Summations Only

Where did you demonstrate this? Why can't these be physical things? For example, why can't a preference be a specific physical network of neurons in a specific chemical state? Why is it that chemicals can alter our preferences? Have you ever had the munchies?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sure it can be done but does it have the same meaning as the object itself?

---

What it means is a subjective interpretation that can once again be defined by a set of neural pathways in a specific chemical state.

Yes, they are. All of those are human emotions defined by the firing of neurons.

Sure it does. Those emotions are the product of the very physical neurons in your brain. It is no different than asking why iron is hard, or water is wet, just more complex.

Yes, we feel them because they are real, physical things. Philosophy and theology invent the why's.Why are paintings and sunsets pleasing to you? Because that is how your physical brain reacts to the stimuli. That is it.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

If we were also able to measure the activity of each the painter's neurons and understand how those neurons interact to produce a specific emotion we could answer questions as to the meaning of the painting, why the painter did this or that, etc. IMHO, the "mystery of the soul" is just a synonym for our ignorance of the brain works. I don't know who said it, and I am probably not quoting it exactly, but I remember watching a show on the brain and one of the experts said, "The good news is that we found the soul . . . the bad news is that it is just a bunch of robots".

That sounds right. Two cookies for Modulous.ABE: Dennett's reaction to hearing the "tiny robots" description of his ideas is also quite good:"It’s this expandable capacity to represent reasons that we have that gives us a soul. But what’s it made of? It’s made of neurons. It’s made of lots of tiny robots. And we can actually explain the structure and operation of that kind of soul, whereas an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul is just a metaphysical rug under which you sweep your embarrassment for not having any explanation.
Daniel C. DennettPage not foundEdited by Taq, : No reason given.

Your first task would be to demonstrate that ideals are actually real.

Am I missing the sarcasm here?Of course it is not sufficient. Belief is never sufficient as an indicator of what is real or not. This gets back to my earlier contention that philosophy and theology invent entities and purposes. This is why science can not approach these "why" questions, because no one can demonstrate that they are real. Science does not attempt to explain fantasies, and for good reason.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. That is the rub for this topic. Science can ask the why questions, but only the why's for things that are real. Does science need to ask why leprechauns are green? No, because no one can show that leprechauns are real. This is not a matter of science being incapable of answering these why questions. It is a matter of the why questions being based on things that are not a part of reality. While I appreciate the sentiment, your pity is not needed.

Then knowing the processes and mechanics of how precipitation forms and falls to the Earth does not explain the question of why it rains.Then knowing the processes and mechanics of how oxygen and hydrogen combine to produce water does not explain the question of why water molecules exist.I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift.

So is brain activity. You want to selectively exclude brain activity from other natural and physical processes for no other reason than it pleasing your beliefs. Why can't it?

Argument from ignorance. Sure you do. You claim that there is more going on than just the phsycial interactions because . . . well, you just believe it so it is true.So I will also say that there is more going on in weather than just the physical and mechanical interactions because I say so, therefore science can not explain why it rains.

My contention is that Theology and Philosophy invent purpose and ideals. They are not real. No evidence has been put forward that they are real. It is one of the strengths of science that it is able to ignore things that are not real.

It's not an opinion. It is a fact that you can not support the existence of these ideals, souls, etc. with evidence. They are irrelevant to reality. If you want to discuss why you have certain fantasies we could perhaps start a new discussion about that if you wish.