No, I don't forget that. What makes you think I forget that? Please be specific, citing things I have posted - not your assumptions about things I have posted.

This has nothing to do with anything I have posted, and everything to do with your assumptions about the things I have posted.


Again, this is directed entirely towards an imaginary position you have created in your own mind, which I have never stated. Please remember to read more carefully, and, when in doubt, just stick to taking things at face value, exactly as stated, without launching into a series of assumptions, and then coming back to me as if I have stated points which I, in fact, have never stated.

.
.
.

I don't have anything else to add to my original, basic, easy to understand point. Everything in the universe, including ourselves, must obey the laws of physics. There are no special exceptions. That is the entirity of my point - nothing more, nothing less.

Any conclusions or extrapolations based upon your understanding of this basic point are not my responsibility.

.
.
.

And, please feel free to keep up with the silly personal attacks, if that floats your boat. It doesn't bother me, but if it gives you a thrill, go for it.

Biology and medicine are frameworks that abstract the physics enough to be useful for certain fields of study, but they are physics in the end.

Sure, the matter that we're made of reacts to the laws of physics. So what? That doesn't make us "essentially automatons".
It's a hell of a leap from the body obeying the laws of physics to thought/emotion is "just neuro-chemical phantoms generated by ordinary chemical reactions."

It's rediculous to say, Saying anything we don't understand, or have yet to discover, doesn't exist is stupid.
That would make all research a waste of time and money and that has been proven to be false.... repeatedly.

I not ROBOT. :lol:

Huh? The research is to discover what the physical processes are!

"It is a consensus fast approaching unanimity in scientific circles that "we" (our selves) are no more than the consequences of our brains at work. In the modern view, we are mere epiphenomena or, more charitably perhaps, culminations, of the greatest concentration of orchestrated molecular activity in the known cosmos. And although it is true we don't yet know exactly how the trick is done — these are still frontier days in the brain sciences — it is widely held to be only a matter of time before those who are teasing apart the circuitry of the human cortex lay bare the hidden props of the illusion. The situation is as brutally materialistic as that. There is not the slightest bit of credible evidence to suggest there is more to your self, to the feeling of being you, than a stunningly complex pattern of chemical and electrical activity among your neurons. No soul, no astral spirit, no ghost in the machine, no disembodied intelligence that can conveniently bail out when the brain finally crashes to its doom. If science is right, then you and I are just transitory mental states of our brains."
http://www.daviddarling.info/works/Z...ysics_ch2.html
Now, the above is merely an opinion, but it's a spiel that would take my simple mind an hour to articulate, so I cheated and linked. I agree with the evidence, but there's more to it than that. And I think it's what Flint is trying to put across.

As for personal responsiblity for actions- we're still at the caveman phase when it comes to identifying and preventing the causes of mental illness. Those who violently harm others must be contained, but as far as punishment goes, how far can you take it before you stop and realize that an individual doesn't know any more than what they've been exposed to? That the development of the brain in infancy and childhood may determine whether some people will be criminals or not?
Marichiko, it may be rare for social and mental disorders to be genetic, but if the disorder is a result of the individual's environment (specifically, parental factors), is there that much of a difference? On the one hand, they were fucked from birth; on the other, they were slowly, painstakingly fucked up over time. The real question is, can it be fixed? Here's an idea: http://www.daviddarling.info/works/Z...ysics_ch5.html
Keeping in mind, if someone's ability to interact healthily with society is dependent on early experiences, once we know they're fucked up, the reasonable choices are containment and cure- punishment may be fun, but it serves no purpose other than dissuading others, and when it comes to the mentally ill and many criminals, that doesn't go very far.

That's my rational side speaking. I'd just as soon shoot 'em. Decisions, decisions.

Flintrock
 

I tend to agree with flint. And why worry that we live in physical world without any meaning other than that which we "think" it has? Just because I'm a biological robot does not mean I don't experience feelings, appreciate beauty, and even try to make the world a better place to live. I'm not afraid of the void.

The above construction presupposes that such a "God" actually exists. Sure, reality is a "construction," but try saying that before jumping in front of a bus. I have more faith that the bus will run you over than I do that any god would save you; let alone exist in the first place (and don't take this to mean that I want you to be run over by a bus).

Oh? You're telling me there is a physical process to explain everything we don't understand? If they can't find one then it doesn't happen? I'd say research is to find out if there is a physical process to explain what we don't understand.

They've figured out the whole sperm, egg, cell divide thing.... how the body mechanically functions, converts fuel to energy, etc. Lots of hows, but a lot less whys.

There is a good chance many whys many never get past the theory stage, but I'm not buying rational thought is nothing more than random electro chemical reactions. That may be the how but not the why. :headshake

Well, there's either a physical process, or a magical one. That's the definition of supernatural - not bound by the laws of physics.

Yes, science doesn't answer why, but why doesn't answer how. In the scientific sense, whys don't even reach the theory stage, much less get past it. You can't experimentally test a why. They can only be theories in the colloquial sense, in other words guesses. You can't research a why in the scientific sense, you can only read the untestable guesses of other people.

But if the question is "what is consciousness", the why, even if known, doesn't answer the how (though it would probably, if known, point research in the right direction). And that how is, in the end, either physics or magic.

I honestly don't think those terms have ever been used in conjuction with that name. You mean the Road Less Travelled pop psychology guy, right?

"Made a lot of money" <> "respected"

Why-Fi
 

Maybe there is no why, at least in the metaphysical sense. "Why are we here?" "Why do we die?" "Why do accidents kill little kids?" I see this world (and we as a species) as having no real "reason" for being here other than to manifest our bilogical imperative to reproduce. As I've posted before, just because we can "imagine" a better world as in the Lennon song doesn't mean it will occur. We sure have a bad track record.

The sun is dying and will one day engulf the earth.

Please explain to me the speciation of Darwin's finches using only the laws of thermodynamics. Please explain to me the dynamics of grassland ecology in the areas of central and northern Arizona using only quantum mechanics. Please explain to me the work of Louis Pasteur using only the Grand Unified Theory. If you can do these things to my satisfaction and that of every other biologist and ecologist, I may concede your point.

Oh, yeah. Please explain the placebo effect using the law of vectors.

Thank you.

From Wikipedia: He (M. Scott Peck) graduated from Friends Seminary in 1954, after which he received a B.A. from Harvard in 1958 and an M.D. degree from Case Western Reserve University in 1963. He served in administrative posts in the government during his career as a psychiatrist. He was the Medical Director of the New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Milford, Connecticut. His first and best-known book, The Road Less Traveled, has sold more than seven million copies.

Now, Wolf, I'm sure your academic credentials in the field of psychiatry put Dr. Peck to shame. It is especially outrageous of the man that he wrote a popular book on psychology that gave understanding of the field to millions of lay-people. TSK, TSK, Tsk! I suggest you read People of the Lie, if you can stomach reading the ideas of this charlatan.

Speciation is a result of sexual reproduction, which is a method for the duplication of DNA, which is very complicated chemistry which is the physics of atoms and molecules.

Grassland ecology is the interaction of the fluid dynamics of atmosphere and groundwater, bedrock, and the various forms of life in the area. Fluid dynamics is physics, geology is largely fluid dynamics and chemistry. And each individual form of life follows the biology to chemistry to physics path.

But what are you trying to get me to admit? That explaining ecology at the quantum level is overkill? That it's not useful? That nobody does it? If you look at my quote, you'll see that I already said it:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Biology and medicine are frameworks that abstract the physics enough to be useful for certain fields of study, but they are physics in the end.

OK, I follow you, except some times the how solves why. Solving how water runs down hill also solves the why, for example.

For "what is consciousness", the brain appears to work on an electro-chemical thing that they haven't completely mapped out yet, but even when they do, I doubt it will explain why two different brains will give different thoughts with the same through-put.
I think we're talking about the same thing but you call it how and I call it why.
I might understand the brain better if I had one. :smack:

Maybe. I intended "how" to imply mechanism and "why" to imply an underlying reason for the "how". I'm not sure how to read post 52 otherwise.
I've got a pretty good proposition for a possible answer to that question: No two brains are identical. Chaos theory would predict that in a system as complicated as a brain, the smallest of differences in structure could cause massively different outputs, and differences in brain structure arent that small, as brains wire themselves partially based on stimulus during development.