How Can Molecules Think?

[doubtingmerle]

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

Perhaps they were sleeping on the day the teacher taught that the superorder leading to primates (Euarchontoglires) diverged from the superorder leading to dogs (Laurasiatheria). See Boreoeutheria - Wikipedia .

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps they were sleeping on the day the teacher taught that the superorder leading to primates (Euarchontoglires) diverged from the superorder leading to dogs (Laurasiatheria). See Boreoeutheria - Wikipedia .

Or perhaps they weren't sleeping, but are being smitten by species dysphoria?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

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?

I agree but believe there is more. There is a dimension to our being that transcends thinking, a deeper self that witnesses the workings of the brain and is independent of the brain. It is that deeper self that gave the brain its power.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree but believe there is more. There is a dimension to our being that transcends thinking, a deeper self that witnesses the workings of the brain and is independent of the brain. It is that deeper self that gave the brain its power.

Perhaps you have that impression, but many of us don't (from personal experience). There is not any rigorous evidence of any such thing.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Perhaps you have that impression, but many of us don't (from personal experience). There is not any rigorous evidence of any such thing.

I am not ashamed to have faith.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am not ashamed to have faith.

I said nothing about faith. Your prior comment was about the sense that their is something deeper than the brain in thinking. I'm not sure how you could have such a sense and my failure to perceive what ever it is you think your perceived did not change when my faith ended.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I said nothing about faith. Your prior comment was about the sense that their is something deeper than the brain in thinking. I'm not sure how you could have such a sense and my failure to perceive what ever it is you think your perceived did not change when my faith ended.

I cannot speak to your lack of faith. I only realize that my intellect and the evidence it processes can only take me so far. But not far enough for me. So my faith is required to satisfy my longings. So it is a faith that supplements intellectual achievements. In my world view faith should not contradict reason but it certainly can exceed it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I cannot speak to your lack of faith. I only realize that my intellect and the evidence it processes can only take me so far. But not far enough for me. So my faith is required to satisfy my longings. So it is a faith that supplements intellectual achievements. In my world view faith should not contradict reason but it certainly can exceed it.

Fine, but what does this have to do with molecules (or matter) thinking?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Fine, but what does this have to do with molecules (or matter) thinking?

In my other posts I have acknowledged that "thinking" is brain dependent. In fact I recommended a book dealing with neuroscience. I appreciate the contributions of science and hope to see more. But I don't stop there. I let myself imagine a wider universe and wider concept of self that is much more subtle than particular matter. One that perhaps includes non-local aspects of consciousness. Label it speculative, theological or wu, whatever you wish.

 

[Astrid]

I agree but believe there is more. There is a dimension to our being that transcends thinking, a deeper self that witnesses the workings of the brain and is independent of the brain. It is that deeper self that gave the brain its power.

I'm not into opinion stated as fact

 

[Astrid]

In my other posts I have acknowledged that "thinking" is brain dependent. In fact I recommended a book dealing with neuroscience. I appreciate the contributions of science and hope to see more. But I don't stop there. I let myself imagine a wider universe and wider concept of self that is much more subtle than particular matter. One that perhaps includes non-local aspects of consciousness. Label it speculative, theological or wu, whatever you wish.

Maybe it's good to master the physical
stuff before trying to get into vastly more
subtle stuff.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Maybe it's good to master the physical
stuff before trying to get into vastly more
subtle stuff.

When you've done that mastering, let us know.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm not into opinion stated as fact

I began with "I" "believe". I guess I need to state that with every sentence now?

 

[Yaaten]

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



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.

I don't "want" you to believe anything. What you may happen to believe or disbelieve won't affect me personally, but your raising of my point that animals are guided by instinct and don't have beliefs like we do (and the example I gave was that "Life is meaningless"), and your apparent claim here that this somehow contradicts something else I said, just isn't true.
Animals can develop habits and expectations, but should we call these "beliefs"? I don't think so, not unless you want to redefine the term.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Animals can develop habits and expectations, but should we call these "beliefs"? I don't think so, not unless you want to redefine the term.

Humans are animals. So how do you want to define "beliefs" now?

 

[partinobodycular]

Animals can develop habits and expectations, but should we call these "beliefs"? I don't think so, not unless you want to redefine the term.

But how do you know that animals can't have "beliefs" just like you do? I would assume that it's because all the available evidence says that they can't. Fair enough. But the available evidence also says that the brain is the source of the mind. No "soul" required. So why do you accept the evidence in one case, but not in the other?

P.S Are you really certain that animals can't have beliefs?

 

[Yaaten]

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

Okay. Noted.

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

If it's not relevant to the topic of the thread, then why did you bring it up? Nevermind.

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

I was just joking when I said that it might rain in order to ruin a wedding.

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

You've lost me. Now what are you going on about? In most parts of the civilised world we don't need to worry about predators, so... ?

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

Yes, I know that. I guess this is some kind of criticism of astrology, which I never said I believed in (and I don't).

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

The ancient belief that the natural world was dominated by spirits, elves, demons, ghosts, gods and whatnot. Yes, we actually agree on this that that's not the case. However, I think we've become a little sidetracked here, gone off-topic.

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.

Oh boy. The sheer, unadulterated hubris on display here. First off, what exactly IS "pseudoscience"? I have a general understanding of the term due to my exposure to it in other discussions, and I know that astrology and most 'New Age' beliefs are considered to be pseudoscience, but how would you define it? The beliefs of Rupert Sheldrake - are they pseudoscience as well? "Pseudoscience" is a pejorative term that is used by atheists to disparage, and thus avoid having to deal with, claims that they personally don't like for emotional reasons.
"If only I can get you to start seeing things scientifically..."
Well, guess what? I actually know a hell of a lot about the scientific method, the subject of physics which I have studied (and for which I received great grades), the concept of falisifiability and why it's important, the fact that 'Ockham's Razor' isn't a law of nature but a general philosophical principle, a guide, and so much more. I'm not an idiot, I'm not some superstitious dolt who sees spirits under every desk in the office, or who believes in a "god-of-the-gaps". I have reasons for believing what I do, even if those reasons probably wouldn't satisfy you.
In any case, why would you want to "get" me to seeing things your way? Why can't we just agree to disagree?
If only I could get you to start seeing things philosophically...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh boy. The sheer, unadulterated hubris on display here.

You asked why I was here and I told you why I come to CF. I don't come here for the "religion". Religion bores me. (You also threw in a lot nihilism I have no interest in.)

First off, what exactly IS "pseudoscience"?

Something that has the appearance (or claims to be) science, but isn't.

I have a general understanding of the term due to my exposure to it in other discussions, and I know that astrology and most 'New Age' beliefs are considered to be pseudoscience, but how would you define it?

I already did, but yes those things are pseudoscience. (Maybe not so much of the New Age stuff that presents as a spiritual belief.)

The beliefs of Rupert Sheldrake - are they pseudoscience as well?

Sheldrake? Absolutely.

"Pseudoscience" is a pejorative term that is used by atheists to disparage, and thus avoid having to deal with, claims that they personally don't like for emotional reasons.

Then don't think of me as an atheist. My disdain for pseudoscience has nothing to do with the end of my former christian beliefs. Think of my as a scientist instead.

"If only I can get you to start seeing things scientifically..."
Well, guess what? I actually know a hell of a lot about the scientific method, the subject of physics which I have studied (and for which I received great grades), the concept of falisifiability and why it's important, the fact that 'Ockham's Razor' isn't a law of nature but a general philosophical principle, a guide, and so much more.

I didn't invoke "The Razor". You haven't been considering this subject scientifically (at least as how you present it.) Falsifiability is overhyped by non-practitioners. I've taught physics to university students.

I'm not an idiot,

Did I say you were?

I'm not some superstitious dolt who sees spirits under every desk in the office, or who believes in a "god-of-the-gaps".

I only care about what you express in these threads, not what sounds spook you.

I have reasons for believing what I do, even if those reasons probably wouldn't satisfy you.

Sounds like "reasons" aren't necessarily evidence.

In any case, why would you want to "get" me to seeing things your way?

I want everyone to use scientific principles to understand scientific topics.

Why can't we just agree to disagree?

I've come to view that line as a cop out. Nothing personal.

If only I could get you to start seeing things philosophically...

If we were discussing a philosophic topic I would agree, but the issue here is science.

 

[Yaaten]

Humans are animals. So how do you want to define "beliefs" now?

Humans are superior to animals.

A belief is a strongly-held intellectual position that is embraced by someone who didn't necessarily consider all (or most) of the facts before adopting it. The reasons for having a belief may be good or bad, sensible or silly, but it's rarely the case that they'll consider abandoning it. Beliefs are supposed to accurately reflect some aspect of reality, but quite often they don't. In order to have a belief in the first place requires a certain amount of intelligence and self-awareness.
Do animals have any of the above? No. Since that is clearly the case, they cannot be said to hold beliefs. They have instincts, and have the potential to learn, but that's about it for even the cleverest of them.

 

[partinobodycular]

In order to have a belief in the first place requires a certain amount of intelligence and self-awareness.

Exactly what amount of intelligence does a belief require? For example, can my dog believe that if he whines at the back door I'll eventually let him out to do his thing.

So I'm curious, what constitutes a belief, and what lack of intelligence prevents animals from engaging in it?