What's in it for house flies?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Zzzzz...

Do try and update your assault arsenal. This one is a bit too ragged around the edges.

Now there's your paranoia showing again.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Now there's your paranoia showing again.

That's not paranoia, it's boredom. I'm sure a wood-expert such as yourself can come up with better than this.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's not paranoia, it's boredom. I'm sure a wood-expert such as yourself can come up with better than this.

If you think I'm boring, you should try arguing with someone who thinks that their opinions are facts.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The measurable detections emitted within the body in concert with any given stimuli (interior or exterior) are nothing more than signals of our reactions to the same. We must be conscious of the stimuli in order for a reaction to register--- you couldn't show a picture of the various nebula from deep space to someone while they slept and expect to see any you are using the term. It is being.

Flies have no soul because they weren't given one.

The measurable detections emitted within the body in concert with any given stimuli (interior or exterior) are nothing more than signals of our reactions to the same. We must be conscious of the stimuli in order for a reaction to register--- you couldn't show a picture of the various nebula from deep space to someone while they slept and expect to see any reaction, for instance. However, if they were dreaming of the same, we could see some reaction coinciding with their dream.
I don't disagree with you here but I fail to see the part where I can no longer attribute these processes to wholly mechanical processes. For example (my main point is at the bottom of the thread if you want to ignore what's coming next):

Suppose I open my eyes and find my line of sight is in the direction of some picture of a nebula cloud; my brain receives inputs from the eyes (which has in turn processed the light directed from the picture), it works with this data subject to physical laws governing it's workings, and constructs a visual 'picture' (constantly updated as the data my eyes recieve change) that allows me to 'see' it. In response to ths now internal input a series of thought processes take place so as to identify it's patterns and relate these to memories past such that I am able to identify it as a picture of a nebula cloud; this too is now another input which will induce further chains of thought. [i](Perhaps on the fringe of my peripheral vision there is another object and a chain of thought processes occur such to evaluate whether I give my attention towards this current picture priority over that other object). Meanwhile, perhaps I recall another occasion when I saw a similar picture and on that other occasion an event occured that made me feel happy (perhaps that feeling of happiness could be traced back recursively to some series of external inputs which directly caused an emotional reaction, motivating a desire to experience the same things again); and that association with a previous memory of being happy makes this an experience which is advantageous to maintain; and the manifestation of this is another feeling of happiness; this may then induce a further chain of thoughts (along with others unrelated to the picture) that compel me to reevaluate the time I should spend looking at this picture...and so on and so on...[/i]The likes of Steven Pinker or Daniel Dennet, et al... have a much greater insight on these matters than me.

Now what of the fly? It will most surely respond differently to this picture once it's brain has updated it's own visual system allowing the fly to 'see' it. Perhaps this picture represents an obstacle in the way of proceeding further on it's current trajectory; a chain of 'thoughts' as response compel it to move in a different direction; and while it maintains it's new heading it receives constant updates as to whether that 'wall' will be in it's way if it resumes it's original course...and so on and so on...


The point I'm trying to make is that none of these events need to be explained in a supernatural framework; in that my continuous trains of thought are just a series of inputs and stimuli processed by my brain. To this end I still remain to be convinced that this 'soul' that we supposedly possess is anything other than an extraneous nomenclature for that which can be described physically.

This of course doesn't negate the idea of an afterlife (and it is not my purpose here to do so) but my original question still stands, until a clear distinction can be made between us and 'lower' lifeforms on the matter of 'spiritual' existence or 'souls'.

Originally posted by Agerg
The measurable detections emitted within the body in concert with any given stimuli (interior or exterior) are nothing more than signals of our reactions to the same. We must be conscious of the stimuli in order for a reaction to register--- you couldn't show a picture of the various nebula from deep space to someone while they slept and expect to see any wer' lifeforms on the matter of 'spiritual' existence or 'souls'.

I think you probably have the best marijuana known to man, but I'm not sure what it has to do with your point, nor do I have the remotest idea of what you are saying now.

A little help?

Originally posted by Agerg
The measurable detections emitted within the body in concert with any given stimuli (interior or exterior) are nothing more than signals of our reactions to the same. We must be conscious of the stimuli in order for a reaction to register...and so on and so on...[/i]


The point I'm trying to make is that none of these events need to be explained in a s de between us and 'lower' lifeforms on the matter of 'spiritual' existence or 'souls'.

Interesting this. What language is best used to describe what you are trying to say?

Attempts to describe behaviour - even of simple organisms - in terms of stimulus and response just do not work. It is certainly the case that an organism, in order to respond to any external event, requires a detector. For example, many organisms developed a light detector. But the level of behaviour that can be accounted for as a specific response to a specific stimulus is very restricted. When a miniscule creature sets about seeking food, or seeking safety, quite a lot of organisation is displayed and there does not seem to be a need for many neurons to carry that structured behaviour.

A cockroach has more computing power than any laptop and is vastly smarter than anything we can build presently. But even for the laptop, where we know that everything hangs on digitally stored information in the form 0 or 1, which in turn corresponds to being on or off, we just do not discuss its operations (behaviour) in terms of 0 and 1, we use complex programming languages for the operating system, we use the language of mathematics for the spreadsheet, etc. We know that it all maps back to 0 and 1 but we do not make progress by talking and describing it at that level.

When we get to perception in humans and discuss what they perceive, the major feature to take into account is that "seeing" is not passive. We do not see what is out there because it is there. We learn to see and perception is probably far more determined by what we are looking for, attending to or expecting than by what is actually there. Even for something as fundamental as physical pain, people will show that they feel pain differently in different contexts for the same physical stimulus. A soldier in the field will report and display no pain concerning their wound, then react strongly to an injection. A car crash victim will scream at very similar injuries, but not react to an identical injection. Phantom limb pain is clearly very real - but the limb is not there.

Humans react to their environment on many levels and in many ways, often all at once. Both thinking and consciousness can be accounted for by tracking the hierarchy of evolutionary development in these processes. A very good author on this topic is Damasio.

Originally posted by Agerg
They feed on excrement and decaying matter; they don't tend to live for much longer than a month; we humans (for whom their presence is a threat to our health) try to cut short this short lifetime with rolled up newspapers and fly spray. They have no appreciation for culture, arts, inquiry, material (or 'spiritual'😉 pleasures, to this end they have horrible ey ...[text shortened]... eneral we get a much fairer bite of the cherry so to speak than other unfortunate life forms)

we want more

Originally posted by finnegan
Interesting this. What language is best used to describe what you are trying to say?

Attempts to describe behaviour - even of simple organisms - in terms of stimulus and response just do not work. It is certainly the case that an organism, in order to respond to any external event, requires a detector. For example, many organisms developed a light detec y of evolutionary development in these processes. A very good author on this topic is Damasio.

Thanks for this response; it is certainly more edifying than those which have come prior (courtesy of one particularly 'esteemed' opposition). On many levels I agree with your critique of my model; it is indeed deficient in it's simplistic manner to reasonably explain the actual 'architecture' of thoughts and perception (in the same way that the Lagrangian approach to fluid mechanics doesn't often lend itself to useful analysis). I would state however that this was never really my intention.

At the most basic level there are two positions one can hold on the ontology of conciousness; the first being that we are entrely physical organisms whereby all of our actions can 'in theory' be described in terms of purely physical or mechanical processes (this includes thinking). The second is that some of our actions cannot be accounted for in a natural framework; and one must invoke the supernatural. I feel that the latter is deeply unsatisfactory and such modes of inquiry serve zero purpose if one wishes to have any serious conversation on the matter.
To this end my model serves to suggest, without trying to explain in detail the symphonies of mechanical interactions (in addition I acknowledge a failure to discuss the actual regions of the brain which influence thoughts more than others), that the mind can have a wholly physical basis.

To illustrate my point I'll make use of your analogy: Suppose a stranger to computers (or any form of technology) accidently presses a key on my computer; and the response is that my monitor displays "hello world". Perhaps he feels entitled to suggest that he has awoken some form of spirit hiding inside the monitor. Though the actual 'programming' involved in rendering that message on my screen could be explained in seconds, it is more useful, so as to fend off supernatural claims, to describe what is taking place at the circuitry level. True; this is a poor way of describing the construct of the program but it is sufficient to dispel false ideas about 'magic'. That was really my only intention in the last post.

I am of course aware that the engineering of our brains, for the most part (neglecting here the unique constuction of a specific brain that exists) owes itself to the process of evolution, and there are surely a range of factors I've failed to incorporate into the previous model in light of this. I would like to finish up however on your latter point about human perception and phantom pain. When I talk about internal inputs I refer more to a snaphot of the brain's current mechanical configuration (ie: which neurons are presenty firing etc...). One might guess that in trying to reach a desired output (or response to some other input) the course mapped by the brain isn't necessary a direct one but more an effort to converge upon it. This may itself induce other unintentional outputs (serving then as inputs); and so even with identical external stimuli, two different people may well have wildly conflicting experiences.


I'm going to cut this one short here (apologising for any of your points I may not have attended to properly) because I am by no means an expert and don't want to be accused of pontificating about things that are way above my station. I accept my approach here is naive if it wants to conduct any serious analysis on the subject but let's just say it is a subject that interests me as a layperson and if I can find the time during or after my upcoming exams I'd be more than happy to look for some works by the author you suggested.

Originally posted by Agerg
Not actually trying to argue specifically against an afterlife...Trying to argue against the notion we have an afterlife and lower creatures don't.
Why? Because the topic interests me.

Furthermore; I see no reason that we could not be considered entirely mechanical also. Yes someone might jump in with their nebulous idea of a soul and say we all possess o ...[text shortened]... e due to soul processes. (Such that the latter can not be described in terms of the former))

Well, I see no reason for animals not to have an afterlife other than prejudice against animals. Especially the faithful flies that defended the honour of St. Narcissus ...

"It was in the year 1285. Girona was pressed and got caught in the Aragonese Crusade. Peter the Great was fighting for preserving his throne, threatened by the French army led by Philip the Bold with the Pope's sanction to obtain succession to the Crown of Aragon.

Girona was taken, and the French soldiers marched in boldly and headed for the collegiate of Saint Felix, in which lied the uncorrupted body of the city's patron saint, St. Narcissus. To celebrate their victory the soldiers desecrated the body of the holy man.

Suddenly, from nowhere a huge crowd of flies appeared and started to attack the blasphemers. According to the graphic description of Bernat Desclot, a monk from Ripoll who recorded this event in 1288, the flies entered the nostrils and the anuses of the horses, which drove them so crazy that they fainted and fell. The casualty was calculated up to 4,000 horses and 20,000 Frenchmen."

http://spain-travel.suite101.com/article.cfm/history-of-the-mosquitos-of-st-narcissus

Of the various attempts to account for the destiny of the soul, I've always enjoyed the idea of apokatastasis. As well as (I think) avoiding the contradictions -- as you've mentioned -- of the sort of simplistic 'Eden Gardens' afterlife you see in Watchtower magazine, it dispenses with hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocatastasis

Whether we are machines? Well, why not -- given a suitable definition of 'machine'.

I think you are an Epicurean ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, I see no reason for animals not to have an afterlife other than prejudice against animals. Especially the faithful flies that defended the honour of St. Narcissus ...

"It was in the year 1285. Girona was pressed and got caught in the Aragonese Crusade. Peter the Great was fighting for preserving his throne, threatened by the French army led b ...[text shortened]... not -- given a suitable definition of 'machine'.

I think you are an Epicurean ...

The people I see most of the time around me are very machine-like mostly. Thats adults-not kids.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, I see no reason for animals not to have an afterlife other than prejudice against animals. Especially the faithful flies that defended the honour of St. Narcissus ...

"It was in the year 1285. Girona was pressed and got caught in the Aragonese Crusade. Peter the Great was fighting for preserving his throne, threatened by the French army led b not -- given a suitable definition of 'machine'.

I think you are an Epicurean ...

Sucks to be one of those horses!

As for epicureanism and me...on a few levels it might fit, but on others is does not. If I was to lay my cards on the table I'd say my inclinations tend towards incompatibilist determinism.

True there may be those that ask the question about morality, but I think it is reconcilible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think you probably have the best marijuana known to man, but I'm not sure what it has to do with your point, nor do I have the remotest idea of what you are saying now.

A little help?

Agerg, like Thomas Jefferson and myself, is a materialist.

Originally posted by Agerg
incompatibilist determinism.

Are these -- compatible?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are these -- compatible?

I don't believe in "actual" freewill...only pseudo-freewill (ie: illusionary)...I see no way to gel the notion of determinism and freewill.

Originally posted by Agerg
Thanks for this response; it is certainly more edifying than those which have come prior (courtesy of one particularly 'esteemed' opposition). On many levels I agree with your critique of my model; it is indeed deficient in it's simplistic manner to reasonably explain the actual 'architecture' of thoughts and perception (in the same way that the Lagrangian app ...[text shortened]... I'd be more than happy to look for some works by the author you suggested.

Sorry but I missed your response. I seem to have thrown you into being apologetic and that is a shame because actually, I thought you were saying some interesting things and wanted to join in the debate.

I found this link to a good account of Damasio's book:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/may/24/scienceandnature.highereducation1

I warmly recommend it. But yes, not til you do your exams. When you are fully qualified and have the right experience and you are in danger of becoming useful, you can retire and play chess and debate philosophy.