The Energon Pub

Tammuz wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:

Insurgent wrote:So what makes us behave differently from each other is simply the way the synapse firing patterns differ in our brains.

Yep. The brain is so complicated, and outside events so different, that all throughout history not once has the synapse firing pattern ever repeated itself exactly.

It's pure random chance of synapse firing based on the outside influences of our lives, and past firing patterns, that dictate how we think.


And I'm just theorizing all this out of the blue. But it makes sense doesn't it?

From a certain point of view

However from a wider point of view it would make more sence that one a brain reaches a certain point of development some subconcious controll is gained over the way and rate at which synapses fire otherwise would would all still be subject to our animalistic instincts and desires.

are we not still? we are hungry we eat, we are tired we sleep, we are horny we...well you know.

surely any animal capable of being trained can also overcome it's instinct, just as a baby is taught not to scream wehn it wants food...

if a child was left feral, and somehow survived would it have the it still have the reasoning to ignore it's primal desires?

Do we not have the ability to deny these desires Tammuz? to make our own choices and not be controlled by these desires? I do what of you?

Show me that a child left feral would develop in the same way a human raised child would. The feral child would still make his own choices; just because we don't understand someone's or something's choices does not mean that they are not making them in opposition to their instincts and desires.

but is that not part of how a child is brought up? do not spoiled brats lack the self control to reighn in there desires? if a child wants something, they take it or they scream, until they are taught self control, no?

People always pursue what's best for them given their knowledge at the time. Some follow instinct directly, while some realize waiting to fulfill it pays off.

the way I see it, the soul is like the body's lifetime warranty!

Jar Axel wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:

Insurgent wrote:So what makes us behave differently from each other is simply the way the synapse firing patterns differ in our brains.

Yep. The brain is so complicated, and outside events so different, that all throughout history not once has the synapse firing pattern ever repeated itself exactly.

It's pure random chance of synapse firing based on the outside influences of our lives, and past firing patterns, that dictate how we think.


And I'm just theorizing all this out of the blue. But it makes sense doesn't it?

From a certain point of view

However from a wider point of view it would make more sence that one a brain reaches a certain point of development some subconcious controll is gained over the way and rate at which synapses fire otherwise would would all still be subject to our animalistic instincts and desires.

Subconcious control? What subconscious control? You mean the kind that results from synapses firing in the brain?

You can't control the rate your synapses fire anymore than you can control the way nutrients are absorbed in your intestines, or the way oxygen is absorbed in your lungs but not nitrogen. The chemical makeup of the body only allows certain things to happen within it, and those certain things happen without any control.

If you want to say "but that's the definition of the soul then; that we can overcome our animalistic desires on a molecular level" then I say fair enough. But it's only a theory because there's no evidence for it. Religious faith is all fine and good when it comes to ideals and treated everyone fairly and honestly, but it's another thing entirely when people don't want to accept what has been empirically tested and studied.

We are slaves to synapses and impulses still. We're just so complicated up there that we can put a fancy dress on it. That's all.

"Where do souls come from?" doesn't seem to go much anywhere here, since there's no agreement that they exist, or what they are if they do.

How's this: a sufficiently complex system will have properties not explicable with recourse to the operations of the components of that system. Both the human brain and the totality of human society are such systems. The conscious being which results from the interface of these systems and which perceives from the sense organs of a single human body is the soul. The entity which results from the interface of these systems and which embraces their totality is God--or maybe Culture.

I don't necessarily believe this, but it gives an answer to the initial question which does not posit entities beyond our observation, unless you're inclined to interpret "God" in a supernatural fashion.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:

Insurgent wrote:So what makes us behave differently from each other is simply the way the synapse firing patterns differ in our brains.

Yep. The brain is so complicated, and outside events so different, that all throughout history not once has the synapse firing pattern ever repeated itself exactly.

It's pure random chance of synapse firing based on the outside influences of our lives, and past firing patterns, that dictate how we think.


And I'm just theorizing all this out of the blue. But it makes sense doesn't it?

From a certain point of view

However from a wider point of view it would make more sence that one a brain reaches a certain point of development some subconcious controll is gained over the way and rate at which synapses fire otherwise would would all still be subject to our animalistic instincts and desires.

Subconcious control? What subconscious control? You mean the kind that results from synapses firing in the brain?

You can't control the rate your synapses fire anymore than you can control the way nutrients are absorbed in your intestines, or the way oxygen is absorbed in your lungs but not nitrogen. The chemical makeup of the body only allows certain things to happen within it, and those certain things happen without any control.

If you want to say "but that's the definition of the soul then; that we can overcome our animalistic desires on a molecular level" then I say fair enough. But it's only a theory because there's no evidence for it. Religious faith is all fine and good when it comes to ideals and treated everyone fairly and honestly, but it's another thing entirely when people don't want to accept what has been empirically tested and studied.

We are slaves to synapses and impulses still. We're just so complicated up there that we can put a fancy dress on it. That's all.

Dark Zarak I have yet to see any scientist provide proof that we cannot controll such things; I have only seen them explain that they have no way of measuring weather or not we can controll such things.

But then there are alot of things we can do with our bodies that science is at a lack to explain or measure. Including things that defy what the chemical makeup of our bodies says should be possible....


O and Tammuz doesn't comparing a spoiled child to a feral child kinda defeat your own argument since spoiled children are taught only to beg for what they want while feral children must learn to survive or die?

what i ws trying to argue Jar is that we need to be taught to control our desires.

the thing is jar with synapse firing is that it happens about 200 millisecond before you think about, i'll have to see if i can find the Libet's '83 paper, but the gist of is the brain decides to do it BEFORE the mind does

Tammuz wrote:what i ws trying to argue Jar is that we need to be taught to control our desires.

the thing is jar with synapse firing is that it happens about 200 millisecond before you think about, i'll have to see if i can find the Libet's '83 paper, but the gist of is the brain decides to do it BEFORE the mind does

Is that not a part of development Tammuz?

Sure go for it; it'll make it easier for me to find related reaserch if I have an idea of what I'm looking for.

Irrational desire built from the rational mechanisms of the cosmos is all that makes life interesting. Sure, we want to live, but we only want to because we inherited the genetic will from countless past generations whose own programmed desire made them survive long enough to trail the genetic line down to us. The same goes for just about any feeling or emotion. The pursuit of and the achievement a goal is the only thing that really gives any 'purpose' to our existence.

Thus, it is not necessarily the suppression of those desires, but the suppression of the urge to instantaneously fulfill them, to discover and pursue those that are most demanding or worthwhile to us, and find which ones we can cut off and destroy to achieve the ones we want the most.

That sacrifice of what we can lose for that what we can't is the root of all society and justice. Security at the cost of freedom, and equalizing in the face of a trespass. But, of course, true justice requires all parties of equal power. Just try to explain 'justice' to the ant smashed under your heel, or to the man who doesn't want to pay his taxes to the US government. But such is unavoidable-- you cannot expect those with greater power to not use it.

In the end, "I do this because I want to" is probably the best justification anyone can come up with for any action in this world. The true problem is, is it the truth?

Jar Axel wrote:Dark Zarak I have yet to see any scientist provide proof that we cannot controll such things; I have only seen them explain that they have no way of measuring weather or not we can controll such things.

I don't think you're getting my point. Control resulting from subconscious thought is the result of synapses firing. Thoughts come from synapses firing. All thoughts, not just conscious ones. How else would they happen?

The chemical makeup of the body comes first. On a molecular level, we are not able to control our thoughts, because the molecular process happens first. The only things we can control in our bodies are things that are based on complicated movements rigged to react to our thoughts.

Yes, I'm saying that when you get right down to it, we cannot control our thoughts. Every decision we make is based on some kind of desire deep down that we can't control. It's there and can't be ignored.

For instance, I post all kinds of Stephen Hawking time and entropy stuff in a thread about souls because the Freudian sexual urge is telling me to make myself look cool in the eyes of my peers, so I do it in a way that makes me laugh and hope others do as well. I could decide that posting on the internet because of the Fruedian sexual urge is for losers and go out to a club, but that's an unfamiliar enviroment, and it's Sunday night anyway. Whatever I decide to do, it will be because of some kind of urge. Of course I'm not looking for sex in the forums, I'm just saying that's the urge that makes me do just about everything in my life. It's that way for everyone. Think about everything you've ever done in your life. It's ultimately to feel and look good right? Why would you want to do that?

Slaves to our synapses.

Jar Axel wrote:But then there are alot of things we can do with our bodies that science is at a lack to explain or measure. Including things that defy what the chemical makeup of our bodies says should be possible....

Uhhh, okay. Such as?

Dark Zarak wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:Dark Zarak I have yet to see any scientist provide proof that we cannot controll such things; I have only seen them explain that they have no way of measuring weather or not we can controll such things.

I don't think you're getting my point. Control resulting from subconscious thought is the result of synapses firing. Thoughts come from synapses firing. All thoughts, not just conscious ones. How else would they happen?

The chemical makeup of the body comes first. On a molecular level, we are not able to control our thoughts, because the molecular process happens first. The only things we can control in our bodies are things that are based on complicated movements rigged to react to our thoughts.

Yes, I'm saying that when you get right down to it, we cannot control our thoughts. Every decision we make is based on some kind of desire deep down that we can't control. It's there and can't be ignored.

For instance, I post all kinds of Stephen Hawking time and entropy stuff in a thread about souls because the Freudian sexual urge is telling me to make myself look cool in the eyes of my peers, so I do it in a way that makes me laugh and hope others do as well. I could decide that posting on the internet because of the Fruedian sexual urge is for losers and go out to a club, but that's an unfamiliar enviroment, and it's Sunday night anyway. Whatever I decide to do, it will be because of some kind of urge. Of course I'm not looking for sex in the forums, I'm just saying that's the urge that makes me do just about everything in my life. It's that way for everyone. Think about everything you've ever done in your life. It's ultimately to feel and look good right? Why would you want to do that?

Slaves to our synapses.

Essentially.

I don't beleive in Souls, but I know everything has individuality, which is like a soul. A soul is more metaphoric to me.

ugh.

That has to be the most inhuman worldview ive ever read. Think about where exactly some of that thinking leads, ethically.

I will point to Soviet Russia, (where borscht eats YOU!), for an example of where exactly it leads.

After all, if we are just highly complex machines, there is no real ethical objection to, say, reformatting a human being, or replacing a defective one. According to you, i am no better than an I-pod.

Someone asked about the holographic paradigm. I reccomend reading Michael Talbot (The Holographic Universe) and Amir Goswami (The Self-Aware Universe). In that order.

VecPrime wrote:ugh.

That has to be the most inhuman worldview ive ever read. Think about where exactly some of that thinking leads, ethically.

I will point to Soviet Russia, (where borscht eats YOU!), for an example of where exactly it leads.

After all, if we are just highly complex machines, there is no real ethical objection to, say, reformatting a human being, or replacing a defective one. According to you, i am no better than an I-pod.

Someone asked about the holographic paradigm. I reccomend reading Michael Talbot (The Holographic Universe) and Amir Goswami (The Self-Aware Universe). In that order.

Would this be in response to my posts, by any chance?

And no, it doesn't mean there is no real ethical objection, because just as we are slaves to our synapses, we are also slaves to our cultural boundaries that have resulted from actions that have resulted from thoughts that have resulted from said synapses.

We are complicated machines. To say otherwise is granola eating flower power wishful thinking.

"To say otherwise is granola eating flower power wishful thinking."

Hey, i proudly eat my granola bars at breakfast.

That sounds like something Limbaugh would say.
Not like a quote from the official voice of reason.

Ad hominem does not work, and its gonna kill this forum, did you read Bish's post?

p.s. Zarak, even Transformers have sparks...

VecPrime wrote:"To say otherwise is granola eating flower power wishful thinking."

Hey, i proudly eat my granola bars at breakfast.

That sounds like something Limbaugh would say.
Not like a quote from the official voice of reason.

Ad hominem does not work, and its gonna kill this forum, did you read Bish's post?

Okay, you're right. Fair enough. Sorry about that.

But what I'm saying is, the brain's thoughts cannot exist without the physical means to produce them. Otherwise, how else would they happen?

The human body is a complex machine. The whole idea of a soul is a purely theoretical one. I have explained the tangible side of the issue: how the brain results in the mind. The soul would have to be something that results from the mind, and therefore, would have to also be the result of the physical brain. That's what people have problems with, it seems, that something divine like the soul would be a "slave" to something material like the body.

But that's exactly what I'm saying.

Well, with all those electrons buzzing around in there subject to entanglement from the Big Bang, it could very well be a quantum-mechanical interface device.

Think about it - weve got a googol of the little dudes up there, all bound to neurochemicals and such. Bonding is either dependent on these electrons or in the case of ligand bonding to neuroreceptor substrate, its dependent on even weaker hydrogen bonding.

VecPrime wrote:Well, with all those electrons buzzing around in there subject to entanglement from the Big Bang, it could very well be a quantum-mechanical interface device.

Think about it - weve got a googol of the little dudes up there, all bound to neurochemicals and such. Bonding is either dependent on these electrons or in the case of ligand bonding to neuroreceptor substrate, its dependent on even weaker hydrogen bonding.

quanum mechanical interface? your going to have to explain that...


anyway i return my earlier quote from probably hawkings.

Only four forces have been experimentally confirmed to exist (strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism and gravitation). The only force which operates relevantly at the human scale is electromagnetism. This force is fully understood and described by Quantum Electrodynamics and Special Relativity. Any additional force acting upon humans or emanating from the mind would have long ago been detected in laboratories as an aberration of the predictable behaviour of electromagnetism - and this has never been detected. Much of scientific study relating to the soul has been involved in investigating the soul as a human belief or as concept that shapes cognition and understanding of the world, rather than as an entity in and of itself.

of course i don't see how your second paragraph counters DZ's point about how the soul would be slave to the physical brain. in which case the soul dies with the brain.

If humans don't have souls, it doesn't matter what believing that will do. Either they do or they don't. Believing the opposite of what's true to avoid a harsh reality is nothing more than willful ignorance.

There is no scientific proof that a "soul" exists. There are scientific explanations explaining, down to a molecular level, what makes people the think and act the way they do.

Would I prefer to believe that some all-powerful supreme being created my personality specially and for a purpose? Yes. Because that would give me something to blame for my failings. However, in the absence of any evidence supporting that theory, I will continue to agree with the available evidence to the contrary.

any good scientific thewory should be predictive.

Can we yet calculate out how a person's life is going to run based on their childhood and genes?

No, and we probably never will. I hope not at any rate. What would be worse is if those in power pretended to be able to do that, and use it as an excuse to liquidate ethnic groups secretly.

Wait, thats happened. Russia.

As for explaining a quantum-mechanical interface...as i said, lots of electrons making up your brain signals there one way or another. All are subject to Heisenberg, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, et al quantum physics laws. If these laws, like other physical laws, are really calculating other forces involved in the quantum realm, then it stands to reason that its possible that at the very least we can interface with it and get something out of it. The holographic paradigm, which explains EPR and a fair amount of everything in the Standard Model (and more!), completes the picture.

anyhow, due to THAT, best we might ever be able to do is say that there's a x% chance of a person doing something. x could be like 99% if a person has two genes for schizophrenia, or lower in other cases, but we can never say for certain that a particular person is going to do something, bad or good.

VecPrime wrote:any good scientific thewory should be predictive.

Can we yet calculate out how a person's life is going to run based on their childhood and genes?

No, and we probably never will. I hope not at any rate. What would be worse is if those in power pretended to be able to do that, and use it as an excuse to liquidate ethnic groups secretly.

Wait, thats happened. Russia.

As for explaining a quantum-mechanical interface...as i said, lots of electrons making up your brain signals there one way or another. All are subject to Heisenberg, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, et al quantum physics laws. If these laws, like other physical laws, are really calculating other forces involved in the quantum realm, then it stands to reason that its possible that at the very least we can interface with it and get something out of it. The holographic paradigm, which explains EPR and a fair amount of everything in the Standard Model (and more!), completes the picture.

anyhow, due to THAT, best we might ever be able to do is say that there's a x% chance of a person doing something. x could be like 99% if a person has two genes for schizophrenia, or lower in other cases, but we can never say for certain that a particular person is going to do something, bad or good.

Well, you've stumped me with that stuff.

Am I right in thinking that you're saying due to quantum theory of some kind, we may actually be able to control our own impulses and synapses?

At which point I say, "if that's true, brilliant and score one for science and religion working together", but until that time, it's still just a theory, and I'm sticking with what I understand. If there's more that I don't understand, then by all means let me know. And if it's quantum stuff, dumb it down as much as that stuff can be dumbed down, I'm serious.

VecPrime wrote:any good scientific thewory should be predictive.

Can we yet calculate out how a person's life is going to run based on their childhood and genes?

No, and we probably never will. I hope not at any rate. What would be worse is if those in power pretended to be able to do that, and use it as an excuse to liquidate ethnic groups secretly.

Wait, thats happened. Russia.

As for explaining a quantum-mechanical interface...as i said, lots of electrons making up your brain signals there one way or another. All are subject to Heisenberg, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, et al quantum physics laws. If these laws, like other physical laws, are really calculating other forces involved in the quantum realm, then it stands to reason that its possible that at the very least we can interface with it and get something out of it. The holographic paradigm, which explains EPR and a fair amount of everything in the Standard Model (and more!), completes the picture.

anyhow, due to THAT, best we might ever be able to do is say that there's a x% chance of a person doing something. x could be like 99% if a person has two genes for schizophrenia, or lower in other cases, but we can never say for certain that a particular person is going to do something, bad or good.

What does that have to do with the "soul" existing?

Well, if you read in there, i proposed a plausible mechanism in between rebutting those who say we are nothing more than complex machines. (If that were true, PC's would be sentient about now....)

"Am I right in thinking that you're saying due to quantum theory of some kind, we may actually be able to control our own impulses and synapses?"

At the very least, there is a random element no one can predict. At the most, we may have just found the mechanism of souls, the "Scroll of Colors" in EQ parlance.

>

Hmm. Talbot and Goswami do a good job of it. But their point is, if you hook a machine up to a Schrodinger's Cat experiment, the machine picks up on the dead/alive cat dichotomy until such a time as someone observes the readout.

Thus, if we were just as physical as the meter, we too would pick up on the dichotomy and the universe would go nowhere.
(this problem is called a Von Neumann chain.)

However, somehow, we provide the necessary observational power to collapse the wave function of the cat or electron from slightly...outside... the purely physical, from the quantum.

Thus, we may very well be the universe/God observing itself.

I think we can define soul as superior intelligence. Smart animal like dolphin and ape have souls.

We can project in the future. Say, will it rain tomorrow. An animal does not have the notion of future and past.