Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2017, 11:56 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

Actually, and I adress this to the forum in general as well as asking out of actuall ignorance on the matter, are there any known cases/studies/examples/etc of instances feelings without the corresponding chemic/brain states? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 12:11 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 11:56 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Actually, and I adress this to the forum in general as well as asking out of actuall ignorance on the matter, are there any known cases/studies/examples/etc of instances feelings without the corresponding chemic/brain states? Consider

No there aren't. That would upset any understanding we claim to have about consciousness though.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 12:11 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2017 12:16 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 11:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But a drug or chemical alone is not enough to constitute an emotion. That's all I'm saying. The emotion is the emergent property of, not only a chemical reaction, but a brain to interpret it. So the chemical alone is not identical to the feeling. In my discussion with Peebo, he seemed to say that the chemical was identical to the feeling. I would think everyone here could see that this is false.

Once again, a distinction without a difference.

You are running away from a bear in the woods, and your body is pumping with adrenaline, and your primary emotion is fear. Or if you're playing football and a running hard for the end zone to score the winning goal, and you might label that as joy. Your body is undergoing the same physiological response, those caused by adrenaline flooding your system. It helps you perform above your normal, to suppress pain, and to be more alert and aware of your surroundings. People enjoy that feeling, that high, and have been seeking to induce it without risking their lives for a long time. The surface level 'emotion' is just our subjective coloration of the experience. Put two people on a roller coaster, one an abject coward and the other an adrenaline junky, and they're both most likely experience the same physiological response as their body's react similarly to the same stimuli; they'll just have different emotional labels for it (happiness, fear) depending on their own subjective labeling. Not everyone enjoys the adrenaline high, but that doesn't make it an objectively different physiological response for people who do. It's the same response, with a different label. But the label is subjective.

However in other cases, when things are far more subtle, even that subjective distinction fades away. Take someone with clinical depression due to a chemical imbalance in their brain. Are they really unhappy in the same way someone with typical neurochemical balance can be? Sure. They are reacting to the same chemical balance a sad person has, but the problem is that they don't have a baseline equilibrium that is outside of that; their baseline is far below average. If they take medication that affects their neurochemical balance in an attempt of getting them closer to the average baseline, where is the distinction? In this instance, not being depressed is equivalent to the additional chemicals being added to that person's nerochemical balance. We just don't have an emotional label for that, we have labels for things outside of 'normal'; such as being sad or depressed. Typically we shouldn't feel like that all the time, and if you do, it could be a sign of nerochemical imbalance (such as the body producing insufficient serotonin). If you lack sufficient serotonin, and you take serotonin to counteract that, then your serotonin medication is effectively equivalent to 'not being depressed all the time'.


Emotions are fuzzy subjective things, poor labels we slap over a reality we simply have a inadequate understanding of; that being the complex chemical reactions in our brains.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 12:23 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

(06-04-2017 12:11 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 11:56 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Actually, and I adress this to the forum in general as well as asking out of actuall ignorance on the matter, are there any known cases/studies/examples/etc of instances feelings without the corresponding chemic/brain states? Consider

No there aren't. That would upset any understanding we claim to have about consciousness though.

Consider

Then given such a statement there's a nuance in your thinking that I am sadly failing to grasp. Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 12:36 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-04-2017 12:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 11:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But a drug or chemical alone is not enough to constitute an emotion. That's all I'm saying. The emotion is the emergent property of, not only a chemical reaction, but a brain to interpret it. So the chemical alone is not identical to the feeling. In my discussion with Peebo, he seemed to say that the chemical was identical to the feeling. I would think everyone here could see that this is false.

Once again, a distinction without a difference.

You are running away from a bear in the woods, and your body is pumping with adrenaline, and your primary emotion is fear. Or if you're playing football and a running hard for the end zone to score the winning goal, and you might label that as joy. Your body is undergoing the same physiological response, those caused by adrenaline flooding your system. It helps you perform above your normal, to suppress pain, and to be more alert and aware of your surroundings. People enjoy that feeling, that high, and have been seeking to induce it without risking their lives for a long time. The surface level 'emotion' is just our subjective coloration of the experience. Put two people on a roller coaster, one an abject coward and the other an adrenaline junky, and they're both most likely experience the same physiological response as their body's react similarly to the same stimuli; they'll just have different emotional labels for it (happiness, fear) depending on their own subjective labeling. Not everyone enjoys the adrenaline high, but that doesn't make it an objectively different physiological response for people who do. It's the same response, with a different label. But the label is subjective.

There certainly is a difference. I can fill a bottle with adrenaline. I can't fill a bottle with the feeling it creates. I don't think you're understanding me. I'm simply saying that feelings are not identical to chemicals. You might say they are identical to certain chemical processes being interpreted by the brain and I would dispute that, but at least that has some credence. My adrenal gland is scared all the time simply because it holds adrenaline. All I'm saying is that you need a brain present to interpret these chemical reactions.

Quote:However in other cases, when things are far more subtle, even that subjective distinction fades away. Take someone with clinical depression due to a chemical imbalance in their brain. Are they really unhappy in the same way someone with typical neurochemical balance can be? Sure. They are reacting to the same chemical balance a sad person has, but the problem is that they don't have a baseline equilibrium that is outside of that; their baseline is far below average. If they take medication that affects their neurochemical balance in an attempt of getting them closer to the average baseline, where is the distinction? In this instance, not being depressed is equivalent to the additional chemicals being added to that person's nerochemical balance.

Ah I see the confusion. You're conflating causation with and indiscernability. If I create an event X that causes another event Y for every instance of X, that doesn't mean X=Y.

We just don't have an emotional label for that, we have labels for things outside of 'normal'; such as being sad or depressed. Typically we shouldn't feel like that all the time, and if you do, it could be a sign of nerochemical imbalance (such as the body producing insufficient serotonin). If you lack sufficient serotonin, and you take serotonin to counteract that, then your serotonin medication is effectively equivalent to 'not being depressed all the time'.


Emotions are fuzzy subjective things, poor labels we slap over a reality we simply have a inadequate understanding of; that being the complex chemical reactions in our brains.
[/quote]

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 12:37 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-04-2017 12:23 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(06-04-2017 12:11 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No there aren't. That would upset any understanding we claim to have about consciousness though.

Consider

Then given such a statement there's a nuance in your thinking that I am sadly failing to grasp. Sad

How soon until you're off work? We could call to discuss this.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 01:12 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
I feel we need a little comic relief. This is something I wanted to share with everyone because it's fucking hilarious. I'll put it here, because it kind of reminds me of how the "debate" in this thread has gone. It's Rick and Morty doing an apparently real court case, word for word.




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
06-04-2017, 01:16 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2017 02:33 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-04-2017 12:36 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-04-2017 12:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once again, a distinction without a difference.

You are running away from a bear in the woods, and your body is pumping with adrenaline, and your primary emotion is fear. Or if you're playing football and a running hard for the end zone to score the winning goal, and you might label that as joy. Your body is undergoing the same physiological response, those caused by adrenaline flooding your system. It helps you perform above your normal, to suppress pain, and to be more alert and aware of your surroundings. People enjoy that feeling, that high, and have been seeking to induce it without risking their lives for a long time. The surface level 'emotion' is just our subjective coloration of the experience. Put two people on a roller coaster, one an abject coward and the other an adrenaline junky, and they're both most likely experience the same physiological response as their body's react similarly to the same stimuli; they'll just have different emotional labels for it (happiness, fear) depending on their own subjective labeling. Not everyone enjoys the adrenaline high, but that doesn't make it an objectively different physiological response for people who do. It's the same response, with a different label. But the label is subjective.

There certainly is a difference. I can fill a bottle with adrenaline. I can't fill a bottle with the feeling it creates. I don't think you're understanding me. I'm simply saying that feelings are not identical to chemicals. You might say they are identical to certain chemical processes being interpreted by the brain and I would dispute that, but at least that has some credence. My adrenal gland is scared all the time simply because it holds adrenaline. All I'm saying is that you need a brain present to interpret these chemical reactions.

Quote:However in other cases, when things are far more subtle, even that subjective distinction fades away. Take someone with clinical depression due to a chemical imbalance in their brain. Are they really unhappy in the same way someone with typical neurochemical balance can be? Sure. They are reacting to the same chemical balance a sad person has, but the problem is that they don't have a baseline equilibrium that is outside of that; their baseline is far below average. If they take medication that affects their neurochemical balance in an attempt of getting them closer to the average baseline, where is the distinction? In this instance, not being depressed is equivalent to the additional chemicals being added to that person's nerochemical balance.

Ah I see the confusion. You're conflating causation with and indiscernability. If I create an event X that causes another event Y for every instance of X, that doesn't mean X=Y.

We just don't have an emotional label for that, we have labels for things outside of 'normal'; such as being sad or depressed. Typically we shouldn't feel like that all the time, and if you do, it could be a sign of nerochemical imbalance (such as the body producing insufficient serotonin). If you lack sufficient serotonin, and you take serotonin to counteract that, then your serotonin medication is effectively equivalent to 'not being depressed all the time'.


Emotions are fuzzy subjective things, poor labels we slap over a reality we simply have a inadequate understanding of; that being the complex chemical reactions in our brains.


Come on man, don't even bother breaking up a post if you cannot do the hack job with more skill than a drunk lumberjack.


Of course feelings are not identical to chemicals, you cannot chart the elements of Love on the periodic table. But that subjective label is just that, a label we slap on top of our reaction to chemical stimuli. Our language predates our understanding of chemistry and neuroscience, so of course the common parlance we have to describe the emergent manifestation of complex chemical reactions in the brain are not identical to those reactions. Emotions are a layer of conceptual abstraction above what it actually happening in the brain; admittedly it is a useful abstraction for conveying that subjective experience to another who understands your language, but it fails to grasp what is fundamentally happening inside the brain. But emotions exist on a gradient, and their descriptions change with language, precisely because it is an abstraction (e.g. schadenfreude, a single German word for an emotional response that would otherwise take an entire sentence in English to describe).

So yeah, the pre-scientific language based abstraction is not identical to the reality it is floundering above trying to describe.

However I'm not sure at this point if you're trying to be purposely obtuse or not.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-04-2017, 01:28 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
I think he's dug so deep into his own version of reality where he gets to dictate everything that he obfuscates just by talking about it.

I agree that the nearest thing you can say with absolute certainty is "I exist". It is still a highly problematic sentence, with both words requiring a huge amount of definition and justification for any rigerous analysis. It's so circular, vague and almost meaningless that I tend to dismiss it along with everything else as useless.

Further than that? He's got nothing. He falls foul of his own pit traps. He can apply his version of logic to this statement, or combine it with other assertions or "self evident" things, to produce other claims, but he's always subject to user error at every junction. So he can claim certainty all he likes, but that doesn't make him right. About anything. Anyone can claim certainty. All that really matters is what you can demonstrate to be probably true (hopefully one day he will understand this binary version of knowledge is of no practical use). And you do that with science. Sure, each statement of knowledge will have a bunch of conditions and assumptions underneath it. But that is fine, for anyone living in the real world. We don't need to know exactly what is under the ground in order to build on it, as long as our buildings stay up. And they demonstrably do.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 01:50 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
His style of binary thinking (either we have certainty or we have nothing) reminds me of a post I made on another forum, which I'll reproduce below. It is a style of thinking I mostly see in religious people. Although Nails here probably isn't religious as such, the kind of dogma he clings to isn't all that different in style, nor the arguments from ignorance which he constantly deploys after thinking he's shot a hole into science.

I've noticed a tendency for some religious theists to have a very binary, black and white approach to various aspects of life and the universe. I'm not accusing every theist of this, and not every person who is guilty of one of them is guilty of all. But there are several extremely common oversimplifications that get made, which I encourage people to think about. I think this happens partly because religion benefits from encouraging people to think this way, and that things appear simpler to deal with when neatly put into two distinct categories. Often, I hear the argument from discomfort; if it isn't this simple and binary, I don't like the consequences of that. That's not a defence, it's an admission that your emotions are running the show in that instance. Things are rarely black and white, we live almost constantly in the grey area, whether people want to admit it or not.

Here are some examples. Again, I'm not saying every theists thinks all of these. Just that some theists think some of these; or at least appear to.

1) If you don't worship God, you worship Satan.

2) Something is either objectively morally good, or objectively morally bad.

3) There must be an easily understood and instantly available explanation for an event or situation; or else it was done by magic.

4) You either believe in God or you pretend not to believe in God.

5) Things are either in a totally controlled order, or there is utter chaos.

6) People say what is objectively true, or else they are willfully lying.

7) Things (like the bible) are either completely true or completely false.

8) You either believe in God and worship it, or you don't believe in God.

9) Either science can explain everything down to the minutest detail with absolute proof, or God did it.

10) If there is no external or eternal purpose to something, it is completely pointless.

11) You either have an objective list of morality to follow, or you have no meaningful morality at all.

12) You are with us or against us.

13) You get an eternity of bliss or an eternity of torment.

14) Something is either a sin deserves eternal punishment; or it is not a sin and deserves no punishment.

15) Either Jesus existed and was God, or he didn't exist at all.

16) Either the universe appeared out of nowhere, or God made it.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: