|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does science ask and answer "why" questions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: No, the neurons do not cause love, honor, faith, beauty, God ... Panda writes: But since we can stimulate those sensations by altering the brain chemistry - clearly they do. Indeed. Furthermore - Try experiencing those things without a physical brain or any neurons!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: But I am a dualist. Obviously. Which is why your position suffers from all the problems with dualism. If something is causeless then it is just random isn't it? Do you think your preferences just occur randomly? Or are you suggesting that your preferences and ideals are uncaused but somehow non-random? How exactly do you see this dualism of yours occurring and why is there the demonstrable link between the physical and the things that you claim are non-physical? (e.g. firing neurons and feelings of love) This seems to be the key to understanding your approach to 'why' questions that you think are best answered by religion rather than science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: but the ideal, love, beauty, honor exists even if there is no one to experience it. Well that is debatable. But your preference for a blue sky (which is what we were talking about) requires your brain to physically exist doesn't it?
jar writes: And the cause is of course irrelevant to the preference. The physical cause of your preferences is very relevant to them. If we were to selectively lobotomise you or ply you with various mind altering drugs your preferences would doubtless be significantly effected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you accept that changes to your physical brain (e.g. selective lobotomisation or mind altering drugs) will change the preferences that you hold?
Or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: but the ideal, love, beauty, honor exists even if there is no one to experience it. jar writes: The ideals seem to be causeless but not random. Beauty (for example) is in the eye of the beholder is it not? How can there be an "ideal" beauty when what you think is beautiful I may well not? It seems inarguable that what one considers beautiful is the brain's reaction to physical stimuli of one sort or another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: But your preference for a blue sky (which is what we were talking about) requires your brain to physically exist doesn't it? jar writes: And as I said, I am not at all sure and in fact believe that such things do not require my brain to exist. Straggler writes: Do you accept that changes to your physical brain (e.g. selective lobotomisation or mind altering drugs) will change the preferences that you hold? jar writes: Sure. But I also find that totally irrelevant and unimportant to the issue. Well I am baffled as to how one can reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains. How do you reconcile this? Edited by Straggler, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
From the OP:
quote: CS writes: It does answer some why questions, just not the ones referred to in statement 3. Which ones are they? How do we identify them?
CS writes: There are other proper uses of that word, just not in the context of statement 3. The "context of statement 3" being.......? What exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I see you have been cheering jar in this thread and I wondered if you too are a dualist?
It would explain a lot.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Well I am baffled as to how one can reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains. How do you reconcile this? jar writes: A counterfeit, no matter how closely it copies the real thing, is still a counterfeit. Firstly - How does that answer the above question? How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains. Secondly - Is that true? If two things are literally physically identical (down to the quark or whatever) how do you tell which is the "real" one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Perdition writes: Then, if you mess with the brain, you mess with the filter, making things seem to be different, when the source, the "soul" is still unchanged. So if you suffer some brain damage that changes your personality radically you think there is a non-physical "real you" with your original personality floating around somewhere? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I did not say there was an ideal beauty but rather there was the ideal beauty. I'm afraid I have no idea what this means. Can you clarify? Maybe give an example of what you mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Perdition writes: Do Dualists think so? From what I've heard from them, yes they do. Is there any reason whatsoever to think this even might be true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Given that I am not alone in finding your answers evasive and vague I am unconvinced that you really know what you mean yourself.
Your thinking seems confused to say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Firstly - How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains.
Secondly - Why does it matter which one is original?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Perdition writes: Viscerally, it feels like my mind isn't physical. True. Some sense of dualism is the intuitive conclusion. But it seems to fly in the face of the evidence now available to us.
Perdition writes: And for many, the thought of your consciousness existing eternally is very comforting... Indeed. But this idea of an ethereal "real you" just doesn't make any sense. I mean our behaviour and personalities are demonstrably shaped by variable things like hormone levels. Is the "real me" the way I would be if I were hormoneless? Is the "real" me as I am with average levels of things like seratonin and testosterone? I don't know what a non-physical "real me" would possibly be like. I'm not even sure it could recognisably be "me" at all. The whole idea just hasn't been thought through.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024