Relativism VS. Absoulte

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
What I want to know is how you get off saying that the influence of brain chemistry on personality completely subordinates the self.

That's funny, Wayfarer, I was just wondering how you inferred that from what I posted. It's quite a leap from effect to subordination, don't you think?

I'm having trouble understanding the rationale of saying we're all nothing more than biochemically generated programs... it's sort of difficult to place any stock in a hilosiphy (or quasi-philosophy) that claims you don't really exist as a person... Ya know?

The biochemistry is merely a framework in which you operate. Obviously, in the extreme case, servere handicaps of a biochemical nature would tend to limit your ability to make choices (i.e. coma). Since the extreme is not the norm is serves only as proof of degree. I don't put much stock in "fatalist physics" if that helps to reassure you. As a factor in the sum equation of all factors it is, however, occassionally significant.

[Wayfarer]

I'm sorry... please understand that I use 'you' in a purely inclusive and general sense.

The biochemistry is merely a framework in which you operate. Obviously, in the extreme case, servere handicaps of a biochemical nature would tend to limit your ability to make choices (i.e. coma). Since the extreme is not the norm is serves only as proof of degree. I don't put much stock in "fatalist physics" if that helps to reassure you. As a factor in the sum equation of all factors it is, however, occassionally significant.

That's strikingly close to my own position, however...

If biochemistry is a framework in which you operate-what is the 'you'? It seems to me that implies something to humans other than the biochemical... which might pose interesting questions to the humanistic materialist viewpoint.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I'm sorry... please understand that I use 'you' in a purely inclusive and general sense.



That's strikingly close to my own position, however...

If biochemistry is a framework in which you operate-what is the 'you'? It seems to me that implies something to humans other than the biochemical... which might pose interesting questions to the humanistic materialist viewpoint.

Sort of difficult to find a control group. The best they have done is to find twins separated at birth. The personality similarities are striking but certainly not exclusively determinant.

[afro-elf]

If we tell your brain that you're eating a steak, (which is juicy and delicious.), does that mean you don't need real food?

Not at all.

So what reason is there for the brain chemistry of mysticism.

A survival mechanism. One a bolster in time of distress.

Does the brain chemistry cause the experience, or does the experience cause the brain chemistry?

It can go both ways.

I want to know is how you get off saying that the influence of brain chemistry on personality completely subordinates the self.

The Self is IMO an emergent property of the brain. It is not two seperate things the brain is or lets say generates the self.

it's sort of difficult to place any stock in a hilosiphy (or quasi-philosophy) that claims you don't really exist as a person

See the above. You are the brain. there is no deny that you exist. it is that it is not a disembodied enitity.

which might pose interesting questions to the humanistic materialist viewpoint.

see the above.

Nice to see you back.

are you in school now?

[Blackheart]

<The Self is IMO an emergent property of the brain.>

I disagree. Self is a function of information, arranged in a particular pattern.

Just because it happens to be stored in meat, doesn't mean very much, other than the types of operations the interactions are limited to.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
<The Self is IMO an emergent property of the brain.>

I disagree. Self is a function of information, arranged in a particular pattern.

Just because it happens to be stored in meat, doesn't mean very much, other than the types of operations the interactions are limited to.

Agreed, except the storage system is dynamically interacting with the data. Assuming proper functioning the data should supercede the "colorizing" of the data by the storage.

Trying to lose mental picture of downloading to a piece of sirloin.

[afro-elf]

perhaps my wording was off. i meant that self , what some label as the soul,
emerged from a highly developed brian. not disembodied spirits.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Agreed, except the storage system is dynamically interacting with the data. Assuming proper functioning the data should supercede the "colorizing" of the data by the storage.

Trying to lose mental picture of downloading to a piece of sirloin.

Again, I disagree. If the storage system is changing the stored data, then it isn't the "storage system", it's part of the data.

[Cirdan]

Data stored by humans can altered by other data. It's not a hard drive. Also, again, the chemistry is variable within the brain. I could easily show you the difference by applying a mind altering drug like LSD and then later ask the subject to recall the data. Many things effect perception more subtly. Blood sugar, hormones, disease, fever will distort the systems. You're usually a big advocate of the concept that perception is inherently subjective. Yet this is the basis of the brain's data collection. Much of what is stored is internal data. This is information that is internally generated. The processing of the basic signals of the senses is handled on many levels and the interpretation of that information is the origin of most thought and memory. I don't remember paterns of light consciously. I remember what I thought that pattern most resembled of the memory of other objects.

[Blackheart]

If it affects data, then it isn't part of the storage system. It's part of the "processer".

If it's a storage system. it holds data, until the data is called for. If it's changed, and restored, by a process, then it's the process doing the changing, not the storage system.

[Wayfarer]

A survival mechanism. One a bolster in time of distress.

I don't buy that, but hey, i'm not a mystic. I did go to a pentacostal thing recently and amuse myself by reviewing my elvish out loud ]: ) (pentacostals are big on 'speaking in tongues')

Q: Does the brain chemistry cause the experience, or does the experience cause the brain chemistry?

A: It can go both ways.

And yet you insist that mysticism is merely a brain thing. Are you sure it's not your preconceptions making the argument for you?

The Self is IMO an emergent property of the brain.

Again, you have know way of knowing whether your thoughts are simply a result of what's happening in your brain, or if what's in your brain is simply a by product of your thoughts.

I think the latter position is more sensible, for this reason: If thoughts are simply a brain construct, then the belief that thoughts are simply a brain construct is just a brain construct itself-and hence fairly worthless.

I believe that thought can be rational, and thet requires that it have value of it's own-not simply be a result of brain chemistry.

I do believe that there is a two way connection, and thus brain chemistry can influence thought. But rational thought is likewise constantly influencing the brain and the entire body.

Oh and, no, I 'm not starting college until semseter, or until I have the money. Whichever comes last.

[Cirdan]

The difference is that the storage system is managed by a unique "OS" that is determined dynamically by data processing. Neural pathways are a response of the system to data. The reinforcement of one neural pathway for it's main purpose alters it's processing of sensoring perception for secondary sensations using the same pathways.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Again, you have know way of knowing whether your thoughts are simply a result of what's happening in your brain, or if what's in your brain is simply a by product of your thoughts.

I think the latter position is more sensible, for this reason: If thoughts are simply a brain construct, then the belief that thoughts are simply a brain construct is just a brain construct itself-and hence fairly worthless.

"Simply" is rarely appilacble to brain function. To even try to postulate a conclusion on this is a giant assumption. The latter conclusion is very faulty logic. Are all thoughts/brain constructs worthless?

I believe that thought can be rational, and thet requires that it have value of it's own-not simply be a result of brain chemistry.

I do believe that there is a two way connection, and thus brain chemistry can influence thought. But rational thought is likewise constantly influencing the brain and the entire body.

To reduce all thought to pure chemistry is deconstructist, at best. That doesn't leave room for the obverse conclusion; that thought constructs the brain. It may influence brain development in early life.

The attempt to logically separate processing and storage is foundered on the inability to show that all sensory data is processed the same in all healthy brains. The integration of sensory data into thought is unique to ecah physical brain. Since nobady directly accesses their "raw data" it isn't useful to discuss it much beyond the basic function of the brain.

There isn't a "Ghost in the Machine". Like many other things we have discussed, it may be possible to analyze cause-and-effect, but we cannot predict it in anything close to real time. That doesn't mean it is supernatural.

EDIT: I wish I could ignore my typos like A-E.

[afro-elf]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Q: Does the brain chemistry cause the experience, or does the experience cause the brain chemistry?
A: It can go both ways.

And yet you insist that mysticism is merely a brain thing. Are you sure it's not your preconceptions making the argument for you?

My statement was about environment affecting the brain.
As your reply read the authors I suggested to Lady of Ithilen.

>>Again, you have know way of knowing whether your thoughts are simply a result of what's happening in your brain, or if what's in your brain is simply a by product of your thoughts.<<

Were are these thoughts coming from? That are these thoughts made of?

>>I think the latter position is more sensible, for this reason: If thoughts are simply a brain construct, then the belief that thoughts are simply a brain construct is just a brain construct itself-and hence fairly worthless.<<

I THINK you MAY be slipping into some post modernism here.

the point is that thoughts are "generated" via bio-chem and bio-physics

>>I believe that thought can be rational, and thet requires that it have value of it's own-not simply be a result of brain chemistry.<<

What do you mean by value here? Does "being" a physical brain lessen you. Or make you less worthy of life or anything?


>>I do believe that there is a two way connection, and thus brain chemistry can influence thought. But rational thought is likewise constantly influencing the brain and the entire body.<<

again my response was to the external environment affecting brain chemisty not some "thought plane" affecting the material.

Oh and, no, I 'm not starting college until semseter, or until I have the money. Whichever comes last.

good luck when you do. What did you decide to study?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The difference is that the storage system is managed by a unique "OS" that is determined dynamically by data processing. Neural pathways are a response of the system to data. The reinforcement of one neural pathway for it's main purpose alters it's processing of sensoring perception for secondary sensations using the same pathways.

Yes, it is a dynamic system, however any changes made to the data are by process, not storage.

As soon as a neuron shifts, buds, fire, or otherwise twitches, it is no longer storage, but process.

[Cirdan]

And when we are discussing consciousness we are discussing process primarily. The same data would be processed differently by each unique "system". How it happens a certain way is purely chemical. Why it happens a certain way is partially a unique response to related culmulative data and processing.

[Blackheart]

Conciousness is quite different from identity. Identity is closely akin to personality, which is primarily concerned with memory.

I would venture that a "soul" is closer to identity than conciousness.

[Cirdan]

Identity would be a superset of consciousness and not primarily one thing or another. That would be like saying water is primarily hydrogen. Maybe by count but not by mass. If to components are required then neither is more or less important. Soul? The only soul I know about is James Brown.

[Lady Vixen]

Okay most people who believe in the absolute or religion or whatever believe there is an after life something to move onto when you die. Well if there is no absolute...what is there afterwards. And if there is no cause for living, if no one has a purpose to some greater plan not only is that (to me) depressing, but what would be the point of living. I think that everyone needs something to live for everyone has to have some underlying reason, and if what they believe isn't 'real' then what really is the point?


A bit of a rambling post but it is just all so bleak if there is no absolute...whether I belive it or not It's still nice to think I am here for a reason that someone does care about me in this big world.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lady Vixen
...whether I belive it or not It's still nice to think I am here for a reason that someone does care about me in this big world.

Surely you don't need a mute, invisible friend in a world full of people. What about family? Life is like a rollercoaster; just because it goes nowhere doesn't mean it can't be fun.

And if it does...