How Can Molecules Think?

[Hans Blaster]

Philosophers are to the right of the mathematicians in that cartoon.

I didn't see the cartoon (ghost posters), but I know it by its shadow. Everything is physics, math is just a tool to understand physics.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't see the cartoon (ghost posters), but I know it by its shadow. Everything is physics, math is just a tool to understand physics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Philosophers are to the right of the mathematicians in that cartoon.

A philosopher is someone who doesn't know anything, but can make you think he does.

 

[Kylie]

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!

That wasn't evidence of God's existence. It was evidence that people could make copies of the Ten Commandments.

 

[AV1611VET]

That wasn't evidence of God's existence. It was evidence that people could make copies of the Ten Commandments.

And who authored said commandments in the first place in His own handwriting?

 

[doubtingmerle]

And who authored said commandments in the first place in His own handwriting?

Some scribe pretending he was Moses?

 

[doubtingmerle]

How can we extract something (like meaning) from a system, reality or whatnot that doesn't contain it to begin with?

I don't extract meaning. I make it. I choose to make my life meaningful. My life matters to me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

It sure looks like gibberish to me. If it means something to you fine, but so far your efforts to explain only leave me confused as to what you are trying to say.

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.

Huh? Even you have admitted that you contradicted yourself when you said the soul thinks, and then came back and said it doesn't think.

If your soul doesn't think, what does it matter if your soul lives forever? What good is an eternal soul that cannot think?

 

[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.)

That is one of the oddest definitions of "brain" that I have ever seen. Why are your optic nerves connected to that squishy mess that has states correlating with your true state? Why don't they wire straight to whatever it is that receives the signals from the eyes, analyzes them, and thinks about them?

And why does the brain wire to your muscles? And why do we see that surge of brain and nerve activity before the muscles move? I would say this happens because the brain controls the muscles. What controls your muscles? That squishy mass between your ears? Or something else?

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.

That is one of the oddest definitions of "mind" that I have ever seen. It is "so much more" than something that "the brain give rise to"? What more is it? What does it do? Do the eyes wire directly to the mind, or does that information come to the mind through the brain?

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.

Does your soul do anything, besides not think? What does it do?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay, look, you clearly have gone off the rails here. You began with a faulty belief that the soul was somehow equivalent to the mind, and went from there, basing everything after this upon that misconception.

You continue with your vaguely defined definition of soul and mind, and you insist that one who does not accept your muddled definition of soul and mind must be off the rails. Really?

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.

First, you are changing the subject. You are responding to a paragraph on strokes, but you write about schizophrenia and senility.

Regarding strokes, I said " the essence of the person is still communicating with us. That person sees us, recognizes us, and communicates." And your response seems to be an attempt to educate me that what I had just said was right. You could have just said, "I agree".

Regarding dementia, I discuss that in a different paragraph. That clearly does effect the essence of the person.

Sure, brains get damaged, and then the person in question has difficulty understanding or remembering something, but that does not change who they fundamentally are.

Regarding strokes, I agree it does not change who the person fundamentally is. The whole point of my paragraph was that victims of stroke find it hard to create new memories. That indicates to me that memories must be stored in the brain. So, when the brain gets damaged, it can become nearly impossible to store new memories.

 

[doubtingmerle]

More from "Is There Life After Death?"

If you wish to discuss what I wrote at Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free, you could just leave a comment there.

Simply because the mind is not the soul.

You say this in response to my question on why it is that conditions that prevent the brain from developing cause the personality to not reach maturity. You ignore the question, and insist on arguing the definition of mind and soul. Sigh.

Regardless of what you want to call it, why is it that personality development is hindered, even though it is the brain that is not developing properly? I see no attempt to address this.

Seriously? The soul sleeps at night because the brain is asleep? There is just SO much that is wrong with that single sentence alone. I mean, don't you dream when you're asleep? And yes, our "soul is something different from the brain"!

Seriously. I sleep. Need I say more?

Yes, of course, one can dream while asleep, and one can have various stages of consciousness, especially when fading in and out of sleep. But clearly the conscious mind is not in the same state during sleep as it while awake. How can you explain that? If you are counting sheep when going to sleep, you will always stop counting when you go to sleep. Why is that? If the mind/soul/whatever-you-call-it is the conscious part of you, why doesn't it continue to be the conscious part in a fully alert state, continuing to count while the brain sleeps?

 

[Astrid]

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

Guess I'm a animal. I don't have that belief either.

Or maybe your notions of human psychology are lacking.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some scribe pretending he was Moses?

Nope.

 

[AV1611VET]

Guess I'm a animal. I don't have that belief either.

So long as your belief is in evolution, you'll always think you're an animal.

Whether you ascribe meaning to your life or not.

Your parents will be animals in your eyes.

Your friends will be animals.

Your children, neighbors, ancestors, teachers, doctors, and even those proficient cyclists.

Animals -- all animals.

How sad.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So long as your belief is in evolution, you'll always think you're an animal.

Whether you ascribe meaning to your life or not.

Your parents will be animals in your eyes.

Your friends will be animals.

Your children, neighbors, ancestors, teachers, doctors, and even those proficient cyclists.

Animals -- all animals.

How sad.

What is so sad about the fact that I identify as an animal? After all, here is the first definition I find for "animal":

a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli: Source

​

So, what exactly is your problem with this? Are you concerned that I identify as a living organism, that I feed on organic matter, that I have specialized sense organs and nervous system, or that I respond rapidly to stimuli?

Is it also sad that I identify as a mammal?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is so sad about the fact that I identify as an animal?

You open yourself up to species dysphoria.

Kids are starting to bark in school now, thanks to Darwin.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Back to OP: IF molecules think then it must be such a rudimentary form of thought that it cannot be recognized because we know that neurons are the basic building blocks of thought and consciousness as we commonly recognize it.

I hear calls for evidence that consciousness can be nonlocal or the property of some kind of soul independent of the body. On would have to have a personal experience of out of the body or non local consciousness. But even that would not do because as one comes back to the body there is plenty of opportunity to doubt.

I am not sure why materialists are so cocky about their view that consciousness evolves out of inconscient matter. As of complexity alone is sufficient even as the natural order we observe in nature is one of entropy and decay rater than the exquisite order required for life. But then we do also see life from life in nature. I marvel even at my little garden and love to watch things grow. But how doe sit happen to begin with.

I am not one of the smart people so it seem to me that life and consciousness are, to some small degree at least, preexistent in matter which, after all, is really only the appearance of particular materiality. It is all much more mysterious and vibrant than it first appears.

An since this is a Christian Forum I don't think it inappropriate to to put this all in the context of Christian revelation. Grant it, there are many different interpretations of that revelation. But fundamentally we start with an original life and consciousness expressing through this thing we call matter. Which, by the way, is only a mental construct in our brains built from our 5 senses. The reality those senses present to us in such a limited way remains for us to explore.

If anyone is really interested in the consciousness questions meditation is a prerequisite. It alone is the instrument of exploration.

 

[Astrid]

What is so sad about the fact that I identify as an animal? After all, here is the first definition I find for "animal":

a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli: Source

​

So, what exactly is your problem with this? Are you concerned that I identify as a living organism, that I feed on organic matter, that I have specialized sense organs and nervous system, or that I respond rapidly to stimuli?

Is it also sad that I identify as a mammal?

Dictionaries are only used when they agree with
ideology.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Back to OP: IF molecules think then it must be such a rudimentary form of thought that it cannot be recognized because we know that neurons are the basic building blocks of thought and consciousness as we commonly recognize it.

I hear calls for evidence that consciousness can be nonlocal or the property of some kind of soul independent of the body. On would have to have a personal experience of out of the body or non local consciousness. But even that would not do because as one comes back to the body there is plenty of opportunity to doubt.

I am not sure why materialists are so cocky about their view that consciousness evolves out of inconscient matter. As of complexity alone is sufficient even as the natural order we observe in nature is one of entropy and decay rater than the exquisite order required for life. But then we do also see life from life in nature. I marvel even at my little garden and love to watch things grow. But how doe sit happen to begin with.

I am not one of the smart people so it seem to me that life and consciousness are, to some small degree at least, preexistent in matter which, after all, is really only the appearance of particular materiality. It is all much more mysterious and vibrant than it first appears.

An since this is a Christian Forum I don't think it inappropriate to to put this all in the context of Christian revelation. Grant it, there are many different interpretations of that revelation. But fundamentally we start with an original life and consciousness expressing through this thing we call matter. Which, by the way, is only a mental construct in our brains built from our 5 senses. The reality those senses present to us in such a limited way remains for us to explore.

If anyone is really interested in the consciousness questions meditation is a prerequisite. It alone is the instrument of exploration.

The first question is: What thinks? I contend that there is overwhelming evidence that it is the brain that thinks. I list multiple reasons for believing this at Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free . Do you agree that there is convincing evidence that it is the brain that thinks? If not, where did my analysis go wrong?

The second question is: How can that brain be conscious of itself? I explain the rudimentary principles of that at How Can Molecules Think? - The Mind Set Free . Do you agree that something like this can make neurons develop a self-concept that it feeds back to the rest of the brain? If not, why not?

The third question is: What makes my decisions? Again, back to Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free , I show the evidence that shows that it is the brain that decides. In fact, the brain decides before our self-concept is aware it decides. Consciousness comes along after the fact. Do you agree?

The fourth question is: Why does that consciousness feel so real? That I cannot answer. I can tell you that what is going on feels different from what I can imagine a mechanical computer would feel if it was doing every computation that my neurons were doing. Why this is so, I don't know. I admit this is hard to explain.

But I find it certain that it is the brain that thinks. And if it is the brain that thinks, then I find no reason to believe the brain thinks about everything but the self-concept. And the evidence indicates the brain decides. So, if it is the brain that thinks, and the brain that provides self-awareness, and the brain that decides, then I doubt that any non-material processes are involved.

How do you answer those 4 questions?

 

[AV1611VET]

Dictionaries are only used when they agree with
ideology.

Until an organization with an ideological agenda determines they don't like one of its definitions, then they rig a vote and get it changed.

The dictionary is only a tool to promote academia's agendas, and can easily be used to dupe the common people.