100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Are we just biological machines? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 03/09/09 08:04 AM
|
|
I'm going to proceed under the assumption you're legitimately curious about this. If you're really interested in following this line of thought, do some reading before forming an opinion. Go get a copy of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennet. The Selfish Gene should give you an understanding of the workings of genes and is a good introduction to memetics. If you'd like to know more about memes I hear that The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore is pretty good. A great deal of Dawkins work--talks, programs, and other snippits-- can be quickly found on Google Video. Here's an audio clip of his on this very subject you're discussing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXO_T5osi4A. Basically, we're physically determined by our genes, the unit of natural selection which is often used to describe prevalence of certain traits in individuals. Mentally we're determined by our culture and our decisions within it, and if there is such a thing as a unit of culture then it is a meme. It is important to understand that there is no one gene for being strong or weak or yellow or on fire. Genes just synthesize proteins which are akin to instructions, a body can't be made or operate with the instructions of only a single gene. To refer to genes as being "for" a trait we define genes as enough of an extent of genetic material to determine a basic trait. For more complicated things, like genes for being a mammal, we talk about gene-complexes, a collection of genes determining related traits. You can regard all of our traits as inherited, but not all of them are inherited from our genes. Many are environmental and thus memetic. We are perfectly capable of defying our genes, we do it every time we brave our fears or have protected sex. Don't be afraid of genetic engineering, we've been doing it since we first developed farming; our food is a lot more domesticated than it once was. We have no need of our genes any longer, and everywhere they apply is vestigial. Your fixation on this programming metaphor might be somewhat wandering, but it's leading you to some fair conclusions. Can we be the program and do the programming? Depending on the extent of you metaphor there is no reason we cannot. We have programs today that can alter themselves. The means and ends are different, but the statement is approximately true. The program in this case is the genes we inherit and the memes we encounter along the way There is no evidence for higher consciousness and it implies nothing useful about life anyway. Just because something doesn't make you feel good doesn't mean it's not true. Spiritualism can fit in every gap left by science, but remember that every gap it has ever filled in the past has been displaced by a more reasonable and testable explanation. What makes you think the gaps of today are too small to be filled by anything other than spiritualism? I don't see your belief in a higher self as helping you any more than accepting what is evident to be true would be. What does having free will imply? What is the difference between having free will and conviently behaving as though you do? Determinism accounts for free will, just not in the way that makes you feel fuzzy inside. Basically, remember that you likely don't have free will, and for the good of all of us behave as though you do. "I" is just a word, you can phrase the question "What is the self?" but you are begging the question in doing so. What does life mean is a non-question. It's like asking where the center on the line forming a circle is. We ask "What does it mean?" all the time and here we've run into a point where it doesn't apply. What it be so bad if the universe really wasn't "for" anything? What would change? I'm going to leave that as a general response to the idea of the thread, though I could go into specifics with individual posters. I don't want to seem uninvited, so I'll just say that all this waxing spiritual about science is only clouding your view of it. Still, I'm tempted to discuss the apparent origins of life if that's where this thread is heading (which it apparently has been). Yes, extremely well written response. I appreciate it. I will respond to a few of your statements above: There is no evidence for higher consciousness and it implies nothing useful about life anyway. I think one should have a basic agreement about what 'consciousness' is before discussing whether there is 'evidence' (or not) for a 'higher' one. But without an specific agreement, I would ask the question, is there evidence for a 'lower consciousness?" Then I would ask what would be a good example of a 'lower consciousness?' When I think of myself as a child or even a young adult I sometimes think I was in a fog back then, unaware of my reality and who or what I perceived as myself. Often the question is asked, "Would you trade what you know now for youth and loose the person you are today?" Most people would not. While youth may be desired, to trade it for your current 'conscious' self as you are today might be taking a step backwards. The typical answer from scientific minds about any 'unproven' or 'untested' idea like a 'higher consciousness' is to say there "is no evidence of it." (I disagree that there is no evidence, but I agree that there is probably no 'traditional testable' evidence.) "....and it implies nothing useful about life anyway." seems to be more a matter of your opinion than fact. That there is no (acceptable) evidence for it does not mean it does not exist and if it does exist then there is something very useful about it, because it would be a crucial part of the puzzle of life and existence. I realize that the journey to discovery of the nature of reality somewhat stops cold in its tracks for scientists at the point where 'there is no (acceptable or testable) evidence for a thing, but that is where science ends and philosopy begins and is the food of visionaries. While science is crucial and important for the foundations of this curious reality, vision (and imagination) is even more crucial for the expansion of the universe. (my opinion) What does having free will imply? What is the difference between having free will and conviently behaving as though you do? Determinism accounts for free will, just not in the way that makes you feel fuzzy inside. Basically, remember that you likely don't have free will, and for the good of all of us behave as though you do. Not sure what you mean by the above. However I would like to inject that "the will" is either weak or strong and a person is only as 'free' they are conscious. (aware) We all have "will" and how free it is or how free we are depends on how conscious (aware) we are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herein lies the problem, there is no definition of consciousness. It's a suitcase term, so to speak. It's just a word for a bunch of at one time related things. The things it describe have as much as common as the things in your suitcase, primarily that is that they are in your suitcase.
I should have been more clear on the higher consciousness bit. There's not really evidence for any kind of consciousness. Consciousness is an old and varied idea, presumably arising from a desire to figure out what separates us from other animals or even inanimate objects. By consciousness do we mean soul or processing capacity? An interesting anecdote I've heard is that most people who aren't around animals often or don't have pets or anything regard them as not having souls while people with pets or who work with animals daily say they definitely have a soul. The difference, I think, is that people who are around animals frequently begin to understand the extent of their intelligence. They have time to observe their decision making process and reasoning, they are able to empathize with them, and they can interpret their emotions. If monkey can love surely it has a soul right? Consciousness, it turns out, is more of a spectrum. If you define consciousness as self-awareness then we can go back to programming metaphor and find that many programs run diagnostics on themselves. They are examining their own code in a way, but are they aware of anything at all? We end up setting a level of awareness as well as adding other requirements to get to the term consciousness. It's not a very clean way of looking at things, I had a laugh when I found that the Wikipedia article on the subject could only say what consciousness involved, not what it really was. "Would you trade what you know now for youth and loose the person you are today?" That's interesting. How do you know you haven't already? How do you know you haven't already many times before. When you were young, you may as well have been old once and forgotten everything about it. When scientists refer to evidence, they are only referring to testable, repeatable or measurable evidence. This is all we have, nothing else can be trusted. Anything you say without strong supporting evidence I can say the opposite of and be equally valid in my statement. If it were true that there were evidence for higher consciousness, than knowing that would be useful. This is not likely to be the case, it's a puzzle piece for the wrong puzzle. Some kind of intangible subjective not puzzle thing. And the other piece fits better. I'm losing my fondness for metaphors. It's true that philosophy begins where science ends. In my mind there is only one philosopher I know, that being Daniel Dennet. He builds on the information discovered through neuroscience, his work remains objective even in the gray realms he deals with. Anyone else I don't know of doing the same is surely a philosopher, offering useful explanations and ensuring their ideas are compatible with what science already knows. Every other person claiming to be philosopher is not one at all, they tread where science has already reached, not where it ends. They offer unprovable explanations for questions which only exist because they can be put into words. Determinism states that all of our decisions are based on prior events. This shouldn't be confused with fatalism, which states that we have no control over the future whatsoever. We have free will in the sense that we reason and make decisions. Basically, everything follows from the past and present, if you knew everything about the past and present you could predict the future. This is purely a thought experiment, you would have to know things that you realistically couldn't know. For the purposes of everyday life you have what we can call free will. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 03/09/09 08:06 PM
|
|
I had a laugh when I found that the Wikipedia article on the subject could only say what consciousness involved It is a good laugh, but not for being inaccurate quite the reverse. I agree consciousness is not one thing. Every other person claiming to be philosopher is not one at all, they tread where science has already reached, not where it ends. They offer unprovable explanations for questions which only exist because they can be put into words. I feel there are more individuals with various philosophy degrees that DO put in the effort to learn the proper science and validate not only the truth of their arguments but to make sure they are useful arguments to have answered. However I tend to agree with your assessment. Where are all the other famous philosophers that do more then pander to the sense of awe? I feel they tend to not really care about donning that title . . . philosopher . . I think it has its own baggage by now. I feel that science is the process, but also that which can be known through any natural methodological processes, and thus he who wiles out the properties of nature, whatever the means, then calls themselves a scientist regardless of degree. Dan Dennet is an exceptional man. I happen to be reading Consciousness Explained now. Its been on my list a while, and your mentioning it was just the reminder I needed! Cheers! Jeremy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I would say that the only reason consciousness doesn't exist is because there is no agreed upon definition for it. Not the other way around.
I happen to like "awareness of awareness" as a definition. It works well for me.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Jeremy. I've talked the book to pieces with my friend who's going through Dan's work, I'll actually be reading it for the first time in the next month or so.
Sky: You know, sometimes philosophy just means what works day to day, so I understand when people get confused when I tell them there's no such thing as free will or that their particular outlook doesn't work for some reason. I just like using words that mean what I think they do on every level and never break down. I can be satisfied saying that I'm aware that I'm aware and that works, but Alan Turing might have something to say if I ever ran into him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if there be any greater knowing, of anything, than it is most directly proportionate to the amount of knowing self is aware of, and the amount of knowing of more, to be aware of, be directly proportionate to the amount that is able to be passed thru the brain, and the amount able to be passed thru the brain, as digested, is directly proportionate, to the amount that is not restricted from the brain, as not good knowing, by breaking all things into labels, and definitions, and deeming all as truth or untruth, and the awareness is then able to be increased, by forsaking what only allow miniscule data, seen as good, most creating hearing of only data that strike self as correct, as this data, self already know, or it would not redily agree to it's correctness, so it is most and more, the data that always strikes as confusing, as negative, as foreign, that most hold the key's, to the greatest consciousness, or awarness, of the brain, possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 03/11/09 04:44 PM
|
|
Macklehatton,
"Determinism states that all of our decisions are based on prior events. This shouldn't be confused with fatalism, which states that we have no control over the future whatsoever. Is that what determinism states? If so, I would have to disagree with that statement. Our decisions are not based on prior events, but on our personal perception and reactions to those prior events and the manner in which we experienced them on a personal basis. I would say it this way though: "Determinism states that all of our decisions are based on prior personal experiences and how we perceive and react to them; and how we perceive and react to them could be influenced by our DNA, our genes, our life experience and our environment, etc.)" We have free will in the sense that we reason and make decisions. Basically, everything follows from the past and present, if you knew everything about the past and present you could predict the future. This is purely a thought experiment, you would have to know things that you realistically couldn't know. For the purposes of everyday life you have what we can call free will. Here I would also disagree that if you knew 'everything' about the past and the present you could predict the future. (Of course you would have to define what you mean by 'everything.') If by the knowing of 'everything' that includes every tiny detail of every single person's lives and how they perceived and reacted to each personal experience and what they thought about them, then you MIGHT be able to predict the future of what they MIGHT choose to do, and how that MIGHT effect everyone else around them, but there is no guarantee of any degree of real accuracy even if you knew all of that. Individuals themselves may not even know what they might do in any given circumstance. (If you can't predict what you might do, there is no way you or anyone could predict what someone else might do even if they could get inside of their head and read their thoughts.) Where the will is concerned, therein lies the uncertainly principle that has the power to defy all programing, influence, reasoning, if it is so engaged to do so. I believe the will, when engaged, has the power to choose above all and in spite of all influence and programing. Whether that power of will is engaged or not, is what defines the strength or weakness of the will of the person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that we are born with certain genetic tendencies. Our life experiences can either bring this out or even suppress it.
For example, those with anxiety disorder are genetically predisposed to this. If a child is raised under constant chaos and abuse, that child is more likely to actually suffer the effects of the disorder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I would say that the only reason consciousness doesn't exist is because there is no agreed upon definition for it. Not the other way around. I happen to like "awareness of awareness" as a definition. It works well for me. That works for me too, but just plain "awareness" also works. At the most fundamental level of what I define as "consciousness" there is vibration and frequency and the ability to sense and interact with something else. A hammer is "aware" of a nail in the sense that if you hit the nail with the hammer, the nail reacts and is driven into the wood. These you may say are just laws of physics, but if the frequency and vibrations did allow for the energy exchange, the hammer would not have any effect on the nail. It would all be a mirage. The hammer would pass through the nail and the piece of wood. In fact, you would not even be able to pick up the hammer at all. If the light vibrations were not perceived by your eyes, you would not even see the hammer and nail. In order for reality to work, the frequency of all of the material must be within a specific range in order to interact with everything else. This interaction is a single body of "stuff" that is conscious in varying degrees. The degree of 'consciousness' attained by a specific material or body is determined by the information stored within that body. Matter is stored information. The more information stored, the more conscious the body becomes. A rock is less conscious than a dog. A human is more conscious than a tree. But all things possess this thing called 'consciousness" which amounts to information and awareness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Jess on another thread:
on Spontaneous Evolution.... If the existence of what is referred to as the ‘mind/body connection’, which has spawned a massive industry of complementary medicine and given rise to a radical new mindset, still sounds like bunkum to you, hold onto your seat and read on. The new sciences quantum physics and epigenetics are revolutionising our understanding of the link between mind and matter, challenging established scientific theories and prompting a complete re-evaluation of life as we have known it. One of the shining lights to emerge from these new sciences is cellular biologist and best selling author, Bruce Lipton PhD, whose book, The Biology of Belief, was awarded 2006’s Best Science Book of the Year. Lipton maintains that pivotal to this shift in thinking within the scientific community has been groundbreaking insight into the function of genes. Bruce Lipton: The old vision was that genes are selfactualising (turn on and off). But current data reveals that there is no such thing as an on/off function for a gene because genes are blueprints (plans) to make proteins, which are the building blocks that give shape to the structure. The significance of this shift in belief is vast in that the original view led to the notion that we are victims of our biology. Whereas the ‘new’ sciences show that we are actually masters of our biology. The old vision was formulated by Francis Crick, who together with James Watson deciphered the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. Based on experiments that were taken out of context but supported what he and Watson were thinking, Crick became completely enamoured with the belief that DNA controls life. Crick came up with what is referred to in literature as the ‘central dogma’, the belief that DNA rules. The crucial thing here is that this was only a hypothesis. There was never any scientific validation for it yet we all bought it because a belief already existed that this would be the answer to what controls life so when the data looked like it would fit it was simply assumed that this was right. (Lipton, who taught Cell Biology at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine was one of thousands of lecturers who taught the theory.) This dogma became so fundamental to modern biology it was practically written in stone. It was the equivalent of science’s Ten Commandments. In the dogma’s scheme of how life unfolds, DNA perched loftily on top, followed by RNA – the short-lived ‘Xerox’ copy of the DNA. The new understanding of how genes work is that this hypothesis is incorrect because genes are actually blueprints that are read. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no! Jeannie has been seduced over to the dark side!  (J/K - Luv ya JB ) I just can’t buy into the materialist view. The single most fundamental concept in my entire philosophy of life is that life/consciousness/whatever-you-want-to-label-it is not the result of physical phenomena, rather the opposite. And until the material/determinist camp can answer as many questions, to my satisfaction, as the spiritual/free-will camp, I don’t have any reason to “switch loyalties”. Not saying the material/determinist camp doesn’t have its uses. Just that it can’t (or hasn’t yet been able to) answer the “bigger” questions that are important to me. JMHO  I haven't read this whole thread, when I got to the above post on the first page I just had to respond. Sky, (and Jeannie), there is no conflict here at all if you believe in reincarntion. If you believe in reincarnation and karma then your karma is what created your specific genes. So if our genes have a great affect on who we are, that could simply be the way that karma works. It's just a mechanism that karma can use. In other words, genetics may very well be part of the 'phsycis' of of karma. So rather than saying that we are at the 'mercy' of our genes, it might be better to say that we 'are' our genes. Also, if we can get to the point where we can alter our genes we may very well be altering our karma. After all, we supposedly alter our karma already with every decision we make. We create our karma. That's the whole idea behind it. And we already can manipulated it willingly (assuming you believe in free will). Working on your karma is the basis of the Eastern philosophies is it not? So we aren't necessarily at that 'mercy' of our genes, but rather are karma is passed to use via our genes. We don't get genes by 'accident' (if you believe in karma). Of course if you're an atheist then all of existance is an accident so speaking about karma or anything else would be a moot point in that case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epigenetics is fascinating stuff... and glad that some of the info on it could help, JB
|
|
|
|
|
