Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWhat a load of tosh. Humans ARE just horrendiously complex chemical reaction. Believe noone that tells you otherwise.
If people were nothing more than physical substances I would agree. You can’t mix chemicals in a laboratory and produce an emotion.
This is where science and evolution break down. Random and impersonal chemical reactions cannot explain consciousness.
Originally posted by HalitoseProvided that you can definitively prove otherwise.
Really? Care to conclusively prove this?
Many biochemical pathways are already known. You should be glad, it might save your life some day. I could show you a map of chemical reactions occurring in cells all the time. All biochem follows rules. Thermodynamics for example. try it.
Originally posted by scottishinnzProvided that you can definitively prove otherwise.
Provided that you can definitively prove otherwise.
Many biochemical pathways are already known. You should be glad, it might save your life some day. I could show you a map of chemical reactions occurring in cells all the time. All biochem follows rules. Thermodynamics for example. try it.
You're not going to shift the burden of proof that easily. You made the universal claim that we are definititely only chemicals; you need to prove your claim - nothing simpler.
Originally posted by NemesioNo. Although I doubt whether it is solely chemicals. As you noted earlier, what chemical defines our consciousness?
Well, what do you mean?
Do you dispute that every aspect of our physicality is chemically driven
(that is our physical movements, our thoughts, and our emotions)?
Nemesio
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat do you mean by 'love?' The term 'love' is rather vague, because it
What is the chemical that drives love? Hate?
usually entails a number of other feelings like compassion, or sympathy,
or eroticism, or passion, or contentedness.
We can say this: whatever chemicals drive love, it is processed by the
brain. That is, a damaged brain can result in the inability to love.
That should give a certain degree of credence to the notion that love is
chemically driven, rather than something else.
Consider Asperger's Autism as an example. People who have this
condition are fully functional in society, but they cannot read emotions
well, or sometimes at all. Often, they only show the most rudiementary
of emotions -- happy, sad, angry, fearful -- in their own lives, and even
then infrequently. Studies on their brains show certain areas are not
lit up that are lit up on 'normal' people.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYou can influence emotions with chemicals. Just shoot a subject up with adrenaline or dopamine and you'll see.
Just a second.
You can influence emotions with chemicals.
Just shoot a subject up with adrenaline or dopamine and you'll see.
Emotions are simply neurotransmitters (chemicals) being perceived
by the body.
Nemesio
edit: hold on...emotions or consciousness? What's the topic?[/b]
Yes, but this means nothing. Our consciousness is housed in our bodies, so what affects our bodies affects our consciousness. This doesn’t explain where consciousness comes form.
Example: A car runs on gasoline right? If you step on the gas the car runs faster. This does not mean that gasoline is the car.
Emotions are simply neurotransmitters (chemicals) being perceived
by the body.
If this were so, the scientists would be able to produce consciousness in the laboratory.
edit: hold on...emotions or consciousness? What's the topic?
Good question. They’re pretty interconnected.
Originally posted by scottishinnzMany biochemical pathways are already known.
Provided that you can definitively prove otherwise.
Many biochemical pathways are already known. You should be glad, it might save your life some day. I could show you a map of chemical reactions occurring in cells all the time. All biochem follows rules. Thermodynamics for example. try it.
So today, many = all. By knowing many biochemical pathways, this conclusively proves that that is all there is to man?
All biochem follows rules.
Yes. I have a rudimentary knowledge of biochemistry.
So do you define moral decision-making on purely biochemistry? So murder (or any other immoral action to the best of your definition) can be perfectly justifiable. The murderer had too many Twinkies or caffeine or too much exposure to the sun? Fascinating. I'm sure there are many lawyers who would love to hear about this - erm...No1?
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt takes a lot of arrogance to say this. The best and brightest scientists know less than 1% of what there is to know about the human body. Are you God?
What a load of tosh. Humans ARE just horrendiously complex chemical reaction. Believe noone that tells you otherwise.