments.

 

[quantumcarl]

Hi

A few days ago a interesting thought stroke me during my chemistry lesson.

I don't know how I started thinking about it, but i just thought that prokaryotes may not really be living organisms, but rather just a system of elements and molecules and a many many chemical/physical reactions. One can't really say prokaryotes are intelligent and they are the simplest cells known. Maybe all their actions are just triggered by the quest for the lowest energy level (what initiates all reactions, i.e. molecular boundings, quantum jumps of orbiting electrons to a lower energy level if one is free, etc). (Although they are still extremely complicated when described completely on a molecular or atomic level)
As I thought further and furhter, I know can't see any differences between an organic and living organism and a large quantity of chemical/physical reactions (neglecting complexity now, no doubt that organisms are by far more complicated)

What do you think about it?

In a less complicated way I'd say we are walking and talking mud. Just add water, hydrogen sulfide, some other minerals and a temperature of over 400º C with agitation and, wallah, neucleotides.

This process may not have happened on this planet, though. Viruses from other planets can and do arrive on Earth from time to time. They are crystaline in nature and survive intact over great distances and long periods. They're in a dormant state to do this.

Once they landed here, after evolving their RNA strands elsewhere, it's not a far stretch to imagine the RNA stand from one virus combining with an RNA strand of another type of virus in the first step toward developing DNA. Add the similar minerals and conditions previously mentioned plus time and "kapow"... Tube worms.

Practically every aboriginal culture has a creation myth that suggests humans were made from mud. From there, its all rock and roll!

 

[BigMacnFries]

What about..

In a less complicated way I'd say we are walking and talking mud. Just add water, hydrogen sulfide, some other minerals and a temperature of over 400º C with agitation and, wallah, neucleotides.

This above point and the initial idea in this thread of humans or animals being very complex chemical reactions seems to leave out the "hard problem of consciousness"

Without the experiences inside our heads this universe would be much easier to conceptulise (though there would be no one to conceptulise it), as biology is explained by chemistry and chemisty explained by physics.

As tempting as it is to have a simplistic, coherent view of the world (I would love this too) it seems that there is a difference between subconscious brain processes going on in my head (just chemical reactions) and conscious processes, chemical reactions accompanied by experience.

Excatly what experiences are, why they seem to accompany certain brain processes and not others, and how they fit into the natural world is a very confusing question that throws a spanner in the works of any materialistic reductive view of animals.

Also in regards to comments of freedom of choice above, I do not think the the moral consequences of us not having freedom of choice is something that should come into consideration when deciding the truth of the matter. If it did turn out that all the evidence showed all behavior is brain based well then that's the way it is. Desiring accountability is not a form of evidence against scientific evidence for determinism.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sure, this works theoreticly, but then again so does communism. We all know how that turned out.

Do we? Some think it has never been tried, just like Christianity. But that's for another thread.

To truly be effective, philosophy must be placed in a practical light, otherwise its worthless in real-life. Using Sartre's claim that existentialism requires us to acknowledge other people's freedom before ours, I ask why? Why can't I be free to do what I want, even if it violates your "rights".

If you act that way you are denying your own freedom, which always gives you the choice to act according to the freedom of others. I repeat, what Sartre claimed is that your freedom is logically inseparable from the freedom of others.

What makes us equal if we're nothing more then smart animals? We treat animals in ways we never would do so to humans, so if you're an animal I can kill you as easily as swating a mosquito. This is of course unthinkable, and thus is discarded by any rational person.

Yes, and discarded without any reference to god.

However, claiming that humans have rights leave only two choices. One, all animals have human rights. Under this moral code you couldn't swat a mosquito biting you: it is obviously impractical. Second choice: we are more then animals and so have rights they don't. This is the only practical choice of the two, and its always been the one adopted.
The question then becomes why are we better then animals? Is it because we're smarter? If this is the case, then our complicated brain is the only improvment and we are nothing more then organic machines. This makes us equal to animals, so it can't be the case.

The difference is that we can frame the question. If some species of animal other than us could also do that they would also be free and fall under the philosophical cloak of justice. Animals that cannot conceive justice may or may not have rights, opinions differ, but not because they are animals - we are animals too! - but because they cannot conceive of justice or reciprocity.

We must then inherently possesses something animals never can, something that is beyond the mere process of chemical reactions. This is the idea that we have a soul. Whether or not there is a god involved is irrelevent, as is the nature of the soul. What matters is that a soul is something above and beyond mere chemical reactions, and it differs us from animals. Once again, proof of this is as of yet impossible, and I see not way to ever prove it, but it is the only approach that can be applied to life.

As you see I can deny your premise without illogic.

I only used the analogy of whether god exists as an example of another unprovable problem of philosophy. I'm sorry for any confusion this might have caused. You're right of course, a god could have made us as mechanisms, and I never intended to use theism as proof of my arguments.

Soulessness is equally interesting

 

[RVBuckeye]

Sure, this works theoreticly, but then again so does communism. We all know how that turned out. To truly be effective, philosophy must be placed in a practical light, otherwise its worthless in real-life. Using Sartre's claim that existentialism requires us to acknowledge other people's freedom before ours, I ask why? Why can't I be free to do what I want, even if it violates your "rights". What makes us equal if we're nothing more then smart animals? We treat animals in ways we never would do so to humans, so if you're an animal I can kill you as easily as swating a mosquito. This is of course unthinkable, and thus is discarded by any rational person.
However, claiming that humans have rights leave only two choices. One, all animals have human rights. Under this moral code you couldn't swat a mosquito biting you: it is obviously impractical. Second choice: we are more then animals and so have rights they don't. This is the only practical choice of the two, and its always been the one adopted.
The question then becomes why are we better then animals? Is it because we're smarter? If this is the case, then our complicated brain is the only improvment and we are nothing more then organic machines. This makes us equal to animals, so it can't be the case. We must then inherently possesses something animals never can, something that is beyond the mere process of chemical reactions. This is the idea that we have a soul. Whether or not there is a god involved is irrelevent, as is the nature of the soul. What matters is that a soul is something above and beyond mere chemical reactions, and it differs us from animals. Once again, proof of this is as of yet impossible, and I see not way to ever prove it, but it is the only approach that can be applied to life.

I only used the analogy of whether god exists as an example of another unprovable problem of philosophy. I'm sorry for any confusion this might have caused. You're right of course, a god could have made us as mechanisms, and I never intended to use theism as proof of my arguments.

I don't exactly know from your statement your stance on how our soul came to be but... just so you know mine, I'm speaking from an agnostic perspective. Our soul, or whatever you choose to call it, IS what makes us better than animals (or should I say organic life in general). There are numerous examples of living things living and grouping together socially. (I would list some but I don't want to insult anyones intelligence). Yet there is only one that has the capability to "know" we can disobey our instincts, and act anyway we see fit to do. Luckily, we have also the foresight to look ahead into the future and see that this could be very a self-destructive feature of our awareness. (and usually is--just turn on the news) Thus, we create laws, superstition, fear, to controll those urges of self-destruction. It might be that it is just a means to an end of furthering the life of the human animal, but it does make us, in my opinion, better. Some might argue that this makes us worse than the animals. To them I will quote kcballer21.

And for those that need so badly to be distinct from other living organisms, the only thing that is needed is to recognize this higher level of consciousness, and roll around in it a little. It truly is a much more profound idea than that of humans being created by 'intelligent design'.

Right on!

 

[Dawguard]

The difference is that we can frame the question. If some species of animal other than us could also do that they would also be free and fall under the philosophical cloak of justice. Animals that cannot conceive justice may or may not have rights, opinions differ, but not because they are animals - we are animals too! - but because they cannot conceive of justice or reciprocity.

Sure, we can frame the question but you aren't taking this logicaly all the way. Why can we frame the question? Is it becuase we have more complex brains? Why then does this make us superior?

Certain animals can concieve of reciprocity. A grizzly bear mother who thinks you are a danger to her cubs will simply chase you away. If you harm or kill one of the cubs, she will not stop pursuing you until she kills you, or until you somehow manage to escape. Even then she does her utmost to kill you. In this, the grizzly bear demonstrates vengance and reciprocity even in the animal world.

 

[kant]

I personally think you are right. Every time the scientists have a breakthrough in understanding living things, it supports the thesis that they are causal mechanisms. Nothing that has ever been discovered contradicts that view.

Of course many people on this forum have a different view of things.

What do you mean by 'causal mechanism'? So you mean that humans are like 'functions', where with a given set of parameters( genes, environments) or other input values, there corresponds to a set of external outputs?

 

[beta3]

I don't exactly know from your statement your stance on how our soul came to be but... just so you know mine, I'm speaking from an agnostic perspective. Our soul, or whatever you choose to call it, IS what makes us better than animals (or should I say organic life in general). There are numerous examples of living things living and grouping together socially. (I would list some but I don't want to insult anyones intelligence). Yet there is only one that has the capability to "know" we can disobey our instincts, and act anyway we see fit to do. Luckily, we have also the foresight to look ahead into the future and see that this could be very a self-destructive feature of our awareness. (and usually is--just turn on the news) Thus, we create laws, superstition, fear, to controll those urges of self-destruction. It might be that it is just a means to an end of furthering the life of the human animal, but it does make us, in my opinion, better. Some might argue that this makes us worse than the animals. To them I will quote kcballer21

what about natural tribes and cultures?

In those cultures you rarely see anyone not obeying the leader's orders.

Murder and theft, for example, are only a "luxurios features" of our culture, in the so called modern world. You can find it very often in our world, you will rarely find it in cultures of natural tribes. Possessions of things isn't known in their world, too, hence they don't have anything to steal, because everything is collected good (like Marx' idea of communism).

 

[RVBuckeye]

what about natural tribes and cultures?

In those cultures you rarely see anyone not obeying the leader's orders.

Murder and theft, for example, are only a "luxurios features" of our culture, in the so called modern world. You can find it very often in our world, you will rarely find it in cultures of natural tribes. Possessions of things isn't known in their world, too, hence they don't have anything to steal, because everything is collected good (like Marx' idea of communism).

Notice you said "rarely". To say murder and theft are luxuries of the modern world is not a valid statement. Their were certainly examples of this in ancient egypt (if we are reading the language correctly). They were not "modern". Maybe they might be described as "civilized". I'm not an expert on Indian culture, (either native american, african, etc.) but I can't think of a one that didn't use some form of a "diety" as a means of controlling the population. Any "ism" you want to use has some key element of control. Now, is our proclivity toward being controlled a matter of some random chemical/physical reactions to outside stimuli? You can argue both I guess. I surely don't have the answer to that one. I certainly feel like I can disobey my "casual mechanism".

 

[quantumcarl]

This above point and the initial idea in this thread of humans or animals being very complex chemical reactions seems to leave out the "hard problem of consciousness"

Consciousness is not a hard problem. It is the result of our physiology and natural selection/evolution.

Consciousness is simply the effect caused by the complex result of our evolution. Compare it to the various differences we see in animals and plants.

Eg. some butterflies have developed large spots on their wings that look like big eyes to their preditors... the butterfly with the spots didn't develope the spots consciously, as a way to survive... the butterflys with the larger spots were selected by trial and error to be the dominant family of their sub-species because they survived longer and reproduced more offspring due to warding off predators.

Consciousness is the same effect. It is caused by the function of natural selection and now Humans are stuck with it. At one time it served as a dominant feature, ensuring the continuation of the species and its reproduction... but, today, it seems to be having the reverse effect... considering over-population, special interests like humans thinking their better than nature or whathaveyou.

The very existence of consciousness may have a mechanistic function in the evolution of the universe but, its not like we'll ever "know" about it or what the function is. Some people say the universe is growing a brain... just the same way mud grew a brain and called itself human... but, that is a biopomorphic view... and we would be the most biased commentators on the subject.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Consciousness is not a hard problem. It is the result of our physiology and natural selection/evolution.

Really? Enlighten us on how you know this as a stated fact. A butterfly having spots does not explain how a conciousness evolves. Not that evolution doesn't factor into the equation, I'll give you that.

Certain animals can concieve of reciprocity. A grizzly bear mother who thinks you are a danger to her cubs will simply chase you away. If you harm or kill one of the cubs, she will not stop pursuing you until she kills you, or until you somehow manage to escape. Even then she does her utmost to kill you. In this, the grizzly bear demonstrates vengance and reciprocity even in the animal world.

Is this really an example of reciprocity? If we take this to mean that every time you kill a bear cub, every time the bear will try to kill you. This is more like an unconscious decicion. An instinct if you will. Where we differ is the ability to either kill you or not kill you. An example, if I accidentaly killed a bear cub, the bear would not see it as an accident, and instinctivly try to kill me. A human might be just as inclined to kill you, but can conciously choose not to.

 

[BigMacnFries]

Consciousness is not a hard problem. It is the result of our physiology and natural selection/evolution.

Natural selection selects for heritable traits, those which can be a product of our genes as these are all we can pass on to our ancestors. Genes make protiens and protiens do things in the brain like send signals or open membranes. It seems quite possible a brain could be a completely physical thing, performing the physical actions, with as much experience as a rock.

If it is possible for a brain to function without experiences (I think this is intuitivly obvious but let me know if you want an argument) then experiences must be something more than brain function. This leads to the famous mind body problem: what are experiences and how do they fit into the physical world. There are many famous philosophers (Dennet, Chalmers, Churchland, Searle, Jackson) who have very different opinions on this problem and i don't think any of them would say it is an easy problem.

Saying consciousness is a product of our genes gets back to the same problem of how does something physical, genes, make something none physical, experience. If you define experience as a physical then you have to explain why (logically speaking) brains could exist without experiences, despite having all the physical components we know of present.

If they brain is truly physical why have experiences at all, a thermostat doesn't need to experience hot or cold to turn my heater off, on an incredibly more complex scale why does my physical brain have to feel cold to put a jacket on.

 

[Dawguard]

This really is a continuation of a problem goes as far back as Blaise Pascal. I ask one simple question: if we are nothing more then smart animals then why do we think? Animals can't reason no matter how smart they are. There are some very intellegent animals in the world but not a single one of them can reason. Why? Biologicaly our brains aren't that different from their's, so why do we have this special gift that they don't? Chemical reactions are non-thinking, non-reasoning. They simply are. We are different. We can choose to do one thing or the other, we can make our decisions. There is more to us then binary choices. This is self evidant. It needs no empirical proof becuase it simply is.

 

[quantumcarl]

I ask one simple question: if we are nothing more then smart animals then why do we think? Animals can't reason no matter how smart they are. There are some very intellegent animals in the world but not a single one of them can reason. Why? Biologicaly our brains aren't that different from their's, so why do we have this special gift that they don't? Chemical reactions are non-thinking, non-reasoning. They simply are. We are different. We can choose to do one thing or the other, we can make our decisions. There is more to us then binary choices. This is self evidant. It needs no empirical proof becuase it simply is.

Thinking is a complex chemical reaction. Do your homework on this.

Thinking doesn't necessarily imply awareness. Awareness is a better description than consciousness. Awareness implies chemical reactions to stimulus. How a chemical reaction behaves can be determined by genetic determinism... in fact, genes are chemical reactions and their results.

If all this dogma is in defence of humans being "special" as compared to animals, plants or minerals... it has failed miserably... and will always fali miseraablly because humans are composed of the same elements as the rest of the universe and are governed by the same (physical) laws... as is the awareness humans and many other living organisms utilize to survive.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What do you mean by 'causal mechanism'? So you mean that humans are like 'functions', where with a given set of parameters( genes, environments) or other input values, there corresponds to a set of external outputs?

Pretty much. If you know all the causes acting at a moment on such a mechanism, plus their rates of change, then you know the state of the mechanism at a close later moment. (Actually the instantaneous change in the state vector)

The causes in the human case could be everything physical about them down to the atomic level, including but not limited to genes, plus everything about their environment, also down to the atomic level.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sure, we can frame the question but you aren't taking this logicaly all the way. Why can we frame the question? Is it becuase we have more complex brains? Why then does this make us superior?

The additonal complexity, and the KIND of complexity has produced a phase change. Our consciousnesses are in a completely different state of capability from those of the animals.

Certain animals can concieve of reciprocity. A grizzly bear mother who thinks you are a danger to her cubs will simply chase you away. If you harm or kill one of the cubs, she will not stop pursuing you until she kills you, or until you somehow manage to escape. Even then she does her utmost to kill you. In this, the grizzly bear demonstrates vengance and reciprocity even in the animal world.

Nah, this is just the pathetic fallacy, reading into animal behavior what our own conscious reactions would be under the circumstances. There is no evidence the mother bear has any conscious awareness of reasons for her behavior. It could very well be a behavior pattern fixed in bears by evolution either randomly (neutral evolution) or adaptively. In any case bears do not go home and discuss the ifs ands or buts of the situation with other bears.

 

[BigMacnFries]

This really is a continuation of a problem goes as far back as Blaise Pascal. I ask one simple question: if we are nothing more then smart animals then why do we think? Animals can't reason no matter how smart they are. There are some very intellegent animals in the world but not a single one of them can reason. Why? Biologicaly our brains aren't that different from their's, so why do we have this special gift that they don't? Chemical reactions are non-thinking, non-reasoning. They simply are. We are different. We can choose to do one thing or the other, we can make our decisions. There is more to us then binary choices. This is self evidant. It needs no empirical proof becuase it simply is.

There is reason to believe a physical brain is capable of doing all the reasoning us humans do, in fact humans who have damage to their frontal and temporal lobes, the lobes that are most differentated in humans and monkeys, have problems reasoning.

The computational theory of mind states that if something is correlated by something, caused by it and can cause other things it can be called a "symbol". A node in my brain that is activated upon me seeing the letter two is caused by the letter two (through my retina), correlated with it, (this node being activated is a good sign there is a number two out there in the environment) and is capable of causing other nodes in my brain to fire. It is possible (and likely) that the neural circuits in my brain are wired through complex associations (not yet understood) such that seeing the "2" and a "+" and a "2" leads to interactions amongst the various nodes that leads to the motor output node of "four" being activated.

Of course real brains are much more complex than this. The point to get across is that although reasoning is hard to understand in terms of biochemical reactions (to low level), if the biochemical components (or any components such as silicon chips) are capable of acting as symbols, and have the right casual mechanisms between them, then reasoning is possible in aphysical system.

 

[quantumcarl]

If they brain is truly physical why have experiences at all, a thermostat doesn't need to experience hot or cold to turn my heater off, on an incredibly more complex scale why does my physical brain have to feel cold to put a jacket on.

Awareness of an experience is what you're talking about. Not the experience itself.

Its plain to see in our vocabulary how the word experience is meant to be used and evaluated... "the shuttle is experiencing difficulties... we are aware of them because the tiles experienced a trauma of some sort and our instruments have alerted our awareness to that fact".

So, a thermometer experiences heat and/or the lack of heat and we, as biological units, become aware of the reading on the thermometer or you can just as easily say we become aware of the experience the thermometer is alerting us about. We also become aware of our cells experiencing changes in temperature and will put on a jacket or not.

Other reasons for putting on a jacket can stem from social conditioning. Social conditioning builds an awareness of what will work to help us survive as a social/biological unit.

There is no great mystery to awareness. You can see it in the simplest forms of life. It seems to start with photosensitivity/chlrophyll/chemical reactions. But, there may be more rudimentary causes of awareness that i am unaware of at this time.

If you want proof a brain is physical just head down to the coroner's lab and examine one of the many brains they have in formaldahyde there.

The brain will be experiencing the effects of formaldihyde but, it will not be aware of the experience.

 

[BigMacnFries]

Its plain to see in our vocabulary how the word experience is meant to be used and evaluated... "the shuttle is experiencing difficulties... we are aware of them because the tiles experienced a trauma of some sort and our instruments have alerted our awareness to that fact".
].

I think your argument fails to acknoledge or respond to the fundamental difference I am making. Unfortunatly words like consciousness, experience and awareness get used for many different things so I will be clear what i mean by these terms.

My brain is Aware of the blood pressure in many of my arteries, it senses it, does computation, then sends out motor signals to circular muscles in my atrerioles that constrict or expand to adjust my blood pressure. However when I go to my doctor and they say "you blood pressure is up 3 points" I go "really, I had no idea".

My brain is aware of and itch where I have been bitten by a mosquito and I have an experience of that itch. I don't need my doctor to tell me I have an itch.

Therefore I use the term aware as any physical mechanism that can represent something in the external world and use that representation to control output. For example the shuttle is aware it has tile problems and is communicating that to computers on earth.

Experience is something beyond being aware, this is proven by the fact I have some brain processes that have awareness but not experience. If awareness was the same thing as experience then it would be impossible to be aware, but not to experience, and your not being able to tell me your excat blood pressure now, or experience it, despite your brain being aware of it, is proof of this.

 

[quantumcarl]

I think your argument fails to acknoledge or respond to the fundamental difference I am making. Unfortunatly words like consciousness, experience and awareness get used for many different things.

I'll agree "consciousness" is an ambiguous term used to describe many different states and used to support BS statements.

"Experience" is another word that, as is obvious in this thread, is mis-used and therefore mis-leading when used improperly.

But the word "aware" has a meaning that is easy to grasp, again, my point is demonstrated in how it is used in this thread. It is as simple as binary programming... on or off... aware or unaware.

My brain is Aware of the blood pressure in many of my arteries, it senses it, does computation, then sends out motor signals to circular muscles in my atrerioles that constrict or expand to adjust my blood pressure. However when I go to my doctor and they say "you blood pressure is up 3 points" I go "really, I had no idea".

To simplify your paragraph and to clarify what you are saying I'll simply put it in simple terms:
My body is experiencing high blood pressure (and responding autonomically) but I was unaware of the condition (which indicates a person who does not pay attention to their body).

My brain is aware of and itch where I have been bitten by a mosquito and I have an experience of that itch. I don't need my doctor to tell me I have an itch.

You (and your brain.. etc...) are aware of an itch but you may not be aware of the malaria invading you blood stream until its too late.. or you have a doctor examine your blood. In which case the doctor here represents an instrument alerting you (ie. facilitating your awareness) to the condition your blood is experiencing.

Therefore I use the term aware as any physical mechanism that can represent something in the external world and use that representation to control output. For example the shuttle is aware it has tile problems and is communicating that to computers on earth.

Your attempt to peak my awareness of what your saying here has failed.

Experience is something beyond being aware, this is proven by the fact I have some brain processes that have awareness but not experience. If awareness was the same thing as experience then it would be impossible to be aware, but not to experience, and your not being able to tell me your excat blood pressure now, or experience it, despite your brain being aware of it, is proof of this.

Here the word experience is being romanticized and mystified for no particular reason. This is because it has been treated this way by so many people that it has become standard fare.

Experience is a word to be defined by an impartial dictionary.

For now, I will define it as the interaction between two or more elements and the results of that (those) interaction(s).

For instance, awareness is an experience. It is the interaction of several experiences such as the activity of a sodium/potassium pump caused by the action of osmosis, the release of several neurotransmitters and the experiences of many other factors that go toward creating awareness in an organism.

 

[Dawguard]

There is reason to believe a physical brain is capable of doing all the reasoning us humans do, in fact humans who have damage to their frontal and temporal lobes, the lobes that are most differentated in humans and monkeys, have problems reasoning.

Even someone with extreme brain damage does not loose any of their consciousness. They might be less able to reason, but their existence is not even touched. They still have awareness, conciousness, and thoughts. However much the tools that consiousness uses, reason, logic, emotions, etc. are damaged the actual thing making them aware is not affected.

 

[BigMacnFries]

Even someone with extreme brain damage does not loose any of their consciousness. They might be less able to reason, but their existence is not even touched. They still have awareness, conciousness, and thoughts. However much the tools that consiousness uses, reason, logic, emotions, etc. are damaged the actual thing making them aware is not affected.

I think this statement is very unaccurate. "Consciousness" is not an all or nothing thing. People who have damage to their parietal lobes get symptoms of "neglect". Damage to the right parietal lobe means people ignore or unaware of everything on their left side. The only shave the right side of their face and only eat the right side of their dinner. They seem completely unaware of what it is they are doing.

To take this argument further imagine if some evil professor was to open up your skull and slowly remove, teaspoon by teaspoon, the contents of your brain. What would it be like for you to experience this. I would imagine that consciousness would slowly fade, and their would be no point where you could say "the auctual thing making them aware" was there one teaspoon full ago but now it is completely gone.

Earlier this century split brain operations were performed where patients had the vast majority of the fibres connecting their right and left hemispheres cut. When some kind of information is presented to the right brain (through the left visual field), and other information is presented to the left brain (through the right visual field) it seems there are two separate experiences in the brain. If the left (talking brain) is asked a question it does not know, it will say it doesn't. However if the right (non talking) brain knows the answer it will try to signal to the left brain what the answer is. The right brain controls the left hand and vice versa, so the right brain may try to write on the right hand with the left hands index finger to tell it the answer. Sometimes there is conflict and the hands try to fight each other over which answer to point to in a test.

The idea that there is one "consciousness" in the brain, that this thing can think, feel and choose, and that it is something discrete and always untouched where other mind functions can fall apart around it, is very naive considering the neuroscientific evidence. If you have an average "man in the street" view of who you are, you have a view that, as a heuristic, works well in the real world, but is vastly different than the truth of what it is you are.

 

[saltydog]

Dudes, try and get into the mind-set of "emergence, Complexity Theory, Catastrophe Theory, bifurcation, critical points, and non-linear dynamics". Really I've come to terms with questions about nature, evolution, biology, the brain and mind from those prespectives and it makes sense to me. Now I could be wrong but about 10 years ago I use to look outside of my window and wonder why about lots of things in the world. Then I started studying non-linear dynamics and the others topics I mentioned above. I no longer wonder why about a lot of things.

 

[quantumcarl]

Chaos, Process, Design and mud

Dudes, try and get into the mind-set of "emergence, Complexity Theory, Catastrophe Theory, bifurcation, critical points, and non-linear dynamics". Really I've come to terms with questions about nature, evolution, biology, the brain and mind from those prespectives and it makes sense to me. Now I could be wrong but about 10 years ago I use to look outside of my window and wonder why about lots of things in the world. Then I started studying non-linear dynamics and the others topics I mentioned above. I no longer wonder why about a lot of things.

However we explain things and whatever we project on to what we are able to observe in nature... we're still a pile of rocks that can walk and talk by clacking our bits together and making sparks .

Isn't that special?!

 

[selfAdjoint]

However we explain things and whatever we project on to what we are able to observe in nature... we're still a pile of rocks that can walk and talk by clacking our bits together and making sparks .

Isn't that special?!

It sure is, and that raises the question of why some people need to postulate something EXTRA in us. I am not talking about those who have personal experiences to cite, but the others, who just don't think evolved creatures are fine enough for them to be one.

 

[BigMacnFries]

Dudes, try and get into the mind-set of "emergence, Complexity Theory, Catastrophe Theory, bifurcation, critical points, and non-linear dynamics". Really I've come to terms with questions about nature, evolution, biology, the brain and mind from those prespectives and it makes sense to me.

Can you give a brief intro into how these theories might give insight?

 

[saltydog]

Can you give a brief intro into how these theories might give insight?

Hello BigMac.

Perhaps I should work on a coherent presentation; that would take time. But for now I can give you some examples:

Consider Emergence and Complexity Theory first. The quintessential example is the termite mound: the termites do not know what they're building; they don't have enough neurons. Yet the clay cathederal "emerges" from the ground. The mound is an emergent property of the non-linear dynamics between termite, mud, and peheromone. Scott Camazine, et. al., presents this and other examples in "Self-Organization in Biological Systems". Complex interractions give rise to gestalt properties. Should we be so surprised that life emerges from complex chemistry? Should we not be so with massivelly fed-back non-linear neural dynamics giving rise to mind?

Another interesting book about Complexity Theory is, "Complexification" by John Casti.

Next consider bifurcations and critical points. Many phenomena in nature exhibit abrupt change: water turning to ice, a concrete block suddenly fracturing, an avalanche, explosion, tons more. The dynamics in these cases are not smooth: they exhibit a critical point, surpassing such results often in qualitatively different behavior. Stuart Kauffman wrote "At Home in the Universe" in which he presents his views about the origin of life from the perspective of Emergence and critical points: "whenever a collection of chemicals contains enough different kinds of molecules, a metabolism will crystallize from the broth": perhaps a critical point was reached in the early chemical history of the Earth springing forth life.

Non-linear dynamics exhibits "strange attractors", stable regimes of activity surrounded by a "basin of attraction": nearby dynamics are "drawn into" the attractor. At this point, I am led once again to quote Rene' Thom from "Structural Stability and Morphogenesis":

"All creation or destruction of form or morphogenesis can be described by the disappearance of the attractor representing the initial form and its replacement by capture by the attractor representing the final form".

From this perspective, one can consider the drive from simple to complex that we observe in living systems as the trajectory biochemistry takes as it is "captured" by attractors embedded more deeply within its dynamics: like zooming into a Mandelbrot Set.

Rene' Thom is the father of Catastrophe Theory. The quentessential example is the cusp catastrophe exhibited in the cubic differential equation:

$$\frac{dy}{dt}=a+by-y^3$$

The important point is that much non-linear dynamics exhibits "shocks", or catastrophies which cause abrupt and qualitatively change to a system when it is pushed past a "bifurcation point" (critical point). Could this have been the reason for the Cambrian Explosion, the divergence of man from ape, and the Big Bang? I believe it was.

 

[quantumcarl]

The important point is that much non-linear dynamics exhibits "shocks", or catastrophies which cause abrupt and qualitatively change to a system when it is pushed past a "bifurcation point" (critical point). Could this have been the reason for the Cambrian Explosion, the divergence of man from ape, and the Big Bang? I believe it was.

The points raised in your post are outstanding in detail and reason.

One term I'd question is where you say catastrophe and non-linear dynamics could be the "reason" behind the big bang and the emergence of life etc. Reason implies logic and, judging from what you've described about chaos and so on... there is no logic but rather cause and effect.

Still this is very cool stuff. Is this study a branch of physics?!

There are many who really don't want to believe that catastrophe is the catylist to evolution and change. They take the long slow approach where, over time, genes are modified by incremental behaviour and environemental modifications.

When I encounter people of this school I remind them that pretty well all events are catastrophies... relative to scale... but catastrophies just the same.