How Can Molecules Think?

[Yaaten]

Wait, what? Your soul is the "I" that thinks, but it is not your mind?

Maybe I shouldn't have used that particular quote, because the point that Descartes was making there is that his capacity to think was viewed by him as evidence of his own existence (along with other things, like his physical body). He wasn't discussing the soul, but the question of existence.

 

[Yaaten]

No.

A one-word answer. Well, think about it this way. How can we extract something (like meaning) from a system, reality or whatnot that doesn't contain it to begin with? Think of a Venn diagramme. In the universal set (which we'll equate with the whole of physical reality), if there is something that is just not there (ex. meaning, purpose), to imagine that one can just conjure it into existence is rather delusional, don't you think?

 

[Estrid]

I bother to get up because it matters to me. My life has meaning because I choose to give it meaning.

Toad frogs and armadillos also .
have the motivation get up and go
about.

 

[Yaaten]

Toad frogs and armadillos also .
have the motivation get up and go
about.

They're just animals, guided by instinct. They don't have beliefs like we do, beliefs like "Life is meaningless".

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Wait, what? Your soul is the "I" that thinks, but it is not your mind?

So, not only do you not think with your brain, but you don't think with your mind? You think with something that is not your mind?

Weird.

The brain indeed, thinks, gathers sense data, orients a sense of self in time and space and even creates the capacity of ego self. A relatively autonomous center of identity. But there is more to us than I-me-mine. There is more to us than the processing of data and what you term "thinking". take a look at some of the chapter in "Zen and the Brain". The potentials of this thing we call consciousness are amazing. Most of us only know a bubble on the ocean.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Maybe I shouldn't have used that particular quote, because the point that Descartes was making there is that his capacity to think was viewed by him as evidence of his own existence (along with other things, like his physical body). He wasn't discussing the soul, but the question of existence.

Your writings are extremely confusing. You speak of a soul, mind, and brain, but I have no idea what you think each is. You insist that the soul is not the mind. You said the soul was the "I" that thinks, but now you have backed down and declared it is not the "I" that thinks after all. Why did you say it if you did not mean it? So, what thinks? The mind? If the mind is the thing that thinks, and the soul is not the mind, what is left for the soul to do?

I can't begin to address what you are saying as long as you speak jibberish.

 

[Yaaten]

Your writings are extremely confusing. You speak of a soul, mind, and brain, but I have no idea what you think each is.

The brain: that squishy mass between our ears, and the states of which correlate with states of the mind (ex. being happy, memories, dreams etc.)
The mind: that which many believe the brain gives rise to, but which has properties that suggest there is so much more to it than that.
The soul: an admittedly difficult concept to define, but to me it's that which, in spite of all else around and within us that may change over time, remains constant and gives us our unique sense of self. I may change in personality over the years (and I have), my beliefs will change, the way I see the world around me will change, but I am still the same person at base level. I am still here, and have been for 54 years now. The body I had just ten years ago is completely gone, and many of my memories from that time have as well. I barely recall primary school now, but I know 'I' was there.

 

[Yaaten]

I can't begin to address what you are saying as long as you speak jibberish.

No need to be rude now. It's only "gibberish" to you because you don't understand it (or can't accept it), but it all makes perfect sense to me. Admittedly some concepts are rather difficult to explain, and words can be misleading, but I haven't (for example) contradicted myself at any point as far as I'm aware, nor have I been inconsistent.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If the mind is the thing that thinks, and the soul is not the mind, what is left for the soul to do?

Silently witness the thinking.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The brain: that squishy mass between our ears, and the states of which correlate with states of the mind (ex. being happy, memories, dreams etc.)
The mind: that which many believe the brain gives rise to, but which has properties that suggest there is so much more to it than that.
The soul: an admittedly difficult concept to define, but to me it's that which, in spite of all else around and within us that may change over time, remains constant and gives us our unique sense of self. I may change in personality over the years (and I have), my beliefs will change, the way I see the world around me will change, but I am still the same person at base level. I am still here, and have been for 54 years now. The body I had just ten years ago is completely gone, and many of my memories from that time have as well. I barely recall primary school now, but I know 'I' was there.

So far you still cannot even tells us what thinks. What thinks? The mind, the soul or the brain?

What remembers? The mind, the soul or the brain?

What decides? The mind, the soul, or the brain?

What feels emotions? The mind, the soul, or the brain?

The scientific evidence indicates it it the brain, that thinks, that remembers, that decides, and that feels emotions. We refer to these brain functions as the mind, but it is all the result of the brain.

 

[Kylie]

The brain isn't purely mechanical, but it certainly is purely physical. The problem with your video analogy is the fact that videos can be examined and analysed using the techniques we have at our disposal when it comes to phenomena (like light and sound) that we all accept can be accounted for via our understanding of nature, and without needing to renounce, or in some way distort, our materialistic metaphysical beliefs.
How does one measure a memory? How is consciousness quantified? Why is our subjective experience of the passage of time in a dream not correlated with the actual passage of time in the "real" world? Why do we even need to dream in the first place?
I'm not claiming here that we'll never find answers to questions like this, but I do seriously question so many people's adherence to the current dogma of atheistic materialism and their embrace of scientism.

You make it sound like the workings of the brain are a complete mystery, but we understand a lot about how memories work. Where are memories stored in the brain? New research suggests they may be in the connections between your brain cells > News > USC Dornsife

 

[partinobodycular]

Admittedly some concepts are rather difficult to explain, and words can be misleading, but I haven't (for example) contradicted myself at any point as far as I'm aware, nor have I been inconsistent.

Sometimes we're inconsistent without realizing it. Take the following for example:

They're just animals, guided by instinct. They don't have beliefs like we do, beliefs like "Life is meaningless".

You want us to believe that we're more than "that squishy mass between our ears", even though all the available evidence seems to suggest that that is indeed the case.

Yet at the same time you want us to believe that animals don't have beliefs. Why, because all the available evidence seems to suggest that that is indeed the case.

Odd, seemingly the same argument with two different conclusions. Some might consider that to be inconsistent.

 

[Jonaitis]

I think with my brain. My brain is made of molecules. Therefore, molecules, when arranged in a certain way, can think.

But how can that be? After all, you are alive, and you feel what it is to be alive. You are experiencing conscious awareness. How can this awareness be nothing more than the result of molecules and elementary physical particles?

Your conscious awareness might seem to you to be something immaterial that is telling the molecules of your body what to do. And yet, as I wrote at Is There Life after Death, there is abundant evidence that the physical brain is indeed the thing that thinks. There is no soul inside running the show. The brain is in control.

Your brain does the thinking. And it creates the appearance that there is a person in charge controlling everything. Rather, what you have is a mass of neurons acting in parallel. But within that mass of neurons, some ideas rise to attention and drive the body. They create the story that the attention is in charge, but it is only there for the ride. The many neurons acting in parallel are in charge. I discuss this at How Can Molecules Think?

The problem isn't that molecules think, but how molecules are able to experience. Even thinking is an experience. Our apparent existence in this reality consists of experience, for there is no experience of the world without sense perception and thought, but there is no sense perception and thought without the awareness of it.

 

[Bradskii]

In any case, what I do believe isn't primarily due to personal experiences, but the end result of attempts to figure out just what we're all doing here on Earth, and why it even matters.

So now we're back to no personal experiences that are worth talking about.

Gee, I've had more productive conversations...

 

[Bradskii]

It can be used in a derogatory manner, but the word itself is more than just an attempt at an insult; it's a very real problem for many who seem to think they can just summarily dismiss a belief/concept/proposition simply because, by their standards, a certain level of evidence (which is rarely, if ever, laid out) hasn't been met.

Well if you make a claim and offer no evidence whatsoever...then I don't think the problem lies with anyone else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well if you make a claim and offer no evidence whatsoever...then I don't think the problem lies with anyone else.

Back in the '60s, we posted evidence of God's existence on courthouse lawns all over the U.S.

Then along came academia and demanded it be removed.

Now academia wants evidence of God's existence -- after demanding it be removed!

Academia at its finest!

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, people suffer from amnesia and all sorts of other ailments of the mind (or 'brain', if you prefer, and are like Daniel Dennett who seriously thinks we don't have minds), but even someone with schizophrenia or senility is still basically the same person underneath. Take away the problem, and they'd return to their clear, lucid self.

Clearly someone with alzheimers is most definately not the same person they were. They inhabit the same body but that's it. They change significantly.

Imagine exchanging your brain with mine. Are you then Yaaten with my brain or Bradskii with Yaaten's body. The answer is plainly obvious.

 

[Bradskii]

No. Again.

If you want me to accept any claims you make, or claims that anyone else makes for that matter, then yeah, I'd like some evidence please. Otherwise...if they are not important to me, I'll ignore them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

- SCIENCE!
Yes, science itself is a mere branch of philosophy. Why? Well, for starters it has philosophical presuppositions built into it. For example, the belief that the scientific method actually can answer most, if not all, of the questions that one may conceivably ask. Then there's the belief (with no evidence, by the way) that material reality is all there is (materialism). There's 'logical positivism', a.k.a. scientism.
I could go on.
Philosophy is KING! Without it science wouldn't even exist!

Sounds like philosophism. Why not just claim everything is "philosophy"?

Nevertheless, my objection was to idle speculation about the topic in lieu of evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Au contraire, meaning is EVERYTHING!

Oh boy, you just didn't get my post, at all.

It was about agency, not "meaning of life" (which is not the topic in any way of this thread).

The traffic lights aren't trying to stop you from getting to work on time.

That rustle in the grass is probably just the wind or a small harmless animal and not a vicious predator.

The stars don't have portent. They are self-gravitating balls of hydrogen and helium.

That's what false agency is about and why I don't need spirits for these things or self-aware neural tissue.

Why do you, for example, bother to engage us all here in these discussions? If life itself isn't meaningful, if there's no point to it all, if all we are is nothing more than chemistry and electricity in motion and we don't have souls, then why bother even getting out of bed in the morning? What's it all for?

The never ending battle against pseudoscience. That's what brings me here. If only I can get you to start seeing things scientifically it would please me greatly.

I mean, I'm going to assume you don't believe in anything beyond what we have here on this Earth (i.e. no afterlife, reincarnation, God and so on), so all we have then is complex chemistry that somehow, by some miracle, became sentient and self-aware, [Edit: removed questionable content].

No of course I don't believe in those things including, and especially, miracles. Just good old fashion emergent properties.